Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet/Archive 1

Confusing introductory statement

"At the very least it dates to the 10th century BCE". I don't know if there's any guides of style regarding phrasing with respect to chronology. This seems confusing since I don't think of greater or less than as applying to time. You could argue that it's applying to the number of the century, which would be earlier for BCE but later for CE; or that an earlier language is of "greater" antiquity. Simpler phrasing: "It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier". Just common sense. -- Petakia 12:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible dating error in the article.

I think the article means BC instead of BCE in these dates.

"BC" and "BCE" are the same thing. Scholars are now using "BCE" instead of "BC".

See Before Christ and Before Common Era. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No image???

Why not add a picture of the alpahbet??? TRIKER1 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs an image! --Bkkbrad 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Alphabet Hebrew according to ancient Hebrew sources

• Remember the Hebrew ancient literature, is commonly look down at, if written the Greeks, Egyptians, or Romans more people would listen.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In line with the Tanakh:--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Circa 1473 B.C.E. is the date the Book of Job was completed, it covers a span time from, 1657 to before 1613, the Book of Job, was recorded by Moses* thus the ancient Hebrew* who read this in ancient Hebrew script.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to the oldest tradition, among both Jewish and early Christian scholars. The vigorous authentic style of Hebrew poetry used in the book of Job makes it evident that it was an original composition in Hebrew, the language of Moses. "It could not have been a translation from another language such as Arabic". "Also, the portions in prose bear stronger resemblance to the Pentateuch than to any other writings in the Bible." And Job lived at the same time after Jospeh's death.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The date of recording of the Job must at have been between circa. 1553 B.C.E to 1513 B.C.E

The would mean that the ancient Semitic hebrew-script predated the common scholarally estimate of the start of the Canaanite script, which probably as their langauage, (a Northern dialect of diplomatic language of the entire Middle East at the time) was also adopted, it would seem that they were quite similar to the ancient Phoenician writing this the proper term is akin.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Exodus 17:14
• Exodus 24:4
• Exodus 34:1, 27-28.
• Exodus 39:30
• Numbers 5:23
• Deuteronomy 4:13
• Deuteronomy 5:22
• Deuteronomy 6:9
• Deuteronomy 10:2, 4
• Deuteronomy 31:9, 19, 22

• The 9th Psalm is an ancient acrostic, written by King David.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews - Book I. Chapter 3. 6.

"There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

• 10th century B.C.E a 5-inch-by-5-inch shard of pottery near the Valley of Elah few words already deciphered -- "slave," "king," "land" and "judge" indicate that it may be a legal text.--Standforder (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/30/israel.ancient.text/index.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1032929.html http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-camera2-2008dec02,0,7568720.story --Standforder (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Estimated 10th century B.C.E limestone inscriptation from Tel Zayit,.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Estimated to be from the 10th century B.C.E Gezer calendar a tablet from tel Jezer.--Standforder (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tel Zayit abecedary inscription vs. the standard abecedary

Tel Zayit

• ’aleph
• behth
• gi′mel
• da′leth
• waw
• he'
• chehth
• za′yin
• tehth
• yohdh
• la′medh
• kaph
• mem
• nun
• sa
• pe′
• ‛a′yin
• tsadheh
• qohph
• rehsh
• shin
• taw

Standard

• ’Al′eph
• behth
• gi′mel
• da′leth
• he’
• waw
• za’yin
• chehth
• tehth
• yohdh
• kaph
• lamedh
• mem
• nun
• sa′mekh
• ‛a′yin
• pe’
• tsadheh
• qohph
• rehsh
• shin
• taw

The Samaritan alphabet

- ’Ā´lāph. ' /ʔ/

- Bîhth. /b/

- Gā´mān. /ɡ/

- Dā´lath. /d/

- Iē’. /ey/,

- Báā. /b/

- Zēn. /z/

- Īhth.

- Tihth. /tˁ/

- Yūhth. /y/

- Káph. /k/ - [x] allophonically

- Lā´bāth. /l/

- Mīīm. /m/

- Nūn. /n/

- Sîn´gath/Sîn´kath. /s/

- ‛A´yîn. /ʕ/

- Phī’. /f/

- Tsa•dhey´. /tzsˁ/ /tş/

- Qūhph. /qˁ/

- Rīhšh. /ɾ/ (Judean Rehsh "head")

- šhān. /š/ (sh)(Judean Shin)

- Táph./t/ (Judean Taw "mark") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming this oldest adjad

The term Proto-Sinaitic-leventian is a better term.--24.57.59.196 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish View

I replaced the "Orthodox Jewish View" section with "According to the Babylonian Talmud", in which I specify the opinions and sources in Talmud Bavli. I Provided references for everything and I believe it is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yclorfene (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The oldest known inscription?

The lines on pottery found near Beit Shemesh is not mentioned. See: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.195.154 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the logic

"The 8th-century Hebrew inscriptions exhibit many specific and exclusive traits, leading modern scholars to conclude that already in the 10th century BCE the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was used by wide scribal circles." Why do "modern scholars" conclude wide use from inscriptions 200 years later? And do we have a cite or a specific scholar? Car ads in 2010 lead modern scholars to believe George Washington had a car according to X in the publication Z. -- 21:43, 30 June 2010‎ User:Nitpyck

Funny comparison to the car ads! But language tends to take a while to take hold among a population. It first has to be learned (even if forced upon people who would rather speak or write their own language, or use their own alphabet). And then it takes time to become more widespread, across probably more than one generation: probably learned less fluently by the current generation that starts learning it, then learned more fluently by their children, and even more so by the children's children, and so on. So, about 200 years might be about right as a nearby guess for widespread use, or about 2-3 (plus) generations, if 70-80 years is presumed: for this, compare Psalm 90:10. Of course, it could have been far more than 200 years. Why they thought it was about 200 years, however, I don't know. I just thought I'd add something to the question asked. :-) Misty MH (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that "-- 21:43, 30 June 2010‎ User:Nitpyck" was just added above, by AnonMoos (at "19:59, January 16, 2013"‎). Curious. Did you find that under "View history"? How did you locate it? (I may have never tried to locate such, or at least not successfully, LOL. :) It is also strange that it shows my post above to be on the 17th, when the "View history" says it was on the 16th at 16:33. (And I myself know that it was on the 16th not the 17th.) Curiouser and curiouser! (as they say). Misty MH (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the display at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet&action=history and saw the line "21:43, 30 June 2010‎ Nitpyck (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,843 bytes) (+476)‎ . . (→‎What's the logic: new section)". And comments are signed with UTC (Greenwich time), not your local timezone... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Phoenician Alphabet = Paleo-Hebrew alphabet

Is there a real reason to differentiate between the two and have two separate articles? Does anyone really know where to draw the line between the "two"? Wasn't the "Phoenician" alphabet simply used all over Canaan with extremely minor differences across the land? In fact that applies also to the Canaanian language which really is the same language with minor dialectical differences from region to region, but I guess that's already a whole discussion here (You can't really pinpoint where does Phoenicia start or end, it is simply how the Greeks called the Canaanians they had encountered, and Hebrew isn't for certain something different from Canaanian). Ly362 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The letter forms were somewhat similar (especially in the earlier period), but they were used in distinct geographical areas, and by distinct political/ethnic groups, and used to write somewhat different (though related) languages. There were also different orthographic conventions which slowly diverged between Hebrew and Phoenician (such as the growing use of matres in some contexts in Hebrew, while Phoenician used almost no matres until the late "neo-Punic" period in north Africa). Finally, the modern interest in ancient Hebrew inscriptions is often different from the modern interest in ancient Phoenician inscriptions. AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you clearly draw the line between Phoenician and Hebrew, between Phoenicia and the rest of Canaan? Why not differentiate between the script used in Tyre and the one used it Sydon? Ly362 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The upshot is that though Hebrew and Phoenician scripts were certainly closely related (and shared a common origin), they grew more divergent with time, and various internal and external factors make it more useful to have two separate articles. AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but can you draw the line. Can you say in what city did the people use the Phoenician script and in what city did they use the P-Hebrew script? Which one did they use in Dor? Are there really two scripts here, or is it a continuum? Or are there several scripts. Is it really two. Ly362 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are hardly any known pre-exilic inscriptions from the Northern Kingdom at all, as far as I'm aware, and in any case a "non-continuum" would not be necessary for there to be two separate articles. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But how do you define P-Hebrew alphabet? How do you know that the Samaritan script came from this "one" and not simply from the whole system? Ly362 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly this is clearly appropriation. You can call Hebrew and whatever else you want, the bible itself calls it the language of the land Canaan, and does not refer to the word Hebrew. This is not right. LebaneseBebe (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The possibly the earliest known inscription in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet

P. Kyle McCarter Jr., an authority on ancient Middle Eastern writing at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, was somewhat more cautious, describing the inscription as "a Phoenician type of alphabet that is being adapted." But he added, "I do believe it is proto-Hebrew, but I can't prove it for certain." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/world/africa/09iht-alpha.html?scp=6&sq=The%20Newly%20Discovered%20Phoenician%20In Nitpyck (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yiddish in paleo-hebrew alphabet???

Never heard of such a usage. I think it is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.100.57 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegation

Hello. The allegation in this edit is unsourced and does not conform to WP:NPOV and must be removed immediately. Please stop the edit-war. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is proved by the fact that the Torah was able to be written in Greek

In the article, the following is stated: "This argument, however, is also weak because it was permitted to write the Torah in Greek". This is in response to the opinion that one Torah must be copied from another Torah, and therefore, the Assyrian script was never lost, i.e. not introduced by Ezra. This rebuttal doesn't really work, since as explained in the source brought for that statement (footnote 8), the permissibility of writing in Greek was only after the Septagint was translated, well after the time of Ezra the Scribe. By that time, everyone agrees that the Assyrian script was used.

Also, just because one can write a Torah in Greek, doesn't mean that when one is writing it in Assyrian script one does not have to copy it directly from a previous scroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.64.154.162 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense if by "Greek" the author means Hebrew in the Greek script. Then you'd be changing the script while copying scrolls, belying the rather silly argument that that can't happen. If, however, the author means in the Greek language, then it's irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

See Secunda (Hexapla) (intended mainly for Greek speakers who didn't know Hebrew). AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Further developments

There is a tag for no references. I have added substantial annotation although the section could still use more. I plan soon to remove the tag, however, if there is no objection. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

From User:Veronicafitzrandolph

Veronicafitzrandolph (talk · contribs) on her talk page wrote that the article needs attention to the chart of Hebrew letters. It should be re-formatted to make it more legible. Someone else needs to do this. I don't have the necessary technical skills. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Appropriation

So is this what we are doing? Renaming entire languages? This is obviously the Phoenician alphabet. I don't understand why this article exists and how this is acceptable. The language was not called Hebrew at the time. It was Phoenician, up until 1954 when some ethno centric Austrian decided to appropriate an entire language using ethno supremacist reasoning. LebaneseBebe (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit seems to be pointy, and I reverted it based on the content of the article and its sources, which contradict your point of view, even if it is not without merit. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LebaneseBebe, this is blatant WP:BIAS. Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician script are closely related, yes, but not identical. Ancient Phoenicians and ancient Hebrews were extremely closely related, genetically, culturally, linguistically, geographically, etc. Phoenicians did not call themselves Phoenicians: they called themselves Canaanites, and ancient Hebrew was also referred to as "Canaanite", even in Biblical and Classical Hebrew. Your claims of appropriation are massively misplaced and fallacious here. You seem to be targeting posts pertaining either directly or indirectly to Jewish culture, LebaneseBebe, and consistently vandalize them with false, biased, and unsubstantiated alterations. Please stop, or I will be forced to alert admins. Batanat (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Phoenicians were from that land, there Jewish admission Jews came from Egypt and Iraq and were not indigenous Canaanites. Hebrew derives from Canaanite and not vice versa. Phoenician was Canaanite. What you are doing is blatant BIAS, and appropriation. Phoenician and Hebrew weren’t related, Phoenician predates Hebrew. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Why am I even bothering? You’re clearly both very vocal Zionists and see absolutely nothing wrong with appropriating Canaanite culture, language, and history. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And please stop making threats, I added a sentence regarding it being appropriation, this wouldn’t be an issue if this were regarding appropriating something Jewish, Black, Indian, etc. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, what I said is actually supported by this very article. It’s hardly suitable to call a Phoenician script used by Hebrews Phoenician? That is uptight an admission of appropriation. I then further added a source to a Jewish scholar calling it appropriation. And then you deleted that. What you’re both doing is wrong and you know it. You’re not justified here. Wiki admins aside, I’m sure you have plenty of administrato (non neutral) friends that promote your biased point of view, and your propaganda and agenda. But at the end of the day between us, you know what I’m saying is true. It IS appropriation of the Canaanite culture, language, and history. Then, AND now. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That is an outright admission of appropriation.* LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

“The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום‬), also spelt Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet, is a variant of the Phoenician alphabet.[1] Like the Phoenician alphabet, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet contains 22 letters, all of which are consonants, and is described as an abjad. The term was coined by Solomon Birnbaum in 1954; he wrote, "To apply the term Phoenician to the script of the Hebrews is hardly suitable".

The term itself was coined in 1954 by an Austrian Jew, an avid supporter of Zionism, whom had no issue actually openly pushing an ethno centric/supremacist agenda that disenfranchised a people of its language, history, and identity, and attributed it to another. It’s not even factually correct. Ancient Jews were not calling this alphabet “Hebrew”. So you have no basis to your argument, and the article and the statement made by Soloman is outright racist and inflammatory. Imagine Nazi’s making that statement about something Jewish, or White-Europeans making similar statements about something Black or African, or anything else. It would not be acceptable today. And I am glad that is mentioned there, because it is outright appropriation.

And the mentioning of it being a form of appropriation with supportive citation, and then deleting that is simply the appropriation of my identity, and millions of others, and a promotion of anti Semitism (yes I am a Semite, and I am a Canaanite and the term does not simply apply to you). And to make matters worse, it is a promotion of subjectivity and a deviation from objectivity. I won’t promote that. If you just stuck to the FACTS there wouldn’t be an issue here. Call Israel, Israel, because today it is. But don’t coin a term in 1954 for a language system that had existed for thousands of years and attempt to call it anything other than what it is, Phoenician. And if you’re going to do this, don’t get defensive when someone points out appropriation, because that is me and many others, being OBJECTIVE. So go ahead and call your administrator buddies, whom I’m sure will support your opinions because I am sure you have similar backgrounds. That will not deflect from the truth, and you know it.

As for saying you don’t care what my roots are, in the edits, if I and many others had the same attitude regarding you, you wouldn’t have the privilege you do today of appropriating other peoples cultures, languages, and identities. Instead of taking this opportunity to connect (ancient Jews used a Phoenician script, etc) you’re simply promoting more division and animosity.

You have no right to appropriate what isn’t yours. And you have no right to get upset that I am calling it appropriation. You’re not the victims here. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore: the phrase Phoenicians was understood by Phoenicians and the people around them, that’s indisputable. Secondly, you admitted the similarities, you said indistinguishable, and historians say there was no separate language or writing system, and I just gave evidence and quoted a scholar that supported what your scholar Soloman had stated himself, that the attempt to separate Hebrew linguistically or as a writing system is subjective, and a modern invention. If you desire to find other people who support a contending view you’re free to cite that, but not to undo my contributions, and to remove supporting citations.

Your presumptions because what you assume my background is definitively prejudice, it has no place on Wikipedia, or anywhere that welcomes academic objective viewpoints.

Appropriation is a real thing, hopefully you’re not also trying to delete the Wikipedia article about appropriation because it is simply another idea that you don’t like. LebaneseBebe (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Batanat: Also, tracking my edits to undo them due to your prejudice is vandalizing and stalking, it’s harrasstory. It is a form of harassment, and it’s not the sort of conduct that’s appropriate. I have seen the articles that you have wrote and learned from your contributions, I appreciate them, and I can understand how people can have subjective viewpoints and differing ideas. But what I think is great about Wikipedia we all put our supporter information, in front of the audience/viewers so that they can determine their own take. There are areas where obviously you feel you know a lot about and feel strongly about, and that’s great that’s what makes Wikipedia work. I’m just asking that you consider have the same perspective towards other users, no pun intended. Thanks for being in touch. LebaneseBebe (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC) LebaneseBebe (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RAA. LebaneseBebe, this is unacceptable. You are very obviously biased on this subject, and you have repeatedly attempted to make edits and reversions in order to further a fringe, counterfactual, and non-objective agenda. Nobody here is appropriating Phoenician culture, and nobody here is prejudiced against or harassing you. It violates no rules to keep an eye on pages being edited by a user of questionable reliability.

Phoenician and Hebrew are considered either sibling languages or dialects of the same language, both within the Canaanite language family. In ancient times, in both Phoenician and in Biblical Hebrew, they referred to the language they spoke as "Canaanite"; not "Phoenician", not "Hebrew" — those are exonymous (i.e., non-native) terms for the language(s), not what they called themselves. Phoenicians did not call their language "Phoenician", and Hebrews did not call their language "Hebrew"; "Phoenician" is a Greek term, and "Hebrew" is probably derived from an Assyrian word. And it is the consensus of modern scholars that Israelites/Hebrews/Jews are indeed indigenous to the Levant, and not of Mesopotamian or Egyptian origin; your claims otherwise appear to be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, not modern archaeology.

You cannot arbitrarily edit a public encyclopedia to align with your sociopolitical, cultural, or religious views about ancient Phoenicia and Israel. And the fact you make no secret of your ideological leanings (recurrently implying some kind of grand Zionist/Jewish conspiracy to discriminate against you) is nothing short of childish (if not outright antisemitic, frankly); it reflects very poorly on you I'm afraid. These fringe, unsubstantiated, seemingly nationalistic claims you've been making are not supported by scholarship, and violate WP:BIAS, WP:FRINGE, and other community guidelines. Batanat (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re talking about bias? You’re the person with over 200,000 edits most of them where you’re inserting a narrative to your liking and one related to your personal background. Removing the source I posted with the quote, is unacceptable and I don’t understand why you are consistently targeting me. On the oud page you removed the information about cavemen (which was sourced), twice. You followed me there. I did edits here, and you followed me here.

As a person with so many edits that you have I would have expected better behavior, more welcoming and constructive behavior, more professionalism, and at least the ability to stick to what is objective and not removing sourced information. That is bias, and you are targeting me, and it’s making me very uncomfortable, it is bullying. As for saying nationalistic claims, I’m not the one appropriating things, I posted a simple objective line with a source, it was a quoted line from a scholar, and you are clearly the one with nationalistic claims, and behavior, it’s unbefitting for Wikipedia, and it’s all over your contribution list. I didn’t make the claim that there is some “grand” Zionist plan, lol. You sound paranoid and delusional. My claims were simple, the alphabet was appropriated and renamed by a man that was self admittedly a Zionist Jew. It was renamed in 1954. The information is on there. I posted a quote and source (from a Jew), also supporting the position that the alphabet was appropriated, and you deleted that. So what are you calling yourself? And what does that say about you?

You cannot arbitrarily edit a public encyclopedia to align with your sociopolitical, cultural, or religious views about ancient Israel and Canaan. And the fact you make no secret of your ideological leanings (recurrently following me from article to article inserting content related to your ethnic origin, which is your right, but deleting my sourced content) is nothing short of discriminatory behavior. I ask you again, leave me alone. I understand that some people may have a need to be controlling (200k+ edits), and the need to control others and how they think, but this is supposed to be a PUBLIC encyclopedia, which means that I am free to edit within the correct boundaries. I don’t understand why you’re targeting me and following me around. It’s really creeping me out.

Please take your own advice. You’re repeatedly attacking me. LebaneseBebe (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Notation, Batanat followed me to the Phoenicia page and added edits that somehow connects Jews, Palestinians, and Syrians to Phoenicians, despite the fact that her sources didnt verify this. Her sources stated that Lebanese, Syrians, Oriental Jews, and Palestinians were genetically related (article says "like brothers"). She made an independent leap and said that they are all related to Phoenicians. This is bias and promotion of ethno centrism. I thought that Israelite's considered my ancestors to be heathens worthy of enslavement and death. LebaneseBebe (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article has its justification, as a sub-article of Phoenician alphabet treating the use of the alphabet in the Israelite sphere. Just as long as it is made clear that the alphabet itself is identical. Ironically, it appears that the Talmud itself identifies this alphabet as "Lebanese", i.e. "Phoenician" (while the Hebrew alphabet proper is called "Assyrian", i.e. Aramaic). It is fair enough to note that the term "Phoenician" is misleading for the Early Iron Age, when the alphabet was actually used throughout Canaan. --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Translation of phonemes,

It would help immensely if, in addition to English names, rough approximations of the sounds produced could also be included. Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet would seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.140 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the visual appearance of letters, not their sound value. Traditionally, scholars of Semitic languages have used a variant of Americanist phonetic notation, which allows them to discuss sound-correspondences between ancient languages without the need for the phonetic specificity which use of IPA would require... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Paleo-Hebrew alphabet

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paleo-Hebrew alphabet's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bar":

• From Biblical Hebrew orthography: Oldest Hebrew inscription' Discovered in Israelite Fort on Philistine border, Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2010, pp. 51–6.
• From Biblical Hebrew: Shanks (2010)

Reference named "eurekalert.org":

• From Biblical Hebrew: Feldman (2010)
• From Biblical Hebrew orthography: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-mah010710.php University of Haifa press release, 7 Jan. 2010

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Hebrew

SUBSTANTIALLY INCORRECT

THE WIKI ARTICLE discussing a purported "paleo Hebrew" is substantially incorrect. The article contradicts long established scholarly works on the origin of the Hebrew alphabet. The content must be corrected to include the statements and works of Harvard Professor Thomas O. Lambdin, in his college textbook entitled "Introduction to Biblical Hebrew." Ancient Hebrew was a near identical COPY of the (Lebanese) Phoenician-Canaanite Alphabetic Script. SEE: Thomas O. Lambdin's linguistics chart on the etymology of the alphabet. AH was a copy of then existing Lebanese Ph-Cn Alphabetic Script. This was earlier established by UPa professor Zellig Harris in his scholarly work for Yale University's Oriental Institute. Professor Harris establishes that Ancient Hebrew was copied from the Lebanese Ph-Cn Alphabetic script to such a close extent, that by making a few minor changes to the original Hbw alphabet, the entire (Lebanese) Phoenician-Canaanite Alphabetic Script can be reproduced. The article is also incorrect in suggesting that Phoenician and Canaanite scripts are different or "variants." UPa prof Zellig Harris states that the (Lebanese by modern DNA studies) Lebanese "Canaanites referred to their land as Canaan. They referred to themselves as "Canaanites. The Greeks referred to the Lebanese Canaanites as Phoenicians..." The article needs to be substantially corrected based on the scholarly works of the following:

-UPa PRITCHARD, James. "Uncovering (Lebanon) Sarepta." -UPa HARRIS, Zellig. "A Grammar of the Phoenician Language." -Harvard Univ. professor, LAMBDIN, Thomas O. "Introduction to Biblical Hebrew." -UC Berkeley and American University of Beirut professor, BROWN, John Pairman, "The Lebanon and Phoenicia: Ancient Texts."

I will draft a correction to the subject article in the upcoming weeks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYOLIVERESQ (talk • contribs)

There is no difference in "Paleo-Hebrew" vs. "Phoenician" letter shapes

As the article is saying. Then for what reason to call it "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" at all, if it's not different from Phoenician? If the term was suggested by S. Birnbaum, by saying that "the term Phoenician to 'the script of the Hebrews' is hardly suitable", then with the same ease anybody can suggest that instead the term 'Proto-Hebrew alphabet' is hardly suitable... That is not a good base for an article. As confusing as it is, the article goes further to claim that Phoenician script (and some other scripts) develeped from this 'Paleo-Hebrew alphabet' - that can't be right.

As i understand that the argument for using the term "Paleo-Hebrew" relies only on vocabulary, not on alphabet, then the whole article seems to have gone in a wrong direction. If at all, then it should have been about language, not about alphabet. It is very common in many languages that for writing there are used alphabets that are not developed by the language speakers themselves. This is not however a reason to call for example a Latin alphabet a Paleo-English alphabet.--Mustvalge (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"As i understand that the argument for using the term "Paleo-Hebrew" relies only on vocabulary" - then you have clearly misunderstood a lot.

Your superscription "There is no difference in "Paleo-Hebrew" vs. "Phoenician" letter shapes" is likewise wrong. The early "Canaanite" script develops regional variants with clearly distinguishable letter shapes.

Different letter shapes may still not justify the use of the term "alphabet", rather than the term "script" (which is, in fact, the commonly used term). --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that these statements are from the article text:

"The oldest inscriptions identifiable as Biblical Hebrew have long been limited to the 8th century BCE. In 2008, however, a potsherd (ostracon) bearing an inscription was excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa which has since been interpreted as representing a recognizably Hebrew inscription dated to as early as the 10th century BCE. The argument identifying the text as Hebrew relies on the use of vocabulary.[7]"" - it has written under the "Origins" headline.

Under the headline "Table of letters":

"There is no difference in "Paleo-Hebrew" vs. "Phoenician" letter shapes. The names are applied depending on the language of the inscription, or if that cannot be determined, of the coastal (Phoenician) vs. highland (Hebrew) association (c.f. the Zayit Stone abecedary).""--Mustvalge (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a reason to correct the article, not to delete (merge) it. As written in the next paragraph, the identification of the script of the Zayit abecedary is a matter of dispute, and there is good reason not to define the script too narrow. But 11/10th century is not the 8/7/6th century. Likewise, identifying the Kh. Qeiyafa ostracon as "Hebrew" (in language and script) is quite problematic, to say the least. Yet again, this is not the 8th/7th/6th centuries. Instead of this superfluous discussion one should put energy in improving the article. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why it is important to improve an article that has nothing more to it than a 1954 suggested term by S. Birnbaum, who argued that "[t]o apply the term Phoenician to the script of the Hebrews is hardly suitable? Zayit abecedary is should be mention in Proto-Sinaitic script --Mustvalge (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again - what has the Zayit abecedary to do with the Proto-Sinaitic script? Who says so? Cant you start reading the scholarly literature before you trumpet your nonsense? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Zait Stone inscriptions

Rollston (2008, link to pdf ) makes a note about Zait Stone inscriptions that preliminary because it's an alphabet, we can't say what kind of Iron Age Northwest Semitic language does it mark. So, there is not really a reason to mention it in the article, claiming it Hebrew. It's wishful.

In addition to earlier, a clear view for this "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" is that it's nothing more but a Phoenician alphabet that was adopted to write old Hebrew words. It's an unfortunate term, even for a regional variant of Phoenician. The Hebrew alphabet itself, as it is now, is a descendant of Aramaic alphabet (link behind "Jewish square-script"). --Mustvalge (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The article should indeed be clearer about the beginnings. The Zayit stone as well as the Gezer calendar are doubtful examples. At this stage of development there is no discernible Hebrew script. In case of the Gezer calendar the language may be identified as Phoenician, as several scholars have argued with good reasons. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirection/merge to Phoenician alphabet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reason is that there are no difference between the two and it's a matter of terminology. The somewhat similar content can be found in "Ancient Hebrew writings" and "Biblical Hebrew"--Mustvalge (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please establish a consensus first. I am not an expert, but I sincerely doubt this whole article, a quite substantial article at that, is simply redirect material. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: There is no difference with Phoenician script, as said in this article itself: Use of the term "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" is due to a 1954 suggestion by Solomon Birnbaum, who argued that "[t]o apply the term Phoenician to the script of the Hebrews is hardly suitable. I have therefore coined the term Palaeo-Hebrew." Even Jewish sources treat them as one and the same: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3582435/jewish/What-Is-the-Authentic-Ancient-Hebrew-Alphabet.htm Finally, Unicode also treats them as the same script. This entire article is based on the fact that any samples of Phoenician script found in the territory of Israel are called "Paleo-Hebrew" for nationalist reasons, while Wikipedia should aim to be neutral and scientific. There simply aren't enough differences to justify this page's existence. Even the term is misleading, which sounds as if it is an ancestor of the modern Hebrew script, which is borrowed from Aramaic. Glennznl (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As User Glennznl said. I'm sorry if it is hard to accept but there is not more about it--Mustvalge (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge Your bad faith assumption is not appreciated. All I said is that before redirecting a large article of ca. 30,000 characters you need to show consensus, which you hadn't. Now with Glennznl's comment I shall grudgingly consider that a temporary consensus. I will ping a few users who have opposed a redirect proposal in the past, as they are obviously better experts that I am, and they may have serious objections to this ill-discussed redirect. @Batanat: @Dbachmann: @AnonMoos: Debresser (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I think that since this now redirects to Phoenician alphabet, the word "Paleo-Hebrew" should be mentioned somewhere in the lead of that article, not just in a section as is done at present. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The interest of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is not really its epigraphic distinctness, but the fact that after 586 BC there were factions in Judaism / Israelite religion favoring the use of "square" "Assyrian" (i.e. Aramaic) letters, and other factions favoring the use of the old Hebrew letters. The Pharisees/Rabbis used Aramaic, and that's what is used by Jews today, while the Samaritans use an alphabet descended from Paleo-Hebrew. AnonMoos (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: That info is now included on the Phoenician page and I think it works quite well. It is only more interesting to include Jewish usage and Samaritan usage of the Phoenician script on the page.Glennznl (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Too bad that none of that has anything to do with Phoenicia or Phoenicians... AnonMoos (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: "Phoenician script" is just a name, it could be called "Canaanite script" and it would be the same situation. We aren't talking about "English script" because the English aren't the same people as the Romans. If we explain the names in the article and clearly state that there are no differences in the script itself, there should be no problem imho. Glennznl (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to merge both articles. While one can surely debate the kind of information provided in the articles, the above (often incorrect) remarks in no way justify merging both articles. Paleo-Hebrew script (!) is a well-establish term. If you doubt it, you are invited to write an article in BASOR etc. I look forward to your article be torn apart by the experts.

It is true that in the beginning of the development the regional differences between the northern (Phoenician) and, e.g., southern (Judean) varieties are hardly discernible. However, in the 7th and 6th centuries at the latest, the differences are clear. A distinction is therefore made everywhere in the scholarly literature. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: You failed to back up your points. "the above (often incorrect) remarks", which? "Paleo-Hebrew script (!) is a well-establish term. If you doubt it, you are invited to write an article in BASOR etc." It is not, Unicode treats them all as variants of one script. https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/ch10.pdf "Some scholars conceive of the language written in the Paleo-Hebrew form of the Phoenician script as..." The "Table of letters" section in this article even uses Phoenician letters. Compare Phoenician letters to the https://www.bibleplaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Paleo-Hebrew_Fonts_Chart_by_Kris_Udd.pdf chart found here, of different "Paleo-Hebrew" attestations, of which even the last ones barely show any difference from the Phoenician script of 1000 years earlier. It is no more different to Phoenician than Italic and Blackletter. Even if this term is commonly used, it doesn't mean that this article has a meaningful raison d'etre. We have shown earlier that the term was introduced by an Israeli professor for nationalist reasons, because he did not like using the name Phoenician for a script used by the old Hebrews. Wikipedia should be a neutral and scientific platform and not use terms originated in nationalism. Glennznl (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:NOR? It is completely irrelevant what you think you have shown or what you think you see in charts. If a term is established in scholarship then Wikipedia describes exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your remarks about Birnbaum also miss the point. Historically (in)appropriate is not the same as nationalist.

Unicode is quite irrelevant here. Bring scholarly literature that says that there is no difference, then we can talk. See above: WP:NOR.

The article existed, there was a consensus. If you want to change the state of affairs you have to argue and find a new consensus. That is YOUR task, not mine. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ijon, what are your thoughts about this? --Slashme (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Slashme: I would say Glennznl is correct. The scripts are one and the same, and a separate article is not warranted. The name "Paleo-Hebrew" can be mentioned in the article about the Phoenician alphabet. Ijon (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There isn't ever going to be a clear resolution of this issue. There was an alphabet that underwent a slow evolution over centuries. At the same time there was an evolution of languages. According to a standard reference (Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet) there was a period of about 200 years during which some words written in this evolving alphabet began to be recognisably Hebrew. Usually, "Phoenician alphabet" (or other names) is used for inscriptions before these 200 years and "paleo-Hebrew alphabet" for Hebrew inscriptions afterwards. Some of the letter shapes and writing practices were continuously (but very slowly) evolving. Where the cross-over lies can't be defined. The point at which an evolving alphabet becomes a new alphabet will always be a matter of opinion. Zero^talk 07:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, I agree completely. I just want to add that it is also not Wikipedia's task to solve the question, we simply present the results of scholarly discussions. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The alphabet is the same (call it Phoenician or Canaanite or Paleo-Hebrew). The language (or dialects) evolved, yes. I wondered whether this is similar to the English alphabet article, as distinct from the Latin alphabet article, but the number of meaningful Paleo-Hebrew texts are so few that it is really not credible to make the distinction. The English alphabet is standardized. The "Paleo-Hebrew" alphabet is a modern name for Canaanite-Phoenician inscriptions found in "Israelite" locations.

The best proof of this is the list of inscriptions at Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. There are only seven groups of Hebrew language (note - not "Hebrew alphabet") inscriptions; found in a variety of geographic locations. The Samaria Ostraca ("Hebrew") were found geographically closer to the Baalshamin inscription ("Phoenician") than they were to the Yavne-Yam ostracon ("Hebrew"), and the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription ("Phoenician") was found very close to the Gezer calendar and Lachish letters ("Hebrew"). The categorization of some of these as Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew is related only to whether the locations are considered to be "Israelite" or not, and having nothing to do with whether the alphabets were different. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Another fascinating ecample of knowledge-free opinion. 1. Not just the language evolved, the script as well. 2. "the number of meaningful Paleo-Hebrew texts are so few that it is really not credible to make the distinction" - if you take the TOC from KAI as "proof", you really have no clue. There is Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions; Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions, or Renz & Röllig, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik. KAI is just a selection but says nothing about the number of texts and letters, and certainly not about meaningful differences in letter shapes. That's just a non-argument. 3. "The categorization of some of these as Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew is related only to whether... " - again wrong. There are doubtful cases, especially in the earlier centuries, but besides language (as far as there are significant markers at all) the letter shape is distinctive. Just have a look at the charts in Naveh or other standard works.

It's also fascinating that none of the merge-experts every raised the question of terminology as it is in fact discussed in the scholarly literature (and that is indicative of the fact that these "experts" have no vlue of the scholarly literature): As the term is used most commonly, Paleo-Hebrew designates the post-exilic offsprings of the (early) Hebrew script. Naveh, e.g. uses only "Hebrew" for the pre-exilic script (not Paleo-Hebrew).

Just a few random examples from the literature for the use of the term "Paleo-Hebrew":

• Hillel Geva, A Chronological Reevaluation of Yehud Stamp Impressions in Palaeo-Hebrew Script, Based on Finds from Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, TA 34 (2007), pp. 92-103.
• Gordon J. Hamilton, Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Scripts of the Persian Period, in Jo Ann Hackett & Walter E. Aufrecht (eds.), “An Eye for Form.” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 2014, pp. 253-290.
• Richard S. Hanson, Paleo-Hebrew Scripts of the Hasmonaean Age, BASOR 175 (1964), pp. 26-42.
• Mark D. McLean, The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Harvard 1982.
• Joseph Naveh, An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script, IEJ 23 (1973), pp. 82-91.
• Ronny Reich, Eli Shukron, A Fragmentary Palaeo-Hebrew Inscription from the City of David, Jerusalem, IEJ 58 (2008), pp. 48-50.
• Boaz Zissu, Omri Abadi, Paleo-Hebrew script in Jerusalem and Judea from the second century B.C.E. through the second century C.E.: a reconsideration, Journal for Semitics 23 (2014), pp. 653-664.

One can, of course, debate the terminology. But this has nothing to do with the "merge" debate. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: KAI is much more than just "a selection". It seeks to compile all of the longest and most significant inscriptions across the region. The lists by Davies, Dobbs-Allsopp and Renz & Röllig and mostly comprised of a very long list of inscriptions of just a single word or short sentence. Scholarly knowledge about these languages comes primarily from the small number of really significant inscriptions, which KAI summarizes very well. If you are not convinced, try to show us another really significant "paleo-Hebrew" inscription that is not one of the 7 groups in KAI. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: It's rather interesting that when I told you to look at a chart, you told me that's original research, but now you tell others to look at charts. Just as interesting are all your low-key insults.

The merge has nothing to do with terminology, but with the content. I don't care how many times the term "Paleo-Hebrew" appears in Google Scholar results, if the script that is being discussed is the same as the Phoenician script, or if the differences are so minute that they can easily be discussed on the Phoenician page, this page has no reason to exist. It is strange that the Chechen and Serbian Cyrillic scripts are still Cyrillic with all their different letters, but somehow Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew are completely independent writing systems, despite them having the exact same letters and merely some font differences if even that, only because the attestations of the latter script are located in the territory of the state of Israel. If any of those "Paleo-Hebrew" samples were found in Lebanon they would be called Phoenician. Glennznl (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong again in many ways. My argument is bolstered by scholarly literature (not by google). And you should care about scholarly literature. If you think you know better than the scholars working in the field - that's a violation of NOR, not the suggestion to check charts. Don't you see the difference? Probably not.

"this page has no reason to exist" - you can repeat that as often as you want. As long as your opinion is not backed by scholarly literature it is irrelevant.

"but somehow Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew are completely independent writing systems" - nobody said or wrote that here. Distorting arguments won't help your case.

"only because the attestations of the latter script are located in the territory of the state of Israel" - as I said several times that is wrong. The best example is the Moabite stone/Mesha inscription which was not found in the territory of the state of Israel but scholars agree that the letter shapes resemble the Hebrew script and are not yet distinctly "Moabite".

As you know, the relationship between languages and scripts is complex. See above Naveh, An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script. This example shows that language is not a decisive factor for those who speak of "Paleo-Hebrew script". You simply ignore facts when you repeatedly insinuate that those who use the term "Paleo-Hebrew" do so for reasons not connected to letter shapes.

"If any of those "Paleo-Hebrew" samples were found in Lebanon they would be called Phoenician." - that is not a valid hypothesis. If indeed inscriptions with Hebrew letter shapes would be found in Lebanon (and If doubt this will ever be case, but that doesn't matter) scholars would recognize the difference and would have to ask the question how in the world those inscriptions made their way into Lebanon. Some would probably suggest it's a fake etc. Anyway, this is mere speculation and not an argument at all.

I suggest you consult the scholarly literature and respond to arguments instead of repeating you unfounded opinion. Otherwise any further discussion is useless. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: could we please lower the aggression level here?

Interesting that you mention Moabite. Together with Ammonite, that is the best showcase of what that we are really dealing with here. Just like "paleo-Hebrew", but just more extreme, these two names have been given to Canaanite-era inscriptions found in two different regions of modern Jordan. Because they were not found in modern Lebanon they are not called Phoenician, and because they were not found in modern Israel they are not called Hebrew. Yet there are only two long inscriptions known in each "language" in all of historical research - two datapoints is nowhere near enough. Scribes had different handwriting, that doesn't mean every time they got cramp and wrote a letter in a different way they created a new alphabet. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and Qumranhöhle: Good point bringing up those other "scripts" as well. The following article https://www.jstor.org/stable/543206?seq=1 "The Ugaritic Cuneiform and Canaanite Linear Alphabets" refers to the scripts as Canaanite alphabets, which is used as a synonym to the term "Phoenician-Hebrew script". This also nicely corresponds to the term Proto-Canaanite script, their ancestor. Glennznl (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

An example of a change that Naveh (Early History of the Alphabet, 2nd edn) considers to separate Phoenician script from Hebrew script is the introduction of matres lectionis. ("In contrast to Aramaic and Hebrew, Phoenician orthography was entirely defective.") If the association of symbols with sounds is part of what "alphabet" means, this is a change. His general summary is like this: "The independent development of the Hebrew script began, as we have seen, in the ninth century B.C., and that of the Aramaic script a century later. In inscriptions of the tenth century, Phoenician, Hebrew and Aramaic scripts are indistinguishable. In the ninth century, there were differences between certain Hebrew letter forms and the equivalent letters in the Phoenician-Aramaic script, but specifically Aramaic letters appear only in the cursive writing of the mid-eighth century B.C." Naveh gives lots of examples. I have no personal opinion about any of this; I just want to emphasise that there is a lot of different expert opinion out there and we aren't going to resolve it to a single narrative. Our job is to present the range of mainstream opinion. Zero^talk 14:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Quite frankly, this pronounced ignoring of scholarly literature and ignoring arguments is quite an aggressive behaviour which I disvalue - as was the merging without establishing a consensus based on scholarly literature and exchange of arguments here.

@Glennznl: Concerning Stieglitz: Have you read his article or just googled for something? If you read it, you would recognize that the article does not bolster your point at all. His interest is simply not in the later periods where the scripts developed differently. And nobody here disputed that there is a family resemblance between the Phoenician and Hebrew scripts, i.e. that they go back to a common ancestor.

"Because they were not found in modern Lebanon they are not called Phoenician, and because they were not found in modern Israel they are not called Hebrew." Again, wrong. There are discernible linguistic differences in the Mesha inscription (and there are more, however fragmentary, Moabite inscriptions). Of course there are some scholars who prefer to talk about a Canaanite dialect continuum, but no serious scholar doubts that there are differences between Standard Phoenician and Moabite - concerning the language and concerning the script. Can you quote ONE SCHOLAR who holds your opinion?

I have listed a lot more arguments and points above, none was seriously contested. This is not a serious exchange of arguments and it is not based on scholarly opinions. I do not see any reason to continue such a pseudo-discussion. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: Can you cite some examples of the scripts in "the later periods where the scripts developed differently". I would like to know these differences, but I keep reading this hollow phrase. Regarding the Matres Lectionis, brought up by User:Zero0000, this was also used by the Punic variant of Phoenician (a later variant). This can also be seen as a simple evolution of spelling, no new letters were added or changed. When looking myself at real scanned examples of "Paleo-Hebrew", I can't find any major differences with much much older Phoenician letters. I hope your sources can clear things up for me on how these letters did in fact change majorly. Glennznl (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal: I have formalised the merger proposal by tagging the two articles. Although this discussion appears to have become acrimonious and personal, it appears best to keep all discussion in one place. Perhaps a fresh start could be made with arguments based on Wikipedia policies. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

it looks as if the answer for User Debresser outcry for establishing a consensus is that in one point the Talk page will start to look like somekind of Flat Earther vs Sphere Earher debate - just to mention it in anycase.

There's no worry about some possibly noteworthy content being deleted during the redirect because all the text was imported to "Phoenician alphabet" for further developing there (what has already taken place). Althought the meaning of "consensus" is not defined here i could call this a good consensus.

As the reasons for redirect stands on a good ground, are simple and not extending in lenght, opposed to foggy, sought out, probably looping in literature contraarguments, the redirect is also in good agreement with Occam's razor principle.--Mustvalge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Very neat chart as seen on the Hebrew Wiki: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA:%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99

For those who can't read Hebrew, the second overview is Phoenician and the third is "Paleo-Hebrew". How are we not looking at 2 "fonts"? There is more difference between Fraktur and Antiqua. Literature only mentions vague hollow phrases such as "differences appear", but nothing concrete. Can someone of the "oppose-camp" cite some differences that truly make them different scripts? Glennznl (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What about WP:NOR. A sentence like "When looking myself at real scanned examples of "Paleo-Hebrew", I can't find any major differences with much much older Phoenician letters." is not an argument in light of WP:NOR.

"Can you cite some examples of the scripts" - so, after this long and superfluous discussion we are now at the point where you acknowledge to have no clue of basic issues concerning Northwest Semitic paleography? Never read or maybe even heard of Cross, Naveh etc.? I hope this is a joke, because above is a quote from Naveh that states clearly what I am arguing here time and again wheres you haven't brought up any scholarly contribution to back your "opinion". And again, that is a clear and blunt violation of basic principles of Wikipedia. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"As the reasons for redirect stands on a good ground" - yeah, sure, and this ground is found where in the scholarly literature? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: Mater Lectionis is a simple orthographic evolution, like I already responded. Dd I jst crt a nw scrpt wth ths cmmnt? Is there no other example?

Interestingly the Hebrew Wiki starts the article with:

הכתב העברי הקדום (שם ארכאי: כתב דַעַץ) הוא נוסח מקומי של האלפבית פיניקי כפי שהיה נהוג בקרב תושבי ממלכת יהודה ותושבי ממלכת ישראל במחצית הראשונה של האלף הראשון לפני הספירה, ואף הייתה לו השפעה על הכתב של מספר ממלכות שכנות (מואב,

'The Ancient Hebrew Script' (Archaic name: Dats Script) is a local version of the Phoenician alphabet as was customary among the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah and the inhabitants of Kingdom of Israel in the first half of the first millennium BCE, and even had an influence on the writing of several neighboring kingdoms (Moab,

Can someone explain this peculiar deviation between EN Wiki and HE Wiki? Glennznl (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So once more not the slightest reference to scholarly literature? At least Hebrew language Wikipedia ("Dats Script" - is that what google translate gives you for כתב דַעַץ or what? OMG) and the article there is preferable in many ways to the english one. Yet he main point is: There is a Hebrew counterpart to this article. Doesn't really support your point, does it? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Matres lectionis: I didn't bring this up so whatever the reason you directed this answer to me... anyway, the use of matres lectionis in Hebrew on the one hand and Punic on the other is quite different. Second, "Dd I jst crt a nw scrpt wth ths cmmnt" - you are inconsistent, should have left out the "I". Of course you didn't create a new script (!) as the letter shapes are the same. You seem to be quite unsure about your own usage of script vs. alphabet. Whether a combination of different letter shapes and different "orthographic" habits can count as criterion for a different "alphabet" is an interesting point with no clear-cut answer. In any case, the use of (formerly purely) consonantal letters as letters for vowels is not just a "simple orthographic evolution". If it were, one could even argue the early Greek scripts shouldn't be called Greek but Phoenician instead. Now, that is certainly not a point to discuss with wikifants. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: You failed to respond to my point (ignoring your childish and toxic attitude) and seem to deflect. If the Hebrew article is preferable to the English one, this discussion is over, since the Hebrew article says "Paleo-Hebrew" is a local variety of the Phoenician script.

You told me to look at the Naveh quote and the only quote of his in this discussion is about Matres Lectionis. Shows again that you keep refering to Wikipedia rules and "the literature", but still haven't shown any evidence of concrete script differences besides a long list of titles we were told to go and read. I have shown you multiple examples of the scripts being treated the same. I am asking you to provide a concrete example of the differences, no "differences appear at 500BC" vagueness.

As said before, Punic also used Matres Lectionis but is still listed as using the Phoenician script, so this is also not an argument. Hebrew can be written with and without Niqqud and in some words Yods and Vavs can be left out, are these 4 different scripts? Glennznl (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote from Naveh doesn't say anything about matres lectionis. User:Zero0000 added this point. Naveh clearly states "In the ninth century, there were differences between certain Hebrew letter forms and the equivalent letters in the Phoenician-Aramaic script, but specifically Aramaic letters appear only in the cursive writing of the mid-eighth century B.C." Can't you even read carefully? Or are you just lying? Is this a sympton of the fakenews era or what? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, everything I put in quotes is a quotation from Naveh, including the sentence about matres lectionis. Zero^talk 03:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thanks for backing up my point that user Qumranhöle keeps deflecting and refering to sources but actually has no content to add to the discussion. Glennznl (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: You once again failed to provide a concrete example.

"differences between certain Hebrew letter forms and the equivalent letters in the Phoenician-Aramaic script"

Please clarify. Also please don't violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith Glennznl (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, let's all be civil. You all are obviously knowledgeable, and it is possible, that our debate here is a continuation of the varying points of view of academics. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Same in editing: take for example this revert. Calling something baseless is insulting, calling something uncited when the version you are reverting to is likewise uncited is not professional, calling something wrong is again uncivil since "wrong" implies a reference to a certain moral standard and that is simply not applicable here. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think the new edit is more correct. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's take this sentence "Proto-Hebrew, like the Phoenician alphabet, is a slight regional variant and an immediate continuation of the Proto-Canaanite script, which was used throughout Canaan in the Late Bronze Age."

It is claiming that Phoenician alphabet is a regional variant like "Proto-Hebrew" - where is anything like that said? I do not understand the reason for reverting it back all the time and then reporting me as editwarring. What are you guys planning here? --Mustvalge (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser How is this uncited: The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום), also spelled Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet, also known as Proto-Hebrew, is a suggested term for a Phoenician alphabet, coined because it was deemed inappropriate to use "Phoenician" in reference to texts written in early Hebrew.

In the article it is cited like this "The Hebrew scripts, Volume 2, Salomo A. Birnbaum, Palaeographia, 1954, "To apply the term Phoenician to the script of the Hebrews is hardly suitable. I have therefore coined the term Palaeo-Hebrew."" Look it up. And again, User Debresser and/or User Qumranhöhle what are you planning here?--Mustvalge (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Daniels, The World's Writing Systems
• Page 89: [Describing a picture] Northern Linear (Canaanite) is still 1 script around 1200 BC, it turns into Phoenician around 1000 BC. "Hebrew (linear)" and "Phoenician" split as variants from Phoenician at around 800 BC. * Paleo-Hebrew appears around 200 BC until 150 BC.
• Page 92: By convention, texts dated on other grounds to the period before 1050 are called Canaanite (Old-Canaanite, Proto-Canaanite), while texts from the ensuing period are called Phoenician (Naveh 1987).
• Page 94: The northern linear abjad has a smaller consonantal inventory (ca. 22 sounds) than the southern linear form [context: South Arabian script] (ca. 28 sounds) and was used to represent a language like Phoenician that had undergone certain sound changes by ca. 1200. ... Since the earliest major texts are in fact Phoenician, the script of the period 1050-850 is called Phoenician. The argument has been made that various forms of the Bronze Age linear abjad survived into the Iron Age (Kaufman 1986). The contention that the use of the term Phoenician is therefore not justified does not follow (pace Kaufman 1986: 3-4); since the texts show the smaller consonantal inventory, they are linguistically closer to Phoenician (if they are not actually Phoenician) than to Aramaic (Naveh 1987).
• ... the northern form [context: Phoenician rather than southern/South Arabian] over the ninth to fifth centuries developed various ways of notating vowels with mitres lectionis 'mothers of reading', consonantal signs used to indicate the presence of a vowel. Earliest notated were long vowels at the ends of words, followed almost immediately by word-internal long vowels; short-vowel notation came later. (West Semitic words never begin with vowels.) This process of vowel notation apparently began among the Arameans and later spread to Canaanite scribes. The shift to the use of vowel letters was not universal among the West Semitic script traditions: Phoenician was written in a purely consonantal orthography with no trace of vowel letters as late as the first century B.C.E., though its descendant language Punic had developed vowel letters centuries before.
• Page 95: [Describing table] TABLE 5.4: Northern Linear Monumental scripts. XVI, Hasmonean coins and Abba inscription, 2nd-1st c. BCE "Paleo-Hebrew script" [parentheses by Daniels!]
• Page 96: The Phoenician script was the base from which the other varieties (and later sub-varieties) developed. Texts are found in various Canaanite languages from the eleventh century B.C.E. on. In the central and southern Levant, the most notable script variety is linear Hebrew, used also for that language's lesser known relatives, Moabite and Philistine (the Semitic language of the Philistine area)
• Hebrew continued to be written with the linear Hebrew abjad during the exilic period (597-539 B.c.E.), when it was gradually replaced by a form of the Aramaic script. The older ("linear") Hebrew abjad remained in intermittent use, nationalistically or religiously motivated, until 135 C.C.; during this later phase it is called Paleo-Hebrew script. This abjad is the basis of the Samaritan script, which emerged during the first century B.C.E. and is still used for religious purposes.

---

phoe

• SUMMARY : Daniels uses the term "Phoenician" as a collective term for all varieties/variants/script traditions/forms of the Northern Linear Canaanite scripts. Daniels still shows "Paleo-Hebrew script" as a form of Northern Linear Monumental scripts = PHOENICIAN. Daniels calls Linear Hebrew a variety of Phoenician, of which the later phase is called Paleo-Hebrew. Glennznl (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Even though this is still an ongoing discussion (and sometimes a pretty ugly one at that), and not a vote yet, I would be currently voting for having this article, i.e. the "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" one, redirected and merged into the original, larger one, the "Phoenician alphabet" article. But even if, for some reason, in a real vote, this page remained as a separate article from the main one, all the serious debate that went on above here, as reflected in all the reliable sources used, should be reflected in the re-edited page. As it currently is, the page/article does not reflect any controversy at all regarding the use of a different name for the same basic alphabet, or the arguments for it being a more localized variant over later historical periods of the larger original Phoenician/Canaanite alphabet. warshy ^(¥¥) 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 2 At first when i encountered this article i was just trying to find something about how the Egyptian hieroglyps may have evolved into letters we know today. It took some time to start to figure out this "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" thing, as it is linked in many articles, i would say an overrepresenting way, almost like as if this "Paleo-Hebrew" was a intermediate step between Egyptian/Proto-Sinaitic and every other modern alphabet. But actually it is at best a somekind of form or shrift of Phoenician. That's why i would rather like to find something about this "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" in the Phoenician alphabet article. I belive this "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" may confuse other readers too.--Mustvalge (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Naveh describes the differences in his book. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant and I do not need to describe it here (and I will not). It's enough that the differences are described in the scholarly literature quoted here. A discussion is useless if you ignore scholarly literature. (Just for fun let's add Chris Rollston, one of the experts of Paleography: "Naveh has argued that the first distinctive features of Hebrew writing can be discerned in the 9th century (Naveh 1987: 65). I continue to consider this position the most convincing." p. 89 in The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative 1Evidence for Is1raelite Literacy, in Ron E. Tappy & P. Kyle McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and 110th Century Canaan: The Tell Zayit Abecedary in Context, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 2008, pp. 61-96. But you know of course better than Cross, Naveh, Rollston!)

You claim "I have shown you multiple examples of the scripts being treated the same" which is not true. You have not shown a single reference from the scholarly literature that backs your point. Stieglitz does not say what you want him to say and to "Daniels" I will come in my next point.

"Daniels" is the editor of the book. The relevant passage is written by Michael O'Connor. If you don't understand such simple distinctions every discussion will obviously be quite hard.

p. 89 (using your page numbers) O'Connor in fact describes the scholarly consensus. He uses "Paleo-Hebrew" only for the late offshoot of the Old Hebrew script - as I have written above is the case.

p. 92 no doubt about it, who claimed anything different here?

p. 94 again, this is about the differences between the northern (22sign) abjad as against the southern (27sign) abjad. Not relevant for this discussion here.

the passage about matres lectionis is again uncontroversial, it says nothing about Hebrew.

p. 95: an example of the Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions - btw I gave you a bibliographic reference to the Abba inscription above. What's the point.

p. 96: exactly. "Hebrew abjad". Something you claim did not exist.

What does O'Connor say about the post 850 BC period? Why don't you quote that? Because it does not fit your picture? Such willful distortion is not appreciated.

Finally, you use the Hebrew mirror article to this article to claim, that this article should not exist. In other words: The mirror image shows that the entity mirrored in the mirror does not exist. If that is logical to you, you are either a reverse vampire or need a basic class in logic. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: "User Debresser and/or User Qumranhöhle what are you planning here?" That is once more a violation of WP:AGF. and it tells more about your way of thinking. Obviously you are incapable to imagine that some users are interested in facts and logical arguments, in knowledge and enlightenment and not in "plots". I argue, you don't. Maybe the question should be asked in he reverse direction.

"It is claiming that Phoenician alphabet is a regional variant like "Proto-Hebrew" - where is anything like that said?" - see Israel Finkelstein & Benjamin Sass, The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, HeBAI 2 (2013), pp. 149-220, see p. 175: "The current archaeological picture points to the late Iron IIA1 as the time when all inscriptions evolved beyond the Proto-Canaanite phase (however, see now the Ophel pithos sherd in Section 2.3) and when the first examples of the Hebrew script developed, while Philistian, Phoenician and Aramaic were still indistinguishable." The Hebrew, Philistian, Phoenician and Aramaic scripts are all offshoots/regional variants of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet/abjad. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: Thank you for once again failing to produce any examples of these "differences" and deflecting again with a hollow phrase about "distinctive features". Even more relevant, you refuse to list those differences. There is no point in debating with someone who refuses to show evidence after asking about it 5 times. Besides that, you ignored the very clear citation that the Hebrew script is seen as a Phoenician variety.

This article is quite short if you only count the History and Legacy sections. It could very easily be a part of a large and comprehensive Phoenician article that covers all the different variants found amongst the different Canaanite languages. The Hebrew Wiki says the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is just a local variety of Phoenician. Do you think they are wrong? What does this page add exactly, covering the same script, just with different history sections that can easily be nicely combined on the Phoenician page. Glennznl (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You still don't understand WP:NOR. The references are given, whether you read them or not I don't care. This page is not designated to explain to you the differences that scholars have detected and yes, exactly for that reason I willl not describe them here. You can go and read.

It's very simple: Does J. Naveh (a leading authority in the history of the alphabet) speak about distinct scripts from ca. 850BCE on? Yes or no? Does a parallel Hebrew article to this article exist? Yes or no? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Did "Daniels" write the passage or O'Connor? Did I react to every single point from your quotes from O'Connor? Yes or no? Did you react to any of those comments? Yes or no? Did you react to my refutation of your use of Stieglitz? Yes or no? Did you react to the article by Finkelstein and Sass I quoted? Yes or no? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright everyone I think it's time to put it up for a vote. I have shown evidence from Unicode, from "The World's Writing Systems", "The Ugaritic Cuneiform and Canaanite Linear Alphabets", the Hebrew Wiki and even a Jewish source like Chabad all pointing out that "Paleo-Hebrew" is a Phoenician variant or that they are one and the same script. Especially famous and known authorative sources like Unicode (which can be authorative in deciding the titles of Wiki pages in the past as personally witnessed) and "The World's Writing Systems" should weigh heavily, and they clearly call Paleo-Hebrew a variant of a larger Phoenician script [family] that has a number of other variants, just like the Latin script. I have shown a chart of scanned examples of "Paleo-Hebrew" that even in the very last stages barely show any differences at all from Phoenician, in the Latin script these would be called font differences (a certain user who told others to look at charts will ignore this chart as evidence).

The only person arguing against this keeps hammering about "differences", but in fact refuses to list any of these differences after many repeated requests to do so. This user keeps deflecting by telling us to "go and read" a long list of "his sources" and does not add anything to the discussion but aggressive remarks and unprofessional behaviour.

The pages have already been merged on Phoenician alphabet and this has not been undone since this discussion was launched, so everybody can personally witness that these two pages combined work nicely together as a more comprehensive article about Phoenician/Phoenician varieties, and there is no reason to keep two seperate pages. The Paleo-Hebrew page is very short if you only count the History and Legacy sections, and not the table that uses Phoenician (!) letters as an example of "Paleo-Hebrew".

Do others also agree to a vote? Glennznl (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

From the article about the number Pi: "In 1897, an amateur mathematician attempted to persuade the Indiana legislature to pass the Indiana Pi Bill, which described a method to square the circle and contained text that implied various incorrect values for π, including 3.2. The bill is notorious as an attempt to establish a value of scientific constant by legislative fiat. The bill was passed by the Indiana House of Representatives, but rejected by the Senate, meaning it did not become a law." --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

About putting it on a vote - i don't really see it being a voting matter and i'm not sure what to deside about it. As it looks that it does not deserve to be classified as a distinctive alphabet - it's really not makeing it. Also, cause of User Qumranhöhle has listed me on editwarring page, accuses in vandalism on my Talk page, reverting my edits in other articles and the like, i may be a little biased already for not agreeing it as voting matter, but will suggest just to merge. Anyway, if it's being desided to vote, mine would be - to merge.--Mustvalge (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason for a vote. There is a proposal, I see no consensus for it. Especially since WP:NOTVOTE. If you really want, you could ask an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and decide, I think we would all agree to abide by such a closure, but the outcome is pretty clear to me. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Everybody who gave input to the discussion leaned towards merging them except 1 person who refuses to give any concrete evidence and instead keeps deflecting and using hollow phrases. In those circumstances a concensus has been reached amongst all contributive users. Glennznl (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: That is another blatant lie and deserves no further comment.

@Debresser: On the one hand you are right, can't suddenly remove "Proto-Hebrew". On the other hand, "Proto-Hebrew" was not debated here and I do not see who among current Paleographers uses the term. However, I certainly do not insist.

@Mustvalge: I reverted your edit in Aramaic - connected to this here - because it was simply wrong. The Aramaic alphabet (that is the terminology of the article) never "displaced" Assyrian Cuneiform. The sentence was about the change of scripts in use among Judeans/Jews - a totally different and undisputed story. If your problem is only "it does not deserve to be classified as a distinctive alphabet" then first of all you and your companion should be more careful yourselves about the use of "alphabet". Anyway, if it is "does not deserve to be classified as a distinctive alphabet", as what can "it" be classified then? Does "it" exist for you at all? Several wikipedia versions - Glennznl brought the Hebrew up as an arugment and at the same disputes the existence of it - seem to think "it" is worth an article. I give you a little hint: The Hebrew version speaks of כתב, not of אלפבית. It could be so simple if you would at least once look into the basic scholarly literature. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: P.S.: I would not mind asking an uninvolved and at least minimally competent admin. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: It's funny that you bring up the Hebrew Wiki again and pull out of context whatever suits you. Yes, the Hebrew Wiki uses כתב, not אלפבית, but this is directly followed by the statement הוא נוסח מקומי של האלפבית פיניקי, (=is a local version of the Phoenician alphabet). Now we arrive at the second part of my argument, which I will repeat in case you just forgot while typing your comment: This very page is short and its reason to exist as a seperate page is highly questionable, it can very easily be merged into Phoenician alphabet (that page should be named -script and not -alphabet, you are right with that) which has already happened and now forms a more comprehensive article about the Phoenician script and it's varieties, of which Hebrew is one, backed up by "The World's Writing Systems", Unicode and "The Ugaritic Cuneiform and Canaanite Linear Alphabets" which very clearly state that Phoenician (a collective term for the Canaanite alphabets) is a script with multiple varieties/forms/script traditions. Glennznl (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The psychological phenomenon is called "projection", if I am not mistaken. I stated from the outset that the Hebrew article "is preferable in many ways to the english one." I added and add again: "Yet the main point is: There is a Hebrew counterpart to this article." It is completely illogical to refer to the Hebrew article and then claim its English counterpart should not exist. Concerning the "local variant": If you would read the article, it stated already before your infelicitous intervention "Paleo-Hebrew, like the Phoenician alphabet, is a slight regional variant and an immediate continuation of the Proto-Canaanite script." The only difference is the exchange of "Proto-Canaanite" by "Phoenician". And now I would like to quote you: ""Phoenician script" is just a name, it could be called "Canaanite script"". A classic instance where you use "script" when you should have used "alphabet". This for one. The other point is that older literature used "Phoenician" as a more generalizing term for the early centuries (!) whereas the newer works by Sass (and I gave you a quote above) clearly describe why "Phoenician" is inappropriate because specific Phoenician traits developed later as well and the oldest datable linear alphabetic inscriptions so far (!) were not found within Phoenicia - so why call the "Phoenician" any longer? In other words, the introduction says already and in a more updated way what you allegedly miss. So, in this detail the Hebrew wiki article is not preferable to the English one.

However, no one ever disputed (as you still do and ignore the quotes by Naveh etc.) that from the mid-9th century on specific Hebrew traits are discernible. O'Connor (which you mistook as Daniels and were unable to admit this obvious error of yours) speaks of Hebrew script and Stieglitz (who actually does not contribute to the question here but you keep mentioning his article although you obviously haven't read it) speaks of "Phoenician-Hebrew script" - for the early centuries before specific traces of Phoenician, Hebrew etc. developed. And such terminology does not support your claim at all. Not to mention once more that you willfully ignore all the literature references given.

There is a huge difference between improving an article (based on knowledge) and deleting ("merging") an article while ignoring scholarly literature. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with having two separate articles on this writing script, although I do agree that we are mostly dealing here with the very same script. Scientists and archaeologists widely make use of both names, with the "Paleo-Hebrew" being more used to describe the writing made by the Hebrews prior to the destruction of the First Temple (a case in point being Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll). For what it's worth, I remember reading in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah) where it says that Hebrew is a language, but has no script of its own (!). Yes, that is what it says there, implying that the Hebrews made use of the Phoenician script when writing the Torah. In other places, it calls the writing "Ivrit" (= "Hebrew") in order to give the script a designation, although at other times the same writing script is called "Ra'atz" (Hebrew: רעץ).Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment (do you have a refence to the passage from the Jerushalmi?), but sorry, you are quite certainly mistaken about "implying that the Hebrews made use of the Phoenician script when writing the Torah". The sages had no idea of the relation between Old Hebrew and Phoenician. They sages of the Mishnah (see mYad 4:13) use עברית (probably referring to the Hebrew script in use with the Samaritans) and אשורית, the latter desginating the square script. Thus, the square script as the typical Jewish script for the sages is "Assyrian", i.e. foreign, hence "Hebrew is a language, but has no script of its own".

Furthermore, it is not true that "Paleo-Hebrew" is "more used to describe the writing ... prior to the destruction of the First Temple." The more common term is (Old) Hebrew, whereas Paleo-Hebrew is used - by the majority - for the so-called "renaissance" of the (Old)Hebrew script in the post-exilic period. This is a reason, as I stated above, why the term "Paleo-Hebrew" for this article is somewhat unfavourable. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"a case in point being Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll)" - like all the Paleo-Hebrew Scrolls form Qumran the artifact itself (and thus the script used on it) is post-exilic. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Qumranhöhle, shalom. I'm currently at work and do not have access to the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah), but if I can remember correctly, the source is in JT Megillah 10a-b. As for the use of "Paleo-Hebrew," simply look at the sources for the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, and run a Google search on "Paleo-Hebrew." The term is widely used for the script found in Judea prior to the destruction of the First Temple, or what is known as "preëxilic." The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll is simply a carry-over from the script used at an earlier time. All archaeological finds in Israel that date to this time are written in this script, including the famous Siloam inscription..Davidbena (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The problem is that two pages are describing the same script, leading to redundancy. On this page, the table of letters and the Unicode section repeat the exact same material as on the Phoenician page, only the first two sections are relevant, and they can easily fit together under one common page. Glennznl (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl, I am not convinced that having two pages that are describing the same script is, intrinsically, a problem. I see it much like having an article Land of Israel, Holy Land and Palestine (region), although all three articles describe the very same country, with a slightly different emphasis.Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: I am using standard Wikipedia terms for script/alphabet, as you know a script on Wiki is an independent writing system while an alphabet is seen as a national variety (Latin script vs German alphabet).

Your Finkelstein/Sass source also mentions:

the development from Proto-Canaanite to ‘post Proto-Canaanite’ appears to be undifferentiated everywhere in the Levant and the Jazira; for a few decades the alphabet seems to have developed in unison, presumably under the influence of a leading royal city, before the Hebrew-style alphabet (below) was the first to split away

["below" in the previous sentence leads to this] The first language-related alphabet variety, the Hebrew, emerged in the course of the first half of the ninth century or late Iron IIA1. If the Hebrew-style script is first documented archaeologically at S˙afi and Rehov, was it born there, or in Samaria after all?

"Ca. 880/870–840/830 .... Earliest language related alphabet-variant – Hebrew – vs. a uniform Philistian–Phoenician–Aramaic script in the southern Levant"

"780/770–740/730 "The Alphabet is omnipresent in the Levant. Differentiation of the Philistian, Phoenician, Aramaic and Transjordanian alphabet variants.

As you quoted me before, I don't care which name is used in particular, I don't have any agenda. Good point bringing up newer literature, which points out that a lot of Wikipedia might needs to be updated to reflect that Phoenician too was just a variant of a larger script family. Clearly Finkelstein and Sass use the terms "style", "variety", "X-style script", "alphabet-variant"/"alphabet variants" and singular "the alphabet" refering to all varieties in the Levant. In light of this evidence the Phoenician page too must probably be changed as "Phoenician" is not a single script that is the ancestor of Hebrew and Aramaic. In fact they are all part of a "Canaanite alphabet" continuum spread throughout the Levant. To prevent duplicated info across Wiki (easily seen on this page, where half the page is a duplicate of the Phoenician page), weakening the informativeness of Wiki by seperating sub-topics into seperate pages, wasting valuable time of Wiki editors by spreading their efforts out on multiple pages and increasing the risk of vandalism/low quality submissions going unnoticed, I propose that we should have a single comprehensive page that discusses first the common origin of all these varieties and then discusses the (small) differences between them. Glennznl (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Any opinions on these findings? Glennznl (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So, there are many reasonable supporting arguments and as we have learned there's nothing going to be wrong when it's merged.--Mustvalge (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a vote (via RfC) should be made whether or not to merge the two articles.Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: Your statement is based on what? You seem to have participated in a completely different discussion.

