I find it fascinating that rabbinic literature suggests that Hebrew was the original human language. I have seen Christian authors also argue the same.

For example, from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The confounding of the languages—before that they all had spoken Hebrew

Is this a possibility or has anyone proven Hebrew to be derived from an earlier language? What would be arguments to support the 'original language' claim?

  • Is this a hermeneutics question? I'm feeling like this might be a better fit on Christianity.SE and/or MiYodeya.SE.
    – Jas 3.1
    Apr 11, 2013 at 21:27
  • 3
    @Jas3.1 I'm not sure if this is strictly on topic or not, but if it was, here would be the best place for it because the most relevant experts are those in the ancient languages of scripture and matters of textual criticism. I'm inclined to let it be. Certainly the religion specific sites don't seem like a better home to me. There is also History and Linguistics, but seems like the best fit to me.
    – Caleb
    Apr 12, 2013 at 10:58
  • You might be interested to know that this same question has been discussed on linguistics.SE: Why is Edenics not recognized as a serious linguistic theory?
    – fdb
    Aug 8, 2014 at 10:21

5 Answers 5


One line of evidence is that all the names in the genealogies prior to Babel have meanings in Hebrew.

My first Hebrew professor, Dr. Robert L. Cate, did a lot of work in the development of the Hebrew language. For his doctoral dissertation, he constructed a hypothetical lexicon of proto-Hebrew, the Hebrew language as it existed before any written records. There are clues within the language as it existed in the written Bible times of what it looked like before.

Dr. Cate concentrated on how the verbs had formed. In Biblical Hebrew, all verbs have three consonants at the root. He found evidence of a two consonant root system underneath it. Many verbs that shared two consonants in their ground form (Qal, perfect, 3ms) and in the same order, would have related meanings. For example, bara' means "create," barak means "bless," and barar means "purify." All of those are primarily actions of God (in the case of "create," only God can truly create).

He gives many more examples, but I don't think his dissertation was ever made available online.

  • I have a copy of his dissertation, though. But I have never scanned it in.
    – Frank Luke
    Mar 4, 2013 at 15:00
  • interesting and reasoable theory - thanks
    – Mike
    Mar 4, 2013 at 15:12
  • As a kid I read a number of books about the famous Sioux Chiefs "Crazy Horse", "Red Cloud" and "Sitting Bull". I like the theory, but could the before Babel names simply be translations like the Dakota chief names?
    – Jeff
    May 27, 2017 at 22:58
  • @Jeff, that's possible. We'd have to compare the other creation accounts, particularly anything with a genealogy to see if they had names with similar meanings in their own language.
    – Frank Luke
    May 28, 2017 at 1:10

The oldest discovered example of written Hebrew dates from about 3000 years ago -- although this dating is disputed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm). Conversely, samples of Sumerian Cuneiform have been discovered from more than 5000 years ago. Granted, the language might have existed for quite a while prior to the development of a written script.

  • 2
    Hi Aaron, and welcome to BH.SE
    – Mike
    Mar 3, 2013 at 23:00
  • 2
    One thing to note: we tend to associate the Hebrew language with the Hebrew script, but a number of lettering system have been used to write Hebrew in its history. Presumably, Hebrew scribes could have used cuneiform or (easier yet) hieroglyphics. And, as you mention, spoken language (which seems to be what the Babel story is all about) existed before written language. Even so, +1 for bringing useful evidence to the question. Mar 4, 2013 at 23:32

If one follows the entirely reasonable line that the historical and genealogical records in the first chapters of Genesis were recorded, composed and handed down by those who lived them (the faithful line from Adam to Noah), the idea that Hebrew was the original language is also entirely reasonable. Fortunately, for the the community of faith, the Scriptures are our primary source document. We are not left scrambling around trying to build a case out of fragments. The history recorded is our history, and it is a gift from God. (I guess I am saying that presenting a case in the way secular archaeologists do might appear trustworthy but will ultimately fail.)

  • I was just reviewing the answers here and was wondering what is the biblical basis that you assume Hebrew was spoken before the Tower of Babylon? I do not disagree with the conclusion but it almost seems you are thinking of some bible verse I am not thinking of? The reason why I asked about language history is because I was not aware of a biblical argument.
    – Mike
    Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24
  • Sure - if we believe Genesis is history, rather than myth, it makes sense that it was written by those who lived it. Importantly, all the names recorded before Babel have meanings in Hebrew. If we take that as our foundation, there are some other less obvious factors to consider. The literary structures of the text before Babel continue in the text after Babel. Also, Edward Ullendorff argued in his "Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?" that the language of the text is too restricted in form and variety to function as a spoken language, that it is instead a technical, scribal, priestly dialect.
    – Mike Bull
    Mar 17, 2013 at 12:22
  • Maybe that is what confused me. Now I see whatmyou are arguing. You are imagining Moses had scriptures handed down to him. I have assumed Moses wrote Gensis without anything prior written. I suppose this is really a unknown. Cheers.
    – Mike
    Mar 17, 2013 at 13:40
  • @GoneQuiet The geneologies are evidence that the texts were handed down. Similar examples are found all over the world, one I am familiar with being Papua New Guinea. This does not exclude the possibility of later redaction. Secular archaeologists are prone to make mistakes because of their prejudice towards a non-biblical worldview, i.e. we evolved rather than being created, there was millions of years of history before Bible times, and the Bible's chronology therefore cannot be trusted.
    – Mike Bull
    Apr 12, 2013 at 22:36
  • @GoneQuiet The biblical geneology connects Adam to Jesus, and no historian worth his salt denies Jesus existed. As far as I know, no historical figure is claimed to have been descended from the genealogies in the Lord of the Rings, but I am happy to be corrected. I believe that the Bible's chronology is trustworthy history.
    – Mike Bull
    Apr 13, 2013 at 5:51

Pauls conversion revelation & vision of the risen Christ

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Some have inferred from this that Hebrew might be the native language of Heaven.

Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. Act 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! We're a little different from other sites. For one thing, could you give us a reference to the "some" who infer Hebrew as the language of Heaven?
    – Frank Luke
    Aug 8, 2014 at 13:29
  • Thanks for the Welcome. I heard it last I think in a Message from John Hagee however it's something that I've read and heard from other sources before.
    – Gamer7
    Aug 15, 2014 at 2:41
  • I think the idea at least of a 'pure language' is an interesting one as indicated in this scripture: "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of Yahweh, to serve him with one consent," Zephaniah 3:9.
    – Gamer7
    Aug 15, 2014 at 2:49
  • Thanks for pointing me to the site's rules as well. As to answering the question, if Hebrew is indeed a language native to Heaven then it stands to reason that the first Humans created would get their language from the Creator Himself whose throne i.e. "capitial" according to scripture is in Heaven.
    – Gamer7
    Aug 15, 2014 at 3:35
  • Comments aren't meant to stay forever and may be deleted after a time. It's best if you can edit the references and information into the answer. Here's more references to Hebrew being the [language of Heaven] for you (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8984/…): The rabbis spoke of Hebrew as the language of Heaven (Sifre to Deuteronomy 333; BT Shabbat 115a; Bava Batra 82a; Hagigah 16a, etc.; Bereshit Rabba 18:4; Kohelet Rabba 7:8, etc.).
    – Frank Luke
    Aug 15, 2014 at 13:16

There exists a number if hints which would indicate an origin of the book of Genesis in written accounts of ages before Moses. These accounts seemingly were put together from different sources.

  • Moses' name does not even appear in the whole book (or role) that is named after him

  • no direct inspiration in the sense of visions or auditions is mentioned

  • the accounts themselves within this first book of the bible are very different in style, length, detail

  • the flood account, the creation account exist in duplet form

  • there are important names mentioned, some of them possibly authored parts of this written history of early mankind

Along with the aforementioned observation of names that are very old and close to Hebrew. There is some indication of a remanence of oldest language in the Hebrew of the bible.

  • 3
    Could you pleas explain the relevance of these observations to the question?
    – swasheck
    Apr 11, 2013 at 20:23
  • If the accounts of Genesis were really handed down from pre-mosaic times (and this seems likely) then all these close-to-Hebrew names may indicate a common language that was similar to what became Hebrew.
    – hannes
    Apr 15, 2013 at 6:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.