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

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Evidently, the ng opinion is not shared universally.

So I quoted Gabriel Barkay, et al., in a peer-reviewed journal, BASOR.

"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...."

Notice the word "citations."

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions for citation:
...2. a. The action or an act of quoting or referring to a passage, text, author, legal precedent, etc., esp. as an authority or in support of an argument; quotation....
b. A cited passage, a quotation.....
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:11 am Evidently, the ng opinion is not shared universally.

So I quoted Gabriel Barkay, et al., in a peer-reviewed journal, BASOR.

"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...."

Notice the word "citations."

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions for citation:
...2. a. The action or an act of quoting or referring to a passage, text, author, legal precedent, etc., esp. as an authority or in support of an argument; quotation....
b. A cited passage, a quotation.....
With all due respect, unless my understanding of the inscriptions is very incorrect, the inscriptions do not claim to be quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures or from any other written document, do they? Rather, my understanding (possibly wrong) is that they are merely words which are also found in the Hebrew Scriptures' Book of Numbers. Furthermore, they are not a distinctive segment from the Hebrew Scriptures' Book of Numbers but are rather a blessing in YHWH's name which is also found in the Hebrew Scriptures' Book of Numbers.

Such blessings can be incorporated into later and longer texts very easily.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:57 am 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.
With all due respect, he is more polite on average, is less prone to accusing people whom he disagrees with of being atheists/trolls/liars, and is willing to cite words when asked. Your remarks about how he misrepresents his sources are, however, worthy of respect.
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 6:11 am Evidently, the ng opinion is not shared universally.

So I quoted Gabriel Barkay, et al., in a peer-reviewed journal, BASOR.

"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...."

Notice the word "citations."

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions for citation:
...2. a. The action or an act of quoting or referring to a passage, text, author, legal precedent, etc., esp. as an authority or in support of an argument; quotation....
b. A cited passage, a quotation.....
So you wisely choose to avoid trying to justify your blatantly false claim about RG's words and shift away from the point of my criticism of your misrepresentation.

You again demonstrate that you simply don't read beyond blurbs and abstracts. If you read the article itself and not just selected a passage from its abstract you would have seen this follow up explanation on page 68:
As has already been noted (Barkay 1992: 176-81;
Yardeni 1991: 181-85), the presence of the Priestly
Blessing in this late preexilic context does not in and
of itself prove that the biblical context in which the
blessing appears in the MT had already been consolidated
.
And when we follow up the Barkay 1992 citation we find this, p. 180:
The introductory words to the Priestly Benediction in Num. 6:22-23 emphasize
the effect of an oral blessing - "ye shall say unto them". In these verses, we actually
find five different expressions referring to oral speech. In the past, scholars have
stressed the oral nature of the Priestly Benediction as a "besprechende Text"
(Seybold 1977:22). The Ketef Hinnom plaques add to this the hitherto unknown
dimension of a written blessing. It seemsthat the priests, who alone were authorized
to speak the words of the Benediction (although according to Deut. 10:8and some
later sources it was the role of the entire tribe of Levy),21were also the ones who
rendered the Benediction in writing. It should not be concluded, however, that the
deceased buried in Cave 24 were of a priestly family. It is quite likely that the written
blessing was provided by the priests upon request, as was the spoken blessing.
-- which is exactly the point RG was making with reference to Barkay on that video, the one where you outrageously "DIS-represented" what RG was clearly saying in relation to Barkay's point.

And if you were really an honest broker, Stephen, you would by now have made it very clear that RG actually discusses both of those articles -- the one you cited but of which you read nothing more than the abstract -- and the Barkay article it further cites.

You are trying to dismiss RG by citing works he himself discusses (you claim to have read RG's book but you keep making criticisms that only demonstrate that you never did appear to have read it at all). The difference between RG's discussion of those articles and your presentation is that you misrepresent and fail to comprehend the clear meaning of the words you read while RG is addressing what they actually say in some detail, including on that youtube video you made false claims about.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:42 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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:11 am Evidently, the ng opinion is not shared universally.

So I quoted Gabriel Barkay, et al., in a peer-reviewed journal, BASOR.

"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...."

Notice the word "citations."

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions for citation:
...2. a. The action or an act of quoting or referring to a passage, text, author, legal precedent, etc., esp. as an authority or in support of an argument; quotation....
b. A cited passage, a quotation.....
It's hardly "my opinion".

Notice the word "ALSO".

You see "citations" and "Hebrew Bible" and seem to have a blind spot on the words in between. The key word in between is ALSO.

The passage does not read "citations OF the Hebrew Bible" -- as you seem to want us to think.

It says "citations of texts [that are] ALSO found in the Hebrew Bible".

It's basic reading comprehension 101, Stephen. We had many exercises on that sort of thing in school, didn't we?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

The Masoretic Text, by definition, is later.

A question at hand is whether the silver amulet texts include "citation(s)" or "quotation(s)" from First Temple period texts.

As amulets sometimes do.
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:55 am
Addressing SG:

You again demonstrate that you simply don't read beyond blurbs and abstracts. If you read the article itself and not just selected a passage from its abstract you would have seen this follow up explanation on page 68:
As has already been noted (Barkay 1992: 176-81;
Yardeni 1991: 181-85), the presence of the Priestly
Blessing in this late preexilic context does not in and
of itself prove that the biblical context in which the
blessing appears in the MT had already been consolidated
.
Above I quoted part of the Barkay citation. It's worth adding a key part of the Yardeni citation, too -- p. 181:
As the verses on the plaques appear outside a biblical context they cannot prove that the blessing was already incorporated into the Pentateuch in the early 6th century B.C.E. They also cannot prove the existence of a written Pentateuch in the pre-exilic period. Only a discovery of biblical scrolls or even a fragment of a biblical scroll could serve as such a proof. The plaques can prove only that the priestly blessing was already crystallized at that time and probably in current use.
None of this contradicts the Barkay et al article you quoted, Stephen. But it does remind us of the importance of reading all the words in a sentence and not missing out any that fail to support what we want the words to say.

Recall that word ALSO .... I don't need to provide a dictionary definition, or do I?
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 7:50 am The Masoretic Text, by definition, is later.

A question at hand is whether the silver amulet texts include "citation(s)" or "quotation(s)" from First Temple period texts.

As amulets sometimes do.
Correct. The MT is later. That's why that little word "ALSO" is so important. You should not skip little four letter words when you read articles.

The Barkay and Yardeni references clearly point to the probability of the amulet citation coming from an oral blessing that later found its way into the Hebrew Bible.

Any other interpretation is circular. You never did respond to my question whether you could admit to circularity at the heart of much of the traditional biblical studies. Nor did you respond with your explanation for the parallels in three texts RG points out. Nor did you respond to being reminded of what RG wrote about the amulets and Barkay in the book you claim to have read.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

I respect Barkay and the late Yardeni, though none of us are infallible.

As to claimed "circularity" and "probability of the amulet coming from an oral blessing that later found its way into the Hebrew Bible,"
I suppose that it did not "find its way" in c. 273-272 BCE.
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:52 am
As the verses on the plaques appear outside a biblical context they cannot prove that the blessing was already incorporated into the Pentateuch in the early 6th century B.C.E. They also cannot prove the existence of a written Pentateuch in the pre-exilic period. Only a discovery of biblical scrolls or even a fragment of a biblical scroll could serve as such a proof. The plaques can prove only that the priestly blessing was already crystallized at that time and probably in current use.
None of this contradicts the Barkay et al article you quoted, Stephen. But it does remind us of the importance of reading all the words in a sentence and not missing out any that fail to support what we want the words to say.

Recall that word ALSO .... I don't need to provide a dictionary definition, or do I?
This, of course, supports my point that unless the inscribed silver is explicitly claiming to quote from a longer text, it cannot be regarded as definitely a citation from the Bible.
Post Reply