Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S and ShPT.
That is exactly why I was careful to say "a new version"
And now the discussion has started raging over lo' (thou shalt not)
and 'al (which I had thought implied Please do not or Kindly refrain
from in classical usage).
I will respond to Yitzhak Sapir tomorrow.
1.33 am on Monday 3rd of Novemeber, I think; my luakh says 5 Kheshvan
On 2/11/2008, at 7:09 PM, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:
> In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo
> and not
> Victor Hurowitz
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
>> Yitzhak Sapir said:
>>> What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
>> been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of ×× ×ª×¢×©
>> do.") <
>> On 'A L T ` Â´S as "Do not do"
>> What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
>> "Do not make [a pesel]"
> Dear Brian,
> I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has
> qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary
> and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
> to read more
> than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may
> be the
> ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word
> appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two <
> marks, whereas
> the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four
> (and the
> second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the
> "Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked
> the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I
> did not
> mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with
> all the
> information he has available is not willing to go much further, we
> Yitzhak Sapir
- I am quite sure that the Germans were able to get around both cases. The first might be secondary in comparison to the one opening the sentence, the second might not necessarily be understood as categorical.
I checked a modern translation:
Revised English Bible: You must not spread a baseless rumour, nor make common cause with a wicked man ... 7: Avoid all lies, and do not cause the death of ...
V. 8 opens with perhaps a better example.
Would have nothing against a modern study of negations. In my time, if we failed to make the distinction between 'al and lo' at the examination, we were dead meat!
Niels Peter Lemche
Fra: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af victor
Sendt: den 2 november 2008 13:27
Emne: RE: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S
Nothing wrong with reverting back to old Alt if he has something new to say,
or even old that's right.
I wouldn't venture an opinion on what he says in this particular case
because I don't have his article in front of me, but is it is as you state
it, it requires a small bit of modification. Look at Exodus 23:1 and 7 where
al is used in negative commands which are certainly categorical. But in
these cases the al is a secondary prohibition subsumed under a primary
prohibition mentioned right before them which uses lo.
- Personally I would reconsider the traditional clause-level theories from
a discourse analysis perspective: the two instances of the Decalogues
could be analyzed not as Hortative Discourse (command-driven) but as
Predictive Discourse (rendering of prospective-future events). That
would fit with a 2-mode division (indicative vs. injunctive) akin to
proposals applied to the PC in Ugaritic. The Decalogues are not a piece
of "injunctive" discourse, but a text in the "indicative mode". Thus,
interpretation of lo' + "imperfect" as a categorical demand vs. the
default negative command with 'al + jussive is to be contextualized in
the form and function of the whole text. These two particular instances
of juridical-function discourse use indicative (predictive discourse),
as opposed to injunctive. Perhaps that's indeed connected to the
"categorical" force of legal language (as attested in the tense use in
multiple languages, old and modern), but it is created by the context
usage in a text-type, not by the existence of yet another category of
single-sentence construction (we already see enough of those in
classical Hebrew grammars). In the Decalogues, it is remarkable that the
few positive commands are problematic: kabbed supports an infinitive
reading besides the imp. one and zakor is vocalized as infinitive, so
also in the positive commands the imperative form (injunctive mode)
could be missing. Further research could focus on this context-based
line in other instances of legal texts presented from injuctive vs.
Andrés Piquer Otero
Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> Hm, are we not back to the old division in biblical Hebrew between lo'
> & imperfect and 'al & jussiv? More to it than that? Modern Hebrew
> usage is probably of no consequence here.
> Back to old Alt (need a smiley here): lo' & imperfect a categorical
> demand, "thou shall not etc", 'al & jussiv less categorical: "Please,
> do not ..." I know that I am back in the Jurasic Park of biblical
> Niels Peter Lemche
- At 02:10 PM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:
>I must take issue with Arielâs comment here about the IsraeliI was referring to the (tiny) knowledge of the Bible and of Biblical
>school system and the average Israeliâs knowledge of Hebrew.
Hebrew. But the decalogue is a memorable piece of literature, partly
because of its phrasing. Most Israelis would know, remember, that the
bible says "lo tirtsah" (and not "al tirtsah") - that's my impression
and personal experience. Maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't know even that :(
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203