B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Well, I read an interesting article about the Al-Yahuda Tablets while I was away. I have no doubt that most reading this are already familiar with these set of clay tablets ranging in dates between 575 and 477 BC, but it was new to me. They do go some way in making it difficult for scholars to argue that vernacular hebrew was not known by the returning exiles. For example:

1. I notice the constant reference by some to the fact that these tablets clearly demonstrate the desire to retain Jewish identity, which is hardly surprising. The need to retain your own language is the core of this means to gluing a sense of national identity.

2. The tablets also prove beyond doubt that not all Jews were assimilated into the Babylonian culture and language. They had their own towns so to speak, their own communities. This would in fact make it much easier to retain your own language, while still obeying the Babylonian Authorities rules about conducting all business in Aramaic.

3. Finally there is an inscription on one tablet in the common hebrew language, on Tablet number 10. It is dated to 549 BC, just about 10 years before the first exiles returned. The five letters spell the name Shelemiah, not in Aramaic but in Hebrew, according to Jean-Phillippe Delorme it is the only evidence of hebrew writing outside of Israel. Ok, flimsy I suppose, hardly conclusive, but seriously there is enough circumstantial evidence that makes it rather difficult for some scholars to insist that vernacular hebrew was not known or retained by the returning exiles.

Chris watts

I'd be interested in that info as well.

From an internet search: “The Al-Yahudu tablets are a collection of about 200 clay tablets from the sixth and fifth centuries BCE on the exiled Judean community in Babylonia following the destruction of the First Temple” (Wikipedia). It merits further reading.

From TyndaleHouse.com:

Hallo Jason and Talmid,

I read the article in the Armstrong Biblical Archeology magazine, though I do not affiliate with Herbert Armstrong theology, this is the only non-digital source I have here; you know, I like pen and paper , I'm a 'Leroy Gibbs' fan if you who he is. Right then, back on track. I rummaged through the messy digital world and found some interesting information that corroborates what I read and even offers more information. Although the find is provenance, it has been validated by many scholars and by the Israeli Heritage guys in Jerusalem. It has been exhibited also, link to this also provided.

1. I was very fortunate to be able to find what I was looking for, the Paleo hebrew script on Clay text 10 - In this 1 minute 48 second video, I took a screenshot of this tablet that the curator pointed to, unfortunately his speech was cut half way through and the camera shifted. Timesatmp 0:45 if you are in a hurry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4w03245-VE

2. Images, photographs of tablets in this PDF Start on Page 6 : https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docma ... poras/file

3. A short overall Introduction but also includes a reference to tablet 10 : ""On tablet 10, for example, which deals with a bond for barley, the name Shalemiyahu appears in Hebraic. “These are the most ancient Hebraic letters from the Babylonian exile,” says Horowitz""" : http://www.archeolog-home.com/pages/con ... lonia.html

4. Jerusalem Post article : https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/ ... age-398543

5. Very short article about exhibit with a 3 minute 45 second video : https://cbn.com/news/israel/exhibit-rev ... sh-history

I am sure there is more to find, there is definitely more here than in the article that I read.


chris watts

Fascinating finds, indeed. At least the evidence could be interpreted as supporting continued use of Hebrew. At some point Aramaic, which used the same Paleo script, switched to the square form. Written Hebrew then did also, as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls and later Hebrew documents and inscription. Most scholars suppose the switch in scripts took place during the Babylonian Exile.

Thanks for sharing, Chris and Jason.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:28 am … They do go some way in making it difficult for scholars to argue that vernacular hebrew was not known by the returning exiles.…

Define “vernacular”.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:35 pm

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:28 am … They do go some way in making it difficult for scholars to argue that vernacular hebrew was not known by the returning exiles.…

Define “vernacular”.
Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo Karl, I am not going to define vernacular except to say that we all understand it as meaning a language that we acquired from birth, our mother tongue given by our parents.

However, for the sake of the context in question, the vernacular in this case could be Aramaic in many instances, since by the 4th generation many 3rd generation parents would be speaking aramaic in the kitchen with their toddler children. This then is a logical assumption based upon a valid understanding of human nature and experience. What I am set against, and what I find utterly stupid and insane and totally nuts, is when I read scholars so called, and commentators so called, making others believe ridiculous nonsense that the returning exiles were like the Medieval Europeans where Latin was not understood by the common people because it had become the religious language of the vatican, likewise Hebrew was not understood by the common people of the Babylonian returnees because Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the common people. Worse still these total vision-less-nut-heads claim that now Hebrew was purely a religious language and everyone spoke only aramaic as they were shopping in the food market and having brunch together with their teenage kids, and centres of learning and educational centres and conversations around trees were conducted in Aramaic only because Hebrew was now lost to the children of the Exile.


There were at least three waves of returnees bringing back with them dialects including Hebrew and Aramaic. And the biblical evidence clearly points to the fact that some remained in the land during this time, anywhere between half and 60%, (simple mathematics confirms this) they would still be speaking hebrew while not objectionable that many would be acquainted with aramaic most definitely. Neither Nehemiah 8:8 nor chapter 9 gives any hint that the audience only understood aramaic and did not understand Hebrew. Nehemiah 13:23-26 is not a means by which one can "Blanket" an entire era or population either.

One eye opener for me about these tablets is that I was under the false impression that the Jews had a really rotten time in babylonia, oppressed, whipped, slashed, beaten and starved, enslaved in chains and killed off (this is a direct result of christian influence in the way it has been portrayed) . These tablets tell you how it really was, not for everyone no doubt, but certainly for a good majorityAnd they present a picture of communities thriving and when communities stick together, this includes remembering where they came from and the language they spoke.

Hebrew was not a religious language in the 5th or 4th centuries BC, it is a bit like saying the KJV is a religious language when clearly many people actually did speak like this in those days when it was written, otherwise it would never have been written in the first place, (I have read normal letters from even before that period where the old KJV language was spoken). God does not speak in a religious language, He speaks clearly, in a way that His creation will understand, otherwise we could accuse God of speaking as a Latin Priest on a Sunday morning, - A religious language is designed to make the common people feel inferior, that is all, it has no other purpose in its miserable existence other than to elevate the person who is vomiting it out. God speaks the common language of the people and Hebrew was the common language of the people along with Aramaic. So let's stop (I am talking to the scholars and commentators here not you personally), let's stop this nonsense of saying that Hebrew had become a Religious language of the Priests - there is no evidence to support such a preposterous myth that there was in Ezra's and Nehemiah's day a religious Hebrew and then there was Aramaic. There was simply Hebrew and Aramaic and many many of the returning peoples over a 200 year period could still speak and understand it, and many would not. It is as simple as that. So straight-forward.

Ok then, so this is my definition of 'Vernacular'

chris watts

Thanks for the long answer.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:35 pm

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:28 am … They do go some way in making it difficult for scholars to argue that vernacular hebrew was not known by the returning exiles.…

Define “vernacular”.
Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo Karl, I am not going to define vernacular except to say that we all understand it as meaning a language that we acquired from birth, our mother tongue given by our parents.

That is my definition, when I say that Biblical Hebrew ceased to be “natively spoken” after the Babylonian Captivity.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am What I am set against, and what I find utterly stupid and insane and totally nuts, is when I read scholars so called, and commentators so called, making others believe ridiculous nonsense that the returning exiles were like the Medieval Europeans where Latin was not understood by the common people because it had become the religious language of the vatican, likewise Hebrew was not understood by the common people of the Babylonian returnees because Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the common people.

What we find in Ezra and Nehemiah is that Hebrew was expected to be taught as a second language to all Jews.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am And the biblical evidence clearly points to the fact that some remained in the land during this time, anywhere between half and 60%,

That claim contradicts the historical record. The historical record is that there were none.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am One eye opener for me about these tablets is that I was under the false impression that the Jews had a really rotten time in babylonia, oppressed, whipped, slashed, beaten and starved, enslaved in chains and killed off (this is a direct result of christian influence in the way it has been portrayed) . These tablets tell you how it really was, not for everyone no doubt, but certainly for a good majorityAnd they present a picture of communities thriving and when communities stick together, this includes remembering where they came from and the language they spoke.

What “Christian” influence? I never heard of it.

Ezra reports that there was quite a bit a wealth among Babylonian Jews.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am Hebrew was not a religious language in the 5th or 4th centuries BC,

Where’s your evidence?

What I have seen is that it was used much like medieval Latin—for high literature, international communications, laws, and incidentally religion too.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am God does not speak in a religious language, He speaks clearly, in a way that His creation will understand, otherwise we could accuse God of speaking as a Latin Priest on a Sunday morning,

I agree with you here, 100%. That’s why we strive to make accurate translations.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am There was simply Hebrew and Aramaic and many many of the returning peoples over a 200 year period could still speak and understand it, and many would not. It is as simple as that. So straight-forward.

When all Jews were expected to learn Hebrew, even when they didn’t speak it as a native tongue, that lasted much longer than 200 years.

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:45 am Ok then, so this is my definition of 'Vernacular'

chris watts

I understand “vernacular” in the sense that you defined it at the beginning of your answer. Everything you said afterwards contradicts that definition.

Karl W. Randolph.

I can not be bothered to go through the scripture, rationalise the obvious, or reason what is historically proven by human experience, in order to counter your replies.

When a bucket of water is emptied - it is never completely dry - yet when asked, I would write that the bucket is indeed empty when in reality there is a little water left. But you would claim that my writing, my verse, proves your point that there is no water left; However, rational and logical and human experience would counter your assertion and I would claim that there was still water in the bucket.

Your replies above have little support and I find it disappointing when you isolate single clauses from my paragraphs at the expense of the bigger picture I am attempting to convey. Scripture lends us a peek into history, it is a keyhole through a massively huge door, it provides us a momentary glance into a moment in time that God sees fit to include for reasons often different from what we assume. It can not ever provide us with the complete picture about how things actually took place. But I am often under the impression that You paint that picture as if it is the complete story with no other additions, influences or practicalities possible. These additions, influences and practicalities do not contradict scripture at all, they support the reality of human suffering and experience both on an individual and on a national scale.

There is absolutely no evidence that Pharaoh of Egypt bounced a little baby boy called Moses up and down on his lap, but he did. Can you deny this? There is no evidence that the Jews in Babylonia laughed and told each other jokes about their captors - but would you deny this? There is no evidence that Elijah the prophet did anything to displease God about which he needed to repent of - but would you deny that? I could go on with a multitude of the obvious. This is reality, this is human experience.

The land was NOT emptied, that according to you not a single human being was left (That bucket turned upside down) and those that were left and came back did NOT need to be taught a second language called Hebrew, and there would have been a small percentage living in communities in Babylon who continued to pass down their language and culture and belief in the one God and stubbornly refused to be assimilated into Babylonian culture - THIS IS REALITY. Prove me wrong! Prove that this could not have happened! Prove from any source you want that the returning Jews did not know a word of Hebrew and that they were sent to saturday school to learn it all over again and that every single man woman and child bought their sharon's fruit, figs and veggies in Aramaic.

Karl, I will make you a deal, let's have some fun, you provide me with any and every scripture you can find that supports your assertions about which we are all familiar. Then in a separate category, if you like, provide non-scriptural historical evidence that supports these same assertions. I will abandon my reasoning, stick to scripture and stay with whatever you provide, in my reply. Ok? I will not reason, I will converse on your terms in your manner, I want the challenge.

Chris watts