Phlox Pyros

I'll let Chris and others who know the letters judge for themselves, but I can personally tell the difference. The yod does not extend fully to the base of the bet (though it does appear longer than the yod immediately above it). What do you think, Chris, Spin?

For some reason, I can't get to the link again, but I found the actual link:

Moshe's post to B-Hebrew

Who is Moshe Shulman, if you don't mind?

My original request was for someone published in semitic writing/palaeographic peer-reviewed materials who mentions this. I would like to see someone like Tov, etc., who says this. Otherwise, it simply seems to be an opinion.

Yods can be elongated, sure, but I have never seen your original claim that they are elongated specifically at the end of words. Can you please provide evidence of this? I do not understand why you will not directly answer my questions...

Anat

JoeWallack, thanks for the fragment. The second yod of 'yaday' definitely looks almost like a vav. I wonder what the he is doing at the end of that word, though?

JoeWallack

JW:
Never Halach should receive a lot of extra weight because of how early it is and because it's around the start of the Christian genea. Would "The Rabbis" have Motive and Opportunity to outright Change a Word perceived as favorable to Christianity or at least choose this option among choices? Of course. However, it shouldn't get anywhere near the weight that a corresponding Christian Bible text would have because the history of Jewish Textual Transmission can not be Convicted of the Sin of Dishonesty like the Christian Textual Transmission history can.

JW:
I believe with a perfect Faith that the Christian author here doesn't know Hebrew. So you have a Christian pretending to be an Authority on Hebrew Scripture who doesn't know Hebrew and other Christians who likewise don't know Hebrew accepting what he says as Gospel ad Nazorean. I mean, isn't that how the Holy thing got started. As Yeshu Barra, said, "Sounds like Deja Jew all over again."

JW:
I haven't got to that yet because people here are slowing me down by asking stupid questions/pretending to know what they don't know. I Am going to go through Everything in Order. I'll just say for now that when the Word is translated as a Noun it's always "like a lion". When translated as a Verb it's all over the place. This suggests that Verb translations were not simply translating the Word they saw in front of them. They were guessing that it should be some other word.

JW:
If I take the Implications here, some consider dug vs. pierced very significant and being worthy of discussion your scholarship is improving. Looks like you've come to the right place. You know what happened to Ehrman don't you?

JW:
We'll that's what we're here for. We have nothing better to do. Remember, "Ask, seek, knock!"

JW:
No, it's not clear. You already knew that DSS has a tendency to elongate yods so they look like vavs. I told you and Moshe Schulman said so. Are you looking for DSS scroll pictures to post here?

JW
Translations are an order of magnitude worse evidence than original language text. Christian translations are an order of magnitude worse evidence than Jewish translations. Any Jewish Greek translations here like Aquila were "preserved" by Christianity giving them less weight. I'll cover that. Later.

JW
No, it's not support for KJV's Dishonest "pierced". "Pierced" as we'll see is coming to the English from the Latin. More evidence that the KJV Mistranslators didn't simply use the Masoretic for their English (this is what happens when you try and Translate a Jewish writing while you have banned all Jews from your Country).



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

jakejonesiv

It doesn't matter what the Hebrew text said. The early Christians used the Septuagint version of Psalm 22:16.

The earliest explicit application of Psalm 22:16 to the alleged piercing of Jesus' hands and feet in crucifixion is Justin Martyr, First Apology, CHAPTER XXXV.

"And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them."

Jake Jones IV

Loomis

I am a worm, not a man;

…a gang of evil men crowd around me,
they pierce my hands and feet.

The Tell Asmar seal from 2300 BCE depicts just such a worm being pierced.

http://www.ifar.org/cunieformfig5.jpg

The context of Psalm 22 supports pierce because it appears to be a combination of earlier conflict myths.

JoeWallack

JW:
Looking through the related B-Hebrew list discussion you had Christian faculty who either didn't know Hebrew or at least weren't fluent in it and were not DSS experts agree with each other that Never Halach was Evidence/Proof that the offending word originally had a vav (waw) at the end. The only one there who was an expert in Biblical Hebrew and DSS was Moshe Schulman who explained that a characteristic of the time was an elongated yod. Everyone ignored him. Disgusting. So I Am going to help everyone See for themselves without relieing on supposed Authority.

Here is a list of Hebrew letter Names, the Standard Capital Transliteration Symbol and the Hebrew letter. Following is a site by Peter Kirby (surprise) that Converts the Standard Small Letter Transliteration Symbol into Hebrew letters. This Conversion also provides the numeric input, which looks like this, "&1504;", except also put in "#" between "&" and "1", to also create Hebrew letters in posting here at II.

I've tested all the letters and it looks like only the "nun" refuses to be recreating in a post. So you have to use the numeric input for it ( &1504; )

Enjoy!:


aleph - ) - א

beth - B - ב

gimel - G - ג

daleth - D - ד

he - H - ה

waw - W - ו

zayin - Z - ז

heth - X - ח

tet - + - ט

yod - Y - י

kaph - K - כ

lamed - L - ל

mem - M - מ

nun - N - ת

samek - S - ס

ayin - ( - ע

pe - P - פ

tsade - C - צ

qof - Q - ק

resh - R - ר

sin/shin - # - ש

taw - T - ת


Site by Peter Kirby (surprise) that Converts the Standard Small Letter Transliteration Symbol into Hebrew letters:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/h...onversion.html



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
An Angel of (the) Lord Commanded me to keep trying until I get the !@#$%&*)+! "nun" right and to add the Final Form for Hebrew Letters with a different shape when they are the last letter of a Word. When converting to Final Form use the Capital Letter. Is there no end to the suffering of my people! I also noticed that the !@#$%&*)+! "nun" changes from usable numeric form to unusable character form every time you do a preview. !@#$%&*)+!. So here goes (again):

Here is a list of Hebrew letter Names, the Standard Capital Transliteration Symbol and the Hebrew letter. Following is a site by Peter Kirby (surprise) that Converts the Standard Small Letter Transliteration Symbol into Hebrew letters. This Conversion also provides the numeric input, which looks like this, "&1504;", except also put in "#" between "&" and "1", to also create Hebrew letters in posting here at II.

I've tested all the letters and it looks like only the "nun" refuses to be recreating in a post. So you have to use the numeric input for it ( &1504; )

Enjoy!:


aleph - ) - א

beth - B - ב

gimel - G - ג

daleth - D - ד

he - H - ה

waw - W - ו

zayin - Z - ז

heth - X - ח

tet - + - ט

yod - Y - י

kaph - K - כ

Final - ך

lamed - L - ל

mem - M - מ

Final - ם

nun - N - נ

Final - ן

samek - S - ס

ayin - ( - ע

pe - P - פ

Final - ף

tsade - C - צ

Final - ץ

qof - Q - ק

resh - R - ר

sin/shin - # - ש

taw - T - ת



Site by Peter Kirby (surprise) that Converts the Standard Small Letter Transliteration Symbol into Hebrew letters:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/h...onversion.html



Joseph

Chris Weimer

ש is usually transcribed online as $, not #.

Apikorus

In the Michigan-Claremont system, # = shin/sin, $ = shin, and & = sin. I.e. # corresponds to the letter with no point to distinguish shin from sin.

JoeWallack

I Am Too Sexv For This Thread

JW:
For those Objective Seekers here who would like more than just the words of anti-Christian Spin Doctors that DSS style sometimes had elongated "yods" that looked like "vavs" (waws):

yod - Y - י

waw - W - ו

like say for instance Evidence:

Great Isaiah Scroll



by Fred Miller, a very Christian DSS scholar. Must have been at Church when the B-Hebrew discussion was raging. Note that Miller writes: (emphasis mine)

"Two frequent variations will NOT be cited in this review. The addition of waw and yod to words as pronunciation helps to indicate vowels is very frequent and corresponds to the pointing to indicate these vowels, which was added by later Masoretic scholars. The addition of aleph in the same way is less frequent and will be cited. The second variation is the scribe's interchange of waw and yod. This is frequent. Where one expects to find a yod a waw is written and where one expects to find a waw a yod is written. We will not cite these but these occurrences, because of their frequency, can be seen by a general reading of the text."

So, now that everyone here knows the difference (and similarity) between a "yod" and "vav" (waw), don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself.

Keep in mind that this tendency in DSS to confuse "yods" and "waws" varied based on the individual author (surprise). I've already shown the most relevant related evidence which was the Never Halach scrap itself which showed an elongated yod on the next line of the verse in question. I'll next show an interlinear example that makes it easier to analyze.


יוסף

INADMISSIBLE, adj.
Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.
But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/h...onversion.html