![](\"https:\/\/www.eurekalert.org\/multimedia\/pub\/web\/19412_web.jpg\")
<\/a>I first spotted the news about the decipherment<\/a> of a 10th-century BC inscription, which turned out to be in Hebrew, on Scientific Blogging<\/a> about 4 hours ago. Now I see the news has reached the biblioblogosphere<\/a>. James Tabor<\/a> relates the find to debates between minimalists and others. Bob Cargill<\/a> rightly counters some of the hype (both actual and potential). Toshunka<\/a> and Polycarp<\/a> also mention the story.<\/p>\nThis fragmentary inscription at best shows that a form of Hebrew, and certain key emphases which are not limited to the Hebrew Bible but are nonetheless characteristic of it, existed in the region in the 10th century BC. <\/p>\n
But linguistic data must be used cautiously for dating texts. It is possible for someone in a later period to emulate an archaic style (examples of pseudo-King James\u00a0English abound in the Christian tradition), although as time passes it becomes increasingly difficult to do consistently without anachronisms or other telltale signs. But clearly no one in the tenth century BC would be able to emulate the form\u00a0a language would evolve into five centuries later. And so even if there are affinities of language between the fragments of text on this sherd and what we find in the Hebrew Bible, that might only indicate that old sources were used (a point of which most scholars have long been persuaded based on other considerations) or that older texts were being imitated. And so this piece of the puzzle of Hebrew linguistic evolution and the development of Israelite religion and literature is an important one, but at present does not seem to provide the basis for a major rethinking or overturning of\u00a0any major conclusion.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-2084175574440448273?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"