Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas

The Letter of Aristeas embellishes its account of Ptolemy’s gift of a table and bowls to the Jerusalem Temple with what Greek rhetoric calls ekphrasis, a graphic description of a thing or person intended to bring the subject vividly to the eyes of the reader. What is the purpose of this embellishment?

APA Style

Click to copy

"Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas" (n.d.). TheTorah.com. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https://www.thetorah.com/article/ptolemy-iis-gift-to-the-temple-in-the-letter-of-aristeas

SBL Style

Click to copy

"Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas." TheTorah.com. Accessed October 30, 2026. https://www.thetorah.com/article/ptolemy-iis-gift-to-the-temple-in-the-letter-of-aristeas.

Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas

La Table d'or des Pains de Propositions (The Golden Table of Shewbread), by Jacques Louis Constant Lecerf, 19th c. The Jewish Museum.

LXX and the Letter of Aristeas

Sometime in the third century B.C.E., probably in Egypt, the Pentateuch was translated into Greek. Current scholarship recognizes that the five books of the Pentateuch were translated independently of one another.[1] This translation has important text-critical value as an early textual witness to the first five books of the Bible.[2]

Subsequently the rest of the Hebrew Bible would be translated, and these texts, along with others not eventually included in the Hebrew canon of scripture, became the scriptures of many Hellenistic Jews as well as the early Christian church. The entire work is popularly known as the Septuagint (LXX, or “seventy”), reflecting the apocryphal story of how the Torah was translated into Greek by 72 translators.[3]

In Jewish circles, the story is best known from the version which appears in the Babylonian Talmud (ca. 6th–7th cent. C.E.), Tractate Megillah (9a; MS Columbia 294–295):

מעשה בתלמי המלך שלקח שבעים ושנים זקנים והושיבם בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להן על מה כינסן נכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד אמ’ להן כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הק’ב’ה’ עיצה בלב כל אחד ואחד והסכימה דעת כולן לדעת אחת
Once King Ptolemy gathered seventy-two elders and put them into seventy-two houses, and did not reveal to them why he gathered them. He entered each room and said to them: “Write the Torah of Moses your rabbi for me.” The Holy One, blessed by He gave counsel into each of their hearts, and their viewpoints (i.e., translations) all came out in agreement.

The Talmud’s version of this tale, however, is by no means the oldest. The earliest known text narrating the legend of the translation of the Jewish law into Greek by 72 translators appears in the Letter of Aristeas, composed pseudonymously in the latter part of the second century B.C.E. by a Greek speaking Jew from Alexandria.[4]

Letter of Aristeas: An Overview

The Greek text, made up of 322 verses or paragraphs, presents itself as a letter to a certain Philocrates from his brother Aristeas, who, in the world of the narrative, was a courtier in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 283–246 B.C.E.). Pseudo-Aristeas (as I shall call the pseudonymous author) describes how Demetrius, the royal librarian of Ptolemy wants a copy of the Torah for the great library in Alexandria, but remarks that the book is only available in the Judean language (§11), namely Hebrew. So, Ptolemy “proposed to write to the high priest of the Judeans so that Demetrius might bring to completion the aforementioned matters [i.e., the translation of the Judean books]” (§11).

In his letter, Ptolemy requisitions seventy-two scholars, six from each tribe, from the Jewish high priest in Jerusalem, Eleazar,[5] to come to Alexandria to render the translation. Aristeas leads a delegation to Jerusalem to retrieve the seventy-two scholars, whom Eleazar names in his correspondence, and brings with him gifts from Ptolemy. The letter continues with:

  • A travelogue that describes Jerusalem, especially the Temple and its ministrations, and then Judea, and its surroundings;
  • Eleazar’s long farewell speech to the translators, condemning idol worship and emphasizing the symbolic meaning of some Jewish laws, especially laws concerning eating kosher food;[6]
  • Ptolemy’s reception of the translators and a series of seven symposia in which the king questions each of the translators;
  • The execution of the translation;
  • Its presentation to Ptolemy and to the Judeans who heartily approve of it;
  • The return of the translators to Judea.

Most, if not all, of the work is fictional. Its author knew the LXX translation of the Pentateuch, quoting the Greek version in some places, employing its vocabulary, and alluding to it at various points in the narrative.[7] For example, Aristeas arranges for the liberation of Jewish slaves in Egypt, which connects the reader to the story of the exodus.

Elsewhere in the letter, Ptolemy has gifts made for the Temple in Jerusalem, a scene that reworks parts of the Tabernacle account in Exodus.

A Gift of a Table and Bowls for the Temple

Along with the delegation to Jerusalem, Ptolemy sends gifts for the Temple in Jerusalem, specifically a table and bowls intended to be used in the priestly ministrations. This description is long and detailed (§§51b–82), immediately preceding the travelogue (§§83–120).

