The ‘Language of Canaan’: Ancient Israel’s History and the Origins of Hebrew

Koert van Bekkum

1 Introduction

The origins of Hebrew, called the ‘language of Canaan’ in Isa 19:18, and its place among the Semitic
languages have been contested issues since the rise of modern historical linguistics. Most
grammars of Biblical Hebrew contain an introductory section, offering readers an impression of
the provenance and history of the language under discussion. In 1962 Jan P. Lettinga, the honouree
of this volume, offered an intriguing view in the grammar which he had been asked to rework for
Brill publishing house. By classifying Hebrew as a Northwest Semitic language he abandoned the
more traditional characterization of Hebrew as a Mischsprache of the previous edition. Moreover,
he rearticulated the statement concerning its origins in a daring way: ‘“Hebrew” developed from
the Canaanite dialect that was found by the Israelite tribes, when they conquered the ‘promised
land, a dialect that was taken over by them, and for which they almost entirely gave up their native
language (which was closely related to the Old Aramaic dialect).’1 In the 1976 edition, Lettinga
inserted a reference to Deut 26:5, but also rephrased the sentence on the relation of the native
language of the Israelite tribes to Old Aramaic in a more reticent way, most likely because the
oldest Old Aramaic inscriptions only date to the 9th century BCE. Accordingly, the phrase between
brackets now became: ‘which was probably related to an Old Aramaic idiom; cf. Deut. XXVI 5’.
Despite major revisions of the grammar’s later editions, this statement regarding the origin of
Hebrew remained intact as a striking reflection of Lettinga’s attitude as a Semitist trying to relate
the available historical-linguistic information and the biblical picture of the language of Israel’s
ancestors in the best possible way.2
The 2012 revision of Lettinga’s grammar by Wido van Peursen and Martin Baasten still uses
many of the insights and wordings of the previous editions, but offers a new classification of the
Semitic Languages and omits the specific remark regarding the historical origins of Hebrew.3 The

1
J.P. Lettinga, J. Nat, J.J. Koopmans, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden 19626, 2. Based on the
view of H.P. Bauer, P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache, Halle 1922, 16–18, that
Hebrew was not a homogeneous linguistic sytem, the previous edition read: ‘Op den bodem van Palestina
ontstond door vermenging van de taal der oudere bevolking met die der binnengedrongen Israëlieten het
Hebreeuwsche idioom’. J. Nat, J.J. Koopmans, Hebreeuwsche grammatica, Leiden 19515, 1.
2
J.P. Lettinga, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden 19766, 2–3; J.P. Lettinga, Grammatica van het
Bijbels Hebreeuws (revised edition T. Muraoka, W.Th van Peursen), Leiden 199610, 3; J.P. Lettinga, H. von
Siebenthal, Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch, Gießen 2016, 6. Cf. J.P. Lettinga, De ‘tale Kanaäns’. Enkele
beschouwingen over het Bijbels Hebreeuws (Kamper Bijdragen, 8), Groningen 1971, 10–11. For similar
expressions, see, e.g., A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, Oxford 1993, 53–54; L. Edzard,
‘Biblical Hebrew’, in: S. Weninger (ed.), The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (HSK, 36), Berlin
2011, 480.
3
J.P. Lettinga, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws (revised edition W.Th van Peursen, M.F.J. Baasten),
Leiden 201212, 2–4.
fierce historical debates since the early 1990s on the emergence of ancient Israel no longer make it
possible to refer to a certain consensus.
This, however, does not mean that scholars nowadays studying the history of the Northwest
Semitic languages underestimate the importance of historical factors, such as contact between
groups, migration and socio-political developments. Classification of Semitic languages, that is,
drawing an outline of the genetic relationships and histories of these languages, makes real claims
about cultural history. Most scholars, for example, suppose that the speakers of the Northwest
Semitic languages and dialects came in waves to Syria and the Southern Levant from ca. 3000 BCE
onwards. In addition, it is also often mentioned that the lack of historical knowledge is a major
problem in this area.4
With regard to Hebrew, some scholars even make strong claims about its nature and origin,
being of significant impact for biblical studies. In 1990, at the dawn of ‘minimalism’ in the historical
study of ancient Israel, Ernst Axel Knauf stated that ‘Biblical’ or ‘Classical Hebrew’ never was a true
language. From a historical point of view, he argued, it makes no sense to connect this artificial
literary construct, which came into existence between the 8th and the 3rd century BCE, to the
Judean, Israelite and other dialects of the first millennium BCE.5 An entirely different view was
presented in 2007–2008 by Anson F. Rainey. He maintained that linguistically, Hebrew has more
affinities with Aramaic and Moabite than with Phoenician, and that therefore, it can be
characterized as a ‘Transjordanian’ language. In this way, he offered further linguistic support for
his hypothesis that the Israelites descended from semi-nomadic tribes who came in from
Transjordan and who are also known as ‘Shasu’ in some New Kingdom Egyptian texts.6 Finally in
2011, Herrie F. van Rooy discussed the idea held by many conservative and evangelical scholars that
Moses is the author or one of the most substantial authors of the Pentateuch. In his view, the
present state of knowledge regarding the history of the family of Northwest Semitic languages and
of early Hebrew, and the use of the alphabet from the 13th to the 10th century BCE already
precludes this assumption.7
Hence, on the one hand, experts in linguistics explicitly affirm that historical considerations do
play a role in the construction of a hypothesis regarding the nature and origins of Hebrew,
although they themselves hesitate to offer historical hypotheses. On the other hand, scholars
applying linguistic knowledge to the history of ancient Israel and to the study of the composition

4
E.g. A. Faber, ‘Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages’, in: R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages,
Abingdon 1997, 3–4; J. Huehnergard, ‘Comparative Semitics’, in S. Izreʾel (ed.), Semitic Linguistics: The State
of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (IOS, 20), Winona Lake, IN 2002, 130; H. Gzella, ‘The Semitic
Languages and Dialects III: North-West Semitic’, in: Weninger (ed.), Semitic Languages, 428–429, 446–447.
5
E.A. Knauf, ‘War ,,Biblisch-Hebräisch” eine Sprache?’, ZAH 1 (1991), 11–12; cf. idem, ‘From History to
Interpretation’, in: D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History. Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past (JSOTS, 127),
Sheffield 1991, 26–64.
6
A.F. Rainey, ‘Redefining Hebrew – A Transjordanian Language’, Maarav 14 (2007), 67–81; idem, ‘Whence
Came the Israelites and Their Language?’, IEJ 57 (2007), 41–64; idem, ‘The Northwest Semitic Literary
Repertoire and its Acquaintance by Judean Writers’, Maarav 15 (2008), 193–205. Cf. idem, ‘Unruly Elements
in Late Bronze Canaanite Society’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in
Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 490–496.
7
H.F. van Rooy, ‘A Short History of Early Hebrew: Cases, Articles, Alphabets and Some Early Texts’, JSSt 20
(2011), 1–17.
of literary and biblical texts in pre-exilic times do not hesitate in drawing specific historical
conclusions. Accordingly, two questions can be asked. What part do historical considerations play
in the linguistic discussions regarding the origins of Hebrew?; and what general historical
framework for the reconstruction of West Semitic literary compositions and the beginning of
Hebrew literature is offered by these scholarly debates?
Being written not by a linguist but by an Old Testament scholar and historian interested in the
interdisciplinary approach of the history of ancient Israel, this contribution elaborates on these
questions by exploring three perspectives in recent scholarly discussion: those on the place of
Hebrew among the Northwest Semitic languages, on the so-called ‘dialect continuum’ in the
Southern Levant, and on the application of sociolinguistics to the issue of literacy and the writing
of the earliest literary compositions in Hebrew.

