Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts [Gmirkin]

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: Identifying circularity

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:35 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:03 pm Josiah's reforms and discovery of the book of Deuteronomy are assumed to be foundational evidence for Deuteronomy existing as a work in the seventh century. Again, we start with an assumption of the date of a book and everything is interpreted through that assumption.
With all due respect, though, such an interpretation is at least willing to look beyond Deuteronomy's traditionally claimed status to be the fifth part of a five-part work hundreds of years older than Josiah. So it is a step in the right direction.
The method counts more than the result, though. Plato deduced that the earth was a rotating sphere but not for scientific reasons. That the earth is a rotating sphere does not demonstrate the truth of Plato's argument about Ideas or Forms being the "ultimate deities". I recall from school days a maths teacher telling us that even if we got a final answer wrong but showed we had a valid method, we would earn points, but if we got the final answer right but by an invalid method or a simple mistake, we would get no points.

The method that assumes the biblical account of Josiah has some historical core is invalid. It is not the method used by scholars in other historical disciplines -- except by those criticized as "lazy" by their peers.


ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:35 pm
Do you have any thoughts about the argument between me and John T about what bearing the dead sea scrolls have upon Gmirkin's thesis?
No, no thoughts. I try to ignore John T as much as possible. He comes across to me as an attention-seeking troll.

What is the claim about the DDS in relation to Gmirkin's thesis?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:07 pm What is the claim about the DDS in relation to Gmirkin's thesis?
John T claims that because fragments of the DSS have been dated to 300 BCE, Gmirkin's thesis is false.

I have replied by saying that this situation does not undermine Gmirkin's thesis for the following reasons. Firstly, not all texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls date to 300 BCE - most, as far as I am aware, are dated hundreds of years later. Secondly the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts (copies of which were at Qumran) which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts [Gmirkin]

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:46 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:23 pm
I am not a supporter of Carrier, and as a real Buddhist (despite your paranoid assertions otherwise), my atheism is based upon a different paradigm than that favoured by typical atheists in the Anglophone world.
I'll take that wishy-washy baby step confession that you are indeed a so-called atheist. But if you are a real atheist Buddhist (oxymoron) why didn't you know about Buddha being the incarnation of the god Vishnu, that is until I told you?
1. Why do you think that being a Buddhist and an atheist is an oxymoronic state? Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods, and Buddhism fits this criterion. Gods in Buddhism are said to be mortal, fallible, not responsible for the world in which we live, and not the best basis for moral actions. All of these views are fully compatible with atheism, albeit not with materialistic atheism.

As a source about the mortality of gods in Buddhism, consider the following.

"THE BUDDHIST COSMOS: A Comprehensive Survey of the Early Buddhist Worldview; according to Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda sources", by Punnadhammo Mahāthero, is a source for my reply.

Buddhism teaches about gods and names them devas. The word deva derives either from the root div, meaning to play or make sport, or from the old Indo-Aryan dejā, meaning “to shine”, and is related to both the Latin "deus", meaning "god", and to the old Iranian word "daevo", cognate to the English word “devil".

Although the life-span of devas is very long, reaching 2.3 billion years at times according to Buddhist scriptures, the Buddhists' scriptures teach that they are mortal like all other beings in the universe. However, for them, death is said to be as painless as birth. There is no prolonged death-agony. A few days before death, a dying deva observes in him/herself the “five signs”: garments become soiled, garlands fade, armpits grow sweaty, body loses its glowing complexion and he/she becomes restless. At the end, she or he simply disappears from that place and is reborn in another place and as another creature.

Such a rebirth is often not pleasant, according to Buddhists' texts.

The "Letter to a Friend" (Tibetan: bShes-pa'i springs-yig; Sanskrit: Suhrllekha), attested as far back as the time of Gunavarman who died in 431 CE, and attributed to Nagarjuna from the second century CE, as translated by Alexander Berzin in March 2006, explains quite vividly what happens to many gods after they die according to Buddhism.

(69) Having become an Indra, fit to be honored by the world, You fall back again upon the earth through the power of karma. Even having changed to the status of a Universal Chakravartin King, You transform into someone with the rank of a servant in samsaric states.

(70) Having for a long time experienced the pleasure of the touch Of the breasts and hips of maidens of the higher rebirth realms, Once again you'll have to entrust yourself to the unbearable touch Of the implements for crushing, cutting, and subjugating in the hells.

(71) Having dwelled for long on the heights of Mount Meru, With the (most) bearable pleasure of bouncing at the touch of your feet, Once again, you'll be struck with the unbearable pain Of wading through smoldering embers and a putrefying swamp. Think about that!

(72) Having been served by maidens of higher rebirths, And having frolicked, staying in pleasurable and beautiful groves, Once again you'll get your legs, arms, ears, and nose cut off Through grove-like places having leaves like swords.

(73) Having basked, with celestial maidens having beautiful faces, In Gently Flowing (Heavenly Rivers) having lotuses of gold, Once again you'll be plunged into Uncrossable Infernal Rivers With intolerably caustic boiling waters.

(74) Having attained the extremely great pleasures of the desirable sense objects of the celestial realms, And the pleasures of the state of a Brahma, which are free of attachment, You'll have to entrust yourself, once again, to an unbroken continuum of sufferings From having become the fuel of the flames of (a joyless realm of) unrelenting pain.

(75) Having attained the state of a sun or a moon, With the light of your body illuminating countless worlds, Once again you'll have arrived in the gloom of darkness, And then won't see even your outstretched hand.

Furthermore, Buddhist scholars, like mere atheist scholars, have refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists. Consider the following:

Are you aware that the Buddha explicitly asserted that belief in an uncreated creator god is an incorrect view in the Brahmajala Sutta?

Are you aware that the Buddha explicitly asserted that the entity who claims to be an uncreated creator god when the universe begins is insane and mistaken in the Brahmajala Sutta?

Are you aware that the Buddha explicitly asserted that the universe arises and passes away cyclically through natural processes in the Brahmajala Sutta?

Are you aware that the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta suggests that gods who claim to have created the universe are multiple, each with a retinue of gods believing him and each chief god claiming to offer true knowledge about salvation and the ultimate - but with said chief god being exposed as a deluded and ignorant fool by the Buddha?

Are you aware of the many Buddhist scholars through-out the centuries who have made refutations of the claim that an uncreated creator god is possible - sometimes refuting Christianity explicitly? Here is a list of some such scholars.

The Buddhist Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE) in his Twelve Gates Treatise refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Vasubandhu (c. 4th century CE) in his Abhidharmakośakārikā, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Shantideva (c. 8th century CE), in his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra's ninth chapter, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ratnakīrti (11th century CE), in his Īśvara-sādhana-dūṣaṇa, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ju Mipham (19th century CE), in his uma gyen gyi namshé jamyang lama gyepé shyallung and Nor bu ke ta ka, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists and that creation can be from nothing.

The Buddhist Ouyi Zhixu (1599–1655), in his "Collected Refutations of Heterodoxy", refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists, specifically refuting Christianity.

The Buddhist Chödrak Gyatso, 7th Karmapa Lama (15th century CE), in his "Ocean of Literature on Logic" - the relevant portion of which has been published as "Establishing Validity" - refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The 19th and 20th century Bhikkhu Dhammaloka (who had been born in Ireland before going to Burma in order to ordain as a Buddhist monk), refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists in arguments against Christian missionaries that are collected in the book "The Irish Buddhist: The Forgotten Monk Who Faced Down the British Empire".

2. why do you that I had no previous knowledge that people claim that Buddha [sic - should be Gautama Buddha, because Buddhism teaches about many Buddhas, and only the most recent one is taught by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu] is an avatar of Vishnu? My words addressing that claim
ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:30 pm Claims that Siddhattha Gotama was associated with Vishnu were a Hindu effort to co-opt Buddhism which Buddhists reject as false.
make no claim that I was learning that from you - indeed, I have known for years that Hindus claim that Gautama Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu but have never had the opportunity or need to cite that fact upon this forum before today. As further evidence toy you about my knowledge about the claims made about Buddhas by various religious movements, I cite to you my words from months ago condemning posters for making the same error that you make - talking about a single undistinguished Buddha:
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:12 pm You are profoundly ignorant of of Buddhism when you assert that "Buddha was historical figure" not because such a statement is false but because I was not referring to the Buddha (Gautama Buddha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) to whom you were referring, but rather to Amitabha Buddha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha: "also known as Amida or Amitāyus, is a celestial buddha according to the scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism."), who is a completely different figure - one of many Buddhas within Buddhism.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8651
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:50 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:42 am ABuddhist, I was trying to explain myself to mh, but as you wrote, in part, “…Amitabha Buddha the heavenly saviour figure - who, no Buddhists assert, was ever upon this world..” may I note that very many Buddhists mention several incarnations?
You are profoundly ignorant about both Buddhism and my knowledge of Buddhism.

Standard Buddhist cosmology indeed talks about many Buddhas, but in Mahayana Buddhism (the tradition in which Amitabha Buddha is a figure), there are multiple inhabited worlds, some of which, including our world, have been made repositories of Buddhas' teachings, and some of which, not including our world, have Buddhas living and teaching upon them. Amitabha Buddha is said to live and teach within the world Sukhavati, where all Buddhists throughout the universe can be reborn (his partisans insist) if we have faith in him. According to the Buddhist Scriptures discussing Amitabha Buddha at length, Amitabha Buddha's entire career, from his vows as the monk Dharmākara to achieve Buddhahood billions of billions of years ago through his accumulation of merit over billions of billions of years to his final death billions of billions of years in the future, is never upon this world but always in other worlds.

Our world, according to all Buddhist traditions, has been graced by several Buddhas and will be graced in the future by the Buddha Maitreya (Sanskrit) or Metteyya (Pali). Buddhism as it now exists upon this Earth was founded by the Buddha Shakyamuni.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha Maitreya is said to have revealed from Tushita Heaven several treatises about reality to Asanga, which Mahayana Buddhists highly revere as scripture.

In Mahayana Buddhism, Amitabha Buddha is said to be not alone in his efforts; Akshobhya Buddha is also said (in the Akṣobhyatathāgatasyavyūha Sūtra) to offer salvation to Buddhists throughout the universe in another world, Abhirati.

So, within Mahayana Buddhism, we have several striking parallels to the mythicist model of Christian origins:

1. A heavenly saviour figure (Amitabha Buddha) whose salvation is based upon his followers' faith in him, but whose salvific deeds are not located upon Earth.

2. A heavenly figure (Maitreya Buddha), who in the future will supposedly come to Earth as a saviour but in the meantime sends messages to devoted followers (cf., the description of how the Revelation to John was received by John).

3. Competing models of salvation associated with different sects (of which I have not even touched upon Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja) (cf., the controversy about works and faith within the Christians' scriptures).
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:16 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:07 pm What is the claim about the DDS in relation to Gmirkin's thesis?
John T claims that because fragments of the DSS have been dated to 300 BCE, Gmirkin's thesis is false.
John T has regularly made false claims, misinterpreted claims, misunderstood citations, and has demonstrated often enough for my satisfaction that he doesn't read or listen with any due care or attention and refuses to read anything he is advised to read and hence lives in his own world of make-believe and ignorance. I have learned to ignore most of his claims and generally ignore his comments altogether now.

The Jerusalem Post article he links to is a newspaper article about an unpublished, un-peer-reviewed talk at a conference and not even that article says any of the dss have been dated to 300 bce. John T presumably just made that up when he saw something in the article about a date range from the third-century bce.

If one follows up the conference and institute behind that article one can find a youtube presentation chaired by the head of that dating project (Popović) in which the radiocarbon results point to mid second century dates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0osmcXwggY

Incidentally, the "third century bce" includes 201 bce and there is an up to 50 year margin of error in radiocarbon dating so a loose claim "from the third century bce" could include what in fact turns out to be a mid second century text; it could also mean a text that we can mind-game is deposited shortly after 270 is relegated radiocarbon dated to 220 bce -- a third century date that is consistent with Gmirkin's thesis.

John T doesn't know what he is talking about. I lost all interest in his comments when he demonstrated (ignorantly) that he had no idea what the relevance of Plato's Timaeus is to Gmirkin's thesis.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts [Gmirkin]

Post by Secret Alias »

Another problem with this thesis. Why would the Hebrew in Deuteronomy be so noticeably different from the first four books if (as is suggested) it is a mere translation of an original Greek composition? What evidence is there for Deuteronomy as a "second law" as a Greek text. Only the Hebrew preserves the secondary (distinct) character. Also the Persian loanwords in Hebrew in Deuteronomy. Why would a late Hebrew translator use אש דת ?
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:25 pm
The Jerusalem Post article he links to is a newspaper article about an unpublished, un-peer-reviewed talk at a conference and not even that article says any of the dss have been dated to 300 bce. John T presumably just made that up when he saw something in the article about a date range from the third-century bce.
Sorry Neil, but you are the one who hasn't kept up with the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Modern scientific testing has added to the debate. In recent years, the scrolls have also been analysed by linguistic experts, who proposed a date range from 225 B.C. to A.D. 50, based on the style of writing as well as the size and variability of the characters. This appears to roughly match the later carbon dating of the inks, which were made of carbon soot from oil lamps mixed with olive oil and honey or water. These tests produced a date range between 385 B.C. and A.D. 80, which would extend the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls well beyond the estimated occupation of the Qumran settlement"....National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/hi ... the-answer

This topic has been debated on this forum many times over the years. If you still think the methods for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls are backwards you need to take it up with the National Geographic.

I always get a kick out of how arrogant people like Neil make false claims and when pushed to cite evidence they provide a link or something but they don't bother to actually read, or watch the video they posted. Case in point, Neil cites a video by Hans Van Der Plicht proving Neil is right and John T is wrong. Of course he never bothered to actually watch it because if he did he would learn at the 33 minute mark Hans Van Der Plicht not only says the dating range can be well over a hundred years but 340 BCE for some of the tests is not out of the range of possibility. But hey, what would an expert like Hans Van Der Plicht know compared to the genius of Neil?


As far as the rest of your insults. Well, I just chalk that up to your ego getting bruised by your own ignorance.
Thank you for providing another teachable moment. :cheers:
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:07 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:25 pm
The Jerusalem Post article he links to is a newspaper article about an unpublished, un-peer-reviewed talk at a conference and not even that article says any of the dss have been dated to 300 bce. John T presumably just made that up when he saw something in the article about a date range from the third-century bce.
Sorry Neil, but you are the one who hasn't kept up with the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Modern scientific testing has added to the debate. In recent years, the scrolls have also been analysed by linguistic experts, who proposed a date range from 225 B.C. to A.D. 50, based on the style of writing as well as the size and variability of the characters. This appears to roughly match the later carbon dating of the inks, which were made of carbon soot from oil lamps mixed with olive oil and honey or water. These tests produced a date range between 385 B.C. and A.D. 80, which would extend the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls well beyond the estimated occupation of the Qumran settlement"....National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/hi ... the-answer

This topic has been debated on this forum many times over the years. If you still think the methods for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls are backwards you need to take it up with the National Geographic.

I always get a kick out of how arrogant people like Neil make false claims and when pushed to cite evidence they provide a link or something but they don't bother to actually read, or watch the video they posted. Case in point, Neil cites a video by Hans Van Der Plicht proving Neil is right and John T is wrong. Of course he never bothered to actually watch it because if he did he would learn at the 33 minute mark Hans Van Der Plicht not only says the dating range can be well over a hundred years but 340 BCE for some of the tests is not out of the range of possibility.
a date range between 385 B.C. and A.D. 80 is so vast that it can easily be reconciled with Gmirkin's thesis without contradicting the dating evidence. This is confirmed by your citation that Hans Van Der Plicht not only says the dating range can be well over a hundred years but 340 BCE for some of the tests is not out of the range of possibility. There is a big difference between a text's definitely being from 340 BCE and a text's being from 340 BCE not being out of the range of possibility. Finally, such a date is further weakened by Hans Van Der Plicht's saying that the dating range can be well over a hundred years, which means that a text datable to 340 BCE can also be dated to as recently as 240 BCE - within the range of Gmirkin's thesis.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:25 pm
John T doesn't know what he is talking about. I lost all interest in his comments when he demonstrated (ignorantly) that he had no idea what the relevance of Plato's Timaeus is to Gmirkin's thesis.
Neil, how can you say that when apparently I'm the only one here that has read Timaeus? If you can't cite Gmirkin's on Timaeus then what are fair minded people to make of that?

I even offered to review Gmirking's book of fiction but you can't seem to provide a source. You demand all others to provide verifiable sources but you refuse to do the same?

You failed once again due to the fallacy of double standards.

Here comes another round of nasty insults by Neil and his toady. :tomato:
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by John T »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:52 am
a date range between 385 B.C. and A.D. 80 is so vast that it can easily be reconciled with Gmirkin's thesis without contradicting the dating evidence. This is confirmed by your citation that Hans Van Der Plicht not only says the dating range can be well over a hundred years but 340 BCE for some of the tests is not out of the range of possibility. There is a big difference between a text's definitely being from 340 BCE and a text's being from 340 BCE not being out of the range of possibility. Finally, such a date is further weakened by Hans Van Der Plicht's saying that the dating range can be well over a hundred years, which means that a text datable to 340 BCE can also be dated to as recently as 240 BCE - within the range of Gmirkin's thesis.
Again, we have another example of someone claiming I'm wrong because they haven't even bothered to fact check their own claims. They don't have to because trolls don't care about the truth, just trashing people. That's what trolls do. If I'm wrong, then by all means, watch Neil's video for him and then try again. Is that too hard to ask of someone who claims they are just asking questions in all due respect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0osmcXwggY

In all due respect. ;)
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Identifying circularity

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:53 am I even offered to review Gmirking's book of fiction but you can't seem to provide a source.
1. Gmirkin's book, although open to criticism, is not fiction, nor does it claim to be. Rather, it is a theory about how a text came to be composed. Such compositions are not works of fiction - unless your definition of fiction extends to all attempts to explain how and when the gospels were written.

2. Neil does not need to provide a link to Gmirkin's book to you specifically because firstly, he already provided a link elsewhere in this thread and secondly because I have provided his link to you in this thread and provide it to you again in this post.
ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:41 am
John T wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:01 am Is conversationalist extraordinaire just a fancy word for B.S. artist?
It can be, but need not be.

And here are some interesting links about Gmirkin's theories, including a link to his book.
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:03 am No problem.... you can access the book on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/4763503 ... the-Date-o

I have posted on Gmirkin's works in depth: https://vridar.org/tag/gmirkin-berossus-and-genesis/ -- where I point out that RG acknowledges clear Semitic sources for the Hebrew Bible, and he compares these with other sources. (And https://vridar.org/series-index/russell ... rew-bible/)
Post Reply