Letter of Aristeas

The so-called Letter of Aristeas or Letter to Philocrates is a Hellenistic work of the second century BCE, one of the Pseudepigrapha.Harris, Stephen L., "Understanding the Bible." (Palo Alto: Mayfield) 1985; André Pelletier, SJ, "La Lettre d'Aristée à Philocrate" (Paris) 1962.] Josephus"Antiquities" XII:ii passim. [http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/showText?book=12&chapter=2&textChunk=whistonSection&chunkId=2&text=anti&version=whiston&direction=&tab=&layout=split&go.x=15&go.y=7 Online] in Greek and English at York University] who paraphrases about two-fifths of the letter, ascribes it to Aristeas and written to Philocrates, describing the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-two interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint translation. Though its story of the creation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is fictitious, [the narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion , and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed "The Classical Review" 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Tackeray's "The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX.".] it is the earliest text to mention the Library of Alexandria.

Over twenty manuscripts of this letter are preserved and it is often mentioned and quoted in other texts. Its supposed author, purporting to be a courtier of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246 BCE) is most often referred to as pseudo-Aristeas ["Prosographia Ptolemaica" 6 (Leuven 1968: §14588) considers him probably fictitious.]

The work relates how the king of Egypt, presumably Ptolemy II Philadephus, is urged by his librarian Demetrios of Phalaron [Demetrius, a client of Ptolemy I Soter, is not a good candidate as a collaborator with Ptolemy II, Roger S. Bagnall notes, in "Alexandria: Library of Dreams", "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society" 146.4 (December 2002:348-362) p. 348; he made the strategic mistake at the beginning of the reign of supporting Ptolemy's older half-brother, and was punished with internal exile, dying soon afterwards.] to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek: the Pentateuch. The king responds favorably, including giving freedom to Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors and sending lavish gifts (which are described in great detail) to the Temple in Jerusalem along with his envoys. The high priest chooses exactly six men from each of the twelve tribes, [The writer of the letters supposes that there were currently twelve tribes in Judea.] giving 72 in all; he gives a long sermon in praise of the Law. When the translators arrive in Alexandria the king weeps for joy and for the next seven days puts philosophical questions to the translators, the wise answers to which are related in full. The 72 translators then complete their task in exactly 72 days. The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in Greek, request copies and lay a curse on anyone who would change the translation. The king then rewards the translators lavishly and they return home.

A main goal of the second-century author seems to be to establish the superiority of the Greek Septuagint text over any other version of the Hebrew Bible. The author is noticeably pro-Greek, portraying Zeus as simply another name for Hashem, and while criticism is lodged against idolatry and Greek sexual ethics, the argument is phrased in such a way as to attempt to persuade the reader to change, rather than as a hostile attack. The manner in which the author concentrates on describing Judaism, and particularly its temple in Jerusalem could be viewed as an attempt to proselytise.

Early philological analysis detected that the letter was a forgery. In 1684, Humphrey Hody published "Contra historiam Aristeae de LXX. interpretibus dissertatio", in which he argued that the so called "Letter of Aristeas" was the late forgery of a Hellenized Jew, originally circulated to lend authority to the Septuagint version. Isaac Vossius (1618-1689), who had been librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden, published a rebuttal to it, in the appendix to his edition of Pomponius Mela, but modern scholarship is unanimously with Hody.

Victor Tcherikover (Hebrew University) summed up the scholarly consensus in 1958:

"Modern scholars commonly regard the “Letter of Aristeas” as a work typical of Jewish apologetics, aiming at self-defense and propaganda, and directed to the Greeks. Here are some instances illustrating this general view. In 1903. Friedlander wrote that the glorification of Judaism in the letter was no more than self-defense, though “the book does not mention the antagonists of Judaism by name, nor does it admit that its intention is to refute direct attacks.” Stein sees in the letter “a special kind of defense, which practices diplomatic tactics,” and Tramontano also speaks of “an apologetic and propagandist tendency.” Vincent characterizes it as “a small unapologetic novel written for the Egyptians” (i.e. the Greeks in Egypt). Pheiffer says: “This fanciful story of the origin of the Septuagint is merely a pretext for defending Judaism against its heathen denigrators, for extolling its nobility and reasonableness, and first striving to convert Greek speaking Gentiles to it.” Schurer classes the letter with a special kind of literature, “Jewish propaganda in Pagan disguise,” whose works are “directed to the page and read your, in order to make propaganda for Judaism among the Gentiles.” Andrews, too, believes that the role of a Greek was assumed by Aristeas in order “to strengthen the force of the argument and commend it to non-Jewish readers.” [V. Tcherikover, "The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas" "Harvard Theological Review" 51.2 (April 1958), pp. 59-85 ( [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1508930 JSTOR ref.] )]

Scholars avid for the scant information about the Library and the Musaeum of Alexandria, have depended on ps-Aristeas, who "has that least attractive quality in a source: to be trusted only when corroborated by better evidence, and there unneeded," Roger Bagnall concluded. [Bagnall 2002:352.]

References

ee also

* Library of Alexandria
* Septuagint
* Masoretic Text

External links

* [http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm Online version in English translation] from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
* [http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/LetAris.html Online version of the Greek text] from the [http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/ Online Critical Pseudepigrapha]
* [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1765&letter=A Jewish Encyclopedia article] (1901-06).
* [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/letteraristeas.html Scholarly assessments] , Early Jewish Writings website
* [http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/aristeas.html Lecture summary] , Dr James Davila (1999), University of St Andrew's.