split from: Why the Hellenistic era for ALL "Old Testament" books should be taken seriously

[Peter Kirby]

"Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?"

Not necessarily on only your argument, or only the way you would have it discussed.

Otherwise I am driving now and can't read all this or deal with all this.

Can you explain what you mean by the way I would have it discussed?

Okay, with additional context that I was missing, I can perhaps attempt to answer this.

The protocol of the forum applies. My quoted statement doesn't change that.

Some of the replies (and I had not read all of them yet) broke forum protocol.

I will write a short post mortem on the recent posts to that thread.

I sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by posting on the road and with partial context. I think I also brought some of that "we're gonna turn this car around" energy to it. My bad.

[Peter Kirby]

Post Mortem

Foreword: So far, I have no rules about the "quality" of the points and arguments made in "Academic Discussion." The forum was created in response to demand, and the demand that I heard was for moderation of things like personally-directed comments. It was with that intent (primarily at least) that the forum protocols were written.

I agree with what Andrew C. wrote, just above, Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:12 am.

Neil G. wrote, Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:18 pm, in part:
"....The material evidence we have for the Persian era not only contradicts any knowledge of the narratives and ideologies found in the Pentateuch,...."
Not so. That is trying to prove a negative based on insufficient evidence, because, for one thing, material evidence--that is extant and may or may not be fully known nor properly interpreted--does not reveal ALL that ALL people knew.
That fallacy is somewhat similar to claiming that there were more men than women in that period, because men are mentioned, and evidenced, more often.
Or claiming that a disproportionate amount of what a typical household owned was mostly pottery, because that may be the profile of extant "material evidence."
Furthermore, what counts as exclusively Hellenistic is not agreed, at least not fully, here. Years ago, I described Sigmund Freud as a Hellenized Jew; after all, where did he get the Oedipus complex from? Yet that characterization, silly or not, would not be useful for dating his era.

This post is ok.

No, Stephen. The Elephantine evidence (along with other archaeological studies as published by Adler (The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal. The Origins of Judaism, 2022) directly contradict the hypothesis that Pentateuchal laws were known and followed in Persian times. I have asked you to address my earlier criticisms of your points about this evidence. One needs to do more than speculate about what was in the minds of those who left us the evidence but did not see fit to record.

This post is ok.

Egypt was, for a time, part of the Persian Achaemenid Empire.
I'm no Egyptologist, but was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?
The Persian Empire, as is well known, by some, compared to some other empires, let local religions be.
And, anyway, the Egyptian "Book" was certainly older than the Persian Empire. Hmm.

This post is ok.

I was giving you (and Andrew) the benefit of the doubt that you know the reasons in the scholarly literature for a Persian date, and left open the opportunity for either of you ask for the source of my information in case it was new and there was any interest in engaging with it.

I was referring to the practice of "Imperial Authorization" of local cults. See the discussions of particular examples:

• The Letoon or Xanthos trilingual inscription,
• The comparable instance of Darius's authorization of Egyptian priests to codify Egyptian cultic law,
• The related Sardis inscription

See the source I cited earlier in this thread (pp 345ff):

• Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. De Gruyter, 2011

who cites, for fuller discussion,

• Frei, Peter, and Klaus Kochch. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. 2., Bearbeitete und stark erw. Aufl edition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 55. Freiburg, Schweiz : Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1996.

The latter is readily available open access. Translation tools are also readily available if needed. Further discussion can be found on my blog in coming weeks.

This post is ok.

"...was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?"
Why deflect from your prediction?

I don't necessarily like the use of the word "deflect." It is possible to give the benefit of the doubt here and to allow that this may be referring to the possibly-relevant points and arguments mentioned. This is not necessarily ideal tone-wise but perhaps it was intended to advance the discussion with a focus still on the arguments. It was not reported. If it was reported, this is one of the difficult judgment calls that it's my responsibility to make. They are unavoidably subjective, at least in similarly borderline cases.

I take no issue as admin with the words "your prediction." It's focused on the arguments. I am not attempting to determine what SG could have meant, or not meant, by "your prediction." I am not trying to adjudicate whether this is a "prediction" that can be legitimately found or implied in what had been written.

Furthermore, in my opinion, and as reflected in how I am moderating Academic Discussion: It's not the absolute prerogative of someone who wrote something to shut down (as a matter of proper etiquette) argument-focused attempts to interpret the implications of what was written. I don't think it's a norm of academic discussion to grant anyone such absolute prerogative over what they write. I consider that something like that would be inimical to the spirit of academic debate and exploration. It falls on the participants in the discussion to attempt to clarify and elucidate things like this, if they want to do so. Others in the discussion do not have to be convinced by the arguments made, even if one of those arguments is of the form: no, I wrote that, I say that your interpretation is wrong, so your interpretation has to be wrong. Such an argument can of course be made. And if it is convincing, it is convincing. And if someone else is unconvincing about what they are claiming, they are also indeed unconvincing. Moderation doesn't need to step in here.

