more data, less clarity on Hebrew biblical texts

[_rck_]

Thanks to interactiveleaf, I was pointed to this recent article on the oldest Hebrew inscription on an ostrakon from a valley close to Jerusalem.

The actual argument that the article can reasonably make is that Hebrew as a written language is apparently much older than previously thought, possibly as early as the 10th century BC. What the article discusses

Comments

[megatexas]

Wait...if it's not a bible quote, what relationship does it have to the Bible anyway?

[_rck_]

Good catch!

Only an indirect one. In the past, one of the arguments against any authoring of the Bible during or before the reign of "David" or "Salomon" (it is not like we really know who was king then) was that the Hebrew language as recorded in the Biblical texts had not yet really "developed". Meaning that all the ostraka and inscriptions we had were much later, making it unlikely that such an elaborate work as the Pentateuch could have been authored and assembled during that time.

The new find knocks the supports out from that argument, and also takes away the argument that Judea of the 10th century BC was too much cultural back-water to support scribal schools at all (a very expensive luxury in Bronze age times--paying for the upkeep of a bunch of guys who just sit around and write?!?!?!).

So clearly someone somewhere near Jerusalem was literate in the 10th century BC.

interesting content

[anonymous]

It would be interesting to get a take on the extent to which the text's content is reflected in other, contemporary writings. The sentiments expressed - an abjuration to the ruler to be responsive to the needs of those who otherwise have no voice within society (the widows, the orphans, and the poor), along with the seeming suggestion that this has something to do with fear of the 'Lord' (regardless of which 'Lord' in point of fact was mentioned) - seems to resonate with major themes in the later 'prophetic' writings of the Old Testament. In which case the early date is really striking. The fact that such ideas are being expressed on a random shard with a date that turns out to be more-or-less contemporaneous with the origins of written Hebrew strongly suggests this was a very early cultural stratum in Judaism indeed, not just part of a post-exile, priestly elaboration to account for and to some extent justify the diaspora.

Re: interesting content

[_rck_]

Or that the prophetic sub-stratum was really more conservative than people think.

Re: interesting content

[_rck_]

The inability to pin down the Lord is only ignorable if the fear of the Lord is somehow genuinely Hebrew. If it is not (and I have no reason to believe that it is), then knowing which Lord it is becomes rather more interesting, does it not?