It is always deeply satisfying to see someone doing serious research on an issue and, on that basis, making a significant contribution to a discussion.
The dictionary definition cited by Lishevita states that the Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures redacted in the third and second centuries B.C.by Jewish scholars and adopted by Greek-speaking Christians." I am sure that if Lishevita reads it again, perhaps just a wee bit more closely than the first time around, she will clearly see that it says "in the third and second centuries B.C."
Now, if we compare that with Golb's statement, we see that there is no contradiction, for he says that the Septuagint, contrary to the erroneous statement made in the museum exhibit, was "by no means... completed in the third century B.C.
Furthermore, on such matters it is often advisable to consult a somewhat more detailed source than Merriam-Webster's. For example, if one looks up "Septuagint" on wikipedia, one sees the following statement:
"Modern scholarship holds that the LXX [=Septuagint], beginning with the Pentateuch, was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries B.C."
In conclusion, allow me to suggest that it would be odd for one of the world's leading historians of Jewish antiquity to make the kind of foolish mistake attributed to him by Lishevita. As for her broader question on how much of his article is "actual fact" and how much is "axe-grinding," readers will have to judge for themselves--perhaps if she had discovered an actual mistake there would be something to talk about, but as it stands, the definition she herself cites confirms what he says, so who is being sloppy and grinding an axe here?
Truemors
Sign in to NowPublic
at 11:21 on July 12th, 2007
It is always deeply satisfying to see someone doing serious research on an issue and, on that basis, making a significant contribution to a discussion.
The dictionary definition cited by Lishevita states that the Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures redacted in the third and second centuries B.C. by Jewish scholars and adopted by Greek-speaking Christians." I am sure that if Lishevita reads it again, perhaps just a wee bit more closely than the first time around, she will clearly see that it says "in the third and second centuries B.C."
Now, if we compare that with Golb's statement, we see that there is no contradiction, for he says that the Septuagint, contrary to the erroneous statement made in the museum exhibit, was "by no means... completed in the third century B.C.
Furthermore, on such matters it is often advisable to consult a somewhat more detailed source than Merriam-Webster's. For example, if one looks up "Septuagint" on wikipedia, one sees the following statement:
"Modern scholarship holds that the LXX [=Septuagint], beginning with the Pentateuch, was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries B.C."
In conclusion, allow me to suggest that it would be odd for one of the world's leading historians of Jewish antiquity to make the kind of foolish mistake attributed to him by Lishevita. As for her broader question on how much of his article is "actual fact" and how much is "axe-grinding," readers will have to judge for themselves--perhaps if she had discovered an actual mistake there would be something to talk about, but as it stands, the definition she herself cites confirms what he says, so who is being sloppy and grinding an axe here?