Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: furuli AT online.no, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
  • Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:34:52 -0400


Rolf Furuli:

You wrote: “[I]f I understand Jack correctly, he would say that this
language definitely was not Hebrew because the ancestors of the later
Hebrew-speaking people did not yet live in Canaan.”

The Hebrews always lived in Canaan. Most historians agree that the Hebrews
are indigenous to Canaan, and that there is no evidence of the Hebrews as a
people spending any considerable time in Egypt. Just look at the language of
Biblical Hebrew, which is this list’s long suit. The Northwest Semitic words
found in the Amarna Letters are for the most part words that are found in the
Bible (though naturally the form often varies). There’s precious little
Akkadian influence on Hebrew. And there’s also very little Egyptian
influence on Hebrew. By contrast, Canaanite and Moabite, to the extent we
can reconstruct those languages, and the vast corpus of Ugaritic literature,
have a very similar vocabulary to Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew has only
70 loanwords from Akkadian (per Paul V. Mankowski), and only 40 certain
loanwords from Egyptian (per T.O. Lambdin’s classic study in 1953). Yet one
cannot even talk about the concept of “loanwords” in Hebrew from Canaanite or
Ugaritic, because the vocabulary is so similar.

If we look at the language of early Biblical Hebrew in the Patriarchal
narratives, the history of the Hebrews is staring us in the face. The
Hebrews did not originate in Mesopotamia. The word (BR-Y/“Hebrew” does not
mean “the crossing a boundary people”. Rather, the Hebrews are indigenous to
Canaan, as the author of the Patriarchal narratives knows and reflects in his
composition. The language of the rest of the Bible confirms that the Hebrews
did not spend their formative years in Egypt, because there is so little
influence of Egyptian on Biblical Hebrew.

Some scholars say that NYXX at Genesis 8: 21, meaning “sweet” in Hebrew,
comes from the Egyptian word for “eternity”, NXX, but that seems a big
stretch to me. Of course, “pharaoh” obviously comes from Egyptian, as would
be expected. Interestingly, going the other direction, Egyptian has a large
number of Semitic loanwords. But that is not surprising, considering all the
Canaanites who wandered into Egypt over the centuries, and the period of
Hyksos rule over Egypt.

You know Hebrew. It’s difficult to distinguish Hebrew from Canaanite and
Ugaritic and Moabite. Yet it’s hard to find many Akkadian or Egyptian
loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. The language of Biblical Hebrew itself is
telling us that (i) the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan, and (ii) the
Hebrews did not spend their formative years in Egypt. The Hebrews were
always in beloved Canaan. That’s what the Patriarchal narratives say, and
that’s what both history and linguistics confirm.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page