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
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

Here Russell Gmirkin's bio.

Biography
An independent researcher and original thinker, Russell Gmirkin has investigated some of the most important unsolved problems of modern biblical scholarship. Gmirkin has published significant articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he is perhaps best known for his research on the late date and Greek sources of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and its laws. His 2006 book called Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch was one of the first to discuss specific Greek sources used by the biblical authors. His latest book, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, identifies Plato’s Laws as perhaps the most influential such Greek text, a source for many of the Laws of Moses and for the very notion of an approved national literature (the Bible).

Some of the key innovations found in Gmirkin’s writings include the identification of the authors of the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy) as the same group of Jewish scholars that tradition said translated these books into Greek for the Great Library of Alexandria around 270 BCE; the model of a collaborative composition of the Pentateuch by Samaritan and Jewish legislators, storytellers, poets and priests under official governmental oversight and direction; the identification of various late Greek sources by the biblical authors, including Plato (350 BCE), Manetho (285 BCE), Berossus (278 BCE) and others; and the model of the creation of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as an ethical national literature assembled and approved according to directions laid out in Plato’s Laws.

Gmirkin lives in Portland, Oregon with his wife Carolyn Tracy, a talented writer, actress, torch singer, comedienne, and conversationalist extraordinaire.


https://www.routledge.com/authors/i1502 ... ll-gmirkin

Is conversationalist extraordinaire just a fancy word for B.S. artist? :tomato:
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 5:53 am Gmirkin's claim that the Torah was first written in 270 BCE under the editorial control of by the Greeks is ridiculous on it's face.
Your summary of Gmirkin's claim is wrong for 2 reasons.

1. Gmirkin claims that the writing was in c. 273 BCE (or c. 270 BCE, according to vaguer approximations), not precisely 270 BCE.

2. Gmirkin does not claim that the Torah was written under the editorial control of the Greeks; rather, he claims that phil-Hellene Jews, inspired by Greek ideas and Semitic traditions, wrote the Torah.

I also note that many claims are ridiculous on their faces (including many related to religion) but are nonetheless accepted as true.
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 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/)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:35 am R. Gmirkin in his Berossus and Manetho book claimed that Genesis depended on the former and Manetho [[correction:read Exodus}} on the latter, based on what he saw as parallels, and direction of putative influence. My review: parallelomania.
Further, I suggested, more than once, evidence of Hebrew Bible portions predating circa 273-272 BCE.
(I also mentioned that I have other things to do than, imo, rereading an unpersuasive book, when there are many others seemingly more promising that I have not yet read.)
Andrew Criddle made an excellent point (Aug 6, this thread):
"IF Gmirkin is suggesting (adapting Jellicoe's position on the LXX) that the Torah originated in Alexandria as a result of a collaboration between Jerusalem and Jewish scholars in Egypt, then (on the standard model of Samaritan history) its acceptance as Scripture by the Samaritan community would be unlikely."
Thank you, Stephen, for making the effort to provide a little more feedback. Appreciated.

As you will recall from your reading of Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus, Gmirkin bases his argument on more than just the parallels. And when he does address parallels, he generally compares three texts, for example: Genesis alongside Berossus alongside, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Sumerian King List. When Sandmel warned against "parallelomania" he clearly pointed out the difference between justified comparisons and unjustified comparisons. Gmirkin uses the same methods of analysis when comparing a Genesis passage with both an Egyptian and a Mesopotamian counterpart. If one is a case of "parallelomania" then both are --- except that most scholars would rarely call their observed parallels between biblical and Mesopotamian or Canaanite literature "parallelomania".

Gmirkin also refers to what other ancients had to say about the various texts -- and the obvious parallels that they, too, noticed -- as well as other tools of historical and textual analysis.

Gmirkin also points out a problem at the heart of conventional Old Testament studies that has been increasingly spoken about since the 1990s -- its circularity of method.

Gmirkin has opted to use the methods of classical scholars when they do source criticism and thereby bypass some of the circularity that has been the foundation of much analysis of the biblical texts until now.

And when he does, by the way, set out parallels of Genesis with both Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, he notices what other scholars have often noticed but dismissed on the grounds that the consequences do not fit their historical constructs -- constructs that are actually grounded in circular arguments -- and that is that there are usually more distinctive thematic, topical and structural parallels between Genesis and Berossus than there are between Genesis and the Mesopotamian account. Further, there are often clear distinctive differences with the Mesopotamian comparison that do not exist with the Berossus comparisons.

So what does one do with this source criticism? Ignore it and pretend it is not real so we can cling to a historical model that is grounded in circularity? Or open up our options for a historical reconstruction by widening the permitted range of evidence?

And if you really have identified clear evidence of biblical books prior to 270 BCE (I only noticed earlier that you said Paleo-Hebrew script was known earlier, a fact no-one disputes) then Gmirkin has made complete idiots of his reviewers and scholarship-specialist publisher.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Let me notice that you, neilgodfrey, twice mention RG's use of "source criticism."
Nevermind, then, methodological claims suggesting the supposedly discrete, different methods of Classical and Biblical scholars--and as if he is the first of the former to approach the latter.
Bogus source criticism to dismiss Hecataeus of A., accepted e.g. by Menahem Stern is his great learned work.*
Dismissing the silver amulet with Numbers text. Now, one could try to dismiss it as fake or archaeologically misdated, if one wished to try.
But in some interview online-- iirc--to say it was not written?
His reviewers were not all idiots: Van Seters in JThS and the CBQ one, for two examples

*
Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism
edited, with introductions, translations, and commentary, by Menahem Stern.
Jerusalem : Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:48 am Let me notice that you, neilgodfrey, twice mention RG's use of "source criticism."
Nevermind, then, methodological claims suggesting the supposedly discrete, different methods of Classical and Biblical scholars--and as if he is the first of the former to approach the latter.
Bogus source criticism to dismiss Hecataeus of A., accepted e.g. by Menahem Stern is his great learned work.*
Dismissing the silver amulet with Numbers text. Now, one could try to dismiss it as fake or archaeologically misdated, if one wished to try.
But in some interview online-- iirc--to say it was not written?
His reviewers were not all idiots: Van Seters in JThS and the CBQ one, for two examples

*
Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism
edited, with introductions, translations, and commentary, by Menahem Stern.
Jerusalem : Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984.
Sorry, Stephen, but I am having difficulty understanding your criticisms here.

What do you mean by "supposedly discrete, different methods of Classical and Biblical scholars"? Are you denying that their fundamental approaches are different? Are you denying that there is circularity at the heart of the conventional Biblical Studies we are talking about?

What, specifically, do you think RG gets wrong re Hecataeus of A? You said he "dismisses" him, but that's hard to accept given he dedicates a whole chapter to him.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:11 am And if you really have identified clear evidence of biblical books prior to 270 BCE (I only noticed earlier that you said Paleo-Hebrew script was known earlier, a fact no-one disputes) then Gmirkin has made complete idiots of his reviewers and scholarship-specialist publisher.
With all due respect, I read years ago that the oldest texts which are found within the Bible are from inscribed silver bearing blessings also found in Numbers. The inscriptions have been dated to the 7th or 6th century BCE.
Cf
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:48 am Dismissing the silver amulet with Numbers text. Now, one could try to dismiss it as fake or archaeologically misdated, if one wished to try.
Of course, blessing formulas are easy to insert into texts from any time period, so this in no way proves that the Hebrew Bible as a whole predates such inscribed silver.
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:48 am Dismissing the silver amulet with Numbers text. Now, one could try to dismiss it as fake or archaeologically misdated, if one wished to try.
But in some interview online-- iirc--to say it was not written?
This is a major claim about what Gmirkin said, StephenGoranson, which would be useful in assessing his crtedfibility. A pity that you cannot cite it or even recall where and when it was said.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:32 am What, specifically, do you think RG gets wrong re Hecataeus of A? You said he "dismisses" him, but that's hard to accept given he dedicates a whole chapter to him.
With all due respect, an entire chapter about a source can in theory culminate in dismissing a source.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:48 am accepted e.g. by Menahem Stern is his great learned work.*. . .

*
Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism
edited, with introductions, translations, and commentary, by Menahem Stern.
Jerusalem : Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984.
Do you think Stern's opinions are beyond criticism and modification with new information from archaeology?

Stern also accepted the circularity at the heart of "conventional biblical history" and for that reason, as did other biblical scholars, rejected Greek descriptions of Jewish practices that contradicted their historical model.

But if one steps back from this circularity that closes its mind to the possibility of the Hebrew biblical works being written as late as the Hellenistic era, then one finds that the Greek descriptions of Jewish practices do make sense and cohere with what we know from archaeology, too.

So we have a conventional biblical model of origins that is based on circularity, and that Stern also assumed, and that requires scholars like Stern to dismiss evidence that contradicts the model.....

or on the other hand we have an approach to source criticism and dating that is not based on circularity and that leads to a model that is able to embrace all the sources, including the Greek ones that contradict the circular model.

Don't you think the second option is more methodologically sound?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:53 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:32 am What, specifically, do you think RG gets wrong re Hecataeus of A? You said he "dismisses" him, but that's hard to accept given he dedicates a whole chapter to him.
With all due respect, an entire chapter about a source can in theory culminate in dismissing a source.
When one accuses an author of dismissing a source without further comment, and does so in an ad hominem manner, then the claim is a put-down. If SG wanted to be fair to RG he would have said that RG argues against X, or has reasons for rejecting X as a relevant source for Y.

I would prefer SG to be able to give some evidence that he has understood and knows RG's argument. So far his language indicates that he thinks RG is a fool and an ignoramus and worthy of insult.
Post Reply