I ask for evidence that supports your assertions and you say you will not give it because I would not be convinced by any of it --- presumably you do not think any other readers here will be convinced by it either.
I think a reasonable conclusion is that you cannot supply the evidence for the benefit of any interested reader here.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:03 am
The "Now" in "Now Plato?" refers to Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:29 am, time of writing. I.e., added Greek writer.
I already gave a page number, Berossus page 2, quoted from previous online text, with reasons, more than once.
That did not satisfy you; it seems a safe bet that more would not satisfy you.
That's a tad unfair. You only said that there were "weasel words" on the pages but did not identify which words we were to identify as "weasel words" and nor did you argue for why they were "weasel words". Simply saying read page 2 for weasel words is not a rebuttal, certainly not an alternative argument.
(Though later you give us other excuses for not giving us the evidence so I do think you would provide it if you could!)
You wrote:
> I find the book unpersuasive, despite its frequent use of words such as
> "doubtless" in its string, thicket, of hypotheses and assertions. The bold
> thesis statement is restated later, but with various weasel words added (e.g.
> pages 21, 251, 253).
But that is not an argument at all. It is only a contrary assertion without any evidence to support it. All I asked for was one specific example of one element of his work in which you can fault him for unduly favouring a non-Semitic source over a Semitic one.
I checked my digital version for the word "doubtless" and did not see it used any controversial context. Can you show me one instance that I missed?
You also wrote:
> It is unclear, for example, whether the book settles on
> translation by the seventy or seventy-two proposed fluent bilingual visitors
> to the Library of Alexandria or "a single individual (or a very small group) as
> shown by consistent style and vocabulary."(251)
But when I consult page 251 I do not see that RG's point about a single individual or 70/72 is addressing a "thicket of hypotheses and assertions" at all. He is simply citing a well-known point, a truism, if you will, sourced from Jellicoe:
According to The Letter of Aristeas, the project initiated by Ptolemy II Philadelphus
took place in two distinct phases: the acquisition of a definitive Hebrew
text of the Pentateuch from Jerusalem and the translation of that text into Greek
at Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas confined the activity of the Septuagint scholars to
translation, but a simple translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew to Greek
would hardly have required the efforts of seventy-two scholars. As is well known
from Septuagint studies, the Septuagint Pentateuch was actually the translation
of a single individual (or a very small group), as shown by consistent style and
vocabulary. 71 It follows that Pseudo-Aristeas's description of the Septuagint
scholars as translators cannot be taken at face value. . . . (pp 250f)
71 Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 56.
And you can read Page 56 of Jellicoe's book in Google books. I am in Thailand at the moment so my URL is to the Thai URL, so if the link does not resolve readily for you no doubt a fresh search will bring the same result:
https://books.google.co.th/books?redir_ ... &q&f=false
or how about a screenshot:
- Screen Shot 2022-08-04 at 9.30.28 pm.png (67.41 KiB) Viewed 908 times
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:03 am
I used to have a complete photocopy of the Berossus book, which I made from a library copy.
Was that legal? Would not a conscientious librarian ensure signs at photocopiers advising users of the copyright rules?
Is it wise to make such admissions on a public forum?
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:03 amI could walk to the library for it, but I have other things to do, and it's so hot.
No problem.... you can access the book on Scribd:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4763503 ... the-Date-o
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:03 amPerhaps you--and anonymous others--may consider whether RG gave Hebrew Bible due consideration for being Hebrew.
Did you know that RG actually compares the Hellenistic source hypothesis, in detail, episode by episode, law by law, with related Semitic sources?
Forgive me, but your statement only suggests to those of us who have read RG's work that you have not read RG's actual arguments. I have posted on Gmirkin's works in depth:
https://vridar.org/tag/gmirkin-berossus-and-genesis/ -- where I point out that RG acknowledges clear Semitic sources for the Hebrew Bible, and he compares these with other sources. (And
https://vridar.org/series-index/russell ... rew-bible/)
You do not seem to know how RG presents his hypothesis and how he relates it to the case for Semitic sources.
You can provide no specific example of any particular argument of his that demonstrates why you found it "unpersuasive" or to support your claim in a single instance of RG unfairly downplaying Semitic sources. I am sure if you could you would love to do nothing more than demonstrate the specific evidence for your assertions.
Unfortunately, we have to accept that you had it all there but that the dog ate it.