Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Richard Steiner on Sin and Shin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Richard Steiner on Sin and Shin
  • Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:13:09 +0000

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page