On the origin of the Septuagint

February 15, 2010 Matthew Keedy Clifton Church History

by Matthew K. Clifton

Introduction

If one were to mention the Greek Septuagint to the average modern Christian, chances are good that most of them would have very little idea what it is. And yet, when reading the New Testament, the average Christian will come across approximately 200 quotations[1] directly from this document. The Septuagint was the Bible for most of the New Testament writers, and it also had a great influence on the early post-apostolic writers.[2] Since the work was incorporated into the New Testament and utilized by early Christians, it is important for the contemporary Bible student to understand something about the origins of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament believed to have been created between 250-100 B.C.[3] According to Metzger, it is the earliest translation and the most valuable of the ancient versions scholars have available.[4] Its name comes from the Latin for “seventy” (septuaginta), and refers to the number of translators who worked on the edition. Reference is usually made to the Septuagint by using the Roman numerals LXX, a convention this short paper will utilize.

Not only did the New Testament writers depend on the LXX, but the early “church fathers” did as well. In fact, many Christian writers up to the fourth century considered the LXX to be inspired and used it as a basis for much of their exegetical and theological work.[5] But what was their basis for considering the LXX to be inspired? This question leads us directly into a discussion of the origins of the Septuagint.

Letter of Aristeas

The trail begins with the so-called Letter of Aristeas, a document supposedly written during the time when Ptolemy II Philadelphus reigned as king of Egypt (285-246 B.C.).[6] This letter tells the story of King Ptolemy’s desire to make a collection of the world’s best writings.[7] His librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, called the king’s attention to the Hebrew scriptures. Subsequently Ptolemy loaded down a group of ambassadors with treasures and gifts and sent them to the Jewish high priest in Jerusalem to request copies of the Hebrew Bible and men who were capable of translating Hebrew into Greek.

The high priest, Eleazer, chose six capable elders from each tribe and sent them back to Ptolemy with a Hebrew manuscript written in gold letters. When they arrived in Alexandria, they were taken to an island in the harbor, where, under the supervision of Demetrius, they began the task of translating the Hebrew scripture into the Greek language. The Letter claims that the translators “met together daily in the place which was delightful for its quiet and its brightness and applied themselves to their task. And it so chanced that the work of translation was completed in seventy-two days, just as if this had been arranged of set purpose.”[8]

Although the letter purports to be written during the time of Ptolemy II, most scholars say the author could not have been the man he represented himself to be.[9] Instead, he is reckoned by current scholarship to be a Jewish man writing in an apologetic style to enhance the acceptance of the Hebrew scriptures. Metzger states that based on internal considerations, the letter should be assigned a date from 150-110 B.C.

According to passages preserved by Eusebius (Praepev xiii. 12) and Clement of Alexandria (Misc. i.22), during the 2^nd century B.C. the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus “declared before one of the Egyptian monarchs that portions of the Hebrew scriptures had existed in Greek centuries earlier, but the entire Law was translated into Greek under Ptolemy Philadephus at the instruction of Demetrius Phalerum.”[10]

During the first century, Josephus also recorded a good deal of the Letter of Aristeas in his Antiquities of the Jews.[11] In his retelling, Josephus placed emphasis on the piety of the translators, as well as the ritual purifications that the elders underwent during the translations process.[12] Also in the 1^st century A.D., Philo recounts the story, but embellishes it with the idea that the translation process was guided as if by inspiration from God, along with details about the name of the island on which the translators were housed (Pharos) and that all of the translations were found to be identical word-for-word.[13]

Early Christian views

Apparently, these accounts were taken at face value by many early Christian writers, firmly establishing the idea that the LXX text was inspired in their minds. But the “church fathers” also embellished the story. Metzger points out that in the mid second century Justin Martyr expanded the scope of the LXX translators from just the Pentateuch to the entire Old Testament when he referred to a passage in Isaiah as being part of the “translation of the seventy elders” in his Dialogue with Trypho.[14] Later in that same century, Irenaeus would affirm his own conviction that the LXX was inspired by God. Referring to Irenaeus’ record in Against Heresies, Metzger writes,

“…Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, stated that Ptolemy, fearing that the Jewish translators might conspire to conceal the truth found in their sacred books, put them in separate cubicles and commanded them each to write a translation. They did so, and when their translations were read before the king, they were found to give the same words and the same names from beginning to end, ‘so that even the pagans who were present recognized that the scriptures had been translated through the inspiration of God.’”[15]

Aside from the idea of inspiration of the seventy elders during the translation process, Hilary of Poitiers added another idea to the mix. Writing in the fourth century A.D., Hilary made an argument for the superiority of the LXX based on the idea that the seventy translators were the heirs of the secret oral tradition that went back to Moses.[16] He used Matt. 23:2-3 as evidence of the existence of this secret tradition.[17]

The end result of the unquestioning belief in the information contained in the Letter of Aristeas is that many early Christians upheld a belief that the LXX was inspired, with several church fathers even claiming that the LXX was more accurate than the Hebrew manuscripts.[18] We see the evidence of this in such well-known situations as the battle between Augustine and Jerome over whether the LXX or the Hebrew manuscripts should have been used for the Latin Vulgate. But should the account of Aristeas, and the subsequent embellishments by other writers, be taken at face value?

Problems with the Letter of Aristeas

Despite the fact that many early Christians took the Letter of Aristeas at face value, most scholars agree that the letter contains many inconsistencies that cause doubt. The first problem has to do with the language used in the letter. Although the letter claims the translators were of Palestinian origin, the Greek used in the LXX was consistent with that in use in Egypt during the third century.[19] Another problem with the letter is that is sounds suspiciously apologetic in nature towards the purpose and function of the Jewish Law. Along with the dating of the letter given by Metzger at about 150-110 B.C., the author does not seem to be contemporary with Ptolemy II, but instead wrote later and for motives that are not completely clear. Finally, the letter differs in some details from the accounts given by Josephus and Philo, although these differences weigh more on the later writers.

To summarize what is known about this source, we must understand that the letter should not be counted upon as completely accurate history. However, that is not to say that some valuable information about the origins of the LXX cannot be gleaned. According to Metzger, there are at least four things that scholars now generally agree upon.[20] First, most scholars agree that the Pentateuch was translated first, due to the fact that it has a linguistic style and unity that is different from the later work on the Writings and the Prophets. Second, it is doubtful that there were as many as seventy translators, since the work shows such unity of style. Third, there is general agreement that the Hebrew source scrolls were imported from Palestine. Fourth and finally, evidence shows that the language used in the LXX is similar to the Greek used in papyri found in Egypt, and Egypt words are used. This suggests that the translators were Alexandrian, not Palestinian.

Modern origin theories

Since the Letter of Aristeas and the traditions that grew out of it are generally seen as unreliable, there has been much room for speculation about the true origin of the LXX. One such speculative theory was put forth by H. St.J. Thackeray in the early 1900’s. His theory accepted the core of the Letter of Aristeas as history, and suggested that the Pentateuch was indeed translated at Alexandria in the third century by a small group. Due to the demands of reading in and study in the synagogues, Thackeray suggests that the subsequent work on the Prophets came later. Last of all came the Writings, which he suggests were translated by individual workers.[21] Thackeray believes that the LXX was completely finished by 132-100 B.C., based upon the mention in the Prologue to Sirach which mentions the prior translation of “the Law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books.”[22] His theory includes the belief that the translation was originally made to meet the liturgical needs of Alexandrian Jews.[23]

Kahle held a competing view. He felt that the LXX came to its complete form in a process in which several competing versions existed side by side until they were finally revised into an authoritative version. He used the Aramaic Targums as an example of how this could have happened. Although Kahle’s theory was championed by some able scholars, it was displaced by the theories of Lagard. According to Lagard’s theory, underneath the various textual variants in the LXX there lies a “proto-LXX” that can be discovered using the appropriate text-critical principles.[24] This theory appears to be the dominant one in “mainstream” scholarship.

Conclusion

So what is really known about the LXX? Current scholarship is confident that the Septuagint originated in the third century B.C. The Greek that is used and the included Egyptian words seem to attest to this being the case. Another fact that seems to be accepted widely is that the translation was created in Alexandria. The Pentateuch being the initial target of the work is also generally accepted as fact, as well as the idea that the translation group was smaller than seventy.

Although concrete information about the origins of the LXX is hard to come by, one final thing is certain: The Septuagint has had a tremendous impact on the Judeo-Christian community and research into the transmission of the biblical text.

---

[1] Roger Nicole, Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl. F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 137.

[2] Geoffrey Bromiley W., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 4:400.

[3] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999), 194.

[4] Bruce Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 12.

[5] Lois Farg, “The Septuagint in the Life of the Early Church,” Word & World, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Fall 2006), 393.

[6] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1986), 503.

[7] Letter to Aristeas, ed. R.H. Charles (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913).

[8] Ibid, 307.

[9] Metzger, 15.

[10] Bromiley, 4:402.

[11] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 12.11-118

[12] Farag, 393.

[13] Philo of Alexandria and Charles Duke Yonge, “On the Life of Moses” in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1993), 2:37.

[14] Metzger, 15.

[15] Ibid, 15.

[16] Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus Super Psalmos, 2.2-3

[17] For a good discussion of Hilary of Poitiers’ view, see Adam Kamesar, “Hilary of Poitiers, Judeo-Christianity, and the Origins of the LXX: A Translation of Tractatus Super Psalmos 2.2-3 with Introduction Commentary,” Vigiliae Christianae. 59 (3):264-285.

[18] Metzger, 18.

[19] Tim McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003), 102.

[20] Metzger, 16.

[21] Bromiley, 4:403.

[22] Ibid.

[23] McLay, 104.

[24] Ibid.