Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

[Secret Alias]

I understand that you're dating the Hebrew (Judean) text by abitrarily assigning it to the latest possible date (i e. the earliest known fragments) and ignoring the literary evidence which connects the Hebrew (Judean) text to Ezra and ignoring the fact that the earliest known fragments of the LXX date to a period after the Hebrew (Judean) fragments but choose to date the LXX to 270 BCE based on Aristeas without acknowledging that Aristeas is the only source for a 270 BCE dating for the LXX. Am I missing something? Am I "in the dark" about you treating Hebrew and Greek fragments differently (hence my Schindlers List example). Maybe you treat the Hebrew fragments as "fairly" as you are able. That's another issue.

[Secret Alias]

I love these "we already dealt with this" claim. You did your best to ignore the evidence and grant the Hebrew fragments a fair playing field. That's all. No one is convinced by these subjective the arguments you embrace. You, this Robert Price, the inventor of this nonsense and a few other unnotables. People who hope against hope for the end of civilization to assist in the propagation of these illusory claims.

[neilgodfrey]

I understand that you're dating the Hebrew (Judean) text by abitrarily assigning it to the latest possible date (i e. the earliest known fragments)

That is incorrect. There has been nothing arbitrary about any step of the argument. Each step has hewed closely to independent and universally recognized data and evidence. The earliest known fragments are not factored into the argument at all because they fall well outside any range that has relevance for the argument being made.

What steps in the actual argument and its relation to specific evidence that has been explained do you find inadequate?

and ignoring the literary evidence which connects the Hebrew (Judean) text to Ezra

I pointed clearly in an earlier post to the problem with circular reasoning in that claim. Why have you simply ignored that point in which I linked to a clear explanation for why it was circular? If you want to engage with the argument then you have to actually read the argument first.

and ignoring the fact that the earliest known fragments of the LXX date to a period after the Hebrew (Judean) fragments

That is incorrect. No one is disputing the LXX being produced after the Hebrew text. Did you even read my earlier post this morning in which I made it clear that such evidence is entirely consistent with a Hellenistic provenance. Please read my comments before trying to argue against what you ASSUME I am arguing.

but choose to date the LXX to 270 BCE based on Aristeas

You are making this impossible. I have repeatedly explained why Aristeas is irrelevant and why a 270 date for the LXX is irrelevant to the Hellenistic provenance of the Pentateuch. You are simply ignoring my comments. I take this as nothing more than trolling.

without acknowledging that Aristeas is the only source for a 270 BCE dating for the LXX.

Will you address the arguments I have made and quit this gaslighting about Aristeas and 270.

Am I missing something?

Yes. To turn on a light actually read what I have been posting here and respond to the arguments I and RGPrice have made.

Am I "in the dark" about you treating Hebrew and Greek fragments differently

I do not treat them differently at all. That is entirely in your imagination. You simply demonstrate that you have not even read the arguments set out in this thread.

(hence my Schindlers List example). Maybe you treat the Hebrew fragments as "fairly" as you are able. That's another issue.

That is outrageous abusive trolling and harassing. I ask you to withdraw your comment. If you do not see a reply from me in future know in advance it is because I am tired or trying to respond do someone who demonstrates that they have not read what they think they are responding to. I ask you not to go all out to try to derail this thread but actually address specific arguments made, not what you seem to assume I have made.

[neilgodfrey]

To sum up:

There is no independent evidence for any knowledge of the Pentateuch prior to the Hellenistic era. The archaeological evidence that exists does not observe any religious or cultural difference among Judeans and Samaritans and any other Yhw worshiping people in the Syrian-Nabatean region prior to the Hellenistic era. High priests, temples, festivals for Yhw are widespread before the Pentateuch. Even cultic avoidance of images of the god being worshiped are known throughout the region.

The independent evidence for awareness of the Pentateuch first appears only in the Hellenistic era. All archaeological and manuscript evidence is consistent with a Hellenistic provenance.

Reliance on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah to posit a pre-Hellenistic awareness of the Pentateuch relies upon circular reasoning. See the links in my earlier comment here.

