Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Chavoux Luyt and Pere Porta:

Both of you are looking at the external forms of the language, and finding
little, if any, changes. Further, you are looking at individual words. That
there is almost no change in form from Mishnaic Hebrew is understandable,
as, from my understanding, that was the main source of Hebrew used in the
modern rebirth of the language.

On the other hand, I look at the inner workings of the language: the
grammar, syntax, how words fit together in sentences and their contexts and
how it all functions. Forms are important mainly as indicators of functions.
When I look at the functions that the forms had in Biblical Hebrew, and
compare that with what I have been told are the functions that the forms
have in modern Hebrew, I see vast differences. They are two different
languages.

It is the old form vs. function argument. Or in other words,
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Hebrew_thought

The main differences between middle English (Chaucer) and modern English are
mainly pronunciation, reflected in spelling, and an updating of the
vocabulary. The inner workings of the languages are almost identical. So it
is easy to recognize modern English as an updating of middle English. By the
time of Shakespeare, the similarities to modern English are close enough
that there is about 80% comprehension of Shakespeare by modern readers
without training in Elizabethan English.

In some ways, modern Hebrew is closer to modern English than it is to
Biblical Hebrew.

So are Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew the same language? No way!

Karl W. Randolph.