Ancient Jews more literate than previously thought

[shunyadragon]

And there is evidence that Hebrew texts written with the Canaanite alphabet did exist.

There is evidence of all the Canaanite tribes of the Levant using the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet for legal and commercial purposes of communication, but no specific religious text concerning Hebrew before 800-600 BCE. The Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, and Canaanite religious beliefs and Gos by the archaeological evidence.

Once a new alphabet was established, anything written in the former script would have become obsolete.

This is more related to the natural evolution of language and the tribal identity of the Hebrews as they became a kingdom after 800 BCE. Based on commercial trade dominance from the phoenician/Egyptian alphabet to the West the Greek and then Latin written alphabet language evolved, and in the Levant the Hebrew language evolved

Hebrews had little interest in producing monuments, and writing materials, predominantly ink on plastered tablets of wood or clay it seems, were quite ephemeral. That leaves inscribed soft metals as the medium, for which there is also some evidence. The problem with the latter is that such things made good plunder.

This is a problem of your attempting an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the absence of written records of Hebrew before the 800-600 BCE. ALL advanced cultures of the region and as a matter of fact and in the world used stone and clay tablet medium to record communications and records.. You cannot demonstrate any sort of hypothetical lack of interest among Hebrews The Hebrews had only limited use of Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet for apparently commercial trade,and legal matters. Parchment remnants and records survive throughout the Middle East in the advanced cultures.

It remains the current evidence is what we have to go on. The Canaanite/Phoenician/Ugarite culture dominated the Levant, the Hebrews were a minor Canaanite tribe until 800 BCE, Th large libraries of these cultures reflect this dominance, and that these writings as well as Babylonian and Sumerian writings were important in the compilation of the Pentateuch.

Recording records on soft metals is not common in all the cultures of the Levant, Egypt, and the Middle East in general.

Yes, the evidence cited in this thread, as well as the silver scrolls at approximately 600 BCD do support the evolution of the Hebrew language between 800-600 BCE.

[tabibito]

There is evidence of all the Canaanite tribes of the Levant using the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet for legal and commercial purposes of communication, but no specific religious text concerning Hebrew before 800-600 BCE. The Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, and Canaanite religious beliefs and Gos by the archaeological evidence.



This is more related to the natural evolution of language and the tribal identity of the Hebrews as they became a kingdom after 800 BCE. Based on commercial trade dominance from the phoenician/Egyptian alphabet to the West the Greek and then Latin written alphabet language evolved, and in the Levant the Hebrew language evolved




This is a problem of your attempting an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the absence of written records of Hebrew before the 800-600 BCE. ALL advanced cultures of the region and as a matter of fact and in the world used stone and clay tablet medium to record communications and records.. You cannot demonstrate any sort of hypothetical lack of interest among Hebrews The Hebrews had only limited use of Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet for apparently commercial trade,and legal matters. Parchment remnants and records survive throughout the Middle East in the advanced cultures.

It remains the current evidence is what we have to go on. The Canaanite/Phoenician/Ugarite culture dominated the Levant, the Hebrews were a minor Canaanite tribe until 800 BCE, Th large libraries of these cultures reflect this dominance, and that these writings as well as Babylonian and Sumerian writings were important in the compilation of the Pentateuch.

Recording records on soft metals is not common in all the cultures of the Levant, Egypt, and the Middle East in general.

Yes, the evidence cited in this thread, as well as the silver scrolls at approximately 600 BCD do support the evolution of the Hebrew language between 800-600 BCE.

The existence of a Hebrew language, Canaanite script fragment dating from the 10th century BCE mentioning the king and his social responsibilities sort of calls that into question.

the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea ... if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. "It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel." ... the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

[shunyadragon]

The existence of a Hebrew language, Canaanite script fragment dating from the 10th century BCE mentioning the king and his social responsibilities sort of calls that into question.

the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea ... if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. "It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel." ... the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

Reference? There are not widespread examples at this time to Proto Canaanite text used among Hebrews to justify the above conclusion in the 10th century. There are only a few scrapes of Proto Canaanite script known,

This not Hebrew language it is Proto Canaanite/Phoenician which is used throughout the Levant, Again NOT Hebrew writen language. Hebrew written language is not known until after 800-600 BCE.

[tabibito]

Reference? There are not widespread examples at this time to Proto Canaanite text used among Hebrews to justify the above conclusion in the 10th century. There are only a few scrapes of Proto Canaanite script known,

One of which is of reasonable length, and demonstrates the refined use of a well developed written language.

This not Hebrew language it is Proto Canaanite/Phoenician which is used throughout the Levant, Again NOT Hebrew writen language. Hebrew written language is not known until after 800-600 BCE.

Paleo-Hebrew: words used in the text are distinctly Hebrew, different words being used by other languages which shared the script. Hebrew words could not have been written in the Hebrew alphabet - it did not exist. Again and yet again, we do not write Latin, but we use the Latin alphabet to write English words. The same principle applies.

The citation, yet again, Per EurekAlert (University of Haifa, peer reviewed) as stated in post 52 this thread. Similar claims have been referenced more than a few times from other sources over a term of years.

You just recently criticised H_A for ignoring documented evidence, and now here you are, still ignoring documented evidence.

[shunyadragon]

One of which is of reasonable length, and demonstrates the refined use of a well developed written language. One source.

There are no other sources. This one tablet is in on of the many variations of the Phoenician alphabet. Hypothetical other tablets or writing does not represent a claim of wide spread evidence of writings among the Hebrews.

[cote] https://www.google.com/search?q=Prot...rome&ie=UTF-8]

The Phoenician alphabet is an alphabet (more specifically, an abjad)^[3] known in modern times from the Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions found across the Mediterranean region. The name comes from the Phoenician civilization.

The Phoenician alphabet is also called the Early Linear script (in a Semitic context, not connected to Minoan writing systems), because it is an early development of the Proto- or Old Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic script, into a linear, purely alphabetic script, also marking the transfer from a multi-directional writing system, where a variety of writing directions occurred, to a regulated horizontal, right-to-left script.^[4] Its immediate predecessor, the Proto-Canaanite, Old Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic script,^[5][4] used in the final stages of the Late Bronze Age, first in either Egypt or Canaan and then in the Syro-Hittite kingdoms, is the oldest fully matured alphabet, and it was derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. [/cite]

What is calle Proto- Hebrew is just one of many variations of Proto-Canaanite, because the Canaanites and Phoenicians dominated the region, and the Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, Canaanite culture and Canaanite polytheistic hierarchy religion, just like the other cultures that used variations of Proto-Canaanite writing.

Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Paleohispanic, Libyco-Berber,

South Semitic

Paleo-Hebrew: words used in the text are distinctly Hebrew, different words being used by other languages which shared the script. Hebrew words could not have been written in the Hebrew alphabet - it did not exist. Again and yet again, we do not write Latin, but we use the Latin alphabet to write English words. The same principle applies.

No not distinctly Hebrew, There are absolutely no other known writings from this sources. This one tablet is in Proto Canaanite not Hebrew writing, No the same principle does not apply except for the fact that like other daughter languages the Hebrew language conained vocabulary of Canaanite/Phoenician languages.



The citation, yet again, Per EurekAlert (University of Haifa, peer reviewed) as stated in post 52 this thread. Similar claims have been referenced more than a few times from other sources over a term of years.

University of Haifa is not an unbiased source claiming the existence of texts that do not exist before 800-600 BCE.

You just recently criticised H_A for ignoring documented evidence, and now here you are, still ignoring documented evidence.

Yes, with references. The above argument is based on just one tablet, and again . . . the hypothetical does not represent evidence. Other cultures in the region had libraries of tablets, and extensive other finds of long tablets

Again . . . the finds of Hebrew clay script dated from about 600 BCE is interesting, but nothing new, because it has already established that Hebrew writing existed at that time.

[tabibito]

There are no other sources. This one tablet is in on of the many variations of the Phoenician alphabet. Hypothetical other tablets or writing does not represent a claim of wide spread evidence of writings among the Hebrews.

[cote] https://www.google.com/search?q=Prot...rome&ie=UTF-8]

The Phoenician alphabet is an alphabet (more specifically, an abjad)^[3] known in modern times from the Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions found across the Mediterranean region. The name comes from the Phoenician civilization.

The Phoenician alphabet is also called the Early Linear script (in a Semitic context, not connected to Minoan writing systems), because it is an early development of the Proto- or Old Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic script, into a linear, purely alphabetic script, also marking the transfer from a multi-directional writing system, where a variety of writing directions occurred, to a regulated horizontal, right-to-left script.^[4] Its immediate predecessor, the Proto-Canaanite, Old Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic script,^[5][4] used in the final stages of the Late Bronze Age, first in either Egypt or Canaan and then in the Syro-Hittite kingdoms, is the oldest fully matured alphabet, and it was derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. [/cite]

What is calle Proto- Hebrew is just one of many variations of Proto-Canaanite, because the Canaanites and Phoenicians dominated the region, and the Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, Canaanite culture and Canaanite polytheistic hierarchy religion, just like the other cultures that used variations of Proto-Canaanite writing.

Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Paleohispanic, Libyco-Berber,

South Semitic

No not distinctly Hebrew, There are absolutely no other known writings from this sources. This one tablet is in Proto Canaanite not Hebrew writing, No the same principle does not apply except for the fact that like other daughter languages the Hebrew language conained vocabulary of Canaanite/Phoenician languages.



The citation, yet again, Per EurekAlert (University of Haifa, peer reviewed) as stated in post 52 this thread. Similar claims have been referenced more than a few times from other sources over a term of years.

University of Haifa is not an unbiased source claiming the existence of texts that do not exist before 800-600 BCE.



Yes, with references. The above argument is based on just one tablet, and again . . . the hypothetical does not represent evidence. Other cultures in the region had libraries of tablets, and extensive other finds of long tablets

Again . . . the finds of Hebrew clay script dated from about 600 BCE is interesting, but nothing new, because it has already established that Hebrew writing existed at that time.

Where are the citations of people who have challenged the findings and their reasons for the challenges? I haven't found any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Why would another nation use words that are uniquely Hebrew in their texts without explaining what those words mean?
Which of the other nations using the same alphabet at the time had social systems reflected by the content of the writing?

[shunyadragon]

You're confusing two different concepts here. One is how long a society has had writing. The other is what portion of a particular society is literate. The second is what is in view here; you're arguing regarding the first.

I am arguing the evidence, which is before 800-600 BCE there is only scrapes of Proto-Canaanite writing among the Hebrew, Arguing for what hypothetical other tablets and extensive writing before this is not acceptable.

[shunyadragon]

Per Encylopedia Britannica

Old Hebrew existed in inscription form in the early centuries of the 1st millennium bce.

Per Wikipedia

The earliest known examples of Paleo-Hebrew writing date to the 10th century BCE

Per EurekAlert (University of Haifa, peer reviewed)

Professor Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription on a pottery shard discovered in the Elah valley dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region.

The idea that nothing was written until about the sixth century BCE was well and truly scuttled in 2010.

Never claimed nothing was written before 800-600 BCE, but one tablet dated to 10th century is not evidence of extensive writing of some length like other cultures that have extensive writing, It is worthy of note that largest amount of the early actual texts of the Pentateuch and the Psalms can be traced to ancient Canaanite/Ugarit libraries, not any Hebrew or Proto-Canaanite among Hebrews, None absolutely none before 800-600 BCE.

[tabibito]

I am arguing the evidence, which is before 800-600 BCE there is only scrapes of Proto-Canaanite writing among the Hebrew, Arguing for what hypothetical other tablets and extensive writing before this is not acceptable.

Hypothetical?
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-in-jerusalem/
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1280
and then there is
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-and-language/
noting the existence of Hebrew language in non Hebrew script dating to 1200 BCE, with Christopher Rollston's assessment of the four oldest examples of Hebrew in non Hebrew scripts, including the Qeiyafa Ostracon
[box]The faded text on the Qeiyafa Ostracon has challenged potential translators; what is known is that its variations and left-to-right orientation signal a pre-Hebrew script deriving from Early Alphabetic rather than Phoenician writing.[/quote] Despite Rollston's identification of the writing as pre-Hebrew script, he is not satisfied that the language is Hebrew.
Rebuttals to Rollston's assessments are well founded, and would place the oldest extant Hebrew writing at 1200 BCE.

[shunyadragon]

Hypothetical?
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-in-jerusalem/
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1280
and then there is
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-and-language/
noting the existence of Hebrew language in non Hebrew script dating to 1200 BCE, with Christopher Rollston's assessment of the four oldest examples of Hebrew in non Hebrew scripts, including the Qeiyafa Ostracon
[box]The faded text on the Qeiyafa Ostracon has challenged potential translators; what is known is that its variations and left-to-right orientation signal a pre-Hebrew script deriving from Early Alphabetic rather than Phoenician writing.

Despite Rollston's identification of the writing as pre-Hebrew script, he is not satisfied that the language is Hebrew.
Rebuttals to Rollston's assessments are well founded, and would place the oldest extant Hebrew writing at 1200 BCE.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it is an extreme stretch to describe these texts as Hebrew when compared to the common variants of Proto-Canaanite texts found all over the Levant, The early alphabetic is likely what is found earlier in Egypt.

Yes hypothetical that there are many texts, I already acknowledged They have found a "few" pieces of inscribed pottery, but that is along way from claiming there were many texts/ In fact nothing significant concerning religious texts or government text ;ole on the Canaanite/Ugarit libraries and other tablets.

Other than the hypothetical Proto-Hebrew there are absolutely no extensive texts anything like in the Pentateuch compiled after 600 BCE.

Grasping a straws of a few scrapes of Proto Canaanite texts does not represent any extensive Hebrew texts before 600 BCE

[tabibito]

Despite Rollston's identification of the writing as pre-Hebrew script, he is not satisfied that the language is Hebrew.
Rebuttals to Rollston's assessments are well founded, and would place the oldest extant Hebrew writing at 1200 BCE.

I agree that it is an extreme stretch to describe these texts as Hebrew when compared to the common variants of Proto-Canaanite texts found all over the Levant, The early alphabetic is likely what is found earlier in Egypt.

Yes hypothetical that there are many texts, I already acknowledged They have found a "few" pieces of inscribed pottery, but that is along way from claiming there were many texts/ In fact nothing significant concerning religious texts or government text ;ole on the Canaanite/Ugarit libraries and other tablets.

Other than the hypothetical Proto-Hebrew there are absolutely no extensive texts anything like in the Pentateuch compiled after 600 BCE.

Grasping a straws of a few scrapes of Proto Canaanite texts does not represent any extensive Hebrew texts before 600 BCE

Grasping at straws - that would be a matter of extrapolating from what is not available - an argument from silence.
What IS available points away from your hypothesis.
Israel was not overly fond of monuments (an attitude mentioned in write-ups about the Siloam inscription) that continued through the Second Temple Period. The absence of monuments is not significant.
Israel was not a major player in 10th century BCE regional events - but it is mentioned on the 13th century BCE Merneptah stele (as a people). No significant number of scholars disputes the translation.
Israel is not mentioned in the Armana letters - which span a period of some thirty or forty years of the fourteenth century BCE. Hardly relevant to the existence of Israel a few hundred years later. Nonetheless, the Habiru people find mention in those letters: the only people for whom a cognate is known are the Hebrews, and they are mentioned in similar circumstances to those stated in the Bible. The fact that an unknown number of Armana letters were destroyed before their discovery by archaeologists is well documented - what they might have contained is unknowable.
The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon includes words that are distinctively Hebrew, and the walled town (where it was found and from which its name is derived) itself shows signs of distinctly Hebrew worship practices. The ostracon is not the only extant example of Hebrew language written in a foreign script. The eighth century Siloam inscription is written in Hebrew using Paleo-Hebrew (Canaanite) writing. The fact that Hebrew language is recorded in non-Hebrew script is hardly surprising - no distinctively Hebrew alphabet existed prior to the sixth century BCE. Nor is the practice of writing one language in the script of another anything unusual - it has been common practice throughout history and across the globe.

[shunyadragon]

Grasping at straws - that would be a matter of extrapolating from what is not available - an argument from silence.
What IS available points away from your hypothesis.

What is found is very very limited and just a viw short texts and scrpes on potery, and absolutely no religigious or legal text as in after 600 BCE.

Israel was not overly fond of monuments (an attitude mentioned in write-ups about the Siloam inscription) that continued through the Second Temple Period. The absence of monuments is not significant.
Israel was not a major player in 10th century BCE regional events - but it is mentioned on the 13th century BCE Merneptah stele (as a people). No significant number of scholars disputes the translation.
Israel is not mentioned in the Armana letters - which span a period of some thirty or forty years of the fourteenth century BCE. Hardly relevant to the existence of Israel a few hundred years later. Nonetheless, the Habiru people find mention in those letters: the only people for whom a cognate is known are the Hebrews, and they are mentioned in similar circumstances to those stated in the Bible. The fact that an unknown number of Armana letters were destroyed before their discovery by archaeologists is well documented - what they might have contained is unknowable.
The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon includes words that are distinctively Hebrew, and the walled town (where it was found and from which its name is derived) itself shows signs of distinctly Hebrew worship practices. The ostracon is not the only extant example of Hebrew language written in a foreign script. The eighth century Siloam inscription is written in Hebrew using Paleo-Hebrew (Canaanite) writing. The fact that Hebrew language is recorded in non-Hebrew script is hardly surprising - no distinctively Hebrew alphabet existed prior to the sixth century BCE. Nor is the practice of writing one language in the script of another anything unusual - it has been common practice throughout history and across the globe.

This is what amounts to 'arguing from ignorance when there is absolutely no stella, other stone tablets or lengthy religious or legal tablets like found in the Canaanite/Ugarit libraries and elsewhere. The above like in the biased articles you and others cited is 'airball' based on "what they might have contained is unknowable."

Yes the Hebrews wrote in Proto-Canaanite script before 600 BCE, but there is absolutely no extensive Hebrew religious, historical or legal texts found before 600 BCE, Absolutely none, zip, negatory nada,

The only texts related to the Pentateuch known before 600 BCE are Canaanite/Ugarit texts found in the their libraries, and archaeology, which establishes a direct link between Canaanite/Ugarit religions with the origins of Hebrew religion.,

.