BBS Tel Zayit ABJAD Tablet
Introduction
What is for the most part an exact
copy of the script follows. There are a
few places where individual speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for
this we apologize. Every effort was made
to be precise: there were just spots that defeated us. Since this is a quote in its entirety it
seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation marks. The notation for each speaker is tedious
enough: Narrator, Reader, etc. If you
discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point them out. You may verify the script more easily by
starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion begins. The second of the above links is free from
advertising and thus easier to use.
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
As with the Merneptah Stele, the Tel Zayit abjad fails to live up to
its advertised claims and expectations.
Nothing at all was learned in answer to the question of when the Bible
was written, except that parts of Leviticus were written prior to the mid fifth
century.[1] If we combine this with additional evidence
we might be warranted in concluding that all of Torah was written prior to the
mid fifth century, and probably a good long time before. That additional evidence would be the internal
testimony of the Bible itself, which thus far has demonstrated its accuracy
with a very high reliability. Thus
provenance answers the question, when nothing else does.
Script
The
Tel Zayit ABJAD Tablet (time 16:30)
N: But when did the process of writing the
Bible begin? Tel Zayit is a small site
on the south-western border of ancient Israel[2] that dates back to
biblical times. Since 1999 Ron Tappy[3] has been excavating
here. It was the last day of what had
been a typical dig season.
Tappy: As I was taking aerial photographs
from the cherry picker, a volunteer[4] notified his square supervisor
that he had thought he had seen some interesting marks, scratches, possibly
letters incised in a stone.
N: Letters would be a rare find. So when he kneeled to look at the marks,
Tappy got the surprise of a lifetime.
Tappy: As I bent down over the stone, I
immediately saw very clear, very distinct letters.
N: Tappy excavated the rock and brought it
back to his lab at the nearby kibbutz.
It was only then that he realized he had more than a simple inscription.
Tappy: (א - ב - ג - ד …)
I realized that this inscription represented an abecedary; that is to say, not a text narrative, but the letters of the
Semitic alphabet written out in their correct order (נ - פ - ע… are difficult to read, but they’re
out there).
N: This ancient script is an early form of
the Hebrew alphabet.
McCarter: What was found was not a random
scratching of two or three letters, it was the full alphabet. Everything about it says that this is the
ancestor of the Hebrew script.[5]
N: The Tel Zayit abecedary is the earliest
Hebrew alphabet[6]
ever discovered. It dates to about 1000
BC,[7] making it possible that
writing the Hebrew Bible could have already started by this time. To discover the most ancient text in the
Bible, scholars examine the Hebrew spelling, grammar, and vocabulary.
Commentary
The Tel Zayit abecedary or abjad is
only the second archaeological artifact presented in The Bible’s Buried Secrets thus far. The first was the
Merneptah Stele, which we discovered was “much ado about nothing.”[8] The rest of the material so far consists of a
few Bible misrepresentations, and a lot of inane and mostly irrelevant filler,
made falsely spectacular by the ingenious use of music and moving
photography. The Tel Zayit abecedary or
abjad is much touted as a spectacular find.
Let’s examine this idea. Here are
some related artifacts beginning with the Tel Zayit abjad itself:[9]
- Tel Zayit ABJAD: Tel Zayit, Israel, was discovered in 2005 and its date is still under debate, but possibly tenth century.[10]
“There
is some debate over whether the forms of these letters are anticipatory of
later developments in Hebrew and should thus be characterized as “Palaeo-Hebrew”
or whether they lack such features and should be characterized as “Phoenician”
or more generally “South Canaanite.”[11]
- Ahiram Inscription: Byblos, Phoenicia, was discovered in 1923 and dates to 1000. It is at least an important witness as the abjad.[12]
- Yehimilik Inscription: Byblos, Phoenicia, was discovered in 1929 and dates to around 950.[13]
- Samaria Ivories: Samaria, Israel, were discovered in 1908-1935 and date to the ninth or eighth centuries.[14]
- Gezer Calendar: Gezer, Israel, was discovered in 1908 and dates to 925.[15]
- Moabite Stone: Dibon, Jordan, was discovered in 1868 and dates to around 840.[16]
- Kilamuwa Inscription: Sam’al, Turkey, was discovered in 1888-1902 and dates to the ninth century.[17]
- Samaria Ostraca: Sebastia, Nablus (Israel), were discovered in 1910 and date to 850-750[18]
- Shema Seal: Megiddo, Israel, was discovered in 1904 and dates to either the tenth or the eighth centuries, depending on whether it connects to Jeroboam I or Jeroboam II.[19]
- Bar Rakab Inscription: 750-701[20]
- Siloam Inscription: Jerusalem, Judea, was discovered in 1880 and dates to 700[21]
- Nerab Stelae: 600-550[22]
- Pharaoh Letter: ca 601[23]
- Lachish Ostraca: Lachish, Judea, were discovered in 1935 and date to 590[24]
- Jewish Seals: sixth century[25]
- Bauer-Meissner Papyrus: el-Hibeh, Egypt, were discovered in 1936 and date to 515[26]
- Leviticus Fragments: Desert, Judea, were discovered in 2004 and date to mid fifth century[27]
“These
texts [4QpaleoExodm and 11QpaleoLeva], rather than
preceding writing in the square script, were actually written at a relatively
late period, probably as a natural continuation of the tradition of writing in
the “early” Hebrew script, and were concurrent with the use of the square
script.
“While
it is tacitly assumed by most scholars that with the revival of the
paleo-Hebrew script in the Hasmonean period, texts were transformed from the
square to the paleo-Hebrew script, it would be more natural to assume that the
habit of writing in the paleo-Hebrew script had never ceased through the centuries.”[28]
- Elephantine Papyri: Elephantine and Syene, Egypt, were first discovered in 1893 and date to ca 400 and earlier.[29]
- Eshmunazar Sarcophagus: Sidon, Phoenicia, was discovered in 1855 and dates to 500.[30]
“The
language used in the inscription is a Canaanite dialect mutually intelligible
with Biblical Hebrew.”[31]
Since what used to be called the Phoenician script is now called the
paleo-Hebrew script we see that any differences must be classed as minor
dialectical variances.[32] Considering the ordinary differences of
calligraphy between scribes this could be one language, the lip of Canaan. The principle difference between this
Canaanite language, paleo-Hebrew, and what we know as Hebrew today appears to
be the printing in Aramaic block script.[33]
So what we call Hebrew actually may
be Canaanite: it does not make a lot of sense to believe that coexistent
ethnicities would retain two distinct languages. This could create the mistaken impression
that the Israelites are actually Canaanites.
Yet, if the Israelites are actually Canaanites in 1200, why would they
go to such pains to distinguish and separate themselves: the force to apartheid
can only be explained by strong ethnic differences, not by ethnic sameness.
Moreover, there seems to be some
dispute over the origin of the Phoenicians: some opine that they are Hamitic,
while others insist that they are Semitic.
We have not been able to identify them with any certainty from the Table
of Nations. It appears that Put fails to
fit. So the origins of the Phoenicians
remains a mystery. Nevertheless, the
geography pleads for a common language.
Measuring from Jerusalem, Tyre is 103 miles, Sidon is 123 miles, Byblos
is 164 miles. In contrast, Tyre is 1,437
miles from Carthage, but that didn’t deter the Phoenicians from settling their
colony there. Since the Phoenician cities
developed from north to south (Byblos, Sidon, Tyre), this may argue in favor of
a Semitic origin coming into the Promised Land along with the same general
migration as Abram.[34] In any case the distances are so short as to
support a common language by whatever name.
Since the Tel Zayit artifact is nothing more than an abjad, it
establishes nothing more than that paleo-Hebrew script was in use at that place
and time. It has no other provenance
than that it is an abecedary and was used to build a wall. Dating methods were not disclosed. It especially does not establish the
existence of Torah, or that Torah would necessarily be written in paleo-Hebrew
around 1000. As with the Merneptah
Stele, its value is grossly overstated.
At most it pushes back the date for the existence of the paleo-Hebrew
language by a few years.[35] The information it conveys is already known
from several other sources.
The Tel Zayit abjad has absolutely nothing to say about, “when … the
process of writing the Bible [began].”
As far as that goes none of these artifacts, provides an answer to such
a question at all. At most, all we can
say is that Leviticus fragments were already extant in the mid fifth century.[36]
Conclusion
As with the Merneptah Stele, the Tel Zayit abjad fails to live up to
its advertised claims and expectations.
Nothing at all was learned in answer to the question of when the Bible
was written, except that parts of Leviticus were written prior to the mid fifth
century.[37] If we combine this with additional evidence
we might be warranted in concluding that all of Torah was written prior to the
mid fifth century, and probably a good long time before. That additional evidence would be the
internal testimony of the Bible itself, which thus far has demonstrated its
accuracy with a very high reliability.
Thus provenance answers the question, when nothing else does.
[1] Even
this is based on a single opinion that can no longer be traced to firm
dating. Later the Gabriel Barkay silver scrolls
found in tombs near Jerusalem will be introduced and discussed: they may provide
a seventh century date for their contents.
[2]
Tel Zayit is near Gath and was possibly part of Philistine territory. It has tentatively been identified with
either Libnah or Ziklag; this being said, it appears that Tel Zayit seems too
far north to be the site of Libnah.
Lachish should be about twelve miles south of Tel Zayit. Libnah might be north of Lachish, because
Joshua attacked Libnah first, yet not certainly so. Suffice it to say that we have not yet
identified Tel Zayit, nor located either Libnah or Ziklag
[3]
Ron E. (and Connie) Tappy,
is a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Works:
Tel Zayit, datable Hebrew alphabet (1000-901).
[5] This
is disputed, whether it is paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician. For that matter, what is the difference
between them, and how do they differ from ordinary everyday Canaanite (the lip
of Canaan, Isaiah 19:18)?
[6] This
is a false statement. It is “the ancestor”,
not the thing: whether Canaanite, paleo-Hebrew, or Phoenician.
[8] A
title of one of William Shakespeare’s plays
[9] Inscriptions represented artistically by sketches
in ANEP, pages 88 and 281f; plate 286
[12] Since
Hiram, possibly a family name, was close friends with David and Solomon, we
would connect Hiram and Ahiram, possibly as brothers or cousins. Byblos and Tyre are both Phoenician cities
and not far apart. Although the
lettering is Phoenician, the similarity of calligraphy with Hebrew is
remarkable. Incidentally a son or
grandson of Benjamin is named Ahiram (Numbers 26:38), which may indicate a
close association between the Benjamites and the Phoenicians. 2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 18; 7:13, 40, 45; 1 Kings 9:11, 12, 14, 27; 10:11, 22; 1 Chronicles 14:1
[13] Very
possibly Hebrew is nothing more than a dialect or variation of the Canaanite
language. Isaiah 19:18
[19] Also
discovered are the seals of Asaph (1906), Haman (1931), and Elamar (1935).
[20] Supporting
information was not found.
[22] Supporting
information was not found.
[23] Supporting
information was not found.
[25] Supporting
information was not found.
[27] Emanuel
Tov only discusses Qumran texts for Leviticus, so this date may be
questionable.
[29] The
shear quantity and scope (hieratic,
Demotic, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Coptic) makes these papyri significant and worthy of further
study.
[31]
ibid
[34] The
argument would be over whether the Israelites spoke Canaanite, or whether the
Canaanites spoke Hebrew, or whether it is even possible to know the
difference. In other words, is Hebrew, and
therefore paleo-Hebrew, either Hamitic and Canaanitic, or Semitic and Hebrew in
origin? Does it really matter at all? Are the differences really that great, or are
we just splitting hairs over nothing?
The general migratory assumption is that Hamitic and Japhethitic
and tribes migrated away from Mesopotamia first. Hamitic tribes settled generally to the south
and were already well established there as massive empires. Japhethitic tribes settled generally to the
north and were also well established, but less is known about them at very early
dates. The Semitic migration which may
have swept both Abraham and the Phoenicians along in its flow would seem to indicate
a common language and origin. If this
happened to be the case, it would be very important to the situation: for it would
indicate that resident Canaanites were overwhelmed by immigrating Semites and
forced to learn a language that differed from their original Hamitic
hieroglyphic tongue.
[35]
In comparison with artifacts such as the Ahiram Inscription, Yehimilik Inscription, and Gezer Calendar it may not
push the dating back at all.
[36] This
is based on accepting the claim of ANEP at face value. However, Emanuel Tov may disagree. It doesn’t really matter which date is
correct: the point is that we have no right to overstate what the evidence
presents. A fragment of Leviticus
presents that fragment of Leviticus and nothing more. The date, whatever it is, presents that date
and nothing more. The fragment was in
existence at such and such a date. In
order to draw additional conclusions we must apply additional evidence. We cannot conclude that a fragment of
Leviticus presents an extant copy of Leviticus as a whole if we have no strong
reason to believe that Leviticus existed as a whole. ANEP,
pages 88 and 281; plate 286
[37] Even
this is based on a single opinion that can no longer be traced to firm
dating. Later the Gabriel Barkay silver scrolls
found in tombs near Jerusalem will be introduced and discussed: they may provide
a seventh century date for their contents.
[38] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment