Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 6: On the interpretation of the Seventy Elders (the Septuagint)
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Concerning the interpretation of the seventy Elders, which among all the Greek editions has deservedly always held the first place, there arise five questions. First, at what time it was made. Second, of which books it is. Third, how it was made. Fourth, of how great authority it is. Fifth, whether at this time we have the genuine interpretation of the seventy Elders.
The first question is easy. For although Irenaeus book 3 chapter 23 and Clement of Alexandria book 1 of the Stromata write that it was done while Ptolemy the son of Lagus reigned, yet Aristeas in his history of this very matter, Josephus book 12 of the Antiquities chapter 2, Philo book 2 On the life of Moses, Tertullian in the Apologeticum chapter 18, Athanasius in the Synopsis, Epiphanius On measures and weights, and all the other writers name Ptolemy Philadelphus; and the interval is not so great, since this Ptolemy immediately succeeded the former.
And this latter opinion is much more probable than the former, both because it has more, and because it has more ancient, witnesses. Moreover Epiphanius took care to note not only the time of the King, but even the year of his reign. For he writes that in the 17th year of Ptolemy Philadelphus that translation was made, and that from that time to the day of Christ's nativity there flowed 291 years. So many years, therefore, before the coming of Christ was that translation made, and not without divine counsel. For, as Eusebius writes book 8 On the Preparation of the Gospel chapter 1, if it had had to be done after the coming of Christ, either the Jews would have hidden the Scripture out of envy, or would have given us a more corrupt one, or at least the translators would easily have been called into suspicion.
The second question is a little more difficult. For blessed Jerome, in the Hebrew Questions, and on chapter 5 of Ezechiel, and on chapter 2 of Micah, seems to incline to the opinion that they translated only the Pentateuch, which he proves from Aristeas in the book On the seventy-two Interpreters, and from Josephus in the preface to the Antiquities and book 12 chapter 2, to whom add Philo book 2 On the life of Moses, who make mention of the Law alone. But that they translated all things, Justin writes in the Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus book 3 chapter 25, Clement of Alexandria book 1 of the Stromata, Epiphanius On measures and weights, and Eusebius book 8 chapter 1 of the Preparation — which is far more probable. For the Apostles used the Greek version in citing the testimonies of the Prophets; but in the time of the Apostles there was no other Greek version than that of the seventy Interpreters.
Then, it is not likely that that King, who brought books into his library from the whole world, would not have wished also the oracles of the Prophets and the other most ancient books of the Jews. Besides, how would it have been marvelous that in the space of seventy-two days that edition could be finished, if only the Pentateuch was to be translated, which could be translated in a shorter time without any miracle? Nor does Jerome teach the contrary by asserting, but by doubting; for otherwise he everywhere in the Commentaries on the Prophets makes mention of the version of the Seventy, and expounds it. Nor did Aristeas by the name of the Law understand the Pentateuch only, as the Jews seem to have thought, but all the sacred books. For from the Law, which was the chief book, all the books were named. Hence in John 10 and 15 the Lord says that it was written in the Law of the Jews which is written in the Psalms, and blessed Paul 1 Corinthians 14 says it is written in the Law which is had in Isaiah.
Now in the third question that seems to be certain which is celebrated by the consent of all: that seventy-two Hebrew elders, namely out of each tribe of the children of Israel, most skilled in both tongues, in the space of seventy-two days, with marvelous agreement, translated the divine Letters at Pharos of Egypt from the Hebrew speech into the Greek idiom. But whether they made that interpretation each one separately, or two by two, or rather all together conferring among themselves, is turned into a question, and the suit is still before the judge. And Epiphanius indeed, in the book On measures and weights, writes that these Interpreters were shut up two by two in cells, and by a divine miracle each pair of them translated the whole Scripture in the same words, so that they made at once thirty-six copies of altogether the same version.
But Justin, in the hortatory oration to the Gentiles, says that each one was shut up in a single cell, and that by a yet greater miracle the whole Scripture was rendered by each one separately in the same words; and that he himself saw at Alexandria the traces of the cells. Justin many of the later men followed, as Irenaeus book 3 chapter 25, Cyril catechesis 4, Clement of Alexandria book 3 of the Stromata, and Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapter 42 — although Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 15 does not dare to affirm the thing. To these certain of the more recent add, as patrons of the cells, Philo book 2 On the life of Moses, Tertullian in the Apologeticum chapter 19, and Chrysostom homily 5 on Matthew. But these three made no mention of cells; they only say that these Interpreters marvelously agreed in the same opinion and in the same words.
But blessed Jerome, in his preface on the Pentateuch, openly laughs at this history: “I know not,” he says, “who was the first author who by his lie built the seventy cells at Alexandria, etc.” And so blessed Jerome thinks that the seventy-two Interpreters, sitting in the same hall and conferring among themselves, translated the Scripture. Which he proves first by the testimony of Aristeas, who was present at the business, and openly says that they, conferring together each day even to the ninth hour, at length finished this version in seventy-two days. The same he proves by the testimony of Josephus, who, though he was most desirous of the glory of his nation, yet book 12 of the Antiquities chapter 2, relating this history, does not even mention the cells.
We can add also Eusebius, who book 8 of the Preparation of the Gospel chapter 1 similarly relates the whole matter without any mention of cells, reporting word for word the things which are had in the book of Aristeas. Let us add also Philo, Tertullian, and Chrysostom cited above, who, since they relate the miracles which happened in this version, would never have been silent about the cells, which was the chief of all, if they had believed that they truly existed.
But what they themselves say of that supreme agreement in the same opinion does not necessarily convince us that they speak of cells. For truly it was a miracle that so many men, conferring together, could in so short a time agree in translating the several sentences. For where there is a multitude, diversity of judgments cannot be avoided, and either they never agree, or not except after long disputations. Wherefore blessed Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 15 signifies that that which is sung by all of these Interpreters — that they translated the Scriptures as if with one mouth — can most rightly be understood both according to those who maintain the cells, and according to those who oppose them.
This opinion seems to me more probable. And it seemed more probable also to Titelmann in the apologetic prologue for the Vulgate edition, and to Andreas Masius in the preface of his annotations on Josue. For that the Jews persuaded Justin of a fable feigned by them, and, showing certain ruins, said they were the cells of the seventy Interpreters, could easily have happened; nor less easily that some of the later men gave credit to Justin, a holy man. But that Aristeas, who was present, wrote what was false, is not credible. For as to what Ludovicus Vives on chapter 42 of book 18 of the City of God, and Leo of Castro in the preface of his Commentary on Isaiah chapter 35 say — that this book is not the true Aristeas's, but forged by the Hebrews — it moves me nothing; for all the things which Josephus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome bring forward from Aristeas, we find word for word in this our copy which now exists.
But, they say, Epiphanius read and cites Aristeas, and yet mentions the cells, which he would not do if in the true book of Aristeas itself the cells were excluded. I know not what Leo of Castro wishes to conclude from this testimony of Epiphanius; for either he wishes to conclude that in the time of Epiphanius the book of Aristeas was entire, and afterward was corrupted — and then he is manifestly refuted from Josephus and Eusebius, who wrote before Epiphanius, and yet did not find the cells in Aristeas; or he wishes that before the time of Epiphanius the true book of Aristeas had not yet been found, but was then first discovered — and this too cannot be said: for Jerome, who lived at the same time as Epiphanius, and even after Epiphanius, expressly affirms that from Aristeas the cells are not proved, but refuted.
Besides, Epiphanius, against the opinion of all, sets down only thirty-six cells, whereas others set down either seventy-two, or none; nor is it truly just to prefer Epiphanius alone to all the others. And so it is more credible that Epiphanius either did not read Aristeas, but believed others reporting it, or at least, when he wrote these things, did not have him in his hands, and slipped in memory. For it is altogether likely that Epiphanius received the history of the cells from Justin and Irenaeus, and yet we see that from forgetfulness he related the matter otherwise than they did.
There follows the fourth question, concerning the authority of these Interpreters. And although blessed Jerome in his preface on the Pentateuch asserts that the seventy Interpreters were not Prophets but Interpreters, and in the Hebrew Questions, in the book On the best kind of interpreting, in the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela, and in the Commentaries on the Prophets everywhere reprehends the version of the Seventy, nevertheless it ought to be most certain that the seventy Interpreters translated most excellently, and had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost assisting them, that they might not err in anything, so that they seem to have been not so much Interpreters as Prophets.
This is proved first from the common opinion. For all the cited authors constantly assert this: Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril; and of the Latins Tertullian and Augustine, likewise Hilary in his preface on the Psalms, and all the rest. Nor ought blessed Jerome to be excluded from this number, since he in his first preface on Paralipomenon writes that if the version of the Seventy were had entire as it was published by them, he would labor in vain in translating the Bible. And in his second preface he says that the seventy Interpreters, full of the Holy Ghost, translated the things which are true. In his Apology against Rufinus book 2 also he affirms that he never wished to detract from the Seventy Interpreters.
From which we understand that when he reprehends the version of the Seventy, he does not reprehend the version itself, but the faults which afterward crept into it, through the negligence, or malice, or even ignorance of others. And as to his saying that they were Interpreters, not Seers, this does not fight with what others everywhere say, that they were Prophets rather than Interpreters; for neither do the others wish to say that they were properly Prophets, but only peculiarly illumined by the Holy Ghost; nor does Jerome deny this, as we have shown from his own words.
It is added that the Apostles frequently use this version, as is plain from their citations, and Irenaeus openly asserts it book 3 chapter 25, indeed even Jerome himself in his preface to the Gospels to Damasus. And afterward the Catholic Church for many ages followed the same interpretation, as the same Jerome writes in his first preface on Paralipomenon. It is added finally that it could not have been done without a miracle, that with such speed and such agreement so great a work should be finished; whereby it came about, as Philo writes in the life of Moses, that every year a festal day was for a long time kept, in memory of so great a thing, in the place where this interpretation was made.
As to the last question, although I am not ignorant that some are of the opinion that the interpretation of the seventy Elders has utterly perished, I judge it much more probable that it still survives, but so corrupted and vitiated that it seems altogether another. For that it still survives, very many testimonies make credible, which are cited by the ancients out of the version of the Seventy, and the same are now found in our Greek codices. Then, since this was always the most celebrated and most common translation, who can believe that, this being abolished or neglected, some other was preserved? But that it is not incorrupt, but greatly vitiated in many places, so that it is now not safe to emend the Hebrew or Latin texts from the Greek codices, can be proved by many arguments.
First by the testimony of blessed Jerome, who in his preface on Paralipomenon, and on Esdras, and elsewhere frequently admonishes that the version of the Seventy is vitiated in many and various ways.
Secondly, because the seventy Interpreters are said to have translated all things word for word so exactly that whoever knew both tongues would at once judge it a most faithful translation. For thus Philo writes book 2 On the life of Moses: “They were rendered,” he says, “in proper terms, the Greek exactly answering to the Chaldaic. This is believed by daily experiments: whether a Chaldaean has learned the Greek tongue, or a Greek the Chaldaic, in either Scripture, both the Chaldaic and its interpretation, he marvels at the kinship, nay adores the consonance of things and words, etc.” Nor let it move anyone that he calls the Hebrew tongue Chaldaic; for he does this because the tongues are akin, and the Chaldaic was then better known, on account of the empire of the Assyrians, than the Hebrew. Otherwise, that the Hebrew and Chaldaic are not the same, blessed Jerome demonstrates on chapter 1 of Daniel, from this, that Daniel the Hebrew was ordered by King Nabuchodonosor to learn the tongue of the Chaldaeans.
And not Philo alone, but even before Philo, Aristeas testified that there was an admirable consonance of things and words between those Greek codices and the Hebrew. And at the end of his book he added that this interpretation was discussed, considered, and examined by very many before it was placed in the King's library, and that it was acclaimed by all that the several things were holily and faithfully translated, so that nothing could be added, nothing taken away.
But that Greek version which we now have differs in many places from the Hebrew: it has not many things which are in the Hebrew, it has many things which are not in the Hebrew, as all know who have been versed in it. And those who cannot judge of this matter through unskillfulness in the tongues, let them read Jerome's preface on the Pentateuch, the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela, the Hebrew Questions, the Commentaries on the Prophets, and the book On the best kind of interpreting.
Nor does this argument seem to be aptly enough solved by those who answer that the Hebrew text is corrupt wherever it differs from the Greek. For neither do the heretics admit this, who prefer the Hebrew text to the Greek, nor ought the Catholics to admit it, lest they be forced to confess that the Vulgate Latin edition, which the Catholic Church has now used for so many ages, and which the Council of Trent judged to be authentic, is also wholly corrupt. For, the Psalter excepted, the Latin edition agrees more with the Hebrew codices than with the Greek.
I know indeed that Epiphanius in the book On measures and weights, Jerome in his preface on the Pentateuch and in the book On the best kind of interpreting, and Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapters 42 and 44, have left it written that the seventy Elders of set purpose omitted certain things, added certain things, and rendered certain things otherwise, because the Holy Ghost so dictated to them. But those Fathers were piously seeking reasons for excusing and defending the version which the Church then used. But if it were so, how would Philo say that there was the highest consonance of things and words? How too would Aristeas assert that all who saw it at the beginning acclaimed that the several things were well and faithfully translated? How would they not have marveled that so many things were withdrawn, so many added, so many rendered in a contrary sense?
Thirdly it is proved from many sentences which are found in this version, which in no way cohere with the truth. Such is that about the reckoning of the years of Mathusalem, Genesis 5. For according to the Greek edition it is found that Mathusalem lived 14 years after the flood, whereas he was not in the Ark, for only eight souls were saved through the Ark, that is, Noe, Sem, Cham, and Japhet, and their wives, as we have Genesis 6 and 1 Peter 3. Which knot blessed Jerome in the Hebrew Questions, blessed Augustine book 15 of the City of God chapter 13, Eucherius, and others on chapter 5 of Genesis could not otherwise solve than by admitting that there is an error in the Greek codices — which error, although the Fathers do not ascribe it to those seventy Elders, but to those who first copied the books out of the library of King Ptolemy, yet meanwhile they could not deny that the codices which we now have are vitiated. Such also is that of Genesis 26, where the Seventy have that the servants of Isaac said of the well, We have not found water, whereas the Hebrew and Latin codices have We have found water, which cannot both be true at once. And it is certain that our reading is truer, since there immediately follows that Isaac therefore called the name of that place Abundance. Such too is that of Jonas 3, where the Seventy have, Yet three days and Ninive shall be overthrown, whereas the Hebrew and our codices have Yet forty days. Which place expounding, blessed Jerome shows that the reading of the Seventy can in no way be defended, and blessed Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapter 44 confesses that Jonas wrote forty days, not three days. There are many others of the same kind, but it has pleased me to bring forward these three by way of example.
It is proved lastly, because it is sufficiently established that the edition of the Seventy Interpreters was corrupted by the Jews in many places, as Justin affirms in the Dialogue with Trypho. It is likewise established that the same edition was very often emended by Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome; but nothing is emended save what before was vitiated. Nor is it credible that that edition, which in the first three hundred years had contracted so many blemishes, was in the remaining 1200 years kept inviolate and entire.
Finally it is established that in the time of blessed Jerome, as he himself writes in epistle 89 to Augustine (which is the eleventh among Augustine's epistles), almost all the Greek codices of the version of the Seventy had many things mixed in from Theodotion, with asterisks prefixed, and then little by little the asterisks fell out; and the edition of Theodotion also perished; and thence necessarily arose confusion, so that now no one can judge what in those books is of the Seventy, and what of Theodotion. So much of the Septuagint.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. De interpretatione LXX. Seniorum. De interpretatione septuaginta Seniorum, quae inter omnes Graecas editiones merito primum locum semper obtinuit, quaestiones quinque existunt. Prima, quo tempore facta sit. Secunda, quorum librorum sit. Tertia, quomodo facta. Quarta, quantae sit auctori¬ tatis. Quinta, num hoc tempore germanam interpretationem LXX. Seniorum habea¬ mus. Prima quaestio facilis est. Nam etsi Ire- naeus lib. III. cap. 23. 'et Clemens Alexandri¬ nus lib. I. Stromat. scribant, Ptolomaeo Lagi filio regnante id factum esse : Aristaeus au¬ tem in historia de hac ipsa re ; Josephus lib. XII Antiquit. cap. 2. Philo lib. II. De vita Mosis ; Tertullianus in Apologetico cap. 18. Athanasius in Synopsi ; Epiphanius De mens., et ponder. aliique Scriptores omnes Ptolomaeum Philadelphum nominent: tamen intervallum non est usque adeo magnum, cum hic Ptolomaeus superiori proxime suc¬ cesserit. (1) I. Cor. VII, 18. CAPUT VI. 129 Est autem haec sententia posterior multo probabilior priore, tum quod plures, tum quod antiquiores testes habeat. Porro Epi- phanius non solum tempus Regis, sed etiam annum regni annotare curavit. Scribit enim anno 17. Ptolomsei Philadelphi eam transla¬ tionem esse factam, atque ab eo tempore usque ad Christi natalem diem fluxisse an¬ nos 291 . Tot igitur annis ante Christi ad- ventum ea translatio facta est, nec sine di¬ vino consilio. Nam ut Eusebius scribit lib. VIH. De Praeparat. Evang. cap. 1. si post Christi adventam id fieri debuisset, aut Scripturam Judsei ex invidentia occultas- sent; aut corruptiorem nobis dedissent, aut certe in suspicionem translatores facile vo¬ carentur. Secunda quaestio paulo difficilior est. Nam B. Hieronymus inquaest. Hebr., etin cap. V. Ezech. et in II. cap. Michaeae, propendere vi¬ detur in eam sententiam, ut solum Pentateu¬ chum verterint, quod probat ex Aristaeo in libr. De septuag. duob. Interpret. et ex Jo- sepho prsefat. in lib. antiquit. et lib. XII. an- tiquit. cap. 2. quibus adde Philonem lib. II. de vita Mosis, qui solius Legis mentionem faciunt. At eos vertisse omnia, scribit Justi¬ nus in Dial. cum Triph ., Irenaeus lib. III. cap. 25. Clemens Alexandrinus libr. 1. Stro- mat., Epiphanius de mens et ponder ., Euse¬ bius lib. VIII. cap. 1. Prceparat. id quod longe probabilius est. Nam Apostoli usi sunt Graeca versione in testimoniis Prophetarum citandis : tempore autem Apostolorum nulla erat alia versio Graeca, quam septuaginta Interpretum. Deinde, non est verisimile Regem illum, qui ex toto orbe terrarum libros adducebat in suam Bibliothecam, noluisse etiam Pro¬ phetarum oracula et alios libros antiquissi¬ mos Judaeorum. Praeterea, quomodo mira¬ bile fuisset, spatio septuaginta duorum die¬ rum potuisse absolvi illam editionem, si Pentateuchus tantum vertendus erat, qui bre¬ viore tempore sine ullo miraculo verti pos¬ set? Neque Hieronymus contrarium docet afferendo, sed dubitando : nam alioqui pas- simin Commentariis Prophetarum mentio¬ nem facit versi onis LXX., et eam explicat. Neque Aristaeus, nomine Legis solum Penta¬ teuchum intelligebat, ut Judaei sensisse vi¬ dentur, sed omnes libros sacros. NamaLege, quee erat praecipuus liber, omnes libri deno- minal)antur. Hinc Joannis X et XV Domi¬ nus dicit in Lege Judaeorum scriptum esse id, quod in Psalmis scriptum est, et B. Pau¬ lus I. Corinth. XIV. in Lege scriptum esse dicit, quod habetur in Isaia. Jam in tertia quaestione illud certum esse videtur, quod omnium consensu celebratur: septuaginta duos viros Hebraeos senes, vide¬ licet ex qualibet tribu filiorum Israel, utrius- que linguae peritissimos, spatio dierum sep¬ tuaginta duorum, mirabili consensione, di¬ vinas Litteras apud Pharum ^Egypti ex He¬ braico sermone in Graecum idioma transtu¬ lisse. Utrum autem singuli separatim, an bini et bini, aut potius omnes simul inter se conferentes, interpretationem illam fecerint, in quaestionem vertitur, et adhuc sub judice lis est. Ac Epiphanius quidem in lib. De mens, et ponder. scribit, hos Interpretes binos et binos in cellulis inclusos fuisse, et divino miraculo singula paria ipsorum iis¬ dem verbis totam Scripturam transtulisse, ita ut simul confecerintsex et triginta exem¬ pla ejusdem prorsus versionis. Justinus autem in orat. Exhortat. ad Gen¬ tes dicit, singulos in singulis cellulis inclu¬ sos, et majori adhuc miraculo a singulis seorsim totam Scripturam iisdem verbis redditam : et se apud Alexandriam vestigia cellularum vidisse. Justinum secuti sunt multi ex posterioribus, ut Irenaeus lib. III. c. 25. Cyrillus catecb. 4. Clemens Alexan¬ drinus libr. III Stromat. et Augustinus lib. XVIII. De civit. Dei, cap. 42. quamvis Au¬ gustinus lib.IIJJoc^r. Christ. c. 15. non au¬ deat rem affn^^K. His addunt recentiores quidam palron^wiarum cellularum, Philo- nemlib. II. De vitaMosis, Tertullianum in Apo¬ loget. cap. 19. et Chrysost. homil. 5. in Matth. Sedisti tres cellularum non memine¬ runt, tantum dicunt, mirabiliter hos Inter¬ pretes in eamdem sententiam et in eadem verba convenisse . At B. Hieronymus praefat. in Pentateuch. aperte ridet hanc historiam : « Nescio, in¬ quit, quis primus auctor septuaginta cel¬ lulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit etc. » Itaque existimat B. Hieronym. sep¬ tuaginta duos Interpretes in eadem Basilica sedentes, et inter se conferentes, Scripturam transtulisse. Id quod probat primum testi¬ monio Aristaei, quinegotio interfuit, et aperte dicit, eos simul conferendo singulis diebus usque ad horam nonam, hanc versionem tandem septuaginta duobus diebus absol¬ visse. Idem probat testimonio Josephi, qui cum esset cupidissimus gloriae suae gentis, 10 130 LIBER II. tamen libr. XII. Antiquit. cap. 2. narrans hanc historiam, cellularum ne meminit qui¬ dem. Addere possumus nos etiam Eusebium, qui lib. XVIII. Praeparat. Evangel. cap. 1. simi¬ liter rem totam narrat sine ulla mentione cel¬ lularum, referens ad verbum quae habentur in libro Aristaei. Addamus etiam Philonem, Tertullianum, et Chrysostomum supra cita¬ tos, qui cum miracula narrent, quae in hac versione contigerunt, nunquam de cellulis siluissent, quod erat omnium praecipuum, si eas vere fuisse credidissent. Quod autem ipsi dicunt de summa illa consensione in eamdem sententiam, non ne¬ cessario convincit, eos loqui de cellulis. Nam revera miraculum fuit, quod tot homines si¬ mul conferendo, tam brevi tempore potue¬ rint convenire in singulis sententiis transfe¬ rendis. Ubi enim est multitudo, diversitas judiciorum evitari non potest, et vel nun¬ quam conveniunt, vel nonnisi post longas disceptationes. Quocirca B. Augustinus lib. II. Doctr. Christ. cap. 15. illud ab omnibus decantatum de istis Interpretibus, quod quasi uno ore Scripturas verterint, rectis¬ sime intelligi posse significat, tam secundum eos qui cellulas tuentur, quam secundum eos qui illas oppugnant. Haec sententia mihi probabilior videtur. Ac etiam visa est probabilior Titelmanno in prol. Apologet, pro edit, vulg., et Andreae Masio praefat.- suar. ann>^|B»vJosue. Nam quod Justino Judaei fabulMPa se confictam persuaserint, et quasdam ruinas ostendentes, cellulas esse dixerunt septuaginta Interpre¬ tum, facile fieri potuit; nec minus facile ut Justino viro sancto fidem habuerint aliqui posteriores. At Aristaeum qui interfuit, fal¬ sum scripsisse credibile non est. Quod enim Ludovicus Vives in cap. 42, lib. XVIII. Civ. Dei, et Leo a Gastro praefat. in Commentar. Isaiae cap. XXXV. dicunt, hunc librum non esse veri Aristaei, sed confictum aib Hebraeis, nihil me movet; nam omnia quae Joseplius, Tertullianus, Eusebius, et Hieronymus ex Aristaeo proferunt, in hoc nostro, qui nunc extat, ad verbum invenimus. At, inquiunt, Epiphanius Aristaeum legit et citat, et tamen meminit cellularum, quod non faceret, si in ipso vero Aristaei libro ex¬ cluderentur cellulae. Nescio quid Leo a Gas¬ tro velit conficere ex hoc testimonio Epipha- nii : vel enim vult concludere, tempore Epi- phanii librum Aristaei integrum fuisse, et postea esse corruptum, et tunc manifeste re¬ fellitur ex Josepho et Eusebio, qui anteEpi- phanium scripserunt, et tamen in Aristaeo cellulas non invenerunt ; vel vult ante Epi- phanii tempora nondum fuisse inventum li¬ brum verum Aristaei, sed tunc primum esse repertum, et hoc etiam dici non potest : nam Hieronymus qui simul cum Epiphanio, et etiam post Epiphanium vixit, diserte affir¬ mat, ex Aristaeo non probari, sed refutari cellulas. Praeterea Epiphanius contra omnium sen¬ tentiam ponit solum triginta sex cellulas, cum alii vel septuaginta duas, vel nullas po¬ nant : nec sane -aequum est, unum Epipha¬ nium omnibus aliis anteponere. Itaque cre¬ dibilius est, Epiphanium, vel non legisse Aristaeum, sed aliis referentibus credidisse, vel certe cum haec scripsit, non habuisse eum in manibus, et memoria lapsum esse. Omnino enim verisimile est, historiam de cellulis Epiphanium a Justino et Irenaeo ac¬ cepisse, et tamen videmus, eum ex obli¬ vione aliter rem narrasse, quam illi fecerint. Sequitur quarta quaestio de auctoritate horum Interpretum, et quamvis B. Hierony¬ mus praefat. in Pentat. asserat, septuaiginta Interpretes non Vates, sed Interpretes fuisse, et in quaest. Hebr., in lib. de opt. gen. in- terpret. in epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam, etin Commentar. Prophet. passim reprehen¬ dat versionem Septuaginta; nihilominus ta¬ men certissimum esse debet, septuaginta In¬ terpretes optime transtulisse, et peculiari modo Spiritum sanctum assistentem ba¬ ttuisse, ne qua in re errarent,, ut non tam Interpretes, quam Prophetae fuisse videan¬ tur. Id in primis probatur ex communi sen¬ tentia. Constanter enim hoc asserunt omnes citati auctores, Aristaeus, Philo, Josephus, Justinus, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clemens Ale¬ xandrinus, Epiphanius, Chrysostomus, Cy- rillus : et ex Latinis Tertullianus, et Augusti¬ nus, item Hilarius praefat. in Psalmos et alii omnes. Neque ab hoc numero debet excludi B. Hieronymus, quippe qui praefat. I. in Paral. scribit : si versio LXX. integra habe¬ retur ut ab eis edita fuit, frustra se labora¬ turum in Bibliis transferendis. Et praefat. 2. dicit, septuaginta Interpretes Spiritu sancto plenos quae vera sunt transtulisse. In Apolo- gia quoque contra Ruffinum lib. II. affirmat se nunquam LXX Interpretibus detrahere voluisse. CAPUT VII. 131 Ex quo intelligimus, eum cum reprehen¬ dit versionem LXX. , non reprehendere ipsam versipnem, sed vitia quae in eam postea irrepserunt, negligentia, vel malitia, aut etiam ignorantia aliorum. Quod autem ait, Interpretes eos, non Vates; non pugnat cum eo, quod alii passim dicunt, Prophetas eos fuisse potius quam Interpretes : nam nec alii volunt dicere, proprie eos fuisse Pro¬ phetas, sed tantum Spiritu sancto peculiari¬ ter illustratos : neque id Hieronymus negat, ut ex verbis ipsius ostendimus. Accedit, quod Apostoli hac versione fre¬ quenter utuntur, ut ex eorum citationibus patet, et aperte id asserit Irenseus lib. III, c. 25. imo etiam ipse Hieronymus prref. Evan- gel. ad Damasum. Et postmodum catholica Ecclesia multis saeculis eamdem interpreta¬ tionem secuta est, ut idem Hieronymus prae- fat. 1. in Paralip. scribit. Accedit denique, quod non sine miraculo fieri potuit, ut tanta celeritate, tantaque consensione tantum opus conficeretur, quo factum est, ut Philo scri¬ bit de vita Mosis, ut singulis annis festus dies in loco ubi facta est haec interpretatio, in memoriam tantae rei multis temporibus ageretur. De postrema quaestione, licet non igno¬ rem nonnullos in ea sententia esse, ut existi¬ ment, interpretationem LXX JSeniorum pe¬ nitus interiisse ; multo probabilius censeo, illam adhuc superesse, sed adeo corruptam et vitiatam, ut omnino alia esse videatur. Quod enim adhuc supersit, fidem faciunt plurima testimonia, quae a Veteribus citan¬ tur ex versione LXX., et eadem nunc in nostris Graecis codicibus inveniuntur. Deinde cum haec fuerit semper celeberrima, et com¬ munissima translatio, quis credere poterit, hac abolita, vel neglecta, aliam aliquam esse conservatam? Non esse autem incorruptam, sed valde vitiatam in pluribus locis, ut jam tutum non sit, Hebraicos vel Latinos textus ex Graecis codicibus emendare, probari po¬ test multis argumentis. Primum testimonio B. Hieronymi, qui praefat. in Paralip., et in Esdram, et alibi frequenter monet, versionem LXX. esse vi¬ tiatam multis et variis modis. Secundo, quoniam LXX Interpretes di¬ cuntur omnia transtulisse ad verbum ita pro¬ prie, ut quicumque sciret utramque linguam, statim judicaret, fidelissimam esse transla¬ tionem. Sic enim scribit Philo lib. II. De vita Mosis : « Reddita, inquit, sunt propriis nominibus, Graecis ad Chaldaica exacte re¬ spondentibus. Id experimentis quotidianis creditur, sive Chaldaeus Graecam linguam, sive Graecus Chaldaeam didicerit, in utraque Scriptura tum Chaldaica, tum ejus interpre¬ tatione miratur germanitatem, imo rerum verborumque consonantiam adorat, etc. » Nec vero moveat quemquam, quod linguam Hebraicam vocat Chaldaicam ; id enim id¬ circo facit, quod linguae sint affines, et no¬ tior tunc esset Chaldaea propter imperium Assyriorum, quam Hebraea. Alioqui Hebrai¬ cam et Chaldaicam non esse amdem de¬ monstrat B. Hieronymus in cap. I. Danielis, ex eo quod Daniel Hebraeus jussus est a Rege Nabucliodonosor discere linguam Chaldaeorum. Neque solus Philo, sed etiam ante Philo¬ nem Aristaeus testatus est, admirabilem fuisse rerum et verborum consonantiam in¬ ter codices illos Graecos et Hebraeos. At ad finem libri sui adjecit, eam interpretationem a plurimis discussam, consideratam, exami¬ natam, antequam in Regis Bibliotheca pone¬ retur, et ab omnibus acclamatum, sancte et fideliter singula esse translata, ut nihil addi, nihil demi posset. At ista Graeca versio quam nunc habemus, in pluribus locis dissentit ab Hebraeo, multa non habet quae sunt in Hebraeo, multa habet quae non sunt in Hebraeo, ut omnes nove¬ runt, qui in ea versati &unt. Et qui de hac re ob linguarum imperitiam judicare non pos¬ sunt, legant Hieronymi praefat. in Pentat. epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam, quaest. Hebr. Comment. in Prophetas, et lib. de opt. gen. interpret. Neque videtur satis apte hoc argumentum solvi ab iis qui respondent, textum He¬ braeum esse corruptum ubicumque a Graeco discrepat. Nam neque haeretici hoc admit¬ tunt, qui anteponunt Hebraeum textum Grae¬ co, neque Catholici admittere debent, ne fa¬ teri cogantur, vulgatam editionem Latinam, qua Ecclesia Catholica tot jam saeculis uti¬ tur, et quam Tridentinum Concilium authen¬ ticam esse judicavit, totam quoque esse cor¬ ruptam. Nam excepto Psalterio, Latina edi¬ tio cum Hebraeis codicibus magis convenit, quam cum Graecis. Scio quidem, Epiphanium lib. De mens, et ponder. Hieronymum in Praefat. in Pen¬ tat., et lib. De opt. gen. interpret. et Augu¬ stinum lib. XVIII. De Civit. Dei cap. 42, et 44. scriptum reliquisse, septuaginta Senio- 132 LIBER II. res de industria quaedam omisisse, quaedam addidisse, et quaedam aliter vertisse, quia sic eis dictabat Spiritus sanctus. Sed isti Pa¬ tres pie quaerebant rationes excusandi, et defendendi eam versionem, qua tunc Eccle¬ sia utebatur. Caeterum, si ita esset, quomodo Philo diceret, summam fuisse consonantiam rerum et verborum? Quomodo etiam asse¬ reret Aristaeus, omnes qui eam initio vide¬ runt acclamasse, singula esse bene et fideliter versa? quomodo non admirati fuissent, tam multa detracta, tam multa addita, tam multa contrario sensu reddita? Tertio probatur ex multis sententiis, quae in hac versione inveniuntur, quae nullo modo cum veritate cohaerent. Quale est illud de supputatione annorum Mathusalem, Genes. Y. Nam secundum Graecam editionem inve¬ nitur, Mathusalem vixisse 14. annos post di¬ luvium, cum tamen in Arca non fuerit, so¬ lum enim octo animae per Arcam salvae fac¬ tae sunt, id est, Noe, Sem, Chaim et Japhet, et uxores eorum, ut habemus Gen. VI. et I. Petr. III. Quem nodum non aliter solvere potuerunt B. Hieronymus in quaest. Hebr. B. Augusti¬ nus lib. XY. Civit. Dei cap. 13. Eucherius, et alii in c. Y. Gen., nisi admittendo, esse errorem in codicibus Graecis, quem errorem licet non adscribant Patres illis Senioribus septuaginta, sed iis qui primi descripserunt libros ex Bibliotheca Regis Ptolomaei : inte- rim tamen codices quos nunc habemus vi¬ tiatos esse, negare non potuerunt. Tale est etiam illud Gen. XXYI. ubi LXX. habent, dixisse servos Isaae de puteo, Non invenimus aquam , cum Hebraei et Latini codices ha¬ beant Invenimus aquam , quae simul vera esse non possunt. Et certum est, nostram lectio¬ nem esse veriorem, cum proxime sequatur, propterea Isaae vocasse nomen loci illius abundantiam. Tale quoque est illud Jonoe III. ubi LXX habent : Adhuc tres dies et Ni¬ nive subvertetur , cum Hebraici, et nostri co¬ dices habeant Adhuc quadraginta dies. Quem locum exponens B. Hieronymus ostendit, non posse ullo modo defendi lectionem LXX, et B. Augustinus lib. XVIII. de Civit. Dei cap. 44. fatetur, Jonam scripsisse dies quadra¬ ginta, non dies tres. Multa sunt alia ejusdem generis, sed haec tria loco exempli adferre placuit. Probatur ultimo, quia satis constat, edi¬ tionem LXX Interpretum a Judaeis multis in locis fuisse corruptam, ut Justinus affirmat in Dialogo cumTriphone. Constat item, eam- dem editionem scepe saepius emendatam ab Origene, Luciano, Hesychio, Hieronymo : nihil autem emendatur, nisi quod ante vitia¬ tum est. Neque credibile est, eam editio¬ nem, quae primis trecentis annis tot maculas contraxerat, reliquis annis 1200 inviolatam atque integram servatam. Denique constat, tempore B. Hieronymi, ut ipse scribit in epist. 89. ad Augustinum, quae est XI. inter epist. Augustini, omnes fere Graecos codices ex versione Septuaginta habuisse admixta multa ex Theodotione, as- teriscis praefixis, deinde paulatim asteriscos excidisse : interiisse etiam editionem Theo- dotionis; inde autem necessario orta est con¬ fusio, ut jam nemo judicare possit, quid in iis libris sit LXX, quid vero Theodotionis. Haec de Septuaginta.