@Davidbena: שלום לך, thanks for the JT passage. What you mean by "sources for the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll" eludes me. I am quite familiar with that scroll as with the other Qumranic Paleo-Hebrew scrolls. However, as I have written above and User:Glennznl has quoted from O'Connor, several (most) scholars use Paleo-Hebrew only for the post-exilic script looking quite similar to the pre-exilic one but not being identic to it (according to, e.g., Vanderhooft), whereas the pre-exilic Hebrew script is usually, e.g. in Naveh, just called (Old) Hebrew. I find that usage quite misleading, but I haven't defined it thus. That's the situation in the scholarly literature. Google gives a lot of non-scholarly pages, to say it friendly, it should better be ignored. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Qumranhöhle, if what you say about O'Connor's view of "Paleo-Hebrew" is true, wouldn't it be easier just to point-out this opinion in both articles, rather than seek to describe the "Paleo-Hebrew" text as being purely a "post-exilic" script, since this opinion does not seem to have the backing of all scholars. Look at the Siloam inscription, for example, and how it is described, or look at the Paleo-Hebrew sacerdotal blessing.Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl Sorry, but I agree with Qumranhöhle that your statement was a lie. Various editors have opposed a merge, but in the current discussion as well as in previous discussions on this talkpage. You have pretty much lost your credibility with that statement. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: I did not count any previous discussions from years ago as I was not a part of those. In the current discussion I only counted one person that opposes. Your assumption about lying is not appreciated. Glennznl (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If not all, then in how many wikipedia articles the links behind Paleo-Hebrew alphabet should be directed to Phoenician alphabet? - for avoiding confusion. That's another argument supporting the merge. --Mustvalge (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: That's a non sequitur. If that statement is at all true (you didn't give any links), then the links should be corrected. Nobobody would dare to erase, say, an article about Martin Luther because some links should bette refer to Martin Luther King.

i know, if given links, User Qumranhöhle will love to discuss every one of them in great lenghts here--Mustvalge (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ok, let's take for example Zayit Stone. In the picture box there is mentioned that writing is (Phoenician/)Paleo-Hebrew with the link to Paleo Hebrew alphabet. But there is no citation about that and here in the Talk page i think i already mentioned Zait Stone. If there is one such article, there are surely more.--Mustvalge (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"If there is one such article, there are surely more." In other words, you don't know, but you simply suggest this is a huge problem? Already this is not logical, but again: If there is a wrong link, correct it. The one has nothing to do with the other. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, we don't know how many. You could start searching and checking them one by one and disputing what is what, but more practical solution is just to do the redirect to Phoenician, that has already everything in it. As i mentioned before there would not going to be nothing wrong by doing so and the reader would get less confused. The problem with the links do exist and by calling this fallacy ("non sequitur") and ignoring it just won't help.--Mustvalge (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why should I? It is your problem, not mine. Do you at all listen to yourself? First you claim there are so many of such errors that this page should not exist at all. All I said was that the one (maybe wrong links) is not a reason to eliminate this article. If there are misleading links, why don't you start and correct them? That might an improvement to wikipedia unlike your uninformed and misguided comments here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumranhöhle (talk • contribs)

@Davidbena: Maybe we should discuss this in a separate paragraph. One can, of course, always debate whether there is a majority in scholarship and I would appreciate terminological clarification in the article. Yet O'Connor's use is certainly not idiosyncratic. As said, neither Naveh nor Rollston etc. use Paleo-Hebrew for the pre-exilic Hebrew script but rather Hebrew/Old Hebrew. On the other hand I have given above a long list of examples where Paleo-Hebrew is used for the post-exilic script. To give you another quote: "Frank Moore Cross was instrumental in the study of Paleo-Hebrew scripts, the minority tradition of handwriting in Judea and Samaria after the Iron Age." (Gordon J. Hamilton, Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Scripts of the Persian Period, in Jo Ann Hackett & Walter E. Aufrecht (eds.), “An Eye for Form.” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 2014, pp. 253-290.). As far as I know this usage is widespread whereas I am not aware of scholars who use Paleo-Hebrew specifically for the pre-exilic script. A lot of Wikipedia pages and other sites in the internet do it, but that doesn't count, it is just a popular mistake. NB: The dating of the silver plaques from Ketef Hinnom is still debated. Anyway, there is really no need to list all the Hebrew inscriptions to me, I am well aware of them. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Qumranhöhle, I wish to point out that the word "Paleo," as in "Paleo-Hebrew" (British spelling: "palaeo-Hebrew"), means "old" or "ancient." So, when Naveh, Rollston or O'Connor call the script "Old Hebrew," they may very well be simply referring to the "Paleo-Hebrew script." After all, the meaning is the same. I see no real contradiction. In fact, the Old Hebrew script itself, as used in classical Hebrew sources, is simply called Ivrit (עברית‎), to distinguish it from our Modern Hebrew script which the early Hebrews called Ashurit (Assyrian script). As known, Israeli archaeologists use this script to determine whether a writing is from the First or Second Temple period (excluding coins from the Hasmonaean era that make use of this paleo-Hebrew alphabet in recognition of the old custom), since Ezra the Scribe (based on Jewish tradition) was the first to introduce our Modern Hebrew script (Ashurit) to the returning Babylonian exiles. This is the Modern Hebrew script that we make use of today. As for the source in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is found in Megillah 10a. There, it says (translated): "Said Rabbi Jonathan of Beth-Gubrin: 'There are four languages that are most suitable for the world to have recourse to, and these are La'az (Greek) for singing, Romi (Latin) for drawing hearts together,Sursei (Aramaic) for citing lamentations, Ivri (Hebrew) for ordinary speech.' There are some who say also Ashuri (Assyrian) for a writing script. Ashurit has a writing script, but does not have a language. Ivrit (Hebrew) has a language, but does not have a writing script. They (i.e. those spiritual leaders in the days of Ezra) chose for themselves the Ashurit script, and the Hebrew language." (End Quote). You see, the Mishnah (Yadayim 4:5-6), compiled in anno 189 of our Common Era, calls the Paleo-Hebrew script by the name "Ivrit" for the lack of a better term (being in essence the Phoenician script), so-called because it was used in earlier times by the Hebrew nation, as also to distinguish it from the Modern Hebrew script which they later came to adopt and known to them by the name Ashurit. Hope this was helpful. P.S. - For the use of "Paleo-Hebrew" in inscriptions dating to the First Temple era, see p. 83 in "An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script", published in the Israel Exploration Journal (1973) (JSTOR).

References

Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

תודה מותק ושבוע טוב, but you really don't need to tell me about Greek. The distinction between (Old) Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew is made by some (English-writing) scholars in the literature, I didn't invent it and I find it infelicitous, but it is common. I can't help it. And the article by Naveh you refer to - just look at the beginning of this discussion, I referred to it already. Yet you are wrong, that inscription is NOT from the first temple period. Naveh as everybody else clearly date(s) it to the late second temple period. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Qumranhöhle, what these scholars are referring to when they "distinguish" between (Old) Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew is not so much a change in script, per se, but rather the diachronical change or evolution of some of its letters in local use, just as we find in Greek or in Latin. A change in local usage of certain letters does not necessarily equate to a change of script. On the evolution of some of these letters in the Paleo-Hebrew (Old Hebrew) script, you can see, for example, the JSTOR article "The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies", published in 1996 by The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research. Still, as we have evinced through the above-cited sources, the name "Paleo-Hebrew" is also used to define the writing script in use during preëxilic times in Judea. You may also wish to see p. 49 in "The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran", by K.A. Mathews, and where he writes: "...a small conservative circle of Jewish scribes preserved the old characters in an attempt to mimic the Hebrew letters of the preexile age (prior to 586 BCE). A comparison of the paleo-Hebrew characters of the Leviticus Scroll with their seventh-century proto-types reveals that the characters evolved over time; the changes, however, are not substantive" (End Quote).Davidbena (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Good points. I wonder if this page could be better named "Old Hebrew alphabet", since Paleo-Hebrew is the last stage (200BC - 150AD) of the script according to literature, whille "(Old) Hebrew" is listed in a way longer period and is a clearer term for casual readers. Glennznl (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I see no great need to change the title, since "Paleo-Hebrew" is also used by others to describe the Old Hebrew written during pre-exile times. However, since the term is also used often to describe only a phase of the script's later development, I think that a simple paragraph can be inserted in the article to describe its usage in this manner.Davidbena (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we now on the same page that the Abba inscription is not from the First but from the Second Temple period?

And yes, it's always about diachronic changes. The differences between 11th century Proto-Canaanite and 8th century Hebrew may also not be "substantive". There is always a subjective element is assessig what's substantive. I never said that the differences between preexilic Old Hebrew letter shapes and postexilic "Paleo-Hebrew" letters shapes are "substantive", thus there is no disagreement.

Terminology: As the term Paleo-Hebrew is potentially misleading (others suggested Neo-Hebrew for the post-exilic usage of the old letter shapes, which also has its problems) I would prefer Old Hebrew in acocrdance with several scholars even though I don't think it is easy to establish that this is the usage of the majority in scholarship. Whatever the name of the article, a short paragraph on terminology would be helpful. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Since Paleo-Hebrew is a term widely used, and, yes, it can be potentially misleading if an explanation of its meaning/s is not appended to the article, I still see no valid reason to change the title as it now stands, unless you wish to write "Paleo-Hebrew script." Old Hebrew has the same connotation of "paleo-Hebrew" in some books. It's best then to leave it, adding only an explanation. Otherwise, you get into the unchartered territory of semantics.Davidbena (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly live with that. Are we on the same page that the Abba inscription is from the Second Temple period? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am largely unfamiliar with the Abba inscriptions, but from what I can gather from searching this name on the Internet, Abba was a Jewish man who "was born in Jerusalem, / and went into exile in Babylonia and brought (back [to Jerusalem])" [end quote]. If this inscription was indeed made in the paleo-Hebrew script, as purported, it only explains that the writer of the inscription was accustomed to making use of this antiquated script. Without looking into all the details, if I were to make an educated guess on its timeframe, it could have been inscribed when the Second Temple was built, or else shortly before the Second Temple's rebuilding, which according to Jewish tradition happened to stand from 352 BCE to 68 CE, a period of only 420 years, although modern western scholars put the date somewhat earlier, from 516 BCE to 70 CE. Most observant Jews who adhere to ancient Jewish tradition see these modern dates as being purely anachronistic.Davidbena (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question: You stated "For the use of "Paleo-Hebrew" in inscriptions dating to the First Temple era etc." with reference to the article "An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script". That inscription is the so-called Abba inscription and it is dated by all scholars (mainly Israeli scholars have published about it) and especially by Joseph Naveh, the author of that article, to the Second Temple period and that also p. 83 to which you refer is only about the Second temple period so that your sentence is somewhat misleading? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: From a traditional point of view 352 BCE is no less anachronistic than 516 BCE. Both those dates are "modern", insofar as they use "BCE" and that era was "invented" in Christian late antiquity as you know. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, Israeli archaeologists who frequently find ceramic jar seals from the First Temple period know how to distinguish between paleo-Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period and those paleo-Hebrew inscription made later in recognition of that earlier writing, such as the Hasmonean coins, the Dead Sea scrolls, etc. I thought that this would have been obvious to you.Davidbena (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How in the world does this comment of yours relate to anything I said? You referred to Naveh's article p. 83 as if he said anything about the First Temple period, which he clearly didn't. This article is about the Abba inscription from - according to Naveh - the Second Temple period. Could you eventually admit that? And can you explain to me how you refer to that article which is about the Abba inscription and afterwards you tell me you are not familiar with that inscription? Because I don't get it. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl Either you can't count to four, or you are lying. I see myself, Qumranhöhle, DavidBena and AnonMoss, and indeed the previous discussions with another two editors, which you can't just ignore. And as a matter of fact, on the "redirect" side I basically see a very loud you and Mustvalge, and Onceinawhile and one comment by Ijon. I think it is time you understand this means that there is no consensus, let alone a clear consensus which would be needed to reach such a dramatic conclusion as redirecting. It is time you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser Your repeated bad faith assumptions are unwarranted. Glennznl (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with bad faith. It is a fact. And after your repeated violations of basic principles of Wikipedia, after your distortions and outright lies there is simply no good faith left from my side. You were shown to be wrong on so many accounts that "I just care about the facts and accuracy" reads like a (bad) joke. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qumranhöhle: Your continuous toxic and aggressive behaviour towards every user that you disagree with is also a violation of the basic principles of Wikipedia, but you are not ready for that conversation. Glennznl (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We all have part of the blame to carry for the tense conversation here. But let's stop that right here and now. This conversation is basically over, in view of the comment below, so let's leave it at that. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser, Davidbena, Qumranhöhle, Mustvalge, Ijon, AnonMoos, and Onceinawhile: I have since dropped the stance that these pages need to be merged per se, as evidence shows the Phoenician page itself might need to be changed or split (as it is not the "mother script" Wiki made me believe). I don't have any agenda, I just care about the facts and accuracy. Therefore I made a compilation of points with commentary, that I hope everybody can read with a neutral point of view: Talk:Phoenician_alphabet#This_page_might_need_to_be_split .Glennznl (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Have we now established an understanding that this Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet is Phoenician alphabet?--Mustvalge (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is the same script / alphabet, but differing from the Phoenician script insofar that most of the ancient Phoenician records, while written in this script / alphabet, are ensconced in a language that differs from the Hebrew language, whereas the Paleo-Hebrew script, though roughly similar to the Phoenician script, is written in the Hebrew language, a language incomprehensible to Canaanites or to those Phoenicians who settled along the coast of Palestine. To make a comparison, it would be like writing German with Latin characters, and then writing English with Latin characters. While the script is the same, the language is different.Davidbena (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Just a small nitpick but wasn't Hebrew just one of the many Canaanite dialects, even Punic inscriptions being so similar to Hebrew that linguists expect them to be mutually intelligible? I believed all those Canaanite groups differed more in culture and religion than in language. Glennznl (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To what extent Hebrew has been influenced by Canaanite that is not for me to say, as I am no linguist. However, I can read the Paleo-Hebrew script, and I recognise the Hebrew language in those inscriptions that make use of this script. However, the Old Phoenician records are incomprehensible to me, as they embody a different language.Davidbena (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: Well yes but no. Paleo-Hebrew is Phoenician and Phoenician is Paleo-Hebrew, in the way that both descend from a common ancestral Canaanite script spread throughout the Levant. Glennznl (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we haven't. (1. Whether Phoenician and Hebrew were mutually intellible is unclear, though if we assume with many scholars a dialect continuum there is no clear border [and intelligibility is anyway a subjective criterion]. The comparison between Modern Standard German and Modern English is inapplicable, a comparison between pre-Norman Old English and, e.g., Old Saxon would be much more apt. But that's a question of language, not of script/alphabet. 2. It was time and again written here and referenced that the letter shapes started to differ some time around the mid 9th century with differences growing over time. This could be used as a reason to rework this article and rename it from XXX alphabet to XXX script. 3. However, the Phoenicians adopted a 22 sign alphabet, i.e. they dropped five signs from the longer 27signs alphabet, most probably because they had no use for those five. Yet Hebrew had a double use for ש, still preserved in the Masoretic vocalisation, as well as ע and ח. In other words they used the alphabet "slightly" different than the Phoenicians. Whether this is enough to justify the use of the term "alphabet" is certainly debatable. But that is not a question some wikipedia users can decide, it's a matter of terminology in the scholarly literature, that's the yardstick. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, very good, the answers (+ mine Y) can be interpreted in sum as 'more yes than no'. Maybe some more time needed--Mustvalge (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: No, no more time is needed, the discussion has moved up a level in the "script evolution" to discuss Phoenician/Canaanite script itself. Glennznl (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Then lets redirect it, i think it's merged already--Mustvalge (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: Please take your time to read my compilation of sourced excerpts at Talk:Phoenician_alphabet#This_page_might_need_to_be_split before rejoining the discussion. It should have been clear by now that Hebrew does NOT descend from Phoenician, but BOTH do descend from a common "Canaanite script" ancestor which split into numerous "varieties/variants/styles/script traditions". Glennznl (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

meaning - more time needed? Don't start...--Mustvalge (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have reviewed the above discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit warring

I've fully protected the page. A better option might be to WP:partial block the WP:edit warriors. @Mustvalge: You need to achieve consensus for your redirect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Since I know you, a brief precis of the discussion would be appreciated. I see no consensus for the redirect. Possible consensus to not redirect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I'm considering partial blocking Mustvalge for disruption and unprotecting the page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We go by what WP:RS say not by WP:OR on the article talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that according to Wikipedia suggested decision making guidelines we reached a conclusion here. Also in the talk page i stated clearly "Then lets redirect it, i think it's merged already" and there were no understandable answer to it. There is one user ( User:Qumranhöhle) who is inclined into personal attacks and toxic behaviour (as mentioned also by other users) and for that reason should be ignored here.--Mustvalge (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There are still problems to this article than can't be solved just by blocking users--Mustvalge (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I can only repeat Glennznl's edit commentary, which already says a lot in light of the preceding discussion. Otherwise I refuse to comment on Mustvalge's continuing distortions, to put it mildly. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'd like to point at my comment slightly above this section where I told user Mustvalge that "No, no more time is needed, the discussion has moved up a level in the "script evolution" to discuss Phoenician/Canaanite script itself". Upon which he replied "Then lets redirect it, i think it's merged already". I responded to this by kindly redirecting him to a compilation of sourced info at Talk:Phoenician_alphabet#This_page_might_need_to_be_split, that would explain everything to him. Upon this he re-directed the page again. User Mustvalge seems to have a good command of the English language so I can only conclude and call this "willful-ignorance". Glennznl (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Please avoid incivility and borderline personal attacks. Please discuss content and sourcing. Please simply take part in the poll below, as I feel sufficient discussion has occurred that everyone is familiar with the arguments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: Then why are other editors undoing your redirect, reporting you at WP:AIV, and asking for page protection at WP:RFPP I see no consensus on the talk page to do as you say. I see disagreement with it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC) The edit summary for this reversion says

Undid revision 969973115 by Mustvalge (talk) Repeated ignoring of the talk page discussion, explanations given to him and sourced material directed to him, repeated ignoring of warnings

. That does not sound to me like a consensus has been reached. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening. I interpreted the 'more yes than no' as a conclusion and by stating "Then lets redirect it, i think it's merged already" and not getting a clear 'no' to it as a base for doing the redirect. I think that the claim that i'm into vandalism is simply wrong, or maybe it's another way around. --17:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Mustvalge (talk)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. As a participant, you do not determine consensus. This is not a vote. Arguments must be based in policy and in what is said in reliable sources. A lack of consensus for a change means the status quo remains.17:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)

I surely won't start a discussion about status quo remains, as i see it fruitless. But i kindly ask to remove the reporting on WP:AIV if this is possible. The User who did it didn't gave me even a previous warning, a link, a word about it. I see it was because i tried to maintain the edit here, that was reverted with not mentioning the reason for doing it.

For some reason (presumably relating to this reversion) User Qumranhöhle did accuse me on my UserTalk page in vandalism, but his accusations is hard to disdinguish from personal attacks and i didn't engage. Have tried the discussion before but it seems not to work out. I didn't consider the redirecting and try to maintain it as vandalism --Mustvalge (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

1. As stated above, (possible) problems in an article are a reason to improve it, not to redirect it. 2. This article has equivalents in several languages. While this is not per se an argument, especially since some language versions are bot created or bad translations from the English, the latter is not the case with this article which has a good counterpart in the Hebrew version, therefore one should be able to explain why the English version should not have what the Hebrew does. Maybe start a discussion on the Hebrew page, I look forward to it... 3. That your last (of the I don't know how many) attempts to claim a consensus for redirecting didn't get a response within a few hours is no reason at all. It's simply useless to repeat every hour the same arguments to which you did not react in a single case. Furthermore, you were warned not to do that again. There is no other option than to interpret this as willful ignorance. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Polling on redirect to Phoenician alphabet

Let's make this simple. Please state in one word, in an unordered list format, whether you Support or Oppose the redirect to Phoenician alphabet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Example--

• Neutral --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

---

• Oppose --Glennznl (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --warshy ^(¥¥) 17:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Davidbena (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral -- Mustvalge (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet or Phoenician alphabet?

What say WP:reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking? I saw some WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the talk page, but as encyclopedia, that is not suitable for our content. Do reliable, verifiable sources say that the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is the same as the Phoenician alphabet? I will invite further review and discussion from members of the various WikiProjects to which this page belongs. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The two were very similar in shape in their earlier stages, but Hebrew developed matres lectionis before Phoenician did, and when we get to the time period in which Jewish factions were disagreeing whether to use the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet or the "square" "Assyrian" (i.e. Aramaic) alphabet, those developments cannot be usefully discussed in any degree of detail in the "Phoenician alphabet" article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Cant help to think but isn't this all just about status quo? From the article: "Use of the term "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" is due to a 1954 suggestion by Solomon Birnbaum, who argued that "[t]o apply the term Phoenician to the script of the Hebrews is hardly suitable". - that's basically a status quo statement. How can you show it's not, or the article/term not biased by it? That's very legitimate question here--Mustvalge (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your statement above makes little sense (and your understanding of the meaning of "status quo" seems unfitting), yet in light of what you wrote above one can guess what you intent. It should be noted, however, that you were given answers several times already, but seemingly choose to ignore them. Therefore this is a last attempt to answer, if you do not get any further answers beyond that point you should not mistake this as proving your point.

The paleographer S. Birnbaum suggested a term for an existing phenomenon, why shouldn't he? First of all the quotation is taken out of context, second Birnbaum coined the term Paleo-Hebrew for a script, i.e. strictly speaking the use of the quote in the introduction is wrong, at least imprecise. Anyway, you simply insinuate "nationalistic" reasons and therefore claim that usage of the term should be abandonded. Apart from the fact that this is just a claim, it is a claim by you, a wikipedia user, not a scholar who published this. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant for this discussion what you think. Furthermore, even if you were right and your opinion relevant at all, it wouldn't mean that the phenomenon described by the term does not exist nor that the term is not used by scholars. In short, nothing of this is a reason to redirect this article. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), volume 2, pp. 674–750, has a long article with illustrations entitled "Alphabet, Hebrew," and which speaks about the development of the Hebrew writing script, with emphasis on both the Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew scripts. Since the article is very long, and very tedious to copy, I will endeavor to copy the main points and put this into a collapsible window for all to see. Hopefully, I'll copy the material at intermittent spates, depending on the availability of time at my disposal.

Transcription of "Alphabet, Hebrew" - Encyclopaedia Judaica (excerpts)

Alphabet, Hebrew [p. 682] The Hebrrew Script: The Hebrews adopted the alphabetic script together with other cultural values from the Canaanites in the 12th or 11th century B.C.E. They followed the current Phoenician script until the ninth century, when they began to develop their own national script. EARLY INSCRIPTIONS. The Gezer Calendar is considered to be the earliest Hebrew inscription known. Its script resembles the scripts of the tenth century Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. The spelling of two words reflects the contraction of the diphthong ay, which is either a Phoenician or a North Hebrew (cf. Samaria ostraca) linguistic feature. On paleographical grounds, the Gezer Calendar should be dated in the late tenth century B.C.E. (i.e. in the time of Solomon) when Gezer was an Israelite city (I Kings 9:16), and thereby determined as a Hebrew inscription. As strange as it may seem, the earliest clear Hebrew features can be discerned in the scripts of the ninth-century Moabite inscriptions, namely the stele of Mesha (the Moabite Stone) and in a recently found fragmentary stele where kmšyt, the name of Mesha's father, is mentioned (for the Moabite script, see below). As the eighth-century Hebrew inscriptions exhibit many specific and exclusive traits, it is obvious that in the ninth century the Hebrew script was written by wide scribal circles. The fact that up to the present almost no Hebrew inscriptions have been found from the ninth century is accidental, but the quantity of the epigraphic material from the eighth century onward shows a gradual increase of the spread of the knowledge of writing among the people of Israel and Judah. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT HEBREW SCRIPT. The evolution of the independent Hebrew script is one of a specific cursive character: the further it diverges from the (Phoenician) mother-script, the more it drops the lapidary features. This one-trend development is obvious in the eighth-century engraved inscriptions, namely the Siloam Inscription, the Royal Steward, and other tomb inscriptions (all from Jerusalem), as well as from the fragmentary Hebrew insciption on an ivory which was taken as booty (probably from Samaria) to Nimrud, and the hundreds of the eighth to the sixth-century Hebrew seals from various sites. These inscriptions on hard material were written in a cursive style, copying even the shading, which is a natural feature of pen-and-ink writing. The lack of lapidary script may indicate that the custom of erecting stelae by the kings and offering votive inscriptions to the deity was not widespread in Israel. Such an assumption would explain how the specific lapidary element could disappear from the Hebrew script. (TO BE CONTINUED)

Davidbena (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, though in fact this is unneccessary. The sheer existence of the article proves Mustvalge wrong. (As a case in point, look up the 2007 edition, the article is written by Naveh. He uses "Hebrew" for the pre-exilic period and "Paleo-Hebrew" for the post-exilic period.) --Qumranhöhle (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(kibitzer note) I think I read the collapsed text in the very first revision of this article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I leave here one blogpost about the subject - my short summary about this is that "Paleo-Hebrew" is one alternative name for a language (Biblical Hebrew) that uses identical alphabetical signs with Phoenician. Is it maybe more of a language thing? But have look if interested. --Mustvalge (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That blogpost is not worth further comments. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(kibitzer note) Generally, blogs are not regarded as meeting WP:RS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The blogger posts his own papers there. Even an article in a journal that conducts peer review before publication would be a primary source and of questionable value. Anyone can write a blog.I have a blog. My conclusions are brilliant. It is not a WP:RS --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ofcourse blogposts are not Reliable sources to cite in wikipedia articles, but sometimes they are good for suggesting what to look further. This one has info in it too, that seems considerable. I just left the link cause this post has relevance to this discussion here--Mustvalge (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

More from the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 2, on the "Alphabet, Hebrew." On pp. 678-682 it speaks about the Phoenician Script, followed by the Hebrew Script (this latter copied in the previous collapsible window). On pp. 683-685 it speaks about the Paleo-Hebrew Script. In the following collapsible window, I will bring down excerpts from the discussions on the Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew scripts.

Transcription of "Alphabet, Hebrew" - Encyclopaedia Judaica (continuation)

Alphabet, Hebrew [pp.678-681] The Phoenician Script: [...] In the 11th century B.C.E., with the development of the linear letter forms, the stabilization of the right-to-left direction and the reduction of the number of letters to 22 consonants, the Proto-Canaanite developed into the Phoenician script. (The c. 1000 B.C.E. inscription on the Ahiram sarcophagus found at Byblos displays this stage of evolution.) It seems likely that the Phoenician phonemic system consisted of 22 consonants; but the phonemic systems of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were richer than that of the Phoenician language. When the Hebrews and Arameans adopted the Phoenician script they could not express in writing these phonemes which did not occur in Phoenician. In Hebrew, for example, there exists š (shin) and ś (sin), but both phonemes are designated by the same letter ש‎, only in a relatively late period, with the invention of the diacritic signs, was it possible to distinguish between שׁ‎ (shin) and שׂ‎ (sin). [...] [p. 683] The Paleo-Hebrew Script. The Hebrew script did not cease to exist after the Babylonian capture of Judah, when most of the nobles were taken into exile. It was used by the people who remained to work the fields; the sixth-century inscribed jar handles from Gibeon, on which the names of winegrowers are listed, are an example. However, from the fifth century onward, when the Aramaic language and script became an official means of communication, the Paleo-Hebrew script (i.e. the ancient Hebrew characters as used in the time of the Second Temple) was used for writing Hebrew both in Judah and Samaria. It was preserved mainly as a biblical book hand by a coterie of erudite scribes (presumably of the Zadokite priesthood; cf. the Paleo-Hebrew Pentateuch fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls). The vast majority of the Hasmonean coinage as well as the coins of the First and Second Jewish Revolts bears Paleo-Hebrew legends. Although the script is relatively static, formal hand, it seems likely that the Hasmoneans did not revive a forgotten national script; they struck coins with legends of a known writing which survived -- though in a narrow circle -- in the period of the Second Temple. [...]

Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

One can only wonder what did you write in this by yourself? (just showing the weak point of this transcription - but good effort)--Mustvalge (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mustvalge:, I assure you that I added absolutely NOTHING by myself, including all parenthetical statements. If you'd like me to do so, I can scan the pages and send them to you directly.Davidbena (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks, leave it--Mustvalge (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

From "Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages" (Resources for Biblical Study of this), Author(s): John Kaltner, Steven L. McKenzie Year: 2002

p 94: The Judeans who were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.E. adopted the Aramaic language

along with the Aramean script. (Hebrew was previously written in Phoenician characters, which are sometimes called Paleo-Hebrew.)--Mustvalge (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You have just now confirmed by this source what we have been saying all along. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

what? If Phoenician characters = Paleo-Hebrew characters then about what are we discussing here? --Mustvalge (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We have shown, I think most consummately, that the characters are mostly the same, with only minor evolutions. The script, as your source noted, is the same overall, with minor differences in phonetics as pointed out by the Encyclopaedia Judaica and which justifies it being described under two names.Davidbena (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please see related guideline, essay, and policy-- Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Wikipedia:Merge Test WP:PRESERVE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the material evidence assembled by "Biblical archeology"

The opening sentence of this article states that this is "the script used in the historic kingdoms of Israel and Judah, specifically to record the Ancient Hebrew language, including the texts of the Hebrew Bible in its original script."

"The texts" being alluded to here, are roughly the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), and Kings (1 and 2) of the Hebrew Bible. Basically, the entire original "Torah." As someone relatively familiar with all these massive texts as they currently exist in their Aramaic or square alphabet Hebrew language printing, when I come to this page and look at the rather paltry and scanty samples of paleographic evidence that have been unearthed by "Biblical archeology" in Palestine to date, and that are all displayed and referred to in the article, I cannot help but being struck with the strong feelings associated with being under a heavy attack of cognitive dissonance.

I mean, some 5 or 6 rather small (6 or 7 lines at the most for the largest of the samples) inscriptions carved on (lime)stone with the possible semblance of a rather primitive script, with some rather disjointed, almost unintelligible text after many years of heavy acid cleaning of the carved stone and deep decyphering of the slight carvings by highly specialized philologists. What one is left off with after studying the entire material carefully, seems to be a not very impressive or substantive collection of some scattered and disjointed sentences that does not resemble in the least anything even closely akin to the massive collection of deep theological texts enumerated above.

It seems to me that the big "Biblical archeology" initial assumption above, that scrolls and scrolls of some type of parchment covered with this type of script once existed, where the deep theological thinking, the stories and the narratives of ancient patriarchs, of a certain towering figure called Moses, who seems to have been above all others, of prophets, judges, seers and kings were all recorded in every minute detail in writing, is indeed no more than just that: a big and rather unfounded assumption that cannot be corroborated in reality by the existing paleographic material evidence in our hands. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We had very few Jewish manuscripts from the 2nd century A.D. or earlier before the Dead Sea scroll discoveries, and any pre-exilic scrolls would have to be 7 or 8 centuries older -- and correspondingly less likely to be preserved -- than the Dead Sea scrolls. Some surviving seal bullae were originally attached to documents that burned, leaving only the bulla behind. I'm not too sure what you would expect that we should have found which is substantially different from what we actually have found. AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess the first thing we would have to quibble about is a more precise dating for the bulk of the authentic leather parchments found in the Qumran caves. I, for one, would prefer to go later than the 2nd century C.E. as you do. But your rather early dating is certainly within the mainstream of academic publishing on the matter, whereas my own opinion does not really count here. By reading some basic passages of the 2015 Kratz (German?) book referred to in the notes to the article I can see one of the intellectual constructs that modern scholarship makes use of to try and bridge over the gap opened by the shock of cognitive dissonance I was referring to. In his "Premises" section he refers to a "Scribal tradition" that had indeed recorded in the primitive writing system of this article and in papyus or leather parchment the Biblical tradition we know. But since the oldest extant manuscripts outside of Qumran, such as the Leningrad Codex, are dated not earlier than the 10th or 11th centuries C.E., that does not leave much room for proceeding in the historical inquiry other than the one you suggest: admitting that the past reality has actually been burned into complete oblivion. If, as a scholar, you first inure yourself to the detrimental psychological effects of that dissonance, you then have in front of you all the detailed Biblical tradition that was somehow preserved by those assumed scribes. At this point, there is no escaping the fact that all the enormous gaps that do exist in your knowledge of the past can be very easily filled in by the rich Biblical tradition that does exist. And so, the written text we have in front of us, The Book, does once again become nothing but history as it really was. There is really no other possible one. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Even though I share some of the sentiments against "Biblical archaeology" you present, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and you're missing many shades of grey between black and white. However, much of this discussion actually does not belong here, so I try to restrict myself only to those aspects which are related to the article. The sentence "was the script used in the historic kingdoms of Israel and Judah, specifically to record the Ancient Hebrew language, including the texts of the Hebrew Bible in its original script" may indeed be interpreted as if the Hebrew Bible was written during the existence of the historic kingdoms of Israel and Judah. That is, of course, wrong, since some texts were written in the post-exilic period according to their content. There is no disagreement about that. Some texts were probably written, rewritten etc. after the exile but there is no consensus about it. Anyway, even if large portions of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets were written (or texts have been added to them) in the post-exilic period, they may have been written originally in the (Paleo-)Hebrew script since this script was most probably longer in use for certain categories of texts. That, at least, is Naveh's opinion, and the few others who have written about it, follow. There is reason to assume that the use of the square script for the writings that became "Bible" did not start long before around the mid 3rd century BCE. In other words: Apart from the latest books, the bulk of the Hebrew Bible was - probably - originally written in the Paleo-Hebrew script and not originally in the square script. I suggest to delete the (bold) "the" to remedy this potentially misleading impression without at the same time entering the debate about the dating of the texts. This article is about the alphabet/script, nothing else.

P.S.: I would be interested in your arguments for dating much of the Dead Sea material later than the 2nd century CE, even though I have to admit I am quite skeptical from the outset. Yet this hardly belongs here. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing: "But since the oldest extant manuscripts outside of Qumran, such as the Leningrad Codex, are dated not earlier than the 10th or 11th centuries C.E." - that is simply not true, you miss the material from the Genizah, which includes several biblical manuscripts older than the Leningrad codex, you miss the Greek manuscripts and fragments, some of which are more or less contemporary with the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's the direct evidence that directly contradicts some of your reasoning, but there is also indirect evidence you can't dismiss so easily. On the other hand, the existence of the texts does not make their content "history", that's a fundamental distinction one should not forget only because some apologists don't make it. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I most definitely did NOT say above that Qumran manuscripts date from after the 2nd century AD! AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"a big and rather unfounded assumption that cannot be corroborated in reality by the existing paleographic material evidence in our hands." These may be relevant to the dating of the Biblical texts, but not to the age or initial use of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. To make any changes to the relevant articles, you would need sources questioning the assumption in question. Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Phoenician

From George Albert Cooke's famous textbook.

Interesting article. I could only see Phoenician alphabet and script however. Which reliable historical source referred to Phoenician as Hebrew before? I would like to learn more about it. I can't find any historical accounts in the article itself unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.113.231 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

See the image on the right from George Albert Cooke's well known textbook. See that it includes the Siloam inscription, which has been labelled "Paleo-Hebrew" in recent decades. As has the Mesha stele, which some scholars like to call "Moabite". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Onceinawhile! I checked them both but it isn't what I am looking for. George was a contemporary professor of Hebrew himself. I am sorry I wasn't clear, which ancient civilization referred to Phoenician as Hebrew before? Or has this naming appeared only recently? I want to know of any historical accounts that support the classification of Phoenician as a form of Hebrew.

I am trying to figure out something similar myself. Have a look at the third paragraph of Eshmunazar II sarcophagus – Barges found the first “Phoenician inscription from Phoenicia”, and said it was the same as Hebrew. All known Phoenician inscriptions prior to then were found in other parts of the Mediterranean – the Cippi of Melqart being the first in 1694. What I have yet to figure out is how these early modern scholars knew this new script was Phoenician – have a look at my question at Talk:Cippi of Melqart#First identification of "Phoenician". Onceinawhile (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: They could identify it as Semitic (barely read/understand it in the beginning) and knew that Phoenicians settled there. The did not exactly identify the script per se as Phoenician but inferred from cultural background.

@IP: In case you really ask a question and do not just want to make a point: Nobody referred or refers to Phoenician as Hebrew, neither does this article classify "Phoenician as a form of Hebrew". And for the rest see the long discussion(s) above. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Qumranhöhle. My question is genuine since I started learning Phoenician and I came across this article. The article is titled "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" but it's only discussing Phoenician alphabet, history and artifacts, so it's clearly assuming they both are the same thing or one is a form of the other. If this was not intended then the article must be cleaned up or simply merged with Pheonician Alphabet. Apparently the earliest source I found referring to Phoenician as Hebrew was the book Onceinawhile attached, we can possibly highlight in the history section that Paleo-Hebrew dates back to early 1900s when a professor of Hebrew decided to adopt a different name for Phoenician. I want to ensure the article won't be confusing to other people as it was to me. What do you suggest? (I am sorry I do not know how to sign properly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.113.231 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"that Paleo-Hebrew dates back to early 1900s when a professor of Hebrew decided to adopt a different name for Phoenician" - that is simply wrong. You are mixing up things. And about merging I suggest you read the long discussion above before you come with the same suggestion that was rejected for good reason. Otherwise even a well meaning user could get the impression that your not completely new to this. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I never said I was completely new, I used to edit in Wikipedia in 2011, but how is this relevant to anything I asked?

I did read the long discussions but haven't found any answers, here are my questions again, I wish I could make them easier to understand but I am sorry my best is not enough;

• Are there any archaeological findings that showed historical usage of the term "Paleo-Hebrew" for the Phoenician Alphabet? (Yes/No?)
• If (Yes), what are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.113.231 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Are there any archaeological findings that showed historical usage of the term "Paleo-Hebrew" for the Phoenician Alphabet?" This is a nonsense question. Paleo-Hebrew is a modern, scholarly term. By definition there cannot be "archaeological findings that showed historical usage of the term".

More important, from the introduction to this site: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Please keep that in mind. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The ancient Hebrew alphabet (or Paleo-Hebrew) was never lost and was continuously known to scholarship, as this was retained in recorded history (Latin and Hebrew). See for instance this book from 1858 referring to "old Hebrew letters" or this book from 1778 referring to "ancient Hebrew character", or this book from 1682 discussing Hebrew, Phoenician, Samaritan, Latin, and Greek characters. Going back further requires a switch to Middle and Old English, or more appropriately Latin and Hebrew.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Geshem Bracha, thank you for those sources, which are interesting reading. To your point, the first sources says that Hebrew was written in Samaritan characters and the second and third say that it was written in Phoenician characters. Note that the first ancient Hebrew inscription was not found until 1870. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The Samaritan alphabet is a continuous development of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (the Samaritans stuck with Paleo-Hebrew during the period in which mainstream "Rabbinic" Jews chose to go with the "square" "Assyrian" -- i.e. Aramaic -- alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

a Paleo-Hebrew script variation

In the article History of the Hebrew alphabet there is a style of Paleo-Hebrew script with slight but noticeable differences to the ones on this article's table. Before boldly adding that script into this article's table, I constructed the result here in my sandbox, and I want to know if the column name Variant is appropiate. -- Genoskill (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Genoskill, thanks for coming here to discuss this. Looking at the underlying code in your table, it looks like the "image" and "text" columns in your table are Phoenician letters and the "variant" are Old Aramaic. So it would be confusing to use them here as "Hebrew".

This all comes back to a long running problem here - that they are basically the same script with minor regional and temporal variants along a normal dialect continuum. Per the article Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, for the first century or so of modern scholarship all these inscriptions were labelled "Phoenician"; then in the early 19th century some were reclassified as "Aramaic" and from the late 19th century some began to be labelled "Hebrew".

Because the split into buckets like "Phoenician" "Paleo Hebrew" and "Old Aramaic" is an artificial construct by modern scholarship for the purposes of fitting biblical and national narratives, I think we will struggle here to create any meaningful illustration of the "boundaries" between these different scripts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If what you say is true, Onceinawhile, then what I thought that was an opportunity for improvement, now becomes a dissapointing Wikipedia problem, of big scale, that I don't know how to solve. What you say makes sense (even the image filenames say 'Phoenician', the the keyboard characters are phoenician), now I'm realizing that there is a worrisome lack of references in some sections and articles of these topics, and I was about to add unreferenced content here, I'm glad you stopped me. Articles like this one confuse more than teach, they are like a disservice to knowledge. I want to know what could be the way to move forward. -- Genoskill (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the scholarship on this topic does not spend much time on the "meta" assessment of the labelling. There are endless arguments about whether an individual inscription is Hebrew or Aramaic or Phoenician; Stephen Kaufman was one of the few that addressed the classification question head on: "Now frankly I have never been much interested in classification. My own approach has always been rather open-ended. If a new language appears in Gilead in the 8th century or so, looks somewhat like Aramaic to its North, Ammonite and Moabite to its South, and Hebrew to its West (that is to say: it looks exactly like any rational person would expect it to look like) and is clearly neither ancestor nor immediate descendant of any other known NW Semitic language that we know, why not simply say it is Gileadite and be done with it? Anyone can look at a map and see that Deir 'Alla is closer to Rabbat Ammon than it is to Damascus, Samaria or Jerusalem, but that doesn't a priori make it Ammonite. Why must we try to squeeze new evidence into cubbyholes designed on the basis of old evidence?"[2] Of course, what Kaufman fails to point out is that the label Gilead does not come from archaeological evidence, but solely from Biblical writing and their subsequent geographical interpretation.

My own view is that this is the only region of the world where ancient inscriptions are given different labels every 50 miles. In this region we have "Moabite" and "Ammonite" deemed as separate “languages”, and the “paleo-Hebrew script” alongside the “Phoenician script”. The science of epigraphy is then used to back-solve the individual inscriptions into these “cubbyholes” which have their foundations in the speculative field of 19th century Biblical geography.

Onceinawhile (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Genoskill: You might be interested in the discussion here, which shows examples of academic works that talk about a singular Canaanite script with multiple "variants". As user Onceinawhile explained, these variants are categorized quite artificially by modern day state borders, influenced by nationalism and biblical narratives. I hope to see an authorative work in the future that can be used to sort out the mess. --Glennznl (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile -- we went all through this above. In the earlier period, there wasn't much difference in letter shapes between Phoenician and Hebrew, but differences in geography, orthography (Hebrew developed matres lectiones much more quickly than Phoenician did), language written, and culture (such as the disputes among Jews whether to use the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet or the "square" "Assyrian" Aramaic alphabet, still visible in the difference between the Samaritan vs. Hebrew alphabets today) mean that it's not too useful to try to indiscriminately amalgamate Hebrew under Phoenician. AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to unpack the different eras you are referring to in your comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: you might be interested in Sanhedrin (tractate) 21b: "אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי. מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה" (translated: "Mar Zutra says, and some say that it is Mar Ukva who says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in Ivrit script, the original form of the written language, and the sacred tongue, Hebrew. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected Ashurit script and the sacred tongue for the Torah scroll and left Ivrit script and the Aramaic tongue for the commoners. Who are these commoners? Rav Chisda said: The Samaritans [Kutim]. What is Ivrit script? Rav Chisda says: Lebanon script.")

Calling it "Lebanon script" seems to strongly suggest that the differences were not seen as meaningful. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I have reverted your addition because 2 major Hebrew dictionaries do not translate Libona'ah as "Lebanon" as seen here. Furthermore, the Talmud translation at Sefaria also does not translate it as Lebanon, as seen here. --Glennznl (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Glennznl, thanks for the prompt - I have added a citation Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)