Introduction

Even a simple glance at the important points this study contains, and at the scarcity of primary sources that would bring the researcher to the essence of the precise subjects confined within it, clearly indicates how rugged and complex it is. For it is no easy matter to look into historical questions of such importance and emerge from them with sound conclusions; research into them remains a matter of conjecture and, at times, of mere surmise. Yet, placing our reliance upon God, we make this attempt—bold as it may be in itself—hoping that, should it be crowned with success, it will lay many matters in this field before researchers, so that they may perhaps arrive at some truths that have not been settled to this day in a field whose expanse is vast, whose horizons are distant, and whose reaches are far-flung, like this one.

The historical relations between these two sister languages are as ancient [?] as their emergence from the mother tongue. It is not easy to encompass all those relations, for time has drawn over most of them a curtain of obscurity and cloaked others in a veil of darkness. Nevertheless, we shall cast our gaze upon these relations from their very dawn and attempt to show their development through successive ages, even though our sources in this field are meager. As for the linguistic relations, we find them clearer and closer to hand than the former, since the linguistic material is readily available to us after a careful study of this material in the two languages; and so it becomes possible to emerge with clear truths from which researchers in this domain may benefit. The literary aspect of the relationship between the two sister languages is the beautiful, radiant aspect, because it touches the very core of the ideal life within them. To pass through these bowers, fragrant with the perfume of poetry and living literature, is for us like passing through a lush garden beneath which rivers flow.

As for the artistic aspect, it is the aspect of living beauty connected to artistic taste, and it is a first foundation for the two languages moving in a single direction, from the first spring to the final estuary. Art is nothing but a foundation for sound taste, beautiful poetry, elevated literature, and true history.

The scope of the study, then, is connected to all these important aims and encompasses all this vast scholarly space. To that end, dear reader, and before we place upon the table of inquiry anything of these four points, it behooves us to cast some glances at the mother Semitic language, because that touches the very core of our study, and because one cannot enter the doors of this precise study without returning to the first spring and the original source of these two noble sisters.

The Semitic designation — Who are the Semites? And where was their original homeland? — The mother Semitic language

The Semitic Designation

The Encyclopaedia Britannica claimed that the first to use the term "Semitic languages" for this group of Middle Eastern languages was Schlözer in his historical studies in the year 1781. Israel Wolfensohn concurred with this claim in his book "History of the Semitic Languages," and the assertion then spread among the scholars of Oriental studies. But the Syriac sources refute this assertion and confirm that this designation is very ancient, its history reaching back to before the seventh century AD.

The first Syriac scholar to apply this designation to this group of Eastern languages was Jacob of Edessa, who died in the year 708 AD. The Syriac scholars followed in the footsteps of Jacob of Edessa and used this term many centuries before Schlözer—among them the anonymous Syriac chronicler of Edessa in the twelfth century, and Bar Hebraeus in the thirteenth century. Thus the assertion that Schlözer was the first to use this term is far from correct, for the Syriac scholars preceded him in it by several centuries. Yet it is regrettable that these languages, in their Syriac form, still remain far from the eyes of contemporary researchers.

Second — Who Are the Semites? And Where Was Their Original Homeland?

These are two questions that must be answered before reaching the discussion of the mother tongue, and here is that answer.

The Semites are the progeny of Shem, son of Noah, as stated in the Book of Genesis. From this the scholars derived this designation and applied it to the nations descended from that great line, which includes many Eastern nations that history has known for their ancient civilization, their successful conquests, and their great states throughout this entire East, and that from the most ancient ages.

As for their original homeland in the days when they were a single nation, the researchers have likewise differed over it with sharp disagreement, and from this disagreement we are able to reach the great truth that must be proclaimed with boldness and candor.

The scholars hold three schools of thought on this subject: the first claims that the original homeland of the Semites is the land of Babylon; the second claims that it is the plateau of Armenia; and the third holds that it is the Arabian Peninsula. These three schools have not to this day been free of deficiency, and the scholars have not agreed upon any one of them, owing to the existence of conjectural evidence for each. This places them all within the realm of supposition and surmise, on the one hand, and, on the other, in their attempt to derive the great Semitic nations from a single narrow patch of ground, such as the land of Babylon, the plateaus of Armenia, or the Arabian Peninsula.

