Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

This seems a very odd distinction to me when used in this way. At a 
particular place and time one language may be more innovating than 
another, but there is no reason to assume that this feature continues 
over a long period. As I understand it, the Gezer calendar is one of 
the earliest known inscriptions in anything like Hebrew from southern 
Canaan. So it is not surprising that it retains archaic features not 
found in later Hebrew. I wonder if Garbini is comparing this calendar 
with biblical Hebrew texts said to date from an earlier period? Well, 
I think we have to allow for the possibility that their grammar and 
orthography have been tidied up at a later time. A comparison with 
early poetic passages which have been less tidied up e.g. Judges 5 
would be especially instructive.

On the other hand, we must remember that, according to the biblical 
record, Gezer was not an Israelite city before the time of Solomon, 
and so its population may have remained distinct and spoken a 
different dialect even at a later time.

I suspect that it is simply anachronistic to try to decide whether the 
language was archaic Hebrew or archaic Phoenician, much like to argue 
whether the language spoken by Romans in Spain in the 1st-3rd century 
was archaic Italian or archaic Spanish!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Perspective on Phoenician and Hebrew
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    13/02/2000 18:22


I was browsing a book by Garbini a few days ago ("I fenici: storia e 
religione" [The Phoenicians: history and religion], Napoli, 1980) and was 
taken by his comments about the Hebrew language. He said:

--------------------------------------------------
A confirmation of the linguistic character of south Palestinian, still in 
the Phoenician sphere, is offered by an inscription, the so-called Gezer 
"calendar", written in a languageusually considered to be an archaic form of 
Hebrew, but which in reality constitutes (..) an archaic form of Phoenician: 
the absense of articles (as in the Ahiram inscription) and the presence of 
the masculine plural suffix -w to the construct state (as in Ugaritic) are 
linguistic "throwbacks" and therefore cannot be related to a language such 
as Hebrew which is a carrier of innovations. The language of the Gezer 
"calendar" should be contextualised, in a historical perspective, as the 
most southern of the Phoenician dialects, beside those of Arad and Byblos 
(which are linguistically more evolved, which a greater number of Amorite 
elements) and those of Tyre and Sidon. The archaizing, ie conservative, 
character of the Gezer dialect aligns perfectly with what we know thus far 
of the south Palestinian culture.
                                       --p 27
--------------------------------------------------

Any thoughts on the distinction Garbini is making between what he sees as 
these conservative and innovative languages?


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.