Plato and the Pentateuch

[DCHindley]

Various and contrasting ideologies seem to exist in the Five books of Moses.

I am reminded of The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies, by Norman C. Habel (1993). Habel finds six different, and somewhat incompatible land tenancy ideologies in the Five books of Moses.

There could be dozens, maybe hundreds or even thousands, of identifiable ideologies of sundry kinds if we go digging. Come to think of it, teased out themes are what the various JEPD theories are based on.

If Andrew is suggesting that the interpreters' (Gmirkin, etc) own ideologies may be driving their criticism, well, I'd have to agree. That's the nature of the beast. Present day critics have no choice but to interpret evidence from the past through the lens of the present.

My objection to JEDP theories that postulate date ranges for composition or redaction of these streams are plausible but not historically verified, forcing paleologists to postulate dates based on shaky characteristics - I think in hopes of somehow establishing one theory or another. I am open to JEDP source identification being onto something, but how it got to the way we have it when it was translated into Greek, I don't know. The Five Books of Moses did appear to be a joint venture between Samaritans and Judeans, but Jewish sacred texts like Ezra-Nehemiah stridently deny this was the case. The truth is not to be found in Judean sacred texts. There's not a lot to work with.

[neilgodfrey]

Various and contrasting ideologies seem to exist in the Five books of Moses.

I am reminded of The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies, by Norman C. Habel (1993). Habel finds six different, and somewhat incompatible land tenancy ideologies in the Five books of Moses.

Yes, some of the literature talks about a "Yahwist ideology" and that's certainly there in the Pentateuch, whatever it is, exactly.

But my problem with the question that seems to think we are looking at an "ideology of Plato or Laws" is that Plato and Laws are very slippery targets. The Laws speaks of accommodation to local practices and customs. There is no "single rule" to be imposed. Even the myths that Plato proposed are, by his own explanation, open to revision -- or even replacement with other myths according to whatever suits the situation.

What Plato does do, though, is "purify" the myths. If that is his "ideology", or part of it, then yes, that is found in the Pentateuch. But I can't imagine how it would have been done "surreptitiously" -- that to me suggests a secret cabal suddenly ensnaring a whole population unawares -- but I might be misunderstanding where Andrew is coming from.

There is a clear division in the Yahweh cult ideology: pre Hellenistic we find Yahweh worshiped alongside other deities. He has a wife, for starters. Then from the early Hellenistic time he is "a jealous god" who tolerates no rivals or would-be equals. What happened there? That was a clear change in Yahwist ideology. It was not Plato's ideal change, though, given the violence of Yahweh.

Nehemiah and Ezra indicate that such changes and practices associated with the new Yahwism were not enthusiastically welcomed by all.

I am open to JEDP source identification being onto something, but how it got to the way we have it when it was translated into Greek, I don't know. The Five Books of Moses did appear to be a joint venture between Samaritans and Judeans, but Jewish sacred texts like Ezra-Nehemiah stridently deny this was the case. The truth is not to be found in Judean sacred texts. There's not a lot to work with.

It's not very different from the Q theory: the hypothetical sources seem to work for so much of the text but when we get closer we start to see niggling questions arising and then the theories, both Q and JEPD, have to bring in so many (ad hoc) qualifications and sub-clauses that it becomes a full time job keeping up with them all.

Gmirkin keeps the multiple author concept of the Pentateuch. He acknowledges textual variants that are the basis of various studies attempting to get to whatever was originally behind the Septuagint and MT. Others propose a single author with subsequent edits. I don't know.

[andrewcriddle]

What follows is a quite different objection now, and that leads me to think your arguments are somewhat ad hoc. The above criticism of a classicist whose work had nothing to do with the Pentateuch -- even misreading his point about Carthage and Rome and presumably on that point alone mis-characterizing the entire body of evidence was somewhat speculative -- was presumably prompted by a concern that such a study was indeed very close to the kind of example you asked for in your earlier quote.

Since you've referred twice to this peripheral point, I'll clarify.

IMO there is no connection between the impossible demands made by the Romans as a pretext to destroy Carthage according to Diodorus Siculus;

Then the Romans arrived in Utica.​ Carthage again sent envoys to learn if the Romans had further demands to make upon them. When the consuls told them to surrender, without fraud, their arms and artillery, they were at first cast down, inasmuch as they were at war with Hasdrubal;​ none the less (the Romans)​ received from them two hundred thousand weapons of all sorts and two thousand catapults. Thereupon the Romans again sent word to the Carthaginians, bidding them appoint a delegation of Elders, to whom they would make known their final directive. The Carthaginians dispatched thirty men of the highest rank. Manilius,​ the elder of the consuls, stated that the senate had decreed that they should abandon the city they now inhabited, and should found another at a distance of eighty stades​ from the sea. At this the envoys resorted to lamentation and appeals for pity, all casting themselves to the ground and mingling cries of grief with tears. And a great wave of emotion swept over the assembly. When the Carthaginians after a struggle recovered from their consternation, one man alone, a certain Blanno, uttered words appropriate to the occasion, and speaking with desperate courage yet with complete frankness aroused feelings of pity in all who heard him.

The Romans, being immovable in their resolve to destroy Carthage, ordered the envoys to return straightway to Carthage and to report to the citizens what had been decreed.​ Some of the envoys, considering it hopeless to return home, individually sought refuge as best they could, but the others, electing to return, made their way back, their fatal mission completed. As the populace thronged to meet them, they said not a word to them, but beating their heads, raising aloft their hands, and calling upon the gods for aid, they proceeded to the market-place and reported to the gerousia​ the orders imposed by the Romans.

and Appian

Your ready obedience up to this point, Carthaginians, in the matter of the hostages and the arms, is worthy of all praise. In cases of necessity we must not multiply words. Bear bravely the remaining commands of the Senate. Yield Carthage to us, and betake yourselves where you like within your own territory at a distance of at least fifteen kilometers [original eighty stadia] from the sea, for we are resolved to raze your city to the ground."

While he was yet speaking, the Carthaginians lifted their hands toward heaven with loud cries, and called on the gods as avengers of violated faith. They heaped reproaches on the Romans, as if willing to die, or insane, or determined to provoke the Romans to sacrilegious violence to ambassadors. They flung themselves on the ground and beat it with their hands and heads. Some of them even tore their clothes and lacerated their flesh as though they were absolutely bereft of their senses. After the first frenzy was past there was great silence and prostration as of men lying dead.

The Romans were struck with amazement, and the consuls thought it best to bear with men who were overwhelmed at an appalling command until their indignation should subside, for they well knew that great dangers often bring desperate courage on the instant, which time and necessity gradually subdue. This was the case with the Carthaginians, for when the sense of their calamity came over them, during the interval of silence, they ceased their reproaches and began to bewail, with fresh lamentations, their own fate and that of their wives and children, calling them by name, and also their country, as though she could hear their cries like a human being. The priests invoked their temples, and the gods within them, as though they were present, accusing them of being the cause of their destruction. So pitiable was this mingling together of public and private grief that it drew tears from the Romans themselves.

[82] The consuls, although moved to pity by this exhibition of the mutability of human affairs, awaited with stern countenances the end of their lamentations. When their outcries ceased there was another interval of silence, in which they reflected that their city was without arms, that it was empty of defenders, that it had not a ship, not a catapult, not a javelin, not a sword, nor a sufficient number of fighting men, having lost 50,000 a short time ago. They had neither mercenaries, nor friends, nor allies, nor time to procure any. Their enemies were in possession of their children, their arms, and their territory. Their city was besieged by foes provided with ships, infantry, cavalry, and engines, while Massinissa, their other enemy, was on their flank. Seeing the uselessness of lamentation and reproaches they desisted from them, and again began to talk. Banno, surnamed Tigillas, the most distinguished man among them, having obtained permission to speak, said:

[83] "If it is permitted to repeat what we have already said to you, Romans, we would speak once more, not as though we were contending for rights (since disputation is never timely for the unfortunate), but that you may perceive that pity on your part toward us is not without excuse and not without reason. We were once the rulers of Africa and of the greater part of the sea, and we contended with yourselves for empire. We desisted from this in the time of Scipio,note when we gave up to you all the ships and elephants we had. We agreed to pay you tribute and we pay it at the appointed time.

Now, in the name of the gods who witnessed the oaths, spare us, respect the oath sworn by Scipio that the Romans and Carthaginians should be allies and friends. We have not violated the treaty. We have no ships, no elephants. The tribute is not in default. On the contrary, we have fought on your side against three kings. You must not take offense at this recital, although we mentioned it before when you demanded our arms. Our calamities make us verbose, and nothing gives more force to an appeal than the terms of a treaty. Nor can we take refuge in anything else than words, since we have given all other power over to you. Such, Romans, were the former conditions, for which Scipio was our surety.

Of the present ones you, consuls, are yourselves the doers and the witnesses. You asked hostages, and we gave you our best. You asked for our arms, and you have received them all, which even captured cities do not willingly give up. We had confidence in your habits and your character. Your Senate sent us word, and you confirmed it, when the hostages were demanded, that if they were delivered, Carthage should be left free and autonomous. If it was added that we should endure your further commands it was not to be expected that in the matter of the hostages you would, in your distinct demand, promise that the city should be independent, and then besides the hostages would make a further demand that Carthage itself be destroyed. If it is right for you to destroy it, how can you leave it free and autonomous as you said you would?

and the location of the new colony in the Laws.

ATHENIAN: And now, what will this city be? I do not mean to ask what is or will hereafter be the name of the place; that may be determined by the accident of locality or of the original settlement—a river or fountain, or some local deity may give the sanction of a name to the newly-founded city; but I do want to know what the situation is, whether maritime or inland.
CLEINIAS: I should imagine, Stranger, that the city of which we are speaking is about eighty stadia distant from the sea.
ATHENIAN: And are there harbours on the seaboard?
CLEINIAS: Excellent harbours, Stranger; there could not be better.
ATHENIAN: Alas! what a prospect! And is the surrounding country productive, or in need of importations?
CLEINIAS: Hardly in need of anything.
ATHENIAN: And is there any neighbouring State?
CLEINIAS: None whatever, and that is the reason for selecting the place; in days of old, there was a migration of the inhabitants, and the region has been deserted from time immemorial.
ATHENIAN: And has the place a fair proportion of hill, and plain, and wood?
CLEINIAS: Like the rest of Crete in that.
ATHENIAN: You mean to say that there is more rock than plain?
CLEINIAS: Exactly.
ATHENIAN: Then there is some hope that your citizens may be virtuous: had you been on the sea, and well provided with harbours, and an importing rather than a producing country, some mighty saviour would have been needed, and lawgivers more than mortal, if you were ever to have a chance of preserving your state from degeneracy and discordance of manners (compare Ar. Pol.). But there is comfort in the eighty stadia; although the sea is too near, especially if, as you say, the harbours are so good. Still we may be content. The sea is pleasant enough as a daily companion, but has indeed also a bitter and brackish quality; filling the streets with merchants and shopkeepers, and begetting in the souls of men uncertain and unfaithful ways—making the state unfriendly and unfaithful both to her own citizens, and also to other nations. There is a consolation, therefore, in the country producing all things at home; and yet, owing to the ruggedness of the soil, not providing anything in great abundance. Had there been abundance, there might have been a great export trade, and a great return of gold and silver; which, as we may safely affirm, has the most fatal results on a State whose aim is the attainment of just and noble sentiments: this was said by us, if you remember, in the previous discussion.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

<SNIP>

What I have much more difficulty with, irrespective of relative dating, is the idea that Plato's Laws are the covert ideology of the elite who invented the Pentateuch. An ideology which had to be obscured in order for the Pentateuch to be acceptable to ordinary Jews. This idea, IMO, is quite different from the ways in which the Laws may well have openly contributed to the Hellenistic political debate.

I think you will need to be clearer about what you mean by "underlying ideology" in this context. What is it you are objecting to, exactly? What is it you imagine is the argument re Plato's influence on the Pentateuch?
...

I am objecting to the idea of the surreptitious use of the Laws as an underlying ideology for the Pentateuch.
(This is an incomplete answer but I'm about to temporarily lose access to the web.)

Andrew Criddle

Again, I don't know what you mean by "ideology" in this context. Nor do I think I know what you are implying or suggesting by your reference to "surreptitious". When you return online it might be helpful to make clear what exactly you mean by those terms as criticisms of Gmirkin's argument -- or with any of the other arguments for a Greek-influenced Hellenistic era Pentateuch. (On the face of it your use of "surreptitious" and "underlying ideology" come across as pejorative characterizations of G's argument.)

If we stick with Gmirkin's argument for the moment, he argues that a particular "program" (I could not say "ideology") by pro-Hellenistic authors that is detectable in much of Genesis was flatly rejected by the authors of Exodus-Joshua.

The picture that emerges is that of two contemporary groups with competing ideologies: one whose agenda was ethical and philosophical, whose influence was most pronounced in Genesis, and another whose agenda was cultic and nationalistic, whose influence dominated Exodus-Joshua. -- Plato's Timaeus, 273

I don't think you are using "ideology" in the same sense as Gmirkin does here --- though I might be wrong, of course. I have not seen your explanation for your use of the word.

The evidence we have in the Pentateuch and subsequent history (as reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah, as I understand those works, and the history of the Hasmoneans) is that the intolerant imposition of "Yahwism alone" was forced upon Judeans and others by anti-Hellenists.

If you're looking for the imposition of an "ideology" on a people I think it is there -- in the anti-Hellenist intolerant Yahwist priests.

Platonism as we see it expressed in the work (Laws) that, in Morrow's view, represents reflections arising out of his life-time of Plato's thought, was not imposed on the Samaritans and Jews.

One sees other examples of betrayals of elements of Plato's program where they were introduced, presumably with good intention, as Morrow's examples illustrate (e.g. with the introductions of the "guardians of the laws").

(updated)

added later.....

I am objecting to the idea of the surreptitious use of the Laws as an underlying ideology for the Pentateuch.

Andrew Criddle

Or another approach that might help towards a better understanding between us would be if you could spell out the actual reasons you object to what you describe as "a surreptitious use of the Laws as an underlying ideology for the Pentateuch".

My use of surreptitious was not intended to be pejorative to Gmirkin. I was trying (maybe badly) to express what seems to me obvious.

The alleged influence of the Laws on the Pentateuch is more thoroughgoing than in any supposed parallel. On the other hand, this influence is concealed. The laws of the Pentateuch are not justified by 'Natural Law' type philosophical reasoning, as in the case of later Stoic-influenced legal writings, where Plato's Laws may indeed be an influence. The Pentateuch justifies its laws by appeals to the commands of God and the history of God's dealing with his people. We would have to suppose a group who wished to both base their society on the ideals/ideology of Plato's Laws, while at the same time concealing what they were doing. I find this implausible. YMMV.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Another dimension which seems to be missing from this discussion is that God only gave the ten utterances and they don't seem at all Platonic. The remaining 603 commandments were for the most part understood to be made on the authority of Moses. Even the early liturgy emphasized that the ten utterances were on a different level, "divine," and accorded a special status. It is hard to find a parallel for this in Plato.

[andrewcriddle]

This post viewtopic.php?p=148476#p148476 by Gmirkin may illustrate my concerns. I doubt whether this quasi-totalitarian agenda is what Plato meant, and I see no evidence that anyone in the ancient world interpreted the Laws in this way.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

What follows is a quite different objection now, and that leads me to think your arguments are somewhat ad hoc. The above criticism of a classicist whose work had nothing to do with the Pentateuch -- even misreading his point about Carthage and Rome and presumably on that point alone mis-characterizing the entire body of evidence was somewhat speculative -- was presumably prompted by a concern that such a study was indeed very close to the kind of example you asked for in your earlier quote.

Since you've referred twice to this peripheral point, I'll clarify.

IMO there is no connection between the impossible demands made by the Romans as a pretext to destroy Carthage according to Diodorus Siculus;

....

Αnd Appian

.....

and the location of the new colony in the Laws.

.....

Andrew Criddle

A "peripheral point" but one you inadvertently misread and unintentionally misrepresented, then when the misrepresentation was corrected you declared it to be irrelevant -- but still apparently worthy of mention!

But as for the Appian quote, here is the original reference being cited by Morrow. It is from Momigliano's Sea-Power in Greek Thought (https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/ ... al_article):

Another point remains to be examined: whether the Platonic condemnation of sea-power was repeated by the Romans in order to justify the destruction of Carthage. So much is certain, that the Roman offer that the Carthaginians should settle at least eighty stades from the sea corresponds exactly to the suggestion of the Laws for the ideal city. Appian goes a step farther. He attributes to the Roman consul L. Marcius Censorinus a long speech which develops the Platonic argument against sea-power (Pun. 86-9). If the speech could be proved to derive ultimately from Polybius, it might correspond to the real words of a Roman consul. But the derivation has never been demonstrated (though never disproved), and all we can say is that Appian provides evidence that Platonic arguments were utilized by Roman annalists to justify Roman cruelty.3 In other words, the passage of Appian is evidence for the survival of the Platonic tradition in the matter of seapower versus the Aristotelian compromise.

