Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Comparisons are interesting things. Several scholars have set out lists of criteria for identifying them. (I set out three lists here.) Some scholars quickly appeal to Samuel Sandmel's discussion of "parallelomania" -- though sometimes I don't think they have read it carefully.)

The problem with many discussions of "influence" or "parallels" or "borrowing" in culture (whether literature, crafts and arts, technologies, social systems) is that it is all too easy for one to fall into the trap of addressing only the differences and then spinning rationalizations that leave the ball-park of what the conversation was about entirely.

In Bali, Indonesia, for instance, one can see in the markets variants of a classic pair of sketches:

girl-boy.jpg
girl-boy.jpg (667.89 KiB) Viewed 1674 times
There are many slight variants of this pair. But then when one suddenly comes across the following pair of pictures in a hotel room, one immediately recognizes it as a modernized adaptation of the traditional work:

boy-girl-e1433207969960.png
boy-girl-e1433207969960.png (1.48 MiB) Viewed 1674 times
Now if we follow the methods of some critics we could write thousands of words on the similarities in those pictures and explain in great detail how they are not similarities at all and that if they are then they are purely coincidental or derived from some other influences and that there is no need to argue that one was modelled after the other at all.

Lots of boys and girls stand like that. Just coincidence, etc. etc etc.... Totally different cultural context.... etc etc etc.....

So when I read here that the Genesis reference to "good" is not influenced by Plato because the Genesis account does not speak of "good" in the philosophical sense that Plato discussed it, I had to pause and wonder. Plato does not argue about the philosophical nature of goodness when he explains that a good god created, by necessity, a good universe. He takes it for granted that his audience understand the meaning without any complex or abstract discussion.

What is just as evident is that there is no comparable concept expressed in the surviving literature that Mesopotamian or Syrian deities created a "good" universe --- indeed, commentaries have often pointed to the "uniqueness" of the Genesis creation account. It is sometimes called something of a sui generis. That's because Greek literature has been ruled out of court from the get-go. It has never been considered as a reasonable candidate for comparison until, at least in modern times, Lemche raised the possibility.

Meanwhile, to respond by saying that an Iranian myth about light is a likely source for the Genesis account and not to explain how it is similar or how the transfer from that myth to the Genesis authors was made and how and why they turned it into something quite different in applied concept... that comes across to me a little like special pleading.

The Pentateuch, I think Gmirkin explains well, becomes a comprehensible text, without resort to special pleading or claims of sui generis for its major parts, when analysed in the pool of all the literature from Mesopotamia through to Hellas, from, say, the Iron age through to the Hellenistic era.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

I meant to add in the above: discussions addressing why these details and those details are not actual "parallels" is actually an implicit acknowledgement that they are indeed "parallel" -- but what is being proposed by some critics is alternative unfalsifiable explanations for their similarities.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:17 pm
The problem with many discussions of "influence" or "parallels" or "borrowing" in culture (whether literature, crafts and arts, technologies, social systems) is that it is all too easy for one to fall into the trap of addressing only the differences and then spinning rationalizations that leave the ball-park of what the conversation was about entirely.

In Bali, Indonesia, for instance, one can see in the markets variants of a classic pair of sketches:
[...]
There are many slight variants of this pair. But then when one suddenly comes across the following pair of pictures in a hotel room, one immediately recognizes it as a modernized adaptation of the traditional work:
[...]
Now if we follow the methods of some critics we could write thousands of words on the similarities in those pictures and explain in great detail how they are not similarities at all and that if they are then they are purely coincidental or derived from some other influences and that there is no need to argue that one was modelled after the other at all.

Lots of boys and girls stand like that. Just coincidence, etc. etc etc.... Totally different cultural context.... etc etc etc.....
In the example you give, I'd say that a careful scholar would say that though there is a clear and close connection between these two sets of images, and allowing for the updated clothing etc, the precise nature of the relationship is hard to define. The modern version may be (a) copied & adapted from the earlier image direct; (b) copied and adapted from another "intermediate version" perhaps bridging the chronological gap or (c) adapted from another version of the classic pair (that is itself copied from a version even) older than the one illustrated. Any one of these, and others, is possible, and there's no good reason to eliminate any of them.

A less careful scholar might say: one is earlier; the other is later; in the absence of other evidence we can only say that the later one copied the earlier one. End of Story.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:17 pmSo when I read here that the Genesis reference to "good" is not influenced by Plato because the Genesis account does not speak of "good" in the philosophical sense that Plato discussed it, I had to pause and wonder. Plato does not argue about the philosophical nature of goodness when he explains that a good god created, by necessity, a good universe. He takes it for granted that his audience understand the meaning without any complex or abstract discussion.

What is just as evident is that there is no comparable concept expressed in the surviving literature that Mesopotamian or Syrian deities created a "good" universe --- indeed, commentaries have often pointed to the "uniqueness" of the Genesis creation account. It is sometimes called something of a sui generis. That's because Greek literature has been ruled out of court from the get-go. It has never been considered as a reasonable candidate for comparison until, at least in modern times, Lemche raised the possibility.
I agree that the good in Genesis has some sort of relationship to Plato's notion of the good... it's just that I'm not sure it is simply a direct derivative of it. And certainly, in a literary (not philosophical) sense it functions differently in Genesis: it is not applied to the creator but appears repeatedly throughout the whole chapter, while Plato discusses Ἀγαθός at the begining of the account in respect of the creator but hardly at all thereafter. This suggests to me that there is more than a single degree of separation between the two - as if the idea of "goodness" has found its way into the understanding of the biblical writer, but at some remove from Plato's philosophical precision. I'm not insisting that the point however as it's a matter of judgement. I'm not sure I agree with you that Plato takes for granted the notion that a good god created a good universe, either, as he discusses it as a matter of pious belief (29a). I wonder, did Plato invent that idea of the goodness of the creator?

I absolutely agree that Lemche's opening up of the chronology to allow for consideration of connections between Greek and Biblical literature was unquestionably a Good Thing. Insisting (which I know he hasn't done) that all connections with Greek culture must therefore be found within the Hellenistic period to the exclusion of all others is, I think, probably a Bad Thing - a case perhaps of the Hellenistic overshadowing and disguising earlier cultural connections. (There is a lot more to say about this - and at some point I'd want to read the recent collection of essays by Robert Karl Gnuse, whose approach I know only through this essay and this review. His approach looks far more measured, nuanced and inclusive than Gmirkin's narrative, which I find far too simple and one-dimensional.)
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:17 pmMeanwhile, to respond by saying that an Iranian myth about light is a likely source for the Genesis account and not to explain how it is similar or how the transfer from that myth to the Genesis authors was made and how and why they turned it into something quite different in applied concept... that comes across to me a little like special pleading.
I certainly didn't say that an Iranian myth about light is a likely source for the Genesis account. Garbini referred to it, but he didn't say that it was the source of the entire account. He said that Genesis 1 mostly belongs to a native Canaanite tradition which doesn't give light a prominent role, and that it is the creation of light alone (Genesis 1:3) which is derived from the Persian tradition.

For the native Canaanite/Phoenician tradition, he compared the "shapeless chaos" (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ tohou wa-bhohu) as being reflected in the cosmogony of Sanchuniation - which talks of a primitive χάος θολερὸν, ἐρεβῶδες . He might have also discussed the רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים (ruah 'elohim), the breath or wind of god - rendered in the LXX as πνεῦμα θεοῦ in comparison with the same source's ἀέρα ζο c φώδη καὶ πνευματώδη - as Guy Darshan does here. These are both clear indications - in terms of specific detail and wording - that there is a strong parallel and a familial connection between, at the very least, Gen 1:2 and Phoenician cosmogony. However, Sanchuniathon (as relayed by Philo of Byblos) does not give light a prominent position in his entire cosmogony/theogony. Light is certainly not given a privileged position in Plato's Timaeus so Genesis 1:3, in itself, has no connection with him. In Hesiod, Aither/Aether (Light) is the son of Erebos (Dark) and Nyx (Night) who are the children of Chaos (Air)... but the presence of Aither in a theogonic catalogue like this doesn't quite have the same cosmogonic impact that it has in both Genesis 1 and the Persian account. So Garbini's supposition that Gen 1:3 is related to Persian cosmology is not unreasonable... but by no means certain; to ensure that Garbini isn't overinterpreting, I'd want to familiarlise myself with the latter to get a sense of the quotation in its own context.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:17 pmThe Pentateuch, I think Gmirkin explains well, becomes a comprehensible text, without resort to special pleading or claims of sui generis for its major parts, when analysed in the pool of all the literature from Mesopotamia through to Hellas, from, say, the Iron age through to the Hellenistic era.
I think that charges of special pleading are often deployed unjustly.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by andrewcriddle »

austendw wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 11:49 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:17 pmSo when I read here that the Genesis reference to "good" is not influenced by Plato because the Genesis account does not speak of "good" in the philosophical sense that Plato discussed it, I had to pause and wonder. Plato does not argue about the philosophical nature of goodness when he explains that a good god created, by necessity, a good universe. He takes it for granted that his audience understand the meaning without any complex or abstract discussion.

What is just as evident is that there is no comparable concept expressed in the surviving literature that Mesopotamian or Syrian deities created a "good" universe --- indeed, commentaries have often pointed to the "uniqueness" of the Genesis creation account. It is sometimes called something of a sui generis. That's because Greek literature has been ruled out of court from the get-go. It has never been considered as a reasonable candidate for comparison until, at least in modern times, Lemche raised the possibility.
I agree that the good in Genesis has some sort of relationship to Plato's notion of the good... it's just that I'm not sure it is simply a direct derivative of it. And certainly, in a literary (not philosophical) sense it functions differently in Genesis: it is not applied to the creator but appears repeatedly throughout the whole chapter, while Plato discusses Ἀγαθός at the begining of the account in respect of the creator but hardly at all thereafter. This suggests to me that there is more than a single degree of separation between the two - as if the idea of "goodness" has found its way into the understanding of the biblical writer, but at some remove from Plato's philosophical precision. I'm not insisting that the point however as it's a matter of judgement. I'm not sure I agree with you that Plato takes for granted the notion that a good god created a good universe, either, as he discusses it as a matter of pious belief (29a). I wonder, did Plato invent that idea of the goodness of the creator?

FWIW the LXX renders good in Genesis 1 by kalos fine beautiful rather than agathos good the word used for the concept of the good in Plato. In not sure what to make of this, kalos is important in Platonism after all, but it may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 2:28 am
austendw wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 11:49 pm I agree that the good in Genesis has some sort of relationship to Plato's notion of the good... it's just that I'm not sure it is simply a direct derivative of it. And certainly, in a literary (not philosophical) sense it functions differently in Genesis: it is not applied to the creator but appears repeatedly throughout the whole chapter, while Plato discusses Ἀγαθός at the begining of the account in respect of the creator but hardly at all thereafter. This suggests to me that there is more than a single degree of separation between the two - as if the idea of "goodness" has found its way into the understanding of the biblical writer, but at some remove from Plato's philosophical precision. I'm not insisting that the point however as it's a matter of judgement. I'm not sure I agree with you that Plato takes for granted the notion that a good god created a good universe, either, as he discusses it as a matter of pious belief (29a). I wonder, did Plato invent that idea of the goodness of the creator?
FWIW the LXX renders good in Genesis 1 by kalos fine beautiful rather than agathos good the word used for the concept of the good in Plato. In not sure what to make of this, kalos is important in Platonism after all, but it may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle
Ah, well now.

I've checked the Greek of Timaeus 28b-29a and while I was correct to say that Plato uses "agathos" for the creator, he uses "kalos" for the created cosmos:

εἰ μὲν δὴ καλός ἐστιν ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ὅ τε δημιουργὸς ἀγαθός - Now should it be that the Cosmos is kalos and the Demiurge is agathos...

I think one may put it this way: ἀγαθός is the willed good, the good of intention, appropriate to the creator, and καλός is the crafted good, appropriate to the created cosmos. And to that extent, Plato's description of the cosmos agrees with the Hebrew טוֹב: good as beautifully-crafted, well-made. So there is no mis-match here.

Where I think there is difference of approach in Plato and Genesis is what I alluded to in my previous post: At the start of the cosmogony Plato discusses that the cosmos, which he characterises as a living being, is in its totally καλός. But subsequently he doesn't use that word to describe any particular created entity within it, whereas Genesis adds that God "saw that it was good" to seven of the eight acts of creation (one is missing from Gen:7-8, almost certainly lost during textual transmission). That certainly shows an entirely different literary approach. However, I'm not sure whether that suggests a philosophical difference in attitude to the various created entities: for Plato a number of the created entities are explicitly described as being of successively "lower grade" so I have a feeling he would not have been happy to describe these as καλός, good.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 7:46 pm 1. light is created by an act of will, from the mind, of the creator in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
[…]
Speech is a literary device that is used to express something in the mind or nature or intent of the speaker. In the Iranian comparison there is nothing even closely comparable. It is that comparison we are looking at. There was no "act" or "will" of any kind expressed in the Iranian instance. It was just the nature of things.

Let me change the original point and comment that Plato's Demiurge 'spoke' and "said" when he created.
I think that, in a discussion of literary dependence, to describe the repeated description of God’s creative utterances in Genesis 1 as a mere “literary device used to express something in the mind or nature or intent of the speaker” is an arbitrary and subjective judgement. Either way, I don't know how you can say that Plato’s Demiurge "'spoke' and 'said'" because that is not in the text and to add it is a "midrashic" elaboration of the text. Plato's demiurge does not create by means of utterances - and in fact he speaks only once, giving instructions to the junior gods on how to create mortal beings (41a-d). This significantly undermines the notion of a literary connection between the two passages.

The Bundahishn also doesn't present Ohrmazd as creating anything by means of an utterance - so there is no evidence of a direct literary connection between that and Genesis either. Indeed, creation by divine utterance appears to be a unique element in the Genesis creation storty, and as far as I know, there are no known parallels with any other cosmogonies.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 7:46 pm […]I thought the context of my use was clear -- that we are talking about the various "elements" or "things" that make up the universe. The Greek scientific accounts speak of light and movement itself as all needing explanation. Ditto for "birds", and "great lights" in the sky -- they are all part of the things being created and it was in that sense I was using the word "element". I thought that was clear. […]
Apologies. When you used the word “elements” I thought you were using it in the “technical” sense of the Four Elements. I stand by my other point, however, that the fire-water-air-earth quartet of elements appear nowhere in the Pentateuch or OT. That particular difference is not just something that Gmirkin can ignore. Since it is one of the cornerstones of Greek cosmology, the absence of the Four Elements needs explaining. And it’s worth noting for the record, that both Philo and Josephus do introduce this Greek concept into their writings. One obvious explanation of that absence would be that, despite appearances to the contrary, the Pentateuch was written before Greek or Platonic cosmology had any impact on south Levantine "scientific" thinking or cosmogonic literature. Alternatively one would have to posit that the authors were actively opposed to Plato's notion of four elements, for some reason. But that would of course be pure speculation.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 7:46 pm 3. light appears before the sun is formed in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought, though probably also consistent with the Bundahishn.
[…]
But … it would be wrong to remove it because it has parallels with some unrelated culture as well.
Yehud was under Persian/Iranian rule from 540 BCE to 332 BCE, some 200+ years. The Zoroastrian cosmogony contained in the Bundahishn is a major component of Iranian culture, and Zoroastrianism was dominant in Persia under the Achaemenids. I really think that describing the Iranian culture as “unrelated” is therefore a very peculiar thing to say. The only caveat to this is that is that the Bundahishn dates to the 8th-9th Century and it is difficult (for me, as a newbie to Zoroastrian mythology) to know which motifs date back to the Achaemenid period and which are later developments.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 7:46 pm Plato, as you no doubt are aware, does discuss how the original names of things were singularly important. I didn't think that was a controversial point.
That may be, but in Timaeus the narrator of the cosmogonic account doesn’t put any weight on names and the Demiurge names nothing in the course of the narrative. This again compromises the notion that Genesis has a literary dependence on Timaeus.
Last edited by austendw on Sun May 14, 2023 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
mbuckley3
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:47 am

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by mbuckley3 »

austendw wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:40 am

..whereas Genesis adds that God "saw that it was good" to seven of the eight acts of creation (one is missing from Gen:1.7-8, almost certainly lost during textual transmission).
As was noted by Origen, Letter to Julius Africanus 4 :

"Again, in Genesis, the words, 'God saw that it was good', when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute among them about this."

The letter is of great interest in its exampling of the complexity of the relationship between the LXX and the Tanakh, and its recognition of the need for a theory of literary transmission, even if Origen does rather cut the Gordian knot in presenting his own theory...
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 10:05 am I think that, in a discussion of literary dependence, to describe the repeated description of God’s creative utterances in Genesis 1 as a mere “literary device used to express something in the mind or nature or intent of the speaker” is an arbitrary and subjective judgement.
Attributing speech to an entity is to attribute a human mind of some kind to it. This is pretty standard throughout the anthropological literature, I think. Things that speak do so to express a mind.
I don't know how you can say that Plato’s Demiurge "'spoke' and 'said'" because that is not in the text
What is in the text is an act of will. The means of expressing the will is not explicitly identical in that particular act but the act of will from an outside person-figure is the point in common -- and both figures do speak to express will during the creative process.
That may be, but in Timaeus the narrator of the cosmogonic account doesn’t put any weight on names and the Demiurge names nothing in the course of the narrative. This again compromises the notion that Genesis has a literary dependence on Timaeus.
It is just as valid to say that since the boy holds a beer and both are topless those points also compromise the notion that one pair of pictures has a dependence on the other.

But the giving (or not giving) of names certainly is a significant motif in the "creation" account in Timaeus.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 4:46 pm
austendw wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 10:05 amThat may be, but in Timaeus the narrator of the cosmogonic account doesn’t put any weight on names and the Demiurge names nothing in the course of the narrative. This again compromises the notion that Genesis has a literary dependence on Timaeus.
[...]
But the giving (or not giving) of names certainly is a significant motif in the "creation" account in Timaeus.
Then I've obviously missed these cases. Can you give me references to the Demiurge naming things?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

I am not suggesting that Plato wrote, And the Demiurge named the great light "sun" etc. Just do a word search for "name" in any English translation and we see that Plato comments regularly on each newly created thing the appropriateness of the name it was given -- or the appropriateness of it not being given a name.
Post Reply