So the discussion -- at least in the example from this thread, which is a concrete example that makes it easier to talk about quite confidently -- is not closed off or out of bounds by an appeal to forum protocol.

In short, SG is attempting to make an argument here and can be given the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

Above, from NG:
"....By contrast, what had happened in Persian times was for the Persian ruler to authorize local religious traditions that had been drawn up by the locals and publishing those codifications in the local native language as well as the official language of the Persian empire, Aramaic. If the Pentateuch was a Persian era creation, by comparison with how Persians supported other local religious cults, we would expect to see the Pentateuch translated not into Greek but into Aramaic....."

This post is ok.

When Neil wrote, above
"Oh please behave, Stephen. ..."
May I be excused from that (unscholarly) trivialization left to wonder whether his concern is less about ancient dates but to show he is no longer a fundamentalist but a self-appointed, self-righteousness so-rational arbiter authorized to dismiss others?

This post is not ok. It's now ~~NIP~~.

And your peer-reviewed publications are...?

This post is not ok. It's now ~~NIP~~.

That's your prediction. Not mine. Please read sources and the actual argument to which I refer -- the scholarly evidence that has been advanced to support the Persian era date.

This wasn't the post that was made, but this post would be ok.

I'll go ahead and pull this part of the post back into the thread by quotation per forum protocol.

[Peter Kirby]

Oh please behave, Stephen.

Not ok. I read this as disrespectful and directed at Stephen instead of focusing on arguments and the material at hand, which is not in keeping with the forum protocol. I don't read it, for example, as an attempt to advance an argument that is poorly phrased and can be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Peter Kirby]

Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?

This is a good topic for Forum Business.

I wrote a little bit about how there are currently no quality controls on the types of arguments raised.

[Peter Kirby]

I think that's enough of a post mortem.

The thread in Academic Discussion is in an "ok" state as of now.

[neilgodfrey]

I do not regard the absence of evidence of Pentateuchal material in the Elephantine papyri as strong evidence that the Pentateuchal material did not then exist.

I agree with that. Even Hecataeus of Abdera allegedly wrote that many of the traditional customs of the Jews were altered during the rule of the Persians (Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 40.3):

But under the empires which rose up in later ages, especially during the rule of the Persians, and in the time of the Macedonians, who overthrew the Persians, through intermingling with foreign nations, many of the traditional customs among the Jews were altered . . . This is what Hecataeus of (?) Abdera has related about the Jews.
http://attalus.org/translate/diodorus40 ... %20empires

I will be no longer participating in this forum. I will keep my discussions on my blog. I hope to discuss your questions there and the sources to which you refer. I do not see this forum as "academic" by its standards at all and feel very embarrassed that I was naive enough to think that there would be any effective difference in the way I have been treated here. I see there a about a dozen messages in my inbox which I presume are from the moderator. I have no intention to talk with a person who clearly has a track record of reading my comments with malicious intent -- and I will no longer be jumping in here when I see him ripping points to criticize out of context and mocking serious scholars, both here and elsewhere. He has no idea how historical discussions work or how to engage in historical debates. Good luck to the great team of PK, SG and SA.

I only ask that all my posts be removed from this site. I have no wish to be associated with it in any way.

[Peter Kirby]

It feels like there is a misunderstanding and maybe it wouldn't hurt to read the posts (not inbox messages since I didn't write any) that I wrote.

[StephenGoranson]

Of course, anyone is free to leave here, though asking for erasure is another matter.*
Calling me a member of a "team" I find unwarranted.
One so-far insufficiently addressed matter in this thread, imo, is the long change in Hebrew.

*{added: 6159 posts?}

[neilgodfrey]

I have chosen my blog venue for replies because I have lost confidence that anything I post here will remain here and not be moved -- without notifying me -- to some other part of the earlywritings forum thus leaving me uniformed of dialogue relevant to my posts.

[Peter Kirby]

I have chosen my blog venue for replies because I have lost confidence that anything I post here will remain here and not be moved -- without notifying me -- to some other part of the earlywritings forum thus leaving me uniformed of dialogue relevant to my posts.

Quoting your posts produces a notification. So, yes, you've been notified in the only way that's relevant - on the forum.