the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:02 am The reason I bring up the Samaritans so much is that they challenge ALL our inherited notions.
For instance. The Samaritans use(d) the Pentateuch and Joshua but a different Joshua.
How did that take place? It would suggest that 'the canon' unfolded at a very early period.
A Tetrateuch
Then a Pentateuch
And then at some period later a Hexateuch essentially.
But was there division regarding the canonicity of Joshua?
Does Philo even cite from Joshua?
The Samaritans currently don't think Joshua is 'canonical.' It's a book they accept but it's not holy scripture.
Some Samaritans in Alexandria MUST HAVE thought it was scripture.
The Samaritan Chronicler also seems to know Judges.
With every wrinkle there had to be a historical 'wrinkle' a pocket as it were of a new orthodoxy and a period of time that these debates developed.
Hi “Secret”. I do like your bringing in the Samaritans, although I get the impression that you haven’t read my research on the creation of the Torah in ca. 273-272 BCE, in which the Samaritans play a major role. In my model (not “hypothesis”), the books of Genesis-Joshua (and possibly Judges) were the joint creation of a delegation of Jewish and Samaritan educated elites at Alexandria, with the Samaritans playing the major role, and a relatively slight contribution by the Jews. The books of Genesis-Deuteronomy were immediately translated into Greek, but not Joshua, since the Ptolemies were mainly interested in the Mosaic foundation story and legislation. The rest of the Hebrew Bible was subsequently created by the Jews with a pro-Jerusalem, anti-Samaritan bias, and was naturally rejected by the Samaritans.

The Samaritan Joshua as preserved in the Samaritan Chronicle is “secondary and very late” according to Ruairidh Boid’s 2004 “The Transmission of the Samaritan Joshua-Judges.” For sound reasons, he assigns it to either the second century CE or more likely ca. 400 CE, in the time of the great Baba Rabbah. Given its late date, I don’t think there’s much that is useful there regarding an early/original Samaritan version of Joshua (which I suspect was pretty close to the MT/LXX).
Last edited by Russell Gmirkin on Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

A hypothesis is defined as “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

This is the exact opposite of the date and provenance of the Torah at Alexandria in ca. 272-273 BCE as discussed in my 2006 Berossus and Genesis (and later books). According to the rigorous methodology I utilized, I began with the _removal_ of the then-common supposition that the Torah was written in the Persian Era or earlier. With this traditional but misguided assumption set aside, I was able to show that the first objective external evidence for the existence of the Torah was the LXX translation of 273-269 BCE. I then demonstrated that the Torah utilized Hecataeus of Abdera (320-315 BCE), Manetho (ca. 285 BCE), Berossus (278 BCE), and others, finally narrowing down the possible date of composition to 273-272 BCE. Additional arguments pointed directly to a provenance of Alexandria, where the authors found these various sources in the Great Library. And finally to the surprising inference that the same team of authors at Alexandria ca. 273-272 BCE were necessarily also responsible for overseeing tis immediate translation into Greek, the LXX, which took place at Alexandria for the Great Library at that very same time.

This historical context thus was not a hypothesis, but quite the opposite, a conclusion that stood at the end, not the starting point, of this extensive body of research.

"The c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis" thus fundamentally mis-characterizes my research. I think “model” would be a more accurate term.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by StephenGoranson »

Of course the c. 273-272 Alexandria proposal is a hypothesis--such arrogance!
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:42 pm Of course the c. 273-272 Alexandria proposal is a hypothesis--such arrogance!
No, it isn’t.

In a logical formulation, “If A then B” one calls A the hypothesis and B the conclusion.

You never call B the hypothesis. That is an abuse of logic and an abuse of the English language.

If you want to call it "the c. 273-272 Alexandria proposal" rather than model (my suggestion), that seems quite acceptable. But hypothesis is inaccurate and misleading.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by StephenGoranson »

Russell, your post above is less scholarship than sales pitch.
You claim to have demonstrated X because you verified to your satisfaction that you demonstrated X.
Others--including most scholars of Hebrew Bible of whom I am aware--do not agree with your arrogant self-assessment.
What you may find "acceptable" is of vanishingly small importance compared to what is determined by learned scholars.
According to my understanding and the Oxford English Dictionary you have presented a hypothesis.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

the books of Genesis-Joshua (and possibly Judges) were the joint creation of a delegation of Jewish and Samaritan educated elites at Alexandria, with the Samaritans playing the major role, and a relatively slight contribution by the Jews
1. Leaving aside the ability of Samaritans and Jews to collaborate in that period (a great unknown to say the least) the Hebrew is different. For me Genesis to Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and then Judges. I've been arguing with mountainman so long about a silly idea he has about the New Testament being created in toto in the fourth century I find it difficult to accept any "monolithic" canonical creation.

