There was a Pentateuch in the Persian period

[Secret Alias]

Really? You honestly believe that. This is where it breaks down for me. You think the Jews lied about having a Pentateuch in the Persian period. Now the Christians lied about having a true message about the awaited one appearing at a particular moment in history. No wonder you are attracted to these theories. Surely it's not too much to assume that ancient religions are based on the search for and preservation of the truth. At least we have to give the benefit of the doubt until we find evidence to the contrary.

[Irish1975]

“The Jews lied. The Christians lied.” Subtle.

[Leucius Charinus]

Surely it's not too much to assume that ancient religions are based on the search for and preservation of the truth.

Why should we assume that? The assumption could be completely wrong. For example ancient religions could be based on historical fictions, just like modern religions.

At least we have to give the benefit of the doubt until we find evidence to the contrary.

So where does skepticism fit in?

[ABuddhist]

Really? You honestly believe that.

What? Be specific.

You think the Jews lied about having a Pentateuch in the Persian period.

I nver said that, nor do I believe that. Rather, the evidence which we have does not support the claim that the Pentateuch predates the Hellenistic period. But this is not to say that "the Jews" as a whole lied about it. Rather, some people (who may not even have been Jews, hypothetically) developed the tradition that the Pentateuch was much older than it was and the Jews as a whole believed this. A similar process occurred in Theravada Buddhism with the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Furthermore, your simplfication of my position can pe phrased in order to make you seem to be the anti-Semite: "You think the Jews lied about having a Pentateuch in the time of Josiah."

Now the Christians lied about having a true message about the awaited one appearing at a particular moment in history.

Again, you misunderstand my claim. I see nothing wrong with accepting that a real person, perhaps named Jesus (cf, Philippians 2:10-11), was crucified upon the Earth. Maybe it might have been in the precise year which the Marcionites allege. But I see everything wrong with assuming that the gospels accurately recount this man's story rather than being based upon other sources, such as Paul's teachings and allegories and authorial imagination.

Surely it's not too much to assume that ancient religions are based on the search for and preservation of the truth.

On the contrary, as a Buddhist, I am guided by my scriptures in believing that all religfions which are not Buddhism are fundamentally based upon mistakes of 1 sort or another; cf., the Brahmajāla Sutta and the the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta. Sometimes these mistakes are based upon self-interested and false claims by elites within a religion: cf., e.g., the Assalâyana Sutta.

At least we have to give the benefit of the doubt until we find evidence to the contrary.

By that logic, then, you should accept as true Happy Science or another modern religion. Are you that naive?

[Secret Alias]

the evidence which we have does not support the claim that the Pentateuch predates the Hellenistic period

What dating does the evidence support? Of course the evidence supports the Persian period. One scholar says it was made in an Alexandrian laboratory and 100% of the rest of academia says it pre-dated the Hellenistic period. All those scholars are morons? Name me one scholar that accepts Gmirkin's theory. Just one.

[ABuddhist]

the evidence which we have does not support the claim that the Pentateuch predates the Hellenistic period

What dating does the evidence support? Of course the evidence supports the Persian period. One scholar says it was made in an Alexandrian laboratory and 100% of the rest of academia says it pre-dated the Hellenistic period. All those scholars are morons? Name me one scholar that accepts Gmirkin's theory. Just one.

You conflate dating the Pentateuch to the Hellernistic period with accepting Gmirkin's proposal. But here is a link which can introduce you to relevant scholars: Adler, Lemche viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10575

And here is another link about Dr Jan-Wim Wesselius, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Semitic Studies in the Theological University of Kampen, Netherlands, in 2002, published The Origin of the History of Israel : Herodotus's Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible: http://vridar.info/otorigins/mosesxerxes.htm

Although Weselius does not, at least as far as the link goes, endorse a Hellenistic origin for the Pentateuch, his model, in which Herodotus was the movel, is entirely consistent with such a dating.

[Secret Alias]

Adler does not support Gmirkin's hypothesis.

What do you think would happen if I emailed Lemche or Weselius about Gmirkin's theory? Come on. This is stupid.

[ABuddhist]

Adler does not support Gmirkin's hypothesis.

What do you think would happen if I emailed Lemche or Weselius about Gmirkin's theory? Come on. This is stupid.

Are you so incapable of reading and understanding my words tthat you missed my words that:

You conflate dating the Pentateuch to the Hellernistic period with accepting Gmirkin's proposal.

When I wrote

You conflate dating the Pentateuch to the Hellernistic period with accepting Gmirkin's proposal.

and then listed scholars and links, I was not listing scholars who supported Gmirkin's model; rather, because

You conflate dating the Pentateuch to the Hellernistic period with accepting Gmirkin's proposal.

and I do not, I was providing introductions to resources supporting the general claim that the pentateuch is Hellenistic.

You are the 1 who keeps conflating the claim that the Pentateuch is Hellenistic with Gmirkin's specific model.

[Secret Alias]

So the bottom line is 100% of scholars likely think the Pentateuch predated the Hellenistic period. 100%..

[ABuddhist]

Cite some documents. Point to actual evidence. Stop waving your hands.

By the way, did you find my evidence adequate, or did you ignore it along with my words

You conflate dating the Pentateuch to the Hellernistic period with accepting Gmirkin's proposal.

?

Here is the evidence, conflater.

Cite some documents.

Well, the Lotus Sutra, a lengthy prose-and-verse narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen between 50 CE and 150 CE (Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96) is over 300 pages in English translation: https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

The Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, which I have been referring to as the Flower Garland Sutra, is a lengthy prose narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen during the 2nd century CE at the earliest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History). It is so long that the modern translation into English is in 3 parts, the 1st of which ( https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/ ) is 884 pages long.

The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (commonly called in English the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 lines) in its English translation is over 600 pages long ( https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/ ) and is surviving, in addition to in Sanskrit, in in four Chinese translations by four different translators: Moksala (c. 291 CE), Dharmaraksha (c. 286 CE), Kumārajīva (C. 403 CE), and Xuánzăng (c. 660 - 663 CE): Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220 [2], scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1 [2]. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra . The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra received the Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509), which is a large and encyclopedic commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (344–413 CE).

Is this sufficient evidence?