"Yahwism under the Achaemenid Empire" (Haifa, Dec. 20-22) conference

[neilgodfrey]

How curious of neilgodfrey to claim that the conference description (above) was written by someone as "an advertizing blurb" that somehow misleads about the conference;

Stephen Goranson: there is nothing in any of the evidence discussed in those abstracts that has not been at some level addressed by Russell Gmirkin and nothing in any of the evidence discussed in those abstracts that is inconsistent with Gmirkin's thesis. Nothing. Entirely consistent and all covered in his own discussions. RG could well be able to offer a compatible presentation at such a conference.

You are a treasure, SG, aren't you. Who else could twist my words "designed to provoke interest" into a suggestion that the blurb "misleads". Rubbish. And yet another malicious smear from you.

There is nothing misleading. The Persian empire is the period of gestation and maturing of the biblical books according to the leading hypothesis today. That is an appeal to arouse interest and the raison d'etre for many scholars' interest in the time. But the contents of the abstracts make it clear to the honest reader that such a view is an imaginary, a hypothetical, extrapolation from the evidence, and not directly supported by the evidence itself.

You do have this record of treating a title or an abstract or an advertizing blurb and using it alone to "mislead" about it's application or relevance to Russell Gmirkin's argument. You are a very dishonest little fellow, Stephen, as we have seen from your other attempts to jump to conclusions to smear me in this forum.

[StephenGoranson]

Mr. Godfrey, if you can't see the contradiction between the following [Caps and square brackets added], then perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

a) The first five books of the Hebrew Bible were "COMPOSED in their entirely about 273-272 BCE" in Alexandria. (Gmirkin, 2006)

and
b) "This [Achaemenid/Persian Era] is arguably the most formative period in the
development, redaction and COMPOSITION of some of the most central
texts within the Jewish (and, by extension, Judeo-Christian) heritage." (Official U. Haifa conference announcement, no doubt approved by the U. Haifa Professor who sent it)

Again:
If you will, compare the following two texts:

1) From Russell E. Gmirkin, Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:28 pm:

"According to the rigorous methodology I utilized, I began with the _removal_ of the then-common supposition that the Torah was written in the Persian Era or earlier. With this traditional but misguided assumption set aside, I was able to show that the first objective external evidence for the existence of the Torah was the LXX translation of 273-269 BCE. I then demonstrated that the Torah utilized Hecataeus of Abdera (320-315 BCE), Manetho (ca. 285 BCE), Berossus (278 BCE), and others, finally narrowing down the possible date of composition to 273-272 BCE. Additional arguments pointed directly to a provenance of Alexandria, where the authors found these various sources in the Great Library. And finally to the surprising inference that the same team of authors at Alexandria ca. 273-272 BCE were necessarily also responsible for overseeing tis immediate translation into Greek, the LXX, which took place at Alexandria for the Great Library at that very same time."

and
2) From the "Yahwism under the Achaemenid Empire" conference announcement, above:

"This is arguably the most formative period in the
development, redaction and composition of some of the most central
texts within the Jewish (and, by extension, Judeo-Christian) heritage."

[Secret Alias]

I know. We don't even agree on many things but it's like the Twilight Zone sometimes in this forum. If there is a conference on texts from the Persian period and the Pentateuch is assumed to have been one of those texts that was passed along by Jewish scribes HOW DOES THIS 'JIBE' WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE PENTATEUCH WAS REALLY COMPOSED AFTER THE PERIOD IN QUESTION? I like anyone that has new ideas. I like considering new ideas when I have time. But my own sense with Neil (and it is not an insult) is that he doesn't have the ability to synthesize arguments into sentences or paragraphs and then apply the synthesized 'thing' to other synthesized things. It's always this tactic of getting stuck in the weeds so everything becomes and argument about this footnote or this page or this paragraph "A ha this totally disproves your point. You don't understand this you can be ignored." All the time not seeing for instance that a conspiracy theory about a third century production of the Pentateuch doesn't work with or fit with a conference about the transmission of texts in the Persian period ...

