Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Is there a photo/information about this item on the net?

On Sunday 30 May 2004 07:02, Yigal Levin wrote:
> First of all, Jack is correct: the Izbet Sartah ostracon IS in
> proto-Canaanite script. But its in a trnsitional phase: proto-Canaanite
> seems to have had more than 22 letters, while the ISO abecedary seems to
> have been meant to have just the 22. Some of the letter shapes seem to be
> more "Phoenecian" than proto-Canaanite. And the fact that the order of most
> of the letters conforms with the order known from the Bible is significant.
>
> As far as the ISO's language (as opposed to script) - since no one has yet
> managed to read the top 4 rows and the fifth is just an alphabet,
> theoretically it could be anything. However, as I've said, the
> archaeological context is that of an "Israelite" hill-country village. Just
> what that means, I'm sure y'all know, is debated, but the site is certainly
> NOT Philistine. Of course, the ostraca COULD have been written by a
> Philistine or a Canaanite in nearby Aphek and "planted" at Izbet Sartah....
>
> : )
>
> Yigal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Roberts" <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
> To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Cc: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Exodus and Hebrew Language
>
> > Yigal,
> >
> > So what do you say about Jack's assertion that the script of the Izbet
> > Sartah inscription is proto-Canaanite?
> >
> > I guess if we were to take the harmonization route here, we'd come up
> > with an  Israelite village where a Philistine child was learning
> > Canaanite. (Sorry, couldn'y resist).
> >
> > On a more serious note, do scholars assume that literacy in the ANE was
> > an on-off phenomenon or was there a scale of degrees of literacy like we
> > see today?
> >
> > Best Salaams,
> >
> > Brian Roberts
> >
> > On Saturday, May 29, 2004, at 07:31  PM, Yigal Levin wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > The Izbet Sartah inscription is assumed to be"Hebrew" because it was
> > > found
> > > in the archaeological context of a typical Iron I hill-country village
> > > - typical in pottery, architecture, plan etc. Izbet Sartah is as Iron I
> > > "Israelite" as there is. Now, it is possible to argue just what
> > > "Israelite"
> > > means in the 12-11th centuries and would the inhabitants have actually
> > > used
> > > that term, but what would have been the linguistic difference between a
> > > Canaanite village and an Israelite one, anyway?
> > >
> > > Yigal
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
> > >
> > >> I am not sure what it is that makes the Izbet Sartah inscription
> > >> Hebrew.
> > >> The script is proto-Canaanite.  Is it considered Israelite because the
> > >> abecedary had..or was supposed to have..22 letters?   Hebrew is a
> > >> language
> > >> that used the Canaanite script and some centuries later, adopted the
> > >
> > > Aramaic
> > >
> > >> script...but a script is not a language, is not a culture.  This
> > >> ostracon
> > >> could have been the exercise of a Philistine child learning Canaanite.
> > >> Maybe there is something I am missing here.
> > >>
> > >> Jack
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> b-hebrew mailing list
> > >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.