Posting in Hebrew

I thought I might quickly mention why I’ve decided to use two different styles of Hebrew on this blog and what these two styles are.

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
The first style of Hebrew that I’m using on the site is the “regular” alphabet, as presented just here. This is the alphabet that is familiar to all Hebrew speakers in Israel, and it appears in published Hebrew Bibles and all Hebrew literature. I'll use it when quoting from the Massoretic Text (the received text of the Hebrew Scriptures) and when referring to Hebrew generally. This is generally called the “square script” or the “Assyrian script.”

א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
The second style of Hebrew that I’m using is the alphabet as it appears in the Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone). This is an older version of the alphabet, one with which most Hebrew speakers are unfamiliar today. It was used when the Bible was first written, and it has made appearances throughout the history of the Hebrew language. At some points we find texts that use the Assyrian script used in a text but the name of Yahweh (יהוה) written in this second style (as יהוה), which we call the “Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet.” There are actually a few variations of the letter shapes, but the form found in the Mesha Stele is very representative of the style and easily readable. (If you cannot see the specific letters because of embedding problems, you may want to download the font for free. This link contains several ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Canaanite and Phoenician fonts. If you want only the Mesha font, then chose it from the ZIP file and install it on your system.)

Why post in Hebrew at all?

The question might arise as to why I would post anything in Hebrew at all. After all, loads of people have blogs in the world that do not use Hebrew. I’m ex-religious (not religious anymore), so Hebrew – and also Greek – should not have a religious function for me.

To be honest, I think that the only way to really understand the Bible (whether we’re talking about the “Old Testament” [the Jewish Scriptures] or the “New Testament” [the Christian Scriptures]) is to approach it from the perspective of the original languages in which it has come down to us. This means Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament (with some Aramaic sprinkled into the Old Testament as well).

For instance, when the claim is made that Isaiah 7:14 predicted that a child would be born of a “virgin,” we can see from the Hebrew text that עַלְמָה ‘almah was far less specific than virgo intacta (a technical virgin who has not lost her virginity). It is a more general term for a girl of marriageable age. She could indeed already have been married and have been with her husband. We find even one instance in the Bible in which a girl is called ‘almah although she had already been violated (raped) by a man. The technical virgo intacta is described in Hebrew as a girl אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעָה מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר who has not known the lying of a male (Numbers 31:18), אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעָה אִישׁ who has not known a man (Judges 11:39) or אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעָה אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר who has not known a man for the lying of a male (Judges 21:12). The phrase “the lying of a male” is an idiomatic expression that means “having sex with a man.” (By the way, it is essentially the same phrase that is used to prohibit homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, except that in these verses it is lyings of a woman.) This is the only way to clearly refer to a virgin in biblical Hebrew, though the word בְּתוּלָה betulah (another word that meant “young woman,” but was closer to our “virgin”) is associated with בְּתוּלִים betulim, which means “virginity” or “proof of virginity” in the absolute sense (that is, the blood that flows and can be collected on a bed sheet). The point is that if we did not look at the Hebrew text, we would be stuck with the biased translations that are generally presented in English, which get their meaning from the New Testament doctrine of the “virgin birth” rather than from the text of Isaiah 7 itself. A knowledge of Hebrew helps us clarify the issues.

I tend to quote Hebrew because, well, I love the language. I think it’s highly expressive and clear (most of the time) and can always aid us in understanding the Bible and dealing with it in its raw form (if you will). The same is true of Greek, which is extremely flexible and interesting. If it was not for the languages of the Bible, I would have gotten bored with the Bible – as many have done over the years. I do not get bored of it because I enjoy dealing with the languages.

Lastly, I write in Hebrew so that I can post the original text from where I am getting my information. This gives the reader who understands the language the ability to evaluate my translation and understanding. It also challenges readers that do not know Hebrew to try to pick it up, to remind them that the King James Version or the New International Version is not “the Bible.” Each one is a translation of the Bible’s various manuscripts and should be evaluated on the basis of the texts from which we get the Bible – which is, as I stated, written in Hebrew and Greek, not in English.

So, basically, I include Hebrew (and Greek) in my posts because it’s the language in which the Bible is actually written. I hope it will challenge and assist you in your own exploration of the Bible (which will, hopefully, have the effect of bringing you more firmly away from faith and superstition).

Shalom / שלום / שלום
Jason