Johnny Skeptic

I do not know whether or not readers will find this to be interesting, but here it is:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/509/bible_myths.html

Casper

Thanks Spin. No I meant Ayin, the circle letter. Zayin (I believe) is fairly discernible between the het and tet.

So even within this one example we see a host of variations; kind of difficult to claim rosetta status for the whole of paleo-hebrew/canaanite text

I notice near the top center (second line) there is something that I would have thought a resh, next to a distinct (comparatively) ded. But I don't see it repeated on the bottom, where I do see the ded (in it's traditional place). As for a waw or vav, in the bottom line, isn't it right there between the he and the het, where it could be expected? We know that this is a little bit out of order from modern convention, but not that much, and we can tell that it is not a zayin, which is two positions over.

So there is a good candidate for a waw if we make the mystery letter a resh, but not the other way around (unless the qof is actually the resh, but then where is the qof?).

I notice on the third, short line we see a word (???) with three of the mysterious lollipop letters in it. One looks more like a resh, one like a zayin, and if we follow the abcedary at the bottom that must be a tsadi and something else I can't guess.

Does that provide any clue that the writer intended a waw to look like the mystery lollipop character or not?

Casper

It might help to number the line from left to right and toss out the obvious ones. Here is my starting list:

Note: I am slowly revising this list as we go instead of creating a new post, at least for now

1 Alef
2 Bet
3 Gimel
4 Dalet (cas) Resh (Dotan) (??)
5 He
6 Waw (cas) Mem (spin) (??)
7 Het
8 Zayin (??)
9 (unintentional scratch ??)
10 Tet
11 Yod
12 Kaf or maybe Mem (??)
13 Lamed
14 (unintentional dot or maybe the missing waw ??)
15 Mem or Nun (??)
16 Samek
17 Pe (??)
18 Ayin
19 Tsadi (??)
20 Qof
21 Resh (cas, spin) or Waw (Dotan) (??)
22 Sin/Shin (cas, dave) Mem (Dotan) (??)
23 Taw

If we discard the two I chalk up to "typos" then that gives us 21, but I think I need 22.
So, David (or anyone really), care to revise this list to your liking? This is just a start, I can't really back this up with any degree of authority.

spin

OK, I was taking the dot above the zayin as the dot you meant.

Between the he and the xet is the mem! (downstroke with a squiggle on top ) -- which is way out of order.

I just can't see a waw.

Seems like (left to right) [sin] umm tsade, mem, qof (or maybe resh), lamed, resh, qof -- working on the assumption that the loop of the qof is larger than that of the resh as in the last line.

In the other texts of the era, Zayit and the Gezer "calendar", the waw looks like "v" with a long down stroke through the point.

(Another slight brain fart above -- I said sin instead of tsade. The latter is correct.)


spin

Casper

yes, I acknowledge that what I call the tsad looks more like what I would expect for a waw, but if that is a waw where is the tsad?

Likewise, if that is a mem, then it makes another one a nun, but then where is the waw?

I chose the sixth letter for my waw because it is a long line with a squiggle on top, which I think is an alternative variant as well as the positioning. That is the method to my madness, nothing else.

edit: I could agree with the mem if the others were cleared up a little, like the nun and the waw. I was thinking it looked somewhat like the modern hebrew waw only longer, as if the hook on top is a little overdone

Check the list and see what you think is totally reasonable so I can reduce the candidates. Assuming you have the time.

Anyone else, chime in. Don't be shy, I am definitely no authority so it isn't too difficult.

Casper

I should have gone back to Ben's post:



what I call a waw and spin calls a mem appears to have a dot which would be a nikkud. If it is actually a mem, would it be valid to have the dot?

And look at the line directly above, second letter. Now THAT looks like what we might expect for a waw with nikkud. But I don't see a good equivalent below that.

spin

As I said there's no waw in the alphabet line!

Look at the mem on the Zayit stone where it is much more precisely done.


spin

Casper

That just confused me more.

I see on the second line where there is what I would identify as a mem, with the zigzags leaning to the leaft and the staff straight down.

Then on the bottom line I see what looks more like our waw/mem problem letter, and positionally it corresponds better to a mem. Not sure why it is there twice. Going to have to study it as little more.

Sure wish these guys had used a template

David Rohl

A very good and interesting discussion on the letters of the Izbet Sartah ostracon. I included it in the three slides I put up because I had discussed it with a Dutch PhD biblical scholar. I raised the point that the second of the two 'lollipops' on the last/bottom row (the abecedary) was in the normal position for resh, but he pointed out that, in his opinion:

(a) the order of the letters is not consistent with the final version and letters are out of place, so waw may not be located in its normal position;

(b) letters are missing from the list - most importantly waw is not where it should be;

(c) there is a perfectly good resh (P) on the far right of the ostracon (third letter from the right), so the writer was quite capable of drawing the sign properly;

(d) Dotan argued that the wavy sign (next to last in the abecedary is the missing M and not Sh, so the usual end sequence is corrupted anyway (I personally don't agree with this as the sign actually corresponds well with the proto-Sinaitic glyph for Sh (a composite bow).

I therefore take spin's criticism on board that the proposed waw could be resh.

The view that one of the two lollipops is the missing waw is not mine (but I think it is a possibility, given the comments above). However, the Lachish VI ostracon does demonstrate that (a) waw in the 10th century could be represented by a loop on a stem (the lollipop) and (b) that this is the same sign for qoph (as in the Izbet Sartah ostracon). So, the real point that needs to be addressed here is whether anyone wishes to challenge the argument that a 10th-century scribe would/could have written the names Sysw and Shyshk in the same way.

Casper

Thanks David. I am enjoying the discussion.

If that letter is the Resh, then we have to identify the Gimel or call it missing. I am wary because I don't see them as being too awfully misplaced, and that makes a good Gimel. If what I have noted as Pe is actually a Gimel, then where is the Pe? And would a resh have a nikkud? (or is that dot on the stylized drawing from Ben a mistake?).

Would you like to take a stab at my list? There is no axe to grind here, it just looked like a fun exercise and something I could at least attempt.