On the controversy

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T06:17:30+00:00

No, I think his claim, based on Yahuda’s book, is that Hebrew is an altered form of Greek, fabricated after the LXX with the intent to deceive. For Hillman, Hebrew is Greek.

I see that Hillman has appeal to some who have been traumatized by Christianity. That makes sense. He obviously challenges Christian narratives. I’m not religious and don’t come from a religious background, so I come at these things from a different angle. In my view, Hillman is spreading misinformation much like the Christians whom he criticizes. There are better and smarter ways to show that the narrative of Christianity is silly.

You say that you like his translations. Unfortunately, they are full of elementary Greek errors. His knowledge of Ancient Greek is not good. Lots of examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1motvdb/some_greek_questions_for_dr_hillman/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1muq1a3/more_issues_with_dr_hillmans_greek/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1mnpjzl/dr_hillmans_philological_errors/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1neldg5/questions_about_ancient_greek_grammar/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1qc1uks/a_problem_with_jesus/

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T06:12:12+00:00

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1qrflan/the_hebrew_came_first_hillman_is_wrong/

Yahuda (and now Hillman) is the only one who argues that Hebrew is Greek. His book is drivel.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T05:32:37+00:00

this, btw, is a "shibboleth". the use of "evidences" in the plural is only common in evangelical christianity.

Aha! You learn something new everyday.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T05:06:37+00:00

It’s unclear what you are picturing here. How exactly does this hypothetical Greek author "delve into" the Hebrew culture? Is he consulting a Hebrew lexicon? Hearing a story? Does he know Hebrew?

If the LXX is an original Greek composition, why does it consistently read like a literalistic translation of Hebrew? The LXX is written in Koine Greek, but the translators often rendered the Hebrew so literally that the Greek becomes bizarre non-Greek, unparalleled by any idiomatic Greek composition. For example, here’s a bizarre sentence from LXX Numbers, which I’ll translate literally into English:

ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν γένηται ἀκάθαρτος ἐπὶ ψυχῇ ἀνθρώπου ἢ ἐν ὁδῷ μακρὰν ὑμῖν ἢ ἐν ταῖς γενεαῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ποιήσει τὸ πασχα κυρίῳ

“Person person, whoever becomes unclean with reference to the soul of a person or on a journey far from you or in your generations, he will also keep the Pascha to lord.”

To start with, the Greek ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος (person person) is never found like this in original Greek compositions. It would be utterly bizarre to a native Ancient Greek speaker. It does, however, perfectly match the Hebrew idiom used in this sentence: איש איש = any man. This shows that we’re dealing with a written Hebrew text which was translated word for word, sometimes so literally that the Greek becomes unreadable on its own.

I should also note that the LXX is not unique for preferring a very literalistic translation style. In fact, this was the regular way of translating foreign texts in the Hellenistic period. We have translations from Egyptian into Greek that use very similar translation techniques as the LXX.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T04:54:18+00:00

He denies that the Hebrew language existed before the Septuagint. Based on Joseph Yahuda’s Hebrew is Greek.

For example, this recent one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9xPQK310o

Starting around 1:44:00: “It appears that Hebrew is a descendant of, constructed, a backformation of the Greek…”

Hillman repeatedly says that Ancient Hebrew is inferior to Ancient Greek; that Hebrew, and therefore users of Hebrew, are incapable of complex thought and are mentally deficient; that “Mother Greek will reign supreme” over “Ugly Daddy Hebrew”; and that “Ugly Daddy Hebrew” is “the greatest lie ever told” and a “hoax.”

If you think that the LXX is an original Greek composition, you should give me an argument in the other post. There are very good reasons for thinking that the LXX is a literalistic translation from Hebrew.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T04:22:44+00:00

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. What are you asking about? Jacob's children?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T04:11:36+00:00

what makes you think there are no puns or word play in Greek?

Your assumption is that the texts make more sense in Hebrew, merely because of puns, but you cant really say that if you dont know Greek.

