Plato and the Pentateuch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:47 pm 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.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:09 pm
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.

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:09 pm2. 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
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:09 pm 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".
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:23 pm ... 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?
  • That’s an illogical nonsequitur. A conflation of two disparate concepts

    The rest of your post is also ranting nonsense.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:47 pm
(And NG makes ad hominems right before condemning ad hominems.)
Oi! That's an ad hominem comment you are making, Stephen!! ;)
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

Galileo made empirical observations.
That is different than a model based on proposed literary parallels.

In the introduction to The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science (U. Chicago, 2022), the editor, Bojana Mladenovic, wrote (page xx):
"The reception of _Structure_ was not what Kuhn was hoping for. In his view, both his critics and would-be followers seriously misunderstood his book." [then note 30]

In later writings, after trying several explanations of his use of "paradigm" only within the history of science, Kuhn even tried out replacement words. Page 277-278 [though the index is mistaken in giving page 279] note 29.
Last edited by StephenGoranson on Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

1. no manuscripts of the Pentateuch before 270 BCE, manuscripts as recent as possibly 25 years or so of 270 BCE
2. no manuscripts of Plato before 270 BCE, manuscripts as recent as 500 years of 270 BCE (I think Julius Africanus had falsified manuscripts found to 222 CE)

Why does it follow, given the arguments against Jesus's existence based on similar arguments, that the Jews stole from Plato? The so-called "mythicists" should at least be open to the idea of Socrates, Plato not being historical figures. It isn't even considered. At the very least "missing" Jewish manuscripts aren't as "telling" as we've been told. There aren't a lot of important manuscripts from before the Hellenistic period.

As I have said before this theory bandied about in this forum is a more sophisticated mountainman hypothesis with a lot of inuendo and very little evidence in its favor. The smoking gun of a lack of manuscript evidence is hardly worth mentioning as the "source" of Judaism suffers from a similar situation too.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by Secret Alias »

I think people at the forum spend a lot of time alone. Here's what I see as the problem.

1. Plato almost certainly had an existence before 270 BCE
2. Platonic writings almost certainly existed before 270 BCE

but also

3. the Pentateuch almost certainly existed before 270 BCE
4. Judaism as the sacrificial/counting of sabbatical years/priestly religion almost certainly existed before 270 BCE

The idea of saying "there are no copies of the Pentateuch from before 270 BCE" as a reason to doubt (3) and (4) only works because scholars of early Judaism aren't so petty to say "they same thing applies to Plato and (1) and (2)." I am that petty.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:43 am Galileo made empirical observations.
That is different than a model based on proposed literary parallels.
Literary parallels are real and empirically discerned, verifiable by observation.

The challenges are to know how best to describe those observations, including the functions of the observed parallels, and then proposing and then testing hypotheses to explain them.

That does not mean all parallels point to borrowing. Borrowing, direct and indirect influences -- these are far from the only possible hypotheses for what we observe, even in parallels found between cultures that have had no known historical links with one another.

If one is going to refute a hypothesis for a specific set of parallels then one needs to know what the datasets consist of first of all. That can only be discovered by reading the relevant works.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by StephenGoranson »

I have read much of RE Gmirkin's publications and online writing. Even if I were to read every single word, REG has already declared, here on Feb. 13, 2023, a fallback position: that I have an "...inability to recognize or follow an argument."
From that point of view, apparently, many others have such inability, too.
Again, if someone does not accept REG's c.273-272 model, does that necessarily mean that they did not understand it?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Plato and the Pentateuch

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:11 am I have read much of RE Gmirkin's publications and online writing. Even if I were to read every single word, REG has already declared, here on Feb. 13, 2023, a fallback position: that I have an "...inability to recognize or follow an argument."
From that point of view, apparently, many others have such inability, too.
You are wrong. You, rather than many other people addressing Gmirkin's argument, have repeatedly revealed through your words here 4 major flaws in your comprehension skills which in turn reveal your inability to recognize or follow an argument.

1. You have misrepresented views, as presented by Gmirkin and others, in order to make your views seem stronger and their views seem weaker and easier to refute. You did this with, among other things, whether the inscribed silver amulets count as representing a non-written tradition, whether having the inscribed silver amulets indicate in their texts that they came from a written text would require the amults to include chapter and verse numbers.

2. You have repeatedly descended to ad hominem insinuations against people here, including Gmirkin, whom you are trying to smear through association with Armstrongism and the CIA, rather than honestly addressing Gmirkin's arguments. This includes me, whom you have condemned for using the screenname ABuddhist even though many people within this forum use pseudonyms even less relevant to their identities. Or is the user Ulan really Kandive the Golden's nephew, for example?

3. You have at times attempted to refute Gmirkin's argument through appeal to subjective consequences - namely, the allegation, which I disagree with, that Gmirkin's argument, if true, would trivialize Hebrew culture - rather than honestlyu addressing Gmirkin's argument.

4. Most damaging to your ability to follow Gmirkin's argument, you have made claims related to Gmirkin's arguments which are false and which less charitable people ay accuse of being lies. You have falsely alleged that Gmirkin was endorsing Lockwood's model about Brahmi's orgins when Gmirkin's words about Lockwood - all of which were written within this website as far as I am aware - merely mentioned Lockwood's model. You also claimed that there was no controversy about Brahmi's originating from pre-Hellenistic times - even after I provided citations revealing at minimum that such issues are unsettled. Inbdeed, you selectively quoted a passage from one of the sources which I quoted from in order to suggest that Brahmi is still regarded as pre-Hellenistic in invention.

Only if you provide proof that many or all of the other people who disagree with Gmirkin engage in similar flaws will you be able to justify asserting that to disagree with Gmirkin is to be unable to follow or recognize an argument.

Lest anyone think that these words are revealing me to be not a Buddhist, there is a Buddhist tradition of harshly denouncing and refuting false positions advocated by non-Buddhists. Livia Kohn's "Laughing at the Dao", a collection of Buddhist anti-Daoist polemics from China, is an excellent exxample of such rhetoric in written form.
Post Reply