[b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK?
ishinan at comcast.net
Mon Nov 9 00:45:20 EST 2009
SCENARIO #1 -- In Genesis, Abraham appears as a Hebrew speaker, an idea
taken for granted by the compilers of Genesis with no linguistic self
PROBLEM: If Abraham spoke Hebrew and he was also father to Ishmael, the
progenitor of the Arabs, then this would imply that the Arabic language is a
dialect of the Hebrew language. How would we account then for this prospect,
if we consider that the Arabic alphabetic inventory is much more developed
(28 letters) than the Hebrew (22 letters). In Semitic languages, only the
Ugarit Alphabet surpasses Arabic with 31 letters (1500 BCE). Hence, in
terms of vocabulary, the Ugaritic language is older than Hebrew, and is
considered closer to the Old Arabic.
SCENARIO #2 -- Sir Charles Leonard Woolley (17 April 1880 - 20 February
1960) was a British archaeologist best known for his excavations at Tell
el-Mukayyar (site of ancient Ur in present-day Iraq). Ur was the burial
site of what may have been many Sumerian royals. Following Woolley's digs,
many have placed Abraham's birth place in the Sumerian Ur.
However, if it was true that Abraham was a native of Sumer, he would have
spoken Akkadian. Note that the Akkadian dialect spoken in Abraham's time
would have been Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian, with "Old Babylonian" being the
same as "Sumerian." So, should we assume that Abraham's native language was
a Sumerian/Old Assyrian mix?
PROBLEM: It is well known that Woolley offered interesting, if not always
accurate, interpretations of the physical evidence of his findings. Despite
this criticism Woolley argued strongly for the connection of his
archaeological finds to the location of Ur . However, Woolley, the son of a
clergyman, who had considered following in his father's footsteps at a young
age, is always thought to have been often biased in his interpretations.
Hence, if we agree with Woolley's conclusions, we are confronted with the
dilemma of 'Ur of the chaldees'* as Abraham's birth place. This conclusion
is a mistake. As many Bible critics have pointed out, 'Chaldean' was
associated with Alexander the Great. Hence, time wise it does not fit. Nor
does Aramaic fit, since Aramaic came later in about the 12th century BC, and
was spoken in Jesus' time and afterwards. Hitherto, current scholarship has
yet to prove or disprove whether Tell el-Mukayyar (the current Iraqi name
for Woolley's site) is or is not the famed birthplace of Abraham.
SCENARIO #3 -- Gordon Donald Fee (b. 1934), one of the foremost experts in
textual criticism of the New Testament of the Bible, posited a half century
ago a different Ur located north of Haran, where possibly Amorite was
spoken. Amorite is an early Northwest Semitic language, spoken by the
Amorite tribes which were prominent in early Near Eastern history.
PROBLEM: The Amorite language is known exclusively from non-Akkadian proper
names recorded by Akkadian scribes during periods of Amorite rule in
Babylonia. Because of the paucity of further existing examples, we do not
have a way to verify Gordon's claim.
SCENARIO #4 -- In Jody Gorran's paper "Ancient Hebrews and Arabia: A
Literature Review," there is an interesting idea raised by David Samuel
Margoliouth (b. 1858 - d. 1940) orientalist and professor of Arabic at the
University of Oxford:
"According to Margoliouth (1924), inscriptions had been discovered by
English, French and Austrian explorers that had him conclude that the
original source of the Hebrew language came from the written languages of
ancient Arabia (p. 7). Having found what he described as Hebraisms in
inscriptions in south Arabia, justifies the thinking that "we have traced
the particular usages to their homes" He continued by adding, "they
certainly did not come from Palestine to Saba; they may have come from Saba
to Palestine" (p. 8)."
For more on this subject, I strongly suggest you read Jody's paper in its
entirety. You may request a copy directly from her at: jgorran11 at gmail.com
In addition, there is a view expressed by the renown Holger Pedersen
(1867-1953), a Danish linguist who made significant contributions to
language science. Pedersen once wrote in his famous 1931's book "The
Discovery of Language" about the "Semitic languages". According to him,
"Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian languages had all undergone significant
linguistic degeneration. Only Old Arabic, due to its relative isolation in
the Arabian peninsula, remained closer to the old stratum of the "Semitic"
form of the language."
Historically, Hebrews living in the Persian Empire adopted Aramaic, and
quickly Hebrew fell into disuse as Aramaic became the vernacular language.
By the time the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch (the first five
books of the Bible), was written down (perhaps as late as 500 BC), the
Hebrew language had considerably deteriorated. It's vocabulary had changed
so much that there was no similarity to the original. Moreover, over their
long history, Jews had different dialects depending upon where they lived.
For example, the Judæo-Arabic languages comprise a collection of Arabic
dialects spoken by Jews living in the Arab world, particularly in the Middle
Ages. This phenomenon may be compared to cases such as Ladino
(Judeo-Spanish) and Yiddish (Judeo-German).
Having outlined the pros and cons within the various scenarios mentioned
above. I reiterate my original question: In your opinion, what language did
Abraham, father of Ishmael and Isaac, speak? Was it related to Arabic, to
Hebrew, or to Aramaic or neither? Anyone care to give his opinion on the
*Hellenistic designation for a part of Babylonia, which became an
independent kingdom under the Chaldees
More information about the b-hebrew