74 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol.

XIII,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December)
by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable,
non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they are related
to the Bible.
Editor: G. Ernest Wright, McCormick Theological Seminary, 2330 N. Halsted St., Chicago
14, III. (Only editorial correspondence should be sent to this address.)
Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; Millar Burrows, Yale University.
Subscription Price: $1.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research,
Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Ten or more subscriptions for group
use, mailed and billed to one address, $0.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run
for the calendar year. IN ENGLAND: seven shillings, six pence per year, payable to
B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad St., Oxford.
BACK NUMBERS: Available at $1 per volume, 25c per copy.
Entered as second-class matter, October 2, 1942, at the Post Office at New naven,
Connecticut, under the Act of March 3, 1879.

EARLY HEBREW WRITING

David Diringer
University of Cambridge (England)

LITERARY
SOURCES
Unlike the ancient Egyptian tradition (ascribing the invention of
writing to Thoth or Isis), the Babylonian tradition (attributing it to
Nebo, Marduk's son, or to Namar-Bili), the ancient Chinese (to the
dragon-faced, four-eyed Ts'ang Chien), the ancient Greek (to Hermes
or to various mythical personages such as Palamedes, Prometheus,
Orpheus, Musaios, Linos, Epicharmos, Cecrops, Simonides, or Cadmos),
the Roman (to Mercurius), and the tradition of certain other ancient
peoples - the Hebrew Bible does not refer to the origin of writing,
although it deals with the invention of various arts, trades or professions
(language, agriculture, music, metallurgy, etc.). There is, indeed, a
tradition which attributes the creation of writing to Moses, but it is
post-biblical.
On the other hand, writing is often mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,
but only incidentally: such casual references are, as a rule, more trust-
worthy than formal or elaborate expositions. When we read, for instance,
in Judges 8:14, "And he (Gideon) caught a young man of the men of
Succoth, and inquired of him; and he wrote down for him the princes
of Succoth, and the elders thereof seventy and seven men", we can
assume that already in Gideon's time (tweltth or eleventh century B.C.)
an acquaintance with the art of writing had spread even among sections
of the country population. Of course, there must have been illiteracy,
even in later periods, e.g. in Isaiah's time (eighth century B.C.): "and
the writing is delivered to him that is not learned, saying: 'Read this, I
pray thee', and he saith: 'I am not learned'" (Isaiah 29:12). However,
even children it would seem, learned to write: "And the remnant of the
trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them down"
(Isaiah 10:19).
Scribes are often referred to, especially the "Secretary of State", or
other high officials (e.g. 2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; Jer. 36:12; 52:25). There

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Published By
The American Schools of Oriental Research
(Jerusalem and Baghdad)
Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.

Vol XIII December, 1950 No. 4

Fig. 1. The earliest extant written document of ancient Israel:

The Gezer Calendar. llth-lOth cent. 13. C.

CONTENTS

Early Hebrew Writing, by David Diringer . . . . . . . 74

Some Recent Study of the Scrolls, by Floyd V. Filson .... 96

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 75
were also official state chronicles (". . . are they not written in the
book of the chonicles of the kings of Israel?",1 Kings 22:39; ". . . are
they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?",
1 Kings 22:45; etc.). As one might expect, there were "ready writers"
(Ps. 45:2) - even organised guilds of scribes (Hebrew, Judges 5:14).
The passage "Andthe families of scribes that dwelt at Jaber: the Tira-
thites, the Shime'athites,the Sucathites"would seem to suggest that
the profession of writing was hereditary. There is even reason for the
suggestion that Baruch,Jeremiah'ssecretary (Jer. 36:4 ff.), belonged to
a family of scribes.
Writing materials and instrumentsare mentioned also: "and Bar-
uch . . . wrote upon a roll of a book" (Jer. 36:4); And it came to pass,
when Jehudi had read three or four columns, that he cut it with the
penknife, and cast it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the
roll was consumed in the fire . . . " (ibid., 36:23); ". . . and lo, a roll
of a book was therein; and He spread it before me, and it was written
within and without ... " (Ezek. 2:9-10). Although neither leather nor
papyrus is mentioned explicitly in connection with writing, there can
be no doubt that the quoted passages refer to either the former or the
latter, especially as we have other literary evidence for the use of
leather in ancient Israel and in neighboringcountries;in addition, there
is archaeologicalevidence for the employment of papyrus in the king-
dom of Judah. Exodus 26:14 shows that the art of preparingand colour-
ing skins was known in early times. As to ink and the inkhorn,cf. Jer.
36:18 (". . . and I wrote them with ink in the book,") and Ezek. 9:3
(". .. who had the writer's inkhorn on his side"). Jehuda's penknife
referred to above (Jer. 36:23) was probably used for sharpening the
reeds which served for writing.
The exact meaning of the word gillayon, commonly translated
"tablet"("Takethee a great tablet, and write upon it with the common
style", Isaiah 8:1) is uncertain. Prof. G. R. Driver may be right in
suggesting that this term may not denote a tablet, but rather a "blank
surface"or unwritten space on material suitable for writing, here prob-
ably wood, in view of the instrumentemployed (in Hebrew heret, mean-
ing "stylus",a hard instrument used for scratching or engraving); or
perhaps (as in modern Hebrew) a "sheet",as distinct from a roll of
writing material. Writing on stone is referredto in Deut. 17:2-3 (in this
inlstance,the stones were covered with plaster that they might have a
sllrface capable of taking a legible text of the laws). Joshua wrote
"uponthe stones a copy of the law of Moses"(Josh. 8:32), and, of course,
there were the tablets (luhoth; luhoth abanim) of the Ten Command-
ments (Exod. 34:28 ff.; Deut. 4:13); see also Tob 19:24 ("That with
an iron pen and lead they were graven in the rock for ever"). It is
uncertainwhether the "tablets"of Isaiah 30:8 and Hab. 2:2 were con-
ceived as stone, clay, wood, or some other material (though most likely
wood).
This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
76 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
PAUCITYOF HEBREW
INSCRIPTIONS
Biblical critics of the last century did not believe that any system
of writing was employed by the Semites of Palestine and surrounding
districts as early as the age of Moses. Some critical scholars made the
cuneiform writing the original script of the Bible. Winckler, Naville,
Benzinger, Jeremias, Grimme, and other eminent scholars argued that
the cuneiform was the official mode of writing of ancient Israel up to
the time of Hezekiah (late 8th - early 7th cent. B.C.). Some parts of
the Bible were supposed to have been written in cuneiform signs on clay
tablets, and certain Biblical terms have been interpreted accordingly.
Many scholars denied that alphabetic writing was practised in Palestine
before the Persian period; Dr. Cowley suggested that it was Ezra who,
wviththe assistance of his colleagues, translated the cuneiform documents
into Hebrew, and wrote the result down in the simple Aramaic characters.
Others, on the other hand, suggested that the Square Hebrew alphabet,
the prototype of modern Hebrew writing, was employed unchanged
since the time of Moses. To be sure, the epigraphical remains of ancient
Israel are very scarce. No stelae (monumental stones) of victory like
those of the Egyptians or Assyrians, or even of the Moabites or Ara-
maeans, have been preserved. David, Solomon, Ahab, and all the other
kings of Israel or Judah are known to us primarily from the Biblical
record.
This paucity of early Israelite written documents has been accounted
for in various ways; for example: (1) Some historians belittle the en-
terprise of ancient Israel and the culture of poor, little Palestine. (2)
According to others, the Hebrews possessed none of the political, ad-
ministrative, and civic genius for "imperial conquest". (3) Another
opinion suggests that the inscriptions which may have existed in pre-
exilic times have not been allowed to survive, because they must have
appeared unorthodox to later Judaism. (4) The numerous invasions
of Palestine must have been responsible for the destruction of a vast
number of inscriptions. In the light of present evidence, however, the
following two theories are the most acceptable: (a) Until the 'twenties
of this century, excavations in Palestine were not conducted in ac-
cordance with rigid scientific methods, and many small inscriptions (of
the size of some Lachish ostraca or seals, see below) may have been
lost for ever. (b) The vast majority of the contemporary documents,
and particularly all the literary works, were written upon papyrus, im-
ported from Egypt, or on parchment; in the damp soil of Palestine,
however, no papyrus or parchment could be expected to endure until
our time, unless preserved in conditions similar to those of the recently
discovered Dead Sea scrolls (Jer. 32:14 refers to a similar practice in
earlier times). The discovery at Lachish of a few clay impressions having
on the back traces of the papyrus documents to which they had been
attached testifies to the use of this writing material for commercial and
other purposes.

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 77
There can be no doubt, however, that there were many Early
Hebrew documents, but the vast majority have been destroyed, some
no doubt by human agency, some by the action of time and climate,
and others perhaps by factors still unknown.

EARLYHEBREW - SCRIPTAND LANGUAGE

INSCRIPTIONS

During the past fifty years there has been a considerable amount
of research on Early Hebrew inscriptions and much has been published.
In his outstanding Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford,
1903), G. A. Cooke included only one Early Hebrew inscription and three
Early Hebrew seals. Thirty years later, some hundreds of Early Hebrew
inscriptions, including ostraca, inscribed seals and weights, were pub-
lished by the present writer in Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi,
Florence, 1934. In the last fifteen years many more Early Hebrew
ostraca, seals, jar handle stamps, weights, and miscellanea were dis-
covered and the knowledge brought within the reach of ordinary readers.
The nature of the Early Hebrew documents - although the great
majority consist only of one or two words - is noteworthy. What for
the most part is recorded therein, is not the history of great events or
of striking personalities, but the details of everyday life. Even the
smallest documents furnished information which is of considerable value
in supplementing our knowledge of the Bible, and of the life and customs
of the ancient Hebrews.
For instance, the ostraca of Samaria (see below), which contain
various data regarding the nature and provenience of supplies of wine
and oil, and are probably dockets relating to payments of taxes in kind
to the palace of Samaria, throw much light on the language, religion
and personal names of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom, and
as well on its topography, and especially on its provincial and fiscal
administration, of which very little was previously known. Philologically,
these documents are extremely important as they represent the earliest
preserved texts written in the Hebrew dialect of the Northern Kingdom.
In them we have the form y n (yen), instead of the Biblical y y n
(yayin), "wine", and sh t ("year"), instead of the Biblical shenath or
shenah. While the Samarian ostraca provide us with examples of the
script and dialect of Israel, most of the other inscriptions illustrate those
of Judah, the most ancient of them being the Siloam inscription (attrib-
uted to ca. 700 B. C., and discovered in 1880 in the wall of an aqueduct
outside present Jerusalem). The most famous are the "Lachish Letters",
twenty-one in number, probably written in Jeremiah's time, about the
beginning of 587 B.C. (these were found in 1935 and 1938 at Tell ed-
Duweir, the ancient Lachish, in southern Palestine). While some of
the documents present new words or interesting forms, on the whole
the style in these inscriptions is pure and idiomatic, and reads like a
good prose passage out of the Hebrew Bible.
The term Early Hebrew is employed for the writing of ancient

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
 k I

78 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,

Israel in pre-exilic times, and is used in contradistinction to the term
Square Hebrew, applied to the script termed Assyrian in Talmudic
literature, which has been used by the Jews from the last centuries B.C.
onwards, and has become the parent of the modern Hebrew script.
The literary sources, already referred to, do not mention the name of
the Early Hebrew script, but in Talmudic literature (and in the early
Christian writings which are based on this literature) it is generally
referred to as "Hebrew", although the terms libbona'ah and r's or d's,

i
N' TAMw tI-P A :A I

6 -D ri-'^ 9Sf
-=
y ' ... ..8

93X
tI ,
py _1e :-;-- - I -='~
-.. . - - A

-
7 -:-t---Z : z .
T T<-- ^? - 77 ^7~"

-O_-._
10 .jt. . , __ f

ie ..............j.
--._'-::
'- *~-~";
f~-
.......~f~cz;~ ......~b - . _ .

_ __ MKXA-e
_5t? tf-^ f^ --__,
---Y ^
:tJVN----Vt-J ^^ ___
_i4^1 VA

16^ ?~:i-" S7t Oooo6 A OouoQO*p:QOi^ Qp A K

-- ....................... V ..
ll7 .-.T - . JH -^
s-s, a5
tsD~~~' tw s 5f- ---

19 AA A 9
20 It 'T reC 1:"
v r
'<
A-* :- =

r--
I i. !1^
1121
- thc an
-W
Af-lw
L
I. w w w u \ IV^ S 5
,X_
:
2v ?-t
WcI)_ *_ VL'.- -
:4U I r-,
- - :

122

Fig. 2. Chart showing the evolution of the alphabet.

of uncertain origin and meaning, are used, too, though rarely. Another
Talmudic terb, notariqon, may perhaps be explained by the use of this
script in later times as a kind of shorthand or as marking symbols: such
use is, however, still uncertain.
The Early Hebrew writing (Fig. 2, col. 6) and the Phoenician
scripts (Fig. 2, col. 8) were branches of the Canaanite main branch of
the North Semitic alphabet (Fig. 2, col. 5), while the Aramaic alphabet

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 79
(Fig. 2, col. 9) and its numerous descendants (including Square Hebrew,
Arabic and Indian scripts) constituted another main branch, termed
Aramaic, of the North Semitic alphabet. The Greek alphabet (Fig. 2,
col. 10), the progenitor of all the western alphabets, including the
Roman or Latin alphabet (Fig. 2, col. 11), was also a derivative of
the north Semitic alphabet, while the exact connection of the latter with
the South Semitic main branch of alphabets (including the Ethiopic

Fig. 3. Crart showing the different forms of the letters of the alphabet as they appear in
the different styles of Hebrew writing.

writing) is still uncertain: see D. Diringer, The Alphabet, 2nd ed., New
York and London, 1949.
The main characteristics of the ancient Canaanite and Aramaic
alphabets are that they consisted of 22 letters or symbols, which corre-
sponded roughly to the first 22 letters of the Greek alphabet; the method
of writing was uniformly from right to left; the 22 letters expressed,
as in modern Hebrew, consonants only, though some of them came to
be used as long vowels; both the names and the sounds of the letters

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
80 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
rest mainly on tradition. We do not know whether the modern Hebrew
names of the letters correspond exactly to those of the ancient Semitic
alphabets, but the differences, if any, do not seem to have been im-
portant. The Greek names of letters are derived from the Semitic ones,
and it is reasonably certain that the Greeks when they borrowed their
alphabet from Semitic sources, took over the names with the letters.
Therefore, we can assume that these names existed at the end of the
second and the beginning of the first millennium B.C., when the Greeks
adopted the Semitic alphabet, although the exact form of the ancient
names is still uncertain. The following are the modern names of the
22 Hebrew letters, probably corresponding to the names of the Early
Hebrew 22 ietters: 'aleph, beth, gimel, daleth, he, waw, zayin, heth,
teth, yod, kaph, lamed, mem, nun, samekh, 'ayin, pe, sade, qoph, resh,
shin, taw. The value of each letter was, and still is, that of the first
letter of its name; this device is known as the acrophonic principle. Thus,
the value of beth is b; of gimel is g (hard as in "good"); of daleth, d;
of he, h, etc.
Concerning the sounds of the letters, the most ancient transliter-
ations of the Semitic letters into their Greek equivalents and comparison
with some Semitic languages, as well as with the Ugaritic cuneiform
alphabet, show that the early distinctions of the North Semitic alphabet
between some of the letters (for example, between two s sounds,
samekh and sin) were lost at a later stage. The modern Hebrew order
of the letters seems to be the oldest (the ord-r of the Ethiopic letters
differs completely). The order of the letters follows the acrostics in
Lamentations 1-4, Proverbs 31:10-35, Psalms 9, 10, 25 (the qoph is miss-
ing), 24, 111, 112, 119 and 145. In 1938, on the last day of the excava-
tions of the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Expedition at Lachish,
a schoolboy's scribbling, including the scratching of the first five
letters of 1he Early Hebrew alphabet in their conventional order,
was found by Miss Olga Tufnell on the vertical face of the upper
step of the royal staircase which led up to the Palace. "It is the first
example of the Hebrew alphabet being learnt systematically" (Inge):
in the opinion of the present writer, this partial sample-alphabet may
belong to the early eighth century B.C.
An important recent discovery (1950) confirms our opinion that
the conventional order of the Hebrew letters is the oldest. The dis-
covery was made by C. F. A. Schaeffer at Ras Shamrah (ancient Ugarit)
in Syria. He published a tablet, which he assigns to the fourteenth cen-
tury B.C., containing a sample-alphabet, of 30 letters, of the cuneiform
alphabetic writing. The order of the letters follows that of the North
Semitic alphabet, as evidenced by the Hebrew order of the letters.
Three of the non-North Semitic signs are added at the end, and the
remaining five are inserted at the various points in the list.
The Moabite (Fig. 2, col. 7), the Edomite, and the Ammonite alpha-

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL
THE BiBLiCAL ARCHAEOLOGiST
ARCHAEOLOGIST 81
bets may be considered as secondary branches of the Early Hebrew
alphabet, while the Samaritan alphabet (Fig. 3, col. 7) and the script
of the Jewish coins (Fig. 3, col. 6) of the Maccabaean period and of
the Bar Kochba revolt, are its direct offshoots. Of the Moabite alphabet
there are a few seals extant; the famous victory stela, known as the
Moabite or Mesha Stone (cf. 2 Kings 3:4 ff.), discovered in 1868 at
Dibon, in Transjordan, is now in tlhe Louvre. Only three seals in Am-
inonite script are extant, while a short inscription incised on a jug, found
in 1938 at Tell el-Kheleifeh (on the Gulf of 'Aqabah) and twelve stamped
jar handles found on the same site, are thought to be written in Edomite
script. As to the Samaritan alphabet and the Jewish coin script, see
below.

Fig. 4. Early Hebrew monumental script: the Siloam inscription, dating about 700 B. C.,
from the Siloam tunnel which was erected in the time of King Hezekiah to bring
water within the city of Jerusalem.

The main characteristics of the Early Hebrew writing (Fig. 3) are

by now unmistakable, and it is rather curious that there are still scholars
who confuse the terms "Early Hebrew" and "Phoenician" (or even
"Samaritan"). In comparing the Early Hebrew letters with Phoenician
(Fig. 2) we see, for instance, that the former, and particularly the zayin
and sade, are more squat, wider and shorter, also more accurate. The
main strokes of the Early Hebrew kaph, lamed, mem, nun, pe, and
sometimes also beth, are curved or rounded at the bottom. In the heth
the vertical strokes go beyond the horizontal ones. In the he, the
upper horizontal stroke goes beyond the vertical, and in some inscrip-
tions, there are four horizontal strokes instead of three (a similar feature
appears in the Etruscan alphabet). Zayin and sade curve back at
the end of the lower horizontal stroke. There are often some beautiful
ligatures. Although it is to be assumed that these characteristics are
due mainly to the influence of the cursive writing, they appear also in
in the Early Hebrew monumental script (see below).

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
 82 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
THEORIGINOF THEEARLY
HEBREW
SCRIPT
The Early Hebrew alphabet is, as mentioned, a branch of the
Canaanite main branch of the North Semitic alphabets. The origin of
the North Semitic parent-alphabet, and its connection with the Palaeo-
Slnaitic and the Early Canaanite inscriptions, also with the pseudo-
hieroglyphic syllabic script of the Byblos and the cuneiform alphabetic
wsritingof Ras Shamrah, and all the related problems, constitute a story
in themselh-es (see D. Diringer, 'he Alphabet, cit.) and will not be
dealt with in the present article. it may be mentioned, however, that
no important problem of the complex history of writing has obtained,
within certain limits, a more general agreement, in the last two decades,
than that on the question of the inventors of the alphabetic writing. In
the words of a leading British orientalist, Prof. G. R. Driver, "It was
the merit of the western Semites that they saw the importance of this
discovery and, discarding the whole cumbrous machinery of ideographic
and syllabic scripts and providing that each sound was represented by
only one sign, made a simple alphabet the vehicle of written thought
. . . one, and only one, of the gifts of the Semites to mankind." As to
the date of the invention, agreement is less general, but it is now com-
nmonlythought that the great event occurred in the first half of the
second millennium B.C., perhaps in its second quarter.
At any rate, there can be no doubt that what we now consider as
the Canaanite (Hebrew-Phoenician) form of writing, was already in
existence ca. 1500 B.C. In the last centuries of the same millennium,
with the definite or temporary political decay of the great nations of
the Bronze age, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the
I-ittites and the Cretans, we enter a new historical world. While to
the west of the "Fertile Crescent" we witness the rise of the Greeks,
and to the south, the initial flourish of the South Arabians (or Sabaeans,
the biblical Sheba), we see in Syria and Palestine, the geographical
centre of the "Fertile Crescent", three peoples beginning to attain
prominence, Israel, Phoenicia and Aram. All three adopt the same
North Semitic alphabet, out of which they develop, in the course of
time, the Early Hebrew (Fig. 2, col. 6, and Fig. 3) and the Phoenician
branches (Fig. 2, col. 8; both constituting the Canaanite branch),
and the Aramaic main branch (Fig. 2, col. 9) of alphabetic scripts. We
may assume that ca. 1000 B.C., after the united kingdom had been
established, and its centralized administration organized by king David,
assisted by a staff of secretaries, the Early Hebrew writing began its
autonomous development (Fig. 3). The aforementioned Gezer Calen-
dar (Fig. 3, col. 2, and Fig. 1) may represent the incunabula of Early
Hebrew writing or, at least, a very similar form of script.
EARLYHEBREW - DEVELOPMENT
EPIGRAPHY WRITING
OF EARLYHEBREW
The historian of Early Hebrew writing is at a very great dis-
advantage as compared with the Greek or Latin epigraphist or palaeo-

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 83
grapher. Tens of thousands of Greek and Latin inscriptions are extant.
Several examples of early Greek handwriting employed for literary pur-
poses, as well as a vast number of cursive specimens have been recovered
in Egypt; and a considerable number of later Greek manuscripts have
been preserved in various Mediterranean and other countries. As to
the Latin cursive scripts, no manuscripts of a literary nature have yet
been discovered which can he placed with certainty before the Chris-
tian era; nor are there extant other examples of Latin script of an
earlier period; still, the excavations of Pompei, Herculaneum and Al-
burnns Major (the modern Voeroes Patak, in Dacia), and the Roman

ROYAL JAR STAMPS

SJLOAM C L A
I i C L A S S ii C L A S S iit

It
ii ,',I .1 g
t (
w 1
l;^
J
Z
' s
H
A if
Y

K
tl
L

M
y7
N
/1 9 5
1 ) ())
P 1~70
R
I1 ci
w ,w
T X
CMI I,,. I i I, ,I
c S. I ems.

Fig. 5. Development of Early Hebrew letters in the monumental styles of writing: letters of
the royal jar-handle stamps of the eighth-sixth centuries B. C., as compared with
the letters of the Siloam inscription, dating from the end of the eighth century.

catacombs have put us in possession of a certain amount of material

of the first century B.C. (and later centuries), and from this point, the
later progress of the Roman cursive scripts can be followed through
numerous documents on papyrus and thousands of manuscripts on
parchment. Thanks to the vast material extant, we divide the study
of Greek and Latin writing into the following two departments: (1)

