What are your speculations on Paleo Hebrew and it's phonetic's?

[JeffTheLearner]

What are your speculations on Paleo Hebrew and it's phonetic's?

I just though this would be a good topic to bounce off you all, and what you all think regarding Paleo-Hebrew.

I myself believe the Phonetics have been preserved in how we pronounce the letters of the Aleph~Bet.

People are always looking for places to put ambiguous vowels where all the written proof says otherwise in all ancient writings, and after many debates of speculation on this I have developed my own ironically. Myself believing tradition has preserved the Phonetics within the Aleph~Bet ...kind of like other Asian languages, like for example Chinese, or Japanese where a single letter of Kanji expresses a letter with its vowels attached to it like かka きkiくku けke こko does within the Japanese Hiragana in dissecting their interpretation of the Chinese Kanji ...it also has more Chinese looking characters within their Katakana, but they have the same sounds.

Also I would add my own personal speculations on Hebrew word definition, that Paleo Hebrew is a self defining pictographic language, though tradition and in comparing definitions of other languages like through the Rosetta Stone has brought forth our modern interpretation of our Hebrew words.

I myself also speculate that a Hebrew mindset of the pictograph Paleo Hebrew renders a more genuine, in depth understanding of what is being expressed in the Hebrew ...a short example would be like the Hebrew Word for "father" AB (Aleph meaning: Leader/Head~Bet meaning: House) defining the word Father ...forgive me, my keyboard goes bonkers when I mix my English input with my Hebrew language input ...sorry. Anyways, I believe ALL Hebrew word constructs are self defining with only a few exceptions in a few words expressing foreign things.

That is why I myself separate and make a distinction between Modern Hebrew (which I call Babylonian Hebrew) and Paleo Hebrew (which I call Biblical Hebrew)

I would like to hear everyone else's speculations regarding this, if you have one. I have plenty of resources backing my personal speculations, but it is common knowledge among Jewish scholars that after the Babylonian exile Hebrew separated into two languages. A Babylonian Hebrew for the commoner, and a Biblical Hebrew for the nobles, and Priest class among Judah.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I can't help but think that Hebrew evolved a lot over the years. I'm rather convinced that it originally had a three-vowel system (a, i and u) with modulations, as there are in Arabic. The e and o vowels developed out of i and u.

We can see by comparing Hebrew and Aramaic, which both adapted the Phoenician alphabet, that neither language was completely fitted to the alphabet. For example, what sound was probably the same in both languages became ע in Aramaic (אר&#1506 where it became צ in Hebrew (אר&#1509, also what was probably the same sound became ד in Aramaic (דה&#1489 and ז in Hebrew (זה&#1489. This comes out in many ways. It's explained rather well in An Introduction to Aramaic (Frederick E. Greenspahn).

 

[JeffTheLearner]

Well I do believe in the similarities of the Syrian and Persian languages at one time held little, to no differences in the Paleo Hebrew at all because they were all of Shem, though my speculations are bias assuming Abraham was not affected in his language in the occurrence at the Tower of Babel.

...I don't know about this "Phoenician" language people keep referring too by which both the Latin and Greeks claim they derived the Primitive forms of their languages, other than the invocation of "Phoenician" being a polite disregard for a Biblical context describing a common tongue, and language spoken by all prerequisite to the occurrence in Nimrod's global Empire at Babylon among the plains of Shinar. (Cool side note is that the most ancient form of Latin was read from right to left like Hebrew)

Now it is apparent that Abraham was distinguished by YHVH, that he himself was to become a Nation of his own through his heirs, so to me this also denotes a set apart language which is almost a mandatory assumption of all nations to be set apart ...but in my bias unique to Abraham also is him bearing a preservation of what was most ancient.

It says that the sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Aram, and Lud. The Elamites, the first nation of the Persians, descended from Elam, who also built the city of Elymais. the Assyrians descended from Asshur who also built the Assyrian city, Ninus, which was called Nineveh. The Arphaxadians descended from Arphaxad also called Chaldeans. The Aramaeans, also called Syrians (Asorik'), descended from Aram. The Lydians descended from Lud. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eber, from whom the name and nation of the Hebrews derives.

Abraham, the patriarch of the Hebrew nation, was the sixth generation descendant of Eber, in the tenth generation after the flood. This much should be sufficient to demonstrate in summary that the ancestry of the Chaldeans and Assyrians is mixed with that of the Hebrews. Consequently it is appropriate to begin their Hebrew chronology close to those others, but yet it should also be noted as Abraham being distinguished by YHVH to leave the land of his father's to become a Nation of his own.

Also I should note because many assume the Genesis 10:25 occurrence where Peleg and Joktan of Eber mark the "days the earth was divided" thinking that it was a separation of earth disk, or of waters that broke free after being trapped within the various earthy terrains flowing out into the sea to create a separation of land continents. I myself again hold the bias that the Bible is even Historically self defining, but also that it is within the context of statements that around the end of Peleg's lifetime marking the division of the earth is in line with the occurrence at Babel where languages were altered. Maybe Babel was no longer ruled by Nimrod himself at the time, most likely by one of his sons, but the occurrence may have very well happened in Abrahams life time or just before it making my assumption VERY relevant within a Biblical context.


*Now as for more modern Arabic being similar enough to the Paleo Hebrew to be an accurate guide to it in full context I disagree.

But in what I described as Babylonian Hebrew, or the Hebrew of the common people of Judah, yes I agree, because Arabic is a more modern dialect of the language used by both the Babylonians, and Persians during the time of the exiled Judains as much of it was adopted.

Though to prove my division of use and preservation of Paleo Hebrew by the Priest class, and a different writing style and tongue of common people of Judah in their Hebrew would be found among the many disputes between the Samaritans, who were foreigners who came to live among Israel, having differing versions of the books of the law. The characters of the Hebrew alphabet used by the Judains differ from those used by the Samaritans. The correct and original alphabet is not the one used by the contemporary Jews, because their descendants corrupted it. Yet there was no conflict between the Israelites and the Samaritans until the alteration of the letters after the Babylonian exile.

Also in The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) it admits to this occurrence:

"Mar Zutra or, some say, Mar Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Ivri (Paleo-Hebrew) letters and in the sacred Hebrew language. Later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashuri script and Aramaic language. Finally, they selected for Israel the Ashuri script and Hebrew language, leaving the original Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the ignorant people. Rebbe Yose said: Why is it called Ashuri (Assyrian) script? Because they brought it with them from Assyria."

 

[JeffTheLearner]

Now as a side note that is slightly off this topic in regards to the Aramaic, I do love reading, and prefer the Aramaic Khabouris Codex when reading the New Books called "NT" ...there is a decent English translation of it by S. P. Silver that you can download and read for free off his website. He also has other works up there for free use as well that I enjoy.

 

[yonah_mishael]

And with that, I'm afraid that you and I will disagree more than agree. Not much common ground. No area for discussion. Your assumptions are based on your religious persuasion and not on linguistic research. I can't go forward with such assumptions.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

Well that is fair, but you should not be suprised given this is a topic in a forum where people are more inclined to veiw scripture as pure fact. That is the very definition of Biblical faith, that we believe all the testimonies of YHVH, His Son, and His Prophets ...to be critical of such things is reguarded as faithlessness.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

Well that is fair, but you should not be suprised given this is a topic in a forum where people are more inclined to veiw scripture as pure fact. That is the very definition of Biblical faith, that we believe all the testimonies of YHVH, His Son, and His Prophets ...to be critical of such things is reguarded as faithlessness.

Stick around a little while and you might find you're the one who's surprised.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

Stick around a little while and you might find you're the one who's surprised.

lol ...I can already tell we are going to be good friends.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

...Well I was hoping this discussion would have gotten more in-depth extending beyond Phoenician speculations as "proof" of etymological origin, even though those who have spoken of it about its progenitors that the Phoenicians were a warring tribe "crossing the Red Sea", which by Biblical accounts is in line with the dispersion of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Point being, it would direct such speculations toward earlier dates, while someone in their intent is attempting to claim dates that far exceeds the scope they assume of its dialectic bestowed inheriters.

Therefore to focus more with an "evolution" of language patterns that reflects much older civilizations, I think its best to toss out the Phoenician speculations out the window. The Greek's were never before that time known in their historical accounts as reliable witnesses anyhow.

Where were these Latin's before the Babylonian Empire? And why does our history of the Greeks on this issue have little to offer extending beyond the Persian Empire?

I was meaning to put in check these secular speculations assumed to be dominant over one's with Biblical bias, but I forgot.

Anyways I was hoping this subject would go further in-depth because I was wanting to share pictures of (11QpaleoLev) from a rare book written by D. N. Freedman, and K. A. Mathews that I have in my personal library containing fully legible photos of the "Levitical Scroll" found among the other Dead Sea scrolls written entirely in Paleo-Hebrew ...if anyone is interested.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The Phoenicians gave us the alphabet, not our languages. It was just their way of writing with phonetic marks that changed the world, not the language that they spoke.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

The Phoenicians gave us the alphabet, not our languages. It was just their way of writing with phonetic marks that changed the world, not the language that they spoke.

I agree with you completely. Hebrew has a parent language, which has a parent language, which has...

 

[JeffTheLearner]

If the Phoenicians gave us the Hebrew Aleph~Bet then what language did Moshe write Torah in?

Also, if before the tower of Babylon everyone spoke the same language, where were these Phoenicians at in that small time frame who so heavily influenced Abraham ...or do you think Abraham, Issacc, and Jacob were illiterate?

Also in Exodus 31:18 it says that Torah was written by the finger of YHVH. So are we assuming YHVH wrote, and too was influenced in the language of the Phoenicians? Also on the second set Moshe was instructed to write what was on the first ...so obviously Moshe was able to read what was on the first set.

Also what language did Noah read and write in ....or was he too illiterate?

I really think it is very narrow minded to think that men who lived lifespan's exceeding 500 years were too neanderthalish to develop a common writing system which passed down to Noah, and thus to his sons.

I also think it's very narrow minded in regards to faith that YHVH did not instruct Adam in writing while in the garden seeing Adam named all animals according to its kinds which YHVH brought before him.

Again, as I said before, the invocation of "Phoenician" is just a kind pop culture way of disregarding the Biblical accounts.

 

[yonah_mishael]

If there never was a Medusa, then what did Hercules slay? Is that essentially what you're asking?

 

[JeffTheLearner]

Well seeing you are answering direct questions with a question of philosophical interjection, it seems as if you wish me to accept the implications of your beliefs without discretionary context.

Which is the very thing your question is assuming of my statements.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

If the Phoenicians gave us the Hebrew Aleph~Bet then what language did Moshe write Torah in?

Also, if before the tower of Babylon everyone spoke the same language, where were these Phoenicians at in that small time frame who so heavily influenced Abraham ...or do you think Abraham, Issacc, and Jacob were illiterate?

Also in Exodus 31:18 it says that Torah was written by the finger of YHVH. So are we assuming YHVH wrote, and too was influenced in the language of the Phoenicians? Also on the second set Moshe was instructed to write what was on the first ...so obviously Moshe was able to read what was on the first set.

Also what language did Noah read and write in ....or was he too illiterate?

I really think it is very narrow minded to think that men who lived lifespan's exceeding 500 years were too neanderthalish to develop a common writing system which passed down to Noah, and thus to his sons.

I also think it's very narrow minded in regards to faith that YHVH did not instruct Adam in writing while in the garden seeing Adam named all animals according to its kinds which YHVH brought before him.

Again, as I said before, the invocation of "Phoenician" is just a kind pop culture way of disregarding the Biblical accounts.

We do not know what script Moses wrote the Torah in. There is a difference between script and language. Wouldn't it make sense that YHWH was writing a script which Moses could read?

We do not know what form of writing or language Adam was familiar with. Or Noah or Shem. By the time of Abraham, there was already many forms of script and language. It is not incomprehesible that Abraham would have known more than one script/language.

Saying "the invocation of Phoenician is just a kind of pop culture way of disregarding Biblical accounts" shows a lack of research into linguistics, among other studies.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

We do not know what script Moses wrote the Torah in. There is a difference between script and language. Wouldn't it make sense that YHWH was writing a script which Moses could read?

We do not know what form of writing or language Adam was familiar with. Or Noah or Shem. By the time of Abraham, there was already many forms of script and language. It is not incomprehesible that Abraham would have known more than one script/language.

Saying "the invocation of Phoenician is just a kind of pop culture way of disregarding Biblical accounts" shows a lack of research into linguistics, among other studies.

...well though I could study more into etymological origin, I have studied it for years, not that I claim enough to be an expert, but many "conclusions of fact" on this subject which are predominantly proped up as a spectical are too speculative in nature and in the end are nothing more than bias opinions ...I have my own bias opinions.