19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint
The tale of the Hebrew Bible’stranslation into Greek is familiar and fascinating. Our earliest text on the subject, the Letter of Aristeas,offers the most elaborate version, one that had adeep influenceupon all subsequent retellings, however divergent they were.¹ Accordingtothe author,the initiative for this enterprise came from the top. PtolemyIIPhiladelphus, ruler of Egypt,commissioned the work, on the promptingofhis chief librarian Demetrius of Phalerum. Demetrius made his case persuasively and compellingly. To the king he extolled the value of having aGreek version of the “laws of the Jews” on the shelvesofthe great li- brary in Alexandria. Ptolemyunhesitatingly sanctionedthe venture, and aselect group of Jewishscholars, brought from Jerusalem, lavishlywelcomed and hosted in Alexandria, carried out the task. Such is the skeleton of the story.Debate and controversy have long swirled about the question of how much to believe. Manyscholars have found the nar- rative to be little more than creative fiction, an attractive fantasy without foun- dation in fact.Onthat view,the impetus for aGreek rendition of the Scriptures came not from the king of Egypt but from the Jews themselves. Pragmatic mo- tivesprompted the process. The Jewish community in Alexandria had lost fluen- cy and familiarity with Hebrew.Hence, whetherfor religious or educational pur- poses, or some combination thereof, they required aGreek text to servethe needs of diasporaexistence. Thisinterpretation has long held swayinthe scholarship.² Some recent contributions,however,accordgreater respect to the Aristeas narra- tive,oratleast to the coreofthe tale, namely that the inspiration for the Septua-
The date of the Letter remains controversial. Scholars put it at various times in the nd century BCE, between ahalf century and acentury and ahalf after the events recorded; cf. M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (JAL)(New York ), –;S.Jellicoe, TheSep- tuagintand Modern Study (Oxford, ), –;F.Parente, “La lettera di Aristeacomefonte per la storia del Giudaismo Alessandrino durante la prima meta del secolo a.C.”,AnnPisa . () –; . () –, –, –;P.M. Fraser, PtolemaicAlexan- dria. vols. (Oxford, ), II, –;E.Schürer, TheHistoryofthe JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ. ANew English Version rev.byG.Vermes/F.Millar/M. Goodman, vol. III. (Edin- burgh, ), –.The most valuable edition of the work, with fullest commentary,re- mains that of R. Tramontano, La LetteradiAristea aFilocrate (Naples, ). On the variations and subsequent legacy of the tale, see A. Wasserstein/D.Wasserstein, TheLegend of the Sep- tuagintFromClassicalAntiquity to Today (Cambridge, ). E.g., Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I, ;II, –;Schürer, History, –,with bib- liography; see also Wasserstein/Wasserstein, Legend, –. 414 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint gint came from the Ptolemaic court.Onone theory,such atranslation would give the ruling power access to Jewish law, thus providingameanswhereby the Torahcould take its place among legal codes governing the diverse ethnic groups that made up the Ptolemaic kingdom, amatter of convenience for the adminis- tration of the realm.³ Or on another,perhaps more plausible, analysis,the stim- ulus arose from the culturalinterests of PtolemyPhiladelphus, arenowned pa- tron of literature and the arts, aman keenlydevoted to intellectual matters,and one who shared the burgeoning Greek interest in eastern peoples and eastern traditions.⁴ TheLetterofAristeas certainlypresents him in this guise. And Philo offers an even more elaborate and flatteringportrait of Ptolemy’sdevotion to the life of the mind.⁵ Atranslated edition of the Hebrew Bible (or,more pre- cisely, the Pentateuch) would lend further distinction to the King’srepute as a promoter of high culture. The question of motive admits of no easy answer.⁶ And it has perhapsbeen too much boundupinthe effort to ascertain the historicity of circumstances de- scribed in the Letter. Even thosescholars who are most inclined to find some re- ality behindthe traditions of the translation do not accept as historicalthe color- ful details and embellishments purveyed by the narrative of “Aristeas.” Few, for example, would endorse the legend of seventy twotranslators completingtheir work in preciselyseventy two days,orthe HighPriest’slecture on Jewishprac- tices to the envoys of Ptolemy, or the long and tedious interrogation of the Jewish elders at aGreek symposium in Alexandria. But all agree that the celebrated sagarecounted in the Letter of Aristeas comes from the pen of aJewish author, awriter clearlyathomeinPtolemaic Alexandria, familiar with the protocols of the court,evenwith the formulas of diplomatic correspondence – yetalso deeply committed to the principles of Judaism and the faith of the fathers. We can con- sequentlyforgo pronouncingupon the degree of historicitythatresides in the story of the origins of the Septuagint.The tale itself matters. It constitutes adocu- ment of highhistorical importance. The value of the narrative lies not in extract-
E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewishand ChristianHistory I(Leiden, ), –;J.Mélèze- Modrzejewski, TheJews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia, ), –. W. Orth, “Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuagin- ta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel I, hrsg. v. H.-J. Fabry and U. Of- ferhaus (BWANT )(Stuttgart u.a., ), –, –;T.Rajak Translation and Sur- vival: The Greek Bible of the AncientJewishDiaspora (Oxford; New York: OxfordUniversity Press, ). Philo, Mos. .–. Forasummaryofcompetingopinions,see J.M. Dines, TheSeptuagint(Understanding the Bible and its World) (London/NewYork ), –. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 415 ing nuggets of fact from alargely fictional facade, but in employing the text as a window upon the Jewish mentality in the circumstances of adiasporacommun- ity in Ptolemaic Alexandria. It offers an avenue towardunderstanding the self- fashioning of aJewish imageinthe intellectual and culturalworldofHellenistic society.⁷ The origin of the Septuagint,orrather the legend in which that origin is recounted, needs to be seen in abroader context.ItbelongstoJewishexperience in the culturalenvironment of Alexandria, in relation to contemporary or near contemporarywritingsthat endeavor to articulate Jewish identity and to its wider connections with the literate society of the Hellenistic world. That consti- tutes the essence of this investigation. First,afew words about the place of Jews in the social scene of Alexandria. The subject suffers from poor documentation. But,enough survivestoindicate a relatively comfortable and untroubled existence. What broughtJews there in the first place remains amatter of dispute in conflicting sources. The LetterofAris- teas reports that some had been deportedfrom Judaea by the Persians, but that the bulk came when PtolemyISoter,after subduingthe whole of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, forciblyremoved up to 100,000 Jews to Egypt.Hetheninstalled 30,000 of them in garrisons and fortresses throughout his realm.⁸ Arosier por- trait derives from the pen of aJewish author,writing under the pseudonym of Hecataeus:Soter wassuch agentle and kindly conqueror that Jews followed him voluntarilytoEgypt,there to share in the affairs of thatland.⁹ Whatever the truth of the matter and however inflated the numbers maybe, the fact of Jew- ish soldiers serving in the Ptolemaic armies is amplyattested in the literary, epi- graphic, and papyrological record. Jews were not confined to garrison duty.They served in regular units of the armycould rise to officer rank, and receivedland grants like others enlistedinthe ranks of the king’sforces.¹⁰ Inscriptions in Ara- maic and Greek from Alexandrian cemeteries dating to the earlyPtolemaic peri- od recordJews, probablyasmercenary soldiers, buried alongside Greeks from all parts of the Hellenic world.¹¹ One does not have to believeJosephus when he claims thatPtolemyVIentrusted his entirekingdom to Jews.¹² But there can
Cf. V. Tcherikover, “The Ideologyofthe Letter of Aristeas,” HTR () –;E.S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: TheReinvention of JewishTradition (Berkeley, ), –,with bibliography; S.R. Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic JewishIdentity:Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context (Berkeley, ), –. Let. Aris., –, –, –.Cf. Jos. C. Ap. .;Jos. A. J. .. Jos. C. Ap. .–;Jos. A. J. .. See the documents collectedinCPJ,I,–.See also JIGRE, no. ;P.Köln, III, . JIGRE, nos. –.See the discussionofMélèze-Modrzejewski, TheJews of Egypt, –. Jos. C. Ap. .;cf. Jos. A. J. .–, .. 416 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint be little doubt thatJews in substantial numbers could be found in the military ranks of the king.¹³ Jews, in fact,turn up, even in our scanty evidence, at various levels of the Ptolemaic administration in Egypt,astax-farmers and tax collec- tors,asbankers and granary officials.¹⁴ Philo records Alexandrian Jews as shop-owners, merchants, shippers, traders, and artisans.¹⁵ No obvious harriers prevented their engagement in the social and economic world of Ptolemaic Alex- andria. Furthermore, Jews evidentlyhad freerein in establishing their own religious institutions. Literary sources report aplethoraofsynagogues in Alexandria.¹⁶ Among them was the structure that Philo labeled as the largest and most cele- brated of synagogues, one that was subsequentlydescribed in elaborate fashion by rabbinic sources.¹⁷ Documentary testimonyconfirms the textual evidence.Im- portant inscriptions attesttostandard but revealing formulas, through which Jews exhibited due respect to the overlordship of the Ptolemies while maintain- ing the traditions of their forefathers.Documents recordthe dedication of Jewish synagogues, proseuchai,inhonor of the king or the royal familyofEgypt.Several of them survive from the Ptolemaic period, includingtwo from Alexandria itself, and the earliest from Schedia in the near vicinity of Alexandria. As the latter in- scription asserts, the Jewish dedicators set up their proseuche on behalf of King Ptolemy, Queen Berenike, and their children.¹⁸ The formula closelyparallels those to be found in pagan dedications.¹⁹ Jews felt no hesitation in paying tribute
See, e.g., Jos. C. Ap., .–, .;Jos. A. J. ., .–; B. J. , ., .– . CPJ, –, , , ;cf. Jos. A. J. ..See the valuable treatment by A. Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. TheStruggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ )(Tübingen, ), –. Philo, Flacc. –;Philo Legat. ;cf. Macc. .;Jos. A. J. .. Philo, Flacc. , , , ;Philo Legat. , , –, , , ; Mos. .; Cf. Macc. ., ., ., .;Philo, Somn. .;Jos. A. J. .–. Philo, Legat. .See Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Romnan Egypt, –;L.I.Lev- ine, The Ancient Synagogue: TheFirstThousand Years (New Haven, ), –. JIGRE, no. .See also nos. and . Amongmanytreatments,see P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I, –;II, –; Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, –;idem, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in: An- cient Synagogues: Historical Analysisand Archaeological Discovery,eds.D.Urman/P.V.M. Flesher, vol. I(StPB /)(Leiden, ), –;J.G.Griffiths, “Egypt and the Rise of the Synago- gue,” in: AncientSynagogues: Historical Analysis and ArchaeologicalDiscovery (see above) I, –;Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, –;D.Binder, Into the Temple Courts: ThePlace of the Synagogues, in the Second Tentple, Period(SBL.DS )(Atlanta, ), –. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint 417 to the gentile rulersofthe land while simultaneouslydedicating their synago- gues to the “Most HighGod.” The two actions wereperfectlyconsistent with one another.Royal favorextended to the Jewish places of worship, even granting them the privilegeofasylia,the formal statusofasylum commonlyaccorded to pagan temples, anotable markofofficial approval.²⁰ The evidence is slender,and conclusions must be tentative.But it does ap- pear thatJews enjoyed productive and rewarding livesinAlexandria, the queen of Hellenistic cities. Integration in the social and economic life of the city lay open to them – and they took advantage of thatopening.Jews served in the ar- mies, obtained administrative posts, playedarole in commerce, shipping,fi- nance, farming,and every form of occupation, and reached posts of some pres- tigeand importance. Juridically, the Jews, like other Greek-speaking immigrants to Egypt,werereckoned among the “Hellenes.”²¹ The nature of Jewishcivic status in Alexandria remains obscure and contro- versial. Thisisnot the appropriate place to discuss that complex matter in the detail that it requires.²² It suffices to saythat the Jews did enjoy an acknowledged political position of some sort in the Alexandrian community.Whether it goes back to Alexander the Great or to PtolemyI,asJosephus reports,can be left aside questionable speculation or abiased agenda.²³ But the Jews had certainly obtainedanacknowledgedcivic position in Alexandria by the end of the 1st cen- tury BCE, and probablymuch earlier.The Greek geographer Straboattests to it, and he had no reason to fabricateorexaggerate on this score. Straboreports that the Jews had alarge portion of the city allotted to them, and thatthey possessed their own official, an ethnarch, to govern disputes and oversee contracts and de- crees,asifheheaded an autonomous political entity.²⁴ The text plainlyimplies that Jews governed their internal affairs while also being part of alargerAlexan-
JIGRE, no. . Cf. J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “HowtobeaGreek and YetaJewinHellenistic Alexandria,” in Diasporas in Antiquity,eds.S.J.D.Cohen/E.S.Frerichs (BJSt )(Atlanta, ), –, – ;idem, TheJews of Egypt, –;W.Clarysse, “Jews in Trikomia,” Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of Papyrologists (Copenhagen, ), –. See, e.g., W. Ameling, “‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt: Die Juden in Alexandrien n. Chr,” WürzburgerJahrbücher () –: –,with extensive bibliographicalcitations. The subjectreceivesfull treatment in Bradley Ritter, Judeans in the Greek Cities of the Roman Em- pire: Rights, Citizenship and Civil Discord Supplementstothe Journal for the StudyofJudaism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, ). Jos. A. J. .;Jos. C. Ap. ..Cf. V. Tcherikover Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Phila- delphia, ), –;J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diasporafrom Alexander to Trajan ( BCE– CE) (Edinburgh, ), . Strabo, apud Jos. A. J. ..Cf. .. 418 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint drian entity to which they owed allegiance. TheLetter of Aristeas (310) refers to this corporate bodyaspoliteuma. The text offers no specifics on its structure and organization. But some idea can be had from acomparable Jewish institution at Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt,onlyrecentlyrevealed by amostimportant pap- yrological find.²⁵ Whatever the nature of the Alexandrian politeuma and the reach of its authority,Jews did not huddle themselvesinanisolated ghetto. They livedinall parts of the city (Philo, Flacc.55), and they felt freetoterm themselves “Alexandrians.”²⁶ The emperor Augustus reportedlyreferred to them on abronze stele as ᾿Aλεξανδρέων πολῖταί.And Philo intriguingly makes referencetothe Alexandrian Jews’“sharing in political rights” (Flacc.53). Al- though we do not possess precision, it seems clear thatJews had some claim on civic prerogativesinAlexandria, just as they had on the social and economic life of the city. So far as our evidence goes, therefore, Jews did not suffer oppression or sub- jugation by the Ptolemies.²⁷ They enjoyed freedom to perform traditionalrites and to worship the divinity in their own way. Andthey possessed civic privileges in the largercommunity.Itwould be prudent to avoid loadedterms like “assim- ilation” or “accommodation,” which could have negative connotations. Jews did not abandon or compromise their own traditions while functioningsuccessfully in the society of Hellenistic Alexandria. Nor did the Ptolemaic government re- quire conformity.The Jews, within the limits of our testimony, led acontented and largely untroubled existencewhich must have promoted asense of self-con- fidence and security.²⁸
The texts areeditedbyJ.M.S., Cowey/K. Maresch. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Her- akleopolis (/–/ b. Chr.) (P.Polit. Iud). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Abhandlungender Nordrhein-WestfälischenAkademie der Wissen- schaften. Sonderreihe Papyrologica–Coloniensia )(Wiesbaden, ). See the review essay of S. Honigman; “The Jewish PoliteumaatHeracleopolis.” SCI () –.Onthe Alex- andrian politeuma see the discussionbyAmeling, ‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt, –. Philo, Legat. , ;Jos. A. J. .–.Cf. Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, –;D.Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate (Atlanta, ), –. We can leave out of account the fictionaltale of Maccabees – which, in anycase, had a happy endingfor the Jews.See below. Foroverviews of the Jews’ experienceinAlexandria along these lines,see E.S. Gruen, Dia- spora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge,MA), –;H.-J. Gehrke, “Das sozial- und religionsgeschichtliche Umfeld der Septuaginta,” in Im Brennpunkt:Die Septuaginta. Stud- ien zurEntstehung und Bedeutung der GriechischenBibel II, hrsg.v. S. Kreuzer/I.P.Lesch (BWANT )(Stuttgart u.a., ), –,with bibliography. The extensive studyofKasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,remains essential reading. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 419
More significantlyfor our purposes, Jews had access even to the upper eche- lons of the Alexandrian intelligentsia. Jewish authors werewell versed in most, perhaps all, forms of Hellenic writing.They worked and wroteinawide rangeof Greek literary genres.Those conversant with the conventions includeepic poets like Theodotus and Philo, tragic dramatists like Ezekiel, writers of history like Demetrius, philosophers likeArtistobulus, those who engagedincosmology and mythographylike Pseudo-Eupolemus and the Sibylline Oracles,and compos- ers of novellas and historical fiction like the authors of 3Maccabees – and in- deed the Letter of Aristeas. Amoment’sconsideration makes it obvious (though it is rarelyremarked upon) that the capacity to produce such works demonstrates that their authorscould partake of higher education and engagedeeplywith the Hellenic literary and culturaltraditions available in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Those Jewishauthorswerethemselvespart and parcel of the Alexandrian intelligentsia. Jewishauthors, in short,showed awide familiarity with the genres,forms, and styles of Greek literature. They wroteinGreek and they adapted Greek liter- ary modes.But they employed those conventions to their own ends.Jewishintel- lectuals mayhaveembraced Hellenic forms but they had no interest in recount- ing the tale of Troy,the labors of Heracles, the houseofAtreus, or the Greco- Persianwars, let alone the myths of the Olympian gods. Their heroes wereAbra- ham, Joseph, and Moses. They appropriatedHellenism to the goals of rewriting biblical narratives, recastingthe traditions of their forefathers, reinvigorating their ancient legends, and shaping adistinctive sense of Jewish character within the largerworld of Hellenic culture. The story of the Septuagint’screation exemplifies that drive for refashioning Jewishidentity in the circumstances of Ptolemaic Alexandria. The Letter of Aris- teas constitutes acenterpieceofthe endeavor. Itsnarrative has traditionally served as the prime document of aharmonious and mutuallybeneficial inter- changebetween Greek and Jew. The work, in fact,isnoreal letter.Itpurports to be acommunication from acertain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Both ostensiblyserved in the court of PtolemyIIPhiladelphus,ruler of Egypt in the first half of the 3rd centuryBCE. The author describes his communication as a die- gesis,anunspecific and widelyapplicable term signifyingaliterary prose narra- tive (1, 8, 322).Itcould signify anynumber of genres.The Letter does not fit neat- ly into anycategory.Itcould count as apiece of historical fiction, amonograph, or even anovella. Individual features of the work have close affinities with a whole rangeofHellenic writings. The author plainlyhad astrong education in the literature of Hellas.But the treatise as awhole is sui generis. “Aristeas” did not aim for historicalaccuracy.Nor,onthe other hand, did he seek to deceive readers with the pretenseofaverifiable narrative. He offered verisimilitude rath- er than history,employing known figures and plausible circumstances to present 420 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint apicture of mutual benefitsenjoyed by Jewish learning and Hellenic patronage.²⁹ None can doubt, however,that the composer of the Letter was a Jewcloaked in the garb of alearned official at the court of PtolemyII. The agen- da is adecidedlyJewish one.³⁰ The story of the translation provides aframe for the narrative.But onlya frame. It introduces the treatise and closes it.But much transpires within that frame that has little or nothing to do with renderingthe Hebrew Bible into Greek. In fact,the segments dealingwith the process and results of the transla- tion constituteonlyabout one sixth of the whole. The author plainlyhad more in mind than recountingthe creation of the Septuagint.The Letter of Aristeas pro- vides ashowpiecefor the familiarity of Jewish intellectuals with diverse currents of literature practiced in the Hellenistic era.³¹ Forexample, the lengthyportion on Aristeas’ visit to Jerusalem,with its detailed description of the featuresof the landscape, the setting of the citadel, the terrain of the city,the geography of its surroundings,the appointments of the Temple, and the garb of the priests, much of it remotefrom reality,would remind readersofthe geographical treatis- es and the utopian literature common in this period (83–120).³² The HighPriest Eleazar’sexegesis of peculiarJewishcustoms in turn provides parallels to the ethnographic excursuses that also appear frequentlyinGreek writings(128– 170). The Letter frequentlycites and quotes documents, whether royal decrees, memoranda/administrative reports, or letters,apractice regularlyfound in Greek historiography. The extended symposium, the formal seven-daybanquet described in the book, was athoroughlyHellenic institution, and most of the Jewishsages respond to the king’squestions with answers drawn(at least super-
Cf. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –;S.Honigman, TheSeptuagintand Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria:AStudy in the Narrativeofthe Letter of Aristeas (London, ), –, –;Johnson, Historical Fictions, –;Wasserstein/Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, –. See in general, with different emphases,Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, –;Tcherikover, “Ideology”, –;C.R.Holladay, “Jewish Responses to Hellenistic CultureinEarlyPtolemaic Egypt,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt,ed. P. Bilde et al. (Aarhus, ), –: –; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, –;Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, – ;J.J.Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: JewishIdentity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, nd ed. (Grand Rapids, ), –;E.Birnbaum, “Portrayals of the Wise and Virtuous in Alex- andrian Jewish Works:Jews’ Perceptions of Themselvesand Others,” in AncientAlexandria Be- tween Egypt and Greece,ed. W.V. Harris and G. Ruffini (CSCT )(Leiden, ), –. –. Honigman Septuagintand Homeric Scholarship, –. See, for instance, the fantastic tales of Iambulus and Euhemerus; Diod..–, .–, .. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 421 ficially) from Greek philosophyorpolitical theory (187–294). The High Priest,in recounting the significance of Jewish dietary prescriptions,explains them in good Greek style, either as having arational basis or as requiringallegorical in- terpretation (128–171). He receivesdescription, in fact,interms befitting aGreek aristocrat, aman of kalokagathia (3). The text includes learned allusions to Greek intellectuals like Menedemus, Hecataeus, Theopompus, and Theodectes.The au- thor is plainlysteeped in Hellenic culture. Perhaps most striking is the process of translation itself as presented in the narrative.The project arose when the librar- ian found Hebrew copies to be deficient and inadequate (29–30). And the Jewish scholars, when they set about their task, in comfortable quarters supplied by Ptolemy, did so by dividing labors, comparing results, and arriving at an agreed upon text (301–312,317– 321). This surelyreplicates, at least in principle, the type of subsidized scholarshippromoted by the courtand carried out in the Museum.³³ The author is acultivated Hellene. Adoptingthe pose of “Aristeas” came nat- urallyand easily. He begins with anotice that extant copies of the Hebrew Bible had been carelesslytranscribed and ends with adefinitive Greek text subject to no further revision (29–30,311). That implies asanction of the Septuagint that supersedes the Hebrew original.³⁴ And, in afamous statement,Aristeas declared to Ptolemythatthe Jews revere God,overseer and creator of all, who is worship- ed by all including the Greeks,except that they give him adifferent name: Zeus (16). On the face of it,the Letter of Aristeas appears to be the most tellingattes- tation of acultural convergence between Judaism and Hellenism – at least as viewed from the Jewishside.³⁵ It certainlyarticulates the convergence. But that does not tell the whole tale. The author,while fullyfamiliar with Hellenic literary genres and the Alexandrian scholarlyscene, adapted that knowledge to advertise the advantagesofJewishtradition. The distinctiveness of the Jews is never in question. The godtowhom all bear witness, even though the Greeks maycall him Zeus, is the Jewish god(cf. 42). Eleazar the High Priest happilysends Jewishscholars to Alexandria to render the Bible into Greek but he
Honigman, Septuagintand Homeric Scholarship, –, –. On the sanctity of the text,and its replication of the original (in the eyes of “Aristeas”), see the remarks of H.M. Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as HolyWrit and the Philosophyofthe Transla- tors,” HUCA () –: –,and B.G. Wright, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Re- ception History of the Septuagint,” BIOCS () –,with bibliography. M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. vols., (London, ), I, –;Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Dia- spora, –;Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, –;G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literaturebetween the Bible and the Mishnah. nd ed. (Minneapolis, ), –. 422 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint reminds Aristeas of the superiority of Jewish monotheism, ridiculing thosewho worship idols of wood and stone fashioned by themselves, and he insists that Mosaiclaw insulated the Hebrews from outside influences, erectingfirmbarriers to prevent the infiltration of tainted institutions (134–142).The learned librarian Demetrius of Phalerum declared the wisdom of the Pentateuch to be both holy and highlyphilosophical, citing other Greek intellectuals for confirmation (312–316). The seven-daysymposium, in which the Jewishscholars wereinterro- gated, mayhavebeen afundamentallyHellenic practice. But the scholars an- swered every query put by the king with swift and pithyanswers,adding aref- erencetoGod in each response, and earning the admiration not onlyofPtolemy and his courtiers but of all the Greek philosophers in attendance who acknowl- edged, their inferiority to the sagacity of the guests (200 –210, 235, 296). The king’sdeferencetothe Hebrew scrolls and the Jerusalemite sages underscores the superiority of Jewish tradition and learning.Further,itisthe Lordofthe Jews who guidedthe king’sactions and kept his kingdom secure so as to achieve his ends. And the High Priest observed that the Jews offer sacrifices to God to insure the peace and renown of the Ptolemaic kingdom – aneat reversal of the patron-client relationship (45). In short,the Letter of Aristeas,that quintes- sentialtext of JewishHellenism, testifies most eloquentlytothe appropriation of Hellenistic culturetoexpress the preeminenceofJewishvalues. Indeedone can go further than that.The Letter of Aristeas exhibits aremark- able self-assurance and asense of comfort and belonginginthe realm of Ptole- maic intellectual society that have rarely been recognized. “Aristeas” delivers his narrativeinasober and serious tone. Yetacloser readingcan detect an under- tone of oblique mockery and even mild subversiveness. And, on this score, it shows alinkage not onlywith otherJewishliterature of this era, but with the wider literary scene of Ptolemaic Alexandria. The portrait of PtolemyIIPhiladelphus thatlooms so large in the text serves as the central exhibit.When scrutinizedwith care, it turns out to be more com- plex, problematic, and intriguing than scholars have realized. “Aristeas” pres- ents an imagethat is overwhelminglypositive.Ptolemyisawise gentle, and gen- erous ruler.Heisalsoaman of deep cultivation and learning Ptolemytook a personal interest and exercised direct oversight in the crafting of the elaborate gifts thatweresent to Jerusalem, aman devoted to the arts (51,56, 80 –81). He filled his court with distinguished men, and he spent money freelyin order to enjoy the companyofthe erudite and the wise (43, 124–125, 321). He evinced great reverencefor the holyscriptures of the Jews and paidmuch honor to the High Priest and the Jewishscholars. He spared no expense in the construction of the furniture and art objects that would go to the Temple, and 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 423 he spent unstintingly for the comfort and entertainment of his visitors from Jer- usalem. All this to the good. The remarks represent flattery of the king for his sterling qualities and for the honor he paid to Jewish practices and principles. So it seems on the surface. Yetthe text,onsecond look, contains an undertone that compromises that impression. The generosity of Ptolemycould slide into excess and extravagance. In planning the dimensions of the table that he would offer as agift to the Temple, his initial inclination was to order one of immense size, a testament to his grandiose authority.³⁶ He subsequentlyhad second thoughts and inquired about the proportions of the previous table, but even then his pref- erencewas to build on astill largerscale – indeedfivetimes the size of the ear- lier table. Onlythen did he realize thatsohugeanobject might be unsuitable for the priestlyritual to be performed on it; and he backeddown. But not before in- sisting that, if he had had leeway, he would have spared no expense (53–55). It is difficult to avoid the sense that “Aristeas” is here mocking the royal preten- tiousness. Philadelphus’ appetitefor buildingonalavish scale is known from other texts and other circumstances outside the Jewishcontext.The contempo- rary Alexandrian poet Posidippus spoke of amassive couch or table (3.22–23). And the grand procession in Alexandria, described by another contemporary Callixeinus, that exhibited the king’sopulence included atent with one hundred thirty gold couches (Athenaeus, 5.197A). The Letter’semphasis on self-promotion and ostentatious flamboyancehas implications thatare less than flattering. The elaborate and detailed descriptions of Ptolemy’sgifts, the ekphrasis por- tion of the text,reflect the king’smunificence – but alsohis grandiose self-dis- play. “Aristeas” makes apoint of emphasizing the cost οfthese presents (80,82). The very spectacle was designed to dazzle observers (77). And the artists strove to have everything project the exalted glory of the king (79). That puts the matter quite bluntly.³⁷ The author ends his ekphrasis by asserting that the expenditure in materials and craftsmanship amounted to five times the value of the gold (82). This quantification once more suggests adisproportionateextravagance.³⁸
LetAris, .Notice the author’suse of the term (ὑπέροπλόν)suggestingnot just acolossal size but one that exhibited excess and arrogance. In similar fashion, Callixeinus emphasized the ostentatious exhibit of splendor that marked Philadelphus’ pageant in Alexandria; Athenaeus, .C–B. The encomium to Philadelphus composed by the contemporary poet Theocritus further highlights the king’swealth, in which he exceeds all other monarchs, and his lavish generosity; Idylls, .–. It is noteworthy that Jos. A. J. .,perhaps preferringnot to inject acritical tone, omits this passage. 424 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint
The king thought of everything “in alordlymanner,” according to “Aristeas” (56: σεμνῶς). That soundslike apositive assessment.But alordlymonarch could also act in peremptory and authoritarian fashion.The decision to render the He- brew Scriptures into Greek came on Philadelphus’sorders(38). He commis- sioned the task and he simply “summoned” the Jewish scholars from Jerusalem to do the job – aclear sign of who wasincharge.³⁹ Eleazar the High Priest had reason to feel some anxiety on this score. As the text has it,heknew of the king’s penchant to seek out men of education and intellect; and he evidentlyworried that the Jewish elders might be induced to stay in Alexandria, even swearing an oaththathewould not have allowed them to go wereitnot for the common benefit of his ownnation (124;126;cf. 46). This reflects on Ptolemy’scultivation – but also on his cultural acquisitiveness. The point recurs at the very end of the work when Ptolemydoes release the scholars but encourages them to return and urgesEleazar not to prevent it (321). That is atelling conclusion. The author leavesreaders with the final impression that the king could hijack learned visi- tors for his own culturalpurposes. At the week-long symposium Ptolemyput questions to each of the seventy two Jewishsages and receivednumerous gratifying and adulatory answers.⁴⁰ But the attentive reader would also find subtle allusions to some characteristics less appealingoradmirable. An ironic comment maybedetected at the very out- set,surelynocoincidence. The king’sfirst question asked how he could maintain his kingdom intact to the end. His Jewish guest recommended thatheexercise great patience with wrong-doersand treat them with greater indulgence than they merit (187–188;cf. 207). That advice stands sharplyatodds with Eleazar’s earlier praise of Philadelphus for executing informers,apractice which the char- acter Aristeas heartilyapproves, even adding thatthe king imposes torture and grislyexecutions (166–167). Thus, the first piece of advice by aJewish interloc- utor at the banquet calls indirect attention to the cruelty of the king.That is un-
LetAris, :(μεταπέμπεσθαι). The Greek verb here implies acommand rather than are- quest,thus hintingatPtolemy’sauthoritarianism. This is reflectedalso in amuch later story of Ptolemy’ssendingfor the renowned Athenian comic dramatist Menandertojoin his court, an invitationthat Menanderdeclined. The story appears in the rd century CE writer Alciphron; Letter, ..See the illuminating discussionofT.Rajak, “An invitation fromPtolemy; Aristeas, Alciphron, and Collective Memory,” in ForUriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Pre- sented to Professor Uriel Rappaport,eds.M.Mor et al., (Jerusalem, ), –: –. O. Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS () –: –,remains amost important treatment of the symposium,but does not discuss the issues raised here. See also Parente, “La lettera di Aristea,” –;D.Mendels, “‘On Kingship’ in the ‘Temple’ Scroll and the Ideological Vorlage of the Seven Banquets in the ‘Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates,’” Ae- gyptus () –. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 425 likelytobeaccidental. The subject comes up again later in the symposium with still more ominous implications: Ptolemyaddresses aJewish sage with the query of how he might avoid resort to rage.The Jewreminded him that he possesses absoluteauthority,includingthe power of life and death, but counseled that multiple executions, justbecause he had the power to order them, would be dis- advantageous and dire (253). One is tempted here to see areflection upon the absolutist regime. The very fact thatthe author regards large-scale executions by Ptolemyasapossibilityagainst which he needs to be warned is sufficiently suggestive.And it maybesignificant that the Jewish elder followed this state- ment with areference to God’sclemency and assertedthat this is amodel that the king must follow.⁴¹ He thus moves from admonition to directive.The lan- guageisunusually strong, abold pronouncement by the author–and conveys the idea thatPtolemyrequires this reminder. Allusions to flaws in the king’smakeup or accomplishments occur periodi- callyinthe interchange, not conspicuous criticism but subtle subversion. So, for instance, Ptolemy’squestion of what he needs do to remain rich hardlycasts him in afavorable light.And the interlocutor’sanswer that he should avoid unnec- essary expenses suggests abit of mockery (204–205). Awhimsical tone exists also in ascribing to Ptolemyaquestion on how to cure insomnia. The learned Jewishscholar professes to replyinsober fashion but in fact,gives arambling response thathas onlymarginal relevance to the query (213–216). This too is hard to take seriously.Acomparable instance occurs when the king asks how he can avoid doing something unworthyofhimself. The scholar replies that he should look at all times to his ownglory and prominence since everybodyalways talks about him. That,ineffect,bids Ptolemytokeep polishing his public image, not altogethernoble counsel. And the Jewproceeds to advise Ptolemythat he be sure not to appear inferior to actors who have to playaconsistent role (217– 219). The comparison alone is demeaning,since actors held arather low status in so- ciety. “Aristeas” maywell be speakingtongue-in-cheek. One might note also the query thatPhiladelphus makes as to how to build structures that would endure. The interlocutor offers anumbingly obvious reply: make them great and awe- some (258). As if anyone had to tell Philadelphus to construct majestic buildings! And the Jewaddsthe noteworthyadvice that laborers on the buildings should be paid adecent wageand others should not be coercedinto doing the job without remuneration (258–259). This is either an obliquelycritical comment or an amusingreflection on Ptolemy’sbuildingprogram. Unmistakablywhimsical is an exchangeprompted by the king’squestion of how he might have acordial
LetAris: :(τούτῳ δὲ κατακολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστί σε). 426 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint relationship with his wife. The Jewish scholarreplies with alitanyofstereotypes about female fickleness, emotional instability,poor reasoning powers,and nat- ural weakness.The best waytοhandle them, he proposes,istoavoid starting a quarrel (250). The author plainlyindulgesinsome fun here. The question he puts in Ptolemy’smouth suggests problems in his marital situation – which no king, of course,would have put out to public scrutiny.⁴² And one cannot fail to see a sardonic twist when, near the end of the lastday of the prolongedsymposium, the king asks how one should conduct himself in symposia (286). Since he had alreadyspent seven days posingquestions in tedious and often repetitive fashion to seventy different individuals,itseems abit late now to wonder about the pro- prietiesofsymposium behavior. Other comments are less frivolous, but perhaps more subversive.Philadel- phus puts to aguest the question of what is the strongest rule. Theinitial answer, to rule oneself and not allow the passions to rule, is good Stoic doctrine. But the guest adds that most menare led astray by desire for food, drink, and pleasure, whereas kingsare motivated by acquisition of territory and fame; moderation in all matters,however,isbest(222–223). Philadelphus, in fact,prided himself upon and waslauded by the poetsfor the vast imperial holdingshehad brought under his sway.⁴³ Under the circumstances, areferencetothe acquisitiveness of kingsand the need for moderation would seem to have acritical edge. Alarge proportion of the answers involvesome flattery of the king.But in more than one case, the flattery goes beyond expected bounds. When the inter- locutor asserts that it is impossible for Ptolemytomake afalse step, in replytoa question of how the king might regain his glory afterstumbling;the adulation is excessive and unnecessary in the context (230). It mayindeed hint at the syco- phancy that was encouraged at the court of Philadephus. The issue arisesmore directlysomewhat later in the symposium. When the king asks how he might rec- ognize those who engaged in deceit in theirdealings with him, the Jewish sage suggested thathewatch out for thosewho went further thannecessary in their compliments to him and in the rest of their behavior (246). “Aristeas” here again drawsattention to the fawning blandishments called forth at ceremonial occa-
Philadelphus sister-wife Arsinoe II was anotoriouslypowerful woman, involved even in Ptolemaic foreign policy decisions.See Syll. .–;lines. –: “Aristeas” mayvery well be makinganoblique allusion to his. Theocritus, .–;Posidippus, ., ., ., .;Athenaeus, .B–B. 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 427 sions and official functions. By placing the practice in the context of aquestion on guile and deceit,heoffers astill darker imageofcourt demeanor.⁴⁴ This is no incidental comment. “Aristeas” bringsupthe same subjectlater in the banquet when the king asks aparallel question about how he could avoid being deceived. TheJewishspeaker givesapragmatic and calculated response: the best tactic is to interrogatethe suspected double-dealer at different times with the same question and judge the reaction (275 – 276). The query itself sug- gests aruler anxious about intrigue and opposition within his own ranks, thus implying the existenceofdissent,something that few kingswould wish to disclose in public. It is noteworthythat the speaker does not deny, rather as- sumes the presenceofdissimulation among Ptolemy’scourtiers.His advice about persistent interrogation exposes acynical view of relations within the king’sinner circle. Ptolemy’snext to lastquery also merits notice. He wondered whether it is better for the people to have aking who rose from the ranks of the citizenry or one born of royal blood.The Jewish scholaroffered ajudicious response, not- ing that kingswho stemfrom other kingscan be harsh and savage with their subjects, although thosewho were commoners by birth could be worse (288– 289). The statement about harsh and savage monarchs of royal stock is ageneral one and meant to be understood as such. Yetbyplacing the remark in the osten- sible setting of Philadelphus’ court (where the interrogator was the onlyexample of aking sprung from aking), the author must have expected his readers to draw aconclusionabout thatmonarch. The very last question about what constitutes the greatest thing in royalty drew the replythat subjects should live in peace. And the speaker concluded by expressingconfidence that this was bound to come about because God accorded Philadelphus amind pure and unsullied by anyevil (291–292).The flattery once again is transparentlyimmoderate, doubtlessdeliberately so. But theremay be more to it thanthat.The juxtaposi- tion of this fulsome characterization by the final speaker of Ptolemy’sirreproach- able intellect with the previous speaker’sreference to royal (his) cruelty and in- humanityends the banquet on adecidedlysardonic note. The cumulative evidence is strong and compelling. Amidst all the praise and accoladesheaped upon Ptolemybythe Jewishsages who receivedlavish hospi- tality at his hands, an undertone of nuanced cynicism pervades the narrative of the symposium. The speakers allude in recurrent fashiontothe king’sextrava-
Cf. also LetAris, ,wherethe Jewish speaker contrasts those who servethe kingout of good will and those whodosofromfear or self interest.The latter operate from calculations of profit and amount to traitors.This looks like ahint of what is goingonincourt. 428 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint gance, ostentation, acquisitiveness, suspicious nature, harshness, and insecuri- ty. Nor is this all. The Letter portraysPtolemyIIasaman of great generosity, beneficence, and sensitivity towardthe Jews. One needsmention onlythe liber- ality he displayedinemancipating (accordingtothe text) more thanone hun- dred thousand Jews who had been brought to Egypt as war captivesbyhis father (17–20). Even here, however,the author,eversoslightly, compromises this act of magnanimity.The king,presented for the first time nearthe beginning of the treatise, does not conceive the deed himself. Aristeas had to suggest it to him. Ptolemyhesitated at first,evidentlynot readytoleap at the chance to bestow this benefaction. It took God’sintervention to persuade the king.The language of the text,infact,isquite strong. Aristeas prayed to God in order that Ptolemy be compelled to fulfill his request.And he did so under constraint.⁴⁵ It was God who empowered the king to perform his acts of munificence.⁴⁶ Ptolemy, to be sure, exhibits throughout the narrative his respect for and def- erencetothe Jews, to their practices,their traditions, and their God. Yetthe un- dercurrent here as well mayflow in adifferent direction. “Aristeas” carries this portrait somewhat beyond the sober and the plausible. Ptolemy, to be sure, is deferential, but perhaps deferential to afault.Upon the arrival in Alexandria of the Jewishelders from Jerusalem, the king promptlycanceled all other matters of state,dismissed all official personnel, and gave sole attention to his new guests, aprocedurealtogetherexceptional in royal protocol (174 – 175). The exag- geration is patent.That Ptolemywould put adelegation from Jerusalem ahead of all business of the realm and accord them signal privileges is sheer fantasy.And the implausibility onlydeepens.Itisone thing to paydue respect to the Jewish divinity and sacred books. It is quite another to perform proskynesis no fewer than seventimes to the Hebrew scrolls once they reached the shores of Alexan- dria – and then to proclaim that the date of their arrivalwould henceforth be celebrated as an annual festival (176 – 180). That stretches the point beyond plau- sibility and borders on parody. Further,the very inclusion of the symposium in the treatise and the manner in which it wasconducted appeartoderive from amischievous sense of humor. And the king can be seen as its principal target.Quite apart from the oblique criticisms that emerge in individual exchanges alreadydiscussed, the circum-
LetAris, :(ἵνα συναναγκασθῇ, καθὼς ἠξίουν, ἐπιτελέσαι); :(τοῦ θεοῦ … συναναγκάσαν- τος αὐτὸν). LetAris, :(τοῦ θεοῦ κατισχύοντος αὐτὸν). 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint 429 stances and proceedingshavelittle claim on credibility. The festivities went on for afull week, with Ptolemystraining to provide adifferent question for each of the seventy-two Jewish elders. When the answers came, they wereswift, brief, often repeatingGreek philosophical commonplaces, and usually rather banal. Manyofthem bore onlyamarginal relation to the question asked.⁴⁷ In each case, the Jewish sages insertedareference to God as the ultimateauthority, repeated in various ways but with much the samemessage, almost to the point of monotony.And in alarge portion of instances,the allusiontodivine power bore no relevance to the question or the answer; but constituted amechanical tag line that onlyincreased the tedium of the mounting responses.⁴⁸ And yet to every sage who spoke Philadelphus dutifullycommended his wisdom and sa- gacity – no matter how conventional or repetitive the reply. The author struggled to find enough variation in his vocabulary to characterize praise by the king for each of the seventy-two interlocutors. The fact that Ptolemylauds them all hardly attests to his discrimination or discernment.When he asked how he might be in- vincible in warfare, he heard that he should forgetabout military numbers or power and justrelyonGod (193). That answer would not be found in Greek po- litical philosophy. It comes strictlyfrom Jewish tradition (e.g. Psalms, 104:27). Nor would Ptolemyfollow advice that had him go to the battlefield with prayers rather than arms. The notion that he acclaimed the speaker for this recommen- dation borders on the ludicrous. “Aristeas,” even without direct criticism, repeat- edlyunderscores the gullibilityofthe king. What stands out in all this is the liberty that the author of the Letter felt in poking fun at the ruler.None of it necessarilyconstitutes hostility or ill-will. Ptolemyremains agenerallysympathetic figure. But he could also be the subject of reproach or the butt of humor.That suggests alevel of comfort and satisfaction enjoyed by Jewishintellectuals in the society of Ptolemaic Alexandria. The Letter of Aristeas could both exhibit the integration of Jewishcultureinthe Hellenic community and emphasizeits superiority – and do so with asense of humor. On this scorethe work takes its place among anumber of Jewish-Hellenistic writ- ingscomposed (or probablycomposed) in Alexandriathatexhibit similar char- acteristics and reinforce the picture of circumstances suitable to the flourishing
So, for instance, when Ptolemyasks “what is the natureofpiety?” the respondent reminds the kingthat no act of injusticeescapes God’snotice(). Or his inquiry about the noblest aim of life receivesthe answerthat God guides all mens’ actions (). As an example,the replytoPtolemy’squery about the advantages of kinship concludes with advice to praytoGod (–). Or,most noticeably,whenthe sage answered Ptolemy’sre- quest abouthow to live harmoniouslywith his wife, he threwinaline regarding the invocation of God as asteersman for one’slife (–). Numerous other instances could be cited. 430 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint of literaryactivity.Thisisnot the place for adetailed recapitulation of such works.But reference to afew instances can make the point. Aristobulus, a2nd centuryBCE Jewofphilosophic education and preten- sions, playedwith what became afavored Jewishfiction: that Hellenic ideas de- rivedfrom Hebraic roots.⁴⁹ Aristobulus’ work, it appears,was castinthe form of adialogue between the Jewish philosopher and PtolemyVIPhilometor in the mid 2nd century.Thatframe maybealiteraryconceit.But the effort to link his writing to the Alexandrian court,asinthe Letter of Aristeas,reflects the context in which Aristobulus soughttoplace himself. In his imaginative construct, Moses provided stimulus for Hellenic philosophers and poets. The ideas of Py- thagoras and Plato, for example, followed the path laid out by Mosaic legislation (Eus. PE,13.12.1). Even Socrates’ divine voice allowing him to contemplate the creation of the cosmos,arose from the words of Moses. As if that werenot enough,Aristobulus affirmed that auniversal consensus existed among philos- ophersthatonlypious opinionsshould be held about God, and since thatview is embedded in Mosaic law, it follows that Jewish conceptualizing supplied the wellspringfor Hellenic philosophizing (Eus. PE,13.12.3–4, 8). Aristobulus fur- ther extended the work of the Jews from philosophytopoetry.Heconjured up Orpheus, the legendary singer and sourceofGreek poetics. By interpreting his supposedverses on God as all-encompassingpower,origin of life, and supreme being in light of Jewish precepts, Aristobulus could claim the father of Hellenic song as well for the camp of Moses’ followers (Eus. PE,13.12.4). Aristobulus had thus harnessed some of the most celebratedGreek thinkers and artists, legen- dary or real, to the antiquetraditions of the Jews. There is asense of playfulness in this endeavor,not afiercerivalry between Greek and Jew. The Jewish claim on precedence need not be taken as altogetherserious. But it represents amode of prideful expression in adiasporacommunity that both asserted its connection to the Greek achievement and displayedits own self-assurance. Asimilar orientation can be found, with even greater exuberance and wit,in the imaginative writerArtapanus,aHellenized Jewfrom Egypt in the 2nd or 1st century BCE.⁵⁰ Hiscreative rewriting of biblical stories includes an elaborate ac-
See the thorough and invaluable treatment of C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jew- ishAuthors.Vol. III: Aristobulus. (Atlanta, ). Subsequent discussions appear in Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, –;Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –;Collins, Be- tween Athens and Jerusalem, –. On Artapanus, see the edition and commentary of C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic JewishAuthors. Vol. I: The Historians (Chico, ), –.Moretreatments by Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean-Diaspora, –;Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –;Collins, 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 431 count of Moses’ exploits that goes well beyond anyscriptural foundation. Apart from ascribing to Moses the inception of ahost of Egyptian institutions and tech- nologies,headds aGreek connection. The name Moses, so Artapanus claims, in- duced Greeks to identify him with Musaeus, the legendary poet and prophet from Attica, son or pupil of Orpheus, who standsatthe dawn of Hellenic song and wisdom. Artapanus, however,gives aslight but significant twist to the legend. He has Musaeus as mentor of Orpheus rather thanthe otherway around. Moses thereforebecomes the father of Greek poetic and prophetic traditions (Eus. PE,9.27. 3 – 4). Artapanus neither rejects nor disparages thoseGreek tradi- tions. He simplygoes them one better and counts them as part of aHebrew her- itage. The fragments of Artapanus disclose ahumorous qualitythatalso charac- terizes the work of other Jewish texts.They claim Jewishpriority and precedence, but they do so with alight touch that owes more to caprice than to polemics. That qualityappears also in afragment from an unknown Jewishwriter Jo- sephus cites him as Hecataeus of Abdera, awell known Greek historian, but the quotations from his work make it nearlycertain that he is an Egyptian Jewwho adopted the pseudonym “Hecataeus,” just as the composer of the Letter em- ployed the pseudonym “Aristaeus.” The author delivered amost favorable ac- count of PtolemyIand his generous attitude towardJews whose migration to Egypt he had encouraged by his gentleness and humanitarianism (Jos. CAp, 1.186–189). This did not,however,prevent Pseudo-Hecataeus from inserting an amusingtale thatexhibited superiorJewish skill and intelligence(Jos. CAp, 1.200–204).⁵¹ The anecdotespeaks of aJewisharcher,Mosollamos, in the serv- ice of the Ptolemaic army.The author describes him as the best of bowmen, whether Greek or non-Greek, and aman who combined physical and intellectual prowess. As the tale has it,the armystalled on its march because aGreek seer observed the movementsofabird to discern whether the soldiers should ad- vance, retreat,ordelay. Mosollamos then calmlybrought out his bow and arrows and shot the bird dead. When confronted by the shocked and angry Greeks who demanded to know whyhedid so, Mosollamos had awitty reply: “If the bird weresosmart and could foretell the future, whydid he show up here and fail to foresee that he would be shot by the arrow of Mosollamos the Jew?” The epi- sode, surelyaninvention by Pseudo-Hecataeus,mockedthe incompetence of the Greek seer and the credulity of Ptolemy’sGreek forces. The able Jewshowed him- self more adept and knowledgeable than anyothermember of the king’stroops.
Between Athens and Jerusalem, –;Johnson, Historical Fictions, –;P.Bourgeaud, Aux origines de l’histoiredes religions (Paris, ), –. See the discussionofB.Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews” Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Hellenistic Culture and Society )(Berkeley, ), –. 432 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint
The whimsical story contained an indirect slap at the Ptolemaic ruler for relying upon somewhat thick-headed military men and seers who werecharlatans, in- stead of more pragmatic, accomplished, and smart Jews. Once again, the narra- tive contains more wit than animosity,anindex of Jewish prideintheirpeople’s own cleverness and achievements. Asomewhat darker quality appears in the remarkable text called 3Macca- bees – but perhaps onlyonthe surface. The story represents aPtolemaic ruler, in this case PtolemyIVPhilopator,asdetermined to eradicate all the Jews in his kingdom. The task was to be effected by having them trampledbyfivehun- dred elephants motivated by heavy doses of frankincense and unmixed wine. The wicked plot,however,was foiled by the interventionofGod, twice through afflicting Ptolemywith sudden sleep and amnesia, and finally by having the el- ephants turn about and crush the forces of the king,leaving the Jews safe and sound.Philopator at last acknowledgedthe power of the Jewish god, heaped honor upon the Jews, scorned their enemies, and established afestival to cele- brate their liberation. Thenarrative is often seen as reflectingadeep hostility be- tween the crownand the Jewishcommunity.But that adopts toosomber and se- rious an interpretation of the text.Itdoes, after all, deliverahappy ending in which king and Jews express harmonyand concord and Jewish success is com- memorated on the orders of the king.Infact, thosewho opposed the Jews are largely acourt cabal, whereas the Alexandrian Greeks offered them sympathy, encouragement,and even clandestine assistance (3.8 – 10). Nor is Ptolemyrepre- sented simply as afierce monster struck down by the Lordtobring about the sal- vation of the Jews. Rather,the author of 3Maccabees shows asardonic humor that makes the king more abaffledbuffoon than afiendish villain. And the scenes carry more hilarity than terror.So, for instance, the king abandoned the registration of Jews because his clerks ranout of pen and paper (4.20). And he failed to execute his plans, first because he fell asleep, and second be- cause he could not remember what orders he had given(5.10 –20,5.26–32). In- deed, the very idea of roundingupfivehundred elephants and drugging them with massive quantities of frankincense and wine onlyunderlines the absurdity of the tale. The fact that the great animalshad to be drugged threetimesbefore they begantheir stampede, and then they turned in the wrongdirection, can onlyhavebeen designed as comic farce. The text once again demonstratesthe marvelous self-assurance of Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria who could frame a tale that reinforcedtheir cordial connection to the throne while making the oc- cupant the target of good-natured caricature.⁵²
This summarizes the analysis of Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –.See the thorough 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 433
More tellingstill, the Jews in this regard fitted perfectly into the conventions of pagan Alexandrian literary society.Eventhe poetswho enjoyed royal subsidy and support in the Alexandrian Museum and who naturallypresented the mon- arch in afavorable light could occasionallyslip in asly dig at the man on the throne. One might note as an illustration Theocritus, the famed composer of pastoral poetry who had the warm backing of PtolemyPhiladelphus, adirect contempo- rary of the period about which “Aristeas” wrote. Theocritus, in addition to his poems of shepherds and singers, composed an Encomium to PtolemyPhiladel- phus. The poem of course, celebrates Ptolemy’sdeeds and achievements. Yet the poet alsomakes sure to put him in his place. He opens the piece by stating that he begins and ends with Zeus (12.1– 2).Poets in former times, he says,had demi-gods to sing of; he has Ptolemy(17.5 – 8). And at the end of the poem, The- ocritus hails king Ptolemy, but adds thatthe quest for virtue must come from Zeus (137). Moreover,inawork couched as an encomium, there as strikingly little referencetoany accomplishments – or virtues for that matter – of the ruler.The- ocritus alludes to Ptolemy’sterritorial holdingsand his skill with the sword (85– 94,102– 103). But this could onlyremind readers that Philadelphus had no rep- utation or record as awarrior.Theocritus’ comparison of Ptolemy’smarriagewith his sister Arsinoe to the wedding of Zeusand Hera had adouble edge (17.128– 135). Somereaders did not approveofthat incestuous union (cf. Athenaeus, 621A). And acomparison with the stormyrelationship of Zeus and Hera may not have been an altogether flatteringone. In adifferent poem, Theocritus has an Alexandrian praise the king’svirtues to his friend. They include his kindliness, love of culture, and generosity.But he also refers to Ptolemyasἐροτικός (14.61– 65). In itself that is no negative remark. In the circumstances,however,itwas bound to bring to readers’ minds Philadel- phus’ notorious flingswith his mistresses (Athenaeus, 13:576 E–F). And the speaker also notes the limits to Ptolemy’sgenerosity.Headvises his friend that,although Ptolemydoes not refuse when he is asked, “don’task him for ev- erything” (65). In yetanother poem, Theocritus alsooffers some circuitous criticism. When two women venture out in the crowded streets of Alexandria, one of them praises Philadelphus for having cleared out manyofthe criminalelements, the robbers, pick-pockets, and beggars who had been left by his father Soter.But just at that
and incisive studyofJohnson, Historical Fictions, –.Different interpretations in Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, –;Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, – ;Nickelsburg, JewishLiterature, –. 434 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint point the woman is suddenlyreminded of the unrulycrowds still in the city,as she is crushed by amob and almost trampledbyahorseman in the cavalry of the king (15.46 – 53). The poet mayhavebeen aloyal client of the monarchy. But that did not prevent him from delivering subtle thrustsatthe flaws of the king and his regime. This form of disguised dissent can be found elsewhere. In Herodas’ mime about the matchmaker,alsointhe time of Philadelphus, the speaker pauses to recount the numerous and varied advantages of living in Egypt (1.26–31). They include wealth, gymnasia, power,glory,spectacles, philosophers, young men, the Museum, endless numbers of beautiful women; in short everything one could wish. Amidst this catalogue of delights, there is just asingle passing mention of the “good king”–and that appears in conjunction with the shrine of the brother-sister gods. The monarch is nothing more than one of the sights to see in Alexandria. Herodas’ allusion hardlyserves as agreat compliment,and plainlycomes tongue-in-cheek. The great Alexandrian poet and prolific writer Callimachus composed a hymn to Delos that contains apassageworth noticing in this connection (4.171– 195). Callimachushas Apollo predictafuture contest between Greeks and the barbaric Gauls. He makesreferencehere to the celebrated defeat of the Gauls who soughttocapturethe shrine of Apollo at Delphi but werethwarted by the god. In the same passage, Apollo predicts the birth of PtolemyPhiladel- phus and aparallel victory over the Gauls. To be sure, Ptolemydid indeed con- tend with Gauls, but they werehis own hired mercenaries who then plotted to seize Egypt,and he managed to foil the plot onlybyinducingthem to occupy adesert island wherethey died of hunger or at one another’shands (Pausanias, 1.7. 2).That was farfrom aglorious victory for Ptolemy. The juxtaposition of that tawdry event with the fabled rescue of Delphi from Gallic attack could onlydi- minish by comparison Ptolemy’sfeat and his reputation. None of these examples, of course, constitutes an open and direct attack upon the king.Artists dependent on the court would not likelyrun the risk of giving offense. In each case, the writer couched his allusion in the form of praise and admiration – or at least ostensible praise and admiration. But the poetsevi- dentlyexercised the liberty of inserting indirect innuendoes and insinuations that gave an ironic twist to their encomiums, amarked feature of Alexandrian literature. In this important regard, Jewishwriters in Alexandriaseem to have en- joyed asimilar privilege. They too could pepper theirwritingswith subtle and clever jabs at men in power,while simultaneouslyand superficiallypaying hom- agetothem. They fitted well into the intellectual environment of Hellenistic Alex- andria.Their works could exhibit thatsame freedom of expression, delivered in 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Contextofthe Septuagint 435 forms that reinforcedtheirstandinginthe society and culture of that city.Such works served to articulate their status – and the fact that they belonged. Did this combination of self-esteem and integration in the community,exem- plified by the Letter of Aristeas,help to motivatethe creation of the Septuagint itself?One can give no decisive answer.The Letter was composed at least ahalf century,perhapsmorethan acentury,after the translation of the Pentateuch. And the other Jewish textsdiscussed here werenoearlier.They speak to the cul- tural environment of the 2nd century.The circumstances of the actual translation elude our grasp. PtolemyPhiladelphus mayormay not have playedarole in the project.Hehad the reputation of acultivated and learned man and he might well have takenaninterest in making accessibleanimportant piece of alien wisdom. But it is preciselythatreputation thatwould have made him alogical figureto whom alaterJewish author could attribute such aproject.Insimilar fashion, De- metrius of Phalerum’sreputation as awide-rangingintellectual made him alog- ical person to be imagined as acollaborator in the undertaking.Inany case, it seems quite unlikelythat either PtolemyorDemetrius conceivedthis enterprise. The impetus mayhavecome from below,asisusually thought: the Jews of Alex- andria had largely lost their command of Hebrew.⁵³ Even if that is the case, how- ever,the job had to be done by an intellectual elite, i.e. those who retainedflu- ency in both tongues – and they did not have the same motivation. There is more to this than the need for an intelligible text. The project maybest be seen as ameans of exhibitingJewish prideand self- confidence. Having the holybooks rendered into Greek carried considerable symbolic meaning.Itsignified thatJews had alegitimate claim on aplace in the prevailing cultureofthe Mediterranean.⁵⁴ Their Scriptures did not belong to an isolated and marginal group. They expounded the traditions and principles of apeople whose roots went backtodistant antiquity but who also maintained their prestige and authority in acontemporary society – and acontemporary lan- guage. Liketheir pagan counterparts in Alexandrian literary circles; they devel- oped the self-assurance to praise the ruler of their land – and also gentlytotease
That remains the prevailing view;e.g.Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria,I,;II, –, and, much too confidently, Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –,with further bibliography. See also S. Kreuzer, “Entstehungund Publikation der Septuagint im Horizont frühptolemäischer Bildungs- und Kulturpolitik,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. II (see Footnote ), –; Wasserstein/Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, –. Forsomewhat analogous suggestions,based on quitedifferent arguments,see Honigman, Septuagintand Homeric Scholarship, –;Rajak Translation and Survival. Dines, TheSep- tuagint, –,sees the project as anatural result of Jews livinginthe cultivated, bookish so- ciety of Alexandria. 436 19. The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint him and mock him. That maybethe clearest sighthat Jews perceivedthemselves as an integralpart of the Hellenistic cultural world.