The Meaning of the Letter of Aristeas: In light of biblical interpretation and grammatical tradition, and with reference to its historical context 9783666540431, 9783525540435

Citation preview

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper, David Andrew Teeter, and Christopher Tuckett Volume 260

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Ekaterina Matusova

The Meaning of the Letter of Aristeas In light of biblical interpretation and grammatical tradition, and with reference to its historical context

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

This book has been written with the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). The English text is edited by Jacqueline White.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2198-1183 ISBN 978-3-525-54043-5 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de n 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1: The biblical paradigm, or the Letter of Aristeas as Rewritten Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The liberation of Jewish slaves in connection with the translation as elaboration on Deut 30:1 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The description of the Promised Land (Let. Aris. 83 – 120): elaboration on Deut 30:3 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The allegorical interpretation of the Law and the Symposium (Let. Aris. 128 – 293): another case of harmonization . . . . . . . 1.4 Conclusions: The rationale and methodology of the composition 1.5 Conclusions: The message of the “biblical paradigm” and its Sitz im Leben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2: Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Thesis of Kahle – Van der Kooij . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Aristotelian background to the narrative in Let. Aris. 30 – 2 2.4 The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer in the scholia to Dionysius Thrax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 The 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar . . . . 2.6 Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Thesis of analogy with Homer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 The meaning of grammatical terminology: interim conclusions 2.9 Account of the correction in the context of the early history of the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3: The interactive meaning of the paradigms, or historical implications of the narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The LXX as Req¹r k|cor in the Letter of Aristeas . . . . . . . . 3.2 Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context . . . 3.2.1 Words and terms used in the Greek and Graeco-Jewish sources to describe the Jewish cult: Temples . . . . . . 3.2.2 Words and terms referring to the Jewish cult: Priests . 3.2.3 Words and terms referring to the Jewish cult: Thiasus . 3.2.4 The Jewish cult as a mystery cult . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Interim conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Oriental religious communities in the Hellenistic states: Rules of integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The Jewish cult in the Ptolemaic state . . . . . . . . . .

7 12 12 29 34 36 40

. . . .

44 44 45 48

. . . . . .

54 60 62 71 79 82

.

83

. . . . . .

91 91 96

. . . . .

. . . . .

96 102 102 104 106

. . 107 . . 109

6

Contents

3.4 Religious policies of the Ptolemies, and the time of Ptolemy Philopator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political context under Ptolemy IV Philopator . . . . . . 3.4.1 Religious policies of the Ptolemies and measures on regulation of cults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Leasures on regulation of cults and Jewish sources on the history of the Jewish text and temple in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 The second demand of the BGU VI 1211 and the letter of Onias (Jos. Ant. 13. 65 – 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The letter of Onias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 The third demand of the BGU VI 1211 and the Letter of Aristeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Perverse ritual practices and deterioration of the ancestral tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magical papyri and dedications in pagan temples . . . . Ptolemaic Jewish papyri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 110 . 113 . 115 . 117 . 117 . 121 . 127 . . . . .

130 132 133 133 137

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected sources and translations Classical authors . . . . . . . . . General bibliography . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

146 146 147 148

Index fontium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Introduction The Letter of Aristeas has been a puzzle and object of varying interpretations for several centuries, its structure being one of the most intriguing and unsettled questions. As is well known, the story of the translation is split into parts and forms a ring composition, with several much longer “digressions” inserted in the middle. The story of the translation is developed in Let. Aris. 9 – 12, 29 – 49 and at the very end of the text, in 301 – 11. Intermediate sections deal with the liberation of the Jewish captives by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Let. Aris. 13 – 28); the description of items sent by the king as presents to the High Priest, the description of the Temple and the land of Israel (Let. Aris. 50 – 120); the apology of the food and purity restrictions in the Law given to Aristeas and his embassy (Let. Aris. 120 – 70); and the description of how the elders were received by the king and their conversation with the king at the symposium organised in their honour (Let. Aris. 171 – 300). While rejecting the earlier tendency to deem the “digressions” later interpolations, scholarly opinion still does not see the principle and logic by which they are combined. An extreme approach is represented by G. Zuntz, who says that Aristeas is “unable, or unconcerned, to organise them into a sustained and credible unity”,1 while an interpretation more favourable to the author considers that the subjects were accumulated in order to represent an example of the Hellenistic poikilia, i. e. a deliberate variety of genres (ekphrasis, historiography, symposium) intended to entertain the reader.2The only explanation for this selection is Aristeas’ wish to build up a comprehensive picture of Judaism.3 At the same time, the story of the translation is often taken to be the main subject of the composition.4 In recent decades, the growing trend in scholarship has been to deem the intended audience of the Letter of Aristeas Jewish.5 This idea was proposed by V. Tcherikover and found substantial support in the study of H. Orlinsky, who 1 G. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah”, JSS 4/2 (1959) 109 – 26, on p. 111; repr. in G. Zuntz, Opuscula selecta. Classica, hellenistica, christiana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972) 126 – 43, on p. 128. 2 V. Tcherikover, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” HTR 51 (1958) 59 – 85, on p. 64; S. Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: a Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003), 14 – 19. 3 O. Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici II (Pisa: Giardini, 1987), 15 – 29, on p. 18; Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 109 (126 (1972)); Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 11, 29; T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 33. 4 Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas,” 15; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 29. 5 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 11 et passim.

8

Introduction

showed that the story of the translation contains many allusions to the Bible which imply that the Greek translation is identical to the Law given at Mount Sinai.6 This substantially affected the traditional understanding during the 19th and first half of the 20th century of the Letter’s objective as apologetics (indeed it is not clear how this objective could accord with the hypothesis of an intended Jewish audience, although the tendency to explain it as an apology of Judaism targeted at the Jews is also present).7 Scholars now tend to describe the general purpose of the book “Jewish propaganda”, although they may have different understandings of this term. Interpretations vary from the traditional idea of the presentation of the appealing and acceptable picture of Judaism8 to the idea that the Jews, although deeply aware of their Jewishness, wished to express themselves using Greek cultural terms and in this way “articulate Jewish identity in the Graeco-Egyptian society”9 or simply show (first and foremost to themselves) that they can readily adapt to Greek culture while remaining loyal to the ancestral religion.10 The fact that Aristeas extols the translation has generated a special cluster of opinions. Some scholars think that the purpose is to establish the sanctity of the translation as identical to the Hebrew original.11 S. Honigman also stresses that Aristeas adopts Greek grammatical allusions and suggests that he does so in order to persuade the (Greek? Jewish?) reader of the highest quality of the translation, which was performed against the background of the editorial work of the Alexandrian grammarians on the texts of Homer, the main motive for this being that of prestige, i. e. the Jews wished to indicate the existence of an irreproachable, authoritative text comparable with Homer.12 (She also projects it into historical reality, claiming that the LXX was indeed translated and later edited according to the example of Homer.)13 Another ramification of this idea is the hypothesis that the Letter of Aristeas polemicises against a 6 Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 60; H.M. Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators”, HUCA 46 (1975) 89 – 114, on pp. 94 – 97. 7 See Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 61 – 2; See also the survey in J. Dorival/M. Harl/O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: du judavsme hellsnistique au christianisme ancien ([Paris]: rd. du CERF [u. a.], 1988), 43. 8 Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 18. 9 E.S. Gruen, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint,” in M. Karrer and W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 134 – 56, on p. 141. 10 Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 69, 79 – 80; J.R. Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World. Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibyiline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 12 – 13. 11 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 94 – 7; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 47 – 52, 59 – 73; Dorival, La Bible grecque des Septante, 43; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 136. 12 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 137 – 8. 13 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 137 – 8.

Introduction

9

revision of the Septuagint, by defending the old Greek translation and proclaiming its unique sanctity.14 Thus, the interpretations of the message of the book are numerous, and the hypotheses referred to above can be found in various, sometimes selfcontradictory, combinations. In my study I will touch upon many of these theories, not because I aim to offer a comprehensive survey of them, but because the new approach that I adopt will necessarily cast new light on some of these questions. The first part of my study will discuss the problem of the connection between the various parts of the Letter of Aristeas, i. e. the composition of the narrative. I think that the logic behind the parts can only be understood in the context of the Jewish tradition. It has been noted that one of the peculiar features of Aristeas’ style is the merging of different patterns, both Greek and biblical, so that, as S. Honigman puts it, “his narrative emerges as both thoroughly Jewish and thoroughly Greek”.15 Several studies have discussed the “Greek face” of the intermediate parts.16 Nonetheless, these studies do not highlight the logic behind the connection and even lead Honigman to the thesis of the intended variety of subjects. As mentioned, I believe the logic lies in the Jewish paradigm, with the Greek elements being forms of its adaptation to the taste and erudition of the general Alexandrian readership. Therefore I will not systematically discuss the features of the Greek genres adopted for the composition of the intermediate parts, although there are still many desiderata in these matters. In this part I hope to highlight the idea of the composition in its totality as it would have been evident to readers familiar with forms of biblical interpretation in the Second Temple period. This analysis will confirm that the readership able to grasp the peculiar idea of the composition was,

14 S.P. Brock, “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Tradition”, in B. Lindars, G.J. Brooke (ed.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the Internation Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Writings. Manchester 1990 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1992) 301 – 38; A. Lange, “Textual Standardization in Egyptian Judaism and in the Letter of Aristeas”, in M. Karrer/M. Meiser/W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23 – 27. Juli 2008 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 48 – 71. 15 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 141. 16 G. Zuntz indicates the importance of the Hellenistic treatises on kingship with regard to the symposium part (G. Zunz, “Aristeas Studies I: The “Seven Banquets”, JSS 4/1 (1959) 110 – 25). O. Murray gives a critical survey of Zunz’s suggestions (O. Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, JTS 18(2) (1967) 337 – 71). S. Honigman (following in the steps of E. Bickerman) stresses the importance of peripatetic historiography with regard to the description of the Land (Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 17 – 25; E. Bickerman, “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas”, ZNW 29 (1930) 280 – 98, on pp. 294 – 5). J.M.F. Heath touchs upon Hellenistic theory of ekphrasis in connection with the description of the royal gifts (J.M.F. Heath, “Greek and Jewish visual piety: Ptolemy’s gifts in the Letter of Aristeas”, in Sarah Pearce (ed.), The Image and its Prohibition in Jewish Antiquity (JJS Sup 2; Oxford: Journal of Jewish Studies, 2013) 38 – 48).

10

Introduction

indeed, Jewish. This in turn will help us to form a more precise notion of the message intended for the Jewish audience. I will explore a different perspective in the second part by discussing the meaning of grammatical terminology in the story of the translation. The story of the translation has been approached from both Jewish and Greek sides, with the results of both being pivotal to our understanding of its meaning. H. Orlinsky, as I mentioned, investigated the story in the context of biblical texts, showing that it is constructed according to the pattern of the presentation of the Torah to the Jewish people. These findings are very important in the discussion of the meaning of the entire composition in Chapter 1. At the same time, G. Zuntz, O. Murray and A. van der Kooij stressed that its language was connected with Alexandrian grammatical terminology (the last named scholar providing brief, but highly illuminating insight into these matters). However important these observations may be, in my opinion this aspect of the story of the translation deserves more study against a wider Greek scholarly context. Only correct understanding of the grammatical message conveyed by the story can permit theories to be substantiated about Aristeas’ intention in extolling the quality of the translation. I hope that this investigation will certainly reduce the number of untenable theories and will bear relevance to the early history of the LXX. Despite my own arguments in Chapter 1, I disagree with the claim that the Jewish audience was the only intended readership of the Letter. Aristeas’ posing as a Greek, his constant concern about educated secular readers (clearly visible in the intermediate parts), who often have superficial, and not always positive views of the Jews, i. e. who know no more about them than about any ethnic barbarian community, confirms this. We find a clear apology in Let. Aris. 120 – 70 and traces of it passim in the text.17The literary method of 17 Tcherikover suggested (and his idea is often repeated by scholars) that the apology in Let. Aris. 120 – 70 is targeted at the Jews, rather than at the Greeks, because the latter would have an interest in such key aspects as circumcision, the Sabbath and the main holidays, rather than in food and purity restrictions, which are the subject of the apology (Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 62). Tcherikover’s idea implies that the Greeks should approach Judaism from a theological point of view. However, it should be noted that the apology in the Letter of Aristeas pertains to those aspects of Judaism which (unlike circumcision and feasts celebrated within an ethnic community) become evident and must draw the particular attention of non-Jews in everyday usage, namely in situations when the Jews are intermixed with the gentiles, but try to keep to some food and purity restrictions. This is confirmed by the words of Aristeas himself, who says that his explanation refers to “our abstinence from the use of some things and our participation in the use of others”, !v’ ¨m !pewºleha jat± tµm wq/sim, ja· oXr sucwq¾leha (Let. Aris. 143). It is logical that this apology is targeted at non-Jewish colleagues and fellows. Moreover, Aristeas stresses that this apology is aimed at defending against the charge of superstition (deisidailom_a, Let. Aris. 129), which is a traditional accusation made against the Jews by the Greeks (M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. (3d edn; Tübingen: Mohr, 1988), 470, 475 n.27). Cf. also the arguments for the intended Greek audience (along with the Jewish) collected by O. Murray in Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, 345.

Introduction

11

merging patterns implies a combined audience. This opinion of mine also derives from a general awareness that Ptolemaic Alexandria was not a place where texts could be written exclusively for cultural minorities: this city did not know cultural ghettos. Chapter 2 will show that the language in which the story of translation is written implies a very high level of Hellenistic education, which of course the educated Jews possessed, but which overall was typical of high Hellenistic society in general, rather than of the general Jewish audience. The question arises as to what kind of audience was targeted by the message expressed using grammatical terminology in the story of translation. If this intended audience was not only a likely fairly thin layer of Jewish intellectuals, but an intelligent Greek readership as well, we should inquire what Aristeas intended this Hellenistic readership to learn from his presentation. I will discuss these and other complicated questions in historical perspective in Chapter 3, in which I will seek to scrutinise the meaning of both messages (that of the Jewish biblical paradigm and that of the Greek grammatical paradigm) in their interaction in the historical context of the Ptolemaic state.

Chapter 1: The biblical paradigm, or the Letter of Aristeas as Rewritten Scripture 7;4 898= 9D=8@4 898= @4LM= FBM (Deut 6:4)

1.1 The liberation of Jewish slaves in connection with the translation as elaboration on Deut 30:1 – 3 The story about the liberation of all Jewish slaves in Egypt, ordered by Ptolemy II upon the suggestion of Aristeas and other courtiers as a gesture to the High Priest in Jerusalem in connection with commissioning of the translation of the Law, cannot be historically correct.1 Although some Jews may have been brought to Egypt as prisoners of war in the course of the conquests of Judea by Ptolemy I,2 mainstream Jewish immigration to Egypt in the Hellenistic period was essentially voluntary, as is also reflected by the account in Ps. Hecataeus (apud Jos. C. Ap. 1.186 – 9), which is diametrically opposed to that of Aristeas.3 Several elements of Aristeas’ narrative betray its fabulous character. Aristeas pretends that the liberation concerned not only the slaves captured by Ptolemy I, but also all the Jewish slaves brought to Egypt previously or subsequently (Let. Aris. 20, 22); the decree, allegedly issued by Ptolemy, contains such elements as the three-day period within which the liberation has to be performed, the denounced becoming the property of their denouncers, and the philosophical motivation for the liberation (Let. Aris. 22 – 5).4 H. Orlinsky in an important article5 argues that the narrative of the Letter of Aristeas contains clear allusions to the presentation of the Torah to the Jewish 1 M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Harper, 1951 (repr. New York: Ktav, 1973)), 28 – 32; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 21 – 2; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 53 – 6; H.J. Gehrke, “Das sozial- und religionsgeschichtliche Umfeld der Septuaginta”, in H.J. Fabry/U. Offerhaus (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, v. 2 (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlhammer, 2001) 44 – 60, on p. 46; V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena”, in V. Tcherikover/A. Fuks/M. Stern (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vol.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957 – 1964) 1.1 – 111, on p. 4. 2 Cf. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena”, 3; P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vol.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 1.57; 2. 974, no.126. 3 The place suggested by Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 55. 4 Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 28 – 32. 5 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 89 – 114.

The biblical paradigm

13

people at Mount Sinai in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy and in Jerusalem in 2 Esdras. He stresses that the idea of reading the Bible aloud in front of the gathering of the Jewish people and the gathering’s approval/ acceptance of the Law, described in Let. Aris. 308 – 11, reflect a clear biblical pattern contained both in the book of Exodus (24:3 – 7) and in 2 Esdras (18:7 – 8), and that the ban on addition and deletion from the Thora in Let. Aris. 310 – 11 is modelled on the corresponding ban in Deut 4:2.6 Orlinsky keenly notes that the introduction of the twelve tribes of Israel in connection with the number of those who take part in producing the text of the Law (six men from each tribe) is inspired by the same Exodus pattern, because the twelve tribes of Israel are involved in the Presentation of the Torah in Exodus (by setting up twelve pillars under the altar in Exod 23:4).7 S. Honigman, in her important book, tries to explain the liberation of the Jewish slaves, building on the allusions to Exodus suggested by H. Orlinsky. In particular, she thinks that Aristeas wishes to mould the situation in Egypt on the reverse of the situation in the book of Exodus.8 She interprets this event in the Letter as that of the non–Exodus: the king-Pharaoh willingly liberates the slaves himself and, instead of leaving Egypt for the Law, the Jews remain there and the Law comes to them.9 I agree that the liberation of slaves should be explained against a biblical paradigm, but I think that, upon closer inspection, the Exodus paradigm, when taken in the narrow meaning of the term (that is the paradigm contained in the book of Exodus), does not suffice to explain even the episode of the liberation, let alone be useful in understanding the entire composition. However important and frequent the allusions to Exodus may be in the narrative, I think that a different paradigm, not disconnected from that of Exodus, but one that may have absorbed it, is in play behind the principle of the introduction and combination of subjects. Aristeas refers several times to those-to-be-liberated as “those in slavery” (oQjet¸air, Let. Aris. 14, 15, 16, 24). However, of the seven times that the word oQj]tgr occurs in the book of Exodus, only two (in one and the same passage) refer to the Jews in Egypt with a meaning which is close to being figurative. The Jews in Egypt are never said in the book of Exodus to have been formally enslaved, although they were dependent, oppressed, and treated badly. When “the officers of the children of Israel” say to Pharaoh: “Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?” (Exod 5:15,16), this reference has a largely figurative 6 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 94 – 6. 7 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 98. 8 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 56. See also P. R. Davies, “Didactic Stories,” in D.A. Carson (ed.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 99 – 133, on p.121. 9 For some important additional parallels confirming that the image of the king-Pharaoh is intentionally depicted as the opposite of the Pharaoh of the Bible, see A. Kovelman, Between Alexandria and Jerusalem (Leiden: Brill, 2005),105 – 8.

14

The biblical paradigm

meaning, particularly if we remember that all the subjects of Pharaoh are his ”slaves” (cf. Deut 34:11). The presentation of the theme of slavery in Egypt drastically changes in the book of Deuteronomy. Of the nine times that the word occurs in this book, seven refer to the people of Israel with the direct meaning of slave (Deut 5:15; 6:22; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,20,22). In two of these occurrences it is said that God “redeemed, freed” (1kutq¾sato) the Jews from slavery in Egypt (Deut 15:15; 24:18). The root also occurs in connection with the Jewish people in Egypt in the book of Exodus (1kutq¾sy, Exod 15:13). However, formalisation of the notion of slavery with regard to the position of the Jews in Egypt and its combination with that of “redemption, liberation”, expressed using this root, is only testified in Deuteronomy. Thus, when we find the idea of the liberation from slavery in Egypt expressed using these two roots in the Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris. 12: t/r !pokutq¾seyr; Let. Aris. 20: !pokutq_sai; Let. Aris. 33: !pok¼tqysim), we have reason to think that the book of Deuteronomy serves Aristeas as the immediate point of reference for this topic, rather than the book of Exodus. Moreover, in all seven cases of this usage in Deuteronomy, a direct connection is made between the Jews in Egypt having been freed from slavery and the necessity of observing the statutes of the Law, for example, Deut 15:15 (= 24:18): Remember that you were a slave (oQj´tgr) in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed (1kutq¾satº) you; therefore, I am commanding you to do this thing (t¹ N/la toOto) today. (NET).

Liberation from slavery being referred to as the argument for the observance of the Law corresponds to the combination of themes at the beginning of the Letter. We should keep in mind that the idea of liberation from slavery is introduced in direct connection with the purchase of the Greek Law (Let. Aris. 11 – 12; 15; 34, 35, 38), which, while formally destined for the royal library, is also handed over to the Jewish community in Alexandria, where it is supposed to be followed. In order to see that the book of Deuteronomy served Aristeas as an important point of reference, we can consult Meecham’s study, where citations and references to the Greek Pentateuch have been collected.10 However, several lexical references also suggest that it was an important point of reference in constructing the narrative about the translation (Deut 4:2 is referred to in Let. Aris. 310 – 11; Deut 1:5 is alluded to in Let. Aris. 305). This compels me to investigate the role of Deuteronomy in the formation of the narrative of the Letter more closely. In particular, I wish to focus on the

10 H.G. Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas. The Linguistic Study with Special References to the Greek Bible (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935), 317 – 19.

The biblical paradigm

15

possible combination of the themes of liberation from slavery and the acceptance of the Law. My attention is drawn by Deut 30:1 – 3:11 1. And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2. And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3. that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity ( ýN95M-N4 ý=8@4 898= 5M9 ), and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

According to this interpretation, God promises the Jews ýN95M-N4 5M9 as a reward for wholeheartedly repenting and returning to the Law among the gentiles. The expression ýN95M-N4 5M9 has been translated in the LXX using the expression ja· Q²setai j¼qior t±r "laqt¸ar sou, “God will cure your sins”. This way of rendering the meaning of the expression is not unparalleled. LXX Job 42:10, for example, renders it using the collocation !v_gli tµm "laqt_am. Nevertheless, in the rest of the Greek Bible this collocation is uniformly rendered using the expression !po(1pi)stq]vy tµm aQwlakys_am, i. e. “to turn the captivity”: Jer 38:23 (=M 31:23); Ezek 16:53; 29:14; 39:25; Hos 6:11; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20; Joel 4:1; Ps 14:7 (LXX 13:7); 53:7 (LXX 52:7); 85: 2 (LXX 84:2); 126:1 (LXX 125:1); Lam 2:14. The meaning of the expression is difficult and essentially allows for double interpretation.12 Nevertheless, the uniform rendering of it in all the prophets and psalms with the meaning of “turning the captivity” indicates that at a certain point, namely the time of the translation of the prophetic books, that is from the second century BC or earlier,13 this interpretation absolutely prevailed in the Jewish milieu. In Lam 2:14 this translation is used even when the other translation would seem to be unequivocally preferable. The question is whether this tendency influenced the history of the translation and interpretation of Deuteronomy and whether traces of it can be found in the Jewish Hellenistic tradition. P. Fouad does not contain any clear 11 Here and below the Hebrew Bible is quoted in King James Version (KJV), if not specified separately. 12 On the possible reasons for these different interpretations of the meaning of the root see HALOT s.v. N95M,N=5M,59M. See also E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (Berlin/NY: de Gruyter, 1991), 161 – 4. Ben Zvi stresses that within the Hebrew tradition interpretation of the phrase as not referring to captivity is earlier than the second interpretation, which should be dated to the exilic and post-exilic period. 13 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd edition, revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 131.

16

The biblical paradigm

reading of the line in question.14 However, Aramaic targums, Babylonian Talmud, and Peshitta indicate that the history of interpretation of this place in Deuteronomy is vexed. Several versions of the Targum Onqelos and the Babylonian Talmud follow the interpretation of “to turn your captivity”, while Targum Neophiti and that of Ps.-Jonathan are close to the interpretation preserved in the LXX.15 The problem is clearly indicated by the three later redactions of the LXX by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the first offering the interpretation 1pistq]veim 1pistqov^m, while the two others translate as: ja· 1pistq]xei (soi) j}qior b he|r soO tµm aQwlakys_am soO.16 Peshitta has “bring back again your captivity” (Syr. Deut 30:3). Vulgata has reducet Dominus Deus tuus captivitatem tuam (Vulg. Deut 30:3). Remarkably, Aristeas, when speaking about the liberation of the slaves, also refers to them as “captives” (Let. Aris. 12: Ñwlak¾tife; Let. Aris. 23: ÑwlakyteOshai; Let. Aris. 33: !pok¼tqysim t_m aQwlak¾tym; Let. Aris. 35: aQwlak¾tour; Let. Aris. 37: aQwlak¾tym). Therefore, I wish to question which notion of the content of Deut 30:3 could have been familiar to Aristeas. The question is all the more pertinent given that Philo of Alexandria, the only Jewish-Hellenistic author who refers to this place, definitely understands it in the sense of liberation of captives. According to the Supplement to Biblia Patristica, dedicated to Philo,17 Philo closely follows Deut 30:1 – 10 by rephrasing and philosophically elaborating on it in Praem. 162 – 6. Philo writes: (162) I have now, then, without making any concealment of softening the truth in any degree, explained the curses and the punishments which it is fit for those persons to endure who have despised the sacred laws of justice and piety, and who have submitted themselves to the adoption of polytheistic opinions, the end of which is impiety through forgetfulness of the instruction originally imparted to them by their forefathers, which they learnt in their earliest infancy, when they were taught to look upon the nature of the One as the only supreme God, to whom alone those persons may properly be assigned as his inheritance who pursue the genuine truth instead of cunningly invented fables. —This refers to Deut 29, where the ban on worshipping the

14 Z. Aly/L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. A Photographic Edition Prepared in Collaboration with the International Photographic Archive of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (Bonn: Habelt, 1980), 104 – 5. 15 Tg. Onq. Deut 30:3 (see M. McNamara (ed.), Tg. Onqelos to Deuteronomy (transl. B. Grossfeld; vol.9 of The Aramaic Bible; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1988), 84); Meg. 175; Tg. Neof. Deut 30:3; Tg. Ps.–J. Deut 30:3. 16 In Field’s retroversion from Latin, based on the Syro-Hexapla: A.: convertet…conversionem tuam; Th.: convertet dominus deus tuus captivitatem tuam; S.: convertet tibi dominus deus tuus captivitatem tuam. F. Field (ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta (2 vol.; Oxford, 1875) 1.317. 17 J. Allenbach et al. (ed.), Biblia Patristica, Supplsment: Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: rditions du centre nationale de la recherche scientifique, 1982), 87.

The biblical paradigm

17

pagan gods of the nations is expressed through execration, and to Deut 30:1, where the blessing and curse upon the Jews living in a polytheistic environment are mentioned. (163) If, however, they receive these exertions of power not as aiming at their destruction, but rather at their admonition and improvement, and if they feel shame throughout their whole soul, and change their ways, reproaching themselves for their errors, and openly avowing and confessing all the sins that they have committed against themselves with purified souls and minds, so as in the first place to exhibit a sincerity of conscience utterly alien from falsehood and concealing nothing evil beneath; and secondly, having their tongues also purified so as to produce improvement in their hearers, —This refers to Deut 30:2, where the conversion 1n fkgr t/r jaqd¸ar sou ja· 1n fkgr t/r xuw/r sou is mentioned. they will then meet with a favourable acceptance from their merciful saviour, God, who bestows on the race of mankind his especial and exceedingly great gift, namely, relationship to his own word; after which, as its archetypal model, the human mind was formed. —This refers to Deut 30:3 ja· 1ke¶sei se. (164) For even though they may be at the very extremities of the earth (1m 1swatia?r §si c/r), —This refers to Deut 30:1 (ox 1²m se diasjoqp¸s, j¼qior 1je?), Deut 30:3 (sum²nei se 1j p²mtym t_m 1hm_m, eQr otr diesjºqpis´m se j¼qior 1je?), and particularly to Deut 30:4 (1±m × B diaspoq² sou !p’ %jqou toO oqqamoO 6yr %jqou toO oqqamoO, 1je?hem sum²nei se j¼qior b heºr sou). acting as slaves to those enemies who have led them away in captivity (douke¼omter paq± to?r aQwlak¾tour aqto»r !p²cousim 1whqo?r), still they shall all be restored to freedom in one day (Bl´qô liø p²mter 1keuheqyh¶somtai), as at a given signal; their sudden and universal change to virtue causing a shock among their masters; for they will let them go, because they are ashamed to govern those who are better than themselves. (165) But when they have received this unexpected liberty (t/r !pqosdoj¶tou ta¼tgr 1keuheq¸ar), those who but a short time before were scattered about in Greece, and in the countries of the barbarians, in the islands, and over the continents (oR pq¹ lijqoO spoq²der 1m gEkk²di ja· baqb²q\ jat± m¶sour ja· jat± Ape¸qour) —This resumes the idea of “being scattered” as found in Deut 30:1,3,4.

We can continue following the text of Philo, but this analysis will disclose the parallels with the further text of Deuteronomy. Deut 30: 1 – 5 have already been adapted. We can see that Praem. 162 – 5 contains allusions to almost every single thought found in Deut 30:1 – 5. However, no mention is made of “curing your sins”. Instead we find again a reference to “liberation from captivity”: douke¼omter paq± to?r aQwlak¾tour aqto»r !p²cousim 1whqo?r Bl´qô liø p²mter 1keuheqyh¶somtai. Moreover, Philo uses the same collocation, as Aristeas (cf. Let. Aris. 37: rp³q d´ja luqi²dar aQwlak¾tym Akeuheq¾jalem). The root “sin”, used in the LXX (Q²setai j¼qior t±r "laqt¸ar sou), is used by Philo in the phrase “openly avowing and confessing all the sins that they

18

The biblical paradigm

have committed (Flaqtom)” (Praem. 163). Nevertheless, this refers not to an action performed by God upon the Jews, which would have been expected if the expression “will cure your sins” had been alluded to, but to the action of those who repent “with all heart and soul”, which implies the idea of confessing sins. Thus, the use of the root cannot be unequivocally indicative of the influence of the LXX. Also, there is no allusion to “curing” (Q²setai). However, even if we are inclined to think that the use of this root may somehow be influenced by the interpretation preserved in the LXX, we have to concede that the other version was also known to Philo and that this version was more important to him, given a clear and emphatic allusion to it in his interpretation. Thus, Philo definitely was aware of an interpretation different from LXX Deut 30:3, which has come down to us. However, it would be rash to jump to the conclusion that Philo had a different version of the translation of LXX Deut 30:3 at his disposal. His paraphrase features a number of particularities, which I wish to draw attention to. First, there is the idea found in Praem. 164 that the liberation from captivity is accompanied by the shame of the gentiles: they will let them go, being ashamed (aQdesh]mter) to govern them. Second, the liberation of the captives, which results from the sudden conversion of the Jews to virtue (i. e. the Law), also causes shock (jat\pkgnir) to the pagan masters. Deut 30 makes no references to such feelings. At the same time, the motif of the shame of the gentiles is found in LXX Zeph 3:19 – 20, one of the prophetic contexts, containing the expression similar to that of Deut 30:3 (A?=N95M-N4 =594M5), and rendered in the LXX using the translation “to turn the captivity”. Although another interpretation is possible in which “shame” refers to the Jews (which is the interpretation accepted nowadays), the LXX interprets it as a feeling of the gentiles (cf. Ps. 132 (LXX 131), 18) and gives this translation … ja· jataiswumh¶somtai 1m t` jaiq` 1je¸m\ … 1m t` 1pistq´veim le tµm aQwlakys¸am rl_m 1m¾piom rl_m, k´cei j¼qior. (Zeph 3:20: “And they will be ashamed in that time when I do well with you…when I return your captivity before you, says the Lord.” (NETS)). This interpretation directly combines the shame of the gentiles with the liberation of the Jewish captives, as does Philo. AQd]olai, used by Philo, is a regular synonym of jataisw}molai used in LXX Zephaniah. The tendency to combine (juxtapose) a context from the Pentateuch with a context from a prophet, drawing on their common idea and on the synonymous or identical words used in them, is attested in the texts of the Second Temple period. Examples can be found in BD 5.15 – 17, 11QMelch 2, 1QS 5.15 – 17 and 4QFlor 3.12.18 These parallels substantiate the hypothesis 18 BD 5.15 – 17 combines Deut 32:28 and Isa 27:11 as referring to “the people (nation) of no understanding”; 11QMelch combines Lev 25:13, Deut 15:2 and Isa 61:1, based on the synonymous expressions referring to the liberation (in the year of the jubilee and at the eschato-

The biblical paradigm

19

that Deut 30:3 and Zeph 3:19 – 20 could have been combined in a source at Philo’s disposal since they refer to the same idea and contain the same expression. Shock, Jat\pkgnir. Similarly, Philo’s reference to the astonishment of the gentiles suggests the combined character of his source. The Hebrew Deuteronomy and Exodus often repeat the fact that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt involved God’s support, i. e. His intervention, specified using the word 4L9B (Deut 34:12; 26:8; 4:34) and the participle 4L9D (Exod 34:10; Deut 10:21). Exod 34:10 generalises the subject, stressing that amazing and fearful things will happen to the Jews in sight of every nation that the Jews in the future will pass through (dwell in) and that these nations will see what God does for his people: ýBF 8MF =D4 LM4 498 4L9D-? 898= 8MFB-N4 95LK5 8N4 LM4 AF8-@? 84L9 (Exod 34:10)

The LXX place even greater emphasis on the universal meaning by using the plural instead of the singular (1m oXr): LXX Exod: ja· exetai p÷r b kaºr 1m oXr eW s¼ t± 5qca juq¸ou fti haulast² 1stim $ 1c½ poi¶sy soi.19

The word 4L9D refers to something which inspires fear and awe, but also shock and astonishment.20 The LXX are not able to render both meanings at once. They translate the word either using the word “fear” (v|bor), or “astonishment” (haul\sia/haulast\), cf. Exod 15:11 and Deut 28:58 (astonishment) and Gen 28:17; 46:43; Deut 1:19 (fear). The word Jat\pkgnir, used by Philo, combines the idea of fear with that of astonishment and shock (see LSJ s.v. jatapk^ssy, jat\pkgnir) and properly describes the feeling (pathos) experienced by those who see 4L9D. Thus, Philo’s reference to this feeling of the gentiles can be explained by the conflated character of his source, in which Exod 34:10 was combined with Deut 30:3, which is very plausible, as both contexts stress the universal aspects of the liberation of the Jews on their way to the Promised Land and use similar or identical expressions (cf. Deut 30:3: A=BF8 -@?B ,“from all the peoples” and Exod 34:10: AF8 @? “all the people/ every nation”). Regarding the character of the text that Philo refers to, we can see that in the logical time); 1QS 5.15 – 17 combines Exod 23:7 and Isa 2:22 based on the idea of keeping away from bad deeds and persons; 4QFlor 3.12 combines 2Sam 7:12 – 13 and Amos 9:11, which refer to the divine promise of raising up and establishing the kingdom of David. These passages share several similar or identical words. 19 The LXX emphasise the idea of the plurality of the nations by using the plural form 1m oXr, while the Hebrew text does not require this. However, the context of this verse makes it clear that the promise refers to all the nations (not the Egyptians) that the Jews will pass through on their way to the Holy Land. Thus the LXX emphasise the idea present in the Hebrew text anyway. 20 See BDB, s.v. 4L= , niph. 2.

20

The biblical paradigm

source at Philo’s disposal the motifs were grouped around Deut 30:1 – 5, in particular around the topic of the reactions of the gentiles to the liberation of the Jews. This clearly tells us that this source was not originally composed on the basis of LXX Deut 30:3, because this Greek translation shows a different understanding of the expression and, consequently, would not have allowed the other places to be taken into account. The source was composed either on the basis of the Hebrew text and was later translated into Greek, or on the basis of a differently translated Deut 30:3. However, the first option is preferable, not only because 4L9D is referred to using the more precise notion of jat\pkgnir, which is not attested in the LXX, suggesting a direct translation from Hebrew, but also because Philo’s paraphrase contains the notion of Logos exactly in this place, where all Aramaic targums of Deuteronomy 30 contain the notion of Memra (i. e. while paraphrasing Deut 30:2 – 3, see Praem. 163).21 In Philo’s paraphrase the reference to the notion of Logos, although it is expressed using Greek philosophical terms, is not philosophically motivated, and the inference lies close at hand that it entered Philo’s text under the influence of a source containing the notion of Memra, which is natural in a Hebrew source retelling a biblical narrative. Of course, given the lack of certainty that Philo had any knowledge of Hebrew22it is unreasonable to suppose that it was Philo himself who translated this source. Rather, there was a source at his disposal, composed on the basis of Hebrew and translated into Greek sufficiently long ago as to be able to form a tradition which would compete with the LXX and even overshadow it. What is important is that the combined character of the source can explain why Deut 30:3 was understood differently from the tradition reflected in LXX Deuteronomy, i. e. not only because of a presumably later date of translation, when the other interpretation of the expression prevailed, but also because of the necessity to render the meaning of all combined places uniformly. Thus, the meaning of those places prevailed which appeared to be univocal and which were taken by a Hebrew author/ redactor to complement and support the meaning of Deut 30:3. At the same time, the correspondence of the interpretation of Zephaniah 3:20 in the translation of the combined source with the existing Greek translation of Zephaniah 3:20 is also remarkable. However, this can be explained not by the immediate influence of the Greek Zephaniah, but by a roughly contemporary date of translation, when interpretation of a place in the Hebrew was more or less commonly accepted in translator circles. The principle at work in the source behind Philo’s paraphrase is known in 21 Tg. Onq. Deut 30:2 – 3; T. Neof. Deut 30:2 – 3; T. Ps.-J. Deut 30:2 – 3. 22 Cf. D.W. Gooding, “Philo’s Knowledge of Hebrew, Underlying the Greek”, in D. Winston/J. Dillon, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria. A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis (Brown University Judaic Studies, 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 119 – 25; S. Sandmel, “Philo’s Knowledge of Hebrew”, SP 5 (1978) 107 – 11; P. Borgen, “Philo”, ANRW II 21,1 (1984) 98 – 154, on p. 123.

The biblical paradigm

21

the Jewish tradition of the Second Temple period. It is particularly prevalent in the (pre-)Samaritan Pentateuch and the compositions known as the Reworked Pentateuch. We find in them either blending or juxtaposition of passages that are separate in the Masoretic Pentateuch, but deal with the same subject.23 Sometimes the parallelism between the texts is strengthened by lexical parallels.24 However, the principle in question is also found in the compositions known as the Rewritten Bible, where the combination of the biblical passages serves the more specific design of an individual author (Jubilees, Temple Scrolla, Apocryphon of Moses). It is attested in targums, which also use such methods.25 These compositions testify to harmonisation being possible within one biblical book, as well as among several of them. In particular, 23 J.M. Allegro/A. A. Anderson (ed.), Qumrmn Cave 4.I (4Q158 – 4Q186) (DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968); H. Attridge et al./J. VanderKam (ed.), Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994); D.W. Parry/E.Tov (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3, Parabiblical Texts (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005), 238 – 312. The following are some of the exemplary cases. 4Q158 1 – 2 links Gen 32:25 – 33, where Jacob wrestles with God, and Exod 4:27 – 9, where the encounter of Aaron with God is described (in the preceding verses God sought to kill Moses). 4Q158 4 links Exod 3:12 and Exod 24:4 – 6 combining also Exod 6:3 – 7 and Gen 17:7 – 8, both of which contain the promise of land and the promise that God will be God to the patriarchs. 4Q158 6 combines Exod 20:19 – 21 and Deut 5:28 – 9; 18:18 – 20,22, which refer to the idea that Moses is a prophet. 4Q158 7 – 9 combines and harmonises Exod 20 and Deut 5, both of which contain the Ten Commandments and ordinances given on Mount Sinai. 4Q158 14 paraphrases and combines Exod 6:3 – 8 and Exod 15, which contain the promise to liberate the Jews from Egypt and the description of this deliverance. 4Q364 4b, e ii combines Gen 30:26 and Gen 31:41 (both of which refer to Jacob’s period of servitude). 4Q364 14 combines Exod 24:12 – 14 and Exod 19:7 on the subject of Moses ascending the mountain. 4Q364 21.1 – 2 combines Deut 1:17 and Deut 16:19 on the instructions to judges on how to judge righteously. 4Q364 23ab contains a similar juxtaposition of Num 20:14 – 18 and Deut 2:8 – 14 on the topic of hostile peoples and places that Jews have to travel through on their way to the Promised Land. 4Q365 6b 4 – 5 links Exod 15:19 – 20 with Exod 14:29 (referring to the passage through the Sea of Reeds). 4Q365 28 combines Num 4:47 – 9 and 7:1 on the topic of the service of the tabernacle. 4Q365 36 combines Num 27:11 and 36:1 – 2 on the topic of the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophahad. 4Q366 2 combines Lev 24:20 – 2 and Lev 25:39 – 43 (see the discussion on the possible common grounds in M.M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, Composition and Exegesis in the 4Q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 123 – 5). 4Q366 4 unites Num 29:32 – 30:1 and Deut 16:13 – 14 (both referring to the legislation for Sukkot). See the discussion of the reasons for the harmonisation in M. Segal, “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998) 45 – 62; S.W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in the Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 39 – 59; Zahn, Rethinking, 25 – 134. 24 For instance, 4Q158 1 – 2, 14, see Zahn, Rethinking, 62. 25 M. McNamara, “Introduction”, in M. McNamara (ed.), Targum Neophiti 1: Deuteronomy (vol. 5 A of the Aramaic Bible; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997) 1 – 15, on pp. 2 – 3.

22

The biblical paradigm

examples of the combination of Deuteronomy with Exodus (as a parallel to the combination suggested concerning the idea of shock in Philo’s paraphrase) are attested both in the Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158 6;7 – 8) and in the Rewritten Bible, like the Temple Scrolla (11Q19 2; 66), or the Jubilees (1.1 – 3). It is now time to return to the Letter of Aristeas and to question whether anything in the text suggests that Aristeas too was familiar with a source with the conflated understanding of the biblical material. In Let. Aris. 155, in the process of (allegorical) interpretation of the Law, Aristeas says: Di¹ paqajeke¼etai ja· di± t/r cqav/r b k´cym ovtyr· (1) (a) Lme¸ô lmgsh¶s, (b) juq¸ou toO poi¶samtor 1m so· t± lec²ka ja· haulast². Jatamoo¼lema c±q ja· (2) lec²ka ja· 5mdona va¸metai· And therefore does he admonish us through Scripture, when he says, “thou shalt well remember what great and marvellous things the Lord thy God did in thee”; when clearly understood they do indeed appear “great and glorious”.26

This is a direct reference to the Scripture and the addition “when clearly understood” (Jatamoo¼lema) marks its borders, making it clear that the quotation continues up to the words “great and marvellous things”; the words “great and glorious” are a quotation as well. However, the quoted words are a combination of different places in Deuteronomy. The expression Lme¸ô lmgsh¶s, corresponds to Deut 7:18, where this collocation is uniquely present in the Greek Pentaeuch and corresponds to the expression L?:N L?:, which is uniquely used in the MT of the Pentateuch: LXX: oq vobgh¶s, aqto¼r lme¸ô lmgsh¶s, fsa 1po¸gsem j¼qior b heºr sou t` Vaqay ja· p÷si to?r AQcupt¸oir MT: A=LJB-@?@9 8FLH@ ý=8@4 898= 8MF-LM4 N4 L?:N L?: A8B 4L=N 4@

The second part (toO poi¶samtor 1m so· …) does not correspond directly either to the LXX or to the MT, although it is relevant to the sense of the phrase. Meecham suggests that Deut 10:21 is also in play here: oxtor ja¼wgl² sou ja· oxtor heºr sou, fstir 1po¸gsem 1m so· t± lec²ka ja· t± 5mdona taOta, $ eUdosam oR avhaklo¸ sou. However, we can see that lec²ka ja· 5mdona appear in the second quotation only (2), whereas in the second part of the first quotation (1b) only the collocation 1m so· and the adjective lec²ka exactly correspond to the Greek translation of Deut 10:21. The participle poi¶samtor and the adjective haulast² are not found in LXX Deut 10:21. Let us look at the Hebrew Vorlage in Deut 10:21: ý=D=F 94L LM4 8@48 N4L9D-N49 N@768-N4 ýN4 8MF-LM4 ý=8@4 489 ýN@8N 498 26 Here and below transl. of M. Hadas with my emendations.

The biblical paradigm

23

8@48 N4L9D-N49 N@768-N4 are the object of God’s activity. As we noted in the discussion of Philo’s source, judging from the LXX, the adjective haulast|r was one of the regular translations of the word 4L9D.27 Given this, Aristeas’ variant t± lec²ka ja· haulast² could have been a regular translation of 8@48 N4L9D-N49 N@768-N4, although this translation differs from the LXX. Thus, Meecham’s suggestion proves to be even truer than he thought (as he did not take into consideration the Hebrew Vorlage). The analysis reveals that the first part of the phrase in the Letter of Aristeas could be a translation of two combined places in Deuteronomy 7:18 and 10:21, which refer to the same idea and contain similar expressions (cf. 4L=N 4@ Deut 7:18; 4L=N Deut 10:20; ý=D=F 94L LM4 Deut 7:19; 10:21). This combination was performed on the basis of the Hebrew text, and translated into Greek with a certain degree of freedom, with the participle replacing a personal form (as is also necessitated by the verb lmgsh¶s, (lilm^sjolai), which is commonly used with the Genitive case) and t± lec²ka ja· haulast² replacing t± lec²ka ja· t± 5mdona. At the same time, it seems that the translation of the LXX had a significant influence on the author of the new, combined translation. He borrows the remarkable collocation lme¸ô lmgsh¶s, (which is hapax in the LXX Pentateuch), and also repeats the expression 1m so¸ (Deut 10:21), which renders ýN4, which is also the sole case of such a translation of this form of the pronoun in the entire Pentateuch. Even the use of haulast² instead of 5mdona may reflect the choice of one of the possibilities found in the language of the LXX (as may be recalled, this is the translation found in Exod 15:11; 34:10 and Deut 28:58). Moreover, when Aristeas says that “clearly understood they do indeed appear ‘great and glorious’ (lec²ka ja· 5mdona)”, “they” referring to t± lec²ka ja· haulast², it is difficult to avoid the inference that Aristeas is comparing the translation from the combined source with the translation from the LXX, claiming that both translate the same idea.28 Neither the idea of comparison between the combined source and the LXX, nor Aristeas’ claim that they have the same import seem surprising in light of the method of translation, revealed by the analysis of the first part of the quotation. This method implies necessary or deliberate changes going hand in hand with close attention and orientation to the translation of the LXX. The translators of the combined source did consult the LXX and, given the character of the borrowings, did not intend to contrast their work with it, exactly as combined and rewritten compositions in the Hebrew tradition were hardly meant to substitute or displace the “canonical” books, but were in parallel with them.29 27 Exod 15:11; Deut 28:58; Ps 45:5 (LXX 44:5). 28 Aristeas, when making this claim, may also have had in mind LXX Exod 34:10, where 5mdona and haulast² are used in reference to the same object. 5mdona renders the Hebrew word N4@HD (cf. Job 5:9, 9:10; 34:24), while haulast² renders 4L9D. If this is the case, it would also testify to the work of bringing together passages referring to the same subject. 29 Cf. M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible”, in M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at

24

The biblical paradigm

Lastly, several words should be said concerning the motives for the use of this quotation within the context of the High Priest’s explanations. The High Priest explains food and purity restrictions as symbols that serve as reminders of just and unjust behaviour, which is directly connected with true (or false) worship of God (Let. Aris. 157 – 8; cf. 134 – 41). Thus, abiding by the restrictions in everyday usage makes one constantly remember God and His justice (Let. Aris. 132 – 3). The prescriptions that he explains derive, as a complex, from the book of Deuteronomy (Let. Aris. 150 – 4 correspond to Deut 14:4 – 8 (cf. also Lev 11:2 – 8) and Let. Aris. 158 – 60 correspond to Deut 6:4 – 9; 11:13 – 21; 22:12). The quotation discussed is found between these two places. Thus, the reference to a place in the same book of Deuteronomy appears to be appropriate as an example of the interpretation of a text using ideas contained in the same text. It is possible that Aristeas may have partly reinterpreted its connotations for the sake of the context (by interpreting t± lec²ka ja· haulast² as referring not to the miracles of liberation, but to aspects of the physical and psychological constitution of men). However, that does not make the principle used of bringing together different passages from Deuteronomy less important. This point may indirectly support my arguments above that the quotation in Let. Aris. 155, whatever complexity it displays, derives from Deuteronomy. Thus, this quotation testifies to the fact that 1. Aristeas used a source in which the parallel passages in Deuteronomy, referring to the same subject, were treated together. In this text, the phrase was composed of different elements from various passages in Deuteronomy. 2. This source was composed on the basis of the Hebrew text, rather than on the Greek one, and was rendered into Greek, with due regard to the LXX, but differently from it. 3. He refers to this source as Scripture when quoting it, meaning that for him it had the value of the Scripture. At the same time, the word “Scripture” in Aristeas’ phrase refers to the LXX as well. The conclusion we have arrived at here remarkably accords with those made on the basis of the Reworked Pentateuch from Qumran (both (pre-)Samaritan Pentateuch30 and Reworked Pentateuch).31 Many scholars think that these reworked compositions were regarded as regular Pentateuchal texts, with all the authority of the Torah.32 Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 10 – 29, on p. 11: “Indeed, the rewritten composition was not composed with the purpose of replacing the biblical texts, for without the Bible itself the rewritten composition loses its legitimacy”. See also F.G. Mart„nez, “Temple Scroll”, in H. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vol.; Oxdord: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2. 927 – 33; P. Flint/J. VanderKam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: Harper, 2002), 212. This thought can be applied a fortiori to a minor rewriting, like the Reworked Pentateuch. 30 4QpaleoExodm , 4QNumb, the Samaritan Pentateuch. 31 4QRPa-e (4Q158; 4Q364 – 7).

The biblical paradigm

25

The Nash Papyrus, our only Hebrew text from Egypt,33 can substantiate the conclusions drawn from the analysis of Aristeas’ quotation. The papyrus contains 24 lines of the Hebrew text with a mixed formulation of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2 – 17 and Deut 5:6 – 21, the subjects also combined in 4Q158 7 – 9), and the addition of Deut 6:4 – 5, the so-called Shema, which is another formulation of the first commandment. Some scholars think that the core text for the mixed Decalogue was that of Deuteronomy,34 though the subject seems to be vexed.35 The papyrus is dated between the middle of the second and the middle of the first century BC, and the earlier date is possibly preferable.36 Whatever the purpose of this text, it testifies to the presence in Egypt of the compositions, based on the Hebrew text, in which passages from Pentateuch, and particularly within the book of Deuteronomy, were blended and juxtaposed on the basis of their common idea. Given the speed of the Hellenisation process among the Egyptian Jews, there can be little doubt that such compositions used to be translated into Greek. However, the mixed character of quotations, suspected in the source behind Aristeas’ quotation and testified by the Decalogue in the Nash Papyrus, must have put the translators of such compositions in a difficult position. Even if they had great respect for the existing translations of the Pentateuch and wished to conform 32 E. Ulrich, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text”, in L.W. Schiffman/E. Tov/J.C. VanderKam (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20 – 25 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel exploration society, 2000) 51 – 9; M. Segal, “4Q Reworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?”, in L.W. Schiffman/E. Tov/J.C. VanderKam (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20 – 25 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel exploration society 2000) 391 – 9; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 56 – 7; E. Tov, “Reflections on the Many Forms of the Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX an 4QReworked Pentateuch”; in A. Lange/M. Weigold and al. (ed.), From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday (FRLANT 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 11 – 28; www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/216.4qrp.varia.pdf; E. Tov, “From 4Q Reworked Pentateuch to 4Q Pentateuch (?)”, in M. Popovic (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010) 73 – 91. Tov refers to a case similar to that found in the Letter of Aristeas in discussing the arguments for the authoritative character of 4QRP: “Thus, while the first biblical quotation in the sectarian composition 4QTestimonia (4Q175) is close to SP, the third one, from Deut 33:8 – 11, is very close to 4QDeuth, and may have been based on that scroll or a similar one. These two quotations show that the author of 4QTest quoted from at least two Scripture scrolls of a different character, a pre-Samaritan text and 4QDeuth, a textually independent text” (Tov, “From 4Q Reworked Pentateuch”, 88). 33 S.A. Cook, “A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus”, PSBA 25 (1903) 34 – 56; N. Peters, Die älteste Abschrift der zehn Gebote, der Papyrus Nash (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1905); W.F. Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus”, JBL 56 (1937) 145 – 76. 34 Albright, “A Biblical Fragment”, 175 – 6; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 118. 35 Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 32 – 3. 36 Albright, “A Biblical Fragment”, 149; Tov, Textual Criticism, 118; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 32.

