by certain rulers in league with the “Habiru.” Whereas some have endeavored to link this up with the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the evidence does not seem to support such view. Professor T. O. Lambdin says of the Habiru: “Although many features of the Habiru problem remain obscure, it is clear from numerous references that they consisted mainly of unlanded vagrants who entered into a dependent status as agricultural laborers or soldiers in exchange for maintenance.” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, P. 532) Professor Kline also states: “The term ha-BI-ru is usually regarded as an appellative denoting nomads, dependents, or foreigners. . . . the phonetic equation of ʽibri [Hebrew] and ha-BI-ru is highly improbable. Moreover, the extant evidence suggests that the ha-BI-ru were professional militarists with a non-Semitic nucleus. . . .”—Douglas’ The New Bible Dictionary, p. 511; see EGYPT, EGYPTIAN (History).

So, too, with the Egyptian term ʽApri or ʽEpri. While attempts have been made to apply it to the Hebrews, the evidence shows that it continued to be used in Egyptian inscriptions long after the Hebrews had left Egypt. As Professor A. Lukyn Williams states (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 326): “. . . the identification is, to say the least, very precarious.”

HEBREW, II

The Hebrew language was used for the writing of the major part of the inspired Scriptures—thirty-nine books in all (according to the division of material as found in many translations), composing some three-quarters of the total content of the Bible. A small portion of these books, however, was written in Aramaic.—See ARAMAIC.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the name “Hebrew” is not applied to the language, the name there being applied only to individuals or to the people of Israel as a whole. Reference is made to the “Jews’ language” (2 Ki. 18:26, 28), “Jewish” (Neh. 13:24) and the “language of Canaan” (Isa. 19:18), which, at that time (the eighth century B.C.E.), was primarily Hebrew. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, however, the name “Hebrew” is regularly applied to the language spoken by the Jews.—See HEBREW, I.

ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE

Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of any of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean and Egyptian. This is because these tongues appear already fully developed in the earliest written records men have found. (See LANGUAGE.) The various views advanced by scholars concerning the origin and development of Hebrew—such as those claiming that Hebrew derived from Aramaic or from some Canaanite dialect—are therefore conjectural. The same may be said for attempts at explaining the derivation of many words found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars frequently assign an Akkadian or an Aramaic source for many of these words. However, as Dr. Edward Horowitz comments: “In the field of etymology [the study of word origins] there are wide differences of opinion among scholars, even among the very best of them.” He then cites examples of explanations by renowned scholars of the etymology of certain Hebrew words, in each case showing that other prominent scholars disagree, and then adds: “And so we have these never ending differences between equally highly respected authorities.”—How the Hebrew Language Grew, pp. xix, xx.

The Bible, then, is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), who, in turn, was descended from Noah’s son Shem. (Gen. 11:10-26) In view of God’s prophetic blessing on Shem (Gen. 9:26), it is reasonable to believe that Shem’s language was not affected when God confused the language of the disapproved people at Babel. (Gen. 11:5-9) Shem’s language would remain the same as previously, the “one language” that had existed from Adam onward. (Gen. 11:1) This would mean that the language that eventually came to be called “Hebrew” was the one original tongue of mankind. As stated, secular history knows no other.

QUESTION OF THE LANGUAGE’S STABILITY

History is replete with examples of languages changing over long periods of time. The English spoken in the time of Alfred the Great (of the ninth century C.E.) would seem like a foreign tongue to most English-speaking persons of today. It might, therefore, seem likely that the language originally spoken by Adam would have changed substantially by the time the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures began with Moses. The long life-spans enjoyed in that 2,500-year period, however, would be a definite factor operating against such change. Thus, there was only one human link, namely, Methuselah, needed to connect Adam with the Flood survivors. Additionally, Shem, who was evidently a pre-Flood contemporary of Methuselah for a number of years, lived well into the lifetime of Isaac. And less than one hundred and fifty years elapsed from the death of Isaac (1738 B.C.E.) until the birth of Moses (1593 B.C.E.). This overlapping of the lives of individuals several generations apart would serve to maintain uniformity of speech. Of course, the extent to which these human links, such as Shem and Abraham, lived in close geographical proximity is not always known. Regular communication is an important factor in language stability.

That not all of Shem’s descendants continued to speak the “one language” of pre-Flood times in its pure form is evident from the differences that developed among the Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, and the various Arabic dialects. In the eighteenth century B.C.E. (about the year 1761 B.C.E.), Abraham’s grandson and grandnephew used different terms in naming the heap of stones they had set up as a memorial or witness between them. Jacob, the father of the Israelites, called it “Galeed,” while Laban, a resident in Syria or Aram (though not himself a descendant of Aram), used the Aramaean term “Jegar-sahadutha.” (Gen. 31:47) The dissimilarity of these two terms, however, need not indicate a major difference between Aramaean and Hebrew at this point, inasmuch as Jacob seems to have faced no particular problem in communication there in Syria. Undoubtedly, as new circumstances and situations arose and new artifacts were produced, certain words would be coined to describe such developments. Such terms might differ from place to place among geographically separated groups of the same language family, even while the actual structure of their language remained very much the same.

Among the Israelites themselves, some small variation in pronunciation developed, as is evident by the different pronunciations given the word “Shibboleth” by the Ephraimites during the period of the judges (1473 to 1117 B.C.E.). (Judg. 12:4-6) This, however, is no basis for claiming (as some have) that the Israelites then spoke separate dialects.

In the eighth century B.C.E., the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic had become wide enough to mark them as separate languages. This is seen when King Hezekiah’s representatives requested the spokesmen of Assyrian King Sennacherib to “speak with your servants, please, in the Syrian [Aramaic] language, for we can listen; and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.” (2 Ki. 18:17, 18, 26) Although Aramaic was then the lingua franca of the Near East and was used in international diplomatic communication, it was not understood by the majority of the Judeans. The earliest known non-Biblical written documents in Aramaic are from about the same period, and these confirm the distinction between the two languages.

Had both Hebrew and Aramaic diverged from the