Alphabet question please.

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

Thank you. I’m not familiar with Second Temple and later Hebrew

Karl, surely you are aware that the temple was rebuilt after the return from Babylonian exile, as referred to in Haggai and Ezra? This is the Second Temple, and the Hebrew of these books (and the other post-exilic books such as Nehemiah, Esther, Malachi) is Second Temple Hebrew. Yes, the Hebrew of that period is somewhat different for various reasons from the Hebrew of books written before the exile. Everyone who reads the Tanakh in Hebrew recognizes this, even those who do not hold your view about post-exilic Hebrew not being spoken natively. This is Second Temple Hebrew, which you do in fact know if you read those parts of the OT. The book of Daniel contains some words borrowed from Greek and Persian, but that does not make its Hebrew not Hebrew. Is the Greek of the NT not Greek because it contains some borrowings from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin? To ask is to answer. One could claim (erroneously) that Jerome's Latin in the Vulgate is not Latin because it has borrowings from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, or that the Latin of the Middle Ages is not Latin because it has the same kinds of borrowings. I don't buy such an argument.

One needs only to look at the history (briefly and superficially) of some other languages to see a problem with the idea that later Hebrew is not Hebrew if it is different in any way from earlier Hebrew. Take English, for instance. A look at a passage in Old English, from Beowulf, say, shows that English at that time looked very different from current English. It resembles German more than it does current English. And the English of Chaucer and other Middle English is very different from Old English, and fairly different from current English. Tremendous changes took place due to the Norman Conquest and sound changes, as well as vocabulary changes, in the language from the influence of French, the language of the conquerors, and an additional influx of Latin words and phrases, used in law and church documents. The grammar of English changed radically. Yet, no one can reasonably claim that Old English and Middle English are not English, any more than they could do this about Shakespeare and his contemporaries' English vs modern. The same could be said about modern Spanish vs Old Spanish (say, of Cervantes or of the Cantar del mio Cid). There are certainly differences, but one cannot say the old is not Spanish and the new is Spanish.

I have been both an English teacher and a Spanish teacher, so I use these examples. And, yes, Israeli Hebrew is still Hebrew, despite the differences between it and the language of the Tanakh.

[talmid56]

And, no, the Hebrew analyzed and taught by modern grammarians (and older ones like Gesenius) which they call Biblical Hebrew is not medieval Hebrew. It is, in fact, Biblical Hebrew. The fact that they typically use the MT and the niqudot, which were produced by medieval scholars, does not make them teach medieval Hebrew. There are already Biblical text types in Hebrew as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls that are correctly called proto-Masoretic. Nobody I know would call the Hebrew of those MSS (all produced before A.D. 70) medieval Hebrew--unless you do, Karl. If you do, fine, but don't expect anybody to join you in that assessment.

[learning Hebrew]

It isn’t a great idea to think of how to write English sounds in Hebrew letters. It’s better to deal with Hebrew as it exists, which means learning Hebrew words and the accidence of Hebrew’s morphology. What are you using to learn Hebrew?

Yes, I think that is my issue, comparing Hebrew to English structure, it's hard for me to separate the two. I will try to learn Hebrew as you've stated "as it exists", thanks.

The only thing I am using to learn Hebrew is that video I had linked to in my OP.

I still am not receiving notifications and it's not in my spam so any thing I might do to correct this issue please? The "Notify me....." option is always checked before I post.

Also, is this forum only for learning Hebrew or is it also ok to ask any questions relating to the G-d of Israel?

[Jason Hare]

And, no, the Hebrew analyzed and taught by modern grammarians (and older ones like Gesenius) which they call Biblical Hebrew is not medieval Hebrew. It is, in fact, Biblical Hebrew. The fact that they typically use the MT and the niqudot, which were produced by medieval scholars, does not make them teach medieval Hebrew. There are already Biblical text types in Hebrew as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls that are correctly called proto-Masoretic. Nobody I know would call the Hebrew of those MSS (all produced before A.D. 70) medieval Hebrew--unless you do, Karl. If you do, fine, but don't expect anybody to join you in that assessment.

Absolutely. The situation might be like the following. We know that Beowolf and Chaucer came from different periods of the English language (ten or eleventh Century and fourteenth Century, respectively). These are quite ancient texts in the tradition of English, coming from very different periods. If someone today was teaching his students to read, say, Chaucer basically in a modern English accent, but he was still teaching them what the verbal endings reflected, the grammar of the language, its lexical stock, etc., we would not say that he was teaching them modern English. We would say that he was teaching them to read Chaucer with an accent that was not accurate to the period. It would still be Chaucer’s English, but it would just sound different to how someone from that period would have spoken. When we teach people to read the biblical text with the accent that we use to speak modern Hebrew today, we are perhaps not being authentic to the SOUND of the language from that period, but it doesn’t mean that we are teaching them modern Hebrew. We are reading the Bible and teaching the language of that period. To suggest otherwise is just weird.

[Jason Hare]

Yes, I think that is my issue, comparing Hebrew to English structure, it's hard for me to separate the two. I will try to learn Hebrew as you've stated "as it exists", thanks.

The only thing I am using to learn Hebrew is that video I had linked to in my OP.

Alef with Beth is fantastic, but there is no replacement for a systematic approach to the language. Have you considered starting with a grammar book? I’d recommend Karl V. Kutz and Rebekah L. Josberger’s Learning Biblical Hebrew: Reading for Comprehension: An Introductory Grammar (Lexham, 2018) [Amazon]. It has an accompanying workbook and reader (Learning Biblical Hebrew Workbook: A Graded Reader with Exercises [Lexham, 2019]) [Amazon] that gets a student into reading Hebrew very quickly. I taught through this grammar book last year and freely posted all of the videos from those online lessons in a playlist on my YouTube channel.

I still am not receiving notifications and it's not in my spam so any thing I might do to correct this issue please? The "Notify me....." option is always checked before I post.

I wish I had an answer for that. I don’t select anything for notifications. I just come to the forum every day (probably several times a day) to see if there’s anything new. I go to «Quick Links → Active Topics» to see what’s been posted since the last time I was here. I don’t check emails very faithfully.

Also, is this forum only for learning Hebrew or is it also ok to ask any questions relating to the G-d of Israel?

We would really prefer that questions about God be reserved for your church or religious leader (or for a forum that deals with the specific religion you might be questioning after). This forum is for Hebrew only, as we represent people in different places spiritually who have this one quest in common. You’ll find that Hebrew provides us with enough to disagree over without ever bringing our personal beliefs about religion and politics into the common space we share.

[Jason Hare]

Mike,

Essentially, if you don’t supplement your use of Alef with Beth (which, again, is fantastic), you will constantly have questions that would otherwise be answered in a grammar book that gives this information explicitly. That’s why I recommend that you use a grammar book along with your use of those videos.

[Jason Hare]

Karl,

I would think it amazing if you could produce something along the lines of the Daily Dose of Hebrew videos that excluded vowels and demonstrated how you think verses should be read and how you’d break them down grammatically and lexically, if you think that everyone else is doing it wrong. I know that their pronunciation of Hebrew comes across as a bit unpolished, but I think their analyses of the verses always includes correct and good information that anyone can learn from.

If they are not teaching biblical Hebrew, how would you do better?

[kwrandolph]

Before answering your specific questions, how is the best way to learn a foreign language? Yes, you need to start somewhere, but after getting the basics, what method works best? Continue reading about the language, what scholars say about it? Or by plunging into the language and just letting it flow over oneself, getting used to its cadences, ways of expression and unique quirks?

I started with Weingreen, which is why I mention him. I also had the dictionary by Gesenius. But early on, I got the concordance by Lisowski. Early on I noticed that many glosses in Lisowski differed from those in Gesenius. When comparing glosses to actual uses listed in Lisowski, I found that Lisowski’s glosses tend to be more accurate.

I plunged into the language, and let it flow over me. How many scholars have read Tanakh, starting in Genesis, and reading to the end of 2 Chronicles, even once? Five times? Ten times? Does one need to read it completely through to get a PhD?

After reading Tanakh through a few times, I came to realize that what I had learned in class from Weingreen differed from the Hebrew language before me on the pages of Tanakh. Most definitely in the treatment of verbs. I have come to prefer the immersion method of learning foreign languages, and that is basically what I have done to learn Biblical Hebrew. Is the immersion method perfect? Can you think of a better way to learn a foreign language?

I think a lot of “not as perfect” is connected with modern people not knowing Biblical Hebrew. They may think they know it, they may even have PhDs in Hebrew studies and may even teach it in universities, but the truth is that they don’t really know Biblical Hebrew.

I hope you can see that the same could be said of you and your knowledge of Hebrew. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that you know Hebrew through your method better than anyone else who used Weingreen, Gesenius, Seow, Lambdin, Van Pelt, or whatever introductory grammar in their learning. In fact, I can only see deficiencies in your approach to the learning of Hebrew language, and you have certainly not submitted any systematic approach to learning Hebrew for the critique of professionals. I get the feeling that you think you’re the only one suitably qualified to read the Hebrew Bible.

Which of those introductory grammars disagree with Weingreen?

They cut their teeth on Weingreen and imbibed deeply of Gesenius and BDB, not realizing that what they studied is medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew. Then when they look at Tanakh—it was written in Biblical, not medieval Hebrew—they don’t understand it perfectly so they think the text is corrupted.

You keep saying that Weingreen and Gesenius represent medieval Hebrew. I don’t think anyone would agree with you, and I vehemently disagree with you.

Well, they don’t represent Biblical Hebrew. So what sort of Hebrew do you call it?

For example, I recently read a paper by someone named David Clines who supposedly “found” new vocabulary in Tanakh, but when I read his examples, I found that most of them ignore context and/or don’t make sense. Another of his papers has “translations” that may make sense to him, but depend on his idiosyncratic treatment of vocabulary.

I assume that this “someone” (I love how you are so dismissive of Hebrew language academics) is the David Clines who edited The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield Academic, 1993). I’m not making an argument from authority, but I don’t think his arguments should be summarily dismissed. There are clearly words and phrases in the Tanach that still need investigation, and there’s no reason other than bias against his methodologies that would cause anyone to think that this “someone” is really a “no one” or somehow idiosyncratic in his treatment of the biblical Hebrew lexicon.

I don’t know the guy from Adam. All I have to go on is that name listed as the author of the papers I read. Some of the ideas contained in the papers are weird.

I don’t think anyone understands Tanakh perfectly. But does that justify willy-nilly proposing new vocabulary? Or claim that the text is corrupted because it doesn’t follow the patterns taught in class? Or do deeper study into why one may not understand the text as written?

When you make statements like the above (underlined), it almost seems like you may have a streak of humility. Then I remember that this is just a way of saying that no one knows any better than you, recalling that your learning supersedes that of all others who have allowed things such as cognate languages within the Semitic family and the diachronistic examination of the natural evolution of the language to warp their ability to understand the language. I should keep that in mind, though.

One of the problems in dealing with a “dead” language, where there are no native speakers, is that when one comes across phrases, ways of saying things that one doesn’t understand, is that there are no native speakers of that language who can clarify them. That also goes for words used only once or only a few times, where context doesn’t clarify what was meant. Cognate languages may give a workable meaning, may lead one down the wrong path, so they can’t be trusted.

The same is true of using the language at a different time in its development.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote:

Thank you. I’m not familiar with Second Temple and later Hebrew

Karl, surely you are aware that the temple was rebuilt after the return from Babylonian exile, as referred to in Haggai and Ezra? This is the Second Temple,

Dewayne: when I think of Second Temple Hebrew, I think of that as it had developed by the DSS non-Biblical writings. Isn’t that what is normally understood by the phrase?

As for the post-Babylonian Exile Hebrew contained in Tanakh, its hard to see a great development of the language as the writers apparently tried, some with greater success than others, to archaicize their use of the written language.

I never said that later forms of Hebrew are not Hebrew, I just say that they are not Biblical Hebrew. No more than that Shakespeare’s English is not English because it differs from modern English.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

And, no, the Hebrew analyzed and taught by modern grammarians (and older ones like Gesenius) which they call Biblical Hebrew is not medieval Hebrew. It is, in fact, Biblical Hebrew. The fact that they typically use the MT and the niqudot, which were produced by medieval scholars, does not make them teach medieval Hebrew. There are already Biblical text types in Hebrew as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls that are correctly called proto-Masoretic. Nobody I know would call the Hebrew of those MSS (all produced before A.D. 70) medieval Hebrew--unless you do, Karl. If you do, fine, but don't expect anybody to join you in that assessment.

Dewayne: the niqudot represent the understanding, and often misunderstanding, of the medieval inventors of the niqudot. First of all, they represent the medieval pronunciations. Secondly, they represent the medieval understandings based on the medieval Hebrew used in their time. Many times I see the niqudot as wrong when they go against the consonantal text that long predates the niqudot.

Gesenius et. al. teach the medieval Hebrew that was the basis of the niqudot—the pronunciations and grammar. That’s why I claim that they teach medieval Hebrew and not Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.