Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 6/28/06, Karl Randolph wrote:

> You have heard from the minimalists, now for
> another side of the story.

There is nothing "minimalistic" about what I wrote.  I
think even Yigal cannot be counted a "minimalist."  In
my view, the "maximalist" position, is one that views the
Exodus and Patriarchal narratives as possible events
even if without evidence in the archaeological record, and
the Davidic/Solomonic United Kingdom as very likely
events.  Labels get us nowhere, however.  I presented
only linguistic evidence, which should be counted as
facts rather than a position either way on Biblical
Historicity.

While the linguistic evidence may strongly hint that the
Israelites were native Canaanites originally (because the
Hebew language of Judea, and the Israelite language of
Israel were offshoots of the earlier attested Canaanite),
the linguistic evidence is probably not sufficient and may
even provide false leads.  It is possible to think of
conquerors who adopted the local language, such as
perhaps the Norman conquest of England.

None of the facts I presented is based on claims made
by the Bible.  They are only based on the linguistic
features of the Hebrew language found in the Bible and
known attested evidence of the various Semitic languages.

Yitzhak Sapir
http://toldot.blogspot.com