Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Tel Zayit abecedary

Expand Messages
  • B.E.Colless
    Is this the wrong time of year to be asking a question if I want to receive an answer? Many of you are in a state of (a)estivation, I suppose, while we are in
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 29, 2006
      Is this the wrong time of year to be asking a question if I want to receive
      an answer? Many of you are in a state of (a)estivation, I suppose, while we
      are in active hibernation down here.

      I have been thinking about the Tel Zayit abecedary/abagadary. Is there a
      complete picture available in cyberspace yet?

      My search engine has just brought up two of my own postings to ANE
      (11/11/05), not very picturesque; but also an article about Bruce
      Zuckermann's work; the photograph there shows:

      T. Z H. Y W

      These letters are so out of order it makes me think I should look for a
      statement: "And (w) he shall see (yh.z) good (t. = t.ab, logogram)".

      But my own posting talks of "both lines" of the abagadary, so it seems that
      thw whole West Semitic alphabet is there.

      So, can anyone direct me to a photograph or drawing of the complete
      inscription?

      Brian Colless
      Massey University, NZ
    • funhistory
      ... I m not aware of any complete photo or accurate drawing that s been published yet. As I said in the current issue of BAR, even Ron Tappy s own site
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 29, 2006
        > T. Z H. Y W
        > So, can anyone direct me to a photograph or drawing of the complete
        > inscription?
        > Brian Colless

        I'm not aware of any complete photo or accurate drawing that's been
        published yet. As I said in the current issue of BAR, even Ron Tappy's
        own site doesn't show a photo or drawing
        (http://www.zeitah.net/gallery.html). For now, I'd recommend the entry
        for "Zayit Stone" in the English Wikipedia. The primary content is
        based on complete photos Bruce Zuckerman presented in a lecture. What
        you quote as a Yod above, is actually a Hey (TZHEW; using an E to
        represent it to eliminate confusion with the adjacent Het; besides,
        it's basically a mirrored "E").

        George Michael Grena, II
        Redondo Beach, CA
      • B.E.Colless
        ... George Michael Grena, II Redondo Beach, CA ... Sorry, George, the July-August issue has only just reached me, and I did not notice anything about this in
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 30, 2006
          > From: "funhistory" <yahoo-ane-2@...>
          George Michael Grena, II
          Redondo Beach, CA
          > Reply-To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:31:53 -0000
          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit abecedary
          >
          >> T. Z H. Y W
          >> So, can anyone direct me to a photograph or drawing of the complete
          >> inscription?
          >> Brian Colless
          >
          > I'm not aware of any complete photo or accurate drawing that's been
          > published yet. As I said in the current issue of BAR, even Ron Tappy's
          > own site doesn't show a photo or drawing
          > (http://www.zeitah.net/gallery.html).

          Sorry, George, the July-August issue has only just reached me, and I did not
          notice anything about this in that one.

          > For now, I'd recommend the entry
          > for "Zayit Stone" in the English Wikipedia. The primary content is
          > based on complete photos Bruce Zuckerman presented in a lecture.
          My apologies for putting an extra -n on Bruce's name.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayit_Stone

          And it has been edited on 29 August!
          My Netscape and Explorer only give ????? for the characters.
          But I went to the new iMac, and Firefox gave me Hebrew letters.
          So, with a printout in front of me, I am certainly in possession of more
          knowledge than yesterday.

          KS || `ZR (bowl/throne || help/warrior)

          'A B G D W H Hh Z Tt w Y L K M N S P @ Ss || Q R Sh <-
          ["Note: The "w" between the Tet and the Yod may be an aborted Mem, a
          misplaced Shin, or a random scribbling."]

          This is striking, as if the scribe knew the full alphabet (as at Ugarit)
          with Sh (Shimsh, 'sun') in this vicinity, in the order Tt Y K Sh L M Dh.

          Th (thad, 'breast') was at the end: Q R Th G' T 'i 'u S'

          > What you quote as a Yod above, is actually a Hey (TZHEW; using an E to
          > represent it to eliminate confusion with the adjacent Het; besides,
          > it's basically a mirrored "E").

          Right: T. Z H. H W
          Many thanks for that correction. It was a silly slip, especially as I was
          talking about H as E and >-E in my other posting!

          The thing about this development of E (h) is the leg that it has grown,
          presumably showing that the Tel Zayit letters are later than the Izbet
          Sartah forms.

          And, in this connection, I think there are connections to be made between
          these two abagadaries.

          Four pairs of letters in reverse order, and possibly two other misplaced
          letters aborted.

          [TZ] 'A B G D W H Hh Z Tt w Y L K M N S P @ Ss|Q R Sh [T lacking] <-

          [IS] 'A B G D H !m? Hh Z Tt Y K L !w N S P @ Ss Q R? Sh T ->

          Both have Hh Z Tt and P @ Ss

          Would it be just too silly to suggest that instead of reflecting scribal
          incompetence (as suggested in the Wiki article) the order of letters had a
          mnemonic purpose?! Possibly the names of the letters (the original
          logographs, also functioning as rebuses) could produce sentences.

          Thus, in my first Abr-Nahrain article (1988, p. 45) I quoted the Talmud
          (Nedarim 54b), regarding the order Nun Samek `ayin Peh:

          "Fish (nun) is medicine (sam) for the eyes (`ayin)"
          (Of course, Samek was originally a fish, with spine-support as an allograph,
          and I presume the Zayit Samek is the latter, whereas Emile Puech and I see a
          fish on the Izbet Sartah tablet. And N was a snake)

          But the original cluster was: Sh L M (peace! health!) Dh N Zz S @ P Ss

          As the writer of the article (was it you?) suggests: the bowl-depression
          (ks) and the "help" (`zr) may indicate a belief in a magical apotropaic
          power in the letters, or, may I add, in the way they are arranged. To ward
          off evil spirits, or the evil eye (`ayin) or snake-bite (N snake + P mouth).
          The idea would be to put that evil eye (@) in the bag (Ss-r-r, the original
          picture-sign of Sade, not a cricket), and tie it up with the string (Qaw,
          cord on stick).

          Well, I can play health-giving mental games with all this, but did the
          Hebrew scribes think along these lines, befor the Talmud scholars did?

          Brian Colless
        • Jim West
          May I ask a question? In the subject line the word abagadaries is used. Is this some sort of neologism or is it some sort of really profoundly corrupt
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 30, 2006
            May I ask a question?

            In the subject line the word "abagadaries" is used. Is this some sort
            of neologism or is it some sort of really profoundly corrupt version of
            "abecediary"?

            Thanks for aiding my enquiry.


            --
            Jim West, ThD

            http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
            http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com -- Weblog
          • victor
            Seems Quite Elementary, it s a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing the C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it. Victor ... From:
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 30, 2006
              Seems Quite Elementary, it's a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing the
              C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it.
              Victor

              -----Original Message-----
              From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
              West
              Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:29 PM
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries


              May I ask a question?

              In the subject line the word "abagadaries" is used. Is this some sort
              of neologism or is it some sort of really profoundly corrupt version of
              "abecediary"?

              Thanks for aiding my enquiry.


              --
              Jim West, ThD

              http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
              http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com -- Weblog



              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • funhistory
              ... Page 8. ... The Hey on the Zayit Stone did not grow a leg; it became the victim of a random slash in antiquity (one of many). When you see the full
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 30, 2006
                > the July-August issue has only just reached me,
                > and I did not notice anything about this in that one.

                Page 8.

                > The thing about this development of E (h) is the leg
                > that it has grown, presumably showing that the Tel
                > Zayit letters are later than the Izbet Sartah forms.

                The Hey on the Zayit Stone did not grow a leg; it became the victim of
                a random slash in antiquity (one of many). When you see the full
                inscription some day, you'll see that the slash you perceive as a leg
                from the publicized press photo is actually not at the same
                depth--i.e., not incised at the same time as the rest of the
                inscription. It intersects it coincidentally to give the illusion of
                a leg, making it look like a Yod, but it begins/continues farther up
                to the right out of view in the press photo. At least that was my
                perception of what I saw in the photos Dr. Zuckerman presented using
                alternate lighting schemes. In fact, when I saw the photo, I thought,
                "Hey, look at that normal Hey!" I too had imagined it to be a
                misplaced Yod. The stone has many scratches on it causing illusions;
                that probably contributed to the real inscription being overlooked by
                the excavators for so long (2 years; see Anomaly #2 in "The Zayit
                Throne--oops, I mean--Stone" at http://tinyurl.com/z6vwk;
                warning--this URL contains material most ANE-2 members will consider
                offensive & insulting to their intelligence).

                > Would it be just too silly to suggest that instead of...
                > Brian Colless

                You'd have to ask Peter T. Daniels or one of the moderators what is
                too silly. They have strong opinions on what is science & what is
                silliness. The science of biological evolution is based on the belief
                that orderly arrangements of complex cells via random coincidence _IS
                POSSIBLE_, therefore it must have happened; but to suggest the
                possibility that there was a connection between Sumerian & Chinese
                scripts--forget it! Your suggestion must've passed their test on this
                occasion! Congratulations!

                George Michael Grena, II
                Redondo Beach, CA
              • Robert M Whiting
                On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, funhistory wrote: ... For clarification, science is based on evidence. Silliness is based on claims of what *might* have happened
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                  On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, funhistory wrote:

                  <snip>
                  > You'd have to ask Peter T. Daniels or one of the moderators what is
                  > too silly. They have strong opinions on what is science & what is
                  > silliness. The science of biological evolution is based on the belief
                  > that orderly arrangements of complex cells via random coincidence _IS
                  > POSSIBLE_, therefore it must have happened; but to suggest the
                  > possibility that there was a connection between Sumerian & Chinese
                  > scripts--forget it! Your suggestion must've passed their test on this
                  > occasion! Congratulations!

                  For clarification, science is based on evidence. Silliness is based on
                  claims of what *might* have happened based on speculation or on the
                  possibility of evidence exisiting that *might* be discovered some day.
                  Proponents of silliness often claim that because something is *possible*,
                  if it can't be disproved it *might* have happened or existed. Science is
                  not about what *might* have happened or what *might* exist. In general,
                  science is not necessarily even about what did happen or what does exist.
                  Science is about what can be proved with evidence to have happened or to
                  exist. Once you can grasp this concept, it is *possible* that it *might*
                  become easier for you to draw the line between science and silliness.


                  Bob Whiting
                  whiting@...
                • Peter T. Daniels
                  As for the matter at hand, all I know about the Tell Zeit inscription is what I saw at the SBL lectuires nearly a year ago. As for another bit of silliness
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                    As for the matter at hand, all I know about the Tell Zeit inscription is what I saw at the SBL lectuires nearly a year ago.

                    As for another bit of silliness that greeted us this morning (here in Eastern Time), what evidence is there that a "King Solomon" existed, built the Temple, etc.?
                    --
                    Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                    ----- Original Message ----
                    From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                    To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:11:57 AM
                    Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries


                    On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, funhistory wrote:

                    <snip>
                    > You'd have to ask Peter T. Daniels or one of the moderators what is
                    > too silly. They have strong opinions on what is science & what is
                    > silliness. The science of biological evolution is based on the belief
                    > that orderly arrangements of complex cells via random coincidence _IS
                    > POSSIBLE_, therefore it must have happened; but to suggest the
                    > possibility that there was a connection between Sumerian & Chinese
                    > scripts--forget it! Your suggestion must've passed their test on this
                    > occasion! Congratulations!

                    For clarification, science is based on evidence. Silliness is based on
                    claims of what *might* have happened based on speculation or on the
                    possibility of evidence exisiting that *might* be discovered some day.
                    Proponents of silliness often claim that because something is *possible*,
                    if it can't be disproved it *might* have happened or existed. Science is
                    not about what *might* have happened or what *might* exist. In general,
                    science is not necessarily even about what did happen or what does exist.
                    Science is about what can be proved with evidence to have happened or to
                    exist. Once you can grasp this concept, it is *possible* that it *might*
                    become easier for you to draw the line between science and silliness.


                    Bob Whiting
                    whiting@...
                  • Robert M Whiting
                    ... Actually, the reliability of evidence is a subject for discussion here as long as there is a scientific basis for the evaluation of reliability . Because
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                      On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, victor wrote:

                      > Dear Peter,
                      > I have no idea of what "greeted us this morning (here in Eastern Time), but
                      > the "evidence" that King Solomon existed and built the Temple is that found
                      > in the Hebrew Bible. Whether this "evidence" is reliable is a matter of the
                      > full or partial reliability of this "witness", or, rather, groups of
                      > "witnesses". But this subject is not to be discussed on ANE.

                      Actually, the reliability of evidence is a subject for discussion here as
                      long as there is a scientific basis for the evaluation of "reliability".
                      "Because it says so in the Bible" is just not considered a scientific
                      basis for evaluation.