And if all these opinions are liable to criticism from the holders of a differing view, because the scholars are not in complete agreement upon them, then there must be found another opinion to be placed upon the table of inquiry, that it might cast some light—however faint—upon this obscure aspect. And if its fate is the fate of the preceding opinions, then let us wait once more, until the archaeological discoveries reveal the pure historical truth that we set forth here.

It suffices now to say that we have seen the Semitic nations spread across many regions in this East since the most ancient historical ages. The Syriac historians have studied and investigated this aspect thoroughly, and they have determined that the scope of the Semitic homeland was far wider than what the Orientalist scholars specified—indeed, it may perhaps include all the regions they mentioned taken together. These scholars have confirmed that the homeland of the Semitic nations extended from the borders of Egypt and the Red Sea, and the coast of Phoenicia and Syria, and included the lands of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, Mesopotamia, Assyria, the land of Shinar, Babylon, the borders of Persia and what surrounds them, and India and its environs.

We might think that this region is far too vast to be a "cradle" for a single nation like the Semitic nation. Yet the reality of the matter supports this, for the discoveries have shown that all these vast regions were trodden by the feet of the Semites since the most ancient ages, as they moved from one quarter to another, coming and going—not according to the waves that the scholars supposed to have surged forth from a single one of these patches of ground.

The thing that led the Orientalist scholars to suppose that the Semites came either from the plateaus of Armenia, or the land of Babylon, or the Arabian Peninsula, is the presence of the traces of their footsteps in all these regions as they moved about, never settling in one place. This movement led to their dividing into groups, tribes, and clans, each group taking a particular name in accordance with its way of life. This dispersal led to tribal groupings, on the one hand, and to the divergence of dialects and their independence as distinct languages, on the other—as we shall see when we define the word "Arab" and the meaning of the word "Aram."

And if we cast a comprehensive glance at these vast regions, we must designate a "heart" for them all, one that could serve as the original spring from which these torrential human floods surged, spreading and moving across this vast land. This throbbing "heart" must be the birthplace of the first human civilization in this domain. The latest discoveries have shown that the first civilization history ever saw arose in the plain of Shinar, encompassing the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and then extended afterward to the remaining neighboring regions.

It behooves us now to look at these three preceding opinions taken together, so as to form from them a single sound opinion. If we accept the opinion holding that civilization sprang up in the land of Shinar and the region of Babylon, we necessarily accept that civilization presupposes a soft and prosperous life for individuals, families, and communities, on account of the good, ease, and comfort it reaps through agriculture, trade, and culture. This is what gradually draws the Bedouin to it, tinting them little by little with the hue of civilization and the town. So they gather from every direction to the cradle of civilization to raise their standard of living from the state of nomadism to the state of civilization and settlement.

We see these Bedouin gathering from every direction to the cradle of civilization in the manner of invaders wishing to share with their civilized brethren the bounties of the earth and the fruits of profitable labor. Wars then break out between them and the townsfolk, ending at times in the victory of the attackers and at other times in the victory of the defenders—and this is indeed what happened on the stage of these regions throughout all the phases of history.

And if we suppose that the Semites spread rapidly across all the regions mentioned in the opinion of the Syriac scholars, on the one hand, and in the view of the archaeological discoveries that make the region of Babylon a cradle of civilization, on the other, then we necessarily accept that the nomadic Semitic tribes were enticed by the soft way of life that their towndwelling brethren lived under the shade of civilization and urban culture. So they gathered from every direction to share with their brethren that soft life. The scholars thus saw them as invading waves surging like a whirlwind toward the center of civilization, seizing it, taking on the character of its people, and adopting their way of life as a beacon for the new, settled existence. Some of these Bedouin invaders came from the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, and some descended from the northern borders, all of them aiming at the cradle of civilization and urban culture in the land of Shinar and the region of Babylon. This is what prompted the scholars to reckon them as waves issuing from the regions in which they had lived for a period of time, and consequently for each party to make the area from which these tribes surged their original homeland—whereas we find the matter to be otherwise. Rather, they were the sons of a single stock who first spread throughout the length and breadth of these regions according to their ways of life, then returned and gathered around this civilized region for the reasons we have now explained. In that case, the region of the Semitic nation would be very vast, bringing together all the regions that the Orientalists mentioned as sources of the scattered Semitic tribes. We do not claim that this opinion is the final word on this important historical question; rather, we say that it is a correction of the preceding contradictory opinions, especially since historical and social evidence supports it.