From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1998 #277 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, October 7 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 277 ane Cult of the bull re : ane "in" to pharaoh? Re: ane Aten and Adonai Re: ane Aten and Adonai Re: re : ane "in" to pharaoh? Re: re : ane "in" to pharaoh? ane Assistant Editor: Archaeology Magazine Re: ane Aten and Adonai ane Project to Gather Excavation Information ane Re: Isbet Sartah abecedary re: ane "in" to pharaoh? Re: ane Izbet Sartah abecedary Re: ane Izbet Sartah abecedary Re: ane "in" to pharaoh? ane Bull El and the Minotaur, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 12:55:54 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9r=E8se?= GHEMBAZA Subject: ane Cult of the bull To anyone concerned : I would like to know what is the the most ancient testimony of the cult of a bull considered as a god in the Near East, particularly in Syria, and Canaan (Ebla ?, Mari ?). Thanking you for your help. Thérèse Ghembaza Tél. 33 1 42 88 60 04 Fax 33 1 44 96 31 46 E-mail : ghembaza@idf.inserm.fr ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 14:41:26 +0300 From: Naccache Subject: re : ane "in" to pharaoh? OnTue, 6 Oct 1998 Andy Warshaw wrote: >Sidestepping the taboo issue of whether or not Moses or anyone eventually >represented as Moses ever spoke with any actual Pharaoh, can anyone on the >list suggest some sources for an Egyptologically responsible "imagining" of >the architectural features of the chamber where Moses and Aaron would have >gone "in" to tell Pharaoh etc etc. A few days ago the lebanese press reported that a major US studio was releasing a feature-length animated cartoon on Moses. Sidestepping, like Andy Warshaw, the taboo issue, can anyone comment on the "imaging" used in this production? any Egyptologist involved? any archaeologist? Sincerely, Albert Naccache Beirut, Lebanon anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:19:54 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Aten and Adonai Dear Peter, Thank you for reminding me of Naveh's opinion on this matter. Since he is certainly one of the ranking scholars today with regard to West Semitic epigraphy and paleography, his viewpoint always carries a great deal of scholarly weight. What you have quoted, however (pp. 36-37 of his EARLY HISTORY OF THE ALPHABET), is a general summary of an article he wrote on the ostracon from `Izbet CarTah in IEJ 28 (1978), 31-35 (which he himself cites in EARLY HISTORY OF THE ALPHABET, 37, n.21). I think it would be worthwhile for members of this list to read some additional quotes from this article to see more clearly what exactly is Naveh's position on the characteriziation of what is written on this ostracon: p.33: "According to the archaeological evidence, the ostracon was found among the remains of one of the earliest Israelite settlements in Canaan, but it does not necessarily follow that the abecedary is in Hebrew, even if it was scratched by an Israelite settler. The alphabetic order was adopted by the Hebrews, Arameans and Greeks from the Canaanites during the last two centuries of the second milennium B.C., presumably together with their script. The same alphabetic order seems to have already existed in the fourteenth-century B.C. Ugaritic abecedaries of 27 plus 3 additional letters. The alphabetic order of the 22 letters in southern Canaan in the twelfth century B.C. does not seem to differ from the Ugaritic one, except in the omission of the five letters which represented five consonants apparently reduced in the (southern) Canaanite phonetic system in the thirteenth century B.C. The order of the letters pe - `ayin in a context full of mistakes, as stated above, cannot lead to the assumption that the abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition. The rest of the letters, which do not form a comprehensive text, can hardly be called an inscription. In the absence of linguistic or orthographic features it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew. The only remaining criterion is the script. We prefer to define it as Proto-Canaanite, but it may also be called Canaanite. After the stabilization of the letter-stances and the right-to-left direction of writing at about 1050 B.C., this script is called 'Phoenician' in paleographic terminology as a matter of convention. The Hebrews adopted the (Proto-) Canaanite script in the twelfth or eleventh century B.C., but it took two or three hundred years until they began to develop an independent branch of their own. The late tenth-century B.C. Gezer Calendar is still written in the Phoenician script, and perhaps even in the Phoenician language. The earliest Hebrew letters are discernible in the mid-ninth-century Mesha Stele. This is a Moabite inscription written in the Moabite language, but in Hebrew letters which the Moabites adopted in all likelihood from the northern kingdom of Israel. The earliest known Hebrew inscriptions