Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Chavoux:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl

On 11 July 2013 17:00, <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
<snip>

 

Please explain “but the post-exilic period is still within the biblical period.”

The reason for my question is how long a period after the return does he consider the “post-exilic period” and what all does he include with it? 

 

 All of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi as well as at least the last bit of 2 Kings (about an exiled king being raised), parts of Ezekiel and possibly more, were written after the exile. What is interesting to me, is that with the exception of Daniel (who had a significant part of his training in Aramaic) and the direct reproductions of letters written in Aramaic, they all still used Hebrew rather than Aramaic. And although there is a bit of change in the grammar, vocabulary and possibly pronunciation, their use of the language does not seem to indicate second-language speakers to me.

Of those, Daniel and Ezekiel were both native Biblical Hebrew speakers, according to the histories included in their books.

I’ve noticed a simpler use of the Hebrew language among those authors among the returnees after the exile, a simpler use that is consistent with non-native speakers of the language. Compare those authors to the richness of linguistic _expression_ found in Jeremiah, Isaiah and other pre-exile writers, and you can see the difference, at least I do.

 

(Compare most of the Greek New Testament where it is clear that some of it was written by native Hebrew/Aramaic speakers rather than native Greek speakers). Yes, like in any area where a smaller native language is spoken within the area of a larger official language, the influence of Aramaic can be seen. But it is clear from a reading of Ezra and Nehemiah that those returnees whose children could no longer speak "Jewish", were not the rule, but the exception.

But the context in which they didn’t know “Jewish” indicates that those children didn’t have opportunity to learn Hebrew from their playmates in the streets, i.e. Hebrew was not the language of market nor hearth, but a special language learned for official and religious duties. There are indications that even the common people, while they knew at least a smattering of Hebrew, that already in Ezra’s time needed translation to understand Torah. 

Shalom

Chavoux

Karl W. Randolph.