Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:40:00.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rhetoric of Translation: Three Early Perspectives on Translating Torah

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Naomi Janowitz
Naomi Janowitz
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three of the earliest extant Jewish exegetes, Aristobulus, Aristeas, and Philo, all state that King Ptolemy was responsible for a Greek translation of the Hebrew sacred writings. Scholarly discussion has focused on finding the historical kernel in these stories, or linking their creation to a particular event such as the official promulgation of an original or corrected Greek translation. The Letter of Aristeas is usually considered the most accurate version, in large part because it later was used as an introduction to the Septuagint. These discussions have overlooked the fact that in each case the basic plot is fine-tuned to suit each exegete's own ideas about how the Torah was written, how the text and its translation should be read and interpreted, and by whom. A comparison of the three versions reveals that each writer embellishes this bare-bones plot in a distinct manner. In particular, “historical” details are created by each writer that support the very exegetical endeavor he is undertaking. The story of the translation becomes a vehicle for creating all the components necessary to justify the exegete's role, from the creation of a unitary “Torah” out of the multiplicity of versions and stories to the motivation for the particular interpretative moves “demanded” by the very qualities of this Torah. Comparing the three stories gives us valuable insights into the self-perceptions of the exegetes and the emergence of what will become a standard model of text-author-exegete in Judaism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 129 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Opinions as to his date range from the late third to the early second century BCE. The fragments are preserved mainly in Eusebius's writings. The translations are taken from A. Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus” in Charlesworth, James H., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985) 2. 837–42Google Scholar.

2 The text dates from the late second or early first century BCE. For text and bibliography see Hadas, Moses, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Ktav, 1973)Google Scholar and Janowitz, Naomi, “Translating Cult: Hellenistic Judaism and the Letter of Aristeas,” SBLASP 22 (1983) 347–56Google Scholar . Translations are based on Hadas.

3 Philo's allegorical interpretations are much more extensive than those of Aristobulus and the author of the Letter. Of interest here is only Philo's version of the translation story (Vit. Mos. 2.25-44), as well as several comments he makes about his role as interpreter and Moses' role as author. Translations are based on the LCL edition of De Vita Mosis (Philo, vol. 7 [trans. Colson, F. H.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1950])Google Scholar.

4 Fragment 2 (Eusebius Praep. Ev. 8.10.1) begins “When, however, enough had been said in response to the questions set forth, you also, O King, exclaimed…” Similarly he refers to “the king called Philadelphus, your ancestor,” at the start of Fragment 3 (Eusebius Praep. Ev. 13.12.2).

5 The “Seleucid Charter” in , JosephusAnt. 12. 138–144Google Scholar.

6 As Joseph Blenkinsopp notes (Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament and in Early Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984] 11)Google Scholar , the frequently used term “law of Moses” does not always refer to the five books as we have them now. Blenkinsopp states “…the Chronicler gives pride of place to ‘the law of Moses.’…The frequent allusions which he makes to this law do not, however, necessarily point to the Pentateuch as we have it today.” Indeed, he points out that the very usage of the word Torah to refer to a continuous narrative from creation to the death of Moses is “attested in early Christian writings and in Josephus…it occurs unequivocally no earlier than the second century BC.” The only extant Jewish author who may have made this claim before Aristobulus is Eupolemus who stated that Moses invented writing and was the first to write down the laws (Eusebius Praep. Ev. 9.26.1).

7 Mack, Burton L., “Under the Shadow of Moses: Authorship and Authority in Hellenistic Judaism,” in SBLASP 21 (1982) 299–318, esp. 299.Google Scholar

8 “Therefore, those who are able to think well marvel at his [Moses'] wisdom and at the divine spirit in accordance with which he has been proclaimed as a prophet also.” (Fragment 2, Eusebius Praep. Ev. 8.10.4).

9 Aristeas and Philo imply or state specific claims about the authority of the exegete.

10 This does not prove that Aristobulus was writing an apologetic for Greek audiences. The question of the appropriateness of bodily descriptions of the deity was hotly debated among Jews for centuries.

11 Aristobulus uses the verb “üεταøεþω” (Fragment 2, Eusebius Praep. Ev. 8.10.8-9).

12 The earliest printed version of the Letter of Aristeas appeared as part of the first Latin Bible. Cf. Jellicoe, Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968)Google Scholar.

13 Schwarz, Werner (Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955] 17–44Google Scholar ) includes an interesting discussion of later Christian writers who have similar ideas about the method of translation used to produce the Septuagint.

14 It will be up to Philo, who does concern himself with the details of the Greek text, to extend its inspiration model to the translators.

15 One of the often-noted internal contradictions of the Letter is that the high priest can cite the Greek text before the translation has taken place.

16 This is not necessarily an apologetic move; new interpretations of rituals are constantly supplied in the history of Judaism, and the renewed understandings permit continued obser-vance.

17 See also , Janowitz, “Translating Cult,” 355–56.Google Scholar

18 Moses is mentioned only once by name in Ep. Arist. 144.

19 For a similar reference to justice in Aristobulus see Fragment 4, Eusebius Praep. Ev. 13.12.8.

20 Hadas translates the phrase as “exploded idea” (καταπεπτωκοτα λολον).

21 Jellicoe, Sidney, “The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-examination,” NTS 12 (1966) 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 A major exception is Tcherikover, Avigdor, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” HTR 51 (1958) 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 J. Dillon (“The Formal Structure of Philo's Allegories,” in David Winston and idem, eds. , Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria [BJS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983] 82Google Scholar ) states that the solitary evidence of Aristobulus is not sufficient evidence to posit a long tradition of allegorical interpretation prior to Philo. He does not mention the fragmentary evidence of other early Jewish exegetes or the Letter of Aristeas.

24 Philo articulates his portrait of Moses as author, arguing, for example, that he rejected myth. The purpose of this claim is to differentiate Moses' stories from similar-sounding stories. Moses' story about giants is not to be confused with Greek stories about giants. Moses, Philo argues, used the myth-like language because of the intended audience of his writings. Some of those for whom the text was written can only be addressed by using such myths. Like Aristobulus, Philo introduces a sociolinguistic notion; an author must take his audience into consideration if he wants to be understood.