The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:36 pm
only one possible/alleged Persian loan word, which is widely disputed.


If you're right, παράδεισος.
The Persian loan word pardes never appears anywhere in the Pentateuch. Only the Hebrew word gan or garden. In the whole Hebrew Bible pardes only appears at Nehemiah 2:8, Ecclesiaes 2:5 and Song of Songs 4:13. What is confusing you is that the GREEK word paradise (παράδεισος) is a Persian loan word, first introduced by Xenophon in reference to the parks of the Persian kings and nobles (Anabasis 1.2.7; 2.4.14; Cyropedia 1.3.14). By the time of the LXX (where it was used to translate gan--not pardes!!!--in Gen. 2:8), it was commonly used for a enclosed garden or Persian park.

In Luke, 2 Corinthians, Revelation and Josephus Ant. 1.13 παράδεισος refers to an earthly or heavenly paradise, under the influence of the LXX of Gen. 2:8.

The word παράδεισος also appears in Diodorus Siculus, Library 14.80.2 ("He [Agesilaus] overran the countryside as far as Sardis and ravaged the orchards and the pleasure-park belonging to [the Persian ruler] Tissaphernes, which had been artistically laid out at great expense with plants and all other things that contribute to luxury and the enjoyment in peace of the good things of life"); Plutarch, Alcibiades 24 ["Tissaphernes, though otherwise the most ardent of the Persians in his hatred of the Hellenes, so completely surrendered to the flatteries of Alcibiades as to outdo him in reciprocal flatteries. Indeed, the most beautiful park he had, both for its refreshing waters and grateful lawns, with resorts and retreats decked out in regal and extravagant fashion, he named Alcibiades; everyone always called it by that name."]; Strabo, Geography 15.1.58 ["the ivy, the laurel, the myrtle, the box-tree, and other evergreens, none of which are found beyond the Euphrates, except a few in parks, which are only preserved with great care"]; and Josephus, War 4.467 (the charming gardens in the Jericho region).

So what does that show? (1) That the Greeks knew about Persian pleasure-parks from the time of Xenophon onwards; (2) that the Greek word paradise (παράδεισος) was borrowed from the Persian pardes; and (3) that for the Greek translator of Genesis 2:8, Eden's luxurious garden was reminiscent of Persia's famous pleasure-gardens and was best described by this Greek word. But the Hebrew original (including the Samaritan Pentateuch) uses the usual Hebrew word gan. There is NO PERSIAN LOAN WORD in the Hebrew original.

The use of παράδεισος does NOT point to Genesis or the Pentateuch as a Persian era composition. Or are you trying to say the LXX translation was made in the Persian Era?! Because παράδεισος only appears in the LXX, not in the Hebrew.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

If the same people wrote the Hebrew and Greek texts in Alexandria in the third century AS YOU CLAIM then they used another Persian loanword παράδεισος throughout the Greek text of Genesis. Also they didn't borrow the Greek word μάχαιρα :
The Septuagint gives a different turn to this line from our translation, and confirms the translation given above: Συνετελεσαν αδικια εξαιρεσεως αυτων· They have accomplished the iniquity of their purpose with which the Samaritan Version agrees. In the Samaritan text we read [Samaritan] calu, they have accomplished, instead of the Hebrew כלי keley, weapons or instruments, which reading most critics prefer: and as to מכרתיהם mecherotheyhem, translated above their fraudulent purposes, and which our translation on almost no authority renders their habitations, it must either come from the AEthiopic מכר macar, he counselled, devised stratagems, c., (see Castel,) or from the Arabic [Arabic] macara, he deceived, practised deceit, plotted, c., which is nearly of the same import. This gives not only a consistent but evidently the true sense.
I'm following the implications of the same people writing the Hebrew and Greek texts. You're just stuck on a preference for the Masoretic text. Clearly here the LXX agrees with the SP.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

SP: "Shehmoon and Libee are brothers, they finished the evil of their tools."

https://books.google.com/books?id=-wn8A ... on&f=false

LXX "Symeon and Levi, brethren, accomplished the injustice of their cutting off."

Συμεων καὶ Λευι ἀδελφοί συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν

Since neither the SP nor the LXX have "sword" = no evidence for the borrowing of a Greek word in your ur-Torah.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

You've made a good argument here for the MT to have developed in the Hellenistic period or under the influence or the incorporation of Greek terminology. But the LXX and SP here go back to something earlier or untouched by contact with this Greek terminology.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:25 pm If the same people wrote the Hebrew and Greek texts in Alexandria in the third century AS YOU CLAIM then they used another Persian loanword παράδεισος throughout the Greek text of Genesis. Also they didn't borrow the Greek word μάχαιρα :
The Septuagint gives a different turn to this line from our translation, and confirms the translation given above: Συνετελεσαν αδικια εξαιρεσεως αυτων· They have accomplished the iniquity of their purpose with which the Samaritan Version agrees. In the Samaritan text we read [Samaritan] calu, they have accomplished, instead of the Hebrew כלי keley, weapons or instruments, which reading most critics prefer: and as to מכרתיהם mecherotheyhem, translated above their fraudulent purposes, and which our translation on almost no authority renders their habitations, it must either come from the AEthiopic מכר macar, he counselled, devised stratagems, c., (see Castel,) or from the Arabic [Arabic] macara, he deceived, practised deceit, plotted, c., which is nearly of the same import. This gives not only a consistent but evidently the true sense.
I'm following the implications of the same people writing the Hebrew and Greek texts. You're just stuck on a preference for the Masoretic text. Clearly here the LXX agrees with the SP.
Right, paradise is a loan word from Persian introduced into the GREEK language around 400 BCE by Xenophon to describe Persian gardens. But it doesn't date the Hebrew Pentateuch: no Persian loan words in the original Hebrew text.

A sword is consistent with the story of Simeon, Levi and Hamor at Gen. 34:26. But the LXX doesn't have a sword, so I agree there are arguments on both sides. But I find it extremely doubtful that the Hebrew of Genesis borrowed from either Aethiopic or Arabic. Anyway, I've given this thread (and EarlyWritings.com) more than enough of my time, so I will leave you to your own conclusions on this and other matters.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Most Consistent Criticism of Gmirkin's Hypothesis

Post by Secret Alias »

I thought you were arguing that the same group of scribes wrote BOTH the Hebrew AND the Greek (LXX) text of the Pentateuch. As such, THEY (the scribes) would have left two "Persianisms" (for lack of a better terminology) in the text of the surviving Pentateuch. One in the Hebrew, one in the Greek versions of the text THAT THEY WROTE in 275 BCE. The closest parallel example I can think of this proposed situation is the surviving Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus. An argument could be made the same person wrote both the Greek and the Latin texts of Against Heresies.

If I understand your proposal correctly the instances the LXX agrees with the SP (well attested cf Tov https://bda.hypotheses.org/files/2016/0 ... dition.pdf) PROVE that - under your own proposition, there can't be a simple equation of 'the Hebrew text written by the scribes at Alexandria c. 275 BCE' and the MT. I also recognize differences between Philo's LXX and the Greek text of the Pentateuch called 'LXX' (according to tradition), mostly with respect to the divine name associated with various 'actions' or presences in the narrative. Philo's text would presumably be closer to the original "275 BCE Greek text." But clearly the point is that under your hypothesis it would be a mistake to identify what the MT says as "what the scribes in 275 BCE" wrote in Greek. The MT IS NOT to be equated with the Hebrew text written by the scribes at Alexandria under your theory. Just a note.

FWIW one of the agreements that Tov examines is the proposed "Greek word" found in the MT and not the LXX or SP:
49:5 MT חמס כלי ;SP LXX חמס כלו) συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν). According to the meaning of the next verse, v. 6, in all the witnesses, Simeon and Levi shared negative experiences as they were involved in acts of crime. In light of this, MT is understandable in v. 5, with its “weapons of iniquity,”
and in v. 7 stating that “their anger” is “cursed.” In contrast, the context in the LXX is positive since συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν (= חמס כלו (can only be understood as “they brought the violence to an end” (MT: כלי ,tools).52

In my view, the reading of SP LXX developed secondarily. Two of the three words in this stretch were problematic, the hapax legomenon מכרותיהם and the word that can either be written as כלי or לוכ) yod or waw were hardly distinguished). In light of these problems, the Greek translator
interpreted the first letter of מכרותיהם as the preposition -מ and not as part of a word, thereby causing a change in the syntax of the surrounding
words. His rendering ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (NETS: by their choice) is probably based on the etymological understanding of the two root letters כר of מכרותיהם as בר”) to choose,” as in ברר ,(also found elsewhere in the LXX.
While you may latch on to Tov's argument that the LXX/SP reading "developed secondarily" it would also be problematic to your theory. How could the LXX have interpreted a word the very same writers wrote originally in Hebrew with a Samaritan sectarian reinterpretation? Presumably the SP's 'reinterpretation' (assuming MT priority) arose in some later period? How then the LXX if it was written by the very same writers as original authors. Perhaps I am not understanding your theory.
Post Reply