cna u raed tihs? a brief thought on ancient orthography

Can You Read This Sentence?I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae and in conxtet. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

(i geuss i cuold say the smae thnig abuot catipalziatoin, but we alerady konw tihs. the acnient grekes uesd all lwoer csae or all upepr csae ltetres, and neevr btohreed to mix tehm. lkiewsie, hberew and arbaic olny use a snigle csae, and tehy udenrsotod ecah ohter pereftcly. but i degrsis…)

The frist pragaarph* avobe is ipmortnat bceuase whtheer tehy siad so or not, ancinet scriebs aslo kenw taht wrods wtih exrta ‘plnee‘ vewols wree the smae as ohter wrods wihtuot tehm. Jsut beaucse a wrod cnotanis ‘plnee‘ vwoles in one plcae in a sneetnce and lakcs tehm in antheor deons’t ncessareliy maen taht the txet was the rselut of two difefrnet ahtours. It jsut maent taht orhtogrpahy and wittren vweols wree not as menaignufl in eraly srcibal sstyems, and it was olny witihn eltie srciabl cmomutniies taht othrgorphay was uesd to dstingiusih bteewen ‘prporely edcuaetd’ inviddiauls and ‘lseser’ educated idinviudals (and eevn tehn olny in wrtietn cnotxets, not vrebal oens). Of crouse, as letiracy bcaeme icnraesinlgy coommn thrugohuot a regoin, spllenig bcaeme an incraeisnlgy pravelnet idnicotar of an idnivdiaul’s itellingnece.

Add tihs to the fcat taht vwoles are amolst unencsseray for wrttein letirautre (voclaiaztoin, yes, but not for wrettin cmomnuciatoin), and we udernsatnd why presnolaiezd lecisne plteas rguelraly dorp volews frsit to fit big wrdos itno 6- and 7-ltteer sapces. The smae phenomenon is apparent in Tiwettr, wehre we are lemiitd to 140 chraactres. Hree aslo, lkie in acninet epagripihc isncpritoins and letirtaure wtriten on exnpesvie pypaurs, sacpe is vlaualbe, and so satdnard othrograhpy is abondaend in fvaor of an eocnmoy of csnonoants. If we rleazie taht a ferthur eocnmoy of chraecatrs can be ahceievd by eilimiantnig dpithogns, dirgahps, and silnet ltteres, we can udrenstnad the ircnaesignly chraactreisitc lnagague taht dsitignushies, imho, kewl twttr ppl frm all othrz, that alloz thm 2 b all lol @ us b/c we insist on spllng out gr8 wurds instd of jst makin em smallr. w00t!

Wihle tihs deos not awlyas hlod ture for prpoer nmaes lkie Steh Sandres, Chirs Rlolsotn, or Wlilaim Schneidiwend (the lttaer of whcih few can sepll crroetcly eevn tdoay ;-), the uncovenntioanl natrue of nmaes exlpians why so mnay proepr naems wree splleed in vraaint wyas (epsecillay with rgerad to veowls). The tutrh is, we can cumomuictae rtaher wlel witohut preopr spllenig, wichh porbbaly expialns why mispsillnegs and abbiveratoins wree mroe acectbaple in aceinnt witring. (and taht catipalziatoin is stlil unenecssray!)

-rboret craglil


*Note: The first paragraph made its way around the internet beginning in 2003. The urban legend portion of this paragraph is that ‘research at Cambridge’ produced the study. This has not conclusively been determined. Read more at Snopes.com here.

Advertisements

earliest hebrew inscription reported found

Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon

Professor Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa claims this inscription on a pottery shard discovered in the Elah valley dating from the 10th century BCE is the earliest example of Hebrew writing. Courtesy of the University of Haifa

researchers at haifa university are claiming that the ostracon discovered in 2008 at khirbet qeiyafa contains the earliest example of hebrew writing. professor gershon galil of the department of biblical studies at the university of haifa has translated the text of the faded ostracon. according to a press release:

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David’s reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

galil’s english translation reads as follows:

1′ you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2′ Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3′ [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4′ the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5′ Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

galil uses the ostracon to argue that hebrew was established much earlier that most scholars date the origin of the language. while the gezer calendar, which dates to approximately the same period is a simple text telling the reader when to plant and when to harvest and may have served as a school text, this qeiyafa ostracon echoes some of the teachings that would later be found in the bible, such as caring for slaves, widows, orphans, infants, foreigners, and the poor.

a few comments and questions should surely be asked:

  1. what was the context of the sherd? this is instrumental in ruling out forgery. the ostracon came from the elah fortress excavation. the new york times’ ethan bronner wrote an article highlighting the excavation. there is an excellent timeline of the discovery of the ostracon.
  2. is the translation accurate? scholars will no doubt debate each letter of the transcription and translation. stephen smuts has blogged about a youtube video where professors hagai misgav and yosef garfinkel discuss their translation of the ostracon. galil’s translation will be sure to continue the debate.
  3. does this prove the existence of king david? the answer is no (nor does it arge against his existence). what it does show is that hebrew (if it is determined to be, in fact, hebrew and not some canaanite dialect) writing was practiced in the 10th century bce. this would support the presence of literate hebrew scribes at qeiyafa. whether the presence of scribes in a smaller coastal town supports the existence of an even larger israelite presence in jerusalem is yet to be seen. we cannot assume that just because someone in a small town southwest of jerusalem can write in hebrew means that there are even more people writing in a capitol in jerusalem. what it would tell us is that literacy was more common and widespread at an earlier period than previously thought. of course, none of this lends any evidence to the existence or absence of king david, but a widespread literacy of hebrew in the 10th century bce could be used as evidence of an established or coordinated scribal system in israel.
  4. does this mean that the bible was written earlier than we thought? no. because the text of the ostracon only makes references to themes that would later appear in biblical books, and does not cite them specifically, we cannot say that the bible was composed at any earlier of a date than the 7th-to-1st century bce periods that scholars already date the bible. conservative scholars argue that some portions of the bible were written as early as the 8th century reign of king hezekiah (with some archaic hebrew songs and poems perhaps dating a bit earlier), and other scholars date the composition of the bible to the 6th and 5th centuries bce, during and after the exile to babylon. still other minimalist scholars date the composition of the bible to the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce. (some books like daniel and esther were written even later and date to the second and first centuries bce). thus, we cannot state that this ostracon requires us to date the biblical texts to an earlier period. what we can say is that the themes of social justice and care of the poor and marginalized that would later be echoed in the torah and by the prophetic books were already in the consciousness of the peoples that would later com to identify themselves as jews.
  5. does this prove the story of david and goliath is true? no. better yet, not on your life! the story of david and goliath claims to have taken place in a valley where this ostracon was discovered. here’s a great rule of thumb in archaeology: just because something – anything – was found in a place where a legendary story is said to have taken place does not prove the story. it does nothing. it’s as if i told you that i floated in mid air unaided at ucla. you then traveled to ucla and found a flip flop that said ‘rainbow’ on it. you then tell the world that you discovered a rainbow flip flop in the same place that cargill claims to have floated in mid air. this does not make my story valid, it just means that the place i claimed to have done something exists. likewise, the discovery of this ostracon in the place where david was said to have battled goliath does not in any way lend evidence to the historicity of the legend. it only means that there is a place named the valley of elah. this, of course, won’t stop reporters form mentioning david and goliath.

links

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/01/linguistics-and-dating-of-texts.html

http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/01/etching-hints-bible-is-older-than-thought-earliest-hebrew-inscription-found/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheChurchOfJesusChrist+(The+Church+of+Jesus+Christ)&utm_content=Google+Reader

http://jamestabor.com/2010/01/07/oldest-hebrew-text-deciphered/

http://www.dailyhebrew.com/2010/01/07/update-10th-century-khirbet-qeiyafa-inscription/

%d bloggers like this: