Learning the basics of Biblical Hebrew from a book

“Our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is directly dependent upon Jewish oral tradition and thus on the state of that tradition during and following the various dispersions of the Jews from Palestine. This dependence arises from the peculiarly deficient orthography in which the biblical text was written: it is essentially vowelless, or at most, vocalically ambiguous (see below, §8). The actual pronunciation of the language was handed down orally … The written consonantal text itself achieved a final authoritative form around the end of the first century A. D.”

– The introduction to Thomas O. Lambdin’s “Introduction to Biblical Hebrew” (1971), pages xiii-xiv

For nearly three years, I have read Thomas O. Lambdin’s “Introduction to Biblical Hebrew” – some 284 pages of it. Specifically, I read it from 14 August 2022 through 25 July 2025, at which time I completely finished it – excepting the appendices, index, and the entirety of the glossaries (although I read many parts of these glossaries). I did this completely from a book, and never had the benefit of a classroom, a professor, or a native speaker – or even a recording of one, for that matter! I’ve never heard so much as one hour of audio of the language, even from non-native speakers, and this made it somewhat daunting at times. It may have increased the difficulty level in at least some ways, and I don’t recommend it to others unless other options are not available (as they were not for me).

A review of “Iran: The Forgotten Glory”

“All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he [including Daniel] shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of Daniel,” Chapter 6, Verses 7 through 9 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) – a notable chapter in the Bible to mention the Persians

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia, and this film is about two of them

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia. This film is about two of them. The first episode covers the Achaemenid Empire, and the second episode covers the Sasanian Empire. Thus, they (mostly) skip over the Parthian Empire that was between these two great groups. (More about that empire later.) The first episode is roughly 53 minutes long, while the second episode is roughly 44 minutes long. Thus, this film is a little more than an hour and a half in all. It’s a reasonably good primer on the history of Ancient Persia. But its focus seems to be more archeological than historical. Its focus is on showing ancient ruins and reliefs, and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians. And I’m perfectly okay with this film being so low-budget. They make reasonably good use of maps, reconstructions, and other relevant images. They rely on two talking-head scholars, one of them speaking a language that I presume to be Farsi – the Iranian dialect of modern Persian. The other is an American guy from California, whose name suggests some Iranian ancestry of his own – something that proves to be quite helpful in this context. And the film’s credits show many Iranian names involved in the making of this film. But one feels that the viewer doesn’t get a great understanding of Persia’s military or political history, or even their cultural history. They don’t even really show where these great Persian events took place. It’s just an examination of the artifacts from the time (including their art), and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians themselves.

Darius the Great

The unknown story behind the King James Version of the Bible

“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough, shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost!”

– William Tyndale (author of an early translation of the Bible into English), in a heated exchange with a priest

What led up to the King James Version of the Bible (first published in 1611)?

Even today, the King James Version of the Bible is the most commonly-used Biblical translation in the United States. Its influence is declining in some other English-speaking countries, but its status still remains strong today in many others. Even among atheists like Richard Dawkins, it is acknowledged as “a great work of literature.” Dawkins also added that “A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.” Certainly the KJV (as it is often abbreviated) has had a great influence upon the history of the English language. One would have to turn to Shakespeare to find comparable influence upon the history of our own language. I would like to pay a brief tribute to the unsung heroes who helped to bring us this translation into English, as well as those who brought us other translations into other languages. But my focus here will be on the history involved, and what led to the writing of the King James Bible.

St. Jerome, mentioned below

Reflections on learning about history of Ancient Israel

“This book is intended for people of all faiths – and for skeptics, too. It reflects no particular religious commitments – nor is it anti-religious. The authors include Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. They live in Israel, France, and the United States.”

