The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book?

[Peter Kirby]

Austen's like having a new Ben.

Is that an insult or a compliment?

It's the highest compliment you can receive here.

Is that an insult or a compliment?

Also a compliment. You can read Ben's posts here: search.php?author_id=6981&sr=posts

[John2]

Ben was great to have at the table for his knowledge and civility. For me it was like having an extra and much smarter head.

[neilgodfrey]

@ Austendw -- I'm not ignoring other points in your comment -- just responding to one point at a time.

We have to build on what we do know now, of course -- and it goes without saying that if and when we learn new things our understanding will change.

Well, yes and no. When we build on what we know, we have to (dialectically, as it were) be aware of what we don't know and factor that into the assurance or lack of it with which we make a proposition or speculation. Otherwise we are really trying to build a too complete picture on the base of partial evidence that we took to be all the evidence.

Of course -- and that's where my second part of the sentence comes in: "it goes without saying that if and when we learn new things our understanding will change."

Is that not exactly what Gmirkin is saying here: "There is no compelling evidence ....." --- In other words, he is arguing on the basis of what we do have evidence for, in our current state of play. Hence he continues with, "and the criticism of the Aaronid line suggests...." --- that is, on one hand we have no evidence against; but we do have evidence for. Hence, the reasonable model to present given the state of evidence today is such-and-such.

Is that a problem? Is that not how all our research and knowledge works? As we learn new stuff our models will change. But till then....

I'll give you an egregious example of not acknowledging what we don't know. In his essay Can the Documentary Hypothesis be Rehabilitated? A New Model of the Collaborative Composition of the Pentateuch Russell Gmirkin says:

There is no compelling evidence for associating P with Jerusalem’s priesthood, and the criticism of the Aaronid line of priests suggests an association with the Samaritans associated with the temple at Mount Gerizim. Thousands of bones recovered from archaeological excavations on Mount Gerizim included sheep, goats, cattle and doves, consistent with sacrificial regulations in P.[97] Samaritan beliefs in the tabernacle as the only legitimate sanctuary may also point to the Samaritan background of P.[98]

Since Gmirkin is here actively arguing that P is from Samaria and not from Jerusalem, the appeal to the archarological excavations on Mount Gerizim is wholly inappropriate, since one could only gather anything from those finds if one were to compare them to equivalent finds from Jerusalem, which, of course, we don't have.

I don't see the problem there. It's not as though anyone is declaring an infallible edict that will stand for all time and any evidence that might later emerge to challenge that edict will be burned.

I think an interesting thread would be a discussion of the finds in Judea and Samaria and discussions about how they compare. There really is a chalk and cheese contrast there. It's not for the archaeologists and funding bodies not trying hard enough to find stuff. They have found a lot and the contrasts -- as per the Magen chapter Gmirkin cites -- are very informative.

But the question of whether the OT is a Hellenistic work is decided on other grounds. The relative roles of the Samaritans and Judeans, of the library at Alexandria or some other centres, whether pre-Hasmonean or post Hasmonean .... these questions are essentially fine-tuning the thesis. The core argument rests on:

1. the absence of archaeological evidence that supports the dating of the Documentary Hypothesis (always with the proviso that one day a whole new stack of evidence from various sites is going to overturn everything we think we know about the region of Judah from the Iron Age on)
2. the presence of archaeological evidence that is consistent with the Hellenistic provenance of the Pentateuch
3. the literary analysis that identifies Hellenistic influence in the Pentateuch -- or, as some scholars have suggested, identifies Pentateuchal/Hebrew influence on Plato et al!
4. the increasing scrutiny of the arguments that have long been the mainstay of the Documentary Hypothesis over recent decades.

I don't see a problem if scholars fail to always preface every statement they make with a list of acknowledgements of what they don't know. Usually such points are made as general riders from time to time, but even when not made explicit, what we "don't know" is generally taken for granted in scholarly discussions. Arguments are built on what we do know and ideas we can test with the existing evidence.

Some scholars are more willing to revise their views when new evidence turns up. Some are less so.

[austendw]

Neither Davies nor Gmirkin nor Lemche discounts the textual inconsistencies and breaks and oddities that are noticed in the biblical writings. It is not as though the questions raised by the Documentary Hypothesis are thrown out. But the interpretations, explanations for those textual questions are different when approached through different models.

Then I have no argument with that because that's precisely where I stand. I think.

If those models are not based on circular reasoning then they have to be more valid than those that are.

Well, that's a very big "if". And I am not sure if "those models" are as free of circular reasoning as they think they are... but that's not a big deal.

It also cannot be ignored that the dominant ideas in biblical studies really are the preserve of ideologically committed scholars. Biblical studies really is not as "pure" as, say, physics or genetics. The responses to Davies' book In Search of Ancient Israel in which he exposed the circularity of the orthodox paradigms is evidence enough of that.

In the end it doesn't matter what does or doesn't motivate people, as no-one is without ideological background and "bias" and everyone has to make some assumptions, whether we like it or not. We all have ideological luggage, every one of us, you and me and Russell Gmirkin included, and the only thing that is almost as bad is being utterly deluded by ones prejudices is being utterly deluded in supposing one doesn't have any.

Actually, I heartily I regret commenting on your comments about Davies or Lemche, or what people said about them, because I really don't care about the whole maximalist vs minimalist battle. Discussing it always ends up with broad generalisations, one side demonising the other, and everyone failing to engage with the actual issues. And this exchange is proof of that. All we did was get het up and excited, and didn't discuss anything substantial. A waste of intellectual energy, frankly. So I will be resisting any temptation to jump into those waters again.

(This sounds like a "Oh, honey, this is our first argument!" moment.)

[austendw]

Ben was great to have at the table for his knowledge and civility. For me it was like having an extra and much smarter head.

Well, that's very kind, thank you (and I genuinely wasn't sure whether it was a compliment or not). But I'm afraid I've blown the comparison already, by wrangling with Neil Godfrey about what Lemche said, which diverted us both from the substance of what we were discussing. You have to be very savvy to be able to avoid such temptations and pitfalls.

[austendw]

Gmirkin is ... arguing on the basis of what we do have evidence for, in our current state of play. Hence he continues with, "and the criticism of the Aaronid line suggests...." --- that is, on one hand we have no evidence against; but we do have evidence for. Hence, the reasonable model to present given the state of evidence today is such-and-such.
[...]
It's not as though anyone is declaring an infallible edict that will stand for all time and any evidence that might later emerge to challenge that edict will be burned.

The problem for me is that Gmirkin is here building an argument with evidence that he thinks is stronger than it is, using the archaeological evidence as a positive brick in the argument, when it was is no such thing. What a properly cautious (minimalist?) scholar should be saying is: "The bones round Mt Gerizim are consistent with Aaronic practice, but until comparable archaeological remains are found in Jerusalem, cannot help us in deciding whether P was written in one or other of those two centres," or something like that.

The additional problem here is that the other two arguments in that section are equally flawed.

...the criticism of the Aaronid line of priests suggests an association with the Samaritans associated with the temple at Mount Gerizim.

I can't even make sense of this. Why does criticism of the Aaronids suggest that the Aaronids are associated with Mount Gerizim? The criticism could be Samaritan criticism of Jerusalemite Aaronids, couldn't it. In fact, criticism of the Aaronid line comes from the E source (according to the DH, and Gmirkin agrees with their source division) which is usually associated with the north (which he agrees with). So the criticism of the Aaronids came from the north - which may or may not be significant, but may be an argument against his contention. Truth is, I don't get the argument at all.

Samaritan beliefs in the tabernacle as the only legitimate sanctuary may also point to the Samaritan background of P.⁹⁸

This is an interesting. In Note 98 he refers to Reinhard Pummer's essay and adds

It must be noted that Samaritan traditions are not attested in surviving Second Temple sources.

What Pummer actually says in his essay is rather stronger than that:

the Samaritans’ stance must be seen as an expression of their theological views rather than an echo of historical circumstances. Abū l-Fatḥ appears to have preserved the memory of the temple’s existence in his story of ʿAbdāl’s temple and its destruction, but this is dismissed by the Samaritans. It appears that the latter eventually blocked out all memories of a temple in opposition to the Jerusalem temple in order to emphasize that no temple was legitimate, neither the sanctuary in Shilo nor the one in Jerusalem.89 The only legitimate “temple” was Moses’s Tabernacle which Joshua set up on Mt. Gerizim...

Pummer clearly discounts the notion that the Samaritan rejection of temples reflects a view held during the period we are discussing, and he goes on to give his reasons, which include archaeological evidence. Yet Gmirkin still uses the "beliefs in the tabernacle as the only legitimate sanctuary" argument as a contribution to his argument. (Had Gmirkin addressed Pummer's view and challenged his conclusions, he would be entirely justified.. but he didn't, he effectively misrepresented it.) So, regarding this relatively minor point, Gmirkin still manage to make three arguments in favour of his proposal, of which not one of them has any real substance. I wonder why he bothered to say anything on the subject with such poor evidence. Now, I must emphasise: I am not suggesting that the whole of Gmirkin Hellenistic paradigm rests on this small detail. But I am suggesting that even "fine-tuning" needs to be done properly. If Gmirkin's core arguments are argued in the same way, then the entire theory is at risk of being jerry-built.

I think an interesting thread would be a discussion of the finds in Judea and Samaria and discussions about how they compare. There really is a chalk and cheese contrast there. It's not for the archaeologists and funding bodies not trying hard enough to find stuff. They have found a lot and the contrasts -- as per the Magen chapter Gmirkin cites -- are very informative.

Yes it would. As I hope I made clear, I entirely agree with the notion that the Pentateuch has both Judean and Samarian input. Arguments for the northern origin of Deuteronomic texts have been made since the 19th Century, and Stefan Schorch's recent work, which adds research into DSS and LXX variants, has made those arguments more plausible.

The core argument rests on:

1. the absence of archaeological evidence that supports the dating of the Documentary Hypothesis (always with the proviso that one day a whole new stack of evidence from various sites is going to overturn everything we think we know about the region of Judah from the Iron Age on)
2. the presence of archaeological evidence that is consistent with the Hellenistic provenance of the Pentateuch
3. the literary analysis that identifies Hellenistic influence in the Pentateuch -- or, as some scholars have suggested, identifies Pentateuchal/Hebrew influence on Plato et al!
4. the increasing scrutiny of the arguments that have long been the mainstay of the Documentary Hypothesis over recent decades.

I'm going to ask you for a personal favour. Please don't mention the Documentary Hypothesis. My disagreement with Gmirkin is not based on, or derived from, or in defence of, the Documentary Hypothesis. Which removes (1) and (4) from the above list.

Actually I think Gmirkin's attempt to reinstate the Documentary Hypothesis in its traditional "architecture" (ie JEDPH) but restated in synchronic form, is curiously conservative. He has clearly not engaged with any recent European scholarship, which has significantly dismantled the actual architecture of the Documentary Hypothesis as well as it's chronological assumptions. His 2020 essay references not a single one of those scholars' work. A quick (ie not exhaustive) scan of the notes brings up these 20th Century Scholars - Whybray 1987, Friedman 1987/1998/2003; Van Seters 1983/1992; Blenkinsopp 1992; Propp 1996; Rendsburg 1986; Albertz 1994 - but hardly any biblical scholars of the 21st century - and certainly no Kratz, Otto, Schmid, Römer, Dozeman etc etc. There may well be discussions to be had with those scholars, and challenges to their chronology; that would be an interesting discussion. At present, by not addressing them at all, he appears to be simply dismissing them as supporters of Documentary Hypothesis that they have actually rejected even more radically than he has. That is why I am so frustrated with this issue.

So, with your indulgence that leaves two items on your list:

2. the presence of archaeological evidence that is consistent with the Hellenistic provenance of the Pentateuch

Consistent, yes, but not inconsistent with dating the textual raw materials of the the edited Pentateuch to a somewhat earlier, Persian, period either. And:

3. the literary analysis that identifies Hellenistic influence in the Pentateuch -- or, as some scholars have suggested, identifies Pentateuchal/Hebrew influence on Plato et al!

This is indeed the central, most crucial problem of them all. Let's make it clear, I doubt that any scholars deny biblical parallels with Greek literature and cultural practice. The (almost) unique argument of Gmirkin is that these did not arise at any time prior to, or by any cultural route other than direct reading of Greek literature in the 3rd Century BCE.

The problem I have is that this theory is built from a lot - a hell of a lot of - of individual arguments - built on individual references to Platonic laws and biblical laws. In Vridar you have listed, and tabulated all of them. Each of them is as small as the "P is Samaritan" argument I tackled above. Each one of those arguments require equally detailed examination. Each one of Gmirkin's biblical references need reading and checking and comparing. But the shear number of examples is only meaningful if they are all compelling. If some of them are flawed, if all of them are flawed, then the number of them is meaningless. Fifty wrong sums is no less wrong than one wrong sum. Over the years I have found that so many of Gmirkin's arguments in the Plato book are either fundamentally flawed, or indequate to the task of proving his core thesis (and trying to record them on Perlego is maddening) that I sometimes find myself reeling. And thats not including the broader methodological problems that I think bedevil his approach. I wrote

(1) His arguments are peppered with numerous misinterpretations and overinterpretations and that his main thesis - that the Pentateuchal laws are directly derived from Plato's Laws - is therefore mistaken.[2]

(2) There are a number of general methodological problems that I think contribute to this:

• not addressing the issue of how to distinguish a direct literary borrowing from more general parallels that could be explained in a different way;

• discussing laws (which he summarised from Greek & Biblical sources) under subject headings of his own choosing, and thereby ignoring the original literary context of those laws;

• not materially distinguishing between law codes and narrative passages -two different genres that may have different legal value;

• often shifting imperceptibly from a discussion of Plato's laws to a discussion of Greek laws in general, which confuses the specific argument;

• not paying much/any attention to the differences between Plato and the Pentateuch, or diminishing the significance of those differences; [3]

• ignoring scholarly discussions that might compromise his idiosyncratic interpretation of specific biblical laws or concepts

(3) I don't think his highly speculative but very specific narrative of the composition of the Pentateuch (dated precisely to 273/272 BCE in his first book), or his reconstruction of its writers' motivations, provide plausible explanations of the Pentateuchal laws as they appear in the Pentateuch, or their place within the narrative context - though they may seem to do so when they are decontextualised.

It would take volumes to address all this in the detail it requires. It's a monumental task and I have wondered if I have the time or energy to commit to even a part of it. Perhaps I don't have a sufficiently organized mind to address my critiques in the methodical fashion they demand. So my interim plan has been to address individual cases as and when the issue arises on these webpages. That may not be the best way forward, however. So I am going to consider options. I may also need to explain why I feel it is necessary to do this.

[neilgodfrey]

Gmirkin is ... arguing on the basis of what we do have evidence for, in our current state of play. Hence he continues with, "and the criticism of the Aaronid line suggests...." --- that is, on one hand we have no evidence against; but we do have evidence for. Hence, the reasonable model to present given the state of evidence today is such-and-such.
[...]
It's not as though anyone is declaring an infallible edict that will stand for all time and any evidence that might later emerge to challenge that edict will be burned.

The problem for me is that Gmirkin is here building an argument with evidence that he thinks is stronger than it is, using the archaeological evidence as a positive brick in the argument, when it was is no such thing. What a properly cautious (minimalist?) scholar should be saying is: "The bones round Mt Gerizim are consistent with Aaronic practice, but until comparable archaeological remains are found in Jerusalem, cannot help us in deciding whether P was written in one or other of those two centres," or something like that.

Unless I have lost track of the thread here --- through all my reading of Gmirkin's works I am pretty sure he never "builds" any of his arguments on the archaeological finds. The archaeological finds -- both what is found and what has not to date been found -- are consistent with his arguments. But he does not "build" any of his thesis on the archaeological finds.

His argument is entirely comparative text analysis. (That's not "minimalism".) He has taken up Lemche's point about the Hellenistic era possibility and tested it by comparing the Pentateuch with Mesopotamian/Syrian and Greek literature.

3. the literary analysis that identifies Hellenistic influence in the Pentateuch -- or, as some scholars have suggested, identifies Pentateuchal/Hebrew influence on Plato et al!

This is indeed the central, most crucial problem of them all. Let's make it clear, I doubt that any scholars deny biblical parallels with Greek literature and cultural practice. The (almost) unique argument of Gmirkin is that these did not arise at any time prior to, or by any cultural route other than direct reading of Greek literature in the 3rd Century BCE. [/quote]

That is hardly the "unique (almost)" contribution of Gmirkin's works. The extent of the parallels raised is "unique" -- there is nothing comparable of which I am aware in any other discussion among OT scholars of the extent of Greek-Hebrew overlaps.

The problem I have is that this theory is built from a lot - a hell of a lot of - of individual arguments - built on individual references to Platonic laws and biblical laws. In Vridar you have listed, and tabulated all of them. Each of them is as small as the "P is Samaritan" argument I tackled above. Each one of those arguments require equally detailed examination. Each one of Gmirkin's biblical references need reading and checking and comparing. But the shear number of examples is only meaningful if they are all compelling. If some of them are flawed, if all of them are flawed, then the number of them is meaningless. Fifty wrong sums is no less wrong than one wrong sum. Over the years I have found that so many of Gmirkin's arguments in the Plato book are either fundamentally flawed, or indequate to the task of proving his core thesis (and trying to record them on Perlego is maddening) that I sometimes find myself reeling.

We will have to agree to disagree. The arguments advanced by Gmirkin are not simply "a hell of a lot of individual arguments" but are rather a great swathe of larger arguments with the details of individual points noticeable in addition to that sweep as we look closer.

A mass of individual points that are consistent with one source and inconsistent with another further suggests some sort of relationship with the former source. But when those individual points are identified as parts of larger ideas, structures --- that also needs to be seriously addressed.

Take Plato's Laws. The similarities go well beyond specific laws and cover the historical setting, plan, occasion and purpose and proposed methods of the two texts.



And thats not including the broader methodological problems that I think bedevil his approach. I wrote

(1) His arguments are peppered with numerous misinterpretations and overinterpretations and that his main thesis - that the Pentateuchal laws are directly derived from Plato's Laws - is therefore mistaken.[2]

(2) There are a number of general methodological problems that I think contribute to this:

• not addressing the issue of how to distinguish a direct literary borrowing from more general parallels that could be explained in a different way;

• discussing laws (which he summarised from Greek & Biblical sources) under subject headings of his own choosing, and thereby ignoring the original literary context of those laws;

• not materially distinguishing between law codes and narrative passages -two different genres that may have different legal value;

• often shifting imperceptibly from a discussion of Plato's laws to a discussion of Greek laws in general, which confuses the specific argument;

• not paying much/any attention to the differences between Plato and the Pentateuch, or diminishing the significance of those differences; [3]

• ignoring scholarly discussions that might compromise his idiosyncratic interpretation of specific biblical laws or concepts

(3) I don't think his highly speculative but very specific narrative of the composition of the Pentateuch (dated precisely to 273/272 BCE in his first book), or his reconstruction of its writers' motivations, provide plausible explanations of the Pentateuchal laws as they appear in the Pentateuch, or their place within the narrative context - though they may seem to do so when they are decontextualised.

• not addressing the issue of how to distinguish a direct literary borrowing from more general parallels that could be explained in a different way;

I seem to recall even many of my own discussions of the details were engaged with just that point -- comparing the alternative sources that have been proposed as the origins of a biblical text.

• discussing laws (which he summarised from Greek & Biblical sources) under subject headings of his own choosing, and thereby ignoring the original literary context of those laws;

He did more than summarize. He quoted very often. The context was his strongest point -- I don't know where you think he decontextualized anything by creating false or alien headings.

• not materially distinguishing between law codes and narrative passages -two different genres that may have different legal value;

The narrative comparisons have their features in both Greek and the Pentateuchal works, as do specific laws. I don't know the basis of your criticism here.

• not paying much/any attention to the differences between Plato and the Pentateuch, or diminishing the significance of those differences; [3]

Often one reads criticisms of parallels that dismiss one set of arguments by pointing to "the differences". But "differences" are necessary to explain the point and grounds of the two texts -- otherwise there would only be one text copied many times. Without differences there is no such thing as a comparison at all. My understanding of the differences between Greek and Hebrew writings is that each had their cultural histories and the reasons for similarities and differences are both pretty clear -- whether comparing texts from any two cultures.

Again, I believe it is his addressing up front the original literary contexts of those laws that was his strongest point. The whole comparison with Plato's Laws was grounded in the original contexts of both sets of writings.

• ignoring scholarly discussions that might compromise his idiosyncratic interpretation of specific biblical laws or concepts

His citations and bibliographies point to many other views he engages with. I don't think your point here is fair as a general criticism.

As for your Pummer argument, my overall impression is that Gmirkin is pretty thorough so I will have to get back to you on that one after doing some of my own homework.

[neilgodfrey]

If those models are not based on circular reasoning then they have to be more valid than those that are.

Well, that's a very big "if". And I am not sure if "those models" are as free of circular reasoning as they think they are... but that's not a big deal.

Circularity really is a very big deal. If an argument is circular it is invalid. It really can be junked.

. . . . because I really don't care about the whole maximalist vs minimalist battle. Discussing it always ends up with broad generalisations, one side demonising the other, and everyone failing to engage with the actual issues. And this exchange is proof of that. All we did was get het up and excited, and didn't discuss anything substantial. A waste of intellectual energy, frankly. So I will be resisting any temptation to jump into those waters again.

That's not been my observation of the maximalist-minimalist debates. "Everyone failing to engage with the actual issues"? Really? I don't know where you have read instances of that global failure.

"Not discussing anything substantial"? I don't know what discussions you have read by any of the participants.

[neilgodfrey]

I would be very surprised if you could identify for me a single book or article by Lemche or Davies or Thompson or Whitelam that "ends up with broad generalizations" and any "demonization" of opponents or any "failure to engage with the actual issues". Have you read any of their works that address the debate?

[austendw]

I would be very surprised if you could identify for me a single book or article by Lemche or Davies or Thompson or Whitelam that "ends up with broad generalizations" and any "demonization" of opponents or any "failure to engage with the actual issues". Have you read any of their works that address the debate?

Lord above, again with the misquoting. Are you speed-reading me and skimming what I actually said? Or are you spoiling for a fight? At no point did I accuse any of these scholars. What I said was:

I really don't care about the whole maximalist vs minimalist battle. Discussing it always ends up with broad generalisations, one side demonising the other, and everyone failing to engage with the actual issues. And this exchange is proof of that. (Emphasis added today)

I said that discussing the maximalist vs minimalist battle always ends up with....etc etc" The fiery discussions on this board being obvious examples. And am I wrong??? The discussion about the maximalists and minimalists always ends up as a scrap about how wickedly the maximalists villified the minimalists, or how condescending the minimalists are to the maximalists, and who started it anyway? So, no thank you, I don't want to get involved in that. Though I suspect I will before the day is out because I think I have something I do want to say about the minimalists and Gmirkin the post-minimalist... but not in this post.