Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Nehemiah 13:24
And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.
24. spake half in the speech of Ashdod ] LXX. . Vulg. ‘filii eorum ex media parte loquebantur Azotice,’ half their words were framed in the dialect of Philistia. This dialect would be very similar to Hebrew, but from accent and the use of peculiar words almost unintelligible to the Jews.
On the relations of the Jews with Ashdod, see on Neh 4:7, and compare Zec 9:6.
in the Jews’ language ] i.e. Hebrew (‘Yehudth’) LXX. . Vulg. ‘Judaice’ as in 2Ki 18:26; 2Ki 18:28; Isa 36:11; Isa 36:13; 2Ch 32:18. The language of Hezekiah’s reign was still spoken by the Jews after the Return, as indeed would be abundantly shown by these memorials of Ezra and Nehemiah and by the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
On the mistaken idea that during the Captivity the Jews had exchanged Hebrew for Chaldee, i.e. Aramaic, see Introd. 8.
but according to the language of each people ] Referring to the Ammonites and Moabites, who represented dialectical varieties.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The speech of Ashdod – The Philistine language, which was akin to that of Egypt.
According to the language of each people – The children spoke a mixed dialect – half-Philistine, half-Hebrew.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. Half in the speech of Ashdod] There were children in the same family by Jewish and Philistine mothers. As the Jewish mother would always speak to her children in Hebrew or Chaldee, so they learnt to speak these languages; and as the Ashdod mother would always speak to her children in the Ashdod language, so they learnt that tongue. Thus there were, in the same family, children who could not understand each other; half, or one part, speaking one language, and the other part another. Children of different wives did not ordinarily mingle together; and the wives had separate apartments. This is a better explanation than that which intimates that the same child spoke a jargon, half Ashdod and half Hebrew.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which their mothers instilled into them, together with their principles and manners.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. could not speak in the Jews’language, but according to the language of each peopleamongrel dialect imbibed from their mothers, together with foreignprinciples and habits.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod,…. Which they learned of their mothers, so that it was a mixed language they spoke, partly Jewish and partly Philistine; but some refer this not to their speech, but to the number of their children; that half of them, which Jarchi interprets many of them, spoke in the language of Ashdod, even as many as were most with their mothers, and chiefly brought up by them:
and could not speak in the Jews’ language; not at all, or so much as to be understood well, which inclines to the last sense:
but according to the language of each people; their mothers were of, whether of Ashdod, or of Ammon, or of Moab.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(24) Half in the speech of Ashdod.A mixture of Philistine and Aramaic.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. The speech of Ashdod Supposed to have been an Indo-Germanic language.
Not speak Jews’ language Hebrew, and none of them knowing to speak Jewish. The children would naturally speak the language of their mothers.
According to the language of each people Better, as margin, of people and people; that is, of this or that people to whichsoever the mother belonged. “From the circumstance that a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of Ashdod, or of this or that nation from which their mothers were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged.” Keil.
Neh 13:24. And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, &c. What the natural language of the Jews at this time was, whether Hebrew or Chaldee, is matter of some inquiry among the learned. Those who suppose that it was Hebrew, produce the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Esther, beside the prophesies of Daniel, which for the most part were written in Hebrew, and which they suppose the authors of them would not have done, if Hebrew had not been at that time the vulgar language. But to this it is replied, that these Jewish authors might make use of the Hebrew language in what they wrote, not only because the things which they recorded concerned the Jewish nation only, among whom there were learned men enough to explain them; but, chiefly, because they were inclined to conceal what they wrote from the Chaldeans, who at that time were their lords and masters, and, considering all circumstances, might not perhaps have been so well pleased with them, had they understood the contents of their writings. Since it appears then, say they, by several words recurring in the books of Maccabees, the New Testament, and Josephus, that the language which the Jews then spoke was Chaldee, that this language they learned in their captivity, and after their return never assumed their ancient Hebrew tongue so as to speak it vulgarly; it must hence follow, that what is here called the language of the Jews was at that time no other than the Chaldee; for the ancient Hebrew was only preserved among the learned. See Le Clerc.
Neh 13:24 And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.
Ver. 24. And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod ] They had a mixture of their mother’s both speech and spirit: the birth followed the belly, the conclusion followed the weaker proposition.
And could not speak in the Jews’ language] Though it were that of their fathers. Mothers are most about children, and have the greater advantage to perfume them, or poison them. But what mad fellows were those old Britons or Welshmen, who driven out of their own country by the Saxons, came into Little Britain in France; where, when they had married wives, they are said to have cut out their tongues, lest they should corrupt the language of their children! Hence the British or Welsh language remaineth still in that country.
according to the language. Some codices, with four early printed editions, read “but with the tongue”
could not speak: Heb. they discerned not to speak
each people: Heb. people and people, Zep 3:9
Reciprocal: Gen 6:2 – and they Jos 11:22 – Ashdod Jos 15:46 – near Ezr 9:2 – taken of their Neh 4:7 – Ashdodites Hos 5:7 – begotten Mal 2:15 – That he Mat 26:73 – for
Neh 13:24. And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, &c. What the natural language of the Jews at this time was, whether Hebrew or Chaldee, is matter of some inquiry among the learned. Those who suppose it was Hebrew, produce the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Esther, besides the prophecies of Daniel, which, for the most part, were written in Hebrew, and which they suppose the authors of them would not have composed in that language, if at that time it had not been the vulgar language. But to this it is replied, that the Jewish authors might make use of the Hebrew language in what they wrote, not only because the things which they recorded concerned the Jewish nation only, among whom there were learned men enough to explain them; but, chiefly, because they were inclined to conceal what they wrote from the Chaldeans, who at that time were their lords and masters, and, considering all circumstances, might not, perhaps, have been so well pleased with them, had they understood the contents of their writings. Since it appears then, say they, by several words recurring in the book of Maccabees, the New Testament, and Josephus, that the language which the Jews then spoke was Chaldee, that this language they learned in their captivity, and after their return never assumed their ancient Hebrew tongue so as to speak it vulgarly; it must hence follow, that what is here termed the language of the Jews, was at that time no other than the Chaldee, for the ancient Hebrew was only preserved among the learned. See Le Clerc and Dodd.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments