Letter of Aristeas

[StephenGoranson]

"With friends like that who needs enemies"

[neilgodfrey]

neilgodfrey has suggseted that I am neither a scholar of classics nor biblical studies.
Agressively, pathetic.

No no no, Stephen -- my comment was in no way attempting to suggest that at all: I was trying to point out that you have gone out of your way to make it clear that you are pleased and proud to identify with a group that has been unfortunately influenced, according to an article in a mainstream scholarly work, by an anti-semite. You are not alone. Anti-semitism has been far too influential and I have no doubt at all that you abhor all forms of anti-semitism, as do I.

But it was curious that you sought to raise the anti-semitic views of a scholar when they had no relevance to the point being made in my original comment. So I guess I was having a little dig at your rather odd attempt at ad hominem and well-poisoning when it was not at all called for or necessary.

Your effort to bring up the sins of a highly influential scholar on mainstream scholarship only backfired on you since you yourself identify with that mainstream.

That was my point and I do hope you appreciate this explanation.

[StephenGoranson]

I am not "pleased and proud" to associate with Lagarde.

[neilgodfrey]

I am not "pleased and proud" to associate with Lagarde.

Then you should have avoided the uncalled for ad hominem and left the strictly scholarly note of his scholarly influence stand without bringing up details irrelevant to the point being made in a relatively recent scholarly work.

[StephenGoranson]

If we can get back to the original post in this thread, the Letter of Aristeas cannot be used for reliable history.
As pretended by Gmirkin.

[neilgodfrey]

If we can get back to the original post in this thread, the Letter of Aristeas cannot be used for reliable history.
As pretended by Gmirkin.

Oh dear, just when I thought you had admitted you had read Gmirkin's discussion of the Letter of Aristeas. Gmirkin himself says the letter is a novelistic fiction and not a genuine historical narrative. Gmirkin himself agrees with all classicists and historians of ancient times that fiction can regularly be used to discern certain kinds of information that it does not intend to convey.

I am sure you are completely aware of all of those claims by Gmirkin and are well aware that there is no pretence or effort at any point in any of Gmirkin's work to treat the letter of Aristeas as "reliable history". Anyone who says so, surely you must agree, has never read Gmirkin and is only telling porkies.

[StephenGoranson]

Admittedly, I am not up to date on all slang, but I guess that "porkies" means "lies."
It remains fact that Gmirkin used bogus Aristeas in a peculiar analysis to justify his proposal.

[neilgodfrey]

dup post

[neilgodfrey]

dup post

[neilgodfrey]

Admittedly, I am not up to date on all slang, but I guess that "porkies" means "lies."
It remains fact that Gmirkin used bogus Aristeas in a peculiar analysis to justify his proposal.

No, that's an "opinion".

That the letter of Aristeas was not written by Aristeas and is therefore "bogus" is a judgement of certain scholars (a judgement is different from a "fact") that includes Gmirkin. He, too, says it is "bogus" -- or rather he uses less pejorative terms because he seems to be in tune with the language of the relevant scholarship.

For "peculiar analysis" to be a fact then it would follow that numerous other scholars on whom Gmirkin relies and regularly cites, and the entire field of classics and ancient history, would be complicit in "peculiar analysis" of all works of ancient fiction. "Peculiar" is an opinion and judgement. For a new analysis of ancient literature to be a "fact" by definition then everything that is seeking to build on mainstream and highly respected works and advance knowledge would be defined as "peculiar".

It is also questionable whether Gmirkin used the Letter of Aristeas to "justify" his thesis. Is there a difference between "support", "supplement" and "justify"? Do you mean that he relied primarily on the Letter of Aristeas to establish his thesis? If you do mean that, then surely you know that is not true, not "a fact" at all.

---

p.s. -- re "porkie", you have access, I believe, to the Oxford English Dictionary. It will inform you that porkie pie, often shortened to porkie, is cockney rhyming slang for "lie" -- dating from the 1970s.


----

If we can get back to the original post in this thread, the Letter of Aristeas cannot be used for reliable history.

Good. Then let's return to my response to that original post where I pointed out that the contents of that original post demonstrated remarkable agreement with what Gmirkin himself has to say about the Letter of Aristeas: viewtopic.php?p=141765#p141765

On reading your original post I thought you had changed tune and now supported Gmirkin's thesis because everything you said there Gmirkin agrees with!