Kolbe Report 10/14/23

In trying to ascertain the first known use of language, we must seek results that are evidence-based. The thesis of this paper, though proposing a most plausible assertion, still must be built upon tangible evidence—must be evidence-based—to be logically coherent. Where does the evidence lead us? Once we find this destination, we may infer one or more of the most logically likely scenarios. In this field of study, certain recent linguistic-archaeological discoveries are advancing our knowledge about the development and dating of early Semitic languages. First, Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic/Sinaitic) may not predate Proto-Hebrew, or, if it does predate, does so earlier than previously thought. Recently, two striking archaeological discoveries reveal more about the ancient history and origin of Proto-Hebrew.

The first is a limestone slab, dated about 1300 B.C., upon which is inscribed a curse in Proto-Canaanite script against the governor of Jerusalem: “Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Governor of the City, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die.” This Proto-Canaanite inscription now is the earliest we have on record; Eli Shukron discovered it in 2010 and Prof. Gershon Galil (Institute of Biblical Studies and Ancient History, University of Haifa) deciphered and interpreted it in 2022. The inscription probably just predates Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem following the Exodus from Egypt and entrance into Canaan, the Promised Land.

The second discovery—made by the Associates for Biblical Research in March, 2022—a Proto-Hebraic inscription found on Mt. Ebal, is dated very likely to the Late Bronze Age, 13-14th Century B.C. The ancient lead foil proto-alphabetic Hebraic inscription consists of 40 letters, deciphered by tomographic scans, and is centuries older than any known Hebrew inscription from ancient Israel. This find is stunning, and certainly seems to validate Biblical history, chronologically corresponding to Deuteronomy 11:29 and the potential curses Moses called out on Mount Ebal to the children of Israel when they made a covenant with God before entering the Promised Land.

This piece also urges reform for certain contemporary Biblical scholarship. This scholarship erroneously dates the Exodus to the 13th century BC—though many scholars also erroneously deny the Exodus ever happened, contrary to evidence. The likely discovery of the Proto-Hebraic inscription found on Mt. Ebal, then, redirects these scholars to correct and readjust the Exodus and conquest dating to the Biblical timeline of the 15th century and early 14th century. Moreover, the proposed discovery beckons these same scholars to acknowledge, objectively, that Hebraic writing and the biblical text occurred much earlier than previously thought. Notwithstanding the concrete evidence of this analysis, scholars—among other critics logically and justifiably dismissed—have contended correctly that the ABR discussed their findings at a press release, but did not initially present their peer-review publication. The reason for positioning the press release first? According to the ABR, e.g., referencing Peter van der Veen, a threat of theft and false publication loomed among professional colleagues, so the ABR first presented the press release. Fortunately, this year (2023) the ABR presented the evidence, marking a dramatically important development in the dating and use of Proto-Hebrew.

From available evidence, Egyptian hieroglyphics—sacred sign scripts—predate Proto-Hebrew and Proto-Canaanite/Sinaitic. The origin of Egyptian hieroglyphics is not well understood. Based on available, well-established evidence, as early as c. 3,200-3,000 BC, in the Naqada III/Dynasty 0 Period, these hieroglyphics are found on vessels buried in tombs. Later, Egyptians developed and wrote in hieratic/cursive script c. 2925-200 BC, generally written with a reed ink pen on papyrus. Recent research and scholarship strongly suggest that the first written alphabet was the earliest Biblical Hebrew, carefully appropriated and constructed from Egyptian hieroglyphics during the Abrahamic Hebrew/Israelite centuries-long sojourn in Egypt. Prior to this, Abrahamic Hebrews spoke Hebrew and would have communicated in pictograph or cuneiform no longer extant. Currently, we have no evidence that Hebrews wrote in cuneiform. Nevertheless, Genesis’s colophonic historical narrative presupposes a tradition of written communication, paralleling and dependent upon a foundational Hebraic spoken language, that suggests developed, comprehensible pictograph, or—more likely—early cuneiform.xx Still, Hebraic pre-Egyptian and proto-Sumerian pictography—apart from cuneiform—not only is a theoretical mode of written communication, but seems likely since Edward Crawford’s 1983 discovery of the Ahora Covenant Inscription.

Prior to and possibly related to Egyptian hieratic script development, the ancient Sumerians developed cuneiform, a wedge-shaped character, logo-syllabic writing system, created c. 3,500 BC. Sumerian proto-cuneiformic pictographs predate Egyptian hieroglyphics, and (contrary to previous assessments) the Sumerians wrote and spoke a Semitic language, specifically Hamito-Semitic. Sumerian, understood as early Semitic, is explained and demonstrated particularly well in the recent and by far most comprehensive, thorough analysis of structural complexities and dynamics of Sumerian.xxii In addition, ancestral genetic evidence suggests semitic genetic identity of Sumerians.xxiii The cultural, linguistic dispersal of various early ethnicities from Uruk and its immediate surroundings within the Near East, parallel in time and place to the Biblical description of the dispersal of people from Babel, may explain the significantly varied, and yet similar, dynamic and development of languages, including those that appeared superficially as language isolates, such as Sumerian.

Sumerian authors were familiar with the Hebraic Biblical genealogical historical narrative of Genesis, and were dependent on it in documenting certain Sumerian mythologies, implying an affinity between the basis of Hebrew and Sumerian. This also suggests that the Hebraic source, in addition to its oral component, may have been written in early cuneiform. Proto-cuneiform or pictograph still could convey concepts, but not as effectively as cuneiform; the proposed approximate 3,500 BC emergence of cuneiform, in conjunction with the Septuagintal timeline, or perhaps with the more constricted Masoretic timeline, suggests a likely Hebraic early cuneiform influence in a tightly imbedded cultural matrix.

Genesis is grammatically intelligible only in Hebrew, the language in which it first was written, or in a translation of it, such as Hebrew translated into the Greek Septuagint or Aramaic Peshitta. From within ancient Rabbinic tradition up to the present with contemporary thinkers, such as Mike Gascoigne, the Hebrew of Genesis is linguistically irreducible. That is, from the position of faith, it must be the original language of God’s revelation, beginning with creation, and from the position of history of literature, the Genesis Hebrew cannot be predated and translated from another language. Examples of this irreducibility abound, so I will mention only four.

First, names for God in Biblical Hebrew have no equivalency. I will discuss merely two. The generic Hebraic, Biblical name for God is Elohim (אלהים), a plural name for the One God, implying personal, relational distinction within, i.e., Trinitarian Personhood. At times, God refers to Himself in first person plural, e.g., Genesis 1:26, 3:22. The nuance of “Elohim” renders it imperfectly translatable.

The sacred, personal, covenant name for God is YHWH (יהוה). An exact equivalency name for this in a different language does not exist. YHWH is based on the Hebrew verb “to be” (הוה). An approximate English translation might be “He is” or “He Who is.” God revealed His personal name to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3)—“I Am Who Am” (אהיה אשר אהיה). The two personal, divine names are grammatically and personally intricately related. Eve calls God “YHWH” in Genesis 4:1. Use of this word is original, hardly a translation from Sumerian or any other language. These are some of the Hebraic names of God revealed by God Himself to humanity, underscoring the use of Hebrew as a divinely-willed first language of humanity that retains a sacred priority throughout time.

The names for Adam and Eve also reflect Hebraic originality: Adam (אדם) and Eve (חוה) in Hebrew, respectively, mean earth/dirt/son of the red earth, and living/mother of the living. Translations lose this meaning, a meaning that contributes substantially to the narrative. Similarly, God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib loses meaning in translation. In the Genesis narrative 2:20-25: not only do “man” (ish איש) and “woman” (isha אשה ) phonetically sound like a pair, but “isha” also means “her man” in Hebrew—“…because out of “her man” this one was taken (Genesis 2:23). The Hebrew is significant and original.

Therefore, Hebraic Genesis would be necessary as the intelligible and most coherently developed source for Sumerian Biblical/Genesis referencing. It also is plausible that Proto-Hebrew/Sinaitic is closely related to Sumerian, and vice-versa.

The inferred foundational language upon which this relationship is based, thus predating Sumerian—the oldest known language, by inference—is what I call Basal-Hebrew, or the base of the earliest Hebrew-Semitic languages. This is humanity’s earliest known and very likely original language using evidenced/logically-based reasoning. In other words, logically there must be a Hebraic-related Semitic base to Sumerian, and there is no evidence of any other language that predates this. Also, no scientific or historical evidence supports existence of earlier humans and human culture predating the matrix of peoples and their recent ancestors from which the Sumerians emerged.

Moreover, regarding Genesis content, apart from linguistic meaning and coherence, Sumerian likely follows Basal-Hebrew, not the converse. The Sumerian application of Genesis content is mythological, whereas Genesis is genealogical historical narrative. Genesis’s colophonic structure—significant for its early dating and historical, grammatical meaning—and other corroborating sources that impart remarkably similar content, such Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh—testify to its intent to impart history, not just a story. Myth follows actual history. In addition, literarily, regarding actual history vs. myth, mythological simplicity emerges from the vastly more complex, detailed actual history. This is true, for example, of Sumerian stories of creation of humanity—including the first woman created from the first man, paradise and the first sin, and the Flood and its surrounding context. Therefore, logically, Basal-Hebrew predates Sumerian, and perhaps significantly because of the extensive maturation time of cultivated Sumerian mythology.