What Level of Proficiency in Hebrew Do You Have to Have to Pull off the Gmirkin Alexandrian Library Argument?

[austendw]

There is nothing wrong per se with translating λεγόμενα, literally “things that have been said,” with the phrase “current talk.” I would have to look at the context in Greek, which I don’t have before me.

Now thus far he followed his ancient records; but after this he permits himself, in order to appear to have written what rumors and reports passed abroad about the Jews, and introduces incredible narrations, as if he would have the Egyptian multitude, that had the leprosy and other distempers, to have been mixed with us, as he says they were, and that they were condemned to fly out of Egypt together
(Whiston)

Josephus is contrasting the time of Manetho’s ancient source, and some unspecific later time in which there is “talk.” I suppose you’re right that, in theory, the talk could have been going on for ages before Manetho showed up. But it seems like a sensible inference (by the translator Thackeray, and Gmirkin) that the reference is to “things said” in Manetho’s own time, as opposed to the days of his grandpa or something. That’s what is usually meant by “talk,” “rumor.” Obviously we are relying on Josephus’ probably unreliable account of what Manetho meant.

I don’t see this as a matter of Gmirkin’s competence in Greek. It’s just his interpretation.

If there is nothing more to Gmirkin’s whole theory than this one word λεγόμενα, then ok, I see your point. I haven’t read his book.

Your quote from Whiston doesn't actually help the argument because, ironically, it too is an inaccurate translation - and "ancient" isn't in there either. Here is the Greek text:

ὁ γὰρ Μανεθὼς οὗτος ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος, προειπὼν τοὺς ἡμετέρους προγόνους πολλαῖς μυριάσιν ἐπὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἐλθόντας κρατῆσαι τῶν ἐνοικούντων, εἶτ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁμολογῶν χρόνῳ πάλιν ὕστερον ἐκπεσόντας τὴν νῦν Ἰουδαίαν κατασχεῖν καὶ κτίσαντας Ἱεροσόλυμα τὸν νεὼ κατασκευάσασθαι, μέχρι μὲν τούτων ἠκολούθησε ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς. ἔπειτα δὲ δοὺς ἐξουσίαν αὑτῷ διὰ τοῦ φάναι γράψειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λόγους ἀπιθάνους παρενέβαλεν, ἀναμῖξαι βουλόμενος ἡμῖν πλῆθος Αἰγυπτίων λεπρῶν καὶ ἐπὶ ἄλλοις ἀρρωστήμασιν, ὥς φησι, φυγεῖν ἐκ τῆς Αἰγύπτου καταγνωσθέντων. (Contra Apionem, 1:228-229)

Thackeray translated μέχρι μὲν τούτων ἠκολούθησε ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς as "So far he followed the chronicles" and Barclay gives "Up to this point he followed the records". I'm not saying that it is impossible to think of τὰ... λεγόμενα as things people "say in the present" but it really could just as well mean "old wives' tales" or - to pick up on your grandpa reference - what is expressed in Yiddish as bubbe meises (grandma-tales).

I've just noticed that, in a footnote, Gmirkin points out the importance of the fact that Josephus mentions three "sources": written records, myths and spoken-things. (Actually Josephus gives four, since he adds λόγους ἀπιθάνους "unbelievable tales", which in the context, is probably his own negative judgement on Manetho's myths and spoken-things). But in that note Gmirkin somewhat undermines his own reading:

17. To my knowledge, no previous discussion of Manetho has noted that Josephus listed three distinct sources on the Hyksos. Manetho's "improbable tales" or "legends" are routinely if mistakenly equated with the "current talk" on the Jews (e.g. Bar-Kochva, "An Ass in the Temple," 323; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 57). This has led to the conclusion that the source of the story of Osarseph and the Hyksos was oral tradition (not a literary document), bolstering its interpretation as late and Pseudo-Manethoan. Redford originally viewed the story as a Pseudo-Manethoan oral tradition ("Hyksos in History and Tradition," 40-41), but later revised his opinion, recognizing that the tale came from a literary document housed in a temple library (or "House of Life") (Pharaonic King-Lists, 227-28,229 n. 104). Yet it is not clear that Redford later properly distinguished categories of legend and oral tradition (cf. Pharaonic King-Lists, 214).

Here he seems inadvertently to show that τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα could just as well be understood "myths and oral traditions."

Of course I'm not saying that Gmirkin's entire theory stands or falls by this, nor do I know how competent he is in Greek. My point is that, though the original Greek doesn't unambiguously express a past/present dichotomy, Gmirkin seems to have followed Thackeray's free translation uncritically and that it was therefore not appropriate to base an important line of argument on that translation, especially as the central argument is about... chronology.

[Irish1975]

Your quote from Whiston doesn't actually help the argument

What or whose argument are you referring to?

because, ironically, it too is an inaccurate translation - and "ancient" isn't in there either.

This remark seems to reflect an inadequate understanding of how ancient texts are translated. Not trying to ding you, it’s just that I’ve heard similar things from other knowledgable users of the forum.

It isn’t a matter of whether “ancient” or “current” is “in” the Greek or “not in.” It comes down to implied semantics, ie, what the knowledgable modern translator/interpreter is able to infer, in addition to competently using their dictionaries and grammars, as the total meaning of the unknown ancient author, given surrounding context and other relevant information. Translation isn’t a word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence checking, where “x” means “y” and only, exactly “y.”

In this instance, “ancient” has to be a valid coloring or connotation, implied by the subject matter and what Josephus explicitly states at the head of your citation—

ὁ γὰρ Μανεθὼς οὗτος ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος…

Is it not implied (by many things) that this “Egyptian narrative from the sacred script” is some ancient record?

I've just noticed that, in a footnote, Gmirkin points out the importance of the fact that Josephus mentions three "sources": written records, myths and spoken-things. (Actually Josephus gives four, since he adds λόγους ἀπιθάνους "unbelievable tales", which in the context, is probably his own negative judgement on Manetho's myths and spoken-things). But in that note Gmirkin somewhat undermines his own reading:

17. To my knowledge, no previous discussion of Manetho has noted that Josephus listed three distinct sources on the Hyksos. Manetho's "improbable tales" or "legends" are routinely if mistakenly equated with the "current talk" on the Jews (e.g. Bar-Kochva, "An Ass in the Temple," 323; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 57). This has led to the conclusion that the source of the story of Osarseph and the Hyksos was oral tradition (not a literary document), bolstering its interpretation as late and Pseudo-Manethoan. Redford originally viewed the story as a Pseudo-Manethoan oral tradition ("Hyksos in History and Tradition," 40-41), but later revised his opinion, recognizing that the tale came from a literary document housed in a temple library (or "House of Life") (Pharaonic King-Lists, 227-28,229 n. 104). Yet it is not clear that Redford later properly distinguished categories of legend and oral tradition (cf. Pharaonic King-Lists, 214).

Here he seems inadvertently to show that τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα could just as well be understood "myths and oral traditions."

Well here Gmirkin shows that he knows perfectly well what he is talking about, what the semantic possibilities are, and how to read ancient Greek. It seems that if anything has been undermined, it is the way you assessed Gmirkin’s competence to read ancient texts.

Of course I'm not saying that Gmirkin's entire theory stands or falls by this, nor do I know how competent he is in Greek.

But that was the point of your previous post, that his interpretation was based precisely on an ignorant misreading (or simple ignorance) of the original text. And that’s what you continue to say:

My point is that, though the original Greek doesn't unambiguously express a past/present dichotomy, Gmirkin seems to have followed Thackeray's free translation uncritically and that it was therefore not appropriate to base an important line of argument on that translation, especially as the central argument is about... chronology.

But it is your notions of a translation being quite simply “accurate” or “inaccurate,” “in the Greek” or “not in the Greek,” that are unfortunate. Ancient texts don’t “unambiguously express” anything, most of the time. And certainly not when one is relying on a Josephus to understand a Manetho, or a Tertullian to understand a Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

Come on. Surely you get austendw's point. He doesn't say that this on its own "kills" Gmirkin's theory. But the passage can't be used to unambiguously state that people at the time of Josephus were using this report. In other words, there are no witnesses in antiquity for Gmirkin's theory. This is another one that "bit the dust." Why does it matter? Because, to use the example of Plato borrowing from the Pentateuch or the Pentateuch borrowing from Plato, we have testimonies which at least suggest that there many books and reports which suggest the former in antiquity and none that suggest the latter. That matters. And let's be honest, it's another way that Gmirkin's serious academic theory resembles the methodology of our own Pete the mountainman. How many times have we caught Pete lifting English translations as witnesses for ideas he wants to promote when the original Greek doesn't quite support Pete's conspiracy theories.

As an aside. I am not "offended" by Gmirkin's theory or Pete's theory for that matter. I just don't dig "ego," or what I perceive as selfishness/self-serving lines of reasoning. If you discover something in antiquity great. But whenever you try to cobble evidence to support an overarching revaluation of history be prepared for scrutiny. Because a lot of smart people have taken the time to examine the evidence. It would be very unusual that hundreds of people completely missed the mark on a Ptolemaic or Constantine fabrication of holy books of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Chances are you've fudged the evidence. Like Carlson's forger's tremor.

[austendw]

Your quote from Whiston doesn't actually help the argument

What or whose argument are you referring to?

because, ironically, it too is an inaccurate translation - and "ancient" isn't in there either.

This remark seems to reflect an inadequate understanding of how ancient texts are translated. Not trying to ding you, it’s just that I’ve heard similar things from other knowledgable users of the forum.

It isn’t a matter of whether “ancient” or “current” is “in” the Greek or “not in.” It comes down to implied semantics, ie, what the knowledgable modern translator/interpreter is able to infer, in addition to competently using their dictionaries and grammars, as the total meaning of the unknown ancient author, given surrounding context and other relevant information. Translation isn’t a word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence checking, where “x” means “y” and only, exactly “y.”

In this instance, “ancient” has to be a valid coloring or connotation, implied by the subject matter and what Josephus explicitly states at the head of your citation—

ὁ γὰρ Μανεθὼς οὗτος ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος…

Is it not implied (by many things) that this “Egyptian narrative from the sacred script” is some ancient record?

I've just noticed that, in a footnote, Gmirkin points out the importance of the fact that Josephus mentions three "sources": written records, myths and spoken-things. (Actually Josephus gives four, since he adds λόγους ἀπιθάνους "unbelievable tales", which in the context, is probably his own negative judgement on Manetho's myths and spoken-things). But in that note Gmirkin somewhat undermines his own reading:

17. To my knowledge, no previous discussion of Manetho has noted that Josephus listed three distinct sources on the Hyksos. Manetho's "improbable tales" or "legends" are routinely if mistakenly equated with the "current talk" on the Jews (e.g. Bar-Kochva, "An Ass in the Temple," 323; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 57). This has led to the conclusion that the source of the story of Osarseph and the Hyksos was oral tradition (not a literary document), bolstering its interpretation as late and Pseudo-Manethoan. Redford originally viewed the story as a Pseudo-Manethoan oral tradition ("Hyksos in History and Tradition," 40-41), but later revised his opinion, recognizing that the tale came from a literary document housed in a temple library (or "House of Life") (Pharaonic King-Lists, 227-28,229 n. 104). Yet it is not clear that Redford later properly distinguished categories of legend and oral tradition (cf. Pharaonic King-Lists, 214).

Here he seems inadvertently to show that τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα could just as well be understood "myths and oral traditions."

Well here Gmirkin shows that he knows perfectly well what he is talking about, what the semantic possibilities are, and how to read ancient Greek. It seems that if anything has been undermined, it is the way you assessed Gmirkin’s competence to read ancient texts.

Of course I'm not saying that Gmirkin's entire theory stands or falls by this, nor do I know how competent he is in Greek.

But that was the point of your previous post, that his interpretation was based precisely on an ignorant misreading (or simple ignorance) of the original text. And that’s what you continue to say:

My point is that, though the original Greek doesn't unambiguously express a past/present dichotomy, Gmirkin seems to have followed Thackeray's free translation uncritically and that it was therefore not appropriate to base an important line of argument on that translation, especially as the central argument is about... chronology.

But it is your notions of a translation being quite simply “accurate” or “inaccurate,” “in the Greek” or “not in the Greek,” that are unfortunate. Ancient texts don’t “unambiguously express” anything, most of the time. And certainly not when one is relying on a Josephus to understand a Manetho, or a Tertullian to understand a Marcion.

I'm not sure what "trying to ding you" means, really, and somehow I feel "dinged" anyhow. But that's OK.

I've thought about what you have said and, on balance, I think you are right in arguing that proficiency in Greek isn't really where I should be directing my criticism of Gmirkin.

I agree that all translations involve interpretation - it isn't a word-for-word x=y issue - and words like "mistranslation" and "faulty" that I used of the two translations was, as you put it, unfortunate. Also, it is the case that ideas of "ancient vs modern (or at least less ancient)" may be underlying what Josephus himself is saying: that the "records" reach all the way back to the ancient facts, but the "talk" doesn't. Now actually, for the purposes of scholarly discussion, I prefer translations where if something is only implied in the original language, it remains implied in the translation rather than being made explicit by the translator. That's why I prefer Barclay's leaner (if less stylish) translation to Thackeray's. But that is only a matter of taste and if Gmirkin adopts another reading, it cannot be insisted that he is mistranslating or ignorant of the Greek.

However, I do stand by my broader point that Gmirkin has misconstrued the implications of the text. You rightly say that ancient texts are ambiguous, and Josephus's take on Manetho's text could itself be a distortion or misunderstanding of what Manetho wrote, and for this reason has to be approached with caution (indeed my initial response to Gmirkin's analysis of this and other passages was that he was perhaps misreading the rhetoric of Josephus as precise categorical distinctions). You've said that you haven't actually read the book, and I presume therefore that you aren't familiar with the broader issues, so I don't think I need go into too much further detail. But, to explain just a little, the crux for me is that I believe there is evidence suggesting that the "current talk" was actually a more longstanding "oral tradition" (as Redford put it) with deeper roots in the past. And this has a significant impact on the chronological issues that Gmirkin raises and his reconstruction of how biblical writers knew of and responded to the Egyptian narratives about the origins of the Judeans.

[Irish1975]

I'm not sure what "trying to ding you" means, really, and somehow I feel "dinged" anyhow. But that's OK.

I've thought about what you have said and, on balance, I think you are right in arguing that proficiency in Greek isn't really where I should be directing my criticism of Gmirkin.

I agree that all translations involve interpretation - it isn't a word-for-word x=y issue - and words like "mistranslation" and "faulty" that I used of the two translations was, as you put it, unfortunate. Also, it is the case that ideas of "ancient vs modern (or at least less ancient)" may be underlying what Josephus himself is saying: that the "records" reach all the way back to the ancient facts, but the "talk" doesn't. Now actually, for the purposes of scholarly discussion, I prefer translations where if something is only implied in the original language, it remains implied in the translation rather than being made explicit by the translator. That's why I prefer Barclay's leaner (if less stylish) translation to Thackeray's. But that is only a matter of taste and if Gmirkin adopts another reading, it cannot be insisted that he is mistranslating or ignorant of the Greek.

However, I do stand by my broader point that Gmirkin has misconstrued the implications of the text. You rightly say that ancient texts are ambiguous, and Josephus's take on Manetho's text could itself be a distortion or misunderstanding of what Manetho wrote, and for this reason has to be approached with caution (indeed my initial response to Gmirkin's analysis of this and other passages was that he was perhaps misreading the rhetoric of Josephus as precise categorical distinctions). You've said that you haven't actually read the book, and I presume therefore that you aren't familiar with the broader issues, so I don't think I need go into too much further detail. But, to explain just a little, the crux for me is that I believe there is evidence suggesting that the "current talk" was actually a more longstanding "oral tradition" (as Redford put it) with deeper roots in the past. And this has a significant impact on the chronological issues that Gmirkin raises and his reconstruction of how biblical writers knew of and responded to the Egyptian narratives about the origins of the Judeans.

Right on. I’ve been reading RG’s later book on the Laws and LXX, but maybe I’ll get to this one. As I said above, I was not concerned to defend RG’s interpretation as such, and your criticism appears sensible.

In my experience, depending on the author and style, preserving the implicit as implicit is not always possible. Modern languages tend on the whole towards a more direct, descriptive precision than we find in ancient literatures. In college I had to translate long passages of Tacitus in sit down exams for my degree (without a dictionary). He is notorious for saying many things obsurely or indirectly. A few years ago I undertook a translation of the early philosopher Heraciitus’s fragments, which absolutely cannot be “translated” in any clear way. Some scholars say as much about verses in Job, although our English Bibles give a different impression.