Letter of Aristeas

[StephenGoranson]

ng: "...everything you said there Gmirkin agrees with!"
False..
The Alexandria Library was a major establishment.
I do not claim along the lines of what Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, that "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"
But I did and do claim that Aristeas (or "Aristeas," if you prefer) provides no proper basis, foundation, or support that
"...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria...."

[neilgodfrey]

ng: "...everything you said there Gmirkin agrees with!"
False..

You wrote

The Letter of Aristeas is widely, and imo, correctly recognized as unreliable.
It tells a story of 70 or 72 translators from Hebrew to Greek. But these translators are fictional.

Gmirkin also says the letter is a novelistic fiction. He does not believe that the 70 or 72 figures necessarily did any translating. But you know that because you've read his book on Berossus and Manetho. Do you want me to send you the link again -- perhaps by personal email?

Translations of other TaNaK books are also called, by some, Septuagint. Like it or not, the etymological fallacy is supposing that the original meaning of a word necessarily remains for all times the only use. Because of such ambiguity--and fiction--some avoid "Septuagint" and prefer the term Old Greek translations. (Compare Old Latin for those made before the Vulgate version.)

One purpose of Aristeas, apparently, was to reassure that reading Bible in Greek was reliable. (Some religions differ on whether the full message can be obtained via translations; I'm confident readers can think of their own examples of such different views.)

And what part of the above does Gmirkin have any disagreement with?

Some Hebrew to Greek Bible translations may or may not have happened in Alexandria. Though not all at once. And Torah translations were not necessarily the first Greek ones made, as James Barr observed.

"May or may not". Nothing RG disagrees with here. RG does not argue Alexandria was the exclusive site of translation, -- again as you must know from your reading of RG's first book. (Why are you feigning ignorance of Gmirkin's argument and setting up silly points that makes us think you are just pretending you don't know what it is you are attacking?) I have to confess I was not aware -- as you seem to imply -- that it was central to RG's thesis that some non-Torah biblical works were necessarily not translated before the Torah.

Because Aristeas is not reliable, it is a poor foundation upon which to write history.
Given that it cannot even properly be used for history of Greek translation, how much moreso should it not be (mis)read for history of composition in Hebrew.

And Gmirkin does not accept a naive reading of the letter and does not base any "history" whatsoever on what he calls a "novelistic fiction". But he does, like all classicists and historians of the ancient world, study fiction (plays, epics, poems) to see what "unintended" information is suggested behind the fiction. -- Do you disagree with that method, one found in just about every book about the history of some aspect of the Greek, Roman and Levantine ancient world I have ever read?

Stephen, next time you quote a sentence of mine, please do more than simply respond with "False". Give me the evidence that demonstrates that what I have said is false.

[StephenGoranson]

If ng cannot allow that I disagree, in part, with REG, others may move from that dead end to consider something more constructive.
There is some reason to suggest that a librarian at Alexandria, during the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus--you know, the one who married his sister--asked for translation into Greek of some Hebrew books.

***That is, Hebrew books that had already been written!***

For more reliable treatment, I recommend From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile,
by James C. VanderKam (Fortress: Minneapolis and Van Gorcum: Assen, the Netherlands) 2004.

[neilgodfrey]

If ng cannot allow that I disagree, in part, with REG, others may move from that dead end to consider something more constructive.
There is some reason to suggest that a librarian at Alexandria, during the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus--you know, the one who married his sister--asked for translation into Greek of some Hebrew books.

***That is, Hebrew books that had already been written!***

Oh my god, Stephen. So now that you see that Russell Gmirkin treats the Letter of Aristeas as novelistic fiction, you must read it as if it is a historically factual document!?? hooo boy!!!!

[StephenGoranson]

False.
Again.
I do not so read it. Not. Do you understand?
What I did is refer to James C. VanderKam.
Who wrote about,
among other things,
Josephus.
Heard of him?

[neilgodfrey]

***That is, Hebrew books that had already been written!***

Er, .....um,... yes, .... I mean, they were said to be translators so there had to be something to translate, right?

Stephen -- do you know Gmirkin says that there was a Hebrew text that was translated into Greek? You seem confused. That an existing Hebrew text was to be translated into Greek is not in question. Gmirkin says there was a Hebrew text before the Greek one. Or will you now argue that a Greek text existed first because its the opposite of what Gmirkin says?

For more reliable treatment, I recommend From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, by James C. VanderKam (Fortress: Minneapolis and Van Gorcum: Assen, the Netherlands) 2004.

From VanderKam, p. 163 . . .

Screen Shot 2022-08-28 at 2.20.53 am.png (238.14 KiB) Viewed 645 times

See https://archive.org/details/fromjoshuat ... ew=theater

[StephenGoranson]

Maybe someone else can explain it to you.

Hebrew books existing before c.273.

Before 273.

Earlier.

Keep reading VanderKam if your interest extends beyond obscurantism.

[ABuddhist]

Maybe someone else can explain it to you.

Hebrew books existing before c.273.

Before 273.

Earlier.

Keep reading VanderKam if your interest extends beyond obscurantism.

With all due respect, I do not think that Gmirkin is claiming that no Hebrew books existed before 273 BCE; rather, he focusses upon the origins of 1 Hebrew book (or set of 5 books) around that year.

[neilgodfrey]

Maybe someone else can explain it to you.

Hebrew books existing before c.273.

Before 273.

Earlier.

Keep reading VanderKam if your interest extends beyond obscurantism.

The VanderKam reference is not "about" the Pentateuch or its origins. Passing references are made only in the context of the main theme of high priestly history. There are many other books that address the Documentary Hypothesis in depth. Would you like me to supply a bibliography for you? I have read quite a few of them. Once you have read those, you might be interested in more recent scholarship that raises questions about the assumptions supporting the DH. You might then be in a position to think through the evidence and models for yourself and engage in a serious debate that goes beyond appeals to this or that authority.

It is very clear that you have not read -- or have completely forgotten -- Gmirkin's actual arguments and the evidence and scholarship he addresses. Your responses are little more than an undisguised emotional and personal hostility. Not a good frame of mind for a serious intellectual discussion.

[StephenGoranson]

I'm aware that ng has read much, given the frequent reminders.
Citing authority apparently is Ok only, for fanboy, when citing REG--or is there anthing REG wrote with which you are critical?
Options are not limited to original DH and REG.
Burden of proof for all-at-once c273/2 rests with REG, who, in 2006 book, failed.
The Deir Alla inscription is not just-like Numbers etc. Of course. But it does attest that such texts existed
way-back
**in writing**.