Hebrew verb theories

[kwrandolph]

Well, so I have reached the idea that if I want to understand BH I'll have to rely greatly on heuristics.

Basically, that’s what I have had to do. I did most of my learning of Biblical Hebrew apart from any access to others or to scholarly literature, other than the text itself, dictionaries (which I found lacking), the basic grammar I was taught in first year Hebrew (which I also found lacking), and a concordance that is only in Hebrew.

I can imagine the masoretes discussing their choices between Qal/Nifal pointings and so on, and while they might have been right, there's also a chance for being wrong on their part; so, I think I'll go for the pointed text, but won't stick to it too rigidly.

1. I think they probably did have those kinds of discussions, but I also think that they were preserving a lot of earlier tradition as well.

I agree, though it needs to be pointed out that that tradition, though up to centuries old, was mostly Mishnaic and younger.

2. I think that is a good approach to have toward the pointed text. I don't think it is wrong to question them, but I think we need to keep in mind that they were native speakers of their Hebrew, which gives them a tremendous edge on BH compared to us.

Actually, two points:

• I have seen no evidence that there were any native speakers of any Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile until the modern age with Israeli Hebrew—already clues in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that Hebrew was not the language of the market nor hearth. I have seen some claims by some scholars, but their “evidences” are circumstantial, at best.

• Knowledge of a close cognate language can often poison one’s understanding of a target language. That’s especially true if that cognate language is one’s native tongue. Here’s where my experience of being cut off from scholars and the modern scholarly tradition may have been a plus, an advantage, in that my ignorance of cognate languages prevents my understanding of Biblical Hebrew being poisoned by that knowledge.

The lifespan of Biblical Hebrew was of several centuries, perhaps of 1000 years; …

I count native speaking at about eight centuries, from Moses through Ezekiel. Though Moses preserved evidences that he relied on older documents when he compiled Genesis, how much did he update the language, if at all? As I mentioned above, clues indicate that those who returned after the Babylonian Exile were not native speakers of Hebrew.

We need to recognize that language change can be very different for different languages, and a lot of that depends on how much contact there is to other languages. For example, the English of Chaucer is so different from modern English that most people can’t understand it—that was a time of French-speaking nobility and Anglo-Saxon speaking people, so that the English was a sort of creole common to both. On the other hand, a language that is largely linguistically isolated from other languages can remain quite stable over centuries. The latter seems to be the case for Hebrew from Moses to Jeremiah.

I have been taught that the Hebrew of the Chronicler is very close to Mishnaic Hebrew; so you make a valid point.

Here’s where I can speak with experience—visually it can be startling to see all those materes lexionis that are missing from pre-exile writings, except in poetry where they appear to be vowel extenders for musical reasons (sort of like in English “…sho-we-wer his gi-ifts upon us…” to show vowels carried over multiple notes). Does its grammar differ too? Does the presence of all those materes lexionis indicate that the writer was not a native speaker of Hebrew?

I’m presently reading through the Writings again, and my plan it to note grammar of the post-exile writers (which I haven’t done previously) to try to see if it’s notably different from pre-exile writings. It should be interesting.

It would be interesting if Niphal was first reflexive and reciprocal, then later passive.

Do you have any Bible passages that might indicate such a change? I personally know of none.

Yes some linguists have done dialectical studies, and note that for example Elijah's speech seems influence by his Northern location as well as his non-Israelite neighbors.

Jonathan Mohler

If you mean his speech in 1 Kings 18, is it really long enough to make any statements about such influences? Though on another level, it shows use of the Wayyiqtol as a future.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Well, so I have reached the idea that if I want to understand BH I'll have to rely greatly on heuristics.

Basically, that’s what I have had to do. I did most of my learning of Biblical Hebrew apart from any access to others or to scholarly literature, other than the text itself, dictionaries (which I found lacking), the basic grammar I was taught in first year Hebrew (which I also found lacking), and a concordance that is only in Hebrew.

I think what you're doing is both fresh, and helpful. I only regret that sometimes you come across as quite dismissive of the work other scholars have done. It could just be the way you write, but what I get from you is a sense that you are trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than accept the worth of what has been done. I think we can do that, take the meat and spit out the bones so to speak. This goes for the wealth of knowledge and insight we gain from the Masora as well. The article shared by Ken Penner shows that there is value in both building on previous work, while at the same time questioning the results.

