Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by Secret Alias »

This is supposed to be a place where Jews and Judaism are studied. Josef Mengele claimed to be "studying" Jews too. This whole section of BC&H has gone batshit. The cancer of mythicism and the weaponing "scholarship" to make thing you don't like go away, has spread here from the Christian part of the board. It's like, it's like ... Josef Mengele. That's what it's like. Let's take out the Jew and "study" the effects of the Jew being run over by a car. Let's study the effect of spraying the Jew's eye with paint. Studying.

There is no chance that Chronicles is older than the Pentateuch. None. But of course when there's only so far you can one with one stupid theory it's time to find a new adaptation to distract from the fact that you've gone as far as you have with that stupid theory.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by Secret Alias »

Whatever enjoy your little fiefdom of three or four. Maybe you can start a movement or something.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:31 am There is no chance that Chronicles is older than the Pentateuch. None. But of course when there's only so far you can one with one stupid theory it's time to find a new adaptation to distract from the fact that you've gone as far as you have with that stupid theory.
"There is no chance that the ideas in Memar Marqah are older than the Pentateuch. None. But of course when there's only so far you can one with one stupid theory it's time to find a new adaptation to distract from the fact that you've gone as far as you have with that stupid theory."
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by StephenGoranson »

What if there's no chance that Plato is earlier than (at a minimum, parts of) the Pentateuch?
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:08 am What if there's no chance that Plato is earlier than (at a minimum, parts of) the Pentateuch?
I assume you are not referring to older sources such as Homer and Hesiod, but parts of the Pentateuch actually written earlier.

Evidence? Or evidence-free conjecture?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:31 am the weaponing "scholarship" to make thing you don't like go away
What do you mean by that? Citing scholarship in order to refute opposing views is perfectly normal and makes a discipline able to develop and contribute to truth, rather than remaining stuck in old paradigms.

The alternatives would be appeals to incredulity or insults, but those are not appropriate ways to refute opposing views.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by Secret Alias »

So what you are suggesting is that it is "off limits" to notice a pattern in the cumulative "inquiry" of a certain investigator. Surely if someone stumbles on an illicit pornographic site once that's no different in terms of evidence for perversion, you would suggest, than someone who frequents illicit sites. With these guys it's a constant drumbeat in terms of one key message. A Nazi for instance would never say how great the Jews are. Never. Surely something is great about the Jews. Something. But no Jews are always bad, wretched, whatever.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:18 pm So what you are suggesting is that it is "off limits" to notice a pattern in the cumulative "inquiry" of a certain investigator. Surely if someone stumbles on an illicit pornographic site once that's no different in terms of evidence for perversion, you would suggest, than someone who frequents illicit sites. With these guys it's a constant drumbeat in terms of one key message. A Nazi for instance would never say how great the Jews are. Never. Surely something is great about the Jews. Something. But no Jews are always bad, wretched, whatever.
I refrain from addressing your recurrant sexual imagery.

I see nothing wrong with noting biases in researchers' perspectives; that is why I identify myself as following the Buddhist faith in these discussions - lest people accuse me of being a Christian or a materialistic atheist and accordingly biased.

But citing research in order to refute a given position is in no way indicative of bias - rather, it is the basis for proper scholarship. Such a thing cannot be done too much in proper scholarshp. To ignore research which has been cited in order to refute one's position, as you have, on the other hand, is indicative of bias. Such a thing should never be done in proper scholarship.

As for your claim that the scholars whom you condemn are anti-semitic, I raise the following 2 points:

1. You have not cited any evidence that the scholars in question have condemned the Jews as wretched or bad.

2. Your claim that the people who claim to be Jews are in no way the descendants of the Jews in the Bible but are later impostors, with the real Jews being a different ethnicity is reminiscent of anti-Semitic allegations about Jews by, for example, certain Black Hebrew Israelite sects (whose claims that the real Jews are African Americans are often openly anti-Semetic), British Israelites (whose claims that the real Jews are the peoples of the British Isles are often anti-Semitic), Christian idenity movement members (whose claims that the real Jews are White peoples are antisemetic), and advocates of the Khazar model (who often talk about Judaeo-Khazars plotting for world domination). So why should you not be dismissed as spreading an antisemitic theory yourself? In contrast, Gmirkin at al are at least conceding that the Jews of today are the descendants of the Jews from antiquity - making their theory less anti-semetic. After all, mainatream biblical scholarship (which is not accused by eithewr of us of being antisemetic) agrees with them that the Jews' scriptures and religious practices are more recent and more influenced by outsiders than the Jews' traditions claim, even if Gmirkkin et al disagree about how recent or how much influence. Or do you think that even mainstream biblical scholarship is antisemiic?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by StephenGoranson »

The poster who named himself "ABuddhist" wrote in part, above:
"I see nothing wrong with noting biases in researchers' perspectives; that is why I identify myself as following the Buddhist faith in these discussions - lest people accuse me of being a Christian or a materialistic atheist and accordingly biased."

So, "ABuddhist," are you claiming you are free of any and all bias, and have no relation at all to them, when responding (often) to any posts of R. Gmirkin and/or N. Godfrey?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:47 pm The poster who named himself "ABuddhist" wrote in part, above:
"I see nothing wrong with noting biases in researchers' perspectives; that is why I identify myself as following the Buddhist faith in these discussions - lest people accuse me of being a Christian or a materialistic atheist and accordingly biased."

So, "ABuddhist," are you claiming you are free of any and all bias, and have no relation at all to them, when responding (often) to any posts of R. Gmirkin and/or N. Godfrey?
I apologize for my vague words. Many thanks for giving to me the opportunity to address my earlier statement rather than accusing me of things. Charity and asking for clarification are much better than paranoid suspicion.

What I was meaning to convey in my words was "I see nothing wrong with noting biases in researchers' perspectives; that is why I identify myself as following the Buddhist faith in these discussions - lest people accuse me of being a Christian or a materialistic atheist and accordingly biased towards either the Christian or the materialistic atheist perspective in discussions about religious history."

Even if it were to be asserted that I lie in my expansion/correction of my thoughts, I have never claimed, even in the words which you quote, to be without bias. I am glad to admit that I have biases in this field of inquiry, albeit not in the typical ways of taking religious texts' claims at face value (as Christians often do in these discussions) or assuming that miraculous events never happen (as materialistic atheists do). Rather, my biases are towards comparing the orgins of Christianity with other religious movements, both new (as with, for example, Ramana Maharshi and Paul Twitchell) and old (as with Mahayana Buddhism). These biases have attracted controversy within this forum.

I have no relationship to either Godfrey or Gmirkin beyond what can be read on this website and Vridar (although I have exchanged a few PMs with both men on this website). I have never met either man, and my religious perspective is at odds with Godfrey, whom I hold in faint dislike because he has condemned Buddhism on Vridar. But he is not hating the religion nor obsessing in his hatred, is friendly, and brings interesting and useful things to our attention, wherefore I read his words. I disagree with him about some matters not related to Buddhism - most notably the possibility that early Christian leaders were similtaneously charismatic/ecstatic and rational/philosophical, but also about whether Paul's writings are 1st or 2nd century CE - I favour the earlier dating.

If you want citations for my claims, I can provide them.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply