Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by DCHindley »

I found the following on Jim Davila's PaleoJudaica blog http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/search ... results=50
Gmirkin, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

FORTHCOMING BOOK FROM ROUTLEDGE:
Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible
By Russell E. Gmirkin

© 2017 – Routledge

320 pages

Hardback: 9781138684980
pub: 2016-09-16
Available for pre-order
£90.00 [about US $118 at current exchange rates]

Description
Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible for the first time compares the ancient law collections of the Ancient Near East, the Greeks and the Pentateuch to determine the legal antecedents for the biblical laws. Following on from his 2006 work, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus, Gmirkin takes up his theory that the Pentateuch was written around 270 BCE using Greek sources found at the Great Library of Alexandria, and applies this to an examination of the biblical law codes. A striking number of legal parallels are found between the Pentateuch and Athenian laws, and specifically with those found in Plato's Laws of ca. 350 BCE. Constitutional features in biblical law, Athenian law, and Plato's Laws also contain close correspondences. Several genres of biblical law, including the Decalogue, are shown to have striking parallels with Greek legal collections, and the synthesis of narrative and legal content is shown to be compatible with Greek literature.

All this evidence points to direct influence from Greek writings, especially Plato's Laws, on the biblical legal tradition. Finally, it is argued that the creation of the Hebrew Bible took place according to the program found in Plato's Laws for creating a legally authorized national ethical literature, reinforcing the importance of this specific Greek text to the authors of the Torah and Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic Era. This study offers a fascinating analysis of the background to the Pentateuch, and will be of interest not only to biblical scholars, but also to students of Plato, ancient law, and Hellenistic literary traditions.

Posted by Jim Davila at 3:39 PM


I've read some of Gmirkin's ideas in the past when I used to hang out on the ANE and ANE2 lists, where he had drawn attention to strong parallels between the battle formations and weapons described in the Pentateuch and those of Alexander the Great's army. He was developing his hypothesis that Judean books of Law were finalized around the 3rd century BCE.

A review of his 2006 book Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus in Religious Studies Review 33-1 (January 2007) can be found here:
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/ ... sequence=1

The book is still available on Amazon. Their summary says:
Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus proposes a provocative new theory regarding the date and circumstances of the composition of the Pentateuch. Gmirkin argues that the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria that later traditions credited with the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. The primary evidence is literary dependence of Gen. 1-11 on Berossus' Babyloniaca (278 BCE) and of the Exodus story on Manetho's Aegyptiaca (c. 285-280 BCE), and the geo-political data contained in the Table of Nations. A number of indications point to a provenance of Alexandria, Egypt for at least some portions of the Pentateuch. That the Pentateuch, drawing on literary sources found at the Great Library of Alexandria, was composed at almost the same date as the Septuagint translation, provides compelling evidence for some level of communication and collaboration between the authors of the Pentateuch and the Septuagint scholars at Alexandria's Museum. The late date of the Pentateuch, as demonstrated by literary dependence on Berossus and Manetho, has two important consequences: the definitive overthrow of the chronological framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, and a late, 3rd century BCE date for major portions of the Hebrew Bible which show literary dependence on the Pentateuch.https://www.amazon.com/Berossus-Genesis ... 0567025926
This may seem fantastic to some (it did to me at the time) but the parallels he drew on ANE were very convincing, and his 2006 book was also very compelling, from what I had read about it on e-lists at the time.

What do people think?

DCH
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Secret Alias »

Spin and I talked about the general theory. My difficulty is that there isn't enough time in the Alexandrian period to explain the Samaritan and Jewish schism when factoring in the reality that Deuteronomy was written after the first four books. If you just think about the Jews it works. If you expand things to include the Samaritans it doesn't. For instance, the Pentateuch doesn't mention Jerusalem. It was clearly written with the area around Shechem as the holiest place on earth.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Clive »

There have been a huge amount of interactions between many peoples and empires from before Stonehenge throughout Europe and Asia. Robin Lane Fox Travelling Heroes notes that a continuous xian and Jewish propaganda effort has been to minimise these interactions in the name of asserting the true god - you cant have someone else saying the same things before your god did!

Interestingly, Fox argues the Samaritans and Phoenicians are more important than realised.

It would seem to be logical if you are preparing a translation to also prepare a text from which to translate, and as one of the main purposes of the Library of Alexandria was to rewrite Homer for their modern times, it seems logical to also have a new edition Hebrew Bible written along side a Greek One to work from.

So I think this was done, but that does not say how much pre existing texts were left alone or edited.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Clive »

Another vector is the truthiness of your holy scriptures. When was the concept of the words being fixed or god breathed invented? That you couldn't improve or edit things? Islam is possibly the high point of this way of thinking, but how far back does it go?

Why can you not try and restate the word of god for the present time?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Clive »

Ekirch At Day's Close writes
So attentively did Irish audiences in Dungiven listen to ancient poems that errors in narration were queried on the spot."The dispute",remarked an observer "is then referred to a vote of the meeting".
Might be via James Macpherson Poems of Ossian but reference unclear.

Note that these "errors" do not necessarily go back to a standard, but what feels and sounds right, there is an evolutionary process happening.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by DCHindley »

There is a 2010 review by Joyce Rilett Wood in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 8 (2008):

https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/i ... /7274/5980

Since the JHS is free online, I will quote the entire review, for the furtherance of academic discussion only:
This book has a bold thesis and detailed argumentation: The Pentateuch was written in the third century BCE (circa 273-272) by the same Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew text into Greek (pp. 1-4). The primary literary evidence for this late dating comes from two Hellenistic historians, Berossus and Manetho, whom Gmirkin identifies as major figures of influence in the production of the Pentateuch. Accordingly, Genesis 1-11 is entirely dependent on Berossus’ Babyloniaca, thus on a single late source, and not directly on early Mesopotamian sources (pp. 89-139). The simplicity of this model is stressed (p. 136), since in lieu of multiple independent sources of different ages influencing Genesis, Berossus drew on the same Mesopotamian texts for his history and made them available in Greek to a wide readership, including Jewish scholars in Alexandria (pp. 91, 136-39). The Church fathers suggested dependence of Berossus on Genesis 1-11, but Hellenistic scholars (e.g. Schnabel, Burstein) think that a number of references are not what Berossus wrote himself but later interpolations by Jewish writers to make a reading conform to Genesis (pp. 96-97). For this reason most references are deleted from modern translations of his text (Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus, 1978, p. 14, note 11). Gmirkin, however, talks about “strong parallels” between Berossus and Genesis, arguing that Genesis 1-11 borrowed from Berossus (p. 91). Berossus wrote Babyloniaca to instruct Greco-Macedonian rulers about Babylon and its cultural history (Burstein, pp. 5-6, 13). Not surprisingly, no one before Gmirkin has ever supposed that Berossus is the direct source for the authors of Genesis 1-11, especially since the hypothesis implies that learned Jews of the third century BCE chose an inferior literary work on Babylonian history, written in poor Greek (Burstein, p. 9), as the foundation for the introduction of their national history.

Gmirkin rightly stresses the indebtedness of Genesis 1-11 to Mesopotamian sources (p. 135), but he is unable to show that Berossus has “better parallels” to Genesis “than the older cuneiform sources” (p. 136). If some parallel exists between Genesis 1-2 and Enuma Elish that does not appear in Berossus, Gmirkin asserts that it was likely present in the longer original version of Babyloniaca, thus resorting to argumentum e silentio to make his case (pp. 93, 94-95). The parallels between Genesis 1-2 and Berossus that are absent in Enuma Elish (the darkness of the primeval waters; the creation of animals) can be explained without the dependency of Genesis on Berossus (pp. 93-94, 96-100). Gmirkin contends that “the description of the primordial universe as darkness and water in Genesis did not derive directly from Enuma Elish, but was strikingly similar to the expansion of Enuma Elish seen only in Berossus” (p. 100). But if Berossus was able to deduce from Enuma Elish that Tiamat the primeval sea was darkness, then the writer of Gen 1:2 would have been able to make the same inference. Gmirkin supposes that Berossus exclusively based his story of creation on Enuma Elish (pp. 92, 96), thereby excluding the option that both Berossus and Genesis knew about the creation of animals from some Babylonian text other than Enuma Elish (Heidel, Babylonian Genesis, 1963, pp. 64, 117-18). For Gmirkin “the creation sequence in Enuma Elish” is “not exact enough to show direct dependency” of Genesis 1-2 on the Babylonian Creation Story (p. 92). Reversal of sequence, however, is one way ancient authors marked their reliance on literary sources (e.g., the order of stars, moon and sun in Enuma Elish is reversed in Genesis). Gmirkin makes the incredible claim that Berossus’s Oannes is “the prototype for the wise serpent of Gen 3” (p. 107). Gen 3:1 does not say that the serpent is “the wisest of all animals” (p. 106), but the serpent is “more cunning (ערום) than any other creature”. Other than human speech, there is no resemblance between the snake of Genesis and the half-fish-half-human monster of Berossus (pp. 106-107). Gmirkin mentions the snake in the Epic of Gilgamesh who stole and ate the plant of life that would keep Gilgamesh eternally youthful (p. 104; ANET, 96). Parallels with the Garden story are acknowledged (p. 105), but Gmirkin seems unaware that the snake in the Gilgamesh Epic is the obvious source for the snake of Genesis who dupes the Man and Woman into eating fruit from the prohibited tree, thus preventing them from living forever.

Gmirkin legitimately questions the scholarly hypothesis that Manetho’s History of Egypt depended on the biblical Exodus story for his account of the invasion by foreigners into Egypt and their eventual expulsion. Thus, he underlines the importance of distinguishing statements of Manetho from those of Josephus who identified the Hyksos with the Jews on the basis of the similarities between the Israelites of the Exodus story and the Hyksos of Manetho (pp. 81-82). What Gmirkin also needs to acknowledge is the great difficulty scholars have in identifying “genuine Manetho” in the excerpts cited by Josephus (F9-12 = Gmirkin, pp. 171-87, 192-214). How then can Gmirkin so confidently assert that the Exodus story is dependent on Manetho (pp. 182, 188) when his text, subject to ongoing polemic during the Hellenistic Age, was altered and embellished by pro- and anti-Jewish editors and chronographers? (Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, pp. 115-20). How can Gmirkin be certain that Manetho mentioned Moses but also argue that Manetho knew nothing about Jewish traditions? (p. 188). Manetho “may or may not have mentioned the Jews and the exodus,” but “if he did, we cannot be certain as to his point of view” (Verbrugghe/Wickersham, p. 116). Even if it is true that Manetho did not have the Exodus story in mind (p. 182), it does not logically follow that the biblical story is modelled on Manetho’s account. At best this claim is only “possible”, as Gmirkin himself concedes (p. 188), but not probable unless it can be rigorously demonstrated. Gmirkin does not consider the possibility that Babylonian and Canaanite literary sources lie behind the Exodus story. Instead of identifying the Legend of Sargon as the literary model for the story of Moses’ birth (ANET, 119), Gmirkin interprets this subplot as a polemical response to Manetho: “It was not the Hyksos foreigners (Israelites) who tried to exterminate the Egyptians, but the Egyptians who tried to exterminate the Israelites” (p. 178).

Gmirkin identifies striking parallels between the Exodus story of the Israelites and Manetho’s story of the Hyksos. Both Hyksos and Israelites were foreigners in Egypt, described as shepherds, expelled by the Egyptians and settled in Jerusalem (pp. 173, 175, 188). There are similarities in the storyline, but Gmirkin does not show there is detailed referencing in the Exodus story to Manetho’s account. That both accounts record a “blast of God on Egypt” (p. 188) is a general observation but not a specific quotation from Manetho that attests to literary dependence on him. Gmirkin analyzes common themes (expulsion, conquest, slavery) between Manetho and Exodus, but not the biblical text itself. His claim for the late dating of the Pentateuch is based on a small amount of text. Even Gmirkin accepts something of the Documentary hypothesis in proposing that diverse Pentateuchal sources, JEDP, were written by Jewish scholars in Alexandria (p. 3). In sum, Gmirkin’s book adds to our knowledge of the third century BCE but does little to increase our understanding of the Bible. Yet this volume is an intriguing read because it challenges us at every turn to think about source-critical questions and to ask about the direction of literary dependence.
Personally I found the Documentary Hypothesis as put forth by 19th century scholars made good sense of the literary seams that appear in the Pentateuch. However, I get the impression that Gmirkin's hypothesis proposes that the entire Pentateuch (or at least the four books besides Dueteronomy) was written in Alexandria the 3rd century BCE, in Hebrew based on Greek models, and immediately translated into Greek by the same authors. I can think of problems associated with this idea, but I can certainly also see a re-write of existing books to bring them up to date. Major changes in Judean self-definition have occurred in Maccabean times (emphasis of national traditions over Hellenization) in reaction to Antiochus IV's policies, and again after the destruction of the temple, so why not in response to Alexander's conquest of the region in the late 4th century BCE?

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by DCHindley »

I will also note that the Vridar blog has considered the viability of the Documentary Hypothesis in light of Gmirkin's hypothesis.

http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... d-genesis/

Hopefully, Neil Godfrey will comment.

I have to stress, though, that to suppose that a book must have been written shortly before the earliest literary reference is unsupportable. A lack of mention or allusion to a work could simply mean that earlier works were not on the radar of authors whose works have survived, and these are Greek, not Semetic.

There is a difference between historical relics (factoids, as I call them), and historical explanation of the relationship between relics and their significance. They are two distinct things and should not be conflated.

DCH
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by neilgodfrey »

DCHindley wrote:I will also note that the Vridar blog has considered the viability of the Documentary Hypothesis in light of Gmirkin's hypothesis.

http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... d-genesis/

Hopefully, Neil Godfrey will comment.
I just don't know. When I first studied the DH I thought, wow, gee, so that's how it all works, then. And when I studied Q I concluded the same: wow, clever, so it all fits, that's what there was before the gospels. Then I began reading more about ancient literature and refreshing my memory of some works I had not read since undergrad days, like Herodotus and Homer and the Greek dramas, and that led me to take a special interest in literary critics who seemed to make the case for Q irrelevant. Meanwhile Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, with the uwilling assistance of their acerbic critics like William Dever, convinced me that the Jewish Scriptures really were the products of Hellenistic era, certainly no earlier than Persian times.

But what did that do to the DH? My blog colleague Tim Widowfield is as entrenched in the DH as I once was so he is a constant reminder that I can't just willy nilly flip back and forth because I like the look and feel of a hypothesis.

But then I was reading Plato's Laws and was blown away by the overlaps with the Pentateuch and started blogging about those (still to finish that series). That's when Russell Gmirkin tapped me on the shoulder and essentially told me to stop wasting my time trying to invent the wheel. It was already out there rolling and carrying all sorts of other luggage.

It's a topic I figure I will need to focus on full time (as much as any lay person with job and relationships responsibilities can do anything else full time) in order to do it justice. Meanwhile I'm still trying to figure out the Ascension of Isaiah and what researchers are learning about why we are religious at all and what that has to do with violence. Against all of this we have the obscene prices of the publications of Gmirkin's and related works that are especially designed to prevent lay people from knowing the nitty gritty of what's going on.

So my comments on Gmirkin and the DH at this point are mostly limited to raising questions.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the traditional way of explaining the parallels between Plato and Israelite religion is to suppose some underlying cultural influence (Egypt, Persia )
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the traditional way of explaining the parallels between Plato and Israelite religion is to suppose some underlying cultural influence (Egypt, Persia ). The fact that Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Pentateuch is problematic
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply