Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] New Inscription of Hebrew?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] New Inscription of Hebrew?
  • Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:51:20 +0200

Dear Bryant,

A few comments on what you wrote:

a. One must distinguish between language and script. No one has ever claimed that there was a "proto-Canaanite language". "Proto-Canaanite" is the title given by epigraphers to the earliest known forms of the 22-letter alphabet which would eventually be used by the Hebrews, the Phoenicians, the Arameans and others. In a way it is a mis-nomer, since it seems to imply that it was used BEFORE the Canaanites, but this is not what is meant when modern epigraphers use it.

b. From the actual evidence at hand, this form was used in Canaan and surrounding areas (including Sinai and even by Semites in Egypt) from about the 18th century until the 10th, but all of the inscriptions that we have are small and fragmentary. It seems to have been developed from Hieratic, which is basically a "watered-down" form of Egyptian Hierogliphs, much it the same way the the Ugaritic Cunieform alphabet was developed from Akkadian. This does NOT mean that the Canaanite language is derived from Egyptian, any more than the influence of the Greek alphabet on the development of Cyrillic means that Russian is derived from Greek.

c. It is only from the 9th century that epigraphers can distinguish different styles being used by Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic, presumably after the relevant kingdoms had begun developing their own local scribal traditions.

d. The fact that the Hebrews spoke a language that was closely related to Canaanite does not contadict anything that is stated in the Bible. And if they spoke a Canaanite-related language, it would have been only natural for them to have adopted the Canaanite alphabet. Remember, the first person who is actually mentioned as writing anything in the Bible is Moses.

e. As far as publication of excavated material: major archaeological excavations are long-term projects, that can take years. A three to six week season of careful digging just barely scraches the surface of a major site. Most of the work on the materal found is done after the season, in the laboratory, and is a very time-consuming proccess, often hindered by the limited funding available for lab workers, expensive tests etc. It is only after several season's worth of material has been checked, can anything more than a preliminary report be compiled. In modern large-scale excavations, a first "final" report is usually published after about ten seasons. And even then, it is certainly possible that later finds will put earlier conclusions in a different perspective. So yes, archaelogists in Israel are expected to publish reports before being alowed to move on to the next dig, but in what I assume is a long-term project like Khirbet Qayafeh/Elah Fortress, it will take years for a "final" report to be published.

f. In the meanwhile, archaelogists often do publish "semi-professional" papers and even books on aspects of their site that they think might be of interest to the public. And, in the short term, they allow (or invite) the press to publish the sort of rubbish that we've been seeing about this site.
From a purely scientific perspective, this is maybe even irresponsible (the
"Goliath inscription" published by Aren Maeir at Tell es-Safi/Gath is a good example). But archaeologists are only human, they do have a need to interact with the intersted public, and the press do have a need to create headlines.

g. So - in giving this ostracon to a professional epigrapher such as Hagai Misgav, the excavators did the right thing. In refusing to offer even a priliminary reading befor completing all of the relevant tests, Misgav did the right thing. I assure you that as soon as a reliable reading can be published, it will be. Until that time, anything that anyone says about the inscription is probably nonsense.

Yigal Levin


Yigal Levin



----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
To: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] New Inscription of Hebrew?


Dear Dave and Karl,

Thanks for your responses.

What really bothers me about the article is that it immediately thinks that
Hebrew developed from a "proto-Canaanite" language (no such language as ever
been produced as far as is known other than through supposition; like "Q" in
Synoptic Studies). This indicates at least three presuppositions.

The first presupposition is that if it is a theological text, it is therefore
not historical nor scientific. The second presupposition is that the Hebrew text
is not historical about the early history of the Israelites. The third
presupposition is that since the Israelites arose from the hill country of
Canaan, then the Hebrew alphabet is taken from there. Dever and others promote
this. Yet it is quite evident from the Hebrew text itself that the Hebrew
alphabet was well advanced by the time they got to the Transjordan since they
had spent 430 years in Egypt pretty much isolated in Goshen with some contact
with the Egyptians until they were enslaved; another 40 years in the Wilderness
Wandering of Exodus through Deuteronomy; and another 7 years during the Conquest
of Joshua. That is a minimum of 477 years in which their language and alphabet
developed. This does not include the loan words from Egypt, Canaan, Aramaic,
etc. did not enter into the language (just look at the number of loan words in
English; maybe not as great in the number of loan words). It is also obvious
that the acceptance of the Aramaic script from the Hebrew script occurred during
the Babylonian Captivity.

I do agree that those who report these inscriptional finds would serve the
scholarly community much better if they published very clear photos of the
finds. Furthermore, there must be a better way to make sure that the FINAL
REPORT IS PUBLISHED BEFORE the archaeologist is allowed to do another dig!
Basically, No Report, No Dig.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page