26

The biblical paradigm

to them, they could not blindly follow them, given the adjusted and sometimes also interpretative character of the harmonised texts. Thus, it becomes clear how a tradition of an interpretation of Deut 30:3, similar to that which was available to Philo, could have been familiar to Aristeas. First, the fact that he had a source translated into Greek later than LXX Deuteronomy, to which lexical borrowings testify, already explains why ýN95M-N4 ý=8@4 898= 5M9 in Deut 30:3 could have received a different interpretation. We have discussed the fact that “liberation from captivity” was the prevailing interpretation at the time of the translation of Prophets and Psalms.37 Second, the method of translation of the harmonised composition, as analysed above using the example in Let. Aris. 155, could also have suggested this change: the Pentateuch regularly translates the nouns =5M, N=5M and the verb 85M, to which in that period the word N95M was supposed to be cognate, using the words aQwl\kytor, aQwlakys_a and cognate forms.38 Third, a 37 The Temple Scroll (11Q19 59.2 – 13) elaborates on the ideas around Deut 30:1 – 5 as follows: “[and] they will scatter them in many countries, and they will become a [ho]rr[or], a proverb, and a byword, and with a heavy yoke, and a want of all things, and they will serve gods, the works of men’s hands, of wood and stone, silver and gold. And in all this (time) their cities will become a waste, a hissing and a desolation, and their enemies will devastate them. And in the land of their enemies they will cry out, and I will not answer them because of their evil doings. And I will hide my face from them, and they will become food and prey and spoil, and there shall be no one to help because of their wickedness by breaking my covenant and spurning my law, until they will be guilty of all sins. Then they will return to me with all their heart and with all their soul, according to all the words of this law (cf. Deut 30:2). And I will save them from the hands of their enemies, and deliver them from the hand of those who hate them (cf. Deut 30:3), and I will bring them to the land of their fathers and deliver them, and will multiply them, and I will take delight of them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people (cf. Deut 30:5 – 6).” (D. W. Parry/E. Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3, Parabiblical Texts (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005), 203). In the first part of this passage we can see that the author paraphrases, by using the form of prophecy, those places in Deuteronomy where disasters are referred to that will strike the Jews if they disobey the Law. The second part closely follows Deut 30:1 – 6. In the first part some of the motifs are emphasised using the ideas and vocabulary found in the prophets. Thus, the author uses here the words prey (:5) and spoil (8EMB), which are not typical of the Pentateuch, but are frequently used in the prophetic contexts, emphasising the idea of plunder and capture of the unfaithful Israel (:5: Isa 10:6, 42:22; Ezek 7:21; 23:46, 25:7; 34:8; 36:4; Jer 15:13;17:3; 8EMB Isa 42:22, 24; Zeph 1:13; Hab 2:7.). It can be supposed that this emphasis, in turn, influences the interpretation of Deut 30:3, where spiritual transformation (like curing of sins or similar ideas) is no longer found and deliverance from the hands of enemies is stressed exclusively. In light of the sentence where prey and spoil imply the Jewish people themselves, this deliverance must be understood in terms of liberation from captivity. Thus, the Temple Scroll contains an authentic Hebrew parallel to the Greek interpretation of Deut 30:3 in terms of the liberation from captivity. Against the background of the scroll, we can suppose that not only the accepted translation of a linguistic expression N95M 59M resulted in an alternative translation in a combined source at Philo’s and, as I suggest, at Aristeas’ disposal, but probably also a tradition of interpretation and exegesis of this place in Deuteronomy known to the translators. 38 Gen 31:26; Exod 12:29; 22:9; Num 21:1, 29; 24:22; 31:12,19,26; Deut 21:13; 28:41; 32:42.

The biblical paradigm

27

specific combination of subjects in this source could have reinforced the necessity of this interpretation. The conflation of the theme of the liberation of slaves, which uses vocabulary alluding to the liberation at the Egyptian exodus, based on Deuteronomy (oQj]tgr, (!po)kutq Deut 5:15; 6:21; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,20,22), with that of the promised liberation of captives (aQwlak-) may serve to show this (in particular, see Let. Aris. 33: !pok¼tqysim t_m aQwlak¾tym). This conflation may be another case of “harmonisation” of topics within the book, in which the promise of God with regard to the future liberation of captives in Deut 30:3 is paralleled with the liberation from slavery in the past. At the same time, the vocabulary of this mixed presentation of the topic in the Letter of Aristeas confirms our observation concerning the translation techniques used in these combined compositions: innovations, partly deliberate and partly necessary, went hand in hand with attention to and respect for the wording of the LXX. However, only the fact that Deut 30:1 – 3 is the focus of the author’s attention can explain the introduction of the topic of the liberation from captivity/slavery in direct connection with the idea of the first official translation of the Law. Unlike the places where liberation from slavery in the past is referred to as an admonition and the reason to follow the Law in the future (Deut 5:15; 6:22; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,20,22), Deut 30 promises liberation from captivity as God’s immediate answer to the return to the Law among the gentiles, with this situation directly corresponding to that described in the Letter. In terms of the biblical paradigm, the Jews living among the Greeks and Egyptians return for the first time to their ancestral Law in a form comprehensible to them, this translation being delivered to the Jewish community, which was supposed to follow it (whereas earlier the Greek-speaking Jews did not have such an opportunity, as is implied by the words of the High Priest in Let. Aris. 126).39 According to Aristeas, the very first attempt to execute this translation was accompanied by the global liberation of the captives. The sentence in Let. Aris. 33 formalises the connection between the subjects: “When this memorial had been submitted, the king bade that a letter be written to Eleazar concerning these matters [sc. the translation – E.M.], informing him also of the liberation of the captives (!pok¼tqysim t_m aQwlak¾tym)”. Thus, the main idea behind introducing this topic would be that of “reporting” the fulfilment of the divine promise, when relating the legendary history of the acceptance of the Greek hypostasis of the Jewish Law. Remarkably, a document found in Qumran, Miqsat Magas´Þ ha-Torah, offers ˙ 39 The High Priest says that he only allows the translators to leave Jerusalem “for the correction of the lives of all his countrymen (pq¹r tµm joimµm p÷si to?r pok¸tair 1pamºqhysim), because a good life consists in the observance of the Law.” The word 1pam|qhysir means “setting right, correcting” (see LSJ s.v. 1pamoqh|y, 1pam|qhysir) and implies the Egyptian Jews’s poor abidance by the Law.

28

The biblical paradigm

support to this suggestion. The document, having quoted (partly by paraphrasing) Deut 30:1 – 2, where blessings are promised for the return to the Law and curses for failing to abide by it, continues with the argument that those blessings and curses have already been partly fulfilled (4QMMT e(+d) 18 – 24 Parry/Tov = 4Q 398 11 – 13): 18. [the blessings have (already) befallen in] the days of Solomon the son of David. And the curses 19. that have already befallen from the days of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and up to when Jerusalem and Zedekiah king of Judah went into captivity 20. that He will bring them []. And we know that some of the blessings and the curses have already been fulfilled 21. as it is written in the boo[k of Mos]es. And this is the end of the days when they will return to Isra[el]. 22. [forever] and not be cancelled, but the wicked will act wickedly, and [] And []. Think of the kings of Israel 23. and contemplate their deeds: whoever among them 24. feared the Torah was delivered from troubles; and these were the seekers of the Torah.40

The reasoning refers to the captivities and exiles which used to happen in the past and deliverance from them after return to the Torah. According to the same logic, Aristeas, having depicted the presence of the Jews in Egypt as a result of a more recent captivity, has depicted the fact that there are no captive Jews in Egypt as another fulfilment of the divine promise directly connected to their return to the Law. (The idea that this liberation must encourage the Jewish reader in Aristeas’ time to abide by the Law may be at work too, but as a Nebenmotiv, necessarily accompanying every such report or reference). Remarkably, this interpretation accords well with the suggestion of H. Orlinsky, who argued that the biblical allusions discovered by him implied the identity of the LXX with the Jewish Law.41Thus, the historically unexplainable event of a simultaneous liberation of one hundred thousand Jewish slaves introduced by Aristeas in direct connection with the acceptance of the Law (a connection which is particularly stressed in Let. Aris. 15, and also in Let. Aris. 37 – 8) can be explained as a literary elaboration on the book of Deuteronomy, which promises this event as a sign of God’s benevolence to those who abandon pagan gods and return to the Law among the gentiles. 40 Transl. by E. Qimron and J. Strungell, in D. W, Parry/E. Tov (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 1, Texts Concerned with Religious Laws (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005), 335. 41 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 94 – 7.

The description of the Promised Land

29

1.2 The description of the Promised Land (Let. Aris. 83 – 120): elaboration on Deut 30:3 – 5 In Deut 30:3 – 5 the liberation of the captives is followed by their return to the Promised Land, in particular Deut 30:5: “And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.” In terms of the logic of the divine promises, it is clear why, after the mutual sequence of the themes of commissioning the translation and the liberation of the slaves, the description of the Promised Land is given, which became possible owing to the journey of Aristeas with the royal embassy to Jerusalem (Let. Aris. 83 – 120). Remarkably, this description incorporates all the elements of the description of the Promised Land in Deuteronomy. Thus, Deuteronomy mentions metals, iron and cooper as natural resources, as does the Letter of Aristeas. Deut 8:9: c/, Hr oR k¸hoi s¸dgqor, ja· 1j t_m aq´ym aqt/r letakke¼seir wakjºm (a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass). Let. Aris. 119: (Ek´ceto d³ ja· 1j t_m paqajeil´mym aq´ym t/r (Aqab¸ar l´takka wakjoO ja· sid¶qou sum¸stashai pqºteqom.

Deuteronomy describes the mountains and plains of the landscape, and the Letter of Aristeas repeats these characteristics. Deut 11:11: B d³ c/, eQr Dm eQspoqe¼, 1je? jkgqomol/sai aqt¶m, c/ aqeimµ ja· pedim¶ (But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys). Let. Aris.107: T/r c±q w¾qar pokk/r ousgr ja· jak/r, ja¸ timym l³m pedim_m, t_m jat± tµm alaqe?tim kecol´mgm, ja· t_m sumaptºmtym t0 t_m (Idoula¸ym w¾qô, tim_m d³ aqeim_m.

Deuteronomy refers to the abundance of water, which is also extensively referred to in the Letter of Aristeas. Deut 8:7: b heºr sou eQs²cei se eQr c/m !cahµm ja· pokk¶m, ox we¸laqqoi rd²tym ja· pgca· !b¼ssym 1jpoqeuºlemai di± t_m ped_ym ja· di± t_m aq]ym (For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills). Deut 11:11: B d³ c/ … 1j toO retoO toO oqqamoO p¸etai vdyq (… and drinketh water of the rain of heaven). Let. Aris. 115: 7Ewei d³ p²mta daxik/ j²hucqor owsa p²mtohem B w¾qa; cf. the description of we¸laqqoi in Let. Aris. 116 – 17.

30

The biblical paradigm

Deuteronomy stresses the abundance of all fruits of the earth, which is carefully elaborated on in the Letter of Aristeas. Deut 8:8 – 9: c/ puqoO ja· jqih/r, %lpekoi, suja?, Nºai, c/ 1ka¸ar 1ka¸ou ja· l´kitor7 c/, 1v’ Hr oq let± ptywe¸ar v²c, t¹m %qtom sou ja· oqj 1mdegh¶s, oqd³m 1p’ aqt/r (A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it …). Let. Aris. 112: Lec²kg c²q 1stim B t_m ceyqcoul´mym vikopom¸a. Ja· c±q 1kazjo?r pk¶hesi s¼mdemdqºr 1sti ja· sitijo?r jaqpo?r aqt_m B w¾qa ja· aspq¸oir, 5ti d³ !lp´k\ ja· l´kiti pokk`. T± l³m t_m %kkym !jqodq¼ym ja· voim¸jym oqd’ !qihle?tai paq’ aqto?r. Jt¶mg te pokk± pallic/, ja· daxikµr B to¼tym mol¶; cf. Let. Aris. 107.

Deuteronomy promises that God will multiply Jewish people there (Deut 4:1; 7:7; 8:1; 11:8; 30:5,9), and Aristeas says that “… they recognised that the rural districts required a dense population …” (Di¹ jak_r 5bkexam, fti pokuamhqyp¸ar oR tºpoi pqosd´omtai, Let. Aris. 113), and that in the past “six hundred thousand men each became holders of hundred-aroura lots” (Let. Aris. 116). Finally, the absolute safety of life in the land is promised in Deuteronomy, which Aristeas does not fail to mention. Deut 12:10: jatoij¶sete 1p· t/r c/r, Hr j¼qior b he¹r rl_m jatajkgqomole? rl?m, ja· jatapa¼sei rl÷r !p¹ p²mtym t_m 1whq_m rl_m t_m j¼jk\, ja· jatoij¶sete let± !svake¸ar (But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety). Let. Aris. 115: B w¾qa ja· lec²kgm !sv²keiam 5wousa; 118: Peqi´wetai d³ !svake¸air aqtovu´si, duse¸sbokor owsa … .

All those familiar with the text of Deuteronomy must have perceived clear lexical allusions to it in Aristeas’ narrative. Their presence in the text transforms an ideal description of a land (as it could have been understood by a reader unfamiliar with the Jewish Scripture)42 into that of the Promised Land, that is the land where the Jews have to come and dwell.43 The import of these allusions supports my suggestion that the description is introduced as an elaboration on the promise to return in Deut 30:3 – 5. Both events, the 42 Scholars argued for it being the meaning and purpose of this part (Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 48 – 51; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 24; Gruen, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 141). 43 This is also the opinion of V. Tcherikover. In particular, he says: “The Jewish reader in Alexandria learned from those chapters that his heart should be attracted … by the pure and beautiful Holy Land, as it appears in the pages of the Holy Scripture …” (Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 78 – 9). Tcherikover does not perceive the allusions to Deuteronomy, but collects and stresses allusions to other places, in particular, the prophets, which, no doubt, also constituted part of Aristeas’ source for this description (on which see below in the text).

The description of the Promised Land

31

liberation from captivity and the return to the Holy Land, are promised as rewards for the return to the Law, which makes it remarkable and meaningful that both the liberation from captivity (see above, Let. Aris. 33) and the description of the Holy Land are emphatically connected with the idea of the translation of the Law in a formal statement: “I have now given you such a summary description of these matters [of the land of Israel – E.M.] as was essential, my dear brother Philocrates, and in what follows I shall give you an account of the translation” (Let. Aris. 120). However, there are several more arguments for the description being an elaboration on the promise of the return. I wish to draw attention to an important parallel in content between the second “digression” in the Letter and the Temple Scrolla. The Temple Scrolla (11QTa) starts with the promise to bring Israel into the Holy Land (11Q19 2), which shifts to a description of how to build the Temple divided in cols. 2 – 13 and 30 – 47. It has been suggested that the author-redactor of 11QTa must have worked with pre-existent parabiblical compositions, including the “construction of the Temple”.44 The author must have split the description of the construction of the Temple, by inserting another source concerning the sacrifices of the festivals. The description of how to build the Temple is considered to be older than 11QTa and is dated to the fourth or third centuries BC.45 If we combine the material in the divided sections, we see the following picture. Immediately after the promise to bring Israel into the Holy Land, the description of items and implements for the Temple follows (col. 3). Similarly, Aristeas starts his description of the journey (determined, as I suggested, by the promise of the return in Deut 30:3 – 5) with the descriptions of furniture and items sent by the king to the Temple (Let. Aris. 50– 82), but made, where possible, according to the prescriptions given in the Law (Let. Aris. 55). In 11QTa the description of the area is organised according to the graduated concentric realms of holiness proceeding from the Holy of Holies to the outside: 1) the Temple house, 2) the area of sacrificial service around the altar in which the following points are emphasised (a) special places where the priests should take a bath and store clothes (cols. 31 – 2), (b) the system of aqueducts near the altar, by which water goes down, washing away the blood, “until it disappears under the earth” (col. 32), (c) the process of animals being slaughtered by the priests (col. 34), (d) in a very corrupted fragment the Holy of Holies is mentioned (col. 35), (e) the changing of the divisions of priests (col. 45). 3) The middle court for Israelite men, 4) the court for men and women, 5) a fortification, the embankment, and “the city of sanctuary”. Exactly like the 44 F.G. Mart„nez, “Sources et R~daction du Rouleau du Temple“, Henoch 13 (1991) 219 – 32; F.G. Mart„nez, “Temple Scroll”, in H. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vol.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.927 – 933, on p. 929; J. Maier, “Temple”, in H. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vol.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.921 – 7, on p. 925. 45 Maier, “Temple”, 925.

32

The biblical paradigm

Temple Scrolla, Aristeas then describes the Temple area with three encompassing walls (which implies three courts, Let. Aris. 84), according to the principle of concentric circles around the Holy of Holies. Thus, he describes 1) the “curtain” (jatap]tasla), which separates the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple house (Let. Aris. 86), 2) the altar (Let. Aris. 87) with the sacrificial area, where exactly the same points are emphasised as in the Scroll: in particular, the aqueduct system is around and under the altar, which washes away the sacrificial blood under the earth (Let. Aris. 88 – 91), the process of slaughtering animals and other sacrificial services (Let. Aris. 92 – 3), the place where the priests take rest (Let. Aris. 94 – 5), the changing of their divisions (Let. Aris. 94). Aristeas does not indulge in a description of the middle and outer courts, limiting himself to mentioning that there are three of them (Let. Aris. 84, cf. Let. Aris. 101 – 2), but he also mentions a fortification, the citadel, which “lies hard by” and protects the Temple and its precincts (Let. Aris. 100 – 4). Then a concise description of the polis follows (Let. Aris. 105 – 7), and, finally, the extensive description of the country (w~qa), which, though absent from the pattern preserved in the Temple Scrolla, is indispensable to Aristeas as it allows him to include the Deuteronomical passages referring to the description of the Promised Land (Let. Aris. 107 – 20, see above). Thus, the structure of Let. Aris. 50 – 120 closely corresponds to the Temple Scrolla (11Q19 2 – 13 and 30 – 47), which suggests that the tradition used in the Temple Scrolla, in one form or another, could also have been familiar to Aristeas.46 I find it highly remarkable that in the Temple Scrolla the entire description is introduced immediately after the promise of the Land in col. 2. Against this pattern, whether it is older than 11QTa or not, the entire description in the Letter of Aristeas starting from the description of the items of furniture in Let. Aris. 50, rather than the description of the chora only, should be regarded as an elaboration on the promise of the return. Nevertheless, the Letter of Aristeas does not explicitly mention that the Egyptian Jews did or will return there. Indeed, apart from an equivocal statement that “the rural districts require a dense population” (Di¹ jak_r 5bkexam, fti pokuamhqyp¸ar oR tºpoi pqosd´omtai, Let. Aris. 113), which can be understood as a hint at the lack of people there, the Letter does not directly emphasise the point. Aristeas could not develop the subject in terms of a report, as he did in the case of the “liberation”, as it would have blatantly contradicted the actual state of affairs: not only had the Jews not left Egypt by Aristeas’ time, but their population there constantly increased during the Hellenistic period as a consequence of their stable and favoured position in the Ptolemaic state and constant political troubles in Judea.47 (On the contrary, the 46 Cf. the anticipation of possible parallels in A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 119. 47 The series of political and religious crises in Palestine in the 2nd century BC must have generated new waves of immigration, see Tcherikover, “Prolegomena” 2. 20 – 1.

The description of the Promised Land

33

“report” about the liberation was based on the obvious fact that the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt, with possible sporadic exceptions, were free). However, it is also worth noting that Aristeas’ failure to “report” the return of the Jews to Israel does not contradict the hypothesis that he is commenting on the divine promises in Deut 30:3 – 5, because we find a similar moderate attitude in 4QMMT referred to above. Although the authors of the document admit that “some of the blessings and the curses have already been fulfilled”, this is only the end of the days, when the final return will take place: “And this is the end of the days when they will return to Isra[el].” (4QMMTe (+d) 20 – 21 Parry/Tov). However, there is no emphasis on the future return either. There are several reasons for that. On the one hand, the Letter of Aristeas is a text written in the multicultural environment of the Ptolemaic state, and one of its central ideas is to stress that the life of a religious ethnic community can be organised in a pagan, namely Graeco-Egyptian, society. The idea of leaving Egypt in the near future would contradict the main idea of the Letter, and denial of the possibility of normal life there would be politically incorrect in view of the non-Jewish audience. On the other hand, there is reason to suspect that, given the social and political circumstances referred to above, such a perspective would not match the expectations of the Egyptian Jews themselves. Here it is worth noting that even Philo, when commenting upon the promise of the return, shows clear tendencies of downplaying the motif. Deuteronomy says (Deut 30:5): And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land (eQr tµm c/m) which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it …

Philo paraphrases (Praem. 165): … and coming from all the different quarters imaginable, all hasten to one place (w_qom) pointed out to them, being guided on their way by some vision, more divine than is compatible with its being of the nature of man, invisible indeed to everyone else, but apparent only to those who were saved …

Philo replaces here the promise of the return to the Holy Land (c/m) with the return to the “place” (w_qom). Like in Gig. 54, Philo, when using the word w_qom, accompanied by the notions of invisibility/visibility and the idea of being attracted by it as by a vision, alludes to a famous place in Plato’s Phaedrus (247c–d), which speaks about the place over the heaven to which all souls strive.48 Thus, Philo transforms the idea of the physical return to Israel into the spiritual and noetic return to God via contemplation. Certainly, this downplays the biblical 48 Those who can read Russian can read my comment on this place in “On the giants”, in E. Matusova (transl. and comm.), “Philon Alexandrijskij ‘O gigantach’”, in Istoriko-philosophskij ezhegodnik 2012 (Moskva: Kanon, 2013) 5 – 45, on p. 41.

34

The biblical paradigm

message in a way. It is likely that in both sources we find symptoms of the same tendency, although the authors are probably separated by more than a century.

1.3 The allegorical interpretation of the Law and the Symposium (Let. Aris. 128 – 293): another case of harmonization In the Letter of Aristeas the description of the Promised Land is followed by the allegorical apology of the Law by High Priest Eleazar in his reply to the questions of Aristeas and his embassy (Let. Aris. 128 – 71), the admission of the Jewish sages to the royal court in Alexandria (Let. Aris. 173 – 81) and the reception and the philosophical conversation with the king at the symposium (Let. Aris. 187 – 293). While discussion of the features of the Greek genres used in the writing of these parts is beyond the scope of this study,49 I wish to draw attention to the general idea contributed by them. The first and the third sections (Let. Aris. 128 – 71, 187 – 293) are devoted to approving and extolling the wisdom of the High Priest and the Jewish sages,50 who, as it is constantly stressed, are experts in Jewish Law (cf. Let. Aris. 32, 39, 122, 305). A modest approval of the answers of the High Priest by Aristeas (Let. Aris. 170 – 1) gives way to the strong approval of the wisdom of the guests by the king, his courtiers and—most importantly—his philosophers. Every answer at the symposium is appreciated (cf. the repeated !poden\lemor referring to the reaction of the king) and Aristeas recapitulates the reaction to the answers of the sages: “they seemed admirable to me and also to the others present, but especially to the philosophers” (%nioi haulasloO jateva¸momtº loi ja· to?r paqoOsi, l²kista d³ to?r vikosºvoir) (Let. Aris. 296, cf. also Let. Aris. 200, 235). In Let. Aris. 235 it is even said that the Jewish sages appeared to all to be wiser than the Greek philosophers, the reason being that they “made their starting point from God”. In Let. Aris. 321 the king refers once again to the sages as “learned men”, whose company he greatly appreciates (peq· pokkoO poio¼lemor to?r pepaideul´moir sume?mai). Thus, the wisdom of the sages is given the highest credit by the Greek-Egyptian king and by the Greek experts in philosophy, whom they surpass, being true adherents of the Law and taking God as their starting point.51 The middle section (Let. Aris.173 – 81) is devoted to the description of the utmost respect shown by the king to the book of the Jewish Law and personally to those who have brought it, independently of their wisdom. Bypassing the routine procedure, the king receives the translators immediately, granting 49 See Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies I”, 110 – 23; Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, 347 – 53. 50 Cf. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies I”, 110, 121. 51 Note also that Aristeas is very particular in stressing that they ate at the Symposium according to the Jewish rules of food and drink (Let. Aris.182).

The allegorical interpretation of the Law and the Symposium

35

them the greatest honour (Let. Aris.175). “When they uncovered the rolls and had unrolled the parchments the king paused for a considerable space, and after bowing deeply some seven times said, ‘I thank you, God’s sirs, and him that sent you even more, but most of all I thank God whose holy words these are’” (Eqwaqist_ l´m, %mdqer, rl?m, t` d’ !poste¸kamti l÷kkom, l´cistom d³ t` he` oxtimºr 1sti t± kºcia taOta, Let. Aris. 177 – 9). Thus, the king demonstrates an extraordinary respect for the Law, which he considers to be given, or spoken, by God himself. (He also expresses highest admiration for the content of the Law after hearing the translation in Let. Aris. 312: k¸am 1neha¼lase tµm toO moloh´tou di²moiam). The combination of these ideas is remarkable against the background of Deut 4:6 – 8, where we find another promise given by God to the Jews who will abide by the Law. Namely, God promises that the gentiles will admire the wisdom of the Jews, and that they will highly respect them and the statutes of the Law, because the Law is given directly by God: 6. Keep therefore and do them (sc. the statutes of the Law); for this is your wisdom (B sov¸a rl_m) and your understanding (B s¼mesir) in the sight of the nations (1mamt¸om p²mtym t_m 1hm_m), which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people ((Ido» ka¹r sov¹r ja· 1pist¶lym t¹ 5hmor t¹ l´ca toOto). 7. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8. And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day (dijai¾lata ja· jq¸lata d¸jaia jat± p²mta t¹m mºlom toOtom, dm 1c½ d¸dyli 1m¾piom rl_m s¶leqom)?

It is difficult to overlook the fact that Aristeas’ elaboration incorporates all the points of the promise: the High Priest and the sages from Jerusalem are those who observe the Law; their wisdom is not only appreciated, but even admired by the gentiles; their greatness as ambassadors from Jerusalem is acknowledged in the way that they are immediately received by the king, and the reason for this treatment and attitude is, in all regards, the Law, brought by them, which, the king acknowledges, is given by God, and which gives them wisdom more solid than that of the Greek philosophers. The lexical dependence of Aristeas on the translation of this place in the LXX is less evident, however. A possible lexical allusion can be found in his use of the derivates from the root sum_gli (from which the word s}mesir has been formed). In Let. Aris. 200, the king praises the sages with these words: I think the virtue of these men is extraordinary and their understanding very great (ja· sumi´mai pke?om), for having questions of such a sort addressed to them they have

36

The biblical paradigm

given proper replies on the spur of the moment, all of them making God the starting point of their reasoning (!p¹ heoO toO kºcou tµm jataqwµm poio¼lemoi).

Here, not only does a king of the gentiles refer to the sages as having “understanding” (s¼mesir/sumi´mai), but he also demonstrates his awareness of this quality being the result of their commitment to God. Thus, not only is the word used in reference to the Jews, but it is also used together with the complex of ideas that accompany it in the biblical context. Another possible allusion to this root is found in Let. Aris. 148, where the High Priest allegorically explains the statutes of the Law, presenting the Jews as philosophers whose wisdom is based upon the rigorous observance of the Law (the righteous character of which he explains). In this situation he refers to the Jewish people as sumeto_, which may allude to s¼mesir in Deut 4:6: “By such examples, then, the Lawgiver has commended to men of understanding (to?r sumeto?r) a symbol (sgleioOshai) that they must be just and achieve nothing by violence …”. However, the Greek connotation of this use is stronger here and does not allow us to assert definitely that the place in Deuteronomy is alluded to (see Ch. 3, Section 3.1). Nevertheless, regardless of whether Aristeas was guided by the text of the LXX or by a paraphrase of this place, we can observe that the content of the promise is relevant to the main idea contributed by Let. Aris. 128 – 293.

1.4 Conclusions: The rationale and methodology of the composition Thus, the entire composition can be seen in a new light. We can both refine our idea of its inner structure, i. e. how it should be divided into major clusters, and see how three main digressions are connected to one another and to the main topic of the translation, into which they are incorporated. The translation frame contains the story about how the Hebrew Law in its Greek hypostasis comes to the Jews living in the Egyptian Diaspora. The translation makes the Law available to those whose mother tongue has become Greek (we should not forget that whatever the mother tongue of the Jewish newcomers at the dawn of the Ptolemaic rule, at the time of Aristeas, who was writing his text more than a century later than its pretended date, the mother tongue of his fellow tribesmen was Greek). The allusions to the Bible, discovered by H. Orlinsky, suggest that the translation is depicted as having the status of the Jewish Law, delivered at Mount Sinai.52 The events incorporated into the story of the translation of the 52 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 94 – 7.

The rationale and methodology of the composition

37

Law refer to the divine promises which will be fulfilled on condition that the Jews return to the Law among the gentiles and remain faithful to it. These are: 1. the sudden and immediate liberation from captivity (the immediateness of the event is stressed both by Aristeas (who speaks about a three-day period, Let. Aris. 24) and Philo (who speaks about one day, Praem 164: “they shall all be restored to freedom in one day”); 2. the (potential) return to the Holy Land; 3. and the gentiles’ immense respect for the Jewish wisdom and Law. Thus, the entire composition can be explained as a literary elaboration based on the combination of Deut 30:1 – 5 and Deut 4:6 – 8, in which the “digressions” are deeply connected with the story of the translation as an organic part of the author’s design. Before speaking about the intended message of this combination, it is worth dwelling in more detail on its methodology. The question arises of whether (and if so, in what measure) we can consider this combination to be the work of Aristeas, or should instead regard him as being guided by a pre-existent pattern. First, the absence of interpretation of Deut 30:3 in the sense of “bringing back the captivity” in the Old Greek text (and its presence in the paraphrase of a combined composition in Philo) and the blended quotation in Let. Aris. 155 tend to point to him using a text (or texts) in parallel with the LXX. Methodologically, it is reasonable to assume that, along with the LXX, Aristeas used one or more than one combined or harmonised compositions (as we have no evidence that the combined quotation in Let. Aris. 155 derives from the same source as the suggested combination of chs. 30 and 4). In the harmonisation of Deut 30:1 – 5 and 4:6 – 8 verse 3 in ch. 30 was interpreted differently from the LXX, in the sense of the liberation of the captive slaves. Indeed, the principle of thematic combination and harmonisation of topics either between several biblical books, or within one of them, and in particular, within the book of Deuteronomy is attested in the wide range of reworked and rewritten compositions within the Hebrew tradition of the Second Temple. Thus, 4Q364 (Reworked Pentateuch) 21.1 – 2 unites Deut 1:17 and Deut 16:19; 1Q22 2 (Apocryphon of Moses) retells the words of Moses combining Deut 27:9 – 19 with Deut 6:10 – 11, and Deut 1:9 – 18 with Deut 11:17; 4Q175 1 (Testimonia) unites Deut 5:28 – 9 and 18:18 – 19; 4Q397 14 – 19 (Miqsat Magas´Þ ha-Torah) combines Deut 4:30 and Deut 30:1 – 2, the chapters (and˙ precisely some of those verses) that, as we suppose, are also combined in the Letter, on the basis of the idea of repentance and return to God. As discussed above, in the Jewish tradition the combination of biblical places often implied lexical parallels. In conformity with this principle, there is not only a thematic, but also a formal lexical connection between Deut 30:5 and Deut 4:5 – 8, which is more clearly emphasised in the Hebrew than in the Greek text. Deut 30:5 promises to bring the Jews “into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it (8NML=9 ý=N54 9ML=-LM4 JL48-@4)”,

38

The biblical paradigm

while Deut 4:5 says that observance of the Law (resulting in the high respect accorded by the gentiles) is necessary after the Jews have come and settled down “in the land whither ye go to possess it (8NML@ 8BM A=45 AN4 LM4 IL48 5LK5)”. Thus, if we admit the pre-existence of a combined composition, written with special emphasis on the idea of return, this logic of formal, lexical links would explain the reverse sequence of the places (ch. 4 following ch. 30). To reap the benefits of the promise given in ch. 4, the Jews must first return to the Promised Land and settle there. In full accord with the logic of this reconstructed combination, Aristeas endows with wisdom those who have arrived from the Land of Israel and who normally live there and observe the Law. Given that this point of the (reconstructed) combined composition is featured by Aristeas, despite emphasis on the idea of the return not being among his concerns, this also suggests that he adopted a pre-existing composition. However, what is highly remarkable is that the Letter of Aristeas does not elaborate on all the promises made in Deuteronomy to the Jews if they observe the Law, but chooses exactly and exclusively those that concern the interaction of the Jews with the gentiles, and among them only those that stress the positive aspect of the relations (Deut 4:6 – 8), or can be interpreted in a positive vein (Deut 30:3) (without the idea that the nations will be defeated and revenged). Aristeas does not use those places where it is said that the nations will be overturned and prostrated, the Jews becoming the strongest (cf. Deut 28:11 – 14). In other words, the references imply loyalty to the Law in a polytheistic environment. This selective harmonisation of topics indicates the interpretative, tendentious character of the composition. The question is whether we should ascribe this tendency to a combined source available to Aristeas, or rather consider it as a peculiar feature of Aristeas’ design, who, obviously being familiar with the principle of harmonisation, emphasised this combination as part of his own project. Although scholars usually differentiate between Reworked Pentateuch compositions and the Rewritten Bible, meaning that the first group is characterised by harmonisation and indirect exegesis of the base biblical text, while the compositions in the second group also differ from it by their tendentious interpretation of the biblical message, i. e. in a general idea that they convey, we can by no means exclude the possibility that the combination of the biblical material in the Reworked Pentateuch was interpretative and therefore in some way tendentious.53 The quotation from a rewritten source in Let. Aris. 155 allows us only to conclude that it uses the principle of harmonisation – typical of a variety of literary genres in the Hebrew tradition – but it does not indicate its genre characteristics. Yet, even if Aristeas’ source was of the nature of the Reworked Pentateuch, it is not inconceivable that the 53 Flint/VanderKam, The Meaning, 212.

The rationale and methodology of the composition

39

combination of Deut 30:1 – 5 and Deut 4:6 – 8 could have been emphasised there. In this case, given our earlier findings, we should imagine a Hebrew source (later translated into Greek) emphasising places referring to the positive aspects of the interaction of the Jews with the gentiles, which is theoretically not impossible, though typologically not attested: we have no Hebrew sources of the Second Temple period which are oriented to the gentiles. Nonetheless, this kind of literature may have reached Egypt as an echo of some streams of Hellenistic orientation in the pre-Maccabean culture. At the same time, as mentioned above, the principle of interpretative selection and combination of Deuteronomical passages (and biblical material in general) is attested in many rewritten compositions, so that, we can surmise, it was fairly normal for an author (redactor) writing a new, individual composition to use the device in order to emphasise his own idea, even if a form of selection and combination was pre-existent in his source text. Thus, for instance, The Temple Scrolla, in rewriting the book of Deuteronomy (together with Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers) deliberately omits places where Deuteronomy mentions foreigners and sojourners, not to mention the places about communication between the Jews and the gentiles.54 The reason is that its author, in retelling Deuteronomy, was focused on the idea of the pure Israel without nations. It is possible that Aristeas, guided by the opposite notion of peaceful communication, creatively uses the same method of the selective combination of places. When discussing the principles used in the composition of the Letter of Aristeas, it is difficult to overlook another typological similarity with the Temple Scrolla (11Q19). As mentioned above, this text contains a description of the commandments on how to build the Temple divided into cols. 2 – 13 and 30 – 47. In between these instructions there is an insertion containing the description of the sacrifices at the festivals. Sacrifices are acts to be fulfilled in the Temple, so the construction of the Temple is a precondition for offering sacrifices. In the Letter of Aristeas the story of the translation is also divided into sections 9 – 12; 29 – 32 and 301 – 11. The first two sections incorporate the story of the liberation of the captives, while the first and the last incorporate this story, the description of the Holy Land and the wisdom section. Circle compositions are well known in the Greek tradition, and it would make no sense to argue against the theory that Aristeas could have expected the device of splitting the story of the translation to be welcomed by the general Alexandrian audience. However, it is not only the circle composition with a split story, embracing material which is not homogenous, that unites the Letter and the Temple Scrolla, but also the principle behind the encircling: just as the construction of the Temple is a precondition for sacrifices, so the

54 M.O. Wise/E.M. Cook/M.G. Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Revised Edition: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 2005), 595.

40

The biblical paradigm

appearance of the Greek translation warrants the return to the Law, which leads to the liberation, the return to Israel and respect accorded by the gentiles. Thus, it can be suggested that even the literary method of splitting the story of the translation has a dual background – both Greek and Jewish. If we allow that Aristeas exercised certain creativity in splitting the story of translation, building on the patterns known to him from elsewhere, it is rather likely that he also displayed the same creativity in selecting biblical places for literary elaboration in the middle of the two parts of the story of translation (or rather in making a secondary selection from a pre-existent composition). Thus, independently of whether the juxtaposition of Deut 30 and 4 was explicitly emphasised in Aristeas’ source (probably, quoted in Let. Aris. 155) or not, we have reason to suppose that Aristeas could have displayed certain creativity in collecting passages fitting the particular circumstances of his audience, given that he was certainly familiar with the principle of integration of passages and was writing a text destined for the readership in the Diaspora.

1.5 Conclusions: The message of the “biblical paradigm” and its Sitz im Leben My interpretation of the composition of the Letter leads to reconsideration of the meaning of the message as addressed to the readership familiar with various forms of the Scripture, i. e. to the Jewish audience. This message turns out to be fairly clear and precise. Despite the fact that Aristeas narrates the fulfilment of the first promise in terms of a report (in accord with the approach represented also by 4QMMT), two second illustrations have a paradigmatic meaning, pointing to what awaits the Jews if they obey the Torah. This means that even the story of the liberation has an exhortative undertone (exactly as in the Hebrew tradition of the Second Temple as exemplified by 4QMMT). However, this exhortative message is also inherent in the book of Deuteronomy, as all the references of Moses to obedience/disobedience of the Law in the past have one purpose – to persuade the Jews to remain faithful to the Torah. Thus, both the combination of themes in the Letter of Aristeas and its message appear to be deeply connected to the book of Deuteronomy. This is hardly a coincidence. Compared to the biblical books, where the “Exodus paradigm”, suggested by Orlinsky, is at work (Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Ezdra-Nehemiah), the book of Deuteronomy lays stress on the necessity of following the Law under circumstances where the Jewish people are intermixed with other peoples, both in the Diaspora (Deut 4:27; 6:14; 7:14; 12:30; 17:14; 28:10,12) and in the Land of Israel (Deut 28:15 – 68). This shift of meaning is exemplified by the use of the notion of nations (5hmg), which is

The message of the “biblical paradigm” and its Sitz im Leben

41

referred to only four times in Exodus55and dozens of times in Deuteronomy. The book stresses that the Jews are – to put it mildly – inclined to serve the pagan gods of the nations that surround them (Deut 4:28; 7:4; 11:16,28; 12:2, 31; 13:3,7; 17:3; 20:18; 28:36, 64; 29:17, 25; 30:17; 31:16). It strictly forbids worshiping other gods (Deut 6:14; 7:5, 16, 25; 8:19; 12:3, 30; 28:14). It says that fidelity to the God of Israel and following the Law are the only foundations of the wellbeing of the Jews. It is remarkable that the book particularly emphasises a situation where the Jews are already in a Diaspora and worship pagan gods, but can turn from this worship to their God and He will accept and forgive them (Deut 4:27 – 31; 30:1 – 5). All the “expounding” of the Law by Moses consists of the idea of the necessity of abiding by the Law and God, which is the only way to prosperity and success (Deut 4:1 – 5; 10 – 49; 29:9). Several times the success and wellbeing resulting from obedience to the Law are stressed again in terms of communication with nations (Deut 4:6 – 9; 28:12). What the selection of places chosen from the book of Deuteronomy in the Letter of Aristeas does is simply put its message into special focus: when living among pagans, do not follow their gods and instead observe the Law since only this can guarantee liberty, respect and success. Indeed, the message of the book of Deuteronomy, reproduced by Aristeas, must have been of timeless importance in a Diaspora, and particularly in the Egyptian one. Study of the papyri of the third century to the first half of the second century BC testifies to the process of rapid acculturation and integration with the legal and social practices of Hellenistic Egypt.56The magical papyri, testifying to syncretistic religious practices and containing essential elements of the Jewish religion, can be interpreted in the same light and thus add to the picture.57 Nonetheless, it is logical to question what period in the history of the Jews in Egypt would be particularly appropriate for this appeal. Aristeas himself indicates a plausible solution, because his message is not a voice crying in the wilderness. He refers to the representatives of a Jewish politeuma (Let. Aris. 310), which obtains the Law. This indicates that his proclamation to abide by the Law might be connected to the real possibility of practising it in a form of Jewish autonomy. Politeuma, a self-governing political or ethnic structure was known in Hellenistic society since Alexander the Great, but, reputedly, the acme of the ethnic politeumata in Egypt is connected to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (181 – 145 BC).58 The tendency to restore religious life in Egypt 55 56 57 58

Exod 15:14; 23:18; 32:27; 34:24. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena”, 22 – 36, in particular, 34. See in detail Ch. 3, Section 3.6. J.M.S. Cowey/K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Papyrologia Coloniensia 29; Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl., 2001), 4 – 9; cf. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.55, 83 – 4; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 2004), 197.

42

The biblical paradigm

can also be regarded in parallel with the period of the Law’s increasing importance in the religious life in Jerusalem, that is starting with the beginning of the Hasmonean state (i. e. after 162 BC) (however, judging by the image of the High Priest as the highest religious authority and ruler but not king, at a time earlier than when the representatives of the dynasty started to crown themselves as kings, the first being Judah Aristobulus in 104 – 103 BC).59 There are several elements in the text that indicate that the problems which the crisis in Jerusalem revolved around were also of importance for Aristeas. The call (which is directly connected to the message of Deuteronomy) not to worship the gods of the gentiles, but one true God is especially stressed and emphasised in Let. Aris. 134 – 6 and Let. Aris. 139 – 40. Aristeas’ notion of the Jews as holy people whose holiness also roots in strict abstinence from unclean food and all unclean things is evident in Let. Aris. 139, 142 (cf. Lev 11:44; 20:26). Aristeas’ particular devotion to the idea of observance of the food and purity restrictions of the Law is evident even in how he uses allegorical interpretation (Let. Aris. 128 – 70). Unlike Aristobulus and Philo, who have a philosophical interest in interpreting the Scripture, Aristeas’ allegory is strongly apologetic. It refers to food and purity rules and is used to support the idea of direct observance of these rules. His allegorisation only renders those rules meaningful in the eyes of the Greeks, rather than offering philosophical reasoning instead. At the same time, unlike extreme branches of Judaism which, also guided by the fear of contamination, withdrew themselves to the deserts, Aristeas sets out a different, well considered position, according to which the best way is the “middle position” (t¹ l´som jat²stgla), represented by the sages, which implies observance of the restrictions in the Law combined with communication with the gentiles (Let. Aris. 122). It would be strange for these problems to be of concern to the indigenous Egyptian Jews (those who had voluntarily immigrated to a gentile country a century or centuries ago) without any external influence. I believe that the priorities and concerns expressed by Aristeas betray the influence of the problems and controversies that shook Palestine in the second century BC and reached their climax at the time of the Maccabean crisis.60 From this point of view the middle or the second half of the second century BC, the time of the revival of the ethnic autonomies in Egypt and of the strengthening of the religious Law in Jerusalem, appears to be a period in which the call, encapsulated in the biblical paradigm of the Letter of Aristeas, would be appropriate. This supports the generally accepted dating of the 59 Let. Aris. 3 – 4, 32, 35, 41, 81. Cf. the same reasoning in Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, 339. 60 Cf. J.A. Goldstein, “The Message of Aristeas to Philocrates”, in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations: Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Held on Sunday – Monday, Oct. 9 – 10, 1988 (Studies in Jewish Civilization 1; Lanham [Md.]: University Press of America, 1991) 1 – 23.

The message of the “biblical paradigm” and its Sitz im Leben

43

Letter to the mid-second half of the second century BC.61 However, the material analysed in Chapter 2 will provide further occasion for historical argumentation.

61 See the important article Bieckerman, “Zur Datierung”, 280 – 98; Cf. Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas, 333. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.84; Goldstein, “The Message of Aristeas to Philocrates” 1 – 23; For the general discussion see Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 128 – 30; for discussion of the re-dating proposed by A. Lange see Ch. 2, Section 2.6.

Chapter 2: Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm “Eleazar then selected men most excellent and of outstanding scholarship, as was to be expected in persons of such distinguished parentage. They had not only acquired proficiency in the literature of the Jews, but had also thoroughly attended to their Greek education (!kk± ja· t/r t_m gEkkgmij_m 1vqºmtisam oq paq´qcyr jatasjeu/r)” (Let. Aris. 121).

2.1 Introduction Two scholars, G. Zuntz and O. Murray, contributed to the idea that the text of the Letter of Aristeas gives an account of the translation in terms of text editing.1 A. van der Kooij pointed out the relevance of the account of the translation in Let. Aris. 305 – 7 to some of the stages of the work of a grammarian as set out in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax.2 Zuntz and several other scholars proposed their interpretations of the phenomenon. Zuntz tends to explain it as an involuntary blunder on the part of the author, owing to incapability of distinguishing between the processes, because, as Zuntz assumes, the terminology of translation had not yet been developed by the time the Letter was written. Zuntz grows visibly angry with the author and accuses him of all imaginable literary sins.3 Yet Sylvie Honigman argues against the hypothesis of the author having made an involuntary blunder. In her stimulating study she focuses on the development of Homeric criticism in Ptolemaic Alexandria and suggests that text-critical allusions were a deliberate strategy of the author.4 She explains this strategy by proposing the thesis that the Alexandrian Jews conceived the 1 Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 137 – 8 (1972); Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 24. 2 A. Van der Kooij, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who are the Translators?”, in F. Garc„a Mart„nez/F. Noort (ed.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 214 – 29. 3 Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 137 – 9 (1972). 4 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 119 – 44.

Thesis of Kahle – Van der Kooij

45

idea of presenting the history of the Septuagint (or even effectively moulding it) on the pattern of Homer’s poems for the sake of Jewish propaganda. The interpretations set forth need reconsideration on the basis of a deeper analysis of the so-called text-critical paradigm, explored in the Letter of Aristeas, which, in my opinion, has not been studied sufficiently. In this chapter I intend to show that the author consciously exploits not only textcritical allusions, but also grammatical allusions in a broader sense. Attentive analysis of these allusions can help substantiate our idea of the early history of the LXX based on a literary source. I will return to discussion of the suggestions of Zuntz, Murray and van der Kooij as my text proceeds, and, finally, at the end of the chapter after exhaustive discussion of the material will come closest to the interpretation proposed by Honigman.

2.2 Thesis of Kahle – Van der Kooij It was P. Kahle who argued that Let. Aris. 30 and Let. Aris. 312 – 14 refer to the poor Greek translations of the Law that serve as the starting point of the story and whose quality prompts a new translation to be produced.5 This interpretation was almost unanimously rejected by scholars after being sharply criticised by G. Zuntz, who insisted that the verb ses¶lamtai in the phrase !lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai (Let. Aris. 30) cannot refer to interpretation and translation, because it means “to indicate”, “to signify”, “to write” and simply refers to the process of writing and, consequently, to the state of the manuscripts.6 The explicit statement of Demetrius that the language of the Jewish Law is Hebrew (Let. Aris. 30: tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema) also influenced the discussion to the effect that the manuscripts have to be taken as written in Hebrew.7 Zuntz asserted that the grammar of the sentence contradicts any other interpretation, and accused the scholars attempting to understand the phrase as referring to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of poor knowledge of Greek. Consensus seemed to have been reached on the subject under the influence of Zuntz’s assertions, until recently A. Van der Kooij made a drastic

5 P.E. Kahle, The Cairo Genizah (2nd ed, Oxford: Backwell 1959), 212 – 14. Cf. also Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), 24; R. Tramontano, La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate (Naples: Ufficio succursale della civitx catolica di Napoli, 1931), 114 – 15, 120. 6 Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 133 – 5 (1972); D.W. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: a Review of Recent Studies”, VT 13 (1963) 357 – 79, on pp. 360 – 362, Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 48. 7 Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins”, 360; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 48 (with the bibliography cited in n. 39.).

46

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

return to the interpretation proposed by Kahle (though without explicitly referring to him), and added a number of suggestions to his reading.8 Here is the vexed paragraph (Let. Aris. 30 – 1): ToO mºlou t_m (Iouda¸ym bibk¸a s»m 2t´qoir ak¸coir tis·m !poke¸pei· tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema, !lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai, jah½r rp¹ t_m eQdºtym pqosamav´qetai· pqomo¸ar c±q basikij/r oq t´teuwe. D´om d´ 1sti ja· taOh’ rp²qweim paq² soi digjqibyl´ma, di± t¹ ja· vikosovyt´qam eWmai ja· !j´qaiom tµm molohes¸am ta¼tgm, ¢r #m owsam he¸am.

Here is Honigman’s translation (inspired by Zuntz and Murray), and referred to by A. Van der Kooij: 30. Scrolls of the Law of the Jews, together with a few others, are missing [from the Library], for these [works] are written in Hebrew characters and language. But they have been transcribed (ses¶lamtai) somewhat carelessly and not as they should be, according to the report of the experts, because they have not received royal patronage. 31. These [books] also must be in your Library in an emended form (digjqibyl´ma), because this legislation, as could be expected from its divine nature, is very philosophical and genuine.9

Van der Kooij sums up the “common sense” arguments, supporting the thesis that the passage refers to the poor Greek translations. Some of them were occasionally referred to earlier by various scholars. I will slightly reorder them as follows: 1. Only this assumption makes the beginning of the story (Let. Aris. 30) square with the end (Let. Aris 314), where there is explicit mention of previous inaccurate translations, used by Theopomp.10 2. If the focus had been on the state of the Hebrew manuscripts (which – it should be added – in itself would be a strange thing for a Greek king to be concerned about),11 Demetrius and the king would have ordered a good Hebrew copy (and would have requested such a copy from the High Priest, to whom the king writes a letter informing him of his undertaking). Instead, no mention of it is made here, until the Hebrew Law sent from Jerusalem is mentioned in Let. Aris. 46: consequently, Demetrius and the king must be discussing the poor state of the Greek texts and a new Greek version to be put in the library.12 The argumentation of A. van der Kooij also involved the semantics of the 8 J. Cook/A. Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2012), 24 – 9. 9 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 44. 10 Cf. Kahle, The Cairo Genizah, 212 – 14. 11 This has already been rightly noted by many researchers (Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 111; Kahle, The Cairo Genizah, 213; S. Jellicoe, “Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage”, JThS 12 (1961) 261 – 71). 12 Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 26, 27.

Thesis of Kahle – Van der Kooij

47

words. The verb sgla_my can have various meanings in various contexts, but drawing on LSJ lexicon (see, for instance, s.v. sgla_my A 2,3 – EM) and on the use of the verb in other passages in the Letter of Aristeas (cf. Let. Aris. 33, 120, 143, 192, 315), A. Van der Kooij asserts that the verb certainly can refer to meaning in general, rather than simply to writing. He infers (following P. Kahle) that “it stands more to reason to render the verbal form in par. 30 as ‘interpreted’, thus referring to translation that already existed”.13 Moreover, A. van der Kooij makes a very reasonable comment concerning the verbal root diajqib|y. O. Murray suggested that the verb is equivalent to the technical term dioqh|y, used by the Alexandrian grammarians in reference to the process of textual emendation.14 This idea was picked up by S. Honigman. However, A. van der Kooij observes that, to his knowledge, there is no evidence that this verb was used in that way by the grammarians. Nor have I found such evidence. Instead, he compares the participle with the adjective !jqib´r used in Let. Aris. 32 in a phrase referring to the state of translation to be achieved: kabºmter t¹ jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r and concludes that digjqibyl´ma refer not to the emended state of the manuscripts (as a handwritten tradition), but to the more precise meaning of the translation. “Rather, — he says,—the verbal form in par. 31 (digjqibyl´ma, ‘having been brought to exactness’) is better understood in line with the notion of precision in par. 32 quoted above, which implies that its meaning refers to the issue of a translation: ‘having been brought to exactness’ then conveys the idea of a translation of the books that is marked by the correct or precise meaning of words.”15 He then renders the message of the vexed paragraph as follows: The books of the Law of the Jews are lacking in the Library; in order to add these books a translation is needed …, but since already existing translations of the Law of the Jews had been made “carelessly”, this translation should be made by experts from Jerusalem in order to get an “accurate” one (t¹ jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r) [par. 32].16

Up to this point I find the logic of A. van der Kooij’s arguments absolutely sound and correct. I think that the interpretation proposed by Kahle deserves to be substantially vindicated and further fleshed out. I therefore wish to offer a more extensive discussion of the paragraph that will bring us to understanding of its proper grammatical context (which will back up the arguments of A. van der Kooij), in which the terms mentioned above will appear as elements of a broad and interconnected system of meanings and allusions. This extensive discussion of the grammatical context of the paragraph is

13 14 15 16

Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 25. Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 24. Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 26, 27. Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 25 – 6.

48

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

crucial for a correct understanding of the translation narrative and of the message conveyed by it.

2.3 The Aristotelian background to the narrative in Let. Aris. 30 – 2 Here is the text of Let. Aris. 30 – 2 in a provisional translation that has been kept as “neutral” as possible. It is my emendation of M. Hadas’ version which will serve us a basis for further discussion and specification. 30. The books of the Law of the Jews together with some few others are wanting. It happens that they are in Hebrew characters and Hebrew tongue (tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema), and they have been rendered somewhat carelessly and not adequately (!lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai), according to the testimony of experts (jah½r rp¹ t_m eQdºtym pqosamav´qetai), for they have never benefited by a king’s forethought. 31. It is necessary that these books too, in a precise form, should be given a place in your library (D´om d´ 1sti ja· taOh’ rp²qweim paq² soi digjqibyl´ma), for their legislation is most philosophical and flawless, inasmuch as it is divine. … 32. If it seems good to Your Majesty, therefore, a letter shall be written to the High Priest at Jerusalem requesting him to dispatch elders who have led exemplary lives and are experts in their own law, six from each tribe (!v’ 2j²stgr vuk/r 6n), so that when we have examined and found the agreement of many (fpyr t¹ s¼lvymom 1j t_m pkeiºmym 1net²samter) and have a precise hermeneia (usually rendered as “translation”—E.M: ja· kabºmter t¹ jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r) we may make it clear, in a manner worthy of the subject matter and of the principles that you follow (!n¸yr ja· t_m pqacl²tym ja· t/r s/r pqoaiq´seyr, h_lem eqs¶lyr).

First of all, I wish to return to the question of the grammar of the sentence in Let. Aris. 30 by pointing out that it by no means contradicts the interpretation of Kahle, developed by A. van der Kooij. ToO mºlou t_m (Iouda¸ym bibk¸a s»m 2t´qoir ak¸coir tis·m !poke¸pei· tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema, !lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai, jah½r rp¹ t_m eQdºtym pqosamav´qetai·

It is absolutely clear that the predicates tucw²mei kecºlema (Ebqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0) and ses¶lamtai refer to the same subject, namely toO mºlou t_m (Iouda¸ym bibk¸a. However, in this case the reference to the same subject does not necessarily imply reference to the same language. The contemporaries of Aristeas considered that the Jewish Law exists in two languages, original Hebrew and translated Greek. Thus, the sentence can be understood as alluding to the original language and, at the same time, to the actual state of the translated text of one and the same subject matter, namely the Law. The participle d], which, when used alone, joins a sentence referring to a reality

The Aristotelian background

49

different from that in the preceding clause, only makes sense in this case.17 According to this interpretation, the state of the Hebrew text is not criticised; on the contrary, it is taken as a standard. Instead, the actual status of the Greek texts available in Egypt is unsatisfactory: !lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai. Now, let us turn to the meaning of ses¶lamtai. Aristotle’s treatise Peq· 2qlgme_ar (De interpretatione) is devoted to how language works in terms of its essence reflecting reality, and not in terms of poetics or rhetoric (which necessarily imply fiction) (Int. 17a2 – 7). He says that the essence of language is to reflect the truth of “things” (i. e. reality). This happens via meaning, which every word has (vymµ sglamtijµ, Int.16a19; sgla¸mei l´m ti, Int.16a17, b20), as does every statement (kºcor sglamtijºr; vymµ sglamtij^, Int. 16b26, 28; 17a1). However, only a statement, as a syntactical structure, has a meaning that should be judged as either corresponding or not corresponding to reality: “The simple statement is a significant spoken sound about whether something does or does not hold” (7Esti d’ B l³m "pk/ !pºvamsir vymµ sglamtijµ peq· toO eQ rp²qwei ti C lµ rp²qwei, Int. 17a23 – 24). Every statement can be true or false in terms of whether its meaning refers to what exists or does not exist: “For if every affirmation or negation is true or false it is necessary for everything either to be the case or not to be the case” (eQ c±q p÷sa jat²vasir C !pºvasir !kghµr C xeud¶r, ja· ûpam !m²cjg C rp²qweim C lµ rp²qweim, Int.18a34). This doctrine prompts me to focus not only on the verb under discussion, but also on Aristeas’ expression oqw ¢r rp²qwei ses¶lamtai. Against the background of the Aristotelian terminology, the juxtaposition of the verb, containing the root s¶l-, and the expression oqw ¢r rp²qwei may indicate that the verb alludes to the “meaning” (cf. the Aristotelian usage of sgla_my, sglamtij|r) not reflecting reality. This suggestion seems to be all the more plausible given that in Aristeas’ passage in question there are several analogies with the beginning of the Aristotelian treatise. In the Aristotelian passage language is conceived as both voice (vym^) and written characters (t± cqav|lema, cq\llata), the written word reflecting the spoken (Int. 16a3 – 5): Now spoken sounds (t± 1m t0 vym0) are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks (t± cqavºlema) symbols of spoken sounds (t_m 1m t0 vym0). And just as written marks (cq²llata) are not the same for all men ….

In the same way Aristeas refers to the Hebrew Law as spoken and written word (tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema, Let. Aris. 30), indicating his acquaintance with the theory of language. 17 See R. Kühner/B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache (2 vol.; Hannover: Hahn, 19553) 2. 262.

50

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

It is also stated in the first lines of the treatise that, although there are different languages and scribal systems, affections in the souls and things themselves (i. e. reality), which are reflected in languages, are the same for all people (Int.16a3 – 8): And just as written marks (cq²llata) are not the same for all men, neither are spoken sounds. But what they are in the first place signs of – affections of the soul – are the same for all; and what these affections are likeness of – actual things (pq\clata) – are also the same.

This Aristotelian passage backs up the suggestion (made on the grounds of the grammar of the sentence in Let. Aris. 30) that Aristeas refers to the division between languages, which, according to Aristotle, implies that the reality behind them is the same, rather than different. The identical nature of the reality behind languages is expressed using the grammar of the sentence just discussed, where tucw²mei kecºlema (Hebrew) and ses¶lamtai (Greek) refer to the same subject (ToO mºlou t_m (Iouda¸ym bibk¸a), and using another word present in the Aristotelian passage, pq\clata, which, Aristeas maintains, may be as relevant to the (Greek-Egyptian) king as they are to the Jews. Thus, we can see that the wording of Let. Aris. 30 – 2 strongly recalls that of the introductory passages of the Aristotelian work Peq· 2qlgme_ar. In particular, language is depicted as having phonetics and scribal systems (Aristotle: vym^/t± cqavºlema, cq\llata; Aristeas: vym^/cq\llata). Ses¶lamtai, used in close association with (oqw) ¢r rp²qwei, refers in both authors to meaning, while (oqw) ¢r rp²qwei and pq\clata refer to objective reality reflected in a language. Finally, the idea of the sentence in Let. Aris. 30, as I have clarified by drawing on its syntax, that the Law, as a matter of fact, exists, or can exist, in two linguistic hypostaseis, Hebrew and Greek, is strongly suggested by the linguistic theory of Peq· 2qlgme_ar. That leads me to focus on the meaning of the word 2qlgme_a, used in Let. Aris. 32, and to question its relevance to the meaning of the word as used in the title of the Aristotelian treatise. In particular, Demetrius says: kabºmter t¹ jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r, !n¸yr ja· t_m pqacl²tym ja· t/r s/r pqoaiq´seyr, h_lem eqs¶lyr. In what sense was the word assigned to this Aristotelian work?18 In

18 Most probably, this title was assigned to the treatise not by Aristotle himself, but early enough to be known by the time of Aristeas. The tradition reports that the Aristotelian pupils of the first generation, Eudemus, Phanias and Theophrastus, had works with the same title, though their content is unknown to us. Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century BC suspected (without impact on the subsequent tradition) that the work was not genuine. See P. Moraux, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote (Louvain: rditions Universitaires, 1951), 187 – 9; P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen; Bd. I: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), 65, 117 – 19; Joannes Philoponus In Aristotelis Categorias comm. 7.23.

The Aristotelian background

51

Aristotle’s Poetics (1450b14) the term 2qlgme_a is introduced as a synonym of k]nir, meaning “way of expression”, “style”, and is said to be equally relevant to poetic and prose texts (Poet. 1450b12 – 15). The term refers to the way in which the spoken and written word conveys information and is informative in terms of language. As in Aristotle the meaning of the word 2qlgme¸a as “way of expression” is universally applicable to all kinds of texts, in the subsequent tradition it can be used in relation to a literary style (for instance, it is used in this sense as the title of a work ascribed to Demetrius of Phalerum, Peq· 2qlgme_ar) and to the way of conveying information in general. (It is still used in this sense in the title of a Latin work devoted to formal linguistics, De Interpretatione, written by a Platonist, Apuleius of Madaura, in the second century AD). As the treatise of Aristotle emphasises that it is not devoted to either poetic or rhetorical texts (Int. 17a2 – 7), its title conveys the general idea of linguistic expression. Demetrius says that the sages have to obtain a precise hermeneia (jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r). Preciseness, demanded by Demetrius, is directly connected to the Aristotelian theory of style. Preciseness is mentioned by Aristotle as a quality of good Greek written prose: “The style of written compositions is most precise” (5sti d³ k´nir cqavijµ l³m B !jqibest²tg, Rhet. 1413b 8 – 9). Aristotle’s pupil Aristoxenus complains that it is very difficult to attain preciseness of expression (digjqibyl´mgm 2qlgme¸am) in a pioneering work setting out a theory of harmonics (Aristoxenus Elementa Harmonica 21.15 Rios). Note that Aristoxenus makes the same point and uses the same terms as Demetrius when speaking about the quality of the translation to be achieved (Let. Aris. 31: digjqibyl]ma; Let. Aris. 32: jat± tµm 2qlgme¸am !jqib´r). In the second century AD, Sextus Empiricus, in his polemics against the grammarians, provides evidence that this demand by Aristotle for exactness of style had become a locus classicus in grammar: “… one who speaks good Greek is able to express clearly and precisely the meaning of things” (f te 2kkgm¸fym Rjamºr 1sti pq¹r t¹ sav_r ûla ja· !jqib_r paqast/sai t± mogh´mta t_m pqacl²tym, Sextus Emp. Math. 1.176.4–5).19 Note that Aristeas, as well as Sextus Empiricus, stresses that this preciseness must correspond to “things” (pq\clata), i.e. reality reflected in language, which also betrays a strong Aristotelian influence. In the passage of Aristeas, the lack of preciseness was described using the phrase !lek´steqom … ses¶lamtai. It is worth noting that an anonymous rhetorical work (Prolegomena in artem rhetoricam 6.37) also accuses Demosthenes of not having achieved preciseness in his laudatory speeches due to negligence: “in the panegyric he does not achieve precision Cf. C.W.A. Whitaker, Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, Contradiction and Dialectic (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 5 – 7. 19 Cf. Demetrius Eloc. 17.5; 191.3; Hermogenes Progymnasmata 10.23; Prolegomena in artem rhetoricam 6.36, 11; Scholia in Theonem Rhetorem 260.24; Athanasius Soph. Prolegomena 14.177.15; Diogenes Laertius V.Ph. 7.35.10.

52

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

(toO !jqiboOr !stow_m) due to negligence (di± t¹ !lek´tgtom), as his Epitaphius shows.” Demetrius also wants to make the text clear (h_lem eqs¶lyr). Eqs^lyr, used by Aristeas, is a synonym of sav_r.20 The quality of clarity, also mentioned by Sextus together with exactness, likewise derives from the Aristotelian theory of style. Clarity (sav^r) is an essential quality of any type of text, whether poetical or not (Rhet. 1404b2 and Poet. 1458a18, Top. 139b12 – 15). However, it is also remarkable that Scholia Marciana to Dionysious Thrax (353.1 – 4 Hilgard) repeat the idea that style (this time using the word k´nir) conveys meaning (sglas¸a) and that what remains in the absence of the latter is “meaningless speech (voice)” (%sglor vym^), which is a direct, etymological antonym of eqs¶lyr, used by Aristeas when complaining about the inadequateness of meaning (!lek´steqom d´, ja· oqw ¢r rp²qwei, ses¶lamtai). The emphasis on preciseness and clarity, the essential qualities of a written text according to the Aristotelian theory of style, together with allusions to his treatise Peq· 2qlgme_ar, make it clear that Aristeas deliberately alludes to Greek grammatical theory, in terms of which 2qlgme¸a in Let. Aris. 32 is used in the terminological, grammatical sense of “way of expression”, “style”. Let me call the system of grammatical allusions in the translation narrative the Greek grammatical paradigm. Thus, in terms of the grammatical paradigm, Aristeas refers to the imprecise meaning (ses¶lamtai) and way of expression (2qlgme_a) of texts, both of which21 have to be rendered exact and clear by making them relevant to “what is”, ¢r rp²qwei, and “things”, pq\clata. In the treatise of Aristotle rp²qweim refers, like pq\clata, to the reality of things, rather than to that of language. When the reality of things and linguistic expression coincide, language becomes identical to reality in terms of truth. However, unlike Aristeas, Aristotle does not address the phenomenon of translation. By contrast, Aristeas obviously applies the theoretical passage of Aristotle to a case of translation. It would be logical to assume that Aristeas, speaking about translation, considers the linguistic reality of the Hebrew Law to be identical to the reality of things, and, consequently, when he notes that the meaning does not correspond to reality, he implies the reality of the original language (tucw²mei c±q gEbqazjo?r cq²llasi ja· vym0 kecºlema), to which the meaning of the translated text (ses¶lamtai) does not correspond. This also explains the presence of “the experts”, who are needed to find this inconsistency between the actual Greek and original Hebrew text (jah½r rp¹ t_m eQdºtym pqosamav´qetai). Thus, it is logical to understand “not as it is” as

20 LSJ s.v. eusglor II 1,2,3. 21 Scholia Vaticana (114.10 – 12 Hilgard) and Scholia Marciana (333.36 – 7 Hilgard) to Dionysius Thrax also provide evidence of the tendency of converging the meanings of “meaning” (sglas¸a) and “way of expression” (2qlgme¸a).

The Aristotelian background

53

referring to the reality of the Hebrew text.22 That brings me to conclude that Aristeas speaks about the quality of the translation, both in terms of its faithfulness to the original and its clarity and exactness in terms of the Greek language. When read in terms of the grammatical paradigm, the passage leaves the strong impression that emendation of the material in order to remove all the infelicities and faults is meant, rather than a new translation. Demetrius suggests “to make (the text) clear” (h_lem eqs¶lyr). This expression does not strictly mean “translation”. It refers to the clarification of imprecise meaning, i. e. to the improvement of a text within the limits of one and the same language. This should be achieved by “scrutinising” (1net²samter) (the text or texts). Scholion A to Homer’s Iliad (based on the commentaries of Aristarchus, a great Alexandrian philologist of the second century BC, and to a lesser extent on other Alexandrian scholars) uses the passive participle of the verb 1net²fy in reference to a collocation which most probably indicates either the essence or even the title of a work of Aristarchus: 1m ta?r 1ngtasl]mair )qist\qwou (book 7, verse 130a1, line 1 Erbse), in the “closely revised” of Aristarchus.23 This indicates that the verb (unlike diajqib|y, which refers to meaning and style) can be regarded as having the power of a term, being a more relevant synonym of dioqhoOm. Thus, imprecise and unclear meaning of the Greek translation of the Law has to become precise and clear through attentive scrutiny. Even if some might be inclined to infer that the intervention of the sages led to the emergence of a virtually new translation, the fact remains that the whole story is depicted by Aristeas as prompted by the need for revision.24 The 72 were commissioned to undertake it.

22 Otherwise we would need to assume that this clear-cut Greek theory of style is applied to the Hebrew wording (which in itself appears to be inappropriate), which is so bad that it does not correspond to reality (sic!). However, an accusation of discrepancy between meaning and reality is too strong to be applied to the Hebrew text of whatever quality, and it looks particularly irrelevant considering what we know about the multiplicity of the circulating variants of the Hebrew text of the Torah used in the second to first centuries BC (see Tov, “From 4Q Reworked Pentateuch”, 89; cf. E. Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation”, PAAJR 28 (1959) 1 – 39 (reprinted in E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 1.167 – 200)). Moreover, this interpretation leaves no room for the problems of translation. 23 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 217. 24 Cf. the thesis of Motzo, referred to in Tramontano, La Lettera di Aristea, 115 – 16.

54

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

2.4 The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer in the scholia to Dionysius Thrax The number 72 is not used in the Bible. It has been introduced in a form that pretends to emphasise the Jewish inspiration that is behind it (six from each tribe) and has been repeated in a standard form – 72 – in Let. Aris. 50 together with the specification of names. Yet, if we think about it, we can see that the Jewish character of this formula is rather dubious. The reference to twelve tribes can be understood, and Harry Orlinsky has perfectly explained why the twelve tribes could be involved in the narrative.25 Yet why are there six men from each? The number six, though it plays a role in the Bible, so far as I know, is never used as a well-known or significant number of persons allowing it to be reasonably combined with the number of tribes. The non-Jewish character of the number is indicated by the reaction of the subsequent Jewish tradition. Philo of Alexandria was familiar with the legend of the Letter and he speaks of the translators and the quality of their work in exalted terms. Nevertheless, he never mentions their number. Obviously, that is either because by that time, unlike Aristeas, he did not consider it important or because he was hesitant to quote Aristeas on this point. Josephus Flavius certainly found the number embarrassing. When speaking of translation, he repeats the narrative of the Letter of Aristeas very closely (Ant. 12.57). However, he replaces the number 72 with that of 70. The reason is obvious: Josephus considered the number 70 meaningful as it refers to the number of the “seventy elders of Israel” who ascend Mount Sinai with Moses and to those who receive from the Holy Spirit of Moses (Exod 24:1,9; Num 11:16 – 17), whereas the number 72 did not convey anything to him. The Jewish tradition after Aristeas abandoned the number and later replaced it with a more Jewish one, which has subsequently been transformed into the title of the Greek translation of the Bible (Septuaginta meaning the translation of the 70 translators, not of the 72). It would hardly be possible had the number been derived from the biblical context or from the Jewish tradition. In this context, I wish to draw attention to a passage in the commentaries on an Alexandrian grammarian of the second century BC, the pupil of Aristarchus, Dionysius Thrax.26 After we have discussed the etymology of the word rapsodia, we should recall the following story. Once upon a time, the poems of Homer were destroyed by fires, floods and earthquakes. After various books had been scattered over different places and perished, it happened that someone by chance picked up one hundred verses of 25 Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ”, 98. See Ch. 1, Section 1.1. 26 Melampodis sive Diomedis in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam 29.16 – 30.10 Hilgard.

The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer

55

Homer, another person picked up one thousand, and another one two hundred, and another one another number that he happened to pick up. As a result, this poetry was going to be forgotten. Nevertheless, Peisistratus, who was a governor of Athens, decided the following, because he wanted both to obtain glory for himself and to restore Homers’ poems. Peisistratus announced throughout Greece that anybody who possessed verses of Homer should bring them to him as he would pay a fixed fee for each verse. Thus, all those who had verses brought them to Peisistratus and unfailingly received the fixed fee. Peisistratus did not send away even those who brought him the same verses that he had already obtained from another. He paid the same price to these men too. The reason was that sometimes he found one or two additional lines or sometimes even more in these verses. That was why some people added their own lines to those of Homer. Now we bracket those lines. After Peisistratus had collected all the verses, he called upon seventy-two grammarians. He asked them individually to compose the poems of Homer in the way each of them considered fit. He appointed the compensation that was appropriate for learned men and experts of the poems. Every one of them received all the verses that Peisistratus had collected. After each had composed [the poems] as he thought best, Peisistratus assembled all the above mentioned grammarians with the intention that every one of them should present his own composition in the presence of all. Having listened to the poems not for the sake of strife, but for the sake of truth and craft, they all decided in full and complete agreement that the best compositions and corrections were those of Aristarchus and Zenodotos; and further they decided that the better of these two was that of Aristarchus.

This story represents a mixture of two traditions about recensional activity concerning Homer.27 One of them refers to the “Peisistratean recension (or redaction)”, that is the allegedly first recension, undertaken under the sons of the Athenean tyrant Pesistratus (with time, this story was reconceived as a “recension of Peisistratus”).28 The other recalls the famous Alexandrian recensional work on Homer, which originated in the third century BC with Zenodotus and reached its heights in the works of Aristarchus (first half of the second century BC). It is evident that the combination of Peisistratus’ name with those of the Alexandrian philologists must be of very late origin and, most 27 This story is repeated later by a Byzantine philologist of the twelfth century Joannes Tzetzes and referred to in an anonymous treatise Prolegomena de Comoedia (Joannes Tzetzes, Prolegomena in Aristophanis comoediae 1.144 – 8; 2.33 – 4; Anonymus Crameri II, Prolegomena de Comoedia, 20 – 3 Koster). Both authors admit a blunder in this story, as they well know that Zenodotus and Aristarchus lived much later in Alexandria. Thus, Joannes Tzetzes makes excuses by saying that he was confused by a certain Heliodorus (probably a commentator of Dionysius Thrax), while in fact Peisistratus’ redaction was carried out by only four people. The anonymous author repeats the story, mentioning that the Zenodotus and Aristarcus in question were different from the famous grammarians in Alexandria. 28 See R. Fowler, “The Homeric Question”, in R. Fowler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Homer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 220 – 34, on p. 224 n.16; G. Nagy, Homeric Questions (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996), 72 – 4, 93 – 104.

56

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

likely, of Athenian, rather than Alexandrian provenance. This happened when the names of Zenodotus and Aristarchus became legendary and were no longer inextricably bound with Alexandria. However, this blatant anachronism does not mark an indisputable terminus post quem for the origin of the plot that is of interest for our investigation. It is logical to assume that in this amalgamation the name of Peisistratus replaced another name of a ruler-protector of fine arts in an older, Alexandrian pattern. Peisistratus took the place of another, Ptolemaic ruler, whose activity was traditionally, and, probably, in actual fact linked with editorial activity in Alexandria. Thus, scholia traditionally emphasise the involvement of Ptolemy Philadelphus, when speaking about the appearance of one or another reliable edition. For instance, Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron edited (di~qhysam) dramatic poets, whereas Zenodotus was prompted by him to “correct” Homer and other poets.29 Also, in discussions of the narrative of the Letter, it has often been suggested that the involvement of Ptolemy Philadelphus appears to be one of the details in the story with the strongest historical basis.30 However, anachronistic combination of the grammarians, the second blatant anachronism that features in the story, cannot serve as a reliable terminus post quem for the origin of the plot either. We know that an older story can always be adorned with new names as they arise or with more ancient names, when the distance between them becomes increasingly insignificant. Thus, for instance, the name of Zenodotus, known as “the first editor of Homer” (pq_tor t_m jl^qou dioqhyt^r),31 could initially be used 29 Anonymus Crameri II Prolegomena de Comoedia 2 – 19 Koster; cf. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 101. 30 For instance, M. Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung (BZAW 223; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1994), 255; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 102 – 5; W. Orth, “Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta Übersetzung”, in H.-J. Fabry/U. Offerhaus (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bibel (BWANT 153; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001) 107 – 14, on pp. 106 – 112; S. Kreuzer, “Entstehung und Publikation der Septuaginta im Horizont frühptolemäischer Bildungs- und Kulturpolitik”, in S. Kreuzer/J. Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, Band 2 (BWANT 161; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004) 61 – 75; T. Rajak, “Translating the Septuagint for Ptolemy’s Library: Myth and History”, in M.Karrer/W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20 – 23 Juli 2006 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 176 – 93, on p. 191; T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 42 – 3; A. Van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule”, in: G. N. Knoppers/B.M. Levinson (ed.), The Pentateuch as Torah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007) 289 – 300; A. Schenker, “Was führte zur Übersetzung der Tora ins Griechische?: Dtn 4,2 – 8 und Platon (Brief VII,326a-b) ”, in W. Kraus/M. Karrer (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse; 2. internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27.7. 2008 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 23 – 35; Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 17. 31 Suida s.v. Fgm|dotor.

The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer

57

alone, his version being deemed the best one. However, with time, when the edition of Aristarchus overshadowed that of Zenodotus and the temporary distance between them was forgotten, the name of Aristarchus was added to the story without excluding that of Zenodotus. Alternatively, the name of Zenodotus could have been added to that of the famous grammarian of the second century BC, Aristarchus, whose name initially featured in the story, as soon as it was forgotten that they were not contemporaries. Aristarchus was active in the first half of the second century BC. After his death a certain period of time was needed in order to bridge the distance that separated him from Zenodotus, who is thought to have lived under Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II (first half of the third century BC, 325 to 260 BC). This, however, could happen fairly quickly in antiquity. Thus, for instance, Aristeas, contrary to historical probability, groups Ptolemy II and Demetrius of Phaleron together,32 although Aristeas lived in the same city and wrote for the Alexandrian audience probably only one century later. It can be observed in regard to such anachronistic combinations that the tendency to combine persons that are chronologically or historically distant, but closely related in the mind of an author for “ideological” reasons is a feature that is common to the methodology behind the story in the Letter of Aristeas and that in the Scholia. Let me specify other elements that the stories in the Scholia and in the Letter of Aristeas have in common. 1. First, the problem with Homer consists of the very poor quality of his texts. These texts were fragmentary and deteriorated with time; they were unreadable and unreliable. In the Letter of Aristeas, the text of the Scripture was not faithful to the original and unclear. 2. The ruler (Peisistratus/Ptolemy II Philadelphus) commissions the preparation of a good edition. 3. Then the 72 grammarians are called upon to remedy the matter. The 72 Jewish sages are called upon to do the same with the text of the Bible. There are also a number of minor parallels: 4. Although each one of the editors prepared his own version individually, they then gave the palm to Aristarchus “in full agreement” – joim0 ja· blovq|myr. The sages in Let. Aris. 302 also reach decisions in complete agreement: “And so they proceeded to carry it out, making everything agree by mutual comparison (6jasta s}lvyma poioOmter pq¹r 2auto»r ta?r !mtiboka?r). The appropriate result of the agreement (t¹ d³ 1j sulvym_ar cem|lemom) was thus reduced to writing under the direction of Demetrius”. 5. The unanimous evaluation of the quality of the Aristarchus’ version takes place when all are “assembled together” and “in the presence of all [sc. the 32 Demetrius was banished from Alexandria by Ptolemy II very shortly after the latter’s accession to power, see Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 33; Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 88.

58

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

editors]”; “… Peisistratus assembled (eQr 4m sum^cace) all the abovementioned grammarians with the intention that every one of them should present his own composition in the presence of all (paq|mtym bloO p\mtym)”. In the same way, Demetrius “gathers all people”, who give unanimous approval of the translation in the presence of all the translators: “When the work was concluded Demetrius assembled the community of the Jews at the place (sumacac½m b Dgl^tqior t¹ pk/hor t_m Youda_ym eQr t¹m t|pom) where the translation was executed, and read it out to the entire gathering, the translators too being present (paq|mtym ja· t_m dieqlgmeus\mtym)” (Let. Aris. 308). 6. Another possible common point may be the reference to the techniques of the work of the 72. Let. Aris. 302 says that: “And so they proceeded to carry it out, making all details harmonise by mutual comparison (!mtiboka?r)”. G. Zuntz and O. Murray suggested that the technique of collating manuscripts, as witnessed in many documents referring to textual criticism in Alexandria, may be alluded to using the term !mtiboka_.33 In the story of the Scholia the editors of Homer received as many fragments of the text as Peisistratus had collected. Many of these fragments repeated one another. Obviously, their work consisted of comparing different but similar versions of the same fragment in order to decide which variant was the best one, or to strike a compromise. Considering the possibility of mutual influences of the stories, we should note the following: 33 Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 24; Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 137 – 8 (1972). Cf. also Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 94, 109 – 14; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.328. Niehoff denies that the word can allude to the grammatical term in Let. Aris. 308, because, according to her, this use would be anachronistic and in the lexicon of LSJ it “characteristically … refers only to the 1 century BCE sources” (M. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge [u. a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011), 21). The argument is strange, given that the references in LSJ to the first century BC sources are determined not by the fact that the term is not attested in earlier sources, but by the fact that those prosaic sources have not come down to us. As, perhaps, it is not superfluous to recall, the Letter of Aristeas is one of the few Hellenistic non poetic texts dating to the period before first century BC (even if it is only insignificantly earlier) (Cf. Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 13). Our knowledge of Hellenism essentially derives from very late, even Byzantine, sources, and evidence coming from an authentic Hellenistic text should be considered all the more precious. In grammatical studies, there has always been discussion as to how far such or such method, device or term can be traced back. On the modern consensus concerning the antiquity of the method of comparing manuscripts see Ch. 3, Section 3.4.2; regarding the term itself, it should be noted that, given the fact that the terminological use of !mtibok^ is well witnessed as early as Strabo (especially, Geogr. 13.1.54; 17.1.5.), it is highly likely that Strabo, being perfectly trained in grammar and a student of Aristodemus, the son of Menecrates, the immediate pupil of Aristarchus, reflects usage of the term deriving from the golden age of Alexandrian scholarship. Niehoff does not take into account the general grammatical context of the passage, in which another important term, letacqav^, coincides with the use testified by Strabo (see below in the text), which substantially increases the possibility that this word also derives from a specific scholarly language.

The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer

59

1. There are no direct lexical parallels between them, apart from point 5, where the verb sumacace?m is used (sum^cace / sumacac½m) and similar absolute constructions (paq|mtym bloO p\mtym / paq|mtym ja· t_m dieqlgmeus\mtym) occur. 2. In terms of the biblical paradigm, reading the Bible aloud in front of the gathering of the Jewish people has a clear biblical parallel (in particular, Exod 24:3; Neh 8:1 – 9; see also 2 Kings 23:1 – 2; Jer 36:6 – 10). On the one hand, given the fact that this element of the story in the Letter of Aristeas is based on a clear-cut biblical topos, it can be suggested that analogous constructions in the story of the Scholia appeared under the influence of the story in the Letter of Aristeas. On the other hand, the argument can hardly be decisive, given that Aristeas has a tendency to use double allusions. Theoretically speaking, an allusion to the Bible does not exclude the possibility of a simultaneous allusion to a Greek pattern. On the contrary, in the majority of cases the dual allusions are a feature of the narrative strategy (see below in the text and in particular Ch. 2, Section 2.8). 3. At the same time, there are a number of elements that seem natural in the story about the editing of the poems, but are perplexing in the story of translation. If we take agreement (1j t/r sulvym¸ar / joim0 ja· blovq|myr) as a structural element in both stories and assume that comparison (!mtiboka?r) alludes to the grammatical term, these points should definitely be included among those elements. When Aristeas says that “And so they proceeded to carry it out, making everything harmonise by mutual comparisons. The appropriate result of the harmonisation was reduced to writing under the direction of Demetrius”,34 the meaning of the phrase is utterly unclear. What did the translators compare and at which moment did they reach agreement? It could be assumed that they divided the text into 72 portions, and compared the results of their individual work, by making terms and notions conform. However, taking into account Let. Aris. 32, where the idea of agreement is first introduced, we should infer that the involvement of 72 participants was intended to obtain their common opinion on the text as a whole and in detail, i. e. common work on the text was somehow implied.35 This contradicts the idea of the comparison of individually translated portions. At the same time, both elements easily fit the story about the editing of Homer’s poems. The manuscripts must be compared, the edited versions can 34 Let. Aris. 302: OR d³ 1pet´koum 6jasta s¼lvyma poioOmter pq¹r 2auto»r ta?r !mtiboka?r· t¹ d³ 1j t/r sulvym¸ar cimºlemom pqepºmtyr !macqav/r ovtyr 1t¼cwame paq± toO Dglgtq¸ou. 35 Let. Aris. 32: “…to dispatch elders who have led exemplary lives and are experts in their own Law, six from each tribe, so that when we have examined and found the agreement of many (fpyr t¹ s¼lvymom 1j t_m pkeiºmym 1net²samter) and have obtained a precise hermeneia, we may put it clear …”.

60

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

be compared, and agreement is appropriately introduced in this story in terms of the inner logic of the narrative. From this point of view, it is rather Aristeas who was influenced by a pre-existing pattern. If we try to reconstruct the elements of this pattern, the involvement and protectorate of a ruler would be one of the most tenable. Improvement or retrieval of a text would be another structural element in the Ur-story, as the idea of recension of Homer is significantly older than the time of the composition of the Letter of Aristeas. Agreement between the grammarians (as well as the method of their work using comparison) is very plausibly one of the further common elements in the older pattern. I will also argue why I think that the number 72 should be taken as another common element of the Alexandrian tradition. 2.4.1 The 72 The number enjoyed immense popularity particularly in the Hellenistic period. We find the earliest mention of it again in Aristotle, who says that this was the legendary number of Heracles’ children (71 boys and one girl— Aristotle Hist. an. 585b). This information was broadly promulgated later in all kind of sources until late antiquity. However, the number also comes up in all kinds of contexts in various authors. Crates of Mallos (first half of the second century BC), a Stoic philosopher and philologist settled in Pergamum, seeks to persuade us that in the line of the Odyssey “and six of my well-greaved comrades perished from each ship; // but the rest of us escaped death and fate” the full number of the fallen soldiers was 72, because there were 12 ships (Porphyrius Quaestiones Homericae ad Od. 9. 60). (This is also the logic of the Let. Aris. 32 : 6  12 = 72). In Historia Alexandri Magni (2.33.10) we see the 72 soldiers from the Greek army fallen dead in the battle with giants. The Roman historian Appianus tells us that the number of satrapies of Seleukos, the first diadochos of Syria, was 72 (Appianus Syriaca 328. 2). Diodorus Siculus (Bibl.1.72.2) notes that the Egyptians mourn for 72 days after a pharaoh has died. Horapollo, an Egyptian author of the Roman time, refers to the 72 lands of the ancient earth. He also says that the holy animal (monkey) kynokephalos that lives in Egyptian temples dies over a period of 72 days rather than at once (Hieroglyphica 1.14.10). In Plutarch’s story about Isis and Osiris 72 plotters are involved in the conspiracy against Osiris (De Is. et Os. 356a). These are just some examples, but they suffice to demonstrate, first, that the number was not only widely popular in Hellenistic literature, but particularly popular in an Egyptian context, and, second, that in this context it was popular not only as a number of persons but also as a number of days, as a sacred period of time. It certainly is possible that Aristeas used the number simply because of its proverbial popularity and sacred significance. His use of the number not only in application to the number of sages, but also the number of

The 72 and the anecdote about the recension of Homer

61

days over which the work was accomplished (Let. Aris. 307) may indicate the influence of precisely this broad Egyptian Hellenistic context.36 However, there is evidence for another interesting development. The proverbial popularity of the number was perhaps the reason why at one point the number also entered grammatical tradition. In particular, it was decided that 72 is the full number of combinations of all kinds of subjects and predicates in all basic tenses in positive and negative forms, as discussed by Aristotle in the work Peq· 2qlgme_ar (Ammonius In Aristotelis librum De interpretatione 91.2; 160.30; 219.18 Busse). The popularity of these calculations is reflected in the work of an anonymous author (Anonymi In Hermogenem Retorem Peri Euresews 7.760.13 Walz), who asserts that 72 is the number of all possible rhetorical statements, which is in full accord with the abovementioned tradition, because, as mentioned earlier, the Aristotelian notion of 2qlgme¸a was equally relevant to all kinds of texts, including rhetorical ones. Thus, if we accept that this “grammatical myth” has its origin in the Hellenistic period (which is reasonable), then the logic of the use of the number in both stories becomes clear. As 72 are summoned to establish a clear, coherent and readable text of Homer, so the 72 sages in the Letter of Aristeas are summoned to take care of clarity and exactness of wording (2qlgme_a) of the Scripture! This appears to be an ideal number, relevant to all possible syntactical combinations which have to be clarified in accordance with the good Greek and Homeric Urtext in one case, and the good Greek and the Hebrew original in the other. The allusion to the number acquires additional connotations in the case of a prose translation, as, according to Aristotle (see above), a linguistic unit can only be judged in terms of its relevance to “reality” if it is an accomplished syntactical unit (not in a poetic or rhetorical text), i. e. an apodeictic statement. So, syntax plays a decisive role in judging the truth of a statement. For instance, Scholia Vaticana to Dionysius Thrax (114.10 – 12) explicitly state that syntactical structures are responsible for clarity of meaning in terms of one language (B t/r sglas_ar sav^meia). It is highly logical to use the ideal number of syntactical combinations when seeking adequateness to reality (here, of another language) and clarity of style. It is worth noting here that the idea of engaging the 72 sages comes not from the High Priest Eleazar or from any other Jewish person in the story, but from the Greek scholar Demetrius of Phalerum, a famous pupil of Aristotle, to whom late antiquity also assigned a Peq· 2qlgme_ar treatise. If the number 72 appears in the story of the Letter of Aristeas not simply as a proverbial number, but also in connection with its grammatical context, it is logical to infer that this very grammatical tradition led to the number featuring in the story of the redaction of Homer, rather than the influence of the narrative in the Letter of Aristeas. 36 Let. Aris. 307: “And so it came about that the work of transcription was completed in seventytwo days, as if this coincidence had been the result of some design”.

62

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

Thus, speaking about the mutual connections between the stories, we should acknowledge that some written versions of the story about Homer could have been even later than the period of composition of the Letter of Aristeas (this definitely applies to the introduction of Peisistratus into an Alexandrian story), although the activity of Aristarchus is earlier or approximately contemporaneous with Aristeas, whereas the idea of editing Homer, closely connected with the name of Zenodotus, is significantly older. Given what we know about the particular attention paid in Hellenistic scholarship to restoration and editing of Homeric texts, it is reasonable to conclude that the story of editing Homeric texts as told in the Scholia directly stems from the Alexandrian Ur-pattern (although, as mentioned, it is likely that its last copyists were familiar with the Letter of Aristeas), whereas the story of improving translations can only be modelled on this reconstructed Ur-pattern. It is logical to assume that it contained exactly those elements that feature in both variants: patronage of a ruler; restoration of a text (or improvement on it); minor details such as common agreement and comparison of texts, and, finally, the number of the grammarians.

2.5 Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar Let. Aris. 301 – 8 describes the daily routine of the translators as follows: 301. There he [sc. Demetrius of Phalerum] called a meeting in a mansion built by the seashore … and called upon the men to carry out the business of 2qlgme¸a (usually rendered as “translation” – E.M.), all necessary appliances having been well provided. 302. And so they proceeded to carry it out making everything harmonise by mutual comparison. … 304. Every day they would come to the court early in the morning, and when they had made their salutation to the king, they departed to their own place. 305. When they had washed their hands in the sea, as is the custom of all Jews, when they pray to God, they addressed themselves to the reading aloud and clarification of everything (1tq´pomto pq¹r tµm !m²cmysim ja· tµm 2j²stou dias²vgsim). 306. I questioned them on this point too, why it was that they washed their hands before praying. And they explained (dies\voum) that it was in witness that they had done no wrong, since the hands are the organs of all activity; in such a beautiful and holy spirit did they make everything into symbols of righteousness and truth. 307. … And so it came about that the work of letacqav/r (usually rendered as “transcription” – E.M.) was completed in seventy-two days, as if this coincidence had been the result of some design. 308. When the work was concluded Demetrius assembled the community of the Jews at the place where the 2qlgme¸a (usually rendered as the “translation” – E.M.) was executed, and read it out to the entire gathering, the translators too being present.

The term 2qlgme¸a is used at the beginning (par. 301) and at the end (par. 308) of the paragraph, making a kind of circle and referring thus to the central idea

Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar

63

of the undertaking. Here the meaning of the term can certainly not be interpreted as that of “wording” and “style”, as it can at the beginning of the story in Let. Aris. 32: wording and style can be good or bad, clear or unclear, but it cannot be referred to as a process, as we see in these occurrences: t± t/r 2qlgme¸ar 1piteke?m; t± t/r 2qlgme¸ar 1tek´shg. Usually, as everywhere in the text, it is taken here to mean “translation” tout court. Translation can be referred to as a process. It is impossible to deny that Aristeas may be using the word with this meaning here, particularly as the word occurs with the clear and unequivocal meaning of translation in Let. Aris. 11. However, even earlier in the narrative, in Let. Aris. 3, the same word is used not in the sense of translation, but with the clear and unequivocal meaning of exegesis, explanation: it is used in reference to the ability of the High Priest to interpret the meaning of the Law for his tribesmen both in Judea and in the Diaspora.37 I wish therefore to question in what sense, or with which connotations, the term is used in the passage quoted above, particularly because the strange character of this place has repeatedly drawn the attention of scholars. For instance, much discussion has been provoked by Let. Aris. 305: “…they addressed themselves to the reading aloud and clarification of everything (1tq´pomto pq¹r tµm !m²cmysim ja· tµm 2j²stou dias²vgsim)”. Murray, for example, refers to this phrase as “mysteriously” introduced.38 However, he suggests that it is reasonable to understand dias\vgsim in the spirit of the later targum technics: in order to give a translation in another language one has to form an opinion about the content of a phrase and to emphasise its meaning.39 Similarly, in the discussion of the term !m²cmysir Arje van der Kooij draws our attention to Nehemiah 8:8.40 In this context it has been said that “they [sc. the Levites] read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly (MLHB) and giving the sense (@?M A9M9) and they gave understanding in the reading (4LKB5 9D=5=9)” (transl. by A. van der Kooij). Arje van der Kooij refers to this passage when drawing attention to the idea that reading the Hebrew text aloud could be an important step in the process of translation from Hebrew, because it presupposes clear vocalisation and punctuation (dividing the text into clauses). Given the unvocalised character of Hebrew manuscripts, the process of translation presupposed vocalisation and, consequently, a certain kind of interpretation. In this case, the tendency is to understand both terms as conforming to the idea of translation, reflected in the term hermeneia. However, even if we accept that Aristeas had some idea of the procedure of translation from Hebrew and wanted to allude to it, another consideration comes to mind in connection 37 The High Priest is “very useful to those citizens who are with him and to those who live in other places for the interpretation of the Divine Law (pq¹r tµm 2qlgme¸am toO he¸ou mºlou)” (Let. Aris. 3). 38 Cf. Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 24. 39 Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 24. 40 Van der Kooij, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint”, 222.

64

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

with Arje van der Kooij’s emphasis of this place. In both Greek interpretations of Neh 8:8 the word !m²cmysir is used.41 Given that, according to Orlinsky, this place, among other biblical patterns, could have been used by Aristeas in drawing the picture of the presentation of the Torah to the Jewish people (introduced in this context in Let. Aris. 308), Arje van der Kooij’s suggestion acquires a different significance, namely that this biblical place was used in terms of the pattern of the presentation of the Torah. This suggestion is all the more plausible given that the sentence, probably, contains another direct biblical allusion to a biblical place of the presentation of the Torah. Thus, the verb diasav]y is uniquely used in Deut 1:5 in connection with some explanations given of the Law. Moses, addressing his people, Eqnato … diasav/sai t¹m m|lom toOtom k]cym (“took … upon him to expound this law, saying”). This context in turn rephrases Exod 24:3, where Moses “explains” (digc^sato) to the people the words of God. Bearing in mind that Aristeas intentionally repeats the cognate verb diasav]y in the next phrase, Let. Aris. 306, where diasav]y clearly means “to explain” (in the sense of its more radical form of metaphorical interpretation) and the fact that Deuteronomy is certainly among the author’s patterns in writing the text in general and the story of the translation in particular (thus, the next passage Let. Aris. 310 – 11 distinctly alludes to Deut 4:2, see below), we can conclude that the word dias\vgsir alludes to Deut 1:5. Consequently, Aristeas plays with the idea of explanation in the proper sense of the word (probably, also, as Chapter 1 suggests, hinting at the particular idea which is stressed by the explanations of Moses in Deuteronomy, i. e. the necessity of obedience of the Law). However, the idea of the explanation of the Law in all the biblical patterns referred to above necessarily implies the presence of an audience for whose sake explanations are given. Nevertheless, there is no attending audience present in this particular situation since the sages have a workshop. It is reasonable to suggest, that non-biblical allusions are also at work. In the same article A. van der Kooij suggests that the vocabulary used may also allude to Greek grammatical terms.42 He compares the terms !m\cmysir ja· dias\vgsir with two stages of the work of a grammarian in the process of preparing a new edition, described in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax: !macmystij|m (reading aloud) and 1ngcgtij|m (explanation). He suggests that !m\cmysir corresponds to !macmystij|m, and dias\vgsir to 1ngcgtij|m, which is a very stimulating conjecture, particularly if we remember that Exod 24:3, where Moses gives some sort of “explanations” (digc^sato), also lies behind Deut 1:5 (alluded to by Aristeas using the verb diasav]y); at the same 41 1 Esd 9:48 – 9: … oR Keu?tai 1d¸dasjom t¹m mºlom juq¸ou ja· pq¹r t¹ pk/hor !mec¸mysjom t¹m mºlom toO juq¸ou 1lvusioOmter ûla tµm !m²cmysim; 2 Esd 18:8: ja· !m´cmysam 1m bibk¸\ mºlou toO heoO, ja· 1d¸dasjem Esdqar ja· di´stekkem 1m 1pist¶l, juq¸ou, ja· sum/jem b ka¹r 1m t0 !macm¾sei. 42 Van der Kooij, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint”, 221 – 3.

Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar

65

time, the verb diasav]y is very often used in ancient scholia in the sense of “to give additional explanation”, i. e. as a normal synonym of 1ngc]olai in a grammatical context.43 The pattern of the work of a grammarian explains why some explanations can be given of the text of the Law as part of the working process without any attending audience. In the Greek tradition, explaining and commenting are inseparably connected with the editing process and this activity is also known as 2qlgme¸a, used as a proper synonym of 1n^cgsir.44 This activity is inseparably connected with the editing process (leading to the establishment of a reliable and clear text) starting with Aristophanes of Byzantium (258/255 to 180 BC), and it reached its height due to the works of Aristarchus (in the first half of the second century BC).45 If we adopt the working hypothesis that the words !m²cmysim ja· tµm 2j²stou dias²vgsim, in their “Greek” meaning, allude to the two steps of the grammatical process, it is logical to suppose that 2qlgme¸a is also intentionally used here to evoke this allusion and thus refers to the process of grammatical interpretation described using the term dias\vgsir. An even more interesting picture presents itself if we study the use of the term letacqav^ (Let. Aris. 307). Although the word letacqav^ is used several times in the Letter of Aristeas with the meaning of copying, transcription (Let. Aris. 10, 45, 309), it is nevertheless unconvincing in this sense in this particular context, which, in terms of the non-grammatical paradigm, uses the word 2qlgme¸a as meaning translation. Given the clear differentiation between the meanings of “translation” and “transcription” in Let. Aris. 15, the emphatic use of letacqav^ as a synonym of 2qlgme¸a appears to be forced. However, the word is also a common technical term in grammar meaning “rewriting”, “correctional change”, “emendation”, and in this sense it partly covers the meaning of another term, di|qhysir. It differs from it in that letacqav^ refers to correctional changes of meaning, whereas di|qhysir, although it can also imply such changes, can also refer to all kinds of correction, including syntactical assessment of a phrase46 and questions of

43 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera) book 1, verse 55, 69b; book 7, verse 8a; book 15, verse 369; book 17, verse 600 Erbse; Scholia in Pindarum (scholia vetera) ode 4 schol. 112b; ode 14 schol. 120b Drachmann; Scholia in Hesiodi Opera et dies, Prolegomenon-scholion 1.252; 725.21; 790.6 Gaisford. 44 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 140; Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.58.2; Scholia Marciana in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam 303.14 – 15 Hilgard: “[having been taught to read aloud,] one also wants explanation of what has been read aloud, that is interpretation (didawhe·r d³ ja· toO !macmysh´mtor !paite? tµm 1n¶cgsim, f 1sti tµm 2qlgme¸am)”; Cf. also Scholia Vaticana in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam 114.28 Hilgard. 45 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 190, 213 – 18, 225. 46 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera): book 1, verse 580 – 3a, line of schilion 2; book 4, verse 43b, line 2 Erbse.

66

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

historical grammar and orthography,47 as well as to the editing process48 and edited text in general.49 I will give several examples. Strabo (64/63 BC to ca. 23 AD) reports that Posidonius (135 – 51/50 BC) suggested changing (letacq²veim) the phrase of Homer “oR l³m dusol´mou gUpeq¸omor, oR d’ !miºmtor” to “Al³m !peqwol´mou gUpeq¸omor,” for better (astronomical) sense (Geogr. 2.3.7). He notes that some (editors, grammarians) change (letacq²vousi) the name of the river Pe?qor to P_qor in the verse of Hesiod, “åjee d’ (Ykem¸gm p´tqgm potalo?o paq’ ewhar eqqe?or Pe¸qoio” (though in his opinion it is inadvisable) (Geogr. 8.3.11). He says that in the verse of Homer “aqt±q gAkif¾mym (Od¸or ja· (Ep¸stqovor Gqwom tgkºhem 1n (Ak¼bgr, fhem !qc¼qou 1st· cem´hkg” (Il. 2.856) some people change (letacq²vousim) “Akif¾mym” to “Akaf¾mym”, while others change it to “)laf¾mym”, and “1n (Ak¼bgr” to “1n )kºpgr” or “1n )kºbgr” (Geogr. 12.3.21; cf. 14.5.28). He refers to the historian Ephorus (fourth century BC), who makes a drastic change (B letacqav^) of this line into “aqt±q (Alaf¾mym (Od¸or ja· (Ep¸stqovor Gqwom, 1khºmt’ 1n (Akºpgr, f h ’ (Alafom¸dym c´mor 1st¸” contrary to all ancient manuscripts (so his correction appears to be highly conjectural) (Geogr. 12.3.22). He says that when Homer writes “AQh¸op²r h’ Rjºlgm ja· Sidom¸our ja· (Eqelbo¼r,” there is vigorous debate as to which Sidonians and Erembians are meant, and that the stoic Zeno (middle of the fourth to middle of the third century BC) “transcribes” (letacq²vei) “ja· Sidom¸our 7Aqab²r te” (Geogr. 16.4.27) this way in order to solve the problem. Ancient scholia to Homer (based on the commentaries of Aristarchus for the most part) often use this term in reference to famous grammarians of the third to second centuries BC, i. e. to Zenodotus and Aristophanes the predecessors of Aristarchus.50 There is no good reason to call into question the use of the term in the middle of the second century BC, and there is firm evidence of the practice itself. It should be emphasised that it follows from all the examples above that all correctional changes referred to by Strabo were caused by attempts to clarify (or improve) the meaning of a place: every correction crowns the detailed discussion of an unclear place. This accords with the picture drawn in the Letter of Aristeas, where letacqav^ crowns the process of dias\vgsir (also generalised as 2qlgme_a). 47 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera): book 2, verse 865, line 2 Erbse. 48 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera): book 2, verse 527 – 31, line 5; book 9, verse 57 – 8, line 5 Erbse. 49 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera): book 1, verse postscr., line 2 ()qistaqwe?or di|qhysir); book 2, verse 192 b1, line 2 Erbse. 50 Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera): book 1, verse 3b2, line 1; book 1, verse 219 – 20, line 2 (refers to Zenodotus); book 5, verse 211a1, line 4; book 9, verse 616b, line 2 (refers to Zenodotus); book 10, verse 372 a, line 2; book 13, verse 658 – 9b, line 4; book 17, verse 700a, line 3 (refers to Zenodotus); book 18, verse 148a, line 2 Erbse (refers to Zenodotus). Scholia vetera in Aristophanem, Thesm. 162 (refers to Aristophanes of Byzantium).

Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar

67

Thus, reading the passage in terms of the grammatical meanings of the words used presents the picture of the sages reading the text aloud and clarifying it, at the end of which process the text must be revised and rewritten, i. e. emended. In terms of the grammatical allusions, reference is definitely made to correction of an existing text, rather than a new translation. Note that this conclusion accords with the suggestions made upon analysis of the grammatical terms in Let. Aris. 30 – 2. The commentaries to Dionysius Thrax, ingeniously referred to by A. van der Kooij, are a very important source for supporting the picture just reconstructed. I have taken the trouble to work on these texts further and think that they contain material that can help in substantiating the matter in question. Dionysius Thrax is an Alexandrian grammarian of the second century BC (ca. 170 to ca. 90 BC) and one of the pupils of Aristarchus. We have a handbook of grammar, Techne Grammatike, from late antiquity ascribed to him and a substantial corpus of (Byzantine) commentaries that accompany it. Regardless of how the Techne Grammatike in its present form should be dated, scholars agree that the material that it contains partly derives from a time long before Dionysius Thrax. There is agreement in particular concerning the first chapter, where six parts of grammar are specified: they derive from the grammatical theory of the third and second century BC.51 Actually, the two points referred to above by Arje van der Kooij correspond to the first two elements of the six-part scheme in the first chapter of the Techne Grammatike itself: !m²cmysir and 1n¶cgsir (Techne Grammatike, ch. 1). The question of the history of the commentaries to this text is naturally highly complex. They are generally subdivided into more ancient (explanationes vetustiores), and more recent (inferiores), and also continuous and composite.52 There are not many studies discussing and establishing the antiquity of their content, but, in all probability, the question cannot be less complicated than that concerning the rest of the Techne itself. However, there can be little doubt that the ancient commentaries also reflect the Hellenistic material to a significant degree.53 I will address the ancient commentaries called Melampodis sive Diomedis, which are continuous, and the composite Scholia Vaticana. The cumulative 51 J. Lallot, La grammaire de Denys le Thrace (Paris: CNRS rditions, 20032), 27: “Les six parties de la grammaire selon Denys – lecture respectuouse des diacritiques, explication et ~lucidation de tout ce qui rend difficile la comprehension des mots ou du r~cit, analyse ~tymologique, ~tablissement de l’analogie, critique des poems enfin – correspondent assez exactement x l’ ensemble de l’activit~ d~ploy~e par les philologues alexandrins des IIIe et IIe sizcles.” Cf. R.H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History (TiLSM 70; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993), 42; R.H. Robins, “The Authenticity of the Techne [of Dionysios Thrax]: the status quaestionis”, in V. Law/I. Sluiter (ed.), Dionysius Thrax and the Techne¯ Grammatike¯ (Münster: Nodus-Publ.,1996) 13 – 26, on p. 13. 52 G. Uhlig, “Prolegomena”, in: A. Hilgard (ed.), Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam (Lipsiae: in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1901), XXXIV – XXXV. 53 Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians, 45.

68

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

effect of this discussion, which will show the relevance of their material to that of the Letter of Aristeas and Strabo, will contribute to the question of the antiquity of their material. The six parts of grammar in Techne Grammatike itself are the following: 1. Skill in reading (aloud) with due attention to prosodic features. (pq_tom !m²cmysir 1mtqibµr jat± pqos\d¸am) 2. Interpretation, taking note of the tropes of literary composition found in the text. (de¼teqom 1n¶cgsir jat± to»r 1mup²qwomtar poigtijo»r tqºpour) 3. The ready explanation of obscure words and historical references. (tq¸tom ckyss_m te ja· Rstoqi_m pqºweiqoà !pºdosir) 4. Discovery of the origins of words. (t´taqtom 1tulokoc¸ar evqesir) 5. A detailed account of regular patterns. (p´lptom !makoc¸ar 1jkocislºr) 6. A critical assessment of poems; of all that the art includes this is the noblest part.54 (6jtom jq¸sir poigl²tym, d dµ j²kkistºm 1sti p²mtym t_m 1m t0 t´wm,) Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis (13.5 Hilgard) explain that this division into six parts is a more detailed elaboration of an earlier, more simple division, in which points three, four and five can be united under the single notion of dioqhytij|m. J. Lallot suspects that this explanation is considerably later than the first commentaries to Dionysius Thrax.55 However, I think that his conclusion is premature if we take into consideration the parallel schemes in the Scholia Vaticana and the evidence of Strabo (and, finally, the parallel pattern in the Letter of Aristeas). The Scholia Vaticana indeed refer to a more concise scheme, referred to by the Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis (Vat. 135.7; 164.9; 169.9 Hilgard), noting that there are four parts of grammar: reading aloud, explanation, correction and criticism: L´qg d³ aqt/r t´ssaqa, !macmystijºm, 1ngcgtijºm, dioqhytij¹m ja· jqitijºm. Here dioqhytij|m takes the place of the third, fourth and fifth elements (glosses, historiai, etymologies) of the more detailed scheme. At the same time, Strabo provides evidence that corrections (letacqava_) are directly connected to explanations of rare words (glosses) and of historical background (historiai), and to the search for the proper etymology (cf. Rstoq]y and 1tulokoc¸a in Strabo Geogr. 16.4.27). He does not mention the search for grammatical analogy as he is focused on the historical meaning of the texts, rather than on general philological issues, but I think that there is little doubt that philologists with a more general approach would base their corrections on this issue too. This confirms that dioqhytij|m as a more general variant of letacqav^ is put in the right place in the Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis and in the Scholia Vaticana. 54 Kemp, J.A. (transl.), “The Tekhne Grammatike of Dionysius Thrax”, Historiographia Linguistica 13:2/3 (1986) 343 – 63, on p. 346. 55 Lallot, La grammaire de Denys le Thrace, 73 – 4.

Let. Aris. 301 – 11 and the six (or four) steps of grammar

69

The Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis establish a strong connection between reading aloud and correcting a text with the remark that: “First skill in reading (aloud) with due attention to prosodic features.] Having neglected to correct the books in the beginning, they turn to reading aloud” (Pq_tom !m²cmysir 1mtqibµr jat± pqos\d¸am.] )lek¶samter toO dioqhoOshai t± bibk¸a 1n !qw/r, 1p· tµm !m²cmysim tq´pomtai, Melamp. 13.11 – 12 Hilgard). The idea is that the first step for grammarians working on a blatantly corrupted or unclear text is, naturally, to try to read it. Reading in Greek antiquity is not clearly distinguished from reading aloud, as the word itself, used both for reading and reading aloud, indicates. Reading aloud seems to be especially necessary in the case of poetry, because reading a text aloud with the right intonation, professionally and in traditional way, helps in understanding its structure, texture and, consequently, sensing where it may be corrupted. Special interest in punctuating and accentuating texts (inseparably linked with reading aloud) is testified as early as Aristophanes of Byzantium and developed by his pupil Aristarchus (i. e. the third century BC to the first half of the second century BC).56 Thus, initially, reading aloud could be used with regard to poetic texts, but later it was formalised as the first step in the grammatical process leading to an edition of any text. In any case, the relevance of the idea articulated in the Scholia to the Letter of Aristeas should also be emphasised by noting that the phrase which introduces the process of reading aloud (1tq´pomto pq¹r tµm !m²cmysim ja· tµm 2j²stou dias²vgsim) coincides with the expression used in the Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis to describe the first step of the process of correction: 1p· tµm !m²cmysim tq´pomtai, whereas both authors point to negligence (!) as the cause of the bad state of the text (cf. Let. Aris. 30: !lek´steqom … ses¶lamtai; Melamp: )lek¶samter toO dioqhoOshai). Thus, we can see that Let. Aris. 301 – 7 is constructed as a parallel to the first three steps of the grammatical process leading to an edition of a text, as described in the Scholia to Dionysious Thax (!macmystij|m, 1ngcgtij|m, dioqhytij|m). In Aristeas’ description, letacqav^ crowns the process of reading aloud and clarification (!m²cmysim ja· tµm 2j²stou dias²vgsim), also referred to as 2qlgme_a. However, the emphasis accorded by Aristeas implies that the attention of the sages was focused on the meaning of the texts being corrected (which is stressed by the term letacqav^), rather than on general linguistic and editorial issues. Before I address the question of whether the last (sixth, or fourth in the concise scheme) part of grammar is also reflected in the narrative, I wish to

56 Reading aloud is relevant to any hexametric text, but it became particularly important in connection with the first editions of lyric poets, undertaken by Aristophanes, where the editor had first to clarify unclear metrics and divide the text into strophes. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 178 – 81, 219. Thus, Lallot’s idea that reading aloud is only possible when a text is already well edited seems to be incorrect, see Lallot, La grammaire de Denys le Thrace, 73 – 4.

70

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

note another interesting parallel between grammatical theory and this passage in the Letter of Aristeas. The Scholia Vaticana (113.15 – 22 Hilgard) contain a generalisation concerning the nature and aim of grammar. In particular, Scholia Vaticana note: The cause of grammar is unclearness (B !s²veia). People, dealing with poetic and prose texts and not having preserved ancient speech that has become alien, have invented the art of making it clear (savgm¸sai). And they particularly needed grammar for poems containing strange words and expressions … So, one can say that the cause of the grammar is not unclearness, but clarity (B sav¶meia).

An analogous idea is implied in the words of Sextus Empiricus, who speaks (though he does so in terms of polemics) of the “art of explanation” (t]wmg 1ngcgtij^), which is used by grammarians to make a text clear:57 … according to them, the clear poem is the best (%qistom d³ po¸gl² 1sti jat’ aqto»r t¹ sav´r); for the excellence of a poem is its clarity (!qetµ c±q poi¶lator B sav¶meia), and, for the art of grammar, want of clarity is bad (ja· lowhgq¹m t¹ !sav³r paq± cqallatij0).

The idea of clarity as the aim of grammar is significantly influenced by Aristotle, according to whom it was one of the most important qualities of style, and we have already seen that it was elaborated upon in this respect by Aristeas in Let. Aris. 30 – 2. In the quotations above the idea is directly linked with the exegetical activity of philologists, who have invented grammatical methods built on explanation for clarifying a text. In this light we can see further connotations of the term dias²vgsir in Let. Aris. 305 as being directly connected to the idea of exegesis and hermeneia. Compared to Let. Aris. 30 – 2, where wording is meant specifically, in Let. Aris. 305 the idea of clarity is put in the context of the aim of the grammatical process being that of exegesis: the text had to be clarified by means of the explanations and clarifications of the sages. It is, of course, very tempting to connect the idea of clarification of meaning, alluded to by Aristeas, with the idea, emphasised in the Scholia, that this kind of interpretation is needed in connection with rare and not entirely Greek wording, as this would be highly relevant to the language of the LXX. This, however, may be an overstatement and will necessarily remain conjectural. Aristeas may have referred to clarity as a basic quality of any text and final purpose of any exegesis, without implying the strange wording of the LXX.

57 Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.318 – 20.

Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism

71

2.6 Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism In Let. Aris. 310 – 11, after all those who were present at the reading aloud of the completed Greek text of the Law agreed that the translation was good, they bade that an imprecation be pronounced, according to their custom, upon any who should change the text (diasjeu\sei) by adding (pqostihe_r) or transposing (letav]qym) anything whatever in what had been written down, or by making any excision (poio}lemor !va_qesim); and in this they did well, so that the work might be preserved imperishable and unchanged always.

In terms of the Jewish biblical paradigm, this passage clearly alludes to the ban in Deuteronomy (Deut 4:2 (cf. Deut 13:1)): “Ye shall not add (oq pqosh¶sete) unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought (ja· oqj !veke?te) from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you”. However, Deuteronomy implies changes to the content of the Law, while Aristeas’ elaboration has a different undertone. He adds the verbs diasjeu\fy (“to make changes”) and letav]qy (“transpose”). The latter verb clearly implies some kind of manipulation of the text itself and pertains to changes to the text beyond the simple addition and deletion of content. In this context the verbs pqost_hgli and !vaiq]y may also acquire text-critical connotations: in terms of the grammatical paradigm, the passage would imply a ban on changing the text of the Greek Law, rather than its content. Attempts have been made to understand this warning as targeting would-be revisers seeking to make the translation more literal.58 Theories involving 58 S.P. Brock, “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Tradition”, in B. Lindars/G.J. Brooke (ed.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Writings, Manchester 1990 (SCSS 33; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992) 301 – 38; A. Lange, “Textual Standardization in Egyptian Judaism and in the Letter of Aristeas”, in M. Karrer/M. Meiser/W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. Juli 2008 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 48 – 71. In particular, Lange thinks that Aristeas extols the translation and formulates this ban on its change as a polemic against the revision of an earlier version of the LXX to bring it closer to a proto-Masoretic version. To substantiate this claim Lange wishes to bring together chronologically the date of the composition of the Letter and our earliest Egyptian papyrus, which contains portions of the LXX, P. Fouad, with a revision of the LXX towards a proto-Masoretic text. While the main thesis is discussed in the main text, here it should be noted that his attempts to re-date the Letter to the middle of the first century BC are highly problematic. In particular, Lange (having ignored all the linguistic and historical arguments discussed by Bickerman) says that the use of the expression 6nim peqipoi]y in Let. Aris. 121 is an allusion to the expression 6nim peqipoi]olai used in the Prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus (Sir11:1), written after 117 BC, though, as Lange admits, the expression in Ecclesiasticus is also used in a number of other texts, starting with the Alexandrian philologist of the third second century BC, Aristophanes of Byzantium (Hist. anim. 2.50.11), and followed by

72

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

ideological controversies surrounding the text of the Law among the Egyptian Jewry have been proposed.59 However, the analysis above requires a cautious attitude to these theories since it demonstrates that Aristeas uses terms and notions, which, when read as grammatical terms, distinctly point to the idea of correction of the LXX, rather than new translation in both places devoted to the description of the work on the text. At the same time, a Hebrew copy brought in from Jerusalem is introduced in Let. Aris. 46. This copy can be reasonably identified with a proto-Masoretic text, with which the Greek text is compared and on which basis it is corrected. (Note the term “comparison” in Let. Aris. 302, which, according to Zuntz, is used in the technical sense of collating manuscripts.60 But in our case there are no different Greek manuscripts which can be collated, but rather the not entirely reliable Greek text and the Hebrew copy. Logically speaking, the comparison should be made between the bad translation and the good source copy). Thus, if Aristeas speaks systematically and intentionally about a revision, a general ban on such a revision appears to be impossible: how can one pronounce a ban on an action he is praising himself ? It can be suggested that, in this case, the ban would likely concern subsequent corrections. However, first, I think that this suggestion would require substantiation: typologically, it is difficult to see why one correction is welcomed, but another is forbidden (in the form of a manifesto). This would involve hypothesising a situation with too many unknowns.61 Second, I suggest considering the possibility that the passage contains a different message, which should be correctly interpreted in terms of the grammatical paradigm. In this passage a grammatical construction is used in which the personal form of the verb (diasjeu\sei) is combined with participles (pqostihe_r, letav]qym, poio}lemor !va_qesim); this indicates that the actions expressed Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 2.29.4) and Philo of Alexandria (Leg. 1.10.3) (we can also add Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. 3.10.69.3; 4.5.20.2). However, the verbal collocation used by Aristeas is not identical with those used by the authors above, as Aristeas uses the verb in the Active voice, whereas all these authors use it in the Middle voice; consequently, Aristeas uses the expression with an objective case (Genitivus objectives: peqipoi]y 6nim tim|r, in this case – t_m (Ioudazj_m cqall²tym), whereas all the other abovementioned authors use it without any object: this means that not only is the form of the verb different in these two patterns, but also the meaning of the word 6nim, and consequently the meaning of the whole expression. In Aristeas 6nir means “having, possession” (of something) and in this meaning is a parallel to a great many other examples, in which this verbal collocation is used with all imaginable nouns in the Genitive far beyond the circle of the abovementioned authors. The expression means “to acquire (something)” – in this case, knowledge of the Jewish literature. In the examples above, where the Middle voice is used, however, the noun takes its second, intransitive meaning of “state, condition”, meaning here “skill, experience, training”, with the whole expression meaning “to gain skill”. The expression in Aristeas is not an allusion to Sirach for this simple reason. 59 Lange, “Textual Standardization”, 68 – 9. 60 Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II”, 137 (1972). 61 Cf. Rajak, Translation and Survival, 51.

Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism

73

using participles form the content of the action expressed using the verb. In other words, diasjeu\fy (“to make (general) changes”) generalises particular actions of adding, transposing or making excisions, rather than referring to a different action. Consequently, the passage speaks not about revision in general terms, but about a particular action of adding, deleting or transposing something in the text. It is difficult to see how these devices can help in making a translation more literal, providing that the Hebrew original is supposed to remain the same. However, obelising, deletions of lines and passages, or replacement of lines (resulting in their addition where they did not belong initially) are traditional methods of literary criticism.62 This was also correctly noticed by M. Niehoff, who backed up this thesis with many pieces of evidence from Homeric scholia.63 I would add to her observations that the Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis to Dionysius Thrax (15.27 – 29 Hilgard), commenting on the sixth element of the scale offered by Dionysius (i. e. a critical assessment of poems, jq_sir), generalise the issue and specify that criticism implies “to judge what is written in metre, that is poems, whether [their elements are put] duly or unduly, and whether they are placed properly or not properly in that or this place, and to know and formulate the causes of that” (t¹ jq¸meim t± 1ll´tqyr cecqall´ma, tout´sti t± poi¶lata, eUte deºmtyr eUte lµ deºmtyr, eUte jak_r eUte va¼kyr je?tai 1m t`de t` tºp\ C 1m t`de, ja· t±r to¼tym aQt¸ar eQd´mai ja· !pova¸meshai). M. Niehoff, drawing on the idea that literary criticism is meant in Let. Aris. 310 – 11, jumps to the conclusion that Aristeas, when denying the possibility of criticism of the LXX, launches a polemic against application of the methods of Homeric scholarship to the Law of the Jews.64 In her opinion, he demonstrates his “conservative reaction” to Aristarchean methods. Obviously, she wishes to interpret this ban in terms of the dawning Jewish identity being crystallised in the Jewish Alexandrian subculture in opposition to the Greek cultural mainstream, terming it an “early Jewish response to Homeric scholarship”. As may have become clear from the preceding discussion, I doubt that this inference can be based on the grammatical material. M. Niehoff does not identify any other grammatical allusions in the text of Aristeas, nor does she 62 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 230 – 2. 63 See the discussion of the term diasjeu\fy and other terms used in Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 23 – 4, 26. 64 Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 28 – 37. She goes so far as to hypothesise a group of people who used to apply this kind of criticism to the text of Scripture (of which there is no evidence), and at the same time to suggest that the verb ses^lamtai in Let. Aris. 30 refers to the text-critical signs as marks of text-critical activity allegedly applied to the text of the Bible. This interpretation is bizarre. The verb sgla_my has indeed a great variety of contextual meanings and connotations and picking up one of them without any argument from immediate context seems arbitrary. Apart from the discussion of grammatical implication of the place above, it remains utterly unclear why these signs should be the concern of Ptolemy Philadelphus and the starting point of the whole story.

74

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

take into consideration the place and function of literary criticism in Greek grammatical theory. However, the passage from the Scholia quoted above also highlights another important idea connected to the notion of criticism, namely that it concerns poetry. Starting from the fifth century BC, criticism implied judgement of the qualities of a literary text and an attempt to correct it by drawing on the idea of a certain “ideal” form of a poetically expressed thought. Initially, these attempts at correction took the form of a theoretical dissertation on a text, of which Socrates’ discussion of Simonides in Plato’s Protagoras 339a–347a can serve as an example. Aristotle started to systematise the rules of criticism by discussing and establishing the idea of a perfect poetical work. He held that poetry encompasses epos, lyric poetry, tragedy and comedy. However, although metre is indispensable for a poetic work, metre alone does not make a text poetry. Along with metre, poetry needs fiction, which, however, must necessarily be an imitation and representation of life. This requirement involves a number of rules, described by Aristotle in Poetics, according to which a poetical work must be written and should be judged. These concern correspondence between the plot and the length of a work, unity of action, plausible and consequent characters; writing and judging poetry also implies such general requirements as plausibility, possibility and necessity, along with absence of inner contradictions (these last principles were used far beyond literary criticism, on which see below). Thus, as Aristotle sums up, a work should be judged according to the rules of arts and the general requirements referred to above (Poet. 1461 b 22 – 24). This approach implies, among other things, that a work, being an imitation of one integral object (or subject), must have perfect coherence of all its elements and parts, so that “… if one of them be transposed or removed (letatihel´mou tim¹r l´qour C !vaiqoul´mou), the unity of the whole is dislocated and destroyed. For if the presence or absence of a thing makes no visible difference, then it is not an integral part of the whole”.65 This statement served, inter alia, as the theoretical basis for deletions, obelising and transpositions of lines and passages in various poetical works and, in particular, in Homeric text, which was the object of restoration in the Hellenistic age. Note that the passage of Aristeas being discussed is composed such that it contains those terms or direct synonyms of them: an imprecation be pronounced, according to their custom, upon any who should change the text (diasjeu\sei) by adding (pqostihe_r) or transposing (letav]qym) anything whatever in what had been written down, or by making any excision (poio}lemor !va_qesim). 65 Poet. 1451a30 – 5 (quote from: Aristotle The Poetics; Longinus On the Sublime; Demetrius On Style (The Loeb Classical Library XXIII; Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann LTD 1982), 85).

Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism

75

)va_qesim corresponds to !vaiqoul´mou, and letav]qym is a direct synonym of letatihel´mou. However, the crucial point is that all these principles formulated by Aristotle implied a literary, poetic work containing imitative fiction. Works written in one of the genres discussed by Aristotle in Poetics can be judged in these terms, but non-poetic works containing no imitative fiction obviously cannot. For instance, Aristotle separated history from poetry, making it a different category as early as in Poetics. The crucial difference between them is that history relates to singular and individual events that really happened (independently of whether we take them to be plausible and possible or not), whereas poetry seeks to imitate general principles of life, based on plausibility, possibility and necessity. What we have said already makes it further clear that a poet’s object is not to tell what actually happened, but what could and would happen either probably or inevitably. The difference between a historian and a poet is not that one writes in prose and the other in verse – indeed the writings of Herodotus could be put into verse and yet would be still a kind of history, whether written in metre or not. The real difference is this, that one tells what happened and the other what might happen. For this reason poetry is something more scientific and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.66

What might, should or would happen can be judged in terms of possibility or necessity, but what happened happened and can not be judged in these terms for the purpose of evaluating the scill of an author. Also, history, containing no imitative fiction, is not an art in terms of Aristotle’s Poetics. Consequently it cannot be judged according to the rules of art. Sextus Empiricus in the second century AD provides evidence that standards that would allow history to be judged in terms of truth or to be treated as an art, a techne, were never elaborated in antiquity. In particular, he says: Hence, it is right to ridicule those who claim that even though the material of history is unsystematic (!l´hodor), none the less there will be an expert judgement (jq¸sir tewmij¶) of that material, by which we recognise what has been truly or falsely explained in the history. First, the grammarians have not handed down to us a criterion of true history (t/r !kghoOr Rstoq¸ar jqit¶qiom) so that we could test when it is true and when false. Second, since the grammarians have no true history, their criterion of true (t¹ toO !kghoOr jqit¶qiom) cannot exist either … In fact, grammarians do not even instruct us as to how history would be well written, so that with reference to such rules we could say that their historical part was expert (tewmijºm ti l´qor rp²qweim): this is the job of rhetoricians. Thus, since they 66 Aristotle Poet. 1451a36–b7.

76

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

themselves admit that history is unsystematic compilation (!l´hodºm ti paq²pgcla) and we have argued as much, and moreover they have provided no expert precept (oqd³m tewmij¹m he¾qgla) for the knowledge or structure of history, we must say that in its historical part too, grammar is infeasible.67

There were no criteria according to which the content and form of history could be judged. This means that, based on the principles formulated by Aristotle, history never allowed for literary criticism. Nonetheless, historical works, as well as prose works in general, could be discussed and explained in terms of hermeneia. Thus, Sextus Empiricus says that The grammarian pursues as his particular job both what is in the poets, which he appears to interpret (2qlgme¼eim), for example in Homer and Hesiod, Pindar, Euripides, Menander, and the rest, and what is in the writers, such as in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato.68

This implies that historical and prose works could be judged and even corrected with regard to their language and style, at least in terms of their precision and clarity, since linguistic theory was formulated by Aristotle in relation to language and written texts in general (rather than only to poetic works). Sextus continues: Thus, famous grammarians have worked on many (prose) writers, now on historians, now on orators, now on philosophers, investigating what in them has been said correctly and idiomatically and what is in error – what, for example, does zanklon mean in Thucydides or torneuontes, or “he shouted as though from the wagon” in Demosthenes, or how one should read the phrase GDOS in Plato, with the first syllable unaspirated or aspirated, or with the first syllable unaspirated and the second aspirated, or both unaspirated, or the opposite.69

Thus, history could certainly be commented upon in terms of rare and unclear realia and names (ethnonyms, toponyms etc.) used in it. For instance, Strabo gives many examples of how grammatical commentaries contributed to the understanding of the historical background to a poetic text (see above). He also demonstrates how these commentaries would lead to the correction (“rewriting”) of historical elements by drawing not on poetical, but on historical considerations. We also know that Aristarchus in the second century BC performed such work with regard to history sensu stricto: he corrected and commented on Herodotus and, possibly, Thucydides.70 A papyrus from Egypt 67 Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.266 – 8. (D. L. Blank (transl. with Intr. and Comm.), Sextus Empiricus, Against the Grammarians (CLAPh; J. Barnes et al. (ed.); Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 50, 53). 68 Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.58.2. 69 Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.59 – 60. 70 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 224 – 5.

Let. Aris. 310 – 11 and literary criticism

77

contains parts of Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus (Pap. Amherst 12).71 Aristarchus suggests the variant %lippoi for %mippoi in Hist. 1.215, which is a clear case of “rewriting” (letacqav^), and offers an extensive commentary on historical realia and rare words. However, manuscripts of historians in which lines and passages have been obelised, deleted or transposed have not come down to us, because literary criticism was never applied to these authors. This approach, which implies study of language and realia in all kinds of texts, but application of literary criticism only to poetic texts containing fiction and composed according to the rules of arts, is already firmly established in the second century BC in the division of Dionysius Thrax, according to whom the general definition of grammar is relevant to all writers: “Grammar is the practical study of the normal usages of poets and prose writers” (Cqallatij¶ 1Ãtim 1lpeiq¸a t_m paq± poigta?à te ja· ÃuccqaveOÃim ¢Ã 1p· t¹ pok» kecol´mym), while the sixth part, criticism, only refers to the poets: “criticism of poems” (Jq¸sir poigl²tym). This approach would perfectly explain why Aristeas feels entitled to treat the LXX as a relevant subject for the grammatical process preceding that of criticism (!m\cmysir, 2qlgme_a, letacqav^), but emphasises the ban on critical activity in Let. Aris. 310 – 11. When rejecting the possibility of literary criticism with regard to the LXX, Aristeas distinctively places it beyond the scope of literature containing myths and literary fiction. It might be that he associates it with works containing history, even if history is not the only genre to which Aristeas alludes when speaking about the social and literary niche occupied by the LXX.72 It is impossible to overlook the fact that Scripture is systematically treated as history in the Hellenistic and Roman period, as indicated by the long chain of Jewish Hellenistic authors classified as historians (Demetrius, Artapanus, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Hecateus et cetera).73 The tendency is also discernible in Aristobulus.74 However, apart from sharing a certain tendency of treating the LXX within the Jewish Hellenistic context with other authors, Aristeas’ claim must have a special undertone targeted at the external audience. It is important that the grammatical tradition took up and elaborated upon the Aristotelian approach to history as non-fiction as opposed to poetry, which is necessarily a kind of fiction. However, the notion of fiction is strictly connected with the notion of myth. In Aristotle, myth is a complicated term meaning either a fictional story 71 B. Grenfell/A. S. Hunt (ed.), The Amherst Papyri, Part II: Classical Fragments and Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (London: Henry Frowde, 1901), 3 – 4. 72 See Ch. 3, Section 3.1. 73 Cf. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol.1: Historians (TT PS 20/10; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). The tendency was later taken up by Josephus Flavius in his Antiquitates judaicae. 74 Aristobulus also alludes to the Scripture as history in Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.1 (Fr. 3 Holladay, Fr. 5 Walter).

78

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

or a legendary story about gods. For instance, the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax always specify that a work of a poet implies fiction or myth (pk²sla, lOhor), besides metre, plot and style.75 On the contrary, historical writers have nothing in common with poets and describe events which the authors have either seen (succqave?r) or inquired about (Rstoqi|qcavoi).76 At the same time, not only was myth always treated in connection with a kind of imitative fiction in the grammatical tradition, but ancient philosophy broadly speaking, and particularly Platonism and Aristotelianism, both very popular in Alexandria, also always spoke about “mythology” in a tone of deprecation and opposed it to theology (i. e. knowledge about god and divine) as falsehood to truth.77 The philological approach to myth as essentially connected with poetical fiction and the philosophical scorn of “mythology” complemented each other in creating a specific intellectual mainstream. In this context it was typical of Jewish Hellenistic authors, who tried to introduce their ancestral tradition to Greek intellectual circles, to free the LXX emphatically from any suspicion of “mythology” (i. e. literary fiction on divine subjects).78 If we take into consideration their efforts, we can see that Aristeas’ endeavour is in tune with them. This intention of Aristeas is confirmed by his own declaration that “nothing has been set down through Scripture in vain or in the spirit of myth” (p²mta jejamºmistai pq¹r dijaios¼mgm, ja· oqd³m eQj0 jatat´tajtai di± t/r cqav/r oqd³ luhyd_r, Let. Aris. 168). At the same time, in rejecting Greek polytheism, he refers to the poets telling stories about gods as to “diapk\samter ja· luhopioOmter” (Let. Aris. 137), i. e. “inventing fiction and composing myths”. In doing so he shows his wish to dissociate the Jewish Scripture from mythology, while using words that have also philological significance and allude to certain literary genres, whose scope he tends to place the LXX beyond. Thus, unlike other writers, Aristeas contributes to the goal of liberating the Scripture from the charge of being mythological by using grammatical allusions too. This strategy of placing the LXX beyond the scope of literary criticism perfectly chimes with the allusions to Aristotle’s De interpretatione (Peq· 2qlgme_ar) in Let. Aris. 30 – 2, which emphatically stresses that its argument is devoted to general rules of language, rather than to texts containing fiction (like poetry or rhetoric) (Int. 17a2 – 7). In the light of my analysis above, Aristeas’ device of transforming the biblical ban on addition to and deletion from the content of the Bible (which plays an important part in the biblical paradigm developed in the Letter) into the ban on literary criticism of the Bible should by no means be taken as being in opposition to the Greek standards. On the contrary, it is a close adaption 75 76 77 78

Vat. 166.16 – 20; 168.9 – 10 Hilgard; Lond. 449.4 – 6 Hilgard. Vat. 167.30 – 168.13 Hilgard. Plato Resp. 377d–378e. Aristobulus apud Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.10.2 (Fr. 2 Holladay, Fr. 2 Walter). Philo Gig. 7.58 – 60; Opif. 1 – 3; 157; Leg 1.44; 2.19; Sacr. 14; Det. 125; Agr. 97, etc.

Thesis of analogy with Homer

79

to them. At the same time the interpretation proposed necessarily casts new light on the thesis of cultural emulation of Homer and Homeric scholarship proposed by Honigman.

2.7 Thesis of analogy with Homer S. Honigman, drawing on the suggestions of Zuntz, Murray and Van der Kooij that the Letter of Aristeas contains text-critical/grammatical references, proposed the thesis that these are hints at the “Homeric paradigm”, intentionally used by the author. In her opinion, “in the mind of Alexandrian Jews, the fate of the LXX was comparable to that of the Homeric epics edited by the Alexandrian grammarians”.79 She thinks that Aristeas intentionally brings together the Septuagint with the Homeric epics, in order to emphasise a certain parity, or analogy, between the main text of the Greek culture and that of the Jewish one. A. van der Kooij, drawing on his suggestion that Aristeas, when speaking of the Law refers to the meaning of the Greek texts, rather than to the quality of its textual tradition, comes to the conclusion that, contrary to S. Honigman’s arguments, Aristeas is not dependent on the “Homeric paradigm” at all.80 My analysis supports the thesis that Aristeas’ focus certainly was on the meaning of the Greek text (as not faithful/faithful to the Hebrew), rather than the state of its handwritten tradition. However, I cannot see how the fact that textual meaning is the focus of Aristeas’ interest contradicts the possibility of the influence of the “Homeric paradigm”. I suggested that the Ur-pattern of the anecdote of Peisistratus’ edition of Homer is among Aristeas’ points of reference in composing his narrative. Our discussion of this pattern shows that the editors of Homer were also deeply concerned with the meaning of Homeric texts that they edited, in order to make them not only as faithful as possible to the reconstructed Urtext (their unattainable ideal), but also clear and precise in wording, i. e. style, given that the manuscripts at their disposal were often far from being so.81 The reason for the introduction of 72 grammarians (as the number relevant to all possible syntactical combinations in terms of hermeneia, i. e. style) into the anecdote about Homer highlights this connection between editorial activity and focus on the meaning of the texts. This is the point of convergence, where the pattern, known to Aristeas from the 79 Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 120. 80 Cook/Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom, 28. 81 This could lead the editors rather too far, in the opinion of their contemporaries. Thus, mistrust and irony is reflected in the answer of Timon given to Aratus, who asked where he could find a reliable text of Homer (Diogenes Laertius V.Ph. 9.113). When acrimonious Timon says “in the ancient copies, and not in the edited copies (diyqhyl]moir) of our day”, he ironically refers to the results achieved by contemporary scholarship.

80

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

monolingual Greek tradition, can be relevant to the peculiar situation of translation he definitely had in mind. I think that this part of my argument substantially backs up Honigman’s thesis that the “Homeric paradigm”may be in play here. A deeper analysis reveals a more nuanced picture, however. At the same time, this parallelism with Homeric scholarship is by no means absolute. The complicated system of grammatical allusions is very consistent on the point that the text, subject to grammatical work and improvement in the Letter, does not belong to the category of poetry, i. e. literature containing literary fiction and composed according to the rules of an art: its language has to be judged according to the “non-poetic” linguistics of De Interpretatione (Let. Aris. 30 – 2), and it cannot be the subject of literary criticism (Let. Aris. 311). This in turn would suggest the inference that Aristeas does not make any consistent analogy between the LXX and Homer. How can these two findings be reconciled? Speaking about Greek philology, we should keep in mind that a great variety of philological and grammatical methods were identical with regard to both poetic and non-poetic texts. For instance, the division of Dionysius Thrax shows that not only Homer, but also other writers of both poetry and prose can be treated using the same methods, though only up to a certain point, after which literary theory demanded differentiation of the principles of their study. Unlike literary criticism (jq_sir), text-explanation (2qlgme_a, 1n^cgsir, dias\vgsir), text-correction (letacqav^) and, generally speaking, text-editing (di|qhysir) were not confined to poetry, but were applied to all kinds of poetic and prose texts. Even several principles, formulated by Aristotle in Poetics with regard to literary criticism, can be applied to non-poetic texts. However, this does not necessarily imply the intention of giving a critical assessment of their literary qualities. For instance, we can often see how a non-poetic text is discussed in terms of the probability and consistency of its inner logic. This discussion is traditionally organised in terms of a method of fgt^lata (pqobk^lata, !poq^lata) jai k}seir (problems and solutions). Aristotle, when formulating the principles of probability and absence of contradictions in Poetics, already refers to the tradition of their use as part of the dialectical exercise in the Academy.82 From that time onwards the tradition of their application to nonpoetic texts and speeches did not cease in the Platonic and Peripatetic schools.83 The method was also broadly used beyond the Academy and Lyceum with regard to all kind of subjects.84 In respect of the writings of Plato or 82 Aristotle Poet. 1461b30; H.J. Krämer, Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972), 25 – 8. 83 See on Aristotle – Diognes Laertius V.Ph. 5.23, 26; Theophrastus: Diognes Laertius V.Ph. 5.45, 48; Antisthenes: Diognes Laertius V.Ph. 6.17; Cf. also Plutarch’s Pkatymij± fgt^lata, or Alexander of Aphrodisias’ Pqobk^lata and )poq_ai ja· k}seir. 84 Chrysippus: Ihij± and Vusij± fgt^lata (Plutarch Stoic. rep. 1053ef; 1046d); Tqopij± fgt^-

Thesis of analogy with Homer

81

Aristotle, this kind of textual analysis never implied even potential changes to the masters’ texts (that would have been a sacrilege!), but it was used as part of training in dialectics and contributed to a deeper understanding of the masters’ literary heritage. Thus, in the case of dzetematic studies in general, it would be incorrect to assert that the method was directly borrowed from Homeric scholarship, and that its use and function in application to texts beyond poetry were identical to those in Homeric scholarship. In terms of the divisions of grammar, this method constituted part of literary criticism when the subject was poetry (because this was one of the principles of literary criticism distinctively formulated by Aristotle with regard to poetic texts), but it was part of exegesis and hermeneia, rather than literary criticism, when applied to non-literary texts. Thus, for instance, when we see that a Jewish historian, Demetrius, in presenting the LXX as history, puts and resolves questions concerning the consistency of its content in terms of probability and the lack of contradictions, we should consider it one example of the second approach (cf. Philo Somn. 2.300 – 1).85 At the same time, all kinds of “Homeric problems” ()poq^lata (or Fgt^lata, or Pqobk^lata) jlgqij\) were renowned in antiquity. The first famous such work was that of Aristotle,86 and in Hellenistic antiquity one can hardly find a grammarian, or even philosopher, who had not contributed to this kind of study.87 This state of affairs made Homer a paradigmatic author even with regard to dzemeatic studies, although they were not exclusively connected to literary criticism. Similarly, explanation on the level of language and thought were paradigmatically studied in all kinds of philological works devoted to Homer, which made him the most famous example of philological subject or the philological subject-matter par excellence. Thus, in terms of grammar and philology, Homer can serve as a point of reference as he is the Greek author particularly often treated by the grammarians. Thus, the “Homeric paradigm”, as a paradigmatic philological pattern, can be relevant to the Letter and serve as a point of reference insofar as it concerns style (clarity, exactness) and (factual) meaning of the text. However, the “Homeric paradigm” in its totality is not relevant to the complex of grammatical methods applicable to the Scripture as represented by Aristeas. This paradigm is useless and irrelevant to the Scripture insofar as it implies assessment of the text (not to mention changes to the text) drawing on discussion of the principles underlying its composition. When it comes to the

lata pq¹r FAmym ja· Vikolah/ by the same author (Diogenes Laertius V. Ph. 7.195); Democritus: )poqgl!tym. TaOta ja· peq· v}seyr (Diogenes Laertius V.Ph. 9.47). 85 This is mistakenly interpreted as an example of literary criticism by Niehoff (Jewish Exegesis, 39 – 57). 86 Diogenes Laertius V.Ph. 5.21; Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 69. 87 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 69 – 71.

82

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

Scripture, as well as a great variety of other ancient non-poetic writings, those principles are not for discussion. Thus, in my opinion, the thesis of S. Honigman, stimulating and important though it is, is not correct in that it suggests cultural emulation of Homer as a particular author, or, rather, the Greek author, in terms of cultural rivalry between him and the book of the Jews, rather than reference to him as a paradigmatic example of philological subject-matter. I believe that it is against all historical probability that Aristeas, as a man of his time, would have intended to hint at an analogy between the LXX and Homer in terms of a cultural and literary phenomenon. According to the way of thinking of Jewish and Greek Alexandrians alike, the LXX cannot be compared with Homer both because the LXX is a sacred text, whereas Homer has never been treated thus (and has even traditionally suffered from the accusation of impiety), and because the LXX is a prose text tending to be placed in the category of history, whereas Homer is the very opposite, namely the highest expression of poetry and mythology. Besides, Homer is excellent poetry, whereas the LXX is bad prose. Hellenistic scholarship was very particular about the literary quality of works even within the limits of the Greek tradition. In every particular genre, the Alexandrians used to have selective lists, i. e. canons, of the authors deserving to be studied and referred to in other commentaries (the result of literary criticism). Not many Greek epic authors were considered absolute models,88 to say nothing of the prose style of the LXX. As F. Siegert put it: “er lief dem Ästhetizismus gerade der Alexandriner diametral entgegen”.89 All cultural, literary and aesthetic norms would be violated by this analogy in the eyes of both Greeks and Jews born and educated in Alexandria.

2.8 The meaning of grammatical terminology: interim conclusions As the reader may have understood well, Aristeas intentionally uses polysemy of words. This polysemy implies simultaneous references to biblical and grammatical paradigms (to Jewish and Greek contexts), as well as playing with several meanings of a term/word within the Greek tradition. This strategy cannot surprise an expert student and translator of ancient texts. For instance, the practice of combining allusions to Jewish and Greek contexts is a feature of Philo’s style. He writes his commentaries in such a way that every word can refer to a biblical context and to a place in Plato’s and (or) Aristotle’s heritage. This convergence is the aim of his exegesis. However, playing with different 88 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 204 – 8. 89 F. Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 9; Münster: Lit, 2001), 28.

Account of the correction

83

meanings and connotations of a word within the Greek context is also innate to Greek literary culture from the outset. Thus, Aristeas, when using the words 2qlgme_a and letacqav^ in the sense of “translation” and “transcription” (of books)—these would be references to the non-grammatical reality, which bears relevance to the biblical paradigm of arrival of the Law—also exploits their terminological meanings: style, exegesis (for 2qlgme_a), correction (for letacqav^). Similarly, he plays with the double connotation of dias\vgsir, alluding to a context from Deuteronomy (1:5) and to a terminological meaning of the root in grammar with a meaning close to exegesis (see above). In an analogous way he exploits the dual connotations of letav]qy and poi]y !va_qesim as referring to Deuteronomy (4:2) and alluding to the critical method of rearranging poetical texts (see above) as part of text-critical activity in the Hellenistic age. Thus, in terms of the narrative based on the biblical paradigm, we find a picture in which the Law, translated into Greek is delivered to the Jews in Egypt (analogous to the way in which it was delivered to Jews in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Ezdra-Nehemia), who are strictly forbidden to change its content. However, in terms of the grammatical paradigm, we find a different story. In this story Aristeas says in Let. Aris. 30 – 2 that the meaning of the Greek translation of the Law was unsatisfactory and that 72 experts were engaged to achieve exactness and clarity of expression, i. e. style (2qlgme_a). In Let. Aris. 301 – 5 we are told that correction (letacqav^) was undertaken by those scholars, and that it crowned the process of exegesis and clarification (dias\vgsir, 2qlgme_a) of the text. In terms of this story the appearance of the Hebrew original from Jerusalem acquires special meaning and importance: it represents the Hebrew text, which has to be consulted again in order to scrutinise the quality of the translation and to change and improve it.

2.9 Account of the correction in the context of the early history of the LXX My discussion of the text-critical allusions, first noted by Zuntz and Murray, brought me to a reconsideration of their implications. My analysis reveals that Aristeas does not simply adapt such issues deliberately, but also consciously adjusts them to the situation of translation. This follows from the adaptation of Aristotle’s passage in De interpretatione, where the correspondence between languages is discussed, to the case of translation. This manifests itself in the term letacqav^, emendation/correction (of meaning), which replaces the more general idea of text editing (dioqh|y/di|qhysir) within the limits of the six/four parts of the grammar scheme.

84

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

The unprecedented adaptation of the Aristotelian theory to a case of translation might have had very important implications for the rise of the theory of translation. Indeed, Aristeas makes a substantial shift in transferring the words, which refer to reality itself, to the reality of the original language. He uses a verb which means the real state of affairs (rp\qwei) in application to the Hebrew original. The noun pq\clata refers, as it seems, both to the real state of things (the content of the Hebrew Law) and to the Hebrew text itself, which adequately renders it. The idea and notion of meaning (sgla_my) and that of the way of its expression, style, (2qlgme_a) refer to the translated Greek texts. However, the notion of exactness (!jqib]r) and clarity of meaning (eqs^lyr) not only refer to the Greek text, but also imply its relevance to the original Hebrew. The passage of Aristotle says that languages can render reality entirely adequately, using different means and not being identical; the change made by Aristeas logically implies that one language (here Greek) can adequately render the other (the Hebrew original). Moreover, in noting that the meaning of the Greek texts was not exact and clear in itself and in its correspondence to the original and had to be corrected (Let. Aris. 32) and that these semantic changes happened by way of letacqav^ (Let. Aris. 307), he actually states that the LXX underwent correctional changes in terms of revision of its translation. The idea of a bad translation immediately evokes in our minds interpretational problems traditionally connected to understanding of a given place or word. This is unequivocally so, starting with the origins of the Judeo-Christian dialogue. However, despite the fact that Aristeas is certainly aware of the nature of translation as rendering from one language to another, which can be judged in terms of adequateness, I wish to question whether the Letter of Aristeas allows us to analyse whether the problems of semantic interpretation are included in Aristeas’ idea of bad/good translation. It may seem that Aristeas touches upon the problem of adequateness of the translation in terms of interpretation by stressing the absolute “agreement” between the 72 on how to render the text (Let. Aris. 32; 302). However, we should not overestimate this: the idea of a common decision is not an invention of Aristeas. Thus, an ancient scholion to Homer provides a close parallel to Let. Aris. 32 when describing a situation where no translation is implied.90 The idea of common agreement (joim0 ja· blovq|myr) comes up in the similarly constructed anecdote about Peisistratus’ edition of Homer (see above). We can surmise that a common agreement is a kind of topos, available in the Greek tradition and familiar to Aristeas, that suited the situation 90 Scholia In Homeri Iliadem: book 9, verse 369, line 10 – 11 Erbse: ûla d³ ja· ¢r d¸jaia k´cym 1p· pkeiºmym aqt± bo¼ketai 1net²feshai (about Achilles who wants his answer to be delated to many, who would confirm the righteousness of his resentment). Cf. Let. Aris. 32: fpyr t¹ s¼lvymom 1j t_m pkeiºmym 1net²samter.

Account of the correction

85

described by him in which 72 participants are involved. The need to “regulate” the work of such an important number of the participants would reduce the importance of the idea of agreement with regard to interpretation. The preceding chapter brought us to the conclusion that Aristeas must have been aware of the fact that different translations exist. This could not have been otherwise in the second century BC, when new, more modern translations of the biblical material appeared. A blatant case of a double translation of the phrase ýN95M-N4 5M9 serves us as a basis for the reconstruction of the idea of the composition. The analysis of the mixed biblical text in Let. Aris. 155 in comparison with a more common way of rendering the same phrase in the LXX suggests that Aristeas collates different variants of rendering the same expression. However, if in the first case we do not know how he judged this blatant discrepancy of meaning (most probably, he was familiar with two different traditions, considered authoritative, that of the LXX, and that of a rewritten biblical source), the second case reveals his relaxed attitude to the differences: both translations, he claims, render the same meaning. There are a number of other arguments that speak against the hypothesis that exegetical issues of translation were Aristeas’ concern in his account of the correction. First, we should remember that Aristeas, when implying “bad translation” never blames the first translators for their incorrect understanding of the Hebrew text. He says that the first translation was made “carelessly” (!lek]steqom, Let. Aris. 30), which, as we recall, refers to style and way of expression. We noted that Demosthenes received the same rebuke (di± t¹ !lek´tgtom), in the same context, for not being exact in his laudatory speeches.91 In the Scholia to Dionysious Thrax, carelessness or negligence is reported to be the cause of the deterioration of a monolingual textual tradition: )lek¶samter toO dioqhoOshai t± bibk¸a 1n !qw/r, 1p· tµm !m²cmysim tq´pomtai (Melamp. 13.11 – 12 Hilgard). This phrase is in many respects relevant to the narrative of the Letter (see above), and the parallel with regard to carelessness does not seem to be coincidental either. It is possible that Aristeas, when referring to negligence, alluded to the generally known cause which may lie behind an unclear or deteriorated text in the Greek tradition, and, in his opinion, this cause was similar to that which leads to a bad translation. There are also other considerations. These refer to the use of the term letacqav^ with the meaning of copying and to the relevance of the “paradigm of the tragedians” to the pattern of the correction of the Bible. Zuntz observed that in the Letter of Aristeas the word copy/copying (letacqav^, !mticqav^) is interchangeable with 2qlgme_a (when it is used in the sense of translation—EM). It should be noted that Aristeas pointedly uses the term “transcribe” and not “translate” when speaking of the copy from 91 Prolegomena in artem rhetoricam 6.37.

86

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

Jerusalem in Let. Aris. 45, 46.92 We can, of course, surmise that the idea of correction (which comes up in Let. Aris. 307) is already in play (which is appropriate after it has been introduced in Let. Aris. 30 – 2). However, even if Aristeas is already paving the way for the terminological meaning of correction in Let. Aris. 307, the meaning of copying cannot be ignored here, as letacqav^ is so clearly used with this meaning, and particularly in application to the Law, in Let. Aris. 9,10,15 and 309. The question is why Aristeas, although he clearly differentiates between copying and translating in Let. Aris. 15 and uses the notion of translation in Let. Aris. 39, prefers the idea of copying in a passage that is so crucial (from our point of view), where the original copy is mentioned for the first and only time. This can only be explained by the fact that in his view the idea of translation is included in that of transcription and subordinate to it. However, the idea of translation can be included in that of transcription only if the notion of translation has not yet been developed sufficiently to exclude any possibility of confusing it with that of transcribing an original (as happens within a monolingual tradition), that is, when the problems of interpretation of meaning as essential for translation have not yet been appreciated sufficiently. G. Zuntz collected several examples from classical Greek literature that testify to the idea of translation existing, yet the complexities of the process remaining totally unperceived and not being reflected in the language.93 An example from late Hellenism—the last edict issued by Cleopatra—still testifies to the schema exploited by Aristeas, i. e. to the possibility of thinking of translation as an aspect of transcription; though letacqav]ty is used here in the sense of transcribing, it also includes the idea of rendering from Greek to Demotic.94 The latter process is supposed to be technical and, if not identical to copying, nevertheless very close to it. Aristeas’ use of letacqav^ in a situation where he had a choice (as evidenced by Let. Aris.15) could, therefore, be indicative of his relative indifference to the problems of translation as interpretation. This suggests the conclusion that translation did not appear to him to be essentially different from copying, which accords with the abovementioned fact that he does not mention the interpretational errors of the first translators. However, besides this, it is very likely that his choice was influenced by a certain Hellenistic pattern. In the Alexandrian tradition, an edition of a text could be prepared in several ways. The method of comparing all available manuscripts is a noble achievement of Alexandrian philology, and was most famously typical of Homeric scholarship.95 Yet, besides Homer, there were 92 Zuntz ,“Aristeas Studies II”, 129 – 30 (1972). 93 Zuntz ,“Aristeas Studies II”, 129 – 30 (1972). 94 “… The subjoined is to be copied in Greek and Demotic letters—letacqav]ty to?r te :kkgmijo?r ja· 1cwyq_oir cq\llasi.” See Zuntz, ”Aristeas Studies II”, 130 (1972). 95 Cf. the anecdote about Peisistratus in the Scholia Melampodis sive Diomedis in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam 29.16 – 30.10, cf. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 94, 109 – 114; See Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.

Account of the correction

87

other authors in antiquity who lived in more recent times and whose places of birth and activity were widely known. Under these circumstances it was much easier to make a copy of a manuscript (or to transcribe the manuscript) used in a native city of the text. This was, for instance, the case with the Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Galen tells us an anecdote describing how Ptolemy III Euergetes (247 – 221 BC) obtained a copy of the Greek tragedians. He asked Athens for the manuscripts, which were preserved in the state archive, promising only to copy them (cq\xai l|mom 1n aqt_m) and then send them back. Yet he sent back the perfectly written copies, keeping the original manuscripts in the Alexandrian library.96 Against the background of the story of copying a manuscript from the genuine tradition, we can understand that the motif of sending the book of the Law from Jerusalem to Alexandria is justified by a certain pattern. In the story of the Bible, Jerusalem plays the same role for Alexandria as Athens in the story of the tragedians, and consequently the Hebrew copy of the Law plays in a way the role of the Athenian (i. e. original) exemplar of the tragedians. The native place of the Bible is widely known (cf. Let. Aris. 3), so transcription from the original, reliable exemplar would guarantee better quality than simple correction of bad manuscripts. The High Priest not only sends the 72 specialists, required at the suggestion of Demetrius, but also adds the text of the Law, to exclude any mistake in the texts that will undergo correction. This is the exemplar with which the comparison, referred to by the word !mtiboka?r (Let. Aris. 302), is most likely made. We can visualise the situation using the pattern narrated by Galen by removing the motif of the avid collection of the sources. The Alexandrians do not have very reliable copies of Euripides. They sent for the Athenian copy, but they do not steal it. Keeping their promise, they work on their manuscripts, comparing what they have with the source copy. In this process they would certainly transcribe corrupted parts, possibly leaving those identical to the original without changes (cf. the expression cq\xai l|mom 1n aqt_m, “only to write from them”). This pattern better fits the idea of correction of a translated text than that of comparing all available manuscripts, because it always provides a more accurate text, among other reasons. However, this pattern—correction by means of comparison with the faultless original—implies that the presence of a source copy is considered to be the solution to all textual problems. This in itself contradicts the idea that interpretation of semantics is the focus of Aristeas’ concern. Aristeas’ insistence that the source copy was “copied” and not translated and the lack of mention of interpretational errors of the first translators suggest that Aristeas was not concerned about essentially reworking the pattern of transcribing the faultless copy. He just followed it to a significant degree. 96 Galen Comm. in Hippocratis librum III epidemiarum 17a 607 – 8 Wenkebach. The context has been suggested by O. Murray (“The Letter of Aristeas”, 22) and S. Honigman (The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 24 – 5), and also noted by A. Lange (“Textual Standardization”, 23).

88

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

With regard to the theory of translation, this suggests the conclusion that in spite of the far-reaching implications of the adaptation of Aristotelian linguistic theory to a case of translation, Aristeas’ approach to translation appears to be rudimentary. Though aware of the nature of translation and, most probably, of the possibiliy of different renderings of the same semantic unit, Aristeas seems not to deeply realise alternatives, resources and risks of this potential. Consequently, he insists on the identity of the translation and the original (which subject is directly suggested by the development of the thoughts in the Aristotelian passage) not because he reflects on the possibilities and scope of translation, but because, under the influence of Aristotle, he a priori assumes the expressional parity of languages and, as was normal at his time in the Greek-speaking culture, does not considers the process of translation to be essentially distinct from that of copying. We can say that his idea of the Hebrew Law in its correspondence to the translations is considerably influenced by the problems relating to the Urtext, rather than by those relating in our opinion to the Vorlage. This evidently has implications for our vision of the early history of the LXX. My analysis of the Letter reveals the following scheme: a. Negligence is reported as being the only reason for the bad quality of the first translation (I omit the references to its sacredness, which explain to the king the absence of references to the Pentateuch in the Greek literature (cf. Let. Aris. 312), and not the bad quality of the translation, and are therefore not relevant here). b. The correction of existing texts rather than a totally new translation is suggested. c. This is described in terms of comparison with the original and copying it. This significantly substantiates and partly corrects the theories concerning the early history of the translation accepted by most scholars. First of all, this fully accords with the thesis that the manner of working on the Greek translation was correction of the already existing text and not a new translation.97 This follows from the early papyri, containing correctional changes, from the Diaspora (P. Rylands Gk. 458, dated to the middle of the second century BC, and P. Fouad 266, dated to the middle of the first century BC) as well as from Palestine (the scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets (8HevXII gr)).98 In estimating the changes in our earliest evidence, scholars ˙ that “the general development is from slight and unsystematic think corrections in the early revisions to the extensive and consistent changes in the later ones”.99 The phenomenon of unsystematic corrections is sometimes 97 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd edition, revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 131. 98 D. Barth~lemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 179 – 98. 99 Tov, Textual Criticism, 141.

Account of the correction

89

termed “unconscious revision” of the LXX.100 Wevers lists in this category both P. Rylands Gk. 458 and the Egyptian P.Fouad 266, which contains the second part of the book of Deuteronomy, and, as Wevers puts it, betrays “the scribe’s intimate knowledge of the Hebrew text”.101 However, R. Hanhart and L. Koenen tend to think that the papyrus serves as evidence of a (conscious) revision towards a proto-Masoretic text.102 If we take into consideration the evidence of the Letter, which suggests the idea of conscious revision without any ideological concern about interpretation of the Vorlage and without any traces of blaming the bad translators for incorrect understanding, we should probably suggest that the term “unconscious” is not highly relevant with regard to the first known revisions. The idea of the consistency of changes, stressed in the quotation of Tov, which implies certain ideological preoccupations and concerns and a kind of systematic opposition to the approach adopted in the Old Greek, should draw the line between the two types of revisions, rather than the question of their conscious character. This consistent approach is visible in the Greek scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets from Nahal Hever, which is considered to be among the earliest pieces of ˙ long process of revision of the LXX that results in the revisions evidence ˙of the of Aquila, Symmachos and Theodotion, designed to be corrections not only for the purpose of getting closer to the original wording of the text, but chiefly against the Christian interpretation of it.103 The scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets was considered by Barth~lemy to be one of the first examples of this series because it betrays a certain methodology recognisable at different stages of the process (which allows him to describe it as a text of the kai ge tradition).104 There are no traces of this methodology either in P. Fouad or in P. Rynalds (though the fragments of the latter are very small), and this, rather than the question of the consciousness of the revisions, draws the line between 100 John Wevers, analysing P. Rylands Gk. 458: “The text also illustrates the phenomenon of ‘unconscious’ revision on the part of a bilingual scribe, a phenomenon also present in (P. Fouad—E.M.) 848, and in Qumran Greek Fragments of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. As long as the copyists of LXX were Jews who knew their Hebrew text well, this could be expected.” (J.W. Wevers, “The Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy”, CBQ 39 (1977) 240 – 4, on p. 244), see also Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 126 – 7. 101 J.W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 70. 102 R. Hanhart, “Review of F. Dunand, Papyrus greques bibliques (P. Fouad Inv. N. 266)”, OLZ 73 (1978) 39 – 45; L. Koenen, “Introduction” to Z. Aly/L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. A Photographic Edition Prepared in Collaboration with the International Photographic Archive of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1980), 1 – 3. 103 D. Barth~lemy, “Red~couverte d’un cha‚non manquant de l’histoire de la Septante”, RB 60 (1953) 18 – 29; Barth~lemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 203 – 11; A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1981), 125 – 56; Tov, Textual Criticism, 141; R. Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta und zum hellenistischen Judentum (R.G. Kratz (ed.); Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 200. 104 Barth~lemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 46 – 80, 197, 198 – 202.

90

Account of the translation, or the grammatical paradigm

these papyri and the scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets (and subsequent texts).105 The approach that follows from the reconstruction proposed accords with the position formulated by R. Hanhart on the basis of the papyri more than with any other position expressed on this point. Hanhart spoke about “der kontinuierlicher Kontrolle der griechischen (“schon kanonisch verfestigten LXX-Textes”) Übersetzung der LXX am hebräischen Urbild”,106 which was typical both of the pre-Christian and post-Christian period. According to Hanhart, it was a feature of the pre-Christian time that the correction of the Greek text in accord with the Hebrew is for the Jews “ein theologishes texgeschichtliches problem innerhalb der Gemeinschaft als ganzer, … das weder einen Streit, noch auch nur Diskussionsgegenstand darstellt”.107 The former period does not allow hypothesis of either theological grounds for the correction or any divergences or controversies among different Jewish groups.108 This is reflected in the changes we find in the first corrections, which concern only syntactical and stylistic points, such as Semitic constructions of the sentences, change of person, number and case, whereas the tradition represented starting with the Twelve Minor Prophets implies deeper changes often referring to the meaning of the statement.109 This accords with the idea set down by the author of the Letter of Aristeas: writing, presumably, within the second century BC, he was aware of the possibility of a revision, which can hardly be described as unconscious and which is presented by him as an essentially positive phenomenon. The approach reflected by him is profoundly conscious, but it does not betray any ideological concern about any interpretational problems. We are driven to assume that correction of syntactical and stylistic mistakes lies behind the idea of revision reflected by him.

105 106 107 108 109

Cf. Wevers, Text History, 64 – 85 and Barth~lemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 198 – 202. Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta, 30 – 1. Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta, 30 – 1. Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta, 31. Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta, 200 – 1.

Chapter 3: The interactive meaning of the paradigms, or historical implications of the narrative 3.1 The LXX as Req¹r k|cor in the Letter of Aristeas In my article “Allegorical Interpretation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria: Inscribing Aristobulus and Philo in a Wider Literary Context” (SPhA 22 (2010), 1 – 52), I described the development of the genre of allegorical interpretation in which the commentaries of Aristobulus and Philo are written. I distinguished this tradition of interpretation from Stoic attempts at interpreting Homer (as well as from the principles of indirect interpretation in the Hebrew tradition). The Stoics never applied allegory to a literary text as a whole, and their idea of allegorical interpretation always implied a search for etymologically caused meaning. According to my study, the genre in which the commentaries of Aristobulus and Philo are written can be traced back to the pattern of the commentary in the Derveni papyrus. Its methodology originates from the idea that texts connected to mystery cults must be interpreted indirectly. The pretended raison d’Þtre of allegorical interpretation is that allegorical unpacking renders such texts meaningful in the eyes of noninitiated, ordinary people, whereas the texts by their very nature are composed so as to be understandable to initiates only. (In fact, the need to reconcile the mythological and often obscene content of the Orphic poems with philosophic theology played a tremendous role in the development of the genre). Originally, these were texts connected to the Orphic rites (as the poem commented on in the Derveni papyrus pretends to be). This kind of text which is connected to mystery rites is traditionally termed Req¹r k|cor (“holy discourse”). However, with time, other texts, especially those of eastern barbarian traditions considered to be somehow connected to mysteries also started to be treated as “holy discourses” and commented on in this way. This development is well witnessed with regard to the Egyptian narratives connected to the Osiris and Isis legend,1 but soon this genre came to include the Jewish text in Egypt (we can identify the features of the genre in the fragments of Aristobulus and in Philo’s commentary). However, in my 1 Cf. a litany of the Isis cult, IG XII 5: 739 I 12; an Orphic poem Argonautica 43; Plut. On the Daedalean Festivals fr. 157 Sandbach; Plut. De Is. et Os. 351 f; 352b. See E. Matusova, “Allegorical Interpretation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria: Inscribing Aristobulus and Philo in a Wider Literary Context”, Studia Philonica Annual 22 (2010) 1 – 51, on pp. 28 – 9.

92

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

analysis of 2010 I did not touch upon the allegorical section in the Letter of Aristeas, nor did I specify the historical circumstances under which the genre was extended to the Jewish text. I intend to fill those gaps in this chapter. According to my study, the specific features of the genre of allegorical interpretation of a hieros logos are as follows: 1. The text is termed a hieros logos (or the manner in which a text speaks is claimed to be typical of hieros logos). 2. The terminology of mysteries accompanies exegesis and constitutes its main metaphor. 3. The text is considered to be thoroughly allegorical, from the first to the last word. 4. It is considered to be intentionally allegorical. 5. The hidden meanings behind the events, words and expressions used in the text are often considered completely alien to their plain meaning; the plain meaning is taken to be mythological and obscene. 6. A text is considered to contain the deep truth about the nature (physis) of the world. The notion of physis is a key notion connected to allegorical interpretation. Thus, Aristobulus (a contemporary of Ptolemy VI Philometor (181/180 – 146/ 145 BC) and, according to a traditional dating of the Letter of Aristeas, an author not very far removed from Aristeas chronologically) refers to the LXX as a hieros logos, intentionally equating its status with that of an Orphic poem: “… as well as Orpheus in the poem, uttered (or called) by him on the pattern of the Holy Discourse (hieros logos)”.2 He then sets out his programme for interpreting the LXX as follows: However, after we had said enough in reply to the questions set before us, you also called out, Your Majesty, (asking) why throughout our Law hands, arm, visage, feet, and ability to walk are used as signifiers (sgla¸metai) for the divine power. Now these passages will find a proper explanation and will not contradict in any way what we said before. I want to encourage you to understand their meaning “physically” (vusij_r kalb²meim t±r 1jdow±r) and grasp a fitting conception of God, and not lapse into a mythological (luh_der), anthropomorphic way of thinking. For what our lawgiver Moses wishes to say, he does so in many cases (pokkaw_r) using words that refer to different things (as it appears), yet in doing so he actually speaks about physical conditions (vusij±r diah´seir) and structures of a higher order (lec²kym pqacl²tym jatasjeu²r). Consequently those who have keen intellectual powers are amazed at his wisdom and divine spirit, in virtue of which he 2 Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.4 (F.3 Walter, Fr. 4a Holladay). The term hieros logos refers to the Jewish Scripture; either the content or the title of an Orphic poem, referred to in the sources as Testamentum Orphei, is meant. See in detail Matusova, “Allegorical Interpretation”, 31; Ch. Riedweg, Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos. Beobachtungen zu OF 245 und 247 (sog. Testament des Orpheus) (Classica Monacensia 7; Tübingen: G. Narr Verlag, 1993), 45.

The LXX as Req¹r k|cor in the Letter of Aristeas

93

has also been proclaimed a prophet. … But to those who do not share in this power of comprehension (dum²leyr ja· sum´seyr), but cling to the letter only (t` cqapt`), he does not appear to convey anything momentous (lecake?ºm ti diasav_m). So I will begin to take up in order each thing signified (kalb²meim jah’ 6jastom sglaimºlemom), insofar as I can. But if I shall fall short of the truth, and not be convincing, do not attribute the faulty reasoning to the lawgiver but to me and my inability to express distinctly what he meant (memogl´ma).3(Fr. 2 Walter, Fr. 2 Holladay = Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.10.1 – 3).

Thus, in accord with the principles listed above, Aristobulus aims to free the Scripture from the suspicion of it being mythology; he stresses the intentional character of the allegory of Moses (b moloh´tgr Bl_m Lys/r 1v’ 2t´qym pqacl²tym kºcour poio¼lemor); he says that the text is thoroughly allegorical (pokkaw_r, kalb²meim jah’ 6jastom); he develops the idea of two parallel semantic levels, literal and hidden (t¹ cqapt|m as opposed to t± memogl´ma); he says that the hidden thought refers to some profound content (lec²kym, lecake?ºm ti); and that it must be understood as referring to “physics” (vusij_r kalb²meim; vusij±r diah´seir); he refers to the literal level of the text as signs, hints (sgla¸metai, sglaimºlemom) which an interpreter has to clear up (diasav_m). The same elements are typical of Aristeas’ approach in the allegorisation section (Let. Aris. 128 – 71). We have seen that Aristeas likewise emphasises the non-mythological character of the LXX (oqd³m eQj0 jatat´tajtai di± t/r cqav/r oqd³ luhyd_r, Let. Aris 168); he insists that the lawgiver has used signs (sgle?om, sgleioOshai, sgle_ysir Let. Aris 148; cf. 150, 151, 159, 160, 170) throughout the text (jahºkou p²mta, jah’ 4m 6jastom, Let. Aris. 143). The hidden meaning of the text is profound (5wei kºcom bah¼m, Let. Aris. 143) and refers to the physical constitution of the world (t¹m vusij¹m kºcom, Let. Aris. 143; vusijµm di²moiam toO mºlou, Let. Aris. 171). The same verb (diasav/sai, Let. Aris. 171) is used by both authors in reference to clarification of the hidden meaning. Although Aristeas does not explicitly apply the expression Req¹r k|cor to the LXX, the narrative contains clear allusions that the text falls into this category. For instance, Aristeas may have played with the notion of s¼mesir (“understanding”). In Let. Aris. 148, where the High Priest allegorically explains the statutes of the Law, presenting the Jews as philosophers capable of penetrating the profound meaning of the text, he says: By such examples, then, the Lawgiver has commended to men of understanding (to?r sumeto?r) a symbol (sgleioOshai) that they must be just and achieve nothing by violence …

3 C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 3: Aristobulus (TT PS 39/13; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 136 – 7. Transl. with my emendations.

94

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

The word sumeto_ is known from a line that traditionally opens a text of the Req¹r k|cor type: (Ae¸sy sumeto?si, h¼qar d’ 1p¸heshe b´bgkoi (“I will sing to those who understand, but you, uninitiated, close your doors”).4 In this the word refers to those who are “initiated” in the “mysteries” and therefore understand meaning that is inaccessible to laymen. It is remarkable that the same word is used to characterise the ability to perceive the hidden meaning in Aristobulus (cf. Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.10.5 power of comprehension, dum²leyr ja· sum´seyr). Thus, it is highly probable that Aristeas’ use of the word here is conventional and alludes to the text in question being a kind of Req¹r k|cor. Another clear-cut allusion to the sacred knowledge contained in the text is found at the end of the story. The king asks why, if the Law is so great, none of the historians or poets had mentioned it before. Demetrius answers: “Because the Law is holy and has come into being through God; some of those to whom the thought did occur were smitten by God and desisted from the attempt”. Indeed, he said, he had heard Theopompus say that when he was on the point of introducing into his history certain matters which had previously been translated from the Law, too rashly, he suffered a derangement of the mind for more than thirty days; upon the abatement of the disorder he implored God that the cause of what had befallen be made plain to him, and when it was signified to him in a dream that it was his meddlesome desire to disclose divine matters to common men (t± he?a eQr joimo»r !mhq¾pour 1jv´qeim), he desisted, and was thereupon restored to health. (Let. Aris. 312 – 15).

Disaster (in the form of blindness) likewise struck the tragic poet Theodectes (Let. Aris. 316). Thus, Demetrius refers to the holy, divine character of the text and to the fact that punishments strike those who have sought to divulge it: t± he?a eQr joimo»r !mhq¾pour 1jv´qeim. The story is organised according to the ancient pattern of divulgers of any knowledge connected to mysteries being subject to punishment. A pattern particularly close to Aristeas, and one which refers to the Egyptian context, is Diodorus Siculus’ report about uncertain information concerning the burials of Osiris (whose cult was traditionally understood as a mystery cult by the Greeks): However this may be, varying accounts of the burial of these gods are found in most writers by reason of the fact that the priests, having received the exact facts about these matters as a secret not to be divulged, are unwilling to give out the truth to the public (1jv´qeim eQr to»r pokko¼r), on the grounds that perils overhang any men who disclose to the common crowd the secret knowledge about these gods (¢r #m ja· jimd¼mym 1pijeil´mym to?r t!pºqqgta peq· t_m he_m to¼tym lgm¼sasim eQr to»r ewkour).5 4 Stobaeus Flor. 3.41.9. 5 Diodorus Siculus Bibl. 1.27.6.

The LXX as Req¹r k|cor in the Letter of Aristeas

95

This example, in which the expression 1jv´qeim eQr to»r pokko¼r corresponds to the phrase eQr joimo»r !mhq¾pour 1jv´qeim, used in Let. Aris. 315, and madness and blindness referred to by Aristeas are generalised as perils (jimd¼mym), shows that the content of the Hebrew Law is represented by Aristeas as equivalent to the secret knowledge of mysteries (t!pºqqgta).6 Following the same pattern, in the Pythagorean tradition it is said of one Pythagorean Hippassus that “… in consequence of having divulged (di± t¹ 1nemecje?m) and described the method of forming a sphere from twelve pentagons, he perished in the sea as an impious person.”7 And elsewhere that “Others also say, that the Divine Power was indignant with those who divulged (1n~voqa poigsal]moir) the dogmas of Pythagoras.”8 In Hellenism Pythagoras’ teaching was considered to be connected to mysteries, his writings circulated under the title of Req¹r k|cor9 and even his name, like that of Osiris, was not to be mentioned as holy and sacred.10 Thus, not only does Aristeas reproduce the phenomenon of punishment for divulging sacred knowledge that was well known in antiquity since very early times, but he also uses a verb (1jv´qeim) which has the power of a term referring to divulgence.11 The LXX is thus presented as a text connected to mystery knowledge, i. e. as a kind of Req¹r k|cor.12 Thus, in this respect Aristeas belongs to the tradition represented by Aristobulus and Philo. The similarity to Aristobulus in terms of terminology and the theoretical basis for allegorisation is complete, apart from the fact that Aristobulus was interested in giving an apology for the philosophical sense of the LXX (as far as the extant fragments show), whereas Aristeas was concerned with an apology for food and purity rules. Although, as I have emphasised, the development of the genre of allegorical interpretation of a text marked as Req¹r k|cor does not imply its real connection with mystery rites, some historical or cultural context must 6 Cf. the same term in reference to the Jewish cult in Plutarch Quaest. conv. 671c9, see in detail below in the text, Section 3.2.4. 7 Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 18.88. 8 Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 34.247. 9 Eusebius Praep. ev. 10.8.13. 10 Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 18.89. 11 Aristophanes Eccl. 444; Lucian Men. 2.13; Aelius Aristides Smyrn. 234.25 Jebb. 12 James M. Scott in his article “Dionysus and ‘the Letter of Aristeas’” (in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, 2007 (Atlanta, Ga: SBL, 2008) 325 – 38), wishes to bring the reader to the same conclusion by speaking of many Dionysian allusions in the text of the Letter of Aristeas. Only one of his arguments, namely that referring to divulgence, which I discuss in detail, seems to me relevant and indeed to point to the sacred character of the text. His other suggestions do not strike me as being correct: I discuss most of the contexts in the main text of this study, and find their meaning and significance to be different from that which Scott ascribes to them. I do not see in them any allusion to the Dionysian context.

96

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

pre-exist in order to make this link legitimate and natural in the eyes of the Greeks. Thus, it was easy to correlate the texts marked as Orphic with the Orphic rites, which had been practised since very early times (even if no direct connection between Orphic epic poetry and the “Orphic rites” existed in the fourth century BC). Similarly, any narrative connected to the cult of Osiris and Isis was easily taken to be a kind of Req¹r k|cor, because the Greeks had a very ancient and firmly entrenched notion of the Egyptian mysteries of Osiris.13 In the history of the allegorical interpretation of the Jewish Scripture, Aristobulus and Aristeas stand at the origins of the tradition. In my previous study I limited myself to mentioning that the Jewish text started to be treated analogously with the Egyptian texts and narratives, as the idea of any barbarian religion being connected with some mystery rites and consequently the notion of barbarian mysteries was one of the Greeks’ preconceived ideas.14 However, for the purposes of this study it is necessary to specify what historical and cultural context caused the notion of Req¹r k|cor to be assigned to the text of the Jews in Egypt.

3.2 Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context 3.2.1 Words and terms used in the Greek and Graeco-Jewish sources to describe the Jewish cult: Temples The province Coele-Syria, which included Judea and Samaria, was in the hands of the Ptolemaic kings almost without interruption for one hundred years from 301 BC. This was a strategically important and not very distant land. The Ptolemies kept a close eye on it and tried to keep it under military, financial and administrative control. A high-ranking official of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Zeno, the owner of a famous archive, explored its highways and byways.15 Ptolemy III Euergetes visited Jerusalem and offered sacrifices in the Temple after the Third Syrian war.16 Ptolemy IV Philopator, having repelled and defeated Antiochus III in 217 BC, after the latter’s two-year-long invasion of Palestine, spent four months in the regained country with his sister-wife Arsinoe.17 The royal couple visited cities and sanctuaries, most probably, including the Temple in Jerusalem, taking congratulations on the 13 14 15 16 17

Herodotus Hist. 2.170 – 1. Matusova, “Allegorical Interpretation”, 26 – 30. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 76 – 9. Jos. C. Ap. 2.48. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 13, Anm. 18.

Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context

97

victory from the local population and demonstrating their respect for the gods of the land.18 The Ptolemaic rulers and their entourage could have formed an idea of the Jewish religion by the first half of the second century BC. Their first encounter with the Jewish realia coincided with their encounter with the Egyptian religion and with other forms of religious tradition in the East. In Hengel’s view, the tendency to regard Jerusalem as one among other templecities in Asia Minor and Syria is already reflected in the Greek form of its name, IEQOSOKULA, which is formed analogously with gIeq²pokir, the name by which several ancient temple-cities were called.19 Hellenistic rulers could hardly have gained the impression that the Temple in Jerusalem was essentially different from other eastern sanctuaries, nor that this was the one and only Jewish Temple. Josephus Flavius says that Alexander the Great, upon his arrival in Palestine, received two Jewish deputations at once, as the Samaritans also presented themselves as Jews and asked the king to visit their Temple at Mount Gerizim as one equal to the Temple in Jerusalem.20 Josephus continues: “Now when Alexander was dead, the government was parted among his successors, but the temple upon Mount Gerizim remained. And if anyone were accused by those of Jerusalem of having eaten things common or of having broken the sabbath, or of any other crime of the like nature, he fled away to the Shechemites, and said that he was accused unjustly.”21 This means that the Ptolemaic administration in charge of this province had two “Jewish” temples in proximity to each other. The story about a dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans held in the presence of the king in Alexandria in the middle of the second century BC and devoted to the question of their comparative merits could be an echo of the government’s neutral attitude and tendency to equate the Jews and the Samaritans.22 Under Ptolemy V Epiphanes (210 – 180 BC), the father of Ptolemy VI Philometer, a Jewish aristocrat Hyrcanus from the genus of the Tobiads, who was in opposition to the pro-Antiochean party in Jerusalem, “seated himself beyond Jordan, and was at perpetual war with the Arabians …. He also erected a strong castle, and built it entirely of white stone to the very roof, and had animals of a prodigious magnitude engraven upon it.”23 In Transjordan, 29 kilometres to the east of Jericho, near gAraq el-Emir in Wadi es-S. ir, the remnants of a monumental construction have been found, which are called Qasr el-gAbd and dated to the beginning of the second 18 Cf. 3 Macc 1:10. 19 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 45, Anm. 157. Philo (Flacc. 46) testifies to the correctness of Hengel’s suggestion. 20 Jos. Ant. 11.339 – 43. 21 Jos. Ant. 11.346. 22 Jos. Ant. 13.73 – 9. 23 Jos. Ant. 12.230 – 1.

98

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

century BC. This construction which is indeed decorated with a frieze with lion-figures is unanimously identified by the archaeologists as a temple, rather than a castle.24 Its structure and d~cor reveal dependence on ancient Syrian and Alexandrian Hellenistic temples and thus show evident traces of religious syncretism. Hengel thinks that “Hyrkan mit dem Qasr einen Konkurenztempel zu Jerusalem schaffen wollte, eine Parallele zu den Heiligtümern von Elephantine, Leontopolis und dem Garizim”.25 The existence of this temple could have been known to the Ptolemies, if we recall that Hyrcanus was their ally and a frequent guest in Alexandria.26 There are a number of pieces of evidence to suggest that despite the demand for the centralisation of the cult expressed in Deut 12:5 – 8, 11 – 14, in the pre-Maccabean epoch this demand was not felt to be sufficiently binding to suppress centrifugal forces even in Judea itself.27 It was probably even less so in the Diaspora. We should add to the three temples in Judea two successive temples in Egypt: one in Elephantine and the other in Leontopolis. It is worth noting that if the temple in Elephantine was built, as some scholars suggest, before the ban in Deuteronomy was formulated, then this argument is certainly irrelevant to the time when the permission for its restoration after destruction was obtained in 402 BC.28 Thus, up to five Jewish temples could have been in the field of vision of the Ptolemaic administration in the period from the fourth to the second centuries BC. This amount suffices to create and cherish the notion of the Jewish cult as one that can be organised around a temple, in any place, and consequently is typologically similar to other temple-cults. To a certain degree, this attitude was supported by the Jews themselves. Epigraphic material shows that many “places of prayer”, pqoseuwa_, existed in Egypt (later they were called synagogues).29 On the one hand, the fact that the Jews of the Egyptian Hellenistic Diaspora chose this designation for their cultic places suggests that they did not remain entirely deaf to the demand for the centralisation of the cult. Yet, on the other hand, a number of facts suggest that they were not inclined to diminish the status of their places of prayer in comparison to neighbouring Greek and Egyptian temples.30 First of all, this can be inferred from comparative analysis of the dedi24 The history of excavations and scholarly discussions see in Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 496 – 9. 25 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 499. 26 Jos. Ant. 12.4; Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 495. 27 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 499 – 500. 28 See notes 160, 161. 29 See note 48. 30 Modrzejewski thinks that even the choice of the word proseuche can be interpreted thus. According to him, the word stresses the elevated character of the place (M~lzze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 93).

Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context

99

catory inscriptions on the Graeco-Egyptian temples and on the “places of prayer”. Dedication on a Hellenistic pagan temple Dedication on a pqoseuw^ Caria, Halicarnassus 271/270 BC, SIRIS 270:31 )cah/i t}wgi. zp³q basik]yr] Ptokela_ou toO [Ptokela_ou] Syt/qor ja· heoO [ja· toO uRoO] S\qapi, ]si, ’Aqsim|g[i Vikad]kvyi] t¹ Req¹m Rdq}sato [b de?ma] Waiq^lomor. 2. Egypt, Ptolemais 138/7 BC, Horbury/ Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, App. 3, no. 154: zp³q basik]yr Ptokela_ou ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar t/r !dekv/r ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar t/r cumaij¹r He_m Eqeqcet_m ja· t_m to}tym t]jmym … ( oR de?moi) … Hq_pidi, Jok\mhai Pam· heo?r summ\oir t¹ Req|m.

Athribis (Bentha), 2nd or 1st century BC, Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, no. 27: zp³q basik]yr Ptokela_ou ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar, Ptokela?or 9pij}dou b 1pist\tgr t_m vukaji_m ja· oR 1m )tq_bei Youda?oi tµm pqoseuwµm he` rx_st\.

The structure of the dedications coincides in the formula: (1) dedication for the ruling monarch (2) who dedicates (3) what (4) to which god. (The last two points are interchangeable). Many Jewish dedications of this kind have been found.32 Among the dedications on the pagan temples some have a tripartite structure: they refer to the (1) temple, (2) surrounding territory, and (3) everything which appertains to it. A dedication on the pqoseuw^ in Schedia corresponds to this.

31 Cf. SIRIS 39; 139; 140. 32 Cf. W. Horbury/D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), no. 117 (226 – 221 BC); no. 25 (Nitriai 140 – 116 BC); no. 13 (Alexandria 37 BC).

100

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

Dedication on a Hellenistic pagan temple Dedication on a pqoseuw^ Egypt, Hermopolis Magna (el-Ashmunein) 78 BC, Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, App. 3, no. 156: zp³q basik]yr Ptokela_ou ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar he_m Vikopat|qym ja· Vikad]kvym. (oR de?moi) …)p|kkymi ja· Di· ja· to?r sumest_oir heo?r t¹ Req¹m ja· t¹ peq_bokom ja· t± sumj}qomta p\mta.

Schedia (Nashwa, near Kafr ed-Dauwar): 246 – 221 BC, Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, no. 22: zp³q basik]yr Ptokela_ou ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar t/r !dekv/r ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar t/r cumaij¹r Eqeqcet_m oR 1m Mitq_oir Youda?oi tµm pqoseuwµm ja· t± sumj}qomta.

Hermopolis Magna 80 – 69 BC, Horbury/ Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, App. 3, no. 155: ‘Up³q basik]yr Ptokela_ou ja· Basik_ssgr Jkeop\tqar t/r ja· tquva_mgr he_m Viko[pat|q]ym ja· Vikad]kvym .. (oR de?moi).[… ’Ap|kkymi ja· Di· ja· to?r sumest_oir heo?r t¹ Req¹m j]a· t¹ peq_bokom ja· t± sumj}qomta p\mta.

In this Jewish inscription the tripartite structure (1) temple, (2) surrounding territory, and (3) everything which appertains to it (t¹ Req¹m j]a· t¹ peq_bokom ja· t± sumj}qomta p\mta) is replaced by two members of the formula “place of prayer and that which appertains to it” (tµm pqoseuwµm ja· t± sumj}qomta). Yet, in one Jewish dedicatory inscription, which most probably comes from Alexandria and is dated to the second century BC, we read:33 […] [….he]` rx¸st\.…[….t]¹m Req¹m [peq_bokom (?) ja·] tµm pqoseuwµm ja· t± sumj}qomta.

Although this inscription has been preserved fragmentarily (the royal addressee of the dedication is missing), its structure is fairly clear. It is tripartite, organised according the formula t¹ Req¹m/ja· t¹ peq_bokom/ja· t± sumj}qomta p\mta, with the first two parts in reverse order: t]¹m Req¹m [peq_bokom (?) takes the place of t¹ Req|m (temple). This change results in something sacred still taking first place in the list of dedicated objects. Remarkably, Philo of Alexandria uses the expression Req¹r peq_bokor almost synonymously with pqoseuw^ (Flacc. 49), which indicates that the replacement of t¹ Req|m with t]¹m Req¹m [peq_bokom in the inscription indeed reflects some tendency for confusion between t¹ Req|m, Req¹r peq_bokor and pqoseuw^. 33 Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, no. 9.

Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context

101

Although the word temple (t¹ Req|m) is replaced by the word pqoseuw^ in all the dedications found, the standard form of the dedications and the last example above, in particular, demonstrate the tendency of the Jews to represent their “places of prayer” according to the Greek-Egyptian canons, i. e. according to the pattern of a sanctuary (t¹ Req|m). Indirect evidence, such as scanty remnants of Jewish “places of prayer” in Egypt, also shows that the appearance of these constructions did not differ greatly from that of a pagan temple: the pylons of a “place of prayer” were an object of dedication in Xenopheris in the Delta, which leads us to envisage a big enclosed space with a portal, similar to a pagan temple.34 However, whatever the conscious efforts at self-representation on the part of the Jews building synagogues, there is much greater clear evidence that the Ptolemies and their administration did not essentially differentiate between a “place of prayer” and a temple. An inscription on one “place of prayer”, dating either to Ptolemy III Euergetes (246 – 222 BC) or to Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (145 – 116 BC), testifies to it being granted the right of asylum (!suk_a), which it possessed for centuries and which was confirmed by the last Ptolemies (47 – 31 BC).35 In an inscription made under the rule of Ptolemy X Alexander I and dated to 96 BC, this monarch grants the right of asylum to the temple of Horus in Athribis.36 He adds: “already our predecessors exercised great benefactions to all the temples (to?r Reqo?r) in Egypt, whereas several of the most important (t_m 1pis^lym) temples were even granted the right of asylum”.37 This shows that the “place of prayer” mentioned above belonged to the category of “important temples” from the viewpoint of the Ptolemaic administration. The same right was, most probably, granted by the Ptolemies to the Temple in Jerusalem.38 Moreover, many Jewish sources provide evidence that reference to a Jewish synagogue as a sanctuary, temple (t¹ Req|m), was fairly common in Hellenistic society. According to the book of the 3 Maccabees, Ptolemy IV Philopator held the Jewish “places of prayer” in Egypt to be temples, as he prescribes: “None of those who do not sacrifice shall enter their sanctuaries (Req\)”.39 According to Josephus Flavius, the Jewish synagogues in Judea are referred to as “temples” by a historian, Agatharchides of Cnidus, at the court of the Ptolemy VI Philomenor, who says that Ptolemy I Lagides easily conquered Jerusalem, because on the sabbath its inhabitants “spread out their hands in their holy 34 35 36 37 38 39

M~lzze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 96. Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, no. 125. C.Ord.Ptol. 64. C.Ord.Ptol. 64, ll. 3 – 4. 2 Macc 3:12. 3 Macc 2:28. Bf. J. M~lzze Modrzejewski, Troisipme livre des Maccabses [Texte imprim~]/traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes par Joseph M~lzze Modrzejewski (M. Harl, (ed.), La Bible d’ Alexandrie 15, 3; Paris: rd. du CERF, 2008), 98 – 9. See in detail later in the text.

102

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

places (1m to?r Reqo?r), and pray till the evening”.40 (It is likely that Agatharchides uses words known to him from Alexandrian usage). Elsewhere Josephus Flavius, without referring to which source he is citing, says that after Antiochus Epiphanes had spoiled the Temple in Jerusalem, his heirs dedicated all its treasures to the synagogue in Antioch, so that the Jews of Antioch “adorned their temple (t¹ Req|m) gloriously by fine ornaments”.41

3.2.2 Words and terms referring to the Jewish cult: Priests The notion of a cult organised around a temple implies a number of accompanying elements. Sacred rites (t± Req\) and priests (oR Reqe?r) are necessarily among them. I will address the issue of rites later in the text (Section 3.4.1, the Letter of Onias), but it should be noted here that the Jewish sources supply evidence that the Jews living in Egypt continued to use priestly titles in reference to some local tribesmen. Thus, the book of the 3 Maccabees referring to the events of the end of the third century BC mentions one Eleazar, “famous among the priests of the country (!p¹ t/r w~qar Req]ym)”.42 This reference is not anachronistic or incorrect. Literary43 and papyrological sources confirm the existence of priestly dynasties in Egypt throughout the period of Ptolemaic rule. For instance, a Jewish priest from Tebtunis (near Fayum) is mentioned in a papyrus dated to the first century BC: one Heracles asks his addressee to find a pied-x-terre for this priest in Memphis, because “they [sc. the Egyptians in Memphis] loath the Jews”.44 There are many references to Jewish priests in the administrative and financial records.45 Whatever the real function of these people in the Jewish cult in the Diaspora, the very notion of Jewish priests conformed to the Greek idea of Jewish “places of prayer” as “sanctuaries” or “temples”.

3.2.3 Words and terms referring to the Jewish cult: Thiasus It is remarkable that when Philo of Alexandria seeks to distinguish the Jews as an ethno-religious group from the non-Jews, he refers to them as “the 40 Jos. C. Ap. 1.209. 41 Jos. B.J. 7.45.4. Hengel suggests that the synagogue of Antiochia served the function of the Temple in that period (Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 499, Anm. 109), but this use of the term Req|m could be a further example of common Hellenistic reference to Jewish places of prayer as temples. 42 3 Macc 6:1. 43 Jos. C. Ap. 1.187 – 9. 44 CPJ I 141. See M~lzze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 154 – 7; M~lzze Modrzejewski, Croispme livre des Maccabses, 90 – 3. 45 CPJ I 120; 121; 127d; 139.

Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context

103

members of the thiasus of Moses” (Plant. 39; Deus 121; Ebr. 94; Hypoth. 198.18; Cher. 85; Conf. 44; Migr. 90; Somn. 2.127). This could be described as a metaphor, and, to a certain extent it certainly is by Philo’s time. Yet, the reason for it being used so regularly is worth exploring, particularly because Oriental and, in particular, Semitic religious unions are often referred to in the Greek sources using the notion of thiasus, the members of such an association being called thiasitai (“the members of a thiasus”).46 Scholars suggest that this notion could refer to an association of the marzeah type, such as were widely spread in the Near East and Asia Minor.47 Semitic marzeah in the Hellenistic East has a clear-cut theocratic principle, being a kind of association around a god, who assumes “organising” functions and is usually called sumacoce}r.48 The Jews in Elephantine were organised in an association called marzeah, as is attested by an ostrakon from the Cairo museum.49 Milik thinks that this kind of association may be implied in one of the Greek inscriptions from Egypt, which contains a list of names, including Semitic ones.50 The nature of the Jewish associations around a “place of prayer” (taken by the Ptolemies to be a sanctuary) could have been regarded in Egypt as a kind of thiasus in a direct, rather than metaphorical sense, given that the notion was broadly used with regard to oriental religious associations elsewhere in the Greek world. Moreover, the possibility of this term being used with regard to Jewish communities is increased by the fact that the Ptolemaic administration promoted associations around Egyptian temples, which, in F. de C~nival’s opinion, were eqivalent to the Greek thiasoi.51 Indeed, thiasitai are frequently 46 G. Siebert, “Sur l’histoire du sanctuaire des dieux syriens x D~los”, BCH 92/2 (1968) 359 – 74, on p. 360; IG II 2: 1261 (Athens); I. Delos 1519; 2225; IG XII 3: 178 (Astypolea); SIRIS 158, 250, 258; CE 21, 26, 27. 47 J. Teixidor, “Le thiase de BÞlastor et de BeelshamÞn d’aprzs une inscription r~cemment d~couverte x Palmyre”, CRAI 125/2 (1981) 306 – 14; M.–F. Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration: les associations s~mitiques du monde greque”, in S. Ribichini/M. Rocchi/P. Xella (ed.), La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca (Roma: Consiglio Nationale delle Ricerche , 2001) 235 – 48, on p. 243. With time, Semitic professional and religious communities started to use more notions in reference to their associations, including hetaireia, fratria and symposion, but the notion of thiasus held a solid and traditional position among them. 48 Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”, 242. In this connection it is interesting to note that initially the word “synagogue” designated a community or its congregation. Thus, in a papyrus of the first century BC (CPJ I 138= P. Rylands IV 590) a congregation (sumacyc^) of the Jewish community in a “place of prayer” (pqoseuw^) is mentioned. Cf. also CPJ III 473= P.Oxy. IX 1205. The word “synagogue” occurs for the first time with the meaning of “place” or “house” of prayer in a dedicatory inscription from Jerusalem dated to the first century AD. See M~lzze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 93. 49 Ostrakon No 35468Q. Cf. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: the Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley/LA: University of California Press, 1968), 179 – 86. 50 SEG 8:365. J.T. Milik, Recherches d’jpigraphie Proche’Orientale (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1972), 121. 51 F. de C~nival, Les associations religieuses en Egypte d’aprps les documents dsmotiques (Cairo: Institut francais d’arch~ologie orientale du Caire, 1972), 139 – 42.

104

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

referred to in the Greek epigraphic dedications to the Egyptian gods in Egypt. For instance, at the beginning of the second century BC thiasitai make a dedication to Osoros, Serapis, Isis and Anubis in Taposiris.52 At the end of the second century BC we find synthiasitai and thiasus in Pathyris (Thebaid).53 Similar formulas occur in the Egyptian sanctuaries beyond historical Egypt.54 The Ptolemaic administration must surely have welcomed the creation of uniform terminology (in parallel with uniform structures) with regard to other oriental religious associations in their state. A Roman decree from the Caesarean period concerning the Jews in Delos forms an illuminating parallel to this suggestion. While apparently using terms and notions accepted long before the Romans came, it implies that the term thiasus is applied to various communities on the island, including the Jewish one.55 If my reasoning is correct, then there must be historical grounds for Philo’s recurrent metaphor. It must have been perceived by the Alexandrian readers in an ethno-religious perspective, whereas Philo metaphorically explores the term universally used in Graeco-Egyptian society in application to various kinds of religious communities, including the Jewish ones. However, it should be noted that the prevailing form of thiasus in the Greek world is the Dionysian thiasus, the cult of Dionysus being a mystery cult.56 As I have mentioned, the religion of Osiris and Isis was also traditionally regarded by the Greek as a mystery cult. Against this background, the use of the notion of thiasus in reference to the Jewish associations merely facilitated the development of the idea of the mystery character of the cult. 3.2.4 The Jewish cult as a mystery cult We have much more evidence that Philo’s tendency to present the Jewish cult as a mystery one57 directly corresponds to the Greek attitude to the Jewish religion, and even, perhaps, to some tendencies within the Jewish Hellenistic circles. According to Joannes Lydus’ testimomy, which derives from Varro (first century BC), “the God of the Chaldeans in their mystic rites (1m to?r lustijo?r) is called Iao.”58 The wording of this testimony points to the Egyptian context. Iao is the name of God used in Elephantine and later on referred to, along with his other names, in the magical Jewish-Egyptian papyri.59 The Chaldeans is an 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

OGIS 97 (between 193 and 181 BC). P. Grenf. 1.31 (101 – 100 BC). SIRIS 158; 250; CE 21. Jos. Ant. 14. 215 – 16. J. Tondriau, “Les thiases dionysiaques royaux de la cour ptol~maique”, CdE 21 (1946) 149 – 71. Philo Cher. 42 – 9; Leg 3.3; 3.28; 3.97 – 100; 3.219; Somn. 1.163 – 5. Joannes Lydus De mensibus 4.53. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 105 – 50, in particular, 106. S. Eitrem. Magical Papyri. With

Beyond the Letter of Aristeas: General historical context

105

ethnonym constantly used by Philo in reference to the Jewish population in Egypt.60 This testimony accords with what we find in the magical papyri presenting the blend of Egyptian and Jewish elements. They show that the Jewish religion was associated with cults traditionally understood as mystery ones, in particular with that of Osiris. Thus, in one of the papyri we find a spell, addressed to Osiris, yet with a reference to Moses, “to whom you handed on your mysteries, practised [by] Israel”.61 The spell then continues, but the deity to which it is addressed is referred to as Iao, Sabaoth and Adonai, as well as by the name of Isaac. Another spell, which mentions the secret name of God, which only those can know who are “initiated into your holy mysteries”, refers, most probably, to the Jewish context not only because it refers to god as Sabaoth and Adonai (as well as Osiris and other names), but also because it is said that the knowledge of the secret name of God was revealed to a man “behind your sacred mountain”.62 Moses is most probably meant here. The milieu which these spells derive from appears to be syncretistic in religious terms and mixed in ethnic term.63 Specifically Jewish elements are intermixed with a broad pagan context and are interpreted according to the principles peculiar to it, i. e. not only in terms of magic, but also in terms of a mystery cult. The tendency to understand the Jewish cult as a mystery one is witnessed in a broader literary context. Thus, in Plutarch one Athenean Moeragenes, initiated in the “triennial mysteries” of Dionysus, assures his interlocutors that the Jewish cult is the same as the cult of Dionysus (one of the most important mystery cults in antiquity). He says of the “secrets of the Jews” (t± :bqa_ym !p|qqgta) that the Jews “perform a feast” (2oqtµm tekoOsim) for Bacchus, and “enter into the temple (eQr t¹ Req|m) carrying thyrsi”. He supposes that the “sacred service that they perform” inside (aR Reqouqc_ai) are “Bacchic rites”

60 61 62 63

13 Plates. (Papyri Osloenses, Fasc 1) (Oslo: Dybwad, 1928), 25; K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (2 vol.; Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1928, 1931) 2.62 (pap. XII, 75); 2.148 (pap. XXII, a24); 2.173 (pap. XXXVI, 309); Y. Koenig, “Des « trigrammes panth~istes » ramessides aux gemmes magiques de l’Antiquit~ tardive: le cas d’Abrasax, continuit~ et rupture”, BIFAO 109 (2009) 311 – 25, on pp. 311 – 13. Philo constantly calls Hebrew Chaldean and uses this epithet not only in reference to Abraham, who indeed emigrated from Chaldaea, but also to Moses, who was born in Egypt: Philo Mos. 1.5; 2.38, 40, 224; Virt. 212; Praem. 23, 31, 44; Abr. 12.2; 99.5; 201.2; Legat. 4. PGM I. 184 (Pap. V 110): Lous/r b pqov^tgr sou, ` paq]dyjar t± lust^qi\ sou, t± sumteko}lema ’Isqa^k; See also K. Preisendanz, Akephalos, der kopflose Gott (Beihefte zum “Alten Orient” 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926), 42 – 4. PGM II. 62 – 3 (Pap. XII 80 – 93). See. M. Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (S.J.D. Cohen (ed.); Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 130,2; 2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 2.244. 6.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period (Bollingen Series 37; 13 vol.; New York: Pantheon books, 1952 – 68) 2.199 – 203.

106

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

(bajwe_a), and that the day of Tabernacles and the Sabbath are also a kind of Bacchic celebration.64 It is difficult to say whether the word “temple” in this story refers to the Temple in Jerusalem, or any synagogue, which, as we have seen, are referred to as “temples” in the Greek and Jewish Hellenistic sources. However, the idea of the identity of the Jewish religion with Bacchic rites must have been of a very ancient origin, as a Roman praetor Gnaeus Cornelius Hispanus in 139 BC ordered the Jews, who tried “to corrupt Roman morals” with the cult of Jupiter-Sabazius, to go “home”(domos).65 Sabazius is a hypostasis of Dionysus widespread in Asia Minor, whereas fifty years before this event a famous “senatorial decree concerning the Bacchanalia” (De Bacchanalibus) was issued, which prohibited the performance of Bacchic rites throughout all Italy. (Several scholars tend to connect these Jews who were ordered to “return home” with the first embassy to Rome by Simon Maccabeus, but Bickerman pointed to the possibility that the Italian Jews trying to spread their cult in Rome are meant).66 Indeed, the Greeks, particularly in the Hellenistic period, when syncretism was the dominant tendency in religious processes, tried, as was their custom, to identify the Jewish God with one of the other important gods of the Greek pantheon, whom they thought He must essentially be the same as. Thus, Joannes Lydus testifies: “There always has been a big dispute among theologians concerning God, worshiped by the Hebrews. The Egyptians and the first Hermes say … that he is essentially Osiris, while the Greeks say that he is the Orphic Dionysus.”67 The Greek “theologians”, when interpreting the Jewish cult, could not even imagine that the Jewish God would not be pleased with any such identification.

