Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a Spoken Language vs. Aramaic

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a Spoken Language vs. Aramaic
  • Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:35:35 -0700



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?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page