Alphabet question please.

[kwrandolph]

As for the grammar, the grammarians I've seen always cite Biblical forms and Biblical verses for examples and illustrations, so I fail to see how that is not teaching Biblical Hebrew. While the Masoretes were not perfect, they sought to preserve the past, not innovate. At least, that is my understanding. That would apply to grammar as they worked with it, as well.

I am completely in agreement. The Masoretes were obviously preserving something inherited from previous generations and not just making things up. I wonder if Karl holds to the same degree of skepticism with regard to the grammars of Attic Greek, for example. Is Hebrew the only language that isn’t allowed to change and for which the professors in the field should be derided and ignored?

In English, when we talk about Elizabethan English, we mean the form English had at the time of Elizabeth, which differed from the English of Chaucer, also differs from modern English. What we talk about is a snapshot of what English was like at the time of Elizabeth.

Similarly, when we talk about Biblical Hebrew (the word “Biblical” must be appended here) we talk about a snapshot of Hebrew as it existed from the time of Moses about 1400 BC to the Babylonian exile. Just as a modern writer cannot write Elizabethan English perfectly, so we find the post-Babylonian exile writers tried, but failed, to write Biblical Hebrew perfectly. Some succeeded better than others.

So what I say is that people can talk about different time developments of Hebrew, but don’t call them “Biblical Hebrew”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

As for the niqudot and pronunciation reflected by them...

Just a silly passing comment... There’s a difference between נְקֻדּוֹת nəquddôṯ “dots” (plural of נְקֻדָּה nəquddâ “dot”) and נִקּוּד niqqûḏ “pointing,” though the נִקּוּד niqqûḏ is made up of נְקֻדּוֹת nəquddôṯ “dots” and קַוִּים qavvîm “lines.” A colon is called נְקֻדּוֹתַ֫יִם nəquddôṯáyim “two dots”!

I hear loads of English speakers call the nikkud by the name nekudot, but technically it’s a mistake. The nikkud is a pattern of pointing that uses nekudot.

Thanks for the clarification.

In English, they’re just dots and squiggles, but I have to admit that “nikkud” sounds more professional.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Karl,

Well, then, we should make him a place to start.

A professor of Second Language Acquisition does not write introductory grammars for the Hebrew language. He writes books about how to learn languages and how to teach languages, which are excellent. In contrast to most academics, he tends to release almost everything he writes on his personal website.

Well, Weingreen is unquestionably wrong, especially in his treatment of verbs.

What is so wrong about his treatment of verbs? Do you mean his explanation of time as it relates to verbs? Can a student learn the forms from Weingreen, work through his exercises, and learn to read the Bible? I believe it is indeed possible.

Which grammar book is not subjective?

I don’t know what that means.

You read the Hebrew text a lot? How many times have you read it completely through? Every word? Including the very exciting portion of 1 Chronicles 1–10?

This is the first year in which I am faithfully doing daily reading to go through all of the text of the Tanakh. Since January, I have read all of the Pentateuch, forty chapters in the Psalms, and twenty chapters in Joshua. I’ve read entire books again and again (Jonathan will tell you that we start a book and push through it together), and I read Hebrew all the time. If someone reads the entire Tanakh twenty times in a year, do you think he necessarily knows it better or understands what is happening with the language? Perhaps he’s reading wrong and making up meanings as he goes along. How can you know? Is it a contest to see who reads more?

Slight correction: I didn’t ignore grammar, I just realized that the rules I was taught were wrong. I noticed grammar, just read the text over and over again looking for ways to systemitize grammar that fit the text.

Well, you have not written up anything that can really be passed on to the next generation, have you? You reject everyone and haven’t offered up anything in its stead.

See above. You got a copy of my dictionary (not the latest version) and in the apendices at the back there is a systematic grammar. Not in a teaching form, rather as a reference.

I think our definitions of “systematic” are different. It doesn’t give explanations, doesn’t provide any information at all about possible pronunciations, doesn’t cover accidence or exceptions, doesn’t explain irregular forms. It isn’t systematic.

Teach a different grammar than Weingreen.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but I teach from Kutz and Josberger. Have you examined any Hebrew grammar that wasn’t written a hundred or more years ago? There are plenty of them on the market right now.

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

Biblical Hebrew.

Funny.

I don’t intend it to be. Hebrew from the Bible is biblical Hebrew.

That’s a strange way of putting it. Just because I haven’t kept up with who’s who means I’m proud of it? Would you agree if I posited that you’re more proud of knowing all those who teach about Hebrew than your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew itself?

Again, have you read any grammar that was written within the last hundred years? Have you even attempted to understand, now that you have so much reading experience, what it is that learning grammars present and what the different perspectives are that serve as a basis for the different grammars? Do you try at all to stay abreast of recent scholarship or read any journals that touch upon topics related to biblical languages or to Hebrew specifically? The feeling that you give off is that you don’t have any interest in what is going on because you’re somehow beyond it. You don’t need to know the scholarship, since you know better. That’s what you give off.

If you think they’re wrong, publish something yourself to demonstrate it. Show the scholars and academics how ignorant they are and how little their PhD’s are really worth.

What sort of strange statement is that?

You like to say that they are wrong, but you put nothing out there. Who agrees with you from within academia?

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

But that by the time they worked out the niqudot, what they received was medieval, not original Biblical Hebrew.

This may be true to some extent for the pronunciation, although I doubt there is enough evidence to be sure of this. How do we know this about the grammar?

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

Similarly, when we talk about Biblical Hebrew (the word “Biblical” must be appended here) we talk about a snapshot of Hebrew as it existed from the time of Moses about 1400 BC to the Babylonian exile. Just as a modern writer cannot write Elizabethan English perfectly, so we find the post-Babylonian exile writers tried, but failed, to write Biblical Hebrew perfectly. Some succeeded better than others.

So, if I understand the above correctly, you do not consider the post-exilic books of the Tanakh to be Biblical Hebrew, even though they are written in Hebrew, and even though they are accepted by both Judaism and Christianity to be Biblical (belonging to the Bible).

Can you cite anyone else who studies or teaches BH who denies that these books are written in Biblical Hebrew?

That there are some differences in the grammar and vocabulary between the two parts of the Hebrew Bible is clear. Most people who have read and studied the Tanakh in detail would agree that it is true. That the explanation you posit for the differences is true, and is the only possible one, is not so clear, in my view.

I like (and think more likely) the alternative view below better:

1. It is the same language, just at a different period.
2. It shows some differences in vocabulary partly due to Aramaic influence and influences from other languages such as Greek and Persian. These could include direct borrowing of new words, or changes or additions in meaning.
3. Some of the differences in vocabulary could be due to internal Hebrew-language developments. Some changes may be due to differences in topic or different vocabulary use by different authors.
4. There are some changes in grammar. Some may be due to influence from Aramaic. Others may be due to internal Hebrew-language developments. Some may be due to differences in grammar usage between different authors.

I would no more call post-Biblical Hebrew texts in the Tanakh “non-Biblical Hebrew” than I would call 20th or 21st century Spanish “non-Spanish” because they differ in grammar and vocabulary from 16th or 18th century Spanish. The form of Spanish used by the conquerors of Mexico and Peru, and their chroniclers differs somewhat from their predecessors in the 15th century. For example, these 16th century writers use a lot of words drawn from the languages of peoples they or their subjects conquered. Due to historical and technological developments, modern Spanish uses a lot of English words and phrases, particularly in the fields of information technology, fashion, entertainment, business, and politics. Does this mean that it is no longer Spanish? I doubt you’ll find any native speakers of Spanish who believes that.

And no, I don’t think you’ve proved your case that the writers of Hebrew after the exile could not speak or write Hebrew natively. It may well be that some people in some families abandoned Hebrew or lost ability to use it due to pressure from Aramaic. I don’t doubt this. I do, however, doubt that these men were in that group of Jews. And, if your theory is true, why bother to write in Hebrew at all at that point? Why not just write in Aramaic exclusively? (Yes, I’m aware that about half of Daniel is written in Aramaic and that portions of Ezra are. I don’t believe your view is the only reasonable explanation for that usage.)

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

Well, then, we should make him a place to start.

A professor of Second Language Acquisition does not write introductory grammars for the Hebrew language. He writes books about how to learn languages and how to teach languages, which are excellent. In contrast to most academics, he tends to release almost everything he writes on his personal website.

Who said anything about a professor of Second Language Acquisition? Weren’t we talking about teaching Biblical Hebrew?

Well, Weingreen is unquestionably wrong, especially in his treatment of verbs.

What is so wrong about his treatment of verbs? Do you mean his explanation of time as it relates to verbs? Can a student learn the forms from Weingreen, work through his exercises, and learn to read the Bible? I believe it is indeed possible.

Yeah, if one overlooks all the examples that don’t fit the patterns that he teaches.

Which grammar book is not subjective?

I don’t know what that means.

Yes you do know what that means. Do you say you don’t know because you don’t want to admit it?

You read the Hebrew text a lot? How many times have you read it completely through? Every word? Including the very exciting portion of 1 Chronicles 1–10?

This is the first year in which I am faithfully doing daily reading to go through all of the text of the Tanakh. Since January, I have read all of the Pentateuch, forty chapters in the Psalms, and twenty chapters in Joshua. I’ve read entire books again and again (Jonathan will tell you that we start a book and push through it together), and I read Hebrew all the time. If someone reads the entire Tanakh twenty times in a year, do you think he necessarily knows it better or understands what is happening with the language? Perhaps he’s reading wrong and making up meanings as he goes along. How can you know? Is it a contest to see who reads more?

It’s not a contest. I emphasize reading the whole of Tanakh just so one knows Tanakh. That means reading for understanding.

Slight correction: I didn’t ignore grammar, I just realized that the rules I was taught were wrong. I noticed grammar, just read the text over and over again looking for ways to systemitize grammar that fit the text.

Well, you have not written up anything that can really be passed on to the next generation, have you? You reject everyone and haven’t offered up anything in its stead.

See above. You got a copy of my dictionary (not the latest version) and in the apendices at the back there is a systematic grammar. Not in a teaching form, rather as a reference.

I think our definitions of “systematic” are different. It doesn’t give explanations, doesn’t provide any information at all about possible pronunciations, doesn’t cover accidence or exceptions, doesn’t explain irregular forms. It isn’t systematic.

How a lexical item is used is an explanation. The reason possible pronunciations not given is given in the text. Unlike Weingreen, Gesenius et. al., it doesn’t need to cover accidence or exceptions because very few are found that don’t fit the patterns described. You are correct that I don’t cover every irregular form, though most found in Tanakh are listed in the dictionary part of the dictionary. It doesn’t include the nikkud, for reasons given.

Teach a different grammar than Weingreen.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but I teach from Kutz and Josberger. Have you examined any Hebrew grammar that wasn’t written a hundred or more years ago? There are plenty of them on the market right now.

What I look for is the content of the teaching, not the date written. As far as I can tell, the content that you teach is the same.

Biblical Hebrew.

Funny.

I don’t intend it to be. Hebrew from the Bible is biblical Hebrew.

You don’t limit yourself to Hebrew from the Bible. You also teach your subjective view of grammar and word meanings.

That’s a strange way of putting it. Just because I haven’t kept up with who’s who means I’m proud of it? Would you agree if I posited that you’re more proud of knowing all those who teach about Hebrew than your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew itself?

Again, have you read any grammar that was written within the last hundred years? Have you even attempted to understand, now that you have so much reading experience, what it is that learning grammars present and what the different perspectives are that serve as a basis for the different grammars? Do you try at all to stay abreast of recent scholarship or read any journals that touch upon topics related to biblical languages or to Hebrew specifically? The feeling that you give off is that you don’t have any interest in what is going on because you’re somehow beyond it. You don’t need to know the scholarship, since you know better. That’s what you give off.

I have read a few. The one I found most useful is the one by Waltke and O’Connor. I also follow articles I see on academia.edu. I mentioned David Clines, whose articles I read on academia.edu because he mentioned lexicography. I came away from those articles with “This guy is weird.”

If you think they’re wrong, publish something yourself to demonstrate it. Show the scholars and academics how ignorant they are and how little their PhD’s are really worth.

What sort of strange statement is that?

You like to say that they are wrong, but you put nothing out there. Who agrees with you from within academia?

I come from a STEM background where one person who is correct trumps all other scientists in the world who are wrong. I don’t look for approval from other academics because their approval is irrelevant. I’ve been told that my understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar is very similar to, if not the same, as that taught by the late Dr. Diethelm Michel of Uni Mainz. I couldn’t have been told about that similarity without putting something out, which you have rejected.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote:

But that by the time they worked out the niqudot, what they received was medieval, not original Biblical Hebrew.

This may be true to some extent for the pronunciation, although I doubt there is enough evidence to be sure of this. How do we know this about the grammar?

We have the Hebrew of the DSS non-Biblical texts as well as the Mishnah and other Hebrew writings in the Talmud (most of the Talmud is written in Aramaic). From those we can learn that their grammar differed from that in Biblical Hebrew. I haven’t studied those versions of Hebrew myself, I rely on what others have written about them.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote:

Similarly, when we talk about Biblical Hebrew (the word “Biblical” must be appended here) we talk about a snapshot of Hebrew as it existed from the time of Moses about 1400 BC to the Babylonian exile. Just as a modern writer cannot write Elizabethan English perfectly, so we find the post-Babylonian exile writers tried, but failed, to write Biblical Hebrew perfectly. Some succeeded better than others.

So, if I understand the above correctly, you do not consider the post-exilic books of the Tanakh to be Biblical Hebrew, even though they are written in Hebrew, and even though they are accepted by both Judaism and Christianity to be Biblical (belonging to the Bible).

I don’t understand how you can come to that conclusion.

Can you cite anyone else who studies or teaches BH who denies that these books are written in Biblical Hebrew?

I don’t know anyone who denies that they were written in Biblical Hebrew, including myself.

That there are some differences in the grammar and vocabulary between the two parts of the Hebrew Bible is clear.

That varies from book to book, depending on the writer.

Most people who have read and studied the Tanakh in detail would agree that it is true. That the explanation you posit for the differences is true, and is the only possible one, is not so clear, in my view.

I like (and think more likely) the alternative view below better:

1. It is the same language, just at a different period.
2. It shows some differences in vocabulary partly due to Aramaic influence and influences from other languages such as Greek and Persian. These could include direct borrowing of new words, or changes or additions in meaning.
3. Some of the differences in vocabulary could be due to internal Hebrew-language developments. Some changes may be due to differences in topic or different vocabulary use by different authors.
4. There are some changes in grammar. Some may be due to influence from Aramaic. Others may be due to internal Hebrew-language developments. Some may be due to differences in grammar usage between different authors.

Would you say that a modern writer who writes in Elizabethan English doesn’t write in Elizabethan English because he isn’t able to do so perfectly?

Likewise, the guy who wrote the Jehoash stone forgery, did he not write in Biblical Hebrew? So well that it fooled even university professors? (When I read it, it just felt strange, like a foreigner who speaks English with a very slight accent that can’t be recognized.)

Likewise, the post exilic writers tried to write in the Hebrew that they read in the pre-exilic writings, but this was not the language in daily life, so their attempts were colored by the languages they spoke natively.

And no, I don’t think you’ve proved your case that the writers of Hebrew after the exile could not speak or write Hebrew natively.

What evidence do you have that they continued to speak Hebrew natively? I mean more than just the wishful thinking that I have seen from other people?

It may well be that some people in some families abandoned Hebrew or lost ability to use it due to pressure from Aramaic. I don’t doubt this. I do, however, doubt that these men were in that group of Jews. And, if your theory is true, why bother to write in Hebrew at all at that point?