                      > That being said, may I refer you to the "Introductory Caveat" in my own
                      > article "YHWH's Exalted Hourse - Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of
                      > Solomon's Temple" in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day
                      > (London, New York: T & T Clark International, 2005), 63-110. The answer to
                      > your question is not to be found in a facile, fundamentalist acceptance or
                      > knee-jerk, revisionist rejection of the Biblical "evidence", and especially
                      > that in 1 Kings 5-9 (Chronicles being a different category), but in a
                      > critical and comparative study of what is described in the Bible in context
                      > of what else we know about temple architecture and design and symbolism from
                      > ancient near eastern writings, iconography and archaeological evidence.
                      > "Solomon's Temple" must first be reconstructed on the basis of the Biblical
                      > account, critically and philologically analyzed, and then treated as an
                      > archaeological artifact of uncertain background with all that implies.
                      > There is no "silliness" involved here except to the cavalier.

                      Before this devolves into a brouhaha over the term "silliness", there
                      should perhaps be some further clarification. "Silliness" is not the term
                      I would have used for unscientific deductions, but is the one provided by
                      the initiator of the discussion. I don't say that scientific method can't
                      be applied to "silliness" or that "silliness" can't be promoted to
                      science. After all, continental drift, the notion that the earth was
                      round, or that the earth wasn't stationary at the center of the universe
                      were all "silliness" until enough evidence was accumulated to demonstrate
                      their scientific value. Unfortunately, "silliness" has a pejorative
                      connotation that in some ways makes it unsuitable for the present
                      discussion; "unsupported theory" is perhaps better, but "silliness" makes
                      for a better buzzword even though the "silliness" involved is not
                      necessarily ultimately silly. If we use "silliness" to mean "unsupported
                      theory" and at the same time use "silliness" to refer to something that is
                      'just plain silly', then we run the risk of the logical fallacy of
                      equivocation because not all unsupported theories are just plain silly.

                      While what you say about the analysis of the temple from its description
                      is certainly true, even applying these scientific criteria to its
                      evaluation would not prove in the long run that it was built by "Solomon"
                      or indeed, that there was even a "Solomon" to have built it. For this,
                      confirmation independent of the biblical narrative is needed. I do not
                      mean by this to disparage anyone's faith in the biblical narrative, merely
                      to point out that faith is not science.

                      Bob Whiting
                      whiting@...


                      > Victor
                      > BGU
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                      > Peter T. Daniels
                      > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:32 PM
                      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
                      >
                      > As for the matter at hand, all I know about the Tell Zeit inscription is
                      > what I saw at the SBL lectuires nearly a year ago.
                      >
                      > As for another bit of silliness that greeted us this morning (here in
                      > Eastern Time), what evidence is there that a "King Solomon" existed, built
                      > the Temple, etc.?
                      > --
                      > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:11:57 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
                      >
                      >
                      > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, funhistory wrote:
                      >
                      > <snip>
                      > > You'd have to ask Peter T. Daniels or one of the moderators what is
                      > > too silly. They have strong opinions on what is science & what is
                      > > silliness. The science of biological evolution is based on the belief
                      > > that orderly arrangements of complex cells via random coincidence _IS
                      > > POSSIBLE_, therefore it must have happened; but to suggest the
                      > > possibility that there was a connection between Sumerian & Chinese
                      > > scripts--forget it! Your suggestion must've passed their test on this
                      > > occasion! Congratulations!
                      >
                      > For clarification, science is based on evidence. Silliness is based on
                      > claims of what *might* have happened based on speculation or on the
                      > possibility of evidence exisiting that *might* be discovered some day.
                      > Proponents of silliness often claim that because something is *possible*,
                      > if it can't be disproved it *might* have happened or existed. Science is
                      > not about what *might* have happened or what *might* exist. In general,
                      > science is not necessarily even about what did happen or what does exist.
                      > Science is about what can be proved with evidence to have happened or to
                      > exist. Once you can grasp this concept, it is *possible* that it *might*
                      > become easier for you to draw the line between science and silliness.
                      >
                      >
                      > Bob Whiting
                      > whiting@...
                    • victor
                      Dear Peter, I have no idea of what greeted us this morning (here in Eastern Time), but the evidence that King Solomon existed and built the Temple is that
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                        Dear Peter,
                        I have no idea of what "greeted us this morning (here in Eastern Time), but
                        the "evidence" that King Solomon existed and built the Temple is that found
                        in the Hebrew Bible. Whether this "evidence" is reliable is a matter of the
                        full or partial reliability of this "witness", or, rather, groups of
                        "witnesses". But this subject is not to be discussed on ANE.

                        That being said, may I refer you to the "Introductory Caveat" in my own
                        article "YHWH's Exalted Hourse - Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of
                        Solomon's Temple" in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day
                        (London, New York: T & T Clark International, 2005), 63-110. The answer to
                        your question is not to be found in a facile, fundamentalist acceptance or
                        knee-jerk, revisionist rejection of the Biblical "evidence", and especially
                        that in 1 Kings 5-9 (Chronicles being a different category), but in a
                        critical and comparative study of what is described in the Bible in context
                        of what else we know about temple architecture and design and symbolism from
                        ancient near eastern writings, iconography and archaeological evidence.
                        "Solomon's Temple" must first be reconstructed on the basis of the Biblical
                        account, critically and philologically analyzed, and then treated as an
                        archaeological artifact of uncertain background with all that implies. There
                        is no "silliness" involved here except to the cavalier.
                        Victor
                        BGU

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        Peter T. Daniels
                        Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:32 PM
                        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries

                        As for the matter at hand, all I know about the Tell Zeit inscription is
                        what I saw at the SBL lectuires nearly a year ago.

                        As for another bit of silliness that greeted us this morning (here in
                        Eastern Time), what evidence is there that a "King Solomon" existed, built
                        the Temple, etc.?
                        --
                        Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                        ----- Original Message ----
                        From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:11:57 AM
                        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries


                        On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, funhistory wrote:

                        <snip>
                        > You'd have to ask Peter T. Daniels or one of the moderators what is
                        > too silly. They have strong opinions on what is science & what is
                        > silliness. The science of biological evolution is based on the belief
                        > that orderly arrangements of complex cells via random coincidence _IS
                        > POSSIBLE_, therefore it must have happened; but to suggest the
                        > possibility that there was a connection between Sumerian & Chinese
                        > scripts--forget it! Your suggestion must've passed their test on this
                        > occasion! Congratulations!

                        For clarification, science is based on evidence. Silliness is based on
                        claims of what *might* have happened based on speculation or on the
                        possibility of evidence exisiting that *might* be discovered some day.
                        Proponents of silliness often claim that because something is *possible*,
                        if it can't be disproved it *might* have happened or existed. Science is
                        not about what *might* have happened or what *might* exist. In general,
                        science is not necessarily even about what did happen or what does exist.
                        Science is about what can be proved with evidence to have happened or to
                        exist. Once you can grasp this concept, it is *possible* that it *might*
                        become easier for you to draw the line between science and silliness.


                        Bob Whiting
                        whiting@...






                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                        ... acceptance or ... especially ... context ... symbolism from ... evidence. ... Biblical ... an ... While what you say about the analysis of the temple from
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                          ... > The answer to
                          > your question is not to be found in a facile, fundamentalist
                          acceptance or
                          > knee-jerk, revisionist rejection of the Biblical "evidence", and
                          especially
                          > that in 1 Kings 5-9 (Chronicles being a different category), but in a
                          > critical and comparative study of what is described in the Bible in
                          context
                          > of what else we know about temple architecture and design and
                          symbolism from
                          > ancient near eastern writings, iconography and archaeological
                          evidence.
                          > "Solomon's Temple" must first be reconstructed on the basis of the
                          Biblical
                          > account, critically and philologically analyzed, and then treated as
                          an
                          > archaeological artifact of uncertain background with all that implies.
                          > There is no "silliness" involved here except to the cavalier.

                          While what you say about the analysis of the temple from its description
                          is certainly true, even applying these scientific criteria to its
                          evaluation would not prove in the long run that it was built by
                          "Solomon"
                          or indeed, that there was even a "Solomon" to have built it. For this,
                          confirmation independent of the biblical narrative is needed. I do not
                          mean by this to disparage anyone's faith in the biblical narrative,
                          merely
                          to point out that faith is not science.

                          Bob Whiting
                          whiting@...


                          > Victor
                          > BGU
                          >
                          A couple of observations: Victor, you have to explain your remarks about
                          Chronicles: Just convenient, old common knowledge, whatever?

                          That we can describe Solomon's temple does not mean that it existed,
                          only that the author had an idea about how such a temple should look
                          like. The text never becomes an archaeological artefact, except for
                          textual archaeology, as in higher criticism.

                          So we still only have Solomon's temple in the Bible and no way so far
                          tgo get out of the pages of 1 Kgs.

                          Niels Peter Lemche

                          PS: I do not think that people read Bertrand Russell now-a-days, but his
                          distinction between categories is a must. A text is not an artefact, and
                          an artefact not a text, althougth it may be recorded as a text.

                          And a PS to Bob. I am afraid that modern hermeneutics will probably not
                          be too kind to your idea about science. They will stamp is as
                          positivism, and put it aside. They will bring in fellows like Gadamar,
                          Ricoeur, Derrida, you mention them. Even the social construct of
                          Habermas.
                        • Brian Roberts
                          ... That we can describe Solomon s temple does not mean that it existed, only that the author had an idea about how such a temple should look like. The text
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > ... > The answer to your question is not to be found in a facile, fundamentalist acceptance or knee-jerk, revisionist rejection of the Biblical "evidence", and especially that in 1 Kings 5-9 (Chronicles being a different category), but in a critical and comparative study of what is described in the Bible in context of what else we know about temple architecture and design and symbolism from ancient near eastern writings, iconography and archaeological evidence. "Solomon's Temple" must first be reconstructed on the basis of the Biblical account, critically and philologically analyzed, and then treated as an archaeological artifact of uncertain background with all that implies. There is no "silliness" involved here except to the cavalier.

                            >While what you say about the analysis of the temple from its description is certainly true, even applying these scientific criteria to its evaluation would not prove in the long run that it was built by "Solomon" or indeed, that there was even a "Solomon" to have built it. For this, confirmation independent of the biblical narrative is needed. I do not mean by this to disparage anyone's faith in the biblical narrative, merely to point out that faith is not science.
                            >
                            > Bob Whiting
                            > whiting@...
                            >
                            >
                            > > Victor
                            > > BGU
                            > >
                            > A couple of observations: Victor, you have to explain your remarks about Chronicles: Just convenient, old common knowledge, whatever?
                            That we can describe Solomon's temple does not mean that it existed, only that the author had an idea about how such a temple should look like. The text never becomes an archaeological artefact, except for textual archaeology, as in higher criticism.

                            So we still only have Solomon's temple in the Bible and no way so far
                            tgo get out of the pages of 1 Kgs.
                            >
                            > Niels Peter Lemche
                            >
                            PS: I do not think that people read Bertrand Russell now-a-days, but his distinction between categories is a must. A text is not an artefact, and an artefact not a text, althougth it may be recorded as a text.
                            And a PS to Bob. I am afraid that modern hermeneutics will probably not be too kind to your idea about science. They will stamp is as positivism, and put it aside. They will bring in fellows like Gadamar, Ricoeur, Derrida, you mention them. Even the social construct of Habermas.



                            Actually, the ms containing the texts are, in fact, archaeological
                            artifacts, and knowledge can be gleaned from their study using those
                            tools. Take the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

                            Best salaams,

                            R. Brian Roberts
                            Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology
                          • Niels Peter Lemche
                            Actually, the ms containing the texts are, in fact, archaeological artifacts, and knowledge can be gleaned from their study using those tools. Take the Dead
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                              Actually, the ms containing the texts are, in fact, archaeological
                              artifacts, and knowledge can be gleaned from their study using those
                              tools. Take the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

                              Best salaams,

                              R. Brian Roberts
                              Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology


                              No they are not, the manuscript is an early 11th century Jewish Bible.
                              Or, in the same family, an early 10th century Jewish Bible.

                              But when you are talking about the DSS, have you checked if the relevant
                              chapters are there? (as a matter of fact, although there is little of
                              Kings left, the relevant chapters are there in fragments).

                              Does this change anything? No, because these fragments belong to the 1st
                              century BCE (some would be more generous and include the 1st century
                              CE).

                              So, although the DSS could be said to be artefacts in the way you define
                              it, they have no saying on the issue here.

                              Niels Peter Lemche
                            • Ariel L. Szczupak
                              ... I m doing my best :) Ariel. [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!] ... Ariel L. Szczupak AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.) POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                                At 14:57 31/08/2006, Robert M Whiting wrote:
                                >or that "silliness" can't be promoted to
                                >science

                                I'm doing my best :)


                                Ariel.

