Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Mark Charles Compton]

I think the sounds came first.

That sounds about right! Regarding language in general, actually.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't need to bring anything new if you do not / cannot refute anything I already posted. I did not misrepresent anything. The research in my source develops the conclusion that it cannot be Asherah. This stated explicitly in the section at the bottom called "Conclusion".

Then I brought further, actual academic, sources to show that the inscription is not a reliable metric for mainstream Judaism at that time.

When are YOU going to address the multiple problems in what you've posted? You mispresented Psalm 89. You misrepreseted Daniel. You misrepresetned Azazel along with a host of other things. You mispresented your source, claiming it's academic when it is religious.

Archaeology supports the fact that Jews were polytheistic in their early history. It took the tribe to erect the monuments that we have in evidence including the idols of the female God found in Hebrew villages.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and no. I think the sounds came first.

Actually this is obvious from the perspctive of all primitive cultures. The fact that they were a lesser Ugarit/Canaanite pastoral tribe of the Hills of Judah they shared the evolution of not only the written language, but the oral languages also.

 

[dybmh]

Archaeology supports the fact that Jews were polytheistic in their early history. It took the tribe to erect the monuments that we have in evidence including the idols of the female God found in Hebrew villages.

Some people did. But just because they lived in a village doesnt make them Hebrew. And that still has nothing to do with the Hebrew myths. It's like I said. Some people, you apparently, like to throw stones at Judaism to remind people that there were Jews who assimilated and adopted pagan practice. So what?

That's exactly what the Hebrew Bible says happened. It has nothing to do with the source of the myths. You seem to want to throw stones at Judaism, but no one actually cares about that. The topic is the Hebrew myths, and you have utterly failed at bringing anything but your beliefs about that. Zero evidence at all.

Actually this is obvious from the perspctive of all primitive cultures. The fact that they were a lesser Ugarit/Canaanite pastoral tribe of the Hills of Judah they shared the evolution of not only the written language, but the oral languages also.

Oh?? What do you actually know about ugarit language? Do you know anything about what their alphabet represents pictorally. Do they have a "hook"? What about something that describes a relationship?

Here's the alphabet again, please demonstrate that you know anything, anything at all, about this topic.

Here's what we're talking about:

They're not even close. There is nothing, nothing, similar about them. But you're pretending like they are. Probably just more ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok.. obviously you weren't interested in dialogue.

I could be, but your only response to your personal attacks being pointed out was more personal attacks.

 

[Kenny]

I could be, but your only response to your personal attacks being pointed out was more personal attacks.

If you would like to believe that... I'm cool with it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some people did. But just because they lived in a village doesnt make them Hebrew. And that still has nothing to do with the Hebrew myths. It's like I said. Some people, you apparently, like to throw stones at Judaism to remind people that there were Jews who assimilated and adopted pagan practice. So what?

That's exactly what the Hebrew Bible says happened. It has nothing to do with the source of the myths. You seem to want to throw stones at Judaism, but no one actually cares about that. The topic is the Hebrew myths, and you have utterly failed at bringing anything but your beliefs about that. Zero evidence at all.



Oh?? What do you actually know about ugarit language? Do you know anything about what their alphabet represents pictorally. Do they have a "hook"? What about something that describes a relationship?

Here's the alphabet again, please demonstrate that you know anything, anything at all, about this topic.

View attachment 79262

Here's what we're talking about:



View attachment 79263

They're not even close. There is nothing, nothing, similar about them. But you're pretending like they are. Probably just more ignorance.

I consider the Hebrew a descendent from the Ugarit/ Canaanite written language.

https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/788-biblical-hebrew-facts-about-world-languages-1/file

THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES Aren M. Wilson-Wright

Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. The early history of Hebrew is thus part of a larger picture, the history of Canaanite. The earliest evidence for Canaanite comes from two sources: (a) Ugaritic, referring to the texts found at Ugarit (modem Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast), and (b) the Amarna letters (found at modem Tell elAmarna, Egypt). U garit was destroyed about 1200 B.c., so the majority of its texts, mainly administrative in nature, clearly come from the 13th century. The literary texts, mainly myths and epics, are probably older, and we can date their composition to the 14th century B.c., if not earlier. The Amama letters are several hundred epistles written by local Canaanite kings to the pharaohs of Egypt in the mid-14th century B.c. They were written in Akkadian, but the scribes responsible for these letters typically used a pidgin Akkadian. The morphology and syntax frequently follow Canaanite grammar rather than Akkadian grammar, and often Canaanite words are used instead of their Akkadian equivalents. About a century and a half after the Ugaritic literary texts and the Amama letters come our earliest biblical texts. Biblical Hebrew is typically divided into three chronological periods: Archaic (about ll00-1000 B.c.), Standard (about 1000- 550 B.c.), and Late (550-200B.c.). Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by only a handful of ancient poems in the Bible. Standard Biblical Hebrew makes up most of the corpus and includes such familiar works as the Torah; the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; and poetic compilations such as Psalms and Proverbs. Late Biblical Hebrew, which is characterized most of all by influences from Aramaic, the lingua franca of that period, is represented by books such as Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). Archaeological fieldwork in the last century has uncovered hundreds of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period, most extremely short.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also . . . https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/d...cal-hebrew-facts-about-world-languages-1/file

BIBLICAL HEBREW

Gary A. Rends burg

Origin and History Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. The early history of Hebrew is thus part of a larger picture, the history of Canaanite. The earliest evidence for Canaanite comes from two sources: (a) Ugaritic, referring to the texts found at Ugarit (modem Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast), and (b) the Amarna letters (found at modem Tell elAmarna, Egypt). U garit was destroyed about 1200 B.c., so the majority of its texts, mainly administrative in nature, clearly come from the 13th century. The literary texts, mainly myths and epics, are probably older, and we can date their composition to the 14th century B.c., if not earlier. The Amama letters are several hundred epistles written by local Canaanite kings to the pharaohs of Egypt in the mid-14th century B.c. They were written in Akkadian, but the scribes responsible for these letters typically used a pidgin Akkadian. The morphology and syntax frequently follow Canaanite grammar rather than Akkadian grammar, and often Canaanite words are used instead of their Akkadian equivalents. About a century and a half after the Ugaritic literary texts and the Amama letters come our earliest biblical texts. Biblical Hebrew is typically divided into three chronological periods: Archaic (about ll00-1000 B.c.), Standard (about 1000- 550 B.c.), and Late (550-200B.c.). Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by only a handful of ancient poems in the Bible. Standard Biblical Hebrew makes up most of the corpus and includes such familiar works as the Torah; the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; and poetic compilations such as Psalms and Proverbs. Late Biblical Hebrew, which is characterized most of all by influences from Aramaic, the lingua franca of that period, is represented by books such as Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). Archaeological fieldwork in the last century has uncovered hundreds of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period, most extremely short.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Birth and Evolution of Judaism

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

​

Ancient Jewish History: The Birth and Evolution of Judaism​

Pre-Mosaic Stage (1950-1300 BCE)​

Little or nothing can be known for certain about the nature of Hebrew worship before the migration from Egypt. In Hebrew history, Abraham is already worshipping a figure called "Elohim," which is the plural for "lord." This figure is also called "El Shaddai" ("God the Mountaineer (?)," translated as "God Almighty"), and a couple other variants. The name of God, Yahweh, isn't learned by the Hebrews until Moses hears the name spoken by God on Mount Sinai. This god requires animal sacrifices and regular expiation. He intrudes on human life with astonishing suddenness, and often demands absurd acts from humans. The proper human relationship to this god is obedience, and the early history of humanity is a history of humans oscillating between obedience to this god and autonomy. This god is anthropomorphic: he has human qualities. He is frequently angered and seems to have some sort of human body. In addition, the god worshipped by Abraham and his descendants is the creator god, that is, the god solely responsible for the creation of the universe. The god of Genesis is bisexual: he/she is often referred to in female as well as male terms. For instance, this god is represented frequently as "mothering" or "giving birth through labor pains" to the world and humans (these passages are universally mistranslated in English as "fathering"—this god is only referred to as a "father" twice in Genesis ). In Genesis , Elohim or El Shaddai functions as a primitive law-giver; after the Flood, this god gives to Noah those primitive laws which apply to all human beings, the so-called Noahide Laws. Nothing of the sophistication and comprehensive of the Mosaic laws is evident in the early history of the human relationship to Yahweh as outlined in Genesis .
Scholars have wracked their brains trying to figure out what conclusions might be drawn about this human history. In general, they believe that the portrait of Hebrew religion in Genesis is an inaccurate one. They conclude instead that Hebrew monolatry and monotheism began with the Yahweh cult introduced, according to Exodus, in the migration from Egypt between 1300 and 1200 BC. The text of Genesis in their view is an attempt to legitimate the occupation of Palestine by asserting a covenantal relationship between Yahweh and the Hebrews that had been established far in the distant past.
All these conclusions are brilliant but tentative, for we'll never know for sure much of anything substantial about Hebrew history and religion during the age of the patriarchs or the sojourn in Egypt. Nevertheless, scholars draw on the text of Genesis to conclude the following controversial ideas about early Hebrew religion:​

— Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El, leads them to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods. This plural form, however, can be explained as a "royal" plural. Several other aspects of the account of Hebrew religion in Genesis also imply a polytheistic faith.
— The earliest Hebrew religion was animistic, that is, the Hebrews seemed worship forces of nature that dwelled in natural objects.
— As a result, much of early Hebrew religion had a number of practices that fall into the category of magic: scapegoat sacrifice and various forms of imitative magic, all of which are preserved in the text of Genesis .
— Early Hebrew religion eventually became anthropomorphic, that is, god or the gods took human forms; in later Hebrew religion, Yahweh becomes a figure that transcends the human and material worlds. Individual tribes probably worshipped different gods; there is no evidence in Genesis that anything like a national God existed in the time of the patriarchs.​

The most profound revolution in Hebrew thought, though, occurred in the migration from Egypt, and its great innovator was Moses. In the epic events surrounding the flight from Egypt and the settling of the promised land, Hebrew religion became permanently and irrevocably, the Mosaic religion.​

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The Birth and Evolution of Judaism

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

​

Ancient Jewish History: The Birth and Evolution of Judaism​

Pre-Mosaic Stage (1950-1300 BCE)​

It's insane to think that the Levites and other tribes of the exodus were able to accomplish crafting vinegar, wine, and unleavened bread just to maintain. Let alone organize, and distribute resources amongst the crowd whilst maintaining order... For multiple generations... In a barren wasteland.

I think that faith (or at least the laws therewithin) are a bit too strict for my likings, saying I were capable. Lol. Thanks though.

 

[dybmh]

Also . . . https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/d...cal-hebrew-facts-about-world-languages-1/file

BIBLICAL HEBREW

Gary A. Rends burg

Origin and History Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. The early history of Hebrew is thus part of a larger picture, the history of Canaanite. The earliest evidence for Canaanite comes from two sources: (a) Ugaritic, referring to the texts found at Ugarit (modem Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast), and (b) the Amarna letters (found at modem Tell elAmarna, Egypt). U garit was destroyed about 1200 B.c., so the majority of its texts, mainly administrative in nature, clearly come from the 13th century. The literary texts, mainly myths and epics, are probably older, and we can date their composition to the 14th century B.c., if not earlier. The Amama letters are several hundred epistles written by local Canaanite kings to the pharaohs of Egypt in the mid-14th century B.c. They were written in Akkadian, but the scribes responsible for these letters typically used a pidgin Akkadian. The morphology and syntax frequently follow Canaanite grammar rather than Akkadian grammar, and often Canaanite words are used instead of their Akkadian equivalents. About a century and a half after the Ugaritic literary texts and the Amama letters come our earliest biblical texts. Biblical Hebrew is typically divided into three chronological periods: Archaic (about ll00-1000 B.c.), Standard (about 1000- 550 B.c.), and Late (550-200B.c.). Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by only a handful of ancient poems in the Bible. Standard Biblical Hebrew makes up most of the corpus and includes such familiar works as the Torah; the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; and poetic compilations such as Psalms and Proverbs. Late Biblical Hebrew, which is characterized most of all by influences from Aramaic, the lingua franca of that period, is represented by books such as Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). Archaeological fieldwork in the last century has uncovered hundreds of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period, most extremely short.

So, it looks like you don't actually know anything you're back to copy-paste-spam. Spaghetti on the wall.

This has a sentence about the Hebrew language. One sentence. "Origin and History Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. " After that there is nothing in your post which connects Hebrew to Canaanite. Ummm, Judaism had it's roots in that region, you know that right?

And we were talking about Ugarit, and their language. And you pretended to know something about it. But nah. Looks like you don't.

On the other hand this is directly relevant:

Cracking the Ugaritic Code

Forward reader Raffi Bilek has some questions about Ugaritic, the ancient Semitic language, closely related to biblical Hebrew, that was unearthed in archaeological excavations begun in the late 1920s at the ancient site of Ugarit, along the Syrian coast north of Latakia. Mr. Bilek asks: “How do...

forward.com

By means of their occasional references to historical personages and events, as well as by the archaeological strata they were found in, it is possible to date the texts from Ugarit to 1400–1200 B.C.E. But while this is indeed several hundred years earlier than the likely dates for the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible, it is not a reason to think that Ugaritic “predates” Hebrew as a language. The age of a spoken language cannot be equated with the age of its earliest surviving texts, and all languages have histories that extend much further back in time than does the written evidence for them. Hebrew and Ugaritic are sister tongues, jointly descended from a proto-northwest-Semitic that has left no written traces, and neither can be said to be older or younger than the other.

 

[dybmh]

Also . . . https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/d...cal-hebrew-facts-about-world-languages-1/file

BIBLICAL HEBREW

Gary A. Rends burg

Origin and History Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. The early history of Hebrew is thus part of a larger picture, the history of Canaanite. The earliest evidence for Canaanite comes from two sources: (a) Ugaritic, referring to the texts found at Ugarit (modem Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast), and (b) the Amarna letters (found at modem Tell elAmarna, Egypt). U garit was destroyed about 1200 B.c., so the majority of its texts, mainly administrative in nature, clearly come from the 13th century. The literary texts, mainly myths and epics, are probably older, and we can date their composition to the 14th century B.c., if not earlier. The Amama letters are several hundred epistles written by local Canaanite kings to the pharaohs of Egypt in the mid-14th century B.c. They were written in Akkadian, but the scribes responsible for these letters typically used a pidgin Akkadian. The morphology and syntax frequently follow Canaanite grammar rather than Akkadian grammar, and often Canaanite words are used instead of their Akkadian equivalents. About a century and a half after the Ugaritic literary texts and the Amama letters come our earliest biblical texts. Biblical Hebrew is typically divided into three chronological periods: Archaic (about ll00-1000 B.c.), Standard (about 1000- 550 B.c.), and Late (550-200B.c.). Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by only a handful of ancient poems in the Bible. Standard Biblical Hebrew makes up most of the corpus and includes such familiar works as the Torah; the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; and poetic compilations such as Psalms and Proverbs. Late Biblical Hebrew, which is characterized most of all by influences from Aramaic, the lingua franca of that period, is represented by books such as Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). Archaeological fieldwork in the last century has uncovered hundreds of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period, most extremely short.

Oh wow! Look at you cherry picking... This is what I found in the first few sentences of your own source. Ugarit is a DIFFERENT dialect. DIFFERENT than Biblical hebrew.

And then there's this:

Ugaritic and Biblical Literature

"Ugaritic and Biblical Literature" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

"Ugaritic texts do not merely provide parallels, but belong to a shared or overlapping cultural matrix with the Hebrew Bible."

They were interacting with each other... there is no known of direction of influence. Eventhough your personal FAITH somehow requires you to PREACH about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, it looks like you don't actually know anything you're back to copy-paste-spam. Spaghetti on the wall.

This has a sentence about the Hebrew language. One sentence. "Origin and History Hebrew is the dialect of Canaanite used by the people of Israel. " After that there is nothing in your post which connects Hebrew to Canaanite. Ummm, Judaism had it's roots in that region, you know that right?

And we were talking about Ugarit, and their language. And you pretended to know something about it. But nah. Looks like you don't.

On the other hand this is directly relevant:

Cracking the Ugaritic Code

Forward reader Raffi Bilek has some questions about Ugaritic, the ancient Semitic language, closely related to biblical Hebrew, that was unearthed in archaeological excavations begun in the late 1920s at the ancient site of Ugarit, along the Syrian coast north of Latakia. Mr. Bilek asks: “How do...

forward.com

By means of their occasional references to historical personages and events, as well as by the archaeological strata they were found in, it is possible to date the texts from Ugarit to 1400–1200 B.C.E. But while this is indeed several hundred years earlier than the likely dates for the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible, it is not a reason to think that Ugaritic “predates” Hebrew as a language. The age of a spoken language cannot be equated with the age of its earliest surviving texts, and all languages have histories that extend much further back in time than does the written evidence for them. Hebrew and Ugaritic are sister tongues, jointly descended from a proto-northwest-Semitic that has left no written traces, and neither can be said to be older or younger than the other.

The problem is your spaghetti on the wall and cherry picking denying the relationship between Hebrew and Ugarit/Canaanite written languages.based on a very stubborn ancient religious agenda. Your ignoring the fact that Hebrew is in fact one of the Ugarit/Canaanite languages, which you previously denied. The bottom line.

Yes, the spoken languages cannot be equated to age of the written language. Now that we have established that the Hebrew written language we can go on from here. One of the differences between the Ugarit/Canaanite and Hebrews is that they have found Ugarit/ Canaanite libraries including Phoenician tablets. Among the Hebrews we have few writings an no libraries.

The pastoral Ugarit/Canaanite Hebrews in the Hills of Judah evolved from polytheistic to Monotheism as cited.

More to follow

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Among the Hebrews we have few writings an no libraries.

The pastoral Ugarit/Canaanite Hebrews in the Hills of Judah evolved from polytheistic to Monotheism as cited.

More to follow

Could it have been the acts of Iconoclasts? Most tablets and writings destroyed?

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting conclusion from a Yale University commentary on the origins of Hebrew,

About Hebrew | Yale University Library

I. Introduction Hebrew Language [is a] Semitic language originally adopted by the 'ibhri, or Israelites, when they took possession of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River in Palestine. The language has also been called the speech of Canaan, and Judean, after the kingdom of Judah. Ancient...

web.library.yale.edu

I. Introduction

Hebrew Language [is a] Semitic language originally adopted by the 'ibhri, or Israelites, when they took possession of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River in Palestine. The language has also been called the speech of Canaan, and Judean, after the kingdom of Judah. Ancient Hebrew, the language of the Bible, was succeeded by an intermediary form, Mishnaic Hebrew, about the 3rd century BC. Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular tongue based on an ancient written form, was developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

II. Biblical Hebrew

The language in which most of the Old Testament was written dates, as a living language, from the 12th to the 2nd century BC, at the latest. The territory of Phoenicia adjoined Canaan, and it is probable that Hebrew in its earliest form was almost identical to Phoenician; of the closely related Hebrew and Phoenician language groups, however, Hebrew is decidedly the more important. From about the 3rd century BC the Jews in Palestine came to use Aramaic in both speech and secular writings. Jews outside Palestine spoke in the language of the countries in which they had settled. Hebrew was preserved, however, as the language of ritual and sacred writing and through the centuries has undergone periodic literary revivals.

The original Hebrew alphabet consisted only of consonants vowel signs and pronunciation currently accepted for biblical Hebrew were created by scholars known as Masoretes after the 5th century AD. These scholars are thought also to have standardized various dialectal differences.

The vocabulary of biblical Hebrew is small. Concrete adjectives are used for abstract nouns. The paucity of particles, which connect and relate ideas, and the limitation to two verb tenses (perfect and imperfect) cause an ambiguity regarding time concepts; various syntactic devices were employed to clarify relations of time. A past action was indicated by the first in a series of verbs being in the perfect tense and all following verbs in the imperfect; for present or future action the first verb is in the imperfect tense and all subsequent ones in the perfect.

 

[dybmh]

The problem is your spaghetti on the wall and cherry picking denying the relationship between Hebrew and Ugarit/Canaanite written languages.based on a very stubborn ancient religious agenda. Your ignoring the fact that Hebrew is in fact one of the Ugarit/Canaanite languages, which you previously denied. The bottom line.

Ugarit is a dialect. Hebrew is a dialect. They're different dialects from a rather large geographic area. Since you keep wanting to talk about Ugarit, then you need to find sources that actually connect the two. Just copying stuff that talks about Canaan IS spaghetti on the wall.

And it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the whole topic of the canaanite/hebrew connection.

Yes, the spoken languages cannot be equated to age of the written language. Now that we have established that the Hebrew written language we can go on from here. One of the differences between the Ugarit/Canaanite and Hebrews is that they have found Ugarit/ Canaanite libraries including Phoenician tablets. Among the Hebrews we have few writings an no libraries.

So what? What point are you even trying to make? You said: "Now that we have established that the Hebrew written language we can go on from here." Now that we have established... what? You haven't established anything. Hebrew people originated in Canaan. That's common knowledge. But that has nothing to do with sharing myths or religion.

The pastoral Ugarit/Canaanite Hebrews in the Hills of Judah evolved from polytheistic to Monotheism as cited.

Do you even know where Ugarit is geographically? That's not anywhere near the hills of Judah. It's like 300 miles away. You keep preaching this at me, but you haven't provided a single significant similarity between Judaism and the the Ugarit tablets. Nothing. You haven't cited anything. You're just declaring your faith against my religion.

Interesting conclusion from a Yale University commentary on the origins of Hebrew,

About Hebrew | Yale University Library

I. Introduction Hebrew Language [is a] Semitic language originally adopted by the 'ibhri, or Israelites, when they took possession of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River in Palestine. The language has also been called the speech of Canaan, and Judean, after the kingdom of Judah. Ancient...

web.library.yale.edu

I. Introduction

Hebrew Language [is a] Semitic language originally adopted by the 'ibhri, or Israelites, when they took possession of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River in Palestine. The language has also been called the speech of Canaan, and Judean, after the kingdom of Judah. Ancient Hebrew, the language of the Bible, was succeeded by an intermediary form, Mishnaic Hebrew, about the 3rd century BC. Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular tongue based on an ancient written form, was developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

II. Biblical Hebrew

The language in which most of the Old Testament was written dates, as a living language, from the 12th to the 2nd century BC, at the latest. The territory of Phoenicia adjoined Canaan, and it is probable that Hebrew in its earliest form was almost identical to Phoenician; of the closely related Hebrew and Phoenician language groups, however, Hebrew is decidedly the more important. From about the 3rd century BC the Jews in Palestine came to use Aramaic in both speech and secular writings. Jews outside Palestine spoke in the language of the countries in which they had settled. Hebrew was preserved, however, as the language of ritual and sacred writing and through the centuries has undergone periodic literary revivals.

The original Hebrew alphabet consisted only of consonants vowel signs and pronunciation currently accepted for biblical Hebrew were created by scholars known as Masoretes after the 5th century AD. These scholars are thought also to have standardized various dialectal differences.

The vocabulary of biblical Hebrew is small. Concrete adjectives are used for abstract nouns. The paucity of particles, which connect and relate ideas, and the limitation to two verb tenses (perfect and imperfect) cause an ambiguity regarding time concepts; various syntactic devices were employed to clarify relations of time. A past action was indicated by the first in a series of verbs being in the perfect tense and all following verbs in the imperfect; for present or future action the first verb is in the imperfect tense and all subsequent ones in the perfect.

What conclusion? What's interesting about it? What does this have to do with the imaginary Ugarit connection which you claim exists but always falls apart whenever it is examined.

What you posted says: "Hebrew Language [is a] Semitic language originally adopted by the 'ibhri, or Israelites, when they took possession of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River in Palestine."

When was that?

 

[shunyadragon]

Most scholars consider the earliest pre-Hebrew script (very few examples) were Phoenician script . A more wide spread script in the Mediteranian due to trade.

The Phoenician Alphabet in Archaeology

Starting in the 11th century BCE, the script of the Phoenician alphabet was a real improvement on contemporary syllabic writing systems.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Our first examples of the Phoenician alphabet—technically an abjad, containing only consonants—appear around the 11th century B.C.E. It was not the first writing system of this kind: 200 years earlier, the people of Ugarit a little further up the Syrian coast used a cuneiform alphabet (including some indication of vowels) to write their local language, and the Phoenician script itself seems to derive from an abjad in use in the Sinai peninsula in the early second millennium B.C.E., which adapted Egyptian hieroglyphic signs.

These new scripts were a real improvement on contemporary syllabic writing systems. The major benefit of alphabets, where letters represent individual sounds rather than syllables, is that they need far fewer signs to reproduce the same words. There are 22 letters in Phoenician, and 24 in ancient Greek, but the Akkadian syllabic script has close to 1,000 signs. This makes it much easier for people to learn alphabetic scripts: they bring reading and writing from the province of specialist scribes into the grasp of anyone lucky enough to get a good basic education.

What did Phoenicians use this new technology to record? The truth is that we don’t really know. We have more that 10,000 inscriptions in Phoenician, from all over the Mediterranean, but almost all are short and formulaic, recording dedications to the gods, the deaths of friends and family members, or occasional brief magical texts. There are exceptions: the cities of Byblos and Sidon, for instance, have yielded some longer royal funerary inscriptions, with occasional details of mighty conquests and magnificent building programs, but mostly given over to curses heaped upon anyone daring to disturb the tomb.

This is a very different picture from that we find in ancient Ugarit, where large archives preserve a much larger set of genres in the local script: accounts, legal documents, letters, epic literature, ritual and religious texts, astrology, divination, magic, and a small number of works on horse medicine. The problem is in part the Phoenician alphabet itself: unlike the cuneiform script of Ugarit, made up of wedges pressed into clay tablets, its linear nature was best suited to writing in ink on papyrus or parchment. Such materials only survive in extremely dry environments, such as the Egyptian desert, and so many Phoenician documents are now lost.

Ancient writers give us tantalizing glimpses of a wider world of Phoenician documentation: the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus tells us, for instance, that Tyre kept archives going back to the time of King Hiram, who helped King Solomon build the temple in Jerusalem, and claimed that they even held letters sent between the kings, as well as records of the city’s history.

The earliest Canaanite script dates to 1700 BCE clearly much earlier than any Hebrew script.

Oldest Canaanite Sentence Found

The oldest written Canaanite sentence has been discovered at Tell Lachish. The inscription dates to around 1700 BCE.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

The oldest Canaanite sentence has been discovered at the site of Tel Lachish, according to an article published in the Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology. The inscription, carved into an ivory comb, dates to around 1700 BCE, only a century after most scholars believe the alphabet was invented. Written in an archaic Proto-Canaanite script, the inscription sheds incredible light on the early development of the alphabet and the daily life of an important Canaanite city.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ugarit is a dialect. Hebrew is a dialect. They're different dialects from a rather large geographic area. Since you keep wanting to talk about Ugarit, then you need to find sources that actually connect the two. Just copying stuff that talks about Canaan IS spaghetti on the wall.

And it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the whole topic of the canaanite/hebrew connection.

Yes they are dialects, Canaanite script is much mush older a1700 BCE as cited. The earliest pre-Hebrew is actually considered Phoenician. Hebrew script is much younger and obviously derived from Phoenician and Ugarit/Canaanite.

Your selective citation to justify your agenda is spaghetti om the wall is not considering the latest and all sources. Previously you even denied that Ugari/Canaanite and Phoenician script wer related script based on a supericial comparison without nay knowledge of the languagss .

eSo what? What point are you even trying to make? You said: "Now that we have established that the Hebrew written language we can go on from here." Now that we have established... what? You haven't established anything. Hebrew people originated in Canaan. That's common knowledge. But that has nothing to do with sharing myths or religion.

Yes I have, including Ugarit/Canaanite script dating to 1700 BCE,or before and yes they have shared mythology including names of Gods. Shared mythology goes back to the Sumerians.

Oldest Canaanite Sentence Found

The oldest written Canaanite sentence has been discovered at Tell Lachish. The inscription dates to around 1700 BCE.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

"A Brief History of the Alphabet​

Although the earliest writing systems—those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and possibly India—date back to the fourth millennium BCE, they were non-alphabetic and in some instances included more than a thousand signs. It was not until around 1800 BCE, according to most scholars, that the first alphabet was invented. This alphabet, commonly referred to as Proto-Canaanite, was invented by Semitic-speaking peoples who were familiar with the Egyptian writing system and modified certain signs to fit into their own language.

“There is a wide misconception in the general public that the Phoenicians invented the alphabet. They didn’t. They adapted and standardized the alphabet several centuries after it was invented,” said Rollston. It was only after this that the ancient Israelites adopted the alphabet, developing their own version from the standardized Phoenician alphabet. The Arameans and Greeks would similarly adopt the Phoenician version of the alphabet, adapting it to form their own scripts. “The alphabet was only invented once, in around 1800 BCE, and all subsequent versions of the alphabet derive, ultimately, from that first alphabet,” Rollston concludes."

Again the earliest pre-Hebrew script is Phoenician, Previously you even denied that Ugari/Canaanite and Phoenician script were related script. You're not qualified to judge the similarities between ancient scripts.

Exodus has been documented as created mythology with no evidence nor writing daring it to the times claimed.

 

[shunyadragon]

Could it have been the acts of Iconoclasts? Most tablets and writings destroyed?

Please note, the earliest pre-Hebrew script is Phoenician, and Ugarit/Canaanite dates to at least 1700 BCE. The Ugaria civilisation was obliterated, but we still found a library containing tablets from many source including Phoenician, and more primitive cuniaform texts. Hypothetical other Hebrew texts is not evidence.

 

[dybmh]

Most scholars consider the earliest pre-Hebrew script (very few examples) were Phoenician script . A more wide spread script in the Mediteranian due to trade.

Its just proto-canaanite script. And the Hebrews came from that area. Phonecia is a group included in the large geographic area. It may be called "Phoencian", but that doesn't mean the Hebrews borrowed anything from Phoencia. And it certainly doesn't relate at all to Hebrew myths. You don't seem to be able to distinguish relevance from random facts. See below. Again Hebrew is distinct from Phoenican. AND Hebrew is distinct from Ugarit.

​

"The Phoenician alphabet was used to write the Early Iron Age Canaanite languages, subcategorized by historians as Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite, as well as Old Aramaic. Its use in Phoenicia (coastal Levant) led to its wide dissemination outside of the Canaanite sphere, spread by Phoenician merchants across the Mediterranean world, where it was adopted and modified by many other cultures."​

​

Phoenician alphabet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

This is reminding me of the other thread where you claimed a poll of American's god beliefs could somehow indicate a trend in Jewish god beliefs eventhough none of the data was broken out for Jewish participants, and the Jews were only 2% of the survey. But that didn't stop you from making ignorant claims about us. And you never figured out how flased your assertions wer inspite of being shown actual data for actual Jews that refuted what you were saying.

I huess you still haven't learned from your mistakes.

The Phoenician Alphabet in Archaeology

Starting in the 11th century BCE, the script of the Phoenician alphabet was a real improvement on contemporary syllabic writing systems.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Our first examples of the Phoenician alphabet—technically an abjad, containing only consonants—appear around the 11th century B.C.E. It was not the first writing system of this kind: 200 years earlier, the people of Ugarit a little further up the Syrian coast used a cuneiform alphabet (including some indication of vowels) to write their local language, and the Phoenician script itself seems to derive from an abjad in use in the Sinai peninsula in the early second millennium B.C.E., which adapted Egyptian hieroglyphic signs.

These new scripts were a real improvement on contemporary syllabic writing systems. The major benefit of alphabets, where letters represent individual sounds rather than syllables, is that they need far fewer signs to reproduce the same words. There are 22 letters in Phoenician, and 24 in ancient Greek, but the Akkadian syllabic script has close to 1,000 signs. This makes it much easier for people to learn alphabetic scripts: they bring reading and writing from the province of specialist scribes into the grasp of anyone lucky enough to get a good basic education.

What did Phoenicians use this new technology to record? The truth is that we don’t really know. We have more that 10,000 inscriptions in Phoenician, from all over the Mediterranean, but almost all are short and formulaic, recording dedications to the gods, the deaths of friends and family members, or occasional brief magical texts. There are exceptions: the cities of Byblos and Sidon, for instance, have yielded some longer royal funerary inscriptions, with occasional details of mighty conquests and magnificent building programs, but mostly given over to curses heaped upon anyone daring to disturb the tomb.

This is a very different picture from that we find in ancient Ugarit, where large archives preserve a much larger set of genres in the local script: accounts, legal documents, letters, epic literature, ritual and religious texts, astrology, divination, magic, and a small number of works on horse medicine. The problem is in part the Phoenician alphabet itself: unlike the cuneiform script of Ugarit, made up of wedges pressed into clay tablets, its linear nature was best suited to writing in ink on papyrus or parchment. Such materials only survive in extremely dry environments, such as the Egyptian desert, and so many Phoenician documents are now lost.

Ancient writers give us tantalizing glimpses of a wider world of Phoenician documentation: the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus tells us, for instance, that Tyre kept archives going back to the time of King Hiram, who helped King Solomon build the temple in Jerusalem, and claimed that they even held letters sent between the kings, as well as records of the city’s history.

There is nothing here connecting the Hebrew language with the Phonecian language. And this has no relevance on Hebrew myths.

The earliest Canaanite script dates to 1700 BCE clearly much earlier than any Hebrew script.

No.... you simply don't know the different types of hebrew script.

Oldest Canaanite Sentence Found

The oldest written Canaanite sentence has been discovered at Tell Lachish. The inscription dates to around 1700 BCE.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

The oldest Canaanite sentence has been discovered at the site of Tel Lachish, according to an article published in the Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology. The inscription, carved into an ivory comb, dates to around 1700 BCE, only a century after most scholars believe the alphabet was invented. Written in an archaic Proto-Canaanite script, the inscription sheds incredible light on the early development of the alphabet and the daily life of an important Canaanite city.

No.... they were both using a proto-canaanite alphabet at the time.

The earliest evidence of biblical Hebrew is 1250BCE. But again, that doesn't just magically poof into existence. That's why all of these dates are "the latest beginning, but could be much earlier". That's what TAQ means. The monotheistic worship of YHWH was earlier than this.

“You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal - Heritage Science

In December 2019, an expedition on Mt. Ebal to examine the discarded material from Adam Zertal’s 1982–1989 excavation yielded a small, folded lead tablet. The east dump pile, from which the object emerged, contained the discarded matrix from two structures that he interpreted as altars dated to...

heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com

And I already posted about this, but, you seem to be ignoring it. The temple to Yahweh was in 1000BCE and it matches the descriptions in the Hebrew bible. There is evidence of unique writing and language there too. The later inscriptions were BOTH Hebrew and Phoenecian showing that these are two unique languages and alphabets. And the non-biased computer analysis of the inscriptions shows a sophisticated network of scribals schools which again, do not magically poof out of nowhere.

Arad ostraca - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tel Arad - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Texts From The Biblical-Period Fortress At Tel Arad Were Written By 12 Different Authors

The implication: Literacy in the kingdom of Judah was widespread

english.m.tau.ac.il