Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:34:38.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Palaeographic Note on the Distribution of the Hebrew Script

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Joseph Naveh
Joseph Naveh
Affiliation:
Department of Antiquities, Jerusalem, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes & Observations
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 68 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I am greatly indebted to Professor Frank Moore Cross, Jr., who kindly agreed to read the manuscript.

1 Cross, F. M. Jr., BASOR 165 (1962), 34–42Google Scholar; BASOR 168 (1962), 18–23Google Scholar.

2 Aharoni, Y., IEJ 16 (1966), 1–7, Pl. 1Google Scholar.

3 There are no reasons of vocabulary or grammar which exclude the possibility that the language of the Gezer Calendar is Phoenician (in Albright's opinion it was ”written in perfect classical Hebrew,” see BASOR 92 [1943], 18, 22–26)Google Scholar. We should take into consideration that Gezer became an Israelite city only in the mid-10th century (1 K 9:16). However, if we fix the Gezer Calendar in the late 10th century (with Cross, BASOR 168, 15), we thereby determine it as a Hebrew inscription.

4 This term does not fit the scripts of other known inscriptions, perhaps with the exception of the Tell en-Naṣbeh sherd, bearing a lamed and a ḥet which Albright dates at ca. 1000 B.C.; see McCown, C. C.: Tell en-Naṣbeh, I (Berkeley, 1947), 167Google Scholar, n. 1.

5 Compare with the cognate Aramaic script: the Aramaeans borrowed the Phoenician script in the 11th or 10th centuries (cf. Albright, , BASOR 90 [1943], 32Google Scholar, and Cross, F. M. — Freedman, D. N., Early Hebrew Orthography [New Haven, 1952], 31fGoogle Scholar.), but the earliest Aramaic features can be seen only in the mid-8th century.

6 Yadin, Y.et alii, Hazor, II (Jerusalem, 1960), 71f.Google Scholar, Pl. 169:3, No. 3.

7 Ibid., Nos. 1–2, 4.

8 Yadin, Y.et alii, Hazor, III–IV (Jerusalem, 1961), P1, 357Google Scholar, No. 1. No. 2, which is assigned on P1. 357 to stratum VIII (9th century), is a later Hebrew inscription and in the preliminary report in IEJ 8 (1958), 5Google Scholar, is described indeed as belonging to stratum V.

9 If this assumption is true, it is the third 9th-century Aramaic inscription found in Galilee. Two others were found at ‘En Gev: lšqy’ — “belonging to the butlers” (Mazar, B.et alii, IEJ 14 [1964], 27f.Google Scholar, Pl. 13) and at Tel Dan: lṭb[ḥ]y' — “belonging to the butchers” (N. AVIGAD, BIES 30 [1966], 209–12, Pl. IX). A sherd bearing the inscription byt š ['n?] found on Tel Beth Shean seems to be 9th-century in date (cf. Tsori, N., BIES 25 [1961], 145f.Google Scholar, Pl. VI:3 and Naveh, J., Leshonenu 30 [1966], 72Google Scholar). Does the uncontracted diphthong indicate in Northern Palestine an Aramaic inscription, or is it perhaps a Hebrew inscription in which the historical orthography survived?

10 Cf. Millard, A. R., Iraq 24 (1962), 49fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 BASOR 168 (1962), 15Google Scholar, n. 12 (Diringer, D., Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi [Firenze, 1934], 199fGoogle Scholar., Pl. XX: 10).

12 But see above (n. 9) on the sherd from Beth-Shean.

13 S. Yeivin suggests that the Megiddo seal lšm' ‘bd yrb'm refers to Jeroboam I (JNES 19 [1960], 205–12Google Scholar); Aharoni fixes some short inscriptions found in stratum X at Arad to the late 9th century (Israel Museum Catalogue, No. 32, 31).

14 Reed, W. L. and Winnett, F. V., BASOR 172 (1963), 1–9Google Scholar.

15 Murphy, R. E., BASOR 125 (1952), 20–23Google Scholar.

16 For the later Moabite script see Naveh, J., BASOR 183 (1966), 29fGoogle Scholar.

17 Actually in any script it is the cursive which develops independently, and the lapidary style sooner or later adopts some of these cursive developments. Compare the Aramaic sister script, where the lapidary script survives in spite of the rapid progress of the cursive. Cf. the 7th-century Nerab funeral stelae (Cooke, G. A., A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions [Oxford, 1903], Pls. V, VIGoogle Scholar).

18 N. Avigad, IEJ (1953), 137–52, Pls. 8–12.

19 Reifenberg, A., JPOS 21 (1948), 134–37Google Scholar; Avigad, N., IEJ 5 (1955), 163–66Google Scholar, Pl. 24 B, C.

20 A. R. Millard, op. cit. (n. 10), 45–49, Pl. XXIVa.

21 See Birnbaum, S. A. in Samaria-Sebaste, III (London, 1957), 33f.Google Scholar, Pl. IV:1.

22 Milik, J. T., Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD II) (Oxford, 1961), 93–100Google Scholar, Pl. 27.

23 In his trial dig at the solar shrine of Lachish, Aharoni recently found 17 bullae in a jug. These are to be added to the four previously known sealings, two from Lachish (Moscati, S., L'epigrafia ebraica antica [Roma, 1951]Google Scholar, Pl. XIII: 6, 7), one from Beth Zur (Sellers, O. R., The Citadel of Beth Zur [Philadelphia, 1933], 60fGoogle Scholar., Fig. 52), and one of unknown provenance (Avigad, N., IEJ 14 [1964], 193f.Google Scholar, Pl. 44 C).

24 Moscati, op. cit., 112, Pl. XXIX:2 from Lachish, but see also W. F. Albright, The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim III, AASOR 21–22 (1943), 58, Pl 60:2 and Avigad, N., IEJ 3 (1953), 121fGoogle Scholar., Pl 5.

25 Heltzer, M. L., Epigrafika Vostoka 17 (1965), 18–37Google Scholar.

26 Probably there is some connection between the “private” and royal sealings: (1) Both kinds were generally impressed on ridged handles of gritty dark brown clay, and in one case both were impressed in the same handle (Cf. Aharoni, Y., Excavations at Ramat Raḥel, Season 1959 and 1960 [Roma, 1962], 16fGoogle Scholar., Pl. 6:2). (2) The seal I'lykm n'r ywkn belonged, as suggested by Albright, to an official of Joiachin, king of Judah (JBL 51 [1934], 77ffGoogle Scholar.).

(3) The private stamps generally bear only inscriptions, but if any decoration is added, this consists of the four-winged scarab (Cf. F. J. BLISS, PEFQSt [1900], Fig. 8, opp. p. 219, and MOSCATI, op. cit. [n. 23], 81, Nos. 29–30, Pl. XVIII:8, 9), or the two-winged symbol (cf. l-m/n-r-'/t impression from 'En Gedi; see Mazar, B.et alii, 'Atiqot V [1966], 34Google Scholar, Pl 26:1), which are common in the royal seals.

27 Maisler, B. (MAZAR), IEJ I (1950–51), 208–10Google Scholar, Pls. 37 A and 38 A.

28 S. A. Birnbaum, op. cit. (n. 21), Pl. I: 1 and 4.

29 Reisner, G. A.et alii, Harvard Excavations at Samaria (Cambridge, Mass., 1924), 227–46Google Scholar; Diringer, op. cit. (n. II), 66–68; Moscati, op. cit., (n. 23), 27–31.

30 Naveh, J., IEJ 12 (1962), 30fGoogle Scholar., Pl. 6 A, C.

31 Torczyner, H. (Tur-Sinai), Lachish, I (London, 1938), No. 20Google Scholar (if it is not a fragment of an inscribed jar).

32 Moscati, op. cit. (n. 23), 44–46, Pl. X.

33 Some of the name lists are accounts, cf. Lachish No. 19 and one from Arad (Aharoni, , IEJ 15 [1965], 250Google Scholar).

34 Naveh, J., IEJ 10 (1960), 129–39Google Scholar, Pl. 17.

35 Clermont-Ganneau, Ch., Recueil d'archéologie orientate, VII (Paris, 1906), 294–304Google Scholar, Pl. V:A-C; Lidzbarski, M., Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, III (Giessen, 1915), 47fGoogle Scholar.

36 Aharoni, op. cit. (n. 2).

37 Pritchard, J. B., Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon (Philadelphia, 1959)Google Scholar; idem, BASOR 160 (1960), 2–6Google Scholar.

38 Naveh, J., IEJ 13 (1963), 74–92Google Scholar, Pls. 9–13 (the revised dating is after Professor Cross' suggestion).

39 E.g., the seal 'kbr/'ḥqm published by Avigad, N., IEJ 13 (1963), 332f.Google Scholar, Pl. 34 C. Most of the private stamps show that the seals were not engraved in the formal, but rather in the vulgar style. See Moscati, op. cit. (n. 23), Pls. XVI-XIV.

40 De Vaux, R., in Ancient Israel (London, 1961), 49Google Scholar, states that “the commandment of Dt. 6:9; 11:20 presumed that every head of family could write.”