JoeWallack

JW:
Now that we all know the difference between a "yod" and a "waw" here, as a warm up to looking through the DSS to see how these two letters were used let's first play a game (especially for the Christians here such as Richbee and Schmuelman!):

Where's Yeshua?

See how many references you can find indicating that Jesus was
the prophesied Jewish Messiah in the puzzle below made up of actual letters
taken from The Jewish Bible!:

A--B--I--B--U--R--I--E--D--Y--E--S--H--U--A
B--E--S--O--N--I--F--N--O--E--L--H--I--N--S
N--E--T--A--I--A--I--V--E--S--M--O--S--B--I
O--S--H--R--N--L--I--E--S--M--S--N--T--A--I
W--H--E--N--C--U--B--S--W--I--N--W--S--A
A--I--P--W--O--F--E--L--B--A--L--K--P--S--I
Y--C--H--A--O--C--I--I--A--V--M--O--I--E--W
H--O--A--E--L--Z--O--M--I--I--D--W--Q--L--P
O--O--Y--U--K--F--G--E--L--I--U--E--A--I--W
S--N--O--W--B--A--L--L--I--N--H--E--L--L--I
E--S--T--W--G--S--K--Q--P--L--F--I--X--K--R
A--B--M--E--U--I--L--O--W--I--S--X--I--P--A


JW:
Now for the real McSiah:



Try matching up the "yods" from the Standard Hebrew text on the Right with the corresponding "yods" from the DSS War Rule - 11Q14 text on the Left at:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/features/scrolls/war.htm

and tell me what you see.

Jew-HeyWaw


ווסף

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.earlyjewishwritings.com/h...onversion.html

Phlox Pyros

Joe, I would still like to know what your source is for the "tendency to elongate the 'yod' when it was the last letter of a word so that it looks like a 'vav'"? Thanks.

spin

First, look at the word, PNYW, in the first transcribed, ie the first full, line of Joe's picture -- the PE has a brown splodge above it. While the WAW is at the end of the word, it is indistinguishable from the preceding YOD. Then look at the first word, G$MY, on the third line. The YOD is mainly destroyed, but you can see how low its bottom tip is, ie no different from any of the WAWs.

Now the taste test: go to the Nachal Hever fragment and tell us what the last letter of the first word on the line below the enhanced line is. (It is almost a centimetre to the right of the hole and is preceded by a TAW.) Is it bigger or smaller than the letter at the end of K)R-? What is the letter, a WAW or a YOD? How can you tell?


spin

Phlox Pyros

There is very little difference between the yod and waw. I don't question that. Even so, I believe there is enough difference, though minor, to tell in most cases (especially in context). However, my point was that he seemed to specifically call out yods at the end of words. The impression this gave me was that, similar to letters such as nun and mem, the yod had an elongated form at the end of words. If this is not what he meant, then there is little disagreement.

Further, I would like to point out with respect to PNYW that there is slight optical illusion at work. Note that the yod joins the bottom of the nun. If the nun had not been draw, would the yod be shorter than the waw? I believe so....but then that is just my own opinion.

That does it for me. With a faulty text, I cannot make a good judgement on this.

The text is so light and there is a blotch below, it is difficult to tell. To me, it looks like the yod does not extend completely down to the bottom of the taw.

Another problem, here, is that you both seem to be picking hard-to-read and defective examples. Looking through the same manuscripts samples, it is easy to find waws and yods that are quite obviously distinct. Again, I realize this is not always the case...

For instance, look at the yod tet waw in "they look upon" after your example. It is quite easy to tell the yod and waw apart in this word. In fact, one should be able to note that the norm is for the yod to terminate above the bottom line and for the waw extends to or even below the line.

spin

With K)R- you don't have context and you don't have the luxury of the two letters together.

Optical illusion? Uh-huh. Just look two words before. Strike one.


Welcome to the real world. There is enough info for the height of the letter. You're not doing your job. Strike two.


There is no blotch below the letter -- just the foot of the TAW. Go back to the image in the pdf (link earlier): it's basically the same as the YOD at the end of (ZRTY.

The reason why the text in the line above is nice and clear is because it's been touched up. Your call of a YOD on shape is unrealistic. It's the same size as the letter after K)R- and the WAW you point out after the TET and it's the same height as the TAW except for the foot which extends below. Strike three.

Enjoy the walk.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Ben. I pointed out here before that you have to use the standard numerical representation to get the "nun" to show. I Am sure the same is true of the Capital Pi. Remember though that once you do a Preview the numerical nun will Apostosize.

This Thread is largely for your Ben-a-fit. Chris Weimer is like Aquila, fluent in Greek and recently acquired a working knowledge of Hebrew. Not a part of or in contact with Scribe quality Hebrew yet considered an authority by fellow Greek speaking Jews who also lack scribe contact. He takes what looks like a "waw" at the end of the word, not knowing "Hebrew writing for this time had a tendency to elongate the "yod" when it was the last letter of a word so that it looks like a "vav"" and also doesn't know the scribal tradition that this word has a "yod" at the end and means "like a lion". Due to his not being an expert in Hebrew he then has to guess at what the word means and since a verb is missing for the phrase picks the closest verb word he can think of.

You are like a Origen, looking for academic excellence. Willing to consult "The Jews" because you can see they have a superior knowledge of Hebrew.

We can see here why Greek Translation evidence for Hebrew Original is an order of magnitude worse evidence than Hebrew textual evidence. The Hebrew Textual evidence is from the Top, Scribe quality Transmission Tradition. The Greek Textual evidence is from a Lower level. Also, the nature of Translation Forces a different word to be chosen.

So not only is the last letter of the offending word equivocal for the script of the Time it also provides an explanation for mistaken Greek translations. Guess what the Translation was in the related Aramaic, done by Scribe level translators?

Now you know why "The Rabbis" banned ALL Greek translations.

So, young Origen, what do you put here in the Hebrew column of your Hexapla at this point? Or do you just leave it blank or with a question "Mark" until you have more information?



יוסף

Phlox Pyros

Context, here, is debatable, that is part of the problem. Not sure what you mean by not having the luxury of the two letters together. A yod follows the waw. There is an obvious difference between the two. The waw extends to the bottom line straight across from the bottom of the resh.

This is not baseball... I am not looking to win or lose anything, and I find this to be simply puerile hand-waving.

My point, again, is that the yod may appear elongated in this particular case because it meets the base of the nun. It appears to me to be an optical illusion. If you do not find it so, feel free to state so without the smug dismissal.

I don't have much patience for these kinds of dismissals. These are usually thrown out by those who have no case.

There appears to be a small ink dot under the letter (not the foot of the taw), but this is not really what matters. The yod does not appear, to me, to come all the way to the base of the taw. If that "dot" is what you perceive to be the foot of the taw, then it has quite an unusually long foot, and the fact that the yod still ends above it makes it quite clear that it is very likely a yod and not a waw...

I realize the image is touched up. I will agree that I need to go back and look at the DJD image to refresh my memory, but I seem to remember thinking it looked obiously like a waw because of the following yod the last time I looked.

As I mentioned, I realize there is often little difference between yods and waws in the DSS. However, I believe they are not wholly indistinguishable. In fact, I believe that in the majority of cases one can tell a difference.

You may disagree and that is fine. I disagree with you. But, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the unreasonable rhetoric. It is not necessary. Thanks.

JoeWallack

JW
No, don't be honest.

JW:
Your first post was the one where you said:

"Oops, never mind."

Okay, so you want more attention:

JW:
Than apparently your studies of the DSS did not include studies of the DSS.

JW:
If I think you've made a stupid comment you want me to tell you right? I Am sore Amazed that anyone would think "like a lion" "makes no sense" considering the entire Theme is one of being threatened by wild animals, "lion" is Explicitly mentioned two other times nearby and after the offending verse the Psalmist beseeches the Almighty to rescue him from the lion's mouth.

All of the main Brave and Truthful Counter-missionaries like Rav Singer, Rabbi Schulman, Gerald Sigel, Messiah.org, Paul Tobin El Al, think that "like a lion" makes sense. Who is there with any weight who thinks "like a lion" is original but doesn't make any sense?



Joseph

Phlox Pyros

Yes... It is because I wrote something I didn't mean to write, so I wrote "Oops, never mind."

It had nothing to do with you, if you think it did.
Otherwise, I don't understand why this is a problem...

Joe, that did not answer my question and it is incorrect. In fact, it is simply ad hominem.

You have been doing a lot of bragging in this thread, but I have not seen you provide much of your own analysis.

I asked for a simple reference to back up your claims and you did not provide it. Why are you accusing me of not knowing things? Why are you acting as if Chris doesn't know anything? What do you know that puts you so high above us that you condemn us and don't feel it necessary to back up your information with your own supported analysis?

Dogs are mentioned in the verse...why is a lion also necessary? There is no verb if we accept "like a lion". The Hebrew makes little sense..."like a lion my hands and feet".... Granted there are peculiarities with the Greek and Nahal Hever reading as well, but why can't you admit that the Hebrew is likewise unintelligeable?

Here is a quite sincere question for you and spin since you both seem to claim definite knowledge that "like a lion" is the the original reading:

You both seem to want to add an "at" in there, "like a lion at my hands and feet". Though I still don't think this makes much sense since dogs were just mentioned... Are there any examples that you can provide of similar Hebrew grammar where an "at" should be added where there is none in the underlying Hebrew, please? If you can help on this point, it might provide me with a little better base for comparison. Perhaps you can persuade me that you are correct.....

I do not mean any offense, but are you, Joe, and spin Jewish "counter-missionaries"?

The reason I ask is that you both seem to demonstrate a very strong, and in my humble opinion, unreasonable confidence that the original reading was "like a lion" (what would be a very "counter-missionary" tactic).

Most scholars I have read express some doubts about both readings (a reasonable position in my opinion), yet both of you seem to glide right over the apparent problems with the Hebrew and overstate the case for the "like a lion" reading...

Phlox Pyros

Joe, I checked your profile to see what your beliefs were and didn't find much there, but your Interests certainly caught me off guard. I had no idea what "colemics" were nor why you would be interested, so I did a quick google.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would be interested in colemics. Sounds pretty disgusting to me with all the mentions of "higher colonics, enemas, and such, but to each his or her own:

Article with highlighted mentions of colemics from which some people might possibly gain an appreciation of it, I suppose....

You do like satirical humor, by the way, correct?