the septuagint's fidelty to its vorlage in greek patristic

7/30/2019 The Septuagint's Fidelty to Its Vorlage in Greek Patristic

1/14

The Septuagints Fidelity to Its Vorlage in Greek PatristicThought

Edmon L. Gallagher

Abstract:e status of the Septuagint as the Bible of the early church has obscured thelevel to which the fathers esteemed the original Hebrew text. Indeed, modern stud-ies of the role of the Greek Bible in the church of the patristic age frequently assertthat Christians rejected the Hebrew Bible as scripture, even to the extent of declaringthe Septuagint inspired in its deviations from the Hebrew. is paper disputes suchjudgments. Careful study of the relevant patristic passages on the Septuagint showsthat Christians generally took great pains to establish the Septuagint as the surestaccess to the original Hebrew text. Variants between the Septuagint and the MinorVersions could be explained by textual corruption in the Septuagint manuscript tradi-

tion, similar corruption in the Hebrew tradition, or anti-Christian bias on the partof Aquila, Symmachus, and eodotion. Only very rarely did a father propose thatthe Seventy translators deliberately altered the biblical text. In fact, such a suggestiondid not become part of any fathers general textual theory before Augustine, and hisviews may be explained as a direct reaction to the work of Jerome. It turns out thatthe Hebrew Bible loomed large in patristic imagination, and even Augustine came toattribute great authority to it.

Biblical exegesis during the patristic period entailed little concern for the

Hebrew text of the Old Testament. e Septuagint penetrated the conscious-ness of Christians to the extent that they treated it as the original text andconstructed elaborate interpretations on the basis of it, without thought tothe underlying Hebrew. Indeed, the fathers justied such use of this transla-tion by claiming that it was inspired in its own right, and they formulated anarray of arguments to substantiate this claim.1 Nevertheless, the fathers were

1. On the LXX in the church of the patristic age, see Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl,and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judasme hellnistique au christian-

isme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 289320; Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, andthe Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1993), 140; Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, e Legend of

-663-


2/14

664 XIV Congress of the IOSCS: Helsinki, 2010

constantly aware that their Old Testament was, in fact, a translation,2 and therelationship between the Greek and Hebrew texts proved to be an enduring

problem for many of them. Augustine famously conceded the existence ofnumerous and substantial divergences between the LXX and its Vorlage andattributed these dierences to the work of the Holy Spirit (Civ. 18.4244), a

view that has found some support among modern proponents of the theologi-cal value of the LXX.3 Scholars have sometimes thought that Augustines viewmay be indicative of the earlier patristic view, especially in the belief that asubstantive gap separates the Greek Bible from the Hebrew Bible. About thebiblical text in the church of the patristic age, Mogens Mller has written:e Hebrew Bible text was devalued or even rejected, either because it wastaken to be a forgery, or because it was the Jewish Bible. Since the Septuagintwas considered to be inspired, there was no need to vindicate it in relation tothe wording of the Hebrew text.4

the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2006), 95131. On the inspiration of the LXX, see Heinrich Karpp, Prophet oder Dol-metscher? Die Geltung der Septuaginta in der Alten Kirche, in Vom Umgang der Kirchemit der Heiligen Schri: Gesammelte Aufstze (Cologne: Bhlau, 1983), 12850; repr. fromFestschri fr Gnther Dehn:zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April 1957 dargebracht von derEvangelisch-eologischen Fakultt der Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-Universitt zu Bonn(ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1957), 10317; Pierre Benoit,Linspiration des Septante daprs les Pres, in Lhomme devant Dieu: mlanges oerts aupre Henri de Lubac (3 vols.; ologie 5658; Paris: Aubier, 196364), 1.16987; MogensMller, e First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206; Sheeld:Sheeld Academic, 1996). For an analysis of the patristic arguments used on behalf ofthe inspiration of the LXX, see esp. Kamesar,Jerome, 2834. On the entire theme, see nowEdmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblicaleory: Canon, Language, Text(VCSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012), ch. 5.

2. Jeromes comment that even learned men (diserti homines) are unaware that the

scriptures have been translated from Hebrew (Chron., praef.) cannot implicate the fatherswho constantly speak of the Seventy(-two) translators (, interpretes). For thisstatement from Jerome, cf. the edition by Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke VII: Die Chronikdes Hieronymus (GCS 47; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956), p. 3, lines 1415; and see MeganHale Williams, e Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 47.

3. Benoit, Linspiration, 185, where he calls Augustines double inspiration positionune vue singulirement profonde et vraie. See also Dominique Barthlemy, La place dela Septante dans lglise, in tudes dhistoire du texte de lAncien Testament (Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 11126 (11920); repr. from Aux grands carrefours de

la rvlation et de lexgse de lAncien Testament(Paris: Descle de Brouwer, 1967), 1328.4. Mller, First Bible, 78; this is at the conclusion of Mllers investigation of patristicviews that he labels Graeca Veritas, pp. 6878.


3/14

Gallagher: e Septuagints Fidelity to Its Vorlage in Greek Patristic ought 665

However, it is not at all clear that Greek authors maintained this posi-tion. e one father that seems to give the most explicit support to this view

is Epiphanius, whose complex comments merit an extended discussion (seebelow). On the whole, the fathers denied that their Greek Bible diverged at allfrom the original Hebrew, so that we must respond to Mller by saying thatthe fathers consistently sought to vindicate the LXX in relation to the wordingof the Hebrew text. We will see that some of their arguments for establishingthe authority of the LXX work only by uniting the Greek with the Hebrew.Indeed, it was commonly believed that God inspired the Seventy translatorsspecically for the purpose of rendering an accurate translation of the originalHebrew scriptures. We will briey survey the opinions of the second-centuryfathers and the manner in which Origens work altered the debate, and thenwe will investigate the views of the Greek fathers who followed Origen.

Patristic writers of the second century adopted Philos view (Mos. 2.3540) that the LXX corresponded perfectly with the Hebrew text; they, there-fore, felt compelled to demonstrate the superiority of the LXX over againstthe translations recently produced by Aquila, Symmachus, and eodotion.5ese fathers did not thereby impugn the Hebrew text current among theJews, but rather these Christians accused the newer Jewish translators of will-fully altering the Hebrew text in their renderings. Both Justin (Dial. 68.7; 71)and Irenaeus (Haer. 3.21.14) assert that the LXX version of Isaiah 7:14, withits translation , more accurately reects the original Hebrew proph-ecy, while the alternative wording is a mistranslation. In the minds ofthese second-century fathers, the LXX and the Hebrew text stood together aswitnesses against competing versions.

Origens textual work made it dicult to accept unchanged the positionof the second-century fathers. Whereas Irenaeus and Justin assumed that thereceived form of the LXX corresponded with the received form of the HebrewBible, Origen showed that the LXX diverged oen from the Hebrew text cur-rent in his day. Nevertheless, many Christians aer Origen continued to echoarguments for the LXXs inspiration that imply that it is the most accuratetranslation. e fathers of this period argued that, on the one hand, the trans-lation that preceded Christ would not exhibit bias for or against the Christianmessage, and, on the other hand, the agreement of seventy(-two) translatorstrumps that of three, especially when those three do not always agree among

5. See the survey of the legend of the Septuagint in patristic literature in Wassersteinand Wasserstein, Legend, 95131. Many of the sources in their original languages were

collected by Paul Wendland, ed., Aristeae ad Philocratem Epistula cum ceteris de origineversionis LXX interpretum testemoniis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900), 12166 (Jewish testimoniaon pp. 87121).


4/14


themselves.6ese two arguments, the early date of the translation and theagreement of the translators, demonstrate that the Seventy sages deserve more

respect and trust as faithful and accurate translators than do the ree; thatis, the LXX matches the Hebrew text more closely. Moreover, the fathers notinfrequently charged the ree with distorting the OT, which again impliesthat the Hebrew text will not correspond to the newer translations.7 Chris-tians between Origen and Jerome did not claim that the Seventy translatorsaltered the text to suit the Christian message.8 Indeed, this idea would havedirectly contradicted the two usual arguments for the authority of the LXX.9

We see, then, that the fathers in our period continued to uphold the LXXsdelity to the Hebrew text, but they also had to grapple with the evidence fortextual divergence which Origen compiled. Below we will analyze the viewsof a few of the Greek fathers who attempted to reconcile these notions. Abrief examination will demonstrate that Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory ofNyssa, and eodoret of Cyrus found a solution to this problem by assum-ing that either the LXX or the Hebrew had become corrupt. In the minds ofthese fathers, the original LXX accurately reected the original Hebrew text,and the current deviations between these texts should be explained as eitherintentional or unintentional alterations during the course of transmission.On the other hand, a detailed investigation of Epiphanius views will showthat he generally attempted to minimize the divergences between Greek andHebrew, assessing these as mere stylistic variations, while also rearming thetraditional argument that the LXX and Hebrew texts agree against the newertranslations.

Eusebius of Caesarea involved himself in promulgating the Hexaplaricrecension of the LXX.10is did not lead him to accord any great authority tothe Hebrew text; he actually argues against such a position in his Chronicon,

6. Both arguments appear in Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 5.2; eodoret, Comm. Is. 7:14.

For the rst argument, cf. also Hilary, Tract. Ps. 2.3; for the second, Epiphanius,Mens. 17;Augustine, Ep. 28.2.

7. Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 5.2; eodoret, Comm. Is. 7:14; for references inEpiphanius, see the discussion below.

8. Origen had occasionally made this claim; see Kamesar,Jerome, 1415.9. Origen himself did not rely on these usual proofs for the LXXs authority. He estab-

lishes the authority of the churchs Bible by appealing to tradition as guided by Providence(Ep. Afr. 89); see Mller, First Bible, 82. Here I use the paragraph numbering of Nicholasde Lange, ed., Origne,La Lettre Africanus sur lhistoire de Suzanne, in Origne,Philocalie,120: Sur les critures (ed. Marguerite Harl; SC 302; Paris: Cerf, 1983), 469578.

10. Cf. Jerome, Praef. Paralip. (iuxta Hebr.) 1012, and the sources collected by PeterJ. Gentry, e Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 89 n.19; and see Pierre Nautin, Origne: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beuchesne, 1977), 35458.


5/14


in which he bases his chronological calculations on the gures reported in theLXX rather than those in the Hebrew text. However, Eusebius arguments donot serve to drive a wedge between the LXX and its Vorlage; rather, Eusebiussuspects that the current Hebrew text transmits numbers at variance with theLXX due to falsication perpetrated by the Jews.11e original Hebrew cor-responded to the text one now reads in the LXX, as conrmed occasionallyby reference to the Samaritan Pentateuch.12 Eusebius concludes that the LXXshould be followed because it was translated from ancient and uncorruptedcopies of the Hebrew (aus alten und fehlerlosen Vorlagen der Hebrer ber-setzt worden ist).13

e view of Gregory of Nyssa lines up well with that of Eusebiusit is notso much that the ree have distorted the Hebrew text as that the Hebrew textitself has become corrupt. e LXX testies to an earlier and more authenticform of the Hebrew. Gregory reveals this position in his treatise In inscriptio-nes psalmorum, where he includes a section (2.89) on psalms lacking super-scriptions. He lists twelve psalms for which the Hebrew lacks a superscriptionpresent in Gregorys copy of the LXX.14 He gives the reason at the beginning

11. See p. 40 (lines 1320) of the edition by Josef Karst, Eusebius Werke V: Die Chronik,aus dem Armenischen bersetzt(GCS 20; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911). e text of the Chroni-

con has been preserved complete only in Armenian, which translation Karst has renderedinto German. On the history of research into this Armenian translation, and the presentstate of its text, see Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan, Ein neuer Fund zur armenischen Versionder Eusebios-Chronik, in Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (ed. MartinWallra; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 25562.

12. Chron., ed. Karst, p. 44, lines 2023.13. Chron., ed. Karst, p. 45, lines 1315. See C. P. Bammel, Die Hexapla des Ori-

genes: Die Hebraica Veritas im Streit der Meinungen,Aug28 (1988): 12549 (134). On theother hand, Veltri (over)interprets certain statements by Eusebius so as to position him asa forerunner of Jerome with an emphasis on the Hebrew text even to the point of reducing

the authority of the LXX; see Libraries, Translations, and Canonic Texts: e Septuagint,Aquila, and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 5456. Onthe contrary, Eusebius makes plain in this passage of the Chronicon that the LXX retains itsauthority as the churchs OT.

14. e twelve psalms are, according to the LXX numbering, 32, 42, 70, 73, 90, 9296,98, 103. For this list, see McDonoughs edition in Jacob McDonough and Paul Alexan-der, eds., In inscriptiones Psalmorum, In sextum Psalmum, In ecclesiasten homiliae (GNO 5;Leiden: Brill, 1962), 93.1524. (Page and line numbers for this treatise will be cited accord-ing to this edition.) Psalm 73 (Heb. 74) does have a superscription in Hebrew and Greek;Gregory includes it in his initial list, but he omits it from his later discussion of these indi-vidual psalms. ere is some other confusion in his discussion, as in his treating the rstverse of Ps. 32 (Heb. 33) as if it were the superscription (94.4.). Ronald E. Heine proposesthat Gregory was working from a list of psalms without superscriptions in Hebrew and did


6/14


ofInscript. Psal. 2.8. Aer mentioning that some psalms lack superscriptionsin both Hebrew and Greek, he writes:

[sc. ] , , , , . ,. (91.2792.4)In the rest, however, the inscriptions are ecclesiastical and mysticaland indicative of the piety related to our mystery. But these do notexist for the Hebrews in accordance with that charge made againstthem in the Gospel, that they established a precept that if anyoneshould confess the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue[John9:22]. ey, therefore, have not accepted those inscriptions whichthey perceive to contain some indication of the mystery.15

Gregory then discusses the superscriptions present in the Greek Psal-ter without a corresponding superscription in the Hebrew text. Interpretingmessianically these Greek superscriptions, he accuses the Hebrews of notaccepting them because they also understand their messianic import. athe considers the Hebrew text corrupt in these passages is evident from thetwo times he charges the Jews with silencing () these superscriptions(95.23; 103.6). In other words, Gregory does not regard these superscriptionsas the inspired invention of the Seventy translators, but rather he considersthem faithful translations of the original Hebrew superscriptions, now absentfrom that text because of Jewish unbelief (; 93.14) and willful mis-understanding (; 94.2).

In his Commentary on the Psalms, eodoret of Cyrus observes the samedierences in the Psalters superscriptions between the Greek and Hebrewtexts, but he usually concludes that the LXX itself has become corrupt throughits transmission. e Seventy translators did not add superscriptions but werecareful to transmit only what they found in their HebrewVorlage. is is clearfrom the veryrst psalm, where eodoret nds in his local text the heading,without a superscription among the Hebrews (),

not bother to verify his information; see Heines translation of this work, Gregory of Nys-

sas Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1995), 145 n. 85.15. Translation by Heine, Gregory of Nyssas Treatise, 143.


7/14


which he takes to be a note appended by the Seventy translators themselves toindicate their delity to their source text (PG 80.865bc; cf. Ps. 32 [LXX], PG

80.1093b).

16

However, at Ps. 70 (LXX; PG 80.1417ab) he again nds this note,but here it follows a superscription that eodoret considers irreconcilablewith the Bible. erefore, here the note without a superscription among theHebrews must be an admission from a later interpolator that he has inventeda title. is is the explanation eodoret continues to advocate as he dismissesthe superscriptions at Ps. 90 (LXX; PG 80.1608b) and following. He conrmsat Ps. 92 (LXX; PG 80.1624a) that the Hexapla lacks both the superscriptionand the note conveying the absence of a superscription in Hebrew.17ate-odoret conceived of the original Hebrew and LXX as equivalent is clear fromhis comment at Ps. 93 (LXX; PG 80.1629bc): , , , (It is clear that some others have inserted the superscription, not the prophetor the original translators.).18e text of the prophet (i.e. David)19 and theoriginal translators (i.e. the LXX) would have agreed in omitting the spurious

16. eodoret nds the note several times in his copy ofthe LXX; cf. his comments at Ps. 2; 32; 42; 70; 90; 9296; 98; 99. Cf. also Alfred Rahlfs, ed.,Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta 10; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931). Rahlfs doesreport that some Lucianic manuscripts and other sources contain the note as indicated byeodoret; see the apparatus of Rahlfs edition at Ps. 2 (p. 81); 32 (p. 127); 70 (p. 196); etc.Rahlfs gives no indication that any manuscript contains the note at Ps. 1 (p. 81).

17. eodorets references to the Hexapla are collected by Jean-Noel Guinot, La for-tune des Hexaples dOrigne aux IVe et Ve sicles en milieu antiochien, in OrigenianaSexta: Origne et la Bible/Origen and the Bible (ed. Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec;Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 21525 (219 n. 22). Guinot says ofeodorets use of the Hexapla,il ne semble pas non plus avoir consult cet ouvrage Csare, et il nen connat peut-tregure plus que le nom. En tout cas, dans ses commentaires, lHexaple parat dsigner letexte de la Septante hexaplaire plutt que la synopse dOrigne (219). Guinot notes (219

n. 24) that eodoret always uses the term Hexapla in the singular () and heseems to access its readings through commentaries, such as those by Eusebius of Caesarea(220225), as indicated even in our passage (Ps. 92, LXX; PG 80.1624a): , .

18. Cf. also Ps. 95 (LXX), PG 80.1644cd; Ps. 96 (LXX), PG 80.1652b. For anothertranslation of this passage, see Robert C. Hill, eodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on thePsalms (2 vols.; FOTC 101102; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2001),2.117. Hill translates [...] as those commenting on it [i.e.,the psalm] from the beginning (similarly at vol. 2.127 for Ps. 95). However, the contextdemands that the reference be to the Seventy translators, and so the rendering should be,

the original translators.19. eodoret cautiously sides with those who arm Davidic authorship of all thepsalms; cf. Comm. Ps. praef. (PG 80.861cd) and at Ps. 74 (LXX; PG 80.1441bc).


8/14


superscriptions. eodorets comment here agrees with his characterizationof the LXX elsewhere as slavishly following the Hebrew text (

).

20

Epiphanius of Salamis stands apart from the Greek fathers we have justexamined. In the rst place, he is one of a handful of patristic authors whogained a reputation for linguistic competence in multiple languages, includingHebrew.21 Secondly, Epiphanius pursues a dierent explanation to accountfor the divergences between the Hebrew text and the LXX. Nevertheless, inharmony with the majority of Greek fathers, Epiphanius strongly advocatedthe authority of the LXX within the church, and, like Eusebius, he attributedsome dierences between the churchs Bible and that of the Jews to inten-tional corruption in the synagogue. However, this explanation constitutes arelatively minor component of his overall theory. A proper understandingof this theory requires a detailed discussion due to the length and nature ofEpiphanius treatment of the dierences between the LXX and Hebrew text.

Epiphanius presents an extensive introduction to the Greek versions ofthe OT in the opening part of his De mensuris et ponderibus.22 He rst dis-cusses the critical signs that appear in manuscripts of the Hexaplaric LXX,especially the asterisk (Mens. 2) and obelus (Mens. 3; 6). He informs hisreaders that Origen used these symbols to represent quantitative dierencesbetween the LXX and the Hebrew text, the latter being reected in Aquila andSymmachus, and occasionally (; Mens. 2, line 17) eodotion, atleast with regard to passages under asterisk. Epiphanius is clearly at pains inthis discussion to acquit the Seventy of altering the biblical text. is he doesby emphasizing several key points that we will examine in detail: (1) the aster-isked passages, representing omissions in the LXX vis--vis the Hebrew, are

20. Comm. in Cant. 3:6 (PG 81.120a); see Jean-Noel Guinot, odoret de Cyr: unelecture critique de la Septante, in Selon les Septante: trente tudes sur la Bible

grecque des Septante en hommage Marguerite Harl(ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Mun-nich; Paris: Cerf, 1995), 393407 (esp. p. 396).

21. Cf. Jerome, Ruf. 2.22; 3.6; but Jrgen Dummer is very skeptical of Epiphaniusknowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic; see Die Sprachkenntnisse des Epiphanius, in Philo-logia Sacra et Profana: ausgewhlte Beitrge zur Antike und zu ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte(Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006), 2972, esp. 3547; repr. from Die Araber in der alten Welt(ed.Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl; vol. 5.1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968), 392435.

22. I have used the edition by Elia D. Moutsoula, , eologia 44 (1973): 157200; indications of lines num-bers in the present context refer to this edition. I have also consulted the English translation

of the Syriac text found in James E. Dean, Epiphanius Treatise on Weights and Measures:e Syriac Version (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935). For references to othereditions of Epiphanius work, see Veltri, Libraries, 5960 n. 116.


9/14


superuous, (2) the obelized passages, being additions in the LXX vis--visthe Hebrew, are explanatory, (3) all such dierences are too minor to aect the

meaning of a passage, and (4) the agreement among the LXX translators, andbetween their work and the Hebrew text, was conrmed at Ptolemys court.With regard to the passages under asterisk, Epiphanius asserts repeatedly

inMens. 2 that the content omitted by the LXX is superuous. For example, atMens. 2 (lines 1820), we read, , (e Seventy-two translators omitted it and didnot translate it, because such expressions are repetitious and superuous toread.). Indeed, the word appears ve times (lines 1920, 41, 45,48, 51) in this context to describe these passages, while and itscognates appears three times (lines 19, 28, 51) and once (line38). To bear out this point, Epiphanius takes an example from Gen. 5:5, wherehe says that Adams age is listed in the Hebrew text (and Aquila) as (lines 2324), while the LXX has only (line 31). In the opinion of Epiphanius, the LXX reading con-forms to good Greek styleit displays smoothness (; line 30) andclarity (; line 28)while Aquilas more literal rendering exhibitstiresome repetition (; line 30)23 and harshness (; line41). is does not mean that Epiphanius thinks that the Hebrew text itself isharsh and redundant, for he understands that Hebrew style is not the same asGreek style.

, , , (Mens. 2; lines 3134).And having made nothing defective in word, on the contrary theyeven established the reading with a view to clarity, although inHebrew it cannot be said as concisely as the Seventy-two have done.

Epiphanius regards this example from Gen. 5:5 to be representative of theasterisked material, for he introduces it with the assurance that readers willunderstand similar passages from this one minor instance.24 He is also carefulto point out that none of the material omitted by the LXX is heretical (

23. Cf. G. W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1961), 301 s.v., where our passage is cited.24. Cf.Mens. 2, lines 2021: .


10/14


; line 50). Epiphanius thus characterizes the omissions in the LXXvis--vis the Hebrew as semantically irrelevant and intended only to conform

the biblical text to Greek style. He eectively denies that the asterisked pas-sages represent real omissions in the LXX.For the obelized passages, Epiphanius follows a similar tack. e LXX

added these words not to change the meaning of the biblical text, but to makeit more clear.

, , . , . , . (Mens. 3; lines 6874)For the Seventy-two translators added these expressions from them-selves, not without purpose, but rather usefully. For having added tothese defective expressions, they brought the reading to clarity, withthe result that we suppose them to have been not lacking the HolySpirit. For they avoided all unnecessary repetition. But where a wordseemed to be lame when translated into the Greek language, therethey made an addition.

At this point Epiphanius is concerned that his readers might nd fault(; line 75) with the LXX, so he provides a report of LXX ori-gins designed to assure his readers of the translations divine nature (Mens.36). We will consider his account of the translation legend below. WhenEpiphanius returns to his discussion of the obelus (Mens. 6, line 157), hetakes an example from Ps. 140:1 (LXX; 141:1 in Heb.). Epiphanius says thatthe Hebrew verse ends with the words (line 164), whichhe describes as lame (; line 165).25e Seventy added the words , thus making the line not lame (; line 166). In view

25. Epiphanius does not reveal how he is accessing the Hebrew text of this psalm; onthis question, see Dummer, Sprachkenntnisse, 4041. e reading Epiphanius presentsfor the Hebrew text does not exactly conform to the MT, which has '+#9!1'$!. Aquilastext would presumably reect the pronominal sux on '+#9, but no Hexaplaric evidence

for this verse appears in Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt: Veteruminterpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (2 vols.; Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1875), 2.296.


11/14


of the solution oered by the LXX, the description of the Hebrew reading aslame probably means that the expression is somehow ambiguous because it

does not clarify the nature of the voice. Indeed, later Epiphanius will say thatthe purpose of the additions made by the LXX was for clarity of expression(;Mens. 17, lines 46566). In light of his earlierdiscussion concerning the asterisked passages, where the redundancy of theliteral Greek translation was not considered poor Hebrew style, it is likely thatEpiphanius conceives of the ambiguity in Ps. 140:1 not as a component ofthe Hebrew text itself but only of its literal translation into Greek.26 Such anunderstanding is also indicated in the above quotation fromMens. 3 where hesays that a certain passage may be lame when it is translated into Greek ( ; lines 7374). erefore, Epiphaniusprobably thinks that the Hebrew text is perfectly clear to Hebrew speakersbut its translation into Greek requires some clarifying words. He concludesthat all the additions made by the Seventy, all the passages under obelus, wereintended for literary style and for assistance (; line171). Again, Epiphanius intends this example from Ps. 140:1 to be understoodas representative of all obelized passages.27 In this way, for Epiphanius, theLXX represents an inspired interpretation of the Hebrew text for the church.

It will be clear from this presentation that Epiphanius does not thinkthat the Seventy translators made any substantial changes to the biblical text.e changes he identies were necessary either for Greek style as opposedto Hebrew style, or to clarify Hebrew expressions that would be ambiguousin Greek. His account of the translation legend conrms that he deemed theLXX an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text. In Mens. 36, Epiphaniuspresents an elaborate version of this legend: seventy-two translators workedin pairs separated into thirty-six rooms, each pair translating the twenty-twobooks of the Jewish scriptures. At the completion of their task, each pair oftranslators brought their translation to King Ptolemy. Comparison among thethirty-six translations revealed no disagreement.28

26. Alternatively, Hilary of Poitiers (Tract. Ps. 2.2) notes that ambiguity in the Hebrewtext results from the lack of written vowels. See Adam Kamesar, Hilary of Poitiers, Judeo-Christianity, and the Origins of the LXX: A Translation of Tractatus super Psalmos 2.23with Introduction and Commentary, VC59 (2005): 264285 (280).

27. Cf.Mens. 6, lines 16970:.

28. Or, at least, not much disagreement. It is allowed that some pairs of translators

used synonyms instead of exactly the same words. Epiphanius explains Origens use of thelemniscus and hypolemniscus in his Hexaplaric text as marking such deviations among theoriginal pairs of translators (cf. Mens. 8, lines 20425;Mens. 17, lines 47782). Contrast


12/14


, .

, . (Mens. 6; lines 15557)And wherever they added a word, they all added it together, andwherever they omitted something, they all equally omitted it. Andthe things they omitted were unnecessary, but the things they addedwere necessary.

Here again Epiphanius says that the Seventy translators made certain changesin the biblical text, and he says that these changes correspond to necessity(; cf. Mens. 17, lines 465, 468). As we have seen, Epiphanius conceivesof this necessity as related to the transfer of the Hebrew idiom into the Greeklanguage. ese changes, consisting of only insignicant details as Epiphaniusrepresents them, either claried the sense of a Hebrew phrase or deleted whatwould be perceived by Greek speakers to be redundant.at Epiphanius doesnot envision any alterations regarding the message of the Bible is clear whenin the same context he depicts the comparison of translations as including theHebrew text without any disagreement being found (Mens. 6; lines 14952).

From this analysis of Epiphanius statements, we can conclude that he didnot think that the Seventy translators were inspired to change the content ofthe biblical text. is conclusion challenges the views of some scholars. Halfa century ago, Heinrich Karpp pitted Epiphanius desire to minimize the dif-ferences between the texts, a desire we have noticed repeatedly in our study,against the passage just quoted fromMens. 6 emphasizing the additions andsubtractions made by the Seventy; Karpp saw here a contradiction.29 Morerecently, Mller has claimed that Epiphanius admitted to some discrepanciesbetween the Greek translation and the Hebrew text which were not owing tolater corrections.30 Both Karpp and Mller have assumed thatMens. 6 refersto changes in the content of the Bible, but our study has made it clear thatEpiphanius does not, in fact, admit to some discrepancies between the Greek

Augustine, Civ. 18.42: in nullo verbo, quod idem signicaret et tantumdem valeret, vel inverborum ordine, alter ab altero discreparet.

29. Karpp, Prophet oder Dolmetscher, 138.30. Mller, First Bible, 78. Giuseppe Veltri also emphasizes the idea of changes in

Epiphanius account; see, e.g., e Septuagint in Disgrace: Some Notes on the Stories onPtolemy in Rabbinic and Medieval Judaism, in Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions:Studies in eir Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (ed. Nicholas de Lange, Julia G.

Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 142154 (143).Veltri thinks that Epiphanius version of the changed LXX inuenced the rabbinic tradi-tion of the changes made for King Talmai (cf. b. Meg. 9ab).


13/14


translation and the Hebrew text. On the contrary, he spends a good deal oftime and eort absolving the Seventy of the charge of changing the biblical

text. His discussion of the very minor changes we have examined only showsthat he knows something about the business of translating, that no translationworth its salt can be absolutely literal (contra Philo,Mos. 2.40). Aquilas exces-sive literalness provides the prime example of what not to do, in Epiphanius

view (Mens. 2, lines 3545). at he spends so much time downplaying thechanges made by the LXX, describing them as merely stylistic and explana-tory, and characterizing them as exceedingly minor details insignicant formeaning, shows that he and his readers could hardly tolerate any dierencebetween the Hebrew and LXX. Epiphanius further emphasizes the close rela-tionship between the two texts by including the Hebrew text among thosecompared at Ptolemys court, where no disagreement was found. Epiphaniusdoes not see the LXX and the Hebrew text as essentially dierent but as essen-tially the same.

Epiphanius does recognize that the disagreements between the LXX andthe other Greek versions extend to more passages than he has so far discussed.ese are cases in which the three Jewish versions have misrepresented themeaning of the Hebrew. He says that Aquila intended to distort messianicprophecies (Mens. 15, lines 41418) and that Symmachus intended to dis-tort the passages relevant to the Samaritans (Mens. 16, lines 44547). He doesnot say that eodotion had evil motives, but rather that eodotion usuallyagreed with the LXX. Nevertheless, he may imply a criticism ofeodotion insaying that this translator worked alone (), unlike the Seventy (Mens. 17,line 454).31 He does lump all three of these translators together, contrastingthem with the Seventy. Whereas these three disagree among themselves, themiraculous agreement of the Seventy ensured the truth () of theirtranslation (Mens. 17, line 458). It is obvious that this type of disagreementbetween the LXX and the ree entails no disagreement between the LXX andHebrew; like Justin and Irenaeus before him, Epiphanius thinks that the LXXand Hebrew agree against the ree, whose translations distort the originaltext. Epiphanius does not say whether he has conrmed this assumption byreferring to the Hebrew text directly, although this seems altogether unlikely.Rather, he probably assumed the correctness of his hypothesis based on hischaracterizing the ree as distorters whereas the Seventy translators enjoyedthe guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since both of these points were long-held

31. is observation is made by Alison Salvesen, A Convergence of the Ways? e

Judaizing of Christian Scripture by Origen and Jerome, in e Ways that Never Parted:Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. Adam H. Becker andAnnette Yoshiko Reed; TSAJ 95; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2003), 23358 (247).


14/14


Christian views, Epiphanius probably felt no need to conrm them. In anycase, Epiphanius presents the view that the LXX translation represents most

accurately the Hebrew text.e four Greek fathers whose views we have examined each judged theLXX translation to be a Providentially-provided Greek rendering of the origi-nal Hebrew text. While Eusebius, Gregory, and eodoret used the idea oftextual corruption to reconcile their traditional belief in the accuracy of theLXX with Origens demonstration of variation between the translation andthe current Hebrew text, Epiphanius simply denied the existence of real vari-ants between the Greek and Hebrew, echoing rather the old argument that theree had distorted the Hebrew Bible. Despite these dierences, all four ofthese fathers did defend, sometimes vehemently, the position that the Seventytranslators accurately rendered their source text. ey do not serve as directforerunners to Augustines view of a double biblical text because they under-stood the content of the original LXX and of the original Hebrew text to befundamentally identical.

the septuagint's fidelty to its vorlage in greek patristic

Documents