Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Canaanite - response to certain folks.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Canaanite - response to certain folks.
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:55:23 +0100

YITZHAK said -
4) Hebrew and Aramaic differ markedly. Babylonian Aramaic did not exist
until much later, however. Aramaic is only known from about the 9th century
onwards, as are various later Canaanite dialects (Moabite, Israelite, Judaean,
Phoenician).


Surely when one considers that the Amorite dialect must have been very widely spoken (a from of Aramaic) amongst Babylonia and around 2400-1800 in Canaan when they moved in, and Abraham allying himself with them in a momentous battle, alludes to some common understanding with them. And EARLY aramaic had more in common with the canaanite tongue than did later aramaic? Maybe upon this there is some thought that the SPOKEN hebrew during the Egypt years was a kind of independently forming Aramaic. After all, Moses fled to Midian and not the place of his ancestral beginnings in Canaan. Midian being of course of Family kindred and similar tongue to Moses? Otherwise surely a man who was lonely and in need of feeling secure would try to find a place where he was most at home, both in language and belief? Which would not have been Midian - just a thought! chris.


YIGAL said,
what all this means is that the demographic majority of the people who eventually became
"Israelites" and wrote the Hebrew Bible were of Canaanite origin. There are
other reasons to assume this as well. This does not mean a priori that there
was no Exodus and no Abraham - but it does mean that the biblical accounts
of these events cannot be take at face value.

Canaanite origin? I personally think that that is pushing away so much biblical literature and calling it fanciful? I know that hebrew was refrred to as the language of canaan in scripture; But that refers to the situation at that time. It was indeed the language of canaan in the same way that English is the language of England -- but 1400 years ago Frisian was a greater part the language alongside a few other germanic dialects, all mutually intelligable. It seems probable that their were perhaps so many dialects within a small demographic area of the middle east and over the course of time they fused, became minorities, dialects of differing towns, so much intermingeling that they are bound to find their own natural status quo, and by the time that writing becomes established and dominant migrants become also more permanently settled we see a couple mainstream languages that may or may not reflect the spoken languages of the neighboring tribes. In this case I am referring once again to the fact that Hundreds of thousands of Israelites "semi -isolated" in a region where their spoken langauge would have nothing to do with Egyptian and from where they would natuarlly evolve a unique dialect Similar to Canaanite by virtue of the fact that Canaanite was itself a form of Aramaic?

YITZHAK said

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.

The Normans did not adopt the saxon language in England and they did not adopt the Keltoi language in Ireland either. What happened was that they influenced the language of saxon over 200 years - the written language was latin and the spoken was Frankish. and never took any notice of Gaelic at all when they arrived in 1170 in Ireland. In Ireland the celtic language was pushed to the fringes. In England they brought in the written latin and conversed in frankish dialects and influenced the saxon language that by 1400 you see a clearly defineable new written and spoken language which by the way was sprinkeld with old norse as well. An Icelander in 2006 can read at ease any old norse from 900ad without difficulty. Not so a norwegian or an Englishmen or anybody else for that matter. It is a remarkable thing that language in isolation retains its overall uniformity and oneness. Invaders generally like to keep their own cultural and lingual identity. By all this I am not saying that Hebrew was not influenced by a canaanite language but rather I do not see that Hebrew can spring forth from canaanite when this language is not a uniform entity but by all accounts that I have read it was a mixture of different tribes and migrants speaking different dialects but mutually intelligable and quite apart from what was happening in Goshen. (if you accept the latter as having taken place). Maybe since canaanite and early aramaic had so much in common that it is the labels we give things that cause divisions in the first place?


PETER KIRK said
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.

I agree Peter but surely it is pushing things a bit to say that as a family moves from one land to the next they instinctively start to change their native tongue? Chris.

Maybe I should conclude by asking whether or not part of the answer lies in the fact that we are talking different dialects and not seperate languages? But as nations gradually take shape as they did in say the times of the Kings in Israel, it is here that dialects start to move apart and into their own right as a distinct language. After all this is exactly what happened in Northern and western Europe from around the age of the germanic tribes in the roman times until the distinct political barriers took place in the 1000 - 1100 ad. People then were more fluid and nobody needed a passport!

So maybe most of the lingual groups spoke a form of aramaic which when divided up into smaller groups develope a unique identifiable lingual structure, but we come along and think that one gave birth to the other?????? Chris






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page