Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

yigal,

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. 
practical logic.

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.

nir cohen