I can imagine the masoretes discussing their choices between Qal/Nifal pointings and so on, and while they might have been right, there's also a chance for being wrong on their part; so, I think I'll go for the pointed text, but won't stick to it too rigidly.

1. I think they probably did have those kinds of discussions, but I also think that they were preserving a lot of earlier tradition as well.

I agree, though it needs to be pointed out that that tradition, though up to centuries old, was mostly Mishnaic and younger.

I don't believe this based on Gary Rendsburg's essay mentioned below. By accounting for detectable regional dialects he demonstrates that not only is the consonantal text worthy of trust, but so is the Masoretic pronunciation. He demonstrates that if you can account for dialectical variance, which in turn saves you from emending not only the consonantal text, but also the MT pronunciation, then you can show that they were actually preserving ancient diversity, contrary to the notion that they were streamlining the various traditions.

2. I think that is a good approach to have toward the pointed text. I don't think it is wrong to question them, but I think we need to keep in mind that they were native speakers of their Hebrew, which gives them a tremendous edge on BH compared to us.

Actually, two points:

• I have seen no evidence that there were any native speakers of any Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile until the modern age with Israeli Hebrew—already clues in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that Hebrew was not the language of the market nor hearth. I have seen some claims by some scholars, but their “evidences” are circumstantial, at best.

Actually this is built on an old myth born in the middle ages and resurrected by 19th Century scholars, and is as bogus as Manetho's dating. Not only that, but the 20th Century is chockfull of discoveries and scholars who because of the these discoveries have abandoned the myth, namely that 2nd Temple Jews spoke Aramaic as their Lingua Franca. Speaking of evidence, there is not one single archaeological find, not one, to back up Aramaic usage beyond import into Hebrew. There is evidence that some knew Latin and Greek. As to Hebrew, the evidence is overwhelming. The world's foremost Aramaic scholar of the 20th Century, Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher (Hebrew University), says that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to a Greek translation of an original Hebrew (not Aramaic!) document. Harris Birkeland, a Norwegian scholar wrote, "The language of the common people in Palestine in the time of Jesus was Hebrew." He continues: "My further conclusion... that Jesus really used Hebrew, also seems unavoidable." (1954) I could go on and on about evidence, but I'll summarize:
1. Acheaology: The Dead Sea Scrolls, finds at Murabba'at, Nahal Heber, and on Masada, the Bar Kochva letter, coins, inscriptions
2. The testimony of church fathers
3. The writings of Josephus
4. Rabbinic Literature
5. Linguistic studies on the Gospels.
Somebody stop me.

• Knowledge of a close cognate language can often poison one’s understanding of a target language. That’s especially true if that cognate language is one’s native tongue. Here’s where my experience of being cut off from scholars and the modern scholarly tradition may have been a plus, an advantage, in that my ignorance of cognate languages prevents my understanding of Biblical Hebrew being poisoned by that knowledge.

I simply must protest that you are reiterating a long debunked Manetho-like myth. There is actually plenty of evidence, archaeological by the way (I whole-heartedly agree with your defense against Jim Stinehart's argument), that Hebrew never ceased to be spoken in Judea. This means that there is an organic relationship between BH and 2nd Temple Hebrew.

The lifespan of Biblical Hebrew was of several centuries, perhaps of 1000 years; …

I count native speaking at about eight centuries, from Moses through Ezekiel. Though Moses preserved evidences that he relied on older documents when he compiled Genesis, how much did he update the language, if at all? As I mentioned above, clues indicate that those who returned after the Babylonian Exile were not native speakers of Hebrew.

We need to recognize that language change can be very different for different languages, and a lot of that depends on how much contact there is to other languages. For example, the English of Chaucer is so different from modern English that most people can’t understand it—that was a time of French-speaking nobility and Anglo-Saxon speaking people, so that the English was a sort of creole common to both. On the other hand, a language that is largely linguistically isolated from other languages can remain quite stable over centuries. The latter seems to be the case for Hebrew from Moses to Jeremiah.

I have been taught that the Hebrew of the Chronicler is very close to Mishnaic Hebrew; so you make a valid point.

Here’s where I can speak with experience—visually it can be startling to see all those materes lexionis that are missing from pre-exile writings, except in poetry where they appear to be vowel extenders for musical reasons (sort of like in English “…sho-we-wer his gi-ifts upon us…” to show vowels carried over multiple notes). Does its grammar differ too? Does the presence of all those materes lexionis indicate that the writer was not a native speaker of Hebrew?

