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.