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
84 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
Epigraphy, i.e. the science concerned with the study of inscriptions,
that is, documents inscribed or incised on durable material (such as
stone or metal, or occasionally wood), thus including the inscriptions
upon coins (the science concerned with which is known as numis-
matics), gems, seals (sphragistics deals with seals in general), weights,
stamps, and other objects; and in the case of pottery, it is usually taken
to include graffiti and painted inscriptions before firing, but not the
ostraca, in which potsherds are used as a material to write on, instead
of parchment or papyrus. (2) Palaeography, i.e. the science which
seeks to read and to interpret writings in ink on less durable materials,
such as papyrus, parchment or paper, occasionally on sherds or wax.
In the case of Early Hebrew writing, owing to the dearth of material,
we are not in a position to subdivide this study into epigraphy and
palaeography. (To be sure, if we take into consideration the parallel
period in the history of Greek or Latin writing, we are not much better
off for the former, and even worse off for the latter: indeed, the Latin
alphabet had a very poor history during the early centuries of its
existence; only from the first century B.C. onwards do the Latin in-
scriptions become so numerous all over the world that they cannot be
counted; in the first century B.C. the Early Hebrew writing had already
passed out of common use). However, as the greater part of the Early
Hebrew documents may be considered as inscriptions, their study, in
practice, belongs to epigraphy, not to palaeography. Needless to say,
with the increase in the number of the documents extant, our knowledge
of Early Hebrew epigraphy steadily increases. It will be shown in a
following paragraph that various styles can be distinguished in the
Early Hebrew writing: the monumental style which, being the script
of the inscriptions, falls within the domain of "epigraphy", while the
two other main styles, the current hand and the literary hand, should,
strictly speaking, be dealt with by "palaeography".
The development of the single letters was, like that of the Phoeni-
cian and Early Aramaic alphabets, purely external: the number and the
phonetic value of the letters always remained the same. The direction
of the lines, always horizontal, was constantly from right to left. Even
the external development of the letters is not as relevant as in other
scripts. On the whole, the Early Hebrew alphabet was so constant
throughout the period of its employment (i.e. for nearly one thousand
years, the period which seems to separate the Gezer Calendar and the
Dead Sea Leviticus fragments, see below), that hardly any of its letters
changed form so radically that even a layman could mistake their
identity. In the opinion of the present writer, this is a most significant
phenomenon; indeed, it is probably unique in the history of ancient
writing. One may speculate as to its causes; for example, a central edu-
cational system, suggesting fairly close intercommunication between
various parts of the country; or a fairly widespread study of at least
the earliest biblical books, in which case their original script would no

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 85
doubt have served as a model for writing in general.
Separation of words by spaces is not found in Early Hebrew docu-
ments (as, indeed, it is not found in any alphabetic inscriptions before
the Roman period). As a rule, with few exceptions, the words are
separated by points or little strokes. In the Gezer Calendar there are
no word-dividers, but long strokes separate the clauses when these do
not terminate with the end of the line. In the Leviticus fragments (see
below) two empty spaces are verse-dividers or section dividers as in the
Massoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible which we use today.
Words are split between one line and another, but the word-division
is never marked.
ENDOF EARLYHEBREW
WRITING
It is highly probable that Early Hebrew writing survived until the

Fig. 6. Early Hebrew cursive document of the sixth century B. C.: a letter found in the ruins
of the city-gate of ancient Lachish.

second century of the Christian era, due no doubt to the influence of

some conservative sections of the ancient Hebrews.
Until recently, however, it was generally believed, in accordance
with a Jewish and early Christian tradition (the latter depending on
the former) that during the Babylonian exile, the Early Hebrew script
was superseded by the Aramaic alphabet, which in Palestine developed
into the Square Hebrew, the prototype of the modern Hebrew alpha-
bet. According to many eminent scholars the script used on the Jewish
coins (Fig. 3, col. 6) from the Maccabaean period to Bar Cochba's

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
86 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
revolt (ca. 135 B.C.-A.D. 135), as well as the Samaritan alphabet (Fig. 3,
col. 7) were artificial revivals of the Early Hebrew alphabet, some
centuries after this had fallen into disuse. Since 1934 and even earlier,
however, the present writer has believed that is is hardly likely that
an obsolete script would have been chosen for objects such as coins,
which are in general use, and that it is more probable that the Early
IHebrew alphabet continued to be used among certain sections of the
population for some centuries after the Aramaic language and script
had become the official means of intercourse.
The epoch-making discovery in 1949, by Mr. G. Lankester Harding,
Chief Curator of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of
five small fragments, containing scme passages from Leviticus 19-21,
and written in Early Hebrew writing (Fig. 8), prompted the present
writer to re-examine various questions connected with the problem of
the,end of Early Hebrew writing. Having investigated the Jewish and
early Christian tradition concerning the change of the Hebrew script,
the epigraphic evidence, the script on the Jewish coins and the question
of the origin of the Samaritan alphabet, the present writer arrived at the
following conclusions (see "Early Hebrew Script Versus Square Hebrew
Script", in Essays and Studies presented to Stanley Arthur Cook, London,
England; 1950). The Early Hebrew script lingered on perhaps into the
first two centuries of the Christian era among certain local nationalist
sections of the population, and the coin-alphabet and the Samaritan script
represent a continuity of this. Jewish tradition, which attributes the
change of script to Ezra is very late; it is no older than the second
century A.D., and it is based not on historical sources but on sectarian
controversies and haggadic interpretation.
The persistence of the Early Hebrew script into the early Christian
centuries is also proved by Origen and Jerome, according to whom the
Tetragrammnaton(the four consonants with which the name of God was
written), in accurate manuscripts was written in archaic letters unlike
those in use in their own time; how right this assertion was, is now
shown by the Dead Sea "Habakkuk Commentary", written in Square
Hebrew character with the Tetragrammaton written in Early Hebrew
script (although in stylized and rather unusual form of lettering): see
Fig. 9. Another Dead Sea Square Hebrew fragment contains the word
'el, "God", written in a beautiful Early Hebrew book-hand: see Fig. 9.
It may also be mentioned that the interesting "marginal markings"
(in a few Dead Sea scrolls), which have been referred to by Dr. J. C.
Trever, resemble some Early Hebrew letters and may well be a survival
of this script. It is, indeed, within the bounds of possibility that the
term notariqon (probably meaning a notary's or stenographer's script,
or documentary hand) applied to the Early Hebrew writing in some
Talmudic passages, may refer to the survival of this script into late
times for certain official purposes.
To sum up the last two sections, it seems reasonable to assume

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 87
that the Early Hebrew writing was employed from Ca. 1000 B.C. to ca.
the second century of the Christian era.

STYLES OF EARLY HEBREW WRITI'NG (Fig. 3)

In spite of the scantiness of the material and, as previously men-
tioned, the absence of long inscriptions, the history of the Early Hebrew
writing is being gradually unfolded in a marvelous manner. Now we

I II in IV V VI.
4 .jF=
1 n
9'
I,
'1 -
4 ..'IF'O
n a .4"
v If
011
'1'
1
-1 1 I
7 79
n
7.7
?a 6w 41
40
--L - /A _V_ *

-A ,
I
V
I '
z
I Z /

It
-N 3)

2 -7 1 5I if
1 AV,

al a
"eI to
Of

73 'I "I
.0 I
3
40
ti
'V ir IV
'X r '4 1'
dw 4, Ai7A
ow ~* ,4#

-i

Fig. 7. The letters of the Hebrew current hand as employed in the Lachish letters of the
early sixth century B. C.

can trace in the history of this script the gradual change which has
characterised al known alphabets; and it is possible as a rule to state
not merely that a particular inscription is Early Hebrew, but also,

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
88 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAE,OLOGIST (Vol. XIII,

broadly speaking, to which period it belongs.

Moreover, Early Hebrew writing, like the script of any civilized
nation, may be sub-divided into two main classes, (1) inscriptions in
monumental style (Fig. 3. col. 3), and (2) documents in cursive style
(Fig. 3, col. 4). As in any other monumental style of writing, the chief
consideration of the monumental Early Hebrew was permanence, beauty,
including proportion and evenness, while the chief consideration of the
cursive was, and always is, speed and utility. Lankester Harding's afore-
mentioned discovery enables us to suggest that the ancient Israelites
had not only a monumental and a current script, but also a book-hand
(Fig. 3, col. 5). (See D. Diringer, "The Early Hebrew Book-Hand,
Palestine Explor. Quart., 1950, pp. 16-24).
Indeed, it is common knowledge that any developed handwriting
(such as Greek, Latin, English, or Italian) has broadly two styles, the
ordinary cursive or current hand, common to all, and the carefully written
literary or book-hand employed by trained scribes for purposes of
literature. Not that the two classes were always kept absolutely distinct;
books may have been written in current hand when a work was copied
out by a scholar for private study, and quite often when the original
was written by the author.
On the other hand, private letters may have been written in a set
form of writing or book-hand; this hand may also have been employed,
for some official reason, in drawing up documents, which would more
often be written in the cursive style. These, however, are exceptions.
Generally speaking, there always existed a certain antagonism between
the book-hand and the natural current hand. The book-hand, which in
all cases was the outcome of careful elaboration, was a more self-conscious
form of handwriting with more concern for legibility, clearness and
beauty. The transformation of the forms of its lettering was relatively
slow, wheras the running or current hand naturally assumed a less exact
form: the forms of the letters changed quickly, sometimes in the period
of a generation; strokes were slurred, angles became more and more
curved, superfluities were dropped, and letters were linked together.
Thus grew up the ordinary cursive hand of individuals.
It need hardly be mentioned that the three main styles of writing
referred to were in concurrent use, and based on the same alphabet.
The primitive Early Hebrew alphabet was probably composed of letters
of a formed though rugged character, which, when written down in
words, stood as units apart from one another, and only required to be
set down with care and uniformity to become the letters now con-
sidered to be in the monumental style. On the other hand, the same
primitive symbols, under the pen of the "ready" writer who sought to
express himself with speed, naturally developed more swiftly. Different
writing materials and tools favour different kinds of pen-stroke in the
quick writer, and set different artistic ideals before the calligraphers.
Inscribed or incised on stone, letters tended to be made up of indepen-

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 89
dent strokes or scratches of the chisel, with possibly few curves, while
the pen-made curves tended to join together independent strokes and
sometimes even particular letters; and in time there also came a feeling
for uniformity of height.
Changes in the cursive or current hand no doubt arose in a large
measure from a natural indolence or inertia on the part of individual
scribes; in addition, the natural or individual hand of the scribe
would also tend to assert itself; and cursive shapes began to

Fig. 8. Early Hebrew book-hand of the late fourth or early third century B. C. (?), as illus-
trated by fragments of the book of Leviticus found in the Dead Sea Scroll cave.

make their appearance intermingled w i t h the more formal

characters. This tendency would probably have been counteracted in
the book-hand by the reader's demand for clearness, which was gener-
ally met by reverting to an older type of script, but sometimes by differ-
entiating similarly or almost similarly shaped letters by means of an
exaggeration of their ancient characteristics. With the cursive hand,
however, the writing probably degenerated until it was finally super-
seded by a new reformed style which, in its turn, ran its course.

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
90
90 THE BIBLICAL
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
(Vol. XIII,

EARLYHEBREW OR LAPIDARY
MONUMENTAL STYLE
OF WRITING
The Gezer Calendar (Fig. 3, col. 2, and Fig. 1), already referred
to, was discovered in 1908, and is now in the Museum of Antiquities,
Istanbul. It may be considered as the starting point of the monumental
style (and, indeed, of Early Hebrew writing in general). The majority
of its letters are probably identical or nearly identical with those of the
Early Hebrew primitive alphabet. The letters, throughout, have archaic
forms. The mem still retains the probably original zig-zag form; the
samek is of the earliest type, with the characteristic that the perpen-
dicular stroke starts from above the top horizontal: a peculiarity repre-
senting an earlier type than the samek of the Moabite Stone (see below).
Also the forms of aleph, daleth, waw, qoph, and shin are archaic. The
curving of the shafts of the letters, the secondary and supplementary
additions, the overlapping, intersection, and prolongation of the strokes,
are either lacking altogether or appear in a very slight degree. The
forms of mem, pe, sade, and qoph are quite different from those, for
instance, of the Siloam letters. However, some of the signs of the Gezer
Calendar had already assumed characteristic forms of Early Hebrew
letters. Thus, for example, the letters kaph, mem, nun, and pe are
marked by the tendency to bend their main stems to the left.
Until the discovery of the Gezar Calendar, the Siloam tunnel inscrip-
tion (Fig. 4), casually discovered in June, 1880, by some school-boys,
and now in the Istanbul Museum of Antiquities, was considered the
oldest Early Hebrew inscription. It is still the main monumental inscrip-
tion of ancient Israel; it records the labour of those who dug the tunnel.
During the 300 years, or so, which separated the Gezer Calendar from
the Siloam inscription, the Early Hebrew monumental writing became
lighter and more flowing, no doubt under the influence of the cursive
script, already wide-spread (as far as we can assume from literary and
other sources). The famous Moabite or Mesha' Stone, inscribed in a
kindred form of script (Fig. 2, col. 7), and belonging to the first half
of the ninth century B.C., may be considered a connecting link between
the Gezer and the Siloam inscriptions. However, the slow but steady
development of the monumental or lapidary style is evidenced even by
comparison of the Mesha' Stone and the Siloam inscription; for instance,
the letters aleph, waw, zayin, heth, and sade are considerably different
in these two inscriptions. It may be said that the character of the letters
of the Siloam inscription represents the classical Early Hebrew monu-
mental writing: note, e.g. the curve of the shafts of the letter kaph,
me'm, nun, the wide and squat form of zayin and sade, the form of the
letters beth, he, waw, lamed, qoph, and so on.
The Early Hebrew monumental style can also be studied (see
FTig.5) on jar-handle stamps (of the 8th to 6th, and perhaps also of
the 5th-4th cent. B.C.) - see for instance, B.A., Vol. XII.4, pp. 70-86,
especially pp. 76-79, 83, 86 - seals (9th-6th centuries B.C., perhaps also

