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: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Richard Steiner on Sin and Shin
  • Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:11 -0800

Peter:

On 1/9/07, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2007 17:49, K Randolph wrote:
> ...
> 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.

I have not forgotten your letter, I just have not had the time to go
and make what I consider a proper response to it. I figure that should
take a few days, if I have the time.

... Your
claim requires more evidence before it can be taken seriously.

But to brush it off without evidence also cannot 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.

You can ignore me, that's no problem. But why were those others
"disproved"? Was it on the basis of theory, or new observation? The
amount of new discoveries from known Biblical Hebrew in the last
century is miniscule, so what was it? For all intents and purposes, we
all are working from the same data.

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


Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page