Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 27 Oct 2007 at 18:35, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> 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.  

So what?  That doesn't make it a priori an unreliable source.  We obviously 
disagree on this 
crucial point, so perhaps we're at a stopping point right there.  It's the 
one and only source 
we have that purports to be from roughly the time period in question, that 
has any real 
detail.  Writing it off because it's a religious document leaves us with 
essentially nothing.  
Yes, I read the thread on the topic, but wasn't impressed.  At the very 
least, it's several 
centuries earlier than the later rabbinic "evidence," so it must at least be 
considered and not 
just written off with a single stroke of the pen because of its genre.

Dave Washburn
Why do it right when you can do it again?