Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 02-15-2010, 08:45 AM

Christopher Rollston lends some sanity to the debate:

http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56

Professor Galil of Haifa University, gets some well deserved criticism on ethics and scholarship:

http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/galil.asp

Minimalist · 02-15-2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

6. Those stating that the Qeiyafa Ostracon is written in the Hebrew language are probably stating more than the data allow. Among the words that have been mentioned in various places (publications, blogs, etc.) as demonstrative of Hebrew are the following:

A. ‘bd (“do,” “make,” or as a nominal “servant”). However, this root is attested in the Ugaritic language (Late Bronze Age), Phoenician, Old Aramaic, and Egyptian Aramaic (i.e, various Iron Age dialects and languages). Therefore, any suggestion that the presence of the root is demonstrative of Hebrew does not have a secure basis for their arguments.

B. špṭ (i.e., shin, pe, tet). This root, however, is not attested just in Hebrew. Rather, it is, for example, attested in Ugaritic, Phoenician, and in Amorite (see Huffmon), and also in Akkadian. Therefore, it cannot be said that the presence of this word is some sort of an isogloss for Old Hebrew.

C. ‘śh (‘ayin, sin, he, “to do,” “to make”). Again, this word is not one that only occurs in Hebrew. Note, for example, that it also occurs in Ugaritic, Moabite, and even Old South Arabic (demonstrating its presence across much of the landscape of Semitic languages). Note that Benz (1972, 385) suggests that the root may occur in a Phoenician PN, but he also notes that this is not certain. Finally, it should be stated that although this verb(al) [with the negative] is more capable of functioning as an isogloss (for this inscription as written in Old Hebrew), I would suggest that it is not absolutely decisive.

D. The word ’lmnh (“widow”). This root is attested in multiple Northwest Semitic dialects. Most importantly, it has been (by Galil) partially restored. Note that Demsky doesn’t even read this word. Obviously, one should not put great emphasis on a word that is partially restored. Certainly it cannot be the basis for a linguistic classification.

E. mlk (“king,” or “rule”). This word is attested in numerous Northwest Semitic languages, certainly not just Hebrew; therefore, it cannot be used as some sort of isogloss.

The end result of this is that I am not at all certain that the dialect of this inscription can be determined with certitude.

This whole thing had a whiff of desperation from the start. (Much as the holiday revelation that a first century 'house' had been found in Nazareth.) The simple fact is that there are no ancient Hebrew texts, biblical or otherwise, until we get down to the Hasmonean period to use as a comparison. What we have is a handful of inscriptions from much later times. For Garfinkle to assert that these were "Hebrew" words when we have no idea if "Hebrew" even existed at the time (10th century) seemed over the top.

It is good that Rollston has fired up the debate.

02-15-2010, 08:45 AM	#41
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	More on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon Christopher Rollston lends some sanity to the debate: http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56 Professor Galil of Haifa University, gets some well deserved criticism on ethics and scholarship: http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/galil.asp

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.