I subscribe to a Tetreteuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch expansion even though I see anticipation of Joshua's role at the end of Numbers. Not exactly sure how the expansion unfolded but it was centered around Gerizim.

2. Josephus's tells us a Samaritan-Jewish hostility was established almost at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Whether or not that's true I don't see how a group of Samaritans and Jews invented a Gerizim focused texts and then had Jews in Judea accept them in a period where bad relations existed between the communities in Israel proper.

My sense will be that the texts existed before Alexander and then brought into Egypt. I admit it's hard to get precise details about how it all unfolded. When do you think Jerusalem became a rival to Gerizim? Am I to understand correctly that you think a Gerizim centered "canon" was created in the third century BCE and the application of this canon to Jerusalem rather than Gerizim occurred in the second century BCE?
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 2:41 pm Russell, your post above is less scholarship than sales pitch.
You claim to have demonstrated X because you verified to your satisfaction that you demonstrated X.
Others--including most scholars of Hebrew Bible of whom I am aware--do not agree with your arrogant self-assessment.
What you may find "acceptable" is of vanishingly small importance compared to what is determined by learned scholars.
According to my understanding and the Oxford English Dictionary you have presented a hypothesis.
Stephen, my point, which you predictably miss, is that there is a difference between a hypothesis (which starts a line of argumentation) and a conclusion (which ends a line of argumentation). A tentative conclusion or a conclusion under discussion can be called a proposal or model, whatever. But it’s a different animal than a hypothesis. Everyone in academia knows this terminological difference. You evidently don’t. Oh, well.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by MrMacSon »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:42 pm Of course the c. 273-272 Alexandria proposal is a hypothesis--such arrogance!
Russell Gmirkin wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 2:23 pm
No, it isn’t.

In a logical formulation, “If A then B” one calls A the hypothesis and B the conclusion.

You never call B the hypothesis. That is an abuse of logic and an abuse of the English language.

If you want to call it "the c. 273-272 Alexandria proposal" rather than model (my suggestion), that seems quite acceptable. But hypothesis is inaccurate and misleading.

I don't think 'hypothesis', 'proposal' or 'model' would be appropriate any more.

'Creation of the Torah in ca. 273-272 BCE' or thereabouts might well be better described as a cogent argument or an induced conclusion.

And not just based on Russell's studies ie. other scholars have wondered or even argued similar or the same eg. Thomas L Thompson, Giovanni Garbini, Philippe Wajdenbaum, Gerhard Larsson, Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spano, and probably others
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 4:29 pm
the books of Genesis-Joshua (and possibly Judges) were the joint creation of a delegation of Jewish and Samaritan educated elites at Alexandria, with the Samaritans playing the major role, and a relatively slight contribution by the Jews
Josephus's tells us a Samaritan-Jewish hostility was established almost at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Whether or not that's true I don't see how a group of Samaritans and Jews invented a Gerizim focused texts and then had Jews in Judea accept them in a period where bad relations existed between the communities in Israel proper... When do you think Jerusalem became a rival to Gerizim?...
(1) Based on the evidence of the Elephantine Papyri, there was routine, uncontroversial polytheism and multiple temples of Yah(weh) as of ca. 400 BCE, approaching the end of the Persian Era. There were temples in both Gerizim and Jerusalem (and Elephantine and Edom), but apparently no rivalry at that time.

(2) The account about Alexander in Josephus you refer to is fictional and is of no value in dating the Jewish-Samaritan schism. (Evidence seems to point to this story originating ca. 100 BCE by Pseudo-Hecataeus.)

(3) Twelve-tribe national organizations were common among the Greeks but unknown in the Ancient Near East. The notion of the twelve tribes of Israel thus dates to the Hellenistic Era, when knowledge of Greek institutions became known in the east. It follows that Jews and Samaritans were still on good terms in the early Hellenistic Era, when they wrote the Pentateuch as a shared foundational text and created a myth in which they were both part of an ancient fictional 12-tribe people of Israel.

(4) For various reasons I put this event in ca. 270 BCE. I think this fragile partnership between Jews and Samaritans fell apart almost immediately. Subsequent portions of both the Primary History of Genesis-Kings and the rest of the Hebrew Bible as a whole written after 270 BCE elevate Jerusalem and are strongly anti-Samaritan.

Sorry, that’s all I have time for.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 2:41 pm
According to . . . the Oxford English Dictionary you have presented a hypothesis.
umm, nooo.....
hypothesis.png
hypothesis.png (75.24 KiB) Viewed 682 times
Russell Gmirkin has been found out -- he was the one who was quoting the Oxford English Dictionary definition! Tricky fella.
Post Reply