Plato and the Pentateuch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

ABuddhist wrote above, in part:

"Only if you provide proof that many or all of the other people who disagree with Gmirkin engage in similar flaws will you be able to justify asserting that to disagree with Gmirkin is to be unable to follow or recognize an argument."

I am not claiming that. Rather, I wrote that "From that point of view, apparently, many others have such inability, too." In that sentence, "that point of view" refers back to RE Gmirkin's point of view. I thought that was clear.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

RE Gmirkin (March 14, above) did cite M Lockwood as evidence of translation at the Library of Alexandria, followed by:
"So there is considerable evidence for the Great Library translating as many works in "barbaric" (non-Greek) languages as it could obtain."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

Have you ever looked at the relationship between the 3 guys at this forum and Neil and Russell in Lockwood's "paper"? First some background on Lockwood "Dr. Michael Lockwood taught philosophy for three decades at MCC. His research has been mainly in the field of Indology. Publications include "Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama", "Pillava Art" etc. Now, in retirement, Dr. Lockwood presents his study on the relation of Buddhism to Christianity." Okay cool. Then the first mention of Gmirkin in his "paper":
Neil Godfrey’s article, “How Plato Inspired Moses: Creation of the Hebrew Bible”
< https://vridar.org/2018/11/13/plato-and ... w-bible-2/ >
which comments on one of Russell E. Gmirkin’s epoch-making books, Plato and
the Creation of the Hebrew Bible [PCHB] (New York: Routledge, 2016), is filed under
‘Gmirkin: Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible’, in Godfrey’s blog, ‘VRIDAR’:
The paper itself is little more (at least initially) an extended citation of a blogpost of Neil's. I mean it is just NOT a scholarly paper. I've never read a paper like this. It's the last chapter of a book apparently. Some book. Here are "gems" from the paper/book:
Gmirkin’s note is important! It suggests how Plato’s thought could have had a profound
effect on the Buddhist scholars who had been invited to the Royal Library of Alexandria,
in the third century BCE. There cannot be a university without having written works dealing
with a “universal” variety of subjects.
"Could have." Who the fuck writes a book based on "could have." Von Daniken wrote a "could have" book. So did Acharya. So did everyone who ever wrote a terrible book. I wrote a "could have" book and it was terrible. This is also a terrible book, a terrible premise, based on TWO "COULD HAVES" one regarding Gmirkin's hypothesis and then the author's own hypothesis. Could have, would have, shouldn't have.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:26 am ABuddhist wrote above, in part:

"Only if you provide proof that many or all of the other people who disagree with Gmirkin engage in similar flaws will you be able to justify asserting that to disagree with Gmirkin is to be unable to follow or recognize an argument."

I am not claiming that. Rather, I wrote that "From that point of view, apparently, many others have such inability, too." In that sentence, "that point of view" refers back to RE Gmirkin's point of view. I thought that was clear.
I fail to understand where I erred. Gmirkin was alleging that you are exceptionally unable to follow his argument. You, in response, asserted implicitly that you are not below average but merely part of the average readership of his ideas who is unable to follow his arguments. In response, I provided reasons showing why you are indeed sub-average in your ability to understand Gmirkin's argument and by extension, all arguments if you reply to them using the same approaches as you apply to Gmirkin's argument. Still, I apologize for not making that transfer of reasoning explicit.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:35 am RE Gmirkin (March 14, above) did cite M Lockwood as evidence of translation at the Library of Alexandria, followed by:
"So there is considerable evidence for the Great Library translating as many works in "barbaric" (non-Greek) languages as it could obtain."
I assumed that based upon Gmirkin's words about Lockwood,
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:22 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:24 pm Would you be kind enough to try to answer this question, even by citing from something which you have published?
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:03 am The Library of Alexandria surely collected books, mostly on papyrus. But is there evidence that they created anthropological field studies to create books in non-Greek languages?
Stephen's question is pretty incomprehensible. I assume he was making an attempt at sarcasm. But there are ancient testimonies that the Library of Alexandria under Ptolemy II Philadelphus sought to fulfill the earlier ambitions of Alexander the Great by having the library translate texts from every language into Greek for addition to the collection (Canfora 1990: 23-25, 101, 120, 126-27, 131, 186). See, for instance, Tzetzes, De comoedia, on the collection and translation of books from "all the peoples of the world." One Byzantine source claimed:

Learned men were enlisted from every nation, men who as well
as being masters of their own languages were wonderfully well
acquainted with Greek. Each group of scholars was allocated
the appropriate texts, and so a Greek translation of every text
was made.

A passage from Epiphanius says:

The second sovereign of Alexandria after Ptolemy, to wit the
king known as Ptolemy Philadelphus, was a man who loved
beauty and culture. He founded a library in this same city of
Alexandria, in the district known as Bruchion (a quarter now
altogether abandoned), and he put one Demetrius Phalereus in
charge of it, instructing him to collect together all the books of
the world.... The work proceeded, and books were gathered
from all parts, until one day the king asked the director of the
library how many books had been collected. The director replied:
'There are about 54,800. We hear, however, that there
is a great quantity of books among the Ethiopians, the Indians,
the Persians, the Elamites, the Babylonians, the Chaldaeans,
the Romans, the Phoenicians and the Syrians.'

A passage from Isidore of Seville, De bibliotecis V.3.3 reads:

And from here grew the fashion, known among
all sovereigns and in every city, for obtaining the books of
various peoples and, by the work of translators, turning them
into Greek. This is why Alexander the Great, or perhaps
his successors, set about building libraries in which every
book would be contained. And Ptolemy called Philadelphus,
in particular, who was deeply versed in letters and who vied
with Pisistratus in his devotion to libraries, brought together
in his library not only the works of the gentiles but the holy
scriptures too. In fact, seventy thousand volumes were to be
found in Alexandria in those days.

Some of these translations (besides the LXX) made at the Great Library are known from various classical sources. One of them was probably the Tyrian Annals, translated from Phoenician by Menander. The translation of the writings attributed to Zoroaster, numbering over 2 million lines, was another notable example. Professor Michael Lockwood has argued in several books and many articles that the delegation of Buddhists who traveled to Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (and other Greek centers of learning) in a diplomatic mission documented in a well-known stele from the time of Ashoka the Great (ca. 268-232 BCE) invented the Brahmi script (which has clear affinities to Greek) in order to record in writing certain previously oral works on Buddhist religious teachings to be added to the Great Library. (Lockwood had already developed these theories several years before encountering my research, by the way).

So there is considerable evidence for the Great Library translating as many works in "barbaric" (non-Greek) languages as it could obtain.

Canfora, Luciano, The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990.
in combination with Gmirkin's later denial of having endorsed Lockwood's model
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:54 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:50 am In other words:
a) Besides maybe Gmirkin, and maybe DM Murdock/Acharya S, who accepts M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria?

b) Brahmi script pre-dated the Library of Alexandria, so it was not invented there. See Peter T Daniels books if you don't trust my previous reference.

Professor Michael Lockwood has argued in several books and many articles that the delegation of Buddhists who traveled to Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (and other Greek centers of learning) in a diplomatic mission documented in a well-known stele from the time of Ashoka the Great (ca. 268-232 BCE) invented the Brahmi script (which has clear affinities to Greek) in order to record in writing certain previously oral works on Buddhist religious teachings to be added to the Great Library. (Lockwood had already developed these theories several years before encountering my research, by the way).

(1) On what basis do you claim that I accept Michael Lockwood's thesis? I am merely reporting it. I am familiar with it, but that does not mean the same thing. Another classic instance of SG failure to accurately grasp plain English.

(2) The visit to Alexandria, reported in the stele of Ashoka, is completely uncontroversial. Lockwood, who appears to have a firm grasp of the primary evidence as well as secondary literature, argues that the Brahmi script is of later date than has been proposed in the past. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I cannot evaluate whether his arguments are correct, but they appear competent. See also ABuddhist's informed comments.

and my words dismissing Gmirkin's comments about Lockwood as Obiter dicta
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:55 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:39 am Brahmi script, according to some scholars, was created before the Library of Alexandria was created. If so, then Lockwood's Alexandria Library proposal is wrong, and if wrong, of no help to the Gmirkin Alexandria Library proposal, even though Gmirkin cited it.
"If" is the key word.

Gmirkin discussed Lockwood as obiter dicta to his broader point about Alexandria's library as a place where many languages were written and studied. As in, it was in function a perenthetical note which could have been removed without undermining his point.
were, because you did not respond to them earlier, proof that you had abandoned the claim that Gmirkin endorsed Lockwood's ideas.

