When was the Old Testament created?

A book recently published, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible by Russell Gmirkin lays out the argument that the text we know today was written in 273-270 BCE in Alexandria, Egypt.

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible for the first time compares the ancient law collections of the Ancient Near East, the Greeks and the Pentateuch to determine the legal antecedents for the biblical laws. Following on from his 2006 work, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus, Gmirkin takes up his theory that the Pentateuch was written around 270 BCE using Greek sources found at the Great Library of Alexandria, and applies this to an examination of the biblical law codes. A striking number of legal parallels are found between the Pentateuch and Athenian laws, and specifically with those found in Plato's Laws of ca. 350 BCE. Constitutional features in biblical law, Athenian law, and Plato's Laws also contain close correspondences. Several genres of biblical law, including the Decalogue, are shown to have striking parallels with Greek legal collections, and the synthesis of narrative and legal content is shown to be compatible with Greek literature.

All this evidence points to direct influence from Greek writings, especially Plato's Laws, on the biblical legal tradition. Finally, it is argued that the creation of the Hebrew Bible took place according to the program found in Plato's Laws for creating a legally authorized national ethical literature, reinforcing the importance of this specific Greek text to the authors of the Torah and Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic Era. This study offers a fascinating analysis of the background to the Pentateuch, and will be of interest not only to biblical scholars, but also to students of Plato, ancient law, and Hellenistic literary traditions.

Click to expand...

In Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus is found a description of how secular historians look at ancient texts and the contrast in the ways of biblical historians look at the Bible

METHODOLOGY

The source-critical methods used in this book for dating texts
- including biblical texts - are those familiar from classical studies,
deductively establishing "terminus a quo" and "ad quem" dates between which
the composition of the text under investigation must have taken place.
The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by
the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy,
or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.
The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by
the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text.
This book is essentially an extended exercise in classical source criticism applied to the Hebrew Bible. [1]

[1] There is a sharp methodological distinction between classical source criticism
and traditional biblical source criticism. The latter used a variety of techniques
to isolate hypothetical sources within biblical texts. The identification of sources
J, E, D and P preliminary to the dating arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis is a
prime example of biblical source criticism. Such source documents must remain
perpetually hypothetical, since they no longer exist as independent entities.
This type of source criticism is rarely encountered in classical scholarship ...

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

A book recently published, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible by Russell Gmirkin lays out the argument that the text we know today was written in 273-270 BCE in Alexandria, Egypt.



In Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus is found a description of how secular historians look at ancient texts and the contrast in the ways of biblical historians look at the Bible

Click to expand...

That's a far later number than that which is posited by most biblical archeologists and theorists, the rationale also seems to be exceedingly tenuous with much reasoning by analogy and very little documentary or archeological support. The Documentary Hypothesis, which is the one supported by the majority of secular scholars, posits different time-frames for different parts of the canon, with some dating as far back as the 12-10th Century BCE.

Personally, I think the first complete codification happened sometime in the 5th-7th century BCE based on the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated from 410-310BC (and predate the authors timeframe) and contain extracts from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc, that are fairly similar to the modern Masortic text.

I dunno...whenever the author was short of money and figured writing this thing would get him laid and make him some money.

It took off more than he dared dream.

Like L. Ron Hubbard said: “The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.”

Considering how many times the text would have been written down, compiled and edited since the Jews discovered literacy, it wouldn't surprise me if it picked up influences from the predominant cultures of the near east. Of course, there's also the chance the author has causality backwards, and Plato was influenced by the Bible.

I'm confused by the question and responses.

Like most ancient religious belief systems prior to writing, it was an oral history passed down through people trained to memorize and tell it.

So it's beginning would pre-date it's first written form.

Sherman123 said:

That's a far later number than that which is posited by most biblical archeologists and theorists, the rationale also seems to be exceedingly tenuous with much reasoning by analogy and very little documentary or archeological support. The Documentary Hypothesis, which is the one supported by the majority of secular scholars, posits different time-frames for different parts of the canon, with some dating as far back as the 12-10th Century BCE.

Personally, I think the first complete codification happened sometime in the 5th-7th century BCE based on the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated from 410-310BC (and predate the authors timeframe) and contain extracts from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc, that are fairly similar to the modern Masortic text.

Click to expand...

There are "biblical archaeologists" and then there are archaeologists who go digging without presuppositions. One group is looking for confirmation of what they read in the text and the other group is looking for information on actual history and culture.

The oldest scroll found in the Qumran caves is dated to approximately 410 BCE but the youngest one has a possible date of 130 CE.

DA60 said:

I dunno...whenever the author was short of money and figured writing this thing would get him laid and make him some money.

It took off more than he dared dream.

Like L. Ron Hubbard said: “The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.”

Click to expand...

Ain't happening. The book was published by one of those academic press houses which likes to put high price tags on their books. The e-book version will cost you $45 to $50 and Amazon lists the hard copy for $140 You can read Chapter 1 at academia.edu after you sign up with the site -- https://www.academia.edu/28285060/Plato_and_the_Creation_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_Chapter_1.docx

spud_meister said:

Considering how many times the text would have been written down, compiled and edited since the Jews discovered literacy, it wouldn't surprise me if it picked up influences from the predominant cultures of the near east. Of course, there's also the chance the author has causality backwards, and Plato was influenced by the Bible.

Click to expand...

"Plato influenced by the Bible" has been the fall-back position since the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment as scholars first began to study the similarities. Gmirkin has followed the lead of more modern scholars who, owing to questions created by archaeology, have begun to question the dating of the text.

Imo, the seeds of the Bible are...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

calamity said:

Imo, the seeds of the Bible are...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Click to expand...

And I'm sure the Mesopotamian priests had their own versions from which Zarathustra drew his opinions.

And entropy is a natural phenomenon.

jet57 said:

And I'm sure the Mesopotamian priests had their own versions from which Zarathustra drew his opinions.

And entropy is a natural phenomenon.

Click to expand...

So is evolution, as in the evolution of religions.

calamity said:

So is evolution, as in the evolution of religions.

Click to expand...

good one

Though some of the words found in the Old Testament (Tanakh) were definitely written prior to the dates suggested by Gmirkin, I believe his argument is to the effect that the text as we know it was not complete or compiled until the 4th Century BCE, that the Hebrew text was put together only shortly before the creation of the Septuagint.

Archaeology conducted by scholars who don't have a Bible in one hand as they dig has failed to find any evidence of the kingdoms described in the Tanakh.

My take on this is one of the context of the author,
There are many references to Hittites in the Old Testament.
I think the Hittite empire disappear before 1100 BCE, and it would be unlikely
that an author almost 1000 years later would would write about a people as being contemporary,
who he had likely never herd of!

longview said:

My take on this is one of the context of the author,
There are many references to Hittites in the Old Testament.
I think the Hittite empire disappear before 1100 BCE, and it would be unlikely
that an author almost 1000 years later would would write about a people as being contemporary,
who he had likely never herd of!

Click to expand...

Another one of those anomalies so often found in the Bible, is the fact the Hittite kingdom was in the area which is present-day Turkey. The Biblical Hittites are said to have been located just north of the Kingdom of Israel which would put them in southern Lebanon and Syria. There is also the fact that it was 19th Century biblical archaeologists who conflated the earlier empire with the Hittites named in the Tanakh. Translations of inscriptions from Anatolia show the name they used for themselves was Hatti. It is possible that some groups of the Hatti migrated south into the Levant following the fall of their empire and these groups would have interacted with the people who became the Jews.

Somerville said:

Another one of those anomalies so often found in the Bible, is the fact the Hittite kingdom was in the area which is present-day Turkey. The Biblical Hittites are said to have been located just north of the Kingdom of Israel which would put them in southern Lebanon and Syria. There is also the fact that it was 19th Century biblical archaeologists who conflated the earlier empire with the Hittites named in the Tanakh. Translations of inscriptions from Anatolia show the name they used for themselves was Hatti. It is possible that some groups of the Hatti migrated south into the Levant following the fall of their empire and these groups would have interacted with the people who became the Jews.

Click to expand...

Ether way, it is unlikely that a writer in Alexandria in 250 BCE would write a contemporary story about a people he may not have known existed.
The Hittites did make it as far south as Lebanon, because the Battle of Kadesh, was there, and so were the Hittites.

longview said:

Ether way, it is unlikely that a writer in Alexandria in 250 BCE would write a contemporary story about a people he may not have known existed.
The Hittites did make it as far south as Lebanon, because the Battle of Kadesh, was there, and so were the Hittites.

Click to expand...

Off by 40-50 years but that is inconsequential. The Battle of Kadesh (also Qadesh) took place about 1275 BCE in what is today northern Syria, not Lebanon, close to the mountains which lie along the border between modern Turkey and Syria.

The scribes who composed the Tanakh and Septuagint were living and working in Alexandria as the Library of Alexandria was being built. As a direct result of being in the same location as the largest collection of knowledge in the ancient world, the scribes would have had access to documents covering the history of Egypt and other middle eastern kingdoms. This congruence of scholars and documents is one part of Gmirkin's thesis that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were the direct ancestors of the Old Testament that we know today.

Somerville said:

Off by 40-50 years but that is inconsequential. The Battle of Kadesh (also Qadesh) took place about 1275 BCE in what is today northern Syria, not Lebanon, close to the mountains which lie along the border between modern Turkey and Syria.

The scribes who composed the Tanakh and Septuagint were living and working in Alexandria as the Library of Alexandria was being built. As a direct result of being in the same location as the largest collection of knowledge in the ancient world, the scribes would have had access to documents covering the history of Egypt and other middle eastern kingdoms. This congruence of scholars and documents is one part of Gmirkin's thesis that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were the direct ancestors of the Old Testament that we know today.

Click to expand...

It still seems a bit far fetched, today we know a lot more of our history than the Greeks in Alexandria did, and yet many things that happened 1000 years ago
are still basically legends. I would believe a a common story or two, like the great flood, but the old testament simply has two many contemporary
accounts of things that simply would not be considered if they were writing a story.
A more likely explanation would be the translators, included some of their social customs, where they were perhaps filling in the blanks.

Sherman123 said:

That's a far later number than that which is posited by most biblical archeologists and theorists, the rationale also seems to be exceedingly tenuous with much reasoning by analogy and very little documentary or archeological support. The Documentary Hypothesis, which is the one supported by the majority of secular scholars, posits different time-frames for different parts of the canon, with some dating as far back as the 12-10th Century BCE.

Personally, I think the first complete codification happened sometime in the 5th-7th century BCE based on the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated from 410-310BC (and predate the authors timeframe) and contain extracts from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc, that are fairly similar to the modern Masortic text.

Click to expand...

It is a bunch of crap.

The Silver Scrolls predate the claim by over 300 years. It also contains considerable evidence of it being largely ancient oral traditions later being placed into writing. If it was the Greeks who had created them, they certainly would not have been as sloppy as to use traditional oral tradition shorthands (look how often things occur in increments of 40).

The Scriptures are absolutely filled with such references. It rained for 40 days, the Hebrew spies wandered through Canaan for 40 days, the Hebrews wandered the desert for 40 years, Goliath challenged the Israelis for 40 days before David accepted his challenge, Moses spends 40 days on Mount Sinai communing with God before returning with the Ten Commandments.

Another is the number 7. The Earth was created in 7 days, the week was 7 days long, Noah was to bring 7 pairs of all clean animals, Egypt having 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine, Jericho fell on the 7th day after 7 priests circled the city 7 times with 7 silver trumpets blowing, the ancient Menorah has 7 arms, 1 for each day of the Passover (it has since expanded to 9 after the Greek invasion in 250 BCE). Once again, frequent repeats of the same number.

These are simply the way that oral tradition is passed along. We know that the 7 armed menorah is at least 2,000 years old. So this far predates the claim the Testament is much newer.

The Greeks were masterful storytellers. They would not have been so sloppy as to repeat the same numbers over and over again. They also would not have likely used a 7 day week, as they themselves at that time were using an 8 day week (and a calendar where the religious observances were held in the first week of the month). Also, why create a monotheistic religion? That makes no sense, it was never a part of their tradition.

Then there are a great many archaeological contradictions to this claim. One of which is the discovery of a 6th century BCE stone engraved "Matanyahu Seal.



No, the archaeological proof says that this is complete crap.

Somerville said:

There are "biblical archaeologists" and then there are archaeologists who go digging without presuppositions. One group is looking for confirmation of what they read in the text and the other group is looking for information on actual history and culture.

The oldest scroll found in the Qumran caves is dated to approximately 410 BCE but the youngest one has a possible date of 130 CE.

Click to expand...

You realize you just supported 410 BCE as the oldest point, right? That's a bit earlier than 270. Then how much before that point did it exist, unless you're claiming that they literally found the first one created.

Somerville said:

The scribes who composed the Tanakh and Septuagint were living and working in Alexandria as the Library of Alexandria was being built. As a direct result of being in the same location as the largest collection of knowledge in the ancient world, the scribes would have had access to documents covering the history of Egypt and other middle eastern kingdoms. This congruence of scholars and documents is one part of Gmirkin's thesis that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were the direct ancestors of the Old Testament that we know today.

Click to expand...

This is actually closer to the truth.

The role of the Greeks in the "Creation of the Old Testament" is much like that of Constantine creating the New Testament. They were more like editors who compiled books that had already been in existence, they did not actually create the books.

Most evidence points to the Old Testament being purely oral tradition for over 1,000 years, and initially being converted into a written form during the Babylonian Exile. This was generally expanded every century by several books until it became what it is today. And it even included some books that were known to be nothing but stories with no real historical existence but they were simply important stories and nothing else.

The reason for the Greek Compilation was simply that they had recently conquered the region, and they wanted to know more about this strange monotheistic religion. The Greeks were rather ambivalent towards their many gods, and their primary interest was not to worship them, but to keep from pissing them off. The Jews on the other hand appeared to honestly worship their single god, and had proven to be fanatical if their religion or god came under attack.

The fall of Babylon to Cyrus, who then set the Israelites free and helped them reestablish their temple happened in 539 BC.

Fishking said:

The fall of Babylon to Cyrus, who then set the Israelites free and helped them reestablish their temple happened in 539 BC.

Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about the Book of Daniel. It is pretty well established that the Book of Daniel was written between 165 bce and 160 bce,.. and is the only book in the Jewish scriptures that the date can be established that closely. There are numerous historical mistakes in the book of daniel. Different books of the Jewish scriptures were written at different times.

Oozlefinch said:

This is actually closer to the truth.

The role of the Greeks in the "Creation of the Old Testament" is much like that of Constantine creating the New Testament. They were more like editors who compiled books that had already been in existence, they did not actually create the books.

Most evidence points to the Old Testament being purely oral tradition for over 1,000 years, and initially being converted into a written form during the Babylonian Exile. This was generally expanded every century by several books until it became what it is today. And it even included some books that were known to be nothing but stories with no real historical existence but they were simply important stories and nothing else.

The reason for the Greek Compilation was simply that they had recently conquered the region, and they wanted to know more about this strange monotheistic religion. The Greeks were rather ambivalent towards their many gods, and their primary interest was not to worship them, but to keep from pissing them off. The Jews on the other hand appeared to honestly worship their single god, and had proven to be fanatical if their religion or god came under attack.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I believe your entire premise is wrong. Gmirkin does not say "the Greeks" wrote or edited the Old Testament. His premise states that well-educated Jews in Alexandria used the Greek philosophical texts as a foundation to tie together old stories of the Jewish people in a new and more logical fashion. The Greek language was the language of the educated all around the eastern perimiter of the Mediterranean. Greek remained the language of the educated during most of the time that Rome controlled the region. Multiple artifacts indicate that the Hebrews were not as monotheistic as the Old Testament claims.

Somerville said:

Sorry but I believe your entire premise is wrong. Gmirkin does not say "the Greeks" wrote or edited the Old Testament. His premise states that well-educated Jews in Alexandria used the Greek philosophical texts as a foundation to tie together old stories of the Jewish people in a new and more logical fashion. The Greek language was the language of the educated all around the eastern perimiter of the Mediterranean. Greek remained the language of the educated during most of the time that Rome controlled the region. Multiple artifacts indicate that the Hebrews were not as monotheistic as the Old Testament claims.

Click to expand...

From what I gather, even though monotheism was pushed by the Priestly class, it wasn't until around the 3rd or 4th century bce that a lot of the worship of other gods was stamped out.. for example Ashereah worship. There are indications that went on to maybe as late as the 2nd century BCE.