FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-26-2013, 12:31 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

And always remember that the formed letters in inscriptions - especially in Hebrew - don't typically look like letters on a written page. The guy hammering with a chisel has limited technical capabilities. Look at my throne for example:



The first two letters look normal - 'fire' on their own but WTF is the third letter? They said that was a bet.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 12:34 AM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I'd like to get an actual photo of the inscription.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 08:18 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

I do not understand the dating of the 447 as 135 CE. In Hebrew calculations the year would be tav-mem-zayin. In the current fifth millennium this was the year 1687. In the fourth millennium it was the year 687 CE. In the third millennium the year was 313 BCE.

Plus the name of the person is Salman son of Nasa son of Tsaida-Barak.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 11:58 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

It refers to the Seleucid era (started 311 BCE), the normal system of dating in the region. So, 447 of the Seleucid era less 311 = 134, plus the 1 yr adjustment to compensate for the lack of a "zero" year = 135 CE.

I have seen Syrian inscriptions that use the era of creation during my searches, but right now I do not recall where. I take it that this is the norm among modern Jews. However, that custom may not have been all that widespread in that time and place.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I do not understand the dating of the 447 as 135 CE. In Hebrew calculations the year would be tav-mem-zayin. In the current fifth millennium this was the year 1687. In the fourth millennium it was the year 687 CE. In the third millennium the year was 313 BCE.

Plus the name of the person is Salman son of Nasa son of Tsaida-Barak.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 12:06 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Where is the indication that the year was according to the Seleucid calendar? Presumably a Jew would include the Jewish date at least.
In any event, it seems highly unlikely that someone with that name of Salman son of Nasa son of Tsaida-Barak would be a "Christian" except in the minds of those who continue to cling to the unproven belief of "Jewish Christians" for whom not a shred of evidence of any kind exists, including even the slightest mention in the Talmud, midrashim or even writings of the gaonim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
It refers to the Seleucid era (started 311 BCE), the normal system of dating in the region. So, 447 of the Seleucid era less 311 = 134, plus the 1 yr adjustment to compensate for the lack of a "zero" year = 135 CE.

I have seen Syrian inscriptions that use the era of creation during my searches, but right now I do not recall where. I take it that this is the norm among modern Jews. However, that custom may not have been all that widespread in that time and place.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I do not understand the dating of the 447 as 135 CE. In Hebrew calculations the year would be tav-mem-zayin. In the current fifth millennium this was the year 1687. In the fourth millennium it was the year 687 CE. In the third millennium the year was 313 BCE.

Plus the name of the person is Salman son of Nasa son of Tsaida-Barak.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 12:56 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

My Lord. The mashuganas are back in full force. Arguing over this nonsense. Really? What's next, debating a rock?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 03:05 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Stephan, if you don't like the exchange you can abstain from participation.......always resorting to name-calling..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
My Lord. The mashuganas are back in full force. Arguing over this nonsense. Really? What's next, debating a rock?
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 03:34 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

..
Toto is offline  
Old 06-26-2013, 11:49 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Where is the indication that the year was according to the Seleucid calendar?
It's the normal calendar used in what, until quite recently, had been the Seleucid empire. The "year of the Greeks" was still being used in that region in Syriac manuscript colophons even into the 20th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 06-27-2013, 12:23 AM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Samaritan manuscripts too.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.