Septuagint, the first Bible translation – 2

Most of the scholars today —who are now in the majority—disagree. [1]   They contend that it is much more likely that the Jewish community itself instigated the translation to serve their own liturgical and pedagogical needs. When scholars holding this position reinvestigate Ptolemy’s supposed interest in a Greek translation of Jewish Law, the evidence begins to evaporate.

Moreover, it seems unlikely that a translation instigated by an outside force could have gained so authoritative a position within the Jewish community, as the Septuagint did.

On the other hand, if we accept, as most modem researchers do, that the Letter of Aristeas was in reality composed by a Jew for a primarily Jewish audience, what possible motive would there be to invent the story of Ptolemy’s instigation of the project? More likely, Aristeas put this in the letter because it was too well known to be omitted.

On this important issue, we have to say that the scholarly jury is still out.  What about the actual process of translation described in the letter? Does it have the ring of probability, or does it seem farfetched and unrealistic? A careful examination of the passages dealing with this question suggests that the procedure is not only probable, but eminently workable. The 72 translators were given excellent working conditions: Demetrius “assembled them in a house which had been duly furnished near the shore—a magnificent building in a very quiet situation—and invited the men to carry out the work of translation, all that they would request being handsomely provided … The business of their meeting occupied them until the ninth hour [that is, 3:00 p.m.] of each day” (verse 303).  They worked from Hebrew manuscripts that had the approval and authority of the chief Jewish religious functionary, the high priest in Jerusalem.

The translators were distinguished and knowledgeable:

“Eleazar selected men of the highest merit and of excellent education due to the distinction of their parentage; they had not only mastered the Jewish literature, but had made a serious study of that of the Greeks as well. They were therefore well qualified for the embassy, and brought it to fruition as occasion demanded; they had a tremendous natural facility for the negotiations and questions arising from the Law, with the middle way as their commendable ideal; they forsook any uncouth and uncultured attitude of mind; in the same way they rose above conceit and contempt of other people, and instead engaged in discourse and listening to and answering each and every one, as is meet and right. They all observed these aims, and went further in wishing to excel each other in them; they were, one and all, worthy of their leader and his outstanding qualities” (verses 121–122).

The work was apparently divided up, for we are told that the translators compared the results with one another: “(verse 3) They set to completing their several tasks, reaching agreement among themselves on each by comparing versions” 02). when they could not reach agreement by consensus, the majority ruled; we are told in the librarian Demetrius’s memorandum to the king (quoted in the letter) that 72 translators (six from each tribe) would be used and that the “text [would be] agreed [to] by the majority” (verse 32). In this way, Demetrius concluded, the “achievement of accuracy in the translation” would be assured, and “we may produce an outstanding version in a manner worthy both of the contents and of your purpose” (verse 32).

This procedure—individuals working on their own tasks and then comparing their work in order to produce a finished product—is in general exactly the way translation committees operate to this very day. Only the palatial surroundings and the uninterrupted work schedule separate the Alexandrian translators from their modern counterparts! “Handsomely provided” with “all that they would require,” the Jewish elders maintained a rapid pace: “The outcome was such that in 72 days the business of translation was completed” (verses 301, 307).

Such an accomplishment in 72 days was certainly no mean feat but lest there be any misunderstanding, it is important to point out that this translation included only the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses. The letter repeatedly refers to “the lawbooks of the Jews (verse 10),” “the Law of the Jews (verse 30),” “legislation, as could be expected from its divine nature, [that] is very philosophical and genuine (verse 31).” This is unambiguous evidence that only the Pentateuch was involved. On this point, there is no uncertainty in the letter or disagreement among modern scholars. At a later date, the rest of the books of the Hebrew scripture, as well as the Apocrypha, were translated into Greek, and today references to the Septuagint often include the entire collection. (Early Christian writers were the first to use the term Septuagint in this more expanded meaning. Among them, Jerome (best known for his Vulgate, or Latin translation of the Bible) was virtually alone in maintaining the original Jewish understanding that the Pentateuch alone was the subject of the Letter of Aristeas.)

Returning to the Letter of Aristeas, the author apparently realized that it was more than a coincidence that 72 translators completed their task in exactly 72 days. It is, he says, “as if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design (verse 307).” The Letter of Aristeas goes no further than this. Later sources—both Jewish and Christian—do. In them we find numerous embellishments. Philo, a first-century CE Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, identified the island where the translators worked as Pharos and referred to the translators as “prophets and priests of the mysteries,” who, as they worked “became as it were possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each … something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.” [2]  To commemorate this event, Philo tells us, an annual festival was held, for Jews and non-Jews alike, on Pharos. Unfortunately popularized accounts of the Letter of Aristeas often incorrectly attribute Philo’s embellished version to Aristeas.

On the Christian side, we also find numerous embellishments. Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, tells us that the 72 translators were divided into 36 pairs. Each pair received, in turn, a single book of the Old Testament or Apocrypha. When they completed their rendering of that book, they were assigned another, so that each book was translated 36 separate times. When this mammoth task drew to an end, all of the copies were compared. The result: “There was found no discrepancy!” They were identical!

Although the Letter of Aristeas’s description of the translation process itself is plausible and attractive, it is, unfortunately, contradicted by internal evidence in the Septuagint Pentateuch itself. Careful examination of the Greek text of the five books of the Torah uncovers differences in style, grammar and word choice that are incompatible with the contention that this entire body of material was translated at one time by one cohesive group.  One recent study, for example, concluded that “Numbers and Deuteronomy are the product of different translators.” [4]
 
While the Jewish tradition continued to ascribe the Greek text to 72 translators, in Christian tradition. It is sometimes suggested that the name simply rounds off the number of translators to 70. This is incorrect. The number 72—six representatives from each of the 12 tribes of Israel—was not meaningful for Christians. They took their lead from the 70 elders who were with Moses at Mt. Sinai and from the reference to the 70 whom Jesus commissioned in Luke 10.  [5]

While there is reason to doubt many of the details in the Letter of Aristeas, a large number of scholars do agree with the letter’s contention that the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch was produced in the early third century BC in Alexandria. An examination of manuscript material now available, especially the large caches of papyri that have been unearthed in Egypt over the past hundred years, establishes the first half of the third century as a congenial environment for the production of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch [5] . Moreover, several recent studies that examine the names of each of the translators given in the letter conclude that they can all be dated to the early third century BC These individuals may not have been the actual translators of the Septuagint, but their names are authentic in the temporal context presupposed by the letter.

In addition, the author’s accurate descriptions of customs and conditions point to his overall familiarity with life in early Ptolemaic Egypt. In this respect, the letter can be compared to the novella about Joseph at the end of Genesis or the Book of Esther—all three are set in a milieu drawn from historical reminiscences into which an author has placed characters and events of a “legendary” or paradigmatic nature.

The overall purpose of the Letter of Aristeas was far broader than the specific questions we have been considering. The comparatively little space its author devoted to the description of the translation process underlines this. Nor was he interested simply in providing miscellaneous data about the Septuagint.

NOTES

[1] They include Henry Barclay Swete (An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, rev. Richard R. Ottley (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1914) and Jellicoe, as well as John W. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies,” in The Seed of Wisdom. Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, (Toronto: Toronto Univ. Press, 1964); and, most vigorously, Sebastian Brock, “The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity,” Alta II.8 (1969), pp. 96–102; Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” Oudtestamentliche Studien 7 (1972), pp. 11–36.
[2] Philo, De Vita Mosis, transl. F. H. Colson, vol. 6 of Loeb Classical Library edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935, reprint 1950).
[3] This was already the conclusion of a few scholars of previous generations. More recent research has strengthened this view. Readers are encouraged to look in particular at the work of Wevers, who has been engaged for some years in reconstructing the earliest Septuagint text for the books of the Pentateuch. These texts and accompanying studies are being published as part of the Göttingen Septuagint Project
[4]  Wevers, Text History of the Greek Numbers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), p. 94.
[5]  For same details, see Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates.
[6]  On this, see, most recently, J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). None of this evidence allows for an exact dating of the Septuagint. A date as early as the reign of Ptolemy II does remain possible, however. On the other hand, the environment Lee established is also decidedly Egyptian—and this goes against the numerous statements in the Letter of Aristeas that elders from Jerusalem were responsible for the preparation of the translation itself. Perhaps the crucial point for the author of the letter was that the Hebrew text used by the translators (whatever their origin) had Eleazar’s wholehearted approval.