Re: HEBREW IS GREEK

[Matt Giwer]

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > Matt Giwer wrote:
> > > >     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.
> > > 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. 
> >     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 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.

> 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.