Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could approach no more: and he gave up the attempt. (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 23.1.2–3)

See here for more discussion about Julian and the Jews.

Basically, I have thought for a number of years now that the cumulative weight of the evidence suggests that: (1) the Muttersprache of the inventors of the alphabet was a Northwest Semitic language, (2) and that the inventors of the alphabet functioned in a reasonably high status role within a component (or components) of the Egyptian administrative apparatus, that is, officialdom. (3) I believe that it is reasonable and tenable to argue that they learned Egyptian writing from Egyptian scribes. (4) I contend that it would be improbable that illiterate miners were capable of, or responsible for, the invention of the alphabet. (5) Ultimately, writing in antiquity was an elite venture and those that invented the alphabet were Northwest Semitic speakers, arguably they were officials in the Egyptian apparatus, quite capable with the complex Egyptian writing system. This, I believe, best accounts for the maximum amount of data.

However, theological considerations aside,the objective reality for the Jewish people following the destruction of 70 was far more comlex. Indeed, much of Jewish life lay shattered: Jerusalem was totally destroyed, only the three great towers that had once guarded Herod’s palace and remnants of the western city wall remained intact. The Temple had been razed and the city’s population massacred or exiled. The high priesthood and Jerusalem’s aristocratic class, which had dominated Jewish religious and political life for much of the Second Temple period, all but disappeared. Judea had dared rebel against mighty Rome; having failed, she paid the heavy price of revolt.

Many of the Jewish sects that had played a central role in Jewish religious life during the first century disappeared: The Sadducees, centered around the Jerusalem priesthood in the days of the Temple, lost their base of political and religious authority; the Essene center at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68 C.E.; members of the various pre-70 revolutionary movements (Sicarii, Zealots, followers of John of Gischala and Simon Giora) either were killed, taken captive, fled to North Africa or went underground.

Nevertheless, it is easy to overstate the effects of the year 70. Contrary to popular opinion, the exile did not commence in that year-most Jews were already living in the Diaspora before the destruction-nor did the year 70 signal the loss of Jewish independence. In reality, Judea had been conquered 130 years earlier by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. Although much autonomy had been granted to Herod (37-4 B.C.E.), it had already been greatly curtailed following Judea’s annexation as a Roman province in 6 C.E.

Moreover, the continuum between the pre-70 and post-70 periods was maintained by the ongoing rule of Rome; culturally, econimically and even socially much of Jewish life was not seriously interrupted between the pre- and post-destruction era. Indeed, large parts of the Jewish people were unaffected or only marginally affected by the revolt and its aftermath. Few Jewish communities in the Galilee were destroyed-Jotapata and Gamla were the exceptions. The Roman military march had little, if any, effect on the large Jewish settlement in Perea east of the Jordan, on the communities along the coastal plain or even on many areas in Judea itself. Thus, beyond Jerusalem and some parts of Judea, the upheavals of the First Revolt were not at all widespread, either demographically or economically.

The possible gap between historical memory and history may be the reason why so many calamities were associated with Tisha B’av, making it the default day for major Jewish tragedies.

See here and here for more discussion of this particular text and the difficulties in its interpretation.

These words of caution apply to any text, not only those in early Hebrew and Ugaritic, and especially those which are incomplete in which scholars have to “fill in the blanks.”

(photo courtesy of the University of Haifa)

Never a dull moment for the history of the Hebrew language.

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

Here is a translation of the text:

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.

See here for the full press release.

Update: See this post at Biblia Hebraica.

Yes, this is probably the earliest example of the Hebrew language, but how does it follow as proof that parts of the Bible were composed hundreds of years earlier? It doesn’t. It provides a plausible context for literary activity and ability, but it doesn’t provide proof that scribes were creating complex literary texts like what is found in the Bible.

Update II: Paleojudaica links to a post at Ancient Hebrew Poetry from last year which gives a somewhat different interpretation and translation of the text.

Last year I bought Israel Knohl’s new book מאין באנו (“From Where did we Come?) which addresses the origins of the Israelites. I have just gotten around to reading it now and I wanted to post about Knohl’s main theses. He claims that the origins of the Israelites can be found in three distinct groups: Refugees from Northern Syria; Canaanites from the area of Nablus; Hebrew slaves who left Egypt. I think that one of Knohl’s most interesting ways of representing the Bible is that it is a collection of different “family albums” from each of these three groups. They all had different descriptions of their origins and they also had different practices and beliefs. I am finding the book very interesting and am looking forward to reading the rest of it. I am sure that eventually the book will be translated into Hebrew. In the meantime, you can either read the Hebrew edition or some of the reviews in Hebrew and Israel Knohl’s response. If you really want to read more, there is Yaakov Shavit’s response to Knohl’s response and then Knohl’s response to Shavit’s response.

The article quotes Dina Avshalom-Gorni saying that this is the first time that a menorah decoration has been found from the time of the second temple and only the sixth synagogue from that time period. She also said that the artist who carved the menorah may have actually seen the menorah in the temple. There have been previous excavations at Migdal, see here and here, and I wonder how this recent find relates to the earlier ones. Also, there is no consensus regarding the dating of many synagogues from antiquity, see here, so I wonder how they are so sure of the dating of this one.