Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: been to ulpan? + living biblical

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: been to ulpan? + living biblical
  • Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:44 -0500 (EST)


Thanks for the good arguments for learning modern Hebrew. Makes me
want to pack my bags for Israel.

But here is a caution. Suppose your imaginary Shakespeare only English
learner was also allowed to read the contemporary King James version,
and then to interpret or translate it. I think the Hebrew verb PQD,
often rendered "visit" in KJV (e.g. Gen. 50:24, still, confusingly,
"visit" in RSV) would be better interpreted by this person than by
speakers of modern English; for "visit" meant more "intervene", even
"punish", than "pay a call" at that time. But how many more modern
translations use a word that suggests calling politely on a sick
neighbour rather than God's decisive intervention? All because people
fail to realise how the meaning of words changes. So let's be sure
modern Hebrew scholars don't read back their modern meanings into the
ancient text.

What is this course 'ulpan le`ivrit miqra'it? Unfortunately I don't
know the modern (well, post-Biblical) word miqra'it (though I have
picked up the meaning of 'ulpan); presumably it comes from miqra',
which can mean a sacred assembly or reading aloud (BDB). So is `ivrit
miqra'it "sacred" or Biblical Hebrew or just Hebrew read aloud? If
this is really a cassette-based course in Biblical Hebrew, I would be
interested in more details.

In any case, I wish you every success in teaching Hebrew more like a
living language than a dead set of strange symbols on a page. I
learned basic Hebrew from John Dobson, better known for his "Learn New
Testament Greek", who tries to teach both languages this way. But I
was interested also to read that at 'ulpan they avoid teaching the
Hebrew alphabet at first. Some teach-yourself books in other
"oriental" languages also avoid or delay teaching the complex writing
system, and instead use transliteration. I wonder if a similar
approach could be used with Biblical Hebrew? After all, the Biblical
text can easily be made available in transliteration (of course, one
would need to be agreed!), and many reference books transliterate, so
why does the beginner need to learn the alphabet? I feel, from my own
experience and that of others, that the Hebrew alphabet is the main
thing which makes learning Hebrew seem difficult (to westerners) and
puts off so many, e.g. seminary students and Bible translators, who
would like to learn, but give up because of the difficulties and use
English etc instead. I would be interested in any comments on this
suggestion.

Peter Kirk




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page