– Hershel Shanks, in “Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple” (Revised & Expanded Edition), page xvii – part of a section entitled “Introduction to the Original Edition”

This book is an introduction to the much-debated archeology of the Bible

The archeology of the Bible is one of the most hotly-debated areas in all of archeology. Jews, Christians, and their respective critics all seem to have something to say about it. Some Jewish and Christian scholars have gone so far as to argue that archeology “proves” the truth of either the Hebrew Bible, or the Christian Bible, or both. Some critics of these religions have done the exact opposite, arguing that archeology “disproves” one or both of these religions. The archeological evidence, they say, is “inconsistent” with the historical narrative as presented by their respective scriptures.

Why I am learning Biblical Hebrew

“And he [Jonah] said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.”

- The Hebrew Bible, “Jonah,” Chapter 1, Verse 9 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

I’ve posted a lot on Facebook about how I’ve been learning Ancient Greek. There’s been a lot of good reaction to this over the years, and some of my posts about it have been surprisingly popular (at least by my standards). I plan to continue learning Ancient Greek, but I have recently decided to undertake the study of Biblical Hebrew as well. Why would I want to do this, you might ask? Why do I not content myself with the languages that I already know? This is what I address in this post. It’s easy to assume that I’m just doing this because this was the language of the “Old Testament” - or the “Hebrew Bible,” if you prefer. And in truth, that is indeed a big part of my motivation. But there are a few other reasons as well, which are also motivations for me to learn Biblical Hebrew. Thus, I thought that I’d write this post to explain.

A review of “Jerusalem: Center of the World” (PBS)

“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” Chapter 52, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city” …

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have an intimate historical connection with the city. These three religions may be the most prominent of what scholars today call the “Abrahamic religions.” The city has long been hot real estate (and still is today), and has been the site of more than a hundred battles scattered throughout its history.

The “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem, with the Dome of the Rock in the center

Jerusalem really is the “Center of the World” (or at least, the “Old World”) …

I live in the distant United States, the most powerful country in the “New World.” By contrast, Jerusalem lies in the “Old World” – a world which consists primarily of three continents; which are Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – lie in the middle of that “Old World.” This may be part of why this documentary calls Jerusalem the “Center of the World,” as it does here. As with the Middle East in general, the central location of Jerusalem may be both a blessing and a curse to it. It is a blessing in some ways, because it was at the center of the world's trade routes, and has long been such. But it is also something of a curse, because its central location accounts (at least partially) for why it has long been such hot real estate. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – continue to be something of a battleground today. But the importance of Jerusalem also has strong religious components, which are rooted in the unique history of this city.

A review of Simon Schama's “The Story of the Jews”

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy,” Chapter 7, Verse 6 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history …

Before watching this series, I had watched another documentary by the same filmmaker, which was Simon Schama's “A History of Britain.” Since Mr. Schama is also British, this was a television history of his own country, and was an inside perspective. This film is similar, because Simon Schama is Jewish, and can thus give an inside perspective on his own ethnic group. He is clearly familiar with the Hebrew language, and he displays this fluency at a number of times throughout this series. But as it turns out, not all ethnic Jews are of the Jewish faith, so there is thus a difference between being ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, and religiously Jewish. Mr. Schama is clearly ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, but may not be religiously Jewish. Thus, he has struck some as an odd choice to make this series. But considering how many ethnic Jews would match this description, it seems like it works for me. If you want to learn more about their faith, this film will give you some useful background; but you might actually be better off turning to some other source, for this particular kind of information. This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history, and pays only minimal attention to the history of Judaism. Nonetheless, it is still quite good for what it does have to offer.

A review of “Egypt's Golden Empire” (PBS Empires)

The Egyptian language might have been the first language in human history to have been written down. (Although some scholars have argued that Sumerian was actually the first, and that Egyptian was only the second.) Regardless of whether it was first or second, though, the earliest known records of the Egyptian language actually go back to two or three thousand years before Jesus Christ. But unexpectedly, that is not where this documentary begins its history. This is actually a history of the “New Kingdom” in Egypt, which goes from about 1500 BC to 1000 BC – long after the earliest known records in Egypt. I would presume that PBS wanted to focus on a narrower period of Egyptian history (only five centuries or so), to allow for a simpler story. With less than three hours to tell the story here, you can see why PBS would want to do this. But one can only speculate as to why they decided to focus specifically on the “New Kingdom,” rather than on some other period of a similar duration. There are a number of other periods that would have made for equally interesting television, I think; and if someone decided to cover one of them, I would probably view their coverage with more than a little interest.

A review of “Kingdom of David: The Saga of the Israelites” (PBS Empires)

“And David perceived that the LORD had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his people Israel.”

- The Hebrew Bible, “The First Book of the Chronicles,” Chapter 14, Verse 2 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The title of this documentary is only partially correct – it's not about the “Kingdom of David”

The title of this documentary is only partially correct. This is indeed “The Saga of the Israelites,” but it actually has very little coverage of the “Kingdom of David” itself (although it's still a great documentary despite this). It is actually a documentary on a different topic, and has a broader focus than the brief “Kingdom of David.” It instead covers a much broader period of history, including Judaism's clashes with the Greeks and Romans. If you go into this documentary expecting its title to be accurate, you may thus be somewhat disappointed. But this documentary has much to offer despite these things, and covers some history that you may not have heard about. A few Americans will have already heard these stories, I think, but I suspect that most have not; and I was definitely in this category before watching this. I think that I can recommend this documentary to everyone – both Jews and Gentiles.

Reflections on learning about history of Ancient Egypt

"Written by a team of pioneering archaeologists and acknowledged experts working at the cutting edge of Egyptology ... "

- The back cover of "The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt" (2000), edited by Ian Shaw

The Rosetta Stone: The key to Egypt

In 1799, one of Napoleon's soldiers discovered a mysterious stone in the Nile Delta, during the French campaigns into Egypt that year - a stone that would prove the key to Egyptology and its modern practice. The mysterious object was the Rosetta Stone, and it bore an inscription in three different writing systems - Egyptian hieroglyphics, a later Egyptian script called "Demotic," and an ancient variety of Greek that was well-known already to Europeans. Although this soldier didn't know it then, this bilingual inscription would allow a young scholar named Jean-François Champollion to decipher the pronunciations when he reached adulthood, since he was only nine years old at the time that his fellow Frenchman discovered this.

The Rosetta Stone

What is Egyptology?

The Napoleonic campaigns in general - and the decipherment of the Rosetta Stone in particular - ignited a wave of true "Egyptomania" back in Europe, which grew into the modern discipline of Egyptology. Many great discoveries have been made in this area by archaeological digs at various sites, and some of these have uncovered information that was not known to anyone for centuries. Perhaps because of this, the discipline of Egyptology is sometimes considered a subfield of archaeology - a field broad enough to include sites from Greece to Rome to China to Central America. This classification points out that the excavations done in Egypt are just some of the many across the world that attract the attention of archaeologists; and there is truth in this claim. Nonetheless, the study of Egyptology encompasses more than just "digging in the dirt," and embraces written records as well; with languages whose grammar must be seriously studied and understood before a proper and complete history of the Egyptian past can be written. Thus, the Europeans classify Egyptology as a philological discipline (or in other words, a "linguistic" discipline). This controversy over its classification continues today.

Aramaic: The OTHER Bible language

"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The Book of Daniel," Chapter 3, Verses 16 through 18 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) - one of the rare parts of the Hebrew Bible that was originally written in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew

I've talked to a number of Christians over the years who were surprised to learn that the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Greek. This blows their mind, because people associate the Christian Bible's original language with Hebrew. This is understandable, because most of the Christian Bible really was written in Hebrew. The Old Testament (or "Hebrew Bible," if you prefer) was written almost exclusively in Hebrew - all but about 250 verses of it, which were originally written in Aramaic. Besides Hebrew and Greek, there is one other language for Christian scholars, who want to read the Christian Bible in the original. (And you thought your mind wasn't blown enough ... )

What the heck is Aramaic?

I can guess what most of you are probably thinking: "What the heck is Aramaic, and why did the authors of the Bible choose to write in it?" If the ancestral language of the Jews was Hebrew (and it was), why did the Jewish authors of what we today call the "Old Testament" not write everything in Hebrew?

Map of the Ancient Near East

Reflections on learning about history of the Ancient Near East

"The term 'Near East' is not widely used today. It has survived in a scholarship rooted in the nineteenth century when it was used to identify the remains of the Ottoman empire on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Today we say Middle East to designate this geographical area, but the two terms do not exactly overlap, and ancient historians and archaeologists of the Middle East continue to speak of the Near East, as I will do in this book."

- Marc van de Mieroop's "A History of the Ancient Near East (ca. 3000 - 323 BC)", 2nd edition (2007), page 1

So I recently finished reading a book called "A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 BC" (2nd edition). This book is by Marc van de Mieroop, and it is one of the few books to cover this time period that is available on Amazon.

So why did I study this particular time period, you might be wondering? What exactly is the "Ancient Near East," anyway; and why would anyone read about it?

My search for the Hebrew Bible in the original

"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The Second Book of Moses Called Exodus," Chapter 14, Verses 21 and 22 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

I am an amateur Biblical scholar (emphasis on the "amateur"). I have been trying to learn Greek so that I can read the New Testament in the original one day. (Any observations about being a shameless nerd are readily agreed with.) Many are surprised to learn that the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were originally written in Greek (rather than Hebrew), and a number have asked me why. The reason is actually that Greek was the international language of the time. It was the language that people published in if they wanted to reach a wide audience, and that was the case with the early New Testament.

By contrast, the Old Testament really was written in Hebrew - or at least, most of it was. Scholars believe that some of it may have originally been written in Aramaic - a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. In the words of my church's Bible Dictionary: "The original language of most of the Old Testament is Hebrew, but a few portions ... were written in what is popularly called Chaldee, but more correctly Aramaic." (Source: Entry on Bible itself)

My church's edition of the Holy Bible

I then didn't have any plans to learn either Hebrew or Aramaic; as they are difficult languages for English speakers, and my primary Biblical interest was in the New Testament. Nonetheless, I thought that as long as I had a copy of the New Testament in the original Greek, I might as well complement it with a copy of the Old Testament in the original as well. Thus, I looked into what version to get; and found that this was easier said than done.

Some thoughts about Biblical education

"And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The First Book of the Kings," Chapter 18, Verses 25 through 27 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

When I was a student at Yavapai College (the little school in my hometown), I was fortunate to take a class about world religions, in which we learned about everything from Judaism to Islam to Buddhism. The class was called "comparative religions" at our school, and it was the only time that I took a class about religion from a secular college. (We covered some world religions stuff in high school history, but I didn't have an entire class in world religions until early college.)

The value of religion classes at secular schools

My church offers some fine world religions classes through its Institute program, which are well-recommended to those with access to them. But it was good to get some instruction about this from a secular school, where I could hear perspectives from people outside of my faith. The class was taught by a Jewish lady, incidentally - someone who brought an interesting perspective to the class. We also had a Hindu student in the class, who could read the Hindu holy language of Sanskrit. It all combined together to make an interesting class.

The value of religion classes at private religious schools

But the finest classes that I've taken in religion were not the comparative ones offered by secular schools, but the ones taught by my church about its own beliefs. I'm sure devotees of other religions can understand a bias toward one's own faith, and I am no exception to the rule - I am a great fan of my church's religion classes. I took some classes through my church's Seminary in high school, and then some classes through its Institute in college. (In our faith, Seminary classes are geared towards high school students, while Institute classes are geared towards college students.) The classes focused on topics like the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as scriptures unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints such as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. Thus, I learned a lot from these classes. There are also many classes about church history as well, including one for church history since 1900. This was a little unusual, given the church's more typical focus on earlier history; but it was an excellent class, and I greatly enjoyed it.