HEBREW IS GREEK
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Matt Giwer - 12 Dec 2006 05:16 GMT HEBREW IS GREEK
THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA
A book that "mysteriously disappeared" soon after its publication.
In 1982, a suppressed, ages-old, historical truth, was resurrected through the publication of a book by Becket Publications of Oxford, England (ISBN O 7289 0013 O). The book, published in English, and titled Hebrew is Greek, was written by lawyer, linguist and researcher, Joseph Yahuda, the son of Isaac Benjamin Ezekiel Yahuda, an ethnic Jew and longtime researcher and linguist. Though Jewish both by nationality and religion, J. Yahuda could be considered a Greek-- according to Isocrates' definition of a Hellene [see definition below. ed.], since his decades-long, unbiased, and meticulously thorough search reveals the linguistic relationship of numerous groups of words in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic. Work that was published without fear or hesitation by a scholar whose only concern was for the discovery of the truth.
Following the book's publication, and while only a limited number of copies circulated for a few fortunate individuals, the book disappeared from the face of the earth. It was as if an invisible hand intervened and blocked its circulation. It cannot be found at any public library, it is not sold at any bookstore on earth, not even in a curiosity or antique shop. [Rare book dealers, in the U.S. and the U.K., have told TGR that there have been inquiries after the book, but that they have been unable to locate a copy anywhere. ed.] The only information available about the book throughout the world is its title. No book reviews on this book were ever published, neither positive nor negative, moderate or offensive. Nor, it seems, has there been any other evaluation of the work. One must eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that every one of the copies originally published was somehow withdrawn through some sort of a secret operation with a global reach.
Concerns posed by another Jewish intellectual who wrote the preface of the book.
The research published in the book covers 718 pages. The introduction was written by Jewish professor Saul Levin, though no enthusiasm on his part was evident in his introduction. He admits that following the 1977 publication of his book entitled, The Indo-European and Semitic Languages, J. Yahuda got in touch with him, and they maintained a fruitful relationship through correspondence, though they never actually met in person. The reason for the interest in J. Yahuda expressed by S. Levin, as he himself confessed, was the publication of several writings by J. Yahuda, such as the La Palestine Revisite, written in 1928, Law and Life According to Hebrew Thought (1932) and This Democracy (n.d.), published by Pitman. Professor Levin learned of the contents of the book [from the proofs which were sent to him from time to time] for which he wrote the introduction gradually, as it had already been sent to the printer. As Professor Levin disclosed: "It was J. Yahuda's congeniality and my inherent curiosity that did not allow me to refuse the writing of the introduction." [For a better understanding as to why Professor Levin was not enthusiastic about writing the introduction, consider the fact that] the black Jew, Martin Bernal, has stated: "Saul Levin was among the many Jewish individuals who worked on the publication of [my] book, Black Athena." A book which has been deemed to be a disgrace and a discredit to serious scholarship by the vast majority of specialists who have read it.
Joseph Yahuda speaks about his work
In the preface of his book, J. Yahuda notes:
This ecumenical research will be reviewed by three separate specialists, one for each language researched, although each specialist does have knowledge of the other two languages. This is not an error committed only by me. I attempted repeatedly, yet unsuccessfully, to find more scholars who would be willing to assist me in my quests. As an example of what I was up against, at the very beginning of an hours-long meeting, one potential colleague exclaimed: "All of this is garbage and we are all wasting our time." My answer was: "Both you, and I, will be judged for the words we say, whenever we discuss my work." I hold no hostility or bitterness because of such small-minded opposition to my belief. In fact, during the progress of my research, I twice attempted to arouse [this man's] interest, but in vain. A little while after the meeting referred to above, I mentioned his degrading comment to Christodoulos Hourmouzios, a graduate of the University of Athens, and an acknowledged specialist on Homer, and he said: ' I think you are one of the greatest linguists I know'; he promised complete cooperation with me. Unfortunately, before we could begin our work, he passed away.
"There were others who admitted that they had been convinced; that something did really exist in my theory. However, they did think that my belief in the correspondence of Hebrew with Greek was rather exaggerated. They said I was too ambitious, and suggested, for my own good, that I expect less and adopt a 'less controversial view.' One of them, Sir Leon Simon (A British Lord of Jewish descent), a known classicist who knew Hebrew, attended my first lecture on the issue on the evening of Jan. 14th, 1959.He did this even though he was old and had to travel a long distance in bad weather and heavy fog. He introduced me, briefly and carefully, not wanting to commit himself to any decision until the end of my speech. Then, before the audience was asked to pose questions, he said the following, which I noted: 'I don't believe that everyone will agree with everything J. Yahuda has told us, as he may have thought that everyone understood what he was saying. Despite any doubts that may exist, I am sure of one thing. He has resolved a mystery that had created confusion for scholars for the past 2.000 years. For, if he is correct in stating that many Greek words that begin with sk were transformed in Hebrew as if sk was a digraph [a combination of two letters to make one simple sound. ed.], or one of the two letters lost, then Homer was not wrong when he left the vrachi [ abbreviated ] vowel at the beginning of the word Skamandros, as in his famous line: 'On Cantho%n kaleousi theoi%, a%ndre*s de Ska%mandron'. [The Gods called Xanthos, mortal men Skamandros. ed.] I also had a fruitful interview with a scholar of international fame, which was then followed by a series of exchanges of correspondence. This correspondence ceased after he sent me a note, wherein he wrote: 'It could also be possible that you would say that the English word ball comes from the Greek ba%llw, or that you discover a connection between chow and show since chows are exhibited at shows.
"The result was that I was obliged to fall back on my own sources, and to depend only on my own efforts, thus devoting my free time to this research for the past 30 years or more. Two things kept me going: the unfailing support of my wife, Cecile, and the unprecedented emotions we felt with every new discovery. When my wife was asked by a friend how she was sure of my work, since she knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, she answered: 'But, I know my husband. He hates speculating, he always insists on finding proof. As a lawyer, he is able to evaluate this proof. He tells me that he has plenty of proof that is convincing, and I believe him.' There is truly a plethora of 'proof that is convincing' which I have attempted to make available, not only to those technically specialized, but also to interested, non-specialist researchers."
Yahuda realizes the significance of Greek Civilization
"I was somewhat familiar with the Bible, as stated above. My brother, Solomon, and I learned the New Testament in Hebrew translation from a copy that my father had, as part of his personal library. For years, the distant Biblical past was alive in my mind: I lived with the vision of the pyramids to such an extent, and my passion for the Bible was so great, that I developed hostile feelings for the Greeks and Romans. Strangely, this hostility did not involve the Egyptians, who were our enemies, had been the enemies of our forefathers and had so deeply influenced post-Biblical Hebrew. Neither had I been able to learn more than the necessary Latin needed for my law education and practice. However, my feelings for the Greeks and Romans have changed radically since then. Now I realize that our differences were similar to those of a civil war, as fratricidal as the taking of Troy had been, for I became convinced that the Jews are of Greek descent. This revolutionary transformation took place around the time I was thirty years old, following the publishing of my book Law and Life according to Hebrew Thought. That year (1932), I became interested in biology as a 'hobby'. During my haphazard study of the issue, I came across various Greek words that were strikingly similar to the Hebrew words of the Bible, and I drew the conclusion that the Greeks had borrowed them from us. I began debating the idea of whether or not I should one day begin a systematic comparison of the two languages. At that time, I was still fascinated with the more traditional studies, and, like everyone else, I believed without a doubt that the Semitic languages were Semitic and the Aryan languages were Aryan. These two could not be mixed. At the same time, though, I was thinking that it would be interesting to collect anddeconstruct a complete list of groups of similar words so as to demonstrate the degree of influence of Hebrew on Greek at the time before Alexander the Great (considering that the reverse influence became stronger following his conquests). I knew very little of where this research would lead me and what the results would show.
"I had such little knowledge of Greek that all I knew were the first letters of the alphabet, knowledge that I had acquired by chance during my studies of mathematics and geometry. I remember asking my friend Gerald Emanuel, in a teashop in 1932, to write the whole Greek alphabet on the bottom of a half-written page. The years passed, but when I published my book Biology and New Medicine in 1951, I then had the opportunity to spend all of my free time on researching those possible links that I suspected existed between Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Following the acquisition of some rudimentary knowledge of Greek grammar, I submerged into the translation of the Septuagint, solely based on my memory of the meaning of the numerous pages that I had chosen to read. Then I read Homer, comparing him to the Bible. One page from the translation of the Iliad, one page from the Old Testament, line for line, page by page; I started with Genesis and the first book of the Iliad, along with the last book of the Odyssey and the 2nd book of 'Chronicles.' Day after day, the list of similar words grew longer, until it reached 600 words -- including words related to different views and activities of life -- which could not be attributed only to the borrowing factor. In any case, history has not witnessed circumstances where such elaborate borrowing would be possible on such a large scale. I was convinced that this phenomenon went past the limits of borrowing, reaching the limits of a genetic relationship. The door of genealogical descent stood before me and I could not attempt to pass through it or climb above it. It should open freely and widely and the key to this was the grammar. The only grammatical characteristics that I knew of that were common to both Greek and Hebrew, concerned the definite article and the dual number nouns [count nouns. ed.]. I stopped reading and began thinking and re-thinking the results of my non-processed research. I used the materials I had: analyzing, classifying, comparing these with the Biblical variations and the dialectic interchanges of the Greek letters, selecting specific words to be compared. Thus, my theory began to develop. Some of the Greek dialectic letters could be used interchangeably, such as the letters 'k' and 't', 'o' and 'a', 's' and 'd.' I also noted a curious transformation with Hebrew words: a suffix to a Greek word changed to a prefix in a Hebrew word. Early on during my research, I tested the exactness of the words and verified their meanings. As the number of tests increased, the more effective my research became, and the confidence in my theory rose.
"From the beginning, I based a lot of my work on Arabic. With my theory, it became possible for me to correct the translation of the Septuagint, using the Septuagint and the translation of the Bible, using the Bible. These discoveries cured me of my dyslexia in relationship to Greek and Hebrew and made me capable of reading a Hebrew word as if it had been a variation of the word. I formed a series of phonetic and morphology rules. I gradually gathered a number of valuable facts. Some examples are that the declension dotiki [dative] exists in Hebrew, that the masculine plural is the same in Hebrew and Greek, and that, in general, a compound Greek verb is equivalent to a Hebrew compound verb. I estimate that 9 out of each 10 words of the [Jewish] Bible can be proved to have a purely Greek equivalent. Many issues were resolved which prove that the Greeks and Jews hold some customs and religious convictions in common, whereas the Hebrew language is proven to be richer and more beautiful than believed until today because of the existence of these groups of words. This whole matter is, in practice, consistent with the following two proposals: Biblical Hebrew is Greek; and, the Jews are Asian Greeks. In reality, the conclusion of this massive, extended and complicated research can be summarized in the following brief sentence: Hebrew is 'Greek wearing a mask.'"
An example for the rest of his co-religionists
As already stated, the research of J. Yahuda restores part of a universal truth that has fallen into oblivion for millennia. Not only is the Hebrew language "Greek wearing a mask" (in other words, a distorted version of Greek), but, as we have announced at international conventions, there is no other language on the face of the earth except Greek. A few years ago, we made this statement at a convention of the Literary Society Parnassos, titled: "The Ecumenical Character of the Greek Language," where we used texts and images to prove this statement. All other languages are just descendants or distorted dialects of Greek, adopted by the peoples.
Finally, we present one of the tables compiled by the undaunted scholar, J. Yahuda, where Hebrew letters, along with their pronunciation in Hebrew appear on the left, the equivalent Greek letters and their pronunciation in the middle, and the Arabic letters and pronunciation on the right. In the preface, just above the table shown below, Yahuda's first theorem is written, to wit: "The Greek and Hebrew alphabets demonstrate striking similarity insofar as the order of the letters is concerned, their names, their shapes and their pronunciation."
We cannot omit to express our admiration for this great man, who, defying the forces of darkness and medieval ignorance, proved to be an unbiased scholar, unburdened by preconceived dogma and purposeful deception. A man who broke the bonds of mischievous misinformation so prevalent in [the past] century, and dared to defy traditional nationalistic and racist fanaticism while declaring a revolution against the international forces of power. He has achieved the level of a true Hellene. After discovering the truth, he struggled to make it known, he revealed it and he published it without fear. His acts were acts of patriotism, since he has raised his compatriots to a level approaching the Greeks. He called them "Asian Greeks." His life and work truly pronounce him to be of equal value to a Greek, in contrast with those of his compatriots who have denounced him and his book. Is it because they are afraid or is it because they are unable to follow in his footsteps?
In Conclusion
Yahuda has scientifically proven that both Hebrew and Arabic are Greek in their origin, as is true with the other languages of the world. It is to be regretted that the speakers of this distorted Greek dialect do not take advantage of this, so as to elevate themselves to free and Christ-loving Greeks, as their compatriot Yahuda has done. Many of them prefer to live in the dark; It is a fact to be pitied that some are fanatics who hate everything Greek, especially her history and her language. In the past, many such men appeared in the Roman State as politicians, academics or administrators in the public sector, and fought against everything that was Greek. Nowadays, such men cooperate with the global powers that are propelling the world toward destruction. A destruction that can only be avoided by a rebirth of the only salvation for humanity: Greek Civilization.
Primary Source
This article was written by the linguist and researcher, Konstantinos G. Georganas, for Davlos. February 1999 issue, pp.12931-12937. Translation by staff. Emphasis not in original text was added.
Note: The great rhetorician, Isocrates (436-338 B.C.), gave the following definition of a Hellene in his Panagyricus:
Athens has so far outrun the rest of mankind in thought and speech that her disciples are the masters of the rest, and it is due to her that the word "Greek" is not so much a term of birth as it is of mentality, and is applied to a common culture rather than a common descent.
Kendall K. Down - 12 Dec 2006 09:02 GMT > Yahuda has scientifically proven that both Hebrew and Arabic are Greek in > their origin, as is true with the other languages of the world. It is to be > regretted that the speakers of this distorted Greek dialect do not take > advantage of this, so as to elevate themselves to free and Christ-loving > Greeks, as their compatriot Yahuda has done. So one kook quotes another kook as evidence. Brilliant.
Ken Down
 Signature ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ========================================================
Matt Giwer - 14 Dec 2006 06:37 GMT >> Yahuda has scientifically proven that both Hebrew and Arabic are Greek in >> their origin, as is true with the other languages of the world. It is to be >> regretted that the speakers of this distorted Greek dialect do not take >> advantage of this, so as to elevate themselves to free and Christ-loving >> Greeks, as their compatriot Yahuda has done.
> So one kook quotes another kook as evidence. Brilliant. So you are one of those saying Hebrew is Phoenician?
benlizross - 12 Dec 2006 09:45 GMT > HEBREW IS GREEK > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > circulation. It cannot be found at any public library, it is not sold at any > bookstore on earth, not even in a curiosity or antique shop. Amazingly, in this small, remote country (New Zealand), there's a copy in the library of Otago University in Dunedin. Also, by credible report, available in the Library of Congress and the Widener Library at Harvard. Who are you buying your bullshit from, Matt?
Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 12 Dec 2006 10:54 GMT >> HEBREW IS GREEK >> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> circulation. It cannot be found at any public library, it is not sold at any >> bookstore on earth, not even in a curiosity or antique shop.
> Amazingly, in this small, remote country (New Zealand), there's a copy > in the library of Otago University in Dunedin. Also, by credible report, > available in the Library of Congress and the Widener Library at Harvard. > Who are you buying your bullshit from, Matt? If in fact it is still available then you can verify its assertions.
The issue is solely the subject not whether or not the book is still available.
Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book?
benlizross - 12 Dec 2006 19:08 GMT > >> HEBREW IS GREEK > >> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > The issue is solely the subject not whether or not the book is still available. No, the fact that whoever is hyping the book wants to build up a woo-woo cloud of mystery around it ("disappeared...invisible hand...cannot be found...") based on false premises, should be a clear warning signal that this is crankery.
> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book? I don't feel inclined to do so. Here and at sci.lang we have a number of regular posters on themes such as "Greek is Turkish", "Turkish is Serbian", and so on. Based on the evidence they post, it is not hard to iamgine how somebody with the right idée fixe could convince themselves that "Hebrew is Greek". Since the book is available, maybe somebody will post some of Yehuda's evidence, and we can see if this is true.
Ross Clark
mark@spiznet.com - 12 Dec 2006 21:54 GMT Matt, go to your conference in Iran. Show me that the majority of words in Greek and Hebrew are the same.
> > >> HEBREW IS GREEK > > >> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Ross Clark Matt Giwer - 14 Dec 2006 05:16 GMT > Matt, go to your conference in Iran. I find it worth the admission fee to compare the western ridicule of Islam for the riots over the Prophet cartoons to the uproar over the conference. I presume Islam is having a good laugh at the silly Europeans. I know I am.
Certainly more open minded than you. Physical evidence of gas chambers and actuarial evidence of the number of deaths are all you need to produce to address to two most important missing items from the iconology. _ALL_ the interest is around the absence of physical evidence of those two items. One would have thought they would have been produced by 1946. One would expect the omissions to have been corrected decades ago instead of walling it off as a sacred belief of a religion.
> Show me that the majority of words in Greek and Hebrew are the same. There is no claim of majority as only a few examples are given. However it is enough to show a relation to the languages of the northeastern Med.
The problem as everyone knows is there is no evidence Hebrew was ever at any time other than a liturgical language. So where it came from is a legitimate issue. There are no reports of anyone ever speaking the language nor is there any evidence of it evolving from an earlier language. And this is discounting the Phoenician the believers call proto-hebrew solely because the bible says "israelites" ruled the PLACE where it is found. Proper identification requires the use intrinsic evidence.
>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK >>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> Ross Clark Kendall K. Down - 14 Dec 2006 07:20 GMT > I find it worth the admission fee to compare the western ridicule of Islam for > the riots over the Prophet cartoons to the uproar over the conference. I presume > Islam is having a good laugh at the silly Europeans. I know I am. Really? How many riots have there been over the Iranian conference? How many people have been killed? Anyone burned the Iranian flag? Any fatwas - Jewish or Christian - issued?
Ken Down
 Signature ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ========================================================
Matt Giwer - 15 Dec 2006 04:22 GMT >> I find it worth the admission fee to compare the western ridicule of Islam for >> the riots over the Prophet cartoons to the uproar over the conference. I presume >> Islam is having a good laugh at the silly Europeans. I know I am.
> Really? How many riots have there been over the Iranian conference? How many > people have been killed? Anyone burned the Iranian flag? Any fatwas - Jewish > or Christian - issued? I find the hysteria over the exercise of freedom of speech in Iran hysterically funny. Watching the sanctimonious get skewered is always good for a laugh. And in this case when the sanctimonious are stuff-shirt politicians it is even a greater laugh. Hearing the new UN Pres earn his western provers by condemning the conference was so pathetic you had to laugh.
The total negation of a fundamental US principle and one mostly honored by the west all over something that doesn't even get a footnote in the most important histories of WWII. Look at their reaction when someone questions their sacred belief which in fact they say is impossible to question because it is so true. Just the illogic alone is worth the price of admission.
As for Fatwas, Israel has several times threaten to nuke Iran if that is what you mean. Cheney threatened war on Iran if that is what you mean. Bush has threatened war on Iran if that is what you mean.
You have to learn to enjoy the laughs the world gives you.
Martin Edwards - 14 Dec 2006 09:38 GMT > The problem as everyone knows is there is no evidence Hebrew was > ever at any time other than a liturgical language. So where it came from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > where it is found. Proper identification requires the use intrinsic > evidence. Your stunning capacity for missing the point is once again in play. Yes it is a legitimate issue. Whether it was a naturally spoken language is not the point. Sanskrit was not a naturally spoken language. It *was* spoken, but its speakers had to learn it. On intrinsic *linguistic* grounds Hebrew is clearly descended from Phoenician *whether or not* this was "proto-Hebrew" in the areas where the term has been conjecturally applied by concensus scholars. Your hypothesis that it was only a liturgical language is not way out but, as yet, it is only a hypothesis. The contention that it was Greek is balls. Sorry about the Anti-American crack by the way. Linguistic incompetence is endemic in the Anglophone world. I spend much of my spare time correcting this kind of twaddle.
 Signature You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
Matt Giwer - 14 Dec 2006 10:14 GMT >> The problem as everyone knows is there is no evidence Hebrew was >> ever at any time other than a liturgical language. So where it came [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> PLACE where it is found. Proper identification requires the use >> intrinsic evidence.
> Your stunning capacity for missing the point is once again in play. Yes > it is a legitimate issue. Whether it was a naturally spoken language [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *whether or not* this was "proto-Hebrew" in the areas where the term has > been conjecturally applied by concensus scholars. I believe you have realized by now that I reject consensus a priori. You should have anyway. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. An appeal to a consensus of authorities is also a logical fallacy. I can't change that. These are discussion groups. These are not battle of authoritative citations groups.
If you have any question about my approach you can google sci.astro.seti and sample what I have posted there. There are no appeals to authority. There is always an explication of the science and the reasoning. There is no "Thus spake Sagan" or anyone else.
> Your hypothesis that > it was only a liturgical language is not way out but, as yet, it is only > a hypothesis. The contention that it was Greek is balls. Sorry about > the Anti-American crack by the way. Linguistic incompetence is endemic > in the Anglophone world. I spend much of my spare time correcting this > kind of twaddle. I do not follow what you are trying to say. If you are in fact saying Hebrew is Phoenician then the "Hebrews" were Phoenicians and my premise of an invented OT history cannot be seriously challenged.
Then we have the oldest example of "hebrew" being from the mid 1st c. BC. We can't really fit that into the mythology and it is not related to Phoenician other than as a semitic language.
Further we have the people speaking _and_ WRITING Aramaic from the moment they appear in history. Where did this written Hebrew hibernate? When and why did these backwater people choose to do as you suggest? They had no civilization of note. They had nothing to trade with Phoenicia or anyone else for that matter.
So tell me how one finds a written language prior to the 1st c. BC without physical evidence other than by an act of faith.
This is before we get to the point there is no connection of interest between Hebrew and Phoenician other than as semitic languages.
Martin Edwards - 14 Dec 2006 16:44 GMT >>> The problem as everyone knows is there is no evidence Hebrew was >>> ever at any time other than a liturgical language. So where it came [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > This is before we get to the point there is no connection of > interest between Hebrew and Phoenician other than as semitic languages. I don't disagree with that. I thought you had introduced the stuff about Hebrew being Greek.
 Signature You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
Matt Giwer - 15 Dec 2006 04:02 GMT >>>> The problem as everyone knows is there is no evidence Hebrew was >>>> ever at any time other than a liturgical language. So where it came [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> This is before we get to the point there is no connection of >> interest between Hebrew and Phoenician other than as semitic languages.
> I don't disagree with that. I thought you had introduced the stuff > about Hebrew being Greek. I presented one contributory source to the inquiry into the origin of Hebrew. Obviously there are Arabic components in the original Hebrew -- and about 2/3rd of modern Hebrew as it was borrowed from Arabic by the Zionists to make a usable language of Hebrew.
The source shows there are not only borrowed words but borrowed formalizisms such as prefixes and suffixes. As the OT is the only source of Hebrew words it shows a very clear connection between the Septuagint and Hebrew OT as the Hebrew borrows from the Greek in the former. It supports the primacy of the Septuagint. You can't really have Hebrew borrowing Greek words before the Greeks start trading in the region (assuming Greeks followed through on Herodotus and there was something to trade) or taking it over by Alexander.
You can make a case for incorporation after Alexander but only a slim one. It is much more persuasive that the Hebrew adopted Greek words right from the Septuagint for ideas not well expressed in Aramaic.
Matt Giwer - 14 Dec 2006 06:34 GMT >>>> HEBREW IS GREEK >>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > found...") based on false premises, should be a clear warning signal > that this is crankery. I do not see a comment by a reviewer of a book changing the content of a books.
>> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book?
> I don't feel inclined to do so. Here and at sci.lang we have a number of > regular posters on themes such as "Greek is Turkish", "Turkish is > Serbian", and so on. Based on the evidence they post, it is not hard to > iamgine how somebody with the right idée fixe could convince themselves > that "Hebrew is Greek". Since the book is available, maybe somebody will > post some of Yehuda's evidence, and we can see if this is true. I think the statement is extreme. Rather we do have a legitimate question. We have no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. When the Judeans first appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of the bible or any of its stories or people being known before the Greek Septuagint appears. We know all the identifications of "proto-Hebrew" are indistinguishable from Phoenician and are "identified" by believers reading the bible to see if it says the Jews ruled the place where it was found. There is zero identification from anything intrinsic to the inscriptions. The oldest example of it is mid-1st c. BC among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Therefore is it a legitimate question as to when and perhaps why this written language was invented.
It cannot be said to be a written version of a language that was never spoken. As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient form. The style of the letters is clearly invented. The local Judeans spoke Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every other written language can be traced but this one appears out of no where.
So what is it? Where did it come from? Why was it invented?
Way back when this was a better known problem. The explanation was Hebrew was the language of Adam and Eve. All other languages appeared at the Tower of Babel and the hand-waving goes downhill from there in modern terms. Although the skeptics certainly questioned it, knowing the local language was Aramaic, not until archaeologists started digging and finding no antecedents to Hebrew that any form of preserved language speculation was sh.t-canned.
All I read are knee-jerk objections to ideas of its origin and after years not one person has presented the obvious and what should be simple response, evidence that the written language evolved. But all we have is Phoenician called proto-Hebrew. If that is the best they have then HEBREW IS PHOENICIAN is book worth writing. Thus the believers put their foot in the path of the bullet. There best "refutation" simply makes its origin a different language as that shows the "israelites" were Phoenicians which doesn't do their bible beliefs any good at all.
As a matter of fact I just realized believers do not realize that is what they are claiming. They do not realize their objections to Greek default to the origin being Phoenician. We have a fairly good idea of the outlines of Phoenician history. That makes the Hebrews Phoenicians and we know for a fact they invented their entire OT history as nothing like it is in Phoenician history.
benlizross - 14 Dec 2006 09:20 GMT > >>>> HEBREW IS GREEK > >>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I do not see a comment by a reviewer of a book changing the content of a books. You call that a "review"?
> >> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think the statement is extreme. Rather we do have a legitimate question. We > have no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. What sort of evidence would you expect?
When the Judeans first
> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of > the bible or any of its stories or people being known before the Greek [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It cannot be said to be a written version of a language that was never spoken. But that sound like exactly what you are suggesting. If we find ancient written records of a language, the normal assumption is that it was first spoken, and then people devised a way of writing it. This is what we assume about Hittite, Sumerian and the many other ancient languages we know. Yet you appear to want to imagine that Hebrew was never spoken. Why?
> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient > form. I don't know what you can mean by this.
The style of the letters is clearly invented.
?? Unlike what other script??
The local Judeans spoke
> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every > other written language can be traced but this one appears out of no where. No, in fact virtually every written language appears out of nowhere. Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from that of some other language, sometimes not.
> So what is it? Where did it come from? Why was it invented? Your understanding of both language and writing is so muddled that I suspect you don't even understand your own questions, let alone any answers anyone might offer. But very briefly: It's a written form of a Semitic language. It came from the same place as Phoenician and other related languages and scripts. And it (the writing system) was invented for the same reasons that other ancient writing systems were invented. The spoken language underlying it was not "invented".
I'd say you were on the right track in changing to Hebrew=Phoenician. (The Greek theory is complete flapdoodle.) But you're so confused by your own obsessions that you've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Ross Clark
> Way back when this was a better known problem. The explanation was Hebrew was > the language of Adam and Eve. All other languages appeared at the Tower of Babel [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Phoenician history. That makes the Hebrews Phoenicians and we know for a fact > they invented their entire OT history as nothing like it is in Phoenician history. Matt Giwer - 14 Dec 2006 11:06 GMT >>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK >>>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> that this is crankery. >> I do not see a comment by a reviewer of a book changing the content of a book
> You call that a "review"? By definition regardless of the quality.
>>>> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book? >>> I don't feel inclined to do so. Here and at sci.lang we have a number of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> that "Hebrew is Greek". Since the book is available, maybe somebody will >>> post some of Yehuda's evidence, and we can see if this is true.
>> I think the statement is extreme. Rather we do have a legitimate question. We >> have no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language.
> What sort of evidence would you expect? I expect something never expected for anything in the OT but always expected for everything else, physical evidence. Got any?
>> When the Judeans first >> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> zero identification from anything intrinsic to the inscriptions. The oldest >> example of it is mid-1st c. BC among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> Therefore is it a legitimate question as to when and perhaps why this written >> language was invented.
>> It cannot be said to be a written version of a language that was never spoken.
> But that sound like exactly what you are suggesting. If we find ancient > written records of a language, the normal assumption is that it was > first spoken, and then people devised a way of writing it. This is what > we assume about Hittite, Sumerian and the many other ancient languages > we know. Yet you appear to want to imagine that Hebrew was never spoken. > Why? We can imagine what we would like. However we have two popular versions of the people separate from mine.
The first is the OT is correct. That means Abraham started speaking Akkadian or whatever from western Iraq. Then they spent several centuries in Egypt and somehow managed not to speak Egyptian as though Africans in the US still spoke the languages of then ancestors. Then when they appear in history they speak Aramaic. So when did this oddball language appear as different from both Akkadian and Egyptian and disappear before the 2nd c. BC? Is there something other than faith I am missing here?
The second is they were evolving hill people who came to take over the city folk. I find this a desperate attempt to salvage the OT but it means their language would have been one of the native languages. Nothing like Hebrew appears in the region. And remember we are talking a primitive people with no interest in learning or scholarship.
So where did this language come from? Neither the believer or revisionist view lets it appear. Keep in mind the ONLY words of Hebrew that existed until the Zionists started borrowing from Arabic were from the OT. All words not in the OT are invented words. There is no other source of Hebrew words but the OT. This is why I say it was even a liturgical language. If there were a significant sample from any other source I would say something else. I know of none. If you do please let me know. The Babylonian Talmud is in Aramaic.
>> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient >> form.
> I don't know what you can mean by this. > > The style of the letters is clearly invented. > > ?? Unlike what other script?? I mean there is an Olde English, a Middle English and a Modern English. Can you show me the same for Hebrew? I can show you a difference in American English between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Can you do that for Hebrew? And that means attaching dates to the writing not simply showing there are differences before the idea of a dictionary was invented.
>> The local Judeans spoke >> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every >> other written language can be traced but this one appears out of no where.
> No, in fact virtually every written language appears out of nowhere. Excuse me but that is not only untrue but irrelevant. For untrue see the above on English. For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings.
> Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from > that of some other language, sometimes not. Which is not the point as when letters are copied for phonetic sounds they also represent the local words. Someone mentioned Zulu. We have no discriminate between Phoenician and proto-Hebrew other than where the bible says the Hebrews ruled. There is nothing in the words or letters or subject matter or anything but bible stories which separates the two.
>> So what is it? Where did it come from? Why was it invented?
> Your understanding of both language and writing is so muddled that I > suspect you don't even understand your own questions, let alone any > answers anyone might offer. At least I am safe in the knowledge that believers do not have any understanding at all as they are speaking from faith which is NOT in any doctrine or dogma so they make it up as they go along.
> But very briefly: It's a written form of a > Semitic language. It came from the same place as Phoenician and other > related languages and scripts. And it (the writing system) was invented > for the same reasons that other ancient writing systems were invented. > The spoken language underlying it was not "invented". So therefore the creators of Hebrew in the first century BC were the "Last of the Phoenicians". Is that really what you want to say? Or are you going to write the novel?
> I'd say you were on the right track in changing to Hebrew=Phoenician. > (The Greek theory is complete flapdoodle.) But you're so confused by > your own obsessions that you've probably done the right thing for the > wrong reasons. I have no obsession other than the reject anything and everything that is without physical evidence. That is the only scientific approach. Science has shown itself to be the only route to progress in this world.
>> Way back when this was a better known problem. The explanation was Hebrew was >> the language of Adam and Eve. All other languages appeared at the Tower of Babel >> and the hand-waving goes downhill from there in modern terms. Although the >> skeptics certainly questioned it, knowing the local language was Aramaic, not >> until archaeologists started digging and finding no antecedents to Hebrew that >> any form of preserved language speculation was sh.t-canned.
>> All I read are knee-jerk objections to ideas of its origin and after years not >> one person has presented the obvious and what should be simple response, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> shows the "israelites" were Phoenicians which doesn't do their bible beliefs any >> good at all.
>> As a matter of fact I just realized believers do not realize that is what they >> are claiming. They do not realize their objections to Greek default to the >> origin being Phoenician. We have a fairly good idea of the outlines of >> Phoenician history. That makes the Hebrews Phoenicians and we know for a fact >> they invented their entire OT history as nothing like it is in Phoenician history. benlizross - 14 Dec 2006 19:57 GMT > >>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK > >>>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > By definition regardless of the quality. Okay, you're entitled to your own definition, I guess. I'll rephrase and say that when a Greek writer publishes a rave "review" of a book on this theme (17 years after its publication), and tries to suggest it has been suppressed by mysterious forces, I smell crank.
> >>>> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book? > >>> I don't feel inclined to do so. Here and at sci.lang we have a number of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I expect something never expected for anything in the OT but always expected > for everything else, physical evidence. Got any? What would be physical evidence of people speaking an ancient language?
> >> When the Judeans first > >> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > language would have been one of the native languages. Nothing like Hebrew > appears in the region. What can you mean by this? The region is full of languages related to Hebrew.
And remember we are talking a primitive people with no
> interest in learning or scholarship. According to whom? Is there some reason why a so-called 'primitive people' should not acquire writing?
> So where did this language come from? Neither the believer or revisionist view > lets it appear. Keep in mind the ONLY words of Hebrew that existed until the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from any other source I would say something else. I know of none. If you do > please let me know. The Babylonian Talmud is in Aramaic. I'm not interested in defending either of your straw-man theories. Gothic comes immediately to mind as an ancient language whose only recorded remains are from a sacred text. Mycenean Greek is known only from the palace account books. Nothing specially unusual about that.
> >> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient > >> form. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for Hebrew? And that means attaching dates to the writing not simply showing > there are differences before the idea of a dictionary was invented. I'm sorry, the clouds of confusion are rising again. Nothing in the above has anything to do with the "style of the letters" being "invented". You seem to be demanding internal variation within ancient Hebrew. I understand that such does exist within the OT, but somebody else will have to give you examples. English has been written for over a thousand years. If you don't find the same degree of change in Biblical Hebrew the explanation will most likely be that it was not written down over such a long period, and/or that later writers adhered to a conservative form regardless of possible changes (or even complete shifts) in spoken language. A better comparison would be the continuous tradition of writing in Latin in Europe for many centuries after it ceased to be anyone's mother tongue.
> >> The local Judeans spoke > >> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Excuse me but that is not only untrue but irrelevant. For untrue see the above > on English. Written (Old) English does in fact appear out of nowhere. Before (say) 500 AD there was none. But we don't assume that nobody spoke it before that, or that somebody "made it up" at that point. The fact that it went on and continued to be written for a long time is irrelevant. We are talking about first appearances.
>For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings. Huh? You stated that Hebrew "appears out of nowhere", apparently as part of your argument that there is something special and strange about it. Why is it irrelevant to point out that you're wrong?
> > Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from > > that of some other language, sometimes not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ruled. There is nothing in the words or letters or subject matter or anything > but bible stories which separates the two. So? Your "out of nowhere" argument still goes nowhere. It sounds like you're back to HEBREW IS PHOENICIAN.
> >> So what is it? Where did it come from? Why was it invented? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understanding at all as they are speaking from faith which is NOT in any > doctrine or dogma so they make it up as they go along. But I'm not a believer.
> > But very briefly: It's a written form of a > > Semitic language. It came from the same place as Phoenician and other [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > without physical evidence. That is the only scientific approach. Science has > shown itself to be the only route to progress in this world. When you figure out what sort of physical evidence people leave when they speak a language, get back to me.
Ross Clark
> >> Way back when this was a better known problem. The explanation was Hebrew was > >> the language of Adam and Eve. All other languages appeared at the Tower of Babel [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> Phoenician history. That makes the Hebrews Phoenicians and we know for a fact > >> they invented their entire OT history as nothing like it is in Phoenician history. Matt Giwer - 15 Dec 2006 08:15 GMT >>>>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK >>>>>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> You call that a "review"? >> By definition regardless of the quality.
> Okay, you're entitled to your own definition, I guess. I'll rephrase and > say that when a Greek writer publishes a rave "review" of a book on this > theme (17 years after its publication), and tries to suggest it has been > suppressed by mysterious forces, I smell crank. A review of a book is a review of a book. There is commonly disagreement as to quality. However a reviewer does not change the nature of the book itself.
>>>>>> Are you willing to do the newsgroup a favor and read and review the book? >>>>> I don't feel inclined to do so. Here and at sci.lang we have a number of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> I expect something never expected for anything in the OT but always expected >> for everything else, physical evidence. Got any?
> What would be physical evidence of people speaking an ancient language? Contemporary mention of it is obvious. Also contemporary writings in that language will do. Neither of which exists for Hebrew. Again the same rules that apply to everything else also apply to bible stuff without regard to belief in it.
>>>> When the Judeans first >>>> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> language would have been one of the native languages. Nothing like Hebrew >> appears in the region.
> What can you mean by this? The region is full of languages related to > Hebrew. But no Hebrew which is intrinsically distinguishable from Phoenician. It is all identified by reference to the OT which is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
>> And remember we are talking a primitive people with no >> interest in learning or scholarship.
> According to whom? Is there some reason why a so-called 'primitive > people' should not acquire writing? You are saying they were not primitive? Fine with me. Show me ONE single contribution to human civilization from that part of the world. You really can't claim the region ever contributed anything to civilization. Art, literature, math, architecture, engineering, sanitation, astronomy, anything. You name it and they contributed nothing. Not even monotheism as we know they were not monotheists.
>> So where did this language come from? Neither the believer or revisionist view >> lets it appear. Keep in mind the ONLY words of Hebrew that existed until the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> from any other source I would say something else. I know of none. If you do >> please let me know. The Babylonian Talmud is in Aramaic.
> I'm not interested in defending either of your straw-man theories. > Gothic comes immediately to mind as an ancient language whose only > recorded remains are from a sacred text. Mycenean Greek is known only > from the palace account books. Nothing specially unusual about that. Which means they are also in the same fanciful category until discovered in fact. I do not see your problem here. That a silly assumption is expanded to others does not make it less silly.
>>>> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient >>>> form. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> for Hebrew? And that means attaching dates to the writing not simply showing >> there are differences before the idea of a dictionary was invented.
> I'm sorry, the clouds of confusion are rising again. Nothing in the > above has anything to do with the "style of the letters" being > "invented". You seem to be demanding internal variation within ancient > Hebrew. I am only saying it is required to support the assumption. You cannot have a language appearing in final form out of no where and also say it is a natural language.
> I understand that such does exist within the OT, but somebody > else will have to give you examples. English has been written for over a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tradition of writing in Latin in Europe for many centuries after it > ceased to be anyone's mother tongue. Let me repeat, the believers label _every_thing indistinguishable from Phoenician as proto-hebrew for no rational reason and then suddenly it appears full blown in the 1st c. BC. There are no intermediates for this language anyplace. You can assume they have not been found but until they are using "they will be found" as a working assumption is illogical.
>>>> The local Judeans spoke >>>> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every >>>> other written language can be traced but this one appears out of no where. >>> No, in fact virtually every written language appears out of nowhere. >> Excuse me but that is not only untrue but irrelevant. For untrue see the above >> on English.
> Written (Old) English does in fact appear out of nowhere. Before (say) > 500 AD there was none. But we don't assume that nobody spoke it before > that, or that somebody "made it up" at that point. The fact that it went > on and continued to be written for a long time is irrelevant. We are > talking about first appearances. You are quite correct about Old English but I am talking about the analog of Modern English. Hebrew suddenly appears full blown in the 1st c. BC and is ever after a dead language save for some imaginary vowel marks added nearly a thousand years later.
The facts are the sudden appearance of a dead language. How is this explained?
>> For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings.
> Huh? You stated that Hebrew "appears out of nowhere", apparently as part > of your argument that there is something special and strange about it. > Why is it irrelevant to point out that you're wrong? The only source of Hebrew is the OT. It suddenly appears when either
believers) no one has spoken it for centuries
skeptics) there is no evidence it was ever spoken.
So in fact it does appear out of no where in the 1st c. BC and is at that time a dead language without antecedents.
>>> Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from >>> that of some other language, sometimes not. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> ruled. There is nothing in the words or letters or subject matter or anything >> but bible stories which separates the two.
> So? Your "out of nowhere" argument still goes nowhere. It sounds like > you're back to HEBREW IS PHOENICIAN. I said only believers claim Hebrew is Phoenician and that supports my case the OT is invented fiction because the OT is not Phoenician history.
My real position is that all the identifications of "proto-hebrew" are bullshit, stated only by believers.
>>>> So what is it? Where did it come from? Why was it invented? >>> Your understanding of both language and writing is so muddled that I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> understanding at all as they are speaking from faith which is NOT in any >> doctrine or dogma so they make it up as they go along.
> But I'm not a believer. But you argue as though the OT contains fact despite all the evidence that it is total myth.
Why?
>>> But very briefly: It's a written form of a >>> Semitic language. It came from the same place as Phoenician and other [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> without physical evidence. That is the only scientific approach. Science has >> shown itself to be the only route to progress in this world.
> When you figure out what sort of physical evidence people leave when > they speak a language, get back to me. Contemporary mention. Contemporary writings in that language. Why do you not know the obvious? These are EXACTLY the same things we use to identify the languages of other ancient people.
If you are not a believer why do you want to exempt the bible myths from the same rules that apply every place else?
...
benlizross - 15 Dec 2006 10:26 GMT > >>>>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK > >>>>>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Contemporary mention of it is obvious. What does this mean? Could you give me an example of "contemporary mention" of people speaking Sumerian, say?
Also contemporary writings in that
> language will do. ?Don't know what this means.
Neither of which exists for Hebrew. Again the same rules that
> apply to everything else also apply to bible stuff without regard to belief in it. If you haven't just made up these "rules", maybe you could mention some place I can find them more clearly stated than you seem to be able to do.
> >>>> When the Judeans first > >>>> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > But no Hebrew which is intrinsically distinguishable from Phoenician. It is all > identified by reference to the OT which is the fallacy of circular reasoning. I.e. HEBREW=PHOENICIAN again.
> >> And remember we are talking a primitive people with no > >> interest in learning or scholarship. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and they contributed nothing. Not even monotheism as we know they were not > monotheists. No, I'm saying your classification of them as "primitive" is of no relevance.
> >> So where did this language come from? Neither the believer or revisionist view > >> lets it appear. Keep in mind the ONLY words of Hebrew that existed until the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fact. I do not see your problem here. That a silly assumption is expanded to > others does not make it less silly. So what does "fact" mean here? You are going to believe that Gothic and Mycenean Greek were "made up", until somebody convinces you otherwise? That is truly silly.
> >>>> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient > >>>> form. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > language appearing in final form out of no where and also say it is a natural > language. What does "final form" mean?
> > I understand that such does exist within the OT, but somebody > > else will have to give you examples. English has been written for over a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anyplace. You can assume they have not been found but until they are using "they > will be found" as a working assumption is illogical. No, it's your belief in the universality of "intermediates" that is illogical, and indeed contrary to fact.
> >>>> The local Judeans spoke > >>>> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are quite correct about Old English but I am talking about the analog of > Modern English. Why is Biblical Hebrew more like Modern English than Old English?
Hebrew suddenly appears full blown in the 1st c. BC and is ever
> after a dead language save for some imaginary vowel marks added nearly a > thousand years later. > > The facts are the sudden appearance of a dead language. How is this explained? You appear to have conjured this strange occurrence up out of your own assumptions about dates and about what's normal in language. A classic self-inflicted problem.
> >> For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So in fact it does appear out of no where in the 1st c. BC and is at that time > a dead language without antecedents. The "out of nowhere" aspect goes nowhere, as I've tried to explain. The 1st century BC date appears to be crucial to your argument. No doubt it is based on your "physical evidence" fetish, which you elevate to the principle of a cornerstone of science. I'm sure others have pointed out to you that the earliest extant manuscripts of any ancient text are by no means necessarily contemporary with its composition, or even its earliest written form. I'm not about to argue the specifics with you since I'm not a specialist in the area.
> >>> Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from > >>> that of some other language, sometimes not. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I said only believers claim Hebrew is Phoenician and that supports my case the > OT is invented fiction because the OT is not Phoenician history. ...because Phoenician history is what is written in Phoenician texts, and Hebrew, although it is in fact Phoenician, is "made up", so it can't be real Phoenician history... Are you getting dizzy yet?
> My real position is that all the identifications of "proto-hebrew" are > bullshit, stated only by believers. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But you argue as though the OT contains fact despite all the evidence that it > is total myth. Clearly you have been misreading me all along. I am not arguing at all about the historicity of the OT texts. I am arguing about the nature of the language in which they are recorded.
> Why? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If you are not a believer why do you want to exempt the bible myths from the > same rules that apply every place else? See above.
Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 16 Dec 2006 06:27 GMT >>>>>>>>>> HEBREW IS GREEK >>>>>>>>>> THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >>> What would be physical evidence of people speaking an ancient language? >> Contemporary mention of it is obvious.
> What does this mean? Could you give me an example of "contemporary > mention" of people speaking Sumerian, say? For that we go to the other method, contemporary written material in Sumerian.
>> Also contemporary writings in that language will do.
> ?Don't know what this means. I find that difficult to believe.
>> Neither of which exists for Hebrew. Again the same rules that >> apply to everything else also apply to bible stuff without regard to belief in it.
> If you haven't just made up these "rules", maybe you could mention some > place I can find them more clearly stated than you seem to be able to > do. I really do not keep track of everything I have learned over the decades. You will have to find them for yourself. They aren't rules per se rather simply methods of knowledge.
>>>>>> When the Judeans first >>>>>> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> But no Hebrew which is intrinsically distinguishable from Phoenician. It is all >> identified by reference to the OT which is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
> I.e. HEBREW=PHOENICIAN again. That is what believers tell us when they call Phoenician proto-hebrew. I am not the one saying it. I say it is all Phoenician because the Hebrews are mythical.
>>>> And remember we are talking a primitive people with no >>>> interest in learning or scholarship. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> and they contributed nothing. Not even monotheism as we know they were not >> monotheists.
> No, I'm saying your classification of them as "primitive" is of no > relevance. Perhaps you do not see it but I did at the time. The observation remains correct, relevant or not.
>>>> So where did this language come from? Neither the believer or revisionist view >>>> lets it appear. Keep in mind the ONLY words of Hebrew that existed until the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> fact. I do not see your problem here. That a silly assumption is expanded to >> others does not make it less silly.
> So what does "fact" mean here? You are going to believe that Gothic and > Mycenean Greek were "made up", until somebody convinces you otherwise? > That is truly silly. I choose to believe nothing regardless of the subject matter. Should the issue come up I would certainly be looking for where they developed. However we have evidence of a transition from Phoenician to Hebrew and we probably have percentagewise more examples of the ancient writing in the region than from any other. Again a primitive people who were not much into endevours which required writing.
>>>>>> As it has no antecedent written language it cannot have evolved to its ancient >>>>>> form. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> language appearing in final form out of no where and also say it is a natural >> language.
> What does "final form" mean? Hebrew is first found in final form in the 1st c. BC as I said. The only "earlier" form according to believers is Phoenician.
>>> I understand that such does exist within the OT, but somebody >>> else will have to give you examples. English has been written for over a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> anyplace. You can assume they have not been found but until they are using "they >> will be found" as a working assumption is illogical.
> No, it's your belief in the universality of "intermediates" that is > illogical, and indeed contrary to fact. As with written Zulu there were no intermediates as I said. However we know that was invented. There are many Amerind written languages which were also invented. I clearly did not say it was universal.
>>>>>> The local Judeans spoke >>>>>> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> You are quite correct about Old English but I am talking about the analog of >> Modern English.
> Why is Biblical Hebrew more like Modern English than Old English? It first appears in its only form unless you are a believer. If you are you believe it magically transformed from Phoenician to Hebrew leaving no evidence of that transition.
>> Hebrew suddenly appears full blown in the 1st c. BC and is ever >> after a dead language save for some imaginary vowel marks added nearly a >> thousand years later.
>> The facts are the sudden appearance of a dead language. How >>is this explained?
> You appear to have conjured this strange occurrence up out of your own > assumptions about dates and about what's normal in language. A classic > self-inflicted problem. You are free to show anything in fact everything which gives the lie to what I have said. Why do you not do that instead posting simple negations?
>>>> For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings. >>> Huh? You stated that Hebrew "appears out of nowhere", apparently as part >>> of your argument that there is something special and strange about it. >>> Why is it irrelevant to point out that you're wrong? >> The only source of Hebrew is the OT. It suddenly appears when either
>> believers) no one has spoken it for centuries
>> skeptics) there is no evidence it was ever spoken.
>> So in fact it does appear out of no where in the 1st c. BC and is at that time >> a dead language without antecedents.
> The "out of nowhere" aspect goes nowhere, as I've tried to explain. > The 1st century BC date appears to be crucial to your argument. The date is not crucial at all. You name the date of its appearance.
> No doubt it is based on your "physical evidence" fetish, I am a scientist by training. Archaeology is a science. Only physical evidence matters in science. I have no idea how anyone can choose to life on beliefs absent physical evidence. It is not rational.
> which you elevate to the principle of a cornerstone of science. I did not to the elevating. That process developed during the Renaissance.
> I'm sure others have pointed out > to you that the earliest extant manuscripts of any ancient text are by > no means necessarily contemporary with its composition, or even its > earliest written form. I'm not about to argue the specifics with you > since I'm not a specialist in the area. I do not claim to be a specialist but if you have facts at all why are you bothering to post?
>>>>> Sometimes we can see that the writing system has been taken over from >>>>> that of some other language, sometimes not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> I said only believers claim Hebrew is Phoenician and that supports my case the >> OT is invented fiction because the OT is not Phoenician history.
> ....because Phoenician history is what is written in Phoenician texts, > and Hebrew, although it is in fact Phoenician, is "made up", so it can't > be real Phoenician history... > Are you getting dizzy yet? I am not because I am dealing with two separate claims and I can keep them separate.
>> My real position is that all the identifications of "proto-hebrew" are >> bullshit, stated only by believers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> But you argue as though the OT contains fact despite all the evidence that it >> is total myth.
> Clearly you have been misreading me all along. I am not arguing at all > about the historicity of the OT texts. I am arguing about the nature of > the language in which they are recorded. They are recorded in three languages.
>> Why?
>>>>> But very briefly: It's a written form of a >>>>> Semitic language. It came from the same place as Phoenician and other [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> know the obvious? These are EXACTLY the same things we use to identify the >> languages of other ancient people.
>> If you are not a believer why do you want to exempt the bible myths from the >> same rules that apply every place else?
> See above. Why do you bother responding without a single fact to bring up?
benlizross - 16 Dec 2006 07:46 GMT [snip] We
> >>>>>> have no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. > >>>>> What sort of evidence would you expect? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > For that we go to the other method, contemporary written material in Sumerian. This makes it no clearer.
> >> Also contemporary writings in that language will do. > > > ?Don't know what this means. > > I find that difficult to believe. Try harder. We have writings in the language in question or we wouldn't be arguing about this. What do you mean by "contemporary" writings?
> >> Neither of which exists for Hebrew. Again the same rules that > >> apply to everything else also apply to bible stuff without regard to belief in it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will have to find them for yourself. They aren't rules per se rather simply > methods of knowledge. In other words, private rules of yours, rather than anything generally accepted or shared.
> >>>>>> When the Judeans first > >>>>>> appear in history (2nd c. BC) they are speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence of [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > Hebrew is first found in final form in the 1st c. BC as I said. The only > "earlier" form according to believers is Phoenician. Not an answer to my question.
> >>> I understand that such does exist within the OT, but somebody > >>> else will have to give you examples. English has been written for over a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > As with written Zulu there were no intermediates as I said. However we know > that was invented. "Invented"? In what sense?
There are many Amerind written languages which were also
> invented. Again, what does "invented" mean here, except that every written language is "invented"?
> I clearly did not say it was universal. What is your basis for thinking it has any application at all?
> >>>>>> The local Judeans spoke > >>>>>> Aramaic so we would expect them to use written Aramaic. The evolution of every [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > believe it magically transformed from Phoenician to Hebrew leaving no evidence > of that transition. This does not explain why it is like Modern English.
> >> Hebrew suddenly appears full blown in the 1st c. BC and is ever > >> after a dead language save for some imaginary vowel marks added nearly a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You are free to show anything in fact everything which gives the lie to what I > have said. Why do you not do that instead posting simple negations? If you've missed the substance and are seeing only negations, you have major reading problems.
> >>>> For irrelevant see all the claims the OT is from ancient writings. > >>> Huh? You stated that Hebrew "appears out of nowhere", apparently as part [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > matters in science. I have no idea how anyone can choose to life on beliefs > absent physical evidence. It is not rational. But Lesson I in archaeology, and other sciences dealing with the past, is that a large proportion of the physical evidence is no longer extant. The work consists in constructing a plausible picture of the past consistent with what physical evidence we do find.
> > which you elevate to the principle of a cornerstone of science. > > I did not to the elevating. That process developed during the Renaissance. Not the fetish.
> > I'm sure others have pointed out > > to you that the earliest extant manuscripts of any ancient text are by [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I am not because I am dealing with two separate claims and I can keep them > separate. I'm suggesting your claims form a circularity.
> >> My real position is that all the identifications of "proto-hebrew" are > >> bullshit, stated only by believers. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > They are recorded in three languages. All of which are "made up"?
> >> Why? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Why do you bother responding without a single fact to bring up? You'd better go back and look for the facts. My original reason for getting into a discussion with you at all, contrary to my usual practice, was that you seemed to have excelled yourself in credulity by taking seriously this HEBREW IS GREEK nonsense. Since you seem to have backed off on that one, there may be no point in continuing.
Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 16 Dec 2006 12:11 GMT > [snip] > We [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > This makes it no clearer. Then I can only assume you are pretending to be stupid and I have no further time to waste on this exchange.
o8TY - 23 Dec 2006 15:15 GMT > > [snip] > > We [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Then I can only assume you are pretending to be stupid and I have no further > time to waste on this exchange. Surviving evidence of a spoken language? Consider the pro-nouns Jerusalem and Judah for starters.
Jerusalem <= Greek ieros-uleme = sacred forest (cf the hall of justice called Forest of Lebanon in the above post "where was the temple of Herod?")
Jew <= Judah <= Greek Ioides = descendents of the Io of Greek legend (cf also Israelites whose names begin with Jo-, eg Joseph, Joshua, Job, Jonah, John...)
Matt Giwer - 25 Dec 2006 07:54 GMT >>> [snip] >>> We [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Then I can only assume you are pretending to be stupid and I have no further >> time to waste on this exchange.
> Surviving evidence of a spoken language? Consider the pro-nouns Jerusalem > and Judah for starters.
> Jerusalem <= Greek ieros-uleme = sacred forest (cf the hall of justice > called Forest of Lebanon in the above post "where was the temple of Herod?")
> Jew <= Judah <= Greek Ioides = descendents of the Io of Greek legend (cf > also Israelites whose names begin with Jo-, eg Joseph, Joshua, Job, Jonah, > John...) None of that has any relation to Hebrew having ever been a spoken language. That is the way it is. I can't change that.
You are in fact showing a connection to Greek and nothing more.
ALL the ancient written material is indistinguishable from Phoenician. When the local language is mentioned it is Aramaic. Why do you find it credible that between 600BC and 200BC the entire language of Hebrew evolved and was discarded as a spoken language?
And that is before I check and see of Herodotus around 450BC mentioned the local language.
o8TY - 26 Dec 2006 11:55 GMT > >>> [snip] > >>> We [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > None of that has any relation to Hebrew having ever been a spoken language. > That is the way it is. I can't change that. Of course not, but shows Hebrew <= Phoinikian <= Greek.
> You are in fact showing a connection to Greek and nothing more. You are undervaluing the Greek association. You can trace massive Greek population movements (diaspora - a greek word) from the eruption of Thera. The development of a Hebrew language is but an outcome of population movement - but which people.
> ALL the ancient written material is indistinguishable from Phoenician. When the > local language is mentioned it is Aramaic. Why do you find it credible that > between 600BC and 200BC the entire language of Hebrew evolved and was discarded > as a spoken language? You seem yet to fathom the following link:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/proto-aeolic.htm
> And that is before I check and see of Herodotus around 450BC mentioned the > local language. Try Greek myth generally.
Kendall K. Down - 15 Dec 2006 18:44 GMT > But you argue as though the OT contains fact despite all the evidence that it > is total myth. Oh, he's just agreeing with Finkelstein, your favourite authority.
Ken Down
 Signature ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ========================================================
Matt Giwer - 16 Dec 2006 07:05 GMT >> But you argue as though the OT contains fact despite all the evidence that it >> is total myth.
> Oh, he's just agreeing with Finkelstein, your favourite authority. As you know I do not use Finkelstein as other than an Israeli Arkie. Why do you keep lying about me?
Joey - 14 Dec 2006 23:00 GMT > That means Abraham started speaking Akkadian or > whatever from western Iraq. Then they spent several centuries in Egypt and > somehow managed not to speak Egyptian as though Africans in the US still spoke > the languages of then ancestors. Then when they appear in history they speak > Aramaic. There's no evidence to support this position whatsoever - in fact one could argue, in light of Jewish integration in Europe, especially (as a single example) within the United Kingdom, during the nineteenth century, the instances of multi-language usage, for example Hebrew, English and German, were quite the norm rather than the exception in the average Jewish family.
To try and construct the origin, usage and ongoing development of a language such as Hebrew, in a forum such as this is an example of Usenet absurdity worthy of the good Baron Munchausen. Should one laugh or cry, I hear you say? Well, there are those who seem to have spliced two main masts together and wedged them in their open mouth (following the Munchausen analogy, of course) allowing in the process an overspill of eccentric ideas and basically poor scholarship to spew from some subterraneous depths into the electronic light of day.
A basic fact, there are few early Hebrew documents. The OT is an example, and while it's possible that similar passages were reproduced in different books of the OT, divergence between them may have been due to different scribes changing archaic words or phrases from earlier versions or texts - as in the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus.
The early growth stages of most, if not in fact all, languages are also the most obscure for us poor mortals. Hebrew, to be sure, is a dialect belonging to the early Canaanite group of "Semitic languages" which would include Phoenician and Moabitic dialects.
So a dialect, perhaps?
We all know the existence of the Canaanite language has great antiquity because of the huge amount of monumental evidence to support this thesis. As one example the Tel-el-Amarna tablets from the fifteenth century BC show people living along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean who, while using Assyrian as an "official language", employed Canaanite in day-to-day spoken intercourse.
Egyptian records as early as the sixteenth century contain words filched from Canaanite - but this by no means tells us the origins of the language, or any of the other "Semitic" languages and dialects, whose beginnings are lost in the mists of prehistoric antiquity (unless, of course, you're a true Usenet genius, who's just learned the real truth of the matter from your left armpit, or even better Erich Von Daniken!).
So, modern scholars (bless 'em) have done their best to discover the mutual relationships to, the derivatives from, and the affiliations of, each of the Semitic dialects/languages in an attempt to determine the "mother tongue" from which all developed - result?
Well, most scholars (Yes, scholars, not some stupid beanie/s who thinks the Atlans introduce Hebrew to the world via the ancient Maya or, worse, the Toltecs) have ditched the assumption that any of the known Semitic languages evolved or developed from any of the others. Instead, they consider them as related idioms, derived on parallel lines from a single original prehistoric language - that survives in the common elements in the various members of the Semitic language group.
"This view of the case would seem to be confirmed by the results of philological investigations in the field of the Indo-European languages. For a time it was thought that Sanskrit would prove to be the parent stem, but deeper research pointed rather to the existence of a prehistoric language denominated "Aryan", from which Sanskrit, as well as the others was derived. So also in the case of the Semitic tongues; they probably all go back to an original parent language spoken in a certain locality by the first ancestors of the Semitic race. They became diversified more or less rapidly and profoundly as a result of the successive migrations of the various tribes from the common centre, and according to the circumstances and conditions of the milieux into which the migrations took place. While nothing definite is known as to the precise location of the original home of the Semites, the more common opinion of scholars, based on various indications, places it somewhere on or near the borders of the Persian Gulf."
There's good grounds for asserting that, "anterior to the period represented by the Biblical Hebrew, the language had already passed through the vicissitudes of long development and subsequent disintegration. Among the indications upon which this contention is based may be mentioned:
(1) the presence of archaic words or forms occurring especially in poetic fragments of old war songs and the like;
(2) the occurrence of certain classical forms which imply the existence of previous forms long since obsolete;
(3) the fact of the analogies between Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, from which scholars are led to infer the existence, in a more remote antiquity, of analogies closer and more numerous.
In fact, it is claimed by some that the Hebrew of the Old Testament betrays evidences of as great disintegration and departure from its assumed typical perfection as does the vulgar Arabic of to-day from the classical idiom of the golden literary age of Islam."
In short, it's all very much up for grabs - not at all the open and closed case made by certain resident Usenet geniuses in conference with their favourite table leg.
> >> they invented their entire OT history as nothing like it is in Phoenician history. And which Phoenician history did you have in mind? Perhaps "Tarquinia's history and lexicon for dyslexic Jews"? Or maybe "Was God an Astronaut "?
Oh dear, dear me! Laugh, I nearly shat!
Keep on taking whatever it is you take, and post it here. I really do need the entertainment.
Have a nice day.
Kindest regards.
Matt Giwer - 15 Dec 2006 08:18 GMT >> That means Abraham started speaking Akkadian or >> whatever from western Iraq. Then they spent several centuries in Egypt and >> somehow managed not to speak Egyptian as though Africans in the US still spoke >> the languages of then ancestors. Then when they appear in history they speak >> Aramaic.
> There's no evidence to support this position whatsoever - in fact > one could argue, in light of Jewish integration in Europe, especially > (as a single example) within the United Kingdom, during the nineteenth > century, the instances of multi-language usage, for example Hebrew, > English and German, were quite the norm rather than the exception in > the average Jewish family. I have no idea how you get from the mythical Abraham to modern Ashkenazi Jews who have no biological relation to Sephardic Jews.
...
> Oh dear, dear me! Laugh, I nearly shat! If you have that kind of problem with your bowels I suggest you discuss it with your physician. You have a serious problem which can be corrected with proper medication.
Joey - 15 Dec 2006 14:25 GMT > If you have that kind of problem with your bowels I suggest you discuss it with > your physician. You have a serious problem which can be corrected with proper > medication. Good advice indeed, from a poster who kicked off this wonderfully educational thread with an article about “THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA”, and of course the embarrassment I felt seeing that was on your behalf.
Posting here is such an exciting and dangerous game, like killing pirates in Never-Never-land, eh? Many of the posts pursue mysteries that, deep down, ar
|
|