Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dave:

Modern historians have made a consensus for the date of 
the Babylonian capture of Judea and the start of the 
Babylonian Exile. Starting with that date, going through 
the king lists to the time the temple was built, then taking 
490 years previous to the Exodus, renders a date in the 
mid 15th century BC. It is mentioned that Moses wrote. 
The language that has been preserved is Hebrew.

Not everyone believes those dates, but that's a different 
question. There is no corroborating evidence either for or 
against from other sources.

Onkelos is a known translation, with a known approximate 
date of composition later than some if not all of the DSS 
Biblical texts. If it is an accurate translation, it will give the 
same dates as the original. To try to argue that because it 
gives the same dates as the original that that is evidence 
that it was composed at the times that those dates indicate 
is as ridiculous as those KJV only Fundies. Further, 
Yitzhak Sapir referenced in earlier posts to a tradition on 
the same order as those KJV only Fundies concerning 
Onkelos with the argument that I'm to consider it seriously.

Ridiculous!

I didn't answer the question earlier because I thought it so 
transparently foolish.

Or do you think he meant something different?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "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."

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