Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 11/8/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > > And just for the record, in various cases that you have listed
> > > what would convince you, I have asked for clarifying questions
> > > ("Why is Onkelos not a valid example of 2nd Millenium
> > > Aramaic?",
> >
> > 2) histories that I read stated that it is an example of
> > second *century* AD Aramaic, long *after* the period in
> > question. Again irrelevant.
> 
> But while you read "histories" to determine what Aramaic is,
> you use "internal dating" to determine the place of the
> consonantal text of the Bible.  Why don't you use "internal
> dating" for Onkelos?
> 
What a stupid question!

A translation is always later then the original. Your fixation 
on Onkelos baffles me. Here we have a document that is a 
known translation, with a known approximate date of 
writing (second century AD) and you're trying to make it an 
argument for ... what????

After reading this tripe once again, I did not read the rest 
of your statement.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/