Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
- I haven't seen Laurie's article about the said tablet, but one of my
colleagues mentioned it to me a few days ago. In something I recently
wrote I mentioned the same tablet as being studied by Kathleen Avraham and
also by Wilfred Lambert. I don't remember anything about a label but you
can't learn anything from my lack of memory. In any case, cuneiform
tablets with Aramaic labels in ink are nothing new. BTW, just because
someone works on one genre doesn't mean he or she can't work on another
genre as well so Laurie's specialization(?) in mathematical texts doesn't
proclude her working on any other type of text (it's called
diversification and is practiced in scholarship as well as business).
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
> At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic documents in use in the NB period? --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
> I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
> From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir@...>
> To: ANEemail@example.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:11:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Peter T. Danielswrote:
> > "One of the unpublished tablets"? Is that supposed to inspire confidence? And this
> > from the principal supporter of the genuineness of various sensational probable forgeries?
> > NB tablets from where?
> > --
> Dear Peter,
> Good point. In the paragraph right before he refers to an article of
> his in French where
> "With F. Joannes, I published a cuneiform tablet from the early
> Persian period (Moussaieff
> Collection) containing mainly Judean names and written in al Yahudu,
> ie. the Neo-Babylonian
> name for "Jerusalem" in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle. ... This is a
> clear confirmation that
> Babylonian exiles settled together and that they went on with some
> kind of community life.
> ... This tablet is the first of several dozens which, hopefully, will
> be published soon by L.
> Pearce and others." However, I also point to Lemaire's use of the
> term to describe the
> script during the Persian period.
- At 02:31 PM 12/2/2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>It should have a colophon, no? or at least a date?That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the
>Peter T. Daniels <mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net>grammatim@...
>From: Yitzhak Sapir <<mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>yitzhaksapir@...>
>Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew
> > docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
> > At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic
> > documents in use in the NB period? --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
> > I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that
> > irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
>I don't call anything "LS."
2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy.
I'm much less familiar with the evidence from the NB period. My
impression is that by that time all we have is Aramaic & Hebrew, with
a hypothetical Phoenician, assumed to be different from Punic.
Nabatean & Syriac come only later in the 1st mbc. Is that correct? Is
there really no evidence of mid-1st mbc Phoenician? And what is the
current body of evidence and "common wisdom" about Samaritan?
[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