Abnormal Interests

In 1908, Macalister discovered the plaque on which this text is written at Tell el-Jazari, ancient Gezer. It has some interesting physical characteristics that I will address before I turn to the issues of language, date and the life setting of the plaque and its text.

First, the plaque is a soft limestone slab 11.1 cm high on the left and 6.7 cm high on the right. It is 7.2 cm wide and 1.6 cm thick. While the slab is more or less square with rounded corners at the top, it is broken at an angle across its bottom. The upper right corner is more rounded than the upper left corner. There is evidence of a square hole at approximately the midpoint of what is now the bottom of the plaque. Early on some (Gobiet, 58, for example) suggested that the hole was to hang the plaque "in some public place for the inhabitants to read," Gibson, 1, correctly noted that, if hung by this hole the text currently on the plaque would be upside down. The fact that the plaque broke at a placed weakened by the hole should impose some causation on estimates of the plaque's original length and on what may or may not have been below the hole. While Lamaire, 1981, 11, associates this hole with the similar holes in Egyptian wooden exercise boards, my own view is that the use of this stone as a medium for writing is a secondary use. Making a square hole is not easy; nor is it necessary to attach it to something else. A round hole works just fine. I do agree with Albright, 1943, 21, that it was never used as a door socket as Yeivin, 123, had suggested. The seven main lines of text currently readable seem complete in themselves and take up the whole width and all of the current length of the right side of the plaque. It fits nicely in the 6.7 cm high right edge by 7.2 cm wide area available.

Second, the break in the limestone slab likely occurred after there was some writing on it. The "name" at the bottom of the plaque (and at a right angle with the seven contiguous lines) is apparently broken off by the break in the slab. The letters ’by[ can be read fairly clearly. This is often taken as the name of the scribe who wrote the text. I have no dispute with taking it to be a name, only because no other explanation presents itself with the same degree of probability. Note, however that these letters are in the extended left hand portion of the plaque below the seventh line of the text. More on this later.

Third, there are indications that both sides of the plaque were scraped and reused in antiquity. See Albright, 1943, 21. The earliest references to this scraping and the possibility that the plaque is a palimpsest go back to the first moderns to see it. According to Macalister, II, 27, Lidzbarski suggested that it was a palimpsest but Macalister himself, II, 27, who saw tool marks or possible errors that the scribe himself corrected, was not convinced. Even Lamaire, 1981, 11, does not think it is "totalement assuré" that it is a palimpsest. Renz, 31, seems somewhat more certain, but even he says, "wohl Palimpsest." Line 5 in particular shows signs of having been rewritten. By whom cannot be said.

Renz, 36, following a few others, adopts the "nicht nachgewiesenen" reading of pnyh on the reverse of the plaque. He takes this to be the proper name P^enīyāhū. I'll have more to say about the proposed proper names on this plaque later.

The closest affinities with the writing on the plaque are found on the Ahiram Sarcophagus and other Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. The issue of the language of the text rests, in part, on how the script is understood, in part, on how one understands certain grammatical features and vocabulary in the text and in part on how one understands the number of months denoted in the text (8, 12 or something in between). The last set of considerations, the number of months, also depends on how one understands the sitz im leben of the text, the plaque itself or both. Each of these considerations interacts with the other. Rather than review the technical details, I will simply summarize a several prominent positions. You will get a hint of these complexities from this review. Those interested in the gory details may want to begin their inquiry with Sivan, 101-105, Young, 362-375, and Naveh, 76-78, with regard to the language and Naveh, 65, and Sass, 50-93 with regard to the date and nature of the script.

Gogel, 8-9, sums up the problem well,

The Gezer Calendar represents pure consonantalism, a characteristic inherent in Phoenician and the Proto-Canaanite family, and its script resembles those of the tenth century Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. The spelling of the word qş, qēş, "summer-fruit" (and possibly yrħw, yarħēw, "his/its(?) two months") reflects the contraction of the ay diphthong, which is either a Phoenician or a North Hebrew (cf. the Samaria ostraca) linguistic feature.

