-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ancient Hebrew & Modern Hebrew
- Thread starter MorphRC
- Start date
koilias
Ancient Hassid in the making
Modern Hebrew is closely related to Mishnaic Hebrew, only updated, of course, to reflect the modern times. Mishnaic Hebrew was spoken in the time of Yeshua until about the second-fourth century CE, after which it remained spoken only in the Rabbinic academies. You can tell this because they needed a "meturgam", "translator" in the house of study ("beit hamidrash") as well as by the fact that all Jewish pedagogical lessons, such as parables, are extant only in Hebrew. Most Messies, for some reason (unlike their Israeli brethren), are yet to catch up to this fact, but I digress...
The main difference between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is the verb tenses. Biblical Hebrew has a literary "aspectual" verb tense called "vav-hahippux" which disappeared from spoken Mishnaic. Biblical Hebrew distinguished between "completed event" actions and "in process" actions in the past and in the future, mainly at the sentence level, by the way the verbs were placed in the sentence structure. With Biblical Hebrew it was very important were you placed the verb in the sentence. Mishnaic Hebrew imported many Aramaic words and features and was adapted to increasingly reflect the "imperfect" verb tenses found in the Greek language, which many Jews in Yeshua's time had grown sensitive to and attempted to replicate in their Hebrew grammar in order to reflect this "incomplete/imperfect" usage of verbs. In Greek, it is not important where you put the verb in the sentence, because of the robustness of its verb tense system, and Mishnaic Hebrew reflected more flexibility in where you could place verbs in the sentence structure (without changing the meaning of the sentence) by also making the verb tense structure more robust. Modern Hebrew is even more this way. In Modern Hebrew, reflecting Indo-european languages (such as English), it is not that important at all where you put the verb, the verb system is advanced enough to handle the different aspects of verbs.
If you go back to the KJV narratives in the O.T., notice how many sentences begin with "And" followed very closely by the main verb of the sentences: "And God said...", "And David smote...", etc. That's because those actions were completed event (simple past). Those Hebrew sentences always began with the vav-haHippux verb, with "And" attached in front of it (a feature of this aspectual tense). Now look at first two chapters of Luke, notice how many sentences begin with "And" and how the verbs come immediately, making the sentences short and choppy (like the O.T.). That's because the Greek document of Luke 1-2 was translating a literary Hebrew narrative of the birth of YoHannan and Yeshua. Greek never, never did this--it always liked to vary the sentence structure, and use subordinate clauses. As well, Greek sentences didn't like to begin with unnecessary conjunctions, especially "And", which in Luke 1-2 is repeated ad nauseum.
The main difference between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is the verb tenses. Biblical Hebrew has a literary "aspectual" verb tense called "vav-hahippux" which disappeared from spoken Mishnaic. Biblical Hebrew distinguished between "completed event" actions and "in process" actions in the past and in the future, mainly at the sentence level, by the way the verbs were placed in the sentence structure. With Biblical Hebrew it was very important were you placed the verb in the sentence. Mishnaic Hebrew imported many Aramaic words and features and was adapted to increasingly reflect the "imperfect" verb tenses found in the Greek language, which many Jews in Yeshua's time had grown sensitive to and attempted to replicate in their Hebrew grammar in order to reflect this "incomplete/imperfect" usage of verbs. In Greek, it is not important where you put the verb in the sentence, because of the robustness of its verb tense system, and Mishnaic Hebrew reflected more flexibility in where you could place verbs in the sentence structure (without changing the meaning of the sentence) by also making the verb tense structure more robust. Modern Hebrew is even more this way. In Modern Hebrew, reflecting Indo-european languages (such as English), it is not that important at all where you put the verb, the verb system is advanced enough to handle the different aspects of verbs.
If you go back to the KJV narratives in the O.T., notice how many sentences begin with "And" followed very closely by the main verb of the sentences: "And God said...", "And David smote...", etc. That's because those actions were completed event (simple past). Those Hebrew sentences always began with the vav-haHippux verb, with "And" attached in front of it (a feature of this aspectual tense). Now look at first two chapters of Luke, notice how many sentences begin with "And" and how the verbs come immediately, making the sentences short and choppy (like the O.T.). That's because the Greek document of Luke 1-2 was translating a literary Hebrew narrative of the birth of YoHannan and Yeshua. Greek never, never did this--it always liked to vary the sentence structure, and use subordinate clauses. As well, Greek sentences didn't like to begin with unnecessary conjunctions, especially "And", which in Luke 1-2 is repeated ad nauseum.
Upvote
0
hi kolias, I had read something stating that the Hebrew in the time of Jesus was somewhere right in between Paleo-Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, It was cuaght in the evolution.
And notice there were different dialects too during the 1st century. The Galilian dialect as supported by a woman in the court yard exclaiming to tzfet kefa (peter). There was also a Qumranic dialect which differed from all the others as well. So, then there was also the Samaritan and the Yerushalaman dialects- which were a combination of hebrew and aramaic as to my knowledge.
Outside from this there were six dialects of aramaic spoken at thgis time aswell.
So Mishnaic is out of the question- but an evolution of the tongue into this ONE tongue indeed was in the process
Upvote
0
Similar threads
