the splendor of the temple construction under Solomon.«24 »So Eupolemus is the oldest Jewish25-Hellenistic historian in the narrower sense of the word (...) a first precursor of Josephus, like the latter a Palestinian and equally—but in a different historical situation—at pains to give a readable survey of his people’s history for a Greek-speaking readership.«26
Greek translations of Jewish Hebrew works, taking Jesus ben Sirach as an example: The prologue of the grandson as a translator
This prologue is »unique in the LXX, the only place where an LXX translator makes an explicit statement about the translation and its problems.«27
LXX: You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labour in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language (Prologue 15–22, NRSV).28
While the Greek text speaks of the fact that the Hebrew »does not have the same sense (lit. strength)« (isodynamei) when translated into another language, the Latin translation speaks clearly of loss, lack, weakness (deficiunt).
Regardless of whether we look at the Greek or the Latin text of the translator’s foreword, this prologue is a unique document. It talks about the difficulties of translation and the translator’s awareness that he has not been able to do full justice to his task. Here the grandson asks the reader to have understanding for his efforts. But he writes his prologue in elegant style: »A passage for the manual of both literary (Asian) artistic prose and rhetoric.«29 »The translator shows in the prologue, therefore, what he is actually capable of in the target language, and points out what he is setting aside.«30 He is setting aside his virtuosity in Greek, because he is translating, and he does not want his readers to forget the fact. The grandfather’s Hebrew text should shine through in the Greek.
The grandson’s admission is striking, particularly in comparison with the legends about the origin of the Torah/LXX. It should, however, be noted that the grandson is not yet translating an authoritative or »canonical« text but his grandfather’s book of wisdom, which, although based on »the law and the prophets,« is not intended to be equal to them. The »canonicity« of the book of Sirach was still a matter of dispute in rabbinic times (»defiling the hands,« t. Yad. II, 13). The question could also be viewed differently, as the discoveries of Sirach manuscripts show, in the Cairo Genizah (1896) (6 medieval Mss.), at Qumran (Sirach in 2 ancient Mss.), and at Masada (1 ancient Ms.).
The grandson translator of the author of Hebrew Sirach (ca. 190–175 BCE) can be dated to 132–117 BCE, when there was already an established tradition of translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek. So, he was able to consult Hebrew-Greek translation equivalents that had already been introduced. To cite one example, for him Greek doxa, common Greek for »opinion,« which can even mean falsity, is equivalent to the Hebrew kavod, »glory, divine power and appearance« (e.g. in Sir 6:31; 42:27, while in 8:14 the common Greek meaning of doxa is used).
Following Martin Hengel’s Judentum und Hellenismus, it is no longer possible to separate »Palestinian Judaism« from »Hellenized Judaism.« Not only because a geographical category and a cultural category are being compared but because Palestinian Judaism is also Hellenistic Judaism.31
For the period from third century BCE to the First Jewish War (68–73 CE) it may be assumed that the educated population were trilingual, with Aramaic as the colloquial language, Hebrew as the language of the Jerusalem cult and scribal activity, and Greek as the language of education. Hebrew/Aramaic and their cultural and religious ramifications were in competition only in times of conflict with the Greek language and culture, but then with the full weight of bias as in the Maccabean uprising.
3 The LXX as a Translation
3.1 The special features of the LXX as a translation
The LXX is special in two respects: first, the fact that translation was made into Greek, and second the way the translation was made. To reach a Greek audience, non-Greeks also wrote in Greek (Manetho, Berossus, Josephus), or texts were translated from Greek. Generally, Greek was the original language.32 The Romans translated from Greek to Latin. »However, by today’s standards one would not call these texts translations but free revisions.«33 In this type of »translation,« Latin language and culture sought to connect with the superior Greek, and to some extent entered into competition with it (the keyword is aemulatio).
But this is precisely what the LXX translators do not do. The Greek idiom into which they translated was not the language of literature but the non-literary colloquial, Koine. This allows us to pinpoint the target group. This was not the literary world of the Alexandrian schools but that of the Jewish communities of Alexandria, who generally did not speak Hebrew, but were offered something like an »imitation« of the Hebrew. That is why the LXX is a very literal translation. The character of this literal translation is evident in comparison with Josephus’s revisions and renderings of biblical history in his Antiquities.
3.2 On the origins of the LXX—legend and history34
Letter of (Pseudo-)Aristeas
According to the account in the Letter of (Pseudo-) Aristeas, the initiative for the translation of the Torah came from King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246 BCE) or his librarian Demetrius of Phaleron. This attribution is continued into rabbinic times, when there is talk of the Torah of »King Talmai«. The connection with Ptolemy II is likely to be correct only in terms of the date, the mid-third century BCE. If, as the Letter of Aristeas claims, it was translated for library purposes, the Greek literary language would have been used, not Koine.
In a letter to his brother, the narrator, »Aristeas,« tells of an event at the time of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246) and his librarian Demetrius of Phaleron (died 282), which begins with the request to the Jerusalem High priest to send Greek expert translators to translate the Torah into Greek in Alexandria. Thereupon, the High priest sent six translators from each tribe, a total of 72 (Let. Aris. 47–50). The author claims to be a contemporary Greek witness at the Ptolemaic court, but he is a second-century Jew telling Alexandrian Jewry and their non-Jewish contemporaries of the excellence of Jewish law.
At the conclusion, the author puts his own question on the lips of the king: »How have none of the historians and poets undertaken to make mention of these enormous achievements (i.e. as the Jewish law, the Torah)?« (312).35 The answer is given by the librarian: »Because the legislation is sacred and has come about through God!« (313). He gives an account of Theopompus (born 377 BCE), who for more than thirty days was out of his mind when he used in his history something that had already been translated earlier, as he had presumed to share the divine with impure people (314f.). Further, the tragic poet Theodectes (ca. 377–336) was struck blind because he had wanted to use something from it in a drama.
Two aspects deserve to be highlighted: first, the authority to use and interpret the Torah is given only to Jews. Second, the use of earlier, imprecise translations leads to trouble; but now there is one correct and authorized translation. After its completion, it was confirmed by the priests, the elders of the translators, the representatives of the Jewish politeuma, and the leaders of the congregation, and protected against changes by curses:
›Since the exposition has been made well, piously and accurately in every respect, it is good that it remains just as it is and there be no revision at all.‹ And then all assented to what had been said. They ordered that there be a curse, just as is their custom, upon anyone who might revise (scil. the translation) by adding or changing anything at all of that had been written or by making a deletion (310f.).36
This corresponds to what later became known as the »canonization formula.« The intention was that this would protect the wording of the Greek translation. This is confirmed in the final exhortation