¹ Friedländer, M., Gesch. d. jüdischen Apologetik, 1903, p. 97Google Scholar. The opinion that the Letter of Aristeas is intended for the pagan reader is repeated several times in the chapter devoted to this book, p. 84–104.

² Stein, M., The author of the Letter of Aristeas as a defender of Judaism, Zion, I, 1936, p. 132 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

³ Tramontano, R., La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, 1931, p. 104Google Scholar, cf. p. 132.

⁴ Vincent, Rev. Bibl., 17, 1908, p. 523.

⁵ Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 1949, p. 225.

⁶ Schürer, Gesch. des jüdischen Volkes, III, p. 554; especially on the Letter of Aristeas: “All is directed in the first place towards the pagan readers,” p. 610.

⁷ Andrews, in Charles' The Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha, 1923, II, p. 84Google Scholar.

⁸ Gutman, J., The origin and the main purpose of the Letter of Aristeas, Ha-Goren, 10, 1928 (Hebrew) p. 54Google Scholar; cf. p. 59: “The Letter of Aristeas contains clear and frank propaganda for the basic doctrines of Judaism and for spreading the knowledge of the Torah in the Greek world.”

⁹ On the date of the composition of the Letter of Aristeas see the article of Bickerman in ZNTW 29, 1930, p. 280 sqq. Bickerman dates the composition of the Letter in the second half of the second century B.C. He bases his suggestions on formal data (such as the greeting formula in the official letters, the names of certain court offices, etc.), familiar to scholars from the papyri of this period. This approach makes it possible to fix a date within a range of a few decades, and although it is always possible that new sources might change Bickerman's chronological framework by a number of years, it seems to me that on the whole it is justified. Cf. Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates, 1951, pp. 9 sqq., 54.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This is admitted also by other scholars. See Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 1875, p. 81 (on Demetrios); Schürer, III, p. 502 (on Ezekiel).

¹¹ I discuss this question in detail in my article: “Jewish apologetic literature reconsidered,” Eos, 48, fasc. iii (“Symbolae Taubenschlag”).

¹² Manetho was not a Greek, but an Egyptian priest. His antisemitism is limited to the discussion of one single topic, that of Exodus, which was of special interest to the Egyptians.

¹³ For a detailed discussion of this question, see below.

¹⁴ Cf. Hadas, op. cit., p. 4.

¹⁵ In order to keep the literary form which the author chose (a Jewish sage explaining the Torah to Aristeas, “the Greek”) Eleazar opens his exposition with the idea of monotheism and criticizes paganism, but this is no more than an introduction; he soon passes to the main subject, that of clean and unclean animals, and discusses it at length. Speaking of his basic subject, the author pretends that his discussion is merely an example (143: χάριν δὲ ὑποδείγματος) but he forgets that it was not by accident that Eleazar touched the subject of unclean animals, but as an answer to a question of Aristeas “the Greek” (128–9). Aristeas had not enquired about the main doctrines of the Torah, but only asked for an explanation of this particular question, claiming that it arouses the curiosity of “most men” (τοὺς πολλούς) Tramontane's interpretation, that “most men” means the Gentiles, especially the Alexandrian Greeks, cannot be proved.

¹⁶ I call the book of Aristeas a “letter,” as it is commonly styled so by scholars, though I am fully aware of the weight of the arguments put forth by Hadas (op. cit., p. 56) against the epistolary character of the book. The denomination “Letter” has in the present article only the aim of facilitating reference. — The numbers in brackets refer to the paragraphs of the Letter. My thanks are due to Professor M. Hadas for his kind permission to use his translation of the Letter.

¹⁷ See Tramontano, p. 148 sqq.; H. G. Meecham, The letter of Aristeas, 1935.

¹⁸ On the Greek “Utopias” see Rhode, E., Der griechische Roman, 1900, p. 210 sqq.Google Scholar; W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 112 sq.