3.2.5 Interim conclusions Thus, summarising all the evidence referred to above, we can infer that the surrounding Greek society tended to regard the Jewish cult through the correcting prism of its own religious ideas and notions. It saw in it a cult with sanctuaries and priests, and most probably, with cultic associations around sanctuaries, and, most importantly, a kind of mystery cult with secret rites, in which only initiates participate. In terms of the categories of a mystery cult, 64 Plutarch Quaest. Conv. 671c–672c. 65 According to Valerius Maximus: Epit. Julius Paris 1.3,3 Kempf = Stern 147 b. 66 See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 478; M~lzze Modrzejewski, Croispme livre des Maccabses, 107 – 8; E. Bickerman, “The Altars of Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish ‘jus sacrum’”, in Revue Intsrnationale des droits de l’Antiquits 5 (1958) 137 – 64, on pp. 145, 150. 67 Joannes Lydus De mensibus 4.53. The tradition referred to by Joannes Lydus is ancient and dates back to the time before 70 AD, as one of his arguments for the identification is the description and interpretetion of the d~cor of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Oriental religious communities in the Hellenistic states

107

even the opposition of circumcised/uncircumcised, involving restrictions on participating in worship (which can lead to the decisive break with the pagan world in terms of the inner logic of the Law), was regarded by the Greeks as an ordinary and typical phenomenon. However, it would be incorrect to assert that this perspective was one-sided and only that of the Greeks. As far as the Greeks accepted the phenomenon of the Jewish cult in their milieu, the Jews, living in this milieu, must have played along and cooperated with them. Above all, this pertains to the Jews in the Diaspora. I have indicated above several possible examples of Jewish self-representation according to the Greek standards. Certainly, one of the most apparent examples of this eagerness to play along with the Greek ideas is the representation of the LXX as a Req¹r k|cor. Any mystery cult normally has a text or narrative termed Req¹r k|cor. In terms of the notions of the Jewish cult being a mystery one, the Law, translated into Greek, naturally occupied this niche. Aristeas, Aristobulus and Philo, three Jewish Alexandrian authors between the second century BC and first century AD, show that this identification was both firmly entrenched and culturally productive.

3.3 Oriental religious communities in the Hellenistic states: Rules of integration When discussing the place of the Jewish cult in Egypt, it is useful to consider the general tendencies in relations between the state and any Semitic or Egyptian cult within a Greek state. Many Oriental communities, either familial or professional, that were officially dedicated to “ancestral gods” (heo· patq`oi/p\tqioi), and observe “ancestral rites/traditions” (t± p\tqia) are known in the Hellenistic world.68 These ancestral rites/traditions may have consisted of special sacrificial practices, restrictions on food and other restrictions.69 A French scholar Marie FranÅoise Baslez devoted several works to this question, taking the example of the Egyptian and Phoenician communities in Athens, Delos, Samos and part of Asia Minor.70 She builds her research on epigraphic and papyrological material pertaining to legal matters, 68 See Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”, 236; M.F. Baslez, Recherches sur les conditions de psnstration et de diffusion des rsligions orientales n Dslos (IIe – Ier s. avant notre ere) (Paris: rcole Normale Sup~rieure de Jeunes Filles, 1977), 67 – 9, 100 – 1. 69 For instance, Syrian immigrants in Delos observed the ban on eating fish over three centuries. See Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”, 236. 70 Baslez, Recherches; M.F. Baslez, “Les immigr~s orientaux en Grzce: tol~rance et intol~rance de la cit~”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7 (1996) 36 – 50; Baslez “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”; M.F. Baslez, “L’~migrant” in J.A. Zamora (ed.), El hombre fenicio: estudios e materiales (Rom-Madrid: Escuela EspaÇola de Historia y Arqueolog„a en Rom, 2003) 225 – 40; M.F. Baslez, L’stranger dans la Grpce antique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 20082).

108

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

in particular, lawsuits between a Semitic community and either the state or individual Greek citizens. Her main conclusion is that the attitude of the Greek state to the oriental communities is always positive. They were never regarded as marginal or suspicious elements. Instead they were always seen as legitimate members of society who enjoyed the protection of the law.71 In terms of Greek law, a cultic or professional association is a legitimate social unit, favoured by the general liberalism of a Greek state. Only Rome, in a later epoch, would prohibit some communities that it deemed destabilising.72 All the quarrels between a community and either the Greek state or Greek citizens, involve only the right to ownership of a sanctuary and never the cult in itself. As a rule, the community wins the case. Even in the worst-case scenario, when the state assumes a new form of control, a compromise is usually found. However, there are several principles followed by the state in such proceedings. The state has the right to control and regulate affairs in a sanctuary, which is unambiguously allowed by the latter. Thus, an Egyptian priest, whose rights are trampled on by a fellow priest, turns to the court and his rights are confirmed and re-established by the state.73 When regulating matters, the state follows the principle of tradition: to serve “as it was before”, “as he served before”; “as is becoming” and “as recognised practice prescribes”.74 The state tends to establish conservative control over a sanctuary, encompassing even its revenues. Thus, in Priene (in the second century BC), the correctness of the cultic practices in an Egyptian sanctuary was controlled by a special officer, meyp|gr, who also exercised financial control.75 The documents show that ethnic religious communities rapidly become assimilated with the legal principles and religious language of the surrounding society: the juridical terms and the set of concepts that are applied are purely Greek.76 M. Baslez concludes that the non-Greeks easily imitate cultic associations of citizens by creating analogous associations around their own deities.77 71 Baslez, “Les immigr~s orientaux”, 48. 72 Baslez, L’stranger, 333 – 4. 73 I. Delos, 1510; cf. R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East: senatus consulta and epistulae to the Age of Augustus (RDGE) (Baltimore, Maryland: Hopkins, 1969), no. 5; J. Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte: jtude de topographie et d’histoire (Paris: Boccard, 1954), no. 24. 74 I. Delos 1510, ll. 9, 32 ; Inschr. Priene 195, ll. 13, 17 (PHI 7 I. Priene 118 l. 13, 17). 75 Inschr. Priene 195 (PHI 7 I. Priene 118). 76 Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”, 236, 245. See also examples concerning rendering marzeah by the notion of thiasus above in the text. 77 Baslez, L’stranger, 335

Oriental religious communities in the Hellenistic states

109

However, oriental cultic associations in a Greek state were not only typically assimilated in terms of legal and religious terminology, but also, and most importantly, had to submit to the authority of the state religion. In practice, this manifests itself in the main deity of an ethnic cult converging with one of the deities of the Greek pantheon in all the cases analysed. The Phoenician Baal merges with Zeus Soter in Cos, the Syrian Atagratis merges with Aphrodite in Astypalea, Delos, Syme and other places.78 In Egypt, an ancient deity of Memphis Osiris-Apis was intentionally identified with Dionysus and Zeus as early as under Ptolemy I Soter. The cult of this deity, called Sarapis/Serapis, was officially supported by the king and rapidly spread in the eastern Mediterranean and the outskirts of the empire (Phera, Cyprus). The studies conducted by M. Baslez and other scholars allow us to conclude that an oriental cult in an ancient Greek state, particularly in the post-classical and Hellenistic period, normally has its own entirely legitimate position in society. However, that entails the following: 1. the state regulates the cult according to the principle of traditional conservatism (i. e. conservation of the “ancestral tradition”) and financial control; 2. universal terminology is developed to describe the nature and activities of the cult; 3. the main deity of an oriental cult typically assimilates with one of the deities of the state religion.

3.3.1 The Jewish cult in the Ptolemaic state The Jewish cult in Ptolemaic Egypt was one of the Semitic cults in a Hellenistic state. It would be unreasonable to suggest that general processes involving other oriental cults in Hellenistic societies would have not affected the Jewish one. A survey of terms and notions used in reference to the Jewish cult both in Greek and Graeco-Jewish sources serves as eloquent testimony to the creation of universal terminology describing the nature and activities of the cult, drawing on the Greek set of concepts. Tendencies to merge and mix up deities are picturesquely represented by the magical papyri discussed above, frequently elaborated on in the Greek, Latin and Graeco-Jewish literary sources79 and even discreetly and politically reflected in such an ideologically consistent work as the Letter of Aristeas. Aristeas famously puts the argument about the identity of the god worshiped by the Jews and by the Greeks into the mouth of the courtier Aristeas: “… for the same God who has given them their law guides your kingdom also, as I have learned in my researches. God the 78 Baslez, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration”, 236 – 7. 79 See Artapanus’ equation of Moses with Hermes (in turn, identified with Thot) (F.3a Holladay).

110

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

overseer and creator of all things, whom they worship, and we too, Your Majesty, though we address him differently, as Zeus and Dis.” (Let. Aris. 15 – 16).80 Yet, we cannot overlook the fact that, nevertheless, the Jewish cult showed certain signs of resistance from a relatively early period. As far as we know, though the “places of prayer” were in many respects made to conform with the Greek standards of a sanctuary, and despite syncretistic tendencies being present and constituting an important periphery of the development of the cult, syncretism did not penetrate the cult in an institutional way: this follows from the cumulative evidence of the dedications on many “places of prayer” from all over Egypt—no other name occurs in them, except that of the “God most high”. It could not have been otherwise, as such a development would have been fatal for the essence of the cult as embodied in the first commandment (Exod 20:2 – 6; Deut 5:6 – 10). This was a point where the logic of the integration process met with the firm interdiction of the “ancestral” law of the Jews. Obviously, such resistance can be expected to have caused problems in relations between the state and the cult. Nevertheless, the fact that this line was never crossed does not mean that other aspects of the integration process were irrelevant to the cult. We have seen that an ample set of terms, drawing on the Greek set of concepts, was developed to describe its elements. And we have good reason to suspect that the state tended to exercise regulatory power over the finances of the Jewish sanctuaries. Moreover, common sense suggests that in trying to survive in a Hellenistic state, steadfast resistance to merging state deities with the Jewish God must have been compensated for by emphatic eagerness to meet other, acceptable requirements. Below I will seek to put forward several arguments in support of the theory that the history of the Jewish cult, and consequently of Jewish culture, in Egypt should not be regarded in isolation from the processes affecting other cults in this state that were typologically similar from a Greek perspective.

3.4 Religious policies of the Ptolemies, and the time of Ptolemy Philopator Along with the general principles referred to above in 3.3, the religious policies of the Ptolemies were also determined by the specific character of the land they obtained. From the point of view of the Egyptians, the gods and the pharaoh, who was an embodied god, were the true lords and sovereigns of their land. Yet, Egyptian gods recognise and support only a pharaoh who has legitimately 80 Cf. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 481 – 2.

Religious policies of the Ptolemies

111

succeeded his father according to the sacred rituals. For this reason, the position of the Ptolemies who conquered Egypt was precarious in terms of traditional Egyptian ideology. The Ptolemies were aware of that and tried to gain the support of the local priests and to restore the tradition that had been broken by gaining acceptance as legitimate sovereigns of Egypt. To that end Alexander the Great declared himself to be the son of Ammon, following the example of the pharaohs.81 The Ptolemies in turn declared Alexander to be the founder of their dynasty and the main state god, worshiped also under the name of New Dionysus.82 In succeeding “the son of Ammon” the Ptolemies accepted the role of the pharaohs as heads and protectors of the Egyptian religion, while also developing the concept of the Dionysiac hypostasis of Alexander in order to reinforce the idea of the divine provenance of their power; they created the myth of Alexander according to the pattern of the myth of Dionysus.83 Moreover, they also presented the idea of being directly related to Dionysus via Arsinoe, Ptolemy Lagides’s mother, who allegedly descended directly from this god. This genealogy has been preserved in a fragment of a treatise of a historian named Satyrus, a contemporary of Ptolemy IV Philopator.84 The fact that the pharaoh had always been considered a divine figure prompted the Ptolemies to develop and augment the idea of the divinity of an actual ruler. Thus, Ptolemy I Soter (Lagides) started to be depicted on coins with various specific elements of Ammon, Zeus, Helios, Dionysus and Pan. He and his wife Berenice were deified by their son Ptolemy II Philadelphus under the name of theoi soteres, and the festival of Ptolemaia was established in their honour in Alexandria in 279 (282) BC. Soon, in terms of the cult of Alexander, every ruling couple started to be deified for the time of their rule under the name of theoi synnaoi. Then Ptolemy III Euergetes and Berenice II were added to the cult under the name of theoi euergetai after the Third Syrian War. Thus a dynastic cult was developed in Egypt, with the Ptolemaia as its festival. Correlation of an actual king with Dionysus was not entirely clear in terms of this cult. Although no direct identification with Dionysus is made until Ptolemy XII (80 – 51 BC), who was officially titled New Dionysus, the direct connection of ruling and deceased couples with the cult of Alexander New Dionysus determined the importance of Dionysus for the dynastic cult in general. By the end of the third century BC it is possible to regard Dionysus as a dynastic god, who to a certain extent represents the idea of the Ptolemaic

81 Ephippus FGrHist 126 F5. Ptolemy I Lagides, as the satrap of Egypt, issued coins on which Alexander was depicted as Dionysus, Ammon and Zeus (Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 86). 82 Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 87. 83 P. Goukowsky, Essai sur les origins du myth d’Alexandre (336 – 270 av. J. Chr.). 2: Alexandre et Dionysos (Nancy: Univ., 1981); Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 86. 84 Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.7 = FGrHist III C 631; P. Oxy. XXVII 2465, fr. I col. II.

112

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

monarchy.85 His cult becomes one of the most important components of the dynastic cult.86 It was very important for the Ptolemies to gain acceptance for their divine status and to consolidate religious life ideologically in ethnically heterogeneous Hellenistic Egypt around the figure of the ruling monarch. Nevertheless, the divinity of the monarch remained a sensitive and not entirely settled issue for a long time, as follows from the fact that direct identification with Dionysus is not attested until the first century BC and from the difficult history of the relations between the Ptolemies and the Egyptian priesthood, who looked upon the alien monarchs with coldness and distrust.87 To compensate, attitudes to the dynastic cult and dynastic deities must have acquired particular importance in the eyes of the Ptolemies, thus becoming an indicator of political loyalty.88 Moreover, and most importantly, the Ptolemies emphatically patronised integration processes between local cults and traditional Greek cults connected with the figure of the monarch, in particular the cult of Dionysus.89 The tendencies of the dynastic cult to cling to these integrated cults of Sarapis and Osiris-Dionysus have always been there. Thus, the cult of Ptolemy I was associated with the cult of Osiris in Canopus; an altar of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe stood in the Serapeion of Memphis, and the blending of the cult of Sarapis with the dynastic cult on the outskirts of the empire was even more intensive; finally, Ptolemy XII in the first century BC started to be called an incarnation of Osiris-Dionysus officially.90 We see thus that the integration processes between the local and Greek cults were not only of general importance in the eyes of the Ptolemaic monarchs, but also acquired particular political significance in the specific situation of Egypt, where religion and, consequently many aspects of ideology, traditionally revolved around the divine figure of the pharaoh. Religious syncretism was never a serious problem for the Egyptians. 85 F. Dunand, “Les associations dionysiaques au service du pouvoir lagide (III e . av. J.C.)”, in L’association Dionysiaque dans les societss anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisse par l’jcole franÅaise n Rome (24 – 25 mai, 1984) (Collection de l’rcole franÅaise de Rome, 89; Rome: l’rcole franÅaise, 1986) 85 – 103. 86 Thus, Dionysus is the main deity in the procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, described by Kallixenus, which probably was part of the festival Ptolemaia (Kallixenus FGrHist 627 F2). F. Dunand thinks that the cult of Dionysus and the royal cult were also connected by the same craftsmen, tewm_tai, who took care of the cult of Dionysus and the cult of theoi-adelphoi. Dunand, “Les associations dionysiaques”, 98, 101; Cf. OGIS 51. 87 As we can judge from the protocols of annual meetings between the king and priests. See W. Huß, “Die in ptolemaiischer Zeit verfaßten Synodaldekrete der ägyptischen Priester”, ZPE 99 (1991) 189 – 208; Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches,100. 88 Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 88. 89 OGIS 111, 130; B]. J. Tondriau, “La dynastie ptolemaique et la religion dionysiaque ”, CdE 25 (1950) 283 – 304, on p. 284; Dunand, “Les associations dionysiaques”, 90; Cf. Plutarch De Is. et Os. 356b. 90 Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 94, 265.

Religious policies of the Ptolemies

113

Syncretisitc tendencies increased in the Late Period, and whatever the real popularity of the mixed cults among the rural population in the Egyptian chora, they were practised by priests in the cities and at an official level. Officially, the Egyptian priests also increasingly granted the kings various divine honours and titles. Apparently, the same was expected of the local Jews, particularly because their cult tended to be regarded as a kind of mystery cult, more or less analogous with the cult of Dionysus. At the very least, the Jews were expected to recognise the dynastic cult and to allow the identification of their God with Dionysus (and ideally also with Osiris). The expectations were so strong, that Joannes Lydus, as we recall, still refers to a dispute between “theologians” who cannot decide with which of these two deities the Jewish God is identical: “There always has been a big dispute among theologians concerning God, worshiped by the Hebrews. The Egyptians and the first Hermes say … that he is essentially Osiris, whereas the Greeks say that he is the Orphic Dionysus.”91 This is the context relevant to the Jews in Egypt throughout the period of their history in the Diaspora. However, the period of Ptolemy IV Philopator had its specific features. Beyond the fact that the sources refer to his particular devotion to Dionysus (he participated in the mysteries,92 was himself tattooed with an ivy leaf,93 called himself New Dionysus (as has been suggested, unofficially),94 and loved excessive drinking, being of uncontrollable, fierce character),95 and to his attempts at regulating the Dionysiac cult (see below, Section 3.4), the political situation should also be taken into account.

Political context under Ptolemy IV Philopator Throughout the third century BC the Ptolemies had to fight for their eastern provinces against a strong enemy, the Seleucids. In the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator, in 221 BC, a young Seleucid ruler, Antiochus III, invaded CoeleSyria and conquered large parts of it by 219 BC. Moving along the Phoenician coast, he conquered Galilee in 218 BC, crossed the Jordan River, laid siege to several fortresses and took them. Jerusalem is not referred to in the sources, but it is possible that the city suffered the same fate.96 According to the testimony of Polybius, Antiochus won so easily because of the mass treason of the Ptolemaic military commanders.97 This success meant 91 Joannes Lydus De mensibus 4.53. 92 Plutarch Cleom. 54.2. Cf. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.203 – 4. 93 Etym. Magnum, s.v. C\kkor; L. Renaut, “Ptol~m~e Philopator et le stigmate de Dionysos”, Mptis N. S. 4 (2006) 211 – 38, on pp. 227 – 30. 94 Clem. Alex. Protr. 4.48. The tradition dates back to a poet of the third century BC Euphorion. 95 Polybius Hist. 5.34. See also Tondriau, “Les thiases dionysiaques”, 149 – 56. 96 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 12. 97 Polybius Hist. 5.61 – 6; 68 – 70.

114

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

that for two years he held the area inhabited by the Jews under his control. Yet, Ptolemy Philopator challenged him in 217 BC. The armies met at Raphiah on June 22, and Ptolemy was victorious. In the wake of that victory he made a four-month-long journey inside the regained territory (referred to in 3 Maccabees). Ptolemy Philopator, betrayed even by his own commanders, had good reason to doubt the loyalty of the local population, who were under the control of the Seleucids for several years. Although 3 Maccabees (1:8) describe the king being joyfully received by the local population, in fact the situation was far from calm. St. Jerome remarks: “while Antiochus the Great and the commanders of Ptolemy were fighting, the people in Judea divided into two opposite parties, because one of them was for Antiochus, and the other for Ptolemy”.98 The fact that the Jews were not unanimous in their sympathies and preferences is also supported by the case of the Tobiad Hyrcanus, who opposed the Antiochean party in Jerusalem.99 But even without such evident troubles in Judea, as Bickerman wisely remarks, “The fact that Jerusalem, the spiritual centre of the Diaspora, belonged to one of the rival powers cast suspicion on the loyalty of the Jews under dominion of the other”.100 We can reasonably suspect that the king, having no confidence in the political sympathies of the Jews in the regained Judea, wished to obtain some evident confirmation and manifestation of loyalty from their tribesmen in Egypt. In his relations with the Egyptian population in Egypt he would seek and find such confirmation in the increasing divine honours granted to him by the Egyptian clergy.101 Apparently, he wanted the local Jews to display a similar attitude. At the very least, he wanted them to participate in the dynastic cult, and in terms of that cult, in the cult of Dionysus, which at that time merged to a great extent with the royal cult. Against this background, the conflict with Ptolemy IV Philopator, hinted at in the book of 2 Maccabees (6:7 – 9), and described in the book of 3 Maccabees (2 – 7) appears to be fully understandable. According to the book, Ptolemy coerced the Jews to convert either to the Dionysiac cult, or to the cult closely associated with the cult of Dionysus, which several scholars identify as the state cult.102 Taking into account the above, it is hardly surprising that the state sought to coerce the Jews, institutionally and officially, to cross the line of religious

98 Jerome Expl. Dan. 11.14. 99 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 14 – 15. 100 E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. Foundations of Post-biblical Judaism (NY: Shocken books, 19622), 73. 101 Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 100. 102 Thus, Ph. Alexander and J. M~lzze Modrzejewski think that participation in the dynastic cult as a demonstration of loyalty is meant and expected of the Jews in 3 Macc 2:28 – 30. Cf. Alexander, “3 Maccabees”, 865, 870 – 1, M~lzze Modrzejewski, Troisipme livre des Maccabses, 98. They also admit the authenticity of the decree in 3 Macc 2:28 – 9.

Religious policies of the Ptolemies

115

syncretism. A special socio-religious context laid the foundations for the attack, which was prompted by a particular political situation. It would be much more surprising if we did not find other traces of the Jews being influenced by the religious policies of the Ptolemies.

3.4.1 Religious policies of the Ptolemies and measures on regulation of cults Protection of cults in the territory of a state is one of the essential functions of a Hellenistic monarch. The Ptolemaic kings as successors to the pharaohs naturally took the position of the highest protectors of the Egyptian religion. Yet, direct intervention here must have been highly problematic for a foreign monarch. As far as we can judge from the fragmentarily preserved decrees, regular councils of the priests, convened by the king, tended to regulate and increase divine honours rendered to the king by the priests. The Canopus Decree (238 BC), in which regulating functions of the dynasty manifest themselves in the reform of the calendar mandatorily introduced for all Egyptian cults, is likely to be an exception.103 However, here the specific character of the land ruled by the Ptolemies plays an important role: Egypt is full of hereditary priests, who are believed to have maintained ancient cults dating back to unrecorded times. A different picture presents itself with regard to the Egyptian religion beyond the historical Egypt. For instance, the correctness of cult practice is a constant concern of the state in the Serapeions of Delos and Priene (see below).104 By contrast, in historical Egypt, regulating functions of the dynasty can be discerned more clearly with regard to the originally non-Egyptian, new cults, in particular with regard to the cult of Dionysus. This cult, which was closely associated with the dynastic cult, was directly controlled by the kings. Officially, the kings take priestly control over the cult, from 135 BC in the case of Ptolemy IX and from 105 BC in the case of Ptolemy X and Cleopatra III.105 Nevertheless, tendencies to regulate the cult manifest themselves much earlier, and particularly under Ptolemy IV Philopator. An Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes refers to the new celebrations in honour of Dionysus in Alexandria founded by this king,106 while a papyrus from Egypt, BGU VI 1211, testifies to his attempt to regulate the cult of Dionysus in the Egyptian chora (the country).

103 ?GIS 56. 104 The influence of the religious politics of the Ptolemies in Delos and Priene was high. Priene was formally part of the Ptolemaic state until the end of the third century BC. See Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 91, 98, 106, 111, 291 A 88 and passim. 105 M.F. Baslez (et. al.), L’Orient hellsnistique: 323 – 55 av. J.-C. (Neuiilly-sur-Seine: Atlande, 2004), 121 – 2. 106 Eratosthhenos FGrHIst II B 241 = Athenaeus Deipn. 7.2 – 3.

116

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

BGU VI 1211 (C.Ord.Ptol. 29). The papyrus contains the royal decree (pq|stacla) which prescribes that all who perform initiation rites for Dionysus must come to Alexandria and register themselves: Bas[ik]]yr pqost\namto[r]. To»r jat± tµm w~qam tekoOmta[r] t_i Diom}syi jatapke?m eQr )ke[n]\mdqeiam, to»r l³m 6yr Maujq\te[yr] !v’ Hr Bl]qar t¹ pq|stacla 5jjeitai 1m Bl]qair 10, to»r d³ 1p\my Maujq\teyr 1m Bl]qai[r] gleqai 20 ja· !pocq\vesh[ai] pq¹r )qist|boukom eQr t¹ jatakoce?om [!]v’ H[r] #m Bl]qar paqac]mymtai 1m Bl]qair tqis_ 3, diasave?m d³ eqh]yr ja· paq± t_mym paqeik^vasi t± Req± 6yr ceme[_m tqi]_m 3 ja· did|mai t¹m Req¹m k|com 1[sv]qacis[l]mom] 1picq\xamta t¹ emola 6jast[om] t¹ ar[to]O emola. By decree of the king. Persons who perform the rites of Dionysus in the country shall sail down within 10 days from the day on which the decree is published and those beyond Naukratis within 20 days, and shall register themselves before Aristoboulos at the registration-office within three days from the day on which they arrive, and shall declare forthwith from what persons they have received the transmission of the sacred rites for three generations back and shall hand in the sacred book sealed up, each inscribing thereon his own name.107

As I have mentioned, the decree is usually dated to the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator.108 Its general significance is interpreted in terms of the development of the royal Dionysism at the court and particularly as a sign of the king’s desire to gain maximal control over this cult.109 Scholars emphasise various aspects when interpreting its precise aims. Some scholars stress that the king wanted 107 The translation from A.S. Hunt/C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri (3 vol.; Loeb Classical Library 282; London: Heinemann, 1970 – 77) 2.208, see also R.S. Bagnall/P. Derow, Greek Historical Documents: The Hellenistic Period (Oxford 2004), no. 160. 108 The traditional dating is between 215 and 205 BC (see http://www.papyri.info/hgv/4527; Bagnall/Derow, Greek Historical Documents, no. 160). Turner and Modrzejewski think that the verso and recto of the papyrus were incorrectly identified. If so, the text of the decree should be dated before 215/214 BC and probably was written after 217 BC, the year of the battle at Raphiah (see also E.G. Turner, ”The Ptolemaic Royal Edict BGU VI 1211 is to be Dated before 215/214 BC,” in J. Zessner-Spitzenberg (ed.), Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.) (Wien: Hollinek, 1983) 148 – 52; E.G. Turner, The Terms Recto and Verso. The Anatomy of the Papyrus Roll. Pap.Brux. 16 (Papyrologia Bruxellensia 16; Bruxelles: Fondation rgyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1978), 34 – 6; M~lzze Modrzejewski, Troisipme livre des Maccabses, 95). In the opinion of L. Capponi, a date between 165 and 115 BC is also possible (L. Capponi, “Aristoboulos and the Hieros Logos of the Egyptian Jews.” in T. Gagos (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology. Ann Arbor, July 29 – August 4, 2007 (Ann Arbor: Schoalrl. Publish. Office, 2010) 109 – 20). Although her dating draws, as I think, on a forced identification of the Aristobulos mentioned in the decree with the Jewish philosopher Aristobulos, the period suggested by her fits our picture as it is closer to the accepted dating of the Letter of Aristeas. 109 Baslez (et. al.), L’Orient hellsnistique, 122.

Leasures on regulation of cults

117

to call the council of priests in order to collate and unify theological doctrines,110 while some speak of the attempt of the king to establish an official cult, or even a state Dionysiac religion by inspecting the qualification of the priests and the documents of the sanctuaries,111 and still others stress the fiscal aims of the registration.112 There are three main orders in the decree: 1. to register themselves 2. to give the “genealogy” of t± Req\. 3. to hand in a Req¹r k|cor.

3.5 Leasures on regulation of cults and Jewish sources on the history of the Jewish text and temple in Egypt 3.5.1 The second demand of the BGU VI 1211 and the letter of Onias (Jos. Ant. 13. 65 – 71) The second demand of the decree prescribes: “declare forthwith from what persons they have received t± Req\ for three generations back”: diasave?m d³ eqh]yr ja· paq± t_mym paqeik^vasi t± Req± 6yr ceme[_m tqi]_m 3. While the translation above, borrowed from the Loeb Select Papyri edition, unequivocally renders the meaning of t± Req\ as “rites”, it should be recalled that various interpretations of the sense of the phrase have been proposed. The word t± Req\, substantivated adjective “sacred”, can have several meanings: it can refer to temples, sacrifices, sacred rites, sacred objects.113 Along with “sacred rites”,114 the meaning of “sacred objects” too was suggested to be plausible in the context of transmission within a mystery cult.115 Indeed, theoretically either of these two meanings is appropriate in the context of 110 W. Schubart, Einfürung in die Papyruskunde (Berlin: Weidmann, 1918), 353; F. Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romaine: confsrences faites au Collpge de France (Paris: Leroux, 19293), 196, 305; J. Moreau, “Le troiszme livre des Maccab~es”, Chronique d’jgypte 16 (1941) 111 – 22, on pp. 118 – 20. 111 J. Tondriau, “Le D~cret dionisiaque de Philopator (BGU 1211)”, Aegyptus 26 (1946) 84 – 95, on pp. 93 – 4. 112 S. Eitrem, “A Few Remarks on sponde thallos and Other Extra Payments in Papyri”, SO 17 (1937) 26 – 48, on pp. 33 – 7. F. Sokolowski, “Encore sur le d~cret dionysiaque de Ptol~m~e Philopator”, JJP 3 (1949) 137 – 41. 113 See LSJ s.v. Req|r II. 114 Schubart, Einfürung, 353. Tondriau“Le D~cret dionisiaque”, 84, 92; Hunt/Edgar, Select Papyri 2.208; Bagnall/Derow, Greek Historical Documents, no. 160. 115 G. Zuntz, “Once More: The So-Called Edict of Philopator on the Dionysiac Mysteries”, Hermes 91 (1963) 228 – 39; R. Baumgarten, Heiliges Wort und Heilige Schrift bei den Griechen. Hieroi Logoi und verwandte Erscheinungen (Tübingen: Narr, 1998), 135. In the cult of Dionysus sacred objects, called Req± lustij\, can include liknon (a basket) and nebris (fawnskin).

118

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

transmission.116 Hence M. Lenger, for instance, in her edition of the Ptolemaic papyri, although she prefers the sense of rites, does not exclude the possibility of the second sense. She translates: «ils indiqueront aussit}t de qui ils ont recueilli les rites (ou les instruments de culte)».117 Nevertheless, I think that there are several arguments that can help to define the meaning of the order with more certainty and that are important for our discussion below. Regardless of the question what the origin of the collocation paqakalb\meim t± Req\ may have been theoretically, it is useful to look at its use in the documents that have come down to us. For instance, the phrase paqakalb\meim t± Req\ also occurs in a remarkable inscription from the Serapeum in Delos, dated to 230 – 220 BC.118 The priest of the sanctuary, Apollonios, who won the case concerning the right to ownership of the sanctuary records the fact. He starts by setting out his legitimate position as a priest: Our grandfather Apollonios, an Egyptian of priestly descent, arrived from Egypt with the god and served according to the ancestral [tradition] (heqape}ym diet]kei jah½r p\tqiom Gm) and he died, as it seems, at the age of ninety seven years. My father Demetrios succeeded him and served the gods in accordance [sc. with how his father served, i. e. with the ancestral standards] (!joko}hyr te heqape}omtor), and the god crowned him with the copper image which is exposed in the temple of the god. He died at the age of sixty one. When I received t± Req\ (paqakab|mtor d] lou t± Req\) and was very diligent in service (pqosjahgl]mou ta?r heqape_air 1pilek_r), the god announced to me in a dream that …. (ll. 3 – 14)

The expression paqakalb\meim t± Req\ clearly refers to the idea of succession in office. Although, theoretically, the idea of handing on sacred objects can be included in the notion of handing on t± Req\ in a Serapeum (the specific character of any Egyptian cult implies that the statue of a god is the main sacred object preserved in the holy of holies of a temple and handed on together with the priestly office), we can see that the emphasis lies elsewhere. When using this formulaic expression, Apollonios draws particular attention 116 On the idea of the transmission of mysteries as sacred rites see the decree of the Delphic Amphictyons, dated to c. 117/6 AD (IG II 2: 1134 (SEG 41:66)). It is said here that Dionysus introduced “the transmission of mysteries” (B t_m lustgq¸ym paq²dosir), the word paq²dosir being derived from the verb paqad_dyli, which is the antonym of paqakalb\my, used in the expression of the BGU VI 1211. The word mysteries specifies the idea that can be expressed using the word t± Req\ (as, for instance, used in Strabo in reference to the Phrygian and Thracian mysteries: Strabo Geogr. 10.3.16: … aqto· oR Vq¼cer Hqôj_m %poijo¸ eQsim, ovty ja· t± Req± 1je?hem letemgm´whai). However, the idea of transmission (paq²dosir) refers to handing on the objects of the cult (in particular, the books and the chest) in one of the inscriptions dated to 92/91 BC and referring to the transmission of priestly functions from one priestly family to the community in the cult of Demetra and Cora in Messene (although the word Req\ is not used here) (IG V 1: 1390 A11 – 12). 117 C.Ord.Ptol. pp. 69 – 71 and n. 379 for further bibliography. 118 PHI7 I. Delos 1299 = IG XI 4:1299.

Leasures on regulation of cults

119

to the quality of the tradition of service (heqape_a/ heqape}y), in which the ancestral traditions have been rigorously observed (jah½r p\tqiom Gm, !joko}hyr, 1pilek_r) for three generations back. Thus, this formulaic expression is linked here with the idea that Apollonios represents an ideal, i. e. consistent, tradition of cultic activity. A roughly contemporaneous decree concerning the cult of the Egyptian gods in Priene, dated to ca. 200 BC, shows the tendency of the Ptolemaic state to control the quality of the ritual tradition rigorously (in 200 BC the city of Priene was still part of the Ptolemaic state).119 The decree documents that a special officer, neop, is in charge of the correctness of rites, which must be performed “as is becoming” (jah|t[i pqos^jei] – l. 13), “in due time” (1m to?r wq|moir to?r molifol]moir – l. 16), “as recognised practice prescribes” (jah|ti mol_fetai b jahist\lemor m|lor – l. 17). The state officer appoints the Egyptian priest, who will sacrifice “competently” ([1lpe_qyr] – l. 21). If anybody else, except an officially appointed priest, makes a sacrifice “incompetently” (!pe_qyr – l. 22), he will be subject to a huge fine and legal prosecution (ll. 22 – 25). The eagerness of the priest Apollonios in Delos (where religious policies and ideology of the Ptolemies were very strong)120 to point to the correctness of his tradition of service seems highly appropriate against this background of such controlling tendencies. This analogy substantiates the impression that the phrase paqakalb\meim t± Req\ in his inscription certainly includes the idea of taking over responsibility for serving correctly. To explain the Ptolemaic state’s concern about consistency of the ancestral tradition of service, one could point to the influence of the general Egyptian context, which was characterised by the idea of rigorous observance of the rituals. Thus, for instance, these ideas are explicitly expressed in the Egyptian Papyrus Jumilhac XVIII, 6–9, which is dated to the Ptolemaic epoch. In it the Egyptian priests, when explaining the meaning of the rituals, make an introductory statement, which is translated as follows (the italics are mine) by J. Vendier, the editor of the papyrus:121 “Si on n’agit pas selon ce qui est juste dans sa ville, en toute affaire concernant son temple, et si la justice est nomm~e p~ch~, les rebelles relzveront la tÞte dans tout le pays. Si on nsglige tous les rites d’Osiris en leur temps et ses fÞtes n leur date dans ce nome, le pays sera privs de ses lois, les pauvres maltraiteront leurs mawtres et on n’aura plus d’autorits sur la foule. Si on ne fait pas tous les rites n leur date pour Osiris, la famine ssvira en Haute et en Basse jgypte. Pendant que les dsmons emporteront (leurs victimes), l’Ennsade d’Osiris au complet se retirera, abandonnant l’jgypte.” The Egyptian priests are particularly concerned about the rites to be 119 Inschr. Priene 195 (PHI 7 I. Priene 118). Priene went to the Seleucids in 196 BC. 120 See Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 86, 91, 98, 106. 121 See J. Vendier, Le Papyrus Jumilhac (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1961), 130.

120

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

practised in due time. Thus, we can suppose that the Canopus decree with its reform of the calendar that was mandatorily introduced for all Egyptian cults is in line with the expectations of the local Egyptian clergy. This Egyptian attitude to the necessity of the rigorous observance of the rituals is also reflected in Hecataeus’ book Aegyptiaca (Diodorus Siculus Bibl. 40.3.1):122 In ancient times a great plague occurred in Egypt, and many ascribed the cause of it to the gods, who were offended with them. For since the multitudes of strangers of different nationalities, who lived there, made use of their foreign rites (digkkacl´moir 5hesi) in religious ceremonies and sacrifices, the ancient manner of worshipping the gods, practised by the ancestors of the Egyptians (t±r patq¸our t_m he_m til²r), had been quite lost and forgotten. 2 Therefore the native inhabitants concluded that, unless all the foreigners were driven out, they would never be free from their miseries.

Hecataeus’ account partly corresponds to the thoughts developed in the Papyrus Jumilhac, namely that transgression of rituals invokes the wrath of gods and causes disasters to befall the population. However, unlike that document, he emphasises the idea of the uninterrupted consistency of the ritual ancestral tradition. This is also the thought stressed in the selfpresentation of the priest Apollonios, quoted above, and this emphasis shows the influence of a broader Greek context referring to the idea of upholding tradition within a mystery cult. The idea that a priest in a mystery cult performing sacred rites/initiations has special, almost technical, knowledge of those rites (which roots in the ancient notion of priestly knowledge which can only be transmitted orally within a cult, from priest to priest) is found in the Greek tradition as early as the Derveni papyrus (dated to around the fourth century BC). The author of the text expresses his indignation at the fact that initiated people know nothing, although they communicate with those “who make craft of the holy rites” (paq± toO t]wmgm poioul]mou t± Req\) (P. Derveni 20.3 – 4). Here the word t± Req\ is used in the clear sense of rites,123 and the priest is expected to have special, professional knowledge of those rites. The transmission of priestly knowledge (Udgsim) from generation to generation is emphasised in a decree in honour of a daduchos Themistocles (a hereditary office at the Eleusinian mysteries), dated to 29/19 BC.124 The merit of Themistocles consists of increasing the authority of the sacred rites (t_m Req_m) by his life and service. It is said, using the verb paqakalb\my, that he received the sacred office (paqeikgvºta t. µm eq[c]´meiam ja· tµm !p’ aqt/r 122 Hecataeus Fr. 11 Stern. 123 It be noted that Zuntz’s suggestion that the objects are meant in the decree also drew on his idea that the term t± Req\ is rarely used in the meaning of rites in reference to mystery cults (Zuntz, “Edict of Philopator”, 228 – 39). However, the meaning of rites is well attested. In addition to the examples discussed in the text see Homer’s Hymn to Demeter 477, 481; Herodotus Hist. 8.65; Andocides On the mysteries 31.5; 32.4; 71.4; P. Derveni, cols. 6.6; 20.1, 4. 124 SEG 30:93, 38 – 64.

Leasures on regulation of cults

121

Reqeys¼mgm), from his predecessors who are listed for three generations back (1c diadow/r paq± t. oO patq¹r Heovq²stou ja· toO p²ppou Helistojk´our) (ll. 37 – 39). Here the participle paqeikgvºta refers to the priestly office, Reqeys¼mgm, and implies that a person inherits knowledge of how to peform it (and that this knowledge is attested by the listing of the priestly tradition for three generations back). Thus, the formula from the Serapeum in Delos, in which succession in office is associated with the attestation of priestly tradition, shows that the idea of the uninterrupted observance of the rituals within a cult is expressed using Greek notions, the essence of which is formulated by R. Baumgarten: “Die Kontinuität des Kultes war daher durch die von einer Generation an die andere erfolgende Weitergabe des Wissens um die Durchführung der zentralen Riten garantiert”.125 Baumgarten’s conclusion is based on the study of the Eleusinian material. However, Qpparently, the principle was active in a broader context in the Greek world and implied that within a mystery cult the transmission of rites from one qualified priest to another guarantees that the tradition of service has been preserved correctly. However, if the genus of Eumolpidai was traditionally in charge of the correctness of ritual tradition in the Eleusinian mysteries, in the Ptolemaic state controlling functions were taken over by the state to a great extent and, as mentioned above, manifested themselves with regard to the cult of Dionysus, and cults merged with the Dionysiac cult and the Egyptian cults beyond the historical Egypt. Thus, it is logical that Ptolemy Philopator’s demand to “declare forthwith from what persons they have received t± Req\ for three generations back” should be placed in the context of the requirements for the consistency of ritual tradition, given the roughly contemporaneous decree from Priene which shows the state’s strategy of controlling the correctness of ritual traditions rigorously and the inscription from the Serapeum in which the expression, used in the BGU VI 1211, is also placed in the context of the attestation of priestly tradition for three generations back with the idea of demonstrating its impeccability. (The only source, known to me, where the idea of transmission refers to handing on the objects of the cult does not mention the attestation of the priestly tradition (nor is the word Req\ used here).126 The letter of Onias The correspondence between Onias and the king quoted by Josephus Flavius in Ant. 13.65 – 71 is particularly striking against this background. Onias writes to Ptolemy VI Philometor (181/180-146/145 BC) and his wife Cleopatra asking 125 Baumgarten, Heiliges Wort, 123. 126 See IG V 1: 1390 A11 – 12.

122

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

for permission to establish a Jewish temple in a deserted sanctuary of the Egyptian goddess Bubastis, in Leontopolis. The king consents. Onias writes: Many and great are the services which I have rendered you in the course of the war, with the help of God, when I was in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and when I came with the Jews to Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis and to other places where our nation is settled; and I found that most of them have Req\ contrary to what is proper (paq± t¹ jah/jom), and that for this reason they are ill-disposed toward one another, as is also the case with the Egyptians because of the multitude of their temples (or rites, t_m Req_m) and their varying opinions about the forms of worship (t¹ peq· t±r hqgsje¸ar oqw blºdonom); and I have found a most suitable place in the fortress called after Boubastis-of-the Fields, which abounds in various kinds of trees and is full of sacred animals, wherefore I beg you to permit me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is in ruins, and to build a temple (ma|m) to the Most High God in the likeness of that in Jerusalem and with the same dimensions, on behalf of you and your wife and children, in order that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to come together there in mutual harmony and serve your interests. For this indeed is what the prophet Isaiah foretold, “There shall be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God,” and many other such things did he prophesy concerning this place. (Ant. 13.56 – 68).

The royal couple reply: King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra to Onias, greeting. We have read your petition asking that it be permitted you to cleanse the ruined temple in Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, called Boubastis-in-the-Fields. We wonder, therefore, whether it will be pleasing to God that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of sacred animals. But since you say that the prophet Isaiah foretold this long ago, we grant your request if this to be in accordance with the Law, so that we may not seem to have sinned against God any way. (Ant. 13.69 – 71).127

While it is generally accepted that the letters are not genuine in the sense that they are not the actual letters exchanged between Onias and the royal couple,128 it is an important question whether we take them as simply being “fabricated” or “spurious”, or as a literary source slightly later than the time of the construction of the temple (which explains chronological inaccuracy, if there is any, for instance, with regard to the “services in war” mentioned by “Onias”), whereby the letters, though a kind of literary fiction, nevertheless reflect some historically important features. L. Doering correctly emphasises 127 Josephus VII (Loeb Classical Library 365; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943) 259, 261. 128 E. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’Temple”, Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997) 47 – 70, on p. 59; F. Parente, “Onias III and the Founding of the Temple in Leontopolis”, in F. Parente/J. Sievers (ed.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 69 – 98, on p. 80; J.E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: the Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias”, JSJ 29 (1998) 297 – 321, on p. 306.

Leasures on regulation of cults

123

the problem of “whether Josephus has any source material at his disposal for this exchange”, while J. Taylor notes that only Josephus’ use of various sources can explain why Onias III is replaced by Onias IV in a later version of the story.129 I think that it is reasonable to regard the letter exchange in Ant. 13 as being of a similar nature to the letters from Demetrius to Ptolemy, or the correspondence between Ptolemy and the High Priest Eleazar that is incorporated in the Letter of Aristeas, with the Letter of Aristeas also being written in the form of a letter. It should be noted that all this material is also quoted by Josephus as a genuine historical source without any reference to Aristeas’ work. If we accept that Josephus worked with a literary source, referring to a story about the origin of the temple in Leontopolis and containing letters, we can reasonably try to identify historically relevant elements. Just as Aristeas could plausibly (and for his time fairly adequately) describe the motives and concerns of a Greek scholar and of a Hellenistic ruler concerning the condition of a text to be acquired for the library, so too could the author of this letter have presented the situation regarding the founding of a temple and probably the circumstances relevant to the origin of this temple in a plausible manner. It should be noted that the critical perspective of a Jewish author stressing the dubious character of the Egyptian temple (a sign of a critical and aloof attitude, which may or may not be that of Josephus) manifests itself in the king’s answer, in which exaggerated concern is expressed as to whether the Jewish god would be pleased to have a temple in an impure place.130 The letter of “Onias”, however, lacks such specific features of ideological criticism.131 Following E. Gruen’s article it has become customary to accuse the letter of Onias of incongruities and confusion, and thus historical unreliability.132 I believe, however, that these accusations are not always justified. I wish to stress that while analysing this letter as a literary source (and thus not expecting it to provide the accuracy of a chronicle), we should not neglect its importance with regard to its historical context. At least some elements in the letter are historically correct. For instance, the act of asking for permission to build a sanctuary has parallels with a number of cases referring to other ethnic communities in emigration.133 Similarly, the formula of the dedication on the temple-to-be, which is incorporated in the 129 L. Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT I 298; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 301; Taylor , “A Second Temple”, 306. 130 See Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 70; Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 301 – 2; Taylor , “A Second Temple”, 305. 131 Thus, for instance, the reference to the place abounding in sacred animals is better understood not as a hint at its impure character, but against the background of the legend popular among the Jews in Egypt that worship of sacred animals either derives from Moses or was adopted by him. See Artapanus Fr. 3a Holladay, cf. Philo Mos. 1.23. See p. 136. 132 Gruen, “The Origins”, 53–4. 133 Baslez, Recherches, 210; cf. IG II 2: 337.

124

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

text, appears to be absolutely authentic (ma¹m t` lec¸st\ he`…..rp³q soO ja· t/r s/r cumaij¹r ja· t_m t´jmym, see above in Section 3.2.1). The reasons that Onias refers to for building the temple appear particularly interesting. Onias says that the Jews will become unanimous and thus loyal servants of the king, if they are granted the possibility of practising their cult in a common temple (“… in order that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to come together there in mutual harmony and serve your interests”). This motif is also present in an elaborated form in the Jewish War in another variant of the story about the origin of the temple in Leontopolis that is not presented in the form of a letter. Onias promises Ptolemy VI Philometor that the possibility to practise their cult in peace will unite the Jews against the Seleucids, and in particular against Antiochus IV Epiphanes.134 It is remarkable that an echo of the motives that, as I suggested, could have driven Ptolemy Philopator when he forced the Jews to convert to the cult of Dionysus can be found in this recurrent argument. It is possible that the king, who doubted the political sympathies of the Jews, prompted an attack on them in order to make them show their loyalty by converting to the state cult and/or to the cult of of Dionysus. About half a century later Onias, according to the source of Josephus, uses the same motive of the loyalty of the Egyptian Jews as an argument, on the contrary, in favour of strengthening and consolidating their ethnic cult. Apparently, the Ptolemies were always anxious about the disposition of the Jews in Egypt,135 but the situation has changed: Ptolemy VI Philometor probably had a deeper appreciation of the importance of ethnic self-organisation136 and favoured the Jews.137 The first reason given by Onias for founding a temple is the following: … and I found that most of them have Req\ contrary to what is proper (paq± t¹ jah/jom), and that for this reason they are ill-disposed toward one another (ja· di± toOto d¼smour !kk¶koir), as is also the case with the Egyptians because of the multitude of their temples (rites? t_m Req_m) and their varying opinions about the forms of worship (t¹ peq· t±r hqgsje¸ar oqw blºdonom)

As I have mentioned in the discussion above, the word Req\ can have many meanings. The word is used in this sentence twice, without an article in the first case, and with an article in the second. This difference may or may not indicate a difference in meaning, but, in any case, in my opinion, if we want to regard the motives in the letter as relevant to the general historical context (as the examples above suggest), it is impossible to understand the word Req\ in 134 Jos. B.J. 7.425 – 6: “…for that the Jews would then be so much readier to fight against Antiochus who had laid waste the temple at Jerusalem, and that they would then come to him with greater good-will; and that, by granting them liberty of conscience, very many of them would come over to him.” 135 Cf. also Barclay, Jews, 36 – 7. 136 See Ch. 1, n. 58. 137 Jos. C. Ap. 2.49.

Leasures on regulation of cults

125

the first case (in the phrase paq± t¹ jah/jom 5womtar Req\) as referring to the temples, which the Jews allegedly have against the prescript of the Law.138 This would not only be incorrect with regard to the real practices of the Jews in Egypt (who did not build “temples”, let alone do so en masse (cf. pke¸stour erq½m—“I found most of them”); on the contrary, the epigraphic evidence shows that they built “places of prayer”), but also absolutely meaningless as an argument addressed to the Ptolemies, who used Greek vocabulary with regard to Jewish sanctuaries, did not go into detail and essentially did not distinguish between a “place of prayer” and a “temple” (t¹ Req|m, see above, Section 3.2.1). Rather, the argument addressed to the Ptolemies implies that Onias uses the expression paq± t¹ jah/jom not as referring to the ban of Deuteronomy, but in its common sense of “not as is proper”, “not as is becoming”, while the word Req\ does not necessarily refer to temples. We have seen that the word can also mean sacred acts and practices, i. e. “rites”. He means then that the rites are incorrectly practised by the Jews. Indeed, an explanatory reference to the situation among the Egyptians confirms the suggestion and elucidates the meaning of the phrase: the Egyptians too have “varying opinions about the forms of worship” (di± t¹ pk/hor t_m Req_m ja· t¹ peq· t±r hqgsje¸ar oqw blºdonom). Whatever is meant by the word t_m Req_m used in reference to the Egyptians—temples, or rites (ultimately both are possible)—the word hqgsje¸a unequivocally expresses the idea that the problem is that the Egyptians do not have a consistent idea of how to perform the rites. Specifically this disagreement about the sacred practices (and not the plurality of the temples in itself) is the cause of the lack of unanimity among the Egyptians, which directly parallels the situation among the Jews, who are in disagreement with one another (d¼smour !kk¶koir). If the word Req\ in the phrase paq± t¹ jah/jom 5womtar Req\ refers to the rituals, rites, the correct translation of the phrase would be “and I found that most of them practise rites not as it is proper (paq± t¹ jah/jom)”. In this case, the expression paq± t¹ jah/jom matches the formula with which Onias addresses the king in the Jewish War, where “he desired him to give him leave 138 This is the reading of all modern interpretations available to me, except that of Morton Smith, who suggested that the word in Onias’ letter refers to “forms of worship” which the Jews have “contrary to what is fitting” (M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 19872), 72 – 3). The common interpretation is prompted by lectio facilior, which implies that the word must have the meaning of temple, and by an immediate connection made between this meaning and the context in Deuteronomy (Deut 12:11,14), where a ban is issued on bringing burnt offerings to any place other than that chosen by God in one of the tribes. In the Jewish tradition, this context is interpreted in the sense that only one temple sensu stricto can exist. It should be acknowledged that the Jews of later periods who were familiar with Deuteronomy and less familiar with the historical context of the Ptolemaic state certainly may have been tempted to see this allusion in the phrase. However, as mentioned in the main text, this reading is hardly compatible with the general context, and the fact that Onias refers to his own temple not as a new, correct Req|m, but as a ma|r, also does not support it.

126

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, and to worship God according to the ancestral customs (to?r patq¸oir 5hesi)”. The expression paq± t¹ jah/jom would then be the opposite of to?r patq¸oir 5hesi and thus acquires a special, technical, meaning as opposed to the long series of similar expressions in the inscriptions recording the quality and correctness of the ritual tradition: “as is becoming” (jah|t[i pqos^jei]), “in due time” (1m to?r wq|moir to?r molifol]moir), “as recognised practice prescribes” (jah|ti mol_fetai b jahist\lemor m|lor), “competently” ([1lpe_qyr]);139 “according to ancestral [tradition]” (jah½r p\tqiom Gm), “in accordance [sc. with ancestral standards]” (!joko}hyr), “diligently”( 1pilek_r).140 If the reconstruction jah|t[i pqos^jei] in the inscription from Priene is correct, then the expression paq± t¹ jah/jom is an almost direct, etymologic antonym of it. The decrees collected by Josephus in the fourteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities which refer to the Jewish communities in various places of the early Roman Empire (and use traditional notions inherited from the Hellenistic world) provide ample evidence that the Jews were supposed to have their sacred rites (Req\) performed according to the ancestral tradition (exactly as other ethnic and religious communities in the Hellenistic world were supposed to). A decree from the Caesarean period concerning the Jews in Delos confirms their right “to use their ancestral customs and sacred rites” (to?r patq¸oir 5hesi ja· Reqo?r wq/shai, Jos. Ant. 14.214). Note that these two notions – 5hg ja· Req\ – are those used by Onias in two versions of the story. Several decrees concerning the Jews in Ephesos refer to them performing the “sacred rites” (oVtim´r loi Req± 5weim ja· poie?m (Ioudazj± 1m (Ev´s\ 1dºjoum, Jos. Ant. 14.234; cf. gQyla¸ym (Iouda¸our, oVtimer Req± (Ioudazj± poie?m eQ¾hasim, Jos. Ant. 14.240). The same refers to the Alexandrian Jews (Req± (Ioudazj± poie?m eQyhºtar, Jos. Ant. 14.237), and to those in Laodicea with an emphasis on the rites being performed according to the ancestral laws (ja· t± koip± Req± 1piteke?m jat± to»r patq¸our mºlour, Jos. Ant. 14.242), and to the Milesian Jews (t² te s²bbata %ceim ja· t± Req± t± p²tqia teke?m, Jos. Ant. 14.245). The Jews of Halicarnassus are said “to celebrate Sabbaths and to perform rites according to the Jewish laws (s²bbata %ceim ja· t± Req± sumteke?m jat± to»r (Iouda¸ym mºlour, Jos. Ant. 14.258). Thus, most likely, those rites are referred to in Onias’ argument, which, Onias implies, are not performed by the Jews in Egypt according to the ancestral traditions (we will see later in Section 3.5 what kind of reality may lie behind his complaint). That takes a special meaning in terms of the religious policies of the Ptolemies. Hecataeus refers to the deterioration of the ritual ancestral traditions of the Egyptians, while the Papyrus Jumilhac acknowledges the problem and insists on the necessity of their rigorous observance. The priest Apollonios from Serapeum in Delos emphatically stresses con139 Inschr. Priene 195, ll. 13, 16, 17. 140 IG II 12:1078, l. 17.

Leasures on regulation of cults

127

sistency and impeccability of his ritual tradition, while the decree from Priene shows that ritual practices are the focus of the state concern with regard to another Egyptian temple. Most likely, the quality of the ritual tradition is meant in the decree concerning the Dionysian cult in the Egyptian chora. Against this background, Onias’ reference to the Egyptians having disorder in their rites appears to have some justification and is highly relevant to the concern of the religious policies of the Ptolemies. Consequently, so too is his argument for the building of a Jewish temple: disorder in rites (in terms of transgression of the ancestral tradition) existed among the Jews, Onias claims, but he promises regulation of the rites of the cult. He wants to improve the cult practices by founding a temple, where the Egyptian Jews would sacrifice not only uniformly, but, as may be safely assumed, correctly, i. e. in full accord with ancestral tradition, as Onias can not only list his priestly predecessors for three generations back, as the pagan priests traditionally do, but descends from the genus of the high priests, which can be traced back for many centuries up to Zadok.

3.5.2 The third demand of the BGU VI 1211 and the Letter of Aristeas This is, of course, the last point of the decree that is striking in connection with the Letter of Aristeas.141 A royal decree, antedating the Letter of Aristeas, when prescribing measures aimed at regulating the Dionysiac cult, pays particular attention to the Req¹r k|cor of the cult. Most scholars agree that the notion of Req¹r k|cor in the decree refers to the sacred text of the cult, upon which the rituals draw.142 Although any reasoning here must inevitably remain tentative with regard 141 Cf. a note by F. Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament (WBCHJB 9; Münster: LIT 2001), 28. 142 Baumgarten, Heiliges Wort, 135; Cumont, “Les religions orientales”, 196, 305; Dunand, “Les associations dionysiaques”, 88, 97 – 8, 99 – 101; Moreau, “Le troisizme livre des Maccab~es”, 118 – 20; Schubart, Einführung, 353; Tondriau, “Le Decret dionisiaque”, 93; Zuntz, “Edict of Philopator”, 95 – 6 (1972). S. Eitrem suggests another meaning: “declaration of the revenues of the cult” (Eitrem, “A Few Remarks”, 35; cf. Renaut “Ptol~m~e Philopator”, 224, n. 49). Nevertheless, Sokolowski, who insisted on the fiscal significance of the decree, wrote: “D’autre part le terme hieros logos ne peut signifier ni des comptes ni des archives. Bien qu’on trouve dans les textes les termes hieros phoros, hieratikoi logoi, logoi Serapeiou, dans le langage du culte le hieros logos a un sens bien pr~cis: c’est la doctrine sacr~e mÞl~e de l~gende, reduite quelquefois x une phrase ou mÞme x un symbole. Nous lisons par ex. dans une litanie d’Isis, que la d~esse a r~vel~ aux mystes frikaleon hieron logon (IG XII 5: 739.12)” (Sokolowski, “Encore sur le d~cret”, 139). R. Baumgarten has shown that the etiologic legend of the ritual, which could initially be transmitted orally, with time receives written form and becomes an important element of a mystery cult. In particular, his analysis of the evidence concerning the cult of Demetra and Cora in Messene shows that the priest in charge of the mysteries had to possess an exemplar of the sacred text, inherited together with other objects of the cult (Baumgarten, Heiliges Wort, 126 – 43).

128

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

to the precise and immediate purpose of the third order in the decree, as it only prescribes that the texts be submitted, without specifying for what purpose, some suggestions can be made nevertheless. Why would the king need so many “holy discourses” to be put into the state archive? When answering this question, scholars usually suggest that measures for the systematisation of the doctrine are aimed at.143 Nevertheless, even in terms of this general purpose, the material aspect of this issue implies that different copies/variants of the text are collated and compared. In my opinion, it is logical to look at this in parallel with typologically similar situations and against the background of its cultural context. The tendency to systematise sacred religious texts that are important to those in power and connected to the state mystery cults has a remote parallel in history. Attempts at systematisation were made in Athens under the tyrant Peisistratus and his sons. A certain Onomacritus was commissioned to set the corpus of the oracles of Musaeus connected to the Eleusinian mysteries in order.144 According to Herodotus, who refers to Onomacritus as one who “set in order (diah]tgm)” the oracles of Musaeus, the working methods of this proto-philologist were highly arbitrary. In particular, he was caught by a poet, Lasus of Hermione, in the act of interpolating an oracle into the writings of Musaeus.145 Nevertheless, the precedent in itself is remarkable. The idea of “setting in order” the texts of a cult which is so important for the dynasty in Egypt would have been even more appropriate and understandable in the cultural climate of Hellenistic Alexandria. Such important philologists as Zenodotus, the first critical editor of Homer (dioqhyt^r),146 and Aristophanes of Byzantium, and such important philologists and poets as Callimachus, Aratus and Apollonius of Rhodes were already active in Alexandria by the time of Ptolemy IV. Ptolemy IV Philopator, being a disciple of Eratostphenes, a scholar of encyclopaedic knowledge, was known to have been their ardent admirer. He patronised the Alexandrian Mouseion, built a temple in honour of Homer and even wrote tragedies.147 Given his personality, it would be logical for him to seek to apply a philological approach to the text of the cult that he himself vigorously practised and wanted to regulate. Yet, even given the general cultural climate of Alexandria, it is difficult to imagine that the philological and editorial activity of the Alexandrian scholars, which, as we have seen, tended to be applied to all kinds of text (and not necessarily poetic ones) would leave the religious texts of the cult connected to the dynastic cult untouched. 143 Schubart, Einführung, 342; Cumont, “Les religions orientales”, 196, 305; Tondriau, “Le D~cret dionisiaque”, 86 – 7 . 144 Plato Resp. 363c–d; Prot. 316 d; A. Bernab~, Poetarum epicorum graecorum testimonia et fragmenta (2 vol. in 4; Leipzig: Teubner, 1987 – 2007) 2. Fasc. 3, 33 – 40. 145 Herodotus Hist. 7.6. 146 Suida s.v. Fgm|dotor. 147 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 155.

Leasures on regulation of cults

129

On the contrary, it would be reasonable to suggest that methods of philological work, developed since the time of Onomacritus, and elaborated during study of Homer and other poets and writers were applied to those texts. For instance, we know that in his editorial work Aristarchus (who was born approximately at the time when the decree was issued) considered a series of variants of the Homeric text marked after the cities they derived from or, if their editors were known, after their editors.148 Nevertheless, the tendency to consult ancient manuscripts in order to establish a better, corrected text dates back to much earlier times. There is evidence of it in the early Ptolemaic papyri.149 This must have been the working method that the Hellenistic poets applied to Homer.150 Against this background, it is logical to claim that this method of work was used by a generation of Alexandrian philologists earlier than Aristarchus.151 148 Scholia in Iliadem 1.423–4, lines of scholion 2–10; 6.4ab; 9.222 b1, lines of scholion 7–8 Erbse. See A. Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos (2 vol., Leipzig: Teubner, 1884 – 85) 2.429 – 35; Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 94: Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.328; For the authenticity of the evidence see G. Nagy, “Review of Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, Munich-Leipzig 2001”, Gnomon 75 (2003) 481 – 501; A. Rengakos, “Review of Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich-Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2001”, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.11.15. 149 On pap. Il. 12 (280 – 240 BC) see S. West, The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Papyrologia coloniensia 3; Köln-Opladen: Westdt. Verlag, 1967), 137: “a second, rather cursive, hand…has in many places corrected mistakes and inserted variants. It is not clear whether the latter all come from a single text, or are a selection from various texts, a kind of primitive apparatus criticus”. On pap. Od. 31 (250 – 200 BC) see West, The Ptolemaic Papyri, 223: “the text has undergone a double process of correction and collation. The original scribe appears to have had two MSS. at his disposal…”. Also, on pap. Od. 126 (second century BC) see West, The Ptolemaic Papyri, 263: “a second hand…has inserted variants and corrections”. Finally, on pap. Il. 51 (first century BC) see West, The Ptolemaic Papyri ,133: “it looks as if the signs were originally inserted, whether in this papyrus or in an ancestor, by someone who collated his copy with a Vulgate text provided with marginal signs”. 150 A. Rengakos, Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter (Hermes Einzelschriften 64; Stuttgart: Steiner,1993). In the third century BC a philosopher Timon suggested that the philologist and poet Aratus, who asked how he could obtain a trustworthy text of Homer, “get hold of the ancient copies, and not the corrected copies of our day” (Diogenes Laertius V.Ph. 9.113). Apparently, Timon ironically refers to the results achieved by contemporaneous philologists (probably, Zenodotus in particular), but at the same time he shows what their method of work was like, namely correcting and improving the text by consulting ancient manuscripts they had at their disposal. In the opinion of some, Zenodotus did so fairly arbitrarily (although the question is hotly debated), but the character of the changes still does not bring into question the method of consulting available manuscripts. This is the consensus of today against M. West 1998. See F. Montanari, “Alexandrian Homeric Philology. The Form of the Ekdosis and the Variae Lectiones”, in: M. Reichel/A. Rengakos (ed.), Epea Pteroenta. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002) 119 – 140, on pp. 121 – 135; Rengakos, “Review of Martin L. West”. 151 Montanari, “Alexandrian Homeric Philology”, 134: “should we conceive of a paradoxical Zenodotus who, despite his taste and his concern for the Homeric text, made every effort not to look at other copies he may have come across, not to note the points at which they departed

130

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

There is evidence of the strategy of collecting as many manuscripts as possible in the anecdote about the “Peisistratean” editions of Homer discussed in the second chapter. As will be recalled, “Peisistratus announced throughout Greece that anybody who possessed verses of Homer should bring them to him”.152 This collection served as a basis for the reconstruction work proposed by the philologists. We should recognise that in terms of the systematisation of the doctrine, collecting all the copies of the “holy discourse” makes sense precisely in this context: indeed, Ptolemy IV Philopator, when ordering that all the variants of the text be brought to Alexandria, acts exactly as Peisistratus does in the anecdote about the editions of Homer. However, the intention of the ruler in the anecdote is clear: he wants to restore the original variant of the text as correctly as possible. Similarly, this collection of “holy discourses” can serve as the basis for a corrected and officially recommended text. However, the pattern used in the anecdote about “Peisistratean” correction may also lie behind the “grammatical paradigm” in the Letter of Aristeas to a significant degree, as discussed in Chapter 2. I also emphasised that, in terms of this pattern, Aristeas may allude to comparing and collating manuscripts, although he transformed this pattern and fitted it to the correction of a translated text.153 The “grammatical paradigm” in its totality informs the readers of how the initially unreliable text of the LXX has undergone scrupulous grammatical work and how a text of flawless status has been achieved as a result of such corrections. In this connection it is remarkable that in the Letter of Aristeas the LXX is clearly alluded to as a Req¹r k|cor (Section 3.1).

3.6 Perverse ritual practices and deterioration of the ancestral tradition In Deuteronomy God prescribes that burnt offerings be brought to only one place chosen by Him, but, if the place chosen is located far away, permits that cattle be slaughtered and meat eaten anywhere (Deut 12:15; 12:21). The verb ;5: is used in the Hebrew text, which can mean either “to slaughter” or “to sacrifice” (HALOT s.v. ;5:), and which has the former meaning in the contexts from his own copy and not to ask himself any questions about those differences?” and with regard to the practice of Ptolemaic papyri (on p. 135): “is it believable that, if the diorthotes of a scriptorium compared copies and corrected them as part of his work as a craftsman, such a procedure was not adopted by this new type of diorthotes who, in his capacity as an erudite scholar and an intellectual, was working on the Homeric text?” 152 Melampodis sive Diomedis in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam 29.24 – 5 Hilgard. 153 Chapter 2, Section 2.4; 2.6.

Perverse ritual practices

131

of Deuteronomy referred to above.154 Hieronymus already strictly differentiates between these contexts (where the verb is translated using lat. occido, “to slaughter”), and contexts distinctly implying sacrifices (where the verb is rendered using lat. immolare, “to sacrifice”).155 However, contrary to the Latin version, the LXX always renders the verb uniformly, using the verb h}y, “to sacrifice”, in which a religious, ritual meaning strictly predominates and which refers to all forms of sacrifices.156 Thus, the Jews born in the Diaspora, whose mother tongue and cultural milieu were Greek, were strongly provoked to understand those contexts, which primarily referred to them, as permitting sacrifices to be brought, in the broad sense of the word: Notwithstanding thou mayest sacrifice and eat (hh¼seir ja· v²c,) flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. (KJV with my emendation, Deut 12:15). If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt sacrifice of thy herd (hh¼seir !p¹ t_m bo_m sou) and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. (KJV with my emendation, Deut 12:21).

Thus, the Greek translation of Deut 12:15, 21 can be regarded as an objective textual basis for the Greek-speaking Jews that permits sacrifices to be performed in the Diaspora, in the absence of the Temple. Frequent references in the sources to the Jewish Req\ (see above, Section 3.4.1) may suggest the existence of such sacrifices (the sacrifices, hus_ai, being in the Greek world the principle form of Req\, sacred rites), but the most telling evidence of this being so is the decree of the city of Sardis that granted a piece of land to the Jewish residents, where they might “gather and offer the ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God” (doh0 te ja· tºpor aqto?r, eQr dm sukkecºlemoi let± cumaij_m ja· t´jmym 1pitekoOsim t±r patq¸our eqw±r ja· hus¸ar t` he`, See Jos. Ant. 14.261). Bickerman notes that the mention of the sacrifices occurs in the part of the decree which reproduces the request of the Jews.157 154 H. Junker, Das Buch Deuteronomium (Das Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes 2.2; Würzburg 19553), 482 – 3; E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium (O. Eissfeldt/J. Gertz (ed.), Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/6; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 140; A. Phillips, Deuteronomy (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 89 – 90; P.C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976), 219. 155 Cf. Vulg. Deut 12:15, 21 and Deut 16:2; 27:7. 156 See LSJ s.v.h}y. 157 Bickerman, “The Altars of the Gentiles”, 151. However, Bickerman thinks that in general no Jewish sacrifices were performed away from the Temple (160 – 1). Contrary to him, I think that, logically speaking, the LXX translation referred to above simply did not leave the Jews born in the Greek speaking Diaspora a choice. However, the biblical contexts above do not imply that those “sacrifices” were made in the “places of prayer”. Cf. note 169.

132

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

However, the rules for bringing such sacrifices were not defined in the Bible (except for the ban on eating blood). The lack of prescriptions in the text of the Bible on how to sacrifice in such cases naturally created vast opportunities for adapting and using various practices, primarily those of the immediate neighbours of the Jews in Egypt, namely the Egyptians and Greeks. Onias says that the Jews in Egypt do not practise sacred rites properly, and although we do not have descriptions of what those perverse practices were like, we have much indirect evidence that perversity penetrated the religious habits of the Jews.

Elephantine As is well known, the Jews of Elephantine had a temple. The temple was built under the Egyptian administration, but the documents at our disposal refer to the time of Persian dominion.158 The Persian administration protected and controlled activities in the temple.159 The temple was destroyed in 410 BC, probably as a result of the anti-Persian revolt that seized Egypt. In 402 BC permission to restore it was obtained, on condition that animal sacrifices be abandoned,160 and it was probably restored,161 but we do not have sources referring to how events unfolded afterwards. Despite the presence of the temple cult, the Jews of Elephantine not only freely concluded mixed marriages, but definitely adopted syncretistic religious practices. Both legal and private documents contain oaths and benedictions with the names of the Egyptian gods, while the community collected taxes not only for Yahve, but also for the Aramaic goddesses Anathbethel and Eshembethel, who were popular in Egypt.162 However, the deplorable state of the communities in the Diaspora, similar to that in Elephantine, is exposed and made a subject of reproach in the words of the prophets (for instance, Jer 24).

158 B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden–NY–Koeln: Brill, 1996), B19 = TAD A4.7: “And from the days of the kings of Egypt our fathers had built that Temple in Elephantine the fortress and when Cambyses entered Eg[ypt] that Temple built he found it. And the temples of the gods of Egypt, all of them, they [the Persians] overthrew, but anything in that Temple one did not damage.” 159 Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English, B 13 = TAD A.4; B 19 – 22 = TAD A. 4.7 – 10. 160 Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English, B 21 = TAD A 4.9; B 22 = TAD A 4.10. Most likely, this ban was issued in order to protect the religious feelings of the local Egyptians, who worshiped Khnum, the deity usually depicted as a ram-headed man (the ram being a sacrificial animal in the Jewish cult). 161 Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English, B 45 = TAD 3 3.12 162 Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 151 – 79, 163.

Perverse ritual practices

133

Magical papyri and dedications in pagan temples Examples of mixed Egyptian-Jewish practices come from the magical papyri, for instance, as referred to and quoted above in Section 3.2.4. Specifically Jewish elements are intermixed with a broad pagan context, in which the names of the Jewish God are invoked together with other, Egyptian and Greek,163 gods, while in one papyrus it is explicitly stated that such spells should be pronounced at the sacrifice (1p· t/r hus_ar).164 The papyri are paleographically dated to 300 – 350 AD, but nothing prevents the practice from being traced back to fairly early times, especially given that the tendency for mixed worship is confirmed by Jewish dedications found in the pagan temples in Egypt165 and Jewish dedications directly addressed to pagan gods (dated to the period from the middle of the second to the middle of the first century BC).166 Ptolemaic Jewish papyri Finally, a general survey of the Ptolemaic Jewish papyri, and especially, of the papyri of the politeuma in Heracleopolis gives a general impression of the authority of the religious law in the life of the Egyptian Jews. According to Josephus, Alexander granted the Jews in Judea and those who will follow him and serve in his army the right to live according their ancestral law. The same was granted to the Jews in Babylon and Midia.167 There is nothing to undermine the evidence. Beyond the fact that orienal ethnic communities in the Hellenistic world were generally allowed to follow their ancestral laws (t± p\tqia, see Section 3.3 above), at the beginning of the first century AD Philo of Alexandria refers to this right to live according to ancestral law as not being violated even by the Ptolemies and depicts the attempt of the Roman administration to offend it as a violation of norms that have always existed.168 Whatever issues may have occurred in the past between the Jews and the Ptolemies in Egypt, Philo’s arguments confirm that the idea of an ethic community being allowed to live according its ancestral standards has always been present in Graeco-Egyptian society as a social and political norm. For Philo the notion of ancestral law implies keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, purification before entering a temple, and “thousands of other things”; 163 Cf. PGM II. 29 (Pap. VII 645 – 50); PGM II. 42 – 3 (Pap. VII 975 – 80); PGM II. 44 (Pap. VII 1015 – 20). 164 PGM II. 61 (Pap. XII 58, 66). 165 OGIS 73, 74. 166 Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt, no. 154, 155, 156. See Hengel on the analogous tendencies in Palestine (Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 437 – 86). 167 Jos. Ant. 11.337 – 9; cf. 12.143; 13.54. 168 Philo Legat. 138, 208, 371; Somn. 2.123.

134

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

it traditionally and, as may be surmised, universally includes sacrifices, oaths and marriage customs.169 As befits an exegete of the LXX, Philo knows exactly what these norms consist of according to the Law, but the question is whether the same level of awareness can be ascribed to the Egyptian Jews in earlier periods. The papyri from Egypt, including the archive of Zenon, an important official at the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, give an impression of the life of the Egyptian Jews in the middle of the third century BC. They reveal how deeply the Jews are integrated into the legal system of the Ptolemaic state.170 Even marriages and divorces were regulated by Greek contracts in accordance with the principles of Hellenistic law. In the whole corpus only two mentions occur that suggest that the Jews still used ancestral law in their life in some way: probably, an interruption of the delivering of bricks on the Sabbath is mentioned in one of them (CPJ I 10 = P. Cair. Zen. IV 59762), while another document, dated to 218 BC, contains an obscure reference to the Jewish law concerning marriage: a woman, Helladote, complains of being injured in some way by her husband, who has agreed “in accordance with the law of the Jews to hold me as wife” (CPJ I 128 = Papyrus Enteuxeis 23). (The Greek text of the phrase has been damaged and was the subject of multiple conjectures, but the relatively recently published corpus of the papyri of Heracleopolis gives grounds for accepting the restoration [jat± t¹m m|lom] p. o. kitij¹m t_m [You]da_ym).171 These two examples are scanty evidence against the ample background testifying to the Jews being deeply integrated into the legal system of the surrounding society in various aspects of life, which leads Tcherikover to the following inference: “The juridical framework reflects the conditions of life for which it was created. If the contract, the office, the court, were Greek, so were the laws and regulations, and thus we are faced with the likelihood that Egyptian Jews lived not according to the precepts of the Bible, but according to the principles of Hellenistic common law”.172 This law was followed even in cases where it was in strong conflict with the regulations of the Torah, which, for instance, forbids interest being charged on loans between Jews (Exod 22:24 and Deut 23:20).173 The papyri of the politeuma of Heracleopolis, published by Cowey and

169 Philo Migr. 92 – 3; (sacrifices, jat± t± p\tqia hOsai) Mos. 1.73; (oaths) Spec. 2.13; (marriage) Spec. 3.63. 170 Tcherikover, “Prolegomena”, 25 – 36, esp. 33 – 4. 171 J.M.S. Bowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—neue Erkenntnisse aus jüngst veröffenlichten Papyri”, S. Kreuzer/J.P. Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, 2 (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 161; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004) 24 – 43, on p. 38. 172 Tcherikover, “Prolegomena”, 34. 173 See CPJ I 20, 24.

Perverse ritual practices

135

Maresch in 2001, reflect a later period from 144/3 BC to 133/2 BC.174 It is assumed that the life of the ethnic communities is revived in this period under Ptolemy Philometor’s rule.175 Thus, it is all the more interesting to consider what the idea of ancestral law consisted of. The documents contain three mentions of “ancestral oath” (p\tqior fqjor) and one mention of “ancestral law” (p\tqior m|lor).176 The ancestral oath guarantees deals between people (the excessive use of oaths by the Jews of Elephantine comes to mind), while the ancestral law is said to have been violated, in the opinion of the petitioner, by a partner who transgressed the ancestral oath. Characteristically, the essence of the claim refers to a situation that contradicts the Bible: against the prescriptions of Exod 22:24 and Deut 23:20, the petitioner, Berenike, seeks to obtain from another Jew not only the price of a sold women-slave, but also interest for delayed payment. This practice was common in Hellenistic Egypt in the second century BC and a deal with interest charged between two Jews is also the subject of another lawsuit.177 Thus, it is remarkable that the expression “ancestral law” refers to a situation which contradicts the essence of the Jewish law so blatantly. It appears that the petitioner draws on the idea that ancestral law is considered an authoritative juridical norm, but has a very vague idea of its content. This accords with the fact that the ancestral law of the Jews was traditionally regarded as authoritative in Ptolemaic Egypt, and with the fact that the Jews of earlier periods tended to live according to common standards despite this. A slightly different situation presents itself in family law. In one petition, the petitioner complains that the father of his bride, having betrothed his daughter to him, later wished to give her to another candidate, although he did not obtain “a traditional bill of divorcement” from the first groom.178 Cowey thinks that a direct reference is made to Deut 24:1 – 4 here,179 which confirms that by the second century BC the Torah, translated into Greek, had the status of written ancestral law, m|lor, molohes_a, as it is often referred to by Hellenistic Jewish authors, including Aristeas and Aristobulos.180 174 J.M.S. Cowey/K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.) (P.Polit.Jud.) (Papyrologia coloniensia XXIX; Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). 175 Cowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum”, 30; Cf. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.83 – 4; Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 197. 176 P.Polit.Jud. 3.28 – 9; 9.7 – 8; 12.10: p\tqior fqjor; P.Polit.Jud. 9.28 – 9: p\tqior m|lor. 177 P.Polit.Jud. 8; See P.Polit.Jud. p. 99, note to 8.16. 178 P.Polit.Jud. 4. 179 Bowed, “Das ägyptische Judentum”, 37 – 8. 180 Let. Aris. 15.2; 30.2; 31.3 etc; Aristobulos Fr. 3 Walter = Eus. Praep. ev. 13.12.1; Philo Leg. 3.96; Cher. 87.2; Spec. 2.13; Sacr. 129 etc. E. Bickerman drew attention to the fact that the literalism of the LXX translation recalls the techniques of the dragomen—official translators of commercial and legal texts in multi-ethnic states in the Near East. Bickerman suggested that the Septuagint was translated as the legal text of the Jews, on the initiative of the king, as it is stressed in our literary sources (E. Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation”, PAAJR 28 (1959) 1 – 39 = E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. I (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 167 – 200). This

136

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

In sum, analysis of the new papyri leads Cowey to draw conclusions that come close to those of Tcherikover: “Die neuen Texte zeigen, wie sich die Juden im Herakleopolis im 2. Jh. v. Chr. auf vielfache Weise so verhielten, wie die Juden in Ägypten seit 3. Jh. v. Chr. es getan hatten. Sie sprachen griechisch, Hebraismen lassen sich nicht entdecken, nahmen in allen Bereichen des Lebens unauffällig teil. Sie verwendeten weiterhin sehr viele griechische Namen. Was sich jedoch geändert hat, ist dass sie ihre Angelegenheiten unter sich regeln konnten. Ihre eigene Institutionen und Ämter existierten, aber scheinen in dem losen ptolemäischen Verwaltungssystem eingebunden gewesen zu sein.”181 Thus, the material of the papyri testifies to the fact that in the everyday life of the Jews in Egypt the norms of Jewish law only slowly took the position and authority that can be ascribed to them judging from the later period, as reflected, for instance, in the heritage of Philo of Alexandria. Bickerman wrote: “It took time, and the prestige of the conquest of John Hyrcanus,182 the heir of Simon, to give the pre-dominance among the Jews of the Diaspora to the orthodoxy as preached in Jerusalem. Let us remember that Artapanus, a contemporary of the Jews who called their God: Zeus-Sabasios, could identify Moses with the Egyptian god Thot, and ascribe to the Jewish lawgiver the invention of the worship of sacred animals in Egypt.”183 It is reasonable to conclude that general indifference with regard to the observance of legal norms was also an environment conducive to developing unorthodox religious practices, particularly, in the situation of the sacrifices described above, where the Law itself, in its Greek translation, was so provocatively silent on the point. However, it is remarkable that Greek Hellenistic sources too show scepticism concerning the quality of the ancestral religious tradition of the Jews. That is the case as early as Hecataeus of Abdera, who was active at the time of Ptolemy I Soter and who authored a book called Aegyptiaca, which, apparently, was popular in Egypt (and certainly known to Aristeas and served

thesis is supported and developed by J. M~lzze-=odrzejewski, who stresses the connection between the translation into Greek of the Jewish law and of the so-called Demotic chronicle, which is a collection of the Egyptian laws. See J. M~lzze-=odrzejewski, “Livres sacr~s et justice lagide”, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Juridica 21 (Symbolae C. Kunderewicz) (Łodz: Universytet Łodzki, 1986) 11 – 44; J. M~lzze-=odrzejewski, “Law and Justice in Ptolemaic Egypt”, in M.J. Geller/H. Maehler (ed.), Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World (London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1995) 1 – 19; J. M~lzze-=odrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadephia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 99 – 119. For the history of the discussions of the thesis see in detail in: Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric scholarship, 108 – 13. 181 Bowed, “Das ägyptische Judentum”, 40 – 1. 182 134 – 104 BC – E.M. 183 Bickerman, “The Altars of Gentiles”, 149.

Conclusions

137

him as an object of reference and allusions).184 Hecataeus, having described some of the traditional institutions of the Jews, explicitly says that they have been transgressed by the Jews in Judaea: But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations (both under Persian rule and under that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians), many of their traditional practices were disturbed (pokk± t_m patq¸ym to?r (Iouda¸oir mol¸lym 1jim¶hg).185

This being the opinion of the Greeks about the ancestral traditions of the Jews in Judaea itself, their view of the local Egyptian Jewish tradition could hardly have been more favourable. And, if so, was it not because of the general discrediting of the quality of the Jewish “rites” that Ptolemy IV Philopator says aggrievedly in 3 Macabees that he wanted to make the Jews participate in the “eternal rites” (letºwour t_m !e· Req_m jatast/sai), implying that their own rites cannot be described thus?186

3.7 Conclusions Let me now summarise the discussion above. a) My analysis shows that two literary sources, one of which is approximately dated to the second century BC and the other of which refers to the events in this period, reflect the idea of consolidation of the religious life of the Jews according to the Law in Hellenistic Egypt. I refer to the Letter of Aristeas which by means of its “biblical paradigm” calls the Jews to return to the Law among the gentiles and the letter of Onias, which requests permission from the Ptolemies to build a temple. The author of the letter of Onias implies that Onias, by founding a temple, rallied people around it, who tended to adapt unorthodox ritual practices.187 Consideration of the Greek translation of the 184 185 186 187

See Let. Aris. 31; cf. Let. Aris. 3 and Hecataeus apud Diodorus Siculus Bibl. 40.3.6. Hecataeus Fr. 11 Stern = Diodorus Siculus Bibl. 40.3.8. 3 Macc 3:21. After Josephus Flavius, who sought to emphasise the illegitimate character of the temple in Leontopolis (Jos. B.J. 7.431), scholars have tended to regard its foundation mainly in connection with external events, namely those of the Maccabean crisis in Jerusalem (with the exception of A. Momigliano who emphasised that the temple, similarly to one in Elephantine, was built primarily to serve the needs of the military colony in Leontopolis, See M~lzzeModrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 128; cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959), 279–80). Nevertheless, particular interpretations vary, sometimes drastically, because exact chronology (which we do not have) is needed for any well-argued judgement, as the events in Jerusalem which Onias may have acted in response to followed one another and changed very quickly (for instance, the foundation is interpreted as a response to the defilement of the Temple in Jerusalem – M~lzzeModrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 124 – 5; Taylor “A Second Temple in Egypt”, 310; Parente,

138

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

Bible (Deut 12:15; 12:21) and a general survey of evidence from papyri and inscriptions confirm that problems of orthodoxy and correctness of the ancestral tradition may indeed have been a feature of the Diaspora, which makes Onias’ argument and Aristeas’ call fully appropriate under the circumstances. In light of this we can suppose that the Letter of Aristeas and the letter of Onias are not only literary phenomena that elaborate on some literary conventions, but indeed reflect cultural tendencies in the Diaspora, which can be regarded in parallel with the appearance (or revival) of the politeuma of Heracleopolis and other Jewish politeumata in the second century BC. Logically speaking, embarking on an attempt at revival of ethno-religious life according to the ancestral law in a Hellenistic state implies that expectations and requirements imposed by the state on ethno-religious and cultic communities in analogous cases must be respected, if this revival is to be organised on a firm basis. I suggested therefore questioning what kind of expectations and requirements could be imposed on the Jews in the Ptolemaic state. On the one hand, the Jews, as any ethno-religious community, were allowed and supposed to observe their ancestral traditions (t± p\tqia). On the other hand, in Hellenistic society, and in Ptolemaic Egypt in particular, universal terminology describing cult activities was developed and applied to the Jewish cult in the Diaspora. Jewish “places of prayer” were taken to be “sanctuaries/ temples”, and “priests” and “sacred rites” were supposed to be inherent to the Jewish communities, which, most likely, could be referred to as thiasoi. The Jewish cult in the Hellenistic world in general, and in Egypt in particular, tended to be regarded as a mystery cult. More precisely, we know that the Greeks and Romans always tried to correlate the Jewish religion with the Dionysiac cult. As part of the typical integration of an oriental cult into Hellenistic society, identification of the Jewish God with one of the deities of the Greek or Greek-Egyptian pantheon was certainly expected. In Egypt, where the Dionysiac cult was so important for the dynastic cult, identification with Dionysus was of primary importance for the state. 2 and 3 Maccabees narrate that the Jews in Egypt were once forced to convert to the cult of Dionysus. There were various Jewish responses to these trends in the Diaspora. Although the essence of the Jewish cult encapsulated in the First Command“Onias III”, 81; Gruen, “The Origins”, 68 – 9; as an act of support of the Maccabees – Gruen, “The Origins”, 68 – 70; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 77 – 8; as a protest against the usurpation of the high priesthood – R. Elior, The Three Temples (Oxford: The Littman library, 2005), 26, 195; also in connection with the Ptolemies’ aspirations to expansion in Syria – Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 280 – 1). The proposed point of view allows us to see that besides external reasons, whatever they were, Onias may have been guided by other important considerations that are primarily of importance for the internal development of the Egyptian Diaspora.

Conclusions

139

ment prevented it from being integrated into Hellenistic society in the standard way in terms of assimilation of gods on the institutional level, syncretism and participation in pagan cults were certainly present at the popular level (in addition to the examples above it suffices to recall that even 3 Maccabees, which tends to extoll the Jewish resistance to the attempts at conversion admits a very considerable number of apostates).188 However, even at the other end of the spectrum, where the Jewish community demonstrates a considerable degree of self-awareness, its representatives have no problems with using mystery terms and allusions in reference to their cult (on Aristeas and Aristobulos see Section 3.2.1; on Philo see Section 3.2.3; 3.2.4). A literary genre of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture develops and flourishes on the basis of identification of the LXX with the text of a mystery cult, i. e. hieros logos. All that testifies to the fact that the Jews in the Egyptian Diaspora, and even those most devoted to the ancestral traditions, recognised the Hellenistic approach to them and played along with it to a certain and significant degree. Thus, it seems evident that the principles of the attitude to ethno-religious communities that were believed to practise mystery cults would be applied to the Jewish cult, while the Jews themselves would try to conform to these principles as long as the Law itself was not violated. I suggested that judging from the tendencies in the Serapeums, i. e. the Greek-Egyptian cult officially supported by the Ptolemies, and from the tendencies in the cult of Dionysus, mystery cults, linked with the state cult (into which category the Jewish cult would inevitably have fallen, had it been typically merged with the cult of Dionysus), were subject to rigorous state control with regard to the consistency of their ritual tradition and, where possible, with regard to the textual tradition on which the rites drew. The latter concern was substantially influenced by the general cultural climate in Alexandria, where high standards with regard to ancient texts were developed. It is likely that in trying to conform to these principles the Jews would pay particular attention to the standards applied to the cult of Dionysus, as this cult was the most dangerous chellenger to the Jewish cult and, at the same time, the cult to which the highest standards were applied. In this context, it is not surprising that the correctness of the ritual and textual tradition of the Jewish cult in terms of their consistency and correspondence to the ancestral standards was very likely to become an issue in the dialogue between the state and the cult, all the more so given that the Greek literature in Egypt, in particular, Hecataeus’ Aegyptiaca, noted deterioration of the Jewish ancestral tradition. Thus, if the Jewish cult was unwilling to merge with strictly controlled cults, then at least it had to prove that it followed a flawless ancestral tradition. It is logical then that Onias when attempting to revive and consolidate the cult by building a temple focuses the attention of the royal couple on the removal of the disorder in the rites of the cult, while 188 3 Macc 7:15: “In that day they put to death more than three hundred men”.

140

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

drawing a clear analogy with the situation among the Egyptians. In conformity with what the Greeks in Egypt may have thought (owing, inter alia, to Hecataeus’ description), he admits and even complains about transgression of the ancestral traditions in the rites, but promises reform of the rites in order to bring them in accord with ancestral tradition under control of a descendant of the Jewish High Priest Zadok. This, however, forms an illuminating parallel to what we find in the Letter of Aristeas. Its author, when calling the Jews to return to the Law, at the same time constructs the “Greek grammatical paradigm”, which conveys the idea of emendation targeted at the general Hellenistic audience, rather than a narrower Jewish readership. As an addressee, this general Hellenistic audience forms a parallel to the royal couple in the letter of Onias. Similarly to Onias, Aristeas depicts the situation as emendation of the poor state of the text. He admits that the text was in a poor state in the past, but he declares that it was corrected long ago under the patronage of the king Ptolemy Philadelphus and under the control of Demetrius of Phalerum, an important peripatetic scholar, and that, having been stocked in the royal library, it has also been used in the community in this unaltered form since the day of correction. (This is also the case owing to the imprecation pronounced on anyone who should attempt to change it: thus the third and last function of the passage referring to imprecation (Let. Aris. 310 – 11) reassures readers that the correct text and the correct, unaltered tradition has been in use throughout that time, cf. above, Ch. 2, Section 2.6). Thus, Aristeas assures the Greek audience that the Jewish ancestral tradition is consistent and identical with the original Law. In fact, as in Onias’ case, Aristeas’ presentation serves as an apology against the idea of the Jewish ancestral traditions being in disorder, which notion may also have developed under Hecataeus’ influence. The difference between Onias and Aristeas is that Onias promises to improve the situation, whereas Aristeas claims it was improved long ago. A final parallel between these two texts is that both use biblical prophecy as a teleological motif of what is described. This needs unpacking in the Letter of Aristeas. The first chapter shows that the narrative in the Letter of Aristeas is constructed as an account of the fulfilment of the divine prophecies referring to the return to the Law (the Jews were freed and were immensely respected by the gentiles) and partly has a paradigmatic, stimulating significance implying that these prophecies will be fulfilled again in a new situation if the people return to the Law (they will be respected in Egypt and will theoretically return to the Promised Land). However, this strategy is used in a clear, direct way in the letter of Onias. Analogically, Onias justifies his foundation of a new temple by reference to the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy. However, the two texts can also be viewed against the background of the royal decree BGU 1211 specifically. In the Letter of Aristeas a clear-cut allusion to the LXX as a Req¹r k|cor (hieros logos, holy discourse) suggests a particular

Conclusions

141

parallel with the third order of the decree in which the Req¹r k|cor of the cult of Dionysus becomes a special concern of the state policy. Similarly, a direct parallel can be drawn between Onias’ argument concerning the rites (t± Req\) and the second demand of the same decree prescribing verification of the genealogy of the rites. These parallels support my suggestion that the policies applied to the cult of Dionysus are likely to have been a special focus of the Jewish communities undertaking revival attempts. Indeed, we have found parallels between the strategy of collecting all the manuscripts of the Req¹r k|cor in the BGU 1211 and the pattern encapsulated in the anecdote about the recension of Homer in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax, which, as I have suggested, also influenced the narrative of the emendation of the LXX in the Letter of Aristeas. The pattern of the anecdote about the Alexandrian recension of Homer could have been known to Aristeas in connection not with Peisistratus (which is quite impossible in Alexandria in the second century BC), but with Ptolemy Philadelphus’ activity, which is often mentioned in the scholia (see Ch. 2, Section 2.4; the existence of such a legendary story in Aristeas’ time is highly plausible, as it is far removed from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus). Aristeas may have applied the same pattern to the Bible, keeping the figure of the monarch and the principle of working, while only adjusting the idea of correction to the situation of translation. However, I stressed that this projection was not intended to juxtapose the Bible and Homer in terms of cultural rivalry, but to show how expert correction and high philological standards were applied to the Jewish text. Ultimately, it was caused by the Ptolemaic state’s tendencies to control the quality of ritual and ancestral traditions, possibly including their textual basis. b) This interpretation of the raison d’Þtre of the “grammatical paradigm” enables us to see the idea of interaction of the paradigms in the Letter of Aristeas, which appear to be associated, rather than simply juxtaposed or even opposed. As the form of Onias’ argument, being pertinent to the general situation with local and mystery cults, can only be conductive to effecting his plans with regard to the internal development of the Jewish Diapora, so the “grammatical paradigm” in the Letter, being targeted at the general audience and addressing issues of correction, only supports the “biblical paradigm”, which calls the Jews to follow the Law among the gentiles. Thus, the grammatical paradigm, though targeted at a more general, or in part even different audience from the biblical paradigm, appears to back up the biblical one, serving to assure Hellenistic society that the Jewish community draws on an original ancestral text of flawless status. c) In turn, this interpretation of the mutual correspondence between the paradigms enables us to return to a general assessment of the purpose of the Letter of Aristeas. Despite its dual strategy and the heterogeneous readership of the text, it should be interpreted as guided and defined by the Jewish paradigm. Every aspect of the narrative is supposed to glorify the authority and reliability of the Law as the text of the cult and the ancestral law of the Jews:

142

The interactive meaning of the paradigms

it calls the Jews to follow it; it assures the general readership that the great Ptolemy Philadelphus held it in great respect in the past; it guarantees its reliability in terms of correspondence with the ancestral tradition and in terms of modern Alexandrian standards applied to ancient texts. d) The analysis and assessment of the interaction of the paradigms also suggests general conclusions concerning the nature of the Letter of Aristeas as cultural and, above all, literary phenomenon originating in the Greek Hellenistic Diaspora. In this text the deliberate and cultivated complexity of Greek literary culture adopted by its author is increased by the problem of interaction between the Greek and Jewish literary tradition, the latter, in turn, not being identical with the plain surface of the Bible or Torah as we know it today. A literary phenomenon in the Greek Diaspora turns out to be a highly complex and well-considered interplay of traditions, rather than their eclectic and casual coincidence. This close and intended combination of cultures should be considered a sign of integration and assimilation, which has no limits with regard to penetration into the depths of Greek culture and acquaintance with its minutiae, but which has precise limits with regard to the aims of its use. An author may play as skilfully as he wishes with the details of the Greek literary and philological tradition, but he makes them serve the ends of his ideological or religious concerns. e) The analysis proposed also suggests that non-literary phenomena originating in the Diaspora be considered in all their cross-cultural complexity, rather than from a one-dimensional perspective. For instance, it can be suggested that, according to the interpretation prompted by the analysis of our sources, the foundation of the temple in Leontopolis was an act of dual nature that involved Onias both pursuing the needs of the internal development of the cult and doing so according to the desiderata and standards imposed by the Ptolemaic state. A similar approach suggests itself with regard to another important phenomenon referred to in my study. It is plausible that Aristeas, when telling his story of the translation under Ptolemy Philadelphus as the story of revision, was guided by the idea of revision as familiar to him from the activity in his own time. In terms of our discussion, this correctional activity, witnessed in the papyri (P. Fouad 266 and also an earlier P. Rylands Gk. 458), can be seen in a new light. It can be interpreted as a phenomenon analogical to the unification of rites, reflected in the letter of Onias, and the appeal to return to the Law, encapsulated in the Letter of Aristeas, i. e. as a further element of the process of ethno-religious awakening in the Diaspora that obviously started in the second century BC. However, in this process, attempts at self-control, selfregulation and self-verification toward original sources within the Jewish cult, probably, cannot be regarded in absolute isolation from the desiderata and tendencies imposed by the Hellenistic state. The Hellenistic state gives two basic standards: correspondence to the ancestral tradition with regard to any cult activity and correctional philological activity applied to ancient texts for

Conclusions

143

the purpose of bringing them into accord with the original variant. It may be suggested that both strategies have been taken into account by those who were interested in a revival of legal and cultic life according to the Law in the Diaspora after a period of considerable indifference to it, the memory of which is also indirectly reflected in Aristeas’ telling references to the neglected quality of the text of the Law “in the past” (Let. Aris. 30; 314). f) Finally, my conclusion referring to the cultural development in the Diaspora as correlated with that in Palestine should be emphasised. Here two important considerations come to mind. First, the Maccabean movement in Judea is inevitably referred to in my study, since the essence of Aristeas’ and Onias’ undertaking (as presented by the author writing in Onias’ name), namely steps toward consolidation and purification of the cult among the gentiles, turns out to parallel closely what happened in Jerusalem after 162 BC. Thus, although neither the Letter of Aristeas, nor the foundation of the temple in Leontopolis (nor the source telling this story in the form of a letter) can be precisely dated, the general impression is that the tendencies of the return to the Law in Egypt developed either in parallel, or, in the wake (which in my opinion is more plausible with regard to the Letter of Aristeas) of the analogous movement in Palestine.189 Moreover, the common textual background, known to us from Qumran, which, as Chapter 1 shows, is relevant to understanding the texts written in the Diaspora, also suggests that the culture of the Jews in Egypt should be studied not only with regard to the Greek Hellenistic environment, but also to the Hebrew traditions, which apparently were spread and active in a larger area than is usually assumed.

189 See Chapter 1, Section 1.5.

Abbreviations BDB

Brown, F./Driver, S.R./Briggs, C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden (15 vol.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1895 – 1983). CE Roussel, P., Les cultes sgyptiens n Dslos: du IIIe au Ier sipcle av. J.-C (Paris [u. a.]: Berger-Levrault, 1915 – 16). CPJ Tcherikover, V.A./Fuks, A./Stern, M. (ed., with an epigraphical contribution by D. M. Lewis), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vol.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1957 – 64). FGrHist Jacoby, F. (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (15 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1957 – 64). HALOT Koehler, L./Baumgartner, W./Stamm, J.J., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and Edited under the Supervision of M. E. J. Richardson (4 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1994 – 1999). Holladay Holladay, C.R. (ed.), Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (4 vol.; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983 – 96). IG Inscriptiones graecae (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter/Reimer, 1873–). I. Delos Inscriptions de Dslos (7 vol.; Acad~mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Fonds d’Epigraphie Grecque. Fondation du Duc de Loubat; Paris: Boccard, 1926 – 72). Inschr. Priene Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.), Inschriften von Priene (Berlin: Reimer, 1906). C.Ord.Ptol. Lenger, M–Th., Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolsmses (C.Ord.Ptol.) (Bruxelles: Palais des Acad., 1980 (repr. of 1964)). LSJ Liddell, H. G./Scott, R./Jones, H. S., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). OGIS Dittenberger, W., Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae (Sylloge inscriptionim graecarum Suppl. 1 – 2; Lipsiae: Hirzel, 1903 – 5). PGM Preisendanz K., Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (2 vol., Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1928, 1931). P. Polit. Jud. Cowey, J.M.S./Maresch, K., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Papyrologia Coloniensia 29; Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl., 2001).

Abbreviations

SEG SIRIS Stern TAD Walter

145

Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (Leiden: Brill, 1923–). Vidman, L. (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 28; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969). Stern, M., Greek and Roman Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vol.; Jerusalem: the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976). Porten, B./Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986 (= TAD A); 1989 (= TAD B); 1993 (= TAD C)). Walter, N., Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus (TU 86; Berlin: Akademie, 1964).

Bibliography Selected sources and translations a) Bible and Qumran Aly, Z./Koenen, L., Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. A Photographic Edition Prepared in Collaboration with the International Photographic Archive of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (Bonn: Habelt, 1980). Allegro, J.M./Anderson, A. A. (ed.), Qumrmn Cave 4.I (4Q158 – 4Q186) (DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). Attridge, H. et al./VanderKam, J. (ed.), Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Elliger K./Rudolf W. et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984). Fischer B./Weber R. (ed.), Biblia sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983). Field, F. (ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta (2 vol.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). Haar Romeny, R.B. ter (ed.), The Old Testament in Syriac: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua (prepared by D.J. Lane; IOSOT; Leiden: Brill, 1991). Lamsa, G. (transl.), The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated from Peshitta, the Authorized Bible of the Church of the East (3rd. ed., Philadelphia: Holman, 1957). McNamara, M. (ed.), Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy (transl. B. Grossfeld; vol.9 of The Aramaic Bible; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1988). – (ed.), Targum Neophiti 1: Deuteronomy (transl. M. McNamara; vol. 5 A of The Aramaic Bible; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997). – (ed.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy (transl., with notes by E.G. Clarke; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998). Parry, D.W./Tov E. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 1, Texts Concerned with Religious Laws (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005). – (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3, Parabiblical Texts (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005). Wevers, J.W. (ed.), Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. III,2: Deuteronomium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Wise, M.O./Cook, E.M./Abegg, M.G. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Revised Edition: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005).

Classical authors

147

b) Papyri and inscriptions (in addition to those abbreviated above) Eitrem, S., Magical Papyri. With 13 Plates. (Papyri Osloenses, Fasc. 1) (Oslo: Dybwad, 1928). Grenfell, B./Hunt, A.S. (ed.), The Amherst Papyri, Part II: Classical Fragments and Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (London: Henry Frowde, 1901). Horbury, W./Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Hunt A.S./Edgar, C.C., Select Papyri (3 vol.; Loeb Classical Library 282; London: Heinemann, 1970 – 77). Porten, B., The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden–NY–Koeln: Brill, 1996). Sherk, R.K., Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (RDGE) (Baltimore, Maryland: Hopkins, 1969). Vendier, J., Le Papyrus Jumilhac (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1961).

Classical authors [Aristeas], Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Harper, 1951 (repr. New York: Ktav, 1973). – Pelletier, A. (ed.) Lettre d’Aristse n Philocrate. Iintroduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, index complet des mots grecs par Andrs Pelletier (Paris: Cerf, 1962). – Tramontano, R. (ed.), La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate (Naples: Ufficio succursale della civitx catolica di Napoli, 1931). – Wendland, P. (ed.), Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900). Aristotle, Categoriae et liber de interpretatione (L. Minio-Paluello (ed.); Oxford: Clarendon Press, 201413). –, Categories and De Interpretatione (transl. with notes by J.L. Ackrill; NY: Oxford University Press, 1963). –, Poetica (R. Kassel (ed.); Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965 (repr. 1968 of 1966 corr. edn). Aristotle The Poetics; Longinus On the Sublime; Demetrius On Style (The Loeb Classical Library XXIII; Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann LTD 1982). Aristoxenus, Elementa harmonica (R. da Rios (ed.); Rome: Polygraphica, 1954). Ammonius, In Aristotelis De interpretatione commentarius (A. Busse (ed.); CAG IV–5; Berlin: Reimer, 1897). Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica (lib. 1 – 20) (F. Vogel/K.T. Fischer (post I.Bekker/L. Dindorf) (ed.); 5 vol.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1964 (repr. of 19063)). –, Bibliotheca historica (lib. 21 – 40) (Ch. Oldfather (ed.); vol. 11 – 12; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967).

148

Bibliography

Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum (H.S. Long (ed.); 2 vol.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19662). Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica (K. Mras (ed.); 2 vol.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982 – 32). Galenus, in Hippocratis epidemiarum librum iii commentaria iii (E. Wenkebach (ed.); Corpus medicorum Graecorum, vol. 5.10.2.1; Leipzig: Teubner, 1936). Joannes Lydus, Liber de mensibus (R.Wünsch (ed.); Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967 (repr. of 1898)). Josephus Flavius, Opera (B. Niese (ed.); 7 vol.; Berlin: Weidmann, 19552). Kemp, J.A. (transl.), “The Tekhne Grammatike of Dionysius Thrax”, Historiographia Linguistica 13:2/3 (1986) 343 – 63. Philon d’Alexandrie, Les Oeuvres (poubli~s sous le patronage de l’universit~ de Lyon) (R. Arnaldez/J. Pouilloux/C. Mond~sert (ed.); 36 vol.; Paris: rd. du CERF, 1961 – 92). Polybius, Historiae (Th. Büttner-Wobst (ed.); 4 vol.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1962–7). Plutarch, Moralia (C. Hubert (ed.); 4 vol.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1971 (repr. of 1938)). Prolegomena de comoedia. Scholia in Arisophanis Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes (W.J.W. Koster (ed.); Groningen: Bouma, 1975). Rhetores Graeci: ex codicibus Florentinis Mediolanensibus, Monacensibus, Neapolitanis, Parisiensibus, Romanis, Venetis Taurinensibus et Vindobonensibus (Ch. Walz (ed.); 10 vol.; Osnabück: Zeller, 19682). Scholia Graeca in Homei Iliadem (scholia vetera) (Erbse, H. (ed.); vol. 1 – 5,7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969 – 1988). Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam (Hilgard, A. (ed.); GG I 3; Lipsiae: in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1901). Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos (H. Mutschmann/J. Mau (ed.); vol. 2,3; Leipzig: Teubner, 19612). –, Against the Grammarians, transl. and comment. by D. L. Blank (J. Barnes et al. (ed.); CLAPh; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Strabo, Geographica (A. Meineke (ed.); 3 vol.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1877 (repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1972)).

General bibliography Alexander, Ph., “3 Maccabees”, in J.D.G. Dunn/J.W. Rogerson (ed.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2003) 865 – 875. Albright, W.F., “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus”, JBL 56 (1937) 145 – 76. Allenbach, J. et al. (ed.), Biblia Patristica, Supplsment: Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: rditions du centre nationale de la recherche scientifique, 1982). Barclay, J.M.G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996). Barth~lemy, D., “Red~couverte d’un cha‚non manquant de l’histoire de la Septante”, RB 60 (1953) 18 – 29. –, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963).

General bibliography

149

Baslez, M.-F., Recherches sur les conditions de psnstration et de diffusion des rsligions orientales n Dslos (IIe – Ier s. avant notre ere) (Paris: rcole Normale Sup~rieure de Jeunes Filles, 1977). –, “Les immigr~s orientaux en Grzce: tol~rance et intol~rance de la cit~”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7 (1996) 36 – 50. –, “Entre traditions nationales et int~gration: les associations s~mitiques du monde greque”, in S. Ribichini/M. Rocchi/P. Xella (ed.), La questione delle influenze vicinoorientali sulla religione greca (Roma: Consiglio Nationale delle Ricerche, 2001) 235 – 48. –, “L’~migrant” in J.A. Zamora (ed.), El hombre fenicio: estudios e materiales (RomMadrid: Escuela EspaÇola de Historia y Arqueolog„a en Rom, 2003) 225 – 40. –, L’stranger dans la Grpce antique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 20082). –/ Chankowski, A./Chankowski-Sabl~, V./Lebreton, S., L’Orient hellsnistique: 323 – 55 av. J.-C. (Neuiilly-sur-Seine: Atlande, 2004). Baumgarten, R., Heiliges Wort und Heilige Schrift bei den Griechen. Hieroi Logoi und verwandte Erscheinungen (Tübingen: Narr, 1998). Bickerman, E., “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas”, ZNW 29 (1930) 280 – 98. –, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. Foundations of Post-biblical Judaism (NY: Shocken books, 1947 (19622)). –, “The Altars of Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish ‘jus sacrum’”, in Revue Intsrnationale des droits de l’Antiquits 5 (1958) 137 – 64. –, “The Septuagint as a Translation”, PAAJR 28 (1959) 1 – 39 (reprinted in Bickerman, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 1.167 – 200). Borgen, P., “Philo”, ANRW II 21,1 (1984) 98 – 154. Brock, S.P., “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Tradition”, in B. Lindars/G.J. Brooke (ed.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Writings, Manchester 1990 (SCSS 33; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992) 301 – 38. Bartlett, J.R., Jews in the Hellenistic World. Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibyiline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Capponi, L., “Aristoboulos and the Hieros Logos of the Egyptian Jews”, in T. Gagos (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology. Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007 (Ann Arbor: Schoalrl. Publish. Office, 2010) 109 – 20. C~nival, F. de, Les associations religieuses en Egypte d’aprps les documents dsmotiques (Cairo: Institut francais d’arch~ologie orientale du Caire, 1972). Collins, J.J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Cook, J./Kooij, A. van der, Law, Prophets and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2012). Cook, S.A., “A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus”, PSBA 25 (1903) 34 – 56. Bowey, J.M.S., “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—neue Erkenntnisse aus jüngst veröffenlichten Papyri”, S. Kreuzer/J.P. Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, 2 (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 161; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004) 24 – 43.

150

Bibliography

Craigie, P.C., The Book of Deuteronomy (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976). Crawford, S.W., Rewriting Scripture in the Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Cumont, F., Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romaine: confsrences faites au Collpge de France (Paris: Leroux, 19293). Davies, Ph.R., “Didactic Stories” in D.A. Carson (ed.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 99 – 133. Dorival, J./Harl, M./Munnich, O., La Bible grecque des Septante: du judavsme hellsnistique au christianisme ancien ([Paris]: rd. du CERF [u. a.], 1988). Doering, L., Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT I 298; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Dunand, F., “Les associations dionysiaques au service du pouvoir lagide (III e . av. J.C.)”, in L’association Dionysiaque dans les societss anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisse par l’jcole franÅaise n Rome (24 – 25 mai, 1984) (Collection de l’rcole franÅaise de Rome, 89; Rome: l’rcole franÅaise, 1986) 85 – 103. Eitrem, S., “A Few Remarks on sponde thallos and Other Extra Payments in Papyri”, SO 17 (1937) 26 – 48. Elior, R., The Three Temples (Oxford: The Littman library, 2005). Erbse H., “Zur normativen Grammatik der Alexandriner”, Glotta 58 (1980) 236 – 58. Flint, P.H./VanderKam, J., The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: Harper, 2002). Fowler, R., “The Homeric Question”, in R. Fowler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Homer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 220 – 34. Frankel Z., Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841). Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vol.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Gehrke, H.J., “Das sozial- und religionsgeschichtliche Umfeld der Septuaginta”, in H.J. Fabry/U.Offerhaus (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, v. 2 (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlhammer, 2001) 44 – 60. Goldstein, J.A., “The Message of Aristeas to Philocrates”, in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations. Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Held on Sunday–Monday, Oct. 9 – 10, 1988 (Studies in Jewish Civilization 1; Lanham [Md.]: University Press of America, 1991) 1 – 23 Goodenough, 6.R., Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period (Bollingen Series 37; 13 vol.; New York: Pantheon books, 1952 – 68). Gooding, D.W., “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: a Review of Recent Studies”, VT 13 (1963) 357 – 79. –, “Philo’s Knowledge of Hebrew, Underlying the Greek”, in D. Winston/J. Dillon, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria. A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis (Brown University Judaic Studies, 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 119 – 25. Goukowsky, P., Essai sur les origins du myth d’Alexandre (336 – 270 av. J. Chr.). 2: Alexandre et Dionysos (Nancy: Univ., 1981).

General bibliography

151

Gruen, E.S., “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’Temple”, Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997) 47 – 70. –, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint,” in M. Karrer/ W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 134 – 56. Hanhart, R., “Review of F. Dunand, Papyrus greques bibliques (P. Fouad Inv. N. 266)”, OLZ 73 (1978) 39 – 45. –, Studien zur Septuaginta und zum hellenistischen Judentum (R.G. Kratz (ed.); Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Heath, J.M.F., “Greek and Jewish visual piety: Ptolemy’s gifts in the Letter of Aristeas”, in S. Pearce (ed.), The Image and its Prohibition in Jewish Antiquity (JJS Sup 2; Oxford: Journal of Jewish Studies, 2013) 38 – 48. Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. (3d edn; Tübingen: Mohr, 1988). Honigman, S., The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: a Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003). Hölbl, G., Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 2004). Huß, W., “Die in ptolemaiischer Zeit verfaßten Synodaldekrete der ägyptischen Priester”, ZPE 99 (1991) 189 – 208. Jellicoe, S., “Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage”, JThS 12 (1961) 261 – 71. –, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Junker, H., Das Buch Deuteronomium (Das Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes 2.2; Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 19553). Kahle, P.E., The Cairo Genizah (Oxford: Backwell 19592). Kooij, A. van der, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1981). –, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who are the Translators?”, in F. Garc„a Mart„nez/F. Noort (ed.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 214 – 29. –, “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule”, in: G.N. Knoppers/B.M. Levinson (ed.), The Pentateuch as Torah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007) 289 – 300. Kovelman, A., Between Alexandria and Jerusalem (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Koenig Y., “Des «trigrammes panth~istes» ramessides aux gemmes magiques de l’Antiquit~ tardive: le cas d’Abrasax, continuit~ et rupture”, BIFAO 109 (2009) 311 – 25. Krämer, H.J., Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972). Kreuzer, S., “Entstehung und Publikation der Septuaginta im Horizont frühptolemäischer Bildungs- und Kulturpolitik”, in S. Kreuzer/J. Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, Band 2 (BWANT 161; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004) 61 – 75.

152

Bibliography

Kühner, R./Gerth, B., Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache (2 vol.; Hannover: Hahn, 19553). Lallot, J., La grammaire de Denys le Thrace (Paris: CNRS rditions, 20032). Lange, A., “Textual Standardization in Egyptian Judaism and in the Letter of Aristeas”, in M. Karrer/M. Meiser/W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. Juli 2008 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 48 – 71. Law V./Sluiter I. (ed.), Dionysius Thrax and the Techne grammatike (Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 1995). Ludwich, A., Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos (2 vol.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1884 – 85). Maier, J., “Temple”, in H. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vol.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.921 – 7. Mart„nez, F.G., “Sources et R~daction du Rouleau du Temple“, Henoch 13 (1991) 219 – 32. –, “Temple Scroll”, in H. Schiffman/J. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vol.; Oxdord: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2. 927 – 33. Matusova, E., “Allegorical Interpretation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria: Inscribing Aristobulus and Philo in a Wider Literary Context”, Studia Philonica Annual 22 (2010) 1 – 51. – (transl. and comm.), “Philon Alexandrijskij ‘O gigantach’”, in Istoriko-philosophskij ezhegodnik 2012 (Moskva: Kanon, 2013) 5 – 45. McNamara, M., “Introduction”, in M. M cNamara (ed.), Targum Neophiti 1: Deuteronomy (vol. 5 A of the Aramaic Bible; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997) 1 – 15. Meecham, H.G., The Letter of Aristeas; a Linguistic Study with Special References to the Greek Bible (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935). M~lzze-=odrzejewski, J., “Livres sacr~s et justice lagide”, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Juridica 21 (Symbolae C. Kunderewicz) (Łodz: Universytet Łodzki, 1986) 11 – 44. –, “Law and Justice in Ptolemaic Egypt”, in M.J. Geller/H. Maehler (ed.), Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World (London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1995) 1 – 19. –, The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1995). –, Troisipme livre des Maccabses [Texte imprim~]/traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes par J. M~lzze Modrzejewski (M. Harl (ed.), La Bible d’ Alexandrie 15, 3; Paris: rd. du CERF, 2008). Milik, J.T., Recherches d’jpigraphie Proche’Orientale (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1972). Momigliano, A., Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Montanari F., “Alexandrian Homeric Philology. The Form of the Ekdosis and the Variae Lectiones”, in: M. Reichel/A. Rengakos (ed.), Epea Pteroenta. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002) 119 – 40. Moraux, P., Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote (Louvain: rditions Universitaires, 1951). –, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen; Bd. I: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973). Moreau, J., “Le troiszme livre des Maccab~es”, Chronique d’jgypte 16 (1941) 111 – 22. Murray, O., “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, JTS 18(2) (1967) 337 – 71.

General bibliography

153

–, “The Letter of Aristeas”, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici II (Pisa: Giardini, 1987) 15 – 29. Nagy, G., Homeric Questions (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996). –, “Review of Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, MunichLeipzig 2001”, Gnomon 75 (2003) 481 – 501. Niehoff, M., Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge [u. a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011). Nielsen, E., Deuteronomium (O. Eissfeldt/J. Gertz (ed.), Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/ 6; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995). Orlinsky, H.M., “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators”, HUCA 46 (1975) 89 – 114. Orth, W., “Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta Übersetzung”, in H.-J. Fabry/U. Offerhaus (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bibel (BWANT 153; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001) 107 – 14. Parente, F., “Onias III and the Founding of the Temple in Leontopolis”, in F. Parente/J. Sievers (ed.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 69 – 98. Peters, N., Die älteste Abschrift der zehn Gebote, der Papyrus Nash (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1905). Phillips, A., Deuteronomy (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: University Press, 1973). Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine: the Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley/LA: University of California Press, 1968). Preisendanz, K., Akephalos, der kopflose Gott (Beihefte zum “Alten Orient” 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926). Pouilloux, J., La forteresse de Rhamnonte: jtude de topographie et d’histoire (Paris: Boccard, 1954). Rengakos, A., Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter (Hermes Einzelschriften 64; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993). Rajak, T., “Translating the Septuagint for Ptolemy’s Library: Myth and History”, in M.Karrer/W. Kraus (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20 – 23 Juli 2006 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 176 – 93. –, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Rengakos, A., “Review of Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich-Leipzig: K.G. Saur, 2001”, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.11.15 (http:// bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002 – 11 – 15.html) Renaut, L., “Ptol~m~e Philopator et le stigmate de Dionysos”, Mptis N. S. 4 (2006) 211 – 38. Riedweg, Ch., Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos. Beobachtungen zu OF 245 und 247 (sog. Testament des Orpheus) (Classica Monacensia 7; Tübingen: G. Narr Verlag, 1993). Robins, R.H. A Short History of Linguistics (Indiana: UP, 1967).

154

Bibliography

–, “The Techne¯ Grammatike¯ of Dionysius Thrax in Historical Perspective”, in P. Swiggers/ W. van Hoecke (ed.), Mots et parties du discours (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1987). –, The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History (TiLSM 70; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993). –, “The Authenticity of the Techne [of Dionysios Thrax]: The status quaestionis”, in V. Law/I. Sluiter (ed.), Dionysius Thrax and the Techne¯ Grammatike¯ (Münster: NodusPubl., 1996), 13 – 26. Rösel, M., Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung (BZAW 223; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1994). Sandmel, S., “Philo’s Knowledge of Hebrew”, SP 5 (1978) 107 – 11. Schenker, A., “Was führte zur Übersetzung der Tora ins Griechische?: Dtn 4,2 – 8 und Platon (Brief VII, 326a–b)”, in W. Kraus/M. Karrer (ed.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse; 2. internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. 7. 2008 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 23 – 35. Schubart, W., Einfürung in die Papyruskunde (Berlin: Weidmann, 1918). Scott, J.M., “Dionysus and ‘the Letter of Aristeas’”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, 2007 (Atlanta, Ga: SBL, 2008) 325 – 38. Segal, M., “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998) 45 – 62. –, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible”, in M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 10 – 29. –, “4Q Reworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?”, in L.W. Schiffman/E. Tov/J.C. VanderKam (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20 – 25 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel exploration society, 2000) 391 – 9. Siebert, G., “Sur l’histoire du sanctuaire des dieux syriens x D~los”, BCH 92/2 (1968) 359 – 74. Siegert, F., Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 9; Münster: Lit, 2001). Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 19872). –, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (S.J.D. Cohen (ed.); Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 130,2; 2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Sokolowski, F., “Encore sur le d~cret dionysiaque de Ptol~m~e Philopator”, JJP 3 (1949) 137 – 41. Taylor, J.E., “A Second Temple in Egypt: the Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias”, JSJ 29 (1998) 297 – 321. Tcherikover, V.A., “Prolegomena”, in V. Tcherikover/A. Fuks/M. Stern (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vol.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957 – 1964) 1.1 – 111. –, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959). –, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” HTR 51 (1958) 59 – 85. Teixidor, J., “Le thiase de BÞlastor et de BeelshamÞn d’aprzs une inscription r~cemment d~couverte x Palmyre”, CRAI 125/2 (1981) 306 – 314.

General bibliography

155

Tondriau, J., “Le D~cret dionisiaque de Philopator (BGU 1211)”, Aegyptus 26 (1946) 84 – 95. –, “Les thiases dionysiaques royaux de la cour ptol~maique”, CdE 21 (1946) 149 – 71. –, “La dynastie ptolemaique et la religion dionysiaque ”, CdE 25 (1950) 283 – 304. Tov, E., “From 4Q Reworked Pentateuch to 4Q Pentateuch (?)”, in M. Popovic (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010) 73 – 91. –, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). –, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd edition, revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). –, “Reflections on the Many Forms of the Hebrew Scripture in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch”, in A. Lange/M. Weigold and al. (ed.), From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday (FRLANT 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 11 – 28; www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/216.4qrp.varia.pdf Turner, E.G., The Terms Recto and Verso. The Anatomy of the Papyrus Roll. Pap.Brux. 16 (Papyrologia Bruxellensia 16; Bruxelles: Fondation rgyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1978). –, “The Ptolemaic Royal Edict BGU VI 1211 is to be Dated before 215/214 BC,” in J. Zessner-Spitzenberg (ed.), Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.) (Wien: Hollinek, 1983) 148 – 52. Uhlig, G., “Prolegomena”, in Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam (A. Hilgard (ed.); Lipsiae: in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1901), XXXIV – XXXV. Ulrich, E.,“The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text”, in L.W. Schiffman/E. Tov/J.C. VanderKam (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20 – 25 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel exploration society, 2000) 51 – 9. Walter, N., Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus (TU 86; Berlin: Akademie, 1964). West, S., The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Papyrologia coloniensia 3; Köln-Opladen: Westdt. Verlag, 1967). Wevers, J.W., “The Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy”, CBQ 39 (1977) 240 – 4. –, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). Whitaker, C.W.A., Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, Contradiction and Dialectic (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). Zahn, M.M., Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, Composition and Exegesis in the 4Q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011). Zunz, G., “Aristeas Studies I: The “Seven Banquets”, JSS 4/1 (1959) 110 – 25. –, “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah”, JSS 4/2 (1959) 109 – 26 (repr. in Zuntz, G., Opuscula selecta. Classica, hellenistica, christiana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972) 126 – 43). –, “Once More: The So-Called Edict of Philopator on the Dionysiac Mysteries”, Hermes 91 (1963) 228 – 39 (repr. in Zuntz, G., Opuscula selecta. Classica, hellenistica, christiana (Manchester: Manchester Universit Press, 1972) 88 – 101). Zvi, E. ben, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (Berlin/NY: de Gruyter, 1991).

Index fontium The Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris.) 3 42, 63 (2), 87, 137 9 86 9–12 7 10 65, 86 11 14, 63 11–12; 14 12 14, 16 13–28 7 14 13 15 13, 14, 28, 65, 86 (2) 15–16 110 16 13 20 12 14 22 12 22–5 12 23 16 24 13, 37 29–49 7 30 45 (3), 46 (2), 48, 49, 50 (2), 69, 73, 85, 143 30–1 46 30–2 48, 50. 67, 70 (2), 78, 80, 83, 86 31 51, 137 32 34, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 59 (2), 60, 63, 84 (4) 33 14, 16, 27 (2), 31, 47 34 14 35 14, 16, 42 37 16, 17 37–8 28 38 14 39 34, 86 41 42 45 65, 86 46 86 50 32, 54 50–82 31 50–120 7, 32

81 42 83–120 29 (2) 84 32 (2) 86 32 87 32 88–91 32 92–3 32 94 32 94–5 32 100–4 32 101–2 32 105–7 32 107 29, 30 107–20 32 112 30 113 30, 32 115 29, 30 116 30 116–17 29 118 30 119 29 120 31, 47 120–70 7, 10 (2) 121 44, 71 122 34, 42 126 39 128–70 42 128–71 34 (2), 93 128–293 34, 36 129 10 132–3 24 134–6 42 134–41 24 137 78 139 42 139–40 42 142 42 143 10, 47, 93 (3)

Index fontium 148 36, 93 (2) 150 93 150–4 24 151 93 155 22, 24, 26, 37 (2), 38, 40, 85 157–8 24 158–60 24 159 93 160 93 168 78, 93 170 93 170–1 34 171 93 (2) 171–300 7 173–81 34 (2) 175 35 177–9 35 182 34 187–293 34 192 47 200 34, 35 235 34 (2) 296 34

301–5 83 301–7 69 301–8 62 301–11 7, 62, 62–70 302 57, 58, 59, 72, 84, 87 305 14, 34, 63, 70 (2) 305–7 44 306 64 307 61 (2), 65, 84, 86 (2) 308 58 (2), 64 308–11 13 309 65, 86 310 41 310–11 13, 14, 64, 71, 73, 77, 71–79, 140 311 80 312 35, 88 312–14 45 312–15 94 314 143 315 47, 95 316 94 321 34

Bible Genesis (Gen) 17:7–8 21 28:17 19 30:26 21 31:26 26 31:41 21 32:25–33 21 46:43 19 Exodus (Exod) 3:12 21 4:27–9 21 5:15 13 5:16 13 6: 3–7 21 6: 3–8 21 12:29 26 14:29 21 15 21

157

15:11 19, 23 (2) 15:13 14 15:14 41 15:19–20 21 19:7 21 20 21 20:2–6 110 20:2–17 25 20:19–21 21 22:9 26 22:24 115, 135 23:4 13 23:7 19 23:18 41 24:1 54 24:3 59, 63, 64 24: 4–6 21 24:9 54 24:12–14 21

158 32:27 41 34:10 19 (3), 23 (2) 34:24 41 Leviticus (Lev) 11:2–8 24 11:44 42 20:26 42 24:20–2 21 25:13 18 25:39–43 21 Numbers (Num) 4:47–9 21 7:1 21 11:16–17 54 20:14–18 21 21:1 26 21:29 26 24:22 26 27:11 21 29:32–30:1 21 31:12 26 31:19 26 31:26 26 36:1–2 21 Deuteronomy (Deut) 1:5 14, 64 (2), 65 1:9–18 37 1:17 21, 37 1:19 19 2:8–14 21 4 40 4:1 30 4:1–5 41 4:2 13, 14, 64, 71 4:5 38 4:5-8 37 4:6 36 4:6–8 35. 37, 38, 39 4:6–9 41 4:10–49 41 4:27 40 4:27–31 41 4:28 41

Index fontium 4:30 37 4:34 19 5 21 5:6–10 110 5:6–21 25 5:15 14, 27 (2) 5:28–9 21, 37 6:4 12 6:4–5 25 6:4–9 24 6:10–11 37 6:14 40, 41 6:21 27 6:22 14, 27 7:4 41 7:5 41 7:7 30 7:14 40 7:16 41 7:18 22, 23 7:19 23 7:25 41 8:1 30 8:7 29 8:8–9 30 8:9 29 8:19 41 10:20 23 10:21 19, 22 (4), 23 (2) 11:8 30 11:11 29 (2) 11:13–21 24 11:16 41 11:17 37 11:28 41 12:2 41 12:3 41 12:5–8 98 12:10 30 12:11–14 98, 125 12:15 131 (4), 138 12:21 131 (4), 138 12:30 40, 41 12:31 41 13:1 71 13:3 41

Index fontium 13:7 41 14:4–8 24 15:2 18 15:15 14 (3), 27 (2) 16:2 131 16:12 14, 27 (2) 16: 13–14 21 16:19 21, 37 17:3 41 17:14 40 18:18–19 37 18:18–20 21 18:22 21 20:18 41 21:13 26 22:12 24 23:20 134, 135 24:1–4 135 24:18 14 (2)27 (2) 24:20 14, 27 (2) 24:22 14, 27 (2) 26:8 19 27:7 131 27:9–19 37 28:10 40 28:11–14 38 28:12 40, 41 28:14 41 28:15–68 40 28:36 41 28:41 26 28:58 19, 23 (2) 28:64 41 29 16 29:9 41 29:17 41 29:25 41 30 18, 27, 40 30:1 15, 17 (3) 30:1–2 28, 37 30:1–3 12, 27 30:1–5 17 (2), 20, 26 30:1–10 16 30:1–5 37 (2), 39, 41 30:1–6 26 30:2 17, 26

159

30:2–3 20 (4) 30:3 16 (6), 17 (2), 18 (3), 19 (3), 20 (4), 26 (5), 27, 37, 38 30:3–5 29 (2), 30, 31, 33 (2) 30:4 17 (2) 30:5 29, 30, 33, 37 (2) 30:5–6 26 30:9 30 30:17 41 31:16 41 32:28 18 32:42 26 33:8–11 25 34:11 14 34:12 19 2 Kings 23:1–2 59 Nehemiah (Neh) 8:1–9 59 8:8 64 Job 5:9 23 9:10 23 34:24 23 42:10 15 Psalms (Ps) 14:7 (LXX 13:7) 15 45:5 (LXX 44:5) 23 53:7 (LXX 52:7) 15 85:2 (LXX 84:2) 15 126:1 (LXX 125:1) 15 132:18 (LXX 131:18) 18 Isaiah (Isa) 2:22 19 10:6 26 27:11 18 42:22 26 (2) 42:24 26 61:1 18

160

Index fontium

Jeremiah (Jer) 15:13 26 17:3 26 24 132 31:23 (LXX 38:23) 15 36:6–10 59 Lamentations (Lam) 2:14 15 (2) Ezekiel (Ezek) 7:21 26 16:53 15 23:46 26 25:7 26 29:14 15 34: 8 26 36:4 26 39:25 15

Hosea (Hos) 6:11 15 Joel 4:1 15 Amos 9:11 19 9:14 15 Habakkuk (Hab) 2:7 26 Zephaniah (Zeph) 1:13 26 2:7 15 3:19–20 18, 19 3:20 15, 18

Peshitta (Syr.) Deut 30:3

16

Vulgata (Vulg.) Deut 30:3 16 Deut 12:15 131 Deut 12:21 131

Deut 16:2 Deut 27:7

131 131

Septuagint 1,2 Esdras (1 Esd, 2 Esd) 1 Esd 9:48–9 64 2 Esd 18:7–8 13 2 Esd 18:8 64 2 Maccabees (2 Macc) 3:12 101 6:7–9 114

3 Maccabees (3 Macc) 1:10 97 2:28 101 2:28–29 114 2:28–30 114 2–7 114 3:21 137 6:1 102 7:15 139

161

Index fontium

Babylonian Talmud Megillah (Meg.)

16

Aramaic Targums Deut 30:3

Targum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.) Deut 30:2–3 20 Deut 30:3 16

16

Ps.-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.–J.) Deut 30:2–3 20 Deut 30:3 16

Targum Neophiti (Tg. Neof.) Deut 30:2–3 20

Judean Desert Scrolls Apocryphon of Moses (1Q22) 1Q22 2 37 Damascus Document (CD) 18 (2)

BD 5.15–17

Florilegium (4QFlor) 4QFlor 3.12 18, 19 Jubilees Title 21 Jub. 1.1–3 (4Q216 1) 22 Melchizedek (11QMelch) 11QMelch 2 18 (2) Miqsat Magas´Þ ha-Torah (4QMMT) ˙ Title 40 (2) 4QMMT e(+d) 18–24 Parry/Tov = 4Q 398 11–13 28 4QMMT e (+d) 20–21 Parry/Tov = 4Q 398 11–13 33 4QMMT e(+d) 14–19 Parry/Tov = 4Q397 14–19 37

Reworked Pentateuch (4QRPa-e ) Title 24, 25,38, 53 4Q158 1-2 21 (2) 4Q158 4 21 4Q158 6 21, 22 4Q158 7–8 22 4Q158 7–9 21, 25 4Q158 14 21 4Q364 4b, e ii 21 4Q364 14 21 4Q364 21.1–2 21, 37 4Q364 23ab 21 4Q365 6b 4–5 21 4Q365 28 21 4Q365 36 21 4Q366 2 21 4Q366 4 21 Serek Hayahad (1QS) 1QS 5.15–17 18, 19 Temple Scrolla (11QTa) Title 26, 31, 32 11Q19 2 22, 31 11Q19 2–13 32 11Q19 30–47 32

162 11Q19 59.2–13 11Q19 66 22

Index fontium 26

Twelve Minor Prophets (8HevXII gr) 88, ˙ 89, 90

Testimonia (4QTest) 4Q175 1 25, 37

Papyri The Amherst Papyri (P. Amherst) P. Amherst 12 77 Berlin, Griechische Urkunden (BGU) BGU VI 1211 115, 116, 117–130, 118, 121, 127, 140, 141 Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolsmses (C.Ord.Ptol.) 29 (= BGU VI 1211) 116, 118 Corpus papyrorum judaicarum (CPJ) I 10 134 I 20 134 I 24 134 I 120 102 I 121 102 I 127d 102 I 128 134 I 138 103 I 139 102 I 141 102 III 473 103 The Derveni Papyrus (P. Derveni) 6.6 120 20.1 120 20.3–4 120 20.4 120 P. Grenf. 1.31

104

Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM) I. 184 (Pap. V 110) 105 II. 29 (Pap. VII 645–50) 133 II. 42–3 (Pap. VII 975–80) 133

II. 44 (Pap. VII 1015–20) 133 II. 61 (Pap. XII 58; 66) 133 II. 62–3 (Pap. XII 80–93) 105 The Fouad Papyrus 266 (P. Fouad 266) 15, 71, 88, 89 (5), 142 The Nash Papyrus (P. Nash)

25

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (P. Oxy.) IX 1205 (=CPJ III 473) 103 XXVII 2465 111 The Papyri of the Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis (P. Polit. Jud.) 3.28–9 135 4 135 8 135 9.7–8 135 9.28–9 135 12 l.10 135 Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English; Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (TAD) B 13 = TAD A.4 132 B19 = TAD A 4.7 132 B 19–22 = TAD A. 4.7–10 132 B 21 = TAD A 4.9 132 B 22 = TAD A 4.10 132 B 45 = TAD 3 3.12 132 The Rylands Papyri P. Rylands Gk. 458 88, 89 (2), 142 P. Rylands IV 590 (= CPJ I 138) 103

163

Index fontium

Inscriptions 2225

Les cultes sgyptiens n Dslos (CE) 21 103, 104 26 103 27 103

Inscriptions of Priene (Inschr. Priene) 195 (= PHI 7 I. Priene 118) 119, 126

Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolsmses (C.Ord.Ptol.) 64 101 Horbury/Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt no. 9 100 no. 13 99 no. 22 100 no. 25 99 no. 27 99 no, 117 99 no. 125 101 no. 154 99, 133 no. 155 100, 133 no. 156 100, 133 Inscriptiones Graecae (IG) II 12: 1078 126 II 2: 337 123 II 2: 1134 118 V 1: 1390 A11–12 118, 121 II 2: 1261 103 XI 4:1299 118 XII 3: 178 103 XII 5: 739 I 12 91, 127 Inscriptions of Delos (I. Delos) 1299.2–12 118 1510 108 (2) 1519 103

103

Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) 51 112 73 133 74 133 97 104 111 112 130 112 Roman Documents from the Greek East (RDGE) 5 108 Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (SEG) 8:365 103 30:93 120 41:66 118 Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (SIRIS) 39 104 139 104 140 104 158 103, 104 250 103. 104 258 103 270 99

Classical authors Aelius Aristides Smyrnaikos politikos (Smyrn.) 234.25 95

Ammonius In Aristotelis librum De interpretatione 91.2 61

164 160.30 219.18

Index fontium 61 61

Andocides On the mysteries 31.5 120 32.4 120 71.4 120 [Anonymi] In Hermogenem Retorem Peri Euresews 7.760.13 61 [Anonymi] Prolegomena in artem rhetoricam 6.36, 11 51 6.37 51, 85 [Anonymus Crameri ii] Prolegomena de Comoedia2–19 20–23 55

56

Appianus Syriaca 328. 2 60 Aristobulus Fr. 2 Walter (Fr. 2 Holladay) Fr. 5 Walter (Fr. 3 Holladay) Aristophanes Ecclesiazousae (Eccl.) Eccl. 444 95 Aristotle De Interpretatione (Int.) 16a3–5 49 16a3–8 50 16a17 49 16a19 49 16b20 49 16b26 49 16b28 49 17a1 49 17a2–7 49, 51, 78 17a23–24 49

18a34 49 Historia Animalium (Hist. an.) 585b 60 Poetica (Poet.) 1450b14 51 1450b12–15 51 1451a30–5 71 1451a36–b7 75 1458a18 52 1461b22–4 74 1461b30 80 Rhetorica (Rhet.) 1404b2 52 1413b 8–9 51 Topica (Top.) 139b12–15 52 Aristoxenus Elementa Harmonica 21.15 51 Artapanus Fr. 3a Holladay 109, 123 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (Deipn.) 7.2–3 115

78, 93 77

Athanasius Sophistes Prolegomena in Hermogenis librum Peri Stasewn (Prolegomena) 14.177.15 51 Clemens of Alexandria Protrepticus (Protr.) 4.48 113 Stromata (Strom.) 3.10.69 72 4.5.20 72 Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam: Melampodis sive Diomedis in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam (Melamp.) Title 67, 68 (3)

Index fontium 13. 11–12 69, 85 13.5 68 15.27–29 73 29.16–30.10 54 29.24–5 130 Scholia Marciana 303.14–15 65 333.36–37 52 353.1–4 52 Scholia Vaticana (Vat.) Title 67, 68 113.15–22 70 114.10–12 52, 61 114.28 65 135.7 68 164.9 68 166.16–20 78 167.30–168.13 78 168.9–10 78 169.9 68 Scholia Londinensia (Lond.) 449.4–6 78 Demetrius De elocutione (Peri herme¯neias) (Eloc.) 17.5 51 191.3 51 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca (Bibl.) 1.27.6. 94 1.72.2 60 2.29.4 72 40.3.1 120 40.3.6 137 40.3.8 137 Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum (V.Ph.) 5.21 81 5.23 80 5. 26 80 5. 45 80 5.48 80 6.17 80 7.35.10 51

165

7.195 81 9.47 81 9.113 79, 129 Dionysius Thrax Techne Grammatike Title 67 (2), Ch. 1 67 (2), 68 Ephippus (FGrHist 126) F5 111 Epit. Julius Paris 1.3,3 106 Eratosthhenos (FGrHIst 241) F II B 115 Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica (Praep. ev.) 8.10.1–3 93 8.10.2 78 8.10.5 94 10.8.13 95 13.12.1 77 13.12.4 92 Galen Comm. in Hippocratis librum III epidemiarum 17a 607–8 87 Hecataeus of Abdera Aegyptiaca Title 120, 136 Fr. 11 Stern 120, 137 Herodotus Historia (Hist.) 1.215 77 2.170– 1 96 7.6 128 8.65 120 Homer Ilias (Il.) 2.856 66

166

Index fontium

Odyssey (Od.) 9. 60 60 Hymn to Demeter 477 120 481 120

Jerome Explanatio in Danielem (Expl. Dan.) 11.14 114

Antiquitates judaicae (Ant.) 11.337–9 133 11.339–43 97 11.346 97 12.4 98 12.57 54 12.230–1 97 13 123 13.56–68 122 13. 65–71 117, 121 13.69–71 122 13.73–9 97 14. 214 126 14.215–16 104 14.234 126 14.237 126 14.240 126 14.242 126 14.245 126 14.258 126 14.261 131 De Bello Judaico (B.J.) 7.45.4 102 7.425–6 124 7.431 137

Joannes Lydus De mensibus 4.53 104, 106, 113

Lucian Menippus (Men.) 2.13 95

Joannes Philoponus In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium 7.23 50

[Orpheus] Argonautica 43 91

Joannes Tzetzes Prolegomena in Aristophanis comoediae 1.144–8 55 2.25–41 55

Philo De Abrahamo (Abr.) 12.2 105 99.5 105 201.2 105 De Agricultura (Agr.) 97 78 De Cherubim (Cher.) 42–9 104 85 103 87.2 135 De confusione linguarum (Conf.)

Hermogenes Progymnasmata 10.23 51 Historia Alexandri Magni 2.33.10 60 Horapollo Hieroglyphica 1.14.10 60 Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 18.88 95 18.89 95 34.247 95

Josephus Flavius (Jos.) Contra Apionem (C. Ap.) 1.209 102 1.186–9 12 1.187–9 102 2.48 96 2.49 124

Index fontium 44 103 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Det.) 125 78 Quod deus sit immutabilis (Deus) 121 103 In Flaccum (Flacc.) 46 97 49 100 De gigantibus (Gig.) 54 33 7.58–60 78 Hypothetica (Hypoth.) 198.18 103 De ebrietate (Ebr.) 94 103 Legum allegoriae (Leg.) 1.10 72 3.96 135 Legatio ad Gaium (Legat.) 4 105 138 133 208 133 371 133 De migratione Abrahami (Migr.) 90 103 92–3 134 De vita Mosis (Mos.) 1.23 123 1.73 134 1.5 105 2.38 105 2.40 105 2.224 105 De opificio mundi (Opif.) 1–3 78 157 78 De plantatione (Plant.) 39 103 De praemiis et poenis (Praem.) 23 105 31 105 44 105 162–5 17 162–6 16 163 18 164 18

167

165 33 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) 14 78 129 135 De somniis (Somn.) 1.163–5 104 2.123 133 2.127 103 2.300–1 81 De specialibus legibus (Spec.) 2.13 134, 135 3.63 134 De virtutibus (Virt.) 212 105 Polybius Historiae (Hist.) 5.34 113 5.61–6 113 5.68–70 113 Plato Phaedrus (Phaedr.) 247c–d 33 Protagoras (Prot.) 316d 128 339a–347a 74 Respublica (Resp.) 363c–d 128 377d–378e 78 Plutarch Cleomenes (Cleom.) 54.2 113 De Iside et Osiride (De Is. et Os.) 351f 91 352b 91 356a 60 356b 112 De stoicorum repugnantiis (Stoic. Rep.) 1053ef 80 1046d 80 Quaestiones convivales (Quaest. Conv.) 671c9 95 671c–672c 106 Pkatymij± fgt^lata

168

Index fontium

Title 80 On the Daedalean Festivals fr. 157 Sandbach 91

17.600 65 17.700a.3 66 18.148a.2 66

Porphyrius Quaestiones Homericae Od. 9. 60 60

Scholia in Pindarum (scholia vetera) ode 4 schol. 112b 65 ode 14 schol. 120b 65

Scholia in Aristophanem (scholia vetera) Thesm. 162 66

Scholia in Theonem Rhetorem 260. 24 51

Scholia in Hesiodi Opera et dies Prolegomenon-scholion 1.252 65 725.21 65 790.6 65

Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos (Math.) 1.58.2 65, 76 1.59–60 76 1.176.4–5 51 1.266–8 76 1.318–20 70

Scholia in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera) book , verse, line of scholion 1, verse postscr., 2 66 1.3b2.1 66 1.55 65 1.219–20.2 66 1.423–4.2–10 129 1.580-3a.2 65 1.69b 65 2.192 b1.2 66 2.527–31.5 66 2.865.2 66 4.43b.2 65 5.211a1.4 66 6.4ab 129 7.8a 65 9.57–8.5 66 9.222 b1.7–8 129 9.369.10–11 84 9.616b.2 66 10.372 a.2 66 13.658–9b.4 66 15.369 65

Stobaeus Florilegium (Flor.) 3.41.9. 94 Strabo Geographica (Geogr.) 2.3.7 66 8.3.11 66 10.3.16 118 12.3.21 66 12.3.22 66 13.1.54 58 14.5.28 66 16.4.27 66, 68 17.1.5 58 Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.7 111

Index nominum Modern names Albright,W.F.

25

Barth~lemy, D. 88–90 Baumgarten, R. 117, 121, 127 Baslez, M.-F. 103, 107–9, 115 f., 123 Bickerman, E. J. 9, 53, 71, 106, 114, 131, 135, 136 Brock, S. 9, 71 Capponi, L. 116 C~nival, F. De 103 Collins, J.J. 123, 138 Cowey, J.M.S. 41, 134–6 Crawford, S.W. 21, 25 Doering, L. 122 f. Dunand, F. 89, 112, 127 Fraser, P.M.

12, 41, 43, 58, 113, 129, 135

Gehrke, H.J., 12 Goldstein, J.A. 42 f. Gruen, E. 8, 30, 122 f., 138 Hanhart, R. 89 f. Hengel, M. 10, 96, 98, 102, 106, 110, 113, 114, 133 Hölbl, G. 41, 57, 111 f., 114 f., 119, 135 Honigman, S. 7 – 9, 12 f., 30, 43–7, 56–8, 79, 82, 87, 89, 136 Kahle, P. 45–8 Koenen, L. 16, 89 Kooij, A. van der 10, 44–8, 56, 63 f., 67, 79, 89 Lallot, J. 67–9

Lange, A. 9, 25, 43, 71 f., 87 Lenger, M.-Th. 118 Meecham, H.G. 14, 22, 43 Milik, J.T. 103 Montanari, F. 129 McNamara, M., 16, 21 Mart„nez, F.G., 24, 31 Matusova, E. 33, 91 f., 96 M~lzze Modrzejewski, J. 98, 101–3, 106, 116, 137 Momigliano, A. 32, 137 Motzo, B. 53 Murray, O. 7–10, 34, 42, 44–7, 58, 63, 79, 83, 87 Nagy, G., 55, 129 Niehoff, M. 58, 73, 81 Orlinsky, H.M. 54, 64 Pfeiffer, R. 128 f.

7 f., 10, 12 f., 28, 36, 40,

53, 56, 58, 65, 69, 73, 76, 81 f.,

Rengakos, A.

129

Segal, M. 21, 23, 25 Scott, J. 95 Siegert, F. 82, 127 Taylor, J.E. 122 f., 137 Tondriau, J. 104, 112 f., 117, 127, 128 Tramontano, R. 45, 53 Turner, E.G. 116 Tcherikover, V.A. 7 f., 10, 12, 30, 32, 41, 134, 136–8

170 Tov, E.

Index nominum 15, 21, 25 f., 28, 33, 53, 88 f.

West, M. 129 West, S. 129 Wevers, J.W. 16, 89 f.

Zahn, M. 21 Zuntz, G. 7, 9, 10, 34, 44–6, 58, 72, 79, 83, 85, 86, 117, 120, 127 Zvi, E. ben 15

Ancient names Aeschylus 87 Agatharchides of Cnidus 101 f. Alexander Aetolus 56 Alexander the Great 41, 97, 111 Ammonius 61 Andronicus of Rhodes 50 Antiochus III the Great 96, 113 f. Antiochus IV Epiphanes 102, 124 Antisthenes 80 Apollonios (priest) 118–20, 126 Apollonius of Rhodes 128 Apuleius of Madaura 51 Aquila 16, 89 Aratus 79, 128, 129 Aristarchus 53–8, 62, 65–7, 69, 76 f., 129 Aristobulus 42, 77 f., 91–6, 107 Aristophanes of Byzantium 65 f., 69, 71, 128 Aristoxenus 51 Aristotle 50–2, 60–1, 70, 74–7, 80–1, 84, 88 Arsinoe (Lagus’ wife) 111 Arsinoe II (Ptolemy II’ wife) 112 Arsinoe III (Ptolemy IV’ wife) 96 Artapanus 77, 109, 136

Demetrius of Phalerum 45 f., 50 f., 57–9, 61 f., 74, 87, 94, 123, 140 Diodorus Siculus 60, 72, 94, 120, 137 Dionysius Thrax 5, 44, 52, 54 f., 61, 64, 67 f., 68, 73 f., 77 f., 80, 141 Eleazar (a priest) 102 Eleazar (the High Priest) Eratostphenes 115 Eudemus 50 Eupolemus 77 Euripides 76, 87

34, 44, 61, 123

Galen 87 Gnaeus Cornelius Hispanus

106

Hecataeus of Abdera 120 f., 126, 136–7, 139, 140 Ps.-Hecataeus 12 Heracles 60 Herodotus 75–7, 96, 120, 128 Hesiod 66, 76 Hippassus 95 Hyrcanus (a Tobiad) 97 f., 114 Homer 5, 8, 54–62, 66 f., 76, 79–82, 84, 86, 91, 128, 129, 130, 141

Berenice I 111 Berenice II 111

Isaac 105

Callimachus 128 Chrysippus 80 Cleopatra II 121 f. Cleopatra III 115 Cleopatra VII 86 Crates of Mallos 60

Joannes Lydus 104, 106, 113 John Hyrcanus 136 Josephus Flavius 54, 77, 97, 101 f., 121–4, 126, 133, 137 Jonannes Tzetzes 55 Judah Aristobulus 42

Demetrius (a Jewish historian) 77, 81

Lycophron

56

171

Index nominum Moeragenes 105 Moses 21 f., 37, 40 f., 54, 64 f., 93, 103, 105, 109, 136 Onias 102, 117, 121–7, 132, 137–43 Onomacritus 128 f. Orpheus 92 Peisistratus 55–8, 62, 79, 84, 86, 128, 130, 141 Phanias 50 Philo of Alexandria 16–20, 26, 33 f., 37, 42, 46, 54, 72, 91 f., 95, 97, 100, 102, 104–5, 107, 127, 133–4, 136, 139 Plato 74, 76, 80 Plutarch 95, 105 Polybius 113 Posidonius 66 The Ptolemies 6, 96, 98, 101 f., 103, 110–3, 115 f., 119, 124–7, 133, 137–9 Ptolemy I Soter (Lagides) 12, 57, 101, 109, 111 f., 136 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 7, 12, 56–7, 73, 96, 111 f., 134, 140–2 Ptolemy III Euergetes 87, 96, 101, 111 Ptolemy IV Philopator 96, 101, 110 f., 113–6, 124, 128, 130, 137 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 97

Ptolemy VI Philometor 41, 92, 97, 101, 121, 124 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 101 Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyrus 115 Ptolemy X Alexander I 101, 115 Ptolemy XII Auletes 111 f. Pythagoras 95 Satyrus 111 Sextus Empiricus 51, 70, 75, 76 f. Simon Maccabeus 106 Sophocles 87 Symmachus 16 Theodectes 94 Theodotion 16 Theophrastus 50, 80 Theopompus 94 Thucydides 76 f. Timon of Phlius 79, 129 Valerius Maximus Varro 104

106

Zeno (the Stoic) 66 Zeno (an official of Ptolemy II) 96 Zenodotus 55–7, 62, 66, 128–9

Names of gods Adonai 105 (2) Ammon 111 (4) Anubis 104 Aphrodite 109 Atagratis 109 Baal 109 Bubastis 122 Dionysus 95, 104–6, 109, 111–8, 121, 124, 138 f., 141 Helios 111

Iao 104, 105 Isis 60, 91, 96, 99, 104 Jupiter-Sabazius

106

Osiris 60, 91, 94–6, 104–6, 112 f., 119 Osiris-Apis 109 Osoros 104 Pan

99, 111

Sabaoth 105 Sabazius 106

172

Index nominum

Sarapis/Serapis

104, 109, 112

Zeus

109–11, 136

Toponyms Alexandria 7–14, 30, 34, 39, 41, 43 f., 47, 53–8, 60, 62, 67, 71, 73, 78 f., 82, 86 f., 91, 97–100, 102, 104, 107, 111, 113, 115 f., 126, 128–30, 135, 139, 141 f. Antioch 102 Asia Minor 97, 103, 106, 107 gAraq el-Emir 97 Astypalea 109 Athens 55, 107, 128 Athribis 99, 101

86 f., 96–8, 101–3, 106, 113 f., 122–4, 136–8, 143 Jordan River 30, 97, 113 Judea 12, 32, 63, 96, 98, 101, 114, 133, 143

Bentha 99

Nashwa, near Kafr ed-Dauwar 100

Caria 99 Coele-Syria 96, 113, 122 Cos 109 Cyprus 109

Palestine 32, 42, 88, 96 f., 133, 143 Phera 109 Phoenicia 122 Priene 108, 115, 119, 121, 126 f., 144 Ptolemais 99

Delos

104, 107–9, 115, 118 f., 121, 126

Egypt 12–4, 19, 21, 25, 28, 32 f., 39, 41 f., 49, 76, 83, 91, 96, 98–105, 107, 109–15, 117 f., 120–6, 128, 132–40, 143 el-Ashmunein 100 Elephantine 98, 103 f., 132, 135, 137 Ephesos 126 Fayum 102 Galilee 113 Gerizim, mount 97 Halicarnassus 99, 126 Heracleopolis 133 f., 136, 138 Hermopolis Magna 100 Jerusalem 12 f., 27–9, 35, 42, 46–8, 72, 83,

Laodicea 126 Leontopolis (in the nome of Heliopolis) 98, 122–4, 137, 142 f. Memphis 102, 109, 112

Qumran

24, 27, 89, 143

Raphiah 114, 116 Rome 106, 108 Samaria 96 Samos 107 Schedia 99 f. Syria 60, 97, 113, 138 Taposiris 104 Tebtunis 102 Transjordan 97 Wadi es-S. ir

97

Xenopheris (in the Delta)

101