Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 12:28, Karl Randolph wrote:
> ----- 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????

Maybe you should go back and reread the question, this time with a modicum of 
comprehension.  I suspect everybody else here understood what he is asking, 
but obviously you didn't.  

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."