Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-11-2013, 01:43 PM

Rollsston Epigraphy blog: The Decipherment of the New ‘Incised Jerusalem Pithos’

Detailed discussion of why this is "Early Alphabetic" = Proto-Canaanite as oppposed to Phoenician

Quote:

Significantly, (1) the script of this new “Iron Age Incised Jerusalem Pithos” reflects the (varied) stance of letters in the Early Alphabetic script (e.g., the stance of nun is precisely the reverse of the normal stance in the Phoenician alphabet and its congeners in the National Scripts from later periods). (2) Moreover, this inscription is decipherable and it is written dextrograde, that is, from left-to-right. As noted, Phoenician was consistently written sinistrograde. Thus, there is is sufficient evidence to state that the script of this inscription should be classified as Early Alphabetic (i.e., “Proto-Canaanite”), not Phoenician. In short, Ahituv’s classification is certainly correct.

In terms of the palaeographic date for this inscription, I would be most comfortable with the 11th century BCE, rather than the 10th century BCE. The primary reasons for this dating are (1) the direction of writing (dextrograde); and (2) the fact that the five strokes of mem are of approximate equal length . . . In other words, I date this inscription prior to the rise of David and Solomon. Thus, again, I find myself in happy agreement with Professor Ahituv.

End result: the inscription most probably reads "pot belonging to Ner."

Duvduv · 07-11-2013, 04:28 PM

Maybe it's even from a jar brought along from Sheba which is why the script is unknown..........Sheba being either in Aden or across the water in Ethiopia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

according to the Biblical accounts Jerusalem only became an Israelite city c 1000 BCE and only had a completed temple to Yahweh c 950 BCE. This inscription is possibly older than the reign of Solomon.

Andrew Criddle

credoconsolans · 07-11-2013, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Rollsston Epigraphy blog: The Decipherment of the New ‘Incised Jerusalem Pithos’

Detailed discussion of why this is "Early Alphabetic" = Proto-Canaanite as oppposed to Phoenician

Quote:

Significantly, (1) the script of this new “Iron Age Incised Jerusalem Pithos” reflects the (varied) stance of letters in the Early Alphabetic script (e.g., the stance of nun is precisely the reverse of the normal stance in the Phoenician alphabet and its congeners in the National Scripts from later periods). (2) Moreover, this inscription is decipherable and it is written dextrograde, that is, from left-to-right. As noted, Phoenician was consistently written sinistrograde. Thus, there is is sufficient evidence to state that the script of this inscription should be classified as Early Alphabetic (i.e., “Proto-Canaanite”), not Phoenician. In short, Ahituv’s classification is certainly correct.

In terms of the palaeographic date for this inscription, I would be most comfortable with the 11th century BCE, rather than the 10th century BCE. The primary reasons for this dating are (1) the direction of writing (dextrograde); and (2) the fact that the five strokes of mem are of approximate equal length . . . In other words, I date this inscription prior to the rise of David and Solomon. Thus, again, I find myself in happy agreement with Professor Ahituv.

End result: the inscription most probably reads "pot belonging to Ner."

LOL. Agree. Many pots from the Mediterranean basin areas had writing on them, most of them either said "I belong to X" or very business-like "X's olive oil/wine"

andrewcriddle · 07-11-2013, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

according to the Biblical accounts Jerusalem only became an Israelite city c 1000 BCE…

Which accounts?

We have different stories of Joshua, Caleb, and David conquering Jerusalem. We have competing stories of Jerusalem being both an Israelite city and a non-Israelite city under king Saul. The people writing those stories weren't writing history.

Where does it say that Jerusalem was Israelite under King Saul ?

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

You probably are referring to 1 Samuel 17:54 (David and Goliath)

Quote:

And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his armor in his tent.

It is difficult to make sense of this verse as it stands and it may be a late gloss although it is found in both the Masoretic and the LXX.

Tenorikuma · 07-11-2013, 11:27 PM

Yes, that's the reference.

1 Samuel is a bit of a train wreck when it comes to keeping its stories straight.

semiopen · 07-12-2013, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by credoconsolans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Rollsston Epigraphy blog: The Decipherment of the New ‘Incised Jerusalem Pithos’

Detailed discussion of why this is "Early Alphabetic" = Proto-Canaanite as oppposed to Phoenician

End result: the inscription most probably reads "pot belonging to Ner."

LOL. Agree. Many pots from the Mediterranean basin areas had writing on them, most of them either said "I belong to X" or very business-like "X's olive oil/wine"

Why not, seems more realistic than proof for the presence of an official bureaucracy.

Though one has to wonder about why Ner took the trouble of saying "pot belonging to" instead of just "Ner"

When I went to camp, my mother would just write "semiopen" on my shirt not "shirt belonging to semiopen."

Minimalist · 07-12-2013, 07:55 PM

Quote:

End result: the inscription most probably reads "pot belonging to Ner."

Could leave Mazar without a pot to piss in...as usual.

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

07-11-2013, 11:27 PM	#15
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	Yes, that's the reference. 1 Samuel is a bit of a train wreck when it comes to keeping its stories straight.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.