King Arthur

The inscription very closely parallels Deut. 5:6-21 (Inscription in bold, my translation of MT Hebrew in Deut. 5:6-21 is in regular text):

Verse 6:

I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves.

I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt from the house of slaves.

(Commentary: The inscription is worded the same as the Massoretic OT for this verse. The phrase "Egypt, from the house of slaves" is the beginning of what looks like the third line because the scribe missed a commandment and wrote it in as the second line.)


Verse 7:

Not shall there be to you other gods before my face.

Not shall there be other gods before my face.

(Commentary: Compared to the MT OT, the inscription leaves out the "to you" of "shall there be to you other gods". More significant is that this verse appears to have been accidentally skipped and then written in as the second line of the inscription. There is an upward arrow in the third line after the end of verse 6 which points at the inserted verse.)


Verses 8-10:

Not shall you make to you an idol, {or} any likeness which {is} in the heavens above, and which {is} in the earth beneath, and which {is} in the waters under the earth; not shall you bow to them nor serve them, for I am Yahweh your God a zealous God, visiting the sin of fathers on children, and on a third {generation}, and on a fourth, to those hating Me; and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commands.

Not shall you make to you an idol.

(Commentary: The inscription chops off the juicy details. Interestingly, in contrast to verse 7 the "to you" of the MT OT is preserved. The scribe began with this verse immediately following verse 6 and at some point inserted verse 7 with an upward arrow between the end of verse 6 and the beginning of this verse.)


Verse 11:

Not shall you take the name of Yahweh your god for vain, because not Yahweh does not acquit him who takes his name for vain.

Not shall you take the name of Yahweh for vain.

(Commentary: As the inscription does with most of the commandments, this one gets shortened. Interestingly, the word "Elohim" is left out of the inscription yielding "the name of Yahweh" rather than "the name of Yahweh your god" as it is in the MT.)


Verses 12-15:

Keep the day of the sabbath, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your god has commanded you; six days shall you work, and you shall do all of your work, and the seventh day {is} a sabbath for Yahweh your god; not shall you do any work, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man servant, and your maid servant, and your ox, and your ass, and all your cattle, and your stranger who {is} within your gates; so that your man servant, and your maid servant shall rest like you; and you shall remember that you have been a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your god brought you out with a strong hand, and by a high arm; therefore Yahweh your god has commanded you to keep the day of the sabbath.

Remember the day of the Sabbath, to keep it holy.

(Commentary: I find this one particularly interesting. The scribe used the word "zakar" (to remember) instead of "shamar" (to keep/observe) which is used by the MT and also reflected in the Greek Septuagint as "phylasso" (to keep/observe). The form of "zakar" ("zakor"/infinitive absolute) is the same as the form of "shamar" ("shamor"/infinitive absolute). In the MT, the only other place in Deut. that the form "zakor" is used is in 24:9 and 24:17. However, the 2nd person masculine singular perfect tense of "zakar" in the waw consecutive form is used in verse 15 as highlighted in bold in my translation of the MT above. Strange!)


Verse 16:

Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your god commanded you, so that your days will be long, and so that it is well with you, upon the ground which Yahweh your god has given to you.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days will be long upon the ground which Yahweh your god has given to you.

(Commentary: This is rather strange too. The first interesting thing in this verse is that the Hebrew word for "so that" ("lemaan") appears to be spelled wrong in the inscription (i.e. "lemaal" - ending in a lamed instead of a nun"). The phrase "as Yahweh your god commanded you" is left out of the inscription. Next, the scribe left the letter yod out of the word meaning "will be long". Finally, the phrase "and so that it is well with you" is not in the inscription".)


Verse 17:

Not shall you murder.

Not shall you murder.

(Commentary: Nothing odd to report here. It is the same as the MT.)


Verse 18:

And not shall you commit adultery.

Not shall you commit adultery.

(Commentary: The only difference here is that the scribe of the inscription left off the "and" of the MT. However, the Greek Septuagint does not have the "and" either.)


Verse 19:

And not shall you steal.

Not shall you steal.

(Commentary: As in verse 18, the "and" is not present in the inscription, but neither is it present in the Greek Septuagint. I was almost tripped up here by the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/mhc/archaeology/decalogue-translation.html" target="_blank">transcription</a> that I was reading. In the <a href="http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html" target="_blank">actual inscription</a> correctly spells the word for "steal" as "TGNB" ("tignov") where the transcription accidentally and incorreclty reads "TGWB".)


Verse 20:

And not shall you testify "wrongly" against your neighbor.

Not shall you testify falsely against your neighbor.

(Commentary: Again, the "and" is not in the inscription as in the previous verses. The person who made the transcription goofed again as he did in verse 19, seeing a waw instead of a nun in the Hebrew word for "testify". Interestingly, the scribe of the inscription deviates from the MT again here with his choice of the Hebrew word "shaqar" (which he spells "shakar") instead of the MT's "shav'" (the same word used to mean "vain" in the commandment "do not take the name of Yahweh your god in vain). There is an occurance in the MT of Deut. which uses the inscription's word "shaqar". It is used in Deut. 19:18 and, amazingly, the structure is similar. Deut. 19:18 in the MT uses the phrase "ed sheqer" ("false witness") just as the inscription seems to do!)


Verse 21:

And not shall you covet your neighbor's wife; and not shall you covet your neighbor's house, his field, and his man servant, and his maid servant, his ox, and his ass, and anything which {is} your neighbor's.

Not shall you covet your neighbor's wife and anything which {is} your neighbor's.

(Commentary: The only real difference between the MT and the inscription here is that the scribe of the inscription must have decided that the "anything which is your neighbor's" covered all the in-between stuff that he left out (i.e. house, field, servants, ox, ass, etc.).

So, how was that? Hopefully interesting and enlightening. I don't want to hear anyone else complain about my abilities ever, ever, ever, ever again. OK??

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Tabor's web pages contain lots of useful introductory material and may repay time spent there.

Vorkosigan

Splat

KA, I'm sure you are 100% convinced. And nothing personal, but I simply can't believe you until you provide something compelling. Web pages are cheap. When the Los Lunas inscription captures the attention of enough classicists, linguists, archeologists, geomorphologists, and/or epigraphers to generate a body of rigorously analyzed and peer-reviewed literature agreeing that it's legit (strong claims, strong evidence...you know), I'll accept it. Meantime, based on what I've seen, I'll remain skeptical.

Not just another matter; it's the entire matter. Until it is well dated, the more plausible explanation is that it was engraved by somebody with a picture book and a sense of humor, a theology to reify (Mormonism), some cash to gain, etc.

(With all due respect to professor Tabor, I'm unimpressed by his chain of evidence; it seems to rely entirely on the heresay and memory of 1) an unnamed guide and 2) Prof. Hibben. The possibility of a hoax remains.)

That's very convincing.

Even if that were true (it isn't) and the Los Lunas inscription stone is perfectly legit, it means absolutely nothing in terms of the history of the New and Old Worlds. Judaism did not take root in the Americas. Large animal domestication did not occur here. Old World metallurgical technolgy, glass working, shipbuilding, or the use of the wheel were not introduced. Alphabetic writing did not catch on. Native American gene pools remain closely related to Asian, not Levantine, ones. Whatever precolumbian contact might have occurred simply did not matter.

The Columbian contact, on the other hand, ended up wiping out 90% of the native population. THAT is significant, and THAT left a profound archeological signature. If Jews had "discovered" America and made any difference to it whatsoever, we would know about it by now.

King Arthur

Geesh, Splat! Whaddya mean until I provide something convincing?! Did you read the whole big long post that I spent half the day on?? Do you still not believe that the inscription is Hebrew written in Paleo-Hebrew-like letters (this is what you were responding to, intentionally or not)? Or do you not believe that the inscription as a whole is legit?

Perhaps you didn't get my point. I don't have any idea whether the thing is genuine or hoax. I have many doubts. My main objective with this thread was actually a rather sarcastic one of somewhat discrediting a source that is used around here quite often, Tabor (cf. Vorkosigan above who has pretty much quit responding to me because he takes my slights quite personally ).

Regardless of any of this, I assure you again that the letters are Paleo-Hebrew-like and that the language is Hebrew.

Anyone out there who just solved my challenge want to chime in to corroborate this?

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Splat

Maddening, isn't it?

I mean (as I said before) that when enough scientists and scholars get interested enough to produce a body of rigorously analyzed and peer-reviewed literature agreeing that it's legit, I'll accept it for the curiosity that it is. The epigraphers seem to be furthest along in this regard, but I'm really more interested in the legitimacy of the artifact itself.

The point I'm trying to make is that no individual author (no matter how well-credentialled or famous) will be able to make a convincing case when the claim being made is as strong (improbable) as this one. It's going to take a communal (and critical) effort.

So for now I think it's a hoax. But I congratulate you on your translation of it.

As for the original/intended sarcasm, yes, I gathered as much. But the topic had grown from that into something more interesting.

Now if you'll excuse me, the night is young, but rapidly aging...

Kosh

In other words, your not-so-hidden agenda was nothing more than an <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem" target="_blank">ad hominem</a>attack on Tabor?

How about using your genius to avoid fallacious logic, and instead address the arguments in context? Ie, if Tabor is being used to support an argument, then show how Tabor is incorrect for that instance of his opinion, not unrelated topics.

I would have exptected better from you, Mensa Boy.

King Arthur

Good Lord why?!