Plato and the Pentateuch

[StephenGoranson]

a) Several people are named Michael Lockwood. The one born in 1933 is the one mentioned above, I think.
Who accepts his claim about Alexandria?

b) According to Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Brāhmī,, writing system ancestral to all Indian scripts except Kharoṣṭhī. Of Aramaic derivation or inspiration, it can be traced to the 8th or 7th century BC, when it may have been introduced to Indian merchants by people of Semitic origin."

[Secret Alias]

ABuddhist. Let me ask you. Which characterizes your acceptance of this theory? Do you think that Gmirkin (a) might be on to something or (b) that he has proved that the Pentateuch was established at Alexandria c. 270 BCE?

[ABuddhist]

So in my lifetime not a single authority is going to be moved over to a theory that has no actual evidence in support of it.

Why should I trust your claim that his theorey has no evidence supporting it when you have:

1: refused to consider the archaeological evidence in favour of his theory and against your theory;

2: revealed that you have so little understanding of his claims and arguments that you asked him whether he had read Plato before publishing his theory and revealed your complete ignorance of the fact thatr Gmirkin is part of a long line of scholars dating back centuries who have noted the similarities between Plato and the Pentateuch;

3: revealed that you conflate the existence of a temple to YHWH in Judea with the existence of Judaism?

[ABuddhist]

ABuddhist. Let me ask you. Which characterizes your acceptance of this theory? Do you think that Gmirkin (a) might be on to something or (b) that he has proved that the Pentateuch was established at Alexandria c. 270 BCE?

In all honesty, I am not certain what to think about Gmirkin's theory, although I am inclined against it because of the flat Earth issue. But the poor quality of the rebuttals to Gmirkin's claims provided by you and StephenGoranson, in contrast to Gmirkin's well-cited and polite responses, are convincing me more that his model may be true.

[ABuddhist]

But given this is the humanities and nothing matters yes you can keep pointing to this or that "bit of evidence" (which isn't "evidence" per se but just a log which keeps the theory afloat).

Wait. Are you actually condemning the practise of citing evidence in order to support a theory?

[StephenGoranson]

In other words:
a) Besides maybe Gmirkin, and maybe DM Murdock/Acharya S, who accepts M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria?

b) Brahmi script pre-dated the Library of Alexandria, so it was not invented there. See Peter T Daniels books if you don't trust my previous reference.

[ABuddhist]

a) Besides maybe Gmirkin, and maybe DM Murdock/Acharya S, who accepts M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria?

b) Brahmi script pre-dated the Library of Alexandria, so it was not invented there. See Peter T Daniels books if you don't trust my previous reference.

I was not saying that I agreed with Lockwood's proposal, but that it was interesting. That can be said about other theories also, regardless of whether they are true.

With regard to your claims about Brahmi script, the following source disagrees with you:

"Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages" (Oxford University Press, Dec 10, 1998), by Richard Salomon, on p 17: "... the Brahmi script appeared in the third century BCE as a fully developed pan-Indian national script (sometimes used as a second script even within the proper territory of Kharosthi in the north-west) and continued to play this role throughout history, becoming the parent of all of the modern Indic scripts both within India and beyond. Thus, with the exceptions of the Indus script in the protohistoric period, of Kharosthi in the northwest in the ancient period, and of the Perso–Arabic and European scripts in the medieval and modern periods, respectively, the history of writing in India is virtually synonymous with the history of the Brahmi script and its derivatives."

Furthermore,

As of 2018, Harry Falk refined his view by affirming that Brahmi was developed from scratch in a rational way at the time of Ashoka, by consciously combining the advantages of the pre-existing Greek script and northern Kharosthi script. Greek-style letter types were selected for their "broad, upright and symmetrical form", and writing from left to right was also adopted for its convenience. On the other hand, the Kharosthi treatment of vowels was retained, with its inherent vowel "a", derived from Aramaic, and stroke additions to represent other vowel signs. In addition, a new system of combining consonants vertically to represent complex sounds was also developed. See Falk, Harry (2018). "The Creation and Spread of Scripts in Ancient India". Literacy in Ancient Everyday Life: 43–66 (online 57–58). doi:10.1515/9783110594065-004. ISBN 9783110594065. S2CID 134470331. Archived from the original on 2021-12-10. Retrieved 2020-01-04.

So such a claim is not chronologically incompatible with an Alexandrian origin.

[Russell Gmirkin]

In other words:
a) Besides maybe Gmirkin, and maybe DM Murdock/Acharya S, who accepts M. Lockwood's proposal about Alexandria?

b) Brahmi script pre-dated the Library of Alexandria, so it was not invented there. See Peter T Daniels books if you don't trust my previous reference.

Professor Michael Lockwood has argued in several books and many articles that the delegation of Buddhists who traveled to Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (and other Greek centers of learning) in a diplomatic mission documented in a well-known stele from the time of Ashoka the Great (ca. 268-232 BCE) invented the Brahmi script (which has clear affinities to Greek) in order to record in writing certain previously oral works on Buddhist religious teachings to be added to the Great Library. (Lockwood had already developed these theories several years before encountering my research, by the way).

(1) On what basis do you claim that I accept Michael Lockwood's thesis? I am merely reporting it. I am familiar with it, but that does not mean the same thing. Another classic instance of SG failure to accurately grasp plain English.

(2) The visit to Alexandria, reported in the stele of Ashoka, is completely uncontroversial. Lockwood, who appears to have a firm grasp of the primary evidence as well as secondary literature, argues that the Brahmi script is of later date than has been proposed in the past. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I cannot evaluate whether his arguments are correct, but they appear competent. See also ABuddhist's informed comments.

[StephenGoranson]

"However, a new body of material has recently come to light that seems to support the older theory that Brahmi existed before Mauryan times, that is, in the fourth century B.C. or even earlier."
Page 12, Richard Salomon, Indian Epigraphy, a Guide..., Oxford University Press, 1998.

[Russell Gmirkin]

"However, a new body of material has recently come to light that seems to support the older theory that Brahmi existed before Mauryan times, that is, in the fourth century B.C. or even earlier."
Page 12, Richard Salomon, Indian Epigraphy, a Guide..., Oxford University Press, 1998.

Why is it I wonder that you omit Salomon's remarks in the same paragraph that the inscribed potsherds may be intrusive to that strata and may actually belong to a later period?