ROTECTED]
To: g-megillot@McMaster.ca
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:30
AM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] falsifying
methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Dear Stephen,
You wrote:
"I see no logical requirement that the root MLK must be used in the
surviving fragments of 1QpHab tha
Dear Stephen,
You wrote:
"I see no logical requirement that the root MLK must be used in the surviving fragments of 1QpHab that you select or else Jannaeus is called, by you, falsified."
The essence of scientific method (which includes history - if properly practiced as a true discipline) is
Russell Gmirkin, again, I see many matters differently.
Briefly, and relevantly on "falsification," George Athas' careful physical
observations on the Tel Dan Aramaic inscription, if true as stated, falsify
your asserted scenario in which a putative forger carved a dalet in the
direction of a p
Dear Stephen,
You wrote:
"...G. Athas, on detailed observation, declared that dalets were carved in a direction that, if true, falsifies the proposed scenario that a forger carved the arms of the dalet both toward the left and stopped before a stone break; further, Athas claimed that the dale
ke the emperor's new
clothes) is not exactly an amazing scholarly methodology.
:-(
_Dierk
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:14 PM
Subject: P.S. Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
P.S. I could address further claims in R. Gmirkin's latest post, and will, if
seems useful.
And corroboration and coherence and chronological-suitability, for instance,
are all among important aspects of worthy proposals.
But I would like to state more clearly than I did before that the Qumran
Russell Gmirkin,
In response: I do not agree with many of your recent statements. I'll mention
some and try to look for a more productive way forward than the recent
exchange.
Briefly, as you called my comments "incorrect," G. Athas, on detailed
observation, declared that dalets were carved in
Dear Stephen,
Some selective responses. (On the Tel Dan Inscription, your comments are both incorrect and out of place on Megillot, and will therefore be ignored.)
You wrote:
"Russell, your misrepresentation included declaring that there was no evidence other that what you mentioned"
Au co
Russell, your misrepresentation included declaring that there was no evidence
other that what you mentioned, whereas you know I that draw on other evidence
(too much to retype here; I hope to offer more later). Misrepresentation
included again presenting Judah "ensconsed" in the temple, as if he
t: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell, you have misrepresented my views especially in what I consider to
be
the support for them and possibilities for falsifying, so I doubt whether
dialogue with you on such unreliable basis was muc
Russell, you have misrepresented my views especially in what I consider to be
the support for them and possibilities for falsifying, so I doubt whether
dialogue with you on such unreliable basis was much promise.
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot
Stephen,
In your recent posting inviting discussion on methodology, falsification, Popper, etc., you write the following:
<
But, to try 3 specific ane cases, perhaps falsifiable claims. 1) In some Qumran texts, the "wicked priest" is Alexander Jannaeus.2) In some Qumran texts, the "teacher of
12 matches
Mail list logo
