Plato and the Pentateuch

[StephenGoranson]

Okay, the quote that you, NG, did not properly attribute was from Emanuel (he does not spell his name Emmanuel) Tov.
So to rephrase, does he accept the Gmirkin and/or the Godfrey view?

Again, and again, and again, I do not claim the MT is the original. Again.

[ABuddhist]

So to rephrase, does he accept the Gmirkin and/or the Godfrey view?

Even if he does not, he could accept as true evidence consistent with Gmirkin's model; certainly, we have pointed out to you that Gmirkin is not alone is reealizing that the inscribed silver amulets are not decisive proof about when the Torah was written.

[StephenGoranson]

This particular exchange and question did not reference silver amulets.

[neilgodfrey]

Okay, the quote that you, NG, did not properly attribute was from Emanuel (he does not spell his name Emmanuel) Tov.
So to rephrase, does he accept the Gmirkin and/or the Godfrey view?

Again, and again, and again, I do not claim the MT is the original. Again.

Oh dear- -- now we are shifting the goal posts. First you asked why the texts diverged and I pointed out that the divergence of texts and the lost Hebrew and Greek originals is well recognized in scholarship and stands irrespective of Gmirkin's thesis.

Now you are wanting to ask an entirely different question that has nothing to do with the first. It's a question I would have ignored had you asked it first.

You are just like a scribe trying to trap Jesus.

So I will try a Jesus reply: Answer me first ---- Do you agree that the original Hebrew Vorlage has been lost -- and that the LXX testifies to instances of that lost Vorlage?


Meanwhile, Stephen, try to understand something. In works of scholarship I very often see an author quoting or referring to works of others to establish a particular point, even though they do not agree on everything that the quoted author has written. That is very common.

I don't even know -- I even doubt -- that Tov has read Gmirkin's works so I don't think his position with respect to Gmirkin's view has any validity to the strength of Gmirkin's thesis.

I don't consider your views of Gmirkin's work on Plato and the Hebrew Bible to have any relevance to the discussion here either because I know you have not even read it. You say often how you "disagree" etc -- but that's just meaningless pissing in the wind.

[StephenGoranson]

You, NG, are free to evade my point, namely, that *if* an original Hebrew Torah were (subjunctive) first created in Alexandria in the 270s that was sanctioned by unanimous Jewish and Samaritan priests--and also authoritatively translated into Greek by those very same officially-backed people--how does that imaginative scenario square with the empirical facts that known texts do not match that pretended trajectory?
(We do know, right, of other officially-canonized works that were copied more closely?)
(Plus, you do not know what I have read.)

[neilgodfrey]

You, NG, are free to evade my point, namely, that *if* an original Hebrew Torah were (subjunctive) first created in Alexandria in the 270s that was sanctioned by unanimous Jewish and Samaritan priests--and also authoritatively translated into Greek by those very same officially-backed people--how does that imaginative scenario square with the empirical facts that known texts do not match that pretended trajectory?
(We do know, right, of other officially-canonized works that were copied more closely?)
(Plus, you do not know what I have read.)

I do know you have not read Gmirkin's books after Berossus and Genesis. You have told us as much and you would know the answers to some of your questions you raise here had you read even Berossus -- but I'll be charitable and say your memory is failing you, though I have given you a link to where you can read it online to refresh your memory. You should do that wrt to the silver amulets, for example.

I addressed head on your original point which was how to explain divergent texts given the Alexandrian scenario of Gmirkin. I pointed out that the Alexandrian scenario is irrelevant to the divergence of texts.

Do you agree that we no longer have the original Hebrew and Greek texts? If you agree that the originals are lost, and that the LXX is further evidence of a Hebrew version now lost, then I believe you are the one trying to evade the key point here.

I am sure you know in other contexts that careful and exact copying became important when texts were considered "holy". That condition obviously could not pertain to the originals when the ink was still wet.

We know that even the authors of the Pentateuch had different views and opposed one another in places. So the authors knew they were not being all "inspired by God".

We know that different perspectives arose and different groups revised texts to meet their own needs.

If you are really a student of Qumran literature you know all of that. So why are you asking such a question?

[neilgodfrey]

You, NG, are free to evade my point,

Here is the point you raised that I addressed. I evaded nothing.

Excuse me (or not, if that is your preference), but *if*
the Hebrew Torah was composed in its entirety in Alexandria by a unified group and soon translated in Alexandria into Greek circa 273 or soon after by the same folks
why are the earliest extant Hebrew and Greek texts divergent?

I had no interest in addressing any other point you have made here since I consider them attempts at entrapment to somehow make a display of your attempt to say that Gmirkin's thesis is a challenge to the mainstream and that is somehow a bad thing.

[StephenGoranson]

NG wrote above, in part:
"....I [NG] pointed out that the Alexandrian scenario is irrelevant to the divergence of texts...."
May I suggest that it is not "irrelevant"?

[ABuddhist]

This particular exchange and question did not reference silver amulets.

And my comment to you in this exchange was not only about the amulets; it was about how it is possible to accept evidence, rejected by you, consistent with Gmirkin's model, while rejecting Gmirkin's model. The amulets were cited as an example of such evidence - because you, contra Gmirkin and others, insist that they prove that the Torah is older than the amulets.

[mlinssen]

Excuse me (or not, if that is your preference), but *if*
the Hebrew Torah was composed in its entirety in Alexandria by a unified group and soon translated in Alexandria into Greek circa 273 or soon after by the same folks
why are the earliest extant Hebrew and Greek texts divergent?

Correct analysis.
They diverge because the LXX and the NT have to agree: the LXX is the entire basis for the NT, it makes it come true.
Hence why I haven't been able to locate "a proper Christian LXX" before the Chester Beatty

2nd/3rd CE they say, or to be precise:

The point of special interest about this manuscript is its very early date. The evidence of this is purely palaeographical, but does not appear to admit of doubt. It is written in a rather small, upright hand, square in build (i.e. with height and width of letters about equal), with well-rounded curves, and light, flowing strokes. It is a type of hand easily recognizable as belonging to what is known as the Roman period of papyrus palaeography. It is akin to, but probably rather later than, the long Hyperides papyrus in the British Museum, which is assigned on fairly good evidence to the end of the first century after Christ. It does not seem possible to date it later than the second century, or even, in my opinion, after the middle of that century. This also is the opinion of Mr. H. I. Bell and Prof. Schubart, and is confirmed by Prof. Wilcken {Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, xi. 113), who speaks of the reign of Hadrian; but it should be noted that Prof. Hunt, while thinking it may well be of the second century, added that this type of hand continued into the third century, and that therefore ‘ late 2nd or early 3rd ’ would be a cautious date for it. I think this dating is almost certainly over-cautious

Naturally, can't date early enough can we

Challenge for the restless: find me an LXX that DOESN'T agree with the Hebrew before 200 CE. Disagreement has to be on pivotal verses that sustain and support the NT, I'm not talking about the odd mishap