Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Six: On the Septuagint
On the Septuagint translation, which among all the Greek editions has always rightly held the first place, there exist five questions. First, at what time it was made.
Second, of which books it is. Third, how it was made. Fourth, of what authority it is. Fifth, whether at this time we have the true Septuagint version.
The first question is easy. For although Irenaeus bk.3 ch.25 and Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.1 write that it was made while Ptolemy son of Lagus was reigning, yet Aristaeus in his History about this very thing, Josephus in Antiquities bk.12 ch.2, Philo in his Life of Moses bk.2, Tertullian in his Apologeticus ch.18, Athanasius in his Synopsis, Epiphanius on Measures and Weights, and all other writers name Ptolemy Philadelphus; however the interval is not so great since the later Ptolemy was the immediate successor of the former.
But this latter opinion is much more probable than the former, because it has both more and more ancient witnesses. Moreover Epiphanius took care to note not only the time of the king but also the year of the reign. For he writes that the translation was made in the 17th year of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that from that time up to the birth of Christ 291 years flowed by. Therefore the translation was made within so many years before the advent of Christ, and not without the divine counsel. For as Eusebius writes in Praep. Evang. bk.8 ch.1, if it had had to happen after the advent of Christ, the Jews would either from envy have hidden it, or would have given it to us more corrupted, or certainly have easily called the translators into suspicion.
The second question is a little more difficult. For Blessed Jerome in his Hebrew Questions and on Ezekiel ch.5 and on Micah ch.2 seems to incline to the opinion that the Seventy only translated the Pentateuch; and he proves this from Aristaeus in his book on the Seventy Two Translators and from Josephus in the preface and in bk.2 ch.12 of Antiquities; to whom add Philo Life of Moses bk.2, all of whom make mention of the law alone. But that they translated everything is written by Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, by Irenaeus bk.3 ch.25, by Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.1, by Epiphanius Measures and Weights, by Eusebius Praep. Evang. bk.8 ch.1. And that is far more probable. For the Apostles used a Greek version in citing the testimonies of the Prophets, but at the time of the Apostles there was no other version than that of the Septuagint.
Next, it is not likely that that king, who was bringing books into his library from the whole world, did not want as well the oracles of the Prophets and the other most ancient books of the Jews. Besides, how would it have been miraculous that in the space of 72 days they could have completed that edition if the Pentateuch alone was to be translated, which could be translated in a shorter time without any miracle? Nor does Jerome teach the opposite by asserting but by doubting; for in other respects he everywhere in his commentaries on the Psalms makes mention of the Septuagint version and explains it. Nor did Aristaeus in the name of the law understand only the Pentateuch, as the Jews seem to have thought, but all the sacred books. For all the books were named from the law, which was the chief book. Hence in John chs.10 and 15 the Lord says that what was written in the Psalms was written in the law of the Jews, and Blessed Paul I Corinthians ch.14 says that what is contained in Isaiah is written in the law.
Now as to the third question, that seems to be certain which is celebrated by the consent of all: 72 Hebrew old men, namely from each tribe of the children of Israel, most skilled in both languages, in the space of 72 days, translated in Pharus in Egypt, with miraculous consent, the divine letters from Hebrew speech into the Greek idiom. But whether they made that translation each separately, or by two and two, or rather by all consulting together with each other, is a matter for question, and the dispute seems still undecided. And Epiphanius indeed in his book on Measures and Weights writes that these translators were secluded in cells two by two, and by a divine miracle each pair of them translated the whole Scripture in the same words, so that together they made 36 examples of altogether the same version.
But Justin in his Speech of Exhortation to the nations says that each individual was secluded in an individual cell and that by a still greater miracle the whole Scripture was rendered in the same words by each one of them separately; and he says that he saw in Alexandria the remains of the cells. Justin has been followed by many of the later authors, as Irenaeus bk.3 ch.25, Cyril Catechesis 4, Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.3, and Augustine City of God bk.18 ch.42, although Augustine in Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.15 does not dare to affirm the thing. To these certain more recent patrons of these cells add Philo Life of Moses bk.2, Tertullian Apologeticus ch.19, and Chrysostom in Homily 5 on Matthew. But these three do not mention cells, and only say that the translators miraculously agreed on the same opinion and the same words.
But Blessed Jerome in his preface to the Pentateuch openly laughs at this story: “I do not know,” he says, “which author first constructed by his lie the 70 cells in Alexandria.” Therefore Blessed Jerome reckons that the 72 translators were sitting in the same library and conferring with each other when they translated the Scripture. It is proved first by the testimony of Aristaeus, who was involved in the business, and openly says that by conferring together daily up to the ninth hour they eventually completed this version in 72 days. The same is proved by the testimony of Josephus, who although he was most eager for the glory of his nation, yet when narrating this story in Antiquities bk.12 ch.2 does not even mention cells.
We can also add Eusebius who in Praep. Evang. bk.8 ch.1 likewise narrates the whole story without any mention of cells – referring to this word – which are contained in the book of Aristaeus. We also add Philo, Tertullian, and Chrysostom above cited, who although they narrate the miracles that happened in the case of this version, would never have been silent about cells, which was the chief point of all, if they had really believed it.
But what they themselves say about the supreme agreement in every opinion does not necessarily prove that they are speaking of cells. For it was truly a miracle that so many men conferring together could, in so short a time, agree in translating each sentence. For where there is a multitude, a diversity of judgments cannot be avoided, and either they never agree or only after long debates. Wherefore Blessed Augustine Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.15 indicates that what is sung repeatedly about those translators, that they translated the Scriptures as with one voice, can very rightly be understood both according to those who hold on to cells and according to those who oppose them.
This opinion seems to me more probable. And it also seemed more probable to Titelmann in his Apologetic Prologue for the vulgate edition, and to Andreas Mafio in the preface to his annotations on Joshua. For that the Jews persuaded Justin of the story they put together, and when showing certain ruins said that they were the cells of the 70 translators, could easily have happened; nor is it less easy for some later authors to have faith in Justin, a holy man. But it is not credible that Aristaeus, who was present, wrote what was false. For the fact that Ludovic Vives on City of God bk.18 ch.42 and Leo a Castro in the preface to his commentaries on Isaiah ch.35 say that this book is truly from Aristaeus but was made up by the Jews, does not move me; for everything that Josephus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome bring forward from Aristaeus we find word for word in our Aristaeus which is now extant.
But they say that Epiphanius reads and cites Aristaeus and yet he makes mention of cells, which he would not do if cells were excluded from the true book of Aristaeus. I do not know what Leo a Castro wants to make of this testimony of Epiphanius; for either he wants to conclude that in the time of Epiphanius the book of Aristaeus was complete and was afterwards corrupted, and then he is manifestly refuted by Josephus and Eusebius who wrote before Epiphanius and yet did not find cells in Aristaeus; or he wants the true book of Aristaeus not to have been found before the times of Epiphanius but that it was first found then, and this too cannot be said; for Jerome, who lived at the same time as and even after Epiphanius, expressly affirms that from Aristaeus cells cannot be proved but refuted.
Besides Epiphanius posits only 36 cells against the opinion of all, since the others posit either 70 cells or none. Nor is it right to prefer one Epiphanius to all the others. Therefore it is more credible that Epiphanius either did not read Aristaeus, but believed others who referred to him, or certainly when he wrote these things he did not have it in his hands and made an error of memory. For it is altogether likely that Epiphanius received the story about the cells from Justin and Irenaeus, and yet we see that he from forgetfulness told the story otherwise than they did.
There follows the fourth question about the authority of these translators, and although Jerome in his preface to the Pentateuch asserts that the translators were not prophets but translators, and in his Hebrew Questions, in his book about the Best Way of Translating, in his epistle to Sunia and Fretella, and in his commentaries on the Prophets, he everywhere blames the Septuagint version, yet nevertheless it should be very certain that the Septuagint translators translated very well, and had in a special way the assistance of the Holy Spirit lest they err in anything, so that they seem to have been not so much translators as Prophets.
This is proved in the first place by common opinion. For this is constantly asserted by all the cited authors, Aristaeus, Philo, Josephus, Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and from the Latins Tertullian and Augustine, again Hilary in his preface to the Psalms, and all the others. Nor should Blessed Jerome be excluded from this number, since in his first preface to Chronicles he writes that if the Septuagint version were possessed complete the way it was edited by them, he would be working in vain on translating the Bible. And in his second preface he says that the Septuagint translators, full of the Holy Spirit, translated what was true. Also in his Apology against Ruffinus bk.2 he affirms that he never wanted to detract from the Septuagint translators.
From which we understand that when he blames the Septuagint version he is not blaming the version itself but the faults that afterwards crept into it from the negligence or malice or even ignorance of others. But as to his saying that they were translators and not prophets, it does not conflict with what others everywhere say, that they were rather Prophets than translators; for neither do the others want to say that they were properly Prophets, but only that the Holy Spirit illumined them in a special way; nor does Jerome deny this, as we have shown from his own words.
Add that the Apostles frequently use this version, as is clear from their quotations, and Irenaeus bk.3 ch.25 openly asserts it; nay so also does Jerome himself in his preface to the Gospels to Damasus. And presently the Catholic Church followed the same translation for many centuries, as the same Jerome in his first preface to Chronicles writes. Add finally that it could not without miracle have happened that with so much speed and so much agreement so great a work was completed, whereby it has come about, as Philo writes in his Life of Moses, that every year a feast day in the place where this translation was made was held many times in memory of so great a thing.
About the last question, although I am not ignorant that some are of the opinion that they reckon the translation of the Septuagint has altogether perished, I judge it much more probable that it still survives, but so corrupted and distorted that it seems to be altogether different. For that it still remains is assured by the many testimonies that are cited by the ancients from the Septuagint and the same are now found in our Greek codices. Next, since this translation was always the most famous and most common, who could believe that it was abolished or neglected and some other preserved? But that it is not uncorrupted but very distorted in many places, so that now it is not safe to emend the Hebrew and Latin texts from the Greek codices, can be proved by many arguments.
First, there is the testimony of Jerome, who in his preface to Chronicles and on Ezra and elsewhere warns that the Septuagint version is distorted in many and various ways.
Second, that the Septuagint translators are said to have translated everything word for word so properly that whoever knows both languages would immediately judge it to be the most faithful translation. For thus does Philo write in the Life of Moses bk.2: “The proper words,” he writes, “are rendered by the proper words, the Greek corresponding exactly to the Chaldee. This is believed by daily experiment, whether a Chaldee has learnt the Greek tongue, or a Greek the Chaldee tongue, in each Scripture both the Chaldee and its translation, he marvels at the faithfulness, nay adores the agreement of things and words.” Nor let it move anyone that he calls the Hebrew tongue Chaldee, for he did it for this reason, that the tongues are akin and that Chaldee was then more known than Hebrew because of the empire of the Assyrians. That Hebrew and Chaldee are otherwise not the same is demonstrated by Jerome on the first chapter of Daniel, from the fact that the Hebrew Daniel is ordered by king Nabuchodonosor to learn the language of the Chaldees.
Nor Philo alone but before Philo Aristaeus gave witness that there was an admirable agreement of things and words between the Greek and Hebrew codices. And at the end of his book he adds that the translation was by many persons discussed, considered, examined before it was put in the king’s library, and it was acclaimed by all that everything was translated faithfully and sacredly, so that nothing could be added or taken away.
But the Greek version which we now have dissents in many places from the Hebrew, does not have many things that are in the Hebrew, has many things that are not in the Hebrew, as all know who are well versed in it. And those who, because of lack of skill in the languages, cannot judge of this matter, should read Jerome in his preface to the Pentateuch, his letter to Sunia and Fretella, in his Hebrew Questions, his commentary on the Prophets, and his book on the Best Way of Translating.
Nor does this argument seem to be sufficiently aptly solved by those who reply that the Hebrew text is corrupted wherever it disagrees with the Greek. For neither do the heretics admit this, who prefer the Hebrew text to the Greek, nor should Catholics admit it, lest they be compelled to confess that the Latin Vulgate edition, which the Catholic Church has used already for so many centuries and which the Council of Trent judged to be authentic, is also wholly corrupted. For with the exception of the Psalter, the Latin edition agrees more with the Hebrew codices than with the Greek.
I know indeed that Epiphanius in his book on Measures and Weights, Jerome in his preface to the Pentateuch and in his book on the Best Way of Translating, and Augustine City of God bk.18 chs.42 and 44 have left in writing that the Septuagint translators purposely omitted certain things, added certain things, and translated certain things differently, because thus the Holy Spirit was dictating to them. But these Fathers were piously looking for reasons to excuse and defend the version that the Church was then using. Besides, if this were so, how would Philo say that there was a supreme agreement of things and words? How too would Aristaeus assert that they who saw it at the beginning acclaimed that everything was well and faithfully translated? How would they not have marveled that so many things were removed, so many added, so many rendered with contrary sense?
Third it is proved from the many opinions found in this version which in no way cohere with the truth. What is that about the counting of the years of Methusalah in Genesis ch.5? For according to the Greek edition Methusalah is found to have lived 14 years after the deluge, although however he was not in the Ark, for only 8 souls were saved by the Ark, that is, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japhet, and their wives, as we read in Genesis ch.6 and I Peter ch.3.
Which knot can not otherwise be solved by Blessed Jerome in Hebrew Questions, by Blessed Augustine City of God bk.15 ch.23, Eucherius and others on Genesis ch.5, without admitting that there is an error in Greek codices, which error the Fathers do not ascribe to the 70 elders, but to those who first wrote down the books from the king’s Library; meanwhile however the codices, which we now have, they cannot deny to have been distorted. Such also is that verse of Genesis ch.26 where the Septuagint has that the servants said to Isaac about the well, “we did not find water,” although the Hebrew and Latin codices have, “we have found water,” which cannot both be true at the same time. And it is certain that our reading is truer, since there at once follows that for this reason Isaac called the name of the place abundance. Such also is the verse of Jonah ch.3 where the Septuagint has, “there are yet three days and Nineveh will be destroyed,” although the Hebrew and our codices have, “there are yet forty days.” Which place Blessed Jerome expounds and shows that the reading of the Septuagint can in no way be defended, and Blessed Augustine, City of God bk.18 ch.44, confesses that Jonah wrote forty days, not three days. There are many other things of the same sort, but it has pleased me to bring forward these three places as examples.
The last proof is that it is sufficiently clear that the Septuagint edition has been corrupted in many places by the Jews, as Justin affirms in his Dialogue with Trypho. Again it is clear that the same edition was time and time again emended by Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, Jerome; but nothing is emended that was not distorted before. Nor is it credible that the edition that in the first 300 years had contracted so many stains has been preserved inviolate and whole in the remaining 1200 years.
Lastly it is clear that in the time of Blessed Jerome, as he himself writes in epist.89 to Augustine, which is number 11 among the epistles of Augustine, almost all the Greek codices from the Septuagint edition had many things admixed from Theodotion with asterisks prefixed, and then the asterisks little by little fell out; also the edition of Theodotion has perished. But thence has necessarily arisen confusion, so that now no one can judge what in these books is from the Septuagint and what from Theodotion. So much about the Septuagint.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME