Talk:Aramaic square script

Need to get this full chapter

• Asia, Ancient Southwest: Middle Aramaic Scripts in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Tiamut (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

This seems to be a fork of Ktav Ashuri, which is the same thing - the Aramaic square script. And we have already Aramaic alphabet. Andre🚐 22:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a fork. Aramaic square script preceded Ktav Ashuri. It is existed prior to its adoption, use and naming as such by Jewish scribes and it continued to be used by non-Jews too, both during and afterward. If you want to insist they are the same topic, Ktav Ashuri should be merged into this article, because it is the sub-phenomenon. Tiamut (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created unilaterally by you, in the last month, about a topic that I think already is covered, given that we have Aramaic alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, Ktav Ashuri, Imperial Aramaic, Syriac alphabet, Mandaic alphabet, Western neo-Aramaic . What is the purpose of the Aramaic square script article? It feels like a bunch of stuff thrown together. I think it should be merged but I don't know to where yet.Andre🚐 08:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created it because it was missing. Ktav Ashuri is used to describe the use of the Aramaic square script to write in Hebrew, not to write in Aramaic. There is a difference between scripts and languages. The articles we already had did not describe Aramaic square script adequately, and there was nowhere to link to when I was writing about its use for writing non-Hebrew languages, so I boldly created a well sourced article explaining its genesis and constituents. This is not something bad by the way. Tiamut (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to creating a new article if one is misssing, but what is the Aramaic square script being used for that isn't related to Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic manuscripts? I genuinely do not know what else it is used for? I can agree it must have been used for something else but the current article is entirely about Jewish related usage? Andre🚐 08:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its not solely about Jewish related usage, but even if that was true, there is a distinction, even when being used by Jewish scribes, between its use to write in Aramaic (in which case it is Aramaic square script) and its use to write in Hebrew (in which case it is Ktav ashuri). Tiamut (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, no, on the latter point. I don't believe that's true. Aramaic and Hebrew are written with the same square script, which is known alternately as Aramaic square/block script, the Assyrian script (ktav ashuri), or the Tiberian (with vowels). Do you have a source for that? Andre🚐 08:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ktav Ashuri is a descendent of the Aramaic square script used to write Hebrew.Tiamut (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really mean that it's Aramaic square script when you use to it to write Aramaic, and Hebrew script when you write Hebrew. As you can see later on in that source when it talks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's the same script that survives. Which is to say that yeah, the Hebrew alphabet evolved from the Aramaic square script, but all the instances you discuss in the article are the Hebrew alphabet. It doesn't become a different script when they are writing Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Andre🚐 08:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: This article was created unilaterally by you was a strange thing to say. Every article is created unilaterally. You called it out like an accusation. Largoplazo (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the idea that the other article should be merged into this one and not vice-versa. It doesn't make much sense to treat the new article by one person created today, as the non-fork article. Andre🚐 18:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You can see they look the same, but you will never see a reloable source call the square script used to write the Aramaic language scrolls Ktav Ashuri, because that would be a misnomer. Tiamut (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be clear, the source you just linked does. And it calls it the Jewish square script. It says all the scrolls were written in the Jewish square script. Andre🚐 08:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Read carefully. When referring to the Dead Sea scrolls it says "square script" in general, because they include Aramaic language inscriptions that are written in Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read that whole section. It is talking about the Jewish square script when it refers to the scrolls. Andre🚐 08:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As just before that it is talking about the Jewish square script being a descendant of the Aramaic. In any case, I am going to add texts that are written in Aramaic square too soon. Like those on incantation bowls, discussed here: "Spellings with aleph instead of 'ayin, or without 'ayin, are a salient graphic feature of certain magic bowl texts. The Aramaic square script texts often employ 'ayin for the long vowels /I/ or /ë/ as mater lectionis, even before yod, although the 'ayin is not etymological, e.g. אקעז "storm, wind" (CBS 16018: 17 = AIT 19 [SLBA]), יקעז "storms" (Moussaieff 107: אקיז)7 (AMB B13: 3) < Akkadian zïqu corresponding Syriac spelling conventions in the bowl texts (Müller-Kessler 2005b: 227; 2006b: 266); אפשיע (MSF B23: 4) (KBA), sp' (MSF B26: 2) (KS) < אפשיא* "spell" < Akkadian (w)asäpu. One can hardly call it "parasitic 'ayin", as does Juusola (1999: 37-8) following Naveh and Shaked (1985: 162), when its function is of a purely orthographic nature." Tiamut (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is More on puzzling words and spellings in Aramaic incantation bowls and related texts which discusses the Aramaic square script used on magic bowls. Tiamut (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, these are not Jewish texts, nor is this a Jewish script. The bowls are Mandaic and written using Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, all the Mandaic bowls I've seen use the Mandaic script, which is something also Aramaic-based but looks different. There are some incantation bowls that are Jewish and use the Jewish Aramaic script and some that are Mandaic that use the Mandaic script. It's not clear from that source if the bowls that are square script are described. Can you quote that? Andre🚐 09:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The cult of Delibat and her Aramaic background can be traced back to her rise as a deity in the late Achaeminid and Hellenistic periods according to the cuneiform sources, where her name occurs in the onomasticon from Uruk.162 Later she merged with the Iranian deity Anâhîd.163 Her Akkadian epithet ezzetu "awe-inspiring" - only the Urukain Istar carries it - is in Aramaic "zyzf\ which became the Arabian al-'Uzzä, "the Venus-star",164 the Arabic elative form of 'zyzt'.'zyzt'.She features in many Mandaic magical texts as goddess of love, lyb't m'rty'm'rty'swpr' wrg'g' "Libat, mistress of beauty and desire" (DC 46 226: 7)165 and square script bowl texts as well, ךימשיבותבילדאתזיזעירמיזראתמחר "and in the name of the awe-inspiring Delibat, lady of the mysteries..." Tiamut (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other explicit reference to Aramaic square script in that text besides the one I also provided above. Now if you don't mind, I would like to spend some time actually working on the article, rather than justifying its existence. Tiamut (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see where in the source it says that. I think the sources sometimes render something in the square script, i.e. using Hebrew letters, for ease of understanding, but I don't see where in Kessler it says that there are Mandaic bowls inscribed in square script or supports what you just added to the article. Andre🚐 10:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to access the article? Where does it say they are written in another script? Tiamut (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not at all specify what script the bowls are in, that I can tell. [10:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)]

A couple of times it contrasts Mandaic, Syriac, and Aramaic script. That may be what you are referring to. Please see p.2 which refers to the Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and then in footnote 8 it distinguishes those 3. Mandaic is different from Aramaic script. See for example this source which talks about one of the bowls and it is clearly a Yahwistic bowl. Andre🚐 10:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the differences between Mandaic script (which only emerged later by the way) and Aramaic square. You seem to be conflating scripts and languages, and Mandaeans used Aramaic, like many others, to write their language before developing their own unique alphabet. From another source: "Despite the prevailing controversy among scholars concerning the religious background of magic text formulas in various Aramaic scripts and dialects, certain bowl texts show undoubtable Jewish contents and lore, although not all Aramaic square-script bowl texts contain Jewish themes." The whole point of this discussion is to clarify that there is a need for an article on Aramaic square script, as it is an actual script that pre-existed Ktav Ashuri and was used by others to write their own languages. Most of them later discarded it for more cursive forms, whereas it later became the basis for modern Hebrew. But it still existed outside of a Hebrew context, and that is why this article should exist. Tiamut (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. Yes, Kessler analyzes the text of several square script bowls which she says have a Mandaic character (she doesn't say they are in the Mandaic language but that they have a Mandaic "vorlage") but Aramaic script, either due to invoking the deity Delibat or some linguistic features. Those aren't necessarily Jewish. However, the article as it stands, still has problems as the bulk of the text is indeed about Jewish stuff, including the scrolls, and the image from the Kennicott Bible. In the original caption you wrote that those are 2 different scripts, when that is plainly not the case. I'm not sure there is enough to write about the bowls that doesn't belong at another article and so I still think a merge is in order. I don't think either one of us is conflating languages and scripts, but I think most of the article as it stands now is actually about the Hebrew alphabet and that is confusing. Also, Kessler is talking about the Late Antique, 3rd-7th century CE, and it definitely doesn't predate the Ktav Ashuri. Andre🚐 10:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you do understand? Because I did not write there are two different scripts in the caption for the Kenicott Bible but rather that one is in Hebrew (the language) and the other in Aramaic (the language). Both use a square script, practically identical, because the Hebrew alphabet switched to using Aramaic square script and dubbed its use of that script "Jewish" or "Assyrian" (i.r. Ktav Ashuri. I am against merging this article (obviously, as I would not have created it if there was no need for it). Tiamut (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article history. You wrote a caption, "Page from a Hebrew Bible with Onkelos (Aramaic translation), Hebrew square script on the left, Aramaic square script on the right" that implies two scripts. They aren't practically identical, they are literally identical. Andre🚐 18:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked it, there was no mention of scripts, because you deleted that, as you have elsewhere in the article. And by the way, the scripts can look identical but still be distinguished because of which language they are being used to write. Take a look at Paleo-Hebrew for example and tell me how it differs from the Phoenician alphabet. Tiamut (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you need a source that says it is different. Sources distinguish Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew. It is not clear that Aramaic square script is something that does not substantially WP:OVERLAP with the existing material. There's a reason why this article was never created before. Andre🚐 19:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Talk:Hebrew alphabet and Talk:Aramaic alphabet. Not trying to fragment the discussion, but this notification is required per WP:MERGING and according to that, the discussion should take place at the merge target, so it should continue there. Andre🚐 23:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Good morning Andre. I notice you have made several changes to the article here. One of these was erasing the quote by Albright about the lack of systematic study, citing its age. Could you provide which systematic studies have been done since then? Tiamut (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzmeyer, Beyer, see [1] or Gzella [2], let's start with those. or Cross[3]. I mean think about it th Dead Sea Scrolls were barely discovered when Albright said that. Now we have [4] Andre🚐 08:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see we have a serious terminological problem actually that is well covered here. Perhaps this article should actually be moved to Aramaic cursive. Tiamut (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would follow Dušek[5] but I think the Vanderhooft thing you just linked is critical of that. But, I think if you used all those sources in a balanced way and explain how the historiography evolved over time it would make a great article. A lot has happened since the 60s... BTW, Yardeni appears to be another good source. Andre🚐 09:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in that chapter Vanderhooft seems to be on board with Aramaic cursive (also used by Tov among others in addition to Dusek), and critical of Yardeni and Cross' approach to ethnicizing the script. He does not dispute that is it out if it that the square script used for Hebrew was born, but criticizes the use of "proto-Jewish" or "Jewish" (Yardeni and Cross) to describe those early forms, as he sees their use even by Jews at that time as part of a broader imperial framework. The only thing I need to work out more is the relationship to Aramaic monumental (previously lapidary) (nevermind, it is just a sub-type of Aramaic cursive written on stone per Dusek in this work) Will review more literature and then determine the appropriate new heading and scope. Tiamut (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, yes, but note that Vanderhooft accepts Cross and Yardeni's timeline that Aramaic cursive evolved gradually into the Hasmonean era book hand, by 3rd c. BCE, and he says that Aramaic's in Judah in 6th c. BCE. Andre🚐 09:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see several sources referring to the script of the Dead Sea Scrolls as "Aramaic cursive" though too. Tiamut (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC) See here for example. Tiamut (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This short handbook has a good overview of some of the challenges in defining and dating the emergence of the square script. And a good list of sources to pursue further. Tiamut (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I am not sure that a move to Aramaic cursive is a good idea because it is quite a large topic. Have added a new source and info here, which identifies one of the early examples of Aramaic square script. Tiamut (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Elephantine papyri and ostraca, some are indeed Aramaic cursive from the 5th century, and there are some in the Cairo Geniza as well. It's Aramaic cursive any time they are writing casually and not calligraphically. The monumental or lapidary is for carving into rocks. Aramaic cursive though is still basically a subtopic of Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. It is just what you call it when they are scrawling on a parchment instead of chiselling into blocks or writing fancy important decrees and important books. The sort of italic looking handwriting versus the classic blocky blocks. Andre🚐 21:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Akopian defines Aramaic square script as Aramaic cursive whose letters fit into squares, calling Elephantine Papyri texts as example of that. Tiamut (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - which page? Aramaic square script can be cursive but isn't always. Monumental isn't. And the print in the Kennicott Bible is square script but not cursive. Andre🚐 19:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

p. 73 for the square fitting into squares definition. You are right, its not always cursive. There is a lot more great and detailed information in that book. You can use find in page to search terms, or check the index under 'square' for more. Tiamut (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's a good source. Andre🚐 22:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Aramaic square script" could totally be a page, but there's absolutely nothing on this page currently that justifies its existence. It needs massive improvement if it wants to continue to exist. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO better to merge what is worth merging to Hebrew alphabet, Aramaic alphabet, History of the Hebrew alphabet, or another location, improve the section, and split out if it gets too long. This was split out as a content fork and it is too entangled with the parent topic. An article on a script could be cool, but this one isn't really about a script. Andre🚐 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article is written from scratch. There was no splitting off of material from anywhere. I did include a paragraph from Ktav Ashuri on its development but removed it because of your concerns of overlap. There will be more added on the specifics of the script itself soon. You can't discuss a script though without also discussing a bit of wider linguistic and historical context. Tiamut (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I also fail to understand is why there is no problem with maintaining Ktav Ashuri as a separate article? According to this short definition by Christa Muller-Kessler, it just means "Assyrian script":

Square script: (ketāḇ merubbā) is the term for the style of script in which Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic texts are written. It developed from the Aramaic square script style (in the Babylonian Talmud ketāḇ aššūrī, i.e. Assyrian script), which according to the Babylonian Talmud (Aboda Zara 10a) was brought from Babylonian captivity to Palestine by Jews in the post-Exilic period, whereas the Samaritan style developed from the palaeo-Hebraic script. The earliest documents extant in square script are fragments of the Biblical books Ex and 1 Sam from Qumran (2nd cent. BC), the Nash papyrus and later mosaic, burial and ossuary inscriptions (1st-2nd cents. AD). In the broadest sense two other contemporary kinds of writing in Palestine could also be described as square script, the Samaritan and the Christian-Palestinian-Aramaic. The latter arose out of the Syriac Estrangelā. Both scripts were apparently adjusted in imitation of the Aramaic square script.

It also violates our article naming policies, as its not the common English name. Tiamut (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can propose a merge for that when this one is over. Andre🚐 20:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Moved from Talk:Hebrew alphabet § Aramaic square script

FaviFake (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

See discussion at Talk:Aramaic square script. This should be merged here or to Ktav Ashuri. Andre🚐 09:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic square script is the ancestor script for the modern Hebrew alphabet. But it was/is used to write other languages besides Hebrew. It can't be covered in Hebrew alphabet, nor can it be covered in Ktav Ashuri which is a derivation of it. Tiamut (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only other language that we have a source for it being used for is Aramaic. Andre🚐 18:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to keep the discussion at the discussion rather than pursuing a stealth parallel one here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the formal merge discussion is supposed to go if the proposal is to merge it here. Refer to the merging instructions. This is also the most-watched and trafficked page so it's hardly stealth. I linked the other discussion as it is relevant. I also added a note to Talk:Aramaic alphabet since possibly some of this belongs there. Andre🚐 23:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a section on parent languages and have one of those blue link things leading to it (obviously) ~2026-92314 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Aramaic Square script being merged solely into Hebrew is just not tenable

The original article confuses the Aramaic Alphabet of the Achaemenid period with the later Aramaic version of the Hebrew Alphabet used for Judeo-Aramaic so I instead propose to split the contents of that article and have some parts join the Hebrew Alphabet article and others the Aramaic Alphabet article. Theopedias (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the original article, do you mean this version? Tiamut (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes that page Theopedias (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this definition incorrect? Tiamut (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but at the same time Ktav Ashuri literaly just refers to the Hebrew Alphabet/Abjad and was named that way because later jews thought it Originated in Assyria and while that is partially correct the Hebrew Alphabet is a descendant of the Aramaic Alphabet used by Assyria and Iran it misses context and the fact that the scripts are different especially as the Imperial Aramic Abjad was not square had different letter shapes from later Hebrew.

Imperial Aramaic (c. 700---c. 300 Bce) 𐡀 𐡁 𐡂 𐡃

Hebrew (c. 200 Bce--present) ם מ ל נפ (evolved script from Aramic with the letters more square Theopedias (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are practically zero examples of a block like script of that kind in 200 BCE though. And the definition of "square" given by Akopian is that the letters could fit into square shapes, not that they were blocky per se. They could be a form of cursive, as two of the examples pictured in the article are. There seems to be much confusion within the field of paleography over how to categorize and what typologies to use for charting the development of the square script(s). See here & Longacre's brief cited in the article. This confusion is certainly reflected in my original article. In that sense, I have at least been faithful to the sources. Tiamut (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Assyrian script" or "script of Assyria" to describe Aramaic (and only later adopted to describe the square script) seems to have entered Hebrew from Egyptian sources like the Demotic Chronicle via the Greek, at least according to this paper. Tiamut (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC) And this is missing from the existing article on Ktav Ashuri, which should probably be mentioned in this discussion as well. Tiamut (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes You are right and we should mention Orientalia

NOVA SERIES, Vol. 62, No. 2 (1993), pp. 80-82 (3 pages) and try to integrate your findings into the Hebre Script article.

Some scholars even say the Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew scripts are all one semitic abjad and in 2004/05 there was a lot of opposition to the creation of Phoenician Unicode so the separation of what counts as Imperial Aramaic or Hebrew is always going to be fuzzy. Theopedias (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, its one Abjad (properly Canaanite) that was used by all of them to write their different languages/dialects. And this Aramaic=>Hebrew square script is one alphabet too. There is no exclusively Hebrew alphabet. They switched from using the Canaanite to the Aramaic. Tiamut (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Hello @GordonGlottal:. I see you have deleted several relevant and sourced paragraphs in this series of edits. Could you explain why please? Because I did not understand your edit summaries. Tiamut (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and relevance. The statement about targumim was entirely wrong. The targumim are all from long after the Biblical period. The statements about Aramaic language were just irrelevant, have nothing to do with the script. As Andre said above, this page "isn't really about a script" right now. It needs to become about a script if it wants to survive. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in itself was accurate though. It may be read as being in the biblical period because of the sentence preceding it, but that could simply be clarified. Please feel free to restore it and do so.

Further, there are several other paragraphs deleted there, like this one:

Aramaic was the common spoken language in Roman Palestine at the time of Jesus.^[1] Among the Dead sea scrolls discovered in the caves of Qumran were many manuscripts and fragments written in Aramaic using the square script, such as the Son of God and the Book of Giants.^[2][3] Discovery of the Aramaic square script fragments for the Book of Giants with the names of Gilgamesh and Hombabish, "attests to the vitality of Mesopotamian literary traditions among literate circles of the ancient Near East, probably transmitted via Aramaic versions."^[4]

What is objectionable here? Tiamut (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of that have to do with the script? General Aramaic text history does not belong on this page. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its related by the sources to the development of the script. Respectfully ask that you cease your mass blanking, which you are continuing here, while also leaving insulting edit summaries, even as you make a pretense of engaging in discussion here. We have a rocky history from Gauze, and I am curious as to why this page I started has become such a source of interest for you. Tiamut (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see from my edit history that I've edited related pages for many years. I came here from Andrevan's talk, which I was looking at re Iskandar's ARB case (i don't really understand what justified the new ban, if there are any ARBs here).

