[b-hebrew] Hebrew as a Spoken Language vs. Aramaic
yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Sat Oct 27 14:35:43 EDT 2007
On 10/26/07, Dave Washburn wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2007 at 6:12, Yishmor wrote:
> > A few (I don't mention Shim`own Bar Kokba', for example) and abbreviated
> > list of examples that support Hebrew being the common spoken tongue in
> > the first century.
> > *=== Via the Rabbinic Talmudiym*
> Okay, let me try again. I have said all along that Hebrew at this time was
> a RELIGIOUS tongue, used by the religious leaders and used for religious rites.
> How does a religious compendium like the Talmud disprove that?
If you are going to go this route, I am going to ask that you not make any
conclusions from the Bible (such as that the Jews were entirely displaced)
because the Bible is too a religious document. It has about as much to do
with the point being raised. (For a detailed discussion of the Bible's position
regarding deportations see the thread on the subject). The Talmud is
written in Aramaic. It is a religious document. But it brings anecdotal
evidence. I have problems with evidence the Talmud brings for Mishnaic
times. But in the case of the slave in Judah Hanasi's house, even if I assume
that the story is a later event retrojected into Mishnaic times by the Talmudic
authors, my point remains valid, if not more so. The anecdotal evidence can
serve as evidence regardless of the religious nature of the Talmud. This is
really problematic only when there is suspicion that the anecdote is used
in the Talmud to make a theological point and thus, may not tell events like
they really were, but rather like it is necessary to make the point drive home.
But to start off, you need to look at the Talmudic and Mishnaic evidence
yourself to be able to judge the point being made.
More information about the b-hebrew