Book by Douglas Petrovich.\u00a0 Reviewed by David A. Falk.<\/p>\n

Published by Carta Jerusalem, 2017.\u00a0 Pp. xvi + 262.
\nHardcover. $84.00. ISBN 9789652208842.<\/p>\n

The premise of Douglas Petrovich\u2019s The World\u2019s Oldest Alphabet<\/em> is that Hebrew is the language that underlies the early alphabetic inscriptions that were found in Egypt, which Petrovich calls proto-consonantal inscriptions (7). While not stated until the end of the book, by showing that Hebrew underlies these early inscriptions Petrovich seeks to prove that the exodus took place in 1446 BCE (195).<\/p>\n

Chapter 1 (14 pages) sets out to discuss background matters to the early alphabetic inscriptions. In this section, Petrovich explains how he arrived at the view that \u201cthe world\u2019s oldest alphabet, is Hebrew\u201d (10). He starts with the assumption that the exodus occurred as a historical event in 1446 BCE and asserts that Joseph\u2019s son Manasseh was \u1e2aebedeb, one of the \u201cHebrews\u201d who wrote the Ser\u00e2b\u00ee\u1e6d el Khad\u00eem inscriptions. He states that \u201cthe goal of the present work is to demonstrate that Hebrew is the language behind the original proto-consonantal script, and to translate 16 inscriptions from the Bronze Age that validate this claim as true\u201d (11).<\/p>\n

Chapter 2 (61 pages) contains translations of Middle Kingdom texts Sinai 115, 376, and 377, Wadi el-H\u00f4l 1 and 2, and the Lahun Bilingual Ostracon. Chapter 3 (111 pages) has translations of New Kingdom texts Sinai 345a\/b, 346a\/b, 349, 351, 353, 357, 360, 361, 375a, and 378. This is a surprisingly small data set for a book of this nature. Further, when one considers the amount of cognate material available, perhaps more surprising is that no early alphabetic inscription from the Levant is referenced that might have supported the argument.<\/p>\n

Petrovich works through each text with a \u201cbackground to the inscription,\u201d \u201cpaleographic decipherment,\u201d \u201ctranslation and orthography,\u201d and \u201cpotential historical value.\u201d His contribution is to review the epigraphy of previous scholars and supply his own readings.\u00a0 The bulk of the book involves the thought process of deciphering the alphabetic letters for each inscription. The decipherment of each letter is compared to how other epigraphers have read the letters, often disagreeing with more mainstream scholars.<\/p>\n

Despite the small data set used, I found issues in the treatment of most of the texts. Some errors are relatively minor, such as the transcription of the Egyptian text for Sinai 377, which should be \u02bfn\u1e2b m\u1f30 r\u02bf \u1e0ft<\/em> instead of \u02bfn\u1e2b(w) \u1e0ft<\/em> (30). Other issues are more serious or undermine the credibility of his thesis, such as his handling of the Hebrew. Several readings deviate from standard Hebrew. Finally, some readings appear forced, resort to eisegetic glosses, or rely upon extended explanations for support.<\/p>\n

Given the highly subjective and visual nature of decipherment work, it is difficult to critique an epigraphic process without plunging into a highly detailed critique that focuses on only one example. Instead, I have selected a few of the sixteen\u00a0 readings to demonstrate some of these issues.<\/p>\n

Sinai 376: \u201cThe house of the vineyard of Asenath and its innermost room were engraved.\u00a0 They have come to life\u201d (65). Petrovich says that this \u201calmost certainly was a posthumous reference to Joseph\u2019s wife\u201d (72) without broaching the possibility that this Asenath may not be the same person found in the Bible. He explains that \u201cthe house of the vineyard of Asenath figuratively would be brought to life with these engravings\u201d (71), yet he forgets to discuss the inconsistency between his reading and the archaeological context. Egyptian houses were made of mudbrick and decorated by painting, not engraving.<\/p>\n

Sinai 346b: \u201cbecause of the<\/em> favor of the<\/em> abundance of the<\/em> son\u2019s sheep\u201d (96), a reading that proposes perhaps the longest chain of nonconstruct genitives discovered in so-called Hebrew. This grammatical construction would be highly peculiar in ancient Hebrew.<\/p>\n

Sinai 357: \u201cA curse of 100-fold<\/em> has passed through our people. A swooping has befallen us\u201d (145). Petrovich explains \u201ca swooping\u201d as follows: \u201cJust as an eagle swoops down on its prey at enormous velocity \u2026 the Hebrews fell victim to an overwhelming force that attacked them without any warning\u201d (152). This explanation does not clarify what is a strange word choice and seems more like ad hoc reasoning.<\/p>\n

Deviations from standard Hebrew present an obstacle for a thesis trying to prove Hebrew as the underlying language of these texts. It would have helped the reader if Petrovich had explained\u2014or at least recognized\u2014these idiosyncratic features of early Hebrew and relate them to other known Semitic examples.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the epigraphy is curious. With Sinai 115, Petrovich muddles the Egyptian p<\/em> with the early orthography of the letter bet to read \u1f30br<\/em> (19). He implies that this orthography equals \u02bfibr\u00ee<\/em>, \u201cHebrew\u201d (23). While this might seem esoteric, this epigraphic argument is one of the central pillars of the case presented by this book (191). However, this reading is strange given that the Egyptian \u1f30<\/em> is not equivalent to the Hebrew ayin<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Petrovich\u2019s argument that the channel-cut style of the glyph means that this letter cannot be an Egyptian p<\/em> (19) is special pleading. Numerous examples of a channel-cut Egyptian p <\/em>exist, including from within the formal Egyptian text in the upper portion of Sinai 115 itself. Besides, context alone makes this reading implausible because the so-called Semitic letter occurs inside a text of otherwise uncontested Egyptian letters, making the Egyptian p<\/em> more plausible.<\/p>\n

Petrovich further claims that the Egyptian gb-\u1f30tw<\/em> in Sinai 115 really means \u201cBethel.\u201d He justifies this claim with a \u201chistorical\u201d explanation instead of a linguistic explanation. Since God wrestled Jacob \u201con the ground\u201d (27), \u1e2aebedeb would have associated the God of Jacob with the Egyptian earth-god Geb. Therefore, \u201c\u2018the house of (the) God (of \/ on the earth)\u2019 (=Bethel)\u201d (28).<\/p>\n

For Sinai 357, Petrovich reads the seventh horizontal letter as an ox-head aleph<\/em>. Petrovich states that \u201cthe antlers consist more of jagged lines than of a continuous curve\u201d (144) but has not seemed to grasp that oxen have horns, not antlers. This error is made consistently through the book (32, 49, 67, 82, 102, 107, 109, 110, 128, 132, 134, 146, 148, 155, 177, 183, 190). He defers to previous epigraphers to justify this reading even though the Sinai 357 letter is actually two letters, nun<\/em> and kaph<\/em>, written close together.<\/p>\n

Sinai 361 is read \u201cOur bound servitude had lingered. Moses then provoked astonishment.\u00a0 It is a year of astonishment because of the Lady\u201d (160). Petrovich acknowledges that he has to depart from normal Hebrew syntax to read \u201cMoses\u201d in this text (165). By ignoring normal Hebrew syntax to find the name Moses, this strongly suggests confirmation bias. While the reading of the first letter is better than most readings, with Petrovich correctly discerning the vertical stroke on the right side of the character, he reads it as a bet<\/em> instead of a yod<\/em> when polynomial texture mapping reveals that the bottom horizontal line extends beyond the vertical line. This would make the main verb \u05d9\u05d7\u05e9 , \u201cempty,\u201d and preclude the identification of Moses in this text.<\/p>\n

Sinai 375a (HSM 1935.4.7) is read as a dual Egyptian\/Hebrew inscription, \u201cThe overseer of minerals, Ahisamach. The one having been elevated is weary to forget\u201d (175). Besides a translation that makes little sense, the reading infers an Egyptian y<\/em> that the epigraphy cannot support after a Hebrew khet<\/em> in \u201cAhisamach\u201d and ignores a string of characters (ayin<\/em>, lamed<\/em>, zayin<\/em>) that follow immediately after the supposed yod<\/em>, traces of which have been noted by other epigraphers[1] and that can be easily seen under strobe examination of the stela.<\/p>\n

The translation of the Egyptian portion of Sinai 375a is doubtful. Petrovich reads Gardiner Sign M42[2] as an abbreviation for \u1f30myw<\/em>, \u201cminerals,\u201d citing Vygus\u2019s online self-published word list as his source without reference to the exact entry or page number (174). However, no word \u1f30myw<\/em> meaning \u201cminerals\u201d is in Vygus[3] or any other standard Egyptian dictionary.[4]\u00a0 Petrovich provides no evidence that Sign M42 was ever used as an abbreviation for \u201cminerals\u201d (179).<\/p>\n

Although the epigraphy is a problem, Petrovich\u2019s dating is more so as it relies on circular reasoning by assuming the conclusions he is trying to prove. He starts with the premise that the name Ahisamach appears only in the book of Exodus (181). Then he begs the question by leaping from \u201cif the Ahisamach of Sinai 375a is the same man as the lone biblical personage of that name\u201d (182) to \u201cthe significance of Sinai 375a to the present study cannot be underestimated \u2026 due to its identification of an obscure biblical character [Ahisamach] of this latter date in an historical context\u201d (182).<\/p>\n

Not content to stop there, he assumes an early exodus view, dates the stela according to that assumption, then claims the date of the stela as proof for an early exodus. According to Petrovich, the exodus dates to 1446 BCE, so Sinai 375a must date to about thirty years earlier to circa 1480 BCE (182). Then he concludes that the dating of the early alphabetic inscriptions \u201cis the refutation of errant views of Biblical chronology, such as the late exodus view\u201d (195).<\/p>\n

Chapter 4 (15 pages) offer \u201cconcluding thoughts,\u201d where Petrovich states that the early alphabetic inscriptions \u201ccan be equated with Hebrew confidently\u201d for three reasons: (1) the presence of the noun \u201cHebrews\u201d in Sinai 115; (2) each early alphabetic letter has a Middle Egyptian \u201chieroglyphic exemplar\u201d;[5] and (3) the presence of \u201cthree biblical figures who have names used of only one person in the Bible\u201d (191). However, these reasons seem unrelated to the central thesis that Hebrew is the language that underlies the early alphabetic inscriptions, and no attempt is made to deduce a conclusion from linguistic arguments. Instead of discussing the overarching nature of the inscriptions and the Hebrew within them, Petrovich shifts his argument to using the supposed presence of Hebrew as proof that the exodus took place in 1446 BCE and as support for the historical events that took place in the books of Exodus and Genesis (186\u201387, 195\u201399).<\/p>\n

Even though much of the final chapter is devoted to the early dating of the exodus, a sizeable portion is also devoted to irrelevant issues such as the gender of the golden calf (199\u2013200), why only those with his specialized education have \u201cthe ability to contribute to the topic in any truly significant manner\u201d (188), and why his methodology is beyond questioning: \u201ceven if someone were to receive the appropriate training \u2026 archaeologists and ANE scholars would then turn around and accuse that researcher of applying improper methodology\u201d (188). However, this defensive posture draws attention to Petrovich\u2019s methodology.<\/p>\n

Petrovich used publication photos magnified to 400 percent in Microsoft PowerPoint (xii, 86), a method no modern epigrapher would recognize. Petrovich did not use specialized (multiple light or multispectral) photography and strobe lighting. Advanced imaging software such as DStretch or Photoshop was not used. The best recent photographs and polynomial texture maps were not used. Petrovich did not examine most of these inscriptions in person, nor did he use the most recent epigraphic tools. This has led to epigraphy that is inferior to Hamilton\u2019s readings of a decade ago.<\/p>\n

In addition, Petrovich cites himself thirty-nine times, which shows inadequate interaction with prior scholarship. Some citations refer to ideas that other authors said long ago; for example, he states that \u201cthe exodus pharaoh (Exod 5:1) is Amenhotep II (Petrovich 2006)\u201d (197), when that same idea was claimed by James Orr and J. W. Jack.[6]\u00a0 If Petrovich
\nhad cited Orr and Jack\u2019s identification of Amenhotep II in the 2006 article, then these citations may have only been weak scholarship; however, neither this book nor the 2006 article cite Orr or Jack.<\/p>\n

Some of the self-citations conceal an original source (28, 74, 152, 195); for example, compare \u201cwhich totaled 101,128 (Petrovich 2006: 102, 104\u2013106)\u201d (28) with \u201cThe figures given totaled 101,128,\u201d taken from ANET<\/em>. In this case Petrovich cited original sources in his article then cited his own article with no reference to the original sources.[7]\u00a0 Source materials with easily available citations were handled in a sloppy manner.<\/p>\n

Eighteen self-citations are to an unpublished, unfinished work. This is regrettable.\u00a0 Given the bold claims of the book, having so many citations dependent upon a work that may not come to fruition is deeply unsatisfying.\u00a0 Some of these come at critical junctures in the book when evidence would have been really useful. For example, Petrovich states that \u201cAsenath was the wife of Joseph and the mother of Ephraim and Manassah, the two sons who departed from their father\u2019s house when their grandfather (Jacob) informed Joseph that he was confiscating them and taking them to live among their uncles as their equals (Gen 48:5, 15\u201320), which can be demonstrated archaeologically (Petrovich: in prep)\u201d (70).\u00a0 If it can be demonstrated archaeologically, surely an adequate citation must exist.\u00a0 Would not that evidence be germane to the central argument?<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Petrovich never supplies proof that his translations are from Hebrew as opposed to any other Semitic language. Nor does he compare the early alphabetic inscriptions with earlier Semitic languages such as Akkadian. This is baffling, given that Eugene Merrill, who wrote the preface, lauded him for \u201cHis acclaimed expertise in \u2026 comparative linguistics and literature\u201d (vi).<\/p>\n

Even though pastors and teachers may consider purchasing the book, these audiences might find the content unsuitable. The writing style employs dense prose and makes comparisons only specialists with experience in epigraphy might comprehend. The level of detail could overwhelm the nonspecialist while the lack of evidence would likely disappoint those expecting a quality academic work.\u00a0 All things considered, the best thing about this book is that the publisher, Carta Jerusalem, brought its experience as a mapmaker to create a volume with beautiful typography and flawlessly printed graphics.<\/p>\n

After carefully reading The World\u2019s Oldest Alphabet<\/em>, I cannot recommend this book. This work is deeply flawed, with many examples of confirmation bias, logical fallacy, and failure to engage the existing scholarship. The translations are based upon an inadequate methodology, a doubtful epigraphy, and a poor understanding of ancient languages. The evidence that the book presents is insufficient to warrant the hyperbolic claims, and the tone of the writing does not seek to convince as much as forcefully assert its conclusions.\u00a0 The problems with the book are plentiful and easy to discover, and the work does not advance existing scholarship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n