were recently unearthed at Kuntilet `Ajrud; they should be dated c. 800 B.C. Thus the epigraphic material known today does not speak in favour of an independent Israelite scribal tradition before the middle of the ninth century B.C. The `Izbet CarTah ostracon in Proto-Canaanite script can by no means change anything in this respect." I have two comments regarding Naveh's position as stated above (which as far as I know has not changed to date): 1. The determination "it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew" is correct if one defines Hebrew according to the special "independent Israelite scribal tradition" established in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. On the other hand, what prevents us from defining Hebrew as that which was written by the Israelites during any period of time? Naveh admits that this ostracon "was found among the remains of one of the earliest Israelite settlements in Canaan" and may "even" have been "scratched by an Israelite settler". If so, why not say that it is in (Proto-) Hebrew and that the (Proto-) Hebrew script of the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. = Proto-Canaanite? Is this not the same as what occurred with the Moabite Mesha Stone? Because we know that Moabites wrote it, we call it Moabite even if the script is in fact Israelite! In other words, what I am suggesting is that this ostracon be considered Israelite and therefore written in a proto-Hebrew script which is identical to the Proto-Cananaanite script. [On this point, see also Cross in BASOR 238 (1980), 13]. While it is true that there are many other identifying Moabite features in the Mesha Inscription, I do not think that Naveh is absolutely correct in assuming that there is nothing at all specifically Israelite about the `Izbet CarTah ostracon (see point 2 below). 2. I think that Naveh was much too hasty in dismissing the pe-`ayin sequence in this abecedary as just another scribal error "in a context full of mistakes" which therefore "cannot lead to the assumption that the abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition." To date, this pe-`ayin sequence (as opposed to the regular original Canaanite `ayin-pe sequence which was accepted by all those who adopted the Canaanite alphabetic order - see above in the quote from Naveh), is known only from three sources: the `Izbet CarTa ostracon, the triple abecedary in the HEBREW SCRIPT from Kuntillet `Ajrud and from some BH alphabetic acrostics (e.g. the LXX of Prov. 31:10-31; Lam. 2,3[triple acrostic!]4; [note also the acrostic in Ps. 34 where verses 17-18 make absolutely no sense and one must therefore assume that the original order here too was pe-`ayin and thus reverse the order of verses 16-17]). Since the latter two sources are clearly Israelite (see above in the quote from Naveh for Kuntillet`Ajrud), it seems to make sense that this order in `Izbet CarTa may not be just another scribal error but may reflect the same Israelite tradition. I prefer the recent summary of A. Demsky in W.W. Hallo ed., THE CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE, Volume One (Leiden, 1997) as follows: p. 363: "The Izbet Sartah ostracon (ca. 1200) is worth special attention for it is the oldest reduced twenty-two letter alphabet inscribed in the Proto-Canaanite script. This beginner's exercise tablet, written from left to right, is also peculiar in that some of the letters are transposed: the HETH precedes the ZAYIN and the PE comes before the `AIN. While one might assume this to be a child's sloppiness, the PE-`AIN sequence is found in the alphabetic acrostics of Lamentations 2,3 and 4, as well as in the triple abecedary in the Hebrew script found at Kuntillet Ajrud (early 8th century BCE) indicating a contemporary secondary Israelite scribal tradition of ordering the letters." All the best, Chaim Cohen On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > chaim cohen wrote: > > > > Dear Don, Tom , Jack, Peter, etc., > > Let me try to clear up a few misconceptions which have been expressed here > > regarding this topic: > > 1. The Gezer Calendar is no longer considered the earliest Hebrew > > inscription. As far as I know, the earliest Hebrew inscription is now > > considered to be the abecedary from `Izbet CarTah (Tel 'Apheq) published > > in TEL AVIV 4 (1977), 1-27 (articles by M. Kochavi [pp. 1-13] and A. > > Demsky [pp. 14-27]) which has been dated 12th-11th c. B.C.E. See also G. > > I. Davies, ANCIENT HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS (Cambridge, 1991), 113 (#35.001) > > and I presume also J. Renz, HANDBUCH DER ALTHEBRA:ISCHEN EPIGRAPHIK > > (Darmstadt, 1995) [which I have not yet received]. > > An abecedary isn't "in" any language! > > And Isbet Sartah is so crudely written (drawn??) that you can't really > assign it to any of the later regional scripts anyway. (Naveh 1982: 36 > already calls it "late proto-Canaanite.") > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 09:31:33 -0700 From: Jack Kilmon Subject: Re: ane Aten and Adonai chaim cohen wrote: Much thanks to Chaim. This was a great post and a "keeper." > 2. I think that Naveh was much too hasty in dismissing the pe-`ayin > sequence in this abecedary as just another scribal error "in a context > full of mistakes" which therefore "cannot lead to the assumption that the > abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition." I agree here with one caveat. An abecedary is, by nature, a learningexercise, often by children. Scribal errors and "a context full of mistakes" should be the rule and expected in such epigraphic exercises. It would therefore seem to me that the determination of a palaeographic or orthographic context for such a "beginners exercise" would be very difficult indeed, particularly when the exemplar comes from a period of tradition/cultural/scribal transition. In short, abecedaries have to be tough nuts to crack. Jack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:18:02 EDT From: StuOS@aol.com Subject: Re: re : ane "in" to pharaoh? In a message dated 98-10-06 07:48:41 EDT, anaccash@dm.net.lb writes: << A few days ago the lebanese press reported that a major US studio was releasing a feature-length animated cartoon on Moses. Sidestepping, like Andy Warshaw, the taboo issue, can anyone comment on the "imaging" used in this production? any Egyptologist involved? any archaeologist? >> Since I have children, and attend children's movies in the US, I have seen previews of this film, entitled "Prince of Egypt." It is scheduled to premier in the US in December, I believe. Based on the previews, it seems to be set during the reign of Ramses II, with Ramses II being Moses' brother (found, of course, in the Nile). The scenes that I saw appeared fairly accurate to my less-than-expert eye. At least, there were no glaring problems. Stuart O'Steen Boulder, Colorado ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:57:40 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: re : ane "in" to pharaoh? Naccache wrote: > A few days ago the lebanese press reported that a major US studio was > releasing a feature-length animated cartoon on Moses. > Sidestepping, like Andy Warshaw, the taboo issue, can anyone comment on the > "imaging" used in this production? any Egyptologist involved? any > archaeologist? The pre-opening publicity has stressed how they consulted with dozens, or hundreds, of "religious authorities" of three faiths to "ensure accuracy" (actually, to avoid offending anyone). This feels rather different from Cecil B. DeMille trumpeting G E O R G E R. H U G H E S, R A L P H M A R C U S, and K E I T H C. S E E L E over *The Ten Commandments*. It would be nice to see D A V I D N O E L F R E E D M A N (since he's conveniently located in San Diego and semi-retired), or some such, on this one, but that's unlikely, no? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:14:33 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Assistant Editor: Archaeology Magazine Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: mark@archaeology.org (Mark Rose) Assistant Editor position at Archaeology Magazine Entry level position. Background in archaeology required. Editing experience, familiarity with desktop publishing, ideally Quark for Mac, and foreign language skills are important assets. Job includes tracking text and art, proof reading, copy editing, travel guide research, some writing, and asorted editorial chores. Send letter and resume to Peter A. Young, Editor-in-Chief, Archaeology Magazine, 135 William Street, NY NY 10038. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 14:19:07 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Aten and Adonai chaim cohen wrote: > 1. The determination "it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew" > is correct if one defines Hebrew according to the special "independent > Israelite scribal tradition" established in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. > On the other hand, what prevents us from defining Hebrew as that which was > written by the Israelites during any period of time? Common sense. There is no necessary connection between a people and a language. > Naveh admits that > this ostracon "was found among the remains of one of the earliest > Israelite settlements in Canaan" and may "even" have been "scratched by an > Israelite settler". If so, why not say that it is in (Proto-) Hebrew and > that the (Proto-) Hebrew script of the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. = > Proto-Canaanite? Because those labels already have clear, accepted denotata, and Izbet Sartah (that's the English spelling) fits the latter, not the former. > Is this not the same as what occurred with the Moabite > Mesha Stone? Because we know that Moabites wrote it, we call it Moabite > even if the script is in fact Israelite! The language is Moabite, so the text is Moabite. It was erected by a Moabite, celebrating Moabite events, so the inscription is Moabite. There is, however, no known separate Moabite script. There is also no accepted label "Israelite script." > In other words, what I am > suggesting is that this ostracon be considered Israelite and therefore > written in a proto-Hebrew script which is identical to the > Proto-Cananaanite script. "Israelite" is the adjective for the country of Israel as opposed to Judah. Moab was not part of Israel, so a Moabite inscription is not Israelite. > [On this point, see also Cross in BASOR > 238 (1980), 13]. While it is true that there are many other identifying > Moabite features in the Mesha Inscription, I do not think that Naveh is > absolutely correct in assuming that there is nothing at all specifically > Israelite about the `Izbet CarTah ostracon (see point 2 below). Even if you take every word of Sacred History as literally true, there was no Kingdom of Israel (Davidic or Northern Tribes) at the time of the Izbet Sartah ostracon. It is not Israelite. > 2. I think that Naveh was much too hasty in dismissing the pe-`ayin > sequence in this abecedary as just another scribal error "in a context > full of mistakes" which therefore "cannot lead to the assumption that the > abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition." To date, this pe-`ayin sequence > (as opposed to the regular original Canaanite `ayin-pe sequence which was > accepted by all those who adopted the Canaanite alphabetic order - see > above in the quote from Naveh), is known only from three sources: [snip] But chet-zayin isn't; it's a typical schoolchild error. There is no reason to take one of the errors as diagnostic and ignore the other; and avoiding the totally incoherent jumble of letters as well as the sloppy ductus to make some sort of point (what, political?) is irresponsible. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:32:10 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Project to Gather Excavation Information Forwarded (form the AIA-list) on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses andinquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "Nick Eiteljorg" Pardon the cross-listing please. October 6, 1998 Dear Archaeologists, The Archaeological Institute of America and the Center for the Study of Architecture are cooperating to create a Web site that will list archaeological projects in the Mediterranean basin. We want to provide a way for scholars and students to find out what kinds of projects are going on and where. We hope also that this will provide a convenient and effective aid for scholars who wish to exchange information with one another. (We leave it to you to decide how broadly to interpret Mediterranean basin, but we encourage the broadest possible interpretation; we intend, at least at the outset, to list projects that are still in progress or, if concluded, began after 1980.) We expect to help users to find projects with geographic criteria and with chronological/cultural designations, and, of course, we will link to the Web sites of those projects. We will put information into the Web ourselves, but we want to start by asking those of you who direct archaeological projects to submit information to us for inclusion. (If you work on such a project, please encourage the project director to respond.) Such information will, of course, be more accurate and more complete. Please fill out this short questionnaire for us by the end of October so that we can add your project to the list. Just forward this message to neiteljo@brynmawr.edu and send it to us with your additions. Thank you, Nick Eiteljorg Archaeological Project Questionnaire 1. Project type: __ Salvage __ Excavation __ Survey __ Restoration __Other 2. Location of project by country, area and modern town: 3. Ancient name of site/area : 4. Starting date for project and ending date if project is complete: 5. Time period(s) focused on by investigation (please use general terms such as Neolithic, Bronze Age, Classical, Middle Kingdom, Neo-Assyrian, Roman Imperial, Byzantine, etc.): 6. Time period(s) encountered during investigation (please use the same general terms as above): 7. URL for project: 8. Director of project and affiliation: 9. Contact person for project information (if different from director) with email address and telephone number: 10. Sponsoring institution(s): 11. Corporate sponsor(s): 12. Person completing this form (with e-mail address and telephone number): 13. Electronic resources used on project (mark all applicable): ___ Word processors ( e.g., WordPerfect, Word) ___ Data bases ( e.g., FileMaker, Access, FoxPro, Paradox) ___ Spreadsheets ( e.g., Lotus 1,2,3; Excel) ___ CAD - Computer Aided Design programs ( e.g., AutoCAD, MicroStation, MiniCAD) ___ GIS - Geographic Information System programs( e.g., MapInfo, ARC/Info) ___ Graphics programs ( e.g., Illustrator, Photoshop, CorelDraw, Canvas) ___ Statistic programs ( e.g., SPSS, SAS) ___ Virtual Reality programs ( e.g., QuickTime VR, Cosmo) ___ Rendering programs ( e.g., Viz, AccuRender) ___ Other: (Please specify) 14. Brief description of project: - ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:15:19 -0500 From: "Donald R. Vance" Subject: ane Re: Isbet Sartah abecedary One must distinquish between the script and the language of an inscription. If one follows the taxonomy of Cross, the Hebrew script does not develop for another couple of centuries. As to the language, an abecedary of course does not contain linguistic elements sufficient to determine the language. The order of Pe and Dear Peter, >Thank you for reminding me of Naveh's opinion on this matter. Since he >is certainly one of the ranking scholars today with regard to West Semitic >epigraphy and paleography, his viewpoint always carries a great deal of >scholarly weight. What you have quoted, however (pp. 36-37 of his EARLY >HISTORY OF THE ALPHABET), is a general summary of an article he wrote on >the ostracon from `Izbet CarTah in IEJ 28 (1978), 31-35 (which he himself >cites in EARLY HISTORY OF THE ALPHABET, 37, n.21). I think it >would be worthwhile for members of this list to read some additional >quotes from this article to see more clearly what exactly is Naveh's >position on the characteriziation of what is written on this ostracon: > >p.33: "According to the archaeological evidence, the ostracon was found >among the remains of one of the earliest Israelite settlements in Canaan, >but it does not necessarily follow that the abecedary is in Hebrew, even >if it was scratched by an Israelite settler. The alphabetic order was >adopted by the Hebrews, Arameans and Greeks from the Canaanites during the >last two centuries of the second milennium B.C., presumably together with >their script. The same alphabetic order seems to have already existed in >the fourteenth-century B.C. Ugaritic abecedaries of 27 plus 3 additional >letters. The alphabetic order of the 22 letters in southern Canaan in >the twelfth century B.C. does not seem to differ from the Ugaritic one, >except in the omission of the five letters which represented five >consonants apparently reduced in the (southern) Canaanite phonetic system >in the thirteenth century B.C. The order of the letters pe - `ayin in a >context full of mistakes, as stated above, cannot lead to the assumption >that the abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition. > The rest of the letters, which do not form a comprehensive text, can >hardly be called an inscription. In the absence of linguistic or >orthographic features it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew. >The only remaining criterion is the script. We prefer to define it as >Proto-Canaanite, but it may also be called Canaanite. After the >stabilization of the letter-stances and the right-to-left direction of >writing at about 1050 B.C., this script is called 'Phoenician' in >paleographic terminology as a matter of convention. The Hebrews adopted >the (Proto-) Canaanite script in the twelfth or eleventh century B.C., but >it took two or three hundred years until they began to develop an >independent branch of their own. The late tenth-century B.C. Gezer >Calendar is still written in the Phoenician script, and perhaps even in >the Phoenician language. The earliest Hebrew letters are discernible in >the mid-ninth-century Mesha Stele. This is a Moabite inscription written >in the Moabite language, but in Hebrew letters which the Moabites adopted >in all likelihood from the northern kingdom of Israel. The earliest >known Hebrew inscriptions were recently unearthed at Kuntilet `Ajrud; they >should be dated c. 800 B.C. Thus the epigraphic material known today >does not speak in favour of an independent Israelite scribal tradition >before the middle of the ninth century B.C. The `Izbet CarTah ostracon >in Proto-Canaanite script can by no means change anything in this >respect." > >I have two comments regarding Naveh's position as stated above (which as >far as I know has not changed to date): > >1. The determination "it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew" >is correct if one defines Hebrew according to the special "independent >Israelite scribal tradition" established in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. >On the other hand, what prevents us from defining Hebrew as that which was >written by the Israelites during any period of time? Naveh admits that >this ostracon "was found among the remains of one of the earliest >Israelite settlements in Canaan" and may "even" have been "scratched by an >Israelite settler". If so, why not say that it is in (Proto-) Hebrew and >that the (Proto-) Hebrew script of the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. = >Proto-Canaanite? Is this not the same as what occurred with the Moabite >Mesha Stone? Because we know that Moabites wrote it, we call it Moabite >even if the script is in fact Israelite! In other words, what I am >suggesting is that this ostracon be considered Israelite and therefore >written in a proto-Hebrew script which is identical to the >Proto-Cananaanite script. [On this point, see also Cross in BASOR >238 (1980), 13]. While it is true that there are many other identifying >Moabite features in the Mesha Inscription, I do not think that Naveh is >absolutely correct in assuming that there is nothing at all specifically >Israelite about the `Izbet CarTah ostracon (see point 2 below). > >2. I think that Naveh was much too hasty in dismissing the pe-`ayin >sequence in this abecedary as just another scribal error "in a context >full of mistakes" which therefore "cannot lead to the assumption that the >abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition." To date, this pe-`ayin sequence >(as opposed to the regular original Canaanite `ayin-pe sequence which was >accepted by all those who adopted the Canaanite alphabetic order - see >above in the quote from Naveh), is known only from three sources: the >`Izbet CarTa ostracon, the triple abecedary in the HEBREW SCRIPT from >Kuntillet `Ajrud and from some BH alphabetic acrostics (e.g. the LXX of >Prov. 31:10-31; Lam. 2,3[triple acrostic!]4; [note also the acrostic >in Ps. 34 where verses 17-18 make absolutely no sense and one must >therefore assume that the original order here too was pe-`ayin and thus >reverse the order of verses 16-17]). Since the latter two sources are >clearly Israelite (see above in the quote from Naveh for Kuntillet`Ajrud), >it seems to make sense that this order in `Izbet CarTa may not be just >another scribal error but may reflect the same Israelite tradition. I >prefer the recent summary of A. Demsky in W.W. Hallo ed., THE CONTEXT OF >SCRIPTURE, Volume One (Leiden, 1997) as follows: p. 363: "The Izbet Sartah >ostracon (ca. 1200) is worth special attention for it is the oldest >reduced twenty-two letter alphabet inscribed in the Proto-Canaanite >script. This beginner's exercise tablet, written from left to right, is >also peculiar in that some of the letters are transposed: the HETH >precedes the ZAYIN and the PE comes before the `AIN. While one might >assume this to be a child's sloppiness, the PE-`AIN sequence is found in >the alphabetic acrostics of Lamentations 2,3 and 4, as well as in the >triple abecedary in the Hebrew script found at Kuntillet Ajrud (early 8th >century BCE) indicating a contemporary secondary Israelite scribal >tradition of ordering the letters." > >All the best, >Chaim Cohen > >On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> chaim cohen wrote: >> > >> > Dear Don, Tom , Jack, Peter, etc., >> > Let me try to clear up a few misconceptions which have been expressed here >> > regarding this topic: >> > 1. The Gezer Calendar is no longer considered the earliest Hebrew >> > inscription. As far as I know, the earliest Hebrew inscription is now >> > considered to be the abecedary from `Izbet CarTah (Tel 'Apheq) published >> > in TEL AVIV 4 (1977), 1-27 (articles by M. Kochavi [pp. 1-13] and A. >> > Demsky [pp. 14-27]) which has been dated 12th-11th c. B.C.E. See also G. >> > I. Davies, ANCIENT HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS (Cambridge, 1991), 113 (#35.001) >> > and I presume also J. Renz, HANDBUCH DER ALTHEBRA:ISCHEN EPIGRAPHIK >> > (Darmstadt, 1995) [which I have not yet received]. >> >> An abecedary isn't "in" any language! >> >> And Isbet Sartah is so crudely written (drawn??) that you can't really >> assign it to any of the later regional scripts anyway. (Naveh 1982: 36 >> already calls it "late proto-Canaanite.") >> -- >> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net >> > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature Undergraduate Theology Oral Roberts University drvance@oru.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:23:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Jennifer Long Subject: re: ane "in" to pharaoh? >Naccache wrote: > >> A few days ago the lebanese press reported that a major US studio was >> releasing a feature-length animated cartoon on Moses. >> Sidestepping, like Andy Warshaw, the taboo issue, can anyone comment on the >> "imaging" used in this production? any Egyptologist involved? any >> archaeologist? Hello listmembers, According to information given concerning the UCLA Institute of Archaeology Symposium, "Crossing Borders: Ancient Egypt, Canaan and Israel" they list: Antonio Loprieno - Broken Memory: the Use of the Past in Egyptian and Biblical Literature ....Professor Loprieno was consulted by Dreamworks for their animated feature "Prince of Egypt". I must say that this peaks my interest in seeing the movie. After "Hercules" (which I own, just because it makes me laugh on so many levels--it's Disney, you knew they would mess it up or Disnify it, as the case may be), I am anxious to see how the subject of Moses is handled. See you at the movies, Jennifer Long Missouri River Regional Library ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:58:25 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Izbet Sartah abecedary To Peter and Donald, Just a few clarifications of my position: To Peter, 1. According to Naveh, "The Hebrews adopted the (proto-) Canaanite script in the twelfth or eleventh century B.C." Is it not "common sense" that this script was then used to write their language Hebrew? This is irrespective of how close that dialect of Hebrew was to any Canaanite language! The Semitic language written at Ebla is called Eblaite no matter how close it is to Old Akkadian. Hebrew should be defined as whatever the Hebrews wrote in ancient times as their own language even if the earliest dialect happens to be identical or nearly so with Old Canaanite. 2. As regards the Mesha Stele, Naveh states (see my previous letter): "The earliest Hebrew letters are discernible in the mid-ninth-century Mesha Stele. This is a Moabite inscription written in the Moabite language, but in Hebrew letters which the Moabites adopted in all likelihood from the northen kingdom of Israel." My contention is that the Moabite use of the Hebrew script in this case may be seen as somewhat analogous to the Israelite usage of the Canaanite script in the Izbet Sartah ostracon. Just as one should not doubt the Moabite origin of the Mesha inscription despite the Hebrew script, so the Izbet Sarta ostracon should be considered early Hebrew despite the (proto-) Canaanite script. 3. "Israelite" may surely be taken as a geo-ethnic designation as it was by Naveh when he refers (in the quote from my last letter) to the archaeological evidence according to which "the ostracon was found among the remains of one of the earliest Israelite settlements in Canaan" and may have been "scratched by an Israelite settler". I never implied that I think that there was a "Kingdom of Israel at the time of the Izbet Sartah ostracon". I think that if you reread my previous letter, you will see quite clearly that no "sort of point (what, political?)" was at all intended. 4. To Peter and to Donald, As regards the pe-`ayin sequence, the point is why should we have to understand this sequence as an error (after all not every two letter sequence in this abecedary is in error) given the later unique HEBREW tradition of this sequence alongside the regular `ayin-pe sequence. If this is not an error, it provides a link to this unique (so far) Hebrew scribal tradition. Peter, do you really think that this is "irresponsible"? Donald, while you are surely correct that "the order of pe and `ayin is fluid for quite a while", the fact is that the three diverse sources in which this order is extant are in fact Hebrew or Israelite (Izbet Sartah, Kuntillet Ajrud and the Hebrew Bible). Can this then not be "a marker of Hebrew" (at least until contrary evidence indicates otherwise)? All the best, Chaim Cohen On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > chaim cohen wrote: > > > 1. The determination "it is impossible to identify the ostracon as Hebrew" > > is correct if one defines Hebrew according to the special "independent > > Israelite scribal tradition" established in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. > > On the other hand, what prevents us from defining Hebrew as that which was > > written by the Israelites during any period of time? > > Common sense. There is no necessary connection between a people and a > language. > > > Naveh admits that > > this ostracon "was found among the remains of one of the earliest > > Israelite settlements in Canaan" and may "even" have been "scratched by an > > Israelite settler". If so, why not say that it is in (Proto-) Hebrew and > > that the (Proto-) Hebrew script of the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. = > > Proto-Canaanite? > > Because those labels already have clear, accepted denotata, and Izbet > Sartah (that's the English spelling) fits the latter, not the former. > > > Is this not the same as what occurred with the Moabite > > Mesha Stone? Because we know that Moabites wrote it, we call it Moabite > > even if the script is in fact Israelite! > > The language is Moabite, so the text is Moabite. It was erected by a > Moabite, celebrating Moabite events, so the inscription is Moabite. > There is, however, no known separate Moabite script. There is also no > accepted label "Israelite script." > > > In other words, what I am > > suggesting is that this ostracon be considered Israelite and therefore > > written in a proto-Hebrew script which is identical to the > > Proto-Cananaanite script. > > "Israelite" is the adjective for the country of Israel as opposed to > Judah. Moab was not part of Israel, so a Moabite inscription is not > Israelite. > > > [On this point, see also Cross in BASOR > > 238 (1980), 13]. While it is true that there are many other identifying > > Moabite features in the Mesha Inscription, I do not think that Naveh is > > absolutely correct in assuming that there is nothing at all specifically > > Israelite about the `Izbet CarTah ostracon (see point 2 below). > > Even if you take every word of Sacred History as literally true, there > was no Kingdom of Israel (Davidic or Northern Tribes) at the time of the > Izbet Sartah ostracon. It is not Israelite. > > > 2. I think that Naveh was much too hasty in dismissing the pe-`ayin > > sequence in this abecedary as just another scribal error "in a context > > full of mistakes" which therefore "cannot lead to the assumption that the > > abecedary is in the Hebrew tradition." To date, this pe-`ayin sequence > > (as opposed to the regular original Canaanite `ayin-pe sequence which was > > accepted by all those who adopted the Canaanite alphabetic order - see > > above in the quote from Naveh), is known only from three sources: > > [snip] > > But chet-zayin isn't; it's a typical schoolchild error. There is no > reason to take one of the errors as diagnostic and ignore the other; and > avoiding the totally incoherent jumble of letters as well as the sloppy > ductus to make some sort of point (what, political?) is irresponsible. > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 03:11:18 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Izbet Sartah abecedary chaim cohen wrote: >The Semitic language written at Ebla is called Eblaite no >matter how close it is to Old Akkadian. I don't think so. Had Eblaite been very close, or close enough, to Old Akkadian, it would have been referred to as "the Old Akkadian tablets found at Ebla" (just like we have Old Akkadian from Girsu, Adab, Kish or Nuzi). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 11:01:30 +0800 From: Job Wei Subject: Re: ane "in" to pharaoh? Dear friend, I opin that the Biblical writer(s) wrote with the contemporary (of whatever period) Israelite palace in mind for the benefit of understanding by the contemporary non-Egyptian audience (of whatever period), since he/she/they didn't explain that there was a difference in features between an Egyptian and an Israelite palace. In this perspective, the tripartite portico-audience hall-elevated inner chamber architecture applies. When M and A were summoned, they moved from the portico into the audience hall, while the pharoah remained seated on his throne in the chamber. In the film, an Egyptian palace should of course be depicted for verisimilitude to the eyes of a modern child or adult, scholar or non-scholar. Such is the difference between the written and silver screen media. For a discussion of the layout of the palace in ancient Palestine and surrounding regions, see chapter 3 discussing Ehud's assassination of Eglon in Baruch Halpern's "The First Historian: The Hebrew Bible and History". Regards, Wei C F Hong Kong At 02:38 AM 6/10/1998 EDT, you wrote: >Sidestepping the taboo issue of whether or not Moses or anyone eventually >represented as Moses ever spoke with any actual Pharaoh, can anyone on the >list suggest some sources for an Egyptologically responsible "imagining" of >the architectural features of the chamber where Moses and Aaron would have >gone "in" to tell Pharaoh etc etc. Specifically, I am interested in >representing (with the projection of digitally-imaged slides) a space in which >the episode with the staff/snakes/magicians could have occured. Palace? >Court? Temple? Of what scale? A ceiling? Throne? What on the walls? On- >line sources would be particularly valuable, particularly if there is access >to downloadable photos or drawings. Otherwise, noteworthy texts would be >appreciated. I'm in NYC and can get to the Research Library, Met, and >Brooklyn Museum of Art. Most helpful of course are images I can bring to a >scanner. Replies off-line, I suppose, unless someone finds this interesting >enough to talk about. Thanks, all. > >Andy Warshaw >AVWarshaw@aol.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:23:15 -0400 (EDT) From: petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Sigrid Peterson) Subject: ane Bull El and the Minotaur, etc. >From petersig Wed Oct 7 00:09:13 1998 Subject: Bull El and the Minotaur To: @ccat.sas.upenn.edu (ANE Digest) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:09:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199810010755.CAA08249@asmar.uchicago.edu> from "ANE Digest" at Oct 1, 98 02:55:02 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 680 Status: OR > ANE Digest Thursday, October 1 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 271 > Re: ane KTU 1.5: in Death's kingdom > >>> Judith Weingarten 09/30/98 03:43AM >>> [. . . ] > Am I the only one who wonders if this text can be connected with the Minoan > myth of the Minotaur? > Judith I would think that Cyrus H. Gordon probably dealt with the connected bull mythologies in the Mediterranean in his 1965 Norton book, The common background of Greek and Hebrew civilizations However, it had gone missing from the library where I last looked for it. Sigrid Peterson University of Pennsylvania petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1998 #277 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html