1 2 D K KRANZ The religious status of the LXX

Dirk Kurt KRANZ LC

The “Religious Status” of the Septuaginta: The End of aParadigm

The discussion regarding the inspired character of theLXX had come to an end with a series of publications,mainly by French-speaking scholars, of the fifties andsixties of the past century. Evidently, to regard abiblical translation as inspired belongs to the realm oftheology and is thus confessionally conditioned. In thispresent essay I would like to describe two ways ofconsidering the particular problem of the “religiousstatus” of the Septuagint, i.e. the problem of itsinspired character, as based on two different ways ofviewing the textual history of the Old Testament. Thisapproach will enable scholars to return to an oldquestion with new insights: rather than basing theirreflections on a theology pertaining to a particularChristian confession, they are invited to revisit theinterdependence of textual traditions of the OT.

1. Case-study: Paul AuvrayIn this section I shall present an emblematic case of

how one can consider the religious status of the LXX asviewed from the old paradigm regarding the textualhistory of the OT. First, I will deal with the individualauthor’s position and from there I shall proceed to drawout the characteristic elements of what I have dubbed the“old” paradigm.One of these French-speaking scholars was Pierre Benoit

whose position regarding the inspired character of theLXX is known and shall not be discussed here.1 His new

1 P. Benoit, “La Septante est-elle inspirée?,” in Vom Wort desLebens. Festschrift für Max Meinertz zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres (ed. N.Adler; Münster: Aschendorff’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1951)41-49 (= Exégèse et Théologie [4 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1961] 1. 3-12); idem, “L’inspiration des Septante d’après les Pères,” inL’homme devant Dieu. Mélanges offerts au père Henri de Lubac (3 vols.;

approach was taken up by a fellow Frenchman, Paul Auvray(1904-1977).2 Roughly a year after Benoit’s daring thrustforward, Auvray took his stand on the topic placingBenoit’s ideas, founded on patristic theology, in abroader context.3 Briefly reviewing patristic positionsabout the Inspiration of the LXX,4 Auvray grounds hisreflections by pointing to the pseudepigraphicalcharacter of the Aristeas-Letter. He refers, in the firstplace, to the exposure of the pseudepigraphical characterin modern times by the work of Dom Calmet in the 17th

Century,5 and the consequences thereof for the belief inthe inspiration of the LXX. It would be a grave error, hestates, to affirm that the belief in the inspiredcharacter of the LXX had arisen from the Aristeas-Letter.He claims the contrary: the Aristeas-Letter is theresult, not the efficient cause of this belief.

Theologie 56-58; Paris: Aubier, 1963) 1. 169-87. That sameyear Benoit published an essay on the distinction to be madebetween inspiration and prophecy (contra Th. Aquinas): idem,“Révélation et inspiration selon la Bible, chez Saint Thomaset dans les discussions modernes,” RB 70 (1963) 321-70 (ital.:Rivelazione e ispirazione secondo la Bibbia. In san Tommaso e nelle discussionimoderne [Brescia: Paideia, 1966]).

2 Cf. his biography by the Communauté de l'Oratoire de France(Paul Auvray: Prêtre de l’Oratoire, 1904-1977 [Paris: Communauté del’Oratoire de France, 1978]).

3 P. Auvray, “Comment se pose le problème de l’inspirationdes Septante,” RB 59 (1952) 321-36.

4 Cf. Auvray, “Comment se pose le problème,” 324: “The wholeof patristic tradition favors it” (translation mine). Compareto the radical judgment by Mangenot, who saw in the patristicidea of an inspired LXX a marginal phenomenon, cf. E.Mangenot, “Septante (version des),” Dictionnaire de la Bible (ed.Fulcran Vigouroux et al.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1928) 5/2.1623-51, here 1629: “Il suffit de noter qu’elle n’a jamais étéenseignée par l’Église”.

5 Dom Augustin Calmet, Dissertation pour servir de Prolégomènes del’Écriture Sainte: reveües, corrigées et augmentées, et mises dans un ordreméthodique (3 vols.; Paris: P. Émery, 1720; we are interestedespecially in his “Dissertation sur la version des septanteInterprètes” [74-93]).

2

This is precisely the starting point for Auvray’sreflections. At the time of the uncovering of thepseudepigraphical setting of this intertestamentarywriting, the theme of biblical inspiration was stillthought of in terms of “personal” inspiration. Accordingto the then prevailing way of thinking, a person, a knownbiblical personage is inspired – like Moses the Prophet,one of the Apostles, the Evangelist, etc. All these areknown by name. The driving force behind these names wasthe personal holiness and authority of the biblicalauthor, whose identity was deemed known, indeed obviouslyknown. Theologians showed a marked tendency to confusethe “critical-literary” genuineness with “canonical”authenticity. The consequences for the inspiration of theLXX are evident. Once the fictitious character of the “70(72) Translators” had been unraveled and pushed into theditch of historical incredibility, the same fate seemedto await those elements that were hinged on thehistorical reality of these “70 (72) Translators”: oncetheir historical genuineness had been removed, the samefate was to strike down the canonical authenticity oftheir translation. As a consequence, it had becomeimpossible to make the inspiration of the LXX depend onthe holiness and authority of the translators, sincetheir historical reality had disappeared into animpenetrable haze.Only two ways seemed viable to exegetes and theologians

in their endeavor to integrate the Greek OT in theirexegetical and theological work. Either one had to claiman “immediate inspiration” of the translators (but as wejust said, this now had become impracticable due to theindeterminacy of the translator’s historical identity),or one was to assert the “essential congruity” of theGreek translation with the Hebrew original.Auvray perceived the difficulties of the second member

of this disjunctive proposition.6 Only from this

6 Cf. Auvray, “Comment se pose le problème,” 329: “Et c’estpeut-être à cette position théologique a priori que noussommes redevables de quelques-unes des tentatives les plusdésespérées de l’exégèse conservatrice. Car, comme il arrive

3

perspective of “essential congruity” are we able tounderstand some statements by pre-Vatican II“Introductions to Sacred Scripture” that, on the one handdenying explicitly the inspired character of the LXX, onthe other, however, are prone to allot to it the statusof an “authenticus fons revelationis veteris testamenti”.Since one could not allege the total congruity of theGreek translation with its Vorlage (which was assumed tobe available to us in the form of the Masoretic text) onthe literary level, one preferred to set great store byits essential congruity.When scholars abandoned the model of “personal

inspiration”, the way was free for them to realize thatthe existence of pseudepigraphical writings in no wayshook the dogma of biblical inspiration. In this way, theidea of only one author, also known by name, gave way tothe idea of a collective work. The biblical book couldnow be considered a community product with theparticipation of a series of authors or collaborators –all equally inspired. It was only important, according toAuvray, that the authors had participated in thefashioning of the biblical book as authors, not as merescribes or amanuenses. Once the idea of the collectivework was established and sufficiently founded, then itwas only a matter of equating the secondary authors withthe translators of the LXX. Just like the co-authors inthe making of the biblical book in the original language,so too, the allegation read, the translators intranslating it. No longer could they be considered merecopyists.7 But not all modern exegetes think that way,

fréquemment, un ‘minimisme’ théologique qui excluaitl’inspiration de la Septante avait entraîné un ‘maximisme’critique, qui obligeait à affirmer la conformité de laSeptante avec l’original, une prétendue libération avaitconduit à un esclavage plus intolérable.”

7 Cf. ibid., 331: “Les traducteurs grecs ont traité avec uneréelle liberté les textes qu’ils avaient sous les yeux.Incompétence philologique, préjugés doctrinaux ou simplefantaisie, le motif importe peu ici. L’essentiel est qu’ilsont mis dans leur traduction beaucoup d’eux-mêmes.”

4

affirms Auvray: even though many “Introductions” concedethe fact that the translators introduced numerous changesinto the text on their own initiative, they insistnonetheless on the distinction of the LXX from its Vorlageon the literary level, but simultaneously stress theirfundamentally substantial congruity.Avray then considers the concrete textual examples

offered by Pierre Benoit,8 thus proving himself a man ofhis times:

If one is to admit P. Benoit’s exegesis – and itseems difficult to dismiss it in the three cases thathe mentions – then only two possibilities remain:either assert that the text of the LXX transmits theoriginal better than the MT – a groundless subterfugeand absolutely improbable (regarding the textsmentioned); or acknowledge that the text quoted is asinspired as the original, and in this event, there aregood reasons to believe that this happened on the levelof the translator into Greek.9

The man of his times appears, in particular, preciselywhere he denies the possibility that the LXX couldtransmit the original better than the MT. Specifically inthis area the results of modern research have overthrownmuch of our commonly accepted knowledge. Beforeattempting a critique of Auvray’s position, let meillustrate his thought in its final development.In line with the solution suggested by Benoit, it

should be possible, according to Auvray, to assemble alist of all literal quotations from the LXX in the NT,the inspiration thereof would be guaranteed by the NT’sauthority. Thus the LXX could be declared “inspired” – at

8 Benoit had examined three examples of biblical texts thatdiffer in their Hebrew and Greek form, but with the specialcharacteristic that the differing nuance enabled the NT authorto embark upon an argument that he would have been barred fromhad he followed the Hebrew text. These texts are: Ps 15 (16),8-11 in Apg 2,23-31 and Apg 13,35-37; Jes 7,14 in Mt 1,23; Gen12, 5 or 22,18 in Apg 3,25 and Gal 3,8-9; for the analysis ofthese texts cf. Benoit, “La Septante est-elle inspirée?”.

9 Auvray, “Comment se pose le problème,” 331-332.

5

least in this fragmentary state. The question arises:could we not expand the inspired character of theaforementioned list of verses to the whole of the LXX (ofwhich they are a part)? Auvray sees difficulties of aphilosophical kind, a dilemma for which he himself willtry to find an answer. The disjunction is formulated inthis way: in every individual case, considered by itself,the text of the LXX either agrees with the Vorlage or isdifferent from it. If it is different from the original,then one can endorse the inspiration of this particularverse, in the way he has shown.10 But, on the other hand,if it agrees with the original, even on a word-for-wordbasis, what need is there to postulate the inspiration ofa translation and, precisely, one that is a perfect copyof the original? Is one to say the text is inspiredtwice? But philosophy avows: “entia non suntmultiplicanda sine necessitate.”Auvray, therefore, returns to the comparison between

translator and copyist. Also the latter, then, becomes aninspired author, inasmuch as he intervenes in the text ina creative way. The same could be said of the translator:inasmuch as he intervenes creatively in the text addingsomething substantial to it, he becomes an author, aninspired author. And here the important detail: thetranslator is inspired not qua translator, rather, albeitonly at a few spots, qua author.11 This way, the LXX’sreligious status, or value, could be ascertained: at veryfew points, the LXX would be directly inspired, due to thefact that the translators intervened creatively in the

10 L. Alonso Schökel has displayed a marked resistanceagainst this argument, i.e. considering inspired not theparticular text in and by itself, but rather the use made ofit by the NT author, cf. L. Alonso Schökel, La palabra inspirada. Labiblia a la luz de la ciencia del lenguaje (Academia christiana 27; Madrid:Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986) 273: “Los autores del NuevoTestamento pueden utilizar el Antiguo [...] Este uso, comooperación literaria, objetivada en la obra, está inspirado.”

11 Auvray, “Comment se pose le problème,” 334: “Il n’est pasinspiré comme traducteur, il l’est, occasionnellement, commeauteur.”

6

text; the rest would be inspired only indirectly due to theexact congruity with the original.Auvray, though, remains skeptical and unwilling to

accept this solution himself (“this solution containsmany difficulties”, 334). (1) On the one hand, the veryidea of indirect inspiration is misleading; (2) on theother, equating the translator with the copyist isfallacious.(1) At a time, Auvray asserts, when one fancied the

licitness of differentiating and separating in SacredScripture the content, the ideas, the message ofsalvation (that would all be directly inspired by theHoly Spirit), from the linguistic expression thatremained alone in the hands of the human author (divineideas vs. human forms of expression), it was possible toconsider a mediate (indirect) inspiration. In the measurein which the translation transmits the divine ideas withthe words of the target language, the translation wouldbe inspired, i.e. indirectly inspired.In Auvray’s opinion this distinction is not admissible.

Text, ideas and linguistic expression, content and wordsare all together inspired. Thus, it would be nonsenseeven to consider the mere idea of an indirect inspiration.This concept would come to mean nothing else but“authentic” or “exact”, and this way we would havereturned to the well-known “authenticus fons revelationisveteris testamenti”. But for a translation to beinspired, the inspired translator is a requisite. Soagain the inspiration would be on a two-fold level; theoriginal and the translation. Auvray is not short of anexample: just as nobody doubts the inspiration of thebiblical Books of Chronicles, which repeat in generaltraits the content of the Books of Kings, with greaterright one could speak of the inspiration of the LXX.(2) But for Auvray, to ensure the inspiration of the

LXX by means of equating the translator with the copyist,is misleading. Even if copyist and translator can becompared in the detail of a few creative interventions inthe text, the task of both is fundamentally different:the translator never ceases to bring about creative

7

changes in the text of the target language, since suchcreativity is essential to the very task of translating.Rather than defying inspiration, the contradictionsinherent to the translation affirm its inspiredcharacter, for, according to Auvray, these contradictionsgive evidence to what a creative extent the translatorintervened in his product. Auvray moves another stepforward applying some affirmations by Pope Leo XIII tothe translator: “For, by supernatural power, He [the HolySpirit] so moved and impelled them to write – He was sopresent to them – that the things which He ordered, andthose only, they, first, rightly understood, then willedfaithfully to write down, and finally expressed in aptwords and with infallible truth.”12 This description ofthe Holy Spirit’s impact could be applied to thetranslator’s activity. This way, the translator appearsto be partaking, even more than the creative copyist, ofthe charism of inspiration. Consequently, one would beauthorized to consider the LXX inspired.Let us turn then to Auvray with a final question:

“Comment, donc, se pose le problème de l’inspiration dela Septante?” For him, the problem of the inspiration ofthe LXX is to be analyzed on the level of the inspirationof the translators – a problem that applies only to theLXX, for all the other translations were made after theconclusion of public revelation.I have chosen the exemplary case of Paul Auvray because

his reflections enable us to see very clearly how atheologian who moves within the boundaries of the “old”paradigm as regards the interdependence of textualbiblical traditions, was capable of positively, but notconclusively, arguing in favor of the inspiration of theLXX. To this end, he treaded the hardly viable path ofthe inspiration of the translators themselves, and, inaddition to that, pointed to the NT authors’ use of LXX-material. Neither approach could offer cogent arguments.Other scholars, confined like Auvray within theboundaries of the old paradigm, arrived at the contrary

12 Leo XIII., Encyclical letter “Providentissimus Deus” (18November 1893), § 20.

8

conclusion: Miguel Ángel Tábet, Luis Alonso Schökel,Valerio Mannucci: all denying the inspiration of theLXX.13 The parameters offered by the old paradigmauthorized both conclusions: the inspiration of the LXXcould either be affirmed of denied, by the very fact thatthe arguments were not cogent. But, it is time to ask thequestion what the characteristics of the old paradigmare.

2. Characteristics of the “old” paradigma) The MT is the Vorlage for the LXX. A first element is the

direct relation of the LXX to the MT. The text of the LXXas we have it today, it is argued, has been produced onthe basis of the MT as we have it today. Thus, thequality of the translation was measured against thestandard of the MT, and a negative judgment soon wascommonplace, even if one proceeded book by book to judgethe translation quality.b) Variances as to the MT are reckoned “errors” or “tendentious

translations” (“Tendenzübersetzungen”). Once the principle of aface-value dependence of the LXX on the MT wasestablished, these variances had to be accounted for. Forthis purpose, scholars mostly fell back on the category

13 M.A. Tábet, Una introducción a la Sagrada Escritura (Madrid: Rialp,1981); Idem and P. Gironi, Introduzione generale alla sacra scrittura(Citta di Castello: Delta grafica, 1996); Idem, Introduzionegenerale alla Bibbia (L'abside 13; Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo,1998); Idem, “Ispirazione e canonicità dei libri sacri” inScrittura ispirata. Atti del Simposio internazionale sull’ispirazione promossodall’Ateneo Pontificio «Regina Apostolorum» (ed. A. Izquierdo; Città delVaticano: LEV, 2002) 80-117; Idem, Introducción general a la Biblia(trans. Antonio Esquivias; Pelícano; Madrid: Palabra, 2004).L. Alonso Schökel, La palabra inspirada. La biblia a la luz de la ciencia dellenguaje (Academia christiana 27; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad,1986). Valerio Mannucci, Bibbia come parola di Dio. Introduzione generalealla sacra Scrittura (Strumenti 17; 4th ed.; Brescia: Queriniana,1983); “Il mistero delle Scritture” in Introduzione generale allaBibbia (ed. Rinaldo Fabris; Torino: Leumann [Rivoli]; Elle DiCi, 1994) 397-421. Mannucci, in his publication from 1994,preferred to abstain from treating the subject of the LXX – afurther indicator of the discomfort among biblical scholars.

9

of translation error, i.e. on the incompetence of thetranslators, or one would identify in these differences atheologizing tendency, an actualization or adaptation ofthe biblical message to the cultural environment of thetranslators. Brenton’s opinion is that all deviations ofthe LXX from the MT are reason enough to subordinate theformer to the latter14 and to deny it any special statuswhatsoever.15 It was quite obvious to him, that the LXX,as he read it, had had the MT as Vorlage.c) This leads to the third characteristic. The Vorlage

problem was non existent as of yet: the Hebrew text (HT) wasassumed to be identical with the MT. In the old paradigm thetextual status of the Vorlage was assumed to be identicalto the MT, i.e. the textual form that we have in the MTwas considered to be the original text of the HebrewBible. One had to wait for modern biblical philology todebunk these suppositions as mere hypotheticalassumptions, at best.d) Model of personal inspiration: the old paradigm has a

peculiar understanding of inspiration, the person-relatedmodel. According to this comprehension of theinspirational process, the individual biblical books canbe traced back to those authors under whose names theyare actually known. A given biblical book has one author,and he is known to us by name. To consider the

14 The Septuagint with Apocrypha. Greek and English. Exemplar originaleVaticanum versiculis distinctum cum complementis ex aliis manuscriptis (trans.Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982[reprint of the edition from 1851]), iii: “These remarks arenot intended as depreciatory of the Septuagint version: theirobject is rather to show what difficulties the translators hadto encounter, and why in some respects they failed; as well asto meet the thought which has occupied the minds of some, whowould extol this version as though it possessed somethingresembling co-ordinate authority with the Hebrew text itself.”

15 Ibid., iv: “In consequence of the fact that the NewTestament writers used on many occasions the Septuagintversion, some have deduced a new argument for its authority[cursive in the original], – a theory which we might havethought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of theversion, which evince that it is merely a human work.”

10

possibility of textual development beyond the one-authormind frame was still impossible. In short, the finishedproduct is inspired.e) Access to the Urtext: it is assumed that the presently

available Hebrew text coincides with the Urtext of a givenbiblical book. Even today as a matter of course the MT isidentified with the original text of the Bible. Under theassumed equation of Urtext with MT it seems only natural toclassify any changes on the part of the LXX as deviationsfrom the MT, and thus to de-classify them. Modernscholars dropping the hint that the Hebrew text (HT) of agiven biblical book is to be identified with the MT,produce biblical translations on the basis of the latter.The LXX turns out to be nothing but the textual critic’stool to conveniently correct corrupted or otherwisedifficult passages of the MT.f) Inspiration of the LXX is only possible by inspired translators: one

question remained as to how the textual differencesbetween the LXX and the MT were to be justified. If onewas to grant some value to the Greek textual tradition,the only possibility consisted in searching within theboundaries of the personal inspiration model for personswho could be identified as gifted with an inspirationalcharism. In this case, the choice had to fall upon thelegendary 70 (72) elders, even though covered by the hazeof legend, as stated by the Pseudo-Aristeas Letter. Now,since in patristic times (but even St. Thomas Aquinaswould still handle the topic of biblical inspirationunder the heading of “prophetic inspiration”) no sharpdivide had been drawn between revelation and biblicalinspiration, and the personal inspiration model beinghighly favored, it seemed only natural to describe these70 (72) elders as prophets, who received this translationin terms of revelation. Posing the question of the LXX’sinspiration equaled posing the question of theinspiration of the translators. It is well known howvehemently St. Jerome thrust both aside. FollowingJerome’s lead, modern scholars shunned attributing thegrace of inspiration to the translators, so that ingeneral translations were denied that same

11

characteristic, unless they faithfully transmitted theUrtext in the target language; in the latter case one couldspeak of a mediate inspiration for the translations. Thisstance can still be noticed in quite a large number ofbiblical manuals.g) Reduction of the process of revelation to the Hebrew: this leads

us to the question of revelation and, in connection withit, to the question of canon. In the extreme case,reluctance to ascribe the grace of inspiration to thetranslators could lead to reluctance to accept the wholeGreek textual tradition – which is Jerome’s position.16

Exegetes had to confront the difficult problem as towhich status was to be avowed to the Greek textualtradition of the OT in general. Here two fundamentaltendencies emerged. (1) On the one hand, it was possibleto retreat to the save grounds of the “hebraica veritas”,according to which the OT canon was to be limited to thebooks that were originally written in Hebrew. (2) On theother hand, the integration of the Greek biblicaltradition was deemed possible, but the category ofinspiration seemed unsuitable for this purpose. Aconsiderable number, who wanted to maintain the LXX,reduced it to an “authentic source of revelation”. Muchmore could not be achieved within the limits of the oldparadigm.17

3. Wrong starting point with right conclusion vs. rightstarting point with no conclusion

16 Thus he writes in a letter to Pammachius (ep. 49,4 [CSEL54,349; PL 22,512]): “Transtuli nuper Iob in linguam nostram;cuius exemplar a sancta Marcella, consobrina tua, poterismutuari. Lege eundem graecum et latinum et ueterem editionemnostrae translationi conpara, et liquido peruidebis, quantumdistet inter ueritatem et mendacium”.

17 We need to add that this does not apply to thedeuterocanonical books for which there is no Hebrew originalor that were directly composed in Greek, but only to thetranslated books of the OT. For the deuterocanonical books thecanonical status, and thus inspiration, is secured by thedecree of the Tridentinum.

12

Biblical studies in late Antiquity and modern timeshave a different approach to the LXX with regard to itstextual, and consequently, to its religious status. St.Augustine pointed in the right direction offering thecorrect conclusion, whereas modern scholars of textualcriticism provide us with a new starting point which thetheologian is called upon to develop.Before discussing a new possible approach I would like

to touch upon a recent publication by Martin Hengel18

offering, among many other points, the following summaryof St. Augustine’s view on the LXX. The starting pointfor Augustine consists in the information given in thePseudo-Aristeas Letter, though in the overhauledChristian version that extends the inspired character ofthe translation to the whole of the OT in Greek. The LXXstands out, according to Augustine, by its authority thatis lacking in other Jewish translations, like in Jerome’sLatin translation based on the Hebrew. Even though errorsand variant readings might be found in the LXX, no othertranslator is to be preferred to the authority of theseventy translators, since, as Augustine affirms, theHoly Spirit himself was at work. This implies a twofoldprophetic charism, that of the prophets themselves andthat of the translators. Thus, Augustine affirms theinspiration of both the Hebrew and the Greek textualforms. To formulate it in other words: the biblical textis given in two parallel columns, the Hebrew and theGreek text mutually complementing each other, since theapostles in quoting scripture, had recourse to both.19

18 M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and theProblem of Its Canon (with assistance of Roland Deines; introd.Robert Hanhart; transl. Mark E. Biddle; Edinburgh: T.&T.Clark, 2002).

19 Regarding a detailed exposition of Augustine’s stancetowards the LXX and his view on the need for a two-columntext, see my “«Vetera et Nova»: zum inspirierten Status derSeptuaginta aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart” (Thesis adDoctoratum in Theologia et Scientiis Patristicis consequendum:Excerpta; Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum; Rome 2007) 46-78.

13

Hengel, in the end, rejects Augustine’s proposal. Ibelieve a different attitude is possible. Augustinearrived at the right conclusion but used arguments thatare no longer tenable. His train of thought is based onthe extension of the legend (that originally regardedonly the Pentateuch) to the whole of the OT canon. Thisstep is enough to shatter his whole argumentation. Littledoes it matter whether the 70 (72) are to be consideredprophets, if their literary activity is limited to thefive Books of Moses.One of the most outstanding textual critics of the

Hebrew bible, Emanuel Tov, has provided us with a newstarting point. In his own intellectual experience heunderwent a “Copernican turn” regarding the canonicalstatus of the MT, the turning point being the dissolutionof the linkage of the so-called Urtext to the Jewishbiblical canon. For Tov, none of the different literarystrata that textual criticism is able to establish shouldbe called “the Urtext”.20 M. J. Mulder concurs.21 All thiscan only mean, according to Tov, that the biblical textis given in the totality of its textual witnesses, notprimarily in one of them. For Tov, every Hebrewmanuscript and translation of antiquity represents one

20 Cf. E. Tov, “The Status of the Masoretic Text in ModernText Editions of the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon,” inThe Canon Debate: On the Origins and Formation of the Bible (ed. Lee MartinMcDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,2002) 234-51.

21 “An Urtext of the biblical books has never existed [...].Textual criticism can therefore never aim at reconstructing anUrtext. Its highest achievable end is the reconstruction of thebiblical text in the form in which it was current during acertain period. During every period there have been textformswhich differed from each other qualitatively. The Qumran findsdemonstrate this for a crucial period of the history of thetransmission of the biblical text. Per analogiam, the same musthave been true in other places and at other times” (M.J.Mulder, “The Transmission of the Biblical Text,” in Mikra. Text,Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism andEarly Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder; exec. ed. Harry Sysling;CRINT 2/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988) 87-135 (here 103).

14

segment of this abstract entity called “the text of theBible”. He even formulates it paradoxically: one can findthe biblical text everywhere and nowhere. Everywhere,because all ancient scrolls up to the medieval Masoreticmanuscript testify to it. Nowhere, because not a singlesource has come down to us, that we could call “the textof the Bible”.22 James Barr concurs.23 Will it be possibleto bring the right starting point to the right conclusionby adding a drop of dogmatic theology to it?

4. The “new” Paradigm for establishing the LXX’sreligious statusIt should be clear from what we have said so far that

none of the elements mentioned under heading 2, areapplicable any more. It is my intention here to apply thenew constellation of interdependence among biblicaltextual traditions to the question about the religiousstatus of the LXX. This can only mean one of the twoextremes of the abovementioned disjunction: the LXX is tobe regarded either “inspired” or an “authentic source ofrevelation”, from a Catholic point of view. Anticipatinga conclusion, this can only suggest that both the textualcritic and the theologian ask, though in different forms,the same question: “which is the LXX’s textual status?”equals, in terms of dogmatic theology, “which is theLXX’s religious status?”.Let us see how textual critics reformulate the LXX’s

textual status. Some characteristics of what I havedubbed the “new” paradigm that has been gaining groundamong biblical textual scholars, can be outlined in thefollowing terms. It is especially here that I point to

22 Cf. Tov, “Status of the Masoretic Text,” 251.23 “Fundamentally, for textual criticism we have to depart

from the older tradition under which the MT was ‘the Text’ towhich others had at most an ancillary or heuristic function.The MT is in principle only one within a large body ofavailable text [sic]. ‘The Text’ is this whole body of availabletext” (J. Barr, review of Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to theSeptuagint, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookre-views.org] [2002], 13, accessed April 15, 2009).

15

the works of D. Barthélemy, Emanuel Tov and AdrianSchenker, who, as I believe, represent this new stance ina most convincing way.24

First among these characteristics is most certainly thechanged opinion as regards the problem of the LXX’sVorlage. Modern biblical philology has come to theconclusion that the first translators, and those ofsubsequent generations, had at their disposal acontinuously changing Hebrew text, and that the so-calledOld Greek is to be referred not so much to the MT, asrather to an only vaguely known Hebrew text (= *HT, theasterisk signifying the lack of manuscript evidence). Inthe new paradigm, therefore, the traditionally believeddependence of the LXX on the MT is shifted towards adependence on a Hebrew text for which however, there isno manuscript evidence (*HT). The Qumran discoveries haveled to the theoretical conviction of so-called local textfamilies and their development over successive periods:different textual forms enjoyed authority at differentmoments of time within different groups. It is preciselyE. Tov who increasingly shuns attributing to the MT apreferential role as regards “the” biblical text,preferring a more neutral approach. Whoever wants to readthe biblical text in its multivalence, so Tov states,

24 A brief bibliography of publications by Adrian Schenker onthis topic: Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten. Jer 31 in derhebräischen und griechischen Bibel (FRLANT 212; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2006). “The Relationship between the earliestSeptuagint and the Masoretic Text in the Book of Kings inLight of 2 Kings 21:2-9,” in Traduire la Bible – Translating the HebrewBible. De la Septante à la Nouvelle Bible Segond – From the Septuagint to theNouvelle Bible Segond (ed. R. David and M. Jimbachian; Sciencesbibliques 15; Montréal: Médiaspaul, 2005) 127-49. The Earliest Textof the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the HebrewBase of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. idem; SBL.SCS 32: Leiden andBoston: Brill, 2003). Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Diehebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform derKönigsbücher (OBO 199; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). Besides these studies (see alsoinfra note 27), one could easily add titles by D. Barthélemy, E.Tov and others.

16

must take into consideration the whole of antique andlate antique biblical textual tradition in a multi-columntext. Thus, Tov aimed for a five-column edition, goingeven beyond the two-column edition envisioned by St.Augustine.The present state of the question regarding the

philological research of the biblical text seems toamount to decreasing the pivotal role played so far bythe MT. A new hierarchy of dependence seems to be on therise: the critical value of the MT and of the LXX for theso-called original text of the Bible, must be measurednot according to the dependence of the LXX on the MT;rather, both the MT and the LXX will have to be measuredon *HT. With the knowledge drawn from the Qumran findingsregarding the condition of the biblical text at the turnof the era, it seems appropriate that also in thetheological realm – as happened in the realm of biblicaltextual criticism – we shift from the traditionalsubordination of the LXX under the MT towards a neutralparallelizing one next to the other: parataxis instead ofhypotaxis. But one element should be added, as the Qumranfindings invite us to do: subordination, prevalent in thetraditional approach, is placed on a different level.Qumran seems to impose subordination of both the MT andthe LXX to the *HT, attributing equal value to both theGreek and the Masoretic textual traditions. Both must besubordinated to a Hebrew text that is no longeraccessible on the manuscript level (i.e. not transmittedby one single source). We could call it the paratacticalhypotaxis of the MT and the LXX as regards the *HT. Thisseemingly confusing expression “paratactical hypotaxis”pretends nothing else but (1) the abandonment of thetraditional subordination of the LXX to the MT; (2) theequality of the Greek and the Masoretic textualtraditions as witnesses to the “original” biblical text;(3) the relativisation of the pretence of an objectivelypure, critically untouchable, original biblical text forthe OT, rendering the absolute position of a givenindividual textual tradition obsolete.

17

This table is, for evident reasons, very limited andrenders only insufficiently the fundamental insight, thatwe neither have the original biblical text in the LXX norin the MT. It is not the author’s intention to advocate arelation of the LXX and the MT to the original biblicaltext in the precise way in which the table shows. Modernbiblical philology rather shows us that the presentscheme should be broadened introducing variousintermediate levels.By means of the theory of local text families, we can

assign the growth and development of OT texts to threedifferent geographical areas. One is accustomed to assumethat the “original” biblical text went through variousmoments of differentiation, called “recensions”,respectively, in Egypt, Palestine, and Babylon – aprocess which resulted in three Hebrew text types: HT1,HT2, HT3. These three families were the beginning of aseries of textual transformations: the Egyptian type textconstituted the Vorlage for the first and earliest Greektranslations (“Old Greek”, OG), from which emerged, bymeans of further recensionary activity, the LXX, as weknow it today in its manuscripts. The Palestine type textwas conserved in the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch, which,as time went on, was translated into Greek (to\Samareitiko/n). In the third geographical realm which hasbeen designated – for lack of a better name – by the cityof Babylon, continued textual recensions produced in thefirst instance a proto-Masoretic text from which the MT,as we know it, later emerged. In the light of these new insights we are forced to

reconsider Auvray’s attempts to see the LXX as a creativetranslation. The new paradigm as proposed here renderssuch reflections outdated. Rather, we are impelled to saythat the MT is not more or less a witness to the originalbiblical text than the LXX because both, each in adistinctive way, constitute for us the only access tothis original text which no longer available. If theexpression “original text” is misleading for the reader,then I shall state it differently: that both textual

18

traditions point to different moments of textualdevelopment that were authoritative at different times.By introducing the term “inspiration”, it should become

clear at this point that the insights of biblical textualcriticism merge with theology because we have begun toapply the results of biblical philology to dogmatictheology. Let us repeat the above phrase changing it onlyslightly: we are impelled to say that the MT is not moreor less inspired than the LXX because both, each in adistinctive way, constitute for us the only way of accessto this original text which is no longer otherwiseavailable.Once we have reached this point to which the historic-

critical method directed us by means of textual analysisof the Dead See findings, our reflection can revert topurely theological parameters: divine providence couldhave arranged the course of history in such a way thatthe “original” biblical text be available to us in themerging or interaction of both the Greek and Masoretic(and other) textual traditions. It is here that we havearrived at the same conclusion as the bishop of Hippo,but by a very different route from what St. Augustinecould have thought possible. His was the rightconclusion, but he had taken the wrong approach.25

Mogens Müller puts it this way: what we call today the“Hebrew Urtext”, i.e. the MT, did not constitute the basisfor the OT textual tradition. He acutely raises thequestion as to why this stage (MT) in the textual makingof the Hebrew bible should be given a higher value thanthe LXX. By setting the MT above the LXX, monopolizingand absolutizing it, one goes beyond the norm and praxisestablished by NT authors; so Müller introduced a newcategory for evaluating the LXX’s religious status, thatof “reception”. Indeed, one could even pose the questionas to which moment of the textual development should besingled out as the inspired text: the earliest one, maybe

25 Cf. my review article Randbemerkungen zu Martin Hengels »TheSeptuagint as Christian Scripture«, Alpha Omega 9 (2006) 169-82 [online:<http://www.upra.org/archivio_pdf/ao61-kranz.pdf> accessedApril 15, 2009].

19

OG? The one witnessed to by the NT? The one used by theOld Church, as we have it in the scriptural quotations ofthe Church Fathers in the oldest Christian manuscripts ofthe LXX (B, S, A)? The one given in today’s MT? There isno quick answer. One conclusion, though, is sure: withinthe boundaries of the old paradigm, scholars were able totheoretically affirm the inspiration of the LXX, but metwith the stern opposition of many colleagues. In the newparadigm, as it has emerged in the last two decades,scholars have completely abandoned the very concept ofinspiration, regarded as a theological parameter out ofbounds for textual critics (not to say even fortheologians who are at a loss when asked what inspirationactually means). By the same token, the LXX has moved upon the value-scale as a means of reaching the “original”biblical text. If one is to consider the religious statusof the LXX in the Old Church in the light of the newparadigm, then the question may be justified whether“inspiration” is the right concept to formulate intheological language this newly acquired insight. Merephilology is not enough to understand it. Can biblicalphilology work hand in hand, again, with dogmatictheology – in the realm of inspiration? Will thetheologian find the courage to express in his ownlanguage the results of contemporary textual criticism?

5. A new chance for an old idea: is the Septuagint aninspired text?Pope Benedict XVI, at his famous Regensburg address (12

Sept. 2006), directed his attention to the necessity ofincorporating Logos into the concept of God, i.e. ofconsidering God in conformity to reason. He said: “Todaywe know that the Greek translation of the Old Testamentproduced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than asimple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory)translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independenttextual witness and a distinct and important step in thehistory of revelation, one which brought about thisencounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and

20

spread of Christianity”.26 Two observations on thisparagraph which went rather unnoticed: (1) The Holy Father refers to the encounter between

“Biblical message and Greek thought”, an encounter thatfound a literary consistence principally in the creationof the Bible called the “Septuagint”. To put it stillmore clearly, the dialogue among religions had beenprepared in a specific cultural milieu, from which theLXX had flowed, so to speak, as a natural consequence.What is at stake here is the Alexandrian tradition: theLXX encompasses all the progress and merits of theAlexandrian tradition in the widest sense of the word. Itbecomes clear, then, that by LXX we are not to understandonly the biblical books that were actually translated,but also those that were composed for the first time inGreek and as such have been received into the Catholiccanon. What was referred to “in the widest sense of theword” must be restricted, however, to the Catholicunderstanding of the biblical canon for the OT. If we areto consider the possibility of inspiration for the LXX ina Catholic understanding, then we must limit our visionto those products of Alexandrian Jewry that have comefrom the symbiosis of “what is Greek in the best sense ofthe word and the biblical understanding of faith in God”(Regensburg address) and were later received into thecanon by the dogmatic decree of the Tridentinum.In other words: the question does not focus so much on

which determined textual form we should read into theconcept: “the LXX”, whether this be the OG or any otherlater textual development. It is not a particular textform or recension that is at stake. At stake is theproduct of a mentality, of a frame of mind, that did not

26 Address at a Meeting with the representatives of sciencein the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg (September12, 2006) by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI: Glaube, Vernunftund Universität. Erinnerungen und Reflexionen (12 Sept. 2006); electronicversion with added footnotes available online:<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html> accessed April 15, 2009.

21

shrink from joining biblical faith to Greek thinking inpre-Christian times. It is in this sense that Iunderstand the term “LXX”. Maybe in a way that thetextual critic is not used to, since he or she willprecisely focus on that which we propose to avoid:singling out a determined textual form or state.(2) This thought will surface with even greater clarity

when taking a second look at the above quotation from theRegensburg address. The Holy Father himself referred to astudy by A. Schenker with the revealing title: “SacredScripture exists simultaneously in various canonicalforms”.27 Among biblical scholars – and there is no needhere for underscoring the importance of Schenker’s worksfor biblical textual criticism – the conviction isgaining ground that the biblical text must be conceivedof in terms of polymorphy. Schenker writes: “SinceScripture is made up of a certain textual diversity thatcannot be resolved further, we are to grasp its textualform not as a solo song, but as a polyphony.”28

The expression “translation of the LXX” conceals areality that forces upon us today a much greaterflexibility than the Fathers of the Church wereaccustomed to. These sharply distinguished among variousrecensions, known even by their author’s name, discardingby the same token these younger Jewish translationsproduced in Christian times. For the Fathers, thetranslations by the seventy elders, by Aquila, bySymmachus and Theodotion all still had tangibleconsistence: they still were able to consult them intheir manuscript form, as is obvious from the exegetical

27 The reference was given in footnote 9, later added to theprinted text of his address, available at <www.vatican.va>,cf. footnote 26. Adrian Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsisteen plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées,” in L’interpretazionedella Bibbia nella Chiesa. Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per laDottrina della Fede (Atti e documenti 11; Città del Vaticano: LEV,2001) 178-86; “Die Heilige Schrift subsistiert gleichzeitig inmehreren kanonischen Formen,” in Studien zu Propheten undReligionsgeschichte (ed. idem; Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände36; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003) 192-200.

28 A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste,” 180.

22

work by Jerome. Dominique Barthélemy opened up newhorizons for LXX studies with his ground breakingpublication “Les devanciers d’Aquila” that he anticipateda decade before with an introductory essay.29 For ourpurpose here it suffices to retain that by the subject inthe question “is the LXX inspired?”, we are to understandnot so much what modern textual criticism reads into thatname, but rather what the Old Church came to understandand receive under it.This understanding of the LXX that also incorporates

into our understanding the notion of reception of thebiblical text, will enable us to answer some of thepossible objections to our proposal: Barthélemy’sinvestigations have shown that the ensemble of biblicalwritings which we have come to know under the name of theLXX, might, with all probability, contain bits andpieces, if not entire books, that can no longer beattributed to the time of public revelation. Thetranslation of the book of Daniel by the LXX was soonreplaced by Theodotion-Daniel; the version ofEcclesiastes might in reality, so Barthélemy affirms, bereferred to Aquila. Furthermore, some biblical books canbe attributed to a different Jewish translator:Lamentations, Song of Songs, Ruth, a part of the Books ofKings might have come from Theodotion’s pen.Can this ensemble be truly called inspired? It is my

conviction that the theologian should not be puzzled by29 D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de

l’histoire de la Septante,” RB 60 (1953) 18-29, here 19(reprint in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament [OBO 21;Fribourg, Suisse: Ed. Univ.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1978] 38-50); Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publicationintégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert deJuda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bibleréalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du Rabbinat palestinien(VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). Cf. my contribution to theBiographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, s.v. “BARTHÉLEMY, Dominique(Jean-Dominique)”, in BBKL 29 (2008) 118-31 [online:<http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/b/barthelemy_d.shtml> accessed April15, 2009].

23

these arguments. With M. Müller I underline the “use” ofthe Old Church: we are interested in the Septuagint justas it has been received by the Old Church. We are torefrain, then, from filtering the LXX with the tools ofmodern textual criticism if we are to understand itsreligious status. This stance will not be to everybody’sliking. Aside from pointing to the reception of biblicaltexts as part of the criteria for establishing the factof inspiration, we ought to sound the possibilities thatarise from merging the arguments offered by both the newand the old paradigm. The theological arguments employedin patristic reasoning have been researched elsewhere.30

The new paradigm of interdependence of biblical textualtraditions teaches us, rather, to approach the biblicaltext for the OT by more than one path: the textualmultivalence theory. This new approach will enable thetheologian to interpret past magisterial pronouncementson the subject matter of inspiration as made within theboundaries of the old paradigm, and to update them. Whenwe read that e.g. biblical texts are inspired “as theyhave flowed from the pen of the hagiographer” we can nowsay that neither the MT nor the LXX offer us this precisetext. The new interdependence theory of biblical textsinduces us to see in the plurality of ancient textualtraditions only a gateway to access this inspired text.Dogmatic theology has yet to react to these new insightsoffered by modern biblical textual criticism. This essaycan only be an attempt of merging these findings with theChristian dogma of inspiration by pointing to thedifferences between paradigms:

Old paradigm New paradigma) The MT is the “Vorlage” a) LXX is referred to *HT

30 Cf. my essay “Die theologischen Argumente der Kirchenväter(2.-4. Jh.) zugunsten der Inspiration der griechischenÜbersetzung der Septuaginta (LXX),” Alpha Omega 7/2 (2005) 231-62 [online:

<http://www.upra.org/archivio_pdf/ao52_kranz.pdf> accessedApril 15, 2009].

24

for the LXXb) Variances as to the MT are

reckoned “errors” or “Tendenzübersetzungen”

b) Variances as to the MT are due to a different Vorlage

c) The Hebrew text (HT) was assumed to be identical with the MT

c) MT is only one among other later stages of textual development

d) Model of personal inspiration: one author, known by name

d) Dei Verbum (ch. 11) prefers the plural when referring to the author(s) of a biblical Book

e) The Urtext is deemed accessible, since it is identical to MT

e) Urtext accessible only bycombining the different textual traditions: polymorphy

f) Inspiration of the LXX only possible by inspired translators

f) Inspiration of the LXX is defined by its essential linkage to thebiblical textual tradition

g) Reduction of the process of revelation to the Hebrew

g) This same linkage extends the process of revelation to all textual traditions

Abstract

The discussion regarding the inspired character of theLXX had come to an end with a series of publications,mainly by French-speaking scholars, of the fifties andsixties of the past century. Evidently, to regard abiblical translation as inspired belongs to the realm oftheology and is thus confessionally conditioned. In thispresent essay I would like to describe two ways of

25

considering the particular problem of the “religiousstatus” of the Septuagint, i.e. the problem of itsinspired character, as based on two different ways ofviewing the textual history of the Old Testament. Thisapproach will enable scholars to return to an oldquestion with new insights: rather than basing theirreflections on a theology pertaining to a particularChristian confession, they are invited to revisit theinterdependence of textual traditions of the OT.

Dirk Kurt KRANZ LC Faculty of Theology,Pontifical Athenaeum “Regina Apostolorum”

26