Re: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 13:04:32 CDT

  • Next message: Mike Ayers: "RE: Notice of Change to Unicode mail list posting"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    > On 27/05/2004 20:10, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
    >> ... See for some
    >> Talmudic discussion of the matter.
    > It is interesting to see there that Daniel 5:8 (compare v.25 - the
    > event can be dated to October 539 BC) is cited as an example of the
    > mutual illegibility of palaeo-Hebrew and square Hebrew characters. It
    > is suggested there that the original writing on the wall, at
    > Belshazzar's feast, was in square characters which only Daniel could
    > read. In fact the scenario was more likely the other way round: the
    > inscription was in palaeo-Hebrew. Daniel, born in the land of Israel,
    > could probably read these glyphs, but maybe the Babylonian wise men
    > could not. The language of the inscription is not Hebrew but Aramaic,
    > but maybe the letters were palaeo-Hebrew. But then the author of the
    > book of Daniel ascribes Daniel's ability to read the writing not to
    > the different script but to wisdom given by God.

    Interesting, no?

    I just realized that on "p.59" the translation leaves out a verse from
    Exodus 27:10, claiming it its translation makes no sense. Yes, it
    does. The verse says "...the hooks of the pillars..." on which R.
    Eliezer quoting R. Elazar says "just as the pillars didn't change, the
    hooks didn't change." And this makes sense IF you recall that the word
    for "hooks of.." is "vavei", the same word as "vavs of..." i.e. the
    letters "vav" didn't change...

    Just FYI.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 13:05:26 CDT