Japeth ben Ali's commentary on Daniel

[Timothy Leary]

FYI,

I have got my hands on a translation of Japeth ben Ali's commentary on Daniel that is over 100 years old. (The translation of it, not the original. the original is 400 years younger than islam)

I am working on scanning this book, then updating it a bit (change the old english bible translations to modern english translations, change the scripture references in roman numerals into normal numbering, etc. so it'd be easier for the readier to understand... no actual changes) and then I plan on releasing this online free of charge (and as a book for a minimal charge that would cover the costs and help support future translations of other works, probably around 10$)

I am scanning the pages of this antique as we speak :)

[Cherith]

How's the scanning coming, Yoshi?

I've been immersed in Mitchell First's book Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology. Very enlightening (and very decimating to the rabbinic point of view). I ran across this in one of his footnotes and thought you might find it interesting. On page 182 after stating that "...early Jewish authors never considered themselves bound by the SO chronology" is the footnote:

5. [i]In this appendix, we have included ALL the early Jewish authors referred to by the responses in this study, and traditional ones as well. But, we have NØT included Karaite authors...

I presume this is because Karaites don't feel the need to shore up "the tradition of the elders," but then I wonder how a Karaite commentator would get around the obvious dating of Daniel's "prophecies"?

BTW, thanks for the link to the article on Am ha-Aretz (http://www.amhaaretz.com/2004/02/reconciling_jewish_chronology.html). I had already read the Heifetz/Aaronson view and while it seeks to account for the discrepancy of their "Sages" it nevertheless doesn't do the historical and archaeological evidence justice (Heifetz & Aaronson view the Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions on the Persian palaces that correspond EXACTLY to the conventional chronology as forgeries without one shred of evidence!). Both First and Heifetz are lawyers and if I ever have to choose between the two to defend me, I would definitely choose the more capable First!

[Timothy Leary]

Cherith,

There are a number of other reasons they may have not included karaite commenters, such as the lack of avaliable english translations of our works.

Secondly, while you may see the datings of daniel as "obvious", others may not.

Lastly, while you (and I) don't neccessarily agree with the Rabbinical Sages, there is no need to mock them by implying they are not. A sage does not have to be perfect to be a sage.

[Timothy Leary]

Also, I've expanded the project to include all karaite works in english. Hopefully Yale will allow me to use their translation of Daniel Al Kumisi's epistle to the diaspora and Japheth ben Ali's commentary on Ruth.