Did Pseudo-Aristeas have knowledge of the actual table in the temple? This seems unlikely considering the fictional nature of the narrative as a whole. Although some scholars have suggested that the travelogue in the letter came from narratives of historical pilgrimages to Jerusalem, the idealized picture that Pseudo-Aristeas paints of Jerusalem and its surroundings renders such a conclusion unlikely. By extension, it is highly doubtful that Pseudo-Aristeas’s description of Ptolemy’s gifts has any basis in experience of the Jerusalem temple.

Pseudo-Aristeas was likely inspired by two main considerations in describing such gifts:

  1. Ptolemy II’s extravagance—Ptolemy II had a wide reputation in antiquity for his love of art and opulence.[8] In the description of Ptolemy’s gifts of the table and bowls, the Letter of Aristeas’s author certainly plays on this reputation.
  1. The tabernacle account in Exodus—The description of the table in Aristeas seems to have been built upon the description of these same items in the book of Exodus.[9]Nevertheless, Pseudo-Aristeas does not merely copy the passage or even paraphrase it, but in his 15-paragraph description, he goes well beyond his basic source material in Exodus, and his 10-paragraph description of its bowls greatly exceeds their brief mention in Exodus.[10]

The elaborate description of Ptolemy’s gifts in Aristeas takes the form of an ekphrasis, a Greek rhetorical device that gives a graphic description of a thing or person intended to bring the subject vividly to the eyes of the reader.

The Table

The Letter of Aristeas prefaces the description of the table with an account about how Ptolemy initially wanted to make the table of colossal size. The king inquired about how large the “previous one was that stood in the temple” (§52), presumably the table that his was meant to replace, and was told that nothing prevented him from building a bigger one. He relents only when he realizes that such a gargantuan table would serve no practical purpose in the Temple, and he wants the priests to be able to use it.

This account emphasizes both Ptolemy’s extravagant nature as well as his great respect for the Jerusalem temple, its priesthood, and customs. This is part of a consistent theme in the Letter of Aristeas, that Ptolemy II showed great respect for the Jewish God.

Size

Exod 25:23-27 describes the table as part of God’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle.[11]Pseudo-Aristeas takes the Exodus passage and runs with it, but he begins with a very close—though not verbatim—parallel to Exodus 25:3a:

Exodus 25:23a Letter of Aristeas 57
And you shall make a table of pure gold, the length two cubits and the width of one cubit and the height a cubit and a half.[12] So they fashioned the table two cubits in length <and a cubit in width>[13] and a cubit and a half in height, of pure gold, making the creation solid on every side.

The letter then adds: “Now I mean not of gold overlaid around something, but a metal plate was fastened on.”[14]

Decoration

Having decided that an oversized table was impractical (§56),

[Ptolemy] ordered that the various types of arts be used to the highest degree, since he intended everything to be majestic and he had a good ability for perceiving how objects looked. Wherever things were not written down, he ordered them to be made according to beauty; wherever things were written down, he ordered their measurements to be followed.

Thus, in its description of the table’s decoration, the Letter of Aristeas goes far beyond the source in Exodus:

Exod 25:23b And you shall make for it twisted gold moldings around, and you shall make for it a rim, a handbreadth all around. 25:24 And you shall make a twisted molding for the rim all around.[15]

This brief description of a decorative motif in Exodus is replaced in Aristeas with 14 paragraphs detailing a very complex set of ornamental features. Ptolemy’s table has a rim measuring a palm’s breadth, and, like the table in Exodus, it has twisted molding. The rim is said to be triangular with rope decorations with precious stones as well as egg decorations made from precious stones (§§60–62). Underneath the egg reliefs were garlands of all kinds of produce—grape clusters, ears of corn (stachus), dates, apples, pomegranates, olives—each having its proper color.

This decoration recalls the so-called egg-and-dart pattern often found in Ionic architecture—one of the three forms of Greek architecture, the other two being Doric and Corinthian—which had three registers: (1) the top, which had wave molding (kuma); (2) the middle having the egg-and-dart pattern specifically; and (3) the bottom register of floral designs.[16]

Egg and Dart Pattern

Below this rim, Pseudo-Aristeas suggests that the table had a similar pattern, perhaps on the sides of the table. The relief on the table itself was a winding pattern, which had precious stones in the middle of it. Then came a web-like pattern, which also had inlaid precious stones. Pseudo-Aristeas notes that the table was constructed the same way on both sides so that it could be used “from whichever side they [i.e., the priests] chose” (§65).

Pseudo-Aristeas clearly tries to create an image of a luxurious table, consistent with Ptolemy’s reputation for ostentation. The table, as the letter describes it, defies making a clear image of it. Indeed, the description is so over the top and unrealistic that Erich Gruen has suggested that Pseudo-Aristeas was actually making fun of the king’s reputation for such opulence.

Legs and Feet

Exodus 25:26 mentions legs, but gives no information about their construction, so Pseudo-Aristeas lets his imagination soar when describing them. The legs were inserted into a “solid metal plate” and had capitals decorated with gold-plated lilies, which bent underneath the table. The feet had the shape of boots with a ruby support on the bottom. Thus, the table rested on four rubies underneath the boot-shaped feet.

The legs were decorated with ivy, acanthus, and grapevines made of stone, which wrapped around from the feet up to the capitals. In describing the design of these vines, Pseudo-Aristeas tells us that “everything had been made effectively and fitted, having the unchangeable superiority of experience and skill to approach reality, so that even when a breeze of air blew, the positioning of the leaves allowed for movement, since the arrangement of everything was modeled on reality” (§70).

No Rings

One element notably missing in the Letter of Aristeas, though prominent in Exodus, is the table’s rings and carrying-poles:

Exod 25:25 And you shall make four gold rings, and you shall place the rings on the four parts of its feet under the rim. 25:26 And the rings shall be for sheaths for the carrying-poles so as to lift the table with them…

Pseudo-Aristeas skipped these elements, presumably because they belonged to the tabernacle’s table, which needed to be portable, since the Israelites were always on the move; such portability was not needed for the Temple table.

Repeating Ptolemy’s Intention

After describing the table’s decorative features at length, Pseudo-Aristeas explains why Ptolemy did this (§72):

For since he had decided to add nothing to the size, whatever was necessary to spend on the larger construction, this he dedicated to even more decoration. And according to his decision, everything was completed in an amazing and remarkable manner, both with inimitable skill and illustrious beauty.

The Gold and Silver Bowls

In its description of the items that should accompany the table, Exodus merely states:

Exod 25:28 And you shall make its bowls and censors and libation cups and ladles, those which you shall pour a libation. Of pure gold you shall make them.

Here again our author uses his ekphrastic imagination, veering even farther from the biblical text. Rather than the Greek terms used in the LXX, trublion (“bowl) and spondeion (“pouring cup”), Pseudo-Aristeas distinguishes two kinds of bowls that the king ordered to be made: the krater, a large drinking bowl that was used to mix wine and water and often to fill other cups, and the phialē, a large, flat bowl used for drinking or for pouring libations. He does not include the terms thuiskē (“censer”) or kuathos (“ladle”), the two other objects listed in Exodus.

In contrast to the Exodus passage that stipulates the bowls be made of pure gold, we are told in the letter that some were made of gold and some of silver. Indeed, Pseudo-Aristeas relates that when the bowls were lined up with gold and silver ones alternately “the arrangement was completely indescribable, and when people drew near to the sight, they could not tear themselves away due to the illumination and the pleasure of the sight” (§77). Like the table, the bowls were lavishly decorated with lozenges made of precious stones, lilies, and grape clusters all around the rim. The golden bowls had grape vines entwined with myrtle and olive with precious stones set in them.

As if this weren’t enough, Aristeas ends this section with three paragraphs describing how much Ptolemy invested in money and care to this project of gifts for the Jerusalem temple (§§80–82):

80 In general, neither in the king’s treasuries nor in any other was there such work either in artistry or in lavish expense. For the king devoted not a little forethought to them, loving the fame accrued for things having such beauty. 81 For often he would disregard public business and carefully attend the artisans so that they might execute the objects in a manner appropriate to the place to which the works were being sent. Therefore, everything was accomplished majestically and in a manner worthy both of the king who was sending them and of the high priest who presided over the place…

As a Jew with a Greek education and in the manner of other Hellenistic writers, Pseudo-Aristeas in this section displays his rhetorical skill, as he does throughout the text.[17] He signals the ekphrastic nature of his descriptions with the number of times that he points out that indescribable, amazing, and remarkable nature of these works of superior art.

The Goals of Ekphrasis

Why does Pseudo-Aristeas go to such lengths to describe these gifts as part of his fictional account of how the Torah was translated into Greek?

Pseudo-Aristeas’s portrayal of Ptolemy’s gifts fits into one larger theme of the book: that Jews in Alexandria can participate in elite Alexandrian Hellenistic culture without compromising their identities as Jews. By creating this picture of Ptolemy II (and other Greek elites such as Aristeas and the court philosophers) as respecting the Jewish god and Jewish traditions—the king even serves kosher food at his symposia!—Pseudo-Aristeas emphasizes that elite Greeks understand and respect Jewish traditions, especially those that set Jews apart.

In the world of the Letter of Aristeas, it is a matter of pride that Jews have their own laws given by a lawgiver, Moses; their own ruler, in this case Eleazar the high priest; and their city, Jerusalem, that stands on par with Ptolemy and Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas creates his fictional account as a way of constructing a Jewish identity for his co-religionists that works in Hellenistic Alexandrian society of the late second century. His ekphrasis of the table and bowls, and his emphasis on how important this project was to King Ptolemy, play a role in that larger enterprise.

View Footnotes

Published 2019-02-05

  1. The translation techniques in the five books of the Pentateuch differ from one another in translation equivalents between Hebrew and Greek and style, convincing scholars that the books were translated by different people. In one rabbinic tradition, the number of translators is five. See Abot according to Rabbi Nathan, version B, ch. 37. Tractate Soferim1:7 has both traditions (5 and 72) back to back.

  2. For accessible introductions to the LXX and the scholarly study of the Greek translations, see Jennifer Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).

  3. Some versions of the story have the translators cooperating, as in the Letter of Aristeas; others have them working independently and producing the same translation, as in this version from the Babylonian Tractate. On the different versions of the legend, see Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

  4. For a translation and commentary on the Letter of Aristeas, see Benjamin G. Wright III,The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015). Another version of the story, briefer than and a variant of the Letter of Aristeas, can be found in the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobulus. The two writers do not appear to depend on one another; they likely relied upon an earlier Alexandrian tradition about the translation.

  5. Josephus (Antiquities 12.43) identifies this high priest as the brother of the Oniad Simon I. Scholars are divided over whether the Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas is the same person as Josephus’s Eleazar. James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 167 believes that he is, while Erich S. Gruen, “The Letter of Aristeas,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman et al. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:2716 is skeptical of this identification.

  6. Editor’s note: For more on this, see Joshua Garroway, “The Earliest Explanation for Kosher: Allegory in the Hellenistic World,” TheTorah.com (2016).

  7. There is no evidence in the Letter of Aristeas that Pseudo-Aristeas knew any Hebrew. Although most scholars recognize the essentially fictional nature of its story, some find historical nuggets in it. Some scholars even retain the idea of royal involvement and argue for its ultimate deposit in the Alexandrian library. See, for example, Tessa Rajak, Translation & Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) and Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003). No evidence survives from the third century B.C.E. about the motivation for the translation of the Pentateuch. Scholars have suggested several possibilities, such as education, liturgy, or law. See the introductions in n. 2 for more detail.

  8. For example, the Greek writer Athenaeus (2nd–3rd c. C.E.) in his work Deipnosophistscites the History of Alexandria by Callixenus of Rhodes (a contemporary of Ptolemy II), who described a grand procession of Ptolemy and a lavish banqueting tent that held one hundred and thirty couches.

  9. Two other passages, 3 Kgdms (=1 Kings) 7:48 and 2 Chr 4:19, briefly mention that Solomon constructed a table for his Temple, but this description contains no details, in contrast to the table described in Exodus. In any event, other than the Greek Pentateuch, it is unlikely that Pseudo-Aristeas knew any (translated) biblical books beyond the Pentateuch; he never refers or alludes to any.

  10. On the various tables that were in the temple according to Jewish tradition, see Wright,Letter of Aristeas, 180–81.

  11. Later in Exod 38:9-11, when Moses makes the table, unlike the Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch, which describe the formation of the table in detail, the LXX has only a short note saying that he indeed made the table of gold.

  12. I will be quoting from the LXX (NETS trans.), since this is what the author was using.

  13. This phrase is found in Josephus’s report of the Letter of Aristeas but not in manuscripts of it, and many scholars think it was part of the text. The carats indicate that some uncertainty remains.

  14. It is not clear exactly what this phrase means in light of the preceding “pure gold.” The point seems to be that rather than gold leaf or a veneer, the gold was solid in the form of a thick plate attached to some kind of base.

  15. Editor’s note: “Twisted molding” is the LXX’s rendering of the obscure Hebrew term זר. For a discussion of what the biblical text may be picturing, see Raanan Eichler, “The Zer,” TheTorah.com (2015).

  16. Although Pseudo-Aristeas does not reproduce these registers exactly as they would appear on a cornice or capital, he uses the architectural term kuma, wave molding, in §64 rather than the phrase strepta kumatia of Exodus, which he does use earlier in §58 to refer to the twisted molding.

  17. On Pseudo-Aristeas’s Greek education and the rhetorical devices he uses, see Benjamin G. Wright III, “Greek Paideia and the Jewish Community in the Letter of Aristeas,” in Second Temple Jewish >Paideia< in Context, ed. Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), 93–112.