Plato and the Pentateuch

[neilgodfrey]

ABuddhist and others seriously interested in the evidence (that is, I am not addressing SA here, nor SG, who are too smart to know all the answers without having to read any of the published evidence and argument) I earlier left a quote from Russell Gmirkin's discussion of the relationship between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew text at https://vridar.org/2022/10/26/in-the-be ... ent-242535 -- On the basis of evidence from the Samaritan and Qumran texts scholars have reason to believe that the original Hebrew text (not the MT) was closer to the Septuagint than the MT today.

[StephenGoranson]

Yesterday, I wrote, above, 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?

Here'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.)

Whether consciously or unconsciously, presenting Jews----or their "Elders"----as uniquely dishonest is, in my view, a grave and dangerous mistake. [.....]" {end quote}

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.
Ptolemy II, most scholars conclude, began the Library of Alexandria. How long did it take, in ancient times (with slower transportation), for it to start serving as a great library? Whatever the answer to that question, 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?

[Secret Alias]

ABuddhist and others seriously interested in the evidence

He didn't even know that Gmirkin thought the LXX was a translation. Took this so seriously. Dislike and hate are antithetical to "sincere" scholarship.

[Secret Alias]

That's pretty much standard scholarly interpretation of the available sources.

I love it when people who have outlandish interpretations of the evidence cite "standard scholarly interpretations" to support their contentions.

"My thesis is that George Washington was a monkey from outer space BUT the standard scholarly interpretation doesn't believe that chopped down the cherry tree. As such, given that he was a monkey, he probably CLIMBED the tree and hung off a branch."

Brilliant.

It doesn't work like that. Every scholar in the field treats the LXX as a translation of a Hebrew text not as the original exemplar written by Jewish priests who had contact with space aliens, or who used manuscripts of the writings of Plato from the library at Alexandria, or this or that. There are countless places where the LXX demonstrates that it is not a literal translation, not something which was written by the same people who wrote the Hebrew text.

AND HERE'S SOMETHING MORE.

Philo throughout his writings supposes that the tenth commandment was "do not lust" a short form of the Hebrew text rather than the "full form" that appears in our LXX. His identification of the divine name of God does not always correspond to our surviving LXX or Hebrew texts (whether MT, SP or Qumran). The point here is that there is very good reason to believe that not only is the Hebrew text type that the LXX was based upon no longer exists or was different than the LXX BUT THAT THE LXX THAT THE ORIGINAL JEWISH ALEXANDRIAN USED WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE "CHRISTIAN LXX" WHICH HAS COME DOWN TO US (i.e. the Greek translation that was preserved by Christian libraries). As such Gmirkin's argument is unprovable. We don't possess the LXX we don't possess the Hebrew text it was based upon everyone in antiquity thought that the LXX was a Greek translation which was "miraculously" identical to the Hebrew original (something which is not borne out now). So as an unprovable thesis it's not worth arguing about. It's interesting. It's creative. It's thought-provoking. But what can one really say about this possibility when no real evidence survives for us to evaluate the theory and LOTS OF REASONS TO DOUBT THE THEORY such as EVERYONE IN ANTIQUITY THINKING IT WAS A MIRACULOUS TRANSLATION.

[Secret Alias]

The point again is that you can "like" this theory. You can say that there are similarities between the Platonic understanding of Creation and that described in the pages of Genesis. Jewish scholars noticed this before. But given that most ancient sources understood Plato to have borrowed his ideas from other cultures, it is incredible to claim that the Jewish account was "borrowed" from Plato. "Borrowed" yes. But more likely a common source undoubtedly not Greek. Gennadius Scholarius wrote that "only Anaxagoras and Pythagoras ( ̓Aναξαγόρας δὲ μόνον καὶ Πυθαγόρας) received lessons from the Egyptian sages and, when Plato heard them, he went to Egypt himself 'according to the testimonies by Jerome, and by Plutarch, and, before him, by Xenophon. It is thence that Plato received 'seeds of the sacred truth' (τῆςἱερᾶς ἀληθείας ἐδέξατο σπέρματα)." To Michael Psellus, Plato was the first to transfer the arcane knowledge of the Egyptians to Greece (koi 6tà toitov Topótov "ENAnveg oiyuttláGovteq (potvovtot).” Whereas he received most of his ideas from Pythagoras, the difference was that Pythagoras enunciated his views as oracles without caring to demonstrate them by argument, whereas Plato cared to prove everything he argued for."

[Secret Alias]

We have obvious evidence that Plato got his ideas from Egypt either directly or indirectly from Pythagoreanism.
We know the Jews claimed that they came from Egypt and there are linguistic parallels between Jewish writings and Egyptian ones.
It would seem to make better sense that Egypt was the source of the similarities between Genesis and Plato. While this can't be proven neither can the idea that Jewish sages got their ideas from the library at Alexandria and reasons to think this wasn't true.

