Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:17 pm It may be true that Schmid and Davila have not read your (REG) research.
I do not, actually, know (whether or not they read some, or what portion).
Shall we explore why some may not wish to say?
I know for a fact that they have not, according to explicit statements by both which I have noted on this forum (and in the case of Davila, YOU have also noted).

But, yes, let's explore why YOU would not wish to say whether you have read my research.

On ANE-3 you recently posted:

First, to address an inaccuracy posted by R. E. Gmirkin, I have read other writings, e. g., his “Can the Documentary Hypothesis be Rehabilitated? A New Model of the Collaborative Composition of the Pentateuch”. Journal of Higher Criticism 15/3 (fall 2020): 4-48.

Second, to address REG's deflection. Yes I used to work in a library, and also in teaching, publishing, and editing. So what?

Third, REG wrote that "...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria..." Such can be challenged--if allowed--both for lack of evidence and for trivializing Hebrew culture.

To which I responded:

Since 2006, you’ve downloaded one article I recently made available at https://independent.academia.edu/RussellGmirkin. Terrific.

As a librarian, teacher, publisher and editor you know about the academic practice of documenting assertions, right?

Why don’t you post an exhaustive list of titles of mine you’ve read since 2006 to document your claim that my research lacks evidence.

You may supplement this with any journal review article from someone who has actually read my recent books that claims I somehow trivialize Hebrew culture, whatever that means.

My own opinion is that my research sheds considerable light on Jewish and Samaritan intellectual culture in various periods, but especially in the early Hellenistic Era. Or at least that is my intent.

Best Regards,
Russell Gmirkin
Portland, Oregon

To which you evasively responded:

That R. E Gmirkin's writing is often extensively footnoted is certainly true; footnotes, though, do not always equal truth.

That Judaism was eventually deeply influenced by Hellenism is clear. But to borrow a phrase about a different author, A. Momigliano cautioned about casting "the Hellenization of an unknown entity."*

According to REG (Nov. 28, 2022 ​** ) "Yes, the authors of Genesis knew Homer, Hesiod, Ariston, Empedocles, Zeno, Berossus and several of Plato's dialogs (Timaeus, Critias, Statesman, Protagoras)...."

Yet on Berossus, for example, see this review*** concerning argument from silence etc.

If Torah had first been written down c. 273-272 in Alexandria, in a widely agreed upon version and soon after translated into Greek by the same delegation that also erased some earlier traditions according to Plato's plan, then why are Qumran mss so divergent?

So do tell, why would you not wish to list on ANE-3 (or here) the titles you have (or have not) read since 2006 in response to a straightforward question?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX

Post by StephenGoranson »

For whatever reason REG excluded the footnotes (to the last block above):
*
JTS (1970) 151
**
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10165&p=146287&hili ... on#p146287

***
https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/art ... /7274/5980
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:21 pm For whatever reason REG excluded the footnotes (to the last block above):
*
JTS (1970) 151
**
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10165&p=146287&hili ... on#p146287

***
https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/art ... /7274/5980
Again, evasion and deflection.

To repeat, why would you not wish to list on ANE-3 (or here) the titles you have (or have not) read since 2006 in response to a straightforward question?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX

Post by mlinssen »

Russell Gmirkin wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:31 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:21 pm For whatever reason REG excluded the footnotes (to the last block above):
*
JTS (1970) 151
**
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10165&p=146287&hili ... on#p146287

***
https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/art ... /7274/5980
Again, evasion and deflection.

To repeat, why would you not wish to list on ANE-3 (or here) the titles you have (or have not) read since 2006 in response to a straightforward question?
I ended up in this forum by accident, but was reminded of a response of mine

viewtopic.php?p=140741#p140741

:whistling:
Post Reply