But I suppose that I must add stubborness and refusing to directly address responses to your claims to your flaws when you are addressing arguments.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:10 am Have you ever looked at the relationship between the 3 guys at this forum and Neil and Russell in Lockwood's "paper"? First some background on Lockwood "Dr. Michael Lockwood taught philosophy for three decades at MCC. His research has been mainly in the field of Indology. Publications include "Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama", "Pillava Art" etc. Now, in retirement, Dr. Lockwood presents his study on the relation of Buddhism to Christianity." Okay cool. Then the first mention of Gmirkin in his "paper":
Neil Godfrey’s article, “How Plato Inspired Moses: Creation of the Hebrew Bible”
< https://vridar.org/2018/11/13/plato-and ... w-bible-2/ >
which comments on one of Russell E. Gmirkin’s epoch-making books, Plato and
the Creation of the Hebrew Bible [PCHB] (New York: Routledge, 2016), is filed under
‘Gmirkin: Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible’, in Godfrey’s blog, ‘VRIDAR’:
The paper itself is little more (at least initially) an extended citation of a blogpost of Neil's. I mean it is just NOT a scholarly paper. I've never read a paper like this. Neil writes there:
1. You reveal your ignorance and undermine your credibility when your write about "Pillava art". The term is Pallava.

2. You are derailing this forum's thread to be about Lockwood, whose ideas have nothing to do with Judaism.


I assumed that based upon Gmirkin's words about Lockwood,
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:22 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:24 pm Would you be kind enough to try to answer this question, even by citing from something which you have published?
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:03 am The Library of Alexandria surely collected books, mostly on papyrus. But is there evidence that they created anthropological field studies to create books in non-Greek languages?
Stephen's question is pretty incomprehensible. I assume he was making an attempt at sarcasm. But there are ancient testimonies that the Library of Alexandria under Ptolemy II Philadelphus sought to fulfill the earlier ambitions of Alexander the Great by having the library translate texts from every language into Greek for addition to the collection (Canfora 1990: 23-25, 101, 120, 126-27, 131, 186). See, for instance, Tzetzes, De comoedia, on the collection and translation of books from "all the peoples of the world." One Byzantine source claimed:

Learned men were enlisted from every nation, men who as well
as being masters of their own languages were wonderfully well
acquainted with Greek. Each group of scholars was allocated
the appropriate texts, and so a Greek translation of every text
was made.

A passage from Epiphanius says:

The second sovereign of Alexandria after Ptolemy, to wit the
king known as Ptolemy Philadelphus, was a man who loved
beauty and culture. He founded a library in this same city of
Alexandria, in the district known as Bruchion (a quarter now
altogether abandoned), and he put one Demetrius Phalereus in
charge of it, instructing him to collect together all the books of
the world.... The work proceeded, and books were gathered
from all parts, until one day the king asked the director of the
library how many books had been collected. The director replied:
'There are about 54,800. We hear, however, that there
is a great quantity of books among the Ethiopians, the Indians,
the Persians, the Elamites, the Babylonians, the Chaldaeans,
the Romans, the Phoenicians and the Syrians.'

A passage from Isidore of Seville, De bibliotecis V.3.3 reads:

And from here grew the fashion, known among
all sovereigns and in every city, for obtaining the books of
various peoples and, by the work of translators, turning them
into Greek. This is why Alexander the Great, or perhaps
his successors, set about building libraries in which every
book would be contained. And Ptolemy called Philadelphus,
in particular, who was deeply versed in letters and who vied
with Pisistratus in his devotion to libraries, brought together
in his library not only the works of the gentiles but the holy
scriptures too. In fact, seventy thousand volumes were to be
found in Alexandria in those days.

Some of these translations (besides the LXX) made at the Great Library are known from various classical sources. One of them was probably the Tyrian Annals, translated from Phoenician by Menander. The translation of the writings attributed to Zoroaster, numbering over 2 million lines, was another notable example. Professor Michael Lockwood has argued in several books and many articles that the delegation of Buddhists who traveled to Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (and other Greek centers of learning) in a diplomatic mission documented in a well-known stele from the time of Ashoka the Great (ca. 268-232 BCE) invented the Brahmi script (which has clear affinities to Greek) in order to record in writing certain previously oral works on Buddhist religious teachings to be added to the Great Library. (Lockwood had already developed these theories several years before encountering my research, by the way).

