DailyHebrew.com

If you live in the Chicago area, there is a free public lecture tonight by Chris Woods at 7pm in Breasted Hall related to the new, excellent Oriental Institute exhibit of the same name. Even if you cannot make the lecture, the exhibit is well worth the time–and you could download for free the official publication to whet your appetite.

The ability to represent language graphically, to make language visible, stands as one of humanity’s greatest intellectual and cultural achievements. Given in conjunction with the special exhibit, Visible Language, this lecture explores how and why humans first invented writing by comparing the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Chinese, and Mesoamerican inventions–the four instances in history when writing was invented–out of nothing. In this lecture, Christopher Woods discusses cultural contexts and structural features of each of these systems, focusing on important similarities and differences between them.

UPDATE: A recent article discusses the positives and some negatives of the new exhibit.

וּפְלִשְׁתִּים֙ לָֽקְח֔וּ אֵ֖ת אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיְבִאֻ֛הוּ מֵאֶ֥בֶן הָעֵ֖זֶר אַשְׁדּֽוֹדָה׃ 2 וַיִּקְח֤וּ פְלִשְׁתִּים֙ אֶת־אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֹת֖וֹ בֵּ֣ית דָּג֑וֹן וַיַּצִּ֥יגוּ אֹת֖וֹ אֵ֥צֶל דָּגֽוֹן׃ 3 וַיַּשְׁכִּ֤מוּ אַשְׁדּוֹדִים֙ מִֽמָּחֳרָ֔ת וְהִנֵּ֣ה דָג֗וֹן נֹפֵ֤ל לְפָנָיו֙ אַ֔רְצָה לִפְנֵ֖י אֲר֣וֹן יְהוָ֑ה וַיִּקְחוּ֙ אֶת־דָּג֔וֹן וַיָּשִׁ֥בוּ אֹת֖וֹ לִמְקוֹמֽוֹ׃ 4 וַיַּשְׁכִּ֣מוּ בַבֹּקֶר֮ מִֽמָּחֳרָת֒ וְהִנֵּ֣ה דָג֗וֹן נֹפֵ֤ל לְפָנָיו֙ אַ֔רְצָה לִפְנֵ֖י אֲר֣וֹן יְהוָ֑ה וְרֹ֨אשׁ דָּג֜וֹן וּשְׁתֵּ֣י ׀ כַּפּ֣וֹת יָדָ֗יו כְּרֻתוֹת֙ אֶל־הַמִּפְתָּ֔ן רַ֥ק דָּג֖וֹן נִשְׁאַ֥ר עָלָֽיו׃ 5 עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יִדְרְכוּ֩ כֹהֲנֵ֨י דָג֜וֹן וְכָֽל־הַבָּאִ֧ים בֵּית־דָּג֛וֹן עַל־מִפְתַּ֥ן דָּג֖וֹן בְּאַשְׁדּ֑וֹד עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃ ס

Vocabulary

Verse 1

            פלשׁתי  name: “Philistines”

            אבן העזר  name: “Ebenezer”

            אשׁדוד  name: “Ashdod”

Syntax & Miscellaneous

• The name, Ebenezer, is a composite of two words, אבן “rock” and עזר “help.”
• The final qames he suffixed to the proper name of the city, אַשְׁדּֽוֹדָה Ashdod, is a so-called directive he (GKC 90c) indicating direction toward something/someplace.

Vocabulary

Verse 2

            דגון  name: “Dagon”

            יצג  verb (Hiphil waw-consecutive imperfect 3mpl): “set, place” (BDB, 426)

            אצל  “beside” (“in proximity to”)

Verse 3

            שׁכם  verb (Hiphil  waw-consecutive imperfect 3mpl): “arose (from sleep)”

            מחרת  “tomorrow” (BDB, 564)

Verse 4

            מחרת  “tomorrow” (BDB, 564)

            כף  “palms”

            מפתן  “threshold” (BDB, 837)

            רק  “only”

Verse 5

            על־כן  “therefore”

            מפתן  “threshold” (BDB, 837)

Syntax & Misc.

Verse 2

• Dagon was the Canaanite god of grain (more: Etana: Encyclopaedia Biblica (pdf), Wiki article).  See Joshua 15:41; 1 Samuel 5:2-7; 1 Chronicles 10:10.

Verse 3

• The directive he suffix is used again, אַ֔רְצָה, to indicate the direction to which Dagon fell.
• The word, פנים, has several meanings depending on the context of its use.  The first usage refers to the “face” (לְפָנָיו֙) and the second means “before the presence of” (לִפְנֵ֖י).

Verse 4

• The repetition is heightened by the severing of Dagon’s head and hands.
• The final clause is obscure in the MT (lit. “only Dagon remained on him”).  The LXX reads: πλὴν ἡ ῥάχις Δαγων ὑπελείφθη “only the backbone/spine of Dagon remained.”  Targums insert the word גופיה “body.”  Whether or not this is a textual emendation or exclusion, the meaning is clear from the context.

Verse 5

• The compound subject is כֹהֲנֵ֨י דָג֜וֹן וְכָֽל־הַבָּאִ֧ים בֵּית־דָּג֛וֹן.
• The participle, הַבָּאִ֧ים, is a substantive participle.
• The saying, עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה “until this day,” is found throughout the text (see 1 Samuel 6:18, 12:2, 27:6, 29:3, 6, 8, 30:25; 2 Samuel 4:3, 6:8, 18:18)

Inspired by the archeology theme that is happening in the blogsphere of late, I published several pictures as well as transliteration from the Tel-Dan stele inscription.  This week’s transliteration is an ostracon from ‘Izbet Sartah.  The first four lines of text are indecipherable, but line five is noteworthy.  In a Paleo-Hebrew script (see chart below or the GKC Table of Alphabets), an abecedary was scribbled from left to right on the bottom of a potsherd.  As in the recent Tel-Zayit discovery, the order of several letters has been reversed (? ? ?  ; ? ??), the ? is duplicated, and ? is omitted.  For more information on the order of the Hebrew alphabet see the DH article: “Origin and Order of the Hebrew Alphabet.”

 *Image and brief description available at the Andreas Center.

  1 ?? ?????? ??

 2 ??? ??? ??? ?????????

 3 ???? ?

 4 ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ????

 5 ??????????????????????

 
*Download and install the “Paleo-Hebrew” and “SBL Hebrew” fonts to view the chart below.

Comment/Question by our friend Talmida concerning the Origin and Order of the Hebrew Alphabet:

Do you think that the acrostics were intentionally imperfect in the psalms missing a letter or two? I wondered if the psalms hadn’t been revised or edited in some way.

I would be surprised if the deletions (i.e. the exclusion of one or more entire cola/lines) were a product of intentional editorial abbreviation. The acrostic pattern of the psalm would have been recognized by the editor/redactor/scribe and much more readily completed rather than deleted. Additionally, both of the major textual “rules” support the shorter and more difficult reading of the acrostics witnessed by MT . Textual critics refer to these phenomena as lectio bevior potior (“the shorter reading is to be preferred”) and lectio difficilior praeferenda (“the more difficult reading is to be preferred”). It should be noted, however, that these “rules” are not absolute and could be otherwise. Unintentional deletion also seems unlikely on account of the similarity of the phenomena in separate psalms (for further reading on Hebrew text criticism see: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992] and R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the OT—The Septuagint after Qumran [Guides to Biblical Scholarship, OT Series 4: Philadelphia, 1974]).

The following observations should be made about the order of the Hebrew alphabet as witnessed by acrostics in the MT.

1. Irregularity of deletion. The letter deleted varies between psalms. Psalm 145 omits nun, Psalm 34 skips waw, Psalm 25 leaves out kaf (waw is dubious), and Psalm 9-10 exclude daleth, mem, nun, samek and sade. This irregularity may point to random omission; however based upon the normal understanding of text criticism mentioned above, random deletion seems unlikely.
2. Fluidness of the alphabetical order. As with the Tel-Zayit abecedary, several of the acrostics demonstrate letter reversal (cf. Psalm 10 [pe/ayin]; Lamentation 2-4 [pe/ayin], but Lamentation 1 [ayin/pe]). This could be the product of regional differences or variation in memorization traditions, but either way it seems unlikely to be purely editorial in nature.

The original question still remains. If these readings are original, what is the purpose of skipping certain letters? Two suggestions are as follows:

First, form is not always the determiner of content. The psalmist was not bound to the acrostic pattern at all costs; therefore he may have excluded a letter for functional reasons unknown to the contemporary reader.

Second, assuming that part of the purpose of an acrostic is to aid in memorization, the deletion of an element could help differentiate between similar texts.

Prior to the discovery of a proto-Hebrew alphabet at Tel-Zayit, the order of the biblical Hebrew alphabet was known through several sources:

• Cognate Languages. The Hebrew writing system (cf. GKC Table of Alphabets) was derived from and shares the same order as the Phoenician alphabet; likewise Greek originated from Phoenician. Of course, the Greek letters changed slightly from their origin in Phoenician and added vowels that were created from consonants: alpha from aleph, epsilon from he, eta from chet, iota from yod, omicron from ayin, and upsilon from waw.

• Abecedarian Psalms. This type of psalm uses an alphabetical acrostic as a poetic pattern or device. Just as today’s school children learn the alphabet by memorizing “A is for Apple, B is for Ball, C is for Cat, etc.” or Dr. Seuss’s ABC, the Hebrews used abecedary for easier memorization of poetic literature.

Psalm 119 is the most well-known of this type of psalm. It contains twenty-two strophes (i.e. units of poetry); one for each of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each of the eight lines, or verses, in the strophe begins with the letter of the alphabet (8 lines x 22 strophes/letters = 176 verses). Example (Psalm 119:1-10):

Psalm 112 uses one letter per line (verses contain several lines, or cola, of Hebrew poetry):

Other abecedary psalms include Psalm 111, Psalm 37 (every other verse), and Psalm 25. Apparently, it was not imperative to develop a “perfect” alphabet acrostic. Some examples of imperfect acrostics are Psalm 145 (omits nun), Psalm 34 (omits waw), Psalm 25 (omits kaf and waw is dubious), and Psalm 9-10 (excludes several letters).

• Other acrostics. Another notable acrostic concludes the book of Proverbs. Verses 10-31 delineate the ABCs of the virtuous woman. Other acrostic poetic devices are used in Lamentations 1-4.

(For more information see Brug, J.F. “Biblical Acrostics and Their Relationship to Other Ancient Near Eastern Acrostics,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8. William W. Hallo, et al, eds. [Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990], 283-305; ISBN 0889462194)

***UPDATE 1***
Talmida has posted on the Proverbs 31 passage mentioned above. Check it out here.

***UPDATE 2***
FORWARD Online Newspaper answers the question concerning why the English abecedary begins with A-B-C and not the Phoenician order A-B-G.