Plato and the Pentateuch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:25 am LOTS OF REASONS TO DOUBT THE THEORY such as EVERYONE IN ANTIQUITY THINKING IT WAS A MIRACULOUS TRANSLATION.
Appealling to what people believed in antiquity is a bad way to argue about what we, with our greater knowledge and experience, should think. For example, in antiquity, people mostly thought that the Earth was being revolved around by the sun.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:24 pm Besides, when so many poorly informed and weak criticisms of Gmirkin's theory are within this website (I refer to the allegations that it is racist and that we have securely dated Pentateuchal texts from before 270 BCE), then it is not necessary for me to know much about Gmirkin's model in order to point out flaws in criticisms of what Gmirkin says or is alleged to say.
Indeed. When I first learned of the Jesus myth idea I was pretty dumbfounded and thought it simply could not be true. But some of the arguments seemed to be reasonable -- but still, I knew from experience that a few reasonable arguments can lead one down an erroneous path if not coupled with serious wider research. So I joined various scholarly discussion groups to learn how the scholars responded to the arguments of mythicism. Hoo boy oh boy oh boy -- that was an eye-opener all right. I learned that many of the scholars are just like SA and they poured scorn on the idea without knowing what the arguments or evidence actually were. They were not at all scholarly and it soon became very obvious that they were resorting to insults and misrepresentation and character assassination in order to shut down the discussion.

It was that response that led me to wonder: Maybe Doherty has something here after all.

I kept returning to the scholars to get scholarly responses to specific points but each time I got unscholarly retorts for my efforts.

That led me into a long search to find out exactly how historians knew what they knew about the past, how they knew anything at all, etc. And that led to digging out old philosophy of history and historical method studies and taking up new ones. That led me to learn that biblical scholars have no sense of how to do history at all in comparison with nonbiblical historians. Then I learned that nonbiblical historians sometimes had the courage to come out and say that their theologian colleagues used methods that made them "downright queasy".

The end result was that I came to see that we simply don't have enough evidence to know whether Jesus existed or not. I also came to see that biblical scholars could still study the gospels but on the understanding that their Jesus figure was a literary construct and not "historical" -- though they still felt free to believe in a historical Jesus behind the narratives.

One might even say that it was the unscholarly reactions and complete failure of biblical scholars to treat mythicist arguments honestly, without misrepresentation, and without open or implied insult, that led me to open my mind to the possibility that they, the biblical scholars were wrong and were reacting in fear, and that some mythicist arguments were sound.

It was the same with "minimalists". One saw two reactions to the works of Thompson, Davies, Lemche and Whitelam. One was misrepresentation, accusations of anti-semitism, insult and abuse -- pretty much the conservative majority; the other was openness and engagement, question-raising and exploration and further study. Thompson was "cast out" of academia for years because of his thesis about the Patriarchs. Today his thesis is pretty much standard wisdom.

It is good to see Gmirkin's views being treated seriously by a number of academics in these early days. One reviewer was very positive in all respects except for the Hellenistic dating option -- she still preferred the Persian era. But I strongly suspect that since Adler's publication there is going to be less and less room for the Persian era option, as a number of scholars have long noted now. Gmirkin is not the first to have proposed a post-Persian Pentateuch, but he has tied together data that scholars have struggled to understand how to make it all fit for some time now.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

Previously, in two posts above, I wrote, in part:

"Aristobulus of Alexandria lived before Philo, and Aristobulus considered the Hebrew Torah to be old, older than the 270s, and also older than Plato, surely.

RE Gmirkin wrote, in part (Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, 2016, endnote 150): "Aristobulus did not consider the possibility that the Pentateuch was both written and translated at Alexandria."
Well, why would anyone think Aristobulus should have considered that "possibility"? As for imagining the Pentateuch was influenced by Plato's Laws, why did someone not "consider" that until, when, 1997? [....]