I’m presently reading through the Writings again, and my plan it to note grammar of the post-exile writers (which I haven’t done previously) to try to see if it’s notably different from pre-exile writings. It should be interesting.

Sounds adventurous and exciting!

It would be interesting if Niphal was first reflexive and reciprocal, then later passive.

Do you have any Bible passages that might indicate such a change? I personally know of none.

No that was total speculation.

Yes some linguists have done dialectical studies, and note that for example Elijah's speech seems influence by his Northern location as well as his non-Israelite neighbors.

Jonathan Mohler

If you mean his speech in 1 Kings 18, is it really long enough to make any statements about such influences? Though on another level, it shows use of the Wayyiqtol as a future.

That's interesting. To the main point, you might look up Rendsburg Gary A. "Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew" in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine, 1-5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

Karl W. Randolph.[/quote]

Jonathan E. Mohler

[Jemoh66]

• I have seen no evidence that there were any native speakers of any Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile until the modern age with Israeli Hebrew—already clues in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that Hebrew was not the language of the market nor hearth.

This is taking a false theory and forcing it on the text. The text in fact, supports the idea, that because of Nehemiah's actions, Hebrew was in fact preserved.

Jonathan E. Mohler

[kwrandolph]

• I have seen no evidence that there were any native speakers of any Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile until the modern age with Israeli Hebrew—already clues in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that Hebrew was not the language of the market nor hearth.

This is taking a false theory and forcing it on the text. The text in fact, supports the idea, that because of Nehemiah's actions, Hebrew was in fact preserved.

Jonathan E. Mohler

There’s a difference between preserved, and spoken natively.

In the West we have another example of Latin, which is still preserved and spoken, and spoken fluently, but it’s been over a thousand years since anyone has spoken it natively, i.e. the first language he was taught when he was an infant.

I have changed my mind on Hebrew, and that based on the evidences that have been presented to me. I would far prefer to believe the theory that Hebrew continued to be spoken natively, i.e. the language of hearth and market, up at least through the Mishnaic period, the theory I was taught when I was young. But when I got older and examined the evidence, I came to a different conclusion. I changed my mind.

This is one example where I’m not rigid in my beliefs, rather I favor evidence over theory.

The reason I sent out my dictionary is so that others can point out mistakes in it. I’ve had a couple of responses where I’ve changed something in it, I wish I had more.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I did most of my learning of Biblical Hebrew apart from any access to others or to scholarly literature, other than the text itself, dictionaries (which I found lacking), the basic grammar I was taught in first year Hebrew (which I also found lacking), and a concordance that is only in Hebrew.

I think what you're doing is both fresh, and helpful. I only regret that sometimes you come across as quite dismissive of the work other scholars have done. It could just be the way you write, but what I get from you is a sense that you are trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than accept the worth of what has been done.

As a very conservative Christian who follows sola scriptura, I have no choice but to reject some of the scholarship that is ideologically based. But I never intended on becoming a scholar on the Hebrew language. All I wanted to do is to read Scripture.

I’d far prefer to have had the experience I’ve had with the New Testament where there’s only one word where I disagree with most scholars, and that one word was found not as part of a linguistic study, but discovered during a study of comparative religions. That one word is μυστεριον, which meant “revelation” used in some religions of truths that cannot be deduced from logical thinking. That revelation is often a mystery (English meaning) to those who didn’t get the revelation. Here’s an example of the etymological fallacy applied backwards.

When I read the New Testament, I normally read it in Greek. But I don’t consider myself a Greek scholar. I have found no evidence to question those who went before me, with the exception of that one word.

But that’s not the situation I find when I read Tanakh in Hebrew. I’ve had to unlearn much of what I was taught.

If I’m dismissive of other scholars, it’s more likely because I don’t know them than because I look down on them. I deal with what I know, and that is the text of Tanakh and the language used in it.

I think we can do that, take the meat and spit out the bones so to speak. This goes for the wealth of knowledge and insight we gain from the Masora as well. The article shared by Ken Penner shows that there is value in both building on previous work, while at the same time questioning the results.

1. I think they probably did have those kinds of discussions, but I also think that they were preserving a lot of earlier tradition as well.

I agree, though it needs to be pointed out that that tradition, though up to centuries old, was mostly Mishnaic and younger.

I don't believe this based on Gary Rendsburg's essay mentioned below. By accounting for detectable regional dialects he demonstrates that not only is the consonantal text worthy of trust, but so is the Masoretic pronunciation. He demonstrates that if you can account for dialectical variance, which in turn saves you from emending not only the consonantal text, but also the MT pronunciation, then you can show that they were actually preserving ancient diversity, contrary to the notion that they were streamlining the various traditions.

I see evidence based on Tanakh and the use of Hebrew in it, as well as some transliterations, that the pronunciation tradition preserved by the Masoretes does not preserve Biblical era pronunciation. Therefore, any theory based on Masoretic pronunciation is questionable at best.

2. I think that is a good approach to have toward the pointed text. I don't think it is wrong to question them, but I think we need to keep in mind that they were native speakers of their Hebrew, which gives them a tremendous edge on BH compared to us.

Actually, two points:

• I have seen no evidence that there were any native speakers of any Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile until the modern age with Israeli Hebrew—already clues in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that Hebrew was not the language of the market nor hearth. I have seen some claims by some scholars, but their “evidences” are circumstantial, at best.

Actually this is built on an old myth born in the middle ages and resurrected by 19th Century scholars, and is as bogus as Manetho's dating.

My conclusions are not based on this.

Not only that, but the 20th Century is chockfull of discoveries and scholars who because of the these discoveries have abandoned the myth, namely that 2nd Temple Jews spoke Aramaic as their Lingua Franca.

I have been shown more evidence for Aramaic than to which you allude here.

Speaking of evidence, there is not one single archaeological find, not one, to back up Aramaic usage beyond import into Hebrew. There is evidence that some knew Latin and Greek. As to Hebrew, the evidence is overwhelming. The world's foremost Aramaic scholar of the 20th Century, Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher (Hebrew University), says that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to a Greek translation of an original Hebrew (not Aramaic!) document.

This is true only of Matthew, the rest were originally written in Greek, though the writers were familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic, and took their source materials from those languages. Though John wrote in Greek, his Greek was not that good because he knew Aramaic and Hebrew better than Greek, and it shows.

Harris Birkeland, a Norwegian scholar wrote, "The language of the common people in Palestine in the time of Jesus was Hebrew." He continues: "My further conclusion... that Jesus really used Hebrew, also seems unavoidable." (1954) I could go on and on about evidence, but I'll summarize:
1. Acheaology: The Dead Sea Scrolls, finds at Murabba'at, Nahal Heber, and on Masada, the Bar Kochva letter, coins, inscriptions

These are the same sort of evidences for Latin during the medieval period.

2. The testimony of church fathers

Other than concerning the Gospel of Matthew, so far I have not been shown any evidence from a church father who knew both Aramaic and Hebrew that Hebrew was a natively spoken language.

3. The writings of Josephus
4. Rabbinic Literature
5. Linguistic studies on the Gospels.
Somebody stop me.

I’ll stop you.

You can add Paul’s speech in Jerusalem when he was arrested.

The question is not the use of Hebrew, rather was it a natively spoken language?

Yes some linguists have done dialectical studies, and note that for example Elijah's speech seems influence by his Northern location as well as his non-Israelite neighbors.

Jonathan Mohler

If you mean his speech in 1 Kings 18, is it really long enough to make any statements about such influences? Though on another level, it shows use of the Wayyiqtol as a future.

That's interesting. To the main point, you might look up Rendsburg Gary A. "Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew" in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine, 1-5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

Jonathan E. Mohler

Hebrew, in various forms and dialects, has never ceased to be used and spoken since the time of Moses and earlier. There’s an organic connection from then to now. However, no one questions that it was not spoken natively for centuries. The question we debate here is, when did it cease to be spoken natively?

The evidences that I know of indicate that native speaking ceased during the Babylonian Exile. Others disagree, but so far have not shown any evidence that contradicts the evidence that Hebrew had taken on the same role as post-Roman Latin in the West.

While the Masoretes and their predecessors did a great job in preserving the consonantal text, the claim that they were native speakers of Hebrew is contradicted by evidence. In fact, most scholars that I have heard don’t make the claim that the Masoretes were native speakers of Hebrew, rather that native speaking ended during the Mishnaic period, if not earlier.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

• Knowledge of a close cognate language can often poison one’s understanding of a target language. That’s especially true if that cognate language is one’s native tongue.

