Just stop, this whole line of "argumentation" is asinine and insulting.
If you deny the Hebrew Pentateuch is a legitimate expression of Hebrew culture you deny Hebrew culture. No beautiful statues. Just the Book. It's the whitewashing of an entire culture with this theory. You're reducing Hebrew literature
down to ancient precursors of Hall and Oates. It's ridiculous and insulting. You're arguing for James Brown appropriating Justin Bieber.
And saying that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon means I'm "denying Mormon culture"? Or stating that the Sibylline writings used in the Roman Senate were all forgeries means I'm denying Roman culture? Or that the Oracle of Delphi was a fraudulent scheme that employed the use of spies and common practices of modern mentalism means I'm denying Greek culture? Or that the Koran is a collection of writings from a wide variety of sources, not transcriptions given by Muhammad in a cave means I'm denying Islamic culture? Or that there was no Jesus, the Gospels are a set of works all copied from a single allegorical story that was based on the Pauline letters means I'm denying Christian culture? There was no Siddhartha, Buddhism derives from a collection of practices that were all later attributed to a mythical founder figure, means I deny Indo-Chinese culture?
Give it a rest. This is ridiculous. The foundation stories of all religions are filled with fraud. No one is exempt.
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 9:22 pm
Give it a rest. This is ridiculous. The foundation stories of all religions are filled with fraud. No one is exempt.
I no longer have the stomach to bother reading a certain troll's comments here -- but I do know that certain persons here have a long track record of accusing you of antisemitism if you dare deny what they believe is a necessary right: a special, privileged status for Judeans that exalts that "race" above the norms of historical processes that applied to all other peoples in the distant and not so distant past.
It's a kind of antisemitism in reverse. There were those who made Jews demons; now there are those who make Jews angels or demigods or uninfluenced by anyone the same way other peoples were influenced by conquerors and neighbours (I think that's from Edward Said) -- both deny a normative humanity for the Jews -- the Jews are not like others, if not demons then maybe flawed angels but angels nonetheless -- and both can, therefore, be considered "anti-semitic".
At least BOTH deny the normal humanity to Jews/Judeans that are applied to the rest of us.
I think that there are several religions that have ancient roots.
neilgodfrey does not correctly describe my view, which is unfortunate, to say the least--and not for the first time. If the list owner is reading, please notice.
As for dating Qumran copies of the Torah, as noted before--though in an earlier post I gave incorrect 4Q numbers--Michael Langlois suggested, on paleographic grounds, that one or maybe two paleo-Hebrew Torah copies date probably before 273 (though without referring to the Gmirkin proposal and number), including one from fifth or fourth century or, (paraphrasing) less likely, slightly later. Relevant there are 4Q12 Genesis and 4Q46 Deuteronomy.
Also, the in-progress project, "The Hands that Wrote the Bible: Digital Palaeography and Scribal Culture of the Dead Sea Scrolls" has preliminarily suggested that some Qumran mss are older than previously estimated.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 2:32 am
I think that there are several religions that have ancient roots.
neilgodfrey does not correctly describe my view, which is unfortunate, to say the least--and not for the first time. If the list owner is reading, please notice.
As for dating Qumran copies of the Torah, as noted before--though in an earlier post I gave incorrect 4Q numbers--Michael Langlois suggested, on paleographic grounds, that one or maybe two paleo-Hebrew Torah copies date probably before 273 (though without referring to the Gmirkin proposal and number), including one from fifth or fourth century or, (paraphrasing) less likely, slightly later. Relevant there are 4Q12 Genesis and 4Q46 Deuteronomy.
Also, the in-progress project, "The Hands that Wrote the Bible: Digital Palaeography and Scribal Culture of the Dead Sea Scrolls" has preliminarily suggested that some Qumran mss are older than previously estimated.
Where have I misrepresented you? Please be specific. I am eager to make any correction.
Do you have any definitive replies to my above question directed to you? Or not? Or do you rely on "preliminary suggestions" of individuals in preference to consensual datings?
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 5:21 pm
I also consider that Gmirkin 2006 gave an "unlikely position explaining away Hecataeus as evidence for pre-Hellenistic Pentateuchal traditions."
Do you have an argument upon which to base that consideration? What, specifically, are the "Pentateuchal traditions" to which Hecataeus is evidence?