[Secret Alias]

And it's not that I am saying "it can't be true." I am not opposed to the idea that the Pentateuch had sources. It undoubtedly did. But the idea of connecting the Pentateuch to Plato seems to be unrealistic as Plato himself had sources. It seems rather to be connected with "white power" and Eurocentrism, the notion that Europe should rightly be held to be the source of all wisdom and the barbarians "corrupted" Greek power. Given the originality of the Samaritans, the Pentateuch narrative reflecting Samaritan locales and the non-mention of Jerusalem, the existence of many Pentateuch text types by the coming of Alexander (at least a Samaritan text and a Jewish text), the common cultural connection with Egypt between Plato and the Pythagoreans on the one hand and the Pentateuch on the author, it would seem Egypt was likely a source for both Plato and the author(s) of the Pentateuch. The fact that I can't prove that Egypt was the common influence on both Plato and the Pentateuch leaves an opening for suggesting other possibilities. But the Pentateuch being written in 270 BCE is not one of those viable possibilities. First of all, the relationship between the Hebrew text and the LXX isn't clearly explained. Is the LXX a parallel language release made at the time of the composition of the Hebrew text or a later summary of the contents of a Hebrew original? The latter obviously. So how much time elapsed between the introduction of the Hebrew text and the LXX? All our sources suggest a long time. The title of the third book Λευιτικόν is noteworthy. Was there a priestly tribe already established in Jerusalem and Gerizim? What were they doing before 270 BCE? The suggestion that two groups of Levites co-existing in two different locales both accepting a new list of rules from Greek speaking sages who just came back from a "learning expedition" to Egypt is a bit much of a fantasy. First of all, there was always suspicion of new ideas. But new Greek ideas? Two groups of Levites in Samaria and Judea conducting sacrifices according to their own distinct rules or cultures BEFORE the Pentateuch and then both suddenly agreeing to abandon those practices in favor of Platonic-inspired ones is science fiction. The alternative is to suggest that there were no Levites yet, the Levites were only established with the publication of the Pentateuch but to carry out such an act on two locales in two different provinces is again surreal. I think the theory generally suffers from an ignorance, or lack of consideration, of/regarding the Samaritans. This is demonstrated by a complete lack of consideration or awareness of the Samaritans in Gmirkin's initial offerings and then only the most superficial attempts to include the group in later works. If it was just the Jews, if there were no Samaritans in history, perhaps such an "invention" of one religion "Judaism" could have taken place or at least is theoretically possible. But how does one explain the invention of the Pentateuch and the Levites at the same time in two locations? The better explanation was that the Israelite religion began at Gerizim in the Persian period and was imposed on the Jewish people through their related priesthood and that in a later period, when Jews and Samaritans fled to Egypt, the Seventy worked out a translation of the two Hebrew Pentateuchs which didn't entirely agree with either the Jewish or Samaritan original text type.

[Secret Alias]

I don't get why there is a debate about Gmirkin's work. It can't replace the standard model for understanding the LXX. So what are we arguing about? Who's the best guitar player in the world? Whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla? Yes you like Gmirkin's theory. It doesn't help us understand the development of the Pentateuch.

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't get why there is a debate about Gmirkin's work.

You wouldn't since, as you admitted elsewhere, you're in the entertainment business.

It can't replace the standard model for understanding the LXX.

It can. Your traditional documentary hypothesis Pentateuch sources J, E, D and P are theoretical entities --- certainly not primary physical manuscripts (like the DSS). Entertain yourself by reading through the methodology. Notice particularly the differentiation between biblical source criticism and classical source criticism.

METHODOLOGY

The source-critical methods used in this book for dating texts - including biblical texts - are those familiar from classical studies, deductively establishing "terminus a quo" and "ad quem" dates between which the composition of the text under investigation must have taken place.

The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text. This book is essentially an extended exercise in classical source criticism applied to the Hebrew Bible. [1]



[1] There is a sharp methodological distinction between classical source criticism and traditional biblical source criticism. The latter used a variety of techniques to isolate hypothetical sources within biblical texts. The identification of sources J, E, D and P preliminary to the dating arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis is a prime example of biblical source criticism. Such source documents must remain perpetually hypothetical, since they no longer exist as independent entities. This type of source criticism is rarely encountered in classical scholarship ...

Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Hardcover – May 15, 2006
Russell Gmirkin

Further entertainment:

Primary and secondary sources explained

Historical sources are central to your study of the past and are important to your success in History assessment pieces. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that you learn what they are and in what forms they come.

What is a historical 'source'?

A source is something that provides information about the historical topic you are studying. They can either be written (e.g., books or websites), or non-written (e.g., photographs or artefacts). No matter what you're doing in History, you will use sources. This could be simply learning information from a textbook or website, or actually looking at ancient artefacts made in the past. Either way, they provide information about the past and are considered 'sources of information'.


The two kinds of sources

There are two kinds of sources: primary and secondary. The main difference between a primary and a secondary source is when they were made. In order to determine whether a particular source is a primary or secondary source, you need to discover its time of creation.


Primary sources

Primary sources were made during the historical period that is being investigated. These are often the hardest to find but, as a result, are often the strongest evidence you can use in your assessment pieces.


Secondary Sources

Secondary sources were made after the time period you are investigating. As you progress as a History student, you will start to find that some secondary sources are better than others. As a general rule, value secondary sources that are created by scholars, as they are usually more reliable. However, whilst modern scholars aim to produce reliable and unbiased historical accounts, read their writings with the same critical eye as you would primary source creators.

https://www.historyskills.com/source-cr ... -and-type/

[ABuddhist]

ABuddhist and others seriously interested in the evidence

He didn't even know that Gmirkin thought the LXX was a translation. Took this so seriously. Dislike and hate are antithetical to "sincere" scholarship.

You conflate being interested in a theory with being familiar with a theory's nuances. Gmirkin's books are expensive and difficult to access and I have a busy life. 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 knoew much about Gmirkin's model in order to point out flaws in criticisms of what Gmirkin says or is alleged to say.