Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/131

93 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

93

tragedian Theodektes relate incredible stories to Demetrius (§§ 314, 315). Of Theodektes, who died before 333 B.C., Demetrius can scarcely have had cognizance. Opinions about the date of the letter vary considerably. Schtlrer (" Geschichte des Jildischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi," ii. 468) assigns it to about 200 b.c. He bases his opinion upon the acknowledged use made of the letter by Aristobulus, but Aristobulus' time is also a matter of divergent opinion (see Aristobulus). Schilrer thinks that in every aspect the letter presupposes the situation before the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucids (Syrians), when it stood in a state of lax dependence on Egypt. But this can not be proved Palestine appears to have been in no way dependent upon Egypt. The high priest is represented as an independent ruler, with whom the king of Egypt negotiates as with an independent sovereign. He maintains a strong garrison in the citadel,* and gives the translators military es;

cort (§ 172).

Although the

title

of king

is

not mentioned, Philo,

who reproduces closely the contents of the letter, does speak of

fiaaiXevs. Schilrer has to allow that if the period of the letter is conceived to be that of the Hasmonean independence, it is superfluous to suggest the hypothesis of " an artificial reproduction of bygone circumstances. " And in truth, The there are many indications pointing to Question the later Maccabean times. Can it be of Sate, only chance that the names Judas, Simon, and Jonathan appear three times each, and Mattathias once, among the names of the translators (§§ 47 et seq.)">. The names Sosibius and Dositheus (§§ 12, 50) are borrowed probably from Philopator's minister and from the Jewish general. It is also extremely probable that Aristeas borrows even his own name from the Jewish historian Aristeas, of whose work, Hepl 'lovdaiov, a fragment exists in Eusebius' "Prreparatio Evangelica," ix. 25). Examination of the parallelism with the verbal usages of the Septuagint cited in the index to Wendland's edition of Aristeas' letter will show by the multitude of the resemblances that the letter was written at a period in which the translation of the whole Bible (not only that of the Law) had already exerted wide influence. Of special importance, however, is a passage in the prologue to Jesus Sirach, wherein the latter's grandson excuses the imperfections of his translation by stating that the Greek translation of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books varies considerably from the original Hebrew. If the Greek translation had still enjoyed, in the year 130 (when the translation of Sirach was probably made), that esteem which Aristeas (according to Schilrer, seventy years earlier) presupposes, such condemnatory criticism could not have been offered to Egyptian Jews. All of this is testimony in favor of the later Maccabean age and the possession of Samaria and parts of Idumea by the Jewish state (§ 107) proves the era

the Temple. Schiirer (in private correspondence) takes it to be
 * Nothing concerning tbe date can be learned from the description of the citadel. It is certain only that it lay north of

the tower mentioned in Neh.

ii. 8,

vii.

2



Josephus,

" Ant."

138 ; II Mace. Iv. 12, 27; v. 5 ; while Wendland understands it to be the large building Oip's) built by the Hasmoneans, also north of the Temple. Schiirer (p. 470) is right in holding that the mention of the harbors proves nothing. xii. §§ 133,

to

Aristai Aristeas

have been at

One

least the time of John Hyrcanus. can, therefore, readily understand how it is that

Alexander Polyhistor was unacquainted with the work, if written in the first century b.c. That it was written before the invasion of Palestine by Pompey (63) and the loss of Jewish independence can not be doubted. These facts are sufficient to contradict the theory advanced by Gratz ("Gesch. der Juden," iii. 379, 582) that it was written in the time of Tiberius. The fact that, according to Aristeas (§ 301), the island of Pharos was built upon and inhabited, gives a definite date against Gratz, for according to Strabo, xvii. 6, Pharos remained waste and desolate after Caesar's war. The k/jQaviarai, "informers," mentioned by Aristeas (§ 167), whom Gratz imagines to be the Roman delators, are mentioned in early papyri of the Ptolemies. The visit which, in Aristeas (§ 304), the translators pay every morning of their seventy-two working days to the king, does not necessarily refer to the "salutatio matutina" of the Roman imperial court. This detail may well have been founded upon the court ceremonial of the Ptolemies, about which we know little, but which, as we learn from Aristeas himself (§ 175), was very elaborate. Nor does Gratz prove convincingly that Aristeas' description of the Temple and of the citadel refers to the Herodian Temple and the Antonia. That the author lived in Egypt has been mentioned and it accounts for the rather superficial influence of philosophy upon him. His references to the Epicurean doctrine of pleasure (§§ 108, 223, 277), the recommendation of the fisTpwrradeia Its Philos- restraint of the passions (§ 197), and ophy Only many parallels to Greek proverbial Common- wisdom, never rise above the platitudes and commonplaces of an ordiplace. nary education. When Aristeas says (§ 132) that God's power reveals itself in everything, because His dominion fills the whole world (compare § 143), only strong prejudice would discern the conception of intermediary beings, or would interpret, as applied to " angels, " the various attributes applied to God really only in their Biblical conceptions (Gfrorer and Dahne). To consider Aristeas the disciple of an Alexandrian school of philosophy is to do him too much honor. When he deems that the heathens pray to the one God, only under other names (§ 16), and interprets the dietary laws in the fashion of the allegorical Midrash, he shows simply

—

—

attenuated his Judaism has become. And if one fancies Biblical resemblances are to be detected in the sayings of the translators, doubt is awakened

how

by

their superficial conception, or

by

coincident re-

semblance to Greek proverbial wisdom, showing only how every characteristic and national feature had become reduced to vagueness. The legend which forms the framework of the book has attained great importance in the Christian Church. However much the Jewish writer's fancy may have given itself play in its embellishment—as, for instance, in the quasi-legal style of the reports of the deliberations, and in the clumsy imitations of the accustomed forms of dinner-table philosophyhave still the legend in its main features may easily

reached Aristeas through the channel of popular The threefold cooperation of king, high tradition.