¹⁹ On the Dialogues in general and on the Symposia in particular see Hirzel, Der Dialog 1895, I, pp. 274, 341, 355; II, p. 141. It is worth noting that Hirzel does not mention at all the Symposium in the “Letter of Aristeas,” although we have here a unique example of a Symposium composed in the Hellenistic period and preserved in full up to our time.

²⁰ The King asks each of the seventy-two Elders one question on an abstract subject and receives suitable answers. Aristeas felt that it was impossible to prolong the Symposium until all the seventy-two Elders gave their answers, and so he divided it into seven days. The classical dialogue demanded that the discussion should not last more than one day. Aristotle, however, had already divided his dialogues into several days, and Cicero followed his example. Cf. Hirzel, I, p. 299. As for the answers given in turn, the same method is applied by Plutarch in his “Symposium of seven sages,” where the sages gave their answers to the questions put before them by Amasis, King of Egypt, one after the other in turn. But the literary talent of Plutarch is, of course, incomparably superior to that of Aristeas.

²¹ In speaking of documents, I have in mind those which were obviously composed by Aristeas, like the memorandum of Demetrios to the King (29 sqq.), or the King's letter to Eleazar (35 sqq.). The edict of Philadelphos freeing the Jewish prisoners (22 sqq.) is now considered by some scholars as genuine. Cf. Wilken, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 12, 1937, 221 sqq.; Wilhelm, ibid., 14, 1941, 30 sqq.

²² Cf. numerous notes in Wendland's edition of the Greek text and in the commentaries of Tramontano and Hadas.

²³ Of the Classical period only, since in the Hellenistic period the King himself became in a certain sense the source of the law. See Goodenough, The political philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, Yale Class. Stud., I, 1928, p. 53, sqq.; Schubart, Das hellenistische Königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri, Arch, für Papyr. 12, 1937, p. 1 sqq.

²⁴ For instance, the questions on the attitude of the King toward different nations in his Kingdom (267), on the duties of the officials, and so on. Schwartz (in his article Hekataeos von Teos, Rheinisches Museum, 40, 1885, p. 258 sqq.) has already stressed the idea that the Letter reflects the official views of the Ptolemaic monarchy on the royal power. And, indeed, when we compare passages from the Symposium of Aristeas with Hekataeos' account on the way of life of the ancient Egyptian Kings (as a matter of fact, the Ptolemies are meant), and on their attitude toward the Kingdom and their subjects, we find several points of contact and parallel ideas (cf. Diod. I, 70 sqq.).

²⁵ Cf. e.g. the questions: How he might render due thanks to parents?” (238), “How he might avoid doing anything contrary to Law?” (240), “How he might obtain acceptance in a sojourn abroad?” (257), “Which is best for the people, that a commoner be set over them as king, or a king of royal descent?” (288). Cf. Andrews, p. 87, when he speaks about a compendium of “moral sayings” as a possible source for the discussions in the Symposium. Goodenough, in his study quoted above, often mentions works “on Kingship” published in the Hellenistic period.

²⁶ Aristeas does not explain precisely the meaning of the term παιδεία, and it may be suggested that he meant ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία; i.e. “the general education.” Cf. Philo, Vita Mosis I, 23. The term παιδεία however, has a wider sense as well, viz. the creation of a harmonious personality by developing equally the faculties of the body and the soul. Cf. J. Stenzel, Plato der Erzieher, 1928, p. 120 sqq. On the term παιδεία in its historical development see W. Jaeger, Paideia, I–III.

²⁷ Cf. Thackeray Translation of the Letter of Aristeas, JQR 15, p. 338, and Sterling Tracy, III, Macc. and Arist., Yale Class. Stud. I, p. 250.

²⁸ Cf. e.g. the paragraphs 194, 199, 205–9, 219 sqq. This additional sentence can easily be omitted, and the sense of the answer would not suffer.

²⁹ The ideas expressed in the Symposium, in particular the idea concerning the power of God over the King, is reflected also in other parts of the book. Cf. e.g. 17, 20, 132 sqq.

³⁰ It is quite clear that Aristeas had in mind a Jewish commentator, because it cannot be supposed that in the second century B.C. the Gentiles wrote commentaries on the Torah.

³¹ For the allegorical method of Biblical commentaries see Wolfson, Philo, I, p. 115 sqq.

³² Cf. Stein, E., Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandrien. 1929, p. 10 sqq.Google Scholar

³³ This sentence is not sufficiently clear and it was interpreted in different ways. “The Torah is written in Hebrew characters and in the Hebrew tongue, ἀμελέστερον δέ καὶ ούχ ώς ὑπάρχει σεσήμανται The word σεσήμανται serves as a bone of contention between scholars. Some explain it as referring to the Greek translations of the Torah (cf. Thackeray, JQR 15, p. 347, and Andrews, p. 98). But the verb σημαίνω, as used in the Letter, never does mean “translation.” “To translate” is rendered always by the word ἑρμηνεύω while the usual meaning of σημαίνω is to mark, to note, to indicate; and since the subject is a book, it is quite clear that the meaning of the word is to mark in writing, i.e. to write, to copy, etc. And, indeed, it was understood in this way by Wendland (Kautzsch, Apokr. und Pseudoepigr., II, p. 7), L. Mendelssohn (Aristeae epistolae initium, 1897, p. 35), Tramontano (p. 51), Hadas (p. 111) and Bickerman, Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 1950, p. 156, note 25.

³⁴ In describing the golden table sent by the King to Jerusalem as a sacred gift Aristeas emphasizes that the table was made of pure gold and not only overlaid with gold. Since the pious King strove to keep in full the precepts of the Torah concerning the sacred utensils intended for use in the Temple (cf. 55/56 on the measurements of the table), it is clear that here too he followed the Torah, yet not the Hebrew text which speaks only of a table overlaid with gold (Ex. 25, 24; 37, 11), but the Greek text which speaks of a table made of pure gold (LXX, Ex. 25, 22: καὶ ποιήσεις τράπεζαν χρυσῆν χρυσίον καθαροῦ).

³⁵ In Andrew's opinion, Aristeas tried to defend the translation against the attacks of the critics and also wished to “secure appreciation for it in the minds of the Greek readers.” I do not think that the interest of the Greek reader in the Torah of the Jews was so profound that the question of the preciseness of the translation could have had a decisive significance for him. It is advisable to take care not to exaggerate the extent to which the Septuagint was known among the Greeks. (See Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed., 1914, p. 22.Google Scholar)

³⁶ Vincent, Rev. Bibl. 17, p. 530.

³⁷ Vincent, ibid. 18, p. 559. (“There never was a natural spring within the Temple area.”)

³⁸ If we compare this description in the Letter with that in LXX Ex. 28 and 39, we shall easily realize that almost all the details concerning the attire of the High Priest, as given by Aristeas, have their parallels in the Biblical story.

³⁹ This last figure had a special meaning for the Egyptian Jews. Foreign soldiers, including Jews, received from the Ptolemaic authorities lots of 30, 40, 80, and even 100 arourai (Egyptian aroura equals 2.756 sq. meters). A lot of 100 arourai was the biggest lot a soldier could ever get. Soldiers who received 100 arourai constituted a kind of aristocracy within the Ptolemaic army. Aristeas, in giving to every one of the 600,000 Jews of the Exodus the maximum number of arourai, expressed by this the dream of every Jewish soldier of Egypt to belong to this aristocracy.

⁴⁰ Cf. Philo, Vita Mosis II, 26 sqq.

⁴¹ For further details concerning the economic position of the Jewish community in Alexandria and the Jewish army in Egypt, cf. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. I, pp. 10 sqq., 48 sqq.

⁴² Cf. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. I, No. 127.

⁴³ Cf. ibid. p. 64 sqq.

⁴⁴ But surely not the opinion of the whole of the Egyptian Jewry, who more than once showed their sympathy for the Hasmonaean Palestine; cf. Corpus Papyr. Jud., I, p. 46 sqq.