So there is considerable evidence for the Great Library translating as many works in "barbaric" (non-Greek) languages as it could obtain.

Canfora, Luciano, The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990.
in combination with Gmirkin's later denial of having endorsed Lockwood's model
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:54 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:50 am In other words:
a) Besides maybe Gmirkin, and maybe DM Murdock/Acharya S, who accepts M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria?

b) Brahmi script pre-dated the Library of Alexandria, so it was not invented there. See Peter T Daniels books if you don't trust my previous reference.

Professor Michael Lockwood has argued in several books and many articles that the delegation of Buddhists who traveled to Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (and other Greek centers of learning) in a diplomatic mission documented in a well-known stele from the time of Ashoka the Great (ca. 268-232 BCE) invented the Brahmi script (which has clear affinities to Greek) in order to record in writing certain previously oral works on Buddhist religious teachings to be added to the Great Library. (Lockwood had already developed these theories several years before encountering my research, by the way).

(1) On what basis do you claim that I accept Michael Lockwood's thesis? I am merely reporting it. I am familiar with it, but that does not mean the same thing. Another classic instance of SG failure to accurately grasp plain English.

(2) The visit to Alexandria, reported in the stele of Ashoka, is completely uncontroversial. Lockwood, who appears to have a firm grasp of the primary evidence as well as secondary literature, argues that the Brahmi script is of later date than has been proposed in the past. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I cannot evaluate whether his arguments are correct, but they appear competent. See also ABuddhist's informed comments.
and my words dismissing Gmirkin's comments about Lockwood as Obiter dicta
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:55 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:39 am Brahmi script, according to some scholars, was created before the Library of Alexandria was created. If so, then Lockwood's Alexandria Library proposal is wrong, and if wrong, of no help to the Gmirkin Alexandria Library proposal, even though Gmirkin cited it.
"If" is the key word.

Gmirkin discussed Lockwood as obiter dicta to his broader point about Alexandria's library as a place where many languages were written and studied. As in, it was in function a perenthetical note which could have been removed without undermining his point.
are proof that however Gmirkin can be criticized, he cannot honestly be criticized for endorsing Lockwood's model.

3. Why are you condemning a source as not a scholarly paper when you keep refusng to consider evidence which other people have cited for you?

4. I am not Michael Lockwood, nor do I endorse his model. Gmirkin introduced me to Lockwood's model upon this forum.

5. Prove that it is not mainstream academic practise to write books based upon things which could have happened and speculations accordingly.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

You reveal your ignorance and undermine your credibility when your write about "Pillava art".
https://www.facebook.com/madraschristia ... 344757171/
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

You are derailing this forum's thread to be about Lockwood, whose ideas have nothing to do with Judaism.
I wanted to demonstrate the kind of circle jerk that exists within these underground associations. Goranson may be a lot of things but his scholarship is a few levels above Lockwood's. As I said before. It's a cool idea. It's "neat." But there is no actual positive evidence for the LXX being anything but a translation of a Hebrew text. If there is evidence I'd love to look at it.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:53 am
You reveal your ignorance and undermine your credibility when your write about "Pillava art".
https://www.facebook.com/madraschristia ... 344757171/
Well, I guess that the problem must be with the source which you were quoting and the obscure topic, because when I do a google search for the term "Pillava art", I receive only 2 results, both related to Lockwood, and a suggestion that I search for "Pallava art": https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ava+art%22

So I apologize for my error. I am always willing to learn when people provide sources.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

I am not saying you're in error. I am just showing you were I got the material from.

Another point. No one knows that the LXX is an "original" exemplar. Everyone in antiquity treated the text as a rendering of a/the Hebrew text. So much so that other translations emerged. Why would other translations emerge of the Hebrew if someone - anyone - knew that the LXX was a "co-exemplar." The answer is that at a very early date, i.e. ever since the festival Philo mentions commemorating the translation, it was recognized to be a translation and the whole world "forgot" that it wasn't. Do you really buy that? Why would Philo a Greek speaking Jew not perpetuate the "history" that the LXX was an original exemplar? Why would Origen give in to the notion that the LXX was a translation when he couldn't function in Hebrew? You have to assume that ancient people weren't as prone let's say to the American belief that Jesus was an American or came to America or spoke English or was blue eyed and white or drove a pick up truck with an American flag flapping in the wind or any of the other self-serving myths we take for granted on a daily basis.
Post Reply