Rory Boid's Comments to Russell Gmirkin on Academia.edu which Reference his Work at this Forum

[Secret Alias]

My message to Russell Gmirkin.

Dear Dr. Gmirkin

You misquote me dishonestly in the Early Writings forum. You say I wrote that the Samaritan Joshua is "secondary and very late". This is dishonest misquotation by omission. I said that the MT and THE PRESENT FORM of the Samaritan Joshua are secondary and very late. You have lied about what I said twice over, once in regard to what I said about the MT and once in regard to what I said about the Samaritan. This second lie has two parts. One is that you leave out my evidence that the ancestor of the Samaritan is more original than the ancestor of the MT. The other is that you leave out my examples of where the PRESENT Samaritan must be older than the MT.

Either you can't read, or you lie about my statements on purpose for the sake of ideology. You make it worse by starting off by saying I know the subject, which is true. I have to protect my academic reputation. So far I haven't looked at this website, but now I will have to get access to it and publicise what is false and what is true.

Why should anyone bother to read your publications if you don't know the difference between academic standards and fantasy, or even between journalism and fantasy, or honest copying and lying?

Ruairidh Bóid

[StephenGoranson]

Russell Gmirkin's claim that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were "composed in their entirely about 273-272 BCE" in Alexandria is also, in my view, quite false. (The quote is from his 2006 Berossus and Genesis book.)

As far as I know, though, Gmirkin is not a Dr. nor has he claimed to be.

[billd89]

So far I haven't looked at this website, but now I will have to get access to it and publicise what is false and what is true.

Ruairidh Bóid

Dear God. Threats, while wringing his hands lol

Umbrage or Outrage? I cannot tell which.

[Russell Gmirkin]

My message to Russell Gmirkin.

Dear Dr. Gmirkin

You misquote me dishonestly in the Early Writings forum. You say I wrote that the Samaritan Joshua is "secondary and very late". This is dishonest misquotation by omission. I said that the MT and THE PRESENT FORM of the Samaritan Joshua are secondary and very late. You have lied about what I said twice over, once in regard to what I said about the MT and once in regard to what I said about the Samaritan. This second lie has two parts. One is that you leave out my evidence that the ancestor of the Samaritan is more original than the ancestor of the MT. The other is that you leave out my examples of where the PRESENT Samaritan must be older than the MT.

Either you can't read, or you lie about my statements on purpose for the sake of ideology. You make it worse by starting off by saying I know the subject, which is true. I have to protect my academic reputation. So far I haven't looked at this website, but now I will have to get access to it and publicise what is false and what is true.

Why should anyone bother to read your publications if you don't know the difference between academic standards and fantasy, or even between journalism and fantasy, or honest copying and lying?

Ruairidh Bóid

My response on Academia.edu read as follows:

What an incredibly toxic and derogatory posting, bordering on the hysterical!

You did in fact write that Samaritan Joshua is “secondary and very late” in your article, “The Transmission of the Samaritan Joshua-Judges,” DS-Nell 6.1 (2004), 1-30.

I reviewed the article in question, which (and please correct me if I’m wrong) has to deal with textual criticism on the Samaritan Joshua/Judges, largely focusing on the oldest text, a translation from the Aramaic into Arabic in ca. 1000-1250 CE, and the History of the Events of the Ancestors by the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler Abu'l-Fath (A.F.) who is a later textual witness to the Samaritan Joshua/Judges, and other even later (nineteenth century) sources. Then you try to work back to a hypothetical history of the Samaritan text prior to 1000 AD, via secondary witnesses to such a tradition, including mention of rabbinic sources (which are unfortunately not quoted in this article).

In the conclusion of your article, you wrote , page 23:

“These observations do not mean that the Samaritan form of Joshua/Judges is primary and MT/LXX is secondary. They mean that both are secondary and very late, so late in fact that the earliest Rabbinic quotes and comments represent genuine knowledge of their recensional development.” (Bóid 2004: 23).

Given that quote, my representation of your position on the late date of the Samaritan form of Joshua/Judges was completely fair and accurate. Further, this conclusion is well supported within the article under consideration, so I think we stand on firm ground here.

You did immediately go on to state,

“But with all that considered, in some respects the Samaritan is a very developed form of a short text that is more primitive in its recensional origin than MT/LXX. This fact has implications for the question of systematic recensional development and its purpose, in both traditions.” (Bóid 2004: 23).

I don’t see any support for this claim in Bóid 2004 that the Samaritan is more original than MT; perhaps you are referring to the line of argument you subsequently develop in A Samaritan Plan of Religious History, 33-34. While in the latter text you probably make the best case possible, I would say the evidence is pretty thin, and in any case lies within the realm of hypothesis rather than fact. The late date of the Samaritan form of Joshua/Judges, by contrast, is securely in the realm of fact.

I have been nothing but complimentary towards your research, both in Early Writings and elsewhere. I have read it with interest and always tried to present it fairly and accurately. By contrast, you have made wild claims about my research and personal attacks on me without having read a word I have written. I think this marks an essential difference between us, both in temperament and in academic professionalism.

[Russell Gmirkin]

Gmirkin is not a Dr. nor has he claimed to be.

Yes, I get that a lot. It's very tiresome having to correct people on this issue.