Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 6/30/06, Chris Watts wrote:
> CHRIS REPLIES...... Yitzhak, my original question is listed not as a
> linguistic challenge.  When a student asks questions to a teacher they are
> not always framed as closed-ended questions. Sometimes they are framed in
> the form of rhetorical deliberation that berays an ignorance of orthodox
> discussion in this sort of environment.

The problem with your original suggestion or question that it was so out of
line and inconsistent with the evidence, that it appeared you needed a better
understanding of the evidence.

> Secondly I never believed that Hebrew came from Aramaic EVER.  What I am
> TRYING TO UNDERSTAND is to follow the logical progression of Abraham's
> Language to the language of his children and logically onto the Israelites
> in Egypt.

But how do you figure which language Abraham spoke?  Think of it perhaps
like a puzzle.  You have certain individuals or clans (Abraham, Jacob,
Laban) to which you must fit certain languages or stages of languages to
understand the progression.  But in order to do it properly you need to use
the right pieces -- the correct languages that were used at that period of
time.  For that, the Bible provides no clues and the only useful clues are
to be derived from linguistics and epigraphy.

> Since you do not believe that Abraham existed - ok!

Actually, I think I said I don't know if Abraham even existed.

> But there is even less evidence for the existence of a few historical
> characters which the Historian would never doubt. I could run through
> quite a list of Norse kings, saxon warriors, Angle invaders, Jutes,
> Heathobards.  Some of these names are mentioned only ONCE.  Yet
> their existence is never doubted!

I don't know anything about Norse kings, saxon warriors, etc.  However,
two wrongs don't make a right.  Probably, more effort is devoted to
understanding the Biblical period than any other ancient historical
period so it is only reasonable that it will be held to higher standards.

> What about the Akkadian rulers and the Egyptian King lists.  I could ask you
> to tell me upon what empirical data you base your conviction that dear old
> Avram might never have existed.  Essentially this was where my questions
> began.

Again, I said I don't know.  But roughly, the description of Jacob's
journey from Aram to Israel matches in many details the description of
the history of Israel.  And remember, Jacob is Israel.  He comes to the
Transjordan.  He meets Edom.  He crosses the Jordan river.  Makes
a treaty at Shechem.  More matches may be found in the specifics such
as the place names.  Next, you can compare Judges 1:1-7.  Except for
the difference in place in the book, one appears to be a description of the
whole tribes of Judah/Shimon and one appears to be a description of the
people Judah/Shimon/etc.  The possibility might be suggested that the
description of Jacob's travels too may be an historical outline of the
history of the Israelites, speaking not of Jacob the person but of Jacob or
Israel the tribe or tribal coalition.  Lastly, comes the issue of probability.
The history of the Israelites that finally brings them to the Transjordan
has them flee from Egypt and spend 40 years in the desert.  Which is
more likely? That someone arriving in Israel, who is coming through
the Jordan river, has come from Aram or that he came from Egypt in
a round-about way?  If that is not enough, the idea that the Israelites
came from the north is (I think) more consistent archaeologically.  In
other words, if we allow ourselves a non-literal interpretation of the
story of Jacob, but still one consistent with other known historiographic
methods in the Bible (such as in Judges), we might get a better
understanding of the history of the Israelites that is also more consistent
with archaeology and makes more sense.  And if it's true for Jacob,
maybe we can consider something similar for Abraham (an earlier/later
or otherwise different version of the Jacob historical outline).  So I don't
know if Abraham existed.  Since the above outline views the Patriarchal
Narratives as containing some historical elements, this view might still
(probably) be considered maximalist under the well-put definition given by
Yigal.  The above is essentially the first steps that led me to such views,
although currently I also have a rereading of many of the episodes in
Judges and Samuel that lead me to believe these are descriptions of
events from Iron IIA and that the Israelites were originally "Canaanites"
(the "Canaanites" having split into two groups, Phoenicians and
Israelites).  I am still working on that though :)

>  YITZHAK   SAID
> ".....but you cannot use the historical claims to invent new linguistic
> data...."
>
> CHRIS REPLIES
> I was not inventing anything - I was reasoning somewhat usuccessfully - to
> try to understand something.

Well, you used the historical claim of the genealogy of the Abraham and
of the conversations Abraham has with the surrounding peoples in order to
construct assumptions that relate to linguistics.

> YITZHAK SAID:
> > "maybe", "circumstantially" are not good enough and only lead toward
> > a process of creating hypothetical but unlikely scenarios.
>
> CHRIS REPLIES:  Hypothetical discussions are an absolute necessity!

Not when you have evidence.  When you don't, it's best to leave hypothetical
suggestions aside and just look for real evidence.

> YITZHAK SAID:
> In the process, claims must be proven.  "would", "could",.......
>
> CHRIS REPLIES:
> Firstly I never make claims - if I ever did that on this forum I would never
> use the words 'maybe' 'could' 'would' might have' 'possible' .....
>
> I live in the 19th century and I claim that The Hittites existed because I
> choose to believe in the CLAIMS made by historical documents from different
> sources of the bible.  What would you have said -  "Where is the unshakeable
> evidence"?

Hittite inscriptions that tell us who the 2nd millenium Hittites really were?

Yitzhak Sapir
http://toldot.blogspot.com