Plato and the Pentateuch

[StephenGoranson]

A saying (with variations) attributed (maybe truly, though I don't have absolute proof) to Linus Pauling (or maybe Thomas Edison) is, in any case:
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas and throw away the bad ones."

A couple questions:
To RE Gmirkin. You have written, and as recorded elsewhere, that your Father served in the Central Intelligence Agency. What I wonder, if you care to say, is whether knowing something of his work experience influenced your view of Plato and the Pentateuch.

To ABuddhist. If you care to say, what do you consider Buddhist teaching vis-a-vis anonymity and autism? (By the way, have you seen the fictional tv show, in French but with subtitles available, "Astrid," whose title character is excellent at solving puzzles?)

[ABuddhist]

To ABuddhist. If you care to say, what do you consider Buddhist teaching vis-a-vis anonymity and autism? (By the way, have you seen the fictional tv show, in French but with subtitles available, "Astrid," whose title character is excellent at solving puzzles?)

In this forum, I am not anonymous but pseudonymous. There is a difference. Thedre is a tradition of Buddhists, even those greater than I am - who are many, it must be admitted - using generic titles instead of their proper names. For example, the founder of Geluk Buddhism is commonly known as Tsongkhapa, litrerally meaning, "the man from Onion Valley".

If "Astrid" were fictional, then I could not watch it. Rather, Astrid is fictitious. There is a difference.

As for Buddhist teachings about autism, there is the book, "Autism and Buddhist Practice: How Buddhism Can Help Autistic Adults Cultivate Wellbeing", by Chris Jarrell.

Why are you asking these questions to me? I assume that you were not meaning to reveal your imprecise language, but were meaning to set up some ground for insult me, although I hope that I am wrong.

[Secret Alias]

I have a hard time believing that anyone would be so involved in this niaiserie unless they (a) were Russell Gmirkin (b) hated Jews (c) wanted to disprove the "Judeo-Christian" tradition or (d) liked filling their life with pointless distractions like a theory that doesn't have as much as a scrap of evidence IN FAVOR of its truthfulness (which is to be distinguished from "missing" evidence for the alternative). Just curious. Why are you sticking around in this discussion? Jewish literature has just as little evidence for pre-270 BCE books as those of Plato, Aristotle. Why the attachment to a theory that has no positive evidence in its favor?

[ABuddhist]

I have a hard time believing that anyone would be so involved in this niaiserie unless they (a) were Russell Gmirkin (b) hated Jews (c) wanted to disprove the "Judeo-Christian" tradition or (d) liked filling their life with pointless distractions like a theory that doesn't have as much as a scrap of evidence IN FAVOR of its truthfulness (which is to be distinguished from "missing" evidence for the alternative). Just curious. Why are you sticking around in this discussion? Jewish literature has just as little evidence for pre-270 BCE books as those of Plato, Aristotle. Why the attachment to a theory that has no positive evidence in its favor?

Why are you so paranoid about my motivations (and Gmirkin's motivations and honesty)? In general, it is better to address the arguments being made - and the evidence cited in order to support the arguments - rather than condemning the arguer's motives and honesty.

Speaking of evidence, why are you so certain that Gmirkin's theory has no evidence behind it? After all, you have refused to consider the evidence which Gmirkin and Neil have shown to you and have condemned the very practise of citing evidence in order to support an argument. Givedn these facts, one could compare you to a man who, having torn out his eyes and burned his eyes to ashes, complains that there is no light when facing into flames.

You assert that Jewish literature and Greek philosophical literature are equally poorly attested before 270 BCE, fixating upon the lack of physical manuscript, while ignoring the following rejoinder:

Why should anyone trust you about this claim, given that you have revealed both an ignorance of the evidence and a hostility to the practise of citing evidence in order to support a theory?

There is apparently a lack of evidence for the Hebrew Pentateuch before the Hellenistic period. What about copies of Plato? Why is the natural conclusion that Plato "lived" and the Pentateuch was derived from Plato? Your radical atheist friend similarly concludes Jesus didn't exist or the gospels are only from the 2nd century by the same means. Why isn't it fair to assume that both existed before the end of the Persian period? Why is the answer that the Jews invented the a pre-Hellenistic Torah? Why not that the Greeks invented Plato? Why is it always the people or person we want to "cancel" is cancelled? Why not at least pick lots or have some random method of determining who didn't exist?

The same with the existence of Hebrew texts. If not the Pentateuch then what? What were the pre-Hellenistic Hebrew texts? Or are we content to treat non-European people as "barbarous" illiterate? Thankfully no one of any note has adopted this Europe über alles theory.

Although I am no expert about Plato, I must say, from off hand, that we have multiple written sources from known people with known intentions and known dates whose testimony allows us to reconstruct what Plato wrote, when, where, and in response to which events. We have no similar sources about the Pentateuch - only legends from later centuries and scholars' reconstructions from later millenia.

PreHellenistic Hebrew texts have been found in archaeological excavations in Israel. But you seem to ignore such evidence when it does not support your theories.

I am, I must note, as opposed to Eurocentrism as you are. The Mozi, from China, is an underappreciated masterpiece from the 4th century BCE, to say nothing of the Buddhist scriptures, which claim to chronicle events from the 5th century BCE.

As for why I am involved in this discussion, it it not because I agree with Gmirkin about the Pentateuch, but rather because he has provided an interesting model - which may be true, although I doubt it - which you and StephenGoranson have utterly failed to rebut while Gmirkin provides interesting responses. StephenGoranson at least quotes evidence, albeit selectively quoted evidence dishonestly used - but you, with your refusal to engage with evidence and your condemnation of the practise of citing evidence, are even worse.

If I were not fearing to be stained in my reputatation by my common practices with you and StephenGoranson, I would be offering considerably more pointed criticisms of Gmirkin's ideas than the 1 which I have given.

[neilgodfrey]

If I were not fearing to be stained in my reputatation by my common practices with you and StephenGoranson, I would be offering considerably more pointed criticisms of Gmirkin's ideas than the 1 which I have given.

This indeed is the consequence, one might even suspect intention, of the likes of a proudly self-professed "dumb" "anti-intellectual" and a dishonest bigot, both of whom refuse point blank to actually read the works they are criticizing, -- to shut down discussion. They have not advanced the discussion for which this thread was initiated, not even by means of honest criticism. (I gave up trying to engage with SA when it became obvious he was either not even reading my responses to his queries or else incapable of basic comprehension of thoughts that were new to him.) Their every effort, from what I bothered to read, was to ridicule and insult and dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresent.

I posted some time back how this agenda -- misrepresentation and smear -- is designed to intimidate would-be interested students and peers from even reading, certainly not discussing openly, certain ideas. https://vridar.org/2010/10/27/the-tacti ... -p-lemche/

I have asked them to stop their ad hominem attacks, to no avail. I have asked them to avoid posting while they have no serious contribution to the discussion based on an honest reading of some aspect of it, again to no avail. They only want to troll in order to shut down discussion of ideas they do not like, including questions about their own assumptions that they cannot tolerate.

[Secret Alias]

So please answer the hitherto unanswered question. As someone who believes that Jesus didn't exist and the reports about him were all made up why is it "obvious" that with neither the Pentateuch nor the writings of Plato surviving before 270 BCE that the Jewish writings were dependent on Plato and not the other way around? I mean, you don't think the gospels testify to the historical existence of Jesus. Most of them come from the second century. But the writings of Plato date from the 3rd century CE. The fragments from Qumran near the 270 BCE "historical marker" Gmirkin set up. Why are you so sure that Plato's writings existed pre-270 BCE but not the Jewish writings? Again, what else but racism or a cultural prejudice against "barbarous people" that makes you so certain that the white people are better and more reliable witness than Semitic people? Why is it more reasonable to assume Jews borrowed from Platonic texts that only survive from the 3rd century CE than the Greeks jealous of the literature of barbarous people invented Plato? I don't get this "choice" when the Jewish writings that survive down to us are almost 500 years older than Plato.

Of course I think BOTH Plato and the Pentateuch were pre-270 BCE. But that's not the point. The business about no Jewish writings from pre-270 BCE is a red herring, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean i.e. proof of the non-existence of Judaism. But likeminded "haters" will ignore the historical context to glean from it "proof" that Judaism never existed. If that's the standard Plato never existed. The Republic never existed. Such bullshit.

[Secret Alias]

I think there are only 2 people supporting this Gmirkin case at this forum. ABuddhist isn't a third person to the Neil + Russell defensive wall for this theory. Just saying. Someone doesn't want to be recognized to be helping the cause.

[StephenGoranson]

The "pseudonymous" ABuddhist says he has "considerably more pointed criticisms of Gmirkin's ideas than the 1 which I have given," but will not tell them because of his (pseudonymous) "reputation."

(And NG makes ad hominems right before condemning ad hominems.)

[ABuddhist]

The "pseudonymous" ABuddhist says he has "considerably more pointed criticisms of Gmirkin's ideas than the 1 which I have given," but will not tell them because of his (pseudonymous) "reputation."

Reputations can be linked to pseudonyms, you know. Or is that an unfamiliar concept for you?

In general, here are the problems which I have with Gmirkin's model:

1. Why, if it was created suddenly and intended to be the basis for a national religion, was the Pentateuch containing contradictory accounts? Gmirkin claims that this reflects different schools of thought within the Jewish leadership vying to insert their ideas (if I understand the matter correctly), but if the leaders were so divergent in their attitudes and in their products, then how were they able to work together in the 1st place? With Buddhist scriptures, Hindu scriptures, and Christian scriptures, when texts teach contradictory doctrines, the scholarly conclusion, when not blinkered by faith, is that they were written by rival or divergent sect not in co-operation with each other.

2. The flat Earth content in the Pentateuch, which is not only limited to a dome but includes the idea of a cosmic ocean beyond/above the dome.

3. Gmirkin's claim that the Prophets were almost entirely Hellenistic forgeries seems to me to be too bold. I do not doubt that some portions may be that - particularly the oracle about Gog and Magog, which suits a post-exilic time, at the earliest - but in general, I think that they are useful reflection of pre-Hellenistic Judaean YHWH worship - albeit perhaps edited in order to be more monotheistic in later centuries - in which YHWH's power is used to explain and critique Judaean and Israelite problems.

I have little doubt that Gmirkin has evidence supporting his claims, and I am very willing to accept the idea that the so-called Deuteronomistic history was inspired by Herodotus - who, after all, wrote his History in part because of his devotion to Apollo, if I understand correctly - and I welcome his feedback if he will give it.

[neilgodfrey]

1. Why, if it was created suddenly and intended to be the basis for a national religion, was the Pentateuch containing contradictory accounts? Gmirkin claims that this reflects different schools of thought within the Jewish leadership vying to insert their ideas (if I understand the matter correctly), but if the leaders were so divergent in their attitudes and in their products, then how were they able to work together in the 1st place?

I am also interested in hearing Russell Gmirkin's responses.

I have my own thoughts and I cannot now recall what particular details of them are directly attributable to what I read in RG's books and articles and what from other sources. Fwiw, I understand there to be three different types of "contradictions" or inconsistencies in the Pentateuch.

a) those that leave undecided or unclear whether associations with the Judean cult or those with the Samaritan cult have priority. The vagueness of where "God will place his name" has a natural narrative rationale (Israel has entered or taken possession of any of the cities at the moment of the narrative setting) but is also arguably a compromise to accommodate both Gerizim and Jerusalem cults. Subsequently Samaritans could interpret that place as Gerizim and Judeans as Jerusalem. That there were harmonious relations between Samaritan and Judean Yahweh cults prior to the Hasmonean era is recognized by others specialist scholars, too -- not just Gmirkin. The vagueness of the narrative on this point is seen as evidence for a cooperative relationship.

b) the most difficult contradiction in my view is the displacement of the "polytheist tolerant" Genesis and the jealous Yahweh of Exodus. That division, though, is not (as far as I am aware) necessarily aligned between Judeans and Samaritans. That division seems to me to be between scribes who were more embedded in Hellenistic thought and those who were more interested in re-shaping Hellenism to serve a sense of independence and new identity superior to that of their overlords. (RG very likely has a very different view, I am sure.)

c) the various textual contradictions that appear to reflect editorial changes by copyists well after the originals.

2. The flat Earth content in the Pentateuch, which is not only limited to a dome but includes the idea of a cosmic ocean beyond/above the dome.

I take it RG's response earlier was not adequate? viewtopic.php?p=151105#p151105

3. Gmirkin's claim that the Prophets were almost entirely Hellenistic forgeries seems to me to be too bold. I do not doubt that some portions may be that - particularly the oracle about Gog and Magog, which suits a post-exilic time, at the earliest - but in general, I think that they are useful reflection of pre-Hellenistic Judaean YHWH worship - albeit perhaps edited in order to be more monotheistic in later centuries - in which YHWH's power is used to explain and critique Judaean and Israelite problems.

Certainly the prophets are attacking the practices of the Yahweh cult as it had long existed for generations throughout much of Syria, Canaan, Transjordan... But would not they only be attacking those practices if they lived in a time when they thought those practices were no longer valid. That is, are they not attempting to write material useful for teaching the general worshipers to forsake their old ways and embrace the new? -- of course all the while arguing that the "new" was really the "old".