It's just like a no brainer. But it's like the fact that he spends all this time championing marginalia or marginal theories because he has lots of spare time and access to the internet.

[Secret Alias]

The Pentateuch was more likely than not written before the Hellenistic period.

A conference on the transmission of 'Yahwehism' a textual religion in the Persian period would not be the place to find Grimkin's theories at home.

I don't get it. But somehow the answer is to be found on a certain page of Grimkin's work or a footnote or something that was said in another book or a review somewhere or ...

What's the point.

[neilgodfrey]

Mr. Godfrey, if you can't see the contradiction between the following [Caps and square brackets added], then perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

a) The first five books of the Hebrew Bible were "COMPOSED in their entirely about 273-272 BCE" in Alexandria. (Gmirkin, 2006)

and
b) "This [Achaemenid/Persian Era] is arguably the most formative period in the
development, redaction and COMPOSITION of some of the most central
texts within the Jewish (and, by extension, Judeo-Christian) heritage." (Official U. Haifa conference announcement, no doubt approved by the U. Haifa Professor who sent it)

Oh my god, what's the matter with you SG. Yes, just read what you've copied and pasted. Yes, the Persian era "IS ARGUABLY" the most formative period etc etc etc. No one is arguing against that proposition. No-one. It is a fact: the Persian era IS ARGUABLY the most etc etc etc.

Basic reading comprehension check: the advertizing blurb does NOT say, "The Persian era IS the most formative period..."

Can you see the difference?

One is expressing a common proposition -- that is, ARGUABLY. That's a proposition. An argument. It is not presented as a fact. The only fact there is that there is such a proposition out there.

The facts are in the abstracts. They say that the evidence does not exist, that the only evidence is in the Hellenistic era. The facts in the abstracts are the same facts Russell Gmirkin. -- you know this since you claim to have read his work -- are addressed in his books.

Again:
If you will, compare the following two texts:

1) From Russell E. Gmirkin, Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:28 pm:

"According to the rigorous methodology I utilized, I began with the _removal_ of the then-common supposition that the Torah was written in the Persian Era or earlier. With this traditional but misguided assumption set aside, I was able to show that the first objective external evidence for the existence of the Torah was the LXX translation of 273-269 BCE. I then demonstrated that the Torah utilized Hecataeus of Abdera (320-315 BCE), Manetho (ca. 285 BCE), Berossus (278 BCE), and others, finally narrowing down the possible date of composition to 273-272 BCE. Additional arguments pointed directly to a provenance of Alexandria, where the authors found these various sources in the Great Library. And finally to the surprising inference that the same team of authors at Alexandria ca. 273-272 BCE were necessarily also responsible for overseeing tis immediate translation into Greek, the LXX, which took place at Alexandria for the Great Library at that very same time."

and
2) From the "Yahwism under the Achaemenid Empire" conference announcement, above:

"This is arguably the most formative period in the
development, redaction and composition of some of the most central
texts within the Jewish (and, by extension, Judeo-Christian) heritage."

Again, if you will, compare the above texts. Both are arguments. That both arguments exist is a fact. The existence of an argument does not of itself make its conclusions true. Many different arguments can exist together in the same world competing with one another.

Russell Gmirkin talks about the Yahwistic evidence of the Persian era and other details from the Persian era and he explains how they fit in with his hypothesis of the origins of the Pentateuch.

If you read the abstracts, some of which I quoted earlier, you will see that there is no contradiction at all with anything Russell Gmirkin has published.

Russell Gmirkin would have a place alongside those presenters there by focusing on his own research into the role of Persian era Yahwistic elements in the Pentateuch.

There is nothing wrong with advertizing when it is done ethically -- and I presume academic institutions are ethical in their advertizing. But that does not make every appeal to every shade of interest in a discussion topic a conclusive fact of history. Advertizing can encourage debate.

Do you want debate on this topic, SG? It appears not. You only want to smear and misrepresent what is said by anyone with your idea of an "incorrect thought".

