Hebrew Is Greek??
Has anyone read, seen, or even heard of this rare book?
Hebrew is Greek is a $2,000+ book on Amazon that apparently proves with thorough, undebunked research, that the Hebrew language has its roots in the Greek language.
I'm thinking about purchasing the book.
I don't know much about the text outside of the fact that it is technical in nature and will probably take me years to understand but I'm extremely interested because if its premise is true, it throws every monotheistic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) into serious question and offers strong evidence to the narrative of Greeks being the creators of these three religions.
If true, it also suggests that the modern day Jews are actually Greeks and Romans, along with giving context to quite a few other disturbing correlations which I will hold my tongue on until I am more knowledgeable.
Regardless, I've always been interested in the origin of these religions - mainly because all three of them fly in the face of known historical fact but also because they are responsible for some of the most atrocious acts humanity has ever produced.
I was highly offended when I found out how much I'd been lied to and I didn't know who to blame... because no one around me seemed to have any answers.
As with all of the other topics I find myself interested in, I will keep Steemit updated with my personal research and maybe I can find people to interact with surrounding these findings.
This is a crackpot theory that flies in the face of a huge body of historical linguistics, but if you want to read it you can find the book online here:
https://archive.org/details/Hebrew.is.Greek
These two are from distinct language families (Afroasiatic vs. Indo-European) and there is no scholarly consensus on how to connect them, let alone claim that there is sufficient evidence that a branch from one descended from a branch of another.
Wow, thanks for the quick input! That saves me a good bit of money. I'm curious, why do you call it a crackpot theory? The person who showed me this book is well-educated and seemed to validate its contents as well-researched.
Before I begin digging into this though, I would also like to know what is the huge body of historical linguistics that this book is "up against" so that I can compare studies. Because as far as I currently understand it, there is no evidence for the origin of the Hebrew language outside of the Tanakh which can be traced only as far back as the Greeks invading Egypt.
Additionally, if Hebrew is the afroasiatic language you're referencing, I would think there should be more evidence to support its existence than we have found up to this point - more African peoples speaking it, older archaeological evidence of Jews in Africa, etc.
And if there is no consensus on how to connect these languages, wouldn't a text like this be all the more important? I mean, most learned people agree that humanity's origins start in Africa so it's not all that far-fetched to believe that these different languages are not so... distinct.
I say all of this because my own interests have led me to believe that Greeks and Romans conspired to dominate the world through our current religious order. Among my own findings I've uncovered many of the controversies behind the big three religions and they definitely seem to be connected to one source...
A book like this seems like it might hold some of the more important puzzle pieces I would need to further confirm my previous research.
Language, ethnicity, and religion are different things. Don't conflate them.
Linguistics is a very broad field of study. Forgive me if the analogy sounds condescending, but your question is like a horoscope reader asking "What is this huge body of research called astronomy, can you please point me to it?" Here is a bibliography with a focus on the historical linguistics of the Afroasiatic languages.
It is possible that Greek and Hebrew descend from a common ancestor, but this is not the same idea as "Hebrew is Greek." If they do, the evidence for it is weak and inconclusive, which is why there are very few linguists who claim to know this. I call this particular theory crackpot because in the very short time I spent looking at it, it was clear that the author and his proponents have an agenda that drives their thesis to ignore entire branches of scholarly inquiry that contradict what they prefer to be true.
Most people don't generally encounter linguistics in their studies, so it can be harder to spot dubious claims in that area. You seem like a smart and curious individual though, so I encourage you to read up on the field of historical linguistics while tackling this book. If you found out about this rare tome, I have no doubt you can figure out what books are good intros to historical linguistics.
All the best to you.