Re: follow up

From: Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net)
Date: Thu Jul 02 1998 - 15:44:39 EDT


Jim West wrote:

> [... re: filth ...]
> The Hebrew term is not uncertain- the translators are uncertain as to
> whether or not they want to spell it out. Small wonder they didn't want to!

See the footnote to the passage in NJPS Tanakh: "Meaning of Heb.
uncertain."

> >In any case, to restate the initial point, this is an *archaeological*
> >question. Did dwellings of this time and place have privies indoors?
> >Does anyone here actually know?
> Ed Krentz indicates that in Roman houses, the toilet was often in the
> kitchen! (on graphai, where I also posed the question).

Oh those filthy Roman savages!

But what were local customs? Did prevailing purity laws make any
difference? (Experience from Qumran would suggest that they may very
well have done so.)

> Climate has nothing to do with it. ...

It most certainly does. Arrangments that might have been endurable in
near-arctic climes may have been fully intolerable in a desert or
semi-arid region.

> ... And about building practice? How do we know?

By perhaps actually examining the archaeological evidence?

(In any case, I've enjoyed just about all of this that I can stand. So
having imposed on the good graces of the list enough for one day, I will
now bow out. However if my good 'net-buddy Jim --or anyone else-- wants
to continue the discussion, feel free to contact me off-line.)

N

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:53 EDT