Would the phrase be better understood as Ptolemy being exceptionally emphatic! He has already written, μηδένα which in itself is strict enough as “not even one” or “no-one, without exception.” However, in addition to this, could it be possible that the following μὴ “not” is there to strengthen εἰσιέναι, to “come into,” “enter” and should not, therefore, be inserted into “those offering by burning”?
Perhaps 28a should simply read “Absolutely no persons may enter their own temple to make burnt offerings”? In other words, he was allowing entrance for prayer, but he was BANNING ALL BURNT OFFERINGS – the whole of Judaism’s ethos of atonement by substitution! To me, it is catastrophically more serious than it first appears from the current translation!
28b: πάντας δὲ τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους εἰς λαογραφίαν καὶ οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν ἀχθῆναι
Oiketes would not have a translation as “common people,” but “servant.” The translation of λαογραφίαν in v 28b “registration among the common people” is apt, but where is there a translation of καὶ οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν in the text?
It is absent!!
Should 28b have the literal translation of “Moreover, all the Jews to be brought into registration and a servant (οἰκετικὴν) disposition (διάθεσιν)”? That is, they are to be registered as SLAVES.
28c: τοὺς δὲ ἀντιλέγοντας βίᾳ φερομένους τοῦ ζῆν μεταστῆσαι
This would translate, literally as “moreover those reported (φερομένους) against the decree (ἀντιλέγοντας), by bodily strength their life to be placed in another way/changed” – a euphemism for killed. Although a more full translation might be “moreover those reported to be resisting the order are to be forcibly seized and put to death”, the more succinct current translation is still apt.
I propose that a more accurate translation of the entire verse 28 is as follows:
“Absolutely no persons may enter their own temple to make burnt offerings; moreover all the Jews are to be registered as slaves; moreover all reported resisting are to be forcibly seized and put to death.”
The current translation in 29a as “marked on their persons” is somewhat weak and omits διὰ πυρὸς, “by fire”. I would recommend the more literal translation “marked by fire on their body” as “branded.”
5) Questions of Comprehension of Context
At present, the text reads that upon registration and being branded with the mark of the ivy leaf of Dionysus, these people would be restored to their original condition of being, to some degree, masters of themselves. However, with the absence in the text of reference to slavery, and a misunderstanding over the nature of the temple prohibition, have these both contributed to a misinterpretation of the passage … and hence a mistranslation of authentia?
The following is my attempt to interpret the passage in its context.
Jews originally possessed SOME rights as CONQUERED people in their enclave, but nothing like autocracy, denoted by authentia. However, the Jewish priests humiliatingly refused to allow “god” Ptolemy entrance beyond the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of Israel, in order to offer HIS gift. Ptolemy’s stated intent in revenge, was to humiliate all the Jews – who were allowed in the Court of Israel – and to prohibit them from making THEIR gifts. He decided to give them the choice of death or to become slaves deprived of freedoms. He was not going to leave them exactly as they were, “set apart with these limited rights,” being to some degree masters of themselves. They were now not able to sacrifice in their Temple in Jerusalem, thus also no longer demoting him beneath their God. They could not enter to make burnt offerings, thus ending both the many free will offerings, and more crucially, the atoning sacrifices of Judaism. They could merely enter for prayer. However, if they also agreed to bear the publicly humiliating branding mark of a foreign god … as servants of himself and the god Dionysus, no longer just the servants of YHWH, then they would have “authority to kill” i.e. be allowed to sacrifice, but with those degrading conditions attached.
