The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book?

[austendw]

The (almost) unique argument of Gmirkin is that these did not arise at any time prior to, or by any cultural route other than direct reading of Greek literature in the 3rd Century BCE.

That is hardly the "unique (almost)" contribution of Gmirkin's works. The extent of the parallels raised is "unique" -- there is nothing comparable of which I am aware in any other discussion among OT scholars of the extent of Greek-Hebrew overlaps.

Another misunderstanding... but I guess I wasn't very clear what I meant by "almost". I was saying that Gmirkin's thesis was "almost" unique because there was one other scholar, Philippe Wajdenbaum, who had a similar view, though I think he dates the "direct reading of Greek literature" to the 2nd century BCE, about 100 years later still.

[StephenGoranson]

About the phrase above, "...Gmirkin the post-minimalist...."
Though I agree a great deal (in posts here) with austendw (sometime "Diachronist"?),
fwiw,
R. E. Gmirkin wrote:
"....I would identify my own position as post-Maximalist."

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... brew-bible

[austendw]

About the phrase above, "...Gmirkin the post-minimalist...."
Though I agree a great deal (in posts here) with austendw (sometime "Diachronist"?),
fwiw,
R. E. Gmirkin wrote:
"....I would identify my own position as post-Maximalist."

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... brew-bible

Oops, I got that arse-about-tip. Thanks for the correction. I knew Gmirkin was post-something but I'd never have thought it was "post-Maximalist". I have no idea what it mean. Perhaps it's because he contructs a maximally dated and detailed narrative for the compostion of the Pentateuch, but places it in a decidedly Minimalist time period. Or not.

[austendw]

The (almost) unique argument of Gmirkin is that these did not arise at any time prior to, or by any cultural route other than direct reading of Greek literature in the 3rd Century BCE.

That is hardly the "unique (almost)" contribution of Gmirkin's works. The extent of the parallels raised is "unique" -- there is nothing comparable of which I am aware in any other discussion among OT scholars of the extent of Greek-Hebrew overlaps.

Another misunderstanding... but I guess I wasn't very clear what I meant by "almost". I was saying that Gmirkin's thesis was "almost" unique because there was one other scholar, Philippe Wajdenbaum, who had a similar view, though I think Wajdenbaum dates the "direct reading of Greek literature" to the 2nd century BCE, about 100 years later still.

[neilgodfrey]

The (almost) unique argument of Gmirkin is that these did not arise at any time prior to, or by any cultural route other than direct reading of Greek literature in the 3rd Century BCE.

That is hardly the "unique (almost)" contribution of Gmirkin's works. The extent of the parallels raised is "unique" -- there is nothing comparable of which I am aware in any other discussion among OT scholars of the extent of Greek-Hebrew overlaps.

Another misunderstanding... but I guess I wasn't very clear what I meant by "almost". I was saying that Gmirkin's thesis was "almost" unique because there was one other scholar, Philippe Wajdenbaum, who had a similar view, though I think he dates the "direct reading of Greek literature" to the 2nd century BCE, about 100 years later still.

I was thinking more broadly -- of works such as Mandell and Freedman's 1993 The Relationship between Herodotus' History and Primary History, others like Wesselius, Dafni .... the various suggestions that have attempted to explain the evident Greek influences in the Pentateuch by means of Phoenician traders, or reverse direction from Hebrews to Greeks, etc.

[neilgodfrey]

I would be very surprised if you could identify for me a single book or article by Lemche or Davies or Thompson or Whitelam that "ends up with broad generalizations" and any "demonization" of opponents or any "failure to engage with the actual issues". Have you read any of their works that address the debate?

Lord above, again with the misquoting. Are you speed-reading me and skimming what I actually said? Or are you spoiling for a fight? At no point did I accuse any of these scholars. What I said was:

I really don't care about the whole maximalist vs minimalist battle. Discussing it always ends up with broad generalisations, one side demonising the other, and everyone failing to engage with the actual issues. And this exchange is proof of that. (Emphasis added today)

I said that discussing the maximalist vs minimalist battle always ends up with....etc etc" The fiery discussions on this board being obvious examples. And am I wrong??? The discussion about the maximalists and minimalists always ends up as a scrap about how wickedly the maximalists villified the minimalists, or how condescending the minimalists are to the maximalists, and who started it anyway? So, no thank you, I don't want to get involved in that. Though I suspect I will before the day is out because I think I have something I do want to say about the minimalists and Gmirkin the post-minimalist... but not in this post.

Forgive me. I naturally assumed that the main participants in a discussion between maxies and minnies are the maxies and minnies themselves. Those are the discussions I have read. I imagine here on this forum certain threads have been dedicated to attacking one side. But I have never read where the two sides are "discussing" with each other here -- at least I should say I don't recall any.

-- Though I think you must at least appreciate that in the immediately preceding comment I did requote your words in full so all readers could see the extent to which I was misrepresenting or misquoting you.

[neilgodfrey]

I would be very surprised if you could identify for me a single book or article by Lemche or Davies or Thompson or Whitelam that "ends up with broad generalizations" and any "demonization" of opponents or any "failure to engage with the actual issues". Have you read any of their works that address the debate?

Lord above, again with the misquoting. Are you speed-reading me and skimming what I actually said? Or are you spoiling for a fight? At no point did I accuse any of these scholars. What I said was:

I really don't care about the whole maximalist vs minimalist battle. Discussing it always ends up with broad generalisations, one side demonising the other, and everyone failing to engage with the actual issues. And this exchange is proof of that. (Emphasis added today)

I said that discussing the maximalist vs minimalist battle always ends up with....etc etc" The fiery discussions on this board being obvious examples. And am I wrong??? The discussion about the maximalists and minimalists always ends up as a scrap about how wickedly the maximalists villified the minimalists, or how condescending the minimalists are to the maximalists, and who started it anyway? So, no thank you, I don't want to get involved in that. Though I suspect I will before the day is out because I think I have something I do want to say about the minimalists and Gmirkin the post-minimalist... but not in this post.

If someone continually misreads my words I would begin to worry about how I was expressing myself and take stock. Often when I believe I am responding directly to a point of yours you respond that in some way I was misreading you. I know I do that sometimes, but rarely consistently with one person. I think it better that you post without any interaction from me. If I post it may be to respond to what I think is some point you are making or it may be an attempt to simply post afresh a particular view. I have no wish to tread where I fear someone will be offended or fly back at me with another accusation that I don't understand what is being said.

(A few people here consistently distort what I say and respond with straw men but I ignore them. They presumably have issues I am not interested in engaging with. If you think I am doing the same then maybe you could just ignore me.)

[austendw]

...Often when I believe I am responding directly to a point of yours you respond that in some way I was misreading you. I know I do that sometimes, but rarely consistently with one person. I think it better that you post without any interaction from me. If I post it may be to respond to what I think is some point you are making or it may be an attempt to simply post afresh a particular view. I have no wish to tread where I fear someone will be offended or fly back at me with another accusation that I don't understand what is being said.

(A few people here consistently distort what I say and respond with straw men but I ignore them. They presumably have issues I am not interested in engaging with. If you think I am doing the same then maybe you could just ignore me.)

Oh lord, I wasn't seriously offended. My comments were an attempt to be jokey-exasperated but clearly I didn't succeed - tone of voice isn't particularly easy to convey - and it obviously appeared angrier than I was intending. I should have put a smiley emojee or something. That's what you get for being chatty. Apologies.

I'm not sure this "often" happens, but let's be fair, I was responding to three misunderstandings on the same day. One of them, I admitted, was the result of something I expressed poorly so I accepted blame - but the two others were cases where, when you quoted me, you elided words that changed the meaning of what I had said. Or did I... er... misunderstand?

As to people having tussles about the maximalist/minimalist controversies, I may have been mixing up discussions on this board with discussions on Vridar.

[billd89]

Was Moses partly modeled on Musaeus, partly modeled on Thoth #2 ? Ah-Ahh...

Wiki:

Artapanus of Alexandria, in his history of the Jews, went so far as to identify Moses with Tot-Hermes (the Egyptian messenger and scribe of the gods, who invented the letters, the various arts of peace and of war, as well as philosophy), and with the Greek Musaeus, "the teacher of Orpheus." He even ascribed to him the division of the land into its thirty-six districts, with their various forms of worship. As the foster-mother of Moses, Artapanus names Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to him and brought him up as her own child.(Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27).

[MrMacSon]

Was Moses partly modeled on Musaeus, partly modeled on Thoth #2 ? Ah-Ahh...

Wiki:

Artapanus of Alexandria, in his history of the Jews, went so far as to identify Moses with Tot-Hermes (the Egyptian messenger and scribe of the gods, who invented the letters, the various arts of peace and of war, as well as philosophy), and with the Greek Musaeus, "the teacher of Orpheus." He even ascribed to him the division of the land into its thirty-six districts, with their various forms of worship. As the foster-mother of Moses, Artapanus names Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to him and brought him up as her own child.(Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27).

• that via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_ ... Alexandria

And, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artapanus_of_Alexandria:

Parts of Artapanus's work have been preserved in the books of two later historians: Clement of Alexandria in Stromata (Book I, chapter 23.154,2f) and Eusebius of Caesarea in Præparatio Evangelica (Book IX, chapters 18, 23, and 27). According to J. J. Collins and James H. Charlesworth, "we do not have actual excerpts from Artapanus but only the summaries of Alexander Polyhistor, insofar as these have been preserved by Eusebius" [JJ Collins, 'Artapanus (Third to Second Century B.C.). A New Translation and Introduction,' in James H. Charlesworth (1985), The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company Inc., Volume 2, p.889].

Works and portrayal of Moses

---

... [Artapanus] describes the Egyptian adventures of the three major Jewish patriarchs, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, depicting them as heroes responsible for many of the cultural innovations of the ancient Near East.

According to Artapanus, Abraham taught an Egyptian pharaoh the science of astrology, while Moses bestowed many “useful benefits on mankind” by inventing boats, Egyptian weapons, and philosophy. (Eusebius, Pr.Ev. 9.27.4) He also recounts that the Greeks called Moses Musaeus and that he taught Orpheus, who was widely considered to be the father of Greek culture ... Throughout the narrative Artapanus insists that the public loved these Jewish figures for their impressive innovations and achievements. In fact, he remarks that the Ethiopians went so far as to circumcise themselves out of admiration for Moses. While some of Artapanus’ history clearly references accounts in Genesis and Exodus, such as his description of the plagues, most of his story lacks evidence.

One of the most striking aspects of Artapanus' works is the ease with which he syncretizes Jewish and Egyptian culture and religion. Artapanus also writes that Moses is responsible for appointing "for each of the nomes the god to be worshipped, and that they should be cats and dogs and ibises" ...

Moses is also identified with Hermes in 9.27.6 (Eusebius, Pr.Ev.): "On account of these things Moses was loved by the masses, and was deemed worthy of godlike honor by the priests and called Hermes, on account of the interpretation of sacred letters." Hermes was a Greek messenger god who was in Egyptian traditions associated with Thoth (Djehuty), the god of wisdom and time who invented writing. John J. Collins points out the Greek linguistic play that must have existed in Artapanus' day of Moses, Thoth, and the common name Thutmosis; yet this is not why Artapanus associates Moses with Thoth. Instead, Artapanus makes the connection between the Jewish patriarchs who taught the Egyptians skills such as astrology (Abraham, Eusebius Pr.Ev. 9.18.1) and Moses who, by interpreting the sacred letters (presumably Hebrew Script), attained the godlike knowledge of Thoth. Moses' connection to the obscure Jewish figure Enoch has also been made by some scholars, as Enoch was said to have taught human beings the "right" kind of astrology (for instance, the solar calendar; 1 Enoch 1–36), however Artapanus only clearly denotes Moses' association with Hermes/Thoth. This makes sense, because Artapanus is not trying to reconcile Moses with Jewish mythological figures, but rather with Egyptian history, culture, and religion in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artapanus_of_Alexandria

Aspects of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artapanus ... motivation are interesting, too

For example:

[Some scholars see Artapanus's] fascination with the miraculous powers of Moses [as] reminiscent of Hellenistic paganism ... A different group of scholars...argue that Artapanus maintains the superiority of YHVH throughout his text, and that his depiction of Moses as divine actually has biblical origins.