Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Ed:

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Ed Walkwitz <edwalkwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>  …Karl W. Randolph: you wrote: "
> I noticed the same pattern among post Babylonian Exile Biblical authors,
> that their use of Hebrew follows the pattern of being a second language, not
> the language taught at a mother’s knee nor spoken in the market. " Is
> there a write-up somewhere describing what the differences are in
> post-exilic Hebrew, and how it looks like a "second language"? I wasn't sure
> how to interpret your next sentence. Do you conclude that the post-exilic
> Jews spoke Aramaic?
>

Yes, that is my conclusion.

I don’t know of anyone who has made a write up of the differences between
pre- and post- Babylonian Exile Hebrew—it is just something that I noticed
as I read Tanakh through time and time again.

Personally, I believe that the Bible gives accurate history, which includes
that it gives predictive prophecy. Therefore I have no problem with all of
Isaiah being long before the Babylonian Exile, and that all of the book of
Daniel was written by the court official under first Nebuchadnezzar, and
later Cyrus. Taking those dates as given, I noticed that first the language
became more and more complex as far as literary style is concerned, then
after the Babylonian Exile became stylistically simpler than even early
pre-exile literature. I include Kings and Chronicles as post-exile
literature.

Not everyone agrees that Tanakh gives accurate history, and those who don’t
will not see the pattern that I notice.


> Ed Walkwitz, Des Moines, Iowa
>

Karl W. Randolph.