                                [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                                ---
                                Ariel L. Szczupak
                                AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                                POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
                                Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                                ane.als@...
                              • George F Somsel
                                Niels Peter Lemche wrote: Actually, the ms containing the texts are, in fact, archaeological artifacts, and knowledge can be gleaned from
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                                  Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:
                                  Actually, the ms containing the texts are, in fact, archaeological
                                  artifacts, and knowledge can be gleaned from their study using those
                                  tools. Take the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

                                  Best salaams,

                                  R. Brian Roberts
                                  Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology

                                  No they are not, the manuscript is an early 11th century Jewish Bible.
                                  Or, in the same family, an early 10th century Jewish Bible.

                                  But when you are talking about the DSS, have you checked if the relevant
                                  chapters are there? (as a matter of fact, although there is little of
                                  Kings left, the relevant chapters are there in fragments).

                                  Does this change anything? No, because these fragments belong to the 1st
                                  century BCE (some would be more generous and include the 1st century
                                  CE).

                                  So, although the DSS could be said to be artefacts in the way you define
                                  it, they have no saying on the issue here.

                                  Niels Peter Lemche



                                  To be more precise, if you allow translations then it is in a 4th cent Christian Bible.

                                  ______________



                                  george
                                  gfsomsel
                                  _________


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • B.E.Colless
                                  ... Thanks to Jim for raising the question of abagadary , and to Victor for answering it correctly. Victor s use of elementary is appropriate, as element
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 31, 2006
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: Jim West
                                    > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:29 PM
                                    > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
                                    >
                                    > May I ask a question?
                                    >
                                    > In the subject line the word "abagadaries" is used. Is this some sort
                                    > of neologism or is it some sort of really profoundly corrupt version of
                                    > "abecediary"?
                                    >
                                    > Thanks for aiding my enquiry.

                                    > Jim West, ThD
                                    >

                                    > From: "victor" <victor@...>
                                    > Reply-To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:54:21 +0200
                                    > To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Subject: RE: [ANE-2] Tel Zayit and Izbet Sartah abagadaries
                                    >
                                    > Seems Quite Elementary, it's a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing the
                                    > C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it.
                                    > Victor
                                    >
                                    Thanks to Jim for raising the question of "abagadary", and to Victor for
                                    answering it correctly.

                                    Victor's use of "elementary" is appropriate, as "element" is supposed to
                                    come from LMN (the sequence that starts the second half of the
                                    Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet).

                                    Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
                                    "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
                                    "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.

                                    I have to say that none of the dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, NZ) in my home
                                    have "abecediary" or "abecedary" (a word I first encountered in Demsky's
                                    study of the Izbet Sartah Ostracon, as "A Proto-Canaanite abecedary", Tel
                                    Aviv 4, 1977,14-27, and I used it in the title of my first paper on the
                                    proto-alphabet, published in Abr-Nahrain 26, 1988 without using that word,
                                    which had puzzled people at the language-and-literature conference).

                                    It is reasonable to use "abecedary" to apply to a copy of the Hebrew and
                                    even the Greek alphabet (though it really belongs to the Roman alphabet),
                                    because G (boomerang) produced Roman C.

                                    So, "abagadary" is another *vagary* of mine (a "silly idea"), but I like it
                                    because it is pretty 'fonetic', unlike <eibiisiid(iy)ariy>). All the a's in
                                    abagadary are sounded the same (unlike "vagary" = veigeriy).

                                    OK, even when I myself say the word, it will probably come out as
                                    <aebagaederiy>!

                                    Brian Colless PhD ThD
                                  • victor
                                    ... the ... Thanks to Jim for raising the question of abagadary , and to Victor for answering it correctly. Victor s use of elementary is appropriate, as
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 1, 2006
                                      > Seems Quite Elementary, it's a semiticization of ABeCeDiary, replacing
                                      the
                                      > C with Gimmel. Cute of Brian to have thought of it.
                                      > Victor
                                      >
                                      Thanks to Jim for raising the question of "abagadary", and to Victor for
                                      answering it correctly.

                                      Victor's use of "elementary" is appropriate, as "element" is supposed to
                                      come from LMN (the sequence that starts the second half of the
                                      Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet).

                                      That's precisely why I used it.

                                      ABiGDor Victor Hurowitz
                                      BGU
                                    • Peter T. Daniels
                                      Abjad is NOT an equivalent of alphabet. At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the pronunciation abgad (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 1, 2006
                                        "Abjad" is NOT an equivalent of "alphabet."

                                        At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the pronunciation "abgad" (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
                                        --
                                        Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
                                        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:34:19 PM
                                        Subject: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary


                                        Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
                                        "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
                                        "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.
                                      • B.E.Colless
                                        ... Yes, Peter, you are right, of course. The word exists to distinguish the Semitic-type script in which each character represesents a consonant. So it should
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 2, 2006
                                          > From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
                                          > Reply-To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 04:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
                                          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary
                                          >
                                          > "Abjad" is NOT an equivalent of "alphabet."

                                          Yes, Peter, you are right, of course. The word exists to distinguish the
                                          Semitic-type script in which each character represesents a consonant.

                                          So it should be called a "'bgd", pronounced with no vowels (like "Ms").

                                          No, that's me being "silly" again (cognate with German "selig", blessed,
                                          mystically blissful, in the seventh heaven of delight, away with the ...
                                          angels, and with my Syriac mystic, John of Dalyatha).

                                          Even though 'bgd is written without vowels, that does not mean it is
                                          pronounced without vowels; the reader supplies the vowels in texts written
                                          in such scripts. (And I pronounce "Ms" the same as "Miss").

                                          The special meaning of "alphabet" is the Greco-Roman type, which includes
                                          vowel-signs as well as consonant-letters.

                                          But I also like to call this a "vocalic" alphabet, as opposed to a
                                          "consonantal" alphabet. We should be allowed to talk about the Hebrew
                                          alphabet, and the Syriac alphabet, when we are not being technical.

                                          And an abgad is also a "consonantary", not a "syllabary" (in which each
                                          character is a "syllabogram", representing a particular syllable, as in the
                                          Creto-Cyprian scripts).

                                          And an abugida is a simplified syllabary (Sanskrit and Ethiopic, both of
                                          which developed from the Semitic abgad/consonantary). You could say that the
                                          Hebrew and Arabic scriptures, with vowel-marks added to the consonants, have
                                          such a system of writing. (If we don't classify them that way, what would be
                                          the correct designation, in a single word?)

                                          The ancient Mesopotamian (Sumero-Akkadian) and Canaanite ("Byblos
                                          pseudo-hieroglyphic") scripts were logosyllabaries (the signs stand for
                                          words or syllables).

                                          The Egyptian hieroglyphic system is a special case: a "logoconsonantary"
                                          (normally no vowels are indicated).

                                          And eventually it will be common knowledge that the Semitic "proto-alphabet"
                                          was not simply a 'abgad/ consonantary, but a logoconsonantary, a very
                                          simplified or reduced imitation of the Egyptian system.

                                          And so, an "abagadary" is a "table" (a paradigm?) of the Semitic "alphabet",
                                          at any stage of its development. And thus I decree.

                                          For an example of such a table of the proto-alphabet, found in Thebes, with
                                          the letters not in any particular order, go to:

                                          cryptcracker.blogspot.com
                                          ("The alphabet when young")

                                          (I would like to get a good copy of it into our ANE-2 photo-album)

                                          And please note that Emile Puech has informed me that he drew attention to
                                          it "in a lecture at the first congress of Phenician and Punic Studies, in
                                          Rome in 1979".

                                          And do we need a word "abugidary"?

                                          Brian Colless

                                          > At its first appearance in print I note that Alan Corré suggested the
                                          > pronunciation "abgad" (JAOS 110: 730 n. 7).
                                          > --
                                          > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message ----
                                          > From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
                                          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:34:19 PM
                                          > Subject: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yes, it is my own neologism. We have previously discussed Peter Daniels's
                                          > "abjad" for "alphabet" (I said I would prefer to say "ab(a)gad"). And
                                          > "abagadary" is made acrophonic-ly from 'Alp Bayt Gaml Dalt.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Peter T. Daniels
                                          An abugida is NOT a simplified syllabary. No syllabary has ever given rise to a script of any other type. Pointed Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac are alphabets. --
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Sep 2, 2006
                                            An abugida is NOT a "simplified syllabary." No syllabary has ever given rise to a script of any other type.

                                            Pointed Hebrew/Arabic/Syriac are alphabets.
                                            --
                                            Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: B.E.Colless <briancolless@...>
                                            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2006 8:35:45 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [ANE-2] The abagadary vagary


                                            And an abugida is a simplified syllabary (Sanskrit and Ethiopic, both of
                                            which developed from the Semitic abgad/consonantary). You could say that the
                                            Hebrew and Arabic scriptures, with vowel-marks added to the consonants, have
                                            such a system of writing. (If we don't classify them that way, what would be
                                            the correct designation, in a single word?)
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.