I'm an academic historian in a related field. I've only really used Samaritan Aramaic (2019 fellowship) and JBA consistently in professional projects, but I read several varieties of Aramaic fluently. I removed claims that weren't backed by any source and are unambiguously false.

On relevance: The idea of a general "Aramaic square script" page isn't crazy (it would replace Ktav Ashuri probably), but 99% of what you wrote here was a badly mangled version of "Aramaic and its use of square script" which is a different subject. Your intention seems to be to create "Non-Jewish history of square script", which might also belong on wiki, but it's hard to respect an effort to do it in this way.

GordonGlottal (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence I added was backed a source, and I tried to faithfully represent its contents. There is no intention to erase Jewish contributions to development of the square script (and I don't think that is a fair representation of what was in this page before you began mass blanking it. Your latest edit here for example, erased information I had added on the use of square script in the Babylonian Talmud.) Indeed, it would not be possible to write such an article given how deeply involved Jewish scribes and scholars were in its propagation and development.

I certainly don't have your fluency or scholarship background with Aramaic, but I am not entirely ignorant of the language (or Hebrew, and other Semitic languages) do know the letters, some basic vocabulary, and believe I am capable of contributing to the writing of an article on the subject. I am glad you think an article on square script would be a good thing to have. It would be nice to be able to collaborate on one, but your disdainful approach to me, both here and at Gauze has made me a bit pessimistic about that possibility. Tiamut (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Language like "Aramaic square script was also adopted . . . by Jewish scribes" in the lede and "Jewish scribes, who like everyone else in the Empire were using Aramaic square script to write in Aramaic" is what I meant—there is no evidence of pre-Jewish use according to the definition you're using, where the earliest example is Elephantine. Certainly there were other Aramaic scripts in use within the empire (read your Book of Esther lol).

But it's really a definitional problem. The Jewish content at Elephantine is the only reason Akopian et al. think of it as "square", making this quite circular. Palmyrene is more literally square-shaped, and the script at Elephantine is almost indistinguishable from earlier, non-Jewish Aramaic papyrus. "Square script" is really a term for "the evolutionary tree of Jewish scripts directly related to medieval Masoretic". Which is a good subject for a page! You seem to have attempted more "the various offshoots of Imperial Aramaic that are square shaped". Also good if you can find scholars working in that conceptual frame. But it would include Palmyrene and exclude Elephantine, contra Akopian.

Anyway, other stuff was just wrong: "At the time of the writing of the Hebrew Bible, Jewish authors of the text used Hebrew primarily as a liturgical and literary language" (only true of the late stages) "sacred texts written in Hebrew translated into Aramaic were known as targumim" (no), "a distinctive Jewish Aramaic square script developed by the 1st century BCE, as the Imperial Aramaic square script was adopted as the new alphabet for writing Biblical Hebrew" (bad synthesis, there's no corpus with Biblical texts in a distinct script, or Jewish Aramaic texts in a distinct script.), "called k'tav ashuri by the Jewish scribes who used it" (no, talmudic term), "Only the Samaritans in Palestine continued using a form of Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew for their written language" (no, they're just the only ones left today).

The DSS section was specifically about Aramaic texts, which was silly—this is supposed to be a script page, and almost all the DSS are in the same script.

I don't get why you keep descending to personal attacks. I tried again and again (and again and again) to explain things to you at gauze. You can make different choices here. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we simply cannot work together on any article because there is a long record of mistrust and miscomprehension. As I cannot prevent you from editing this page, please go ahead and do whatever you like here. I am disengaging. Tiamut (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cite error: The named reference Newsom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Enoch, Book of Giants". The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
3. Meyer, 2022.
4. Reeves, 2000.