A potsherd with writing from the time of King David--How 'bout that?

by not a captive 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    Writing on a potsherd found over a year ago in Qeiyafa near the Elah valley has been deciphered by Professor Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa. It is said to be the oldest known extant inscription in the Hebrew language. The potsherd was radiocarbon dated to c. 1000 BC which is around the time of King David. Interestingly Elah Valley (if it has been identified correctly) is the location of the famous fight between David and Goliath . I take the radiodate with a degree of scepticism; while useful, radiodates need to be calibrated to artifacts of known dates due to the problems around the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere versus biosphere and the variable rate of production.

    The Qeiyafa inscription used what was described as a proto-Canaanite (variant paleo-Hebrew) script, but as that was also used for other languages the fact it was Hebrew awaited translation.

    Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages.

    Galil's translation

    1′ you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
    2′ Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
    3′ [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
    4′ the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
    5′ Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

    Though John Hobbins previously suggested a different translation

    1 Do not do [anything bad?], and serve [personal name?]
    2 ruler of [geographical name?] . . . ruler . . .
    3 [geographical names?] . . .
    4 [unclear] and wreak judgment on YSD king of Gath . . .
    5 seren of G[aza? . . .] [unclear] . . .
    `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    I took a copy of this to the elders the last time I got to talk with them. Something that struck me about the inscription was that even in the time that it was written there was so little delicate theology that could be riven from this communication that it seemed arrogant for one human to impose upon another requirements as to how to obey-specifically-these commands.
    God has real challenges to meet in getting his thoughts through to us, it seems to me. No wonder he had to send the Logos.
    Anyway, I had been pondering the difference between the ancient Hebrew words for "burnt offering" and "sacrifice"and how their different meanings changed the way I understood the story of Abraham's "sacrifice" of Isaac.
    Just wondered if anyone else wanted to see this stuff.
    Maeve

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    I am not interested much in findings of this nature, but do find it interesting that experts in the matter 'translate' the text in such severe contrasts. Reading the two 'translations', I would not have known it was the same base text being converted.

    The difficulties of getting anything close to 'truth' in specific doctrine is evident, as you state.

    Jeff

  • wobble
    wobble

    I can only look in awe at this thing, it is obviously from a time when writing was a fairly new thing, I know nothing of the script, but it seems to me that if the Lord who is to be served is god, he is not named as Yaweh, this could be a problem for the W.T.

    Of course it may be referring to the slaves owner, not god.

    Interesting though.

    Thanks for posting, Maeve,

    Wobble

  • glenster
  • peaches
    peaches

    thank you.....

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    It would be nice to be able to read the text, but it is so fragmentary that it will never be read accurately unless more fragments are found or a match could be found with other existing texts. The text is valuable regardless for documenting the history of literacy in the Levant, for its witness to tenth century BC epigraphy, and possibly for the lexical and grammatical data it contains. Just looking at the inscription, being a total novice I can see how archaic it looks -- the `ayins have a dot in the circle (as they originally represented the human eye), the mem looks more like the hieroglyph it is based on, etc. Also the writing is from left to right rather than the reverse as it is in later Hebrew. The Hebrew transcriptions I've seen are interesting because I can easily follow the 1st, 2nd, and 4th lines WRT the Hebrew transcription, but I cannot see how they reflect the 3rd and 5th lines, those lines are really confusing.

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    What is over-all so stunning is the crude manner of writing. Although Hebrew became more sophisticated later on the earliest information used this grammar challenged form of expression. I gather that the Book of Job bears the marks of this ancient picto-graph transmission. And also notably the ancient story of Genesis 22. The problem of conveying spiritual concepts seems to depend very much on the hearer/reader to have a willing heart. Abraham learned what a "burnt offering" truly was. And "faith" took on a meaning that it never had before either.

    Certainly the written words that men and women of faith had available to convey their experiences of God would have to develop and grow in the course of their accumulated association with Jehovah. It seems to me that the earliest stories naturally reflect the limits of their understanding along with the limits of their spiritual vocabulary.I ndeed there surely had to be moments that words did not exist sufficient to express God's nature and ideals.

    Jesus used parables and his own example.

    Thanks for sharing friends.

  • Lieu
    Lieu

    That's because Hebrew & Arabic are based on the ancient Phoenician (Canaanite) writing system.

    http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html

  • humbled
    humbled

    This is relevant to the discussion of old bible history--and how much we should disparage one another over its contents.

    Maeve

  • humbled
    humbled

    Confusedandalone,

    You might have known this already.... but this is some of the writing used to transmit bible stories.

    Really rough stuff.

    When the elders were taking me to task for trying to think about the way the bible was translated, I found this story about a potsherd with writing on it.

    I got a copy of the weird writing and enlarged it. I showed it to them. I asked how could anyone work out theology from this kind of writing--I mean, people burnt at the stake (and disfellowshipped) over this stuff!

    Guess how much they cared?

    P.S. Originally this was posted right after I was in trouble and soon to be " announced" as "no longer one of......."

    Sorry you are having a rough time.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit