Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblical-studies] and more from van der veen

Expand Messages
  • lmlkes
    Dear Dr. Sapir, Hi!!! Concerning the seal of Ezra, Dr. Walter Aufrecht, who wrote the Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions book in 1989, says on page 252:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dr. Sapir, Hi!!! Concerning the seal of Ezra, Dr. Walter
      Aufrecht, who wrote the Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions book in 1989,
      says on page 252: "Avigad(1977a) published this seal as Moabite.
      Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels(1978) listed it as Ammonite. They dated it
      to the 8th-7th centuries B.C. Herr(personal communication) identified
      all the letter forms as 8th-century B.C. Phoenician. Israel
      (1987a;1987c) identified the seal as Moabite. 'zr'--'IL has helped.'
      Compare Hebrew 'zr'(Ezra 7:1, passim)." The current ShLMT seal is
      definitely Hebrew, but it could just as well be 7th Century as 6th or
      5th.
      With Much Gratitude,
      Sincerely Yours,
      Michael Welch
      Deltona, Florida
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > On Jan 18, 2008 7:38 AM, Peter van der Veen wrote:
      > > Thanks (todah rabbah) Yitzhaq,
      > >
      > > Indeed I need to put it stronger here. I do not think that Eilat
      Mazar's reading is
      > > correct even if she herself believes she would be correct in the
      end (i.e. after having
      > > checked all the evidence - that in itself is a funny way of doing
      academic research -
      > > let's study the facts first before making up our minds - that is
      the only right sequence,
      > > isn't?). All epigraphic colleagues (Reinhard Lehmann, Lawrence
      Mykytiuk, Chris
      > > Rollston, George Grena, Robert Deutsch and many others have
      written to me offline
      > > and online that Shelomi/ot is the only right way of understanding
      the name. I fully
      > > agree!!!
      > >
      > > We cannot and dare not start from our conclusions as Eilat has
      done. ...
      >
      > Mazar has a bit of explanation for her conclusions regarding the
      epigraphy here:
      > http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4704.2969.0.0
      > Her reasoning isn't very convincing (ie, a Babylonian author wrote
      this, hence
      > was used to left-to-right writing, and the mem is a mirror image
      because he
      > wasn't skilled in Hebrew), provided, of course, that in this case
      the newspaper
      > got it right.
      >
      > Do you have the Hestrin/Dayagi-Mendels book? If so, could you
      please offer an
      > opinion as to whether it really dates from 8th-7th century BCE and
      whether the
      > script is Ammonite, or whether it might have been misdated and
      misconstrued as
      > Ammonite?
      >
      > In any case, I don't think Mazar first had her conclusions in front
      of
      > her. I think she read it naively, and then went to conclusions
      based on this naive reading. In a sense, we all do this. We study
      something and then form conclusions. Then, some new information or
      some more in-depth study comes along, and we come to conclusions
      based on the new study. There is always some point at which we try
      to see what conclusions do our reading and our studies give. If she
      would have read it $lmt, she could have connected it with a family
      and personage mentioned in Ezra 8:10.
      >
      > Yitzhak Sapir
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.