Re: Lamarckian language

gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:01:20 -0600 (MDT)

I am writing this in the hope that it will be read by someone who knows a
lot more about this subject than I do and can tell me whether my reasoning
is correct. It is prompted by George Murphy's comments on the divergence
of Hebrew from Aramaic.

In Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by Thomas O. Lambdin the author divides
the Northwest Semitic language group into Aramaic and Canaanite with
Canaanite represented by Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew. In a chapter on
the language of the Old Testament by G. Douglas Young in the Expositor's
Bible Commentary the division of the Northwest Semitic languages is into
Aramaic, Canaanite, and Ugaritic with the descendants of Canaanite being
Hebrew, Phoenician, and Moabite. In Isaiah 19:18 Hebrew is referred to as
the language of Canaan. Young cites as evidence that this language
originated in Canaan the fact that Hebrew uses yam (sea) to mean west and
negeb (parched) to mean south.

Abraham or his descendants (Deut. 26:5) and Rebekah's family (Gen. 25:20)
are said to be Arameans. In Gen. 31:47 it appears that Laban and Jacob had
different native languages. Laban named a pile of rocks the Aramaic words
for heap of witness, while Jacob named the same pile the Hebrew words for
heap of witness.

Based on the above considerations I have assumed that after moving to
Canaan it wasn't too long before the patriarchs were speaking the language
of their new neighbors. I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable in
this area could tell me whether this is a correct assumption.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, George Murphy wrote:

> An application of this: II Kg.18:26 indicates that by 700 B.C. Hebrew had diverged
> significantly from the "Imperial Aramaic" which was the lingua franca of the Near East
> at the time. This suggests a date before 1700 B.C. for the emigration of Abram & Sarai
> from Haran. Of course on this basis such an estimate can be only a rough approximation
> but it's consistent with other estimates.