ABSTRACT
The present conference volume was occasioned, at least in part, by a crisis in the dating of early Iron Age evidence from archaeology and texts. The assured results of scholarship, particularly biblical criticism and archaeology, have come under increasing assault. The problem of dating also extends to the so-called science of paleography-particularly to the typological dating of Hebrew letters. The critique of the status quo has included claims of forgery as well as wholesale revision of the long-accepted dating of many inscriptions (e.g. Rollston 2003; Vaughn 1999). A quick survey of some of the recent use and misuse of paleographic dating underscores the need for external controls such as have been traditionally provided by archaeology. Now, however, the dating of archaeological strata-in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE (i.e. the Iron IIA period)—has also been the topic of increased debate. Thus, the need for the external control provided by radiocarbon dating has become even more critical. There are three basic problems with the paleographic dating of Hebrew inscriptions. First, to quote Thomas Lambdin’s well-known observation, we are working with no data. There are very few Hebrew inscriptions that have been dated to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, even if we accept the more optimistic assessments of the corpus. In contrast to pottery seriation, there simply are not enough inscriptions on which to base conclusions. Furthermore, whereas pottery is mass-produced and circumscribed by this mode of production, inscriptions reflect the idiosyncrasies of individual scribes, unique social locations, and historical circumstances. Thus, even the data we have is much more difficult to fit into neat typologies than pottery. The corpus of Hebrew inscriptions dating from the 10th-9th centuries BCE includes the following (see Renz 1995):
1. Gezer Calendar (on limestone) 2. Tel ‘Amal inscription (inscribed on pottery) 3. Horbat Rosh Zayit inscription (ink on pottery) 4. Beth Shemesh inscription (inscribed on stone) 5. Tel Rehov inscriptions (inscribed on pottery; Mazar 2003) 6. Arad inscriptions, nos. 76-79, 81 (ink on pottery) 7. Tel Batash inscription (inscribed on pottery) 8. Tell el-Hamme (inscribed on pottery) 9. Eshtemoa (ink on pottery) 10. Tell el-’Oreme (inscribed on pottery) 11. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (ink on pottery)
Second, it is often difficult to distinguish ‘Hebrew’ from ‘Phoenician’ or ‘Aramaic’ inscriptions during this period, and in fact such classification is probably anachronistic because it implies the development of separate written dialects. Thus, other relevant inscriptions might be added to this list such as the Mesha stela, the Tel Dan stela, the Kefar Veradim inscription (Alexandre 2002), the Tel Dan bowl inscription, five Hazor inscriptions (Naveh 1989), and the En Gev inscription. It has also been debated whether a basic inscription like the Gezer Calendar is actually ‘Hebrew’. In contrast to the standard position articulated by Chaim Rabin (1979), namely that Classical Hebrew emerged in the 10th century BCE, I would contend that there is no evidence for a standard ‘Hebrew’ written language in the 10th century BCE. Paleographers agree, for example, that there was no specifically ‘Hebrew’ script in the 10th century BCE (see Naveh 1987: 89-112). Rather, the situation of written languages might be better compared with the Late Bronze Age where scribes throughout Canaan used a similar dialect (as evidenced in the el-Amarna letters), albeit not without idiosyncrasies. I would argue that the development of a specifically Hebrew written dialect did not arise until the 8th century (but this is beyond the scope of the present chapter). In such a case, the entire discussion of linguistic classification for this period would be misguided. As a result of the lack of sufficient data, scholars often resort to mixing and matching inscriptions of different media. For example, the Siloam Tunnel inscription (late 8th century BCE), which is a monumental inscription carved into limestone, is often used as a lynchpin of the typological development of the Hebrew script (see critique by Vaughn 1999); it is sometimes compared with ink-on-pottery inscriptions or inscribed seals. One may also take the flawed comparisons of the Ketef Hinnom inscriptions (tiny silver amulets with etched letters) for which we have no example in comparable media (see the critique by Barkay et al. 2004; Renz 1995). Scholars are not unaware of such problems, but we feel the need to press the available evidence for more than it can yield. Third, scholars tend to assume a model of simplicity, even though we recognize that human systems are complex. We tend to minimize geographic and chronological distance. We overlook the different social contexts that stand behind various inscriptions. We minimize the significance of scribal idiosyncrasies and the impact of non-professional writing. In short, we generalize to create typologies. This is certainly understandable, but we cannot then overstate our conclusions. As Bruce Zuckerman recently pointed out, ‘a balance needs to be struck between the recognition of complexity and the need to strive for greater simplicity’ (2003: 134). Even when we begin to have more data-namely, in the 8th century BCE-problems in paleographic dating persist. This can be illustrated in a few recent analyses of Hebrew inscriptions. Perhaps there is no more prominent example of obfuscation than John Rogerson and Philip Davies’ (1996) re-dating of the Siloam Tunnel inscription from the 8th century to the 2nd century BCE. The Siloam Tunnel inscription had long been dated to the reign of Hezekiah in the late 8th century BCE; Rogerson and Davies pointed out that the original dating by scholars in the 19th
century relied heavily on the Bible. This was a fair observation. However, in more recent years new archaeological and inscriptional evidence could have shifted the basis for our analysis (see, e.g., Hackett et al. 1997). It should be acknowledged also that much of the heated nature of these dating problems revolve around the nature of the Bible as a historical source (see, for example, Dever and Halpern’s essays in this volume [Chapters 25 and 26, respectively]). Given this undercurrent to the dating of early Hebrew inscriptions, the importance of external controls becomes even more desirable. One has the impression, for example, that the re-dating of the Siloam Tunnel inscription was proffered only because it seemed to be mentioned in the Bible and any alternative theory that makes no use of the Bible as a source is preferable (also recently Knauf 2001). Unlike the Tel Dan inscription, most inscriptions have no direct bearing upon the historical figures of David and Solomon or upon our assessment of the United Monarchy; nevertheless, they can be unintended victims of this ideologically driven debate. The dating of the Siloam Tunnel inscription had serious implications for paleographic dating because it has been used as a lynchpin for the typological development of the Hebrew script. In his study of Hebrew seals, Andrew Vaughn (1999) pointed to several aspects of the Siloam Tunnel script that seemed more similar to 7th-century BCE Hebrew seals than 8th-century seals. Vaughn isolated five diagnostic letters (aleph, he, waw, nun, and qof) that he believed could be used to date Hebrew seals. At the same time, he cautioned about the intrinsic problem of comparing the script of Hebrew seals with a monumental stone inscription like the Siloam Tunnel inscription. When we probe further, his caution seems quite well-advised. For example, it is easy to find similarities in these diagnostic letters between the Siloam Tunnel inscription and the early 8th-century BCE ostraca excavated in Samaria (see Fig. 24.1).
