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.

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)

 *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.

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.

• 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.

The New York Times broke the story of the Tel Zayit Inscription on November 9, 2005. On November 20, 2005, Dr. Tappy (Director of The Zeitah Excavations and G. Albert Shoemaker Professor of Bible and Archaeology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) and epigrapher P. Kyle McCarter (William Foxwell Albright Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University) will, respectively, describe the archaeology relating to the discovery of the stone and analyze the writing on it at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature at the Philadelphia Convention Center in Pennsylvania. Their lecture is titled "The Tel Zayit Stone: A New Tenth-Century BCE Inscription from the Judaean Shephelah."

In addition, Professors Tappy and McCarter will present their lecture at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary on Thursday, December 8, at 7:30 p.m. in Hicks Memorial Chapel Auditorium. Admission is free and open to the public.

More details on this year’s meeting are available at SBL’s website. See here for other newspaper articles or go to PaleoJudaica.

GKC provides a Table of Alphabets showing the known Hebrew writing systems.

***UPDATE 2***
For more information: Go to the new DH post: Order and Origin of the Hebrew Alphabet.

***UPDATE 3***
AP pictures of the inscription are available at Codex Blogspot.

***UPDATE 4***
From SBL’s website (here):

The Tel Zayit Stone: A New Tenth-Century Inscription from the Judaean Shephelah
11/20/2005
7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Room: Room 103-A – Pennsylvania Convention Center
A dramatic discovery punctuated this year’s excavation season at Tel Zayit, Israel, where The Zeitah Excavations recovered a large stone bearing an incised, two-line inscription. The special importance of the stone derives not only from its archaic alphabetic text, which hints at formal scribal training at the site, but also from its well-defined archaeological context in a structure dating securely to the tenth century BCE. The borderland site of Tel Zayit lies in the lowlands district of Judah, and in this period it exhibits strong links with the highland culture to the east, in the direction of Jerusalem, not with the coastal culture of the Philistine plain. The early appearance of literacy at Tel Zayit will surely play a pivotal role in the current discussion of the archaeology and history of Israel and Judah in the tenth century BCE.

Lawrence Stager, Harvard University, Presiding
Ron Tappy, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Panelist
P. Kyle McCarter, Johns Hopkins University, Panelist

***UPDATE 5***

Notes from SBL ASOR on the Tel Zayit Inscription from deinde blog.

***UPDATE 6***

More from the SBL session on Tel Zayit on Higgaion and PaleoJudaica.

***UPDATE 7***

Dr. Cathey’s and Paleojudica have reported about an interview with P. Kyle McCarter in the Johns Hopkins Gazette on the Tel-Zayit inscription. Quote from the article:

"Part of it has to do with the history of the alphabet itself," McCarter says. "The 10th century was the time when the Hebrew script was emerging as a distinct tradition." In fact, he says, a case can be made that the Tel Zayit stone is the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found.

Additionally, Kevin at biblicalia has some thoughts to contribute to the "Zayit debates".