An excellent article, very well researched and very well thought-out. I would have liked to see a photo or two of the ostracon just for reference, but that's a minor point.
My bigger concern is with the errors that continued to be propagated in the DJD volume in question. I wonder how many young researchers are just going to see that material and not realize that the view expressed there has been so soundly rebutted, and so just take DJD's word for it? I don't suppose there's a way to get a newer edition built with these things corrected? Or perhaps the publishers could release some sort of addendum to it that details the problems with the material in the main volume? I don't know what the actual solution would be, but it seems to me that there should be some way to balance things out vis-a-vis the DJD entry, as that is likely to be the primary source for the next generation of researchers. On Saturday 25 December 2004 18:57, Dierk van den Berg wrote: > Ostraca KhQ1 and KhQ2 from the Cemetery of Qumran: A New Edition > by Greg Doudna > JHS vol. 5 art. 5 (2004) [.pdf] > http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_35.pdf > > Merry Xmas, > _dierk > > _______________________________________________ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot -- Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "No good. Hit on head." -Gronk _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