The Hellenistic provenance is preferable on methodical grounds to a diachronic view of the origin of the Pentateuch. See the reasons for that preference in the post linked in the above paragraph.

Any attempt to bring Aristeas into the discussion or link the Hellenistic provenance to a date of around 270 is irrelevant. Those details are only relevant to one of several versions of argument for HOW the Pentateuch came about GIVEN a Hellenistic provenance. They do not make or break the Hellenistic provenance for the Pentateuch itself and attempts to deny this are pure gaslighting.

If anyone is still confused about the basic arguments for the Hellenistic provenance -- read the OP to this thread.

[rgprice]

To add to what Neil said, the following has to be addressed:

There are numerous distinct similarities between a wide range of Jewish scriptures and a wide range of writings produced in the Greek language. Those similarities include, but are not limited to, similarities between Jewish scriptures and Herodotus, Plato, Manetho, Berossus, and Sibylline literature.

Relationships between Jewish scriptures and works of these various writers have been recognized for millennia, and in fact were distinctly addressed by ancient Greeks and Jews, with each accusing the other of copying from them. What we find in relation to the Jewish scriptures and various Greeks works are distinct similarities that are not found between Greek works any other independent ancient works. In other words, similarities that are unique to Greek works and Jewish works that are not found between, for example, Greek works and Babylonian works, Persian works, Roman works, Egyptian works, Assyrian works, etc., unless those works are also known to have literary dependencies.

So clearly there is some set of literary dependencies between Jewish writings and Greek writings. These dependencies have to be explained. They can be explained in one of three ways:

1) The apparent relationships are not real and in fact, despite numerous claims to the contrary made by Jews themselves, the Jewish scriptures and Greek works are entirely independent of one another. It "just so happens" that Jews produced literature that closely resembles Greek literature along numerous distinctive points, and that apparently Jewish writings just happen to share a distinctive set of narrative characteristics with Greek writings that is unique among ancient works.
2) Numerous Greek writers had come into contact with Jewish writings and were influenced by these Jewish writings, from as far back as the 6th or 5th century BCE, while none of these writers mentioned the works they were influenced by or even the existence of Jewish people. The works of Herodotus, Plato and other major Greek thinkers are all indebted to Jewish literary traditions that preceded them. Essentially, all along, from the 6th or 5th century on, all of the great developments in Greek culture had been secretly and unknowingly dependent on borrowings from the Jews.
3) Jewish writers had come into contact with Greek literature and drew upon a wide array of Greek sources when producing their writings. Much of the history and geography laid out in the Jewish scriptures is dependent upon Greek sources. Sources used by these Jewish writers may be as late as Berossus, from roughly 270 BCE, though they include Greek sources that date back to the 5th century BCE.

One of these three cases has to be made. Thus far, I have not seen anyone in this thread make any case for either cases 1 or 2, despite clear requests to do so. If you do not agree that option 3 is the best explanation of the relationships between Jewish and Greek literature, then argue for option 1 or 2.

But again:

It is from this need [to establish the Jews as the chosen people] that the famous theory of the dependence of Greek wisdom on Biblical revelation, whereby all the most valuable aspects of pagan Greek culture had ultimately been derived rived from the prophets of Israel, first arose. This notion that the Greek poets and philosophers took all their knowledge from biblical Revelation secured in the first place the historical and cultural supremacy of the Jewish people, and furthermore justified its participation in the wider Greek culture; after this, it was necessary only to assemble the missing links necessary to make the theory plausible, if only on a purely artificial and rhetorical level.
- Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui, Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity

The reinterpretation of authentic sentiments and the inventions of bogus utterances give insight into the motives of Jews learned in Hellenic literature and lore. These works go beyond what is conventionally termed apologetic writing. They do not represent mere defensive, rear-guard action by a beleaguered minority in an alien world. What stands out is the aggressive inventiveness of the stories. The Jews, of course, were in no position to challenge the political supremacy of Hellenistic powers, whether in Palestine or in the Diaspora. And they did not do so. They accepted, even acknowledged their subordinate political status. But by selectively appropriating Hellenic culture, they could redefine it in their own terms, adopting categories and genres that would be familiar to a pagan readership but making more vivid the spiritual and intellectual precedence that the Jewish audience associated with their own traditions. Through creative fictions like kinship connections, tales of homage paid by Hellenic rulers to Jewish values, and the supposed Jewish roots of Greek culture, the Jews not only affirmed their place in the larger Hellenistic community. They also articulated their special identity in a form that bolstered self-esteem by accepting honestly their political subordination but asserting—perhaps not so honestly—their cultural ascendancy.
-Erich Gruen, Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism 2016

‘It is evident that Plato closely followed our legislation, and has carefully studied the several precepts contained in it. For others before Demetrius Phalereus, and prior to the supremacy of Alexander and the Persians, have translated both the narrative of the exodus of the Hebrews our fellow countrymen from Egypt, and the fame of all that had happened to them, and the conquest of the land, and the exposition of the whole Law; so that it is manifest that many things have been borrowed by the aforesaid philosopher, for he is very learned: as also Pythagoras transferred many of our precepts and inserted them in his own system of doctrines.’
‘Now it seems to me that he [Moses] has been very carefully followed in all by Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato, who said that they heard the voice of God, when they were contemplating the arrangement of the universe so accurately made and indissolubly combined by God. Moreover, Orpheus, in verses taken from his writings in the Sacred Legend, thus sets forth the doctrine that all things are governed by divine power, and that they have had a beginning, and that God is over all.’
- Eusebius quoting Aristobulus

Is not this the thing which the Greeks say that Heraclitus, that great philosopher who is so celebrated among them, put forth as the leading principle of his whole philosophy, and boasted of it as if it were a new discovery? For it is in reality an ancient discovery of Moses, that out of the same thing opposite things are produced having the ratio of parts to the whole, as has here been shown.
- Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things (214)
some of the lawgivers among the Greeks, having transcribed some of the laws from the two tables of Moses, appear to have established very wise regulations, forbidding any one to mention in his testimony anything that he has heard, on the ground that it is right to look upon what a man has seen as trustworthy, but on what he has heard as not in all respects certain.
- Philo, The Special Laws (4.61)
In regard to this, Heracleitus, taking law and opinions from Moses like a thief, says, “we live their death, and we die their life,” intimating that the life of the body is the death of the soul.
- Philo, Questions in Genesis (4.152)

We know with certainty, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Jewish writers from the 3rd century BCE - 2nd century CE, engaged in extensive mimicry and forgery of Greek works. This includes Sibylline literature, forged Orphic works, the creation of Greek style dramas such as Ezekiel's Exagoge. There are hundreds of examples of Jewish borrowings from the Greeks. There no such examples of borrowings going in the other direction. We do not see any explosion of Greek writers from the 3rd century BCE through 2nd century CE rushing to imitate Jewish works, unless one wants to consider the Gospels such an example, or unless ones to argue that Plato, Manetho, Berossus, etc., are such examples.

We know that Jewish writers were producing "Greek style works" in abundance during the Hellenistic era. That is a settled matter beyond any doubt whatsoever. So, a theory of Hellenistic provenance for the Pentateuch is "merely" adding the Pentateuch and other Jewish scriptures to the already long and existing set of Jewish writings that were influenced by Greek works.

So please. As in any debate. If you disagree with the position that the Jewish scriptures were influenced by Greek works, then ARUGE OTHER SIDE. Argue that it was the Greek writers who copied from the Jews, as hundreds of Jewish scholars and Church Fathers have argued for thousands of years.

[Secret Alias]

Neither of you have addressed the only question that matters. Leaving aside these highly subjective arguments, what is the earliest evidence we have for the LXX? You ask these very same questions for the Hebrew Pentateuch and arrive at an answer of "we have no evidence of a Hebrew text before 270 BCE." Where does this 270 BCE date come from? The Book of Aristeas. That's the only possibility. When we actually put the evidence for fragments of the LXX against fragments from Qumran the Hebrew fragments turn out to be older than the Greek translations from Alexandria (shocking I know) When we consider literary references the LXX is first cited after the same Qumran fragments. In short the LXX is a translation, it was made likely as late as the second century BCE, the rest of the "evidence" are just subjective arguments that appeal to people with bad taste, who are attracted to conspiracy theories and silly race based propaganda that will never gain traction in the real world of scholarship.

[Secret Alias]

Still waiting for one piece of evidence which isn't dependant on the Book of Aristeas for the date of "270 BCE" for the development of the LXX.

[StephenGoranson]

This thread includes many unreliable assertions. We differ about which are unreliable. In no neat order:
The overall attested trend of Bible composition and editing is one of cumulation.
Quick composition is not attested, even though asserted by Gmirkin.
ng and rgp alternate (opportunistically?) between Gmirkin-showed-X and nevermind-Gmirkin (and/or nevermind LXX or Aristeas or Qumran, etc.); alternate from good cop to bad cop.
Gmirkin's main (c.273-272) proposal has been available since at least 2006. Endorsed and accepted by whom?
The 3 rgp options are not the only options.
Accusations of treating Bible differently than, say, Vedas or Zoroastrian or other old texts, are misdirections and unhelpful, occasionally, in ng use, slanderous and disinformation.
Despite dismissals, silver amulets writing and Deir Alla texts (unless fake or misdated) attest portions of Torah.
Qumran mss are indeed relevant, because some are early attestations. How early? Some may date, in expert evaluation, before 273. ng countered: why not accept the old [incomplete] "consensus," even while, at the very same time (hypocritically?), railing against people treated as if zombies spoon-fed with putative bad old consensus.
Qumran mss dates, some of them, are being expertly adjusted to earlier date ranges.
Hebrew language somewhat changed over time.
Elephantine foreign soldiers were not yeshiva bokers, but contacted priests for guidance; priests, not only in Judaea and Samaria, tend to be literate and to have texts; market day(s) in Egypt were set by Egyptians; [USA high school Friday nights and college games Saturday afternoons--so?].
The Noah example from austendw--though I do not endorse every detail--and without a documentary hypothesis "bogeyman," shows that cumulation and editing over time is more plausible than a quick creation. ng merely countered, in effect, why not quick? The example of how committees work (admittedly later) from documented US Constitution negotiations, namely compromise, rather than juxtaposing fragments, seeming did not appear on the pro-Gmirkin/with-or-without Gmirkin radar.

The hypothesized Gmirkin hypothetically-unique Ur-Text, hypothetically sanctioned, hypothetically deposited, at least, in the Library of Alexandria and the Temple in Jerusalem, was, hypothetically, soon, hypothetically, lost. Odd, that.

[rgprice]

This thread includes many unreliable assertions. We differ about which are unreliable. In no neat order:
The overall attested trend of Bible composition and editing is one of cumulation.
Quick composition is not attested, even though asserted by Gmirkin.

#1) Neither "gradual" nor "quick" composition are attested. Gradual and sudden models are proposed to explain observations about the texts.
#2) Gradual and quick are relative terms. Is composition over 200 years "quick"?
#3) The dating of the scriptures has nothing to do with whether they were written gradually or quickly. They could have been compiled quickly in the 9th century BCE. They could have been compiled gradually between the 5th and 2nd century BCE, taking final form in the 2nd century BCE.

ng and rgp alternate (opportunistically?) between Gmirkin-showed-X and nevermind-Gmirkin (and/or nevermind LXX or Aristeas or Qumran, etc.); alternate from good cop to bad cop.

The title of the thread is "Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously", not "Why what Gmirkin has proposed in 100% correct". "Hellenistic era" does not mean "composed in 270", it does not mean "the LXX came first". This is merely about the evidence showing that the Pentateuch and many other (though not all) Jewish scriptures were not composed until SOME TIME in the Hellenistic era, meaning some time after 323 BCE.

Gmirkin's main (c.273-272) proposal has been available since at least 2006. Endorsed and accepted by whom?

Gmirkin is just but one of many scholars contributing to the proposal that the composition of the scriptures should be dated to the Hellenistic era, he is not the only one. And there is indeed growing support for the position of Hellenistic dating, regardless of Gmirkin's specific thesis.

The 3 rgp options are not the only options.

Ok, what are the other options? Argue for some such option. You need to present a case that explains apparent relationships between the Jewish scriptures and Greek works.

Accusations of treating Bible differently than, say, Vedas or Zoroastrian or other old texts, are misdirections and unhelpful, occasionally, in ng use, slanderous and disinformation.

??

Despite dismissals, silver amulets writing and Deir Alla texts (unless fake or misdated) attest portions of Torah.

No one denies this. That the Pentateuch and other Jewish scriptures contain elements of works that date deep into antiquity is widely acknowledged. Many psalms can be dated back to the 13th century BCE. We know this.

Qumran mss are indeed relevant, because some are early attestations. How early? Some may date, in expert evaluation, before 273. ng countered: why not accept the old [incomplete] "consensus," even while, at the very same time (hypocritically?), railing against people treated as if zombies spoon-fed with putative bad old consensus. Qumran mss dates, some of them, are being expertly adjusted to earlier date ranges.

This is valid, but in itself does not address the issue of Hellenistic provenance. Again, 323 is not 270.

Hebrew language somewhat changed over time.

Point being? Herodotus noted that forgers employed the use of older languages, writings styles and writing materials in order to deceive readers into thinking that writings were older than they were.

Elephantine foreign soldiers were not yeshiva bokers, but contacted priests for guidance; priests, not only in Judaea and Samaria, tend to be literate and to have texts; market day(s) in Egypt were set by Egyptians; [USA high school Friday nights and college games Saturday afternoons--so?].

Neh?

The Noah example from austendw--though I do not endorse every detail--and without a documentary hypothesis "bogeyman," shows that cumulation and editing over time is more plausible than a quick creation.

"Over time"? "Quick"? This isn't biological evolution. How much does a writing change in the span of two or three revisions? I've handed in papers that were commented on my professors then revised in a matter of 2 days that ended up entirely different. When I wrote my book, Deciphering the Gospels I compiled a collection of my own blog posts from a span of about 10 years and edited them together. I can still see the seams in the writings. My own style changed over the 10 year period. My book Deciphering the Gospels uses a lot of my own prior material, yet is radically different from that material. This all occurred in a span of 10 years.

Look at the Gospels. It is now widely agreed that the Gospels share many relationships among each other. There are mixes of styles and many seams in the works. They they were all likely composed in span of between 5 and 50 years of one another. Is that "quick"? There are certainly cumulative layers within the NT writings, yet no one seriously posits a time scale of their composition lasting more than 150 years, with most seeing the composition of most of the works over a span of about 50 years.

ng merely countered, in effect, why not quick? The example of how committees work (admittedly later) from documented US Constitution negotiations, namely compromise, rather than juxtaposing fragments, seeming did not appear on the pro-Gmirkin/with-or-without Gmirkin radar.

Again, Gmirkin's case is not the only case. What you are discussing are Gmirkin's proposed models to explain the evidence. First we have to agree on what the evidence is. It's like talking about the existence of fossils that show life has changed over time and agreeing that there are many sets of evidence that show life has changed over time vs developing the explanation of Darwinian evolution to explain how it could have happened.

What we are talking about is the evidence showing that Jewish works have dependences on Greek works. The first part is to determine if indeed we can agree that there are dependencies between Jewish works and Greek works. Once it is agreed that the evidence shows that Jewish works are dependent on Greek works, then we can proposed models to explain how that could have happened.

The hypothesized Gmirkin hypothetically-unique Ur-Text, hypothetically sanctioned, hypothetically deposited, at least, in the Library of Alexandria and the Temple in Jerusalem, was, hypothetically, soon, hypothetically, lost. Odd, that.

Meh...

[Secret Alias]

So let's summarize the appeal of the Gmirkin hypothesis.

You like it.

Hypothetical text. Wholly hypothetical origin. But it appeals to your "gut." Great. The modern armchair historian deciding history with his belly.