2 Hebrew among the Northwest Semitic Languages

Scholars in historical linguistics face enormous problems in reflecting on Hebrew as a Semitic

language. The first major obstacle is the diversity of the corpus under study. The Hebrew Bible
itself is a multi-layered, transmitted text, which in its present form reflects its history through the
Second Temple and Rabbinic periods. The corpus of Levantine inscriptions as they have shown up
on the antiquities market and have been excavated in archaeological research, is much smaller.
These inscriptions are also often damaged and fragmentary, come from all kinds of areas and social
backgrounds and are written on different materials in a variety of scripts and alphabets. This
makes it sometimes very hard to determine in which language they are written. The so-called
Gezer calendar, a stone tablet from the 10th century BCE, still seems to be earliest attestation of
Hebrew.8 Apart from Ugaritic and the Phoenician and Canaanite of a few inscriptions, Northwest
Semitic of the second millennium BCE is only indirectly attested in texts and phrases written in
other languages: in geographical names in the Egyptian Execration texts, Amorite personal names
in Old-Babylonian sources, and West-Semitic verbal morphology, glosses and onomastic evidence
in the Akkadian of tablets found in Tell el-Amarna and in several southern Levantine cities.9
A second major obstacle is the lack of consistent indications of the basic phonemes, in
particular the vowels, in the native scripts of the Northwest Semitic languages. This is problematic,
because vowels are crucial in comparative Semitics due to the relatively stable consonantal grid in
these languages.10
Despite these difficulties, scholars over the last century, among whom also Lettinga, abandoned
the geographical and cultural basis for the classification of the Semitic languages and the
traditional characterization of Hebrew as a Mischsprache.11 In fact, they were quite successful in
describing the diverse languages and dialects, including Hebrew, according to their linguistic

8
For the debate on the language of the 11th century BCE ostracon Kh. Qeiyafa 1, see section 3.
9
J. Groen, ‘Northwest Semitic in the Second Millennium BCE’, MA Thesis, Leiden University, 2015, 16-17.
10
E.g. Faber, ‘Genetic Subgrouping’, 4; S. Weninger, ‘Reconstructive Morphology’, in: idem (ed.) Semitic
Languages, 152.
11
See note 1.
characteristics.12 As a result, the well-known classification of the family of Semitic languages in
three main sub-families took shape: (1) Akkadian as East or Northeast Semitic; (2) the Northwest
Semitic of Aramaic and the Canaanite languages (Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew and Moabite); and
(3) the South or Southwest Semitic of the Old South Arabian languages.
In recent decades, another important step in this direction started with Robert Hezron’s
proposal that morphological innovations and typological similarities provide the best instruments
in determining the subgroups in a language family. This resulted in a new family tree of Semitic
languages gaining further ground after its modification by John Huehnergard and containing a new
subgroup, Central Semitic, which consists of both Arabic and the Northwest Semitic languages.13
Another result was the classification of Ugaritic as a separate Northwest Semitic language, and a
more precise definition of Proto-Canaanite on the basis of four, or even six specific features.14
Although the position of Arabic and other former South Semitic languages in this model is still
disputed, the greater distance between Ugaritic and the Canaanite languages – Hebrew,
Phoenician, and Moabite/Ammonite/Edomite – is almost generally accepted.
This does not imply, however, that all linguistic features and innovations can now be explained
and the issue of the classification of Northwest Semitic languages is settled. The definite article
here serves as a striking example. It rarely occurs in Aramaic inscriptions and in early Hebrew
poetry and is entirely absent in Amarna-Canaanite, Ugaritic and the Deir ʿAllā plaster texts. But
where the article is attested, its syntax is remarkably similar. This could be instigated by either a
striking parallel linguistic development, or by areal diffusion, and maybe even by both.
Consequently, scholars agree that to a certain extent the problem is the tree model itself. A
different, additional model to account for similarities among languages, that is, the metaphor of a
wave, is needed in order to explain the spreading of similar features across languages, including
well-established language boundaries. This particularly applies to the Semitic family, in which
native speakers of diverse languages remained in close contact over the centuries and many lexical
and morphological features are shared by neighbouring languages, also across firmly established
genetic boundaries. Consequently, language contact remains an important factor in defining the
precise relations between the Northwest Semitic languages and dialects.15

12
The distinction between a languages and a dialect is not always clear and also determined by social and
political factors. This, however, is only a minor issue in the discussion regarding the classification of
Northwest Semitic languages.
13
E.g. R. Hetzron, ‘Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction’, Lingua 38 (1976), 89–104; J. Huehnergard,
‘Remarks on the Classification of Northwest Semitic Languages’, in: J. Hoftijzer, G. van der Kooij (eds.), The
Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-Evaluated, Leiden 1991, 282–293. Cf. R. Hasselbach, J. Huehnergard,
‘Northwest Semitic Languages’, in: K. Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Languages and Linguistics, vol.
3, Leiden 2008, 420.
14
These characteristics are (1) the Canaanite vowel shift (*ā > ō), (2) the perfect 1cs *-tū > tī , (3) the suffix
conjugation of the D and G stems, (4) generalization of 1cp suffix –nū, (5) the innovative relative particle
ʾăšer, and (6) the morphological and syntactical function of two distinctive infinitives, at least in the G stem.
Huehnergard, ‘Remarks on the Classification’, 285–286; N. Pat-El, A.M. Wilson-Wright, ‘The Features of
Canaanite: A Reevaluation’, ZDMG 166 (2016), 41–55. For specific characteristics of second millennium
Canaanite, see Groen, ‘Northwest Semitic in the Second Millennium’, 51.
15
J. Huehnergard, A.D. Rubin, ‘Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages’, in
Weninger (ed.), Semitic Languages, 259–278; Gzella, ‘North-West Semitic’, 426.
Finally, the methodological debate is further complicated by new data with regard to lexical
similarities. During the 20th century, the comparison of lexical items was increasingly avoided in
language classification, for research had shown that the lexicon is much more open to change than
a language’s structure. This, however, is not the case with regard to the realm of the so-called basic
vocabulary. Therefore, this type of lexical information can still be used as complementary
evidence.16
For that reason, Leonid Kogan recently used a self-defined basic vocabulary in Semitic and the
so-called Swadesh-list – a compilation of basic words for the purposes of historical-comparative
linguistics – in order to explore the contribution of lexical isoglosses to the genealogical
classification of the Semitic languages. With help of these data, Kogan first tries to reopen the
debate on the Central Semitic hypothesis. In his view, the morphological arguments in favour of
this theory are not unambiguous, while it is also not corroborated by the evidence of the basic
vocabulary. With regard to Proto-Northwest Semitic, Kogan comments that in light of the deep
structural shifts in the basic lexicon, it can be assumed ‘that the North-West Semitic community
was a historical reality, yet a very short-lived and amorphous one.’ Finally, he observes that
lexicographically speaking, Ugaritic is closer to the Canaanite languages than from the perspective
of morphological innovations. Other indications suggest that the Canaanite languages in the south
developed in a different direction than Phoenician and possibly also Ugaritic in the north.17
So according to the present consensus, Hebrew is a Canaanite language and Ugaritic is
considered to be a non-Canaanite Northwest Semitic language. This view, however, is now
challenged by the provoking thought, raised by lexical analysis, that Ugaritic might be regarded not
just as Canaanite, but as Canaanite par excellence, whereas Hebrew is a kind of lexical ‘de-
Canaanization’.18 This hypothesis, of course, is to be tested by further research. But in both cases,
there is a considerable distance between Hebrew and Ugaritic.

3 Southern Levantine Dialects

An example of elucidating the place of Hebrew among the Northwest Semitic languages with help
of the metaphor of a wave is the study of the spreading of linguistic phenomena among the
southern Levantine dialects of the early first millennium BCE. Randall W. Garr’s landmark in this
field from 1985 studies a large corpus of inscriptions with help of principles of the field of dialect
geography. Garr presents about one hundred distinctive features for these dialects and concludes
that their diffusion is most likely to be explained by a movement from centre to periphery along
axes of social contact. In his view, a continuous dialectal map of languages in the Southern Levant

16
Cf. S. Kaufman, ‘The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some
Implications Thereof’, in: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Hebrew and
Aramaic Languages, Jerusalem 1988, 47–52; Gzella, ‘North-West Semitic’, 446.
17
L. Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses, Berlin 2012, 220–226, 240, 346–347,
602.
18
Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic, 350. Cf. idem, ‘Proto-Semitic Lexicon’, in: Weninger (ed.),
Semitic Languages, 248–249.
existed, which were largely mutually intelligible, in particular in the border regions. On the one
hand, the distinctive elements of the diverse languages and dialects can be interpreted as
developing initially from a Northwest Semitic continuum. On the other hand, however, they were
challenged time and again by other linguistic traits.19
Garr’s analysis met some methodological criticism, such as the demarcation of the period under
study and the question what exactly are the distinctive features of a dialect.20 At the same time, the
results of his careful study greatly contributed to the consensus that there indeed existed a clear
Canaanite dialect continuum in the first half of the first millennium BCE, stretching from
Phoenician in its northern and western part, northern Hebrew in Galilee, the Central Hill Country,
and Transjordan, Judahite Hebrew in Judah and Jerusalem, and Ammonite and Moabite, and
possibly also Edomite in southern Transjordan.21
According to this consensus, the grammatical and lexical features of Hebrew’s earliest
documents and similar data from textual evidence from the end of the second millennium BCE
leave no doubt that Hebrew is a Canaanite language and that Biblical Hebrew developed from its
Judahite version. Linguistically, however, the inscriptional data are so scarce and dissimilar in
nature that it is extremely difficult to determine, for example, whether Edomite is indeed a
separate dialect or language, and how the synchronic and diachronic interrelations between the
languages and dialects are to be defined. In this respect, much depends on the methodological
criteria that are being used in studying these languages.22
Bringing biblical information into play even more complicates the picture. It is hard, for
instance, to grasp the precise sociolinguistic background of the difference in dialect as it is
presupposed in the story of Jephthah. In its last well-known episode, the Gileadites kill those
Ephraimites who are not able to offer the right pronunciation of the word ‫( ִׁשב ֶֹּלת‬Judg 12:6). The
problem here is that, as far as is known, no Northwest Semitic language lacks the phoneme š. It is
also possible that the appropriate signs for marking the difference in sound are absent in the 22-
letter Hebrew alphabet. In that case, the difference represented by the letters ‫ ש‬and ‫ ס‬is not to be
understood as a description of the actual difference in sound. In the light of the phonetics of
sibilants and dentals in Proto-Semitic, five options are available: (1) t (tblt, ‘stream’) was preserved
in northern Transjordan, but became s in Ephraim; (2) s1 became š in Gilead and s in Ephraim; (3) s
turned into š in Gilead, but was preserved in Ephraim; (4) š was preserved in Gilead, but became s
in the dialect of the Cisjordan Central Hill Country; (5) š1 (šibbolȩt, ‘stream’) in Gilead had turned
into š2 (šibbolȩt, ‘ear’ [of a corn]), in Ephraim. The problem, however, is that the Targumic evidence
undergirding some of the solutions, is not as strong as presented. In addition, it is also questionable
whether the text offers such detailed linguistic information. In the Book of Judges, it merely

19
W.R. Garr, Dialect Geography in Syria-Palestine 1000 B.C.E.–586 B.C.E., Philadelphia, PA 1985. An earlier
influential study was Z.S. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects. An Investigation in Linguistic History,
New Haven, CT 1939.
20
See, e.g., the review by J. Huehnerguard in JBL 106 (1987), 529–533.
21
Edzard, ‘Biblical Hebrew’, 481.
22
See e.g. D. Vanderhooft, ‘The Edomite Dialect and Script: A Review of the Evidence’, in: D.V. Edelman
(ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (ABS, 3),
Atlanta, GA, 137–157; S.B. Parker, ‘Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite’, in: J. Kaltner, S. McKenzie (eds.),
Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Its Related Languages, Atlanta, GA 2002, 43–60; K. Beyer,
‘The Languages of Transjordan’, in: H. Gzella (ed.), Languages from the World of the Bible, Berlin 2012, 111–127.
underlines the religious decline of Israel: only a minor linguistic dissimilarity between closely
related tribes could result in disaster.23 Therefore, only the general conclusion remains that, as is
also the case in modern languages, there were most likely many and even very close and spatially
limited regional differences, but that not every single difference in pronunciation is clearly
discernible in writing.24
Another, more contested issue is the question to what extent the 9th century BCE Samaria
Ostraca, archaic biblical poetry and other biblical texts which are supposed to be of northern
provenance, contain evidence which helps in presenting a more precise description of northern or
‘Israelian’ Hebrew. Recently, Gary A. Rendsburg offered a systematic presentation of this material
in a grammar and glossary of the dialect and a sketch of its history with help of a methodology of
Avigdor Hurvitz in studying the diachrony of Biblical Hebrew.25 These efforts are generally
appreciated, but the analysis is also considered to be tentative and doubtful. The textual corpus
under study is very small. Neither the synchronic picture nor the diachronic development of the
epigraphic record reveal traces of differences between ‘Israel’ and ‘Judah’ in the way of writing.
With regard to biblical texts, determining whether a passage or book is of a northern origin and
really bears signs of ‘Israelian’ Hebrew is extremely complicated, also because most of these texts
have undergone a measure of linguistic levelling in the process of composition and transmission.26
Consequently, there definitely was a diversity of Hebrew dialects. But because of the
fragmented nature of the epigraphic record and the unifying garb of the Masoretic tradition there
is no consistent written evidence that justifies a detailed overview of these dialects. In some cases,
such as the 11th century BCE Proto-Canaanite inscription Khirbet Qeiyafa 1, this implies that it is
impossible to tell whether the text is Canaanite or (Judahite) Hebrew.27 What kind of factors are
involved in answering the question for a text’s language or dialect can be observed in the debate on
the late 9th or early 8th century BCE inscriptions on plaster, uncovered in Tell Deir ʿAllā. These
texts beautifully illuminate the historical reality of literacy in the early first millennium BCE. At the
same time, they strikingly underline the complexity of the linguistic classification of a text.
Although a few features are contested, there is a considerable consensus regarding the
palaeographic and linguistic data: the script of the plaster texts and important phonological,

23
For literature and a discussion, see e.g. W. Groß, Richter (HThKAT), Freiburg 2009, 614-615; J. Blau,
Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew, Winona Lake, IN 2010, 40–41; J.M. Sasson, Judges (AncBib),
New Haven 2014, 454–455.
24
R.G. Lehmann, ‘27–30–22–26 – How Many Letters Needs an Alphabet? The Case of Semitic’, in: A. de
Voogt, J.F. Quack (eds.), The Idea of Writing: Writing Across Borders, Leiden 2012, 41.
25
E.g. G.A. Rendsburg, ‘A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon’, Orient 38
(2003), 5–35; idem, ‘Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the Mishnah’, in: C.L.
Miller-Naudé, Z. Zevit (eds). Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, Winona Lake, IN 2012, 339–359.
26
For literature and a critical evaluation of methodological, phonological, lexical, morphological and
syntactical aspects, see N. Pat-El, ‘Israelian Hebrew: A Re-Evaluation’, VT 67 (2017), 227–263.
27
For the debate, see e.g. G. Galil, ‘The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa / Neṭaʿim: Script, Language,
Literature and History’, UF 41 (2009), 193–242; C. Rollston, ‘The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological
Musings and Caveats’, TA 38 (2011), 67–82; M. Richelle, ‘Quelques nouvelles lectures sur l’ostracon de
Khirbet Qeiyafa’, Semitica 57 (2015), 147–162; B. Sass, ‘The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon in its Setting’, in: S.
Schroer, S. Münger (eds), Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: Papers Presented at a Colloquium of the Swiss
Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies Held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014 (OBO, 282). Fribourg-
Göttingen 2017, 87–111.
morphological and lexicographical characteristics align them with Old Aramaic, although some of
these traits are also attested in rare non-standard Hebrew forms. Other lexemes and the use of the
narrative Wayyiqtol clearly resemble Classical Hebrew and Moabite syntax.28 Hence, much
depends on the method that is used in weighing this evidence. Scholars placing the linguistic
features in a genealogical framework call the language of the plaster texts Aramaic or Canaanite,
state that the idiom reflects a common ancestor to both languages, or belongs to a third, unique,
‘Transjordanian’ branch of Northwest Semitic.29 In addition, a genealogical framework based on
isoglosses results in the assignment of the text to an independent Aramaic branch.30 Finally, a
dialect continuum perspective results in the conclusion that the texts are written in a
Transjordanian dialect, possibly ‘Gileadite’. In that case, the distinctive Old Aramaic features are
explained as ancient traits of a Northwest Semitic linguistic continuum that over time has been
challenged by a variety of linguistic influences.31
Despite these detailed linguistic deliberations, scholars also realize that their proposals may not
reflect the actual social Sitz im Leben of the Deir ʿAllā plaster texts. Already in 1987, Baruch Halpern
made this concrete by bringing into play his historical imagination in his discussion of the
evidence. The texts quote a ‫ספר‬, most likely a written source reflecting an ancient tradition
regarding Balaam. Moreover, their site is located in the neighbourhood of one linguistic and three
national boundaries. This situation offered the scribes all kind of possibilities in convincing their
audience, although it is of course unknown to what extent the language chosen by the scribal
establishment differed from the vernacular of the region.32 Therefore, it is impossible to come to
definite conclusions. Nevertheless, in the light of the Aramean conquest of the region in 837 BCE,
the recent idea of a piece of an original Canaanite or ancient Israelite Balaam-tradition being
presented in the language of the new prestige culture, though still in accordance with its original
style, is an attractive solution.33

28
H. Gzella, ‘Tell Deir ʿAllā’, EHHL, 691–693.
29
E.g. J. Hoftijzer, G. van der Kooij, The Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla, Leiden 1976, 301–302; J.A. Hackett, The
Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla (HSM, 31), Chico, CA 1984, 123–124; Huehnergard, ‘Remarks on the
Classification’, 289–293; N. Pat-El, A.M. Wilson-Wright, ‘Deir ʿAllā as a Canaanite Dialect: A Vindication of
Hackett’, in: J.M. Hutton, A.D. Rubin (eds), Epigraphy, Philology and the Hebrew Bible (ANEM, 12), Atlanta,
GA 2015, 13–23.
30
Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic, 424.
31
Garr, Dialect Geography, 229; Kaufman, ‘Classification of North West Semitic Dialects’, 53–57; É. Puech,
‘Balaʿam and Deir ʿAlla’, in: G.H. van Kooten, J. van Ruiten (eds), The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (TBN, 11), Leiden 2008, 43; F.M. Fales, ‘Old Aramaic’, in: Weninger (ed.),
Semitic Languages, 556.
32
B. Halpern, ‘Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Alla Inscriptions’, in: D.M. Golomb, S.T. Hollis
(eds), ‘Working with No Data’: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, Winona Lake,
IN 1987, 119, 133–139. Cf. Puech, ‘Balaʿam and Deir ʿAlla’, 44–45.
33
Gzella, ‘Tell Deir ʿAllā’, 692; idem, A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam
(HdO 3/111), Leiden 2015, 87–91. Cf. E. Blum, ‘Die Kombination I der Wandinschrift vom Tell Deir ʿAlla:
Vorschläge zur Rekonstruktion mit historisch-kritischen Anmerkungen’, in: I. Kottsieper, J. Wöhrle (eds),
Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für
Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AOAT, 350), Münster 2008, 594–598; Beyer, ‘Languages of
Transjordan’, 123–126.
So apparently, linguistic classification cannot depend on linguistic characteristics alone. It is
generally admitted that geographical and historical arguments are also of great help, although this
kind of information is often absent. Therefore, Jorik Groen recently suggested that it is perhaps
more accurate to see the Late Bronze Age Levant as a dialect continuum, similar to the Canaanite-
Aramaic diversity of the first millennium BCE and to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to
draw firm lines between the Northwest Semitic languages of this period.34 Accordingly, the
question becomes urgent what this implies for Rainey’s idea that Hebrew originally was the
language of the Shasu-tribes in Transjordan.
Rainey is apparently looking for a historical background of the biblical notion that Israel’s
pastoralist ancestors had an Aramean background (Gen 24:10; 25:20; 28:5; 31:20–24; Deut 26:5) and
his case is a combination of archaeological, epigraphical and linguistic argumentation.35
Archaeologically, it seems that there is some justification for Rainey’s claim that immigrants were
partly responsible for the explosion of settlements in the Cisjordanian Central Hill Country from
the 13th century BCE on. Yet, the epigraphic and iconographical evidence for the idea that the
Bedouin Shasu had anything to do with these settlers is weak.36 Therefore, all the burden is on
Rainey’s linguistic arguments: consonantal phonemes, lexemes such as the verbs ‫ היה‬and ‫עׂשה‬, the
relative pronoun ‫אשר‬, and the ‫ו‬-conjunction in the narrative preterite would all show that Hebrew
is closer to Moabite and Aramaic than to Phoenician and Canaano-Akkadian. Therefore, Rainey
concludes that Hebrew is a Transjordanian language that clearly differs from the language that was
spoken by the Canaanites in Cisjordan.37
At first sight, it seems that method plays an important and even decisive part in this debate.
Scholars looking for shared innovations in order to define the relation between languages are not
at all impressed by the evidence and immediately direct the attention at the specific
characteristics of Canaanite that are also present in Hebrew,38 while those taking the isoglosses as
their point of departure support Rainey’s hypothesis and even add more examples. 39 A closer look,
however, reveals that more general methodological considerations and additional linguistic
arguments also carry weight in this matter. Rainey never explicitly stated that Hebrew does not
belong to the Canaanite subgroup of the Northwest Semitic languages, and rightly so, for Hebrew
also shares striking similarities with Phoenician, such as the Canaanite vowel shift. In addition, the
similarities between Hebrew and Moabite and Ammonite may only be evaluated when a
reasonable corpus of these inscriptions is available – which is clearly not the case. Finally, it can be
seriously doubted whether the narrative preterite is indeed absent in Canaano-Akkadian and
Phoenician. As a result, it can be concluded that Rainey went too far in trying to find a linguistic

34
Groen, ‘Northwest Semitic in the Second Millennium’, 53.
35
Rainey, ‘Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language’, 43. Raineys clearly builds on the tradition
explaining the non-biblical and linguistic evidence within the theoretical framework of Israel’s settlement
as a peaceful infiltration. Cf. M. Noth, Geschichte Israels, Göttingen 19594, 80–81; M. Weippert, ‘Semitische
Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über den Shasu der Ägyptischen Quellen’, Bib 55 (1974), 280.
36
K. van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Interest in the Historiography of
Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (CHANE, 45), Leiden 2011, 64–65, 564–568.
37
Rainey, ‘Redefining Hebrew’, 68–81.
38
J.A. Hackett, N. Pat-El, ‘On Canaanite and Historical Linguistics: A Rejoinder to Anson Rainey’, Maarav 17
(2010), 173–188.
39
Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic, 369–375.
substantiation for his historical views. Nevertheless, he rightly asked attention for the fact that also
with regard to their language, the inhabitants of the Central Hill Country and of the later kingdoms
of Israel and Judah were more closely related to the hills in Transjordan than to their counterparts
in the Phoenician cities and in the Philistine coastal plain.40

4 Sociolinguistic Aspects

In the last decades, the observation that language and writing are part of a cultural system
increasingly led Semitists reflecting on the origins of Hebrew to sociolinguistic approaches of
Canaano-Akkadian, the languages of the Proto-Canaanite and Hebrew inscriptions and of the
Archaic and Classical Hebrew of biblical texts. Who were the people writing and possibly also
speaking these languages?
For a long time, the consensus in this regard was described by Chaim Rabin, according to whom
the royal administration, the cult and the prophetic circles from the time of David, Solomon and
thereafter unified the diverse linguistic features and thus gave the impulse for the creation of a
national language.41 This changed, however, when David Jamieson-Drake argued that the Judean
chancellery in Jerusalem took its important position only in the 8th century BCE and adherents of
the so-called ‘Low Chronology’ claimed that state formation in the Southern Levant at its earliest
had started in 9th century BCE Samaria.42 In the following debate, the ‘social history of Hebrew’,
looking for the origins, function, development and social stratification of the alphabetic writing
systems and of the language itself, became a new focal point in research.43
In several ways, the recent studies confirm and refine earlier assumptions and ideas. The
Canaano-Akkadian of the Amarna Letters and cuneiform inscriptions from Canaan is nowadays
viewed as a mixed, high status language, that was used (and sometimes also spoken, for instance
during the Akkadian lessons) by an elite of only a few dozens of professional scribes. They worked
at scribal centres in the palatial cities and at Egyptian estates, where traveling scribes met, texts
were written and future scholars were trained. In the meantime, the Canaanite vernaculars of the
large part of society were written down very infrequently, that is, in glosses.44

40
Cf., e.g., P. Korchin, Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs (HSS, 58), Winona Lake, IN 2008, 339–340;
D. Pardee, The Ugaritic Texts and the Origin of West Semitic Literary Composition, Oxford 2012, 25; W.
Schniedewind, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period, New Haven–London, 48–
50.
41
C. Rabin, ‘The Emergence of Classical Hebrew’, in: A. Malamat (ed.), The World History of Jewish People.
First series, vol. 5/2, Tel-Aviv 1979, 71–78.
42
D.W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (SWBA,
9), Sheffield 1991, 138–149; for the ‘Low Chronology’-Debate, see, e.g., I. Finkelstein, A. Mazar, B.B. Schmidt,
The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, Atlanta, GA 2007.
43
See, e.g., S.L. Sanders, The Invention of Hebrew, Chicago 2009; C. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World
of Ancient Israel (ABS, 11), Atlanta, GA 2010; Lehmann, ‘27–30–22–26’, 11–52; Schniedewind, Social History of
Hebrew.
44
See, e.g., S. Izreʾel, ‘Canaano-Akkadian Linguistics and Sociolinguistics’, in: R. Hasselbach, N. Pat-El (eds),
Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnerguard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Chicago
2012, 171–212; A. Andrason, J.-P. Vita, ‘From Glosses to the Linguistic Nature of Canaano-Akkadian’, FO 51
 After the decline of the palatial cities, this (Egyptian) scribal tradition was passed on to a new
elite, that is, by the mobile craftsmen of Iron I. They made use of the diverse alphabetic writing
systems of the Late Bronze Southern Levant that had been developed in addition to the official
administrative writing as graphic representations of the local vernaculars. Most likely, the
‘Phoenician’ short Abgad-alphabet became the prestige-script of the Levant since ca. 1150 BCE,
because it met the requirements of trade at sea and adapted easier than the other alphabetic
scripts to the other languages in the dialectic continuum. In this short alphabet, simple consonants
could easily be used to pronounce phonemes that slightly differed from each other. In the
centuries thereafter this script evolved into the diverse ‘national’ script systems of the 9th century
inscriptions and of the somewhat more literate societies of the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE.45

So in defining the genealogical and cultural relations between the languages of the Levant, one can
say – to use William Schniedewind’s terms freely – that Canaano-Akkadian is the stepfather and
Ugaritic the cousin of Classical Biblical Hebrew, while the languages of the Iron Age linear
alphabetic inscriptions are its older brothers and half-brothers.46 But what are the implications of
this observation for the description of the origins of Hebrew?
Schniedewind himself avoids the question by focussing on early Hebrew as a ‘writing system’.
Yet, he also connects the actual emergence of Hebrew to the ‘linguistic nationalism’ that would
have occurred in Israel and Judah in reaction to the Neo-Assyrian imperialism of the 8th century
47
BCE. Seth Sanders goes even one step further. He asks why it took centuries before the
development of the alphabet resulted in major literary compositions and looks for an answer in
the direction of the construction of political identities in the West Semitic world. This leads to the
conclusion that in both Ugarit and in ancient Israel and Judah the cuneiform and linear alphabet
were standardized and led to major cultural projects only when they were linked to political

(2014), 155–175; J.-P. Vita, Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters (AOAT, 406), Münster 2015, 119–149. For
the social relations between the kings of Canaan as the actual authorities behind these texts, see D.H. Cline,
E.H. Cline, ‘Text Messages, Tablets, and social Networks: The “Small” World of the Amarna Tablets’, in: J.
Mynářová et al. (eds), There and Back Again – The Crossroads II. Proceedings of an International Conference
Held in Prague, September 15–18, 2014, Prague 2015, 26–40.
45
For a discussion and literature, see, e.g., A.R. Millard, ‘The Knowledge of Writing in Ancient Palestine’,
TynB 46 (1995), 207–217; R. Byrne, ‘The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine’, BASOR 345 (2007), 1–31; S.
Wimmer, Palästinisches Hiëratisch: die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in den althebräischen Schrift (ÄAT, 75),
Wiesbaden 2008, 274–279; J. Renz, ‘Die vor- und ausserliterarische Texttradition. Ein Beitrag der
palästinischen Epigraphik zur Vorgeschichte des Kanons’, in: J. Schaper (ed.), Die Textualisierung der
Religion (FAT, 62), Tübingen 2008, 53–81; P.K. McCarter, R.E. Tappy (eds), Literate Culture and Tenth-
Century Canaan: The Tell Zayit Abecedary in Context, Winona Lake, IN 2008; Sanders, Invention of Hebrew,
83–136; Rollston, Writing and Literacy, 19–46; Lehmann, ‘How Many Letters Needs an Alphabet?’, 30–47;
Schniedewind, Social History of Hebrew, 53–70; D.D. Pioske, ‘The Scribe of David: A Portrait of A Life’,
Maarav 20 (2013), 163–188; B.B. Schmidt (ed.), Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writing: Ancient Literacy,
Orality and Literary Production (AIL, 22), Atlanta, BA 2015; M. Richelle, ‘Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew
Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eighth Century BCE?’, VT 66 (2016), 1–39.
46
Schniedewind, Social History of Hebrew, 40, 44.
47
Schniedewind, Social History of Hebrew, 3, 29, 51–98.
programs. In Sanders’ view, Hebrew is in fact the successful invention of the Iron Age kingdoms of
Israel and Judah.48
These sketches of the origins of Hebrew rightly pay attention to some remarkable facts: in
Ugarit and Israel, the choice for writing the vernacular in an alphabetic script led to an explosion
of texts; a standardization of the paleo-Hebrew script took indeed place during the 8th century BCE;
writing, as becomes also evident in the rhetorical strategy of the Book of Deuteronomy, is able to
create a ‘we’ by addressing its audience in a way that connects both previous and present readers
and listeners (cf. Deut 5:1–3); and finally, literary works are indeed able to contribute to the
formation of a national language.49 Nevertheless, the abovementioned view also raises criticism. It
is generally acknowledged that the transmitted biblical texts contain archaic biblical poetry.50 In
addition, the Classical Biblical Hebrew of the narratives of Genesis to 2 Kings is almost identical to
the language of the pre-exilic Judean inscriptions.51 Is it indeed impossible that any of these legal
traditions and stories of a surprising literary quality goes back to versions that were written down
before the 8th century BCE?
Moreover, the observation that kinship and oratory talent speech most likely were influential
factors in West Semitic tribal societies might also explain why the tribal entities of the early
territorial kingdoms for some time resisted a standardization of language and script. This concurs
with the fact that according to the biblical texts, the scribes and cultic personnel which had the
skills of both reading and writing were not necessarily part of the royal establishment.52
Accordingly, the question has to be raised to what extent the previous focus on the Davidic and
Solomonic chancellery as the main cause of literary production and the recent concentration on
the political meaning of epigraphic and biblical texts are forms of political reductionism.
Undeniably, writing was used by those who were in power. But it can be doubted whether an
anachronistic notion such as ‘nationalism’ played such a conscious and significant part in the
standardization of paleo-Hebrew writing. Economic and administrative incentives were important
as well. Therefore, in the Levant, the linear script might have been a response to a broader

48
Sanders, Invention of Hebrew, 67–75, 103–155.
49
Examples from Early Modern Europe are the impact of John Calvin’s Institution de la religion chrétienne
(1560), the King James Version (1611), and the Statenvertaling (1637) on French, English and Dutch.
50
The question whether the distinction between Archaic, Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew is still valid, is
hotly debated, but the most recent conclusion is that it still is. See, e.g., I.M. Young, R. Rezetko, M.
Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, London 2008; Miller-Naudé, Zevit (eds), Diachrony in Biblical
Hebrew; N. Pat-El, A.M. Wilson-Wright, ‘Features of Archaic Biblical Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating
debate’, Hebrew Studies 54 (2013), 387–410; I.M Young, R. Rezetko, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,
Atlanta, GA 2014; J. Joosten, ‘Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch’, and W.M.
Schniedewind, ‘Linguistic Dating, Writing Systems, and the Pentateuch Sources’, in: J. Gertz et al. (eds), The
Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT, 111),
Tübingen 2016, 327–344, 345–356.
51
P.K. McCarter, ‘Hebrew’, in: R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient
Languages, Cambridge 2004, 319; Gzella, ‘North-West Semitic’, 429.
52
For the biblical picture of ancient Israelite literacy, see I.M. Young, ‘Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the
Evidence’, VT 48 (1998), 239–253, 408–422.
administrative need in society, just as the cuneiform and the hieroglyphs in Sumer and Egypt.53
The biblical texts in their turn highlight the importance of religion in writing. The deeply religious
nature of these texts and the fact that they are very critical of the primary royal interests indicate
that this religious dimension cannot be reduced to only a function of politics.54 Finally, the
epigraphic record indicates that literary production comprised much more than the available
writing on sherds, in graffiti, and in stone. In addition, scribes used wax tablets and wooden
boards. Their use of cursive scripts also implies that plain cursive types of professional flat writing
on papyrus must have occurred, in particular after the introduction of the broad-nibbed ink-brush
pen in the 10th century BCE. Due to the climactic conditions of the Southern Levant, only one
papyrus (from the Wadi Murabbaʿat) is attested among the scribal remains of the pre-exilic period.
But the reasonable assumption that many others once existed, highlights that the present
knowledge is limited and more scenarios are possible.55 Therefore, it seems that writing and
transmission of literary texts before the 8th century BCE was not only possible, but also plausible.56
As a result, sociolinguistic research nowadays offers a concrete picture of literacy in ancient
society, of the genealogy of the Northwest Semitic writing systems, and of the Ugaritic, Canaanite
and ancient Israelite scribal traditions that used them. Due to lack of data, however, it remains
very hard to explain the sudden rise of the alphabet, to offer a more precise picture of the origins of
Hebrew as a language and to elucidate the explosion of West Semitic literary compositions during
the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Besides linguistic considerations, three methodological issues in
historical research prove to be decisive in this respect. Is only the remaining non-organic
epigraphical record relevant in building a framework for answering these questions, or are the
texts written on papyrus that once existed also to be taken into account? Is it possible to use
historical information from the transmitted biblical texts with regard to literacy and writing or is

53
A.R. Millard, ‘Alphabetic Writing, Cuneiform and Linear, Reconsidered’, Maarav 14 (2007), 91–92; J.
Schaper, ‘Hebrew Culture at the “Interface Between the Written and the Oral”’, in: Schmidt (ed.),
Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writing, 328.
54
Cf. K. van Bekkum, ‘“How the Mighty Have Fallen”. Sola Scriptura and the Historical Debate on David as a
Southern Levantine Warlord’, in: J.M. Burger, A. Huijgen, H.G.L. Peels (eds), Sola Scriptura. Biblical and
Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics (SRT, 32), Leiden: Brill 2017, 169–178.
55
G. van der Kooij, Early Northwest Semitic Script Traditions, Leiden 1986, 235–244; Millard, ‘Knowledge of
Writing’, 214–217; Lehmann, ‘How Many Letters Needs an Alphabet?’, 31; Richelle, ‘Elusive Scrolls’, 9–12, 35–
36. In ancient South Arabia, writing on wooden sticks represents a scribal tradition preceding the first
monumental inscriptions of the 8th century BCE for centuries. P. Stein, Die altsüdarabische
Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in München (EFAH, 5), Bd. 1,
Tübingen 2010, 46, n. 196 (with thanks to Mario Tafferner for this reference). An overview of the limits of
knowledge and the methodological challenges of Northwest Semitic epigraphy is offered by G. van de Kooij,
‘Classifying Early NW-Semitic Scripts. A Search for Writing Traditions by Studying Script as Artifact’, 12.
Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), 29. Oktober – 1. November 2015 (to be
published).
56
Richelle, ‘Elusive Scrolls’, 37–39, in contrast to, e.g., Renz, ‘Die vor- und ausserliterarische Tradition’, 71–73;
Rollston, Writing and Literacy, 134–135; B.B Schmidt, ‘Memorializing Conflict: Toward a “Shadow” History of
Israel’s Earliest Literature’, in: idem (ed.), Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writing, 122, 127.
this only the case when this is confirmed by epigraphical and archaeological remains?57 And
finally: How is the religious nature of the biblical texts to be appreciated in historical research?

4 ‘A Wandering Aramean’ (Deut 26:5)

An example of this kind of biblical information is the opening line of the speech in the ritual for
the presentation of the firstfruits at YHWH’s sanctuary in Deut 26:5–9: ‘My father was a wandering
Aramean’. Does this suggest that, as Lettinga posed in 1976, the language of Israel’s ancestors
originally ‘was probably related to an Old Aramaic idiom’? In particular since Gerhard von Rad
characterized the rhythmic prose of this historical summary as an ancient Israelite ‘credo’, the
passage has been subject of intense literary-historical debate. Due to the fact that it connects
traditions that according to some scholars were once separated, the results of these analyses are
often deductive in nature.58 Nevertheless, several scholars still assume that most elements in the
historical summary reflect ancient traditions of Israel’s collective memory.59
In the present context of Deut 26:1–15, the short story on YHWH’s decisive involvement in the
vicissitudes of previous generations remind those bringing their firstfruits that the land and the
products they are carrying in a basket are the outcome of a long history of traveling, multiplying,
suffering, deliverance and home coming, and therefore a gift of YHWH. No longer being a slave does
not imply that your inheritance is a possession. It is a gift in order to honour God, to do good and
to enjoy life. The reference to the father who was ‘a wandering Aramean’ creates a contrast
undergirding this story. ‫א ֵֹּבד‬, ‘wandering’, denotes the nomadic lifestyle of the ancestor, but also
bears the connotation of ‘to become lost, to perish’,60 and maybe even that of being a ‘refugee’.61 A
string of curses in Deut 28 further highlight the gracious nature of this gift: the people of Israel will
return to the situation of its ancestor, if it is not dedicated to their God. Israel will be left ‘few in
number’ (‫במ ֵתי ְמ ׇעט‬ְ , Deut 28:62, cf. 26:5), YHWH will take delight in ‘causing them to perish’ (‫ ְל ַה ֲא ִׁביד‬,
Deut 28:63, cf. 26:5) and Israel will be uprooted from the land that was once ‘given as an
inheritance’ (‫ ְל ִׁר ְש ָּתּה‬, Deut 28:63, cf. 26:1).62

57
Cf. N. Na’aman, ‘Does Archaeology Really Deserve the Status of A ‘High Court’ in Biblical and Historical
Research?’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History of
Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for the Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009 (OTS, 59), Leiden 2011, 165–183.
58
G. von Rad, ‘Das Formgeschichliche Problem der Hexateuch’, in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament (ThB, 8), München 1961, 9–86. Cf. J.C. Gertz, ‘Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos in
der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuch’, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann (Hrsg.),
Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 30–45; E. Otto,
Deuteronomium 1–11 (HThKAT), Bd. 1, 234–238; idem, Deuteronomium 12–34 (HThKAT), Bd. 2, Freiburg 2017,
1880–1891.
59
E.g. Gertz, ‘Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos’, 43; J. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary,
Grand Rapids, MI 2013, 727–728.
60
HALAT, 2.
61
A.R. Millard, ‘A Wandering Aramean’, JNES 39 (1980), 155.
62
Gertz, ‘Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos’, 44.
 Deut 1:8 and 34:4 identify Israel’s ‘fathers’ of 26:3 as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whereas Deut
10:22 narrows their referent to Jacob’s clan of seventy people (cf. Gen 46:27; Num 20:15). 63 The
terms ‘Aramean’ (‫ ) ֳא ַר ִׁמי‬and ‘my father’ (‫ ) ָּא ִׁבי‬in Deut 26:5 seem to refer to Jacob: his mother was
from Aram-Naharaim (Gen 24:10) and he served his uncle Laban, who is explicitly called ‘Aramean’
and quoted in giving a heap of stones an Aramaic name (Gen 25:20; 28:5; 31:20–24, 47). Probably,
the expression can also be read as a collective, referring to the three patriarchs, while the rhythmic
sequence of the four short sentences in Deut 26:5 suggest that it may even encompass the entirety
of Israel’s pre-exodus history. In this way, the collective singular becomes a symbol for the
changing fortunes of Israel.64
As a result, Deut 26:5 is part of a whole network of literary connections, stretching from the
patriarchal narratives in Genesis to the account of the divine judgment on Israel and Judah in 2
Kings. The question, however, is whether this reference to Jacob as a corporate figure is also to be
interpreted as a historical and linguistic piece of information regarding an ‘Aramean’ past. Since
the early 20th century CE, a number of different models have been proposed trying to connect the
biblical text to non-biblical attestations of second millennium clans in the Syrian desert searching
for land.65 Nowadays, scholars merely prefer solutions directly based on the primary evidence. The
gentilic term Aramayu is attested for the first time as designation for nomadic tribes in the Upper
Euphrates region being in conflict with Tiglath-Pileser I (1114–1076 BCE). Up till now, it is unclear
whether these people spoke some form of Aramaic or Amorite.66 At the same time, historians
observe that the biblical notion of an ‘Aramean’ descent comes as a surprise in the light of the
ongoing hostilities between Aram and Israel from the 9th century BCE on. Therefore, it can hardly
be characterized as an invented tradition and most likely reflects a chain of memory indicating
that the Haran region at some time had been the homeland of Israel’s second millennium BCE
nomadic ancestors. Yet, given the available historical and linguistic evidence, it is also important to
realize that in the biblical passages, ‘Aram’ and ‘Aramean’ seem to have been used as functional
anachronisms, that is, as Iron Age descriptions of a Bronze Age reality. As a result, these texts most
likely refer to a specific region and a distant past, highlighting the nomadic and non-Canaanite

63
According to, e.g., T.C. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deutoronomium und in
der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO, 99), Freiburg 1990, the ‘fathers’ originally referred to the exodus
generation, while only a later redaction of the Pentateuch identified them with the patriarchs. For serious
criticism of this view, see, e.g., B.T. Arnold, ‘Reexamining the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy’s Framework’, in: K.
Spronk, H. Barstad (eds), Torah and Tradition (OTS, 70), Leiden 2017, 10–41.
64
Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 726; J. Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the ‘Fathers’ in
Deuteronomy (Siphrut, 8), Winona Lake, IN 2012, 62–63, 76–71; K.L. Younger, A Political History of the
Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities (ABS, 13), Atlanta, GA 2016, 100–104.
65
For an overview, see K.L. Younger, ‘The Late Bronze/Iron Age Transition and the Origins of the Arameans’,
in: idem (ed.), Ugarit at Seventy-Five, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 131–133.
66
Gzella, Cultural History of Aramaic, 56–57.
origin of Israel’s ancestors.67 The exact nature of their language, however, is not implicated in the
text.68

5 Conclusion

The linguistic and historical study of Hebrew of the last decades has made it clear that in several
ways, Lettinga’s description of the origins of Hebrew is still valid. Classical Hebrew indeed
developed from Canaano-Akkadian and other dialects from the Canaanite dialect continuum of
the Late Bronze Southern Levant. Yet, the statement that the Israelite tribes adopted this language
and made it their own, after having conquered the ‘promised land’, is nowadays highly contested.
The biblical texts reflect a deep awareness of the non-indigenous origin of Israel. Some texts
explicitly highlight the non-Canaanite nature of Israel’s ancestors by placing their Bronze Age
origins in the Haran region. Despite these indications, most scholars argue that the emergence of
Israel was an internal southern Levantine development. This dispute, however, is not decided by
historical-linguistic information, but by choices that are being made in methodological issues in
historical research, in which scholars try to weigh the available evidence.69 Nonetheless, in this
debate, the view of Israel’s settlement in Canaan being a process from conquest to coexistence
resulting in a cultural and religious mixed multitude, is still one of the options. In that case, the
new tribal entities indeed might have started to use the indigenous language and scribal
tradition.70
This debate illustrates once more that historical considerations undeniably play a part in the
research for the origins of Classical Hebrew. Apparently, diverse scenarios are possible, because
after a ‘dark age’ since ca. 1200 BCE, Hebrew only becomes identifiable with the breakthrough of
alphabetic writing during the first millennium BCE. Nevertheless, a linguistic perspective offers
useful information from which some obvious conclusions can be drawn. From a social-linguistic
perspective, for instance, the ‘minimalist’ view that biblical Hebrew is only an artificial construct
and never was a real language misrepresents the state of affairs regarding Hebrew. Written
vernaculars always differ from the actual spoken language, while there are also all kind of social,
genre-based and linguistic-historical differences between texts. This is in particular the case with
regard to the biblical texts, which were transmitted for centuries before they reached their final

67
Younger, Political History of the Arameans, 100, 103–107. The post-positive definite article -āʾ in ‫דּותא‬
ָּ ‫יְ גַ ר ָּׂש ֲה‬
in Gen 31:47, for instance, does not predate the 10th century BCE. H. Gzella, ‘Language and Script’, in: H.
Niehr (ed.), The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (HdO 1/106), Leiden 2014, 89. For the view, in line with the
Jewish tradition, that Abraham and his descendants broke away from the moon-god of Ur and the Haran
region and of the idol-worshipping Arameans, see Y. Levin, ‘“My Father was a Wandering Aramean”: Biblical
Views of the Ancestral Relationship between Israel and Aram’, in: A. Berlejung et al. (eds), Wandering
Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives (LAS, 5), Wiesbaden 2017, 39–
52.
68
Two factors further complicate speculation in this realm: sources from the second millennium BCE hardly
contain evidence of Aramaic and the branching off of Canaanite from its common Northwest Semitic
predecessor was not a sudden event. Groen, ‘Northwest Semitic in the Second Millennium’, 50–52.
69
For an overview, see Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 7–92.
70
Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 575–592.
form in the Tiberian vocalization system. Yet, the language of this corpus is still very similar to that
of the ancient Israelite inscriptions and can be characterized as Archaic, Classical or Late Biblical
Hebrew.71
Furthermore, (socio)linguistic research with regard to the development of the Northwest
Semitic writing systems and of the Canaanite and ancient Israelite scribal traditions present a
general historical framework for the reconstruction of the beginnings of Hebrew literature. As
noted above, it is argued that the present knowledge prevents biblical references to scribal activity
of Moses to be interpreted in such a way that he contributed significantly to the making of the
Pentateuch.72 This, however, is not the case. It is better to say that the available linguistic and
historical information present serious constraints and challenges to this idea. Scholars defending it
have to consider through what kind of transfers in language and writing systems the Mosaic
tradition went on its way into the Iron Ages and how this might have affected the texts.
At face value, traditional historical-critical views using the sigla J, E, D, and P and the model of
the Deuteronomistic History seem to offer better solutions, for the supposed date of these literary
works more or less concurs with the present epigraphic record. But these theories also have to deal
with serious problems. Firstly, they generally assume that the composition of literary texts in
ancient Israel did not predate the 8th or 9th century BCE. Section 4, however, revealed that this is
less certain than is often assumed due to epigraphical factors and historical methodological
grounds. Secondly, scholars in literary criticism admit that empirical studies of documented cases
of transmission history undermine their traditional methods. It is, for instance, no longer possible
to speak of oral stages of transmission which would later be superseded by written stages; the
criterion of vocabulary and style turns out to be questionable; it is important to be cautious in
creating sources, because they more often reflect scholarly assumptions than historical reality; and
finally, it is dangerous to posit too many stages of transmission.73 More recent theories posing that
large post-exilic compositional blocks contributed significantly to the literary work of Genesis to 2
Kings partly succeed in avoiding these problems.74 But these theories face the difficulty that from a
linguistic perspective, it is more likely that these passages are written in pre-exilic Hebrew.75
So in the end, research for ancient Israel’s history definitely influences the view of the origins of
the Hebrew language. But in their turn, scholars studying the meaning and historical background

71
See n. 50 and 51.
72
Exod 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Deut 31:9, 19, 22, 24, 30. For recent defences of Mosaic authorship, see, e.g., R.E.
Averbeck, ‘Pentateuchal Criticism and the Priestly Torah’, in: J.K. Hoffmeier, D.R. Magary (eds), Do Historical
Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, Wheaton,
IL 2012, 156–158; R.S. Hess, The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological and Critical Introduction, Grand
Rapids, MI 2016, 24, 62–63, 70; C. Bartholomew, ‘Old Testament Origins and the Question of God’, BBR 27
(2017), 181–184. For historical-critical reconstructions of ‘Moses’, see HEBAI 1 (2012), 5–110.
73
See e.g. D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011, 13–149, and its
reviews by A.R. Roskop (H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews, June 2012) and T.J. Stone (JHS 12 [2012]).
74
See, e.g., K. Schmidt, The Old Testament: A Literary History, Minneapolis, MN 2012, 147–152, 155–159, 160–
162, 176–181.
75
See note 52. According to L. Petersson, ‘The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Narrative of the Pentateuch’,
in: M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZAR),
Wiesbaden (forthcoming), this also applies to the verbal syntax in the P narrative.
of the Hebrew Scriptures should not ignore the historical approach of the ‘Canaanite dialect group,
which Hebrew in fact is’.76

76
Lettinga, De ‘tale Kanaäns’, 20.