Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

The only reason Jim got off into his Hurrian phase is because he came to us,
not to learn and discuss Hebrew, but because he wanted us to provide him
with linguistic evidence to back up his quasi-historical theories, and we
didn’t do that. Instead what we said is that all the evidence we have from
the Hebrew language and text contradicts his theories. So now he claims that
our Hebrew evidence against his theories doesn’t count because that all is
Hurrian.

I stopped reading his posts because he makes the claim that by denying the
accuracy of the Hebrew text, he thereby establishes its historical accuracy.
Does that make sense to anyone else on this list?

How long do you think he would last on this list if everyone of us agreed
never to respond to any of his posts again? Not even once?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> jim,
>
> first, to make things clear, i have nothing against your hurrian theory,
> nor
> agains your assumption that all 11 names are hebrew and late. really,
> nothing.
> i really don't have an opinion on the matter.
>
> while i remain receptive to your basic historical description of 14th
> century
> canaan, based on the amarna letters, i continue to strongly reject your
> faulty
> use of linguistics to prove your points. in my opinion, you fall victim,
> willingly and unwittingly, to the most basic of all linguistic errors: the
> false cognate. if you BELIEVE the name is hurrian, you PROVE it is hurrian.
> if
> you BELIEVE the other name is hebrew you PROVE it is hebrew.
> all, by producing close cognates from the chosen language of the spur of
> the
> moment.
>
> as i have tried to make clear in previous emails, this is a question of
> Methodology, not of Fact. to no avail so far: you keep throwing Fact at
> every
> response. so, i opt to keep out of this futile exchange.
>
> best
> nir
>
>