The Ealriest Hebrew Inscriptions?

I recently received a request to evaluate a news report claiming that the earliest Hebrew inscriptions have been discovered in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.These inscriptions have been known for more than a century, so the inscriptions are not new. I was not there for the presentation so it is difficult to evaluate. This is what I wrote:

It is really difficult to assess a scholarly argument presented in a news story since reporters often garble the essential information. With only that to go on, I offer the following comments for your consideration.

(1) I do not know Petrovich or his previous work. His scholarship might be solid or shaky or anything in between. I do know Christopher Rollston (who is cited in the story). He is a good scholar and very conscientious. I would take anything that he says seriously. He sounds dubious and so there may be very good reasons to be skeptical of the claims presented in this story.

(2) From the story, it sounds like Petrovich is working from some basic assumptions about this script which is usually called Proto-Sinaitic. Most scholars assume that the writing is a Semitic language. One of the problems is that almost nothing in the script can actually be read. Some of the assumptions that Petrovich seems to be using have recently been challenged by Karl-Theodor Zauzich who has a very thought-provoking book on the origin of the alphabet. Zauzich points to fact that almost nothing makes sense in Semitic as an indication that the standard assignments (which Petrovich seems to follow) cannot be correct. He suggests others. If Zauzich is correct, Petrovich is probably not. I know Zauzich and he is also a very good scholar, although I am still considering his arguments.

(3) I think that it is probably best to wait until Petrovich's book comes out and his arguments and evidence can be fairly evaluated. Until then, take them with a grain of salt. The media likes sensational stories but is not very good at evaluating them.

Fortunately Christopher Rollston was at the presentation and has written a preliminary report on his blog. Those interested in the topic should consult it. Given what Rollston says about Petrovich's interpretation of Egyptian, I would be interested in seeing the argument.

Report on the Jerusalem Papyrus

For those who have been curious about the recent publicity given to the so-called Jerusalem papyrus. (See here, here, and here, for example.) Christopher Rollins, who is really good on Hebrew epigraphy, has a couple of posts on the subject on his blog. There are grammatical, lexicographical, and ductus problems with the papyrus that make it very likely that it is a forgery. More on the controversy can be found here.

Ancient Israelites More Literate Than We Thought

This news item in the New York Times argues that ancient Israelites were more literate than previously thought. We went through this all last year. I pointed out that:

• the Hebrew Bible notes its historical sources, 


• when those sources survive, they end up being accurately represented as sources,


• epigraphic sources indicate that Israelite scribes kept annals, 


• the epipgraphic finds from ancient Israel indicates widespread Israelite scribes (with a number now noted for the eleventh century)


• the epigraphic finds indicate a professional and literate scribal class,


• the epigraphic finds enable a rough calculation of the amount of literary material in the country,

This all serves to indicate that scribes and scribal activity in ancient Israel was greater than some biblical scholars would like it to be, and all this while not requiring literacy to be as widespread as the New York Times claims. Will some people believe it now that the New York Times says it?

More on the New Hebrew Inscription

As a follow-up on my post of yesterday, I saw this post by Christopher Rollston where he comes to the same conclusion about what the new inscriptions mean (I cite only the fourth of his six observations):

(4) The script of this inscription is that of a trained scribal professional. There is no doubt about this. The morphology of the letters was executed with precision and deftness. The spacing between words was careful and precise. The word dividers were nicely done and consistent. This inscription constitutes further evidence for the presence of trained scribal professionals in the southern Levant during the late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE (see Rollston 2006 for primary and secondary literature on scribalism and scribal education during the 9th through 6th centuries BCE). Those who wish to argue that there were no trained scribal professionals in ancient Israel and Judah during the 10th and 9th centuries continue to find themselves defending a position that is flying in the face of the epigraphic evidence for the entire southern Levant.

The Latest on Hebrew Inscriptions

Back in January, I listed the various Hebrew inscriptions according to date and in a series of posts (here, here, here, here, and here) discussed some of the implications of them.

The latest issue of BASOR arrived this week. Garfunkel, Golub, Miagav and Ganor mention that there are now six eleventh century inscriptions from the area of Israel.

This demonstrates how the accident of discovery impacts our reconstruction of history. By my count (which is subject to change) there are more eleventh century inscriptions known than there are tenth century ones.

What these new inscriptions mean is that the Israelite scribal apparatus dates about a century earlier than we previously thought.

