Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 28/06/2006 12:10, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>  
>
> > ...
> > 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.
> >
> >  
> >    
> An alternative scenario, which may appeal more to conservatives like 
> Karl, is as follows: When Abraham and his family came to Canaan, they 
> initially spoke a form of Aramaic, similar to what their relatives who 
> remained in the north, like Laban, continued to speak. But when they 
> moved to Canaan, they picked up the local Canaanite language. Hence the 
> difference between Jacob's and Laban's language, Genesis 31:47. (But we 
> must assume that Jacob also picked up some Aramaic during his many years 
> with Laban.) When the Israelites went into Egypt, they took with them 
> this same Canaanite, which is quite well attested as being widely spoken 
> by immigrants to Egypt during the second millennium BCE (see for example 
> the Wadi-el-Hol inscriptions). As there was constant interchange between 
> Egypt and Canaan, Egyptian Canaanite did not diverge far from the 
> version spoken in Canaan itself - but perhaps remained closer to the 
> southern dialects which became Moabite than to the northern ones which 
> became Phoenician. When the Israelites returned to Canaan, they brought 
> back with them this same Canaanite, which was not too different from 
> that of their neighbours. (I note for example that the spies could 
> communicate with Rahab in a situation where an interpreter was 
> unlikely!) They may have picked up some Transjordanian influences during 
> their time in the wilderness and in close contact with Moabites. This 
> was of course an early form of what we now call biblical Hebrew, which 
> continued to develop for centuries.
>  

HH: Thanks for these good thoughts.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard