Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew
  • Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:30:07 +0000

On 19/03/2005 20:19, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

...

I do not intend to enter a historical discussion with you, unless you intend
to be prepared to back up your objections and claims where they differ
from the currently established scholarly consensus or a major scholarly
position.


Well, on this issue there doesn't exactly seem to be an established consensus, from what Thomas Thompson and Kevin Edgecomb have just said on this list. (I am surprised to find myself in agreement with Thompson, but at least no one can accuse him of biblical fundamentalism!) And I don't accept that any one "major scholarly opinion" is sufficiently weighty that I have to argue against it in detail. But I have presented some of my own evidence for an earlier split, to which can be added the evidence from the excavations on Mount Gerizim. Of course such an early split was not necessarily complete, final and formalised until much later, and there may have been periods of mutual cooperation over a long period before that final split.

I am reminded of the history of the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic churches, which was already apparent in about the 4th century (CE of course) and very deep by the 6th century, but was not formalised by mutual excommunication until I think the 9th or 10th centuries, and even then was temporarily healed, at least on paper, in the 15th century. So what date would you give for that split? It was apparent more than a millennium before it was final - and of course may yet be healed in the future, as the Jewish-Samaritan split already has been to a large extent.

... The second one was to clarify the terminology since
apparently he was reading "Assyrian" script as a name for Aramaic
script, and being confused on that point as well.

Well, I thought that was the name given in the Talmud, in the passage you quoted, e.g. "in the times of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language".

...


What I called Paleo-Hebrew is what experts call Paleo-Hebrew,
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-July/009788.html ...


OK, I accept Peter Daniels' terminology, in which he uses "archaic Hebrew" for what I called earlier varieties of palaeo-Hebrew. But I know that many scholars use "palaeo-Hebrew" for pre-exilic Hebrew writing as well, see for example http://www.ancientneareast.net/pomegranate.html, and http://www.historian.net/ where Jack Kilmon of this list refers to a font based on Lachish ostraca as palaeo-Hebrew.

See also http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf which gives a family tree of development of Semitic scripts, and a large number of examples.

... The Modern Hebrew script is not the Jewish script of the DSS. It is a
later development and modern Hebrew readers cannot make out all
the letters of the Jewish script without help. ...


I find this very surprising. Even when I was a relative beginner in Hebrew, I was able to read the Great Isaiah Scroll in the Shrine of the Book with little difficulty. The letter shapes are well within the range of variety of modern Hebrew writing, and much less distinct from the older standard shapes than is for example modern cursive Hebrew. This is the same script as modern Hebrew, just slightly variant glyphs - presumably in the same way as your three varieties of Phoenician within one script as mentioned below.

... As for what you think
about Phoenician and Old Hebrew, I outlined the main description as
given by Naveh in the book I mentioned: "This geographic distinction
[of three varieties of Phoenician - Phoenician, Punic, and Neo-Punic]
does well for sorting out the inscriptions but it does not help distinguish
between the scripts. The Phoenician, Punic, and Neo-Punic were
written in the same script, without regional or local differences." He
outlines the various areas in which Phoenician inscriptions were found.
Furthermore, he notes that an independent Hebrew script began
developing as early as the 9th century BCE, while an independent
Aramaic script did not begin until the mid-8th. If any of what you
think above is based on reputable sources, I would appreciate it if you
referenced them so I may look them up and get a more balanced view.


Date of divergence is not the same as extent of divergence. Greek and hence Latin may have diverged from Phoenician even later, but even so it is demonstrably true that the difference of glyph shapes between Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew is vastly less than that between Phoenician and Latin.

...

You quote the above as if I wrote it. I simply translated Naveh. So you
disagree with Naveh and Albright. Not that this is problematic in itself,
but simple speculation such as "There is no particular reason" and
"simply because it was different from the Samaritans' preferred script"
should be backed up with facts. ...


I made it clear that the sentence from which this last quotation was taken was speculation, although it is intended in part to fend off any suggestions that I was suggesting something highly improbable. As for:

There is no particular reason why the already separated
Judeans and Samaritans could not have used the palaeo-Hebrew script in
parallel from say the 5th to the 1st century BCE

I could go further and say that they must have done so, as there is good evidence for a separation in the 5th century, and that in the 1st century both groups were still using essentially the pre-exilic archaic Hebrew script - although the Judeans only to a limited extent. One reason for this might have been continuing intermittent contact. But since the facts seem to be that there was a split in the 5th century and there was one in the 1st century, if you want to state that there was at least one period of reconciliation between these dates, you need to provide evidence for this. And the persistence of the script is not evidence, given that there are many historical examples of peoples separated for centuries continuing to use essentially the same script.

... Again, Hebrew script, when speaking
of this period, is not Aramaic-based, but a parallel development from early
Phoenician script centuries earlier. The Aramaic-based script is called
Jewish script.


This is simply not true if you are talking about what everyone else in the world calls Hebrew script. If you are insisting on calling "Hebrew" what everyone else (except possibly Naveh) calls "palaeo-Hebrew", you are simply talking at cross-purposes to the rest of the world and failing to communicate.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page