Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Karl,
First, don't lecture me about dating methods.  I'm quite familiar with them.  
Second, yes, he meant something different.  Since you seem to have such a 
high opinion of your own skills in reading texts, I'll leave it to you to go 
back and reread his post to figure it out.  That's all I have to say on this 
subject, because it is clear that any attempt at true dialog with you is 
pointless.

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 10:50, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 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."

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