Because Hebrew was the language of Torah, religious ceremony, government and high literature. In other words, it had the same status in Judea as did Latin in medieval and Renaissance Europe.

Why not just write in Aramaic exclusively? (Yes, I’m aware that about half of Daniel is written in Aramaic and that portions of Ezra are. I don’t believe your view is the only reasonable explanation for that usage.)

Reasons given above. What you need to explain is why there was any Aramaic at all? If Hebrew continued to be spoken natively, why did first Daniel, who was a native Hebrew speaker, and later Ezra, include extensive Aramaic sections in their books? How is that not evidence that they wrote for an audience who natively spoke Aramaic? That’s not counting the explicit statements in Nehemiah and Ezra that children were not learning Hebrew?

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

talmid56 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:03 pm
Karl wrote:
Similarly, when we talk about Biblical Hebrew (the word “Biblical” must be appended here) we talk about a snapshot of Hebrew as it existed from the time of Moses about 1400 BC to the Babylonian exile. Just as a modern writer cannot write Elizabethan English perfectly, so we find the post-Babylonian exile writers tried, but failed, to write Biblical Hebrew perfectly. Some succeeded better than others.
So, if I understand the above correctly, you do not consider the post-exilic books of the Tanakh to be Biblical Hebrew, even though they are written in Hebrew, and even though they are accepted by both Judaism and Christianity to be Biblical (belonging to the Bible).
I don’t understand how you can come to that conclusion.
talmid56 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:03 pm
Can you cite anyone else who studies or teaches BH who denies that these books are written in Biblical Hebrew?
I don’t know anyone who denies that they were written in Biblical Hebrew, including myself.

Karl, this is giving me a headache (no offense). Your own statement, quoted above, shows you defined "Biblical Hebrew" as the language as it existed from the time of Moses to the Babylonian exile. Those are your words, not mine. If this form of Hebrew is limited to the Babylonian exile and before (to the time of Moses), then yes, you are denying that the later books in Tanakh are written in Biblical Hebrew. How else could anyone take your statement?

The use of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra is accounted for by several factors. None of these require that Daniel and Ezra could not speak and write Hebrew natively. I will detail these below. Note that Daniel is described as being taken into exile from Jerusalem and that he was taught the language used in Babylon. (Dan. 1:1-6) Since he was from Judah, he must have spoken Hebrew natively. Since he was taught the language used in Babylon (principally two, Aramaic and Akkadian), he did not speak those natively.

As for Ezra, he was a priest and scribe from a long line of Jews, and a religious scholar and teacher in the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:6, 10). As I have seen no evidence of any Aramaic written Targums from that period, it's more likely that his training was in Hebrew, not Aramaic. He would have to be able to handle Hebrew to do his ministry. Now, we don’t know if Ezra was born in Judah or Babylon. Even if he was born in Babylon, he could have been raised as a bilingual, speaking and writing both Hebrew and Aramaic. By definition, bilinguals who are fully fluent in their languages are counted as native speakers, just as monolinguals of those are.

Reasons Daniel wrote in Aramaic:

1. Much of the content deals with matters that are either directed to, or would be of interest to, the Babylonians and others who spoke Aramaic natively, or as a commonly used second language. Aramaic had long been a lingua franca in the Middle East, both for trade and for diplomacy. Several of the prophecies deal with the destinies of Babylon and other nations. The Babylonian officials themselves, including Nebuchadnezzar, would have a natural interest in this.
2. Part of the content is intended to encourage and comfort the Jews in captivity. Some of them, of course, did adopt Aramaic as their main language, so naturally they would be able to read it. Even those who did not adopt it as their main language may have learned to read it, even if they did not speak it every day.

Why Ezra wrote in Aramaic:

These passages are all communications to and from the king and other Persian officials. Aramaic was used as an official language by the Persian Empire, just as it had been used as a secondary language by the Babylonians. As more people in the Persian Empire spoke Aramaic than spoke Persian, it made sense for them to do so.

Neither man’s use of Aramaic demands that they were unable to speak or write Hebrew natively. It could conceivably mean that, but it need not do so.

[kwrandolph]

Karl, this is giving me a headache (no offense). Your own statement, quoted above, shows you defined "Biblical Hebrew" as the language as it existed from the time of Moses to the Babylonian exile. Those are your words, not mine. If this form of Hebrew is limited to the Babylonian exile and before (to the time of Moses), then yes, you are denying that the later books in Tanakh are written in Biblical Hebrew. How else could anyone take your statement?

The question is: did the writers of the post-exile books write in a different style? Or did they try to to copy the older, pre-exile style of writing? If the latter, did they write in a different language?

Let me go back to the example of Elizabethan English—if you wrote something in Elizabethan English, what language are you using? Would it be modern English, or Elizabethan English? Because you are a modern and not Elizabethan, you won’t be able to copy the Elizabethan style 100%, does that change the fact that you wrote in Elizabethan style?

Did the forger who wrote the Jehoash inscription write in Biblical Hebrew, or modern Hebrew? If he had written in modern, Israeli Hebrew, wouldn’t that have been a glaring sign that it was a fake? So did he write in Biblical Hebrew? Yet there were subtle nuances throughout the document that point to a modern forgery. Do you deny that he wrote in Biblical Hebrew?

Likewise the post-exile writers give evidence that they archaicized their use of Hebrew when they wrote. Does that make their Hebrew a different language? Or just a copy of the former way of writing. If a copy, is it just an imperfect copy? Does that change things?

The use of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra is accounted for by several factors. None of these require that Daniel and Ezra could not speak and write Hebrew natively. I will detail these below. Note that Daniel is described as being taken into exile from Jerusalem and that he was taught the language used in Babylon. (Dan. 1:1-6) Since he was from Judah, he must have spoken Hebrew natively. Since he was taught the language used in Babylon (principally two, Aramaic and Akkadian), he did not speak those natively.

The evidence from both Daniel and Ezekiel is that they were native speakers of Hebrew.

As for Ezra, he was a priest and scribe from a long line of Jews, and a religious scholar and teacher in the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:6, 10). As I have seen no evidence of any Aramaic written Targums from that period, it's more likely that his training was in Hebrew, not Aramaic. He would have to be able to handle Hebrew to do his ministry. Now, we don’t know if Ezra was born in Judah or Babylon. Even if he was born in Babylon, he could have been raised as a bilingual, speaking and writing both Hebrew and Aramaic. By definition, bilinguals who are fully fluent in their languages are counted as native speakers, just as monolinguals of those are.

This is exactly what I mean when I wrote “wishful thinking”. There is absolutely no evidence that Ezra’s native tongue was Hebrew. I want evidence, not wishful thinking.

Reasons Daniel wrote in Aramaic:

1. Much of the content deals with matters that are either directed to, or would be of interest to, the Babylonians and others who spoke Aramaic natively, or as a commonly used second language. Aramaic had long been a lingua franca in the Middle East, both for trade and for diplomacy. Several of the prophecies deal with the destinies of Babylon and other nations. The Babylonian officials themselves, including Nebuchadnezzar, would have a natural interest in this.
2. Part of the content is intended to encourage and comfort the Jews in captivity. Some of them, of course, did adopt Aramaic as their main language, so naturally they would be able to read it. Even those who did not adopt it as their main language may have learned to read it, even if they did not speak it every day.

Daniel wrote to Jews. Did he write his book during the captivity, or afterwards while in his retirement? Are not your reasons speculation and not evidence?

Why Ezra wrote in Aramaic:

These passages are all communications to and from the king and other Persian officials. Aramaic was used as an official language by the Persian Empire, just as it had been used as a secondary language by the Babylonians. As more people in the Persian Empire spoke Aramaic than spoke Persian, it made sense for them to do so.

Neither man’s use of Aramaic demands that they were unable to speak or write Hebrew natively. It could conceivably mean that, but it need not do so.

Ezra too wrote to Jews.

In closing, you have only wishful thinking that Hebrew continued to be used as a native tongue after the Babylonian exile. But there’s evidence that it was not used as a native tongue.

Karl W, Randolph.