. Peter Kirk wrote, > ... But I do know of one person today who chooses to read the Hebrew > Bible rendered with palaeo-Hebrew glyphs.
http://www.crowndiamond.org/cd/torah.html Yes, this is fascinating and I'd stumbled across it before. > Adding points and cantillation marks might be a bit strange, but not > impossible. Again, it depends partly what you mean by "old Aramaic". My opinion, for what it's worth, is that adding Hebrew points and marks to the old-style Phoenician glyphs would be improper. In my post, when I said "ancient Hebrew" or "old Aramaic", I was generically referring to any of the ancient writing systems which are under consideration. > Don't get confused. It can get fairly confusing. Hopefully, this exchange of information and concepts will help to relieve confusion. > A more compelling argument might be that there are no members of the > user communities who do not transcribe these inscriptions. Why is that? Is this done because it is "The Right Thing" to do? Is it because it is the traditional thing to do? Is it done because many of the users are completely familiar with the modern Hebrew script, but can't read the ancient forms without a chart? Is it because in the past the publishers lacked proper fonts for the ancient inscriptions? I wonder... Best regards, James Kass .
