When the Torah Became Greek: The Story and Significance of the Septuagint

The Septuagint is a translation of Tanakh into Koine Greek. It was the first major translation of the Hebrew Bible, beginning with the translation of the Torah in the 3^rd century BCE. It was subsequently adopted by many Hellenistic Jewish communities, and is the primary version of the Bible quoted in the works of Philo of Alexandria¹ and Flavius Josephus². From the 2^nd century CE and onwards, its use amongst the Jewish community declined. However, it continued to be the canonical text of many Christian churches. The Catholic church continued to use it until it was eventually replaced with the Latin Vulgate, but in many Eastern Orthodox churches it remains the official version until today. It also remains a valuable resource in modern biblical studies, particularly in the field of textual criticism. In this post I will explore a common tradition about the origin of the Septuagint and its significance in the ancient world.

The Letter of Aristeas

Not much is known about the translation process itself, although it is presumed to have been created by the Hellenistic Jewish community in Alexandria to make the bible accessible to Greek speaking Jews. However, many Jewish traditions recount a different version of how the Septuagint came into existence. According to these traditions, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284-246 BCE), the ruler of the Ptolemaic empire in Egypt, commissioned the translation to include the text in the renowned library of Alexandria, and conscripted 70 Jewish sages to produce the work. This tradition appears works such as Philo (On the Life of Moses 2.26-44), Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 12.2), the Babylonian Talmud³ (Megillah 9a), and Masekhet Soferim⁴ (1:8-9). However, the earliest source for this tradition is found in a Greek work called the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates. The letter purports to be a contemporary account of the events written by Aristeas of Marmora, a Greek official in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and he recounts how he was personally involved in the process. This work seems to have been the source of all the later traditions mentioned above.

Nevertheless, scholars agree that the letter is pseudepigraphical, and the account within is likely fictitious. This is based on many anachronisms within the account. One prominent anachronism is the placement of the figure of Demetrios of Phaleron in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, although he had already been exiled during the reign of the previous king, Ptolemy I Soter. Scholars further argue that the level of familiarity and the perspective of the author on the internal workings of Judaism strongly suggest that the author was a member of the Alexandrian Jewish community. There are various views as when to date the work, ranging from the latter part of the 3^rd century until the middle of the 1^st century BCE.

Although the work is not considered reliable for the history of the translation process, it remains a valuable resource to understand its reception and impact within the Hellenistic Jewish community, and it can also shed light on the broader ideologies prevalent that world. This is particularly true if the author was a Hellenistic Jew himself between the 3^rd and 1st centuries, and it therefore deserves a prominent place in Hellenistic Jewish literature.

The Narrative

The narrative begins by describing the events which led up to the translation. He describes how Demetrius of Phalerum was assembling a corpus of many thousands of texts to store in the library of Alexandria, which was a significant cultural and intellectual center in Ptolemaic Egypt. Demetrius approaches Ptolemy and states “I am informed that the laws of the Jews also are worthy of transcription and being included in your library”, but that “Translation is required; in the country of the Jews they use a peculiar script… and they have their own language.”⁵ In the official transcription of the request Demetrius writes “The books of the Law of the Jews… should be given a place in your library, for their legislation is most philosophical and flawless, inasmuch as it is divine. It is for this reason that authors and poets and the mass of historians have abstained from mentioning these aforesaid books… because the views set forth in them have a certain holiness and sanctity…”. The king then gives word that a letter should be addressed to the High Priest of the Jews to ensure the completion of the project. This is followed by a request from Aristeas to Ptolemy regarding the release of Jewish captives, during which a rather friendly relationship between the Ptolemy and the Jews is described.

Ptolemy then sends a group of emissaries to meet with Eleazar the High Priest in Jerusalem, and they carry with them lavish gifts and sacrifices for the temple and a letter of request that he choose six elders from each tribe, 72 in total, to complete the translation. The letter emphasizes that they should be men of exemplary character and who possess skill in the law and ability to translate, “So that it may be discovered wherein the majority agree, for the investigation concerns a matter of great weight.” Eleazar acquiesces and selects 72 elders for the task, who are described at length to be men of outstanding virtue and great skill.

The letter contains a detailed description of their journey. It discusses the splendor and solemnity of Jerusalem, the temple, and the temple worship. It presents a decidedly romantic vision of what the Jerusalem temple was and what it represented. It then continues to discuss the encounter between the Greek officials and Eleazar the high priest. They ask Eleazar to explain the rationale of many Jewish customs, particularly regarding the laws of ritual impurity and the dietary laws, which prompts Eleazar to engage in a deep philosophical discussion to explain the meaning of Mosaic law. The Greek officials are highly impressed by the wisdom of the Biblical laws. The letter concludes this section: “The points I have briefly run over have shown you that all these norms have been regulated with a view to justice and that nothing has been set down through Scripture heedlessly or in the spirit of myth, but rather in order that throughout our life and in our actions we may practice justice towards all men, being mindful of the sovereignty of God.”

The Sages in Alexandria

Upon arrival in Alexandria Ptolemy summons the elders to a private audience, during which he asks them many questions concerning the Jewish law. Upon hearing their responses, he exclaims, “I thank you good sirs, and him that sent you even more, but most of all I thank God whose holy words these are.” He then declares that the day of their arrival should be designated a holiday, and invites them to dine with him.

At the symposium, and throughout a series of symposiums in the following days, Ptolemy presents a difficult philosophical question to each of the elders. Each of the elders answers with a deep and cogent philosophical response. However, they don’t suffice with a mere philosophical justification, but consistently ensure to include God as part of the answer. For instance, in response to the question how he might be beyond envy, the elder argues the following: “If you reflect, first of all, that it is God who apportions fame and great wealth to all kings, and that no one is king by his power. All men wish to partake of this glory, but they cannot, for it is a gift of God.” The king takes notice of this, and at the end of the banquet he remarks to the philosophers present, “I think the virtue of these men is extraordinary and their understanding very great, for having questions of such a sort addressed to them they have given proper replies on the spur of the moment, all of them making God the starting-point of their reasoning.”

The Translation

After several days of symposiums, the men are taken to a secluded mansion on a nearby island (likely Pharos) to perform the task of translation. All the elders work collaboratively, ensuring that the translation was as accurate as possible. The task was finished in 72 days, and the letter remarks, “As if this coincidence had been the result of some design.” Upon completion, they present their work to the Jewish community of Alexandria, who receive it with great admiration. After reading the text, the leader rose up and proclaimed, “Inasmuch as the translation has been well and piously made and is in every respect accurate, it is right that it should remain in its present form and that no revision on any sort take place,” effectively canonizing the text for future generations.

The King as well was highly impressed with content of the Torah, and inquired as to why no translations had been previously made. Demetrius responds, “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,” suggesting that this translation was in some more fitting and perfect and there acceptable to God.

The Septuagint’s Status

Several features of this story illustrate the elevated status of the Septuagint within the Alexandrian community. The ban on making any alterations and Demetrius’ implication that this translation is special in that God allowed it to be completed directly show that this was a seen an especially accurate version of the Torah itself. The elaboration on the wisdom and the virtue of the translators also lends credence to this translation over any other. Furthermore, the symbolic use of the number 72 for both the number of elders and length of time for the translation seems to hearken back to the 72 elders by Mount Sinai⁶, suggesting that this was seen as a new Torah in some sense. This is further supported by the mentioning of a holiday to commemorate the event, much like Pentecost which commemorates the giving of the Torah.

This concept is further developed in Philo’s account of this narrative. He recounts this story with several key additions. Firstly, he discusses how the greatest care was taken to find the right setting and men for the translation, being that it was such a great undertaking to ‘make a full version of the laws given by the voice of God’.⁷ He elaborates on the preparations and prayers which were done before they began the task. Secondly, in contrast with the collaboration described by Aristeas, Philo writes the following: “They became as it were possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.” He continues by explaining that although it is normally impossible for a translation to exactly capture the meaning of the original language, this translation is unique in that it is identical to the original in its full meaning. Lastly, he describes how until his day in the Island of Pharos there was an annual celebration to thank God for the great gift which is the Septuagint.

All these points strengthen the theme we observed in Aristeas. For Alexandrian Jews, the Septuagint is not merely a translation, rather it is itself divinely inspired. It is therefore the full equivalent of the Hebrew Bible, and was treated with the utmost respect, and deserving of a celebration paralleling that of the original giving of the Torah.

Rabbinic Perspectives

However, when we look at the rabbinic attitudes towards the Septuagint, we find a rather mixed perspective. On the one hand, the Mishna (Megilla 1:8) mentions an opinion that the Torah may be written exclusively in either Hebrew or Greek, acknowledging that the Greek Septuagint maintains a special status above any other translation. One the other hand, while the Rabbinic sources also bring the same account of Ptolemy commissioning 72 elders, it was not done willingly. The Talmud (b. Megillah 9a) describes how Ptolemy gathered them without telling them the purpose and forced each of the 72 elders to translate the Torah without being aware of the other. Although the account incorporates Philo’s tradition of divine inspiration to write an identical translation, this was not because of a divine approbation on the project. Rather, it was to avoid antagonizing Ptolemy by including some possibly offensive or derogatory elements in the text. This shows how although they accepted the earlier tradition about its composition, they recrafted the details to cast the work in a negative light. Masekhet Sofrim takes this even further and states, “That day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made, since the Torah could not be accurately translated.”⁸

Why do the Rabbinic traditions make so radical a departure from the earlier traditions in Aristeas and Philo? To answer this question, we must first understand the broader themes and ideologies at play in the Letter of Aristeas.

The Septuagint: A Hellenistic Torah

There are many elements in Aristeas which suggest a unique merging between Jewish tradition and Hellenistic philosophy. In the discussion of Eleazar with the Greek embassy Moses is described as the quintessential philosopher, with all the Torah’s laws being in accordance with philosophical reason. The elders themselves are exceptional philosophers as demonstrated by their responses by the symposium, but they take care to use God as a fundamental underlying principle in all their conclusions. The collaboration between Ptolemy and the Jewish community is presented in highly positive terms. Further, the author even identifies the biblical YHWH as another name for the Greek deity Zeus. He expresses a deep admiration for Greek court and the Ptolemaic kings, but at the same time is ecstatic about the beauty of Jerusalem and the temple worship.

In this light, the importance of the work of the Septuagint takes on a whole new meaning. When recounting Demetrius’ request for the Torah to be translated, it is not merely about including another work in the library. Rather it a fundamentally new view on what the Torah is - the perfect philosophical work. The Torah’s divinity is necessary to complete the library, not simply because it’s another culture, but because divinity is the epitome of philosophical perfection.

The Septuagint, therefore, is seen as a symbol of unity between these two worlds. It is not for no reason that this translation is elevated above all others, but because it bridges the world of the Torah and the world of philosophy. It does through symbolically by becoming a part of the Library of Alexandria, and practically by making the Torah more accessible to the Greek-speaking world.⁹ It is this element which allowed Hellenistic Jews such as the author of Aristeas and Philo to treat the Septuagint as a divine text in its own right. The Rabbis, on the other hand, who rejected embracing Greek philosophy in this manner, remodeled the narrative of the Septuagint to model this synthesis in a negative light, where the cultural developments of the Ptolemies were fundamentally at odds with the interests of the Jewish community.

In conclusion, the Letter of Aristeas should not be seen merely as an account of the Septuagint’s creation. It is an ideological work, which presents a perspective prevalent in the Hellenistic Jewish world. It sees the Septuagint as divine because it allows the Torah to be integrated into the broader world of Hellenistic philosophy. So although the account itself may not be historical, it remains an extremely valuable resource and provides tremendous insight into the Hellenistic Jewish world.

Why This Matters

The translation of the Septuagint represents a significant episode in Jewish history for several reasons. Firstly, the Septuagint was highly influential in maintaining Jewish tradition in Hellenized communities. This is both because they were able to read the Torah themselves, and because the Septuagint presented the Torah as compatible with other Hellenistic ideals. Secondly, making the Torah accessible to the Greek-speaking world made Judaism more universal and eventually led to the rise of Christianity. This idea is actually explicitly expressed in Philo’s conclusion of his account (On the Life of Moses 2.44). Thirdly, the unique fusion of Judaism and Hellenism laid the groundwork for how Judaism would continue to incorporate Hellenic or other influences until the modern era.

1. A Hellenistic Jewish philosopher from Alexandria in the 1st century CE.

2. A 1st century Jewish historian.

3. The great Rabbinic work, redacted approx. 600 CE.

4. A rabbinic work of uncertain date. It is part of the collection known as the minor tractates.

5. All translations of Aristeas are from Moses Hadas.

6. Numbers 11:16-25

7. All translations of Philo are from F.H. Colson.

8. Translation for the Soncino edition. Original Hebrew reads - והיה היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה העגל שלא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה.

9. It is worth noting that Philo ends his account by celebrating the fact that the Torah is now accessible to the Greek speaking world, and remarks that hopefully they will see its greatness as a philosophical work and embrace Jewish tradition. (This hope was actually fulfilled as discussed below.)