Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 03-19-2009, 06:54 PM

I recall reading about very primitive Paleo-Hebrew writing being inscribed into rocks, what makes it identifiably and quite unmistakably "Hebrew", is that the letters form known "Hebrew" words, names, and phrases from the Hebrew language, rather than Phoenecian, or common Cannanite.

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Bar Kokhba's letters from Nahal Hever were written in square script. I think post-Babylonian exile Phoenician script was only used for short bits of writing such as a name on a coin. I recall seeing texts in square script with YHWH in Phoenician script.

There is mention in the Talmud that post exile the Samaritans wrote their language in 'Hebrew' script while the Jews wrote Hebrew in Babylonian script.

Can you a bit more specific about the inscriptions of YHWH in Phoenician on coins? What time time frame are we talking?
Thanks.

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I recall reading about very primitive Paleo-Hebrew writing being inscribed into rocks, what makes it identifiably and quite unmistakably "Hebrew", is that the letters form known "Hebrew" words, names, and phrases from the Hebrew language, rather than Phoenecian, or common Cannanite.

Heres a simple analogy. Summerian tablets are found in ancient Ur, referencing there own mythology, culture and history. How are inscriptions that were found and dated 9th and 10th century determined to be Hebrew?? What is the bench mark for Hebrew in that time frame?

semiopen · 03-19-2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I've been looking at Paleo Hebrew a little but only in the last few days, and not in any depth, so forgive any errors here.

This topic seems to be of immense importance.

I've seem some attributions to the Samaritans, whether this comes from Samaria or the Hebrew Shomer (watch) is a question in itself.

The little I've read said it may have been in use in the 10th century BCE and modern Hebrew letters replaced them soon after the exile. Yet I also saw that some coins etc. from Bar Kochba times (135 CE) also use it.

I'm not sure how the Talmud handles this issue, or even if they deal with it. Seems to me, if something is passed down from Moses in an unbroken change, something like a complete change in letters would be worth mentioning.

They say that Rabbi Akiba could understand the little curly ques they put on some letters in the Torah, but how could this be if the letters were different? The Bar Kochba "evidence" makes me more confused, because R. Akiba thought Bar Kochba was the messiah.

Probably this stuff is all well known, kind of interesting for me though, it's not everyday a new area of study opens up.

My focus is a determination based on a STAND ALONE analysis. Forgive me but Im not particular concerned with the Talmud or what writers near the turn of the century had to say. Oral traditions (passed down from Moses) also don't cut it.

Can you elaborate on the 135 CE coins that used it?

It's a matter of googling Bar Kochba Paleo Hebrew for example.

Anat's comment, above about it's appropriateness for coins seems very perceptive to me. Some of the guys here are pretty sharp.

Sorry if my comments about the Talmud bored you. I personally find the subject very interesting.

DCHindley · 03-19-2009, 07:28 PM

According to James D Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (1968)

The development of paleo-Hebrew can be traced from the sixth century B.C. to the second century A.D. One begins with the Lashish ostraca and Gibeon jar handles and with the seals and stamps of the Persian and Greek periods, proceeds through the forms seen in the Hasmonaean coins and paleo-Hebrew texts from the Hasmonaean period from Qumran, which concludes with forms known from the Roman period in coins of the first and second revolts. From these forms it is evident that the paleo-Hebrew script remained fairly static from the fifth to the second century B.C., but began to develop with greater rapidity through the Hasmonaean and Roman periods.

Besides this, there is the Siloam inscription originally discovered in an 8th century B.C. water tunnel under Jerusalem, which is a tablet that described the construction of the tunnel under king Hezekiah. It is possibly the oldest extant record written in Hebrew using the paleo-Hebrew alphabet. The newer "box" script borrowed from Aramaic starts appearing in Judaea around ther 4th century B.C., but the older paleo-Hebrew script existed side by side with it through the 1st century A.D.

The Samaritans also used the paleo-Hebrew script, but the earliest examples are inscriptions from the Roman period (1st century A.D. or possibly 1st century B.C. and extending to the 6th century A.D. or so, the time of the emperor Justinian). They also had peculiar forms for certain letters. Purvis thinks their script, and their sect as well, split from that used in Judaism practice in the Hasmonaean period.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Paleo Hebrew is just the older script used to write the Hebrew language before the "box" script was adopted. Just like the "box" script was borrowed from the Aramaic language, the older "Paleo" script was borrowed from the Phoenicians.

How do we know the ancient Hebrews wrote that way? Because we have ancient inscriptions that use Hebrew grammar which were written that way.

Is this thread going to turn into an Emily Latella skit from Saturday Night Live? "What's all this fuss about Youth-in-Asia?" followed by a loooong rambling dissertation that makes no sense. Jane says "Emily, that's 'euthanasia'." "Oh ... never mind ..." she admits, then finds a way to draw a pointless moral out of all the rambling.

DCH

Hmmm, I missed that set, will have to check it out. In any case, lets hope it doesn't come to that so I'll keep it simple. You said "Because we have ancient inscriptions that use Hebrew grammar which were written that way."

To that I ask, what ancient inscriptions and on what basis where these inscriptions determined to be the works of Hebrews? Benchmark?

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

My focus is a determination based on a STAND ALONE analysis. Forgive me but Im not particular concerned with the Talmud or what writers near the turn of the century had to say. Oral traditions (passed down from Moses) also don't cut it.

Can you elaborate on the 135 CE coins that used it?

It's a matter of googling Bar Kochba Paleo Hebrew for example.

Anat's comment, above about it's appropriateness for coins seems very perceptive to me. Some of the guys here are pretty sharp.

Sorry if my comments about the Talmud bored you. I personally find the subject very interesting.

Oh no, boredom isnt my issue at all. Im am simply looking for a external evidence which disqualifies the Talmud.

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

According to James D Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (1968)

The development of paleo-Hebrew can be traced from the sixth century B.C. to the second century A.D. One begins with the Lashish ostraca and Gibeon jar handles and with the seals and stamps of the Persian and Greek periods, proceeds through the forms seen in the Hasmonaean coins and paleo-Hebrew texts from the Hasmonaean period from Qumran, which concludes with forms known from the Roman period in coins of the first and second revolts. From these forms it is evident that the paleo-Hebrew script remained fairly static from the fifth to the second century B.C., but began to develop with greater rapidity through the Hasmonaean and Roman periods.

Besides this, there is the Siloam inscription originally discovered in an 8th century B.C. water tunnel under Jerusalem, which is a tablet that described the construction of the tunnel under king Hezekiah. It is possibly the oldest extant record written in Hebrew using the paleo-Hebrew alphabet. The newer "box" script borrowed from Aramaic starts appearing in Judaea around ther 4th century B.C., but the older paleo-Hebrew script existed side by side with it through the 1st century A.D.

The Samaritans also used the paleo-Hebrew script, but the earliest examples are inscriptions from the Roman period (1st century A.D. or possibly 1st century B.C. and extending to the 6th century A.D. or so, the time of the emperor Justinian). They also had peculiar forms for certain letters. Purvis thinks their script, and their sect as well, split from that used in Judaism practice in the Hasmonaean period.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Hmmm, I missed that set, will have to check it out. In any case, lets hope it doesn't come to that so I'll keep it simple. You said "Because we have ancient inscriptions that use Hebrew grammar which were written that way."

To that I ask, what ancient inscriptions and on what basis where these inscriptions determined to be the works of Hebrews? Benchmark?

Interesting. Allow me to digest this.

Sheshbazzar · 03-19-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I recall reading about very primitive Paleo-Hebrew writing being inscribed into rocks, what makes it identifiably and quite unmistakably "Hebrew", is that the letters form known "Hebrew" words, names, and phrases from the Hebrew language, rather than Phoenician, or common Cannanite.

Heres a simple analogy. Summerian tablets are found in ancient Ur, referencing there own mythology, culture and history. How are inscriptions that were found and dated 9th and 10th century determined to be Hebrew?? What is the bench mark for Hebrew in that time frame?

I'm not sure of what you are requesting? If the words and phrases -are- Hebrew why would you think they were other than Hebrew origin?
Do you think the Siloam inscription, or the Gezer Calendar may have been forged by the Phoenicians or the Canaanites?:huh:

semiopen · 03-19-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

It's a matter of googling Bar Kochba Paleo Hebrew for example.

Anat's comment, above about it's appropriateness for coins seems very perceptive to me. Some of the guys here are pretty sharp.

Sorry if my comments about the Talmud bored you. I personally find the subject very interesting.

Oh now, boredom isnt my issue at all. Im am simply looking for a external evidence which disqualifies the Talmud.

I'm not sure how simple the answer is. From my meager knowledge it isn't clear if the Hebrew bible was originally written in Paleo Hebrew. If it wasn't, this would seem to indicate that is was written after the exile. If it was, the normal circa 700 BCE date is consistent. The paleo coins and R. Akiba existing simultaneously bother me though, just seems significant somehow, and deserves further study.

Like I said, probably there has been serious work done on this, but I'm a complete novice in this area and don't know.

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohene

Heres a simple analogy. Summerian tablets are found in ancient Ur, referencing there own mythology, culture and history. How are inscriptions that were found and dated 9th and 10th century determined to be Hebrew?? What is the bench mark for Hebrew in that time frame?

I'm not sure of what you are requesting? If the words and phrases -are- Hebrew why would you think they were other than Hebrew origin?
Do you think the Siloam inscription, or the Gezer Calendar may have been forged by the Phoenicians or the Canaanites?:huh:

Are you submitting the "Siloam inscription" and the "Gezer Calender" as 9th - 10th cent hebrew writings? Im afraid your assuming if that I am familiar with this info...

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

03-19-2009, 06:54 PM	#11
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I recall reading about very primitive Paleo-Hebrew writing being inscribed into rocks, what makes it identifiably and quite unmistakably "Hebrew", is that the letters form known "Hebrew" words, names, and phrases from the Hebrew language, rather than Phoenecian, or common Cannanite.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.