Some clown on French-language Quora claimed that Arabic is a much older language than Hebrew, because modern Hebrew was supposedly a conlang (constructed language like Klingon) and previously all Jews spoke Yiddish.
It takes talent to pack so much kloterij in a single statement.
(a) Only Ashkenazi Jews (roughly half of the Jews in the world) at all spoke Yiddish (which I have discussed here numerous times, but is basically a mixture of ca. 60% Middle High German and 30% Hebrew, with about 10% various Slavic languages thrown in). Sephardic Jews spoke Judeo-Spanish (popularly referred to as “Ladino”), and the Jews from Muslim countries spoke Judeo-Arabic or Judeo-Persian dialects. Heck, important Ashkenazi Jewish communities preferred the national languages of the countries they lived in over Yiddish.
(b) While few Jews spoke Hebrew as a living primary or secondary language before Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a much larger percentage could either carry on a conversation or write in the language, and hence it saw some use as a lingua franca among Jews from different parts of the world. (Rabbinical correspondence was usually in Hebrew.) People often forget that the present situation, with English as the lingua franca of business, science, and technology, is a fairly recent one: in the Renaissance, non-Jewish scholars used Latin for this purpose, later French (particularly for diplomacy) and German became more prominent.
(c) The linguistic distance between modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew (let alone Mishnaic Hebrew!) is actually not much greater than between modern and Early Modern English (the language of Shakespeare and of Elizabeth I).
(d) But to top it all off… There are five dialect families of spoken Arabic which are only in part mutually intelligible. Modern Standard Arabic (a.k.a. Literary Arabic) is (mostly) the same across the Arab world, but… was developed and standardized in the late 19th Century — around the same time as Modern Hebrew. (MSA, which is used in literature, media, and formal correspondence[*], is deeply rooted in the Classical Arabic of the Koran and of scholarship in the Muslim Golden Age, the way Modern Hebrew is deeply rooted in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. Lexicographers of both faced the challenge of coming up with new words for modern objects and concepts, and dealt with it in various fashions.)
Summing up: a fair comparison would be between Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic — which came about around the same time — or between the ancestral languages, Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, the latter of which is far older than the former.
[*] The phenomenon where the difference between formal and colloquial variants of the same language rises to the level they can be considered separate languages, rather than registers of the same one, is known among linguists as diglossia. Textbook examples are the classical Latin some of us still learned in school vs. “vulgar” Latin (“vulgus”=the common people), the ancestor of all Romance languages; the classical even fewer of us learned in school vs. the koiné Greek of the Christian New Testament; and Modern Standard Arabic vs. conversational Arabic. One could say a mild form of diglossia is developing between standard German and the colloquial Mundart (literally: oral variant). It is no accident that in all these cases, the formal variants have rich and complex grammar and syntax.
Spin, strangeness, and charm 
That was an interesting bit of linguistic history. Thanks!
Lawrence Franko ________________________________
My great^n grandfather who was a early/mid 19th C British diplomat wrote in his diary that at one point he, a German speaker and someone else (who may have spoken Italian, I forget) had a conversation while travelling together on one of the very earliest trains where they spoke latin to each other because it was the only language they all knew.
Talking of, I need to publish my father’s transcriptions of some of those diaries. They are fascinating
[…] DID I SAY CLOWNWORLD? No, Quora derpseal, Hebrew is not “younger” than Arabic. […]
Excellent summary and decisive. Sad that ideologues spread lies as fast as they are refuted. Truth must be vigilant.
PS. Greek grammar has changed but nouns, verbs, still allow broad comprehension across years and geography.
The Muslims do this as concerns Islam, too. Almost all the mullahs teach that the Koran is older than the Christian Bible and that any information to the contrary is a European lie. And a great many of them believe it, lock, stock, and barrel.
My guess is the derpseal was simply regurgitating the similar argument about language.
And no evidence will convince them, because this is received wisdom from their leader.
Duh. Tits on a boar hogs drivel bunk.
