Abstract
This paper explores Hellenistic and early Roman Judean reflections on the creation of the Septuagint, how its designation as legitimately sacred alongside the Hebrew Pentateuch was propagated, and questions whether it held the same position with bilingual Judeans. The Letter of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus are surveyed to question if and how language may have impacted religious identity as well as religious expression of Hellenistic and Roman Judeans.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
PaRDeS for example is an acronym for a Jewish form of exegesis: Peshat referring to surface or plain-sense literal meaning; Remez referring to “hint” or philosophical or allegorical meaning; Drash referring to “search” or homily, midrash, or metaphorical meanings; and Sod meaning secret or esoteric, mystical, or hidden meanings. PaRDeS as an acronym was first discussed as an interpretive model by Moses de León in the thirteenth century, but we can find examples of this approach beforehand. Concerning spelling of G*d, see Schüssler Fiorenza, 2021, 2 fn 5.
- 2.
For reference to “black fire on white fire,” see Midrash Tanchuma, bereshit 1; Jerusalem Talmud, tract Sota 8, 3, 37a.
- 3.
This is exemplified in rabbinic literature by the preservation of different interpretations by rabbis through a dialogue of back and forth in the Talmud.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
All translations are from Wright 2015. While the text is most often referred to as the Letter of Aristeas or the Book of Aristeas (B.Ar) I will follow Wright in referring to it as Aristeas, the pseudonymous Jewish author as Ps.-Aristeas, and the character of Aristeas in the text as Aristeas. See Wright (2015) for overview of dating debates, scholarship, and the most recent translation.
- 7.
Philo, Life of Moses 2.34–38, all translations from Colson, 1966, 465–469.
- 8.
Philo, Life of Moses 2.40–41. Trans. Colson, 1966, 469.
- 9.
There are extensive resources on Philo’s use of allegory, for a concise discussion and references see Kamesar, 2009. Note that there is a brief reference to the LXX in the fragments of Aristobulus (fragment 3, Eusebius Praep. Ev. 13.12.1–2), Aristobulus was also known for allegorical interpretations of biblical narrative. For comparison of Aristobulus, Aristeas, and Philo see Janowitz, 1991.
- 10.
All translations from Marcus, 1986, 53–55.
- 11.
See Marcus, Josephus J.A 12.57, 31n.b. Note that Philo does not make reference to the number of elders sent to Alexandria in his account.
References
Bacchi, A. L. (2014). God as kingly foil in III Maccabees. Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture, 11(1), 57–69.
Carr, D. M. (2011). The formation of the Hebrew Bible: A new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.
Collins, J. J. (2000). Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish identity in the Hellenistic diaspora (2nd ed.). Eerdmans.
Colson, F. H. (1966). Philo. Harvard University Press.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and identity: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Eryılmaz, F. S. (2020). Translating inspired language, transforming sacred texts: An introduction. Medieval Encounters, 26(4–5), 333–348.
Gruen, E. S. (1998). Heritage and Hellenism: The reinvention of Jewish tradition. University of California Press.
Honigman, S. (2003). The Septuagint and Homeric scholarship in Alexandria: A study in the narrative of the letter of Aristeas. Routledge.
Janowitz, N. (1991). The rhetoric of translation: Three early perspectives on translating Torah. HTR, 84(2), 129–140.
Kamesar, A. (2009). Biblical interpretation in Philo. In A. Kamesar (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Philo (pp. 65–91). Cambridge University Press.
Lim, T. H. (2013). The formation of the Jewish canon. Yale University Press.
Marcus, R. (1986). Josephus: Jewish Antiquities XII-XIV. Harvard University Press.
Niehoff, Maren, R. (2011). Jewish exegesis and Homeric scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge University Press.
Ossandón Widow, J. C. (2018). The origins of the canon of the Hebrew Bible: An analysis of Josephus and 4 Ezra. Brill.
Johnson, Sara Raup. (2005). Historical fictions and Hellenistic Jewish identity: Third Maccabees in its cultural context. University of California Press.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth (2021). Congress of wo/men: Religion, gender, and Kyriarchal power. Wipf & Stock.
Seidman, N. (2006). Faithful renderings: Jewish-Christian difference and the politics of translation. University of Chicago Press.
van den Hemel, E., & Szafraniec, A. (Eds.). (2019). Words: Religious language matters. Fordham University Press.
Wright, B. G., III. (2006). Translation as scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo. In W. Kraus & R. Glenn Wooden (Eds.), Septuagint research: Issues and challenges in the study of the Greek Jewish scriptures (pp. 47–61). Society of Biblical Literature.
Wright, B. G., III. (2015). Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘on the translation of the law of the Jews’. De Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bacchi, A.L. (2023). Just as Good as the Original? Establishing the Septuagint as Sacred. In: Vestrucci, A. (eds) Beyond Babel: Religion and Linguistic Pluralism. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42127-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42127-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42126-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42127-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)