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

[Secret Alias]

I do not know how proficient Gmirkin is in Hebrew. I imagine he has text book knowledge of ancient Greek (i.e. a lack of fluency but some competency). Since he's not Jewish and I only know of a handful of non-Jews who have fluency in Hebrew, can someone who doesn't speak either ancient languages really make convincing arguments in favor of the Greek "influence" on the Hebrew of the Bible? I don't know. I just know those Israeli scholars really know their Hebrew. I am talking about Florentin, Tal, ben Hayyim etc. I'd believe them when they speak about the nuances of ancient Hebrew. Is Gmirkin really at that level of proficiency? I am just asking. What qualifications does he have? Why haven't any of THESE scholars referenced the Greek influence on ancient Hebrew?

When I look at his CV http://russellgmirkin.com/biography-and-publications I see no qualifications or background in the history and development of the Hebrew language. Nothing. Not a good start for someone who's basically overturning everything we know about Biblical Hebrew.

You have whole departments devoted to the Hebrew language https://en.hebrew-language.huji.ac.il/ https://hebrew.biu.ac.il/en https://www.ucl.ac.uk/hebrew-jewish/ucl ... sh-studies. We're supposed to believe THESE PEOPLE don't know the truth about the Hebrew language but Gmirkin does? Come on.

[Secret Alias]

And why does Neil call this sort of question "an attack" or a "personal attack" on Gmirkin. My son wants to be a professional footballer and I do everything I can for him but every week or so I ask, "are you really qualified for this position?" It's the question the crowd at the synagogue asks Jesus "by what authority do you say these things?" It's hardly an attack. It's a natural question given the outlandishness of what he is suggesting.

[billd89]

It's the question the crowd at the synagogue asks Jesus "by what authority do you say these things?" It's hardly an attack.

Matthew 10:25: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?"
Matthew 12:24: "when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils."
Matthew 12:24: "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out? So then, they will be your judges."
Mark 3:22: "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils."
Luke 11:15: "but some of them said, “It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that He drives out demons.”"
Luke 11:18-19: "After all, you say that I drive out demons by Beelzebul. And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out?"

That authority (repeatedly named Baalzeboul in the NT) is otherwise known as Horon and Re-Horakhty. I argue for a Semitic cult of Horon in Egypt, after Albright (1936/41), that a Judaic cult of magi who might well have taught an historical Jesus or pretenders of that ilk. (I believe heretical Jews existed in Egypt! The threat was foreign, but ancient and known.)

Did the Jeebus Father have any other named identity, in Antiquity?

[Leucius Charinus]

And why does Neil call this sort of question "an attack" or a "personal attack" on Gmirkin.

Because it goes absolutely nowhere towards addressing the arguments and the evidence adduced in support of the arguments. Thrice published by Routledge no less. Are you the local thought police?

https://www.routledge.com/Plato-and-the ... 0367878368

[Secret Alias]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... ce_in_the/

[StephenGoranson]

LC/Peter B. or T. (which is it, if either?) wrote above, in part:
"... [Gmirkin has been] Thrice published by Routledge no less...."
Actually, twice, by Routledge, so far, but with a possible third to come.
All, apparently, unless I'm mistaken, including the T. & T. Clark Berossus volume, in the Copenhagen International Seminar series.
I do not know why the series was transferred.

[austendw]

I’m not sure how much Gmirkin knows of Greek or Hebrew, and it's idle for me to speculate. But when I was re-reading Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch the other day, the issue of a text in its original language reared its ugly head. In that book, Gmirkin quotes Josephus in Against Apion, using the 1926 Thackeray translation from the Loeb books:

Josephus, Apion 1.229
But at this point, under the pretext of recording fables and current reports about the Jews, he took the liberty of introducing some incredible tales, wishing to represent us as mixed up with a crowd of Egyptians lepers and others who for various maladies were condemned, as he asserts, to banishment from the country. (p 194)

Now, this translation is very important because Gmirkin puts a lot of emphasis on the term “current reports" and similar paraphrases:

Josephus additionally referred to a third, non-literary source, "current talk (λεγόμενα) about the Jews," which he distinguished from both the chronicles and from the "improbable" legend. Manetho thus presented material from Egyptian chronicles, from a native Egyptian literary document of doubtful credibility, and from current "talk" in which the literary document was said to refer to the Jews.

To the extent that the story was brought into relationship with the Jews… it is important to realize that this identification was late and oral ("current talk about the Jews") rather than the perspective of Manetho's literary source itself. As will be shown below, Manetho's literary source had nothing to do with the Jews (or the Exodus): it was only later Egyptian "talk" which equated the impure Egyptians with the Jews. (p 195)

Now Manetho shifts briefly to "current talk about the Jews" (1.229), that is, the opinions of Manetho's contemporaries. (p.207)

Like other Hellenistic historiographers, Manetho first related a legend and then recorded contemporary theories on the legend's meaning. (p. 208)

However, in Manetho's day some understood this anti-Typhonian tale to refer to the Jews, who were identified with the expelled Hyksos and/or polluted Egyptians. This identification was not made in Manetho's literary sources, but represented "current talk about the Jews" which Manetho appended to the tale. (p. 210 - all emphases mine)

Gmirkin stresses this because a major link in the chain of his argument in this chapter is that Osarsiph, the leader of the “Typhon-worshipping” Egyptians, was only identified as Moses in Manetho’s time, and not before. And the upshot of this is that the Biblical narrative of the slavery of the Israelites which he argues was based on Manetho’s account of the Typhon-worshippers (and that's another topic for discussion), could not have been known of earlier than Manetho, because it was only in Manetho's time that there was such a story going about."

It’s therefore awkward that in the original Greek, there is no reference to the word “current” at all. Where Thackeray gives “fables and current talk” the Greek is simply μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα. Whiston, in 1737, translated the phrase as “rumours and reports” and in 2006 John M G Barclay translated μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα as “myths and rumours.” Gmirkin actually noted the Greek word λεγόμενα on page 195, and let the translation "current talk" stand without comment. Did he not notice the problem? Did he not realise that λεγόμενα mearely means "talk / rumour"? Either way, he based an important argument on a flawed translation, which is a pretty serious scholarly faux pas, no?

And it is important, because without that "current" element, the "rumour" or "talk" could have been going around for far longer than Gmirkin admits, and the Judeans could have heard of it through other channels at an earlier date. Of couse, this is only relevant if the biblical account IN Exodus really is based on the Egyptian rumour. And Gmirkin's argument in respect of that is also very flimsy indeed.

[Secret Alias]

It's tough when you've invested so much in something. It happens all the time. I have been guilty of it. Not just in scholarship but "real life." You assumed certain things to be true and then the honesty question comes up. The honesty question is really the question what's more important the truth or me. I wish I could say that I always chose truth. But good point nevertheless.

[Irish1975]

I’m not sure how much Gmirkin knows of Greek or Hebrew, and it's idle for me to speculate. But when I was re-reading Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch the other day, the issue of a text in its original language reared its ugly head. In that book, Gmirkin quotes Josephus in Against Apion, using the 1926 Thackeray translation from the Loeb books:

Josephus, Apion 1.229
But at this point, under the pretext of recording fables and current reports about the Jews, he took the liberty of introducing some incredible tales, wishing to represent us as mixed up with a crowd of Egyptians lepers and others who for various maladies were condemned, as he asserts, to banishment from the country. (p 194)

Now, this translation is very important because Gmirkin puts a lot of emphasis on the term “current reports" and similar paraphrases:

Josephus additionally referred to a third, non-literary source, "current talk (λεγόμενα) about the Jews," which he distinguished from both the chronicles and from the "improbable" legend. Manetho thus presented material from Egyptian chronicles, from a native Egyptian literary document of doubtful credibility, and from current "talk" in which the literary document was said to refer to the Jews.

To the extent that the story was brought into relationship with the Jews… it is important to realize that this identification was late and oral ("current talk about the Jews") rather than the perspective of Manetho's literary source itself. As will be shown below, Manetho's literary source had nothing to do with the Jews (or the Exodus): it was only later Egyptian "talk" which equated the impure Egyptians with the Jews. (p 195)

Now Manetho shifts briefly to "current talk about the Jews" (1.229), that is, the opinions of Manetho's contemporaries. (p.207)

Like other Hellenistic historiographers, Manetho first related a legend and then recorded contemporary theories on the legend's meaning. (p. 208)

However, in Manetho's day some understood this anti-Typhonian tale to refer to the Jews, who were identified with the expelled Hyksos and/or polluted Egyptians. This identification was not made in Manetho's literary sources, but represented "current talk about the Jews" which Manetho appended to the tale. (p. 210 - all emphases mine)

Gmirkin stresses this because a major link in the chain of his argument in this chapter is that Osarsiph, the leader of the “Typhon-worshipping” Egyptians, was only identified as Moses in Manetho’s time, and not before. And the upshot of this is that the Biblical narrative of the slavery of the Israelites which he argues was based on Manetho’s account of the Typhon-worshippers (and that's another topic for discussion), could not have been known of earlier than Manetho, because it was only in Manetho's time that there was such a story going about."

It’s therefore awkward that in the original Greek, there is no reference to the word “current” at all. Where Thackeray gives “fables and current talk” the Greek is simply μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα. Whiston, in 1737, translated the phrase as “rumours and reports” and in 2006 John M G Barclay translated μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα as “myths and rumours.” Gmirkin actually noted the Greek word λεγόμενα on page 195, and let the translation "current talk" stand without comment. Did he not notice the problem? Did he not realise that λεγόμενα mearely means "talk / rumour"? Either way, he based an important argument on a flawed translation, which is a pretty serious scholarly faux pas, no?

And it is important, because without that "current" element, the "rumour" or "talk" could have been going around for far longer than Gmirkin admits, and the Judeans could have heard of it through other channels at an earlier date. Of couse, this is only relevant if the biblical account IN Exodus really is based on the Egyptian rumour. And Gmirkin's argument in respect of that is also very flimsy indeed.

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.

[Secret Alias]

There is no meaningful evidence for a date past the Persian period.