Linguistic poisoning is a well-known phenomena among linguists. It even effects one’s own native tongue.

For example, I spent years living overseas, not as an ex-pat in an English speaking enclave but as a native speaking the local languages, and I haven’t been able to get rid of the accent since. The languages I learned best were Germanic languages, similar to English. A Professor Higgins of Pygmalian fame would be able to recognize those influences.

So why shouldn’t we recognize that Aramaic speaking people would apply Aramaic vowels to Hebrew, especially since both languages shared the same alphabet and are similar? This would especially be probable under the scenario that the local populous was speaking Aramaic centuries after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had died.

Among cognate languages I include Mishnaic Hebrew, which, according to sources that I’ve read, had a different grammar, not counting different pronunciation. Knowledge of Mishnaic Hebrew has poisoned understanding of Biblical Hebrew for centuries. In fact, what I was taught in class was probably Mishnaic Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew, and as a result, had to unlearn things when reading Tanakh.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Thanks very much for all the interest you've put in this thread. All of your posts have been very useful and enlightening, as well as the links and resources you've been pointing out. Now I feel I have a much wider perspective of the ideas surrounding the Hebrew verbal system. In my personal case, I'll study the existing theories, both for the Qal/Nifal/Piel distinction and for the Qatal/Yiqtol one, and try to understand them in context, depending on the time and place the books were written. The moral of this is that I have to be open minded and not take the theory as if it were written on stone.

Thanks again.

[Isaac Fried]

Let's take a break from the question if משה רבינו Moses, spoke biblical Hebrew, or some sort of an Egyptian Yiddish, and return to the question of the composition of the Hebrew word.

The pual verbal form includes the personal pronoun (PP) הוא HU, reduced to a mere U, inserted between the first and the second radicals, to indicate the beneficiary of the act. For instance, the אֻכָּל UKAL, 'consume', of Ex. 3:2 והנה הסנה בער באש והסנה איננו אכל where the inserted PP הוא HU refers to the bush itself.

In theבֵּינוֹנִי פָּעוּל"passive participle", the personal pronoun הוא HU, reduced to a mere U, is inserted between the second and the third radicals of the root. For instance, the שרופה SRUPAH of 1Sam. 30:3. Here, the inserted הוא HU, as well as the היא HIY at the end, refer, both, to the burnt down city itself.

In case of a noun, the inserted PP הוא HU refers to the object itself, for instance, the סוגר S-U-GAR, 'cage', of Ezekiel 19:9, and the חבורה XAB-U-R-AH, 'bruise', of Ex.21:25.

Or, for variety, the PP היא HI may be used instead of הוא HU, as in the זימרה Z-I-MR-AH, 'singing, melody', of Isaiah 51:3, and the גבינה GB-IY-N-AH, 'cheese', of Job: 10:10.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

I’m presently reading through the Writings again, and my plan it to note grammar of the post-exile writers (which I haven’t done previously) to try to see if it’s notably different from pre-exile writings. It should be interesting.

Update:

I just read through Esther again. That’s clearly a post-Babylonian Exile book.

I’ve always considered the language used in Esther to be more of a low class Hebrew, with many loan words from Aramaic. No, I’m not accusing Mordechai and Esther with being low-class people, rather that their knowledge of Hebrew tended to be more of a street Hebrew rather than a scholarly Hebrew.

As for grammar, most of the book is historical narrative, which would be written the same no matter if the conjugation were modal or tense. So it’s hard to say.

However, there are a few verses that seem to indicate that the grammar was in the process of changing / had changed to a tense based understanding of conjugation: Esther 3:8, 4:11, 14, 5:13. Those are not proof, rather intriguing clues.

Next book is Ezra. Now he was a scholar.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Further update:

I just read Ezra.

About half the book is Aramaic, so not counted. Of the remaining that is in Hebrew, most of it is historical narrative, so followed standard rules.

Chapter nine is the only one that contains some interactive Hebrew.

To tell the truth, I couldn’t put my finger on it, but the Hebrew just feels odd, slightly odd, like an immigrant who has spent many years in a country, speaks the local language fluently, but there’s just some intangible thing that still betrays that this is his second language.

So far I’ve read three chapters into Nehemiah. He seems to have had a better grasp at archaizing his use of Hebrew than did Ezra.

Karl W. Randolph.