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: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Amulets may not typically include (anachronistic) chapter and verse citations.
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 10:40 am Amulets may not typically include (anachronistic) chapter and verse citations.
I am not asking for such references, nor have I ever. Rather, I am talking about references within the amulet's text to the alleged fact that it was a copy of a written text.

To put it in perspective, amulets inscribed with the Heart Sutra (a short Buddhist scripture) may explicitly identify their inscription as being a written Buddhist scripture when they use the character 經 jīng, which specifically identifies the text as a Buddhist Sutra (that is, a written text).
Last edited by ABuddhist on Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:15 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 8:24 am I respect Barkay and the late Yardeni, . . .
Clearly Russell Gmirkin has greater respect for their work than you do given that he read it in its entirety and discussed their key findings while you misrepresented their views on the basis of a misreading of part of an abstract and a failure to read their articles in full.
StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:24 am. . . though none of us are infallible.
I'm still waiting for your response to my very similar comment to your earlier reference to the "great learned work" of Menahem Stern.
StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:24 am 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.
You should actually read the books you think you can know from blurbs and hostile skimming.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:22 pm
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.
In its present form, i.e. including Deuteronomy, the Pentateuch is hostile to multiple temples. On the traditional form of the documentary hypothesis, earlier forms of the material that became the Pentateuch probably disagreed with the Deuteronomist position. However on Gmirkin's position, there is IIUC little room for a pre-Deuteronomist proto-Pentateuch.

Andrew Criddle
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: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:13 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:22 pm
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.
In its present form, i.e. including Deuteronomy, the Pentateuch is hostile to multiple temples. On the traditional form of the documentary hypothesis, earlier forms of the material that became the Pentateuch probably disagreed with the Deuteronomist position.
Don't forget the temple at Elephantine. All sorts of questions are raised by a new hypothesis that claims to introduce newly observed data in the wake of a new methodological approach, justified in part on the grounds that the older approach is circular (Davies, Lemche).

We can let our long held beliefs dictate what new approaches "must be wrong" and therefore should be ignored -- despite the fact that a significant number of highly respected scholars are favourable to those new ideas. Or we can be a little bit adventurous and see if there are new things to learn.

As for the Samaritans and Deuteronomy (my previous comment was deliberately narrowed to Genesis, because after Genesis there is a shift in ideology and Deuteronomy is a prime example of that shift) we can see what other ideas are out there re Samaritans and the "one place" of Deuteronomy 12, etc .... e.g. one of these would be Christophe Nihan's chapter in The Pentateuch as Torah.

Or we can continue to point to reasons Gmirkin must be wrong because he evidently hasn't thought of certain basic views that are well entrenched on the old models and presume that none of his scholarly backers or his peer reviewers are any the wiser, either. Or wait till someone here points to another page or appendix in such a such a title where Gmirkin does address the next point raised against him, and so on and so on.

Or we can take a daring plunge and read what Gmirkin has written and then make informed criticisms that will open up a meaningful exchange among people with different ideas who have in common the fact that they have read the same core text under discussion.

I don't understand commenters here (not just you, andrew) who pop out all sorts of questions and objections to a work they haven't read. If I think a thesis is bananas I think I owe it to anyone within hearing/reading range to actually read it before I start objecting to it.

Gmirkin's books are available online, as I am sure we are aware.
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:13 am However on Gmirkin's position, there is IIUC little room for a pre-Deuteronomist proto-Pentateuch.
I don't know what you are implying or what your understanding is. Where does the problem for a "proto-Pentateuch" arise in Gmirkin's thesis?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

In this case I agree with Andrew.
Plus, it is presumptious to presume what another has read or not.
Of course there are advances in textual scholarship. The c.273-272 hypothesis may not be one of those.
Yes, imo, there are influences in TaNaK, from Egypt, from Persia, etcetera.
I discussed Elephantine in my amazon RG review.
It is possible for an individual to be sometimes right (e,g,, Hyrcanus II was not the Teacher of Righteousness) and sometimes wrong (e.g. claim that "the War Scroll was the official manual of the Maccabean forces" [google-able]).
I have made mistakes.
Has RG ever owned to such?
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: Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:53 am Has RG ever owned to such?
As a matter of fact, Gmirkin has admitted to having made a mistake and has modified his theories accordingly - which is appropriate scholarly practise. See https://vridar.org/2022/05/17/the-7-kin ... 17-part-4/ , where he wrote in the comments at 2022-05-19 06:51:43 GMT: "Interesting. I stand corrected. Major parts of Rome were burned in the final battle against Vitellius. I drilled down into the sources (Seutonius, Cassius Dio, Vitellius). Cassius Dio was especially eloquent regarding the luxuries imported by merchants into Rome under Vitellius (as also Seutonius), and the blaze of Rome rising like a beacon, resonating with Rev. 18." This was in response to a comment telling him that "there was fierce fighting in Rome by Vitellius’s supporters against Vespasian’s supporters when Vespasian arrived in Rome, and portions of the city were destroyed".
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: Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:53 am Plus, it is presumptious to presume what another has read or not.
It is indeed presumptious to presume by the simple logic of tautology. But it is not a presumption to conclude that one has not read a work when their comments regularly bring up objections to the work as if they are not addressed at all in the work. One inevitably concludes, not presumes, that such a critic has not bothered to read the work they are criticizing, or at least that they merely skimmed it with hostile intent and failed to notice much of its content that in fact addressed those criticisms.

Nor is it presumptious to conclude that someone has not read a work when they raise questions that are answered in the work and admit to not understanding what the work's argument is from what they have gleaned from forum discussions.

When SG points to silver amulets and Menahem Stern and Gabriel Barkay et al as refuting Gmirkin as if Gmirkin never heard of any of those finds or works, and is certainly unaware of RG's responses to and discussions of them and especially that RG understood their works far more than SG ever did, then it is a reasonable conclusion (not presumption) that SG has never read, or has long forgotten, or merely skimmed here and there with hostile intent, the works of RG.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:53 amI have made mistakes.
Has RG ever owned to such?
I have seen no acknowledgement of mistakes on your part -- only deflection and shifting goal posts tinged with implied accusations. The closest I have seen you come to admitting a mistake is when you joined yourself with Barkay and Yardeni to say none of you were infallible!

It is presumptious to have to ask if anyone has ever admitted to making a mistake since such a question presumes that they may possibly be so arrogant as to never admit making a mistake.

I really wish you could try to be less disagreeable when you disagree, SG.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

I will now select just one of the misrepresentations that neil godfrey accused me of:

"When SG points to silver amulets and Menahem Stern and Gabriel Barkay et al as refuting Gmirkin as if Gmirkin never heard of any of those finds or works...."

In fact, I explicitly cited (named and linked) an available talk in which RG explicitly discusses silver amulets. (Amulets which happen to have text also found in Numbers and Deuteronomy.) So that is a false accusation. Not the first.

I have tried to make clear that I am not persuaded by RG's claim (p. 1) that "...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria...."

I disagree with that claim because:

a) the arguments (for that claim) by RG in his Berossus book and elsewhere I find unconvincing
and
b) my reading and education more broadly leads me to the view that the Hebrew Torah was composed over centuries before the RG scenario in which a hypothetical group was hypothetically present in a hypothetical place for a hypothetical purpose at a hypothetical time.

Am I allowed to communicate my view here, or does neil godfrey prefer that such views be banned by bullying?
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: Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:11 am I will now select just one of the misrepresentations that neil godfrey accused me of:

"When SG points to silver amulets and Menahem Stern and Gabriel Barkay et al as refuting Gmirkin as if Gmirkin never heard of any of those finds or works...."

In fact, I explicitly cited (named and linked) an available talk in which RG explicitly discusses silver amulets. (Amulets which happen to have text also found in Numbers and Deuteronomy.) So that is a false accusation. Not the first.
Oh dear ... no no no no, SG. If you go back and read what I wrote you will see that I was referring to RG's discussion of those silver amulets IN HIS BOOK!!! --- your misrepresentation of what he said in the video was a clear indication that you were quite unaware of what RG's full presentation of his views on the silver amulets were. You were ridiculing RG for saying that written evidence was not written in the one breath -- as if he was a total idiot and blinded from all logic by his "bias". I pointed out that if you took into account what he said preceding that line then it was obvious what he meant -- but more, if you had really read the book you say you have you should have known RG was not at all so stupid or ignorant as you wanted to present him.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:11 am
I have tried to make clear that I am not persuaded by RG's claim (p. 1) that "...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria...."

I disagree with that claim because:

a) the arguments (for that claim) by RG in his Berossus book and elsewhere I find unconvincing
and
b) my reading and education more broadly leads me to the view that the Hebrew Torah was composed over centuries before the RG scenario in which a hypothetical group was hypothetically present in a hypothetical place for a hypothetical purpose at a hypothetical time.

You have most certainly made it clear that you do not agree with such and such and are not persuaded by so and so, etc. But my, my, my, SG, to say you disagree with X because you find X is "unconvincing" is not a reasoned review or engagement with the argument. It is merely an expression of a feeling, a subjective opinion. It informs us of nothing.

As for (b), yes, again, all you are saying is that you have another point of view -- the mainstream one. That's fine, but unless you actually give us a clear engagement with the argument against that view, then you are telling us nothing more than what you believe. That is not a particularly informative or engaging intellectual debate.

Another rejoinder you sometimes use is to simply assert that such and such authority says X. But again, appealing to authorities is not a useful or enlightening discussion.

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:11 amAm I allowed to communicate my view here, or does neil godfrey prefer that such views be banned by bullying?
Oh don't be so silly. Shake off your "poor-me victimhood" complex. You are the one who is insulting and bullying, talking of others as if they are idiots if you are not "convinced" by their views. So much so, that you evidently read your own hostile tone into the words of others. But really, we're not all like you SG. (Example: my plea to Andrew to read the books was not an accusation as you seemed to imply, but was a plea, a begging that he do so.)

And I'm trying to plead with you to be less insulting and to engage with the actual arguments rationally and in an evidence-based way. We're not all idiots or ignorant just because we have different conclusions from the ones you have arrived at. But if you want a serious discussion then let's try rational persuasion and refrain from implying others are idiots.
Post Reply