Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

I wonder if that ostracon has ever been accurately deciphered?

I saw, I don’t remember where, a photograph of only part of the ostracon using a technique (apparently expensive) that brings out writing that is so faded that it’s invisible to normal analysis. The reason I bring this up is that in that photograph, one letter that has the form of a waw in visible analysis came up as a Dag (Dalet) in that special technique. There are other differences as well. I don’t remember what that technique is called, but if applied to the thole ostracon, what reading would we find?

Does anyone have further information on it?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Ishnian <ishinan AT comcast.net> wrote:

Jim wrote:  I believe that the famous Qeiyafa Ostracon may give us a pretty definitive answer to that question.  So I would like to turn now to taking a quick look at the first alphabetical writing that some scholars have called “Hebrew”, in order to ask whether alphabetical writing was a reasonable alternative to using cuneiform, if the first written version of the Patriarchal narratives was recorded in writing in the mid-14th century BCE.

 

Ishinan: Unfortunately, this a dead-end path for your suggestion above. As I recall,  Christopher Rollston*  disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription.

 

* see:Rollston, Christopher,  "The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon:
Methodological Musings and Caveats". Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, (June 2011)."

 

Best regards

 

Ishinan Ishibashi