Plato and the Pentateuch

[Secret Alias]

And also remember there is a difference between the 10 commandments which was given by God to all Israelites and the Pentateuch which a pseudepigraphon. To most Israelites whether "Samaritan" or "Jew" the 10 commandments were binding. Not sure originally how seriously the Pentateuch was taken. The closest that most of them got was probably the tax demand which in the gospel at least demonstrates was contested. If you weren't Levitic how close could anyone get to holiness? So what was required of the rest of the population? Money. But how far could a priestly class with no weapons, no "muscle" go to enforce these laws go to demand adherence to their rules? The Persians like supported the Samaritans and their claims. The Greeks had to decide what was the right course of action. When the Judaeans achieved political independence everything changed. The original dynamic gave way to a new reality where effectively priests were no longer dependent on foreign governments to be their muscle as it were. It's unclear what came before Jewish independence only that everything changed.

[Secret Alias]

That Judaism can exist with out the Pentateuch look at the Sabbatians, the Frankists, Donmeh the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nmeh, the Christians, Marcionites etc. What is Jesus teaching other than being an Israelite without the Pentateuch?

[ABuddhist]

And even under Gmirkin's model the Samaritans had a role in the development of the Pentateuch. You're original comments seemed to express surprise at this despite almost all the locales of Genesis being located in or related to Gerizim ... and no mention of Jerusalem. How is this squared with the supposed "Jewish" origin of the Pentateuch? Is it possible to imagine a "Jewish" document which not only doesn't place Jerusalem at the epicenter of the universe BUT DOESN'T REFERENCE IT AT ALL? It's so silly. Like a proud to be American song that doesn't invoke the flag, soldiers, an eagle, "freedom" or a "they" trying to take all that away from the individual singing the song and other cliches in some way. It's not a Jewish document.

But, see, claiming that the Pentateuch was not a Jewish document originally is an extreme claim compared to mainstream scholarship - arguably even more exttreme than Gmirkin's claim. Gmirkin, after all, has had his model published by scholarly publishers and he actively interacts with both mainstream scholars and with their evidence and their publications. You, in contrast, have repeatedly indicated your unwillingness to read what scholars have said - even asking in all seriousness whether Gmirkin had read Plato - and you have consistently ignored evidence about the history of Judaea which contradicts both the biblical account and yor model.

[StephenGoranson]

It is a useful question (above, SA, Monday).
To rephrase: How many Hebrew copies of the Torah existed before someone, or some group, somewhere, decided to translate it into Greek for the first time? (And was that then the whole current five-book Torah, or a portion of it?)

In my view, there were numerous Hebrew copies, and not all of them were identical. In the REG view there was only one Hebrew copy, the one first made, in, of all places, Alexandria, Egypt, not a center of Hebrew learning, then or now. Though there was at some time started a taboo about writing one Hebrew name, there was no taboo about writing Torah. To declare that no Hebrew copy existed before 273--how convenient for the REG scenario, and how blatantly improbable!

Then, in the REG assertion, the same folks who created the Hebrew copy in Alexandria also came up with the Greek translation. How convenient for the REG scenario. And how evidence-free (despite oddly both actually using and yet simultaneously rejecting the Aristeas Letter; as if.) Then--though the Library of Alexandria may not be known for the, say, Alan Lomax type of collecting of folk songs in the 20th century for the Library of Congress--this REG-imagined project resulted in the putative loss of that particular Hebrew text type, but the "Alexandria Library" Greek version more or less survived. How "convenient."

The above scenario is already a dead letter, apart from with REG and a few pals. Ask the Hebrew Torah scholar that you most respect. The claim has been published and plainly known amongst relevant academics since at least 2006, and who has agreed?

In addition to saying so, to avoid some pursuing of a dead end, REG clearly has the talent to present good research, if he can allow himself to move on from this.

We all make mistakes. To take one of my examples: years ago,I thought I had solved the origin of the phrase "the whole nine yards." I was wrong, as earlier attestations, found by another, proved. Then, even a second time, I thought I solved it with a different, earlier situation proposal. Yet again, I was mistaken, as better research by someone else proved. How embarrassing. But I hope I learned some things about research, and moved on to other questions. (For example, co-authoring a book, Origin of Kibosh.)

To repeat, REG surely has the ability to present good research, if he can let this one go. Of course, he's free to insist and to invest even more time in this model. And I'm not betting a suggestion from me would amount to a turning point.
That's up to him.

[ABuddhist]

The above scenario is already a dead letter, apart from with REG and a few pals. Ask the Hebrew Torah scholar that you most respect. The claim has been published and plainly known amongst relevant academics since at least 2006, and who has agreed?

In addition to saying so, to avoid some pursuing of a dead end, REG clearly has the talent to present good research, if he can allow himself to move on from this.

We all make mistakes. To take one of my examples: years ago,I thought I had solved the origin of the phrase "the whole nine yards." I was wrong, as earlier attestations, found by another, proved. Then, even a second time, I thought I solved it with a different, earlier situation proposal. Yet again, I was mistaken, as better research by someone else proved. How embarrassing. But I hope I learned some things about research, and moved on to other questions. (For example, co-authoring a book, Origin of Kibosh.)

To repeat, REG surely has the ability to present good research, if he can let this one go. Of course, he's free to insist and to invest even more time in this model. And I'm not betting a suggestion from me would amount to a turning point.
That's up to him.

If Gmirkin's model be truly such a dead letter, then why has Routledge, a respectable and academic publisher, been willing to publish not only his original proposal but also sequels in which he further builds upon his model?

I also note that although you are willing to concede that you have made mistakes, you fail to mention any of the mistakes which you have made in dealing with Gmirkin's claims and character - presumably because you realize that such admissions would undermine your condemning Gmirkin's model of its authority.

[StephenGoranson]

Actually, ABuddhist, the REG 2006 Berossus book was not published by Routledge. I am somewhat familiar with Routledge, since they published my co-authored Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology. Instead, the Berossus book was published by T. and T. Clark. If you, ABuddhist, don't get your facts straight, are you a fine representative of Buddhism? Why hide behind Buddhism?
That fact that a book is published does not--consider?--ensure that its thesis is reliable. Examples are not far to seek.
To try to return to more relevant matters, for example: The Library of Alexandria surely collected books, mostly on papyrus. But is there evidence that they created anthropological field studies to create books in non-Greek languages?

[ABuddhist]

Actually, ABuddhist, the REG 2006 Berossus book was not published by Routledge. I am somewhat familiar with Routledge, since they published my co-authored Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology. Instead, the Berossus book was published by T. and T. Clark. If you, ABuddhist, don't get your facts straight, are you a fine representative of Buddhism? Why hide behind Buddhism?
That fact that a book is published does not--consider?--ensure that its thesis is reliable. Examples are not far to seek.

I have never claimed upon this forum to be unable to be mistaken - to the contrary, I have politely thanked people for their corrections and have described myself as an interested amateur. Indeed, I thank you for your correction.

In contrastg, you have never, as far as I know, ever thanked anyone for pointing out any errors which you have made, even when your errors were far more serious than misattributing a publisher but were, among other errors, selectively quoting Gmirkin's views about silver amulets in order to make him seem to be a lone crank when in fact his opinion was more complicated and was supported by other scholars whom you have not condemned.

Why does my making an error in a topic unrelated to Buddhism undermine my ability to represent Buddhism upon this forum? Do you think that your own errors upon this forum make you a poor representative of all people named Stephen? Or named Goranson?

And why do you accuse me of hiding behind Buddhism? I am a Buddhist. Do you think that all people within this forum should reveal their real names? Because that has never been this forum's policy.

That haing been said, if you really want me to share with you my real name, then I would gladly negotiate terms with you for that.

In any case, my broader point, even with your correction, has not been answered by you.

If Gmirkin's model is so implausible, then why has Routledge, a respectable and academic publisher, been willing to publish sequels to Gmikin's proposal in which he further builds upon his model?

[StephenGoranson]

So, ABuddhist, you do claim "to represent Buddhism on this forum."
Given the Buddhist teachers that I have met and taken meditation practice guidance from, though I am not fully a Buddhist, in my of course fallible opinion, you may not, at least in some posts here, well represent Buddhism.

I, on the other hand, do not claim to represent all Stephens!!

The arguable pros and cons of Routledge, besides being not on topic, are not well documented here.

Again and again, you, ABuddhist, did not address my more relevant writing:

"To try to return to more relevant matters, for example: The Library of Alexandria surely collected books, mostly on papyrus. But is there evidence that they created anthropological field studies to create books in non-Greek languages?"

Have you or anyone (REG?) such evidence?

[ABuddhist]

So, ABuddhist, you do claim "to represent Buddhism on this forum."
Given the Buddhist teachers that I have met and taken meditation practice guidance from, though I am not fully a Buddhist, in my of course fallible opinion, you may not, at least in some posts here, well represent Buddhism.

I, on the other hand, do not claim to represent all Stephens!!

In what way do you think that I do not well represent Buddhism well within this forum? I am patient, polite, kind, willing to help and to assume the best of people whom I interact with, humble, and tolerant - as I have shown to you by quoting others' opinions of my writings within this forum. I fit within a long Buddhist tradition of studying, engaging with, and debating other religious and philosophical traditions.

The arguable pros and cons of Routledge, besides being not on topic, are not well documented here.

Why are such matters not on topic here? You are dismissing Gmirkin's model as worthless, but Routledge's willingness to publish portions of his model is evidence against yourr assertion. Furthermore, given the considerable documentation which people, including you, have provided in this forum, why do you not provide such documentation?

Again and again, you, ABuddhist, did not address my more relevant writing:

"To try to return to more relevant matters, for example: The Library of Alexandria surely collected books, mostly on papyrus. But is there evidence that they created anthropological field studies to create books in non-Greek languages?"

Have you or anyone (REG?) such evidence?

You have repeatedly ignored relevant writings from other people. You have ignored the evidence that you have misrepresented Gmirkin's model. You have side-stepped and dismissed issues which others have corrected you about, such as whether Routledge's publication is giving legtimacy to Gmirkin, whether your translation error from the Pentateuch was significant, whether I am as terrible a person as you claim me to be, whether Gmirkin has ever admitted to being wrong, or whether a Buddhist can legitimately dismiss other Buddhist traditions as incorrect while remaining a Buddhist.

Accordingly, if I were to have evidence about the issue which youy, incorrectly, are now insisting is the only issue worth focussing upon, I imagine that you would side-step or dismiss such evidence. But I, in my honest politeness, say that I lack expertise to answer such a specialized question - although I hope that other people may have better answers to that question in order to answer your question.

[StephenGoranson]

I have other sources on Buddhism.
I note that you assert that you are humble. Got it.
I agree that book publication is a step beyond a post on this forum; yes. (Beyond the beyond?) Of their process in the relevant case, I lack much information. I can cite bogus publications in peer-reviewed publications, but who is listening?
The question I last raised I did not raise as the only issue.
I never thanked for correction--really?
Yes, REG did admit correction, but not on the main issue of this thread.
As for what you claim I mistranslated from Torah, I am not sure to what you refer, and, though such is indeed possible, I do not rely, yet, on your "humble" assertion.
I did not say you are a "terrible" person; we all have our challenges.