Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:18 am
i am uncertain what Plato intended. (There is an interesting discussion of the deep tension within the Laws in this article by Diamond). However, the influences of Plato on later writers and politicians suggested by Morrow have no resemblance to the scenario suggested by Gmirkin. It is clearly possible to interpret the Laws in this way, (you and Gmirkin have done so), but I doubt if it was taken in this way in the Ancient world.

Andrew Criddle

It is an interesting article and thanks for linking us to it. I see the tragic end of the point being made is the one that Russell Gmirkin identifies in the authors of the Pentateuch, iiuc.

The examples Morrow gives of Plato's influence are those in the practical realm of political affairs. The Pentateuch is nothing like that of course but is a literary rationale for a set of laws. I don't see Gmirkin's association of the Pentateuch with Laws to be primarily a question of philosophical interpretation of Plato's views of human nature and society, etc (as discussed in Diamond), but more directly in specific, concrete items set forth in the Laws:

The fact of a Prologue to God's laws in the Pentateuch being compared with Plato's unique introduction of a Prologue to the legislation of the "optimal" state. That's one point that surely deserves some notice and discussion.

We have covered some of the types of laws found in both Plato and the Pentateuch so without repeating those conclusions, I think a significant summary can be made by noting that both Plato and the Pentateuch place honour of God and honour of parents in pride of place in the optimal constitution. Admittedly in the Decalogue the command to honour parents is not listed second beside the command to obey one god, but it does head the second tablet of the Decalogue. That, too, is surely worthy of some notice and discussion as to what we might best make of the comparison with Plato's advice.

And of course, we have Plato requiring in the third option of the optimal city the belief that the laws come from God and a ban on anyone speaking out against them, and the intense, ever-present exposure to the laws through daily customs and celebratory supports.

Now if there is no hard evidence that such a document as the Pentateuch was known prior to the Hellenistic era, then it is reasonable to raise the above question-discussion topics in the context of Hellenism.

Morrow cites practical instances of Plato's influence in specific laws, constitutional points of persons appointed from Plato's school, cultural awareness, but our knowledge of the political and administrative situation in Samaria and Judea is of course limited.

But that a document, the Pentateuch, exists that has salient features that echo specific directives in Laws appears at the same time period as we find practical signs of Plato's influence, must be of some note. If we acknowledge the strong similarity between the above 3 major points in Plato and the Pentateuch, then surely it is reasonable to infer that this is another example of an attempt to apply ideas from Plato.

That other states did not, as far as we know, produce just this kind of response to Laws would reasonably be explained by the fact that those other states were well-established with existing traditions. Plato's influence had to be piecemeal, partial at best, usually with qualifications.

But in Samaria and Judea, certainly Samaria, a new start: the city of Samaria was destroyed and turned into a Macedonian camp, the priests of Yhwh were given a new status from Mount Gerizim -- one can imagine a set of conditions more conducive to imagining and playing with the idea of a new constitution from the ground up.

Here endeth my 2 bits for now.

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:18 am There is an interesting discussion of the deep tension within the Laws in this article by Diamond.

Andrew Criddle

Diamond’s analysis is deeply flawed by his projection of modern notions of individualism into Plato’s philosophy. Diamond correctly portrays the First City as one of totalitarian, autocratic theocracy on the model of Sparta—which Plato portrays as the ideal! The Second City he incorrectly portrays as one in which the rulers “educate” the citizenry in the meaning and benefits of the laws and they willingly comply out of rational “understanding”. The (hypothetical) Third City Diamond portrays as a (for him, disappointing) form of totalitarian government in which only the divine rulers of the Nocturnal Council understand the laws and the citizens under this theocratic rule have no rational or philosophical understanding but are obedient anyway, kind of an unfortunate (for Diamond) regression back to the totalitarian Spartan model.

Diamond’s portrayal of the Second City in Laws is inaccurate, and the Third City illusory, because in the Second City it is clear that the rulers are not “educating” the citizenry but “persuading” or indoctrinating them; in multiple instances Diamond rephrases or paraphrases Plato to replace Plato’s language of persuasion with that of education. Persuasion or indoctrination is here a sophisticated tool of totalitarianism. There is a system of universal education, yes, but its central aim is clearly that of persuasion, so that the citizens would not comply with the law merely out of brutal militaristic force, as in Sparta, which might not always work, but would be mentally programmed to obey like tame sheep through lifelong, cradle- (actually, fetus-)to-grave indoctrination. Likewise the aim is not rational “understanding” but persuasion or propagandization; the aim is not rational knowledge (episteme), but correct beliefs and opinions. This is especially brought out in the instances where the persuasive introductions to the laws involved myths, especially myths about rewards and punishments in the afterlife, which Plato acknowledged to be false but which he advocated as useful in creating compliance in the superstitious masses. There was never an intention to disseminate actual rational philosophical knowledge to the masses, as Diamond idealistically suggests; only such limited indoctrination (partly rational, partly appealing to myth) as would encourage compliance.

Philosophical education in Laws was restricted to a few elite citizens who showed intellectual promise as truly rational, who were admitted as junior members of the Nocturnal Council. The institution of the Nocturnal Council was where knowledge would reside among the educated ruling class philosophical and theological elites. They were to indoctrinate the masses and direct their beliefs for the benefit of the State.

There are less tensions in Plato’s Laws than Diamond suggests. Indoctrination is not the same as education, compliance as the result of propaganda and persuasion is not the same as understanding. The Second City was not as noble as Diamond portrayed. Diamond was correct that Plato equated theocracy with autocracy. He was the straight-up philosopher of totalitarianism that Popper described. He admired Sparta’s police state, but believed that a supplemental program of life-long propaganda for the purpose of social engineering was an improvement. I think most philosophy students are too benevolent or naïve or modernistic to comprehend this.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:46 pm

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:20 amThe laws of the Pentateuch are not justified by 'Natural Law' type philosophical reasoning, as in the case of later Stoic-influenced legal writings, where Plato's Laws may indeed be an influence. The Pentateuch justifies its laws by appeals to the commands of God and the history of God's dealing with his people. We would have to suppose a group who wished to both base their society on the ideals/ideology of Plato's Laws, while at the same time concealing what they were doing. I find this implausible. YMMV.

Andrew Criddle

But that is exactly what Plato recommended in the Laws. He wrote that a prologue should stress the divine origin of the laws. The people were to believe that the laws were from God. -- The philosophers know that the laws are "from nature" but they most certainly don't present the laws that way to the citizens:

For assuming that you have reasonably good laws, one of the best of them will be the law forbidding any young men to enquire which of them are right or wrong; but with one mouth and one voice they must all agree that the laws are all good, for they came from God; and any one who says the contrary is not to be listened to.

I'll give this passage in context

Ath. I will not at present determine whether he who censures the Cretan
or Lacedaemonian polities is right or wrong. But I believe that I
can tell better than either of you what the many say about them. For
assuming that you have reasonably good laws, one of the best of them
will be the law forbidding any young men to enquire which of them
are right or wrong; but with one mouth and one voice they must all
agree that the laws are all good, for they came from God; and any
one who says the contrary is not to be listened to. But an old man
who remarks any defect in your laws may communicate his observation
to a ruler or to an equal in years when no young man is present.

Cle. Exactly so, Stranger; and like a diviner, although not there
at the time, you seem to me quite to have hit the meaning of the legislator,
and to say what is most true.

Ath. As there are no young men present, and the legislator has given
old men free licence, there will be no impropriety in our discussing
these very matters now that we are alone.

At face value this is about expressing approval of the existing Spartan/Cretan laws. I'm unclear how far it is part of the agenda for the imaginary new colony.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:46 pm Plato spoke of two types of laws and it is significant that both are found in the Pentateuch and one of which, as far as I am aware, is found nowhere else.

1. the edict, the blanket command. Don't kill. Or else....

2. Honour your parents so you can have a good long life!

What law code contains an example of #2 outside the Bible?

Plato, by the way, said that the two most important laws that should come top of the table are: honour God and honour parents. -- which "coincidentally" head the two parts of the Decalogue. These 10 Commandments are narrated as part of the Prologue to the body of laws that follow, exactly in the position Plato said they should be (as part of the prologue to the laws).

There are many examples of that hortatory law in the Pentateuch -- "be holy for I am holy...", "do not hate your brother in your heart ....", "help your enemy with his ox...", and "do not hate the stranger because you were once strangers...."

That's all spelled out in Plato's Laws -- along with the direct: "If someone steals he shall repay four-fold..."

But then Plato noted that he was introducing something unique, something no-one had ever done with their law codes: add a preface that was designed to persuade people to obey the laws, to persuade them that the laws were "from heaven" and the best thing since creation and that they promised to make them all happy, etc.

That was an innovation. The Pentateuch's presentation of the law is also an innovation of the exact same kind that corresponded to Plato's recommendations.

So Plato enjoined three things that all happen to be central to the Pentateuch:

• Laws that are exhortations to good conduct, with promises or encouraging words to obey (along with other "normal" laws).
• The top priority to the laws of honouring God and honouring Parents.
• A prologue appealing to God and ancestors to persuade people to want to obey the laws.

An actual example of a suggested prologue to persuade people to comply with the law is this passage on marriage (The expanded or double law.)

Ath. Then let me first give the law of marriage in a simple form;
it may run as follows:-A man shall marry between the ages of thirty
and thirty-five, or, if he does not, he shall pay such and such a
fine, or shall suffer the loss of such and such privileges. This would
be the simple law about marriage. The double law would run thus:-A
man shall marry between the ages of thirty and thirty-five, considering
that in a manner the human race naturally partakes of immortality,
which every man is by nature inclined to desire to the utmost; for
the desire of every man that he may become famous, and not lie in
the grave without a name, is only the love of continuance. Now mankind
are coeval with all time, and are ever following, and will ever follow,
the course of time; and so they are immortal, because they leave children's
children behind them, and partake of immortality in the unity of generation.
And for a man voluntarily to deprive himself of this gift, as he deliberately
does who will not have a wife or children, is impiety. He who obeys
the law shall be free, and shall pay no fine; but he who is disobedient,
and does not marry, when he has arrived at the age of thirty-five,
shall pay a yearly fine of a certain amount, in order that he may
not imagine his celibacy to bring ease and profit to him; and he shall
not share in the honours which the young men in the state give to
the aged. Comparing now the two forms of the law, you will be able
to arrive at a judgment about any other laws-whether they should be
double in length even when shortest, because they have to persuade
as well as threaten, or whether they shall only threaten and be of
half the length.

IMO it is exhorts obedience in a very different way than the Pentateuch.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:42 am IMO it is exhorts obedience in a very different way than the Pentateuch.

Andrew Criddle

Before I take the time to reply more fully with references to specific passages in Laws, one questions that comes to mind with such a reply is this:

Where does this leave the prologue to the laws in the Pentateuch? How is that to be explained given its uniqueness against any other legislation prior to the Hellenistic era in the region influencing Judea-Samaria?

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:42 am An actual example of a suggested prologue to persuade people to comply with the law is this passage on marriage (The expanded or double law.)

Ath. Then let me first give the law of marriage in a simple form;
it may run as follows:-A man shall marry between the ages of thirty
and thirty-five, or, if he does not, he shall pay such and such a
fine, or shall suffer the loss of such and such privileges. This would
be the simple law about marriage. The double law would run thus:-A
man shall marry between the ages of thirty and thirty-five, considering
that in a manner the human race naturally partakes of immortality,
which every man is by nature inclined to desire to the utmost; for
the desire of every man that he may become famous, and not lie in
the grave without a name, is only the love of continuance. Now mankind
are coeval with all time, and are ever following, and will ever follow,
the course of time; and so they are immortal, because they leave children's
children behind them, and partake of immortality in the unity of generation.
And for a man voluntarily to deprive himself of this gift, as he deliberately
does who will not have a wife or children, is impiety. He who obeys
the law shall be free, and shall pay no fine; but he who is disobedient,
and does not marry, when he has arrived at the age of thirty-five,
shall pay a yearly fine of a certain amount, in order that he may
not imagine his celibacy to bring ease and profit to him; and he shall
not share in the honours which the young men in the state give to
the aged. Comparing now the two forms of the law, you will be able
to arrive at a judgment about any other laws-whether they should be
double in length even when shortest, because they have to persuade
as well as threaten, or whether they shall only threaten and be of
half the length.

IMO it is exhorts obedience in a very different way than the Pentateuch.

Andrew Criddle

Yes and no. The argument I am supporting is not that the Pentateuch is an adaptation of Plato's Laws. It is that the ideas Plato sets forth are found modelled in the Pentateuch. The society the Pentateuch is aimed at is quite different from your traditional Greek polis in the Mediterranean.

As we said before, the Pentateuch is not an attempt to persuade belief in and obedience to Plato's idea of "natural law".

The final explanation of the principle being applied in your quoted section is the salient point:

they have to persuade as well as threaten

And that's what the Pentateuch does with laws it is declaring are from the god Yahweh. Recall Plato spoke of the need to respect local gods and that the citizens must believe that the gods are the authors of the laws.

The second command is a classic instance of a law couched in threat and persuasion:

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Is that law closer to what Plato recommended than to anything found in the "Near East"?

Book 5 of the Laws is a prologue to the whole body of laws (not just to an individual law) and is a philosophical discussion. Horses for courses -- the Pentateuch was not a document for any of Plato's interlocutors in his Laws. It was a prologue designed to instil the fear and love of a godfather into his family.

The irony here from what I can see is that scholars believe no-one followed Plato with respect to writing laws with prologues:

The preambles are a fascinating contribution to legal and political theory, despite the point that Plato found no followers in this area.28

28 Seneca, in letter 94.38, tells us that Posidonius found the Laws absurd in this regard, holding that a law should be brief and memorable, and that the essence of law is to command, not to teach. Seneca disagrees, but neither he nor anyone else took the Laws as a model.

• Annas, Julia. “Virtue and Law in Plato.” In Plato’s “Laws”: A Critical Guide, edited by Christopher Bobonich. Cambridge Critical Guides. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 75

Gmirkin would disagree.

How are these different things?

The argument I am supporting is not that the Pentateuch is an adaptation of Plato's Laws. It is that the ideas Plato sets forth are found modelled in the Pentateuch.

The Pentateuch is an adaption of Plato's Laws.

The Pentateuch modelled ideas set forth in Plato.

This is such a waste of time. You dance around parsing words that mean the same thing. Just to exhaust your opponent into submission. Surely a "model" is an "adaptation" of an idea. In what sense modeling something after an idea NOT an adaptation. Blah blah blah.

Hmmm. I go to synonym.com and what I do I find as a standard dictionary listing synonyms of "adapt." Lo and behold. "model." Get laid once and a while. On and on and on and fucking on.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/adapt

I am not saying I walked to the store. I am saying I strolled to the store.

I didn't say my dog is sick. My dog is ill.

Deleted .....

This comment broke my rule to ignore SA. Deleted to avoid further punishment.

I remember when we had this discussion about whether tohu and bohu really went back to Tiamat and Behemoth. I remember you completely dismissed the possibility that someone somewhere could have made the connection whether or not it was strictly influential on the creation of the Pentateuch. How come these ideas that don't "turn you on" get dismissed out of hand while ideas that give you a hard on are somehow things you would waste page after page arguing on behalf of. This is what I don't get. Once there is no God we live in a world of randomness. Maybe Gmirkin is right. Maybe tohu and bohu are in Genesis. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. But what is the fucking basis to this constant crusade for what amount to stupid or ideas at least as stupid as the ideas you don't like?

There is no scholarly consensus regarding the non-existence of Jesus, the Pentateuch being written in some ridiculous time period which helps the deprecation of our religious heritage's contemporary social value. So ultimately you just decide to latch on to these particular ideas because it allows your otherwise worthless and random life (all of our lives would be equally worthless and random in a Godless universe so I am not being particular about your life). But I don't get how these issues get ultimately "solved" in any way. Does it all go back to getting "enough scholars" to one day agree with Gmirkin or the non-existence of Jesus? Are these your hope above all hopes, the jihad you strive for? That the humanities get so debased that we lower the standards of probability and likelihood and just "elect people" who share our point of view our willingness to debase the traditions of the past and "agree" that something stupid and implausible like the creation of the Pentateuch in the Hellenistic period becomes fashionable? And then what? A decade later this theory becomes the tohu and bohu of the early 21st century? Again, this is your hope of all hopes? This is the ideal that you wage your atheist crusade for? That the wheel of fortune lands on whatever theory you happen to embrace in the twilight of your life?

Unless there is some archaeological discovery in Egypt which shows the "notes" of the creators of the Pentateuch "borrowing" directly from Plato there is never going to be any real proof for this idea and plenty to go against it. Wishing for the collapse of the humanities into subjectivity is hardly a thing that anyone should hope for. It's like the beggar wishing for the collapse of Western civilization just to make sure everyone is as wretched as he/she is. There you go. Another analogy.

And please don't take my posts as demonstrating any animosity toward you personally Neil. You're obviously a smart guy. You read a lot. I might not like the way you argue for an equally stupid idea that I might like. Doesn't mean I don't like you or want you dead or anything. I just hate my job. I find it dreadfully boring and arguing is a way for me to get through the day. Making money is so banal.