Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 09/01/2007 17:49, K Randolph wrote:
> ...
> > ...  That this
> > indicates the Qumran authors differentiated Sin and Shin is theory.
> > That &M "put" and $M "there" are translated in the LXX in a specific
> > way is evidence.  That they are identified by you as coming from the
> > same root is theory.
> >     
>
> That they show a similarity of meaning, indicating a similarity of
> root, is observation, not theory.
>
>   
That they show a similarity of meaning is an observation, although a 
debatable one. That this implies anything about roots is a theory.

> ...
> I have made an observation (actually three), but have not made an
> organized study of it. You dispute my observation on the basis of
> theory. Either you make a statistical study of the frequencies of
> shared roots, complete with appendices showing the words you studied,
> or you shut your mouth up. I have noticed something. I have not made a
> detailed study of what I observed. In order to prove or disprove it,
> one needs to make a statistical study, and you have not done that.
>
>   
You have made a claim on the basis of three alleged observations. I have 
shown that two of the observations are extremely unsafe, being based on 
clear textual corruptions, and the third one is merely conjectural. Your 
claim requires more evidence before it can be taken seriously. You have 
been asked for that. You say that you don't have time to find it. Indeed 
this needs a proper statistical study (which actually wouldn't take very 
long at all with proper computer tools), but until that has been carried 
out what you are saying is nothing more than unsubstantiated 
speculation. When you put forward a speculation, it cannot be presumed 
true until others disprove it, but must be presumed probably false until 
you prove it, or at least provide a proper body of evidence in its 
favour. In the absence of that, the rest of us will ignore you.

...
> What I find interesting is when they made that observation, you simply
> claim that they are scholars. But when I made exactly the same claim,
> you try your hardest to disprove me. Why?
>
>   
Could it be because the claims which you made, when they were put 
forward long ago by scholars, were thoroughly disproved? If your theory 
was false then, it is false now. If you want to overturn the conclusions 
of past scholarship, you need to provide new evidence, or convincing new 
interpretations of the old evidence. Otherwise you will simply be ignored.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/