As it reads in the current translation, using a perfect participle, it would be more logical, that “these rights” ought to be “now reinstated”, not “now restricted/limited.” It cannot be saying that they are to be returned to their original (authentic) limited rights, because the perfect participle defines that they are “NOW limited rights” – they have changed! The “rights” cannot be simultaneously further limited and original! Authentia if it were to connote “original rights” simply does not apply. Through fulfilling the conditions, there would have been actually NO change in the already existing limitations as a conquered people. A simple adjective would have been employed for “limited” e.g. prosunestelikan, rather than the perfect participle that has been used.

Furthermore, it’s NOT TRUE that their rights are unchanged. They are NOT in their “original rights”, limited as they already were, and I shall explain in the next section what has changed.

4) Questions of Translation

I believe that the whole of verse 28 should be reviewed.

28a: μηδένα τῶν μὴ θυόντων εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν εἰσιέναι

This has been translated as “That entrance to their own temple was to be refused to all those who would not sacrifice.”

It COULD be understood as “those who will not make the following sacrifices of themselves”, but here, τῶν μὴ θυόντων should be literally translated as “those not offering by burning.” In other words, “those not making burnt offerings.”

However, I question the translation as it stands, since it makes no sense. It reads that Ptolemy prohibits those who don’t want to sacrifice and welcomes those who do! The Jews WISHED to sacrifice to YHWH, so why is Ptolemy stipulating a prohibition which is exempted if they do what they wish to do, anyway? This is not a punitive measure at all!