6

How much is Classical Hebrew (in which the Hebrew Bible is written) is different from the modern Hebrew? In which areas lie the main differences? Can any Jew or Israeli today understand what is written in the Hebrew Bible freely or he needs a special training for that? Can anyone, please, provide here an overview?

Monica Cellio
  • 56,645
  • 10
  • 113
  • 348
brilliant
  • 309
  • 3
  • 7

3 Answers3

13

Another difference is that classical Hebrew generally uses a VSO word order (verb, subject, object), while modern Hebrew is generally SVO. As an example, the common phrase in the Torah, וידבר ה' אל משה, would literally translate as "and He spoke, G-d, to Moses"; a modern Hebrew speaker would probably say something like ה' דיבר אל משה.

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
10

The Classical Hebrew is more compact than modern Hebrew. The are no redundant words in Torah, hence you can see usage of "ובלכתך" instead of "כאשר אתה תלך" and alike.

A Jew (even not a religious one) can understand most parts of the Torah without special training. More problematic parts are description of offerings with much details of how and where each type of offering should be done.

Also poetic parts like Song of Sea and Haazinu are relatively hard to understand.

Source: personal impression.

jutky
  • 6,024
  • 2
  • 21
  • 45
  • 1
    there are also some different uses of past and future tense. i.e. a past tense command with the letter vav in front of it becomes future tense, and vice versa. Thus, ידבר in modern Hebrew means "he will speak", but "וידבר" in biblical Hebrew means "and he spoke". This, and a few other linguistic mechanics, might prevent a secular, modern Hebrew speaker from completely understanding the text without additional training. –  Mar 18 '12 at 13:51
  • @Will That's only if the vav is punctuated in a certain way. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 17:24
  • @Will Usually, out of the context you understand that the text describes something that occurred in past. So, I think this is not a problem for a common Hebrew-speaker – jutky Mar 18 '12 at 19:51
  • What do you make of כי אני הכבדתי את לבו. Is the אני really necessary or more compact? – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 20:14
  • @DoubleAA I haven't presented a rule that is always 100% correct in all cases. Just common impression about the differences between Torah Hebrew and modern Hebrew. Anyway, – jutky Mar 18 '12 at 20:20
  • @jutky "The are no redundant words in Torah." – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 20:33
  • @DoubleAA, That is a statement that is taken as an axiom for many a Bible commentator. The consequence is that things are contracted as in the example jutky gives for the most part, and when they are not, they must be explained away as being required for emphasis specific to that case. – jake Mar 18 '12 at 21:06
  • @jake I know what he meant. I just think rules of parshanut are irrelevant to a discussion of the language. The question asked about the languages, and on the super-simplest pshat level, that word אני is extra because languages do that. From a language perspective all he can say is that combined structures are more common/customary, not that they are exclusive. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 21:14
  • @DoubleAA I've said "The Classical Hebrew is more compact", not that is the most compact way to describe something. The cause is: no-redundant-words constraint, which is surely affects the way things are described. Once again, parshanut is not the main issue of an answer, just a reason for more common use of compact language forms. Doesn't that clear from the answer? – jutky Mar 18 '12 at 22:00
  • Sure, the first sentence of your answer is fine! But the second one is not. It should say: "Therefore, there are fewer redundant words in Torah." If you are making a language claim, then sentence 2 follows from sentence 1. If you are making a parshanut claim, then 1 follows from 2. In your most recent comment you indicate the latter. Therein lies my problem. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 22:33
  • @DoubleAA both sentences looks fine to me. If you feel it is problematic, you are welcomed to edit. – jutky Mar 19 '12 at 11:31
  • 1
    I'm not going to edit as I think this question is off topic anyway. The answers can be as bad as they want as far as I'm concerned. But I'm amazed that you really think "There are no redundant words in Torah" is a claim about the language, not parshanut?? What about some other text written in biblical hebrew? The question asked about the classical hebrew language, not about how we interpret the Torah. – Double AA Mar 19 '12 at 13:12
  • 1
    @jutky, there are redundant words, as has been pointed out. I hear what you are saying, but the language is confusing. There are, in fact, redundant words, which sparks questions by some, even many commentators, but there are, in fact, redundant words. I'd suggest more that the style of Biblical Hebrew is to write in a more compact and elegant way, but that is not necessarily a difference in the language. – Seth J Jun 18 '12 at 16:01
  • @SethJ if we or even commentators do not know what we learn from a specific word in Torah, it still does not means that the word is "in fact" redundant. – jutky Jun 19 '12 at 06:30
  • @jutky, I think you're using the word redundant to mean superfluous, when linguistically it doesn't mean that. That's my only point about "redundancy". The Torah could have been written even more concisely than it was, yet that doesn't mean that shorter language is the defining characteristic of the language itself. It's a characteristic of the style in which it was written. – Seth J Jun 19 '12 at 13:11
  • @SethJ A couple of years later I'm a bit more experienced in English, and I admit that your comment about redundant vs superfluous is totally correct. Thanks. – jutky Apr 18 '17 at 08:23
6

for a proper overview I would probably send you to Hebrew wikipedia, but I'm guessing you (and most readers) are English speakers, so instead read: Revival Of the Hebrew Language on wikipedia.

As a side note I'll add, as a native (Israeli) Hebrew speaker that an incredibly great majority of the Hebrew Bible is readily understandable with no further sources. As other answers point out several parts are harder to understand with particular examples which pop to mind:

  • Leviticus - full of "gory" details of sacrifice and sacrificial procedures
  • Several scriptures which are mainly not in Hebrew or incorporate subjects which are non-Hebrew: Esther, Daniel (mostly Aramaic IIRC)

Hope that helps

Yoni H
  • 161
  • 2
  • 4
    Maybe you mean Ezra? Esther is almost entirely in Hebrew. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 19:58
  • 1
    I don't know about Leviticus being particularly difficult, really. True that there are some technical and anatomical terms that aren't in common use (מלק, פדר, עצה), but most of the terminology is readily understandable - and indeed has served as a source for modern Hebrew with at most slight variations, such as נתח ("dissect") having become the term for "surgery." – Alex Mar 18 '12 at 20:00
  • 1
    @Alex I tend to agree with you, but let's not forget the sections about tzaraat. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 20:12
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I meant Esther as it contains Persian terms and names which are never used in Hebrew (e.g. האחשדרפנים ), but it isn't unique by any means with "foreign" words in it – Yoni H Mar 18 '12 at 20:13
  • 2
    @Yoni Your talking about 20 words or so in the whole book where it is usually clear that it is referring to some sort of ruler (HaPartemim) or messenger (HaAchasteranim). Seems relatively minor, especially compared to Daniel. – Double AA Mar 18 '12 at 20:16