Matt Giwer wrote:
> benlizross wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> benlizross wrote:
> >>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> benlizross wrote:
> >>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>> 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.
> >>> 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.
> >> 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.
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
> >>> 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.
> > What sort of evidence would you expect?
> I expect something never expected for anything in the OT but always
> 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
> >> 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.
> > 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.
What can you mean by this? The region is full of languages related to
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
> Zionists started borrowing from Arabic were from the OT. All words not in the
> are invented words. There is no other source of Hebrew words but the OT. This
> why I say it was even a liturgical language. If there were a significant
> 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.
> > 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.
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
> >> 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.
>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.
> 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
> 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?
> > 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 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
> > 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
> 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.
When you figure out what sort of physical evidence people leave when
they speak a language, get back to me.
> >> 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 shit-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.