What are the major differences between modern and Ancient Heberew?

Question

If I knew enough Hebrew to read the Tanakh, could I understand a modern Hebrew speaker?

Answer 1

There are many differences:
Chronologically- Biblical Hebrew is obviously the language of most of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), which most scholars believe was written between about 1000 BCE (Some of the Psalms) and the 2nd century BCE (the book of Daniel, written mostly in Aramaic), with the bulk of the work having been written around the time of the exile (6th century BCE). This applies only to the consonants of the text-the vowels were not added until the Middle Ages starting about the 8th century CE.
Modern Hebrew was revived in the late 19th century in Palestine, and is the language spoken in modern day Israel.

Phonologically- Although the exact pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew is uncertain (We don't have the tapes), it is fairly certain that there were several major differences in pronunciation from Modern Hebrew. Most of these differences can be attributed to the influence of European languages, which do not have certain consonants in their inventory, and therefore, the Ashkenazi Jews who spoke these European languages neutralized their pronunciation:
In BH ayin was pronounced as it is in Arabic (a voiced pharyngeal fricative), and was distinct from aleph (a glottal stop) In Modern Hebrew, both ayin and aleph are pronounced as a glottal stop (similar to the pause between English uh-oh)
In BH qoph was a uvular stop (as in Standard Arabic), and kaph was a velar stop. In MH they are both velar stops (similar to English k)
The so-called 'emphatic' consonants (tet, tsadi, and according to some scholars, qoph) were pharyngealized /t/, /s/ and /k/ respectively in BH. In Modern Hebrew, however, the pharyngealization has been dropped-tet is pronouncied exactly the same as tav (similar to English t), and tsadi is pronounced /ts/ (similar to the ts in English cats).
In BH, resh was pronounced as a tap (similar to Spanish /r/), but in MH it is a voiced velar fricative (similar to French /r/).
In BH, when gimel (English /g/), dalet (English /d/), and tav (English /t/) would be spirantized following a vowel (they would become fricatives instead of stops, i.e. gimel would be pronounced similar to Spanish /g/ in 'lago', dalet would be pronounced similar to English /th/ in 'there', and tav would be pronounced similar to English /th/ in 'thin'). In MH these consonants are pronounced as /g/, /d/, and /t/, regardless of whether they follow a vowel.

Morphosyntax- There are many differences between BH and MH:
BH had what scholars call the waw-consecutive that would be prefixed to the verb, which was often used to mark a sequentiality in a chain of events. In the narrative portions of the Bible, this is the most common verb form. In MH, however, this form does not exist.
The cohortative and jussive that were used in BH similar to 'let/may' constructions in English (i.e. 'may he live') do not exist in MH.
MH uses constructions with the verb 'to be' plus the prensent tense to denote imperfective aspect. This construction did not exist in BH.
The verbal system in BH is generally thought to use aspect instead of tense, i.e. perfect=completed action vs. imperfect=incomplete or ongoing action, compared to MH tense system, i.e. future, past, & present tenses, although this is debatable. Everyone will agree, however, that there are major differences in the verbal systems of BH and MH.
Word order in BH is generally thought to have been verb-subject-object, i.e. hit the boy the ball, compared to MH subject-verb-object word order (same as English).

Orthography- MH has developed a standardized orthography, that uses the letters yod and vav to denote certain vowels. The orthography of BH, on the other hand, is not standardized, and often does not use yod and vav to mark /i/, /o/, and /u/ vowels.

Vocabulary- MH has had to add many new words to its lexicon that either do not mean the same thing in BH, or did not exist at all. Many of these new words in MH have been borrowed from other languages, mostly European and Arabic. Other words are found in the Bible, but have been reanalyzed, and mean something new, for example, 'hashmal' refers to some kind of divine fire in the Bible, but now means 'electricity' in MH.

Answer 2

Modern Hebrew is NOT related to Yiddish. Yiddish is a Germanic language related to English.

Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew share a lot of grammar, but the conjugation system of the verb has been simplified somewhat in Modern Hebrew and a couple of new conjugation patterns have developed. There is also a vast number of new words that have been added to Modern Hebrew and many words of Biblical Hebrew that have been lost. A person who knows either Modern or Biblical Hebrew can get by in the other without having to "learn a new language", but to become fluent in the other requires work.

Answer 3

Biblical Hebrew is a semitic language and is therefore related to languages such as Akkadian (dead) and Arabic, which is the only surviving semitic language.
Modern Hebrew still uses many of the Biblical words, but the grammar and conjugations are closer to the germanic language "Yiddish."
I read biblical hebrew and I can generally figure out phrases written in modern hebrew but generally it is taught for reading, not for conversation so if you want to speak, it would probably be better to learn modern Hebrew and go the other direction.