1st Century Changes.
Thesis
The word origin of church is mystifying. Greek ekkllessia 'an assembly, a congregation' did not take root in the Germanic languages but was adopted in the Romance languages. Gothic aikklesjo stands out as the only exception. Old English (OE) cirice, circe, Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Middle Dutch kerke, and Old High German kirihha show a close resemblance, betraying a common Proto-Germanic ancestor [1]. However, the Christian religion did not establish itself among the Germanic-speaking peoples until much later, not in a unified effort, but gradually and by degrees. This religion permeated Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alamanni, continental Saxons, and the peoples of Scandinavia at different time periods and during different historical contexts [2]. This begs the question: how could a common word origin of church develop in the language of the pantheistic and nature-worshipping Germanic people, prior to Christianization of Europe?
Adding further to this puzzling question is a curious linguistic finding in OE 'sooth' truth, justice, righteousness [3]. It bears a remarkable resemblance in meaning to Hebrew edeq (adook) 'be righteous, be just,' [4]. Attested patterns of phonological change give credence to this Semitic word as the provenance of sooth. As it passed into Germanic, the sound changes would have occurred in this manner: Hebrew tsade ( ) became pronounced as /s/ (as illustrated in the transliteration of Hebrew dd qi and Greek saddoukaios to Sadducees) [5]; medial /d/ became fricativized as /�/ after the Aramaic custom [6]; and early Germanic's propensity to drop the Semitic qoph [7]. On this etymological basis, sooth is plausibly a surviving relic of edeq.
The Proto-Germanic origins of OE cirice (and its cognates) and sooth are associated with two different religions, one whose origin apparently dates only to the first century (cirice), and the other which traces to a much earlier time in the Ancient Near East (sooth). In light of these links to the first century and the Levant settings, this paper proposes that Germanic began to substantively form within the striking distance of the first century, not significantly earlier. It presents historical and linguistic evidence of the pre-European provenance of Germanic.
Introduction
The Jewish community in first-century Judea evidently knew the geographical whereabouts of the ten tribes of Israel. Judean Jews apparent links to the Israelite diaspora (as opposed to the Jewish diaspora) are based on first-century material found in two historical sources. First, the account by the Jewish historian, Josephus, indicates that the common perspective held by first-century Jews was that there were two distinct branches of Hebrews.
In The Wars of the Jews, Josephus states, "I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians" [8]. The 'language of our country' would refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic which was widely spoken in Judea. Additionally, the statement begs the question who are the 'Upper Barbarians' Josephus references. The term is an epithet, reflecting the deeply-ingrained Greek belief that the world was composed of Greeks and Barbarians. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities illustrates what 'Barbarians' connotes to Greeks and later, Romans [9]:
It was not until after the Persian Wars that the name began to carry with it associations of hatred and contempt, and to imply vulgarity and want of cultivation. The national feeling of the Greeks had then risen to such intensity that they deemed themselves above all other peoples in gifts and culture, and looked down upon them with a sense of superiority.
The Romans were originally, like other non-Hellenic peoples, included by the Greeks under the name of barbari. But after the conquest of Greece, and the transference of Hellenic art and culture to Rome, the Romans took up the same position as the Greeks before them, and designated as barbarians all the nations who differed in language and manners from the Graeco-Roman world.
In ancient Greek literature, Greeks and Barbarians commonly appear as an antithesis of each other. 'Upper Barbarians' is a more specific term referring to a particular geographical location. It is a hapax legomena, a term found only once in Greek literature. Fortunately, Josephus gives us the context from which we may be able to deduce the meaning of 'Upper Barbarians' [10]:
"I thought it therefore an absurd thing to see the truth falsified in affairs of such great consequence, and to take no notice of it; but to suffer those Greeks and Romans that were not in the wars to be ignorant of these things, and to read either flatteries or fictions, while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both whence the war begun, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended."
Generally, historians take this passage to regard the various nationalities in the Fertile Crescent as Josephus' intended audience. However, Josephus merely states that these nationalities knew of the Jewish War 'by my means'. He cites the Upper Barbarians, before listing other nationalities in the above passage. This literary proximity suggests that the Upper Barbarians were the intended primary recipients, while the other nationalities also learned of the 'affairs of such great consequence,' although we do not know the means Josephus used to inform them.
Josephus defected to the Romans during the Jewish War and adopted the Latin name Flavius. Since he became a beneficiary of Roman patronage, it is quite possible that he addressed certain topics with greater sensitivity and used euphemisms, including 'Upper Barbarians,' in order not to offend the Romans. Moreover, the quoted passages written in Greek are evocative of a sequel to the original work. Buth and Pierce observe, "The current Greek work does not appear to be a translation, but must be considered a new edition, a complete re-working of the first writing and likely a considerable expansion [11]. It is highly doubtful that Josephus, in his original work, would use the term 'Upper Barbarians,' an epithet offensive to the Fertile Crescent audience. A re-working of the first writing would require using the Greek idiom, therefore the epithet was intended only for Greek and Latin readers familiar with its cultural connotations. Notwithstanding the hapax legomena difficulties, it is reasonable to consider that the 'Upper Barbarians' includes a geographical referent, denoting northeast of Greece rather than east of Greece, since in the Greek-centric world-view, the earliest and nearest contacts Greeks had with barbarians took place in the territory known as Scythia, where many believe the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel once dwelt [12].
The Motif 'Our nation beyond Euphrates.'
Many commentators assume that Josephus' phrase 'our nation beyond Euphrates' refers to Jews [13]. This interpretation is certainly correct in some instances, but in others, he plainly refers to the northern kingdom of Israel or her descendants. The following instances show how Josephus invokes the phrase in his writings [14]:
"And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews, as it hath been delivered down to us, it having twice gone beyond Euphrates; for the people of the ten tribes were carried out of Samaria by the Assyrians, in the days of king Hoshea; after which the people of the two tribes that remained after Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and Chaldea."
'one of those Jews that had been carried captive beyond Euphrates.
'the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude.
'the Jews hoped that all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates.'
You sent embassies to those of your nation that are beyond Euphrates to assist you in your raising disturbances.
For Josephus, the meaning of beyond Euphrates is highly symbolic. In some passages, it is not easy to ascertain if he was referring to the whole of Israel or just fellow Jews. The mistaken assumption that the Hebrews are only the Jews (descendants of Judah) fails to recognize the Messianic utterances in the Tanakh, some of which allude to the literal reunification and restoration of the twelve tribes, which includes the tribe of Judah [15]. As a consequence, Josephus' passages are passed over without entertaining the possibility that Jews may have identified themselves more than sentimentally with the rest of the tribes as a nation of one blood.
Josephus' motif suggests a need for a critical literary reconsideration of his authorial intent, given his deeply rooted identification with the Hebrews and their history. Its crux points to his geographical outlook towards the territory where the Israelites and the Jews settled after massive expulsions from their homelands in the eighth and sixth centuries BCE respectively.
An interesting fact emerges when we realize that the common denominator which links the Fertile Crescent nationalities named by Josephus is the Aramaic language, then the lingua franca of the region. This language was likely the medium Josephus employed when he wrote 'Upper Barbarians' [16]. Perhaps there is an assumption that Aramaic was spoken only in the Fertile Crescent, but a language is not always confined to a geographical location. As people migrate, their language and culture accompany them. The Fertile Crescent experienced the turmoil of enormous ethic changes caused by migration and military conquests well into the first few centuries CE. Many historians claim that the ten tribes were culturally assimilated by the surrounding nations, entirely obliterated from history. However, it does not occur to them that Aramaic, linguistically akin to Hebrew, would have provided the Israelite exiles a linguistic shield or bubble preserving their native language and culture during captivity and migrations. The centuries of exposure to Aramaic inevitably caused some changes in the Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, yet Aramaic would have actually helped the Hebrew exiles survive with their ethnic identity intact.
This paper draws two important premises based on the above historical records. First, these records point to the whereabouts of the descendants of the lost ten tribes and second, they provide the clues to the collective identity of these tribes.
Material culture
The annotated list contains the place names which are construed to represent the locations of
the ten tribes of Israel. Josephus writes, 'There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers' [21]. This reported geographical spread affords an opportunity to inquire as to whether a significant commonality of material culture existed amongst the peoples the apostles reportedly visited.
In ancient literature, a common tribal costume is frequently mentioned in the descriptions of ethnic groups. As a cultural symbol, it visibly represented an ethnic stock, an ancestry, a culture, and a shared language. This ancient costume principle serves as a helpful method in the study of past cultures.
The Critical Window of Time
As pointed out earlier, the recentness of OE cirice and sooth suggests a Proto-Germanic dating. The origin of cirice traces principally to a particular religion as it refers to 'place of assemblage set aside for 'Christian worship; the body of Christian believers, Christians collectively,' according to the Online Etymology Dictionary [28]. This definition would circumscribe the time period to the first century when Christianity first appeared. Given that the geographical origin of sooth was the Ancient Near East, it etymologically points to Aramaic and Hebrew. Christianity took root in Judea where these two languages were spoken. Together, these clues descended on first-century Judea and its surrounding region at the dawning of Germanic well before it began to surface in Europe.
Gothic provides the oldest written records of any of the Germanic languages, dating to the fourth century CE. It is noteworthy that its speakers were situated in the most easterly region of Europe placing them in the path of massive migrations into Europe from Scythia and the surrounding territories, including the fallen Parthian Empire. Many cognates of Gothic words are found in the surviving Germanic languages. Many Germanic words show traces of Semitic influence, suggesting that Germanic speakers either had significant language contact with a Semitic-speaking group or that Germanic speakers had previously migrated from the Near East. They hint at a period of time during which the Semitic parent language (or a residue of the language) was transmitted, well before the first Gothic texts surfaced in the fourth century.
Semitic Evidence in Germanic
The most compelling linguistic evidence of a Germanic connection to Aramaic and Hebrew is Old English homonyms. Linguistic evidence indicates that some OE homonyms are the products of a phonological convergence of Semitic word roots due to the loss of Semitic sounds. Typically, Semitic words are built on a three-consonant root, sometimes containing a guttural or emphatic consonant such as ayin or qoph. Many word roots are patterned in relatively the same order, such as AoB, ABo, and oAB with o representing a guttural or emphatic. In a non-Semitic language sphere, gutturals and emphatics frequently disappeared: a three-consonant root would reduce to a two-consonant root (AB). As a result, the roots with an identical consonant order would converge and become a homonym, retaining most of the former meanings from the original tri-consonantal word roots. These OE homonyms with an apparent Semitic etymology are difficult to dismiss as mere coincidence, as they present points of correspondence to two or more former Semitic parent words.
OE lihtan is an example of the phonological coalescence of former Semitic words. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary defines lihtan in two senses: 'to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate; dismount, 'alight,' and 'to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle.' Semitic word roots play a part in the origin of OE lihtan: Biblical Hebrew lahat (LHT) 'to set ablaze, burn' and Aramaic qal l (QLL) 'to be light.' In the latter case, the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states that it later evolved to QLH, as it says, 'Scholars generally consider the verb qlh, a by-form of qll, 'be light, small, insignificant' [29]. Since qoph /q/ was an emphatic, it would have been lost upon passing into the Indo-European speaking region. The word would then be pronounced within the parameters of LH, similar to LHT, while retaining its well-established set of verb-stems as the following indicates [30]:
Qal (basic)
1) to be light; a) to be made light of; b) to be lenient; 2) to be swift; 3) to vanish; 4) to be little, few, important; 5) curse.
D (intensive, active)
1) to lighten; 2) to treat lightly, dishonour.
C (causative)
1) to make something lighter, remove a burden; 2) to treat lightly; a) to rule leniently; b) to degrade; 3) to hasten; 4) to curse.
Dt (intensive, passive)
1) to abate, become diminished; a) to be made light, alleviated; 2) to be despised; 3) to be cursed.
Compare these verb-stems to the meanings of several OE words below which are drawn from A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Note a high incidence of lexical and semantic overlap. It shows that the meanings of Semitic LHT and LH are preserved in these OE words as a result of phonological coalescence, best explained as having occurred in a Proto-Germanic setting. As well, it explains the high degree of lexical correspondence with their Semitic parent words. Other OE homonyms can be attributed to the loss of Semitic gutturals and emphatics, which led to lexical conflation in a shortened word root as illustrated below (consonant clusters such as /ht/ count as one consonant in Germanic):
lioht: I. 'light,' not heavy; slight, easy, trifling, inconsiderable; quick, agile; gentle. II. n. 'light,' daylight; power of vision; luminary. III. luminous, bright, 'light,' clear, resplendent, beautiful.
leohtian: I. to be lightened, relieved. II. to become light, 'dawn'; give light, illuminate.
leohtlic: I. light, of little weight or importance; lightly, slightly; inconsiderately: easily, quickly: gently, softly, slowly 'lightly']. II. bright, radiant.
liht: leoht.
leohtan: I. to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate; dismount, 'alight.' II. (ie, y ) to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle.
Gothic and OE words offer evidence of Proto-Germanic lexical conflation: Gothic laehatjan 'to lighten,' liuhtjan �to give light� [31], and OE l�htan 1) �to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate, dismount, �alight;� 2) �to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle;� and, l�oht 'light, not heavy,� �slight, easy, trifling, inconsiderable� [32]. They evince the attempt to maintain their distinct meanings by the use of different vowels, but this strategy could not stop the reductionistic process over time. Ultimately, these words lexically fused into one word: today, we know it as �light.� Little do we know that the idioms �to make light of� and �light on your foot� trace to the Biblical Hebrew era.
Moreover, the former usage of Aramaic verb-stems is discernible in Gothic. Gothic thagkjan �to think, consider, ponder, reason� is a vestige of Semitic verb-stem conventions [33]. It compares well in meaning to Syriac Aramaic hgy �to think, to meditate orally on� [34]. As well, it is lexically akin to Gothic hugjan �to think, be minded,� OE hogian ��to think, consider, meditate, study,� and Old Icelandic hyggja �to think, believe� [35]. Yet, why would this word seem redundant when hugjan might suffice for relatively the same meaning? It turns out that thagkjan is a product of the Aramaic Ithpe`el verb conjugation, which involves prefixing eth (representing ) to a verb. This prefix renders the verb reflexive in meaning. As thinking is reflexive in nature, the Ithpe`el prefix caused hugjan to change to thaggkjan or thagkjan. Passing into Germanic, this prefix lost aleph / / and displaced the original initial /h/, giving rise to thagkjan. In turn, it is a cognate of OE thencan from which think derives [36]. This etymology explains how we may trace �think� to its Semitic roots.
Gothic hahan �to let hang, leave in suspense� is another example of the incorporation of a Semitic verb-stem [37]. hahan originates from BH howqa` �to cause to hang� in the Hiph`il form of yaqa` �to hang� [38]. In Gothic, hahan is the base form with an underlying causative meaning that involves the prefix /h/ (formerly Hebrew ). The Gothic, Old English, and Old Icelandic verb conjugation paradigms exhibit how BH howqa` phonologically evolved as it passed into the Germanic languages. The Semitic word howqa` contains qoph /q/ and ayin /`/, not pronounced in an Indo-European language, therefore, initial /h/ would survive as the only remaining Semitic consonant. Gothic hahan is a reduplication of this surviving consonant (hence ha + ha + the Gothic infinitive ending -an). OE uses the simpler form of ho for the present tense and renders the former ayin as /ng/ in the past (or preterite) form of henge. Olc hangi follows suit in the present indicative form. However, the past indicative form hekk evinces the Olc selective substitution of qoph (which is often transliterated to /k/ in Indo-European speech). It is remarkable to note that Gothic, OE, and OIc employ the different strategies to preserve the word of a Semitic origin. There are other examples of the traces of the Semitic verb-stems in Germanic, but for the sake of brevity, they are referred to in the endnotes [39].
The Gothic Bible is believed to have been composed in 350 CE. Some of its vocabulary indicates a pre-Gothic dating with a connection to the Near East. For example, frasts �child� appears to be a singular form of Aramaic pr ndy �children,� which borrows from Parthian frzynd, przynd (frazend) 'child, son� [40]. Before a nasal, Parthian shows softening to /z/. Greek also tends to transliterate tsade as /z/ as it renders Zion for Hebrew iyown [41], but it also may follow the occasional Indo-European pronunciation of tsade / / as /st/ [42]. The presence of frasts in Gothic intimates that the transmission of this word from the Near East occurred prior to the fourth century. It is suggested that Gothic aikklesjo represents a Syriac borrowing from Greek rather than a Gothic borrowing from Greek since the Greek loanword �qlysy� existed in Syriac Aramaic [43].
Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, was a contemporary of the Parthian language. In 224 CE, the empire collapsed and much to the vexation of historians, its demise left little evidence of its ruling people and culture. However, Gothic words of an apparent Semitic origin suggest that Parthians fled their homeland and migrated to Europe. In fact, Roman sculptures which commemorate the different victories over the Parthians and Goths.portray both these groups wearing the identical pointed cap [44]. This observation adds weight to the possibility that some of the Goths descended from the Parthians.
Implications
OE cirice and s�� carry curious etymological roots, redolent of two different faiths arising from the Near East. The former comes from a Proto-Germanic ancestor which other Germanic cognates share in common and suggests that it traces to first-century Christian evangelical activity before Europe was imbued with Christianity centuries later. s�� reflects the antecedent form of Hebrew edeq and preserves its original meaning. It imparts a Semitic provenance and underscores the historical migration of a Semitic-speaking people to Europe.
The evidence of phonological coalescence of Semitic words into some Germanic homonyms, along with vestiges of Semitic verb-stems in the Gothic Bible, provides a strong historical and linguistic context for the Semitic influence in the Gothic language. First, the apparent lexical connection of Gothic frasts to Parthian frzynd homes in on Parthia as the geographical source of this Gothic word. This finding establishes a tenable context for contact between Goths and Parthians in terms of movement and interaction of people. Second, it narrows to the period of transmission of Semitic vocabulary into Germanic to the third century CE at the latest, when the Parthian Empire still stood. This strongly suggests that the first few centuries of the Common Era millennium mark the earliest possible context for the dawn of the Germanic language. While it is conceivable that the Semitic vocabulary changes could have found their way into Gothic within two or three centuries, further research is needed to explain how a Semitic language could have extensively evolved into an Indo-European language, such as Germanic, at a grammatical level.
A possible answer lies in the Parthian Empire where Aramaic, once the dominant language of administration, became a substrate language as the Iranian-speaking population grew in number. It is known that the Parthian script began with a high proportion of Aramaic ideograms with a small Iranian element and developed over time to become predominantly Middle Iranian (incidentally, it is classified as Indo-European) with a decreasing Aramaic element [45]. This implies a significant change in the ethnic composition of the Parthian Empire [46]. Because the Parthian ruling class were Scythian in origin, according to Strabo, and wore the pointed cap, they presumably spoke Aramaic. During the four centuries of their rule over the empire (247 BCE - 224 CE), they increasingly adopted Middle Iranian grammatical complexities, including its word order, though they continued to use Semitic vocabulary based on consonant roots and verb-stems. At the fall of the Parthian Empire, it is suggested, that the ruling class and their kindred fled with this language to the east of Europe.
These circumstances would provide a scenario which explains how the Germanic language could have transmuted so substantially into an Indo-European language from a Semitic one. As the earliest attested Germanic language, Gothic was a fourth-century language in transition, occurring not long after the collapse of the Parthian Empire. At this stage of transition, it preserved the remnants of the Semitic word-root system, vocabulary, and verb-stems, which also appear in other Germanic languages. Therefore, it indicates the recentness, rather than antiquity, of the Germanic language.
Endnotes
[1] Online Etymology Dictionary (OED) attributes the origin of cirice to Greek, 'This is probably borrowed via an unrecorded Gothic word from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "the Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord, Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c. 300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic transmission of many Christian words, via the Goths; probably it was used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period.' This attribution, however, does not satisfactorily explain how the word of an alleged Greek origin supposedly took root in the Proto-Germanic language.
[2] Berend states, 'Christianization was never an instantaneous event, but its length varied greatly, not simply between polities, but within them as well. Regional differences in the penetration of Christianity existed everywhere.' Berend, Nora, ed. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007, 25.
Wells gives a brief but informative summary of the medieval Christianization of the European populations over several centuries. Wells, H.G. The Online of History. Garden City, NY: Garden City, 1931, 643-48.
[3] Refer to A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (ACASD).
[4] Clines, David J.A., ed. The Classic Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009, 374.
[5] 'Sadducee.' Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sadducee.
[6] Greensphan, Frederick E. 'Aramaic.' In Beyond Babel - A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by Kaltner, John and Steven McKenzie. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002, 98. Also refer to Jo Ann Hackett regarding spiranization in Hebrew on page 147.
[7] In the Indo-European languages, qoph was usually pronounced as /k/ (or /c/) e.g., Jakob from Greek Iakobos, from Hebrew Ya aq . In early Germanic, it was sometimes elided. Examples of the dropping of qoph are Aramaic qbr �to bury, inter� > OE byrgan �to raise a mound, hide, 'bury,' inter� > bury; qdyr �dark� > OE deorc �'dark,' obscure, gloomy� > dark; and q yn �fine, narrow, thin� > OE �ynne �thin, lean� > thin.
[8] Josephus. The War of the Jews, 1.1.
[9] Peck, Harry T., ed. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1898, 196-97.
[10] Josephus, ibid., 1.2.
[11] Buth, Randall; Chad, Pierce. "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?". In The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Randall Buth and Notley, R. Steven. Jewish and Christian perspectives series no. 26. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2014, 89.
[12] A number of scholars undertook extensive research on the the ten tribes of Israel and their movements in Scythia prior to their migration to northwest Europe. A few examples of these scholars are Sharon Turner (The History of the Anglo-Saxons, 1840); John H. Allen (Judah�s Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright,1917); Adam Rutherford (Israel-Britain, 1939); Steven M. Collins (Parthia - The Forgotten Ancient Superpower and Its Role in Biblical History, 2003); and Yair Davidiy (Hebrew Tribes, 2021).