Palaeographically, the Gezer Calendar has been dated to the second half of the tenth century when Gezer was an Israelite city (1 Kings 9:16), but epigraphers nevertheless have been unable to determine with certainty whether the script and the language are Phoenician or Hebrew.

On this Gogel, 9, n 14, quotes Cross, 1980, 14. Here is a slightly expanded version of her quotation from Cross.

So similar are the Phoenician and Hebrew in the 10th century that it has been impossible for epigraphists to establish whether the Gezer Calendar was written in Hebrew or in Phoenician script. I believe that the first rudimentary innovations that will mark the emergent Hebrew script can be perceived in the Gezer Calendar, but they are faint at best.

Notice that Cross is talking about the script and not necessarily the language of the text.

Lemaire, 1981, 10 notes, "This exercise does not contain any specific paleo-Hebrew characteristics and . . . it could be classified just as well among Phoenician inscriptions as among the paleo-Hebrew inscriptions (my translation)."

Sass, 83-84, lists the Gezer Calendar in his excursus on "Non-Hebrew Inscriptions of the Ninth Century" under "Undated non-monumental inscriptions with similar scripts." It joins the Tell Halaf 'alter,' Byblos cone B and the Abdô sherd in this classification. He cites Lemaire, 2000, 247, in support of the Gezer Calendar containing a "non-Hebrew script and language."

McCarter, 222, says of the date and language of the text,

The text probably dates to the tenth century BCE, and its archaic language, which exhibits features not found in later inscriptional Hebrew, is probably most safely described as a South Canaanite dialect rather than specifically Hebrew.

Naveh, 76 - 78, who seems to agree that the name may be a Hebrew name, tells us that the text and orthography is Phoenician, not Hebrew. Naveh offers a case for the language of the text being in the Phoenician language but he admits that it could as well reflect a northern dialect of Hebrew. He also makes this interesting speculation.

We may conjecture that in the tenth century the Hebrews wrote in the prestigious Phoenician language, as did Kilamu bar Haya, King of Yadi, in the late ninth century, notwithstanding the fact that the tongue spoken in Yadi-Sa,'al was a local Aramaic dialect.

While I am somewhat impressed with his case for Phoenician, this speculation seems to be an effort to have it both ways. On the other hand, much later in their history, the "Hebrews" wrote in Aramaic which by then was prestigious in much of the world of the Near East.

Among others who question the likelihood that the text is in Hebrew is Kutscher, 67, who says of the text on the plaque, "It is questionable whether it should even be considered as belonging to Hebrew."

Others are quite certain that the language of the text is some dialect of Hebrew. Boronski, 44, suggests that the language of the plaque is the northern dialect of Hebrew. He notes the "northern" spellings qş and kl and his conjecture that Gezer was a "northern city" in every way but geographically. But these spellings could just as well be indications of Phoenician.

Some have tried to reinforce the view that the language of the text is Hebrew by citing the supposed name ’by [xx], which is often reconstructed ’by[h], in the lower left hand "margin" of the plaque and seeing a distinctive Hebrew or Israelite theophoric element in the fairly common name Abīyāhu. But as Renz, 36 reminds us, other alternatives exist. One might simply read ’by, Abīyā, or, as Albright, 1943, 22 n26, suggested and rejected, ’by[tr], Abiytar. Note that the name A-bi-ya is already know from Mari (Huffmon, 134). But ’by[’l] or ’by[b‛l] as well as any other name from a fairly long list of well known names beginning with ’by seems possible if this is a proper name at all. The principle problem with names like Abiy'el is that they may indicate matres lectionis which is thought to be completely absent in this text. My problem with these three letters has to do with their ordination and relationship to the remainder of the text. Why aren't they in line with it? Is it possible that they are part of an earlier text that has otherwise been erased? The fact that the seven lines of text fit so nicely in the space above the break as defined on the right suggests to me that the three readable letters of the "name" may have little or nothing to do with the text proper. I am far from an epigrapher, but I also wonder if they are in the same hand. As we will see soon, there is enough variety in the letters with the main text to confuse any answer to this question and the main text even lacks a b. If Renz, 36, (see above) is correct in seeing pnyh on the reverse of the plaque, then it would strengthen the case for a Yahwistic and therefore possibly a Hebrew origin.

Perhaps the strongest advocate of the language of the text being Hebrew is Young, who argues that the text of the Gezer Calendar shows "a significant clustering of archaisms (374)" indicative of Archaic Biblical Hebrew. At a minimum Young demonstrates the possibility that the texts is in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. If I understand Young's argument, he must forgo the notion that twelve months are represented in the text.

Sivan, 101-105, uses both Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew examples to support an interesting and plausible understanding of the pivotal grammatical issue in the text. As a result of his analysis he would translate line 6, for example, "two months of it (namely of) vine-tending." However, he does not commit himself as to the exact language or dialect.

I think the most conservative thing to do is to remain agnostic concerning the language and even the date of the text. It is clear to me that the current evidence does not allow one to be too dogmatic on the issue of language. As I reviewed the literature surveyed above and looked at the supporting evidence, I was unable to make a firm decision with regard to the language of the Gezer Calendar. The more one trusts the Biblical evidence as reflective of the historical situation concerning Gezer, the more likely one is to understand the text as Hebrew. I am not claiming that the Biblical evidence is necessarily uncertain. I am claiming that the Gezer Calendar does not inform the certainty of the Biblical tradition. One often sees, usually only implied, a circular argument that goes something like this: If Biblical evidence is certain, the Gezer Calendar must be in Hebrew; Gezer Calendar may be in Hebrew; therefore, the Biblical evidence is certain and the Gezer Calendar is in Hebrew. The uncertainty about the language of the Gezer Calendar should limit any conclusions based on the language of this text. Further, I think it best to consider a range of dates from the most common dating (late 10th century), on the one hand, to Sass's view (9th century), on the other. While this is not very satisfying, the lack of certainty must be reflected on our considerations.

The question that is most relevant to the topic of scribal training and therefore the topic of post is, "What is the sitz im leben of this plaque with this particular writing on it?" Three differing approaches to this question have been taken: 1) it is a school text; 2) it is an administrative text in either a narrow or a broad sense of the word "administrative"; 3) it is a religious text of some sort.

Albright, 1943, 21, was apparently the first to suggest that it is a school text. He cites Mesopotamian and Egyptian parallels without giving specific examples and goes on to say, "the size and material of the plaque, which is just large enough to be held comfortably in the hand of a twelve-year old boy, and which shows the rounded edges and sides resulting from considerable use" demonstrate that it was school exercise. It is a little amazing that Albright was able to suggest the age and sex of the student scribe on such limited data. Perhaps more to the point, Albright notes several peculiarities in writing style that are indicative of a student's works. See below.

Lemaire, 10-11, also argues that the Gezer Calendar is a student exercise. He attempts to make his case on the following points. 1) Like Albright, the form and material of the plaque is comparable to other student exercises. He specifically cites a fragmentary Phoenician abecedary, an Aramaic abecedary from Tell Halaf and a Phoenician tablet from Byblos. I will have more to say on these artifacts in another context. 2) "The content of the Gezer tablet is principally a list of names and such lists represent a type of scholastic exercise already known from Egypt (my translation)." He supplements this point with an observation that the tablet may contain the name of the "écolier." While I find Lemaire's first point instructive, I am not so sure that I agree with his second. The text contains much more than a simple list. There is a great deal of repetitive/formulaic expression common in ancient contexts other than student exercises. While I have considerable sympathy for Lemaire's point I believe that other, or at least additional evidence needs to be brought to the discussion.

