Israeli archeologists find taboo toilet at ancient Jewish shrine

[Sparko]

First, read again, the Hills of Judea refers to a geographic region, and not a tribe. Reading comprehension a problem here?

"Judea" actually refers to Judah, the TRIBE and SON of Israel. So the tribe had to exist for the name to exist. And if there was an actual KING then there was an actual government and society and language, etc.

You are desperately trying and failing here Shuny. miserably. But then everyone knows you never, ever admit you are wrong. You just double down and make yourself look even more foolish.

[shunyadragon]

You really do not see the difference in these two statements of yours?

A "... There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE. ..."

B "... the Hebrew tribes [did] not have a distinctive culture and language ]was[ prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE.. ..."

Aside from the obvious difference of three centuries between "~600 BCE" and "~900--600 BCE," do we really need to repeat your past failure to understand some of the basics of the Canaanite and Hebrew alphabet, scripts, and languages, none of which you even understand but nonetheless ignorantly pontificate upon?

No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.



A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.

[robrecht]

No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.



A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.

It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.

[shunyadragon]

It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.

Yes written languages evolve in all cultures, but there comes a point where the written language becomes established and changes little beyond that and the average person can read the language from that point on. Chinese is a classic example, and I can easily read written Chinese back to 1100 BCE. Actually in reading the earliest Hebrew texts the scholars are not in agreement on how to read them.

The highlighted is a significant reason why I start the evolution of the Hebrew language to be ~900 BCE. I consider the consistent written language a more distinctive feature of and advanced culture than the spoken language. It is true spoken languages are very likely older then the written language in most cultures, and older then civilization itself.

The scant evidence of written text is a very real issue, and the religious practices does demonstrate that before this period the Hebrews were a subculture of the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures. Trade is the dominant reason that establishes the sophistication and widespread use written language, Unlike the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures, the Hebrew culture was a pastoral culture mostly in the Hills of Judea prior to about ~600 - 500 BCE.

[Kbertsche]

Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here?

I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.

[shunyadragon]

Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here?

I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.

The Proto-Canaanite is acknowledged as the origins of pre-Hebrew, but not Hebrew, and relationship with the more Dominant Ugarit/Canaanite earlier in Hebrew history.

The Egyptian link is a stretch, and does indicate an influence of Egyptian on the later pictographic symbols in early pre-Hebrew writing.