Rabbi Yechuda named his Mishna based upon the בנין אב/precedent that Moshe Rabbeinu named דברים the Mishna Torah — which means common law. The Mishna codified by Rabbi Yechuda in 210 ce follows the משנה תורה common law model established by the Book of דברים. The Common law legal system stands upon precedents. The Hebrew for precedent: בנין אב.
The Gemara, compiled by a later set of scholars AFTER Rabbi Yechuda “sealed” the Mishna, based upon the precedents of the sealing of the T’NaCH, which in its turn caused Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina to seal the Gemara in about 450 ce. The purpose of sealing this Oral Torah methodology of common law? To prevent some tumah perversion which would modify or change both T’NaCH and Talmud. These the sealed masoret/traditions, thereby protected, think fence around the Torah, from counterfeit imposters like the New Testament replacement theology, whose “good news” seeks to cause Jews to assimilate and intermarry with Goyim; to pervert the sealed masoret/traditions unto tumah avoda zarah – Old and new testaments.
A second primary purpose of sealing the masoret/traditions: that all downstream generations of Israel, they equally inherit the identical masoret; thereby preventing an equally vile Av tumah avoda zarah commonly known as ירידות הדורות – falsely understood, that later generations cannot dispute the rulings made by earlier generations. This Av-tumah avoda zarah collapses when confronted with Oral Torah logic which validates that no one generation enjoys a monopoly of Torah logic over later generations.
The correct understanding of ירידות הדורות refers to the idea of “domino effect”.
Talmud, which means learning (Yeshivot fail to learn Talmud, when they study Gemara.), the Gemara brings halachic precedents from across the Sha’s Bavli as בינין אב depth analysis. The purpose of learning by way of compative similar precedents, (this unique Oral Torah logic format) the Common Law Baali Tosafot commentary/criticism of Rashi p’shat on the Talmud, none the less fundamentally erred and failed to learn a halachic precedent to re-interpret משנה תורה the k’vanna of the language of a Gemara sugya, to likewise employed that revised depth anaysis of that sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the Home Mishna which the Gemara brings outside precedent halachic sources to most essentially re-interpret the k’vanna of the language of Rabbi Yechuda’s specific Mishna.
This failure of Reshonim scholarship went across the board, some Reshonim learned with greater clarity than did others. The B’hag, Rif, Rosh common law halachic commentaries, like the Baali Tosafot – correctly learned and understood the Gemara commentary, restricted to a specific Mishna as Common law. Not so the super-commentaries written on these excellent Reshonim scholarship of Talmudic common law. The later scholars confused and perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law. Students in Yeshivot across the world, never receive any instruction which differentiates between T’NaCH/Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued g’lut Jewry down through the Ages.
In like manner, and equally as bad: the Reshonim scholars abysmally failed to discern (One and All, they failed to make the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה with discerns “like from like” the basis: which observance of all Torah and halachic mitzvot most fundamentally require. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages. The Av/toldot relationship between tohor time-oriented commandments — from positive & negative “toldot” commandments. The primary/secondary relationship expressed throughout the entire Torah.
Even Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash (as opposed by his “טיפש פשט” reading of the Talmud. Rashi changed his sh’itta of p’shat learning from wisdom. He correctly foresaw that the Church hated and feared the Talmud. Rashi changed his sh’itta of p’shat as learned from to Chumash and contrasted by his sh’itta of p’shat made upon the Talmud to prevent church barbarians to learn how to learn Talmud as common law!
Reshonim scholarship disgracefully failed to note this fundamental contradiction in Rashi scholarship. Proof that the Reshonim learning had derailed itself and gone off-track. Why? Because the Reshonim and their later rabbinic lackeys failed to understand how the concept of ירידות הדורות refuted the Xtian avoda zarah known as “Free Will”.
A colossal error made by a great Jewish leader: be it King Shlomo who built an assimilated Catholic Cathedral, rather than prioritize the judicial pursuit of justice; or the Rambam who perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law. Once a great sage/leader worships avoda zarah, (Shlomo perverted the priority of establishment of Federal Great/Small Sanhedrin courtrooms as the k’vanna of building the Beit HaMikdash), the Av tumah of this perversion which validates the 2nd Sinai Commandment, all down-stream generations likewise pursue this Av-tumah avoda zarah abomination, from generation to generation to generation! Hence the concept of ירידות הדורות invalidates the Xtian dogmatism of “Free Will”.
The Torah mitzva of Moshiach does not learn from a NaCH sources as the Av tumah gospel avoda zarah declares. Torah mitzvot learn from Torah sources. Why? Because Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest of all prophets. The failure of Reshonim scholarship to correctly grasp how the Chumash learns the mitzva of Moshiach (as just one example), proof of the cursed existence of g’lut Jewry who lacked the wisdom to do mitzvot לשמה.
The Torah operates upon a most basic: Av/Toldot relationship. The Book of בראשית, together with the tohor time-oriented commandments codification known as the Siddur, commands Av tohor time-oriented commandments. “Time” not tied to a watch, but rather to crisis situations which threaten the chosen Cohen people with Shoah; like Akadat Yitzak, or the mitzva to remove the sciatic nerve! The latter explained by targum Uziel. Esau approach “toast” Yaacov with an Army lead by 400 officers. NaCH precedents: D’vorah and HaDassah, whose רשות מצוה likewise defines the k’vanna of תפילת ערבית according to rabbi Yehoshua. Av tohor time-oriented commandments learn from women, that doing mitzvot with k’vanna — a רשות rather than a חיוב.
In the defence of the Reshonim: in the Gemara of ערבין the Baali Tosafot did not know how Rav Ashi could change the halachic dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose haGelili in favor of the latter. According to the כלל, the halacha should follow the opinion of rabbi Akiva. The Baali Tosafot clearly did not have access to the Targum Uziel. Otherwise, they would have understood that Rav Ashi’s recognition that Uziel agreed with the opinion expressed by rabbi Yose haGelili, and therefore changed the halacha expressed in that halachic dispute as recorded in the Gemara of ערובין.
Therefore, the First Book of the Torah serves as the Primary אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות. The second, third, and forth Books of the Torah serves as the secondary ביטול תולדות מצוות; hence the B’hag ruled in his Hilchot G’dolot: that 100 blessings, nar shabbat, nar hannuka, kre’at m’gillah, Shemone Esrei דרבנן (as opposed to ק”ש דאורייתא etc) qualify likewise as mitzvot from the Torah!
The Rambam, whose Yad Chazaka perversion worshipped avoda zarah: (understood as a) assimilation b) intermarriage with Goyim), as opposed to the Xtian avoda zarah Av-tumah abomination, which erroneously translates avoda zarah as idolatry; the 30 year-war slaughtered as many as did WWI when western Europe’s population about 1/3rd of 20th Century European populations, over a debate over the catholic crucifies and worship of saint statues.
The Rambam abomination of avoda zarah assimilation to ancient Greek logic, that fool did not understand the kabbalah of how Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic, interprets the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages.
The last and 5th Book of the Written Torah משנה תורה commands the generations to learn the Torah through the wisdom of common law ie Rabbi Yechuda and the Gemara sages as codified in the Talmud. And likewise enforced and emphasized through the mitzva of lighting the lights of Hannukah.
The disasters of ירידות הדורות Av-tuma avoda zara, this opening question, fails as a consequence, to equally differentiate Geonim Midrashic scholarship which defines the contribution made by the Geonim, much like as does the halachic codifications stamps Reshonim scholarship.
As a loom has its warp/weft relationship, the Talmud designated by its halacha/aggadita relationship. Midrash functions as the Geonim scholarship, which delved into the Aggadic portion of the Talmud. Yeshivot across the world do not know how to learn, not only Midrash as the primary source-commentary which links the דרוש-פשט with T’NaCH prophetic mussar, but how to interpret the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. This disgraceful ignorance similar to Yeshiva rabbinic scholarship whose drivel commentaries on Rashi’s chumash fails to inspire down-stream talmidim to study Rashi’s Chumash דרוש\פשט sh’itta of common law. As contrasted by the halachic Oral Torah logic of רמז-סוד. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages.