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

[StephenGoranson]

Minor point,
I suppose it could be argued that it was mistaken of me not to add two more hyphens, to read:
"same-Gmirkin-hypothetically-bilingual-people."
Or, it can be more easily read (parsed) by deleting the three inner words.

People can publish almost anything they want. But being blind to counter-evidence does not help conduce to good history.
As some say: welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

[ABuddhist]

Please notice that my sentence quoted above--
"If translators of the Hebrew Bible first five books into Greek had difficulty understanding the Hebrew, then it is unlikely that they were the same Gmirkin-hypothetically-bilingual people who wrote the Hebrew."
--does not include the word "Septuagint."

Yet Russell E. Gmirkin posted (above) in reply to that:
"....So "Septuagint Translator" in this context refers to the whole Greek Bible, not the Pentateuch, as Stephen carelessly assumes....."

Wow.

Well, were you referring to another translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek? because in the context of this discussion, translators of the Septuagint and translators of the Hebrew Bible first five books into Greek can be assumed (by some) to refer to the same translators.

[ABuddhist]

People can publish almost anything they want. But being blind to counter-evidence does not help conduce to good history.
As some say: welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

With all due respect, the same can be said about how you have misrepresented other peoples' interpretations of the inscribed silver amulets (including by published scholars whose conclusions and reasoning, unlike Gmirkin's, you have not challenged).

[StephenGoranson]

This is a reply to the person (unfortunately? because Buddhism deserves better representation?) calling themself ABuddhist.
REG wrote that I do not know that Septuagint refers to books beyond Pentateuch. (Though not, some conclude, all by the same translators.)
If you wish to believe that claim, I guess I can't help you.

[ABuddhist]

This is a reply to the person (unfortunately? because Buddhism deserves better representation?) calling themself ABuddist.
REG wrote that I do not know that Septuagint refers to books beyond Pentateuch. (Though not, some conclude, all by the same translators).
If you wish to believe that claim, I guess I can't help you.

1. In what way do you think that I have been a poor representative of my religion here? I have refrained from accusing my interlocutors of being liars, trolls, insane, etc., and to the contrary have urged that posters be treated with respect and assumptions of good faith.

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.

John T is done with this thread.

Do not get me wrong. Some mythicists claim that early Christianity, with its mythical Christ, arose from mysticism - but even they distinguish, as far as I know, between the concepts of "myth" and "mystic" (and their respective -isms).

You're wasting your time on this one friend. This is common with him, making shit up and then making his exit.

Lane

I prefer to act as if people are honest - wherefore I seek citations for their claims.

A laudable position and one that I myself attempt to emulate, one that is lost on him I'm afraid.

4. Refused to avoid what I described as a barrage of insults not only towards Dr. Carrier but also towards people, such as myself, who merely discussed Dr. Carrier's ideas.

5. Admitted that he was being mean but explained his meanness as being motivated by lack of respect for mythicism.

I found this comment:

I do admit, I am being mean in my comments. I don't really even approach the "wrath" of Carrier on his endless blogs, but I am being mean. But, you shouldn't take it personally. Think of it this way: wouldn't you pull a few jokes and be dismissive if you were talking with a young earth creationist? Mythicism is in the same sort of category.

He's not completely wrong. Carrier can be very insulting and "mean" to others on his blogs, even to others not responding in kind.

He puts himself at higher risk of eventually being banned for not providing a positive contribution to the forum, but it's not an automatic ban.

Your responses have not been more than nitpicking, Peter. There is a full complaint most of which you've ignored. I read an awful thread where ABuddhist was civil throughout, while his interlocutor persistently did a TimONeill. This was not a person who was participating in any collegial sense. Disagreeing with ABuddhist didn't give Karavan licence to act like an anus. Give some credence to ABuddhist.

Merely saying that another person, through words, reveals emself to be ignorant about a topic, is not rudeness. Nor is debating opposing viewpoints in public places contrary to Buddhism. The 19th and 20th century Bhikkhu Dhammaloka (who had been born in Ireland before converting to Buddhism and going to Burma in order to ordain as a Theravada 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"; the Theravada Buddhist monk Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera and other Theravada Buddhists successfully debated against Christian missionaries in the Panadura debate against Christians in 1873; the Theravada Buddhist scripture "Milinda Panha" records a debate between the Buddhist monk Nāgasena and the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Pali: Milinda) of Bactria in which Nāgasena refutes Milinda's anti-Buddhist arguments and converts him to Buddhism; the Theravada Buddhist scripture Kathāvatthu records a series of debates between Theravada Buddhists and other Buddhists in which the Theravada Buddhists were successful in refuting their opponents' views.

2. I thank you for clarifying your position about where Gmirkin was allegedly wrong.

3. However, your clarified position, with all due respect, does not reveal Gmirkin to be ignorant. Rather, it reveals your willingness to read into Gmirkin's words whatever makes him seem to be less competent. Gmirkin's words, as you quote them, do not in any way reveal that he assumes that you do not know that the Septuagint refers to books beyond the Pentateuch. Rather, he is talking about your assumption, in attempting to refute his argument, that the Hebrew Bible's translation into Greek should be divided, according to your understanding of Gmirkin's theory, into at least 2 phases: translation of the Pentateuch into Greek and translation of the rest of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It was in this context that Gmirkin, in mentioning the Septuagint, emphasized that the Septuaguint extends beyond the Pentateuch - reminding you and other readers that his theory, contrary to your representation of it, involves the Septuagint as a unified translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek.

[ABuddhist]

If the previous post is too long to read through for readers, then I present an excerpt below, in which I defend Gmirkin.

"Gmirkin's words, as you quote them, do not in any way reveal that he assumes that you do not know that the Septuagint refers to books beyond the Pentateuch. Rather, he is talking about your assumption, in attempting to refute his argument, that the Hebrew Bible's translation into Greek should be divided, according to your understanding of Gmirkin's theory, into at least 2 phases: translation of the Pentateuch into Greek and translation of the rest of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It was in this context that Gmirkin, in mentioning the Septuagint, emphasized that the Septuaguint extends beyond the Pentateuch - reminding you and other readers that his theory, contrary to your representation of it, involves the Septuagint as a unified translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek."

[Russell Gmirkin]

Please notice that my sentence quoted above--
"If translators of the Hebrew Bible first five books into Greek had difficulty understanding the Hebrew, then it is unlikely that they were the same Gmirkin-hypothetically-bilingual people who wrote the Hebrew."
--does not include the word "Septuagint."

Yet Russell E. Gmirkin posted (above) in reply to that:
"....So "Septuagint Translator" in this context refers to the whole Greek Bible, not the Pentateuch, as Stephen carelessly assumes....."

Wow.

Stephen,
You have been asked more than once to provide a source for your claim that the Pentateuch translators had difficulty understanding the Hebrew. You purportedly have a PhD; you purportedly have worked as a university librarian; yet it doesn’t show, since yet you seem incapable of reading relevant academic sources or citing authorities. I can only assume by your reluctance in this instance that you have no academic source to cite, or that whatever your source is, it does not support your interpretation.

If it’s not something you picked up off the internet, I think it safe to provisionally assume/conclude it traces back to Tov’s seminal discussion and involves a misunderstanding of what was referred to as the Septuagint, probably on your part. I will gladly revise my conclusion if you would care to provide your source and if it provides examples of systematic difficulties by the Greek translators with the Hebrew. That would be news to me, and I always welcome valid new information and insights, even from trolls.

You should be aware of the apparently universal practice of translation, in which one person (oftentimes the author) reads the original while the scribe or secretary writes down the translation. That’s how it happened in the ancient world, according to contemporary research (see van der Lowe 2008). The Aramaisms and Egyptianisms in the LXX (Pentateuch) point to the amanuensis or scribe as likely of Egyptian Jewish heritage (Joosten 2010). So any conclusions regarding the language skills of the translator would apply primarily to the amanuensis, not the author / reader. My latest book on Plato’s Timaeus puts forward evidence that the use of Timaeus in both the Greek and underlying Hebrew of Genesis 1-3 suggests that the authors personally undertook to translate these critical chapters that had significant philosophical content. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch they likely used secretaries as was more usual. See my discussion in Gmirkin 2022: 88-89.

[StephenGoranson]

Russell Gmirkin wrote:
"You purportedly have a PhD; you purportedly have worked as a university librarian...."
Woah, let me first double check whether those purported matters are true.....

[ABuddhist]

You should be aware of the apparently universal practice of translation, in which one person (oftentimes the author) reads the original while the scribe or secretary writes down the translation. That’s how it happened in the ancient world, according to contemporary research (see van der Lowe 2008). The Aramaisms and Egyptianisms in the LXX (Pentateuch) point to the amanuensis or scribe as likely of Egyptian Jewish heritage (Joosten 2010). So any conclusions regarding the language skills of the translator would apply primarily to the amanuensis, not the author / reader.

With all due respect, would this process not make the secretary/scribe the translator, or should the reference to "one person (oftentimes the author) reads the original" refer to a translator/reader reading and translating a text while a scribe writes down only the translation?

That having been said, my own readings about translations (from Indian languages into Middle Chinese) in the book "Bodhisattvas Of The Forest And The Formation Of The Mahayana: A Study And Translation Of The Rastrapalapariprccha-sutra", by Daniel Boucher confirms that translation was a multifaceted process, with reader/oral translator and scribe often not co-ordinating their efforts as well as modern translators would regard as appropriate. In the Chinese context, the scribe may not have known the original language, and one famous translator into Chinese, Kumarajiva, was illiterate in Chinese!

As a personal note, in highschool, my disabilities meant that I dictated my translation from Latin texts to a scribe who knew no Latin - and I had to constantly correct her misinterpretations of my translations.

involves a misunderstanding of what was referred to as the Septuagint, probably on your part.

To clarify your theory. do you think that this involved a misinterpretation in which the Septuagint was assumed to be the Pentateuch, or another misunderstanding?

[StephenGoranson]

Russell Gmirkin trashed some scholars by guilt by association [with imo respectable schools]. Nevermind institutions with Worldwide Armstrong unfortunate events.
One of my questions--you need not answer to me, of course--is whether your Plato view was, in past, mediated by Phineas Quimby.