In the twitter thread above by Mahgraye, they mention Luxenberg:
"Do you have any thread on the general criticism of Luxemberg work? Thank you."
Marijn van Putten:
"I don't, and I think I'd be beating a dead horse revisiting it. It's been reviewed to death. It's really really terrible, and based on such completely nonsensical starting assumptions that it's difficult to even criticize."
Why is MVP so extremely negative to Luxenberg? I see many scholars talk of him and are skeptic, but some seem open for that there could be something in his hypothesis.https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1138191335956127744
MVP does not know Syriac. He speaks that "It's really really terrible, and based on such completely nonsensical starting assumptions". Why not? Which ones ?
That Syriac (East Aramean) was the lingua franca
of the Orient? where Arabs were numerous maybe?