Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Ishinan Ishibashi:

In response to my statement that we should “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”, you wrote:

“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.”

In fact, that’s the very point that I  w-a-n-t  to make.   The oldest written parts of the Torah could have been recorded in writing in one of only two basic ways:  (i) in cuneiform, presumably using west Semitic words, or (ii) using the alphabet (to write either Hebrew or a forerunner of Hebrew).  The problem with everyone’s preference and dream of an old sacred writing using the alphabet is that even on the eve of King David’s reign, centuries after the events related in the Torah, the alphabet was in such rudimentary form regarding Hebrew or a forerunner of Hebrew that it could not possibly have been used to record any grand work of literature such as a portion of the Torah.

The Qeiyafa Ostracon demonstrates why no part of the Torah could have been recorded in alphabetical Hebrew writing in the Bronze Age.  The Qeiyafa Ostracon is the only writing from 1,000 BCE [well into the Iron Age, just before King David’s time] or earlier that might be claimed to be Hebrew.

Note first that the Qeiyafa Ostracon is indecipherable.  Moreover, it’s likely not Hebrew, and it’s definitely not the Hebrew alphabetical script.  Here’s the site for Christopher Rollston’s excellent article, “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon:  Methodological Musings and Caveats”:

http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_Musings_and_Caveats

It’s clear that the Qeiyafa Ostracon is not written right to left, though it’s not clear how it is written.  And the direction of most of the letters varies.  This is Early Alphabetic, which was followed by Phoenician, and only later by Old Hebrew script.

As to the Qeiyafa Ostracon, scholars cannot agree as to what words are there, what direction the writing is, whether it’s merely a list of names, and what the meaning may be.  By sharp contrast, every west Semitic word written in cuneiform in the Amarna Letters is clearly known.  Yes, in part that’s because in most cases we have an Akkadian synonym, which makes things easy.  But even if these west Semitic words written in cuneiform were extracted from the Amarna texts and shown out of context, we have seen that in many cases their Biblical Hebrew equivalents would be readily discernible.  As a British Museum official breathlessly exuded in 1892 as to the west Semitic words in the Amarna Letters:  “They closely resemble the Hebrew of the Old Testament.”  Yes!

The point is that alphabetical Hebrew could not have been used to record the Patriarchal narratives in the Late Bronze Age, because even as of 1000 BCE, long after the end of the Late Bronze Age, alphabetical Hebrew was in such a rudimentary stage that it could not possibly have been used to record such a grand, complex composition.  Rather, the effective way to write west Semitic words in the Late Bronze Age was by using cuneiform, the Amarna Letters way.  It’s child’s play to match mid-14^th century BCE west Semitic words in the Amarna Letters to classic Biblical Hebrew words from 7^th century BCE Jerusalem, whereas by sharp contrast, scholars cannot agree as to much of anything as to the rudimentary alphabetical script of the Qeiyafa Ostracon from about 1000 BCE.  Thus the  o-n-l-y  way that the oldest part of the Torah could be coming directly from a Late Bronze Age writing is by means of cuneiform being used to write down west Semitic words, à la the Amarna Letters.  That is to say, any claim for historical accuracy as to the oldest part of the Torah can only be premised on Amarna Letters-style cuneiform being used to record west Semitic words in writing.

The Patriarchal narratives must have been written on about 50 clay tablets, weighing a total of only 15 pounds or so, and these tablets must have been carried with the early Hebrews in a sacred chest wherever the early Hebrews went.  Rather than being a pleasant myth, that’s the  o-n-l-y  way the received text can begin with MLK  -Y-  )L in Year 13 and end with G$N, contain dozens of Hurrian proper names with accurate spellings, and feature semi-monotheistic religious leader Abraham dying at age 17½ tenfold shanah while Jacob is a semi-monotheistic religious leader of his people in Egypt for 17 shanah.  The numbers, the proper names, and the substantive content are all utterly redolent of the Amarna Age, all the way in every way, and cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be Iron Age fiction.  Rather, this accurate information in the received unpointed Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives was recorded on cuneiform tablets, using west Semitic words, at the end of the Amarna Age, and to this very day there have been very few changes to the numbers, proper names, or substantive content.  If you’re looking for pinpoint historical accuracy in the Bible that is fully verifiable based on non-biblical sources, then look no farther than the Patriarchal narratives, which were originally recorded on cuneiform tablets in the mid-14^th century BCE using west Semitic words.

Forget the alphabet.  Think cuneiform!

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois