Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

[Secret Alias]

It makes no difference to the Hellenistic provenance if the LXX was composed in the third, second of first century BCE or first or second century CE.

Of course it does. These arguments about Plato and Berossos are unconvincing to 99% of people. If we have fragments at Qumran dated to 250 - 200 BCE which are earlier than the earliest LXX fragments that demands an explanation. The Jewish Torah using community broke away from the broader Samaritan community and then within that Jewish sect a further breakaway group us evidenced at Qumran. The existence of fragments from 250 - 200 BCE at Qumran is not compatible with this 270 BCE conspiracy theory.

The theory just doesn't work.

Surely the date of the first surviving copies of the LXX matters.

Surely the question whether the surviving LXX is Gmirkin's "Alexandrian exemplar" matters.

Surely parallels between Aristeas's narrative and Gmirkin's thesis implies he got the idea from this dubious historical document.

Surely evidence which contradict his thesis has to be considered. It is silly to creative such an idealized and theoretical "Alexandrian exemplar" that it becomes an unassailable thing devoid of any reality.

If Gmirkin's text is the LXX then we have to compare it fairly with the earlier Qumran fragments and wonder why anyone should take the later LXX text (a translation) to be the exemplar of the Hebrew fragments found at Qumran which date in fact from an earlier period.

You may enjoy dealing in abstractions, I don't.

[neilgodfrey]

It makes no difference to the Hellenistic provenance if the LXX was composed in the third, second of first century BCE or first or second century CE.

Of course it does. These arguments about Plato and Berossos are unconvincing to 99% of people. If we have fragments at Qumran dated to 250 - 200 BCE which are earlier than the earliest LXX fragments that demands an explanation. The Jewish Torah using community broke away from the broader Samaritan community and then within that Jewish sect a further breakaway group us evidenced at Qumran. The existence of fragments from 250 - 200 BCE at Qumran is not compatible with this 270 BCE conspiracy theory.

The theory just doesn't work.

Surely the date of the first surviving copies of the LXX matters.

Surely the question whether the surviving LXX is Gmirkin's "Alexandrian exemplar" matters.

Surely parallels between Aristeas's narrative and Gmirkin's thesis implies he got the idea from this dubious historical document.

Surely evidence which contradict his thesis has to be considered. It is silly to creative such an idealized and theoretical "Alexandrian exemplar" that it becomes an unassailable thing devoid of any reality.

If Gmirkin's text is the LXX then we have to compare it fairly with the earlier Qumran fragments and wonder why anyone should take the later LXX text (a translation) to be the exemplar of the Hebrew fragments found at Qumran which date in fact from an earlier period.

You may enjoy dealing in abstractions, I don't.

I made it clear in the OP that this discussion is not about Gmirkin's thesis but despite repeated reminders of that fact you have persisted in derailing the discussion here by making every one of your comments about Gmirkin's thesis or some aspect of it.

You have failed at every point to actually address the arguments presented.

You have refused to acknowledge what the argument of this thread covers despite repeated reminders. You keep bringing up issues that are unrelated to the argument of the OP despite repeated attempts to steer you back on the topic being discussed.

You have stooped to character innuendo and attacks and inappropriate language directed at me and rgp personally.

Your trolling, sad to say, appears to have the backing of the forum's moderator who likewise has expressed the view that this question is a joke though he acknowledges not having looked into its arguments.

And no doubt the moderator will see fit to remove this comment before he lifts a finger against the forum's resident troll.

Your father was right.

[Secret Alias]

Ok obviously this discussion really comes down to personality. You and Robert Price "like" the Gmirkin thesis. That's all. What more is there to discuss? Are we going to argue about whether chocolate ice cream is "better" than vanilla ice cream? I am not convinced by the parallels with Plato and Berossos as proving that the Pentateuch developed from an imaginary library visit in Alexandria. You and Robert are. The fact that two "nobodies" (we have to admit that neither of you have any of the skills usually reserved for literary analysis in a ancient foreign language) feel there is a compelling case for dependence means what exactly? That we, the world should "take the Hellenistic era hypothesis seriously"? Really? I can't think of a more culturally bigoted thing to do.

A text written in Hebrew doesn't need any analysis in the Hebrew language. No of course not. [put anti-Semitic bias statement here] It is reasonable to conclude that two nobodies on an internet forum can on the one hand read Plato and Berrosos in English and compare notes with certain vague parallels with English translations of Genesis through Deuteronomy and make conclusions about the origin of the Pentateuch and "be taken seriously." Seriously by whom? Other people at the forum? The general public? The sheer egoism of reducing "being taken seriously" based on a perverted methodology and hopes of popularity is silly enough. But every step along the way there is a lopsided playing field. The Hebrew text that is being considered has definite boundaries.

I see no evidence that any of the claims on the other side are limited by reality. It comes down to a claim that BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT JUDEAN FRAGMENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH OR HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO THE PENTATEUCH PRE-DATE THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE THAT A LIBRARY VISIT BY JEWS AND SAMARITANS TO ALEXANDRIA OCCURRED THEREFORE THE VAGUE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN GREEK AUTHORS AND SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE PENTATEUCH PROVE THAT A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT A LIBRARY VISIT TO THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA "SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY." Really? I don't know where to begin with what is wrong with this theory but a good place to start is that people who have the technical ability to read both the original text in Hebrew and the Greek authors you mention in Greek don't see any influence of the ancient Greek language on the ancient Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. That is very good starting point. The examples that Gmirkin gives are not convincing, not to me most of the educated published people in the discussion or any of Gmirkin's peers. Indeed the one person at the forum who had the technical ability to compare the Hebrew and the Greek text you, Neil, chased away from the forum. So please don't blame me for reducing the discussion down to "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream." You want this to be all about "interpretation," "seeing how Plato is reflected in the Pentateuch," etc. These arguments only appeal to people who want to believe them.

[Secret Alias]

And perhaps a better title to this discussion is "why hasn't scholarship on the Pentateuch since the publication of Gmirkin's theories embraced his model?" That might be a more fruitful discussion rather than the ambiguous appeal to "being taken seriously" as a core consideration. "Being taken seriously" by whom? Internet trolls? Atheist crusaders? The reason scholarship hasn't taken the theory seriously is that his basic assumptions are unreal and otherworldly. Gmirkin puts forward Jews and Samaritans "working together" on the LXX completely unaware that the Samaritan account of the development of the LXX had Jews and Samaritans at each others throats just like they were for the rest of their history thereafter. At least part of the reason no one takes Gmirkin's theories seriously is that he deals with meaningless vague generalities. He speaks of the "LXX" which is a carry over from Aristeas. https://brill.com/display/book/97890045 ... 000012.xml But what part of Aristeas discredited history does he accept and what part does he reject? It's all subjective and self-serving.

[Secret Alias]

My Problem 1 with the thesis. Gmirkin borrows the Aristeas dating of the LXX to 270 BCE without taking the rest of the baggage associated with Aristeas or acknowledging the problems with Aristeas.

My Problem 2 with the thesis. By failing to identify his "LXX" with the surviving LXX his theory misstates or misinforms about the relative dates of Judean Hebrew fragments versus LXX fragments i.e. that the Hebrew texts at Qumran are earlier than surviving LXX fragments.

My Problem 3 with the thesis. Gmirkin knows nothing or cares little about the Samaritans and treats "the Jews" as a monolithic block who didn't share irreconcilable differences at the time of the publication of the LXX. The Samaritan tradition acknowledges that these irreconcilable differences existed at the time of the publication of the LXX so it is hard to imagine that Jews and Samaritans collaborated on a "new text" in Alexandria at the time the LXX was published.

My Problem 4 with the thesis. I think the LXX was published later than 270 BCE. I don't say this as a "reaction" to Gmirkin. I think the evidence suggests this. I think the LXX was published just before the arrival of John Hyrcanus as the Samaritan tradition holds. I think it was published sometime between 200 - 165 BCE. I don't think that Jews and Samaritans were without a written text for so long.

[Secret Alias]

So the whole purpose of Neil's endeavor is to turn this into two propositions which non-Jews have to choose between (a) the standard scholarly model which is complicated and convoluted but which is driven by evidence and understanding of Hebrew which posits a gradual and nuanced development of the known text types and (b) a conspiracy theory involving "elites" who "trick" the people into believing a series of "myths" filtered from Greek learning. (a) has found little or no traction among actual scholars so one wonders who exactly is being implored to "take seriously" (b). My guess is that "internet people" are the ones to whom this appeal is being made, i.e. the rabble, the mob. That's why I keep mentioning Nazis. Who in their right mind is going to care about a theory which involves "clever Jews" tricking people. Come on it's obvious. Future and present anti-Semites. The average person doesn't even know what language the Pentateuch is written in. It's not that saying that deceptive Jewish elites developed the Pentateuch is inherently anti-Semitic but the "hope" and the appeal to the mob is.

[rgprice]

This is the last time I am addressing your statements claims SA. Neil and I have made it very clear what drives our interest in Hellenistic provenance.

#1) There are numerous distinct parallels between the Jewish scriptures and Greek writings.
#2) Jewish scholars have long claimed, from the 2nd century BCE on, that the parallels between the Jewish scriptures and Greek works result from Greeks having copied and gotten all of their ideas from the Jewish scriptures. If you want to talk about conspiracy theories, the original conspiracy theory was the claim that the works of the great Greek masters were all secretly derived from the Jewish scriptures. That is literally one of the foundational claims of Judaism, levied by Josephus, Philo, countless rabbis, figures like Eupolemus and Aristobulus, and later taken up by the likes of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Lactantius, etc.
#3) There are no independent witnesses to the exitance of Torah Judaism prior to the 2nd century BCE. There are no witnesses to the existence of the works of the Old Testament Jewish prior to the 3rd century BCE. Judaism does not enter the frame of history until the 3rd century BCE and prior to that its existence is merely something of legend. It can only be read about in the Jewish scriptures and there is neither any archaeological evidence nor any historical witnesses to the Jewish culture described in the Jewish scriptures, prior to the 3rd century BCE.

Certainly the matter can be debated. Certainly we can debate ways that works like Isaiah can be conjectured to have been authored during the 5th century BCE. We can make conjectures about how many years there must have been between the writing of the first edition of the Pentateuch and the creation of the LXX or the works found at Qumran. We can debate what would have inspired the Maccabean Revolt and what the status of Judaism must have been in order to inspire such actions. We can debate the historicity of the works of Ezra and Nehemiah, etc., but we, or at least I, have had it with accusations of intellectual dishonesty or racism or other nefarious slanders. And none of those other conjectures do anything to address the fundamental evidence and literary relationships between the Jewish scriptures and Greek works.

[Secret Alias]

But are you suggesting that the "distinct parallels" which convinced no one in the field are enough to jettison the study of the (original) Hebrew text? You borrow a terminology from Aristeas (= LXX). You steal the date Aristeas assigns the translation of the Greek from a Hebrew original. And then leave the fact that Aristeas describes a translation not an original composition AND DENY THAT YOU ARE USING ARISTEAS for the dating. You pretend Jews and Samaritans "worked together" on this composition even though the Samaritans explicitly deny this. It's just an imaginary text, an imaginary theory about imaginary Jewish and Samaritan cooperative. Continue to enjoy living in your own head. Who needs reality. Enjoy the company of your friend Neil.

[Secret Alias]

Some more problems with Gmirkin's dating of the Septuagint. He says doesn't accept the Book of Aristeas alone with regards to the dating of the Septuagint:

Yet internal evidence from the Septuagint, complemented by rabbinic traditions, appears to corroborate that the translation was made under Arsinoe II. The Babylonian Talmud claimed that the Greek Torah used "short-footed" instead of "rabbit" (arnebeth) because Ptolemy's wife was named Arnebeth, and it was feared that Ptolemy would say, "The Jews have mocked me by introducing the name of my wife into the law.”74 The Septuagint indeed avoids the use of the word “rabbit” (lagos), instead substituting the word “shaggy-foot” Ptolemy I Soter was the son of an undistinguished man named Lagus, and the Ptolemaic dynasty was known as the Lagids. The Septuagint's avoidance of the word "rabbit" {lagos) was undoubtedly out of fear of offending the Ptolemies.

So far so good. The Ptolemies were named after someone who had a name which resembled the word for rabbit. But then this is where the bullshit starts:

The Babylonian Talmud was thus correct in stating that the Septuagint avoided the term "rabbit." What is interesting is the explanation that this was because Ptolemy's wife was named "rabbit." This appears to have been a reference to Ptolemy II Philadelphus's second wife Arsinoe II who, as his sister, was also a Lagid.” The pun is probably also partially preserved in Hebrew, where Ptolemy's wife was called Arnebeth (a play on Arsinoe). The avoidance of the word lagos in the Septuagint was doubly indicated since the rabbit bore a reputation in antiquity for sexual promiscuity.77 Arsinoe II, having had two previous marriages, and then having married her brother Ptolemy II (in accordance with Egyptian customs"), was sensitive to sexual innuendo; Sotades of Maroneia was imprisoned for having composed a lewd epigram on the marriage of the siblings Ptolemy and Arsinoe.” It may have been in light of this last famous incident that the Septuagint translators decided to avoid the term lagos. The Septuagint translation thus likely did indeed take place during the reign of queen Arsinoe II, as in The Letter of Aristeas. Arsinoe married Ptolemy II Philadelphus sometime between 279 and 273 BCE.80 Ptolemy II was first called a Lagid in Idyll 17 of Theocritus, written between 273 and 270 BCE (probably in 273/272 BCE),” so a date after 273/272 and before the death of Arsinoe II in July 269 Bce appears indicated. The early third century BCE Greek of the Septuagint translation is consistent with this date.

Thus despite the doubt attached to many quasi-historical details in Aristobulus's works, it still appears likely that he was correct in such basic details as the Septuagint originating under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the involvement of seventy scholars associated with the Judean gerousia in executing this project (as was indeed embodied in the later title Septuagint or the Seventy). We may therefore date the Septuagint with reasonably high confidence to the period 273269 BCE under Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

This is scholarship at its worst. He can't just say he's using the parts of Aristeas he 'likes' and ignoring the parts he doesn't like. No of course. That would be too honest. Instead he makes up some bullshit excuse about a "tradition" that was preserved by the Babylonian Talmud he "likes" while ignoring the fact that the Talmud also acknowledges the Septuagint is a translation not an original exemplar.

But let's delve a little deeper into this nonsense. Supposedly the Talmud (400 CE) and its statement about "the wife of Ptolemy" is the deciding factor. He can't accept Aristeas's word on its own about 270 BCE but "the deciding factor" is the Talmud's statement. Neither Gmirkin nor Neil ever cites from the original material so I will here:

And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze’irat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: “And the hare [arnevet]” (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy’s wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.

The presumption of the sages was that the Hebrew word אַרְנֶבֶת was offensive not the Greek word λαγός. "arnevet" doesn't not even sound like Arsinoe. But even if this was so there were many sister wives of the Ptolemies named "Arsinoe.' Ptolemy IV was married to his sister Arsinoe also. Luckily we have multiple attestations for the name "Arsinoe" in Aramaic. It was ארסינואי rather than אַרְנֶבֶת. It was true in antiquity https://opensiddur.org/readings-and-sou ... f-arsinoe/ It is also the current Hebrew translation of the name https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7 ... 7%90%D7%99. This is not surprising as אַרְנֶבֶת looks nothing like Arsinoe.

So the followers of Gmirkin have to choose:

1. was the Talmud really making a reference to the name "Arsinoe" wife of Ptolemy or was it a typically sloppy reference to the Greek word for rabbit λαγός by means of the Hebrew word for rabbit אַרְנֶבֶת? Anyone who has spent time reading the rabbinical literature knows how inexact historical references are. Nero was not a proselyte. Titus didn't die from a gnat bite etc.

2. if it is acknowledged that אַרְנֶבֶת is a reference to λαγός and λαγός in turn is a reference to the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty then the reference does nothing to help "prove" the accuracy of Aristeas's dating of the Septuagint. All Ptolemies were descendants of Lagos.

3. if this is all true we are still left with Gmirkin using the parts of Aristeas he likes (it was written in 270 BCE) and ignoring the parts (it was a translation) he doesn't like.

[Secret Alias]

And as proof of the will misrepresentation of Gmirkin here I present that modern Jewish commentators on the Talmud DID NOT see any resemblance between the Hebrew word for "rabbit" and the name of Arsinoe but instead took it to be indicative of Lagos the founder of the Ptolemaic lineage. So Sefarim ha-ḥitsoniyim le-Torah, le Neviʼim, le-Ketuvim (Abraham Kahana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kahana):

10) , ולא כתבו את הארנבת ( ויק ' י"א ו ' , דב ' י"ד ז ' ) , מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה
11) אשתו השניה של תלמי פילדלפוס - ארסינואי מכובדת בבחינת אפרודיטי , ולזו היתה מוקדשת הארנבת . - 12 ) אם כן , אין כאן תרגום בהסכמה - - אחותו היתה וממשפחת לגוס ( layos = ארנבת ) והיתה ובדעה אחת , אדרבה - כל אחד תרגם חומש אחד ואין אחר דומה לחברו


10), and they did not write the hare (Meg 116, 147), because Ptolemy's wife was named Hare
11) The second wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus - Arsinoe is respected in terms of Aphrodite, and the rabbit was dedicated to her.
12) If so, there is no consensus translation here - his sister was from the Lagos family (layos = rabbit) and it was in one opinion, rather - each one translated one pentacle and no other is similar to his friend.

This is fucking embarrassing. And on the dissimilarity of the Hebrew word for rabbit and the name Arsinoe:

"This talmudic comment is unclear since the Greek translation of arnevet , “ hare , ” would be a word that is totally different than the name of Ptolemy's wife." https://books.google.com/books?id=4s5cL ... 22&f=false

Someone else who reads the passage in the same way

And on the LXX's choices having something OTHER in mind than merely not offending the Ptolemies, cf. David Benatar BRER HARE: Ruminations on a Religious Argument European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe, Vol. 30, No. 2, EUROPEAN JUDAISM AUTUMN 1997 (Autumn 1997), pp. 108-111 (4 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41443420

The modern Hebrew word for hare is arnevet. Not only is this in accordance with a sustained tradition about the meaning of the word, but there is also excellent evidence from antiquity for this interpretation. The Talmud, in an apocryphal account of the translation of the Torah into Greek, claims that the sages who performed the translation purposefully mistranslated some words to prevent misunderstandings. Arnevet, we are told was not translated accurately because Arsinoe II, the sister and wife of the sponsor of the translation. Ptolemy Philadelphius, was named Arnevet. An accurate translation according to the talmudic account, would have conveyed the impression that Jewish holy texts regarded Ptolemy's wife as an unclean animal. Appearing to lampoon the monarch's family is neither politic nor prudent. I know of no evidence that Arsinoe, in fact, had this additional name, but the Talmud's account of the substituted word is illuminating. A camel, for instance, is not a short-legged animal and thus, according to Jewish sources, the camel interpretation of arnevet appears wrong.

As it happens, the word used for arnevet in the Septuagint, the translation of the Bible into Greek, is not short-legged one, but rather dasupous, which means 'hare.' Nevertheless there is a connection between the Talmud's word and the Septuagint's. The literal meaning of dasupous is "hairy-legged one." It stands to reason that in choosing an alternative word, the translators would have searched for one which bore a relationship to the original meaning. Identifying the hare by its legs, but substituting its hirsute features for a description of its length seems to be an effective device. An alternative explanation is that there is an error in the talmudic account and the chosen word for the rabbinic translators was in fact dasupous. It is easy to explain how this error came about in the Talmud's Hebrew account of the matter. The Hebrew for "short legged one" is tze-irat raglayim. The hairy-legged one would have read se'irat raglayim. The accidental substitution of the letter tzaddi for the letter sin could easily have occurred at some stage. In any event the connection between the Talmud's account of arnevet and the Greek word for hare is too close to be coincidence. The authors of the Talmud seem to have understood arnevet as hare.

Not only is the text of the Talmud is saying that Ptolemy's wife's name was "hare" (something which Benatar cannot find any evidence of) but Benatar makes a realistic explanation for why the LXX choose the word it did.