The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

It's a deflection from the finding that the law codes in the Torah reflect a loan from those found in Plato and a knee-jerk reaction to the data driven finding that there is no unambiguous physical evidence for the cultural acceptance of the Torah law ...
The very definition of a run on sentence. And "there is no unambiguous physical evidence." "no unambiguous" = ambiguous? So if I am to understand you correctly there IS ambiguous physical evidence for the acceptance of the Torah. That's good because most physical evidence has some sort of ambiguity associated with it. Ambiguity = the quality of being open to more than one interpretation.

So I guess if I walked up to Yonathan Adler tomorrow he'd tell me Russell is right, the Pentateuch was written in Alexandria in the third century BCE. The way you talk about "deflection" you'd think Adler and Gmirkin are walking in lockstep together and everyone who "deflects" from that understanding is trying to escape that "fact."

And what a fascinating world we must live in if you are right Pete! For on the one hand there is a massive conspiracy with respect to the sudden creation of the Christian Bible under Constantine (= there was no Christianity for three centuries before this event) AND BEFORE THAT there was a sudden creation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria centuries before almost all scholars think it was actually created. All these conspiracies. Conspiracies on top of conspiracies. What an incredibly CONSPIRATORIAL world it really is. And you are one of the sleuths who uncovered it all.

I have a recommendation for you. Plaster your endorsement of Gmirkin's theory all over the internet as a way for people to see how plausible your hypothesis is. I am sure Russell will thank you for your support.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Leucius Charinus »

No. Yonathan Adler and Russell Gmrkin are not in lock step since they are actually operative in different fields of specific research. The way I see it is that they are both specialists working within their own territory and frameworks. Adler is reticent to comment - he is "agnostic"

https://youtu.be/vD5VmGkqfAg?t=5349

There will be overlaps in the fields. It will be interesting to observe an exchange.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:18 pmEveryone agrees that the word dat comes from a Persian word
SA -- Stop running around in circles and try to engage with a serious conversation of give-and-take. You have flatly ignored what others have put out as evidence that undermines your assertions and merely repeat your claims as if others have said nothing -- when in fact you refuse to read or engage with them.

Did you read any of the earlier comments where "dat" was discussed as the sole Persian loanword in the Pentateuch? Even Gmirkin says "dat" is found as a Persian word in the Pentateuch --- BUT this has been addressed. You must have read those remarks. Even the comment that I reposted pointed out the necessary fact that you appear to be unable to read.

Do you seriously say that one single loan word that is deemed to be part of a textual corruption is enough to undermine a thesis you won't read because your mother told you not to trust books written by academics?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

Here we go. I am honest about mother and this is what I get. The point is that I have cited a consistent criticism of his theory. We've been dealing with what my mother said (and what I cited in another thread), Persian words rather than the original point. If a Greek text was written in America in this century we'd expect to find "Americanisms" even in the Greek - that is examples of English words and usage typical of 21st century America. Right? You get what the experts in third century Hebrew are saying (that's when Qumran was written). Has Gmirkin made a study of Greek or Hellenistic influence on the Hebrew text of Genesis through Joshua? Surely that would satisfy the experts.

I know from my German parents as they continued to speak German at family functions in Canada certain "Anglicisms" even Canadianisms crept into their German. It's not a stupid criticism. Again, are we hear to defend a theory to the point of not accepting ANY CRITICISMS at all and arguing on behalf of a dogmatic acceptance of a theory that is marginal at best in scholarship. This is a discussion group. Please bring any relevant criticisms of the OP - i.e. you'd expect Greek or Hellenistic influence on the Hebrew if a text was written in third century BCE Alexandria with Greek texts and highly technical Greek language (i.e. Plato) forming an important influence on the material. Discuss ...
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:56 pm Jim Davila "But the Hebrew language of the Pentateuch doesn't look like it was written in a Greek-speaking environment (Alexandria). I would expect noticeable Greek influence on the Hebrew. There isn't any." BTW Russell notice you live in Portland. If you're a basketball fan I get free tickets to all the NBA games because I've been producing their halftime shows for 20 years. If there's a Trail Blazers game you want tickets for let me know.
In addition to my earlier reply, I'll re-post something from 2018, which Neil Godfrey reminded me of.

