TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 72: 97, Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew, continued

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20220219-100Proofs-72.mp3 — Downloaded 6288 times


TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 72

In our last presentation we discussed why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and the fact that the majority of quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint, which shows that the authors of our New Testament scriptures were very familiar with Greek text of the Old Testament even if they had also maintained a familiarity with the Hebrew version, or versions. Then we began a discussion of the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. As we hope to have already shown to some degree, those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. Here we shall continue that discussion.

97) Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew, continued

First, there are a couple of points I left unanswered in our last presentation, which I would like to address here. Evidently the Wisdom of Sirach did survive in Hebrew. Judith is more controversial, as there is a shorter Hebrew version that dates the work to a completely different period, the 2nd century BC rather than the 7th, and although it is in the Septuagint that version has not survived in Hebrew, or perhaps never existed in Hebrew. Like Esther, no portion of Judith was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But for several reasons, I believe Judith is a historical novel that was rewritten in different ages. Tobit was not preserved by the rabbis of Judaism, but fragments of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are no surviving Hebrew copies of Baruch, or of the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah, and arguably both works may have been originally written in Greek. There are no known Hebrew copies of the apocryphal works attributed to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children, and Susanna. The same is true of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh and the four books of the Maccabees, which survived to us in Greek. A Hebrew original is claimed for 1 Maccabees, and that is acceptable, but if it existed it did not survive. The book known as 1 Esdras, from the Septuagint, seems to be a more complete copy of the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah known from the text of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. These are all of the books of the Apocrypha that are worth mentioning here, but I do not accept many of them as being canonical. Many of them do not belong in our Bibles.

Last week, Truthvids mentioned that in modern times, Hebrew is classified as an “Afro-Semitic Language”. That does indeed seem to represent another effort by modern Jewish academics to separate and distance Hebrew from European languages. But it is not true. Abraham and his fathers, who are ostensibly the first recorded speakers of Biblical Hebrew in the historical narrative of Scripture, had come from Haran. Haran, in Padanaram or the Plain of Aram north of the Euphrates River, was the homeland of his fathers. This was slightly further north than Carcemish, the capital city of the so-called “Indo-European” Hittite Empire. So they have no qualms to consider a branch of the Canaanites as Indo-European, but the Hebrews who are closer to Europeans they refuse to connect.

The Egyptians being Mizraim, descendants of Ham, in recent centuries Hamitic languages including the Cushite language of Ethiopia and the Berber language were considered together to be an African language group, but not any Semitic language. Furthermore, while Arabic has its roots in Aramaic, which is a Semitic language, Arabic seems to have developed within the first few centuries of the Christian period as a local form or dialect of Aramaic, which had been the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Persian empires. Arabic as a language Ronly became popular on account of the Quran, and expanded into Africa along with the expansion of Islam from the 7th century.

Now on another note: A friend recently pointed me to a scholar named John Pairman Brown, who wrote three volumes titled Israel and Hellas. Volume 2 is subtitled Sacred Institutions with Roman Counterparts, and the subject of Volume 3, which I have not yet had the opportunity to even open the PDF file, is the legacy of Iranian imperialism, meaning Persian and maybe also possibly Parthian. In his first volume, published in 1995, Brown discusses the relationship of both Hebrew and Greek culture and language. I have not read the work, but I am eager to examine it. He dedicated his first volume to a Saul Levin, and wrote that Levin would soon produce his own similar work on the relationship between Hebrew and Indo-European languages. So I found that this Saul Levin, a Jew, ultimately published two volumes, Semitic and Indo-European: The Principal Etymologies (1995) and Semitic and Indo-European Volume II: Comparative morphology, syntax and phonetics (2002). But these two men had another Jew before them, an English lawyer named Joseph Yahuda, who also taught Hebrew at a Jewish school, who published a large volume in 1982 titled “Hebrew is Greek”. One review written in an English-speaking Greek source said that his “unbiased, and meticulously thorough search reveals the linguistic relationship of numerous groups of words in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic”. While I would rather not learn anything from Jews, I will look at all of these once I can obtain them electronically, as the actual books are out of print, and their inflated prices are prohibitively expensive. I have the Brown and Yahuda volumes already. I will post what I have on our Hebrew-English Resources page when I post this presentation. But the Levin volumes are not freely available electronically, and even the PDF version is prohibitively expensive.

Most Jewish academics ridicule the idea that Hebrew and Greek, or Hebrew and any so-called Indo-European language, could be related. They completely ignore the evidence, and they scoff because it upsets their entire identity as Jews to think that the original Hebrew speakers were akin to White Europeans. Yet we have the historical and archaeological data which agrees that Hebrews certainly were Europeans, even if they were not yet in Europe.

With this, we shall commence with our discussion of English and other European words which came from Hebrew. This is a continuation of the Proof which we had numbered as 91, but which Truthvids has noticed is actually more like Proof 95, and we presented about a quarter of our material last week. I have forgotten several times to update the Proof #’s we are assigning, and I will have to straighten them out soon, where they are published on the website.

Sources for discussion:

English is from Hebrew - About This Study

ChrSat20220219-100Proofs-72.odt — Downloaded 98 times