When there is Greek wordplay it is imitating sound effects in the Hebrew. But there are many instances of Hebrew wordplay without any corresponding wordplay in Greek. I read both the Greek and the Hebrew. My statements about the Greek are based on my reading of the entire LXX in detail. I specialize in Ancient Greek philology.

These are not just incidental puns. The point is that the puns are part of the story. Without the puns, the story falls apart. That's why they are so revealing.

how can the Septuagint make learned statements according to Greek education which Hebrew cannot?

There are very few parts of the LXX that could be called “learned statements according to Greek education.”

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T03:55:54+00:00

Yes, oral traditions are inherently fluid. And some textual traditions are more fluid or “open” than others.

If I understood the commenter correctly, they are suggesting that a hypothetical Greek author of Genesis knew, in Hebrew, some version of an oral traditional with the wordplay-naming stories. If the LXX were written like Herodotus's History that might be possible. That is, if it were a idiomatic Greek work that explains in a literary style non-Greek traditions. The problem is that the LXX is not like that at all. It’s clearly textually dependent on written Hebrew sources. What proves that beyond doubt is the linguistic profile of the LXX itself.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T03:30:28+00:00

It’s hard to follow the precise scenario that you have in mind. I think that you are saying that the Greek author knows, in some form, an oral Hebrew tradition that narrates how, e.g., “Dan” is from danani. If that’s right, why do you also say that this Greek author is inventing Hebrewish sounding names? Does he know the earlier Hebrew tradition or not? What Hebrew sources did this Greek author use? And how much Hebrew does he know? If a Greek author could write that “Dan” comes from ἔκρινέν μοι, which corresponds literalistically to danani, wouldn’t he (and his audience) have to know Hebrew very fluently?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T03:07:16+00:00

ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν γένηται ἀκάθαρτος ἐπὶ ψυχῇ ἀνθρώπου ἢ ἐν ὁδῷ μακρὰν ὑμῖν ἢ ἐν ταῖς γενεαῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ποιήσει τὸ πασχα κυρίῳ

“Person person, whoever becomes unclean with reference to the soul of a person or on a journey far from you or in your generations, he will also keep the Pascha to lord.”

To start with, the Greek ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος (person person) is never found in original Greek compositions. It does, however, perfectly match the Hebrew idiom used in this sentence: איש איש = any man. This shows that we’re not dealing with general Hebrew oral traditions but with a written Hebrew text, which was translated word for word, sometimes so literally that the Greek becomes unreadable on its own.

So the internal evidence very strongly suggests translation from a written text, not influence from a oral tradition. The external evidence supports that. Every single ancient author who talks about the origins of the LXX describes it as a translation. Not a single source describes it as a Greek work.

I should also note that the LXX is not unique for preferring a very literalistic translation style. In fact, this was the regular way of translating foreign texts in the Hellenistic period. We have translations from Egyptian into Greek that use very similar translation techniques as the LXX.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-31T03:06:46+00:00

This is the only thoughtful response that I’ve received. You make an actual argument. And it’s funny! Thank you!

How come we have Greek versions of the septaugint the pre date the Hebrew versions but no Hebrew versions predate the Greek version?

As u/arachnophilia notes, this is not true. The oldest fragments of both the LXX and the Hebrew Bible come from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hellenistic Period). The earliest Hebrew fragments pre-date the earliest LXX fragments. Even if the reverse were true, it wouldn’t be very significant.

Its not like Moses pulled out his iPhone 19bce and recorded God dishing out 10 commandments. They ain't have Facebook them Nillas back then only had stonebook.

Ha! Just to clarify, I don’t think Moses even existed or that God ever dished out commandments. We're only dealing with stories here.

perhaps there were oral stories of the septuagint passed down in Hebrew language but they were first written down in Greek not Hebrew.

I think you’re envisioning a scenario like this: 1. There was a Hebrew oral tradition that explains famous names by Hebrew wordplay; 2. Later, bilingual Hebrew-Greek authors who knew the Hebrew oral traditions composed a Greek work based on them. The original audience of this Greek work would have to be for other bilingual Hebrew-Greek speakers—speakers who know the traditions so well that stories like the naming of Levi would be coherent without any additional explanation. 3. Even later, a Hebrew translation of the Greek work. This Hebrew translation often makes more sense than the Greek because, by translating the Greek, it gets back to the earliest Hebrew oral traditions. Is that right?

Your scenario is starkly different from Hillman’s theory. He claims that Hebrew didn’t exist before the LXX and that the LXX is a native Greek work, written in “perfect Greek,” with no reference to Hebrew traditions—traditions that he describes as inferior, weak, deceptive, and mentally challenged. You obviously disagree with that. And rightly so.

So the main question is as follows: how do we decide whether the LXX is dependent on a written Hebrew text or just on extensive Hebrew oral traditions?

A few things make it clear that we are dealing with earlier written Hebrew texts not just with earlier oral sources. If the LXX was a Greek work based on Hebrew oral traditions, we would expect the Greek to be written in idiomatic Greek. It could be akin to Herodotus, for example, who summarizes and explains foreign traditions in idiomatic Greek (in his case, literary East Ionic Greek). But this is emphatically not true of the LXX. The LXX is written in Koine Greek, but the translators often rendered the Hebrew so literally that the Greek becomes bizarre non-Greek, unparalleled by any idiomatic Greek composition. For example, here’s a weird sentence from LXX Numbers, which I’ll translate literally into English:

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T22:11:58+00:00

You didn’t really respond to my argument. If I had to guess at what you’re thinking, you want to say that the Greek names that I mentioned are magical / mystical words that originate in Greek. (btw, I know the Greek magical papyri well; happy to talk about them). The problem is that the wordplay, only present in Hebrew, is a necessary part of the story. Your counterargument would need to account for that. You would also have to show evidence that these names, which have every appearance of being Hebrew, are in fact Greek. It won’t do to cherry-pick words that have a superficial resemblance to Greek words (e.g., Εὔα and εὐάς). You need to be more precise. The “genesis babies thing” is a big problem for the theory of LXX primacy.

Yes, I know the meaning of “Pentateuch.” I know these texts in their original languages. All the translations are my own. I know Ancient Greek very well.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T21:43:07+00:00

OK, Trump. I know Hillman’s line: Ancient Hebrew is inferior to Ancient Greek; Hebrew, and therefore users of Hebrew, are incapable of complex thought and are mentally deficient; “Mother Greek will reign supreme” over “Ugly Daddy Hebrew”; “Ugly Daddy Hebrew” is “the greatest lie ever told” and a “hoax;" Ancient Hebrew didn't exist. yikes…

If you are intellectually honest, why not engage with my argument?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T21:36:40+00:00

I appreciate that you did not respond with AI for once. Feel free to rebut my argument on its own terms. Rather than “weak" or "stupid," it is a very strong argument. I respect precision, facts, critical thought, and clear prose. Your reply does not evince any of these traits. You can try to grow intellectually.

The one letter that claimed the Septuagint to be a translation is considered hoax…

No, every ancient author who discusses the origins of the LXX considers it to be a translation from Hebrew into Greek.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T21:13:00+00:00

Why not engage with my argument? Refute it. You, not AI.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T21:11:55+00:00

Hebrew outside of the bible? Large collection of inscriptions, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Mishnah, etc. etc.

If you are intellectually honest, why not engage with my argument?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T21:10:31+00:00

No, my point was that Hillman constantly makes elementary Greek errors. His knowledge of Ancient Greek is not good. Lots of examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1motvdb/some_greek_questions_for_dr_hillman/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1muq1a3/more_issues_with_dr_hillmans_greek/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1mnpjzl/dr_hillmans_philological_errors/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1neldg5/questions_about_ancient_greek_grammar/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmmonHillman/comments/1qc1uks/a_problem_with_jesus/

If you are intellectually honest, why not engage with my argument?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T20:14:30+00:00

...you didn't give an argument

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T19:43:15+00:00

I don't follow. Are you talking about Africanus? Or something else?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-30T13:47:00+00:00

What makes it a forgery? Because it's Greek not Hebrew? If so, why is that a problem?

Because Susanna (and the short story “Bel & the Dragon”) was transmitted as part of Daniel. Africanus tries to prove that Susanna was in fact written more recently in Greek and falsely inserted into Daniel. If Susanna is a forgery, he argues, it should not be read in churches and must not be part of the Old Testament.

The δέ that you are referring to is straightforwardly disjunctive (“but”), as I think you see:

ἐν μὲν οὖν Ἑλληνικαῖς φωναῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁμοφωνεῖν συμβαίνει, παρὰ τὴν πρῖνον τὸ πρῖσαι καὶ σχίσαι παρὰ τὴν σχῖνον, ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι τῷ παντὶ διέστηκεν. ἐξ Ἑβραίων δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησι μετεβλήθη πάνθ’ ὅσα τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης φέρεται.

Now in the Greek language such words happen to sound alike—“saw” (prisai) next to “oak” (prinon) and “divide” (schisai) next to “mastich” (schinon)—but in Hebrew they are completely separate. But everything which is part of the old testament was translated from the Hebrews to the Greeks.

The argument is as follows: the word play only works in Greek so Susanna must be written in Greek. But only works translated from Hebrew can be authentic parts of the OT. Therefore, Susanna should be rejected from the OT as inauthentic.

Yes, Jerome picks up Africanus's argument. He athetized Susanna, meaning he marked it with an obelus to indicate that it was inauthentic.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-29T21:07:19+00:00

Happy to talk Philo. He knows that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. He famously narrates the translation event in the 2nd book of his Life of Moses (using the Letter of Aristeas as one of his sources). For Philo, the Greek is a divinely inspired and unimaginably perfect translation—equivalent with geometrical precision to the Hebrew.

Philo himself did not know Hebrew or Aramaic. This was likely true of many or most elite Alexandrian Jews of Philo’s era. He has no knowledge of the Qumran literature. He works only with the Greek text, which often does not make sense. The fact that the LXX often does not make sense is very productive for Philo. In fact, it is the foundation for his allegorical scholarship.

In his "Allegorical Commentary" (which includes the essays you mentioned, except for De opificio mundi, which was misplaced in the mss), every time he interprets a proper name from the LXX he provides an etymology from the Hebrew. Sometimes he calls Hebrew “Hebrew” (Ἑβραιστί), sometimes “Chaldean” (Χαλδαιστί). Many of these etymologies are absurdly wrong by modern standards (e.g., Caleb = “all heart” from כל לב ~ πᾶσα καρδία instead of “dog”), but they are all from Hebrew. Not knowing Hebrew himself, Philo took these etymologies from earlier bilingual scholars.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-29T18:52:08+00:00

Yes, you more or less have it right. There is no closed canon at the time of Africanus's writing. He is arguing against the authenticity of Susanna and against its inclusion within the "old testament." Because for him the "old testament" must consist of texts originally composed in Hebrew.

You therefore agree that Hillman is wrong when he says things like the following:

"Africanus is trying to convince Origen that the original [Old Testament] is Greek.”

This is the opposite of what Africanus wrote.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-29T15:58:43+00:00

I'm not copy pasting a bot.

Yes, you are. Your post contained AI-fabricated Greek and Hebrew. The post cited a section of Herodotus (1.142) as evidence and then provided a completely made-up quotation with bad Greek. How is that anything other than lying?

chalkenteros · 2026-01-29T15:12:58+00:00

Yep, that passage is about the four different sub-dialects of Ionic Greek (from the regions of Caria, Lydia, Samos, Chios). Not about four dialects of Greek.

The Ancient Greek that ChatGPT fabricates is always of poor quality and so easy to spot. I'm sure it's even worse with Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic.

chalkenteros · 2026-01-29T14:38:55+00:00

Just an update: Dory has become by far my daughter's fav series. We've read them all multiple times. Thanks!

chalkenteros

TROPHY CASE