Alphabet question please.

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

talmid56 wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:13 pm 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.
Why should I do your work for you? Just read Isaiah, then Zachariah, or Jeremiah then Malachi, then you should see what I mean.

Anyways, you’ll benefit from that study.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:31 pm 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.
Jason: by that standard, then Latin is still a living language. Almost all major documents as late as the 18th century were written in Latin. There are still documents being written in Latin. People still speak it fluently. As the world around its use changes, so the language evolves So by your definition, is Latin a living language? Is Latin a natively spoken language?

The definition I was taught for “natively spoken language” is one that is taught as a baby’s first language that he learns from his parents as they speak it around him. If his parents are immigrants to the language and speak it imperfectly, the child can get correction from his playmates who speak the same language as he grows up. His playmates speak the same language because it’s the language of the community. That is a “natively spoken language”.

A “living language” may be natively spoken, or it may be one that is a second language to all who use it. It continues to be developed by its active users.

By these definitions, is Latin a “living language”? Is it a “natively spoken language”? Have there been any native speakers of Latin in 1500 years?

When I look at Hebrew, all the evidence that you adduce indicate that Hebrew was still a “living language”. Do you disagree? Is it possible that it was a “living language” without being a “natively spoken language” as in the example of Latin?

All the evidence I have seen is that Hebrew ceased being a “natively spoken language” during and shortly after the Babylonian exile. The evidence from Ezra and Nehemiah is that Hebrew was not the natively spoken language of their time. I have seen no evidence from any other source of Hebrew being natively spoken at any later time, until modern Israeli Hebrew.

Latin is the language of the Vulgate and religious rites. It was also used in civil government for legal documents up through the Renaissance. It was also used for high literature. But nobody spoke it natively after the fall of Rome.

Hebrew is the language of Torah and prophets. It was the language of the temple. So naturally it would continue to be used in religious writings. It was also the language of government and high literature. But did anyone anywhere speak it natively? I have seen no evidence that that was the case.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

Well, since all we have is what is written, why not just assume that Hebrew was never a native language? All we have is documents written in it. Perhaps it was only ever a literary language. Why not just be complete skeptics on the topic? Good luck proving to me that any one person ever at any time spoke biblical Hebrew.

(Some argue, IIRC, that the vayyiqtol was not part of any Hebrew vernacular but was used only for storytelling.)
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:01 pmAll the evidence I have seen is that Hebrew ceased being a “natively spoken language” during and shortly after the Babylonian exile. The evidence from Ezra and Nehemiah is that Hebrew was not the natively spoken language of their time. I have seen no evidence from any other source of Hebrew being natively spoken at any later time, until modern Israeli Hebrew.
You haven’t seen it. Didn’t Randall Buth address this question not long ago? Did you give your rebuttal of his arguments and I just missed it?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by talmid56 »

talmid56 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:13 pm
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.
Karl wrote: Why should I do your work for you? Just read Isaiah, then Zachariah, or Jeremiah then Malachi, then you should see what I mean.

Anyways, you’ll benefit from that study.
In fact, I have read all of them in Hebrew, three times now. I'm in the process of reading thru the Tanakh in the original the fourth time. I'm currently in Deut. 18. (I'm also listening to it in Hebrew, now in the IBS [Israel Bible Society] audio edition. I will also start listening to the Biblia Mirecurensia edition of the Torah. I had already listened to the BM edition some in Psalms.)

Yes, the styles are different, and at times, simpler. I don't share your view of what that means, however. As with Attic Greek vs Koine Greek, simpler styles do not necessarily indicate the one writing more simply has less control of the language. Most scholars of Greek would not claim that all Koine writers did not speak Greek natively. Perhaps some did not, but many were either monolingual Greek speakers or bilinguals with good fluency. Luke, in the New Testament, used a simpler style (perhaps influenced by the Septuagint) in his Gospel and in the first half of Acts than in the second half of Acts. I know of no Greek scholar who claims Luke did not speak Greek natively.

Karl, when you talked earlier about the post-exilic writers not writing Hebrew perfectly, did you mean they wrote in a simpler style, or that they made mistakes in their Hebrew? Perhaps I misunderstood your point there, but I had the impression you meant mistakes.

And Jason makes an excellent point on the survival of Hebrew with the works he listed (DSS, Mishna, etc.) Those who I have read about these works (I have not read the works themselves in Hebrew yet), say that they reflect Hebrew as a vernacular, or natively spoken language. You, of course, see it otherwise, but I believe that's because you want to fit the evidence into your "Aramaic as only vernacular" theory. Not that you are doing so with bad intent or anything like that. It's just that you seem to be unwilling to consider that the facts may lead in a different direction than you have gone.

I would add the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that have Hebrew originals to Jason's list. I have read about 1/5 of the Hebrew original of Ben Sira (SIrach, Ecclesiasticus) so far, along with the Greek and Latin translations. Not only is the content similar to the canonical Proverbs, but the Hebrew language is quite similar as well. He doesn't come across as someone laboring with great difficulty to express himself in Hebrew, not in the least. I expect this is because, despite what you believe, there were still native Hebrew speakers in his time (c. 180 B.C.). I would encourage you to look for yourself. The texts most readily available for free are at https://www.bensira.org/. The Hebrew is unpointed, so that should be no problem for you. English translations are available there also. All can be read online or downloaded as pdfs.
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

Miguel Pérez Fernández (An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, tr. John Elwolde, Brill, 1997) specifically says that “Hebrew began to die out as a spoken language” only in the late Rabbinic period. He thus places early rabbinic Hebrew (the period of the tannaʾim) within the period in which Hebrew was spoken as a vernacular within Israel, saying that “RH [Rabbinic Hebrew] naturally divides into Early Rabbinic Hebrew (RH1), the language of the tannaim; and Late Rabbinic Hebrew (RH2), the language of the amoraim” (p. 1). On the next page, he wrote “that in the RH2 period Hebrew began to die out as a spoken language, being replaced in this rôle by Aramaic” (p. 2). He goes on to add “that RH1 should... be regarded as a popular, spoken language. Indeed, it is generally believed that the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the Copper Scroll and also the Bar-Kokhba letters, have furnished clear evidence of the popular character of MH” (pp. 2–3). He also, though, admits that Hebrew “could have been spoken just in academic circles, for teaching or in court—in the same way that Latin was used in mediaeval scholarship and, until very recently, in the Roman Catholic Church—but not in everyday life” (p. 2), but he thinks this unlikely for the reasons given. He says that evidence indicates that Aramaic was used in Galilee and Samaria, as well as in some smaller areas, but Hebrew was used in southern Israel (Palestine). His chapter on the introduction to the stages and development of Hebrew is insightful.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by talmid56 »

To give a timeline for this (Rabbinic Hebrew and Hebrew beginning to die out as spoken), many date this at c. A.D. 200. The Bar Kochva letters are from A.D. 132-136. Either way, nearly a millennium later than the period it was supposedly replaced by Aramaic. Those who have studied the BK letters have noted that they too show features of spoken Hebrew. Interesting, no? Interesting, yes!
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:50 am Well, since all we have is what is written, why not just assume that Hebrew was never a native language? All we have is documents written in it. Perhaps it was only ever a literary language. Why not just be complete skeptics on the topic? Good luck proving to me that any one person ever at any time spoke biblical Hebrew.
I don’t buy that argument either. Maybe that’s because I write very much as a speak. So I expect the same of the Biblical writers.
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:50 am (Some argue, IIRC, that the vayyiqtol was not part of any Hebrew vernacular but was used only for storytelling.)
I suspect that when the grammar changed, there was no longer a major role for the wayyiqtol so it was dropped. Here’s where knowing the original grammar would help in the understanding of the language.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:53 am
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:01 pmAll the evidence I have seen is that Hebrew ceased being a “natively spoken language” during and shortly after the Babylonian exile. The evidence from Ezra and Nehemiah is that Hebrew was not the natively spoken language of their time. I have seen no evidence from any other source of Hebrew being natively spoken at any later time, until modern Israeli Hebrew.
You haven’t seen it. Didn’t Randall Buth address this question not long ago? Did you give your rebuttal of his arguments and I just missed it?
I read his argument, but never wrote a detailed rebuttal to it. I just noted at that time for my personal satisfaction that not one of his examples required that Hebrew be natively spoken. This was never a question of Hebrew being spoken, just natively spoken.

It was on the authority of Randall Buth that I originally assumed that Hebrew continued to be natively spoken at least through the Mishnaic period.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:51 pm Miguel Pérez Fernández (An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, tr. John Elwolde, Brill, 1997) specifically says that “Hebrew began to die out as a spoken language” only in the late Rabbinic period. … He also, though, admits that Hebrew “could have been spoken just in academic circles, for teaching or in court—in the same way that Latin was used in mediaeval scholarship and, until very recently, in the Roman Catholic Church—but not in everyday life” (p. 2), but he thinks this unlikely for the reasons given. …
Thanks for the reference.

Personally I think that spoken Hebrew continued at least through the Masoretic period. But that native speaking of Hebrew ceased centuries earlier.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply