Talk:Hebrew language

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Land of Israel vs Southern Levant

Land of Israel page states its synonymous with Southern Levant.

Recent revert is pure POV pushing and equally non-sensical (we're talking about the region of origin yet the response to revert to "Southern Levant" is "not all Jews speak hebrew"?)

Deleting editor is claiming Land of Israel is "non-factual" with no citation to back it. Hebrew is an explicit outgrowth of Southern Canaanite by Israelites specifically...splitting between the synonyms "Land of Israel" and "Southern Levant", I would stick with the term more closely associated with the language.

Want changes? Citations please, delivered on ice. Mistamystery (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery "Land of Israel" is not a demarcated place, southern Levant best describes the region where this language originated, also modern Hebrew came later and wasn't invented in the same place. "Land of Israel" is thus too dubious of a term to be used is such manner. Hebrew is also spoken worldwide.

Regarding the ethnic groups that speak it, Israelites do not exist today in any discernable way, and not all Jews speak Hebrew. Please understand this is not "POV pushing" but WP SKYISBLUE coming from a secular paradigm where preconceived notions are challenged in the light of evidence.

Shall we bring citations into this? Because until there is citations, it can be challenged JJNito197 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Jews and Samaritans refer to themselves as "B'nai Israel" or "Children of Israel" (which so far as the the wiki Israelites page is concerned considers to be synonymous with "Israelites"...which is frankly problematic and a separate matter to be addressed on that page). On those terms, Jews and Samaritans claim they are the descendants of the Ancient Israelites I presume you refer to.

Land of Israel is just as reasonably demarcated as Southern Levant, hence why they're synonymous. And modern Hebrew *was* developed (not invented) in this general location as well.

There's a fundamental issue within wiki on the general usage of this term that's reflective of a western academic bias that is irrespective of popular usage (as well as severe POV push by many users...not accusing you, its just a thing).

That said, not going to litigate it on this page. Appreciate the timely response. Mistamystery (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But they are not synonymous if 1) there are multiple different understandings/contrasting opinions on what exactly constitutes the Land of Israel, thus not demarcated by any sort of congruent universal metric... 2) Some definitions include a vastly larger area than just the Southern Levant. So who are we to decide on what definition to use? Wikivoice secular neutrality is thus paramount, in the fact that it cannot decide what does indeed constitute the Land of Israel by agreeing to any of the definitions through exegesis of the primary source (the Bible), or by proxy through commentary by religious scholars, for which there are many. For this reason, a regional descriptor is more apt.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not predicated on the 'truth'. How one perceives themselves is different to how one is actually perceived, which is why wikivoice has to be completly unattached from any preconceived notions in order to properly explain subject matter to the uninitiated reader, who is, for all intents and purposes, unfamiliar. Thanks for being amicable. JJNito197 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree here’s why,Southern Levant is also Sinai and Jordan and The land of Israel is All of Israel and some other territories Noam Elyada (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request: Arabic as one of the official languages of Israel

In the lead section replace,

Modern Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of the State of Israel,

with

Modern Hebrew is the official language of the State of Israel,

This information is outdated, as the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people has made Hebrew the sole official language of the State of Israel.

Gamercat365 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No because this article isn’t about Israel it’s about Hebrew Noam Elyada (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

References

 Done Garsh (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Paleo-Hebrew script

In the article they mention the Hebrew alphabet and Samaritan script but they don’t have the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet also so can I add it? Noam Elyada (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I found 10 mentions of it, most of them linked, so you can't have looked very hard. In fact, I removed the one in the "see also" list because that list is supposed to be for related material that isn't already in the text. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean like the writing of Hebrew in paleo (𐤏𐤁𐤓𐤉𐤕) Noam Elyada (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, the article that you claim doesn't mention it mentions it, now, 9 times. Largoplazo (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

im not talking about mentions of the paleo hebrew im talking about {{Script/Paleo-Hebrew}} Noam Elyada (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

In your first sentence you were talking about mentions. Now you say you're not talking about mentions, that instead you're talking about a template that doesn't exist, You want to put a nonexistent template in the article?

The article already has five links to the article Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. It has nine mentions. Largoplazo (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I figured out what you're thinking about even though it isn't what you asked for. Did you mean to ask, "In the opening sentence, where the Hebew translation of the word 'Hebrew' is given in both modern Hebrew and Samaritan scripts, can we also give it in Paleo-Hebew script?" Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes the end is that where the translate of the world “Hebrew” is in paleo Hebrew Noam Elyada (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Since Paleo-Hebrew script hasn't been in used for 2,500 years, I don't think it's of any value. After all, the articles about English and German don't give the names of those languages in runes. Also, wouldn't it be anachronistic to write "ivrit" in that script unless that's what the language was called when the script was in use? Largoplazo (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Here’s the IPA of Hebrew in Anciet Hebrew (Biblical) /ʕibˈriːt/, [ʕiβˈriːθ] Noam Elyada (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In the Bible, as I understand it, the word refers only to people, leaving us not knowing what they called the language. Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

no bro look at the wiktionary since most people at ancient times didnt use it for the torah (expect for religious uses) Noam Elyada (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation

(Biblical Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʕibˈriːt/, [ʕiβˈriːθ]

(Tiberian Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʕivˈriːθ/ [ʕivˈʀiːθ]

(Yemenite Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʕivˈriθ/ [ʕivˈriːθ]

(Iraqi Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʕibˈriθ/

(Sephardi Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʕibˈrit/ (East), /ŋibˈrit/ (West)

(Ashkenazi Hebrew) IPA(key): /(ʔ)ivˈris/

(Modern Israeli Hebrew) IPA(key): /(ʔ)ivˈrit/ Noam Elyada (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't a reliable source, and all you're giving here is how the word is or was pronounced in various places at various times. You haven't addressed any of my objections. Largoplazo (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

First Biblical Hebrew was also called Ancient Hebrew

Second of all if u see the Paleo Script page it says

"Languages Biblical Hebrew" Noam Elyada (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't tell us what the people who used that script called the language or how they wrote its name. You also haven't addressed the other consideration I raised, Since Paleo-Hebrew script hasn't been in used for 2,500 years, I don't think it's of any value. After all, the articles about English and German don't give the names of those languages in runes. Largoplazo (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

First you said the English and German in runes already

Second of all its like saying Quranic Arabic wasnt used since around the 9th century so the pronounciation is fake

Third thing is only 900 people use the Samaritan Script and at the Ancient Times Tons of people were speaking it Noam Elyada (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

First you said the English and German in runes already

Second of all its like saying Quranic Arabic wasnt used since around the 9th century so the pronounciation is fake

Third thing is only 900 people use the Samaritan Script and at the Ancient Times Tons of people were speaking Noam Elyada (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for saying it twice Noam Elyada (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 19 April 2025

>It has been argued that Hebrew, rather than Aramaic or Koine Greek, lay behind the composition of the Gospel of Matthew.[68] (See the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis or Language of Jesus for more details on Hebrew and Aramaic in the gospels.)

I request that we remove this text entirely. The idea that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew rather that Koine Greek is far outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Sure, “it has been argued”, but so has just about everything when it comes to the Bible- and this is a dead end that the scholarly consensus moved on from a long time ago (the cited source is from 1960!) Even the linked article on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, which at points resorts to citing apologetics blogs for the pro-Hebrew gospel viewpoint, correctly states “After the widespread scholarly acceptance of the two-source hypothesis, scholarly interest in the Hebrew gospel hypothesis dwindled. Modern variants of the Hebrew gospel hypothesis survive, but have not found favor with scholars as a whole.”

Nukeychess (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nukeychess! I have looked at this, and the article Hebrew Gospel hypothesis hoping to find a good source for "scholarly interest in the Hebrew gospel hypothesis dwindled" and for "In the 20th century, three French scholars have suggested that Matthew as well as Mark was originally written in Hebrew, although they are an extreme minority." but I could not find this source. We cannot use other WP articles as sources. So we need a good source to remove the text (or edit it). Could you please provide such a source? Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a study that explicitly tracks the popularity of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (note that it's ruled out by Marcan priority, which is widely accepted even among scholars who disagree about the details of the relationship of the synoptics) but here's how some well known textbooks handle the question.

Wener Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (1974) p. 120-121

"We must concede that the report that Mt was written by Matthew "in the Hebrew language” is utterly false, however it may have arisen"

E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (1989) p. 10

Most scholars who have studied Semitisms have found Mark to be the most Semitic gospel, though one scholar awards the prize to Luke. The Gospel of Matthew does show very good knowledge of contemporary Judaism, and the author may have been able to read the Bible in Hebrew. The gospel, however, is not a direct translation from a Semitic language.

Bart Ehrman, Introduction to the New Testament (2004) p. 81

We do not know the name of its [Matthew's] author: the title found in our English version... was added long after the documents original composition... he produced his gospel in Greek... [a]mong his written sources were Mark's Gospel and the collection of traditions that scholars designate as Q.

I hope this is enough to show that there is not a good reason to include a speculative lost document that may have been written in Hebrew, which most scholars don't think existed, in the Hebrew Language article! Nukeychess (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)