[13] The following comment by Whiston exemplifies how the presupposition that the ten tribes were culturally absorbed centuries ago can affect historians� interpretation of the �Upper Barbarians,� as it does not take into account Josephus� belief of the Israelite diaspora beyond the Euphrates:
�Who these Upper Barbarians, remote from the sea, were, Josephus himself will inform us, sect. 2, viz. the Parthians and Babylonians, and remotest Arabians [of the Jews among them]; besides the Jews beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni, or Assyrians. Whence we also learn that these Parthians, Babylonians, the remotest Arabians, [or at least the Jews among them,] as also the Jews beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni, or Assyrians, understood Josephus's Hebrew, or rather Chaldaic, books of The Jewish War, before they were put into the Greek language.�
Whiston, William. �Preface.� In The Wars of the Jews. Translated by. William Whiston. Auburn and Buffalo: John E. Beardsley. 1895.
[14] The instances are drawn from Josephus� works, Antiquities of the Jews and The War of the Jews.
[15] Isaiah 11:11-16; Jeremiah 30:1-3, 8-12; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Hosea 3:5; Micah 5:2-4; Zechariah 10:6-12.
[16] It is worthwhile noticing that Whiston mentions Josephus� use of the Aramaic word bar for son instead of Hebrew ben, and deduces that Josephus wrote his original edition in Aramaic. In The Wars of the Jews, 5.266 footnote.
[17] �The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus.� In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by A. Cleveland Coxe et al. New York: Christian Literature, 1886, 254-55.
[18] The reason the annotated list is not well accepted is that it is not mentioned in Jerome�s bibliography of Hippolytus� works or in the list of his writings on a Roman statue found in 1553.
[19] Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica, 3, 1.
[20] The expression, �the lost sheep,� is a messianic allusion, as exemplified in the Tanakh (e.g.,�My Sheep� in Ezekiel 34:11, �My flock� in Micah 2:12).
[21] Josephus. The Antiquities of the Jews, 11.133.
[22] Gleba, Margarita. �You Are What You Wear: Scythian Costume as Identity.� In Dressing the Past, edited by Munkholt, C. and M.L. Nosch. Oxford: Oxford Books, 2008, 14.
[23] Refer to the mural of Mordecai and Esther. Online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mordecai_and_Esther.jpg.
[24] Smita, Joseph. Proper Names of Telugu Catholics and Kerala Syrian Christians. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2023, 2, cf. 18, 77.
Incidentally, Syriac is an Eastern Middle Aramaic dialect which began to emerge in the first century CE.
[25] Cave, William. Antiquitates apostolicae: or, the history of the lives, acts and martyrdoms of the holy apostles of our saviour, and the two evangelists, SS. Mark and Luke. London: R. Royston, 1676, 165. Online: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_antiquitates-apostolicae_cave-william_1676/page/n271/mode/2up?q=scythia.
[26] Strabo. Geography. 11.9.2.
[27a] Also, Strabo writes, �At any rate, some say that Arsaces derives his origin from the Scythians, whereas others say that he was a Bactrian�� (11.9.3).
[27b] A change conspicuously occurred regarding the custom of wearing the pointed cap. Whereas Scythians wore it with the point facing backward, Parthians and Goths carried this headwear facing forward.
[28] Refer to OED under the entry church.
[29] The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 3. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, 32.
[30] The definitions are drawn from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) under the entry QLL.
[31] Balg, Gerhard. A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language. Milwaukee: Jacob Mueller, 1887, 254-55.
[32] Refer to ACASD.
[33] Hemingway, John. �Evidence of the Semitic Verb Conjugation in Gothic THAGKJAN.� Hebrew Nations. Online: https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/hemingwayhgh.html.
[34] Refer to CAL under the entry HGY.
[35] For Gothic hugjan, see Balg, ibid., 181; for OE hogian and Olc hyggja, refer to ACASD and A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic.
[36] Refer to OED under the entry think.
[37a] Balg, ibid., 149.
[37b] Hemingway, John. �The Semantic Context of the Gothic Preverb at-, Part 2 - Etymology of Gothic athahan." Hebrew Nations. Online: https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth1.html.
[38] Gesenius, Wilhem. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. London: Bagster, 1857, 363.
[39] The examples are Gothic throthjan �to exercise, train,� bairan �to bear� versus atbairan �to present (to or self),� and augjan� �to show� versus ataugjan �to show, to manifest, to demonstrate, to appear.� Refer to the following links in order:
https://youtu.be/Ngx2CdkP9MI (presented as a slide show);
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth1.html, and
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth3.html.
[40] Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond. The Dictionary Of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. Turnhout, Belgium: Breplos, 2004, 161. Also refer to CAL under the entry �pr ndy� �children.�
[41] Septuagint, the Greek translation of Tanakh, renders Hebrew iyown as (Zion) (e.g. Psalms 86:2 LXX; Psalms 87:2 NSAB; Isaiah 60:14).
[42] E.g., OE berstan �burst�< BH parats �break out or burst�; hasten < BH �uts, lahats, nahats �to press, be pressed, make haste�; OE stafs �a written character, a letter,� staef, stafas �staff, stick, rod� < Runes staba �staves� < BH `atsab �to carve,� and steal < BH natsal �to snatch, to deliver.�
[43] Some may take Gothic as the earliest attested Germanic language to represent a snapshot of the Germanic language in its early stage of development. However, this view does not explain why Gothic aikklesjo and OE cirice (representative of the majority of Germanic cognates) are dissimilar. It is suggested that Gothic, as preserved in the Gothic Bible, was a dialect, belonging to a group of people who fled from Parthia and joined their kindred stock in Europe who had earlier migrated to Europe from the Near East and beyond.
[44] The Parthian Monument commemorates the Roman victories over the Parthian Empire in 162-165 CE. It displays several Parthians with the identical pointed cap. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus, a Roman tomb dating to around 250-260 CE, depicts a large battle scene with barbarians in the reliefs. While the barbarians are sculpted in a generic representation, one figure can be seen wearing a pointed cap on a left-side section of the sarcophagus. Scholars usually regard the barbarian figures as Goths. Links are as follows:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Ludovisi_Battle_sarcophagus?file=Grande_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8574.jpg;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Septimius_Severus#/media/File:0_Arc_de_Septime_S%C3%A9v%C3%A8re_-_Rome_(3).JPG.
[45] Boyce, Mary. "Parthian Writings and Literature.� In The Seleucid, Parthian and Sassanian Periods, edited by Ehsan Yarshatar. Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3(2). Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983, 1151-52.
Also refer to Encyclopaedia Iranica for the article �Aramaic,� particularly the paragraph titled, �Aramaic and the Iranian languages.� Online: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/aramaic-#prettyPhoto.
[46] Huyse explains the dwindling usage of Aramaic during the Parthian Empire, ��the Aramaic scribes were increasingly replaced by local scribes who were no longer native speakers. These scribes, although trained in scribal books, did not perfectly master the Aramaic language any more, and although they continued to use the Aramaic script they gradually started inserting Iranian words into their texts until eventually the language written was entirely Iranian.� Though this explanation is entirely tenable, it may be influenced by the prevailing scholarly belief that Parthians were Iranian-speaking. This paper argues that the growing number of Iranian-speaking people in the Empire, whose subjects included Parthians, Babylonians, Arabs, Adiabeni, and others, is a better explanation for the decline of Aramaic use.
Huyse, Ph. �Inscriptional Literature in Old and Middle Iranian Languages.� InThe Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, edited by Ronald E. Emmerick and Macuch, Maria. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009, 84.
John Hemingway:
The Emergence of Germanic Circa the First Century
Thesis
The word origin of church is mystifying. Greek ekkl�sia �an assembly, a congregation� did not take root in the Germanic languages but was adopted in the Romance languages. Gothic aikklesjo stands out as the only exception. Old English (OE) cirice, circe, Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Middle Dutch kerke, and Old High German kirihha show a close resemblance, betraying a common Proto-Germanic ancestor [1]. However, the Christian religion did not establish itself among the Germanic-speaking peoples until much later, not in a unified effort, but gradually and by degrees. This religion permeated Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alamanni, continental Saxons, and the peoples of Scandinavia at different time periods and during different historical contexts [2]. This begs the question: how could a common word origin of church develop in the language of the pantheistic and nature-worshipping Germanic people, prior to Christianization of Europe?
Adding further to this puzzling question is a curious linguistic finding in OE sooth �truth, justice, righteousness� [3]. It bears a remarkable resemblance in meaning to Hebrew edeq (adook) �be righteous, be just,� [4]. Attested patterns of phonological change give credence to this Semitic word as the provenance of sooth. As it passed into Germanic, the sound changes would have occurred in this manner: Hebrew tsade ( ) became pronounced as /s/ (as illustrated in the transliteration of Hebrew dd qi and Greek saddoukaios to Sadducees) [5]; medial /d/ became fricativized as /�/ after the Aramaic custom [6]; and early Germanic�s propensity to drop the Semitic qoph [7]. On this etymological basis, s�� is plausibly a surviving relic of edeq.
The Proto-Germanic origins of OE cirice (and its cognates) and sooth are associated with two different religions, one whose origin apparently dates only to the first century (cirice), and the other which traces to a much earlier time in the Ancient Near East (s��). In light of these links to the first century and the Levant settings, this paper proposes that Germanic began to substantively form within the striking distance of the first century, not significantly earlier. It presents historical and linguistic evidence of the pre-European provenance of Germanic.
Introduction
The Jewish community in first-century Judea evidently knew the geographical whereabouts of the ten tribes of Israel. Judean Jews� apparent links to the Israelite diaspora (as opposed to the Jewish diaspora) are based on first-century material found in two historical sources. First, the account by the Jewish historian, Josephus, indicates that the common perspective held by first-century Jews was that there were two distinct branches of Hebrews.
In The Wars of the Jews, Josephus states, �I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians� [8]. The �language of our country� would refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic which was widely spoken in Judea. Additionally, the statement begs the question who are the �Upper Barbarians� Josephus references. The term is an epithet, reflecting the deeply-ingrained Greek belief that the world was composed of Greeks and Barbarians. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities illustrates what �Barbarians� connotes to Greeks and later, Romans [9]:
It was not until after the Persian Wars that the name began to carry with it associations of hatred and contempt, and to imply vulgarity and want of cultivation. The national feeling of the Greeks had then risen to such intensity that they deemed themselves above all other peoples in gifts and culture, and looked down upon them with a sense of superiority.
The Romans were originally, like other non-Hellenic peoples, included by the Greeks under the name of barbari. But after the conquest of Greece, and the transference of Hellenic art and culture to Rome, the Romans took up the same position as the Greeks before them, and designated as barbarians all the nations who differed in language and manners from the Graeco-Roman world.
In ancient Greek literature, Greeks and Barbarians commonly appear as an antithesis of each other. �Upper Barbarians� is a more specific term referring to a particular geographical location. It is a hapax legomena, a term found only once in Greek literature. Fortunately, Josephus gives us the context from which we may be able to deduce the meaning of �Upper Barbarians� [10]:
"I thought it therefore an absurd thing to see the truth falsified in affairs of such great consequence, and to take no notice of it; but to suffer those Greeks and Romans that were not in the wars to be ignorant of these things, and to read either flatteries or fictions, while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both whence the war begun, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended."
Generally, historians take this passage to regard the various nationalities in the Fertile Crescent as Josephus� intended audience. However, Josephus merely states that these nationalities knew of the Jewish War �by my means.� He cites the Upper Barbarians, before listing other nationalities in the above passage. This literary proximity suggests that the Upper Barbarians were the intended primary recipients, while the other nationalities also learned of the �affairs of such great consequence,� although we do not know the means Josephus used to inform them.
Josephus defected to the Romans during the Jewish War and adopted the Latin name Flavius. Since he became a beneficiary of Roman patronage, it is quite possible that he addressed certain topics with greater sensitivity and used euphemisms, including �Upper Barbarians,� in order not to offend the Romans. Moreover, the quoted passages written in Greek are evocative of a sequel to the original work. Buth and Pierce observe, "The current Greek work does not appear to be a translation, but must be considered a new edition, a complete re-working of the first writing and likely a considerable expansion� [11]. It is highly doubtful that Josephus, in his original work, would use the term �Upper Barbarians,� an epithet offensive to the Fertile Crescent audience. A re-working of the first writing would require using the Greek idiom, therefore the epithet was intended only for Greek and Latin readers familiar with its cultural connotations. Notwithstanding the hapax legomena difficulties, it is reasonable to consider that the �Upper Barbarians� includes a geographical referent, denoting northeast of Greece rather than east of Greece, since in the Greek-centric world-view, the earliest and nearest contacts Greeks had with barbarians took place in the territory known as Scythia, where many believe the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel once dwelt [12].
The Motif �our nation beyond Euphrates�
Many commentators assume that Josephus� phrase �our nation beyond Euphrates� refers to Jews [13]. This interpretation is certainly correct in some instances, but in others, he plainly refers to the northern kingdom of Israel or her descendants. The following instances show how Josephus invokes the phrase in his writings [14]:
And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews, as it hath been delivered down to us, it having twice gone beyond Euphrates; for the people of the ten tribes were carried out of Samaria by the Assyrians, in the days of king Hoshea; after which the people of the two tribes that remained after Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and Chaldea.
�one of those Jews that had been carried captive beyond Euphrates.
�the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude.
�the Jews hoped that all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates�
You sent embassies to those of your nation that are beyond Euphrates to assist you in your raising disturbances.
For Josephus, the meaning of beyond Euphrates is highly symbolic. In some passages, it is not easy to ascertain if he was referring to the whole of Israel or just fellow Jews. The mistaken assumption that the Hebrews are only the Jews (descendants of Judah) fails to recognize the Messianic utterances in the Tanakh, some of which allude to the literal reunification and restoration of the twelve tribes, which includes the tribe of Judah [15]. As a consequence, Josephus� passages are passed over without entertaining the possibility that Jews may have identified themselves more than sentimentally with the rest of the tribes as a nation of one blood.
Josephus� motif suggests a need for a critical literary reconsideration of his authorial intent, given his deeply rooted identification with the Hebrews and their history. Its crux points to his geographical outlook towards the territory where the Israelites and the Jews settled after massive expulsions from their homelands in the eighth and sixth centuries BCE respectively.
An interesting fact emerges when we realize that the common denominator which links the Fertile Crescent nationalities named by Josephus is the Aramaic language, then the lingua franca of the region. This language was likely the medium Josephus employed when he wrote �Upper Barbarians� [16]. Perhaps there is an assumption that Aramaic was spoken only in the Fertile Crescent, but a language is not always confined to a geographical location. As people migrate, their language and culture accompany them. The Fertile Crescent experienced the turmoil of enormous ethic changes caused by migration and military conquests well into the first few centuries CE. Many historians claim that the ten tribes were culturally assimilated by the surrounding nations, entirely obliterated from history. However, it does not occur to them that Aramaic, linguistically akin to Hebrew, would have provided the Israelite exiles a linguistic shield or bubble preserving their native language and culture during captivity and migrations. The centuries of exposure to Aramaic inevitably caused some changes in the Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, yet Aramaic would have actually helped the Hebrew exiles survive with their ethnic identity intact.
This paper draws two important premises based on the above historical records. First, these records point to the whereabouts of the descendants of the lost ten tribes and second, they provide the clues to the collective identity of these tribes.
Material culture
The annotated list contains the place names which are construed to represent the locations of
the ten tribes of Israel. Josephus writes, �There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers� [21]. This reported geographical spread affords an opportunity to inquire as to whether a significant commonality of material culture existed amongst the peoples the apostles reportedly visited.
In ancient literature, a common tribal costume is frequently mentioned in the descriptions of ethnic groups. As a cultural symbol, it visibly represented an ethnic stock, an ancestry, a culture, and a shared language. This ancient costume principle serves as a helpful method in the study of past cultures.
The Critical Window of Time
As pointed out earlier, the recentness of OE cirice and s�� suggests a Proto-Germanic dating. The origin of cirice traces principally to a particular religion as it refers to �place of assemblage set aside for Christian worship; the body of Christian believers, Christians collectively� according to the Online Etymology Dictionary [28]. This definition would circumscribe the time period to the first century when Christianity first appeared. Given that the geographical origin of s�� was the Ancient Near East, it etymologically points to Aramaic and Hebrew. Christianity took root in Judea where these two languages were spoken. Together, these clues descended on first-century Judea and its surrounding region at the dawning of Germanic � well before it began to surface in Europe.
Gothic provides the oldest written records of any of the Germanic languages, dating to the fourth century CE. It is noteworthy that its speakers were situated in the most easterly region of Europe placing them in the path of massive migrations into Europe from Scythia and the surrounding territories, including the fallen Parthian Empire. Many cognates of Gothic words are found in the surviving Germanic languages. Many Germanic words show traces of Semitic influence, suggesting that Germanic speakers either had significant language contact with a Semitic-speaking group or that Germanic speakers had previously migrated from the Near East. They hint at a period of time during which the Semitic parent language (or a residue of the language) was transmitted, well before the first Gothic texts surfaced in the fourth century.
Semitic Evidence in Germanic
The most compelling linguistic evidence of a Germanic connection to Aramaic and Hebrew is Old English homonyms. Linguistic evidence indicates that some OE homonyms are the products of a phonological convergence of Semitic word roots due to the loss of Semitic sounds. Typically, Semitic words are built on a three-consonant root, sometimes containing a guttural or emphatic consonant such as ayin or qoph. Many word roots are patterned in relatively the same order, such as AoB, ABo, and oAB with o representing a guttural or emphatic. In a non-Semitic language sphere, gutturals and emphatics frequently disappeared: a three-consonant root would reduce to a two-consonant root (AB). As a result, the roots with an identical consonant order would converge and become a homonym, retaining most of the former meanings from the original tri-consonantal word roots. These OE homonyms with an apparent Semitic etymology are difficult to dismiss as mere coincidence, as they present points of correspondence to two or more former Semitic parent words.
OE lihtan is an example of the phonological coalescence of former Semitic words. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary defines lihtan in two senses: �to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate; dismount, �alight,�� and �to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle.� Semitic word roots play a part in the origin of OE lihtan: Biblical Hebrew lahat (LHT) �to set ablaze, burn� and Aramaic qal l (QLL) �to be light.� In the latter case, the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states that it later evolved to QLH, as it says, �Scholars generally consider the verb qlh, a by-form of qll, �be light, small, insignificant� [29]. Since qoph /q/ was an emphatic, it would have been lost upon passing into the Indo-European speaking region. The word would then be pronounced within the parameters of LH, similar to LHT, while retaining its well-established set of verb-stems as the following indicates [30]:
Qal (basic)
1) to be light; a) to be made light of; b) to be lenient; 2) to be swift; 3) to vanish; 4) to be little, few, important; 5) curse.
D (intensive, active)
1) to lighten; 2) to treat lightly, dishonour.
C (causative)
1) to make something lighter, remove a burden; 2) to treat lightly; a) to rule leniently; b) to degrade; 3) to hasten; 4) to curse.
Dt (intensive, passive)
1) to abate, become diminished; a) to be made light, alleviated; 2) to be despised; 3) to be cursed.
Compare these verb-stems to the meanings of several OE words below which are drawn from A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Note a high incidence of lexical and semantic overlap. It shows that the meanings of Semitic LHT and LH are preserved in these OE words as a result of phonological coalescence, best explained as having occurred in a Proto-Germanic setting. As well, it explains the high degree of lexical correspondence with their Semitic parent words. Other OE homonyms can be attributed to the loss of Semitic gutturals and emphatics, which led to lexical conflation in a shortened word root as illustrated below (consonant clusters such as /ht/ count as one consonant in Germanic):
l�oht: I. 'light,' not heavy; slight, easy, trifling, inconsiderable; quick, agile; gentle. II. n. 'light,' daylight; power of vision; luminary. III. luminous, bright, 'light,' clear, resplendent, beautiful.
l�ohtian: I. to be lightened, relieved. II. to become light, �dawn�; give light, illuminate.
l�ohtlic: I. light, of little weight or importance; lightly, slightly; inconsiderately: easily, quickly: gently, softly, slowly [�lightly�]. II. bright, radiant.
l�ht: l�oht.
l�htan: I. to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate; dismount, �alight.� II. (ie, y ) to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle.
Gothic and OE words offer evidence of Proto-Germanic lexical conflation: Gothic la�hatjan �to lighten,� liuhtjan �to give light� [31], and OE l�htan 1) �to make 'light,' easy, relieve, alleviate, dismount, �alight;� 2) �to lighten, illuminate, give light, shine; grow light, dawn; 'light,' kindle;� and, l�oht 'light, not heavy,� �slight, easy, trifling, inconsiderable� [32]. They evince the attempt to maintain their distinct meanings by the use of different vowels, but this strategy could not stop the reductionistic process over time. Ultimately, these words lexically fused into one word: today, we know it as �light.� Little do we know that the idioms �to make light of� and �light on your foot� trace to the Biblical Hebrew era.
Moreover, the former usage of Aramaic verb-stems is discernible in Gothic. Gothic thagkjan �to think, consider, ponder, reason� is a vestige of Semitic verb-stem conventions [33]. It compares well in meaning to Syriac Aramaic hgy �to think, to meditate orally on� [34]. As well, it is lexically akin to Gothic hugjan �to think, be minded,� OE hogian ��to think, consider, meditate, study,� and Old Icelandic hyggja �to think, believe� [35]. Yet, why would this word seem redundant when hugjan might suffice for relatively the same meaning? It turns out that thagkjan is a product of the Aramaic Ithpe`el verb conjugation, which involves prefixing eth (representing ) to a verb. This prefix renders the verb reflexive in meaning. As thinking is reflexive in nature, the Ithpe`el prefix caused hugjan to change to thaggkjan or thagkjan. Passing into Germanic, this prefix lost aleph / / and displaced the original initial /h/, giving rise to thagkjan. In turn, it is a cognate of OE thencan from which think derives [36]. This etymology explains how we may trace �think� to its Semitic roots.
Gothic hahan �to let hang, leave in suspense� is another example of the incorporation of a Semitic verb-stem [37]. hahan originates from BH howqa` �to cause to hang� in the Hiph`il form of yaqa` �to hang� [38]. In Gothic, hahan is the base form with an underlying causative meaning that involves the prefix /h/ (formerly Hebrew ). The Gothic, Old English, and Old Icelandic verb conjugation paradigms exhibit how BH howqa` phonologically evolved as it passed into the Germanic languages. The Semitic word howqa` contains qoph /q/ and ayin /`/, not pronounced in an Indo-European language, therefore, initial /h/ would survive as the only remaining Semitic consonant. Gothic hahan is a reduplication of this surviving consonant (hence ha + ha + the Gothic infinitive ending -an). OE uses the simpler form of ho for the present tense and renders the former ayin as /ng/ in the past (or preterite) form of henge. Olc hangi follows suit in the present indicative form. However, the past indicative form hekk evinces the Olc selective substitution of qoph (which is often transliterated to /k/ in Indo-European speech). It is remarkable to note that Gothic, OE, and OIc employ the different strategies to preserve the word of a Semitic origin. There are other examples of the traces of the Semitic verb-stems in Germanic, but for the sake of brevity, they are referred to in the endnotes [39].
The Gothic Bible is believed to have been composed in 350 CE. Some of its vocabulary indicates a pre-Gothic dating with a connection to the Near East. For example, frasts �child� appears to be a singular form of Aramaic pr ndy �children,� which borrows from Parthian frzynd, przynd (frazend) 'child, son� [40]. Before a nasal, Parthian shows softening to /z/. Greek also tends to transliterate tsade as /z/ as it renders Zion for Hebrew iyown [41], but it also may follow the occasional Indo-European pronunciation of tsade / / as /st/ [42]. The presence of frasts in Gothic intimates that the transmission of this word from the Near East occurred prior to the fourth century. It is suggested that Gothic aikklesjo represents a Syriac borrowing from Greek rather than a Gothic borrowing from Greek since the Greek loanword �qlysy� existed in Syriac Aramaic [43].
Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, was a contemporary of the Parthian language. In 224 CE, the empire collapsed and much to the vexation of historians, its demise left little evidence of its ruling people and culture. However, Gothic words of an apparent Semitic origin suggest that Parthians fled their homeland and migrated to Europe. In fact, Roman sculptures which commemorate the different victories over the Parthians and Goths.portray both these groups wearing the identical pointed cap [44]. This observation adds weight to the possibility that some of the Goths descended from the Parthians.
Implications
OE cirice and s�� carry curious etymological roots, redolent of two different faiths arising from the Near East. The former comes from a Proto-Germanic ancestor which other Germanic cognates share in common and suggests that it traces to first-century Christian evangelical activity before Europe was imbued with Christianity centuries later. s�� reflects the antecedent form of Hebrew edeq and preserves its original meaning. It imparts a Semitic provenance and underscores the historical migration of a Semitic-speaking people to Europe.
The evidence of phonological coalescence of Semitic words into some Germanic homonyms, along with vestiges of Semitic verb-stems in the Gothic Bible, provides a strong historical and linguistic context for the Semitic influence in the Gothic language. First, the apparent lexical connection of Gothic frasts to Parthian frzynd homes in on Parthia as the geographical source of this Gothic word. This finding establishes a tenable context for contact between Goths and Parthians in terms of movement and interaction of people. Second, it narrows to the period of transmission of Semitic vocabulary into Germanic to the third century CE at the latest, when the Parthian Empire still stood. This strongly suggests that the first few centuries of the Common Era millennium mark the earliest possible context for the dawn of the Germanic language. While it is conceivable that the Semitic vocabulary changes could have found their way into Gothic within two or three centuries, further research is needed to explain how a Semitic language could have extensively evolved into an Indo-European language, such as Germanic, at a grammatical level.
A possible answer lies in the Parthian Empire where Aramaic, once the dominant language of administration, became a substrate language as the Iranian-speaking population grew in number. It is known that the Parthian script began with a high proportion of Aramaic ideograms with a small Iranian element and developed over time to become predominantly Middle Iranian (incidentally, it is classified as Indo-European) with a decreasing Aramaic element [45]. This implies a significant change in the ethnic composition of the Parthian Empire [46]. Because the Parthian ruling class were Scythian in origin, according to Strabo, and wore the pointed cap, they presumably spoke Aramaic. During the four centuries of their rule over the empire (247 BCE - 224 CE), they increasingly adopted Middle Iranian grammatical complexities, including its word order, though they continued to use Semitic vocabulary based on consonant roots and verb-stems. At the fall of the Parthian Empire, it is suggested, that the ruling class and their kindred fled with this language to the east of Europe.
These circumstances would provide a scenario which explains how the Germanic language could have transmuted so substantially into an Indo-European language from a Semitic one. As the earliest attested Germanic language, Gothic was a fourth-century language in transition, occurring not long after the collapse of the Parthian Empire. At this stage of transition, it preserved the remnants of the Semitic word-root system, vocabulary, and verb-stems, which also appear in other Germanic languages. Therefore, it indicates the recentness, rather than antiquity, of the Germanic language.
Endnotes
[1] Online Etymology Dictionary (OED) attributes the origin of cirice to Greek, �This is probably borrowed via an unrecorded Gothic word from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "the Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord� Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c. 300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic transmission of many Christian words, via the Goths; probably it was used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period.� This attribution, however, does not satisfactorily explain how the word of an alleged Greek origin supposedly took root in the Proto-Germanic language.
[2] Berend states, �Christianization was never an instantaneous event, but its length varied greatly, not simply between polities, but within them as well. Regional differences in the penetration of Christianity existed everywhere�� Berend, Nora, ed. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007, 25.
Wells gives a brief but informative summary of the medieval Christianization of the European populations over several centuries. Wells, H.G. The Online of History. Garden City, NY: Garden City, 1931, 643-48.
[3] Refer to A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (ACASD).
[4] Clines, David J.A., ed. The Classic Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009, 374.
[5] �Sadducee.� Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sadducee.
[6] Greensphan, Frederick E. �Aramaic.� In Beyond Babel - A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by Kaltner, John and Steven McKenzie. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002, 98. Also refer to Jo Ann Hackett regarding spiranization in Hebrew on page 147.
[7] In the Indo-European languages, qoph was usually pronounced as /k/ (or /c/) e.g., Jakob from Greek Iakobos, from Hebrew Ya aq . In early Germanic, it was sometimes elided. Examples of the dropping of qoph are Aramaic qbr �to bury, inter� > OE byrgan �to raise a mound, hide, 'bury,' inter� > bury; qdyr �dark� > OE deorc �'dark,' obscure, gloomy� > dark; and q yn �fine, narrow, thin� > OE �ynne �thin, lean� > thin.
[8] Josephus. The War of the Jews, 1.1.
[9] Peck, Harry T., ed. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1898, 196-97.
[10] Josephus, ibid., 1.2.
[11] Buth, Randall; Chad, Pierce. "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?". In The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Randall Buth and Notley, R. Steven. Jewish and Christian perspectives series no. 26. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2014, 89.
[12] A number of scholars undertook extensive research on the the ten tribes of Israel and their movements in Scythia prior to their migration to northwest Europe. A few examples of these scholars are Sharon Turner (The History of the Anglo-Saxons, 1840); John H. Allen (Judah�s Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright,1917); Adam Rutherford (Israel-Britain, 1939); Steven M. Collins (Parthia - The Forgotten Ancient Superpower and Its Role in Biblical History, 2003); and Yair Davidiy (Hebrew Tribes, 2021).
[13] The following comment by Whiston exemplifies how the presupposition that the ten tribes were culturally absorbed centuries ago can affect historians� interpretation of the �Upper Barbarians,� as it does not take into account Josephus� belief of the Israelite diaspora beyond the Euphrates:
�Who these Upper Barbarians, remote from the sea, were, Josephus himself will inform us, sect. 2, viz. the Parthians and Babylonians, and remotest Arabians [of the Jews among them]; besides the Jews beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni, or Assyrians. Whence we also learn that these Parthians, Babylonians, the remotest Arabians, [or at least the Jews among them,] as also the Jews beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni, or Assyrians, understood Josephus's Hebrew, or rather Chaldaic, books of The Jewish War, before they were put into the Greek language.�
Whiston, William. �Preface.� In The Wars of the Jews. Translated by. William Whiston. Auburn and Buffalo: John E. Beardsley. 1895.
[14] The instances are drawn from Josephus� works, Antiquities of the Jews and The War of the Jews.
[15] Isaiah 11:11-16; Jeremiah 30:1-3, 8-12; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Hosea 3:5; Micah 5:2-4; Zechariah 10:6-12.
[16] It is worthwhile noticing that Whiston mentions Josephus� use of the Aramaic word bar for son instead of Hebrew ben, and deduces that Josephus wrote his original edition in Aramaic. In The Wars of the Jews, 5.266 footnote.
[17] �The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus.� In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by A. Cleveland Coxe et al. New York: Christian Literature, 1886, 254-55.
[18] The reason the annotated list is not well accepted is that it is not mentioned in Jerome�s bibliography of Hippolytus� works or in the list of his writings on a Roman statue found in 1553.
[19] Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica, 3, 1.
[20] The expression, �the lost sheep,� is a messianic allusion, as exemplified in the Tanakh (e.g.,�My Sheep� in Ezekiel 34:11, �My flock� in Micah 2:12).
[21] Josephus. The Antiquities of the Jews, 11.133.
[22] Gleba, Margarita. �You Are What You Wear: Scythian Costume as Identity.� In Dressing the Past, edited by Munkholt, C. and M.L. Nosch. Oxford: Oxford Books, 2008, 14.
[23] Refer to the mural of Mordecai and Esther. Online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mordecai_and_Esther.jpg.
[24] Smita, Joseph. Proper Names of Telugu Catholics and Kerala Syrian Christians. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2023, 2, cf. 18, 77.
Incidentally, Syriac is an Eastern Middle Aramaic dialect which began to emerge in the first century CE.
[25] Cave, William. Antiquitates apostolicae: or, the history of the lives, acts and martyrdoms of the holy apostles of our saviour, and the two evangelists, SS. Mark and Luke. London: R. Royston, 1676, 165. Online: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_antiquitates-apostolicae_cave-william_1676/page/n271/mode/2up?q=scythia.
[26] Strabo. Geography. 11.9.2.
[27a] Also, Strabo writes, �At any rate, some say that Arsaces derives his origin from the Scythians, whereas others say that he was a Bactrian�� (11.9.3).
[27b] A change conspicuously occurred regarding the custom of wearing the pointed cap. Whereas Scythians wore it with the point facing backward, Parthians and Goths carried this headwear facing forward.
[28] Refer to OED under the entry church.
[29] The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 3. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, 32.
[30] The definitions are drawn from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) under the entry QLL.
[31] Balg, Gerhard. A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language. Milwaukee: Jacob Mueller, 1887, 254-55.
[32] Refer to ACASD.
[33] Hemingway, John. �Evidence of the Semitic Verb Conjugation in Gothic THAGKJAN.� Hebrew Nations. Online: https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/hemingwayhgh.html.
[34] Refer to CAL under the entry HGY.
[35] For Gothic hugjan, see Balg, ibid., 181; for OE hogian and Olc hyggja, refer to ACASD and A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic.
[36] Refer to OED under the entry think.
[37a] Balg, ibid., 149.
[37b] Hemingway, John. �The Semantic Context of the Gothic Preverb at-, Part 2 - Etymology of Gothic athahan." Hebrew Nations. Online: https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth1.html.
[38] Gesenius, Wilhem. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. London: Bagster, 1857, 363.
[39] The examples are Gothic throthjan �to exercise, train,� bairan �to bear� versus atbairan �to present (to or self),� and augjan� �to show� versus ataugjan �to show, to manifest, to demonstrate, to appear.� Refer to the following links in order:
https://youtu.be/Ngx2CdkP9MI (presented as a slide show);
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth1.html, and
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/aramaicgoth3.html.
[40] Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond. The Dictionary Of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. Turnhout, Belgium: Breplos, 2004, 161. Also refer to CAL under the entry �pr ndy� �children.�
[41] Septuagint, the Greek translation of Tanakh, renders Hebrew iyown as (Zion) (e.g. Psalms 86:2 LXX; Psalms 87:2 NSAB; Isaiah 60:14).
[42] E.g., OE berstan �burst�< BH parats �break out or burst�; hasten < BH �uts, lahats, nahats �to press, be pressed, make haste�; OE stafs �a written character, a letter,� staef, stafas �staff, stick, rod� < Runes staba �staves� < BH `atsab �to carve,� and steal < BH natsal �to snatch, to deliver.�
[43] Some may take Gothic as the earliest attested Germanic language to represent a snapshot of the Germanic language in its early stage of development. However, this view does not explain why Gothic aikklesjo and OE cirice (representative of the majority of Germanic cognates) are dissimilar. It is suggested that Gothic, as preserved in the Gothic Bible, was a dialect, belonging to a group of people who fled from Parthia and joined their kindred stock in Europe who had earlier migrated to Europe from the Near East and beyond.
[44] The Parthian Monument commemorates the Roman victories over the Parthian Empire in 162-165 CE. It displays several Parthians with the identical pointed cap. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus, a Roman tomb dating to around 250-260 CE, depicts a large battle scene with barbarians in the reliefs. While the barbarians are sculpted in a generic representation, one figure can be seen wearing a pointed cap on a left-side section of the sarcophagus. Scholars usually regard the barbarian figures as Goths. Links are as follows:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Ludovisi_Battle_sarcophagus?file=Grande_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8574.jpg;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Septimius_Severus#/media/File:0_Arc_de_Septime_S%C3%A9v%C3%A8re_-_Rome_(3).JPG.
[45] Boyce, Mary. "Parthian Writings and Literature.� In The Seleucid, Parthian and Sassanian Periods, edited by Ehsan Yarshatar. Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3(2). Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983, 1151-52.
Also refer to Encyclopaedia Iranica for the article �Aramaic,� particularly the paragraph titled, �Aramaic and the Iranian languages.� Online: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/aramaic-#prettyPhoto.
[46] Huyse explains the dwindling usage of Aramaic during the Parthian Empire, ��the Aramaic scribes were increasingly replaced by local scribes who were no longer native speakers. These scribes, although trained in scribal books, did not perfectly master the Aramaic language any more, and although they continued to use the Aramaic script they gradually started inserting Iranian words into their texts until eventually the language written was entirely Iranian.� Though this explanation is entirely tenable, it may be influenced by the prevailing scholarly belief that Parthians were Iranian-speaking. This paper argues that the growing number of Iranian-speaking people in the Empire, whose subjects included Parthians, Babylonians, Arabs, Adiabeni, and others, is a better explanation for the decline of Aramaic use.
Huyse, Ph. �Inscriptional Literature in Old and Middle Iranian Languages.� InThe Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, edited by Ronald E. Emmerick and Macuch, Maria. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009, 84.
.JPG){kind=link}