Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>]

The recent posts between Ian and Jonathan on "Ur of the Kasdim," called to
mind several questions. If they have been reviewed before in the archives,
please let me know.

I believe Dr. Fred Cryer (of Copenhagen, Denmark) did an article a few years
ago comparing a thousand years of the German language and its manifested
evolution in word forms and tenses, comparing and contrasting it with the
alleged thousand year history of the Hebrew Bible's "Primary History"
(Genesis to 2 Kings) and his findings led him to believe that the evidence
did support the notion of layer after layer of various archaic word forms
from the world of Moses ( the Pentateuch of 15th century BCE) to that of the
Exilic period (2 Kings 25:27) ca. 560 BCE.

Would anyone care to make any observations about the validity or invalidity
of this work, or differing conclusions ?

For example, when one reads Chaucer, the archaic English is obvious when
compared to Shakespeare (1500/1600's), or Dickens (19th century) or modern
authors of the 20th century. Dr. Cryer's study suggested that this great
range of  various archaic levels of expression did not appear to be present
in the texts, suggesting for him, the text was a more recent creation,
composed within a much shorter interval of time, certainly not accretions of
a thousand years. If I am drawing the wrong conclusions, or attributing
incorrect ideas to Dr. Cryer, please so advise. This is all from memory from
an article I read several years ago.

Another question I have is that in the Genesis narratives, Abraham's dialogs
are in Hebrew (correct me if I am wrong). If he is from Harran, why isn't he
speaking in Aramaic ? If he is from Lower Mesopotamia, why isn't he speaking
in Akkadian ?  If these dialogs are really "his preserved words", and if one
wants to argue later generations rendered his words into Hebrew, then
wouldn't word studies reveal an Aramaic or Akkadian language underlying the
Hebrew translation ? I have read that the Book of Daniel is partly Hebrew,
partly Aramaic. Some scholars have argued that Aramaic was the original
composition, and that the Hebrew is a translation or later reworking, or,
whoever wrote Daniel was more comfortable in Aramaic than Hebrew. Any
thoughts, yea or nay ?

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany