Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts
Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History
Russell E. Gmirkin
- 520 páginas
- English
- ePUB (apto para móviles)
- Disponible en iOS y Android
Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts
Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History
Russell E. Gmirkin
Información del libro
Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts argues that the creation of the world in Genesis 1 and the story of the first humans in Genesis 2-3 both draw directly on Plato's famous account of the origins of the universe, mortal life and evil containing equal parts science, theology and myth.
This book is the first to systematically compare biblical, Ancient Near Eastern and Greek creation accounts and to show that Genesis 1-3 is heavily indebted to Plato's Timaeus and other cosmogonies by Greek natural philosophers. It argues that the idea of a monotheistic cosmic god was first introduced in Genesis 1 under the influence of Plato's philosophy, and that this cosmic Creator was originally distinct from the lesser terrestrial gods, including Yahweh, who appear elsewhere in Genesis. It shows the use of Plato's Critias, the sequel to Timaeus, in the stories about the Garden of Eden, the intermarriage of "the sons of God" and the daughters of men, and the biblical flood. This book confirms the late date and Hellenistic background of Genesis 1-11, drawing on Plato's writings and other Greek sources found at the Great Library of Alexandria.
This study provides a fascinating approach to Genesis that will interest students and scholars in both biblical and classical studies, philosophy and creation narratives.
Preguntas frecuentes
Información
1 Comparative Methodology and Genesis 1–11
1.1 Overview of Methodology
1.1.1 Comparative Studies
- Selection of topic. In the hard sciences, a topic of investigation usually emerges out of observation of new phenomena or problematic data that is unexplained by current models. In comparative studies, there are usually inciting observations on cultural similarities that are suggestive of interesting potential influence of one culture upon another that leads to the selection of a topic for comparative investigation. Examples include the close structural similarities of Greek and Ancient Near Eastern literature,1 of a royal hierarchy of the gods in Ancient Near Eastern and archaic Greek mythologies (Launderville 2003), the similarities of Greek and Hittite myths regarding the succession of the chief gods (West 2003: 278–9), similarities of biblical and Ancient Near Eastern laws (Malul 1990; Gmirkin 2017), and similarities of biblical and Greek laws.2 All of these observations of interesting cultural commonalities led to comparative studies involving the Ancient Near Eastern and Greek worlds and biblical literature.
- Identification of candidates for comparison. In order to investigate the origin of an intellectual feature of a given culture by means of comparative study, the identification of suitable candidates for comparison becomes crucial. The researcher should cast neither too wide nor too narrow a net in their selection of other times and cultures, which might have had an influence on the target culture. Early comparative studies, such as the 12-volume study of mythology and religion relating to the periodic sacrifice of a sacred king in Frazer 1911–1915, explored typological parallels from around the world in order to draw conclusions, which are now considered of doubtful validity. Samuel Sandmel criticized this overly broad approach as “parallelomania” (Sandmel 1962). Modern comparative studies limit candidates for comparison to cultures within the same “historical stream,” that is, societies in geographical proximity and sufficiently close in time to allow for a direct or mediated flow of ideas (Malul 1990: 13–18, 89–91, 99–101; Talmon 1991: 386). Meir Malul called this the “historical comparative approach,” in contrast to the “typological comparative approach” that cataloged parallels without considering the historical connections between the cultures being compared (Malul 1990). The historical comparative approach was thought to impose a higher degree of rigor in the selection of comparative materials, although in some instances it has resulted in excessively narrow comparisons to be made, undermining the validity of the results (see §1.1.3 below).
- Inductive collection of data. The next step typically consists of the selection and gathering of relevant comparanda, that is, materials suitable for comparison. Selection of data for comparison is generally governed by the choice of research topic. For instance, an investigation into architectural influences might involve standing remains, archaeological excavations, building inscriptions and, in a period well populated by literature, books or other written references to architecture, all of which might provide specific data on architectural practices transmitted to one culture by its neighbors down through time. This selection of comparative materials is subject to the constraint that the cultures belong to the same historical stream.
- Deductive testing of hypotheses. Next, the data is systematically compared for both common and divergent features within the historically proximate cultures. An analysis is performed as to whether the commonalities are sufficiently unique or distinctive as to demonstrate the transmission of intellectual traditions between the cultures being compared. In some cases, where there are two-way cultural interactions, establishing the direction of cultural influence may also require supporting evidence and argumentation. This phase of comparison tests whether the hypothesized influence of one culture upon another can in fact be confirmed and suggests the character and limits of that intellectual influence. In cases where potential influences from several candidate cultures are being tested, this phase may help select among competing hypotheses.
- Establishing mechanisms of transmission. Having established that a transfer of knowledge or practices took place, an effort should then be undertaken to identify the mechanism of transmission, which may be direct, mediated or diffuse. For instance, conquest often directly imposes many cultural features of the new rulers on the subject people and its territory. By contrast, similar pottery styles may be the result of diffuse trading networks with no direct contacts between those originating and those copying those styles. Sometimes a specific identifiable class of educated elite that is in possession of specialized knowledge acts as mediator in the transmission of knowledge, such as in the dissemination of the results of Mesopotamian observational astronomy to the Greek world in the late Classical and early Hellenistic Eras. The study of such social interconnections as a mechanism for the transmission of knowledge falls under the category of network theory. In other cases, transmission of knowledge takes place through mediation by literature transmitted from one culture to another, sometimes long after its original authorship. In all cases, the ultimate objective of comparative studies should include specifying the temporal, historical and sociological context of the transmission of intellectual traditions from one culture to another, to the extent that this is possible. This enriched understanding of the dynamics of cultural interactions goes beyond the limited minimal objective of establishing that some sort of influence took place.