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: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:45:59 +0000

On 22/03/2005 20:23, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

...

No it's not. It's irresponsible to lump together two different
scripts. ...

Precisely. But by what criterion is your "Jewish" different from modern Hebrew?

... its counterpart at that time which
is more appropriate to label as "Hebrew."


And therefore it is inappropriate and irresponsible to call this archaic script "Hebrew", unless you are claiming as some do that it is the same script as modern Hebrew (and therefore necessarily the same as your "Aramaic" and "Jewish").


The terminology with Naveh and you use, calling "Hebrew" without qualification a script which is quite different from what every contemporary reader of Hebrew calls Hebrew script, is irresponsible deliberate obfuscation.


It is obvious that the man on the street whom I will ask will tell
me DSS is "Hebrew" script. He will look at the Paleo-Hebrew
script and would be unable to identify the runes. But if we are
discussing contemporary scholars, then no, they will realize
that one is a "Hebrew" script and one is an "Aramaic" script.
And for someone who would like to read literature on the
subject, saying anything else is obfuscation, because he will
read "Hebrew" in the scholarship and think something else (namely "Aramaic" script) is intended.


He or she will not read "Hebrew" unqualified in Daniels and Bright, as you quote, but always "linear Hebrew" or "palaeo-Hebrew", so clearly distinguished from the modern Hebrew script. And D&B seem to consider this "linear Hebrew" a variety of Phoenician script, rather than a separate script; but the later Hebrew or Jewish script to be a variety or "form" of the Aramaic script, which is not called a variety of Phoenician but a separate script.

...

If you would like to ask Peter T. Daniels, perhaps you should
do it on the Aramaic list at yahoo groups.


I have already had discussions with him on that list, including some relating to this subject area.

--
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: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page