[neilgodfrey]

I know. We don't even agree on many things but it's like the Twilight Zone sometimes in this forum. If there is a conference on texts from the Persian period and the Pentateuch is assumed to have been one of those texts that was passed along by Jewish scribes HOW DOES THIS 'JIBE' WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE PENTATEUCH WAS REALLY COMPOSED AFTER THE PERIOD IN QUESTION?

Okay, Huller. Where does this "conspiracy theory" come from? Why the manufacturing of a falsehood to smear Gmirkin's thesis?

I like anyone that has new ideas. I like considering new ideas when I have time. But my own sense with Neil (and it is not an insult) is that he doesn't have the ability to synthesize arguments into sentences or paragraphs and then apply the synthesized 'thing' to other synthesized things. It's always this tactic of getting stuck in the weeds so everything becomes and argument about this footnote or this page or this paragraph "A ha this totally disproves your point. You don't understand this you can be ignored."

So synthesis is your thing, is it? I recall you recently thanking another poster for being able to synthesize an argument that you could not. You do tend to post walls of texts, an indicator that you cannot distill and synthesize the main points into a cogent argument.

Yes, I do refer to footnotes and I follow them up because they are important when said to be the basis of an argument. You apparently don't bother.
Yes, I do discover that people like you and SG don't read carefully. You assume on the basis of titles, abstracts -- and don't read the details. I do. So you accuse me of being over the top with my reading --- I thought reading and noting the details is what's important for any scholarly inquiry. You disagree? Or is such detailed reading and synthesis simply beyond you that you have to smear as an "ally of evil" a layman who does what you seem to believe only a being of "a different species" (your description of scholars) can do.

All the time not seeing for instance that a conspiracy theory about a third century production of the Pentateuch doesn't work with or fit with a conference about the transmission of texts in the Persian period ...

That is just flat dishonest. You simply make up a charge and throw it out -- whatever sticks. If you bothered -- oh yes, reading detail -- Gmirkin's work instead of lounging back and imagining reasons not to bother you would see that there is not a shred of conspiracy theory in any of it.

It's just like a no brainer. But it's like the fact that he spends all this time championing marginalia or marginal theories

When you can move beyond personal attacks and learn to actually read an argument and note the details and piece it together so that you can express it in your own words accurately, then you will be in a position to discuss the hypothesis.

I notice you go quiet and refrain from the personal insults when Russell Gmirkin is here. You save them for me. Nice. So manly, so masculine of you -- just like you have said you love to be.

because he has lots of spare time and access to the internet.

Says the one with 14,000 plus posts on this forum!

[neilgodfrey]

The Pentateuch was more likely than not written before the Hellenistic period.

A conference on the transmission of 'Yahwehism' a textual religion in the Persian period would not be the place to find Grimkin's theories at home.

I don't get it. But somehow the answer is to be found on a certain page of Grimkin's work or a footnote or something that was said in another book or a review somewhere or ...

What's the point.

Instead of mind-reading and making up shit, why not read what I've actually said? Oh, but then you would have to read the details -- (read detail?? Stephen Huller? He has just said he finds that to be a practice to be mocked and sneered at) -- and quote exactly what I said which will not support your unscholarly mockery.

I can understand why Ben Smith left this forum.

[neilgodfrey]

Note. There is a difference between "championing" a theory and caring enough to point out where it has been misunderstood or misrepresented.

SG and SA -- you appear to believe that should anyone pull you up on your misrepresentations and misunderstandings that such a person is to be a target of insult. How dare anyone contradict falsehoods or expose ignorance!

[neilgodfrey]

I don't get it. But somehow the answer is to be found on a certain page of Grimkin's work or a footnote or something that was said in another book or a review somewhere or ...

What's the point.

Scholars -- good ones, Stephan Huller -- note details. They read the details. They even -- gosh, here's a big word (you said I use "big words") "synthesize" details. In the scholarly world such abilities are encouraged and respected. In your world, ....?

[Secret Alias]

So how do you reconcile:

1. accepting the legitimacy of a conference on Yahwehism in the Persian period

and

2. accepting that the Pentateuch was written in Alexandria in the Hellenistic period

Sounds like inviting mountainman Pete to a historical Jesus conference.