It also shows that in certain areas it only takes a single find to completely change the subject.

Notes on Israelite Scribal Training II

Christopher Rollston is a good Hebrew epigrapher and because of his epigraphic perspective has some interesting and useful things to say about scribal education in ancient Israel.

It is worth noting that Rollston is not one of those who argues for high rates of literacy in ancient Israel:

The data do not support the contention that a high rate of literacy is a necessary corollary of a society with an alphabetic writing system.

 (Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], 128.)

Dramatic conclusions, such as the literacy of the non-elite populace, require dramatic evidence.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 131.)

Rollston cautions that the epigraphic record (such as I analyzed yesterday) can be misread:

It is often noted that there are more Old Hebrew inscriptions from the seventh through sixth centuries than there are from the eight and ninth centuries, which is seen as evidence that literacy was spreading among the populace. I would point our in respoinse that a small coterie of professional scribes during any chronological horizon could produce very large numbers of inscriptions without much difficulty.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 133.)

Nonetheless, Rollston notes that there is a remarkable consistency among the epigraphic material from ancient Israel. It is harder to detect individual hands. This consistency has a number of implications that Rollston draws out.

For example, some have argued for a functional literacy in ancient Israel, that is people who could read and write but were not very good at it (something like Joseph Smith in nineteenth century America). Some scholars have presumed that functional literacy was widespread; others have argued that illiteracy was so widespread that even the scribes were only functionally literate. Rollston addresses this issue:

The lion's share of the Old Hebrew epigraphic record does not reflect "functional literacy" of the script. It reflects the sophisticated knowledge of trained professionals.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 107.)

Rollston also addresses the issue of scribal education:

It is simply not convincing to attempt to account for the Old Hebrew epigraphic data without positing some sort of formal, standardized education. After all, the production of formal, standardized, and sophisticated epigraphs necessitates the presence of formal, standardized scribal education.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 113.)

As a result,

Professional scribes of Old Hebrew were among the most learned practitioners of writing and reading. Scribes were often part of the royal administration. The majority of the extant Old Hebrew inscriptions are administrative in nature.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 128.)

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that scribes were the only literate members of society:

Ultimately, I have argued that nothing else can account for the quality and consistency of these Old Hebrew epigraphs: formal, standardized scribal education is the most rational means of accounting for the quality of the Old Hebrew epigraphic materials. Nevertheless, I do not believe that those functioning as scribes were the only literate elites. Rather, I believe that at least some of the royal and temple officials would also have been literate.

(Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 129, emphasis in original.)

Rollston addresses the implications of the epigraphic material for the production of literary texts which is worth quoting in extenso:

Finally, lest my arguments about literacy in ancient Israel be miscontrued, I should like to emphasize the obvious: the epigraphic evidence demonstrates that elites in ancient Israel were writing during the Iron IIA (900-800 B.C.E.), Iron IIB (800-722 B.C.E.), and Iron IIC (722-586 B.C.E.). Thompson has written that "we cannot seek an origin of literature in Palestine prior to the eighth, or perhaps even better the seventh-century" (1992, 391). With all due respect to Thompson, I must state that his position is in direct conflict with the epigraphic evidence and I do not consider his position to be at all defensible. After all, southern Levantine states are producing monumental inscriptions (e.g., the Mesha Stela, the Amman Citadel Inscription, the Tel Dan Inscription). Moreover, there is a distinct Old Hebrew national script that is already attested during the ninth century. Finally, this script is even used in a foreign region, by a foreign monarch, to inscribe a monumental text in a foreign language (Mesha Stela). It would be most difficult to argue that a culture capable of developing and employing a distinct national script with a developed scribal culture did not have the capacity to write texts of various sorts.

Someone might retort that the Israelites were capable of writing during Iron IIA, but not capable of writing "literature." Naturally, however, this would be a very strained argument. To put it positively, I am absolutely certain that a nation (Israel) that has a scribal apparatus that is capable of developing a national script and employing standardized orthographic conventions is certainly capable of producing literature.

 (Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel, 134-35.)

As someone who works seriously with the epigraphic record, Rollston's views are worth serious consideration.

Some Tips for Learning Languages

At the beginning of a new semester, some students will be struggling with learning a new language. Here are some tips:

If you are learning Hebrew, remember:
She is he, he is who, and who is me.

If you are learning Mandarin Chinese, remember:
Woe is me.