The second approach is to see some official or semi-official use for this text. Perhaps Talmon, 177, has made the most extreme suggestion in this regard,

One may surmise that the G. C. [Gezer Calendar - des] is an official document which presents in proper chronological sequence the main farming seasons in the district of the lowlands of Palestine. Most probably it was drawn up for the purpose of tax-collections on behalf of the royal administration [i.e. Solomon's administration - des]. The importance of such a document may explain the fact that its writer saw fit to sign it with his name, which unfortunately is only partially preserved.

It is interesting that Lemaire thinks the "name" is indicative of a student exercise and Talmon thinks it is indicative of the importance of the an administrative document!

Less extreme but in the same general category is the position of Borowski, 32, who would prefer that we call the plaque the "Gezer Manuel" "because the inscription is obviously a list of chores and not a calendar to tell time." Thus, Borowski sees the text on the plaque as a very short farmer's almanac where the "months" represent time periods rather that "calendrical month(s)." I am not so sure that it is "obvious" that this is a list of chores. It is as easy, perhaps easier, to read it as a list of events each extending over a month or two. In any case, Talmon, Borowski and others take the text as documenting an agricultural cycle for either administrative (Talmon) or farm management purposes (Borowski).

Third, for the sake of completeness, I should also mention Wirgin's proposal that the Gezer Calendar is a prayer for fertility, a specific kind of incantation text. On a similar note see Young, 367, who suggests that the text is "cultic or magical."

Despite my concerns about some of their arguments, I agree with those such as Albright and Lemaire that the text on the plaque is best understood as a student exercise. While I am not an epigrapher, I am impressed by the considerable lack of consistency in the writing. Here is a composite picture of all the hets in the Gezer Calendar, starting on the left with the first of two in line 1 and continuing to the one in line 7 to the right.

Notice any differences? Perhaps one can forgive the het in line 5 (the sixth one in the illustration); the scribe likely faced a problem with the surface of the stone. It may be that the scribe had to work around one of his own mistakes. I still wonder if rotating the letter nearly 90° was the only way he had to solve the problem. Even if we are so forgiving of the letters on the plaque that repeat themselves, the het is the least consistent. However, there is not a single example of a repeated letter that shows the level of consistency common in other "professionally engraved" inscriptions. To be sure, there are often differences between individual iterations of the same letter on an inscription from this period but the Gezer Calendar has more than its share and they show more divergence than is common in the work of an experienced scribe. Only the ‘Izbet Sartah Sherd approaches such variation and there can be no reasonable doubt that the text on that sherd is a student exercise. Albright, 21, pointed to several indications that the scribe was a novice. "In favor of the exercise-tablet interpretation is the scribe's hand, which is slow and extremely awkward, as shown by his treatment of curves (qoph, waw, 'ayin) as well as of complex characters like heth." It is this uncertainty of an immature hand that is, in this case, the most indicative of a student exercise.

But you may ask, "What about the content?" To which I reply, "What about it?" Students needed to practice something and we have seen from Ugarit, for example, that students were, on occasion, given "real" content to practice with. In the case of Ugarit our best evidence is in the form of practice letters, but there can be little doubt that other content was used. So, regardless of whether the text that was copied by this student was an administrative document, a short almanac or particularly if it were an incantation, it was used in this case as part of a training exercise. The fact that there is recognizable content increases the likelihood that we are seeing the imperfect product of formal training and not the experimentation of an innovative individual. Content had to come from somewhere and it seems improbable that the content of this text with its many repetitions is what a lone individual would choose for practice on his or her own.

The firm, if uninspired, conclusion to this lengthy review is that the Gezer Calendar provides solid evidence that scribes were being trained in a formal setting to write inscriptions in a proto-Canaanite like script and Northwest Semitic language in the late10th or 9th centuries BCE.

References: