...
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.
... 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.
...
What I called Paleo-Hebrew is what experts call Paleo-Hebrew,
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-July/009788.html ...
... 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. ...
... As for what you thinkDate 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.
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.
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. ...
There is no particular reason why the already separatedI 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.
Judeans and Samaritans could not have used the palaeo-Hebrew script in
parallel from say the 5th to the 1st century BCE
... Again, Hebrew script, when speakingThis 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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.