Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws

More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws 221 may simply indicate that she is a weather-expert (cf. my disser- tation,5 p. 433ff.). 6. Margalit's reconstruction of CTA 19:203ff. (p. 144, 2.1.2) is un- fortunately incompatible with the evidence of the tablet itself. At the end of line 203 he adds a whole word, though there is no room for it. His first word for line 204 (wtkm - of which wtk is an unmarked reconstruction) is also too long. He then adds another word at the end of line 204, for which again there is no room. Small wonder that such a reconstruction results in perfect 3-stichometry! To sum up: the Kinnereth hypothesis rests to a large extent on the reading of line 147 (III 41). The only editions in favour of bknrt are Driver's (but now corrected by Gibson's new edition) and KTU. Although the transcriptions in Virolleaud's first edition (Pl. III) and Herdner's CTA (fig. 61) clearly indicate a final t, both have been corrected by their own transliterations to bknkn(?) and bknk- respectively. A careful examination of the tablet itself reveals the reading bknhlp without the possibility of a final t. Since the ultimate control over all hypotheses must be the tablet http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Vetus Testamentum Brill

More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws

Eslinger, Lyle
Vetus Testamentum , Volume 34 (2): 221 – Jan 1, 1984
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/more-drafting-techniques-in-deuteronomic-laws-dYQnsmSJAw

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1984 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0042-4935
eISSN
1568-5330
DOI
10.1163/156853384X00539
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

221 may simply indicate that she is a weather-expert (cf. my disser- tation,5 p. 433ff.). 6. Margalit's reconstruction of CTA 19:203ff. (p. 144, 2.1.2) is un- fortunately incompatible with the evidence of the tablet itself. At the end of line 203 he adds a whole word, though there is no room for it. His first word for line 204 (wtkm - of which wtk is an unmarked reconstruction) is also too long. He then adds another word at the end of line 204, for which again there is no room. Small wonder that such a reconstruction results in perfect 3-stichometry! To sum up: the Kinnereth hypothesis rests to a large extent on the reading of line 147 (III 41). The only editions in favour of bknrt are Driver's (but now corrected by Gibson's new edition) and KTU. Although the transcriptions in Virolleaud's first edition (Pl. III) and Herdner's CTA (fig. 61) clearly indicate a final t, both have been corrected by their own transliterations to bknkn(?) and bknk- respectively. A careful examination of the tablet itself reveals the reading bknhlp without the possibility of a final t. Since the ultimate control over all hypotheses must be the tablet

Journal

Vetus Testamentum – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1984

There are no references for this article.