What is Gmirkin's actual argument about the relation of the witness of Hecataeus to the Pentateuch and by what logical steps do you determine his argument to be ad hoc and therefore not capable of being justified independently of his larger thesis?
and you may recall I made it easier for you with my follow-up post:
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:01 pm
To make it easier for anyone who sees Hecataeus as a high hurdle for a Hellenistic provenance of the Pentateuch, Russell Gmirkin copied his published discussion of said Hecataeus for us here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10685&p=153609&hili ... us#p153609
I look forward to your reasoned and evidence-based response.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 12:53 am
I no longer have the stomach to bother reading a certain troll's comments here -- but I do know that certain persons here have a long track record of accusing you of antisemitism if you dare deny what they believe is a necessary right: a special, privileged status for Judeans that exalts that "race" above the norms of historical processes that applied to all other peoples in the distant and not so distant past.
It's a kind of antisemitism in reverse. There were those who made Jews demons; now there are those who make Jews angels or demigods or uninfluenced by anyone the same way other peoples were influenced by conquerors and neighbours (I think that's from Edward Said) -- both deny a normative humanity for the Jews -- the Jews are not like others, if not demons then maybe flawed angels but angels nonetheless -- and both can, therefore, be considered "anti-semitic".
At least BOTH deny the normal humanity to Jews/Judeans that are applied to the rest of us.
Not to mention that my wife is Jewish(and atheist), we go to Temple on High Holidays, my daughter is currently going to 5 weeks of sleepaway Jewish camp, and we of course contribute to Temple. But lets leave all that aside.
If you guys want to adopt a fringe theory to ignore a culture and a language you don't understand (and likely don't like) with one you like better and pretend is the "real ground of things" that's your decision. It will likely limit what you allow yourself to consider and the things you will talk about. Maybe that's intentional. I don't know. But until the day you die I bet the encyclopedia entry for "Septuagint" will say it was a Greek translation of a text originally in Hebrew that was established in an earlier period not in Alexandria nor in Egypt but by Jews somewhere else. If you discuss your preference for Gmirkin's theory you will end up repeating these same superficial arguments and debating the same points over and over again. All not to see the Pentateuch for what it is and will always be, a Hebrew text which expresses the unique culture of the people that wrote it. If bringing in Greek names and Greek ideas to overlay on top of that unique culture and obscures the influence that culture had on the world gives you pleasure, so be it. At least you're not hurting people I guess. Enjoy the Bible whatever way you can.
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:12 amFinally, there are also technical problems with the idea of the Pentateuch as a largely invented work of the Hellenistic period. It requires you to adopt improbable secondary positions such as dating Deutero-Isaiah to the Hellenistic period
Can you unpack that more?
I meant that (at least IMO) dating Deutero-Isaiah to the Hellenistic period is improbable. Gmirkin, however, is required to do so because Deutero-Isaiah shows knowledge of traditions also found in the Pentateuch (not necessarily knowledge of the Pentateuch in anything like its present form).
On the more general points of historical method that you raise, I don't think they are an accurate representation of how ancient (non-biblical) historians usually work. In the area of non-biblical ancient history I have tried to seriously study, (history of ancient philosophy), I am convinced of this. However, from previous experience, you would regard any specific examples that I might give, as being merely examples of bad practice in ancient history.
I tend to agree with Andrew Criddle that it is difficult to attempt dialog with neilgodfrey.
Here is one example: ng falsely claimed that I wrote something that I did not write, later claiming that all would know he was kidding:
[sg]If you, RG, are against such parodies will you now disown the flat-out lie parody posted by N Godfrey? in Plato and the Pentateuch thread, Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:56 pm:
[ng]"Hi Stephen -- it looks like the part of your post that contained the apology for misleading readers here about Gmirkin and Routledge inadvertently got stripped out because some technical hitch ... embarrassing, I know, but it happens.... I did happen to catch a glimpse of it before it disappeared, though and can repeat it more or less verbatim:
{{falsely attributed to me, sg, by ng}} We all make mistakes. . . . I was wrong . . . . Yet again, I was mistaken, as better research by someone else proved. How embarrassing. But I hope I learned some things about research, and moved on to other questions.
