Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ratson Naharadama <yahoo-arch AT heplist.com>]

K. Randolph wrote:
> The question comes down to,
> were the ancient Hebrews the originators,
> or the adopters,
> of the 22 letter alphabet?

True. My thoughts touch on the same things you touched on in the rest of your 
post:

It would seem to me, that since their phonetic inventory was wider than the 
22 letter alphabet could fully accommodate, it would seem that they were the 
adopters of the alphabet.

If they are the adopters, then that does not rule out that they had some kind 
of alphabet, or syllabary, that they used for writing. It could be possible 
that they previous wrote with a form of the proto-sinaitic alphabet, and that 
this was modified by some group (such as the Phoenicians) and then they 
adopted this minimalized form, but this is all wild conjecture — no real 
solid evidence supports this idea.

But, it is also possible that they had a larger alphabet, but reduced the number of letters over time while 
still retaining the phonetic distinctions. The current alphabet used for English at one time had a number 
of additional letters, such as: thorn, eth/edh, wynn. It is the letter thorn that is the root behind the 
mistake people make of saying "ye olde pub" instead of "the olde pub". Your point on 
the printing presses is right-on, as their adoption was the "decisive blow" to kill off those 
letters from our alphabet, as you implied in your post.

--
Ratson Naharädama
Denver, Colorado