Talk:Samaria Ostraca

adding biblical references to names list
I would like to add biblical references to names listed on this page in this format:

Akhinoam (cf. Ahinoam, 1 Sam. 14:50)

Let me know if there are any objections.

Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

redirect proposal
this article should be titled Samaria Ostraca. i created the Samaria Ostraca page, and redirected it here. in reality, this page should redirect to the Samaria Ostraca page.--XKV8R (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is really a mess. It should be titled Samaria Ostraca, as the artifacts are known by this name only. Ostraca House is nothing but a name invented on Wikipedia. How can we fix this? Redirect the redirect? Or should we simply recreate the page from scratch? This idea would actually eliminate the factual errors and strange translations found in the text of "Ostraca House." ''Em-jay-es 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the it. I don't have time to work on this any further at the moment. ''Em-jay-es 03:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

transcription of the text
I retrieved this from the Hebrew version of the article.


 * חרס מס' 1

בַּשָת הָעֲשִרִת לִשְמַרְיָו מִבְּאֵרַיִם נֵבֶל (יֵן) יָשָן רָגַע אֱלִישָע 2

עֻזָא ק[..]בש 1

אֱלִבָּא נ[..] 1

בַּעֲלָא אֱלִישָ[ע] 1

יְדַעְיָו [1]


 * חרס מס' 6

בַּשָת הָתְשִעִת מִקֹצֹה לְגַדִיָו

נֵבֶל יֵן יָשָ

חרס מס' 19*

בַּשָת הָעֲשִרִת מִיָצִת נֵבֶל שֶמֶן רָחֻץ לַאֲדֹנִעָם

I am questioning whether this should be added to the article (obviously furnished with an English translation). My question stems from the fact that these transcriptions are pointed (i.e., provided with vowels)! ''Em-jay-es 23:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The script
This article badly needs revising on the basis of scholarly sources. Regarding the script, there is near-unanimity that it is Hebrew. Yes, Hebrew script developed out of the Phoenician script, but there came a time when it was sufficiently distinct to be called Hebrew. These ostraca are widely accepted as an especially valuable source of knowledge about the early Hebrew script. It is not correct to call them "Phoenician" and even less correct to call them "early Phoenician" (centuries too late for that). Zerotalk 23:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, i'll do a little more research but i'm not sure it's right to say "there came a time when it was sufficiently distinct to be called Hebrew". The term Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was only coined in 1954, before which most references to the script were referred to as Phoenician. The script can be most neutrally referred to as "Canaanite", and the modern scholarly designations of certain artefacts as "Hebrew" or "Phoenician" seem to be more driven by nationalist leanings than actual scientific judgement. Either way, we should follow the sources - I will try to gather some. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about following the sources, but every scholarly source I can find on this calls the script Hebrew. Zerotalk 06:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, see here, published by Harvard shortly after the excavations:
 * "The script in which these ostraca are written is the Phoenician, which was widely current in antiquity. It is very different from the so-called square character, in which the existing Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are written."
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but we should use modern terminology. Zerotalk 22:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, agree but a large element of this question is simply the difference between the English script and Latin script. This conversation is in the English language and the Latin script, and whilst some choose to refer to the "english script" instead, both are correct descriptors, with the former being more usual.
 * The term paleo-Hebrew is often applied to any Canaanite inscription found in the Israel-Palestine region, irrespective of whether there is enough text to confirm the actual language of the given inscription. These ostraca could just as well have been from pottery transported from another part of the levant in ancient times, so the location of the find should not be used as the sole evidence of the language or dialect. I have not seen a palaeographical comparison of these artifacts that could settle it. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, since these were found in 1910, how do we explain that the Lachish letters (found in 1934) are said to be only the second continuous ancient Hebrew inscription found:
 * : "[The Lachish] ostraca have a special importance, however, in that they are inscribed with continuous Hebrew texts. Prior to their discovery, only one such text was known, viz., the Siloam inscription."
 * : "When scholars celebrated the New Year transition from 1934 to 1935, the only complete sentences they had in Hebrew handwriting before the Persian era were on the Siloam Inscription"
 * Perhaps because none of the Samaria ostraca contain "continuous writing". Assuming that is the case, it would not be possible to be sure that these Samaria ostraca are actually written in the Hebrew language. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm traveling but I'll give some references when I can. Zerotalk 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)