[b-hebrew] maqom + 13 years
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Thu Aug 25 17:03:54 EDT 2011
my whole point in my raising the 13 vs 26 year issue (which i am not
particularly concerned with per se) was exactly the point which you
raised: the fallibility of language.
according to jim, BH is perfect and every undotted I and uncrossed T in the
text needs to be explained. you and i, who think differently, cannot really
argue against this philosophical view.
however, when jim interpreted MAQOM, he did it by claiming the
infallibility of language; and when he argued 13 years, he did it
AGAINST language, in favor of the argument you mention, i.e.
it is this apparent inconsistency in his argumentation which made me
respond, not the content by itself. meanwhile, i find fascinating
the medieval debate on this point which you mention.
More information about the b-hebrew