Letter of Aristeas

[StephenGoranson]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

. . . .

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.

I think you owe your thoughts here to your reading of Russell Gmirkin's work. He also explains why the Letter of Aristeas is a novelistic fiction and the reasons for rejecting the idea that 70 or 72 persons were actually involved in translation work. It is not even written by Aristeas, Gmirkin argues (as you no doubt know). Gmirkin, as you also of course are aware, makes it very clear in his works that the letter should not be (mis)read for history of anything, and he is most clear that his thesis is not founded on the Letter of Aristeas. Far from it. But as with most historical inquiries, especially into ancient times, even fiction and pseudepigraphical works can be analysed for "unintended" information that is useful for historians, as every classicist and historian of the ancient world knows.

For the benefit of anyone who is unable to get to a library because of the heat or, being good global citizens, have recycled their illegal photocopies of Gmirkin's earlier book in which he has a complete chapter on the Letter to Aristeas, there is a copy freely available online at https://www.scribd.com/document/4763503 ... the-Date-o

Debate is the rule of the day. Example, from 20 years back we read in The Biblical World edited by John Barton, p. 213:

Given this complexity, it is not surprising that there have been various attempts over
the centuries to unravel LXX origins. In more recent times P.Kahle questioned whether
what is preserved in our LXX manuscripts is a single pre-Christian translation or an
arbitrary, almost random, selection from many oral renderings, analogous to the early
Palestinian Targums. Because of the diversity of witnesses to the LXX text he maintained
that there never was one original translation but rather several, designed to meet the
needs of specific communities. The Aristeas story, he held, was propaganda for an
official revision of earlier translations, not the description of a new one (Kahle 1959).

By contrast the approach of P. de Lagarde maintained that all LXX manuscripts could
be traced back to one prototype (or Urtext) for each of the LXX books and that variations
in the manuscript traditions were due to subsequent interventions and revisions. This
position is more representative of the mainstream of contemporary scholarship,
notwithstanding various reservations and qualifications, and forms the working
hypothesis for the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, the only institute currently
involved in critical LXX editions.

[StephenGoranson]

If one wishes to read more on Lagarde versus Kahle suppositions--neither of which may be provable--there is, e.g.,
4QLXXLeva and Proto-Septuagint studies: reassessing Qumran evidence for the Urtext theory
Authors:
Miller, John B Faulkenberry
Source:
Qumran studies: new approaches, new questions, William B Eerdmans, 2007, p 1-28.

If one wishes to read more about Paul de Lagarde, there is, e.g.,

Germany's prophet: Paul de Lagarde & the origins of modern antisemitism

By: Sieg, Ulrich. Source: Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2013.

[ABuddhist]

If one wishes to read more about Paul de Lagarde, there is, e.g.,

Germany's prophet: Paul de Lagarde & the origins of modern antisemitism

By: Sieg, Ulrich. Source: Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2013.

With all due respect, is it not a case of poisoning the well, as it were, to emphasize that a scholar whose claims you disagree with was also an anti-Semitic theorist with great influence?

Surely claims about the origins of the Tanakh, when reputable enough to be considered by scholarly publications, can be discussed without bringing up the claims' originator's broader views about the Tanakh's creators?

Or should we who argue that your opposition to Gmirkin's claims is unfair be able to point out that many of the scholars involved in dating the Tanakh, as Jews and Christians, have a vested interest (which for Christians is often linked with avoiding an eternity in a Hell-realm) in preserving the authenticity and antiquity of the Tanakh as much as possible?

[StephenGoranson]

I am not sure what the skandhas self-identifying as ABuddhist meant by "authenticity" of TaNaK.
I can say about those who stress "antiquity of the Tanakh as much as possible" that I am not one of those.

[ABuddhist]

I am not sure what the skandas self-identifying as ABuddhist meant by "authenticity" of TaNaK.
I can say about those who stress "antiquity of the Tanakh as much as possible" that I am not one of those.

Many thanks, StephenGoranson, for referring to me as skandas rather than as a soul. So often, people assume that souls exist, and that is strange to me; the Buddhist claim about a mindstream makes so much more sense to me. As a minor correction to your words, the word is "skandhas" (Sanskrit) or "khandhas" (Pāḷi), not "skandas".

By authenticity, I was referring to the claim that the Tanakh, even if not as old as it has traditionally been claimed to be, and even if not actually written by Moses, is a genuinely ancient text within the Mediterranean literary tradition, predating Herodotus and other Greek authors of note - perhaps even predating Homer/Hesiod, at least in parts. More specifically, I was referring to the claim that the Tanakh, in its entirety, predates the Persian Exile. I apologize for my imprecise wording.

I am glad that you are not one of those who stress "antiquity of the Tanakh as much as possible", but I was not claiming that you were such a person. Rather, I was noting - in a claim which you have not addressed (even to refute it, which I would accept) - that scholarship from people who, for faith-based reasons, are inclined to date the Tanakh as far back as possible has held great influence in Biblical scholarship.

[neilgodfrey]

If one wishes to read more on Lagarde versus Kahle suppositions--neither of which may be provable--there is, e.g.,
4QLXXLeva and Proto-Septuagint studies: reassessing Qumran evidence for the Urtext theory
Authors:
Miller, John B Faulkenberry
Source:
Qumran studies: new approaches, new questions, William B Eerdmans, 2007, p 1-28.

If one wishes to read more about Paul de Lagarde, there is, e.g.,

Germany's prophet: Paul de Lagarde & the origins of modern antisemitism

By: Sieg, Ulrich. Source: Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2013.

I am heartened to see that you have no objection to the part of my comment relating to Gmirkin as the source of your point about the Letter of Aristeas -- since you did read Gmirkin's book and it has evidently had a positive influence on you.

Your only criticism appears to be of persons influential in mainstream biblical studies - a field of which you have in the past attempted to insist you are a "member". Lagarde does not appear in the author list of any of Gmirkin's books, a fact that I am sure you approve of.

[StephenGoranson]

Actually, before I ever heard of Gmirkin I was aware of Aristeas.
Misrepresentation, again.

[StephenGoranson]

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

[neilgodfrey]

Actually, before I ever heard of Gmirkin I was aware of Aristeas.
Misrepresentation, again.

Apologies, Stephen. I in no way meant to imply that you had not heard of Aristeas before you heard of Gmirkin. Not at all. I, too, had heard of Aristeas and the letter attached to his name many years before Gmirkin ever came into my consciousness.