Alphabet question please.

[talmid56]

And what is that evidence? Examples, please!

And, of course Daniel and Ezra wrote to Jews. I never said they didn't. I do suggest (not insist) that Daniel may also have been writing to the Gentiles who were affected by the prophecies about the foreign nations such as Babylon.

[kwrandolph]

And what is that evidence? Examples, please!

And, of course Daniel and Ezra wrote to Jews. I never said they didn't. I do suggest (not insist) that Daniel may also have been writing to the Gentiles who were affected by the prophecies about the foreign nations such as Babylon.

Who among the nations would listen to a minor voice among a vassal nation? Where in history do we find that happening?

Yet we have clear indication in both Ezra and Nehemiah that Hebrew was not the language on the street or in the markets, nor even in the houses. In other words, nobody spoke Hebrew natively.

Nowhere does it say that Ezra grew up in a Hebrew speaking home. Given that all of society was native Aramaic speaking, what is the probability that Ezra was reared in a Hebrew speaking home? While we can’t rule it out that Ezra was reared in a Hebrew speaking home, the probability is near zero. Therefore, any claim that Hebrew continued as a natively spoken language is mere wishful thinking.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Well, Daniel wasn't just some guy off the street. He was especially trained to serve the king of Babylon, and later served as a high government official under both the Babylonian and Persian governments. Hardly a minor voice, so I'd say you're doing him an injustice. If they were to listen to any foreign voice in such a situation, it would be to him. Although, Ezra too is presented as a figure who was in favor with his king and had personal dealing with the king.

The statements that seem to imply children of the returned exiles could not speak Hebrew may mean what you say. However, I do not take it to mean that this applied to the Jewish people as a whole at that time. It may just refer to some of them.

When I asked for evidence, I referred to your statements that the post-exilic Biblical Hebrew writers did not write it perfectly, i.e., non-natively. Can you show me specific examples where they misused/used incorrectly any Hebrew vocabulary, idiom, or grammar item? If so, great, show them.

[talmid56]

And, no, the fact that Daniel and Ezra wrote portions of their works in Aramaic doesn't count toward that in my view. Show me mistakes in Hebrew, for starters.

[kwrandolph]

And, no, the fact that Daniel and Ezra wrote portions of their works in Aramaic doesn't count toward that in my view. Show me mistakes in Hebrew, for starters.

What? Do you know what you ask?

Daniel was a native speaker of Hebrew. Would you expect a native speaker not to write as a native speaker?

In the first verses of Nehemiah 8, Ezra is pictured reading from Torah, but the people needed to have it explained to them.

In both Ezra and Nehemiah is the account that the children of mixed marriages, i.e. the wives were from other peoples and languages, not learning Hebrew. If Hebrew were the natively spoken language, spoken in the streets and in the markets, that would not have been a problem, because the children would have learned Hebrew from their playmates. That the children didn’t learn Hebrew from their playmates means that their playmates also didn’t speak Hebrew as a native tongue.

To give an example of what I mean—I had a classmate in college who, when he entered first grade, when he went out to play with his classmates for recess, didn’t understand a word that they said. By the end of first grade, he spoke fluent Apache, for his school was on an Apache reservation. Likewise, that the children of mixed marriages were not learning Hebrew, means that Hebrew was not spoken on the streets nor markets.

Karl W, Randolph.

[talmid56]

Okay, I should have left Daniel out of that statement.

You are assuming, as some do, that the explanations had to be in Aramaic. Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind the people had been away from their home and their fully Jewish milieu for a long time. Some might have partially assimilated religiously to their pagan environment while away from Judah. Thus some explanations might (probably would be) necessary, even if done in Hebrew.

However, you painted with a broader brush than Ezra and Nehemiah. You stated that all of the post exilic Hebrew Tanakh writers (except Daniel) did not write Hebrew perfectly and natively. I want to see examples of where they flubbed it. Can you offer any? If not, you are just speculating.

[kwrandolph]

You are assuming, as some do, that the explanations had to be in Aramaic.

This is not an assumption, rather a conclusion, based on other factors.

Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind the people had been away from their home and their fully Jewish milieu for a long time. Some might have partially assimilated religiously to their pagan environment while away from Judah. Thus some explanations might (probably would be) necessary, even if done in Hebrew.

Notice, even the words you use here show that you are speculating, with no evidence to back up your statements. This is why I call it “wishful thinking”.

However, you painted with a broader brush than Ezra and Nehemiah. You stated that all of the post exilic Hebrew Tanakh writers (except Daniel) did not write Hebrew perfectly and natively. I want to see examples of where they flubbed it. Can you offer any? If not, you are just speculating.

The first thing I noticed is that the post-exilic writers wrote in a simpler Hebrew than in the pre-exilic writers. They have far less of the literary flourishes that make the earlier prophets, e.g. Isaiah and Jeremiah, such a challenge to read. The difference is not so much grammar, rather literary style.

Writing something that has correct grammar is the easy part. Writing something such that it feels natural and of that era is much, much more difficult. That’s what I mean when I say that the feel for the language is that of a foreigner speaking a second language, not his native tongue.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Basically, what I say, is that there’s not one iota of evidence that Hebrew continued as a native tongue after the Babylonian exile. Not on iota. Everything that has been adduced has other explanations. A woman who worked as a maid in a yeshiva, in daily contact with students reciting their lessons as well as their teachers, later recognized as an expert in the language, did she get her expertise from being born in a Hebrew speaking village, or did she learn it in the yeshiva? That the language continued to be spoken is no evidence of native speaking of the language. That the language continued to evolve is no evidence of native speaking.

The emphasis here is on “native speaking”.

At one time I too was of the wishful thinking crowd saying that Hebrew continued to be natively spoken, at least up to the Mishnaic period. But over time, the evidence turned me around.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Examples of such simpler Hebrew? And, I would note that stylistic arguments can themselves be subjective, thus speculative. But again, show 'em if you've got 'em.

[Jason Hare]

I’d think that the Mishnah is evidence that Hebrew continued. Why would it have been written in Hebrew? Why would the Tosafot have been written in Hebrew? Why was Hebrew so prominent among the documents discovered in the Dead Sea caves? Why did Bar Kochba inscriptions bear “Paleo Hebrew” inscriptions? The language of the Mishnah was a natural progression from biblical Hebrew.