Plato and the Pentateuch

[neilgodfrey]

SG is at it again, is he -- suppressing what he has read and only quoting the half that favours his tendentious claims? We know he has read Berossus and Genesis by Gmirkin so we know he has read the several reasons not only Gmirkin but other scholars have advanced for why the silver amulets testify to a common oral formula and are not from a written source such as the Pentateuch. SG assures us he has read all of that so he knows but won't tell!

[StephenGoranson]

I did not claim that the full exact Masoretic Text of the Torah was written before the 270s but that portions of the now-known Torah were written before then.
Writing on silver is writing.
Writing on a wall is writing.
Writing on c14 date-ranged surfaces is writing.
imo

[StephenGoranson]

For example, was the Shema oral before it was written? I don't dispute that. But, if I understand correctly, the issue in this thread is whether such portions of the Torah were written before the 270s. I say yes. Some others belittle that.

[neilgodfrey]

For example, was the Shema oral before it was written? I don't dispute that. But, if I understand correctly, the issue in this thread is whether such portions of the Torah were written before the 270s. I say yes. Some others belittle that.

No, the issue with this thread is the question of the influence of Plato on the Pentateuch. Check the OP and title again.

But as for "belittling" the notion that the Pentateuch contains phrases, terms, blessings, names, deities that were part of both the oral and written culture of the regions of Samaria and Judea/Jehud before the Pentateuch was written, I don't know anyone who denies such an idea. Do you?

[StephenGoranson]

I am among those who think that portions of the Torah were written before the 270s.
A claim that the Torah was "composed in its entirety" circa 273-272 in Alexandria is a different view.

[StephenGoranson]

The entity posting as ABuddhist wrote above:
"...Because Neil, Mr. Gmirkin, and I have all told you how those amulets prove nothing about when the Torah was written."

Are you actually not aware that you three claiming X does not necessarily make it so?

And why the fake, egotistic (?), name, while asserting the "correct," and disputing other views of, Buddhism?

[ABuddhist]

The entity posting as ABuddhist wrote above:
"...Because Neil, Mr. Gmirkin, and I have all told you how those amulets prove nothing about when the Torah was written."

Are you actually not aware that you three claiming X does not necessarily make it so?

And why the fake, egotistic (?), name, while asserting the "correct," and disputing other views of, Buddhism?

1. I am certainly aware that merely claiming that something is true does not make that thing true. If it were otherwise, we would all be Christians because Christians claim that their religion is obviously true. That having been said, the converse is also true: claiming that something is not-x also does not make it so. So, why do you not address the arguments which we raised about why the amulets do not prove when the Torah was written? For my part, I remember with amusement when I pointed out that the amulets do not claim to quote a written text, you mistakenly claimed that I was seeking chapter and verse sumbers, and I responded by citing actual inscribed Buddhist amulets cointaining written texts which are identified as coming from written Buddhist texts.

2. On what ground do you assert that my name is fake? Are you, like John T, alleging that I am not a Buddhist? Because I am a Buddhist so my user name is not inaccurate. It is not as accurate as it could be, but I know for a fact that other people share my name, so even if I were to share my real name here, that would not guarantee that you could identify me. But I choose to use this name because it is accurate and relevant to this forum, where so many people are either athiests or Christians. Besides, I am not alone in the practise of using a pseudonym here.

3. On what ground do you assert that my name is egotistic? I am not calling myself TheBuddhist, InfallibleBuddhist, etc., but only ABuddhist - because I am that.

4. Your implied claim that real Buddhists do not assert the correct and refute other views about Buddhism reveals again that you are ignorant about Buddhist practises throughout history. Vasubandhu wrote many refutations of beliefs held by Buddhists and by non-Buddhists, and Xuanzhang, whom I have mentioned several times upon this forum, was involved in polemical writing defending Mahayana Buddhism from claims by other Buddhists that its scriptures were mostly later forgeries. Furthermore, the Lotus Sutra, a key text within Mahayana Buddhism, claims that Buddhists who do not respect it are following an erroneous form of Buddhism.

[Russell Gmirkin]

The entity posting as ABuddhist wrote above:
"...Because Neil, Mr. Gmirkin, and I have all told you how those amulets prove nothing about when the Torah was written."

Are you actually not aware that you three claiming X does not necessarily make it so?

And why the fake, egotistic (?), name, while asserting the "correct," and disputing other views of, Buddhism?

To be accurate, I quoted Gabriel Barkay (who discovered and published the amulets) and the epigrapher Ada Yardeni's statements that the priestly oral formula recorded on the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom was not indicative of when the Torah was written. See Gmirkin 2006: 27-28. So it's not my claim, but that of the foremost experts on the subject.

Barkay's a nice guy, met him at Jerusalem in the old City of David; I recall him pointing out the neighborhood in Silwah across the Kidron valley where he made the discovery. He's a solid archaeologist and meticulous scholar who doesn't sensationalize or exaggerate the significance of his discoveries like some others do.

[ABuddhist]

The entity posting as ABuddhist wrote above:
"...Because Neil, Mr. Gmirkin, and I have all told you how those amulets prove nothing about when the Torah was written."

Are you actually not aware that you three claiming X does not necessarily make it so?

And why the fake, egotistic (?), name, while asserting the "correct," and disputing other views of, Buddhism?

To be accurate, I quoted Gabriel Barkay (who discovered and published the amulets) and the epigrapher Ada Yardeni's statements that the priestly oral formula recorded on the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom was not indicative of when the Torah was written. See Gmirkin 2006: 27-28. So it's not my claim, but that of the foremost experts on the subject.

Barkay's a nice guy, met him at Jerusalem in the old City of David; I recall him pointing out the neighborhood in Silwah across the Kidron valley where he made the discovery. He's a solid archaeologist and meticulous scholar who doesn't sensationalize or exaggerate the significance of his discoveries like some others do.

I apologize for not citing your sources. I had no idea that StephenGoranson would treat this matter as being about our naked assertions when it was not - we all provided support for our claims about the amulets' insignificance in dating the Torah - of which yours were the best cited.

[Russell Gmirkin]

To be accurate, I quoted Gabriel Barkay (who discovered and published the amulets) and the epigrapher Ada Yardeni's statements that the priestly oral formula recorded on the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom was not indicative of when the Torah was written. See Gmirkin 2006: 27-28. So it's not my claim, but that of the foremost experts on the subject.

Barkay's a nice guy, met him at Jerusalem in the old City of David; I recall him pointing out the neighborhood in Silwah across the Kidron valley where he made the discovery. He's a solid archaeologist and meticulous scholar who doesn't sensationalize or exaggerate the significance of his discoveries like some others do.

I apologize for not citing your sources. I had no idea that Stephen Goranson would treat this matter as being about our naked assertions when it was not - we all provided support for our claims about the amulets' insignificance in dating the Torah - of which yours were the best cited.

Understood - no apology needed. The sources have been mentioned more than once by you, me, Neil and probably others on this list.