Letter of Aristeas: The LXX Translation Universalized the Torah’s Wisdom

Yun Lee Too, The Idea of the Library in the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University, 2010), 1-3, offers a comprehensive overview of the legacy of the library of Alexandria.

Its apparent destruction at some point in antiquity still today leads to mourning over what was ostensibly lost. Roger Bagnall, “Alexandria: Library of Dreams,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 146 (2002): 348-62, esp. 356-60, remarks on the strong reactions even among contemporary classical scholars to the destruction of the library.

John Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge University Press, 1985), 16-17.

Translations taken from Craig Evans et al. (trans.), Pseudepigrapha English (Oak Tree Software, 2009). The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §9-10} Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς ἐχρηματίσθη πολλὰ διάφορα πρὸς τὸ συναγαγεῖν, εἰ δυνατόν, ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία· καὶ ποιούμενος ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραφὰς ἐπὶ τέλος ἤγαγεν, ὅσον ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῷ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως πρόθεσιν. παρόντων οὖν ἡμῶν ἐρωτηθείς Πόσαι τινὲς μυριάδες τυγχάνουσι βιβλίων; εἶπεν Ὑπὲρ τὰς εἴκοσι, βασιλεῦ· σπουδάσω δ᾿ ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ πρὸς τὸ πληρωθῆναι πεντήκοντα μυριάδας τὰ λοιπά. προσήγγελται δέ μοι καὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς ἄξια καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιοθήκης εἶναι.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §11} Τί τὸ κωλῦον οὖν, εἶπεν, ἐστί σε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; πάντα γὰρ ὑποτέτακταί σοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. ὁ δὲ Δημήτριος εἶπεν Ἑρμηνείας προσδεῖται· χαρακτῆρσι γὰρ ἰδίοις κατὰ Ἰουδαίων χρῶνται, καθάπερ Αἰγύπτιοι τῇ τῶν γραμμάτων θέσει, καθὸ καὶ φωνὴν ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν. ὑπολαμβάνονται Συριακῇ χρῆσθαι· τὸ δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερος τρόπος. Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ἕκαστα ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπε γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅπως τὰ προειρημένα τελείωσιν λάβῃ.

Benjamin Wright, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 437-439, discusses the difficulties in interpreting this passage and the consequences arising from the various interpretations. The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §30-31} νόμου τῶν Ἰουδαίων βιβλία σὺν ἑτέροις ὀλίγοις τισὶν ἀπολείπει· τυγχάνει γὰρ Ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φωνῇ λεγόμενα, ἀμελέστερον δέ, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῶν εἰδότων προσαναφέρεται· προνοίας γὰρ βασιλικῆς οὐ τέτευχε. δέον δέ ἐστι καὶ ταῦθ᾿ ὑπάρχειν παρά σοι διηκριβωμένα, διὰ τὸ καὶ φιλοσοφωτέραν εἶναι καὶ ἀκέραιον τὴν νομοθεσίαν ταύτην, ὡς ἂν οὖσαν θείαν.

Editor’s note: For some discussion, see Benjamin G. Wright, III, “Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas,” TheTorah (2019).

Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003), 58, discusses the significance of the number for tying the project to the revelation on Sinai in the stories of the translation and their interpretation in later tradition.

[9] The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §176-177} παρελθόντων δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἀπεσταλμένοις δώροις καὶ ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν αἷς ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, θαυμασίως [εἰργασμένου τοῦ ὑμένος], καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης, ὡς εἶδεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοὺς ἄνδρας, ἐπηρώτα περὶ τῶν βιβλίων. ὡς δὲ ἀπεκάλυψαν τὰ τῶν ἐνειλημάτων καὶ τοὺς ὑμένας ἀνείλιξαν, πολὺν ἐπιστὰς χρόνον καὶ προσκυνήσας σχεδὸν ἑπτάκις εἶπεν Εὐχαριστοῦ μέν, ἄνδρες, ὑμῖν, τῷ δ᾿ ἀποστείλαντι μᾶλλον, μέγιστον δὲ τῷ θεῷ, οὗτινός ἐστι τὰ λόγια ταῦτα.

[10] The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §302} οἱ δὲ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς ἀντιβολαῖς· τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς συμφωνίας γινόμενον πρεπόντως ἀναγραφῆς οὕτως ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου.

The rather mundane process of translation described in the Letter of Aristeas can be contrasted with the miraculous translation events we saw in the Talmudic story above, and first recounted in Philo “Life of Moses”:

^{De Vita Mosis 2.37} …καθάπερ ἐνθουσιῶντες προεφήτευον οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα, ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἑκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος. ^2:38 καίτοι τίς οὐκ οἶδεν, ὅτι πᾶσα μὲν διάλεκτος, ἡ δ’ Ἑλληνικὴ διαφερόντως, ὀνομάτων πλουτεῖ, καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐνθύμημα οἷόν τε μεταφράζοντα καὶ παραφράζοντα σχηματίσαι πολλαχῶς, ἄλλοτε ἄλλας ἐφαρμόζοντα λέξεις; ὅπερ ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς νομοθεσίας οὔ φασι συμβῆναι, συνενεχθῆναι δ’ εἰς ταὐτὸν κύρια κυρίοις ὀνόμασι, τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ τοῖς Χαλδαϊκοῖς, ἐναρμοσθέντα εὖ μάλα τοῖς δηλουμενοις πράγμασιν.

^{Life of Moses 2.37} …they, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. ^2:38 And yet who is there who does not know that every language, and the Greek language above all others, is rich in a variety of words, and that it is possible to vary a sentence and to paraphrase the same idea, so as to set it forth in a great variety of manners, adapting many different forms of expression to it at different times. But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §310} καθὼς δὲ ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ τεύχη, στάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ τῶν ἑρμηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πολιτεύματος οἵ τε ἡγούμενοι τοῦ πλήθους εἶπον Ἐπεὶ καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως διηρμήνευται καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως, καλῶς ἔχον ἐστίν, ἵνα διαμείνῃ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχοντα, καὶ μὴ γένηται μηδεμία διασκευή.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §311} πάντων δ᾿ ἐπιφωνησάντων τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις διασκευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι τὸ σύνολον τῶν γεγραμμένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν, καλῶς τοῦτο πράσσοντες, ἵνα διὰ παντὸς ἀένναα καὶ μένοντα φυλάσσηται.

Harry Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators,” HUCA 46 (1975): 89-114, esp. 96-97, makes the claim that this custom is what confers scriptural status. However, see the objections of Francis Borchardt, “The LXX Myth and the Rise of Textual Fixity,” JSJ 41 (2012): 1-21, esp. 4.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §317} Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς, καθὼς προεῖπον, περὶ τούτων τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου, προσκυνήσας ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν ἁγνῶς.

Other versions, with some important differences can be found in Philo of Alexandria’s Life of Moses 2.25-44, Josephus’ Judean Antiquities 12.11-118, and in more fragmentary form in b. Megillah 9a-b and several other sources. See Abraham Wasserstein and David Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2006) for more on the versions and their differences.

Elias Bickerman, “The Dating of Pseudo-Aristeas,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees, ed. Amram Tropper, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:108-33, provides a thorough analysis of all the material that points to the account’s unreliability as a source.

Judith Lieu, “’Impregnable Ramparts and Walls of Iron’: Boundary and Identity in Early ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’,” NTS 48 (2002): 297-313, highlights this aspect of the myth.

Maren Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge University, 2011), 30-31, emphasizes several aspects of this point in discussing the description of translation as found in Aristeas. Dries De Crom, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Authority of the Septuagint,” JSP 17 (2008): 150-158, notes how each of these factors contribute to the authorization of the translation in the myth.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §121} ἐπιλέξας γὰρ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄνδρας καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντας, ἅτε δὴ γονέων τετευχότας ἐνδόξων, οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραμμάτων ἕξιν περιεποίησαν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἐφρόντισαν οὐ παρέργως κατασκευῆς·

Benjamin Wright, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 40-41, argues that the privileging of the middle way reflects Aristotelian ethics.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §122} διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὰς πρεσβείας εὔθετοι καθεστήκεισαν, καὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἐπετέλουν ὅτε δέοι, καὶ πρὸς τὰς ὁμιλίας καὶ τὰς ἐπερωτήσεις τὰς διὰ τοῦ νόμου μεγάλην εὐφυίαν εἶχον, τὸ μέσον ἐζηλωκότες κατάστημα (τοῦτο γὰρ κάλλιστόν ἐστιν), ἀποτεθειμένοι τὸ τραχὺ καὶ βάρβαρον τῆς διανοίας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ κατοίεσθαι καὶ νομίζειν ὑπερφρονεῖν ἑτέρους ὑπερβεβηκότες, τὴν δ᾿ ὁμιλίαν καὶ τὸ συνακούειν καὶ πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀποκρίνεσθαι δεόντως παραδεδεγμένοι, καὶ πάντες ταῦτα συντηροῦντες καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν τούτοις βουλόμενοι ὑπερφέρειν ἕτερος ἑτέρου, καὶ τοῦ καθηγουμένου πάντες ἄξιοι καὶ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §187} Ὅτε δὲ καιρὸν ἔλαβεν ἐκ διαστήματος, ἠρώτησε τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν πρώτην ἀνάκλισιν (ἦσαν γὰρ καθ᾿ ἡλικίαν τὴν ἀνάπτωσιν πεποιημένοι) Πῶς ἂν τὴν βασιλείαν μέχρι τέλους ἄπταιστον ἔχων διατελοῖ;

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §188} βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν εἶπεν Οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα διευθύνοις, μιμούμενος τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἐπιεικές. μακροθυμίᾳ γὰρ χρώμενος, καὶ βλιμάζων τοὺς ἀξίους ἐπιεικέστερον, καθώς εἰσιν ἄξιοι, μετατιθεὶς ἐκ τῆς κακίας καὶ εἰς μετάνοιαν ἄξεις.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §293} Καταλήξαντος δὲ τούτου κατερράγη κρότος μετὰ φωνῆς καὶ χαρᾶς ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο, ὁ βασιλεὺς λαβὼν ποτήριον ἐπεχέατο καὶ τῶν παρόντων ἁπάντων καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ εἶπε Τὰ μέγιστα μοι γέγονεν ἀγαθὰ παραγενηθέντων ὑμῶν· ^§294 πολλὰ γὰρ ὠφέλημαι, καταβεβλημένων ὑμῶν διδαχὴν ἐμοὶ πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. ἑκάστῳ δὲ τρία τάλαντα προσέταξεν ἀργυρίου δοθῆναι καὶ τὸν ἀποκαταστήσοντα παῖδα.

Honigman, Septuagint, 119, makes the larger point without specific reference to this paragraph.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §318} παρακαλέσας δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἑρμηνεῖς, ἵνα παραγίνωνται πυκνότερον πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐὰν ἀποκατασταθῶσιν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίων, _ δίκαιον γὰρ εἶπε τὴν ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν γενέσθαι· παραγενηθέντες δέ, ὡς θέμις, ἕξειν αὐτοὺς φίλου, καὶ [πολυωρία] τῆς μεγίστης τεύξεσθαι παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

The Latin reads:

Quod autem Ptolommaeus ille ad antiquorum librorum comparationem ita sollicitus esset non parvum esse testimonium aiunt quod cum Atheniensibus fecit. Dato namque ipsis pignore quindecim talentorum argenti accepit Sophoclis, Euripidis et Aeschyli libros, ut solum scriberet, deinde statim salvos redderet.

Ubi autem magnifice in chartis optimis paravit, quos ab Atheniensibus acceperat, retinuit; quos vero ipse paraverat, ad ipsos misit, rogans ut quindecim talenta tenerent, acciperentque novos pro veteribus quos dedissent libris.

The Greek reads:

^{Aristeas §321} ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ παρακαλῶν, ἵνα, ἐάν τινες τῶν ἀνδρῶν προαιρῶνται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακομισθῆναι, μὴ κωλύσῃ, περὶ πολλοῦ ποιούμενος τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις συνεῖναι, καὶ εἰς τοιούτους τὸν πλοῦτον κατατίθεσθαι δαψιλῶς, καὶ οὐκ εἰς μάταια.

[29] Gregory Nagy, “The Idea of the Library as a Classical Model for European Culture,” in Europa e Cultura: Seminário Internacional. Maio de 1998, ed. Mário Soares (Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, 2001), 275-281. Strabo writes:

^Strabo All [the buildings] are connected to each other and to the harbor and what lies outside the harbor. The Museum is also part of the royal complex. It has a walkway [Peripatos] and an Exedra and a great building that houses the place where the philologoi who take part in the Museum dine in common. Property, too, is held in common by this assembled group, and at their head is the priest who is put in charge of the Museum, who used to be appointed by the kings, but now by Caesar [Augustus]. Another part of the royal complex is the so-called Soma. This is an enclosure where the tombs of the kings and of Alexander are located (17.1.8 C 793-4).

ἃπαντα μέντοι συναφῆ καὶ ἀλλήλοις καὶ τῷ λιμένι καὶ ὅσα ἔξω αὐτοῦ. τῶν δὲ βασιλείων μέρος ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ Μουσεῖον, ἔχον περίπατον καὶ ἐξέδραν καὶ οἶκον μέγαν ἐν ᾧ τὸ συσσίτιον τῶν μετεχόντων τοῦ Μουσείου φιλολόγων ἀνδρῶν. ἔστι δὲ τῇ συνόδῳ ταύτῃ καὶ χρήματα κοινὰ καὶ ἱερεὺς ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ Μουσείῳ τεταγμένος τότε μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων νῦν δ’ ὑπὸ Καίσαρος. μέρος δὲ τῶν βασιλείων ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ καλούμενον Σῶμα, ὃ περίβολος ἦν ἐν ᾧ αἱ τῶν βασιλέων ταφαὶ καὶ ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου.

Nagy (“Idea” 277) notes that Strabo’s description “abounds in traditional metonyms that reveal the connections of power, wealth and prestige. These metonyms help explain the metaphors of comprehensiveness, completeness, and universality associated with the idea of the library as a classical model.”

Hints of this sentiment can already be seen in Aristeas §30-31 (cited above) wherein both the lack of quality of earlier manuscripts and the planned translation are dependent on the connection to the king, who apparently demands—as well as ensures—books of the highest quality.