Apikorus

spin is right that the Y in L(ZRTY (bottom line) is very similar to the provisional W in K)RW (third line; enhanced). Nevertheless, I see most of the yods as having a caret-like shape (^). The top stroke of the waws is generally horizontal, although one could argue this point in YR)W (fourth line). The text is rather poor there though -- the resh, alef, and the bet at the beginning of the following word are very wide due to degradation of the scroll (moisture?).

Incidentally, notice how many of the letters are either a waw or a yod. These are the two most common letters in the Hebrew Bible, with frequencies of 10.83% and 11.52%, respectively.

spin

And as I have said the YOD at the beginning of the fourth line, [(CM]WTY. You have also brought my attention to the more faded but equally as long YOD in the first line, (CMWTY.

But we should note that none of the final YODs has the caret-shape.

Yes. We should note that neither of the final WAWs adheres to this characteristic.

We have three YODs determined by other means, ie we know what the text says, and two WAWs, one determined the same way. This is a total of four letters which are basically the same shape, the longer final WAW and all the final YODs. It is in this context that someone wants to argue that the letter at the end of K)R- is a WAW, which I find totally off the wall.

Maybe. It could just be 20 centuries of attrition.


spin

JoeWallack

http://www.wavsource.com/tv/bullwinkle.htm

JW:
Gentlemen, I Am impressed. What I get out of your recent Visual efforts is that perhaps a Scientific determination of the offending letter is a superior Methodology to just taking the Word of an Evangelical regarding potentially the most important word in the most important proof-text to an Evangelical. I must point out, even at this early juncture in this Thread, that the Amateur, Incompetent effort here to determine the offending letter looks to this Amateur Incompetent to be superior to the related effort expended by Professional Competents. I wonder if the Professional and Competent Jeffrey would care to comment?

I am also sore Amazed at the Remarkable difference in relationship between yods and vavs in the "enchanced" line versus the unenchanced lines. If this relationship truly exists in the real world than it may be the best evidence of all that Jesus was really Jesus. Or could there be a relationship between this relationship and the relationship between enchanced line author and Jesus? Why oh why did this potentially Ultimate piece of evidence have to be so damn difficult to determine? The only thing that's certain here is that if there is a Heavenly God she must have a Hell of a sense of Humor.

Gentlemen, in Order to pursue the Scientific Method may I propose a Bold and possibly Unorthodox Change in direction? Perhaps, instead of Publicly examining a photograph containing an "enchanced" line we should instead be examining a photograph not containing an enchanced line? And than, dare I say it, could we develop Measurement and Characteristic Statistics for the yods and vavs in this piece of Scrap?

Private possession of an unenchanced photo would be beneficial in this speculative and extreme endeavor. Looks like you could use one Spin. PM me your address if you want me to mail you one. And don't be afraid, even if it looks like a vav to us we can still leave Doubt by pointing out that the Evil and Wicked son of Darkness, Peter "Rock" Flint, was "responsible" for that "photograph" (probably used a JC Concorder).




Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Notsri

It seems to me—if I may say so—that comparing the size of the letter in question to others like it is not as fruitful in this case as one might expect. The scribal hand clearly grows smaller in v. 17 as the end of the line approaches; it also grows larger in v. 18, for instance, as the end approaches. (Notice the bet in BY as compared with the dalet or heh in YDYH right above: it is quite a bit larger.) Comparing the letter in question, then, to many of the yods runs the risk of comparing a small waw with large yods—which seems to me to be precisely what has occurred here. In any event, despite the fact that the letter in question is approximately equal in size to certain yods in the fragment, it differs from said yods in that it extends to the base of its adjoining letter, the resh; it also extends well below the adjacent yod in YDYH. Despite the fact that some of the yods are very large indeed, they tend to correspond well with the equally large letters in their immediate context; and always, so far as I can tell, without extending to the base of said letters. Take for instance the large yod in BY: it does not extend to the baseline of the bet; or the yod in L(ZRTY: though quite large, it is nevertheless positioned above the left leg of the tav to its right. On the other hand, all of the visible waws in the fragment extend—along with the letter in question—to the base of whatever letter adjoins. I must side with Apikorus on this one.

PS: I apologize for being unable to post the photo from DJD 38 for all to see. Unfortunately I am without the benefit of a scanner.

spin

Yes, I am workign under the assumption that there was a fault in the parchment which caused it, as the hand suddenly gets smaller after the letter in question.

I have looked specifically at YODs and WAWs in final positions. And note that the WAW before BY is smaller than any of the final YODs.

ie all four of the final YODs...

Actually no it doesn't, but let's not split hairs...

But that YOD is not in the final position, is it? In fact, as the whole "word" is written much smaller one has to account for the size in some other way.

There is a plain reason for this. They can't extend any lower without touching the previous letter.

Because, given the angle of the YOD it would touch the bottom horizontal stroke of the BET.

Again, the YOD is stopped by the foot of the TAW.

Not so. The WAW before BY is plainly shorter, but that's probably because the scribe hit the ALEF. It is one of only two final WAWs. Going on the final letters only I can see no way that you can choose between a WAW and a YOD.

(And Joe, the other lines have not been made clearer, so I'd find them more reflective.)


spin

Notsri

spin, in my last post I was using the photo from the DJD volume, which accounts for at least some of the disparities between my own observations and yours. The resh in K)R-, for instance, is notably shorter than in the "restored" image used in the thread—hence my suggestion that the resh and the letter in question were of commensurate length.

Without any obduracy necessarily intended, I must admit, spin, that I remain skeptical of your methodology. Not only does the text grow smaller as one moves to the left in v. 17; it tends to vary in size among the verses in general, sometimes growing slightly larger, sometimes slightly smaller, as I mentioned before. It was for this reason that I had emphasized in my own approach to the problem the formation of the yods and waws relative to the their immediate contexts. Again, the yod of BY, its comparatively large size notwithstanding, does not extend to the baseline of the bet. The same can also be said for the four additional final yods and their adjoining letters—and so it should be, it would seem, since we are dealing after all with yods. On the other hand, the waw in YBY+W extends to the bottom of the line, as does the adjacent tet. The final waw in YR)W seems to me to coalesce with what appears to be the left leg of the adjacent alef. If that downstroke is in effect doing double-duty for both the waw and the alef, then again we have a waw that extends to the bottom of the line together with its adjoining letter. (Also, we are then dealing with a waw that is actually larger than all five final yods. Note that the waw is in any case larger than the final yod of HQYPWNY.) Given at least those considerations, then, I personally felt compelled to agree with Apikorus' conclusion regarding the letter in question (not to mention Peter Flint's!).

In any event, let me put this question to you, spin, if I may: If the tenor of the scribal hand in v. 17 was to write ever so slightly smaller in successive letters after about the nun in HQYPWNY, as seems to me to be the case, then why, in your estimation, does the hand grow larger again when the letter in question—and only the letter in question—is reached, only to return to an ever smaller script upon taking up the next word? A large yod would buck that apparent tendency, wouldn't it?

Regards,
Notsri

JoeWallack

Flint's Scroll

Flint's Scroll, meet the Flint's Scroll
It's the ancient Masoretic family
From the town of Bet-rock
It's a page right out of history
Some day, maybe Flint will win the fight
And that big cat will stay out of the "Light"
When you're with the Flint's Scroll
Have a yodvav-dagesh-do time
A dabble-redo time
Yod'll have a gay old time

JW:
I sense a disturbance in the Force and I have Faith that Rabbi Singer would find the above "Stunning". "The resh in K)R-, for instance, is notably shorter than in the "restored" image used in the thread". I thought the purpose of the "enchanced" version was merely to darken what was already there thereby making it easier to identify what was original. But you seem to be saying that the shape of an original letter has been significantly changed in the "enchanced" version. I find this most Ironic that the Author of Enchancement would change the shape of an original letter in order to help identify the original shape.

Dare I ask how the shape of the "enchanced" final letter of the offending word compares to it's original shape?



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Notsri

The final letter of the "offending word" is the same size as in the enhanced version, and appears to be visible in its entirety—which is why I had previously expressed a little surprise at the complaints of Swenson and Strawn.

In all fairness, the photo in DJD is pretty small. The clearly visible portion of the resh is definitely shorter there. If, however, more of the resh appears under magnification—i.e., if the enhanced version is accurate and the resh is indeed longer than the next letter, even if only slightly—then I will certainly acquiesce to spin on this particular issue. "Splitting hairs" though it may be, it is still worthy of comment and would obviously be a legitimate rebuttal to my claim.

(Perhaps this all points up the fact that palaeography is best left to the professionals?)

Apikorus

Here's the image from Flint's article in Journal of Jewish Studies 51, 19 (2000):

Apikorus

Some other fragments from the Nahal Hever Psalms scroll: