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.4 I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS 18-24), while the semi-assimilated descendants of the Philistines continued to speak a distinct dialect down to the time of the Second Temple. . At the end of this quest one is merely left under the impressiox that the language of the Patriarchs must have been somewhat modified by reason of the contact of their Cesce dants with the colonists of Canaan, as it must have altered sii: in the course of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt. We still do ne: know by whom, other than the Patriarchs, their language was There remai tone more track to fo supposed to derive their name from Eb geny is said to have settled in the region cove potamia, Eastern Asia Minor, and the 10. 30). Traditiona: Abraham’s mi mero! Prniy tpizous, the Sxeed eas aracter ot ¢ a fossil or an For the written word is li not its pronunciation, is Axed and permar to repeated scrutiny. So that philology can IT maintain that bibl strably Greek, in grammar as well as in vo Truc, distinct phonetic and morpholog benveen almost all biblical words and th homologues, but they are superficial and di trast, the Hebrew homologues fully preserve identity with their Greek cauaterp. notw seating, thar biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek developed apparently in- dependently of each other during two eventful millennia. As respective Greek nous. By con- semanticI, HEBREW AND HEBREWS 5 for grammar, there are one or two minor similarities which are obvious, whereas several fundamental resemblances have gone unsuspected. If my theory be correct, it would automatically follow that the sister languages, Arabic and Aramaic, are affiliated to Gret similarly, English and French—among other European ton. must somehow be related to Hebrew. In fact, theory precisely that, Thus, Latin ad an ON, English ocer French sur ar are identical, two by two; and they aceable to Greek. Beyond cavil, the segregation of the Semitic from the Indo-European languages flies in the face of the philological facts and principles which I am about to prove. Indeed, it will emerge that just as knowledge of Greek is essential to the thorough understanding of the Bible, a better understanding of Greek would be achieved through knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew. Admittedly, the logical conclusions of my philological theory—geographical, historical, racial, religious, and social— are far-reaching and revolutionary indeed. Yet their apparent strangeness is due to generations of neglect and prejudice, and should not deter scholars from apprehending the perceptible i sparkles in the brilliant light shed by my conclu- sive demonstration. It is positively astonishing that no one has hitherto suspected the identity of these two languages—a fact which raises a strong presumption against the soundness of my theory— especially as, a common alphabet apart, there have been in the course of the past twenty-three centuries many a favourable op- portunity for discovering any resemblance which might exist between them, that is to sa 1. Over two thousand years ago Jewish scholars translated the Scriptures into Greek, producing the Septuagint which has remained unchallenged as an authentic source of biblical exegesis. 2, About that time, as we have seen, the Spartans claimed kin- ship with the Jews. 3. Jews played a leading part in the development of the Heilenistic culture in Alexandria. 4. In the last two centuries of the Jewish State, many well-born and educated Jews affected Hellenism and tried to spread the Greek way of life among their countrymen (IMacc 1. 11-15).6 I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS 5. Josephus wrote his autobiography, the tract against Apion, the Jewish War, and the Antiquities in Greek—as well as in Aramaic or Hebrew—the Greek versions being the only ones extant. . 6. The Apostles who introduced the Messianic creed into Greece and the Asiatic-Greek or Continental settlements dis- cussed the Pentateuch and the Prophets in Greek, provoking widespread interest in the Scriptures among the Greeks. 7. A large number of Talmudic words were borrowed from Greek, and many of them have kept their original form and exotic flavour, rendering obvious the existence of a mixture or amalgam. 8. Jewish scholars have learned Greek in order to gain direct access to the Septuagint and the works of Josephus, and the better to understand the Talmud. g. Jewish scholars, well-versed in Hebrew, ushered in the Renaissance by translating the Greek classics into Arabic. 10. At that ime Muslim scholars, whose mother tongue was Arabic, studied Greek. tr. Since then countless classical scholars of all nationalities have spent all their academic lives at the u ies of Europe and America in the study of Arabic and Hebrew. 12. Homer and the New Testament have been translated into Arabic and Hebrew. None of these thousands upon tens of thousands of learned men in different climes and succeeding ages has ever ventured to sug- gest that these three languages are genetically interrelated, let alone that Hebrew is identical with Greek. There were those who—like W. Muss-Amolt—discovered a limited number of Greek words with Semitic affinity, and promptly classed them as borrowed (On Semitic Words in Greek and Latin, 1893). This, in deference to the time-hallowed dogma which has erected a barrier—not less forbidding because bogus— between the Semitic and the Aryan languages. At the opposite pole stood Revd. John Parkhurst, author of dz Hebrew and English Lexicon without Points. He lived nvo hundred years ago and supported the untenable Rabbinical theory that Hebrew was the lingua primaeva, the mother of all tongues, including Greek (Midrash Rabba Bereshith, chaps. 18 and 31; Yerushalmi, Megilla 1. 11). Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad MazharI. HEBREW AND HEBREWS 7 —a scholar of the Ahmadiah sect—on the other hand, contends that all languages—including Chinese and Greek—derive from Arabic, the language of the Koran, . There exists a third school which has attempted to build a bridge between the Chamito-Semitic and Indo-European languages— one of its foremost exponents being A. Cuny, author of Jnvitation 4 Pétude comparative des langues indo-europeennes et des langues chamito~ sémitiques. Lastly, Professor Cyrus H. Gordon—a scholar of broad vision and deep understanding—holds that the Hebrew and the Hellenic cultures were twins. On going to print, | learnt of Professor Saul Levin, of Harper . College, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York, author of The Indo-European and Semitic Languages—an exploration Gf structural similarities related to accent, chiefly in Greek, Sanskrit, and Hebrew. On p. 8 he writes: many things still puzzled me—above ail, why were the corre- snondences closer between Greek and Hebrew than between any other Indo-European and Semitic languages? Just because I knew hese better? Slowly I discovered that in many respects Sans rather than Greek affords the more cogent paralle! to Hebrew. Thus, I venture to submit with hesitation ‘not knowing Sans- was this courageous scientist shunted off =x d\nfefas dbo (the way to truth) and away from the reality that Hebrew ts Greek; although he broke free of the shackles of traditional linguistics, refused to join in the wild goose chase of preto Indo- European and proto Semitic, and tackled directly Greek and Hebrew texts. My research over thirty years has been conducted in- dependently of others. Starting from scratch, I have consistently investigated the language of the Bible by the language of the Bible, with the assistance of Arabic and the Septuagint. I have worked autonomously throughout, fashioning and re-fashioning my own laws as I went along. In the result, I have been led irresistibly to the following conclusions : I. That about four thousand years ago the whole of the Middle East was overrun, colonized, and controlled by Greek and allied tribes.MK e < Pry De, who settled on the southern shore of Canaan—7 zapatos +7, (n025) the Asiatic [TeAaoyin—and were consequently called of I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS II. That the Hebrews were Asiatic Greeks—a2poi and 7repa- raz, probably the Khabiru and Hepiru of Syrian and Egyptian annals—and that their language was Continental Greek. III. That, judging by the proportion ot epic and poetic homo- logues, and by the primitive grammatical structures to be found in the Bible, one is impelled to the conclusion that the ancestors of the Jews must have been among the noblest and/or the most ancient of the Hellenes, and that they spoke a language far more ancient than classical Greek. IV. That the Philistines were colonists, continuously flowing in from the mainland of Greece and the adjoining islands, acyot, (erng75) as distinct from the 7, That when the Hellenic affinity of the Phoenicians had long been forgotten, it was assumed that the identity of the Greek with the Phoenician alphabet was simply a matter of borrowing (Herodotus 5. 58). VI. That the inhabitants of Iraq (daves!, Syria, and Arabia (épnuia) are mainly of Scythian and Cimmerian origin. VII. That the Helots were Israelites ‘Ob 20°. VUI. That the Hebrews worshipped Greek gods and followed Greek customs. IX. That Hebrew has a multiplicicy of unsuspected dialects and homonyms. X. That many proper nouns in the Bible—whether divine, ethnic, geographical, or personal—resemble Greek proper nouns, while others have Greek adjectives and common nouns as homologues. XI. That certain Greek words, pronounced by Continental Greeks differently from their European brethren, found their way back to Greek in a spelling conforming to their Continental pronunciation. I call them atavisms. XII. That certain non-biblical words found in Rabbinical writings can be proved to have been used in biblical times. XIII. That the Ashkenazi and Yemenite pronunciations—like the Baghdadi and the Sephardi—are as old and as genuine as Greek itself.I. HEBREW AND HEBREWS 9 XIV. That Judean and Ashdodite were not more different one from the other than Hebrew is from Arabic or Aramaic. XV. That only by my theory is it possible to establish securely * the true meaning of obscure biblical words, and the right inter- pretation of puzzling passages. XVI. That only through the knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic is it possible to attain a finer understanding of Greek, XVII. That the Jewish, the Christo-European, and the Is- lamic cultures—the triple aspect of modern civilization—all onginate from Hellas.10 Il. MODUS OPERANDI Frowearly age I have been familiar w ble. Hardly ada: passes by but I quote it or read it. Indeed, itis part of my make up and the very texture of my thinking. ened and wise father, Isaac Benjamin Ezekiel Yahuda, y younger brot Solomon, my two ¢lder sisters, and my hole Old T ment when we were childven My Grothe: Se 1 fathe er’s private bookcase. For years the distant biblical y present in mind; I actually lived i ids. So muc! so that, together with a passion for the Bible, I developed 2 natural animosity towards the Greeks and account of their cruelty to my persecuted ance: beloved land and outside i aa the conseque to this day. Strangely enou Egyptians who were cur csts of “aut foref Di 23 My Hoes were 50 fearn Greek, although I knew that é in our civilization, and that it had influence! Hebrew. Nor could 1 bn ng myself to pi minimum of Latin necessary for my are forcib! Loccur to me to mportant role tucation and pract Ce qui le révolre com ces vestiges sacrés colonnes pures fof th des textes, l'un grec, recent, incisés dar rien de plus insu! I still resent the inscrig now—as I did when I first saw them over Afy years ago—to be sheer vandalism. Bur not because they are in Greek and Latin; I would not react ciferently if by some misfortune the third columa were similarly outraged in Hebrew. However, my feel- consider themIl. MODUS OPERANDI nt ings towards the Greeks and the Romans have altered radically since. I realize now that our differences were fratricidal—as fratricidal as the siege of Troy—because I am convinced that the Jews are of Hellenic descent. This is how the revolutionary change has come about. In the early thirties, after the publication of Law and Life accord- ing to Hebrew Thought, 1 began to be interested in biology as a hobby. In the course of my desultory study of the subject, I came across a few Greek words which bore a striking resemblance to biblical Hebrew, and I jumped to the conclusion that the Greeks had borrowed them from us. So I toyed with the idea that one day I might make a systematic comparison benveen the two languages. In those days I was still under the spell of traditional scholarship and, like everybody else, implicitly believed that Semitic languages were Semitic and A guages were Aryan, and that never the owain could mix. Yet I thought it would be interesting to compile and explain an exhaustive list of similar words, if only to show how little or how h Hebrew had influenced Greek before the advent of Alexander, seei that the influence the other way about was cor ake of his conquests. Little did I know what the ac my research would show I was so ignorant of Greek then that I o: letters of its alphabet, which I had picked up incidentally in the course of my elementary mathematics and geometry, I remember asking my friend, Mr. Gerald Emanuel, in a City tea-shop to write the full alphabet for me at the bottom of a partly used sheet of paper. This was in 1932-3. _The years rolled by during which the project remained in ance. Butt when I had published New Biology and Me y leisure hours almos: entirely to ks which I suscected existed between biblical Hebre After acquiring a smattering of grammar, I plunged. straight into the Septuagint, relying exclusively on my memory of the original for the meaning of the numerous passages I selected to read. Then [ read Homer in conjunction with the Bible: about one page of Greek and its translation, line by line and sentence by sentence, and a chapter from the Old Testa- ment—starting with Genesis and the first book of the Jliad, and finishing up with the last book of the Odyssey and the Second Book) oof Riel, ™ This is how my theory began to evols "GN é& SO ft 12 II. A{ODUS OPERANDI of Chronicles. Day by day the list of similar words lengthened until they topped six hundred, including words relating to various aspects and activities of life, which could not be accounted for by the ubiquitous and abiding factor of bo: . Besides, history affords no evidence of the existence of circumstances which might have favoured borrowing of such high quality and on such a huge scale. I became convinced that the limit of borrowing had been crossed, and that I stood on the borders of a genetic relationship. But the gate to the family homestead was shut before a and it ~was_no_use_attempting to force, limb ov . It had to be opened freely and widely QY 727) and the key to it was grammar. So far, however, the stammatical features I knew Greek had in common with Hebrew were the dual number and the definite article, which sometimes attached to both the adjective and the noun it qualified. I stopped reading and started thinking and reviewing the results of my crude research. I used the material at hand: analysing it, classifying it, notin the various exchanges between the Greek and the Hebrew | comparing them with biblical variations and the dialectal changes among the Greek letters, select! for comparison. that—as regards their consonants—. ~—from_each other in their terminal letters only. cad \ and/or Ta oes hee (in accordance I tentatively formutited the rule wigs fr ~ Based further experience—that\) si cordingly, I provisionally concluded that a diplythong may BT Dlg and es iis hess the diphthong i is replaced t vy and UG. A gat ivc bal Z a pr cbx Il. MODUS OPERANDI / Is exchange with a guttural. This will actually be/confirmed /by three of the five homologies in the next/exampk. Thirdly, dertain Greek jfletters dialectally exchange one with * the other—¢, g. x with z/ 0 with a,/c with/5—a phenomenon reflected jn, the followiag GraecosHebrew homologies: ofxos ; (es fo tes(i58) sft, esi) nbd eclov Lastly, Wark the strange metamorphosis in th wwords, | \ {Qo whereby the suffix in Greek tw a prefix in Hebrew, e.g. — hajon/ s ara /seg ou x ~FpuaOR7 abhenl Oi at\opa respectively 7 from épda(iN and aditepalffi9/P Pons ck te Xitevev/ | _-Eariyin myTesearch I looked-for whereby to check the A'Y/Jon p0© “accuracy of homologies and to assess their significance. As the number of tests discovered increased, so did the efficacy of their application and my confidence in my theory. From the beginning Tleaned heavily on Arabic; occasionally the Septuagint came in useful, Two examples will suffice here, ad nex ~,{ According to my phonetical rules,(AYW)is a safe homologue of ay cae This is corroborated grammatically by the fact that the % compound 75) homologous with the compounds dzooréUw, én "ada egamo-. Yet what confirms these homologies beyond adventure, and at the same time lends port to y, is that dzooréMw means s daff a as well as ay, and coupled with k (as afore- y these two ye gere well be taken for homonyms—should bear such cifferent mean ings, especially as they belong to two sister, figuag uch > : © combined —is dealt with Teng K ABET Again, according to my rules of phbnetio, T39u wel asits Caz ‘py, Variant (M13 D5—homologizes with jvaros, the genitive of jjzap, +00." — Wheread Tao )is the true homologue of xéSos. Now the Septua- \ ~_gint rendei jin Gn 49. 6 by rap. This is justified by the usage of reduplication, as part of the general context. But it looks as if the translators read the word in Genesis (°725)and NYy bo Ly€ 6! ys ce Ty II. MODUS OPERANDI Ve 1 not(°72D} ANhkenazi fashion—as red aplicatin ~WD1) Because the same rend¢ring is not maintained ih a similar téxt—that is, TBD is unaccounta rendered by =e 27125) here deci Elsewhere (7135) i i rendered by Soa (instead of xiSos), where—it is submitte Sk or the context demands yzep. However, it is highly significant that, through my theory, it is possible to correct the Septuagint by the Septuagint, and to understand the Bible by the Bible. It is such discoveries that cured me of Graeco-Hebraic dyslexia and enabled me, by the formulation of a series of simple rules of phonetics and morphology, to read a Hebrew word as if it were its own variant, e.g. 07 and MY, 27] and 17), 2N and °2N, 73D and Ti25, nen and TNW), INI and TWN7, OND and Oy, yn2 and PP ?, EXD and PRI. Looking at such words, pair by pair, I began to find it natural that they should prove to be identical—despite differences in literal composition, Pronuncia- ton, scale, or gender. To me, *NYND] OWN “71ND! not only means “NN OTIR not imagine Wl, mea 2772, but also reads it. Again, Ic an eagle, blowing 2 hom {Hos 8. 1), but rather a herald; so oughts rush to xAipué, Knpuxeui and 3. On the other hand, I detected new homonyms, learned to distinguish between words of close similarin HyjeU) and qpy, yea and 19 ya, RI and N°2A. In other words, familiarity with the Bible ceased to breed oversight, and taught me to see the Greek word through its Hebrew disguise, and vice versa; e.g. dpdw TIN, épe-pa/MN177; dpos/T1, dpos/dpop; TIA; srov/YAN, Selov' 72D; ear ee dru! asi ; Onrduoy/MIM, dardn-ov/NIN~ TOY, dylatlw/O7Y, dyhetliw PPV. Indeed, there are q words in the Bible t re written and pronounced in more than one way, and we know of one occasion where a mere lisping cost many lives {Jud 12. 6). But the significance of these differences and of the differences in the names of several peoples and places has eluded the exegetes (Gn 14. 2, 3, 28. 5 Dt. 11, 20, 3. 9, 4. 48). Hunting for homelegues was, is, and will ever remain a most exhilarating exercise. It has all the excitement of the chase— and its hazards. It is never dull or fruitless; for even if one getsII, MODUS OPERANDI 43 off the trail, one is more likely than not to gain some incidental or adventitious benefit. Indeed, often enough you look for China and discover America; phlogiston may elude you, but you come upon oxygen; you are prospecting for diamonds and uncover a nugget. Occasionally, the process is precipitate, one genuine homologue leading to another with the succession of a chain reaction. Let me give an example which I vividly recall. In my desultory reading of the Septuagint at random, I came i se Séppis zpiyien for IUY NIGN “Zach 13. 4). It occurred to me—not for the first time or the at here was a word, Séppis, which approximated the Hebrew MTN so closely that the similarity must have struck the translators as odd. In fact, Thad chen and have time and again since wondered whether the authors of the Septuagint had sensed or known that relationship of sorts existed between the two languages. How: r, as usual, I placed myself in their position and reached for IVcadhouse, to find out the range of synonyms from which the translators had picked out this particular word. Which led me to Spd. In 2 fi sage in Esther 1.67) VT) Se Las ABST Py flash the pas —sprang to mind. Without much delay, I for Se homologies: 1D yés0cx. Accordingly, n END iados, UY kvords, “WTySopd, 1 ors were paved with polished stone, ot red with rugs. This is far from the gau ers were matted and fantastic or cov emeralds and pearls of the Septuagint—even as far reality can ever be from wild fiction—althoug coverings must have been as precious as any ever produced in Persia, to match the couches of gold and silver provided for the roval guests. However, three out of the four homologies s hier genuine homologues, and YY in our con on led to three xt proved to be a variant of UW. Thus: MD0/; mute @ aida ! = 6b 2 Aire e : bof) Blyauye (Vau,v} 3 go yeupe z 7 d 6 8€\ra 2 Z d 3 a he (n) é buddy = ek oh a o h . Spiritus assez ,, a xo a i mute € € dilor 23 x 3 Q w Ff s w 4 » mute e ” : rn z g 3 sh non ho (a) a ch ooh : t 8 D eb ft . y ‘ Ss eLy % 0 mute ‘ aa Ss ” > kook xdoze a Sk > OF kx xel, xt & ce kK 5 ose? 1 d AdplB8e Re Yol 5 52 m op po - m 3 n ¥ vo ey n 3 s a odprt y Te . & . D nD Po wel, wi Dp omD f ¢$ dei, dt J bof20 Il]. THE FOUNDATIONS 2 $ o 3 pip ? é a 1,7 rp : r > oT? $ S s v oT g Pe) a oo tof red = t a wD t + £ é get, € v 3 pudév bet, gi sb d a Goz An example of ¥ pronounced 2 is the homology ofkos/Tit thus: ofxos, originally Fotwos + Foros [x and + interchange dialectally) + Fairos (0 changes dialectally into e) + Far (by apocope) > N°2. Another example is girpe, Fedzpa/N12 is pronounced like » before the palatals—y, x, y—and before €; 2 phenomenon reflected in Graeco-Hebra} mology. {is a double-consonant composed of 3 c, but opinions differ as to whether the 6 preceded the ¢ or v ns to suggest that both views are correc:; ‘or reverses the order—while the Graeco-Hebraic homologies are divided, some exemplifying one order, others the reverse order. In ancient Athens was an aspirate, which lends support to the guttural pronunciation of its homologue, D°M, cither like co like Plz. But the aspirate letter in Hebrew is 7. @jra is the homologue of N°Q; but 4 s xe 4 or N—as pronounced the Baghdadi way—and not Hike ©. As a matter of fact, @ was used for N by the Septuagint in BHO (Thr 1. AAAE@ (Ib 1. 4), THO (Ib 1. 9), OY (Ib 1. 22)—and simi- larly in the following chapters—while + stood for 0. D has been equated with %, which is a form of sigma, because 72D is the homologue of odum, thus: edum + caer (by vowell consonant metathesis) -> capix (7 tuming > 4nd. nds falectally into x}Ill. THE FOUNDATIONS an Similarly, Y has been equated with o, because }'Y and aiyya homologize, thus: o¢ypa — aya (y drops out occasionally) _ + owa (wand v interchange in Greek) -+ ow (by apocope accord- ing to rule) = ]°. Originally, 2 used to be written XE, and PE instead of ¥. This is reflected in Graeco-Hebraic homology, thus: EvAov (block- tead)/°OD Eccl 2. 16; Enpd (dry)/TU3 Lev 16. 22; Yedod (light troops, unarmed soldiers, bareheaded, without helmet)/D°VOB Jud 3. 19, 26; WedBos (lie) /2TD Ib 16. 10 (r and x, 8 and 8, inter- ge dialectally—or » and 2 interchange according to rule in wi80s/ 712), and dos drops out by apocope—while ¢ tums into T according to rule (as in ddavi{w/ODX)). Moreover, ¢ and v had (and still have in modern Greek) similar sounds to a: and o: respectively, while 0 was used as ov. To this day the Ashkenazim pronounce 73 N73 or MZ, and O73 079; plural in Hebrew is formed by adding a mute ° /plus terminal 2) to the singular, compared with the addition of o: in Greek (pronounced like mute « in modern Greek). Lastly, the homo- logues of the verbal adjective poBwrds are WY Ex 22. 14 (hired servant} and N1DY Neh 6. 13 (Aired, hireling) ; while the homologue of dytords (, (allowed) is so 772 Ex 29. 31 in Hebrew, 772 Dan + in Aramaic, and ys Sidboyyes (with tivo sounds) refers in Greek to the union of an open vowel with a close one. But in both Arabic and Hebrew it refers to a double-letter, because it is the homologue of «i as well as 237, thus: Biddovyos > 5idBo (by apocope according to mule) + Sido? (by vowel/consonant metathesis) + Sao8 (= and y inter- change dialectally) + SyoW (8 converts into Y according to rule) + diye (0 turning dialectally to «) +17. Sidfoyyos + 5:fGov (by apocope according to rule) + 8@Gov (6 and @ interchange dialectally) > 5:58ov (@ and 5 interchange dialectally) > ebdoy (8 and ¢ interchange dialectally, and either converts into D/,+ eeaien to rule (as in é8ous/[O,22 III. THE FOUNDATIONS odpé/NW)) > _5:88a» (o and ainterchange dialectally) > ee (v turns tos according to rule) ; cf PIB /TAIN/Aidwrers, PVS/LScdv/oso, OS /NW (el forming a digraph, as ok does in oxénropa:/ Gli and oxizrpov/D22). IT, 1, 1, and "—when mute—may be considered cs vowels, al- though they do not actually function as such; for in Hebrew the function of vowels is taken over by points of vocalization, the principal of which are the following: ~T2R ¢ 7 «9 3 pve III. Hebrew pronunciation is most importent to our ingutry. Hebrew pronunciation is not uniform, either as regards letters or vocalization, In fact, there are no less than four distinct kinds of pronunciation of Hebrew, namely: the Ashkenazi, the Bagh- dadi, the Sephardi, and the Yemenite. The most articulate and discriminating ‘s the Baghdadi, accord- ing to which: : = is distinguished from > gs 53 » 3 Ty » x «OD Vy x | n,, » a) vy, we » A 2 in eo x Sos » » 2 FP» ay » 2 n a Moreover, it distinguishes between the various points of voca- lization, except between P73)? and MND or 7UO and “1S, e.g. a5 303, 120. The independent NW is pronounced like a short Sud; and the enclitic, like its homologue, wt, or a consonantIII]. THE FOUNDATIONS 23 not followed by a vowel, e.g. the pronunciation of § and s in 8edeos: 23, TAI. The Ashkenazi ‘pronunciation differs from the Baghdadi in* that, according to it, no distinction is made between N and Y, 2 and 1, and 1, Tand 7,1 and 3, 0 and A, 5 and ?, 0 and N— e.g. WX, 19Y, TPYN; 23, B, 221; OM, O91, 7752; 7p, Fan, Yon; 93, 9, PD; 0, man? AD above, ¥ is pronounced ¢ ts or 8. As mentioned 72P is pronounced like 27% ear is Pronounced like "5, eg. 7 is pronounced 2 ‘weight’, e.g. Thereis no distinction between the independent and the encl NTU, the former being pronounced like the latter. Cf. Eypd/7713. The Sephardi pronunciation differs from the Ashkenazi in that, according to it: ¥ is pronounced like 0, and 7 like 1; so that 77S and O70, NN and OD, are confused one with the other. ion, however, it resembles the Baghdadi pronuni in its entirety. Lastly, the Yemenite pronunciation of the letters as the Baghdadi, both tending to confuse the 3 w the 3; as in vocalization 727 is pronounced like D710, and D'7ii1 is pronounced as the French do ev in ‘seul’. It is worthy of note that, in so far as 7D and OPW are concerned, the Ash- enazi and Yemenite pronunciations are practically the same, ough they have severally prevailed in communities which nave lived two thousand miles and for many more years apart. There is ample biblical and Arabic evidence of the genuineness and antiquity of the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi pronunciations —which are supposed to deviate from the standard Baghdadi— as to both letters and vocalization. Thus: Y he same Gn 24. 29, es xan Ib 31. ante IPAS Gn 25. 16, 229 Dan 2. 493 YEP Ib 5. 19, SS24 Ill. THE FOUNDATIONS y/k—>oy TIS 1. 21, 12ND Zeph 3. 1; 18 Ps go. 11, 1% Ib 76. 8. s/o—p>y IS 2. 1, 099 Job 20. 18. p/>—m) Gn 14. 19, WD De 32. 6; PP Jud 4. 17, WP Job 29. 18, y¥32 Gn ro. 18; pn Gn 18. 12, des. - . njt— yn} Ez 22. 21, 403 Jes 40. 1g; WB Gn 41. 12-13, 3 nfo—ow Ps 50. 23, cf. *2°ON Ib rig. r. n/R—ny3 Gn 17. 12, a non Dan 7. 5, 2. ~/' —]38 Esr 2. 59, PIX Neh 7. 61; 18 Ps 76. 8,19 Ib go. rr; OF IR 5. 15, avn Ib 5. 24; S797 Q, au Ez 5K; 2 27) in HS >; 92 is pronounced IICh 33. 4, o¥99 Ib 33. 7, pile; Ib 21. 11; Op Dt 28. 7, oDip IIR 16. 7; IS 17.5; 27 Dt 32. 7 is in Aramaic 77 Dan 3. 33, as 89 Ps 54. 5 is xd Dan 3. 12 in Aramaic and Y in Arabic; 45 Dan 3. 3, 72 Ib2. 10, both i in Aramaic, Cf. 79 Thr 4. 3, 10 Jes 60. 16 Ex 30. 23; mA Job. Q. 20, 3 Ez 7. 2 . 6 Ps 30. 13, 149. 5, 132 Ex 29. 133; 773 TR, 10. 6, IE a2 Ps 44. 2 is in Aramaic nes Dan 2. 44. Cf. ni Ib 2. 19; 20% Dt 28. 48, 57, 39 am TICh 4. 11, 20 Ib IR 7. 13; IN ITS 12. 31; 39, Tv Lev 4. 19. 38 is pronounced 33 mus Q; F Eee! 5. 10 K; Bee le a8, 15K, eae Q; Ss 126.4 KamavQ; Q. 14; ERK IT Q Ib 33. 26; 2WRK N23 Q Ib 49. 39; JAMBI K jamin? Qs mag K mcd Q, mag K mand Q Ez 16. 53; JS Thr 2.14 Q, + K. V. pp. 651-3. However, the last word really rests with Greek. For it is in Greek that the process originates of interchanging = with @ and c, «and y, aand o, oand «,e and «, and ov and «. Again, it is in Graeco-Hebraic homology that one or the other of the consonants, oS—which make up the compound letter ¢—drops out. Therefore °73, the counterpart of Cara with which it interchanges, is rightly pronounced like D by the Sephardim. Perhaps for the same reason Arabic has the additional letter _ 5/8, e.g. Kodi] 22s As a matter of fact, the Greek homologues often ease which of the above interchanged Hebrew letters are interchangeable, and Zeph 2.7 Ps 85.2,I]. THE FOUNDATIONS 25 whether the two interchanged letters in a given pair fail to inter- change between themselves. Thus: 203/930] and 729/730 are two entirely different verbs, being the respective homologues of éyalecw and eloyerpifu. However, in the verb “1303/7903, both the land the 3 replace the same letter, x. This fact tends to prove that they are genuinely interchangeable. Similarly, in the verb 920/729, both the 2 and the D replace the same letter, y. This fact tends to prove independently that they are genuinely inter- changeable. Furthermore, these two independent probative facts confirm each other and establish that 1 and 3 are definitely inter- changeable in Graeco-Hebraic homology. Incidentally, these two facts also tend to show that « and y are interchangeable. In- deed, they are dialectally interchangeable, a third fact which further confirms the validity of the other nwo. In the result, a fi founded conclusion has emerged which serves to test the genuineness of other homologies involving « or He O-8- wupdas and ywoilw. [tis not surprising to find that each verb has a homologue beginning with J, namely, VW and 772 re- spectively, But we shall see that xupéw has another homologue, TI, and yupife other homologues: 7D, 27D, 7 replacing x, and these substitutes are 2 and y, 2 and nangeable. As a mater of fact, are dialectally interct eable. Besides, we seen U exchanges with D and 7 respectively in the homologies, recy 5D and Aelyes/ PP? Mark incidentally that occasionally a letter in the Hebrew word does not actually rzdresent its counterpart in the homologue, but the dialectal alternative of the counterpart. For instance, in the homology Sypiowi%, & replaces 8, but it indirectly represents y into which @ is dialectally converted. Another interesting example is the double-homology, uéyas! 72:7 TY. In the possessive case, wéyas inflects into ueydiov, and 1 the dative into peyalw; as if the nominative masculine were péyoios. Similarly, minine of péyes is peyd\y, while the masculine plural is zeydlo. In fact, it is on this basis that the adjectives 972 and 77¥ homologize with uéyes. Thus: peyatos + yados (dropping the p syllable or the initial syllable according to rule) + yadoA (replacing the final o by the26 III. THE FOUNDATIONS terminal 9 according to rule) + yadoA (the first A dialectally turning into 8) + 271. Alternatively: peyaros + yalos — yaiop ‘the terminal o dialectally turning® into p) + yadop (A dialectally turning into &) + yadoA (p dialectally turning into 4) + 971) (cf. -yas, -yep, -yaA, ~yaos). peyados > yados + yaroA + yapoA (the first \ turning dia- iecrally top) = yapen (o turning dialectally into «) + Yaped y turning into ¥ according to rule) — 77. Here, the letters 7 and 4, which interchange with 4, do not interchange inter se; but they match as The double- homology DIM, Avi /xorrw is entirely different: init the interchanged final Hebrew letters do not replace the same Greek letter in the homologue. For the 0 in DIM replaces the 7 in xéwrw; whereas the 3 in 20M refers to the thematic w or the cin -ew—az 7 dropping out. Therefore, there is no question of Dd interchanging with 3 either directly or indirectly. The above series of changes undergone by the Greek letters— consonants and vowe!s—have to be compared with the series of literal and vocal changes which occur in the Bible, in respect of both letters and vocalization; becaus ise these nwo sets of changes constitute the background to, and the bas of, Graeco-Hebraic homology. However, these accumulated changes are so numerous and various as to be useful solely as pointers in the search for genuine homologies. When examined and classified, they serve as foundations for rules or Propositions which record faithfully the different ways in which the changes actually exist. The rules do not themselves regulate the changes; they merely formulate certain observations of change- -phenomena, As factual formu!ai of purely empirical character, they are capable of helping the investigator towards genuine homologies and away from spurious ones. Once tracked down in this manner, however, each homology must be subjected to several pragmatic tests, whereby it would be possible to reject or confirm it with 2 high degree of accuracy and certainty. The significance of dialectal and other changes, both in Greek and in Hebrew, will spring into bold relief on examinining three homologies: vads/ (M3, ofxos/N72, zpds/T¥2. At first blush, a reasonable person would be inclined to concede the validity of the first homology. He might, with some strain or hesitation entertain guaIII, THE FOUNDATIONS 27 the possibility of the third being sound. But whoever—in his senses, that is—would be prepared even to consider the pretensions of the second? Admittedly, all that scepticism is to be expected at first sight, in spite of the semantic evidence. Yet, looked at in the light of dialectal changes, cach one of these three would and should—it is confidently submitted—reai absolute acceptance. To begin with, the Aeolian for vads is vades, and the Spartan Moreover, ¢ and o are interchangeable. T: of otkos is Foikos, whereas o and « respectively x. Finally, here are the various guises of 5s, the Cretan =p homologies command . the origin into a and sos: the Argive is i, the Cyprian also 3s, of letters in the Bible is of fi °25 Gn 27. 36 oT Ib tr. 19 2777 IICh 10. 18 ran IS 3. 18 WF Dan to. 17 xv Gn 13.9 NER Ib 19. uuxdouas be (d-Be) RD Job 38. 11 » 72 Gn 31. 37 Np Job 24. 5 Onpiov xaos IIS 10. 6 fardos m8 Nu 32. 24 “7 mp Lev 10. 19 xvpees28 Ill. THE FOUNDATIONS yoF IIS 13. 3, 32 » nO IS 17. 13 wv IIR 25. 29 m7 Jer 52. 33 peraxivrews xyn0 ICh 20. 7 ay Similar interchanges occur in Greek and Graeco-Hebraic homologies: . on Hrepeav [dy-[dyi- [OD OLB, te/paseyRTery cal cu/cs, en /pen /poon[- Ul GG! 4-/M3/T/IA, dvos TH, feee/ITT epyopar/IAN WR, « elparifelpxr}[DIT, forwe f-/2. Ri XB Job 38. 11 x/m yarn ICh 8. 35 72X Zach 6. 3 xP UR TIS 14. 19 my Gni.t vty Neh 12. + tS Ib oo. tt -4 Sy Gn 20. 3 Ex 17-1 ne ICh 19. 2 oN IS 9. 10 SZ Ibg.9 ets, és sT2x ICh 3. 8 ev ora Ib 14. Hhoedy}s kA Gn 24. 21 Gedopcr swsin IIS 22. 49 owrjp (cwfw) =xnp Am 6.8 i many Eccl 5. 10 mw Eccl 1. 14 dpaas RIP Nd Jud 14.5 pre Prv 28. 15 S0éyyopat ANE IIS 3. 34 aWp Gn 44. 30 bers a). dva Jer 3. 14,31.32 Yea Ib ry. 19 oruyéw (y!2) DST Ps 41. 13 ysm Gn 43.9 eiadyw aay LICh 36.16 = 22920 Ib 30. 10 xarayeAdw s/n prvi US 19. 32 K m7 Q apSdriov11. THE FOUNDATIONS 29 77mg HS. 3 WIR i.9 Jes 38. 16K 23 ICh 26. 18 S27 Jud 5. 14 2) 5728 Ob 12 u 0 ys 55p Der. 17 WeNT Jer 30. 23 mi Jes 14.9 Joel 2. 10 a» Ps 77. 17, 19 wwrna ICh 3. 5 si Ez 1.18 Ps 129.3 m3 ama IIR 93. 11 ow Prv 26. 3 aR Dt 32. 35 4772 Jer 50. S22 Ib 42. 14 mz Jer 4. 29 RE Jos 18.8 at Jos 15. 4 125 Tb 26. 5 3201 Gn 8. 2 wleiw, &y- 720 Jes 19. 4 doer Soy Ez 31. 18 eyes sawn Job 17. 8 éveipopat Je Joel 2. 10 737 Ps 104. 32 Spexdlw, -iles » cloowat a IIL. THE FOUNDATIONS 73 Ps 5.5, aNd Jud 14. 5 my ICh 20. 3 WN Esr 4.23 Esr 6.3 ‘nt Dan 5. 19 TDP Jes 14. 23 327 Ps 104. 32 y Ez 41.20 , Ex 22.8 Dt go W271 Ps 104. 92 272 Ez 9.2 7 Gn 15.1 37 De 32. 7 7 6 nogy Gn g. 21 nD Ez 40. 10. : ALT Ex 32. np [IR 19. 2 dq Jes 19. 18 nad 1Ch i. nonap Q wr Jes 32.11 Ex ge.17K win Ps 78. 63 » mp Gn 44.29 wupd PPP Prv 28. 15 B0eyyouas MNF2 Jes 10. 15 play Vis. 3) BTR Jer 32. 21 xep mat Desa. 21 iw 2mGnait Sat Job 32. 6 map Ib 34.15 SN IS 9.9, 10 SB Ib 143.7, 10-1 wporéw, cvpisin Flos poddesILI. THE FOUNDATIONS at m2 Gn qt msp Jes 14 dnt, dva- mind Job 3.1 27 11S 19. 25 aE Ib 18.13 poss Q.. Tb 15. 11 PIR Ib ypo Dt 33. 21 Ps 119. 11 73 Gn 0. 19 as Jos 15. 50 ends Ib or. ry Jud 20. 10 13.13 B Job 33. 24 ; B32 Job 6.9 3 Nu 33. 41 278 Jud 8. 5 ne TIS 15. 30 Ps 66.14 buy Ga 15.9 RQ E217. 13 we Snk Q Soe Q rsx Q ara Ib 24. 18 pax TICh 9. 25, sp Jer 6.7K iQ péap, dpetap maitz Gn 35. 8 m2 Ib 50. + xwxutds yaa ICh 12. 15 (16) Q nt K Sx8y2 Ill, THE FOUNDATIONS ont Jer 16.16 K art Q caynre’s » Ez 47.10 wn Jes 19.8 oRTAm 1.3 wet Dt baila 791.Gn r1. 30 Wr Ib 4. Braorés onmICh 14.1 “Epuacov IICh 9. 10 K mean Ps 70. 2 aa pRp) Zach 14.6 Q amisp: Ce Job RK nap) Zach 14 mR wow Job 12. vor omy oe sea? Job 30.13 K nren Q ou Q K ~=Q “Ww K ZiT) mDYICh 10. 12 , Vis. 83/009 Hab 3. 18 aslattes ni IS 7. 10 Sprcdbes, ~ wt Job 36. 2 é pixpds pst Ps 142.6 pys Ib 88. 2 Kantor pyti Jos 8. 16 pysi IS 13. 4 ourdyw vip Jes 10. 25, avn Gn 19. 20 Eexpos toy Hab 3.18 Ps68.5 YoY Ibg. 3, 68.4 dyratlw omIII. THE FOUNDATIONS yo m7 IIS 22.8 nj> ‘Van Job 16. 4 wo Dt2. 95 Pn Gn 33. 5 nen IIS 15. 30 yan De 23. 19 mp Pst. 6 tip we Job 9. 26 eyo ep? Gn 47. 14 0 n mpen Ez 13. 10 nen Jud 21. 21 yon Dt 27.9 p7pee Dan 3.7 escr wa Ps2.t DVI Jes 13. 13 922 IIS 22.8 Vs. taj 208 Ib 35. 16 nS Dt 32. 6 Job 31.15 Fp Jes 58. 5 129 Nu 20. 19 Pry 31. 10 qe iSio.: wy Joel 4. 11 acy Ex 16. 36 wyay Gn 15.2 VATA Jes 28. 20 mDs Ex 36. 34 mop Ez 17.4 ve» pi Jes 17 pr IRar. 19 a poo Ez 16.25 Vs Run 22 Dan it 3 Job 23m Jes 10. 15 box Neh 13. 19 ge 333 Pry 27. 18 43 237 Jes 10. 15 237 IIR 6.6 Tp Jes 18.6 wp? Job 24.6 agna Jer 23. 13, 32 Ann Job g. 12 pun Jes 7.4 ponmep Ib 3. 10 c 33 xoos, -xous sive, -yibes gained » boi Jer 49. 24 nn Hos 13. 1 Sppwdia noe IIR 6. 13 max Gn 37. 16 rod, Kod, Grou, éxov a3 Gn 31. 37 ap Jos 18. 8 je, De nad Job 9.9 neva Ib 15. 27 922 Dtar. 16 (éd-) apa Lev 13. 36, 27.3 Lev 27. 26 qn Ps 78. 50 Job 33.18 pon Jes 38. 17 sri IS 17.5 2p Ib 17. 38 FO Dt 32. 6 Gn tg. 19 yn> Nu 22. 4 pp? IR at. 1g 2a Ez 22. pm less 29 meson Dt 27.9 pan Jes 7 Yev Esth 7, 10 (du spun Job WT IIS 22. 12 oxdros naz> Neh 13.5 THR Jer 51. 5 72778 Gn 38. 11 WLyl Val aGn gr. 46 4 mtr IIR 23. 5 129 Job 38. 32 andy Jos 15. 32 R77 Ib 19. 6 Vs, 3/9 5px Gn 29. + peux Dan 2. 8 a! » Dr33 Ps 44.2 prgrzi Dan 2. mwa [Ch 6. 1-2 py Gn 46. 11 m2] Gn 7. 10 yom Dan 12. 13 ef jydpar 0909 ITS 19. 38 yra2 Ib rg. 41 aap Prv 25. 3 Ton Prv 31.3 Beorledsis o ox Cant 1.8 ox Cant 2.7 2 IIS 19.6 AYES Jes 2: III. THE FOUNDATIONS ot 5 pazy Ib 5.2 7 THEIR 11. 33 ev Jud 1. ¢ Jos 19. 22 35 ner IS 15. 33 yusGnarr ne Lev 13. 47 RPI Jer 10. rr t Ave Ib 28. 5 Vis. xfs af aly ty nj Vis, 2/2 n/p YD 3/D D/D 3/D werd fou8ds xevaloané draldeou, dedyen, wMbes oxite fea, épas nopn, Eavdés foe orédos36 Ill, THE FOUNDATIONS 3/p yD Jud 5. 26 pra Ib. melo yw Gait RPAR Jer to. 11 gpa, Epas wSD Gn 4.11 Tipp Job 14.3 Tretdvuy, of yw TED Jes 14.7 29 » za ns Jes 44. 16 np Jer 29. 22 dptyw wos Ex 12.8 rp Lev 23. 14 dpuxtés nn?g IIR 21. 13 nnbp Mich 3. 3 xodxetov vp Ib. Eahov nvD Lev 13. 5 dvrypt, oyu ” POD Pry 13.3 a np Jes 14.7 ” TD Mich 3.3 pop Ez 16. 25 pms Gn t7. 17 pTz Job go. 1 Eccl 3. + > penta TICh 30. 10 » Ex 32.6 pny IIS 2. 14 pos Gnat.g pny 11S 6. 2: qES Ps 17. 14 ye? Dt 33. 19 Tp Jes 18.6 resis TS P7 12 02 Poy sc} Fes. sip oF mp Exg.20 xwota 2) £2 Ps 50. 23 rélesos on wna IIS 6.5, mya Cant 1. 17 xuTdpiaoos, srr0s wn Jer 17.1 pian Ex 32. 16 xapdcow, -7 san Dr 22. 10 ay dpdin, dporpidlwSy IIl, THE FOUNDATIONS TNS Ps 8g. 24 ana Gn qt. 12 yond Gn great sn Job 21.34,33-36 42 ny Ga 32.6 an Jer 8.7 a 1 Esr 6. 9 259 Jes 1. 18 22 Dan 7.9 BeGain 13 Vis, TE aA Ue vf oy nojn sin Psy ers in Graeco-Hebraic homology accord anges into and 7, and vi cu changes into w; a hony. There is alpha priva né alpha euphonicum; flim, duBores neoq dMeyze nog dMeypds mm xetue VOR éses 73 on IN? Aedes initial ¢ may uch changes being clso reflected in Hebrew mo 37 xéarw dpdlw, -addle Soak} orpise drrerpébu oxpédis raipos hala e changes into o and often rejected or prefixed for ulativum, be rejected for B. 2 changes into 8, and vice versa; 8 changes into y and y; the aspirate changes into 3. Sometimes the spiritus lenis is also replaced by B. BR dys Woe Becledw, -Alw Tw aiSas L » ne: » Sen * ana cipéw R2q¥ epnpia38 III]. THE FOUNDATIONS I. « and = change into y; y changes into A; » changes into + before the palatals—y, «x, y—and before €; v is sometimes Pp ? prefixed. Vs. B. a ypdpw BR dyyetov edoyKos ues é 4. S changes into 8, A, ¢ 3 is inserted to give a fuller sound LZ. Burov sivas, los ANT Godfw Z. [changes into ¢4, but ¢ often bildue 3 bdpov Bovlootin Zets, H. The old alphabet had only one sign “£} for the ¢ sow ull the long vowels, 7 and w, were introduced from the Samian alphabet in the archonship of Euclides in 403 3.c. Eta (H) was probably pronounced as a long e, cf. Sos (from 8éeAos); but before it was taken to represent the double ¢, it was used for the spiritus asper—- which remains in the Latin —as HOE for és. Vs. A, ELIl. THE FOUNDATIONS 39 on, ADP weiBpov, -f- OX ciSwhov mapa, oR, AND p8orj @. ® changes into o and v.v.; also into 7, 4, and y. Js. 4. 99 xdlafos ND béoas tid oxtros A Bewodw I. changes into ¢ and v; 0, ov, and v change into ot; cis often inserted to lengthen the syllable. Fis. E. Sis (ovis) Ta2 Unde K, «changes into 7, and v.v.; 7 and y change into x; v changes into y before x; o is prefixed to words beginning with «; € appears as an aspirated «. Fs. P. row, Sxou,7o§ NES"N baz nose ” reléw o chp ylevdto os MP xoks M. y changes into vy and =; j: is added at the beginning of a word and after alpha privativum; p is added in the middle of a word to facilitate pronunciation. duZpores eZ vorepés a2oor0s "2 wore paoyély AR poryedw 237 wvpZayos 2 vous, vd mate, yap a ~ “FA WD byrdw, &d-, nade SD pecyatife DMD pdues mn, , emépnvéwIII, THE FOUNDATIONS Movable v is added at the end of words. Vs. I, A, M. soem, PDN cwEn, pysn ws, po yan, joan qon, poen wore, pines O. 0 changes into v; ov changes into w; o is often rejected or prefixed for euphony. Is. 4, E, H, 1. K oraduly Az aos Tan wy In compound adjectives, o is changed ata Into 7, ¢.g. Beoyeris, Oeryerds/]ii78. In early umes represents both oand w—Oj, S177 ;and in many words must havesounded ike ov ecgas, as in Bédouas for Zovsouer 7UB Nu 23. 23— ile reverse! and respectively for xéoos 13} in Ion. kadeos, odvoue drove DY. becomes 6; vv.; in poets 7 aces the spirites _ Raa! ¢ changes asper surmount ros “TIS poddesII. THE FOUNDATIONS ray dvos Fonrdopat ‘yéppov vy veppddia 7, FAINT ft élw (B) DW pie baoreiey E. o changes into z, and v.v.; o represents the aspirate in Acol. and Latin; o is prefixed to words beginning with «, 4, 7, $; co passed into 77; a is dropped. Is. 4, Z, @, K, I, P. odedordu coos 2 oderderq 1 cxondws oréupa weiieg, 0 sBheios uo ysdcow » 9 ypddws w changes into v; v as a semivowel represented rau ( digamma—sometimes it formed the diphthong cv, sometimes the diphthong ev. Vs. Kip0s, xpos xibos ©. Vis. 8, I. X. Vs. 8, K. Q. w changes with «, ovand v. Vs. A, O, Y. 23 Buds 5 pdpos TPR, TI Bupdcoy Several of these changes, as we have seen, occur within Hebrew and in Hebrew-Arabic homology—e.g. P"DM, POM, aL;42 Ill THE FOUNDATIONS mp, 195; ny, HVaN; op, oy, ee—all and every one of which can be accounted for by the Propositions herein set out. VI. Classified consonants are also interchangeable in Graeco-Flebraic homologies: ° The labials—8, u, =, S-e.g.: Baodeds/990 Gn 45. 26, donuie/MIIY De 3. 17 17. 23, supdw/I¥2 Ex 3. 2, pq/JB Gn 3. 3, derZohdw/O9ENT Ib 20. mB De 29. 17, dudpyy Sodéor,515 Nu Tb 40. 30, an) 2123 Tb 6.17, dépe' NZ Tb ot Ez or. 15. The palatals—y, x, x—¢-g.: yoveds/mi? Gn 14. 19, xviptos’ épyovi7@ Ex 1. 13, xevds xwpitw/tra Ex 34. 11. 33 Ib 27. 29, ofyw. m2 Je 2 IR 14. 15, xd8os'73 Gn The linguals—8, 8, A, ¥, 9, o, -—€.g-: Se (ad}/% Gn 1. 9/-> Ib g. 10, bpdc0s. 99 Ib 2 Zor Dt 33. 96 Ps 46. PoiZos/7ND Gn 31. Jes 11. 84658; Seu De 32. The rough mutes—9, 3, x—eg.: Byptox)87 Job 39. 5, prodds IZZ Zach 11. 12; 6 Jes 4o. 11, 65. syID Gn 10. 18, Doing doing 3p Job 29. 18, ywpifw.77D Ez 34. 12, poryevw/ 7X. 5, Powis » changes into y before the palatals—y, x, y~and before &, e.g: erplwjTd Gn 18. 23, edoyxos, P22 Nu 13. 22, dyxvAn/Tpj¥ Jud 8. 26, dvywipin TIS 17. 23, ddeuyéita Jes 3. 16.43 IV. PHONETICS Tue following Propositions cover the main phonetic similarities and differences that exist between Hebrew and Greek. They indicate the regular sound-variations which distinguish the words in one language from their respective homolo: in the other. By their means one leams that the same letter in one language repeatedly conveys the same variety of sounds si-é-ris the other language; so that familiarity with such literal metamorphoses enables one to penetrate the Graeco-Hebraic palimpsest. VID. There are authentic Hebrew words—that is, words about which there is no suspicion thet they were borrowed from another lengua: resemble Greek words in pronunciation and meaning. ge—which 32t cuilevze Crtuue rpigos TSE iS relevraios wre Sots) relyos in VHT. Co languages SER sayeiv oyiw San xopevw dhoyéw edhoyos be ois ” yoiey ” ebdoyia Dy Sdues, Snuds Fucp » mq os WUD done » EM Uldvov RUD Doing“4 IV. PHONETICS Sma pnxére oe » andod bing yépeopa 33 orevds $20 bya wolvcodes am, 9m péos AIS GHly PID rapyardoua 030 inmos amp Leidns 8 3z véges wo, ANZ oréap oR rélos bata PUD zerdwupe 32D dodles snp rédevos IX. The Hebrew letters which are not to be found in namely: i, 11, 9, 3, P—and the Greek letter E which does not occur Hebrew, naturally interchange with other letters. (2). 11 interchanges mainly with : the spiritus asper and the spiritus lenis, an internal vowel, a dibdhthong, v, «, ¥, Xx dyardui, alu 32 2jpa RI Maidv, Aids fa), Th interchanges we TER das TM FonerIV. PHONETICS 45 29 dpdyw aidlw ot xara-yonredo mony Enpés supaverns SY Bupa, zUAn nD péw » Byopa (4). S interchanges with: the rough and the smooth breathings, y, 8, t, 8, , § (ka), 7, 2 ox, OF, oy, 7, and x. 7M déds xal\iras tewa phowrds aol yy rats xpdua, -of@ 53, es well as: P22 gules Wt févos {or o,1) oat favééw TY fuords ZI fppaivw wy, (or —c) PT xdp0f mn €verts TON gvors, -cpa46 IV. PHONETICS X. Letters that are common to both alphabets do not always interchange respectively. (1). & interchanges with x—as in vernacular Arabic, or x drops oul—the« Spiritus asper, and the spiritus lenis: PIR Adwus xodwvos TBR urepdov SUR deowsos ézwdds ZUR xpuzrw =, , w, the sbiritus asper, (2). 3 interchanges with 2, 7, 8, 4 By 7, and the spiritus lenis: R2 Baivw epddv0v yAdyos TD atS€opar , xddos TMS alpéw pupioe TOS moredw doodos Tres, TT (6) 3 (3). 2 interchanges with 8, y, 8, f the sbiritus lenis: mea 2odw a3 SN. Avozas eeu az ms 7223 éddpiov 7 {4}. 7 interchanges with smooth breathings: 5 ANT Godlw TET rixrw HET dpodgy PIT bidxw SNP Olde SST cw=zdw ZT éxos St ands DIT (tBos PIT Skéyw ). 11 interchanges as in By t,t: N73 yviov MS poptov Bovpynea TZ vouds TIT sStos (7). T interchanges with y, 8, £, 6, x, &, 0, 7, x, the spirtus asper, and the spinitus lenis: nat Ow mrs) yun} ont, not aw F Ont Sedu Dy feGdvcovIV. PHONETICS 47 Pst xoxo vit xeip oN pew wT, BID peddos Be ys m3 celw eho oy Ll d8duas, avros (8). Ti interchanges as indicated on p. 44. (9). © interchanges with y, 8, 8, 0, 7, the spiritus asper, and the Spiritus lenis: “3D Bupis . = oy Bs siD bie aoe yeiw i” me rayde acy yedua outs relevraios (10). "exchanges with y, «, v, @ diphthong, the sbiritzs asper, and the sbiritus lenis: TPT veds, vedos, mpidée, xare- IEP parddve stv We (13). 1 drops out or changes with B, A, p, », 7, > 327 padre a SD vorepds IRD ddos Obi Nadi, apoo- ASD py 3484B IV. PHONETICS pp Bdxdav wma ” nod pdppy BAB pupror rego pdppy ire (14). 3 interchanges with y, 4, pv: IN dt SL vexpds M1 Azpow, (vizpor) peaeyyiy (JB) NI orvylo doy (A329) ok dya\ua WR Zaye ARI poryedr (15). 0 interchanges with 7, 5, 6, 8, «, € (xo), 0, 7, and both breathings: ‘BS dyopaios ” Tr dupaxeiov yéppov rélos DT1D reBwpa- yepodBua Aedes xippéver favéés wyédw . SB delnipioy nw xhevdfes kénrw sésles, rophées ai povie nevdey exe, ware Bods (18). B interchanges as indicated on p. 45. hy, 0, 8, x, vy, & (xo), 2 (1g). P interchanges w breathings: PR ragdlopa 337 tu feyos mp PRS waydlw ADP bpyres 7 ARP xée Sop warapdopar mp wip dndle Ray Typ (20). 7) interchanges with y, 4, p, and o, or drops out: TR dyyos ADT Ds péyes OW pepo A dpéds arp OpiesIV. PHONETICS 49 (21). D interchanges with y, 8, 8, x, 7, o, 7, x, and both breathings : WW72 xpiwy YI ony} z r 2? . TD yebdw BIZ, Betpa N22 axis onxos TAP Spanéms JE duis 72 xAapus yk 8 22 » ny » TAZ Gepdzwv, -adb TAP pred . MT interchanges with 8, 8, x, =, 0, 7, end both breathings : olxos nan PP2 SiSupe Sp aTyupe Zz() réleos EMD Geperele INA reds, de zon, A Bépu RA nse, AR miraroy SUD cuge sbirstes asper and the sbirites lenis interchange wiih each other 73 GAov » ~ » BPX dios, od.tos avon oly &, & 08 ee $92 dlus 72 ny was IX Soowros » 2 noon dBdpas eoyos m2, , 1 TE obx, ovx Ya » 7 MI-SR déavacia v ” ” anya ” m2 on » DE beyor ayo ,, i yr,50 IV. PHONETICS Hi épyov ce x aw » ns (CE. fo8or) Shy few ” in n ya, oo Aovpyiis, -qHe Bayvuat, siocw, édéprov 3 (74) eddoie Bike » ama aoeIV. PHONETICS st42 Ziptns wens ‘ RE deaf, dra, dia AB eo ROQUTTE Aprotépens snevinny mde ei Oss W dtbos 2b on Boo 21N Enpatres TTR oxerapinddy Tp Ou) axvifadar BM axomdw,-malw WONT axordtw ‘TL oorfdes mm, AD » SPB, ous eS ” we wo wy fore) we, AT oroddt, IV. PHONETICS mp, (or Scawovew a= MAD Scaxovta AE SovdnV. MORPHOLOGY TR Svvapis 59 derdods LBB enBepeiv reBupaxcope- vot (Bwpanitex} xabaiow60 Vv. MORPHOLOGY SD AR Kev (xe) Kal EIR kad d » won (et ear) RpIN xdmrn)epe TDN xdduwos APE xaxxdBy (A) ERI xpds . a AIT xparetw yy KaxxdBy (BY : 8 ARE dex xpiq ms ” 5 5 write AND xaxdy BET xexoupyés SE1 xexoupyic S52 xdxoupyos ee Riz xaldtiov 1M ealMzais w= xdXicros wales TD Spererevw 32 Bparémms so xoraduyw aoe épmerov aoe eporetw DN? xalurrw SahovVv. MORPHOLOGY 61 spe} » “NR owet ek » =dBos “a woNepeexés, ae gow reiva, -7 aro- x, Pat » roNepos Tad» rewdw, ba- rolAd«is, =x: 372 waidiov o s roluéatdctos n eipry Sect mexrdw » , oTopde ” ‘4 revia rajyuptes : east aores ay 9 BYOpa 2 wévouat =o repaairw ZT zasayyedeus nm eaayeyelen Ty eh asec St wsadyyelpe s2sconevdla TesacKevacue wapacKeun vs weparasis 3 meserdoow SUTS s2peduarsipioy ” s2sebuyq raseduyw } saocalos, -r7- 2 on aia . ja? wAudetw SI zornpds wariw PON areéw MET ra xormpd62 Vv. MORPHOLOGY clea, -ediv ecb arepsv RTT arépuf AIT rrépwue TED arqeds (6505) epaios Hs xposayyélhe é » LS ropfueior, zoplyciov, sg p08- . zpocdyw 727 paride 5 TEI xpoca:péoue: Topiapes oe PLeHes apéedefis ys Paros 5 spooddyouet a ; p00 we ” S23 xomerts, furmorelns rorepes noddnus prev 7 a AMI: xzpodyreleVv. MORPHOLOGY depdrous odpyqua iN), , mar rae PIF" OpPdcros eotpetw, éx- si ®. 8 3.V. MORPHOLOGY rim Bu, wBqods VP + vier 7 rlempios RRR I twdcew TR réxvov, yévos mst nea . ° m2 rehdw, dro- St rir8be 24 rpavlonyée m2 rdw ~ zpaulés coy rélos St revOpyrn, de8onduv cywros sat pears TEEt redype TSE revere reu ye réeemHe, -veous, -re. eva té70vV. MORPHOLOGY m™m ” ee) a RET tpailew pot ED ” peo, REN does TP depuexevw Seopexirys Cozexoy 2 2 gree ny Podew DTAZ dopdw 7s ” 22: donne dupurés Spike, -endle, teow dpordw, -ixdter, Vv. MORPHOLOGY BINS dpdupos Cen dpuyanis, Bos SUR dunrios, Sue Hos, - . nyp » dur} Sak duld, datov ddvque el, urndises noe gulov 252 dupes sUSrn évew 1 duedy wy tae yo ROTTER S°o2 durdpiov SED dureupe durenrds 8opos, Séa0s, Kpots, Sond FH} SUEY B), 2(8e0s, Ion. xoipos, S320 cyoleads HiBeos Yay oxoAy Bpdeos,. MORPHOLOGY T Det yeue on bpdw, 3k sro yedw zp. bin nee. any6 Vv. MORPHOLOGY (4).2 JERR - dyapos pan Sipos PTS fardés, fords TSI 7 a Sia eS TPT dvOpaxeva ma SiSwyr qE2> ézws TI dvOpaxle TT 3ixn POT "Opbadcros 2 Ans AIT diy Sop, 38- » tepirgs os (?) Sdodpyma gg PY owes =U ae yon bépy de. Romie i 22 didds, Neuxs: deyares Tt? aviifus “ 2 i 5 ros, yérop, -0F a euros TEZ ides, plomieg Ted pldece

rofeupa . depos relyos r— Heterogeneous » NPD » TES Soérarey JIT , Tes mu3at must: goyua AEN arpiov AYvi ort, Séoots,80pd ATTN Homologues of GRAMMAR a in ~us often end ine gender. IR TT yw Ta 1 yéppov FY @izis mB » on TM MBS Sovdwars TOT r » my a Baase2 VIL GRAMMAR faoms xdBapacs 5 Greek: homolog reseméles the stem as disclosed dyadés, od TIEN X. The construct is 2 2y-product of henoms The Hebrew geni respects: it is purely ¢ differs from the Greek genitive i wributive, the governing sul g substantive almo:VIL GRAMMAR 83 invariably stands before the dependent substantive or pronoun, and the governing substantice assumes the construct state or form— h consequential changes, ifany, e.g. M17 Ez 37.9, DUAN TN Gn 1.2; 0B Ib 17. 12, DPE? OB Jes 2. 5; 7D Gn 1. 28, Pf Ib 1.95; O28 Ez 1.6, OWA YB Gni.2 ODA 7D b 5.4, PINT Ib 34.15 BW Ib 1. 1, WH Ib. usual position of the attributive genitive is between the qualifying the governing substantive and we itself, e.g. 6 rad ddpds carr, 4 seems that whenever and for whatever 7 prefix phenomenon came into operation, t Gent substantives exchanged places, v donary and as y Fesanasible do not seem to have bi rocee! jound proper now! gs. For they contrast to 77I7 TE 775 Wes TR oO XXX. The dati Ikise! her i ya 1b.; TIN Gn t. 22, TSS Ib 11. 31 Epale, gpaci hen it is non-infected, is es accomeani un- accompanied by 2 presesiton, TWITTY Ib _ YONI? Ib 1, PUSH? IS ee 3, TINATGD Ex tr. to, PAN2 Gar. 22, PIN Taras ; WHT Gn as. 23) WED Jos 3. 9%! It must be argued that wi en a dative is formed with a final 7, that letter stands for the suffix -de, § being omitted. But there can be no doubt that when it is formed with the preposition 7X, formation follows the suffix—prefix phenomeno’ mj because is the homologue of -8e, precisely like the Latin ad, § and 2 aterchanging in Greek, and 8 and ¢ taking the place of each other according to the vowel-consonant metathesis. Obviously, noay VI. GRAMMAR metathesis occurs when 2X is shortened to 7, vocalization taking over the function of the vowel, e.g. in"2? Dt 20.5, M722 Neh 2.8. Now itis possible to equate e’s with TY and FX, but not with 9. XXXII. The construction of the future tense in Hebrew resembles the Greek. The form of the future tense in Hebrew resembles that of Attic future tense—in which the characteristic ¢ crops! out— excepe that the Greek personal endings are wanspesed into pre- fixes through the suffix-prefix metath ioremorw moreho-es mioTeH-o-e migrev-c-o-pey mioreo-e LOT ERO-omor my submissio asize the futuri € verb—Gy. is added, y of thé action or cc or CHT. The aorist exists in Hebrew. The structure of the Hebrew aorist resembles that of the Greek the augment interchanging with 1. As in che Jormation of the future tense, the characteristic ¢ drops out, and the Greek perso: ags are transposed into prefixes which follow the 1 represen! g the augment. This 1—vocalized with ME, except before N— is called by the gra: TH, because its affixing ians [3DO00 changes the function of the structure time into indicating past time. Thus: om, é-morehora é-morehe-as é-more-o-€VIL GRAMMAR 85 ape ADIT TOTEU-O-a-TE 1o7e! é-moteko-av yas Ty (aicnescr XXXIV. The Middle Voice exists in Hebrew. case. The Middle -neda, -08e, -0t EVE por, oat coe, eras for aird, pede for we-Se, ede for ce-Be, and ovrat for ing conjugations of épyw and of its homologue 771 Cant 4 Gata Cant 2 Canta. IS 26.11 IS 26. 12 There are, of course, examples from other verbs, such as: w-4n27 Ga 1g. 1, UP WI Ez 37. 11, FI7MNT Cant 7, O72 TON Pret j2 (DTN Cant 1. 8, FINE Ib. |27 Ti Ex 30. 34, O77 17327 IICh 20. 25, FP7]IN Dr 16. 18, ri Prv 31.22, 377 73) [Ch ar. 11, 7]? 237 Cant Ib 2. 13, 7 Jer 13. 1, 772 Ruth 4. 10, Wop) Ex 5.7, ]77N7F Nu 13.2. » i ts in Hebrew. The subjunctive occurs in conjunction with: dy, édv or qv (ON), ef (ON), xe, epic for dy (3), yx} (JD), dees (JED?) (D7), ds (713). It is used: in exhortations and prohibitions, in relation toa ty86 VIL GRAMMAR future object of fear or future supposition, and also to indicate that a thing will never happen. The first person of the subjunctive (general exhortation, and may be preceded by respective of the number or person of the verb which follows. Such first person may also be used in questions of appeal, where a person asks himself or another iehat In all these respects Hebrew follows t 029 71291727 (Gn i. aie TOR RIOR NITTTA * 6) : AM AW IPT wt —Aetre ot (sic) kerecodicdiucba avrous, p - plural) is used in HON) or dyere, ir ia Se RASS Shy JD V4 HSLAB 6 Exfrore winbuvd ian wni- 9x 3 FON (Cani —nopevicoua: cuevrd (sic) xpos 73 pes os ein. PIDs) Wan aNd 7 ei, Ban compa “TolGas, ri dvrepotuer Sauer; VRAIB 12 ddyeabe (sic) ¢: 1B” Fo cov ‘lepovea\iu, & TAD NP OWN ‘Jes IND NP (1b 3. 3! 4 Boul) ary, 082 ’ WIND DIT ONT ENTER PENT Bddqre, wal eteawotiegré wav, 7d dyaB « s €, pnBé eloaxotorré now, udyarpa (Gn 31. 8)— Ws (Nu ie ao) oaes dy pane? Edy ofreas ‘sic) efzy. 7 Erohds pov. TN APD AD sw Talay depres ing in the Septuagin:. I have resorted to 2 asiation roe modern ANXVI. The Optetize mood «: the other absolutely clear—that is to say: 2] A Nu tt. 2g = ef por yevorr: yévouro. jis not the conjunctive letter here, and it is omitted in Dr 5. , Wipor, J" 6. MMNIIN in Dt 33. 16 is the homologue of zpdzocro (con-VI. GRAMMAR 87 textually, redowro) in the imprecation é¢ xesadiy rpdroro eyot. In fact, the text reads emphatically by repetition: AM} THX 1 Josepi’s head, the head of the wished for among his brothers. This word is of unique construction, and unrelated to the verb X12. Yet here again the LXNX translates the phrase Hebraically: EXPoicay eat Kedadjy Iword Kal éxt 3 éx’ ddeddots. an yAoP t OY GNI May (these Slessings) turn on xopudis d0facd ANNTIL The presence of pretix nt parallel metamorphoses and identical seme: the corresponding Hebrew homologues. ces in compound Greek ceris is reflected édiornut, xaBicmz: TET ewiormpe TSI cipéw, elety TS xabilw, ware, xuddw, udée ZT éxxwdéw, -ddu yeldw, -horde, breyeldw, wera TTR cvuperpéw TT werden, vty waraxerréy TE oupeerin ixvéopes, Borydve éduxvéowat koBecrdopas, 4 Ba xarappéw SiSupe 2% émbiSupe jyéopas émapiarw RIT ST édqyéopar 272 xara-, én 3 Supyéopar THT ratw TU dvaratw dwéyw, xar- WIT88 VI. mapéeyw U7 xAnpdw 90} 95} émxAnpéw MT araxlnpouyéw vodw, ewvodw OI peravolw O37 | reivw W9°ND} éxretva, ém-, kara- ET yefopar 210) 215} dvaydfopar YON ST wararijx, Bia dépu WI xaredépw 19) egeiw 92 éxceiw 1} duodw YP} .NE} Biaduedw PBI TB? Pellw ony .be} 2dllw, dvr Zodew Soenn eudéMw, xara- eddy 95} émeddla BT lomus 23} éSiommut, 56, de-, nad Ea droovadw rips, thw OP} drorivyns ORY éxtivw OPIN ko reptexa PP xézrw, épicow WP} dcedarw, opteos 7B dépw, reiBes, tyidw, spooddour, dva- XY} Bragdpw, efudu FI xeiw 79) éxxaiw P°9T veiw, weld N73 NT} GRAMMAR emaciw, dvareldw, Kare, dvedéou WU AST efexvtopes, xad- POT wvviw, Zoxw 72} émuuvéw, xereSdoxw 231 erie, kero ery: STD .704 gobi xaredozéw Kopéw soyije specooy! wa Gewpées xaradewpéy 27 ore cz émppdarwsa9 VII. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS hybrid homologies, ich are supposed to be mologues af Creek compounds or hi 1g -Sw—or of two one or t:eo Greet compounds homalo is, Hebrew nouns, imple structure but XVIL, There are words. Q the upper part of women resided [—not, as in the LXX, izocrarew Ps 102. 8 stand D121 =} Job 28. 4 Jer 4. 11 Cant 5. :0 S 30. 16 Ps + dara Ex 13. 39. 6 HS 14 7 well-grown, shapely, TMD xoutms Am 5.8, Job 9. 9, 38. 31 x. with or withour dorip, comet » IIR 23. 5 Hos 10. 5 wearing long hair Gn 2g. 34 Nu 18. 2, 4 Jes 14. 1, 56.3 Ps 83.9 Dan 11. 34 take to oneself as one’s helper or partner, associate rpooka3.go VII. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS with oneself, take as an associate (W); Dt 28. 12 Neh 5. 4 borrow; M9, M7 Ps 37. 26, 112.5 Prv ig. 17 Eccl 8. 15 lend a hand, help, assist, co-operate with wAjun, wArjoun, zAnuupis, -pa Gn 6. 17, 7. 6, 9. 11, 15 flood-tide; generally, flood, deluge (prefix-suffix’ Wl ydpww Lev 11. 13 Dt 28. 49 Job 9. 28 poet. for yapoxds; also of the eagle (cf. yepords, of dogs 273 17, 23. 18, 22 Ps os g, esp. for cel ings for discussic 89. 8, n; also ot political clués TiO cuvodes Gn 4a. 5 Jer 1 Job 29. 4 assem prizate meetings or get. Sok, or conspiracies nye DU ND pdévpos Pry rt. 22 (p4, duds) tempered, frivolous, careless; mostly in bad s easy, indifferent pledge, debos:!, mortzage; niM0ly Hab 2.5 Jud 5. 28 stay, Sous, ne spurious, TRS ovvwpis, Sos Jud 19. 3, 10 IS rr. 7 Jes 21. 7 pair of horses, of mules; gene of SRS TEP, NDP deavdidens Jes 34. 11, 15 full axarGoyotpos : TV dpetyadxos Jod 37. 38 mountain-copper, i.e. sellow copper ore, copber or brass maz t%!; a mirror of it MDM DTW pddvpos Hos 7. 5 9. QUO NS Du, DIPyY, P22 > PZ ch of the ‘Hebrew and Arabic homole Greek counterpart and not identical wit =, 25 the homo- ofdyerdfw, the Epic form of dyardw. Similarly, the second Wi and TT—like the second 5 in syls—represents the { , the first interchanging with the +. oss in MINTYMETANN (spac, o/s) Le'xpmue, and DIST ANT/TN AD /Spaue, all the components in each homology are identical; although “IND differs entirely from dpacis, as dogz I], GENERAL PROPOSITIONS IND from dpapze and .¢)L=- from xpqua, owing to the su prefix metathesis. But the Hebrew and Arabic verbs with the MV 1/9 lic in a special category, since these MV letters replace tne preposition év which was added in very ancient times to indicat character of the verb, a function now performed by terminations: -pee/por, -cerjaor, ete. This év see vived i 2s to have one or two verbs, €.g. evrnpéw—a verb identical with VOY) Jes. A special dist because ND} homologizes + : come the First Aorist veyxa and the Second Aorist dveyee: while expressing the meanings conveyed by désw. Simi! UV elBw/ypyrdonw, modu ACL. Some Greek words haze incomplete as 2 complete Hebrew homologues. , TAR, Tn. 08, Tp. STR, Ri m2; 2. Tasdy Souréw: 9210; Sosles: Bedeww: TPL, Badov: 931, PIs? ida: Adyos: TGR, TIRN, beter wei adyas: épilw: 5 Bixpés: VET. YVII. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS 3 pupiow: AZZ, VI. RIDA. ABINZerdpag: WE. PID oxfua: M35 Spey, vel paws oyu: 7. repay}: 7 Tizupos, rowibe: ¥ xéfow: Powwiegs oS xefue: INT. Odeltw: POT, adélnars: 7 cy have more t: $s more than one, e.g. t have be But such words in Hebrew are mostly homonyms; othenvise they have homologues of uncertain genuineness. It is very rare indeed for a Hebrew word which is not a homonym to have more than one definitely genuine Greek homologue, ¢.g. TY dui.o4 VII. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS ALI. Some Greek words, supposed to be borrowed, are transformea Hebrew and Arabic homologues of other Creel: words. dZa- zpdxos; tpdxos does not exist, but rpoxos is potter's wheel, D128 Jer 18. 3. Furthermore, the homologue of the homonym 5°28 Ex i.e. an obstetric chair. 1. 16 is dampers: (d774) with a hole, didpos o., dZeya- pda audpavra, unfading roses. ‘To fade, droop, wither’ in Arabic is (43, the homologue of which is ¢¢ ay, wane. eZeorai = amrvai, winged. ‘Wing’ in Hebrew Tb gt. 4, the homologues of zrépué: wing. aZds- eins: simple, silly; also = tepa voces, #21) is Ss the homologue of adums, not clezer. Hebrew is ys7 IIS 1. 9, the homol plague that hinders 2, i.e. gout— conzulsion. a28edov, dBeNov- ra logue of dp Srus: dull, spiritless. dejected; : downcast, omologue of) KUKA hos: wheel; pl. xv«la is mostly used , calling the wh dion: xUAos/7Y Nu 31 Sapp IS 26. 5 thet x esis); edxuxios: 50 ring, circle; xv is rounded spite? Uparpetada: : 21. to Lev 18 De exchanges with -—e.g. 20—eilpéw actually = cypéw. ayéoda- amos (pear-tree’, dye (pear-iree, pear-tree’, the homologue of dyyr7. ayjparos: stone used by shoemakers to polish women’s shoes: ‘stone’, the homologue of pos: Stone. squeezes, esp. the throat, Strangies, dyxrakidle dyyes: j Jes 27.1 , derivative of non-extant the homolagiie of ayy or Kar-. The extant 9py Hab 1. 4 is ies homologue of oxohidfw:VII. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS to be crooked 929 IIS 95 3.31 729 Gn 48. 14 5209 Gr 31. 28; oxoh- wat, Pass., crow croaked $201 IIS 24. 10; ¢! EBoile: treat despitefully, owirage, insult, 29, ‘insult’, homologue of i2pifw and xaé- GeMNet: xolaxedes: flatts; 99M, ‘praise, glorify’ homologue of dloldtu: ey with @ loud voice, and dyd\w: glorify, exalt, esp. bay honour to a Psgtg, tit. 1 Progr. 28, 31 ICh 16.4 11Ca 20. 21,23. 12, 30. ; of persons, ‘oor deal with; ngs wind) Ex ro. 27, 05 powers ard, difficulr’, homologue of yaler hota 18. of geod citizens, useful, 10, 52. 8, ¢ . 2, 116. 15, 149. 2; of the gods, as, mercifi, bestoceing Jer 3. t2 Ps 45. 07. uilding; 773 Ez 13. 10 \& are homologues of both reiyiov and di8brerov. rarov reryiova. There is reexiov: wall of a and 4 aludry = \exdvq: dish, pot, pon DEN Gn 21. 14, NMENR Esr 6.