Unfortunately, Davila’s blog Paleojudaica does not allow for comments. I do not contend that the Pentateuch was written in a Greek-speaking environment. From the numerous Hebraisms in the LXX and the absence of Greek linguistic features in the Hebrew Bible it appears certain that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew and then translated in a literal fashion into Greek. But (1) the Hebrew Bible, although lacking Greek linguistic features, is filled with Greek ideas, which is a different matter. (2) I view the biblical authors as having GSL, Greek as a Second Language, being more comfortable thinking and writing in Hebrew but having a limited competence in Greek. I read French, Italian, German, whatever my work requires, but I would not dream of writing in any of those languages. (3) The entire Qumran corpus of the 2nd-1st BCE is entirely lacking in Greek loan-words (except the Copper Scroll), but the Jews had numerous interactions and communications with Greeks throughout that period. So I just don’t see the lack of Greek loan words in the Pentateuch as problematic.

Thanks of the offer of tickets. Very kind. I'll take you up on the offer, if Bill Walton happens to be playing.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:18 pm Everyone agrees that the word dat comes from a Persian word.
Quite true. But does Deut. 33.2 actually contain the phrase 'esh dat = "fiery law", containing dat = "law"? If so, it would be the ONLY Persian loan word in the ENTIRE Pentateuch. And why isn't it the word for law everywhere, instead of torah or mishpat, which are used dozens and dozens of times? Why only that one time?

Compare:

Dat = Law = Deut. 33.2 (?) = ONE time.
Ezra 7:12, 14, 25, 26, 26 = FIVE times.
Esth. 1:8, 13, 15, 19; 3:8, 8; 4.11, 16 = EIGHT times.
Dan. 6:5, 8, 15; 7:25 = FOUR times.

And Ezra, Esther, Daniel have other Persian loan words, so that dat isn't a one-off.

You have a few conservative versions that translate the Hebrew as two words, 'esh dat = fiery law: King James Bible, Amplified Bible, American Standard Version.

But most understand this as a single word, 'eshdat, which leads to a completely different translation. This is the Hebrew in the Samaritan Pentateuch, one word--so the Samaritan Pentataeuch is a powerful witness against dat as a Persian loan word in Deuteronomy.

First I'll quote some commentaries. Then some translations.

Pulpit Commentary

There is a various reading here; instead of אֵשׁ םדּת, fire of law, many codices have אשׁדת in one word, and this is supported by the Samaritan text and other authorities, and is accepted by most critics and interpreters. It is a fatal objection to the textual reading that דַּת is not a Semitic word, but one of Persian origin, brought by the Jews from Babylonia, and found only in the post-exilian books (Esther 1:8, 19; Esther 2:8, 12; Esther 3:8, 14; Esther 4:11, 15; Ezra 7:12, 21; Ezra 8:36; Daniel 2:9, 13, 15; Daniel 6:5, 9, 13, 16); and in them as applied to the Law of God only by heathens. It is, therefore, altogether improbable that this word should be found in any Hebrew writing anterior to the Captivity. Besides, what is the sense of אֵשׁ דַּת, supposing דת to mean "law?" The words cannot be rendered, as in the Authorized Version, by "fiery law;" they can only be rendered by "a fire, a law," or "a fire of law," and What either of these may mean it is not easy to see. The ancient versions vary here very considerably: LXX., ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ αὐτοῦ: Vulgate, fin dextera ejus ignea lex; Targum of Onkelos, "Written by his right hand, from the midst of the fire, a law gave he to us;" Syriac, "With myriads of his saints at his right hand. He gave to them, and also caused all peoples to love them." The best Hebrew manuscripts have אשׁדת as one word. The Masoretic note is, "The Chatiph is one word, and the K'ri two." The word אשׁדת is best explained as a compound of אֵשׁ, fire, and שׁדא, an Aramaic word signifying to throw or dart; the Syriac , or the Hebrew יָדָה, having the same signification, so that the meaning is "fire-dartings:" from his right hand went rays of fire like arrows shot forth (cf. Habakkuk 3:4; Exodus 19:16). To them; i.e. to the Israelites, to whom this manifestation was vouchsafed. Deuteronomy 33:2

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

Favors dat = law, but also notes:
The LXX. has “angels” (ἄγγελοι), instead of the combination eshdath. Possibly the word was taken as ashdoth (plural of the Chaldee ashda), meaning “rays” (of light?) and so “angels.” Comp., “He maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire;” they “ran and returned as a flash of lightning” (Psalm 104:4; Ezekiel 1:14). It is also possible that the LXX. read r instead of d in the word which they had before them, and that they arrived at the meaning “angels” through the Hebrew word shârath, “to minister.” The confusion between r and d, which are extremely alike in Hebrew, is very common.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

was a fiery law] Very questionable. The Heb. consonants ’sh d th are written as one word, but read by the Massoretes as two, ’esh dath = fire, law; but their construction is awkward and dath is a late word from the Persian and improbable here. Sam. reads two words, each = light; if the first be read as a vb we get the probable there flashed light. Dillm. adding two consonants reads a burning fire. By reading one word we have an equivalent of the Aram. ’ashidoth = lightning flashes; cp. Habakkuk 3:4, He had horns (i.e. rays) from his hand. LXX ἄγγελοι, cp. Psalm 104:4 his ministers a flame of fire. The line may be an intrusion; it is not one of a couplet.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The last clause is a difficult one. The writing דּת אשׁ in two words, "fire of the law," not only fails to give a suitable sense, but has against it the fact that דּת, law, edictum, is not even a Semitic word, but was adopted from the Persian into the Chaldee, and that it is only by Gentiles that it is ever applied to the law of God (Ezra 7:12, Ezra 7:21, Ezra 7:25-26; Daniel 6:6). It must be read as one word, אשׁדת, as it is in many MSS and editions - not, however, as connected with אשׁד, אשׁדות, the pouring out of the brooks, slopes of the mountains (Numbers 21:15), but in the form אשּׁדת, composed, according to the probable conjecture of Bttcher, of אשׁ, fire, and שׁדה (in the Chaldee and Syriac), to throw, to shoot arrows, in the sense of "fire of throwing," shooting fire, a figurative description of the flashes of lightning. Gesenius adopts this explanation, except that he derives דּת from ידה, to throw. It is favoured by the fact that, according to Exodus 19:16, the appearance of God upon Sinai was accompanied by thunder and lightning; and flashes of lightning are often called the arrows of God, whilst shaadaah, in Hebrew, is established by the name שׁדיאוּר (Numbers 1:5; Numbers 2:10). To this we may add the parallel passage, Habakkuk 3:4, "rays out of His hand," which renders this explanation a very probable one.

New Living Translation
“The LORD came from Mount Sinai and dawned upon us from Mount Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran and came from Meribah-kadesh with flaming fire at his right hand.

English Standard Version
He said, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.

Berean Standard Bible
He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned upon us from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran and came with myriads of holy ones, with flaming fire at His right hand.

NASB 1995
He said, “The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones; At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them.

Christian Standard Bible
He said: The LORD came from Sinai and appeared to them from Seir; he shone on them from Mount Paran and came with ten thousand holy ones, with lightning from his right hand for them.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He said: The LORD came from Sinai and appeared to them from Seir; He shone on them from Mount Paran and came with ten thousand holy ones, with lightning from His right hand for them.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he said: “LORD JEHOVAH came from Sinai and he shone to us from Seir and he was revealed from the Mountain of Paran, and his people from myriads of the Holy Ones at His right hand.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him.

Contemporary English Version
The LORD came from Mount Sinai. From Edom, he gave light to his people, and his glory was shining from Mount Paran. Thousands of his warriors were with him, and fire was at his right hand.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:04 amThe point is that I have cited a consistent criticism of his theory.
People cite "consistent criticisms" of anything. So what? People who refuse to engage with the research findings and choose to remain ignorant of what they are criticizing will always be consistent.

How about being serious here? Engage with the substance of RG's responses above -- that is, don't just ignore them and say you disagree and then post pages and pages of quotes from your favourite late Samaritan racist -- actually engage with the substance and discuss it directly.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:50 am Davila is not "ignorant." K. Schmid is not "totally oblivious."

...Several fine scholars [RGm: who have not read my research] simply are not persuaded by REG's Alexandria scenario.
As usual, you try to make a point by quoting things completely out of context--in this case, single words completely ripped from context. In neither case do I seek to characterize the work of either Davila or Schmid as a whole, as you seek to imply, but with respect to specific areas.

I stand by my earlier statement, in its full context: "Davila is either ignorant of this feature of Qumran Hebrew [namely the absence of Greek loan words] or completely failed to consider the implications as relating to my theory of the origins of the Pentateuch."

I also stand by my statement that "Konrad Schmid... is utterly oblivious to any twenty-first century developments on the Hellenistic Era creation of the Hebrew Bible, and my books in particular.” This is obvious from his writings in recent years and public speeches as recently as this summer. What is more, you have shown that you are equally oblivious to his lack of mention of anything on this topic since Lemche 1993. As Jesus remarked, "when the oblivious lead the oblivious, they both fall into the ditch," or words to that effect (Matt. 15:14).

What is most striking about your postings on this subject is your blatant anti-intellectualism. You keep posting that you are not "persuaded" by my arguments for a Hellenistic Era dating of the Pentateuch, but you haven't read any of my significant body of research since my first book in 2006. A librarian who doesn't read (unlike Neil Godfrey, for instance, a highly talented librarian and critical thinker who always drills down to the core evidence). It would appear that you are able to maintain your unpersuadedness by hiding, ostrich-like, from any dangerous exposure to additional additional evidence I have brought to bear on the subject since 2006 in various books and articles. Further, you attempt to enhance your position by pointing to other scholars who likewise haven't read my work, and in Davila's case, gets my argument wrong.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. But there is informed opinion and there is uninformed opinion, and your opinions are of the latter kind. You haven't done your homework. A real academic makes sure they have read and accurately grasp another academic's material before expressing their opinions about it. You are not a real academic, at least with respect to this particular topic. No real academic would promote academic illiteracy such as you regularly exhibit, voicing opinions about research neither you nor your academic heroes have read. That is what anti-intellectuals do.

Lazy. Irresponsible. Completely unprofessional.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:04 am I know from my German parents as they continued to speak German at family functions in Canada certain "Anglicisms" even Canadianisms crept into their German. It's not a stupid criticism. Again, are we hear to defend a theory to the point of not accepting ANY CRITICISMS at all and arguing on behalf of a dogmatic acceptance of a theory that is marginal at best in scholarship. This is a discussion group. Please bring any relevant criticisms of the OP - i.e. you'd expect Greek or Hellenistic influence on the Hebrew if a text was written in third century BCE Alexandria with Greek texts and highly technical Greek language (i.e. Plato) forming an important influence on the material. Discuss ...
Stephan -- you are simply ignoring what has been already said in response to what you have written above. We are not talking about the regular sprinkling of loanwords but of the ABSENCE of loanwords.

I have posted references to clear evidence when ancient authors played with loanwords for various effects. They were quite capable of using loanwords from a certain era to add thematic flavour to a text. The presence of just ONE QUESTIONABLE word in the entire Pentateuch does not swing the argument in your favour.

Again -- please do respond specifically, directly, to the actual evidence that contradicts your assertion and that has been posted in detail above.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by StephenGoranson »

Though I have reviewed books in BASOR, DSD, RSR, BA, and JAOS, Mr. Gmirkin appears to dismiss my review of his 2006 book as worthless--or worse.

A frequent response by REG is that reviewer X, if unpersuaded by his text, must not have understood it. John van Seters in JTS, for example.

I like to read. When I read a poor book, I tend to prefer other authors, especially those who do not double down on a poor claim, such as the claim of complete Torah composition in the 270s in Alexandria.
Qumran and Alexandria are somewhat different. Need I explain that?

REG, Nov. 28 in a different thread, in part: "Yes, the authors of Genesis knew Homer, Hesiod, Ariston, Empedocles, Zeno, Berossus and several of Plato's dialogs (Timaeus, Critias, Statesman, Protagoras). Clearly they were better read than you. ..."

If a putative bilingual group, putatively also Hebrew to Greek Bible translators, could draw on all those Greek writers (and more?) without including Greek word influence in Hebrew text, that would be unusual. At least, imo, worth questioning.

Here is the first part of another review of REG 2006, by Joyce Rilett Wood, J. of Hebrew Scriptures, v. 8 (2008) online
https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/art ... /7274/5980

"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. [....]
Post Reply