Stand-Alone Perfect and Imperfect examples with identical 'time' meanings

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the survival of vernacular Hebrew question.

That’s fine with me, as it’s not uncommon for us to agree to disagree. I’m ready to suggest that to Chris.

That’s fine. You feel I’m grasping at straws and misreading evidence.

You too? I thought it was Chris who’s grasping at straws.

I feel that you are disregarding evidence because it does not fit your views.

You feel, not think. If I went with my feelings, I’d agree with you.

It’s okay if we don’t agree. I would suggest, however, that you may want to look further at sources like Saenz-Badillos to see if they have some valid evidence, rather than dismiss them out of hand.

There is evidence that Hebrew ceased to be the language used on the street and in the market. Evidence. I’ve seen others claim that Hebrew continued to be spoken on the street and in the markets, but they never provided any evidence beyond what could be understood for a learned, second language. Does Saenz-Badillos have any claims that I haven’t seen before? Is it worth my time to read 200 pages to find out?

The fact that he may not accept the Biblical record, in itself, does not necessarily preclude him from having some valid arguments or evidence to present on the language question.

When the title of the book is A History of the Hebrew Language then he starts out by disregarding the recorded history of the language, how trustworthy is he? If his book were about other aspects of the language, then his views on history and theology don’t matter.

… It could well be that this applies to the language question, although I feel that I have presented sufficient evidence to support my views. As for the DSS, the Hebrew has some differences and shows Aramaic influence. On this we agree.

The Waltke & O’Connor evidence shows not only Aramaic influence, but more strongly Persian/Greek influence. I wouldn’t be surprised if Aramaic too was changed the same way by the same influences.

However, that does not preclude the possibility that it was still a vernacular, market and home language in my view. But, have it your way.

Besides historical references that Aramaic was the vernacular, and the Biblical evidence that Hebrew was not the vernacular centuries , what more do you need?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

KARL wrote :

That’s fine with me, as it’s not uncommon for us to agree to disagree. I’m ready to suggest that to Chris.

I'm not done yet


KARL wrote :

There is evidence that Hebrew ceased to be the language used on the street and in the market. Evidence. I’ve seen others claim that Hebrew continued to be spoken on the street and in the markets, but they never provided any evidence beyond what could be understood for a learned, second language. Does Saenz-Badillos have any claims that I haven’t seen before? Is it worth my time to read 200 pages to find out?

No need to read over 300 pages (my book) but Just for starters maybe the chapter : "Hebrew in the period of the second temple" and following on from there "Language of the dead sea scrolls". Any comments you may have will be appreciated and respected regardless - my objective here at this stage will be not to argue, but, would be interested in any observations you may feel are important. I do not base my conclusions as echoed in all my posts on this book, It is just one of many perspectives coming together that lead me on a different path than you. So from this point on I do not mind to confine the discussion to this book .

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Just for fun: Randall Buth's Brill article about the meaning of "Hebrew" in Greek.

[kwrandolph]

KARL WROTE : Then you can’t ignore the evidence of Daniel, that his writing half his book in Aramaic, in spite of him being a native speaker of Hebrew, indicates that Aramaic was already becoming the main language spoken among Jews at his time.

No absolutely NO . The portions in Aramaic are there for a completely different reason, to address the Gentile world, while the Hebrew is there to address the Isaraelite world. Daniel 2:4 to 7:28 is not there proving anything you say, it is there for prophetic and literary reasons.

From where do you get the idea that it was to address the non-Jewish world? Where in that text is that claim made? Are there any evidences where that was applied?

Also Saenz-Badillos makes a hugely valuable point that Hebraists today share the majority view that Aramaic in scripture is not proof that Hebrew was lost, he makes references to many books, but brings up the aramaic in Job - the oldest book.

The Aramaic in Job? Where? What’s the evidence that it’s the oldest book? From its literary style, I would place it probably later than Isaiah.

How many times do I have to say that Hebrew was not lost? That it had merely changed its status from a vernacular to a learned, second language?

