The Letter of Aristeas is a text that is variously dated from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. One can read it on-line, such as Charles’ 1913 English translation here, or the Greek text here. While researching a different topic, I came across the following:
I have also received from Theodectus the tragic poet (the report) that when he was about to include in a play a passage from that is written in the Bible, he was afflicted with cataract of the eyes. He suspected that this was why the affliction had befallen him, so he besought God for many days. (v.316)[1]
Why is this interesting? Some critics of the Book of Mormon have argued against the authenticity thereof due to the presence of the term “Bible” in 2 Nephi 29:3-10. Richard Packham, one such critic, wrote:
If the Book of Mormon were authentic and historically accurate, one would expect that when God told Nephi that the Gentiles would cry, "A Bible! We have a Bible!" Nephi would have asked, "Excuse me, God, what does 'Bible' mean? It's an idea I'm not familiar with." And God would have given Nephi an explanation, so that Nephite readers of his record would know what was meant: something that would develop only many centuries later.
Bible
The word “Bible” is the English form of the Greek term meaning “books.” The term was not used until the fifth century C.E. to describe the entire collection of sacred books, so of course the word “Bible” was not used in Nephi’s time. But when Joseph Smith translated the gold plates, he knew that the collection of books or scriptures the Prophet Nephi was talking about in 2 Nephi 29:3-4, 6 was the latter-day Bible, so he used that word so there would be no doubt to the world what the prophecy was about. Using the word “Bible” would be expected since the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient language to a modern-day language. There are other places in the Book of Mormon where apparently anachronistic words are used to convey the meaning of the text, such as the French word “adieu” at the end of the Book of Jacob, because at the time Joseph translated it, that word seemed the most appropriate 19th century word to use to represent Jacob’s feelings as he said god-bye. Bible translators also used French-derived words such as “tache” (Exo 26:6) and “bruit” (Jer 10:22) to best convey the meanings of the Hebrew words they are translating.
Furthermore, as evidenced by a scholarly translation of an ancient document what used “Bible” to designate a collection of scriptural texts, pre-dating the final canonization of Scripture for both Judaism and Christianity, there is no issue vis-à-vis the authenticity of the Book of Mormon being a translation of an ancient text if, at a translation level, Joseph Smith used “Bible” in a similar manner. Using the “logic” of Packham and other critics, this should be proof that the scholarly translation of Shutt, is not a translation of an ancient text, but a modern concoction!
This is another nail in the coffin of the claim that the use of “Bible” in the Book of Mormon is a problem for its antiquity.
Note for the Above:
[1] "The Letter of Aristeas" translated by R.J.H. Shutt in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 7-34, here, pp.33-34; emphasis added. The underlining Greek is ἐπισφα-λέστερον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου προσιστορεῖν (alt: "unreliable translations of the Law" [Charles]). As Shutt notes(p. 34 n. 3), this is a reference to the texts of the Old Testament.
