JOSEPH YAHUDA, LL.B. Hebrew is Greek PREFACE by Professor Saul Levin “edpopev ws e€ évas evev yévous *Tovdaior Kat Aaxedarpdviot Kai . éx tis mpos ABpapov otkedrytos” ‘TouSaixy Apyaodoyla Published by Becket Publications Oxford 1982xv. XVIIL XIX. xXx Xx. XxY XXVE XXVIN, XXVIL XXIX. XxX. x XI TABLE OF PROPOSITIONS The Alphabets Vocalization Pronunciation of Hebrew Interchange of Letters in the Bible Dialectal Changes sified Consonants Similarities Dissimilaricies Interchange of Letters peculiar to one Alphabet or to the other Interchange of Letters common to both Alphabets The Rough and the Smooth Breathings Double-consonants Double-letzers Aphesis and Apheresis Syncope Apocope Letters which drop out Prosthesis Terminal Letters Metathesis Suffix and Prefix Greek Patterns The Definite Article Same and Opposite Genders D Neuter Gender rent Genders Common Gender Nouns in «as The Genitive Homology The Construct The Dative Case RRs BO 353 BS oe oe oo a, oti Sar ome 8s an 3wii XXXL MXR, XXXIV. XXX. XXEVI. XXXVIL, XXXVUOL MXXIX. XL. XLL XL LUI XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVI XLVIIL XLIX. L. ut, Lit. Lan. Liv. Lv. LvIL. Lit, Lvut. LIx. Lx. Ext. LxXI PROPOSITIONS XII The Furure The Aorist The Middle Voice The Subjunctive Mood The Optative Mood Simple and Compound Verbs Compound Words (Hybrids) Identical and Equivalent Homoiogues Complete and Incomplete Homotogues Multihomologies Atavisms Arabic Homologues of Greek Words Arabic and Hebrew Homeloguss of Greck Words Arabic Homologues of Hebrew Words Verbal Adjectives Proper Nouns The Middle Voice 2 Greek Prepositions Verbs in fu Kindred Hornologies Concatenation Mahatma Cherubim, Moloch Understanding Greek Words in the New Testament Words in the Koran Tests of Accuracy Complete Homologies Unreliability of Authorities General HomotogiesKIII PREFACE Tue connections between Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic) and Indo- European languages are being investigated more methodically nowadays, but the researchers are still too few and isolated. Every so often I hear of a scholar in Poland or Brazil or Israel who has been studying a certain extensive set of comparative data and working out a theory. Some of these men and women are ata university; others are in a different profession but expert many languages. There is no learned society or journal for us to share our findings in brief instalments, and thus to profit from mutual criticism and supplementation. But the subject itself is rich, and the individuals attracted to it are impelled to write long monographs; that is the only way to satisfy themselves and to present the sceptical world with a coherent statement of th research. To keep it unpublished, for fear that it may conta errors, would be a disservice all around. Once ix is made avail- able, any competent reader can extract for himself all th profitable to him. Mr. Joseph Yahuda is in a class apart. He wrote to me rom London in 1977, after secing my book on The Indo-Eurobean on tic Languages; and that opened up a fruitful correspondence, aterrupted only by periods ofillness. He was my senior by many years and (in the midst of a legal career) the author of several books on subjects of Jewish interest, beginning with Le Palestine resisitée in 1928 and including the highly r relevant Law and Life eccording 0 Hebrew Thought (published in 932). His latest book is the | outcome of an extended sabbatical, w hich he has taken from his profession in order to devote himself, fully anc vigorously, to a systematic investigation of the vocabulary and grammar of the Hebrew Bible, and its linkage to Greek. These are facts which I learned gradually as our friendship developed, though we have never had an opportunity to meet. He offered, from the outset, to send me the galley proofs of the present book, which was already in the printer’s hands. His cordial manner and my own curiosity would not allow me tocoped -—— xiv PREFACE refuse such a preview. It turned out that we often disagreed; but as I read on, I found more and more of truly great value— indeed, some of it astonishingly baffied me for years. To illustrate this I shall make a few observations about particular pages, while commending the book as a whole for careful study by all who have a fair knowledge of Greek and Hebrew or Arabic, the chief languages treated by Mr. Yahuda. Furthermore, those who are expert in Sanskrit, Avestan, Armenian, or Hittite on the Indo-European side, or Akkadian on the Semitic, can from their several perspectives elucidate many of the phenomena noted by Mr. Yahuda. When the recently excavated texts from Ebla are published, they are also bound to have a great bearing on the pre-history of Hebrew. ) p. 256, 427, 663, Kpl~ a ich occurs robles Uiat had psua i . Iwas most area to learn from hi XT on in homology > and ypdw) that ae nowhere in Biblic: ebrew except fo BP the Greek yp7}, ype(:)-. Ever since I had discovered™t Homeric expression ce yp ‘you need, you must’ has the same ructure as a Semitic verb-root with a prefix and stative vecali } cA Semitic root is cognate to FO erbt woh The meaning of N77)‘call’ seemed too distant from ‘need\ roUe or ‘must’. Besides, the ‘emphatic’ quality of the consonant ? ——_ ! corresponds usually to the non-aspirate x, not to x [k*]. THs left me with an uncomfortable surmise that there was no Semitic cognate to yp%, and that notwithstanding the impressive cor- respondence in structure the root itself was unparalleled in any known language apart from Greek. are Now, however, I am satisfied tha ind xp?) are indeed cognate, and anchored in the most basi¢ stratum of the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary. The phonetic problem can be eased, if not quite solved, by noting an affinity between the ‘emphatic’ ' See The Indo-European and Semitic Lenguoges: An +2: oy Sivwctrad Simt- larities Related to Accent, Chiefly in Creek, Sanskrit, rd Hebe (Albany, 1971), pp. 516— 253 cf. pp. 241-57.hs XE @ zaexl peat PREFACE ¢ xix xaBapé in ‘Attic (Aristophanes, Aues 21 (Herodot Ss 2 2. 2), but xabopd A Zetc.), xa8ag7 in Ionic ‘other dialects, actually. KPIGAL 8 ; also the ‘converted pete IBY Jand then she is pure’, 12 fundamentatin both Greek and Hebrew religi xafap- has no satisfactory Indo-European etymology, GEOAD has Arabic (including Sogotri) and Exhiopic cognates, possinly borrowed from Hebrew after the correspondence between the consonants prising but, upon reflection, very attra Hebrew counterpart to x-@-p to be NY transliterated by x in the Septuagint and(Ajby 2, Something in the phonology of Hebrew would still block the sequence Pp.» kar tw which is not found in any Hebrew root; thus the Hebrew (and Aramaic) cognate of , The aspiration in &, how- ever, is maintained To oe Sot CPB) i the [1] component of @ turns up at the beginning of the Hebrew roo’ The Hebrew vowels (-2-4-55} are best matched by the -o-2-d of Greek dialects outside of Attic and Ionic. For these dialects we lack evidence whether the short o was pronounced open (which the phoneticians now symbolize by [9] or [9]} or closed (which they symbolize by [0] or (9]). The short o in Attic and Ionic was evidently the latter; so the Attic and Ionic a in the Ars: ble of this word is still as close as possible phonologically to he Hebrew [9], a sound intermediate between [a] and [o].! The shortness of the o in xo@ap- is established at least for one ct, Lesbian, by the meter of Alcaeus (ira Lobel-Page). I am not able to relate the Greek dialect variati Wed xodap-: xaBap- to the Hebrew morphological alt sopbeteen (-2-4-} in the stative perfect and (-a-8-} in ch 793) co ee or rather causative) imperative and impertect; eg. Poe oe) ‘purify me’ (Ps. 51: 4). Greek has, for example, xabapoapey “WE The term is Koreas Tere 1 The English word cot bas [a] (in the American proauaciation), caught has [>], and coat [0]' Keer — vot inet yee L\ & \¥ and 9 on the other. ene. er she AC YEN 2 “ape poem peg f OE Poe PREFACE xv PJand the glottal wea(R in the one hand and possibly between fom the morphological point of view pretation of ce xp7 fits very well: you are calle — “5 you (or she) call(s), will call’ see, Te i yo 7 however, is stati you are (or she is) afraid, al ee 3 Tor the Pe ference in vocalization between active and stative is neural , MG se of Hebrew verbs that end in ized in the ee The derived noud ANP As of a type that was originally participial: ‘someth' ). Lastly, is it without significance that Alexander - Rhetor uses Sout for Béuas? If nevertheless you remain unconvinced, I should not held it against you. Clearly, when—as in the circumstances of this particular instance—the validity of any homology is not provedmodi PROLOGUE with complete objectivity, so that subjective influences come openly into play, an individdal’s scepticism would not be alto- gether unjustified. (Cf, pos: fat Ez of Mla oe Consistently with this principle, oceasionally—when there was a large measure of likelihood of an homology being sound on the balance of probabilities, and it could not be further and better tested by means of my technical tests—I have included it in this book, notwithstanding that the persuasive character of the evidence was not compelling to a degree of certainty. This, for two reasons: first, to give students an opportunity to advance further facts and arguments for or against it; secondly, to let them distinguish for themselves between incontrovertibly sound homo- logies and such as should be accepted subject to reservations. At all events, the number of such homologies is quite small, while my theory stands four-square on what I have established beyond doubt by means of tried technical tests. Finally, this book could be useful even to those who have no Greek and know neither Arabic nor Hebrew. For all the homologies are explained and referred to texts; so that one may read the explanation, refer to the indicated text or tex in any biblical translation, and decide for oneself as to the merit of the explanation—and, inferentially, as to the validity of the homology concerned. A word about Arabic. This book does not deai with Arabic in its own right, but merely as an invaluable auxiliary language in the ascertainment and confirmation of Graeco-Hebraic homologies. Accordingly, several Propositions are devoted to the characteristics of this tripartite relationship; but they also constitute a valid general guide to Graeco-Arabic homolog Lastly, no account is taken of the difference between classical Arabic and the vernacular, nor of the date or of the documentin which any Greek word first appears; for the simple reason that Iam only concerned with undoubted phonetic, morphological, and semantic similarities wherever I find them together—not as isolated phenomena, but as inter-related examples in a systematic survey of what I try to prove is an unsuspected and forgotten branch of Greek literature: the Hebrew Bible. The Temple 1982I. HEBREW AND THE HEBREWS Greexand Hebrew have lived check by jowl since their existence as such—that is, over three thousand years ago—when they ed, one at the junction of Asia and Europe anc the other at that of Asia and Africa near by. They have each contribution to civilization, yet until the act) seem to have influenced each other not at ail; been intercourse between them (Jer 0. 9 . € Ob 20 Jon 1.3 Zach g. 11-13). Can it be—as I think contrary to all ac- cepted scholarship—that they are intimate! religion as well as by language? Accounts differ as to the racial affinity of the people of Israel to other peoples of antiquity. According to the ai! too brief geo- ethnical survey in the tenth chapter of Genesis, seme of the tribes of Hellas descended from Japhet, the Philistines and the Phoeni- ke.the Hittites and the Amorites—descenced from Ham, while the Hebrews and the Arabian clans cer} Ezekiel (16. 3), however, asserts that the Isr2 breed of mixed Hittite and Amorite origin—w descendants of Ham. Lastly, if the ignored ¢ First Book of the Maccabees (12. 6-93, IL Mace 5. 3-9) and in the Antiquities is co be trusted,” the Jews must have descended from Japhet! Here itis in its con- text, followed by a translation: made a major y relaced by race an tes are a Cross- ich makes them +e set out in At this time [i.e. circa 180 3.¢,] Seleucus, who wes called Philo- pator, the son of Antiochus the Great, reigned over Asia. And nus’ father, Joseph, died. . .. His uncle Onias a'so died, and left the high priesthood to his son Simon. And shen hie also died Onias his son succeeded him in chat digni m Arcus, king of the Lacedemonians, sent an embacsage with a le:ter a copy ereof follows: 1.10% Beotlels Maxebaxporiuy Hperos ’Ovla xaipew. drvysi edpoper ds ef dds elev yévous "Joudazor a! pds Afoauov oixesdryros. Sixasoy ofv dorw d8eigoty dgés dvvas Btengureodar mpés Hpas wept dv dv BovAnade. zorjcouey Sz xai qyeis retro, xal rd re perepa (ia vomiodpev xai zd adray nowd xpos Uuds Eouer. Anporedns 6 depwv rd ypdppara Sexture res emorolds. sesscrt B s ypedt Aaxedzusdrrot xal bx Ts2 I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS ta yeypappeéva dari rerpdywra 9 odpayis éotw derds Spaxorros deednuudvos: ‘Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, to Onias, greeting. We have come upon a certain document from which we have discovered that both the Jews and Lacedemonians are of one race, and originate from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us messages about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same to you, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your letter back. This writing is square, and the seal is an eagle holding fast a serpent.” ‘Such’, adds Josephus with unwonted neutrality and dryness, ‘were the contents of the letter which was sent by the king of the Lacedemonians.’ As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find any- where else in his works a note so bare, so non-committal—not to say indifferent—especially having regard to the novelty of the suggestion. One is therefore forced to the conclusion that although Josephus did not doubt the genuineness of the diplomatic letter— or he would not have reproduced it in extenso—he may have felr rather sceptical about the a uthenticity of the ‘document’ referred to therein. But perhaps his priestly background and anti-Hellenic proclivity unconsciously prejudi ced him against the apparently spontaneous Greek protestations of common ancestry with th Jews. To return to the Bible, the frst mention of ‘Hebrews’ occurs in Genesis (14. 13), where Abraham—when informed of Lot's cap- ture by the sackers of Sodom—is described as a ‘Hebrew’. Now were Abraham and his nephew the only Hebrews i: the region at the time? It does not look like it, for three reasons. First, Joseph refers to it about an uneventful century later as ‘the land of the Hebrews’ (Gn 40. 15). Secondly, both Potiphar’s wife (Ib 39. 17) and Pharaoh's chief butler (Ib + } refer to Joseph as a ‘Hebrew’ slave or youth, in much the same way— one imagines—as the Greeks used to refer to one of the familiar Phoenicians in their service as a ‘Phoenician’ woman (Odyssey 15. 417). Thirdly, the Egyptians would not eat at the same table with the Hebrews (Gn 43. 32), including them in the taboo against the abominated Shepherds (Ib 46. 34). None of these references is consistent with the Hebrews being an isolated family of nomadic herdsmen roaming about in the land of Canaan.I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS 3 Later, the word ‘Hebrew’—in juxtaposition with aliens—un- doubtedly means one of the people of Israel, without tribal specification. Thus it is used to distinguish Israclites from Egyp- tians (Ex 2. 11), Israelite citizens from the denizens in their midst (Dt 15. 12 Jer 34. 9, 14), Israelites from Philistines (IS 14. 11), and generally Israelites from other nationals (Jon 1. g). Clearly, therefore, one cannot depend on Jewish sources for a reliable account of the ethnic identity of the Hebrews. An investigation into their language, on the other hand, meets with an initial obstacle: the extraordinary fact diat in ancient times it was not called after th cir name—2s hey never existed as a distinct ethnic or national unit. Isaiah ‘19. 18) refers to it as ‘the language of Canaan’; while Rabshakeh, who spoke Aramite, called it ‘Judean’ (Jes 36. 11}; a8 indeed did Nehemiah (13. 23-4) to distinguish it from ‘Ashdcdite’, a relic of the language originally spoken by the Philistines. But in Jer 34. 9, ‘Judean’ and ‘Hebrew’ are interchangezble terms. Besides, we do not know in what langu Patriarchs spoke to their various neighbour: or in the popular assembly of Hebron, Loz the course of his transactions with the 8, he and his sons in their con Much later, the Israelite spies and Rehab stood each other perfectly well. One Gibeonites who were Hivites conversed wi which was spoken both locally and in distar Is it without significance that the Bible m or languages the Moraham in Egypt Sodom, Isaac in z of Gerar, » Jacod in ‘ons the interposition of an interpreter on one occasion only, when Joseph pretended to his brothers to be an Egyptian (Ga so, 2942 In this connection it is vital to identié: erent peopl es who inhabited Cansa theory the dil ‘ume of Joshua, 1 tes (Powievor), the Gergashites (Ipazeet}, ‘the Dae? Eide), the Hivites (Ayeoi), the Jebusites (Bowwroi), the Perizzites (Ppvyor)—be- sides the Caphtorim (Kvzpios) and the Philistines (Telaoyo). These inhabitants were by no means exterminated, and their survival and ultimate assimilation must have influenced the Israelites in various ways, including lingually (Jud 1. 17-36, 3. 1-6). Ivis a fact that the Jebusites preserved their identity till the reign of David (Jos 15, 63 Jud 1. 21, 1g. 10-12 IIS 5, 6-8, 24.