Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John T wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:01 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:52 am
a date range between 385 B.C. and A.D. 80 is so vast that it can easily be reconciled with Gmirkin's thesis without contradicting the dating evidence. This is confirmed by your citation that Hans Van Der Plicht not only says the dating range can be well over a hundred years but 340 BCE for some of the tests is not out of the range of possibility. There is a big difference between a text's definitely being from 340 BCE and a text's being from 340 BCE not being out of the range of possibility. Finally, such a date is further weakened by Hans Van Der Plicht's saying that the dating range can be well over a hundred years, which means that a text datable to 340 BCE can also be dated to as recently as 240 BCE - within the range of Gmirkin's thesis.

Again, we have another example of someone claiming I'm wrong because they haven't even bothered to fact check their own claims. They don't have to because trolls don't care about the truth, just trashing people. That's what trolls do. If I'm wrong, then by all means, watch Neil's video for him and then try again. Is that too hard to ask of someone who claims they are just asking questions in all due respect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0osmcXwggY

In all due respect.

Where am I wrong in my claims? And my hearing impairments (which you will probably dismiss as lies) mean that I cannot easily watch and learn from youtube videos.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:10 am
Where am I wrong in my claims? And my hearing impairments (which you will probably dismiss as lies) mean that I cannot easily watch and learn from youtube videos.

You can try with closed captions. You can also ask Neil to watch it for the first time and transcribe it for you. You can actually do a google search on your own and read the reports in text for yourself. You can search the archives on this forum, this is old hat stuff for most of us. You can verify what I said and disprove the misleading assertions by Neil, six ways to Sunday. But most of all, you can stop trolling for the mythicists until you get up to speed.

In all due respect.

John T wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:52 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:10 am
Where am I wrong in my claims? And my hearing impairments (which you will probably dismiss as lies) mean that I cannot easily watch and learn from youtube videos.

You can try with closed captions. You can also ask Neil to watch it for the first time and transcribe it for you. You can actually do a google search on your own and read the reports in text for yourself. You can search the archives on this forum, this is old hat stuff for most of us. You can verify what I said and disprove the misleading assertions by Neil, six ways to Sunday. But most of all, you can stop trolling for the mythicists until you get up to speed.

In all due respect.

I thank you for at least trusting me when I said that I am hearing impaired. But with all due respect, you did not answer my question about where I am wrong in my claims.

Finally, I am not trolling for the mythicists, and I will not be guided in determining whether I need to do more research before commenting here by you because other people have shown, on this thread and other threads, that your definition of proper research, proper conclusions, and proper comments are not accepted by others and not agreed with by them.

From RG's Berossus book page 1 [not page 2 as I, SG, wrote before, mistakenly]:
"...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars [[[note by SG: not Samaritan scholars]]] at Alexandria...."
In plain English, this does not claim the putting of finishing touches on.
Yet there are many counterindications to this claim, dismissed by some. (Putting aside for now asking for proof of such scholars being there for such purpose at that time.)

Since I mentioned a statement before without a specific citation, I'll mention that RG in interview with Jacob Berman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CYpOFQrrQ
at about 6:00 minutes in discussed the silver amulet, reliably dated by archaeology and paleography to several centuries before 273-272. RG admits that it contains a parallel to Numbers-- "but not in written form."
Such is the habit of confirmation bias dismissiveness that RG can see the writing on the amulet
and even so declare that it is not writing.

(There are other examples.)

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:59 am I am not trolling for the mythicists, and I will not be guided in determining whether I need to do more research before commenting here by you because other people have shown, on this thread and other threads, that your definition of proper research, proper conclusions, and proper comments are not accepted by others and not agreed with by them.

See there, that is a perfect example. You demand I answer your ill-informed snarky questions. Yet, when I cite sources you dismiss them out of hand without even trying to verify them? But, Neil and his mythicists friends get a free pass? Then when I pointed out exactly where Neil's own arguments was dis-proven by his own link, shock of all shocks, you can't be bothered to look that up either?
Why? Because you have a hearing problem that prevents you from reading texts?

Arguing academics like it was a criminal case and you are the prosecutor and I'm the criminal is just ridiculous. Even the falsely accused in a criminal trial has a right to present evidence in court. The prosecutor can't simply dismiss the evidence because it destroys their case.

Surely, you can understand by adopting the tactics of the mythicists you are not arguing in good faith. Which noble truth of Buddha is that again?
I reserve the right not to respond to dishonest attention seekers and smart-alleck questions. Find someone else to torment. May I suggest Neil?

Because I sense you are trying to trap me into saying something that you can distort and then flag me and have me banned from this forum, you can understand why I no longer will respond to your posts. Yes, you can continue to comment on my posts and lie about it all you want but it will not get a response, even through a third party.

That will be all ABuddhist.

In all due respect.

John T is done with this thread.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:04 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:16 am IF Gmirkin is suggesting (adapting Jellicoe's position on the LXX) that the Torah originated in Alexandria as a result of a collaboration between Jerusalem and Jewish scholars in Egypt, then (on the standard model of Samaritan history) its acceptance as Scripture by the Samaritan community would be unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

There are a number of models (usually based on a naive reading of core texts) that have to fall if the scholarship that has been gaining ground since the 1990s re Greek influence on the Hebrew Bible (and facing up to the implications of archaeological finds) continues to undermine long-held assumptions.

But what, specifically, would be problematic about a Judean-Samaritan collaboration at the time? (Are you referring to Ezra-Nehemiah?) I have linked to the book online at Scribd where you can see how Gmirkin addresses some specifics of "the Samaritan question" in Appendix C.

I thought it was clear that the Jellicoe quote was a demonstration of how SG ripped Gmirkin's point out of context and used it to misrepresent it as a bizarre problem for Gmirkin.

Josephus apparently dates the Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim to the late Persian period. IIUC the archaeology supports a temple (or at least religious structures) in the Persian period. It is IMO unlikely that Jewish/Samaritan co-operation would be compatible with Rival temples.

Andrew Criddle

John T wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:37 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:59 am I am not trolling for the mythicists, and I will not be guided in determining whether I need to do more research before commenting here by you because other people have shown, on this thread and other threads, that your definition of proper research, proper conclusions, and proper comments are not accepted by others and not agreed with by them.

See there, that is a perfect example. You demand I answer your ill-informed snarky questions. Yet, when I cite sources you dismiss them out of hand without even trying to verify them? But, Neil and his mythicists friends get a free pass? Then when I pointed out exactly where Neil's own arguments was dis-proven by his own link, shock of all shocks, you can't be bothered to look that up either?
Why? Because you have a hearing problem that prevents you from reading texts?

Arguing academics like it was a criminal case and you are the prosecutor and I'm the criminal is just ridiculous. Even the falsely accused in a criminal trial has a right to present evidence in court. The prosecutor can't simply dismiss the evidence because it destroys their case.

Surely, you can understand by adopting the tactics of the mythicists you are not arguing in good faith. Which noble truth of Buddha is that again?
I reserve the right not to respond to dishonest attention seekers and smart-alleck questions. Find someone else to torment. May I suggest Neil?

Because I sense you are trying to trap me into saying something that you can distort and then flag me and have me banned from this forum, you can understand why I no longer will respond to your posts. Yes, you can continue to comment on my posts and lie about it all you want but it will not get a response, even through a third party.

That will be all ABuddhist.

In all due respect.

John T is done with this thread.

What are the words which you quoted from me a perfect example of, in your opinion?

And what is wrong with answering questions from other people within this forum? You have asked questions to me on this forum (about Buddhism) which I have answered, so why should I not receive answers from you to my questions? It is true that I have refrained from answering your question about what my definition definition of a mythicist was, but I explained that your question was poorly phrased, explained that I would answer it if you were to rephrase it and address other questions (so that I would know which ways to explain my answer appropriately) and made a separate forum thread in which I defined my definition of mythicism.

I have not dismissed the sources which you cite out of hand. Rather, in this thread I have assumed that your sources were accurate but not as significant in refuting Gmirkin as you claim and in other threads I have explained why your sources were wrong and not trustworthy.

I did not claim that my hearing impairment prevented me from reading texts, only that it makes it difficult for me to learn from youtube videos. Unlike you, I have never categorically refused to read written source which other people have cited here. I did not mention reading the text behind the youtube video which you were citing not because I was refusing to read it but because I thought that such an issue was irrelevant to our discussion. As a matter of fact, I am interested in reading the text and may some day.

You continue to wrongly treat the 4 noble truths as a moral code when they are in fact a description of reality and the basis for moral codes.

In what way, according to you, have I treated you like a criminal or argued like a mythicist?

Finally, I note that by not participating anymore in this thread, you leave yourself vulnerable to the accusation that we refuted your attempts to refute Gmirkin.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:48 am From RG's Berossus book page 1 [not page 2 as I, SG, wrote before, mistakenly]:
"...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars [[[note by SG: not Samaritan scholars]]] at Alexandria...."
In plain English, this does not claim the putting of finishing touches on.
Yet there are many counterindications to this claim, dismissed by some. (Putting aside for now asking for proof of such scholars being there for such purpose at that time.)

Since I mentioned a statement before without a specific citation, I'll mention that RG in interview with Jacob Berman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CYpOFQrrQ
at about 6:00 minutes in discussed the silver amulet, reliably dated by archaeology and paleography to several centuries before 273-272. RG admits that it contains a parallel to Numbers-- "but not in written form."
Such is the habit of confirmation bias dismissiveness that RG can see the writing on the amulet
and even so declare that it is not writing.

(There are other examples.)

Many thanks for the citations. I now understand where I was wrong in my discussion of Gmirkin's thesis. Never let it be said that I am unwilling to admit when I am wrong.

Wow. It's fun battling alongside SG and Andrew on this one.

First. The Pentateuch clearly makes Gerizim/Shechem the 'home' of Israel. It is where Abraham 'ends up' buried as well as his sons and descendants. Coupled with the lack of mention of Jerusalem would be unusual for Jewish scribes from any period.

Second. Deuteronomy's name in Greek is unusual. It mirrors the differences in the Hebrew between this book and the rest of the other four. In Hebrew the titles of the book come from the first word in each book but the Greek already assumes the secondary nature of the composition which is only discernable in Hebrew.

Third. The earliest Hebrew text of Exodus (Qumran, Samaritan and the one used by the circle of R Ishmael) contains 'bits' of Deuteronomy (from our perspective). https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261466 This text is not represented by the LXX which clearly attests to the later Masoretic shape of Exodus.

Since the LXX Exodus witnesses a necessarily later form of the Pentateuch (based on the omission of 'shared bits' from Deuteronomy in Exodus (i.e. points at which the secondary author of Deuteromony 'copied' Exodus) the LXX cannot/should not be mistaken to witness the earliest form of the Pentateuch and as such cannot be used to determine the identities of the original author(s) of the text. In short the story about the Greek copyists translating the a Pentateuch written in Greek is likely correct.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:59 am the LXX cannot/should not be mistaken to witness the earliest form of the Pentateuch and as such cannot be used to determine the identities of the original author(s) of the text. In short the story about the Greek copyists translating the a Pentateuch written in Greek is likely correct.

If I recall Gmirkin's model correctly (and I welcome correction), he does not claim that the LXX is the earliest form of the Pentateuch, but rather that it was created very soon after the Hebrew Pentateuch rather than centuries later.