Post Mortem
Foreword: So far, I have no rules about the "quality" of the points and arguments made in "Academic Discussion." The forum was created in response to demand, and the demand that I heard was for moderation of things like personally-directed comments. It was with that intent (primarily at least) that the forum protocols were written.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 6:47 am
I agree with what Andrew C. wrote, just above, Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:12 am.
Neil G. wrote, Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:18 pm, in part:
"....The material evidence we have for the Persian era not only contradicts any knowledge of the narratives and ideologies found in the Pentateuch,...."
Not so. That is trying to prove a negative based on insufficient evidence, because, for one thing, material evidence--that is extant and may or may not be fully known nor properly interpreted--does not reveal ALL that ALL people knew.
That fallacy is somewhat similar to claiming that there were more men than women in that period, because men are mentioned, and evidenced, more often.
Or claiming that a disproportionate amount of what a typical household owned was mostly pottery, because that may be the profile of extant "material evidence."
Furthermore, what counts as exclusively Hellenistic is not agreed, at least not fully, here. Years ago, I described Sigmund Freud as a Hellenized Jew; after all, where did he get the Oedipus complex from? Yet that characterization, silly or not, would not be useful for dating his era.
This post is ok.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:03 am
No, Stephen. The Elephantine evidence (along with other archaeological studies as published by Adler (The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal. The Origins of Judaism, 2022) directly contradict the hypothesis that Pentateuchal laws were known and followed in Persian times. I have asked you to address my earlier criticisms of your points about this evidence. One needs to do more than speculate about what was in the minds of those who left us the evidence but did not see fit to record.
This post is ok.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:36 am
Egypt was, for a time, part of the Persian Achaemenid Empire.
I'm no Egyptologist, but was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?
The Persian Empire, as is well known, by some, compared to some other empires, let local religions be.
And, anyway, the Egyptian "Book" was certainly older than the Persian Empire. Hmm.
This post is ok.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:02 pm
I was giving you (and Andrew) the benefit of the doubt that you know the reasons in the scholarly literature for a Persian date, and left open the opportunity for either of you ask for the source of my information in case it was new and there was any interest in engaging with it.
I was referring to the practice of "Imperial Authorization" of local cults. See the discussions of particular examples:
- The Letoon or Xanthos trilingual inscription,
- The comparable instance of Darius's authorization of Egyptian priests to codify Egyptian cultic law,
- The related Sardis inscription
See the source I cited earlier in this thread (pp 345ff):
- Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. De Gruyter, 2011
who cites, for fuller discussion,
- Frei, Peter, and Klaus Kochch. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. 2., Bearbeitete und stark erw. Aufl edition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 55. Freiburg, Schweiz : Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1996.
The latter is readily available open access. Translation tools are also readily available if needed. Further discussion can be found on my blog in coming weeks.
This post is ok.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:19 pm
"...was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?"
Why deflect from your prediction?
I don't necessarily like the use of the word "deflect." It is possible to give the benefit of the doubt here and to allow that this may be referring to the possibly-relevant points and arguments mentioned. This is not necessarily ideal tone-wise but perhaps it was intended to advance the discussion with a focus still on the arguments. It was not reported. If it was reported, this is one of the difficult judgment calls that it's my responsibility to make. They are unavoidably subjective, at least in similarly borderline cases.
I take no issue as admin with the words "your prediction." It's focused on the arguments. I am not attempting to determine what SG could have meant, or not meant, by "your prediction." I am not trying to adjudicate whether this is a "prediction" that can be legitimately found or implied in what had been written.
Furthermore, in my opinion, and as reflected in how I am moderating Academic Discussion: It's not the absolute prerogative of someone who wrote something to shut down (as a matter of proper etiquette) argument-focused attempts to interpret the implications of what was written. I don't think it's a norm of academic discussion to grant anyone such absolute prerogative over what they write. I consider that something like that would be inimical to the spirit of academic debate and exploration. It falls on the participants in the discussion to attempt to clarify and elucidate things like this, if they want to do so. Others in the discussion do not have to be convinced by the arguments made, even if one of those arguments is of the form: no, I wrote that, I say that your interpretation is wrong, so your interpretation has to be wrong. Such an argument can of course be made. And if it is convincing, it is convincing. And if someone else is unconvincing about what they are claiming, they are also indeed unconvincing. Moderation doesn't need to step in here.
So the discussion -- at least in the example from this thread, which is a concrete example that makes it easier to talk about quite confidently -- is not closed off or out of bounds by an appeal to forum protocol.
In short, SG is attempting to make an argument here and can be given the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:44 pm
Above, from NG:
"....By contrast, what had happened in Persian times was for the Persian ruler to authorize local religious traditions that had been drawn up by the locals and publishing those codifications in the local native language as well as the official language of the Persian empire, Aramaic. If the Pentateuch was a Persian era creation, by comparison with how Persians supported other local religious cults, we would expect to see the Pentateuch translated not into Greek but into Aramaic....."
This post is ok.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:55 pm
When Neil wrote, above
"Oh please behave, Stephen. ..."
May I be excused from that (unscholarly) trivialization left to wonder whether his concern is less about ancient dates but to show he is no longer a fundamentalist but a self-appointed, self-righteousness so-rational arbiter authorized to dismiss others?
This post is not ok. It's now ~~NIP~~.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:21 pm
And your peer-reviewed publications are...?
This post is not ok. It's now ~~NIP~~.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:40 pm
That's your prediction. Not mine. Please read sources and the actual argument to which I refer -- the scholarly evidence that has been advanced to support the Persian era date.
This wasn't the post that was made, but this post would be ok.
I'll go ahead and pull this part of the post back into the thread by quotation per forum protocol.