There are many funny stories of Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew being used by speakers who learned Hebrew in Europe, startling speakers of Ivrit.

Amoz Oz tells of his childhood in his wonderful A Tale of Love and Darkness, when Begin said, at a political meeting, in formal Hebrew ‘arm yourself’ (tizdayyen or the plural). Oz was the only child atthis revisionist meeting and burst out laughing to his parents’ eternal shame. To sabras it meant, ‘go fuck yourself’. Of course, because Begin and his audience were such prigs they only spoke finer Hebrew and swore in Yiddish or Russian. Perhaps someone has a Hebrew copy of the book to cite the passage.

My grandfather spoke the same sort of Hebrew, though I did not know enough Ivrit at the time. He got a lot of smiles from Israelis, however,

So Hebrew Scholar’s claim that Israelis are at an advantage when it comes to learning Tanach might be true theoretically, but not in actuality. For if they are not even literate in their own modern version of the language, how can they begin to understand Tanach?

It all boils down to the dumbing down of education all over the Western world. Israelis can’t speak their own language much like Australian high schoolers today can’t string an English sentence together. Mind you, they’re very good at SMS grammar…

I know for a fact that there are countless Israelis who understand the Bible far better than I do, but am inclined to agree with Ghil’ad that this is because they have learnt to understand the Bible, and not because their language shares the degree of affinity with Biblical Hebrew that they might suppose. I therefore disagree with David, who suggests that the difference between the two is akin to the difference between Modern English and that which was written by Shakespeare.

But, I heartily disagree with Ghil’ad in his supposition that it is another language entirely, as the differentiating elements to which he adroitly calls attention can be found in numerous languages when treated diachronically (= over time). What is more, to suggest that Modern Hebrew should be called by another name, simply because it no longer possesses the same grammatical, syntactic or even semantic structure of its primary ancestor, would be similar to arguing in favour of renaming the state on the grounds that it no longer occupies the same borders.

I have a similar story that I can tell first-hand of a close friend who was well read in Jewish studies, and wanted to make conversation with a new immigrant from Israel in our class, so he asked him: “kamah y’mai shnei chayecha?” (Genesis, somewhere) rather than the contemporary “ben kama atta?”

Cyberjew,

Great point. Biblical Hebrew is no more to modern Ivrit as Shakespearean English is to modern English.

Although in both cases, it is reasonable to translate (and use the simple pshat) into a more accessible language. I’ve seen this in siddurim as well, that translate some phrases into more contemporary Hebrew.

Isn’t this actually about Israelis wanting to have greater “ownership” of their identity and have a clear break from our fantastic heritage?

Is the translation a good one? Do they tend to preserve Israeli understandings of the text (e.g. “vahamushim ‘alu bené yisrael me-eretz mitzrayim” with “hamushim” as “armed”), or are there notes that point to ambiguity of meaning and such things?

I can’t help but feel that such a project will render the often narrow scope of spoken Israeli Hebrew (please let my use of “Hebrew” slide, I have understood your point and decided quite consciously to call it Hebrew) yet narrower. The fact that Shakespeare’s or even Dickens’ English does not accurately reflect contemporary spoken varieties of the language does not mean that there isn’t a value in reading the “English classics.” On the contrary: One who isn’t exposed to that literature can not understand today’s literature and film in its fullest depth. Whether or not you wish to call “Israeli” a distinct language, that language continues to draw on the Tanakh, rabbinic and even kabbalistic literature (yes, it is most often idirectly so: via contemporary literature via earlier authors via the maskilim via via via – but still).

As it is, most secular Israelis find it very difficult to read Shay Agnon, let alone anything earlier. Exposure to the language of Tanakh is pretty much the only broadening influence on the language of young Israelis today (I’m not talking about the richness of a spoken language, I’m talking about access to a cultural heritage). I can’t help but imagine that this project, if it is successful and becomes popular, will only serve to further sever Israelis from the heritage of their grandparents and reduce the depth of cultural literacy.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that Turks today can not access the literature and culture of the Ottoman Empire. Their cultural consciousness usually begins in the 1920′s, but even the speeches of Atatürk have had to be updated into the ever-purged Turkish language multiple times in order to render them intelligible. I fear that, far from reflecting a less rejectionist stance towards diaspora Jewish culture, this project will only result in a more final break from the Jewish literary heritage. (Which might be fine if it came along with sense of Israeli identity that is not conflated with Jewish identity – at least something might be gained with the loss. As it is, I doubt that’s about to happen.)

I acknowledge that this is a convoluted story…