Plato and the Pentateuch

[Secret Alias]

I've started a thread in another place in the forum to see what evidence there is for the Greek philosophers before 270 BCE. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10542

[neilgodfrey]

Stephen Goranson’s approach to my research is highly reminiscent, in my opinion, of contemporary responses to Galileo’s research in the early 1600s.

It is impossible not to draw the comparison. Theologians, unfortunately, have inherited a privileged place in universities simply because of how universities originated. They have been left far behind other historians when it comes to approaches to historical inquiry.

What attracted me to certain writings of the "Copenhagen school" was that they uncompromisingly applied the same methods of historical inquiry to "biblical topics" as historians in "non-biblical" fields used. Those methods of the "secular" historians were clearly justifiable while the methods at the heart of the "biblical" historians were in general circular.

For a long time I hewed to the view that the Persian era was the most likely setting for the creation of the bulk of the OT literature and when I read Lemche's' attempts to point towards the Hellenistic era instead my instinctive reaction was: That's too extreme! Surely not!

But then other reading alerted me to the striking literary similarities between Herodotus's Histories and the Pentateuch, but even then I was imagining authors of the Pentateuch being exposed to Greek historiography in the Persian era.

I recall doubling down on doing as much in-depth and wide-ranging reading on the Documentary Hypothesis as I could.

What began to shake me into a critical approach there was the archaeological evidence cited -- and it soon became evident that archaeologists who embraced some sort of Documentary Hypothesis and origins of the biblical stories within the Iron Age "biblical" kingdoms of Israel and Judah were themselves sometimes adding theological or biblical narrative layers over the actual evidence they were identifying. They were attempting to force-fit the stones and clay artifacts into some version of the biblical narrative. They added layer upon layer of imaginative narrative that simply was not there in the archaeological finds.

Even in the recent conference that SG linked to, one of the keynote speakers spoke of local inhabitants in Jerusalem during the Persian era pining and longing for the day when the city and temple would all be rebuilt and Judah restored. Total fiction straight from the Psalms. No, I think it far more likely that they were preoccupied with getting good crops or other food, clothing and getting along with their neighbours and worrying about their children and fearing illness and attending markets and festivals and keeping their dwellings in reasonable condition.

I had to agree with one observation I read somewhere that if the Elephantine finds had been uncovered a few years earlier then Wellhausen' DH would scarcely ever have had the opportunity to fly.

There is no reason to gloss over the fact that the majority of Old Testament scholars of the present day will not readily accept new ideas like these concerning the date and ideological background of the Old Testament. A number of reasons may be found, not all of them based on the irrational, if understandable, disbelief and reluctance to accept what goes against the opinio communis of several generations of scholars. I hereby intend to say that exclamations like ‘This is nonsense!,’ ‘This cannot be true!’ or ‘This is impossible!’ are often heard, although the argument in favour of such ‘criticism’ will usually be of the circular kind: that is, it cannot be true, because it goes against the once generally accepted view, which is, in turn, based on the assumption that such things cannot be correct.

Lemche, Niels. “The Old Testament ‐a Hellenistic Book?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 (January 1, 1993): 193

The current mainstream models of the origins of the biblical literature, I think, seem to appeal to some kind of "remarkable creativity" of the people of Israel and Judah. That is, to some sort of exceptional quality in their experiences or genius. There are certain religious and political-cultural forces at play here, I suspect.

The Hellenistic era origins demystify the process and everything coheres with common human experience -- and the literary and religious products of the Jews and Samaritans become the natural outgrowths of identifiable and understandable historical processes.

[ABuddhist]

Just think of the implications of this theory. Our understanding of Hebrew as a language mostly comes from the study of the Pentateuch. But wait! Now we know nothing about Hebrew before 270 BCE when it was allegedly used to render Greek writings into this barbarous tongue. Really? Is anyone going to turn upside down the entire study of Hebrew to accommodate people who want to make Jews and Judaism "barbarous" once again. Unlikely.

1. You are appealing to the consequences of accepting Gmirkin's model rather than refuting his model.

2. In fact, we would still have pre-Pentateuchal Hebrew, in the form of various inscriptions from Israel. But you keep ignoring such evidence.

[Secret Alias]

Is Gmirkin actually seriously suggesting this actually happened or is it just a appeal for notoriety? What evidence is there FOR the LXX being an original rather than a translation rather than just a denial of the understanding that 99.9999% (everyone but him) holds to be true? Are the names in the Pentateuch the original names of the places and characters in the Pentateuch narrative or translations? I don't think even Gmirkin believes this is history. Just an elaborate Vaihinger hypothesis. Here's another proof the Pentateuch isn't Jewish. You know who else never mentions "Jerusalem" once during their 10000+ page study of the Bible? Philo of Alexandria. Not once. What does that say? The leading exponent of the LXX doesn't treat the book as if it has anything to do with Judea or Jerusalem.

[Secret Alias]

Every mention of Philo of "Jerusalem" in Gaius:

He knew also that they were in the habit of contributing sacred sums of money from their first fruits and sending them to Jerusalem by the hands of those who were to conduct the sacrifices.

And I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which there is erected the holy temple of the most high God. And I have kings for my grandfathers and for my ancestors, the greater part of whom have been called high priests, looking upon their royal power as inferior to their office as priests; and thinking that the high priesthood is as much superior to the power of a king, as God is superior to man; for that the one is occupied in rendering service to God, and the other has only the care of governing them. (279) Accordingly I, being one of this nation, and being attached to this country and to such a temple, address to you this petition on behalf of them all; on behalf of the nation, that it may not be looked upon by you in a light contrary to the true one; since it is a most pious and holy nation, and one from the beginning most loyally disposed to your family.

It was at Jerusalem, O emperor! that your most desirable succession to the empire was first announced; and the news of your advancement spread from the holy city all over the continent on each side, and was received with great gladness. And on this account that city deserves to meet with favour at your hands; (289) for, as in families the eldest children receive the highest honours as their birthright, because they were the first to give the name of father and mother to their parents, so, in like manner, since this is first of all the cities in the east to salute you as emperor, it ought to receive greater benefit from you than any other; or if not greater, at all events as great as any other city.

"And though I might be able to establish this fact, and demonstrate to you the feelings of Augustus, your great grandfather, by an abundance of proofs, I will be content with two; for, in the first place, he sent commandments to all the governors of the different provinces throughout Asia, because he heard that the sacred first fruits were neglected, enjoining them to permit the Jews alone to assemble together in the synagogues, (312) for that these assemblies were not revels, which from drunkenness and intoxication proceeded to violence, so as to disturb the peaceful condition of the country, but were rather schools of temperance and justice, as the men who met in them were studiers of virtue, and contributed the first fruits every year, sending commissioners to convey the holy things to the temple in Jerusalem. (313) "And, in the next place, he commanded that no one should hinder the Jews, either on their way to the synagogues, or when bringing their contributions, or when proceeding in obedience to their national laws to Jerusalem, for these things were expressly enjoined, if not in so many words, at all events in effect; (314) and I subjoin one letter, in order to bring conviction to you who are our mater, what Gaius Norbanus Flaccus wrote, in which he details what had been written to him by Caesar, and the superscription of the letter is as follows: (315)-

"'Caesar has written word to me, that the Jews, wherever they are, are accustomed to assemble together, in compliance with a peculiar ancient custom of their nation, to contribute money which they send to Jerusalem; and he does not choose that they should have any hindrance offered to them, to prevent them from doing this; therefore I have written to you, that you may know that I command that they shall be allowed to do these things.'

[StephenGoranson]

As for Thomas S. Kuhn, I made a comment based on his The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science (U. Chicago, 2022) at a blog, but it was blocked, censored.

On Galileo...really, you too?

In any case, though I am no expert on the following Brahmi script, here's another relevant publication:
Brāhmī script : an invention of the early Maurya period /
Author: Goyala, Śrīrāma.
Publication: Jodhpur : Kusumanjali Book World, 2006
Document: English : Book
I don't know if that thesis is correct, but I can say that early Maurya period started in 322 or 321, which is before 273.

I tried to find scholars who accept M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria.
But did not find anyone who qualified.
Like scholars not accepting the Alexandria proposal by Gmirkin.

[ABuddhist]

In any case, though I am no expert on the following Brahmi script, here's another relevant publication:
Brāhmī script : an invention of the early Maurya period /
Author: Goyala, Śrīrāma.
Publication: Jodhpur : Kusumanjali Book World, 2006
Document: English : Book
I don't know if that thesis is correct, but I can say that early Maurya period started in 322 or 321, which is before 273.

I tried to find scholars who accept M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria.
But did not find anyone who qualified.
Like scholars not accepting the Alexandria proposal by Gmirkin.

No person posting here has said that Brahmi was created around 273 BCE. Lockwood has suggested that it was created in Alexandria, a model which neither Gmirkin nor I have said that we agree with. Gmirkin merely discussed Lockwood incidentally as part of a broader point about how Alexandria's Library had many contacts with other languages and literary traditions - which you have been unable to refute.

I further note that you have abandoned your previous claim that Brahmi is pre-Maurya, and have avoided responding to the point that you selectively quoted from Saloman in order to support your abandoned claim that Brahmi is pre-Maurya.

[ABuddhist]

Is Gmirkin actually seriously suggesting this actually happened or is it just a appeal for notoriety?

Why would you propose such a thing when:

1. Gmirkin, in his writings here and elsewhere, has treated his model as what he believes;

2. Gmirkin has published, with respectible academic presses (rather than, for example, humour publishers), his model in multiple books; and

3. The only person disgreeing with Gmirkin to suggest that he does not take his own proposal seriously is yoiu, who has repeatedly demonstrated unwillingness to deal with evidence, has dismissed effortsa to cite evidence supporting theories as wrong, and has demonstrated so little familiarity with Gmirkin's model that you both seriously questioned whether he had read Plato and revealed your complete ignoranceof the fact that for centuries people have drawn similarities between Plato and the Pentateuch?

[StephenGoranson]

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.

Kuhn rued that his book was used outside of the realm of history of science. One might say, parallelomania.

It is one thing to say Torah-writers had x, y, or z abilities, but quite another to claim that they uniquely somehow participated in offered self-delusion, plausible deniability, and such-like.

Though peer review understandably has many adherents, it also, as often practiced, has critics. Retraction Watch is a clearinghouse for publications retracted from even some of the finest journals, because the peer review failed.

[ABuddhist]

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.