Poor results combining scripts

[simonante]

Please, tolerate my completely newbie question.

Trying to process multiple scripts, e.g.
for i in 01-?.png; do tesseract "$i" "text-$i" -l script/Latin+script/Hebrew+script/Greek; done;
for i in 01-?.png; do tesseract "$i" "text-$i" -l script/Latin+script/Devanagari; done;
01.pdf

192 THE BOOKS OF ENOCH En‘ 1 vi

had "13 and NN3 ‘plot of cultivated land, garden’; I add YD in front of RN to take account
of the plural moujoovow.

L. 9. poxoîs (oivov), ‘vessel from which one draws in order to pour the wine into the cups’;
E inexact, ‘a surfeit of wine’. One would hesitate to choose a precise Aramaic term from amongst
several which denote large vessels for wine, such as NIN or N17. On the shapes of these vessels
in the Graeco-Roman period see H. Ingholt and others, Recueil des tessères de Palmyre, 1955,
passim, and the Index by H. Seyrig, ibid., p. 199 (‘Matériel des banquets et distributions’:
cratère, amphore, cruches, baril, etc.).

LI. 9/10. The passage concerning seeds (essentially "VIN, ‘wheat’) is better preserved in E
than in C: kał (ravròs) Tod omépov (τοῦ σπαρέντος ἐν αὐτῇ) καθ᾽ ἕκαστον μέτρον {ποιήσει
χιλιάδα μέτρων, καὶ ἕκαστον μέτρον) ἐλέας ποιήσει ἀνὰ βάτους δέκα. ΤῊυο Ο αὐτἰάρος the begin-
ning and makes an omission by homoeoarcton. The term uérpov often translates the Hebrew
TIND in the Septuagint. A seah of wheat (approximately 15 litres) produces 1,000 seahs, but
a seah of olives yields only 10 baths, equivalent to 30 seahs, of oil; on this metrological system
see Milik, DJD iii, pp. 37-41.

L. 19 (En. 12: 3). The Greek καὶ ἑστὼς juny Aivey edAoy@v translates word for word the
Aramaic 772) ODNp NIה,‎ the meaning of which is ‘I began to bless’. This syntactical
inchoative use is known in Biblical Aramaic (TW , , , Wj? Esd. 5: 2), in Judaeo-Aramaic
(ΝΡ reduced to Nf? and [?), and, once, in Palmyrene: qm wbn’ warb ‘he began to make (sacred)
buildings and gifts’, Ino. ii 1 5 (in the Greek counterpart of this bilingual, there is a different
formulation: dpéoavra . . . κτίσµασιν καὶ ἀναθήμασιν); ἴα ΑΏΥ case this is not ‘a rather doubtful
meaning’ of qm, as J. Cantineau, Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique, p. 74, states. Spell
Oאק,‎ and not D"P, according to En® 2 i 19.

According to Ent it is a single Watcher, N°, who speaks to Enoch, and not ‘the Watchers’
as in C and E. Drawing on of êypúyopot T0î áyíov Tof peyáðov in C, restore NUTI] NIY
[N37 ‘the great holy Watcher’, hence an archangel, rather than ‏,עירא []דקדישא רבא[‎
‘the Watcher of the Great Holy One’. On PWI Y see the note to Ent 1 i 3. This
archangel remains anonymous, exactly as ‘one of the holy ones’ who raised Enoch up near
the divine throne is anonymous, En. 14: 25 (C; om. E). On the four archangels who guide
Enoch on his journeys, see the notes to Ent 1 xi 5-6 (En. 23: 4), En® 1 xxii 5—7 (En. 22: 6),
En® 1 xxvii 19 (En. 33: 3).

According to the Greek and Ethiopic texts of En. 13: 1 the transition from the archangel’s
commandments to the execution of his orders by Enoch is too abrupt. Instead of ó ôè ‘Evwy
τῷ Ἀζαηλ εἶπεν: πορεύου in C (‘then Enoch withdrawing said to Azazel’ in E) I suggest ô
Ἓνωχ, πορεύου καὶ εἰπὲ τῷ Ἀζαηλ; cf. Aivey . . . ropedov kal elmd 10is éypnyépors in En. 12:
3-4, απά Αἰνωχ .... πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὲ Trois mépwpaciv oe in 15: 1-2. On Azael| Azazel, to be
read ‘Aśa’el (name of the 1oth angel), see pp. 28-30, 34, 92, 131, 156, 177.

4QEn* 1 vi—En. 13: 6—14: 16 (Pls. XII, XIII)

צם [כול תחנ]ניהון על כול ![פשת]הּון לכול חד וחד [מן עובדיהון ועל כול
די מתחנין די תהוא להון ]


mistakes most of the other scripts for Latin.
OCRed hundreds of multi-script texts and the result is similar. Specifying languages is no more better.
Is the Tesseract accuracy so bad?
Then I read this paper from 2009.
ABBYY is faultless in comparison, but I cannot believe Tesseract cannot do the same.