Letter of Aristeas

[ABuddhist]

Burden of proof for all-at-once c273/2 rests with REG, who, in 2006 book, failed.
The Deir Alla inscription is not just-like Numbers etc. Of course. But it does attest that such texts existed
way-back
**in writing**.

1. Given how poorly you have been representing Gmirkin's claims (most notoriously, his claims about the inscribed silver amulets), other people may doubt your claim that he failed to meet the burden of proof.

2. With all due respect, I think that you are attributing too much significance to the Deir Alla inscription. Certainly, it reveals that people in that time were writing prose narratives about religious events. But it is one thing to write such narratives occasionally and another thing to do the following associated with a pre-273 BCE Pentateuch: write out hundreds of pages (or their equivalents) of such narratives; regard such narratives as sacred and true to a degree which, for example, was not attached to Homer's writings; preserve such narratives for hundreds of years; and orient a culture around such narratives and their interpretation.

[neilgodfrey]

I'm aware that ng has read much, given the frequent reminders.
Citing authority apparently is Ok only, for fanboy, when citing REG--or is there anthing REG wrote with which you are critical?
Options are not limited to original DH and REG.
Burden of proof for all-at-once c273/2 rests with REG, who, in 2006 book, failed.
The Deir Alla inscription is not just-like Numbers etc. Of course. But it does attest that such texts existed
way-back
**in writing**.

SG, are you seriously trying to suggest that Gmirkin is saying that Hebrew writing was non-existent prior to 273 bce or that any Hebrew text inscription that references any deity found in the Torah or echoes any passage in the Torah falsifies Gmirkin's thesis? You really haven't read a word of any of Gmirkin's books, have you. And you could easily simply open up the link to his book you say you read and check it online so you have no excuse for saying you don't have time to check -- you have time enough to make bizarre assertions that bear no relation to Gmirkin's arguments.

Stephen, according to an earlier comment of yours you appear keen to be thought of as being part of academia. An academic criticism, at least a serious one, does not simply toss out assertions: it sets out the evidence, stating it as strongly as possible in the opponents favour, and then step by step demonstrates where it fails. To show that Gmirkin has "failed" the "burden of proof" you would need to quote a meaningful passage from one of his books, point out its context, and then show the evidence that it fails to meet the basic requirements of what it sets out to "prove".