Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yigal,

Of course you are right about Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew not
differing as much as say Sanskrit and Hindi or Gothic and Dutch, even
though the time gap between the two is similar.

Nevertheless, BHebrew and ModHebrew most definitely *are* two
different languages. At the very least scientifically speaking (I mean
I don't think there'll be any linguist around defending the view they
are one and the same language) but I think most Israeli's will admit
that the entire BH syntax is not theirs. If you'd speak BHebrew in the
streets, everyone will recognise it immediately and you'll be laughed
at. Why do we even need so many different dictionaries?
By your definition, Dutch and Afrikaans wouldn't be 2 different
languages either. However, we translate quite a few Afrikaans books
into Dutch. And we subtitle South-Africans on tv.

I maintain it would be very refreshing to translate תנ"ך into
ModHebrew. For the same reason that I can understand Medieval Dutch,
yet the danger of misunderstanding something that doesn't really mean
what I think it means, is there in every other sentence.

When I learned BHebrew myself, there was an Israeli student in
university (learning Arabic, Aramaic and stuff). She attended the
classes but she said "it's my language anyway, so I won't really have
to be there." However, she stayed until the end, and was surprised to
see how different it really is, if you go into syntax, mostly the
verbs of course; and even semantics can be quite deceiving.

Modern Hebrew looks much more like Tannaic Hebrew and Medieval Hebrew
than like BHebrew, and is not so much a reincarnation of BHebrew, as a
continuation of the later phases.

I'd be happy to participate in this translation to Modern Hebrew, by the way.
Of course, I know it's some kind of a taboo in Israel. And publishers
will worry about sales. Although it could be hyped to a best-seller.
I'll contact my agent ;)

Regards
Herman


2006/2/26, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>:
> Actually, Karl, MH is much closer to BH than modern Greek is to classical
> Greek. The reason is simple: Greek has evolved "naturally" over the
> centuries. Hebrew has not. To a very great extent, Hebrew stopped being used
> as a spoken language sometime around the begining of the CE. And while it
> was used and did develop over the centuries, users of Hebrew have always
> considered the Bible as the fundamental text of the language. So much so
> that when MH was "invented" during the late 19th century, the founders
> usually prefered using BH over Mishnaic, Talmudic or medieval Hebrew.
>
> Israelis "not understanding" Tanakh is much more a social issue than a
> linguistic one. As is non-Israeli Bible scholars being able to get away with
> not reading scholarship in MH. Could you imagine a scholar of medieval
> French literature not reading modern French?
>
> Yigal
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation
>
>
> > Yigal:
> >
> > Though I have not been to Israel, I have met modern
> > Israelis here on business trips: I have asked a few
> > if they read Tanakh, whereupon they answered that
> > they don't because they don't understand it.
> >
> > Now these were adults, not children.
> >
> > I didn't get a chance to go into detail by what
> > they meant, but I suspect that it is similar as
> > when I try to read Elizabethan English: parts that
> > are clearly archaic are quaint but understandable,
> > words that have dropped out of use I can look up,
> > but it is the words that have changed their
> > meanings that lead to misunderstanding, even
> > gibberish, if, as is usually the case, I don't know
> > which words have changed meaning and what the
> > meanings were back in Elizabethan days. The
> > differences between BH and MH appear to be greater
> > than that between between Elizabethan and modern
> > English, but few translations made because it is
> > held that those are just different versions of the
> > same language.
> >
> > Like Herman, I find it curious that there have been
> > no translations of Tanakh from BH to MH, unlike the
> > New Testament which has been translated to modern
> > Greek.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > Dear members
> >> >
> >> > For example, why is there no translation of the Hebrew Bible into
> >> > modern Hebrew? I think modern Hebrew is about the only language left
> >> > the Bible has not been translated to!
> >> > (But I may well have missed the latest developments in modern Hebrew
> >> > bible scholarship)
> >> > Fascinating, isn't it? And b-Hebrew and modern Hebrew most certainly
> >> > are two different languages.
> >>
> >> Dear Herman,
> >>
> >> The reason that no-one has undertaken to translate the Bible into modern
> >> Hebrew, is that biblical and modern Hebrew are most definately NOT two
> >> different languages. Of course they are not identical, and represent
> >> different stages in the development of the language, but modern Hebrew is
> >> very much based on BH. Yes, MH has thousands of words that BH is lacking;
> >> its syntax is closer to that of modern European languages and it has
> >> adopted
> >> modern European punctuation. There are also many words and expressions in
> >> BH
> >> that are not usually used in MH, and many more words that have been given
> >> a
> >> diferent meaning. However, this is only natural. The Bible remains one of
> >> the classical sources of MH. It is much easier for native speakers of MH
> >> to
> >> understand BH than it is for native English speakers to understand
> >> Shakespeare, for example. I do. So do my grade-school aged children. Of
> >> course, children have difficulty with a lot of the concepts in the Bible,
> >> and the language is "high literary" language, not what is spoken on TV.
> >> But
> >> it is still the same language.
> >>
> >> And of course, there are renderings of Bible stories in easy MH, meant
> >> for
> >> children. But they soon grow out of needing them. Try seeing the Hebrew
> >> version of the animated film "Prince of Egypt". You'll be amazed at the
> >> amount of direct quotes of BH used in the dialogue. And I have yet to
> >> hear
> >> an Israeli child claim that he can't understand it.
> >>
> >> Yigal
> >
> > --
> > ___________________________________________________
> > Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>