Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

Karl Randolph wrote:

> Dear Michael Millier:
>
> I have very little direct evidence. Ken Penner in his letter raises questions 
> based on evidence I lack.
>
> However, I noticed that, assuming that the authors and dates are as the Bible 
> claims, there was a certain amount of language change from Torah to Jeremiah, 
> but the post exilic authors returned to a style more akin to that found in 
> Torah. In other words, there was a discontinuity of language development. 
> That suggests to me that while Hebrew continued to be studied and spoken, it 
> was no longer the primary language of the speakers.
>
> Other clues include the extensive Aramaic insertions into Daniel and Ezra, 
> where they expected the readers to understand them (contrast to 2 Kings 
> 18:26), and the example of Esther 2:1 where the author inserted the Aramaic 
> term GZR for the Hebrew XQQ (how many more are there like that?), as well as 
> the historical situation of the people having been scattered in an Aramaic 
> millieu, all point to Hebrew having become the scholars’ language and the 
> language of religion (temple and synagog), official documents and coins that 
> the common people could understand, but that the common language for everyday 
> use was Aramaic. When Paul spoke to the crowd in Acts 22:2, the Hebrew 
> language was specifically mentioned whereas times when Aramaic was spoken the 
> language was not an issue, again a clue that Hebrew was then the scholars’ 
> language.
>
> I don’t have proof for my belief that Hebrew ceased being the everyday, 
> common language, nor even strong evidence, just a haunch based on disparate 
> clues, and my belief could very well be wrong.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> <snip>
On the same evidence you could argue that English ceased to be a spoken 
language after 1066. For several hundred years mostly French was used in 
official circles and all written documents, huge numbers of French loan 
words made their way into English etc etc. But English rebounded. Why 
not the same rebound for Hebrew, at least for a short time? Meanwhile 
there is clear evidence from the DSS and the Mishnah that a new, rather 
different form of Hebrew emerged gradually some time after the exile, 
distinct from the admittedly frozen and archaising Hebrew of the 
post-exilic scriptures. This kind of emergence could not have occurred, 
I would suggest, if the language didn't have a continuing spoken use.

Randall Buth, who used to be on this list and may still be lurking, has 
written some interesting scholarly articles on this subject supporting 
the thesis that Hebrew remained a widely spoken language in the 1st 
century CE. Some of his material, e.g. "*Where is the Aramaic Bible at 
Qumran? Scripture Use in the Land of Israel*" and similar articles may 
be found at the Jerusalem Perspective website, www.jerusalemperspective.com.

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/