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

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

But what explains the different Hebrew phrasing in Deuteronomy? The Tetrateuch has one style and Deuteronomy shares stylistic similarities with Joshua - Kings.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:29 pm But what explains the different Hebrew phrasing in Deuteronomy? The Tetrateuch has one style and Deuteronomy shares stylistic similarities with Joshua - Kings.
As far as I am aware, Gmirkin has interesting ideas about the origins of Joshua-Kings, which he has discussed in the following:

Gmirkin, Russell. 2020. “‘Solomon’ (Shalmaneser III) and the Emergence of Judah as an Independent Kingdom.” In Biblical Narratives, Archaeology and Historicity: Essays In Honour of Thomas L. Thompson, edited by Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spanò and Emanuel Pfoh, 76–90. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies. New York: T&T Clark.

Neil Godfrey has discussed his article here: https://vridar.org/2020/10/31/is-solomo ... ts-part-1/ and https://vridar.org/2020/11/01/the-acts- ... on-part-2/ and https://vridar.org/2020/11/02/solomons- ... ts-part-3/ and https://vridar.org/2020/11/03/how-the-s ... es-part-4/

These resources may help you to understand his argument better - although I am not claiming to be an expert in it myself.
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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:36 pm if (as is suggested) it is a mere translation of an original Greek composition?
Who suggests that? Certainly not Gmirkin.
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 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:19 am It is IMO unlikely that Jewish/Samaritan co-operation would be compatible with Rival temples.

Andrew Criddle
One can always read the other argument for oneself. One does not have to rely upon armchair speculation.

Why read the "rivalry" of later times back into earlier times? If there was cooperation then maybe one might find positive evidence of allusions to the Samaritan temple even in Genesis's early chapters.
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:48 am (Putting aside for now asking for proof of such scholars being there for such purpose at that time.)
. . .
You appear to have forgotten the core of Gmirkin's argument, Stephen -- understandable since it's been a long time since you read it. The claim of scholars being at place A at time Y is a hypothesis constructed to explain the evidence cited. The evidence comes from "source criticism". I thought you would have had something to say about the reminder that Gmirkin actually compared three sources, not just two: Biblical, Hellenistic and earlier Mesopotamian, and found the preponderance of similarities between the former two as opposed to the Biblical and earlier Mesopotamian.

What is your hypothesis to explain those results from the comparison of the three sources of literature? (You will recall that Gmirkin is not the first to have noticed many of the striking similarities between the Biblical and Hellenistic works.)
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:48 am Since I mentioned a statement before without a specific citation, I'll mention that RG in interview with Jacob Berman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CYpOFQrrQ
at about 6:00 minutes in discussed the silver amulet, reliably dated by archaeology and paleography to several centuries before 273-272. RG admits that it contains a parallel to Numbers-- "but not in written form."
Such is the habit of confirmation bias dismissiveness that RG can see the writing on the amulet
and even so declare that it is not writing.

(There are other examples.)
Oh my goodness, Stephen -- I really thought you had more smarts and alertness than to post the above. Maybe you were distracted in the seconds prior to the words "not in written form" and missed the clear fact that RG was quoting Gabriel Barkay whom he had personally met! -- I take it you are aware of Barkay's role in relation to the silver amulets, yes? -- who said that the text originated as an oral form: AND THAT is what RG was referring to when he said "not in written form".

Come on, now, Stephen -- you must have heard RG refer to the written text and then explain through quoting Gabriel Barkay that it originated as an oral saying and that it was clear as day to any honest listener that that is what RG meant.

One might almost think you are listening with hostile intent just looking for excuses to make the most absurd accusations on the assumption that Gmirkin is totally stupid and so must be his peer reviewers and publishers.

A little honesty, please!
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:48 am. . . RG can see the writing on the amulet and even so declare that it is not writing.
Stephen -- you said you had read RG's book on Berossus and Manetho and that you took copious notes on it at the time. I even sent you a link to where you can refresh your memory of it online.

So why do you not be honest enough to inform readers on this forum what RG wrote about the silver amulets in the book you say you read?

I'm beginning to think your opinion of RG's arguments is not really well informed despite your assertions to the contrary. At least you have yet to give us positive evidence that you have actually read the book.

John T did say you and he made a good team, or something like that --- I didn't believe him at first, but now I think you and John T really are two of a kind.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:29 pm But what explains the different Hebrew phrasing in Deuteronomy?
Differences in style are usually explained as the result of different genre/content/function of writing and/or different authors. This is not a problem. Both explanations are consistent with everything RG has written about Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is the work most closely on point with Plato's Laws, as noted by Otto Kaiser:
  • Kaiser, Otto, “Das Deuteronomium und Platons Nomoi: Einladung zu einem Vergleich.” Pages 60-79 in H. Spieckermann and R. G. Kratz (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 190. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Because the quoted RG interview is available on the internet, each person who checks it can decide for themselves.

Or, for example, anyone may read the report, lead author Gabriel Barkay, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research:

"We can further reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars: that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible...."

The amulets from Ketef Hinnom: a new edition and evaluation
Authors:
Barkay, Gabriel; Lundberg, Marilyn J; Vaughn, Andrew G; Zuckerman, Bruce
Source:
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 334 May 2004, p 41-71
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:49 am Because the quoted RG interview is available on the internet, each person who checks it can decide for themselves.

Or, for example, anyone may read the report, lead author Gabriel Barkay, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research:

"We can further reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars: that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible...."

The amulets from Ketef Hinnom: a new edition and evaluation
Authors:
Barkay, Gabriel; Lundberg, Marilyn J; Vaughn, Andrew G; Zuckerman, Bruce
Source:
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 334 May 2004, p 41-71
I just did check it for myself and found you had --- is "lied about it" too strong?

You blatantly misrepresented what RG said by suppressing the fact that RG was citing Gabriel Barkay's explanation of the amulet's oral origin -- and suppressing what you claim you read in his book about the same thing, also discussing Barkay.

Basic comprehension is not your strong point, is it, Stephen. Saying a text is the same as one found in the Bible is NOT saying that the text was copied from the Bible. Basic comprehension is lacking somewhere.

You really are nothing more than another John T. Blatant misrepresentation, blatant misreading of simple English sentences, refusal to read anything contrary to what you want to believe, false claims about what you have read -- and outright insults and slurs. That's the only way you seem to know how to handle differences of opinion.
Post Reply