Whether consciously or unconsciously, presenting Jews----or their "Elders"----as uniquely dishonest is, in my view, a grave and dangerous mistake." [.....]
[part 2]
So, I quoted from Gmirkin's 2016 book, as recommended, and asked questions.
Three questions. So far here, no replies.
Aristobulus lived well before Philo, so is potentially relevant.
[....] is it plausible that a visiting Semitic group in a short time absorbed many Greek texts and somehow in a sub rosa manner parallelized such into a (putatively) uniquely misleading artificial behaviourist pseudo-national text, one that never before existed? {end two-part quote}
****
NG above ridiculed the final sentence, ignoring the rest.

I used "Semitic group" to identify their primary language. That was no slur on their ability to learn; learning Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Ariston, Zeno, Empedocles, Berossus, Manetho, several Plato works, etc., in the equivalent of one or two semesters might be a big ask----of any group.

I am aware of Jewish classical scholarship: from Brandeis, Duke, archaeology in Israel, Scripta Classica Israelica....
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:13 am Well, why would anyone think Aristobulus should have considered that "possibility"? As for imagining the Pentateuch was influenced by Plato's Laws, why did someone not "consider" that until, when, 1997?
That has been answered several times now. You are simply ignoring what has been written.
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:13 amHere's a question: when did the Library of Alexandria become the admirable collection that eventually earned it fame? (Building and stocking a great library takes considerable time.)
The answer to that question is in the very work from which you are quoting, Gmirkin's work on Berossus. He explains it in some detail and cites references for you to follow up in further detail to learn everything you are asking here, and the reasons Berossus's work itself was certainly in the Library. I have given you online links to the book in case you don't have it anymore. It is in Scribd, freely available. So why do you keep asking what you can read for yourself?
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:13 amWhether consciously or unconsciously, presenting Jews----or their "Elders"----as uniquely dishonest is, in my view, a grave and dangerous mistake. [.....]" {end quote}
That is a dishonest insinuation. You cannot quote or cite a single passage to justify your accusation that Gmirkin presents the Jews as "uniquely dishonest". Behave yourself, Stephen, and do better.
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:13 amSo, I quoted from Gmirkin's 2016 book, as recommended, and asked questions.
Three questions. So far here, no replies.
First question is simply asking for what has been said here over and over;
Second question is answered in the book you are quoting from -- just read it -- link provided;
Third question is blatantly dishonest.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

Speaking of Plato, here's a recent article that some here might find of interest:
"The sage and his foibles:
Scholars cannot agree whether the letters of Plato are fake or genuine. Is this just a symptom of misplaced reverence?"
by James Romm
https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-controv ... l-about-us
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by DCHindley »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:45 am Speaking of Plato, here's a recent article that some here might find of interest:
"The sage and his foibles:
Scholars cannot agree whether the letters of Plato are fake or genuine. Is this just a symptom of misplaced reverence?"
by James Romm [3-28-2023 per the article's date stamp -dch]
https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-controv ... l-about-us
Yes, that does interest me.

There was an old (May 11, 2021) thread about the subject
viewtopic.php?p=123172#p123172

Then it was an Academia.edu article posted by Everard Johnston, “Toward a Theory Concerning the Formation of the New Testament Canon”. I did not see a date of publication, although by the looks of it it was at least submitted at that time. There have been several informative posts, including mine. I did not state my source for my comments, unfortunately.

DCH
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by austendw »

Russell Gmirkin wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:23 pm The Genesis creation account is the central topic of my 2022 book, Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts: Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History. I talk about the raqia or dome of the firmament in several passages
I can’t agree with Gmirkin’s assertion that there was a “special” use of the word “raqia” in Genesis 1.

All the instances of רָקִיעַ (raqia) that appear in the OT suggest exactly what the word expresses: a solid beaten-out sheet or plate of some sort, derived from רָקַע to stamp/beat out.

Gmirkin is quite right when he says that Genesis 1 is “parsimonious and relatively austere” but I cannot agree with him when he adds that:
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:23 pm“Since Genesis 1 made no story connection between the fashioning of the sky as a raqia and God as architect or builder of the cosmos, in Genesis 1 the word raqia is best understood as a simple reference to the dome of the sky.”
The author of this chapter doesn’t use an anthropomorphic verb for the creation of the רָקִיעַ, but he doesn’t use any poetic verbs for any of God’s other creative acts either. Unlike Psalms and Job, he only uses two verbs - בָּרָא and עָשָׂה – which is about as basic as one can get. But that is a matter of the severe, paired-back style, and due to an essential difference in meaning. *

It is a little difficult for us to get a handle on the concept of the “raqia” because the English translation “firmament” is not a word in normal usage. Actually, I think that perhaps the best English translation of רָקִיעַ would be “ceiling” – because: (a) that would make it clear that it was up above, (b) it would convey that it was solid and (c) “ceiling” is, happily, derived from the Latin caelum, sky, so would fit the bill perfectly. When God creates the רָקִיעַ, he is creating a solid “ceiling plate" that lifts up and retains the the upper waters. After its introduction in Gen 1:8 the word appears (in construct state) along with with Heaven - רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, the Ceiling of Heaven - which is precisely what it is: the solid ceiling of the sky.

Gmirkin goes on to say:
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:23 pm“But no such meaning attaches to the term raqia here. Rather, raqia here appears as a simple legacy from the older, pre-scientific language usage, an old term for the sky familiar to the intended audience of Genesis 1, but used there without its mythical linguistic baggage. Rather, raqia is best understood as a simple reference to the dome of the sky.”
If Gmirkin is proposing that in Genesis 1 the word raqia is used differently to the way it is used elsewhere, he would surely have to have evidence for such an earlier usage. However, there are no instances in the OT when רָקִיעַ is used in this supposed older “pre-scientific” way. It is frankly unlikely that there ever was such an earlier usage because when words develop, the meaning tends to drift away from their earliest meaning, not the other way round. Since the root meaning of רָקִיעַ conveys its beaten-out solidity, not it’s ethereal “dome-ness”, I can't see that there is any justification for believing that there ever was a “pre-scientific” meaning that was unconnected to its root, let alone that such a usage is employed in Genesis 1.

Finally, Gmirkin says that στερέωμα is a “word that Plato's Timaeus uses for the dome of the sky (one of many parallels with Genesis 1)” but I’m afraid I cannot find a single example of Plato using the word στερέωμα in Timaeus. Gmirkin supplies the references “Timaeus 31b, 43c,” but here we find only στερεοῦ/στερεὸν/στερεῷ, which in each case conveys “solidity” in various contexts. Gmirkin also adds “cf. 33b” where neither στερέωμα or στερεὸν appear (it’s about the construction of the cosmos as a sphere). Not that this is overly important: the LXX is after all only a translation of the Hebrew. Even so, the fact that the translators chose to coin the neologism στερέωμα – derived from στερεὸν, firm, solid, rigid – surely shows that they too understood the רָקִיעַ to be something στερεὸν, solid - a plate of some sort, rather than anything less substantial.

This shows that the writer(s) who employed the term raqia did indeed understand it as a solid dome arching over the earth, an understanding that they shared with many cultures of the ancient Near East. There is no discernible connection with Plato’s cosmological model of seven layers of spherical heavens surrounding the spherical earth.



* I actually believe that the verses in which God makes/creates – are part of a supplementary stratum within this chapter; the initial pattern of the creation was even simpler: “God said ….” followed by “And it was so”. The fact that the additional “making” passages appear in addition to the expression "and it was so" reveals that they are supplementary. These and a few other amplifications can all be removed without the main elements and order of creation being destroyed, leaving a repetitive account with little appeal as literature, but which has an incantatory quality that may hint at its origins).
Post Reply