[b-hebrew] Hebrew - dialect of canaanite

dwashbur at nyx.net dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Jun 29 01:03:09 EDT 2006

On 29 Jun 2006 at 2:48, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> On 6/29/06, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > Actually, it does have a bearing.  The most common claim made by those
> > who reject the historicity of certain people, places and events is that the
> > texts are "late."  Using that basis, comparison to cognate languages such
> > as Ugaritic and Akkadian, and sometimes even Aramaic and Moabite,
> > becomes an implicit or explicit comparison of "early" languages versus the
> > "late" Hebrew, and virtually all differences between Hebrew and its cognates
> > are explained this way.
> Can you:
> 1) Give an example of such scholars who use the "late" date of the Bible to
> make linguistic conclusions on the similarity of Hebrew, Aramaic, Moabite,
> Ugaritic, and Akkadian?

At the moment, no.  I'm 900 miles from my library and there's nothing much I can use around 
here.  But for starters, most of the so-called minimalists take such an approach.
> 2) Explain how come this conclusion -- that Hebrew was a development of
> Canaanite -- came to be accepted in a time when it was the scholarly
> consensus that the Patriarchal narratives were historical?

Can you give some examples of this?
> 3) Give an example of specific linguistic phenomena that could be understood
> as ancient and prior/concurrent with such languages as Ugaritic or Amarna
> Canaanite?

See number 1 above, but a good place to start would be M. Dahood's works.  In fact, his 
commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor series caused a firestorm because of the way he 
used Ugaritic to challenge some of the more common linguistic assumptions about Hebrew. 
Sorry I can't be more specific; once again, see number 1 above :-(

Dave Washburn
Encephaloriasis: That condition generated when the person you are dealing with is so 
incredibly stupid, you can actually feel your own brain cells drying up and flaking off.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list