Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>]

Yitzhak wrote:-

> This is evidence you don't accept, and some others on this
> list also rule out some of the evidence categorically (for example, 
> anecdotal
> evidence in the Talmud is ruled out because the Talmud is a religious
> work that should be ignored for these purposes in their opinion).

Usually incidental detail is regarded as historically valuable even in texts
which serve a clear polemical purpose. For example if some ancient general
wrote -- we crossed the wooden bridge on the so-and-so river to meet our
enemy on the plains of battle and left not a man of them standing -- the
fact that the bridge is described as being wooden is accepted as likely to
be fact. Its completely incidental that the bridge was wood, it could easily
have been stone or they could have waded the river or gone across on small
boats for the purposes of the narrative. So in the case of the Talmud, I
presume this is the slave woman who spoke Hebrew story, it depends on
whether the fact that she spoke Hebrew is incidental or central to the
narrative which determines its value as evidence.


Bill Rea Ph.D., ICT Services, University of Canterbury   \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                         </   New
Phone +64-3-364-2331, Fax  +64-3-364-2332               /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                             (/'