This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
– The word "forgery" (Literary forgery) is misleading. It looks like Letter of Aristeas is a Middle-Age fake. Also late forgery of a Hellenized Jew could be appropriate for a I century CE text, while Letter of Aristeas is older. Its author, even if was not a courtier of Ptolemy II (281-246 BCE), for sure wrote before the invasion of Palestine by Pompey (63 BCE), probably in the II century BCE (one century after Ptolemy II) A ntv (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The article should include disclaimer words such as "claimed" forgery. Has it been determined conclusively that Josephus or Philo were the authors? If not, why jump to the conclusion that Aristeas was not? Having read the letter, it does include a self test. Phildelphus asks one of the elders how he could make something that would last forever and never be destroyed -- the wise man replies that if he made it infinitely beautiful no one would destroy it. If that table exists then both the letter and the wisdom are valid. Additionally, the story relates raher concrete facts; the slaves were freed or they were not, the tables and bowls were created or they were not. They were clearly in the temple and observed the service (otherwise the account of temple service would have been refuted in antiquity). Those larger issues would have been known to Aristeas' contemporaries. It just appears the letter is treated as a forgery/fraud but is there anything other than speculative claims to support that? Additionally, Philadelphus also asks how he could maintain rule over all the different peoples in his domain -- the elder replied that he should act the proper role toward each. That wisdom seems to have been a guiding principle of Greek/Hellenic rule in egypt. The explanations of clean/unclean animals seems to be from someone well versed in the law and it's philosophy. Maybe the propaganda worked on me -- but the type of reasoning and ideas expressed in this letter far surpass sermons from today's clergy(that I have heard). MBJ 18.104.22.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC).
It can't be Ptolemy II, as according Diogenes Laertius, Demetrius backed the wrong king, advising Ptolemy I to go with Ptolemy Ceraunos, son of Eurydice, as successor. On the death of the old king the new king, son of Berenice, had Demetrius arrested. He was under house arrest in the country until a snake bit him in his sleep and he died. Look out for those African snakes, they might not all be reptilian. Consequently, Demetrius and Ptolemy cannot have intended the educational facilities only for Ptolemy II. The king had something bigger in mind right from the start.Botteville (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)