3. Cf. Diod. xxxii. 6. 3; Livy, Per. 49; Zon. ix. 26; Oros. iv. 22. 3, and also Polyb. iii. 5. 5. On the speech of the Roman consul see S. Gsell, Hist. anc. de l'Afrique du Nord, iii. 348, n. 4 (cf. U. Kahrstedt, Gesch. d. Karth., iii. 644, n. 1). The relation with Plato was noted by O. Meltzer, Neue Jahrb. f. Philol. cxliii, 1891, 685. F. W. Walbank called my attention to the passage of Appian.

[neilgodfrey]

The laws of the Pentateuch are not justified by 'Natural Law' type philosophical reasoning, as in the case of later Stoic-influenced legal writings, where Plato's Laws may indeed be an influence. The Pentateuch justifies its laws by appeals to the commands of God and the history of God's dealing with his people. We would have to suppose a group who wished to both base their society on the ideals/ideology of Plato's Laws, while at the same time concealing what they were doing. I find this implausible. YMMV.

Andrew Criddle

But that is exactly what Plato recommended in the Laws. He wrote that a prologue should stress the divine origin of the laws. The people were to believe that the laws were from God. -- The philosophers know that the laws are "from nature" but they most certainly don't present the laws that way to the citizens:

For assuming that you have reasonably good laws, one of the best of them will be the law forbidding any young men to enquire which of them are right or wrong; but with one mouth and one voice they must all agree that the laws are all good, for they came from God; and any one who says the contrary is not to be listened to.

Plato spoke of two types of laws and it is significant that both are found in the Pentateuch and one of which, as far as I am aware, is found nowhere else.

1. the edict, the blanket command. Don't kill. Or else....

2. Honour your parents so you can have a good long life!

What law code contains an example of #2 outside the Bible?

Plato, by the way, said that the two most important laws that should come top of the table are: honour God and honour parents. -- which "coincidentally" head the two parts of the Decalogue. These 10 Commandments are narrated as part of the Prologue to the body of laws that follow, exactly in the position Plato said they should be (as part of the prologue to the laws).

There are many examples of that hortatory law in the Pentateuch -- "be holy for I am holy...", "do not hate your brother in your heart ....", "help your enemy with his ox...", and "do not hate the stranger because you were once strangers...."

That's all spelled out in Plato's Laws -- along with the direct: "If someone steals he shall repay four-fold..."

But then Plato noted that he was introducing something unique, something no-one had ever done with their law codes: add a preface that was designed to persuade people to obey the laws, to persuade them that the laws were "from heaven" and the best thing since creation and that they promised to make them all happy, etc.

That was an innovation. The Pentateuch's presentation of the law is also an innovation of the exact same kind that corresponded to Plato's recommendations.

So Plato enjoined three things that all happen to be central to the Pentateuch:

• Laws that are exhortations to good conduct, with promises or encouraging words to obey (along with other "normal" laws).
• The top priority to the laws of honouring God and honouring Parents.
• A prologue appealing to God and ancestors to persuade people to want to obey the laws.

[neilgodfrey]

This post viewtopic.php?p=148476#p148476 by Gmirkin may illustrate my concerns. I doubt whether this quasi-totalitarian agenda is what Plato meant, and I see no evidence that anyone in the ancient world interpreted the Laws in this way.

Andrew Criddle

Plato repeatedly spoke of the need for the ruling philosopher class to create myths for the general public. The "noble lie", the "pious fraud". A bit pointless, is it not, to create a myth to persuade people to believe that laws come from God and then at the same time tell them it's just a story and not real?

[andrewcriddle]

This post viewtopic.php?p=148476#p148476 by Gmirkin may illustrate my concerns. I doubt whether this quasi-totalitarian agenda is what Plato meant, and I see no evidence that anyone in the ancient world interpreted the Laws in this way.

Andrew Criddle

Plato repeatedly spoke of the need for the ruling philosopher class to create myths for the general public. The "noble lie", the "pious fraud". A bit pointless, is it not, to create a myth to persuade people to believe that laws come from God and then at the same time tell them it's just a story and not real?

i am uncertain what Plato intended. (There is an interesting discussion of the deep tension within the Laws in this article by Diamond). However, the influences of Plato on later writers and politicians suggested by Morrow have no resemblance to the scenario suggested by Gmirkin. It is clearly possible to interpret the Laws in this way, (you and Gmirkin have done so), but I doubt if it was taken in this way in the Ancient world.

Andrew Criddle