RE: Ask A Historian
May 20, 2015 at 11:33 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2015 at 11:58 pm by Minimalist.)
I've got to see if I can find something for you. BRB, hopefully.
Okay - that didn't take too long.
A couple of years ago a big splash was made with the so-called Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon. This piece of pottery had some writing on it in ink which right off the bat means trouble because ink fades and this thing faded badly. Nonetheless the Israeli finder, Yossi Garfinkle not only declared the language to be "Hebrew" but claimed that it proved the whole fucking tale of David and Jerusalem. Hint in archaeology: Beware of big claims. They are usually horseshit.
Now, leaving aside the fact that no less an epigrapher than Christopher Rollston has looked at this and not been able to determine what language it is that does not stop the bible thumpers from trying to force this into "Hebrew." Below are two translations - presumably by people who think they can read this stuff - and after comparing their efforts you would swear they were reading different languages.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ption.html
If you aren't familiar with archaeological conventions, the existence of writing inside the brackets generally notes a guess by the translator. The text itself is too poor to be read.
So here are two separate groups, trying to read this as Hebrew and coming up with radically different versions.
Chris Rollston tries to save their butts by pointing out that there is nothing which makes this out to be Hebrew at all which could explain why it doesn't read well.
https://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khir...nd_Caveats
We are looking at an inscription from the Iron Age I ( c 1200 - 1000 BC) or, to put it in context to the earlier discussion, two thousand years after the founding of Dynastic Egypt.
Okay - that didn't take too long.
A couple of years ago a big splash was made with the so-called Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon. This piece of pottery had some writing on it in ink which right off the bat means trouble because ink fades and this thing faded badly. Nonetheless the Israeli finder, Yossi Garfinkle not only declared the language to be "Hebrew" but claimed that it proved the whole fucking tale of David and Jerusalem. Hint in archaeology: Beware of big claims. They are usually horseshit.
Now, leaving aside the fact that no less an epigrapher than Christopher Rollston has looked at this and not been able to determine what language it is that does not stop the bible thumpers from trying to force this into "Hebrew." Below are two translations - presumably by people who think they can read this stuff - and after comparing their efforts you would swear they were reading different languages.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ption.html
Quote:But how certain are the contents of this inscription? Without having to know Hebrew or the finer points of Northwest Semitic epigraphy, we can detect the actual level of uncertainty just by comparing these translations:
A. Translation on John Hobbins’ website:
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] . . .
B. Translation “provided by the University of Haifa”:
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
First, notice THERE IS NO DAVID mentioned anywhere in this inscription. Judging by translation A, which mentions Gath, we could equally be exuberant that Assyrian historical claims have been amply confirmed by this inscription because the records (ca. 712/711 BCE) of Sargon, the Assyrian king, mention Gath. Hooray for Assyrian culture and religion!!!
If you aren't familiar with archaeological conventions, the existence of writing inside the brackets generally notes a guess by the translator. The text itself is too poor to be read.
So here are two separate groups, trying to read this as Hebrew and coming up with radically different versions.
Chris Rollston tries to save their butts by pointing out that there is nothing which makes this out to be Hebrew at all which could explain why it doesn't read well.
https://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khir...nd_Caveats
Quote:Attempting to determine the precise language of the Qeiyafa Ostracon is fraught withdifculties. Ultimately, the epigraphic data of Qeiyafa are not sufcient for a decision. To be sure, it can be stated that this inscription is Iron Age Northwest Semitic (based on thecombined data of the geographic region of the nd, the basic chronological horizon andthe script). Nevertheless, based on the epigraphic data itself, it is difcult to afrm morethan this. After all, there are no lexical elements that are diagnostic for a single language
We are looking at an inscription from the Iron Age I ( c 1200 - 1000 BC) or, to put it in context to the earlier discussion, two thousand years after the founding of Dynastic Egypt.
