Вот отрицательные отзывы из нормального журнала:
Comments from the editor
Dear Michael Nosonovsky:
The editorial review of your essay “THE MEṢAD HASHAVYAHU INSCRIPTION AND BIBLICAL POETRY” has been completed, and I regret to inform you that the Journal of Biblical Literature will not be able to publish it.
Because of the large number of submissions, we are able to accept only about one-fifth of the papers that are submitted, which means that many publishable papers have to be rejected. Decisions are therefore always difficult and have to be based on a number of factors, including how great a contribution the article makes to our understanding of a particular text or topic and how appropriate it is for our particular readership.
I am enclosing some comments on your paper which you may find helpful should you decide to revise it for publication elsewhere.
Честно говоря, я поленился переделывать. Ни времени ни сил, а комментарии (ниже) мне показались пустыми. Первый в основном школярско-технический ("автор не обсуждает работы на языке Х" - а по существу-то что в тех работах, что нужно обсудить?), мне это не надо. "Упоминание шаббата не имеет отношения к делу, сократите." А я считаю, что это важнейший нюанс этой надписи, с какой стати сокращать? А второй по-моему какой-то пристрастный. Хотя наверно что-то полезное там есть. Но сил на это нет, поэтому я заплатил 200 долларов и опубликовал в опен-акцессе. Никто читать не будет, ну и фиг с ними.
Open response questions
Comments to author
According to the abstract, the problem this article seeks to solve is that scholars have found classifying the genre of the Meṣad Hashavyahu ostracon difficult (1). According to the introduction, the problem is that we have no extra-Biblical Hebrew poetry (4). The conclusion presents the problem most clearly: scholars have misinterpreted the ostracon as a utilitarian legal document because they have missed its poetic features (15). The purpose of the article is therefore to properly classify the genre of the ostracon so that it can be properly interpreted (15). The research question could be phrased something like, “what is the genre of this ostracon?” but instead the article addresses the question, “what features of the ostracon’s wording resemble the poetic rhetorical devices of biblical Hebrew?” If I am reading the article correctly, its thesis is that the ostracon is not a utilitarian legal document but a poetic literary text. This thesis is stated in the last sentence of the article.
The research question is not obviously of interest to readers of JBL. Without some discussion of the importance of the question, it will likely come across as trivial for most readers. However, it could be made of interest if the implications of this question were explained. So what? Explain what difference it makes whether the ostracon is literary or utilitarian. If literary, we can’t use it as direct evidence for labor-management relations in the ancient world. If poetic, we can use it as an external comparator for Hebrew poetry.
The thesis is partially supported by the article’s argument. Most convincing are the patterned redundancies. These indicate (to my mind) that yes, the ostracon is more than a utilitarian legal document; some rhetorical effect is intended. But I’m not convinced that the evidence can be pushed farther than that. I would recommend rewriting the article so that the thesis is clear and focused on what can be demonstrated. Then the primary argument should be focused on that thesis, by comparing this ostracon to other utilitarian legal documents, showing the absence of features typical to such legal documents, and the presence of patterned redundancies that are absent in such legal documents.
The treatment of attempts to address this question in the past is limited to one paragraph on page 6-7. Dobbs-Allsopp’s reasoning should be presented in detail, since he deals with the genre of this ostracon explicitly. I’m not sure the articles in the bibliography were read, since accents are clearly not right in Lemaire’s article, and Cross, and Pardee 1980. Italics and punctuation in the bibliography are inconsistent. Names are spelled inconsistently (Yeyvin, Rayney on page 8) indicating familiarity with a script other than Latin. Only English works are used; French and German and Russian are merely cited, not discussed. No Hebrew articles are discussed. If these articles are helpful to your argument, describe what they say; if they are not, then omit them.
Most of the introduction and conclusion is irrelevant to the thesis, as is the discussion of shabbat. Cut those out, and focus on the points needed to support your thesis.
Explain your methodology: which criteria have been identified as indicating poetry? To what extent does this ostracon reflect each of them? Present the comparanda and the data systematically.
Open response questions
Comments to author
The author attempts to argue that the large Yavneh Yam ostracon is poetic in nature. But, alas, this ostracon actually fits the epistolary form reasonably well (“my lord,” “hear,” etc.)…just as Dennis Pardee noted long ago (pace Chip Dobbs-Allsopp…), and as have also many others (including Frank Cross, etc., etc. who refer to it as a letter).
Moreover, in addition to some epistolary features, this ostracon also contains a narrative description of recent events, which resulted in this petition for redress. That’s not poetic, it’s just a straightforward legal narrative or legal petition (just as the relevant Covenant Code text is also not poetry).
Also, the reason “your servant,” or “harvest” occur multiple times is not because this is poetry….it’s because the petitioner is referred to as “your servant” and the casus belli is Hoshayahu’s misdeeds vis a vis “harvesting.”
Notice also that the PN in the ostracon is not Hashavyahu. Cross corrected that misreading about sixty years ago (!) so it was jarring to see the late, great Yossi Naveh’s original misreading still present in this manuscript (thus, note that Pardee, Lindenberger, and pretty much everyone else since Cross have embraced the correct reading: Hoshayahu).
Also, there are several times when the author says scholars say x or y….but then the author cites no one. For example, “Scholars debate the circumstances of writing the complaint noting its perfect Biblical Hebrew language and style along with the firm and clear script in the era when literacy was not common or universal. Some scholars believe that the complaint was composed by a professional scribe who based it on the words of the worker.” But in the entire paragraph, there is no footnote.
Other minor things….but which still suggest a certain carelessness on the part of the author…e.g., the author misspells certain scholars’ names (Anson Rainey’s last name is misspelled, among at least one or two other scholars), and the manuscript doesn’t use proper JBL footnote style (note the placement of periods and commas in footnote numbers in the body of the text). Notice also “Biblical Hebrew,” rather than “biblical.” If these were the only sorts of problems, the manuscript might be acceptable…but, as noted above, the problems are more pervasive.
In short, this manuscript is really not something that can be recommended for JBL to accept.