Palmyrene = original kṣav Ivri?

[Reuven Chaim Klein]

Has anyone come across scholarly work that traces the recurrent historical claim — found among some Renaissance and early-modern writers (e.g. Abramo di Balmes; later Yacov Emden) — that the script we now call Palmyrene was in fact the original kṣav Ivri / paleo-Hebrew before the adoption of the square Aramaic hand? In particular I’m trying to pin down:

1. Who first advanced this identification? Was it ever documented which author or community first proposed Palmyrene as “the” ancient Hebrew script?
2. How did the idea take hold historically? Was the hypothesis transmitted via Christian (monastic) scholars in Syria or elsewhere, as I’ve heard suggested, and is there evidence documenting that channel of transmission?
3. Has anyone traced the textual/iconographic genealogy of early reproductions? Early engravings and reproductions labelled “Palmyrene” or “Hebrew” often don’t match our modern epigraphic reconstructions — has anyone compared those early copies (prints, ms. plates, travellers’ drawings) with modern corpora and discussed the discrepancies?

4. Bibliographic leads: any articles, book chapters, or dissertations that (a) document this misidentification, (b) situate it in Renaissance/early-modern intellectual history, or (c) analyse the reproduction errors would be hugely helpful.

   
   Kol Tuv,

   Reuven Chaim Klein
   Beitar Illit, Israel

   Books | Articles | Lectures (YouTube) | Book Reviews

[Reuven Chaim Klein]

An answer I received through a different listserv:

Rabbi Reuven Klein's question appears to be based on the words of Rabbi Yaakov Emdin (or Emden) in his book Migdal Oz, Beit Midot, Aliya 35, Aliyat HaKhetivah (pp. 545-546 in the new edition of the book: Benei Brak 2017). 

However, R. Yaakov Emdin's words there actually interpret the term Ketav (script) Levunaaah (or Libunaah or Levonaah etc.) mentioned in BT Sanhedrin 21b.

Rabbi Yaakov Emdin copied a tablet of letters from an ancient inscription where it appears that the AYAN letter is written as SAMECH (which is correct in itself - in the ancient Hebrew script), and thus came to solve the problem that was raised there in the above rabbinical discussion. To this he adds there:"As you see here - is presented before you the alphabeta Levunaah script for your delight - and so that you may know and recognize… "

However, he does not claim there that the Levunaah script is the script that was in Palmyra - but that it is the ancient Hebrew script (Daatz), (although it is possible that the tablet of letters that is brought there in his book is a script is from Palmyra. Indeed, it might be that this inscription is the one brought in the book of Lipinski (see below) p. 64, but this does not change anything here, because R. Emdin speaks explicitly of the Daatz script preserved by the Samaritans - and relies on the testimony of the Ramban when he arrived in Israel and spoke with Samaritans on it - even if the tablet that was copied by mistake with him is from Palmyra).

On the Talmud statement in Sanhedrin and the Levunaah script see in length Mordechai Sabato, Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin: Chapter Two, edition, commentary and comparative Study of Parallels, Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 2022, [Hebrew]. pp. 513 ff.

On the language (Aramaic with signs of ancient Arabic) and the script that was in use in Palmyra (Tadmor) see James Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia (Published by The University Museum) 1913, p. 32 ff; Edward Lipinski, Semitic Language: Outline of A Comparative Grammar, Peeters, Leuven 197, p. 64.

Admiel Kosman

Potsdam University

[Reuven Chaim Klein]

I was confused. What Rabbi Emden reproduces in his book is this:

Although not quite 100% the Paleo-Hebrew script as we know it, this depiction indeed eerily bears similarities to the Samaritan scrip and the Ivri script as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not sure where Emden came across evidence of this, but this is a pretty good rendition.

When I referenced De Balmes, I was referring to something different entirely:

Now it has come to light that De Balmes' script -- also known as Transitus Fluvii -- was probably invented by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486-1535). 

Somebody once told me about the De Balmes script that it is actually the Palmyrene Script of Aramaic. But I now know that he is mistaken. Here is a rendition of the Palmyrene script and we can easily see it's not the same (although there are obviously some similarities):

 

(This comes from the Noto Sans Palmyrene font).

Kol Tuv,

Reuven Chaim Klein

Beitar Illit, Israel

Books | Articles | Lectures (YouTube) | Book Reviews

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jewish Languages" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jewish-languag...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jewish-languages/74d1bbf8-41df-417b-a18e-f4d5c3bca188n%40googlegroups.com.