HistoricalChristian.Faith

Hugh of Saint Victor on the Origin of the Septuagint

Dates: c. AD 1141 (c. 1096–1141) · De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, ch. 9 · Wikipedia
Summary: The legend told whole, then disowned. Hugh of Saint Victor, the Paris schoolman whose De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris served as an introduction to the study of the Bible, gives the origin story in its full inspiration form — Ptolemy Philadelphus had the Old Testament rendered into Greek "by seventy translators, whom he received from Eleazar the High Priest," split into "individual cells" so that, "as some say," none could deceive the king, yet "they translated everything by the Holy Spirit in such a way that nothing was to be found in one codex which was not to be found in the others" — and then, in the same breath, withdraws it: "But Jerome says that no credence should be given to this matter." He is the first witness on this timeline who is himself a skeptic of the cells, and he is so by quoting Jerome, whose verdict the Latin West had by Hugh's day accepted. He is also unusually candid about the Septuagint's deficiency: the version was later found to lack things "the authority both of Christ himself and of the apostles" had announced were in it, so "others undertook to translate the holy scriptures from the Hebrew" — the admission that pushes the medieval West toward Jerome's Hebrew, the reverse of the inspired-divergence defence Augustine and Epiphanius had built.

Claims & evidence

The full legend, reported and then qualified

Hugh sets the origin of the Greek Scriptures at the head of his account of how the sacred text reached the Church. He gives the developed inspiration form whole, then immediately attaches Jerome's dissent:

"Afterwards Ptolemy, who was called Philadelphus and was the second to hold the throne of Egypt after Alexander the Great, had the library (bibliotheca) of the Old Testament translated into Greek from Hebrew by seventy translators, whom he received from Eleazar the High Priest (pontifex). And, as some say, in order not to be deceived by them, through false translations, he split them up, so that by sitting (alone) in individual cells they should be apart from each other. But they translated everything by the Holy Spirit in such a way that nothing was to be found in one codex which was not to be found in the others in similar form. On account of this, theirs is a single version. But Jerome says that no credence should be given to this matter. And after the ascension of the Lord, as the apostles preached the gospel, this same translation was found among the gentiles, and the sacred scriptures began to be read by the churches of Christ at first in accordance with it. But later on, since it was proven that there were lacking from this version some things which the authority both of Christ himself and of the apostles in their preaching had announced were in it, others undertook to translate the holy scriptures from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek."¹

For the through-line this timeline traces — whether each teller carries the separate cells and the inspiration claim — Hugh carries both, but holds them at arm's length. The cells are present ("by sitting alone in individual cells they should be apart"), and so is the miracle in its strong form: the translators "translated everything by the Holy Spirit" and produced "a single version" with no divergence "in one codex which was not to be found in the others." This is the developed Irenaean form — isolation plus the Spirit plus word-for-word identity — that Rufinus and Augustine had made the Latin West's charter. What is new is the posture: Hugh does not assert it. He hedges the cells with "as some say," and then caps the whole account with the line that no earlier witness on this timeline had spoken in his own voice — "But Jerome says that no credence should be given to this matter."

The first reporting skeptic on the timeline

Until Hugh, the timeline's skepticism had been a thing the inspiration-defenders answered, not a position any teller held. Jerome, who called the cells a fable — "I know not who was the first author to construct… the seventy cells at Alexandria… whereas Aristeas and Josephus… report no such thing" — sits on the corruption-charge timeline, where his preference for the Hebrew is the hinge of the whole dispute. Rufinus had thrown the inspired cells back at him as a weapon. Hugh, three and a half centuries later, records the quarrel as settled the other way: he repeats the legend because it is the received account, but gives Jerome the last word. He is well placed to: a Victorine master who worked closely from Jerome's biblical prefaces — the very Prologus in Pentateucho in which Jerome dismissed the cells — Hugh transmits not only Jerome's verdict but Jerome's program, the return to the Hebraica veritas. On this timeline he is therefore the point at which the skeptical counter-tradition, long a minority report, becomes the schoolroom's default.

The candid admission: the Septuagint found wanting

Hugh's closing sentences run directly against the inspired-divergence defence. Where Epiphanius in the East and Augustine in the West had met the Septuagint's departures from the Hebrew by declaring the differences themselves inspired — the Greek's additions mending a "lame" Hebrew (Epiphanius), both readings the work of "the one Spirit… in the prophets… and… in the seventy men" (Augustine) — Hugh frankly concedes the Greek was found deficient: it lacked "some things which the authority both of Christ himself and of the apostles… had announced were in it," and so "others undertook to translate… from the Hebrew." That is Jerome's logic, not Augustine's: the divergence is a defect in the Greek to be corrected against the Hebrew, not a second inspired witness to be preserved. The inspired-Septuagint premise on which the corruption charge rests is here quietly let go — the same premise bar Kepha and the Syriac East still held two centuries on.

Notes

• The work and its purpose. The passage opens chapter 9 of Hugh's De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris (PL 175, 9–28), a short treatise that functioned as an accessus — an introduction to the craft of reading and interpreting the Bible — and circulated as a preface to scriptural study in the schools. The origin of the versions is thus presented not as polemic (as in Rufinus) nor as catechesis (as in Cyril of Jerusalem) but as a student's first orientation to where the Latin Bible came from — which is why the even-handed "some say… but Jerome says" register fits it.
• The frame details. Hugh keeps the round "seventy" translators (not the seventy-two of Aristeas), names Eleazar the high priest and Ptolemy Philadelphus correctly, and retains the cells and the Holy Spirit; he drops Demetrius, the Pharos, the count of days, and the roster of names. Notably he uses bibliotheca ("library") for the whole Old Testament — the medieval sense of the word for the collected books of Scripture — which is why he can say Ptolemy had "the library of the Old Testament" translated.
• Who he was. Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096–1141) was the leading theologian of the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris and one of the founders of scholastic biblical study; his Didascalicon and the De scripturis shaped how the Latin Middle Ages organized the reading of Scripture. He stands at the head of the medieval Latin reception of the Septuagint legend on this timeline — the first to fold it into a schoolbook and the first to pass on, in his own voice, Jerome's refusal of the cells.
• Text and provenance. The English is quoted verbatim as printed in Abraham & David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge, 2006), which translates the relevant passage of De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, ch. 9. Unlike the obscure Syriac witnesses on this timeline, the underlying Latin work is freely accessible (PL 175, 17), and a full English translation is available online (Three Pillars, On Sacred Scripture, ch. 9), against which the substance has been confirmed — so this witness is treated as verified.

Sources