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).
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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.