Letter of Aristeas

The Letter of Aristeas or Letter to

Philocrates is a Hellenistic work of the 2nd
century BC, assigned by Biblical scholars
to the Pseudepigrapha.[1]

Beginning of the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates.

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 11th century.
Josephus,[2] who paraphrases about two-
fifths of the letter, ascribes it to Aristeas
and to have been written to a certain
Philocrates, describing the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-
two interpreters sent into Egypt from
Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of
Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint
translation. Though some have argued
that its story of the creation of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible is
fictitious,[3] it is the earliest text to mention
the Library of Alexandria.[4]

History
Latin translation, with a portrait of Ptolemy II on the
right. Bavarian State Library, circa 1480.

The Letter of Aristeas, called so because it

was a letter addressed from Aristeas to
his brother Philocrates,[5] deals primarily
with the reason the Greek translation of
the Hebrew Law, also called the
Septuagint, was created, as well as the
people and processes involved. The
letter's author alleges to be a courtier of
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246
BC).

Over twenty Greek manuscript copies of

the letter are known to survive, dating from
the 11th to the 15th century. The letter is
also mentioned and quoted in other
ancient texts, most notably in Antiquities
of the Jews by Josephus (c. 93 AD), in Life
of Moses by Philo of Alexandria (c. AD 15),
and in an excerpt from Aristobulus of
Paneas (c. 160 BC) preserved in
Praeparatio evangelica by Eusebius.[6]
In detail, the work relates how the king of
Egypt, presumably Ptolemy II Philadelphus,
is urged by his chief librarian Demetrios of
Phaleron to have the Hebrew Law
translated into Greek, and so add the
knowledge of the Hebrews to the vast
collection of books the empire had already
collected. The king responds favorably,
including giving freedom to Jews who had
been taken into captivity by his
predecessors, and sending lavish gifts
(which are described in great detail) to the
Temple in Jerusalem along with his
envoys. The high priest chooses exactly
six men from each of the twelve tribes,
giving 72 in all; he gives a long sermon in
praise of the Law. When the translators
arrive in Alexandria the king weeps for joy
and for the next seven days puts
philosophical questions to the translators,
the wise answers to which are related in
full. The 72 translators then complete their
task in exactly 72 days. The Jews of
Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in
Greek, request copies and lay a curse on
anyone who would change the translation.
The king then rewards the translators
lavishly and they return home.[7]

A main goal of the 2nd-century author

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

Criticism
Greek-Latin bilingual Oxford edition of 1692.

Demetrios of Phaleron, a client of Ptolemy

I Soter, is not a good candidate as a
collaborator with Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
Roger S. Bagnall notes that he made the
strategic mistake at the beginning of the
reign of supporting Ptolemy's older half-
brother, and was punished with internal
exile, dying soon afterwards.[8]

The Spanish humanist Luis Vives is

sometimes quoted as having been the first
to have exposed the fictitious character of
the Letter, in his In XXII libros de civitate Dei
commentaria (Basel: Frobenius, 1522), on
Aug. Book XVIII, 42.[9] But a lecture of the
Latin text reveals that Vives only
transmitted Jerome's criticisms of the
Aristeas story, and added nothing critical
of his own account. The inconsistencies
and anachronisms of the author, exposed
by many 17th-century scholars were
collected and presented with great
erudition and wit by Humphrey Hody
(1659–1706),[10] Hody placed the writing
closer to 170–130 BC. His Oxford
dissertation of 1685 provoked an "angry
and scurrilous reply" from Isaac Vossius
(1618–1689), who had been librarian to
Queen Christina of Sweden, in the
appendix to his Observations on
Pomponius Mela, 1686, to which Hody
conclusively replied in notes to his reprint
of 1705.[11] Due to this, the author of the
letter of Aristeas is most often referred to
as pseudo-Aristeas.[12]

Modern scholarship is unanimously with

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

"Modern scholars commonly

regard the “Letter of Aristeas”
as a work typical of Jewish
apologetics, aiming at self-
defense and propaganda, and
directed to the Greeks. Here are
some instances illustrating this
general view. In 1903
Friedlander wrote that the
glorification of Judaism in the
letter was no more than self-
defense, though “the book does
not mention the antagonists of
Judaism by name, nor does it
admit that its intention is to
refute direct attacks.” Stein sees
in the letter “a special kind of
defense, which practices
diplomatic tactics,” and
Tramontano also speaks of “an
apologetic and propagandist
tendency.” Vincent characterizes
it as “a small unapologetic novel
written for the Egyptians” (i.e.
the Greeks in Egypt). Pheiffer
says: “This fanciful story of the
origin of the Septuagint is
merely a pretext for defending
Judaism against its heathen
denigrators, for extolling its
nobility and reasonableness, and
first striving to convert Greek
speaking Gentiles to it.” Schürer
classes the letter with a special
kind of literature, “Jewish
propaganda in Pagan disguise,”
whose works are “directed to
the pagan reader, in order to
make propaganda for Judaism
 among the Gentiles.” Andrews,
too, believes that the role of a
Greek was assumed by Aristeas
in order “to strengthen the force
of the argument and commend it
to non-Jewish readers. Even
Gutman, who rightly recognizes
that the Letter sprang 'from an
inner need of the educated Jew,'
sees in it 'a strong means for
making Jewish propaganda in
the Greek world.' ”[13]

But Tcherikover continues,

 "In this article an attempt will
be made to prove that the Letter
of Aristeas was not written with
the aim of self-defense or
propaganda, and was addressed
not to Greek, but to Jewish
readers."[13]

In 2001, Bruce Metzger writes:

Most scholars who have

analyzed the letter have
concluded that the author
cannot have been the man he
represented himself to be but
 was a Jew who wrote a fictitious
account in order to enhance the
importance of the Hebrew
Scriptures by suggesting that a
pagan king had recognized their
significance and therefore
arranged for their translation
into Greek.[14]

Scholars avid for the scant information

about the Library and the Musaeum of
Alexandria have depended on pseudo-
Aristeas, who "has that least attractive
quality in a source: to be trusted only
where corroborated by better evidence,
and there unneeded," Roger Bagnall
concluded.[15]

See also
Ptolemaic Baris

References
1. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the
Bible. (Palo Alto: Mayfield) 1985;
André Pelletier, SJ, La Lettre d'Aristée à
Philocrate (Paris) 1962.
2. Antiquities XII:ii passim (Online in
Greek and English at York University)
3. The narrative is "open to the gravest
suspicion, and the letter abounds with
 improbabilities and is now generally
regarded as more or less fabulous,"
observed The Classical Review 335/6
(August–September 1919:123),
reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The
Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of
the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of
the LXX..
4. The Cambridge Companion to the City
in Literature, edited by Kevin R.
McNamara, p.36
5. "Letter of Aristeas" . Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. 2012. Retrieved
14 August 2012.
6. Hereen, Achille; Seminaire, Grande;
Bruges, Belgium (2009–2012). "Origin
of the Septuigant according to
Tradition" . Bible Source Texts
Septuigant Version. Veritas Bible.
Archived from the original on 27 July
2012. Retrieved 14 August 2012.
7. Smith, Prof. Barry D. (2 September
2010). "Jewish History from Alexander
to the Death of Seleucus IV Eupator
(333-175 BCE)" . The Intertestamental
Period. Crandall University. Archived
from the original on 23 June 2012.
Retrieved 14 August 2012.
 8. Roger S. Bagnall, "Alexandria: Library
of Dreams". (PDF) Archived 4 March
2016 at the Wayback Machine
Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 146.4
(December 2002:348-362) p. 348
9. E.g., in Natalio Fernández Marcos, The
Septuagint in Context: Introduction to
the Greek Versions of the Bible (tr.
W.G.E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
10. Hody, Contra historiam Aristeae de
LXX (Oxford) 1705, a reprint of his
dissertation, Oxford, 1685.
11. Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and
Modern Study, 1993:31.
12. Prosographia Ptolemaica
13. V. Tcherikover, "The Ideology of the
Letter of Aristeas" Harvard Theological
Review 51.2 (April 1958), pp. 59-85
(JSTOR ref. )
14. Metzger, B., The Bible in Translation
(Baker Academic, 2001), p. 15.
15. Bagnall 2002:352.

Bibliography
Dries De Crom, "The Letter of Aristeas
and the Authority of the Septuagint",
Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha 17,2 (2008), 141-160.

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media
related to Letter of Aristeas.

Online version in English translation

from the Christian Classics Ethereal
Library
Aristeas: 2015 Critical Translation with
Audio Drama at biblicalaudio
Online version of the Greek text from the
Online Critical Pseudepigrapha
Jewish Encyclopedia article (1901–06).
Scholarly assessments , Early Jewish
Writings website
Lecture summary , Dr James Davila
(1999), University of St Andrew's.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Letter_of_Aristeas&oldid=980098937"

Last edited 3 months ago by JackintheBox

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.