Hebrew Between the Name of the Language and the Language Later Attributed to It

This point is based on a necessary distinction between the name of the language, the language itself, and the letters in which it was written. Much of the confusion in reading religious and linguistic history has come from mixing these three levels, as though the name, the spoken language, and the script were one fixed and unchanging thing.

This research does not discuss Hebrew as one single language fixed across time. Rather, it examines the history of the name: when it appeared, whom it referred to, and how it was later transferred to another language. The issue here is not a denial that a language later became known as Hebrew, but a re-examination of the path of the name itself, and a distinction between the original name and the language that carried this name at a later stage.

This research therefore proposes another possibility: that the name “Hebrew” may be older than the language that later carried this name, and that this name was originally connected with a northern group within the ancient Greek sphere, before being transferred later to another language within the later religious map.

First: The Difference Between the Name of the Language and the Language Itself

This research does not mean that the language known today as Hebrew is the same as the language of the Illyrians or the people of northern Greece. Nor does it mean that the modern Hebrew letters are the letters of that ancient northern group.

The intended point is more precise: the name “Hebrew” itself may originally have been the name of the language of the people of the north — that is, the Illyrians or Lyrians — who, in this research, are connected with the ancient Abrahamic sphere and with the people of Zeus/Abraham.

In this sense, “Hebrew” is not understood here first as a later Jewish language, but as an ancient name for the tongue of a specific northern group, before the religious map was redrawn and names were transferred from their original locations to later locations.

Second: The Original Language of the People of the North

According to this view, “Hebrew” was originally the name of the language of the people of northern Greece, specifically the Illyrians or Lyrians. In this research, they are not treated as a marginal group, but as part of the ancient sphere connected with the origin of the Children of Israel and the first Abrahamic circle.

From here, speaking about “Hebrew” becomes a discussion of the name of an ancient northern language, not of the language that was later called Hebrew in Jewish tradition or in the modern period.

In this framework, the Hebrews were not an isolated group on the later Palestinian map, but a group with its own tongue within the wider Greek sphere. This explains why they appear as having a distinct linguistic identity, even though they belonged to a world of many peoples and dialects: Macedonians, Epirotes, Illyrians, Ionians, Dorians, and Aeolians.

Third: The Religious Map and the Transfer of the Name of the Language

When the religious map was redrawn in later stages, it was not only the names of cities, mountains, and seas that were transferred. The names of peoples and languages were also transferred.

Here the basic confusion occurred: the name “Hebrew,” which was originally connected with the language of the people of the north, was later applied to another language — Phoenician or Phoenician-Aramaic — as the language of the texts, or of the community that carried the religious memory at a later stage.

Thus, the ancient name was placed upon a different tongue.

The language that was later called Hebrew is not, in this research, the original language that first carried the name, but a later layer that took the name after the transfer of religious and geographical memory.

Fourth: Phoenician and the Semitic Confusion

The matter becomes clearer when we look at the Phoenicians. Some ancient accounts connect the Phoenicians with a wider eastern or southern maritime sphere, and state that they came from the “Erythraean Sea.” This ancient expression should not necessarily be understood as the Red Sea in the modern sense. Rather, it referred to a broader maritime space that may have included the Arabian/Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the sphere of the Indian Ocean.

From here, it becomes possible to understand why the Phoenician language was connected with the Semitic sphere. If the language later given the name “Hebrew” was, in reality, a Phoenician or Phoenician-Aramaic layer, and if the Phoenicians were connected in some ancient accounts with an eastern or southern sphere, then the classification of this language within the Semitic sphere becomes understandable.

But this does not mean that the name “Hebrew” itself was Semitic in its first origin. Rather, it means that the ancient name was transferred to a later language carrying Phoenician or Aramaic features or roots, and that this language was then classified within the Semitic family.

Here, two things must be distinguished:

The original name “Hebrew,” which in this research is connected with the people of the north.

And the tongue that later carried this name, which is connected with Phoenician, Aramaic, and Jewish tradition.

Fifth: The Letters Are Not the Language

One of the greatest causes of confusion is that people mix the language with the letters. A language may be written in letters that do not belong to its first origin, and letters may move from one people to another without this meaning that the language itself moved as it was.

Therefore, the letters that we later see in texts called Hebrew are not enough, by themselves, to prove that the name “Hebrew” was from the beginning connected with this language or with this script.

The Phoenician letters, then the Aramaic letters, then the square Hebrew script, represent later writing layers. As for the name “Hebrew,” it may be older than these layers, and closer to a northern linguistic and geographical identity that preceded the transfer of the name into the Phoenician/Aramaic sphere.

Sixth: Where Did the Confusion Occur?

The confusion occurred in three stages.

First, there was an ancient name for the language of the people of the north: Hebrew.

Second, when the religious map was transferred, this name was applied to a Phoenician or Phoenician-Aramaic language, because that language became the language of the text or of the community carrying the religious memory.

Third, in the modern period, this language was revived or reconstructed under the name “Hebrew,” so the modern reader came to think that the name, the language, and the letters all return to one continuous origin.

But this research proposes that the picture is more complex. The name may be ancient and northern, the later language Phoenician/Aramaic, the letters a later writing layer, and then the modern map gathered all these layers under one name.

Seventh: Conclusion

The basic conclusion is that “Hebrew,” in this research, is not merely one language connected continuously across time, but a historical name that moved between different layers.

Originally, the name “Hebrew” may have been connected with the language of the people of northern Greece — that is, the Illyrians or Lyrians — who are connected with the ancient Abrahamic sphere.

Then this name was later transferred to a Phoenician or Phoenician-Aramaic language, when the religious map was redrawn and names were moved from their original locations.

Then this later language came to be known as Hebrew within Jewish tradition, before it was reshaped and revived in the modern period.

Thus, the problem is not in the language alone, but in the confusion between the name, the tongue, the letters, and the map.

Therefore, this proposal should not be understood as a denial that a language later became known as Hebrew. Rather, it is a re-examination of the path of the name itself. The later language exists, the letters exist, and the textual tradition exists; but the question is this: was the name placed upon it its original name, or was it a name transferred from an older group?

If the name “Hebrew” is separated from the language that later carried it, the question can be opened again: was Hebrew originally the name of the language of the people of the north before the Great Migration, and was the name then transferred to a Phoenician/Aramaic language within the later religious map?