The Aramaic in Scripture is evidence that Jews knew Aramaic as well as Hebrew. That, taken together with other evidence, suggests that Aramaic was better known than Hebrew with Hebrew being a learned, second language.

Truth is not decided by majority vote, contrary to your first point above.

He makes an observation if I remember correctly from Isaiah 36:11, and demonstrates that it is highly likely that the poor and the less educated classes in the exile probably could not understand Aramaic, now this I do find possible and is new to me, but it is possible having read that portion in Isaiah 36:11
[/b]

You mean that anachronisms are evidence?

KARL WROTE : But the Exile changed those conditions such that the people were no longer socially and linguistically isolated from the majority society that surrounded them.

Prove this. I can prove that it was highly likely more than you could prove the opposite, by taking examples from various minorities in todays society.

I lived in San Francisco, which is/was 40% Chinese. They even have Chinese TV. Yet the American born generation’s vernacular is English. The grandchildren grow up knowing only a smattering of Chinese.

The same thing is true of the Spanish speaking population of the U.S, Southwest.

I have visited the Apache reservation, guess which language is the most common vernacular among young Apaches? It aint Apache.

Do you have any examples extended over three generations, not less than one generation as your previous Polish population, where a people not isolated from the surrounding, majority language people, managed to preserve their ancestral language as their vernacular?

KARL WROTE : The Vikings and Normans largely stayed in the cities, though the Normans suppressed the teachings of Patrick to make Ireland Roman Catholic. The Scots made a larger impression by immigrating in large numbers to Northern Ireland. But the Irish countryside was largely untouched, hence the Irish language remained.

No the country side was just as touched as the early dwellings and large towns, I have the history books.

I too have read histories. The Vikings conquered Ireland militarily, but other than founding a few major cities like Dublin and Londonderry, did not have a major population immigration, unlike England.

The Norman invasion was again mainly military, with the added effect of forcing the Irish to become Roman Catholic. That led to English rule. But even there, the loss of Gaelic by the Irish population was gradual, rather than sudden, and probably wouldn’t have had a permanent effect, had it lasted at most a few generations.

Then in recent years there has been a serious effort to revive the Irish language but it is estimated that there are still only pockets in Galway and the far north west and in the far west peninsulars where communites speak Irish and about 10% of the whole of Ireland, the fact that a small group of people have always been steadfast resolute to maintain a sense of individuality and national identity based on their past is a testament to the human spirit that would have prevailed in many of the exiles and those that returned.

KARL WROTE : You make an assumption in the absence of evidence.

Again my history books on Ireland say otherwise. Plus todays newspapers and google will confirm this. Not to mention that my statement here agrees with my favourite form of evidence "the bleedin Obvious'

Just as today a small minority of parents insist on speaking Irish at home and taliking Irish to their children because they want them to never forget where they come from, so too would many Jewsih parents have done exactly the same. But I insist moreso, since the Irish culture has never ever been united in purpose in the same way that the Israelite culture was, despite the idol worship and materialism and murder and greed that is a common factor in all civilisations, there are always a remnant who decline the influences of foreign attributes and manners and customs. And the remnant I refer to in exile are probably that group of people found, as I tried to mention earlier, found in Jeremiah 24: 2-8 - a group that were not included in God's wrath.

KARL WROTE : This passage describes a situation before the final deportation. They were included in God’s wrath, which is why they ended up in Egypt.

No Jeremiah 24, did you read the WHOLE chapter? Now you make God Himself untrue here, for God says here that He will do them good in Babylon, IN BABYLON, not Egypt. And can you not imagine that this would have been a source of comfort to Jeremiah and the people to whom he might have told, that whereas there are always the innocents that are caught up in the trajedies that happen to the guilty, that the righteous sometimes suffer with the unrighteous through no fault of their own? Get inside this man's heart for a moment and realise that he would have prayed a prayer asking God about those who were not guilty of the crimes that the majority were guilty of, and God comforted him with this response, don't you think this a likely scenario Karl?

Did you read the whole book of Jeremiah? God cursed the people who went to Egypt, even before they did so. And he pronounced that curse here in Jeremiah 24.

Not all those in exile suffered, many had farms and communities and would have had a strong sense of identity,

KARL WROTE : But that doesn’t help their grandchildren retain the language.

But it also does not mean the opposite; plus you are certainly making an assumption here Karl

Where they had farms was in Babylon, not Judah. They had a majority Aramaic speaking neighbors, their children had Aramaic speaking friends, the people in the market spoke Aramaic. It takes about three generations for a people to exchange their ancestral vernacular for the majority language of the local population, and the Exile lasted about three generations in a majority Aramaic speaking society.

chris watts

Chris, at this time I’m ready to stop this discussion. I keep bringing up the same evidence, which you try to refute with speculation. You repeatedly mentioned a book purported to be a history of the Hebrew language, yet on its first page contradicted the written history of Hebrew. You keep trying to convince me that I’m wrong, but you haven’t provided me with a single solid piece of evidence to back up your claims. I see no reason to keep running around in circles. I suggest that we agree to disagree.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

I have brought evidence but we interpret what is provided differently. You have made just as many assumptions based on your reasoning as I have mine. You have not provided a single piece of evidence to the contrary and the vikings founded waterford, Cork, Wexford and Limerick as well.

KARL ALSO SAID :

The Norman invasion was again mainly military,

Absolutely not, and I have a book written by Dublin Professors of history that demonstrate very clearly that the Norman Invasion idea is a myth, it did not happen like that. Written records show that a handful of boats with warriors, wives and children came to Wexford from Wales on invitation by a wexford clan, but this is not a history forum I know.....just want to tell you that you are mistaken in this military idea of a full scale invasion.

And on my last note how on earth can you, who believes that what God says can not be overturned nor changes His mind, go in the opposite direction from these words and make a most ridicuous claim?

So I will Acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah whom I have sent out of this place into the land of Chaldeans for their good. For I will set mine eye upon them for good and I will bring them again to this land and I will build them and not pull them down......

.....referring to the good figs and not ALL of Judah of course

JASON thanks for the pdf, I will attempt to read it through over the coming days.

chris watts

[talmid56]

Jason, I've read that article (book excerpt, actually) by Buth and I like it. It makes sense to me. Of course, others may differ...

[kwrandolph]

KARL wrote :

That’s fine with me, as it’s not uncommon for us to agree to disagree. I’m ready to suggest that to Chris.

I'm not done yet


KARL wrote :

There is evidence that Hebrew ceased to be the language used on the street and in the market. Evidence. I’ve seen others claim that Hebrew continued to be spoken on the street and in the markets, but they never provided any evidence beyond what could be understood for a learned, second language. Does Saenz-Badillos have any claims that I haven’t seen before? Is it worth my time to read 200 pages to find out?

No need to read over 300 pages (my book) but Just for starters maybe the chapter : "Hebrew in the period of the second temple" and following on from there "Language of the dead sea scrolls". Any comments you may have will be appreciated and respected regardless - my objective here at this stage will be not to argue, but, would be interested in any observations you may feel are important. I do not base my conclusions as echoed in all my posts on this book, It is just one of many perspectives coming together that lead me on a different path than you. So from this point on I do not mind to confine the discussion to this book .

Chris watts

OK, on the book.

Biblical Hebrew has a written history that gives indications of when certain books were authored. Then you have alternate “histories” based purely on speculation. Right now I’m inclined to take the written history as being accurate.

Saenz-Badillos, in his chapter on Hebrew during the second temple period, takes books that the written history indicates were written as early as the tenth century BC, and posits that they were written not only post-exile, but as late as the third century BC. What sort of Kwatsch is that? No wonder he claims that Hebrew continued to be used, when he ignores the written record. As for its claim that it is an accurate history, I don’t think it’s worth the paper it’s written on. It’s garbage. That’s my opinion of the book.

You may have a different opinion than I on the book. That’s your prerogative. That’s OK. Just don’t ask me to agree with that book, nor the ideas contained therein.

This is a case where we need to agree to disagree.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Biblical Hebrew has a written history that gives indications of when certain books were authored. Then you have alternate “histories” based purely on speculation. Right now I’m inclined to take the written history as being accurate.

Saenz-Badillos, in his chapter on Hebrew during the second temple period, takes books that the written history indicates were written as early as the tenth century BC, and posits that they were written not only post-exile, but as late as the third century BC.

Celebration...Finally we agree on something, I also accept both your points above.... However, I have not rubbished everything and he makes finer points in this same chapter that can be easily glossed over if you have already formed an opinion about him, and especially on the dead sea scrolls. But hey listen, I agree enough is enough.

chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Just for fun: Randall Buth's Brill article about the meaning of "Hebrew" in Greek.

I looked up Randall Buth, his credentials and experience are impeccable, I have read over this PDF and noted points I otherwise would never be able to have known since I do not study Greek at all. I must say the evidence is over-whelming and not to be sniffed at. Coupled together with other historical points of interest and certain documents it can be confidently asserted that Hebrew was alive and well as a regular Lingua franca, not just as a synagogue recital over the totah, but as common as Aramaic and Greek, even as others have said up to at least to around the final desolations of Israel. Thanks Jason for this, I really do appreciate it.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Just for fun: Randall Buth's Brill article about the meaning of "Hebrew" in Greek.

I looked up Randall Buth, his credentials and experience are impeccable,

I have a slightly different take on the guy.

Back in the days when this forum was still hosted by ibiblio, he swaggered into the discussions. I won’t detail the negative interactions I had with him. I caught him making several mistakes concerning Biblical Hebrew language, which I documented by citing Bible verses that showed how his claims were mistakes. I finally asked him if he had ever read Tanakh completely through, to which he answered ”twice, 35 years ago”. I wrote back that the reason he made so many mistakes was because he didn’t know Tanakh. He has not been on b-hebrew since.

Unfortunately, I didn’t archive my messages on ibiblio, and ibiblio deleted many messages, including apparently all my interactions with Dr. Buth. Apparently my very first message I entered into b-hebrew was also deleted, I haven’t found it.

Apparently he believes that medieval Hebrew is the same as Biblical Hebrew. His teaching methods are based on medieval Hebrew.

He’s a very smart man. His PhD dissertation has the reputation as being a tour de force that people should emulate. His international reputation is stellar.

I have read over this PDF and noted points I otherwise would never be able to have known since I do not study Greek at all. I must say the evidence is over-whelming and not to be sniffed at.

I found his evidence underwhelming. His main argument was that when writers of koiné Greek wrote “Hebrew”, that they meant Hebrew, not Aramaic. I have no problem with that. But his main evidence is Hebrew names.

Place names often retain their original names, even when peoples and languages change. There are many examples of such in the U.S. where towns and places still have American Indian names even though the tribes that gave the names have either died out or moved away. So we can expect that places that had Hebrew names would retain their Hebrew names, even though the daily language on the street was Aramaic. The most prominent of such names is Yerewosoluma Ιεροσολυμα ירושלם.

Personal names too can come from other linguistic backgrounds. For example, I was named after a great uncle who immigrated from a non-English speaking country. Thus even Hebrew personal names are not evidence that Hebrew was the vernacular after the Exile.

Coupled together with other historical points of interest and certain documents it can be confidently asserted that Hebrew was alive and well as a regular Lingua franca, not just as a synagogue recital over the totah, but as common as Aramaic and Greek, even as others have said up to at least to around the final desolations of Israel. Thanks Jason for this, I really do appreciate it.

Chris watts

I found nothing in the article that answered the question of which was the vernacular on the street. He provided no evidence that Hebrew was the language spoken on the street and in the markets.

When I broached the question, was Hebrew originally written as a syllabary, with each consonant followed by a vowel, Dr. Buth ridiculed the idea. But starting on page 74 he started discussing a subject that he found puzzling, namely that many transliterated names and words end with -α. That puzzled him because he thought that that ending indicates an Aramaic influence, but it’s further evidence for my question that I hadn’t thought of before.

Karl W. Randolph.