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4)
4) THE BIBLICAL
THE BIBLiCAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
ARCHAEOLOGIST 91
one or two later centuries), weights (9th to 5th or 4th cent. B.C.), and
coins. A few preserved Jewish coins of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
(those inscribed with the words beqa', Hezekiah, and the famous Yehud
coins) provide a connecting link between the Early Hebrew monumental
writing of the pre-exilic period, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
lettering on the Jewish coins of the Hasmonaean period and of the Bar
Cochba revolt, ca. 135 (?) B.C.-A.D. 135, as well as the early Samaritan
script. The Jewish coin-alphabet and the Samaritan writing, although
direct offshoots of the Early Hebrew alphabet, are nevertheless quite
distinct and apart, and cannot suitably be dealt with in this article.
EARLYHEBREW
CURRENT
HAND
The a f o r e m e n t i o n e d Samarian ostraca, i.e. documents
written in ink on potsherds after the jars had been broken, are the
earliest extant documents written in the Early Hebrew cursive cr cur-

Fig. 9. Left: The Tetragrammaton in stylized Early Hebrew script in a square Hebrew
manuscripit of the Dead Sea Scroll collection (the Habakkuk Scroll). Right: The
word 'el ("God") in Early Hebrew literary hand in a square Hebrew manuscript
(fragment from the Scroll cave).

rent hand. These, numbering about eighty, were discovered in 1910 at

Sebastiye, the ancient Samaria. On epigraphical grounds the writing
could be ascribed to the ninth or eighth century B.C., but on archaeo-
logical grounds the Samarian ostraca are now commonly assigned to
the early eighth century B.C. In contrast with the monumental style,
these documents point to the practice of a cursive style and the use of
a reed-pen. This beautiful cursive differs so significantly from the lapi-
dary style - cf., for instance, the mem here written with one stroke of
the pen, while in the Siloam inscription it seems to have been written
with four strokes - that the two styles may hardly be considered as
belonging to the same line of evolution. As the script of the Samarian
ostraca already shows a lengthy process of evolution, we may suppose
that an independent cursive style had long been in use in ancient Israel,

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
92 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
probably employed, at least initially, for literary and trading purposes.
The cursive style reaches its climax in the "Lachish Letters" of the
b-:gilgning of the sixth century B.C. (Figs. 6-7). The twenty-one docu-
ments-discovered by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Expedition
at Lachish - are probably a very small survival of a large correspondence.
Indeed, hundreds of other jar fragments were found there, but owing to
their burnt and decayed condition, it is impossible to say whether they
had once been inscribed. However, "in reading these documents, very
imperfect though they are, we find ourselves brought into close contact
with the inner religious, political, and military life" (Torczyner) of the
kingdom of Judah in the last year of its independence. The Lachish
ostraca are all written in iron-carbon ink, apparently with a reed or
wood-pen, the nib part of which must have been broad, but not thick.
The script is a fluent cursive, and appears to have been the work of
scribes well accustomed to such writing. This script makes us realize
that the ancient Israelites "could write quickly and boldly, in an artistic
flowing hand, with the loving penmanship of those who enjoy writing"
(Torczyner). At the same time the Lachish ostraca present many
characteristics of the current hand, as distinct from the book-hand.
Some of the ostraca apparently were written hurriedly, for there are
cases of haplography, omission of the dividing dot between words, and
other kinds of mistake. The Lachish ostraca bear in many respects
(writing materials, current hand, etc.) a striking resemblance to that
of the much earlier Samarian ostraca, and we can usefully compare the
cursive script employed respectively in the early sixth century B.C.
and the early eighth century B.C.
The Ophel ostracon, found in 1924 during J. Garrow-Duncan's
excavations on the Ophel hill (just south of the Jerusalem Temple
area), but possibly belonging to the remains of a previous excavation
(by Parker, 1909-1911), is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C.
It may be suggested that the current hand followed concurrently
two lines of development: (1) the general development of Early Hebrew
writing, thus following the same line as the monumental style - this line
of development may be seen (see Fig. 3, col. 4) in the shapes of the
shafts of kaph, mem, nun, pe; in the low and squat form of zayin and
sade; in the form of he, heth, shin, etc.; and (2) the particular develop-
ment of the cursive script, which may be seen in the slurred strokes
of the top part of gimel, mem, pe, and especially nun; in beth, which
has no base, but a curved downstroke (in some Lachish ostraca the
bottom stroke of the yodh is missing, and the second horizontal stroke
crosses the main stroke). In the Samarian ostraca, which may mark an
early stage of the current hand, the letters are still as clear and legible
as those of the monumental script, whereas the script of the Lachish
ostraca represents a much more advanced stage of the current hand. It
should be noted that the Lachish ostraca represent not only a more

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1950, 4)
4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
ARCHAEOLOGiST 93
recent (by ca. two centuries) stage of writing, but also a more popular
form, than do the Samarian ostraca: the latter are apparently semi-
official dockets, while the former are mainly private letters.
Owing to the lack of material we are not in a position to trace
the post-exilic developments of the Early Hebrew current hand. Still,
with the extant examples of the post-exilic seals, jar-handle stamps and
weights, of the Jewish coin-alphabet, and of the early Samaritan writing,
and particularly with the available Leviticus fragments (see the follow-
ing paragraph), there seems good reason for the conjecture that the
ancient current hand passed through phases of degeneration of certain
letters (see for instance the slurred strokes of the top of nun in the
Lachish ostraca); but at certain times it was reformed by reverting to
earlier forms of letters.
EARLYHEBREW
BOOK-HAND
The aforementioned Dead Sea Leviticus fragments (Fig. 8) are
the only extant documents written in Early Hebrew book-hand; they
are also the only preserved Early Hebrew documents written on parch-

Fig. 10. A coin from the fourth century B. C. (enlarged), bearing the letters Y H D (Yehud,
Judah). The Judean community of this time had been given permission by the Persian
government to make its own coinage. The owl was borrowed from Greek coins; in
fact, the coin is an imitation of the Greek tetradrachma, except that the head of
Athena has been replaced by a male head wearing a turban-like headdress.

Inent or leather. Needless to say (as no similar documents have hitherto

come to light), very little can be said about the development of the
Early Hebrew book-hand, and, as there are no documents with which
in time and in style the Leviticus fragments can properly be compared,
their dating is extremely difficult. Father De Vaux has pointed out that
while their writing is akin to that of the latest pre-exilic seals and of
those of the Persian period, as well as to that of the Lachish ostraca,
certain letters and more especially kaph, mem and nun, show more
recent forms, which later appear in the Jewish coin-alphabet and in
the early Samaritan script. Father De Vaux is, therefore, inclined to
assign the Leviticus fragments to the fourth century B.C. In Dr. Birn-

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
94 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIII,
baum's opinion, they were written in about the second half of the fifth
century B.C., while according to Dr. Yeivin they are remains of a Samar-
itan manuscript of Leviticus, and their date should be fixed in the first
half of the first century B.C., or possibly even the preceding turn of
the century, ca. 100 B.C. Other scholars (Prof. Zeitlin, Prof. Kahle, in
private conversation, and others) consider these fragments as post-
Christian, and regard them either as Samaritan or as old Hebrew, which
in their opinion continued to be employed in the early Christian centuries.
The present writer, who was privileged to examine the photographs
of these documents only a few weeks after their discovery, and later
to re-examine the originals, has suggested that the main difficulty in
their dating is due to the fact that they represent the only preserved
specimens of the Early Hebrew literary or book-hand, the first of its
kind ever discovered: a similar hand must have been employed by the
secretaries of the kings of ancient Israel and of the prophets - indeed,
generally by professional scribes. It would seem that a standardized
literary hand was employed for centuries, with perhaps only slight
variation. Supporting this suggestion is the fact that some of the letters
of the Leviticus fragments are in what seems an earlier form than that
of the Lachish ostraca, written in a current hand of the sixth century
B.C. In the opinion of the present writer, it would be almost useless
to try to fix an exact date based on documents written in either a monu-
mental or a current hand. Yeivin's contention that eleven of the seven-
teen letters (which in his opinion appear in an unmistakable form)
of the Leviticus fragments, are typically Samaritan, more especially
the 'aleph, kaph, lamedh, mem, sade, does not hold, nor does his sug-
gestion that we have here an archaistic revival; there is nothing in this
flowing and beautiful script suggestive of artificiality or archaism, as
for instance in the letters of the Tetragrammaton of the "Habakkuk
Commentary" (Fig. 9), or in the Samaritan script.

Although the exact dating of the Leviticus fragments is imprac-

ticable until more evidence is available, still - as already pointed out
by the present writer in his aforementioned article on The Early Hebrew
Book-Hand-if we take due account of the main characteristics of the
Early Hebrew letters, we realize that some of these characteristics are
rather accentuated in these fragments as compared with Early Hebrew
pre-exilic documents: for example, the squat, wide and short forms of
beth, mem, yodh, kaph, sade, and resh; the curved tails of beth, kaph,
mem, nun, and pe; the wide heads and tails of kaph, mem, and nun;
the oblique form of he and yodh, and so on. In particular, the forms
of ateph, beth, waw, ycdh, kaph, mem, nun, sade, and shin, may be
regarded as transitional between the classical Early Hebrew writing
(as seen, for instance, in the Siloam inscription, Fig. 4) and the Early
Samaritan script (Fig. 3, col. 7) or the Jewish coin-alphabet (Fig. 3,

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)
1.950, 4) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 95
col. 6), due allowance being made, of course, for the different media
of the several documents. A detailed examination of the single letters
of the Leviticus fragments suggests the provisional date of the late
fourth or early third century B.C. (such a date seems also to be
favoured by Father De Vaux and Mr. Gerald Lankester Harding). It
is, however, possible-although highly improbable-that these fragments
belong to a later period (first century B.C. or A.D., or even later);
in this case, there is perhaps even less reason for regarding the script
as Samaritan but rather as the Early Hebrew book-hand, employed for
centuries in copying the Bible. The present writer considers this style
of writing as the connecting link between the Early Hebrew script
and the Samaritan script as well as the Jewish coin-alphabet.

Very little can be said about the development of a style of writing

of which so few examples are extant. It may be conjectured, however,
that the literary hand on parchment passed through phases not essen-
tially different from those of the current hand on the ostraca. It has
been mentioned that the script of the Samaritan ostraca is still as clear
and legible as the monumental writing (see, for instance, the Siloam
inscription); and it may be assumed that in the eighth century B.C.
the current hand was also the book-hand, but in the period of the
Ophel ostracon (seventh century B.C.), the current hand must already
have varied slightly from the book-hand. Indeed, the Leviticus frag-
ments of the fourth-third century B.C. (?) seem to represent a script
which may be considered a development of a book-hand similar to the
monumental style of ca. 700 B.C. (Siloam inscription), but dissimilar
to the current hands of the seventh or sixth centuries B.C. (Ophel
and Lachish ostraca). However, as we are here dealing with mere
conjecture, it is useless to dwell longer on this subject.
This article terminates purposely on the subject of the Early
Hebrew book-hand: this was probably the most important style of
writing of ancient Israel, and it probably lasted several centuries longer
than the other styles. It survived into the early Christian centuries, being
employed - in the present writer's opinion - for the last centuries of
its existence by certain sections of the ancient Israelites which were
antagonised by the Pharisees. As pointed out by the present writer in
his article, already referred to, on Early Hebrew versus Square Hebrew,
the hostility of the Pharisees towards the Early Hebrew script com-
passed its end, and, it might be said also, its oblivion for nearly two
thousand years. The decision of the new state of Israel to print stamps
bearing reproductions of ancient Jewish coinage, on which the Early
Hebrew script is to be seen, is highly meritorious.

This content downloaded from 139.082.096.033 on June 10, 2019 04:18:08 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c)