Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Two: Whether the Hebrew Edition has been Corrupted
Now follows the second question, whether the Hebrew edition is complete or has been corrupted and vitiated. And first the heretics of this age, from hatred of the Vulgate edition, attribute too much to the Hebrew edition. For Calvin in his Antidote to the Council of Trent, and Chemnitz in his Examination of the same Council, and George Major in his preface to the Psalms, wanted to test and emend everything by reference to the Hebrew text, which they not seldom call the most pure source.
This opinion is very plainly false. For in the first place Calvin in his Institutes ch.6 sect.11 contends that in Isaiah ch.9 one should read “and he will be called wonderful etc.”, but the Hebrew text now does not have “he will be called” but “he will call,” nor was Calvin ignorant that the Vulgate edition is in this place better than the Hebrew. For thus he speaks: “Nor may the Jews bark at this and so invert the reading: ‘this is the name that God, strong, father of the coming age, will call him’, and then this only do they leave to the son, that he should be ‘prince of peace’; for why should so many epithets be in this place heaped upon God?” Therefore by the confession of Calvin the source, which he himself wanted to seem everywhere to be pure, flows in places with muddy turbulence. For the same reason Calvin in the same place wants Jeremiah 23 to be read, “and this is the name they will call him, the Lord our justice.” But the Hebrew source has “he will call him” and not “they will call him.”
1 This argument does not seem very convincing, since Adam could have spoken another language where the several words were similar, as indeed ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are in English.
Further in Psalm 22 there is no Christian who does not read, “they pierced my hands and my feet,” but the Hebrew texts read, “as a lion” and not “they pierced”. Again in Psalm 18 the Hebrew codices read “their line (or their perpendicular) has gone out through all the earth,” although however the Septuagint translates “their voice has gone out…”, and this version Blessed Paul has approved of when in Romans ch.10 he cites this psalm. What of the fact that Jerome renders the letters: “their sound has gone out”? So that it is altogether necessary either to blame Paul and Jerome or at least to confess that the source in this place is not pure. But it is likely that a different Hebrew word should be read, for with only one letter added the word changes from this noun to that. Add that sometimes whole sentences are lacking in the Hebrew, although they are not lacking in the Septuagint nor in Jerome’s translation. We have an example in Exodus ch.2 where this whole sentence is lacking: “He begot also another son, and called his name Eliazer, saying, ‘the God of my father is my help’, and ‘he has freed me from the hand of Pharaoh’.”
Passing over these authors then, who falsely attribute too much purity to the Hebrew source, it seems we must also confront others who, with a zeal indeed good, but I do not know whether according to knowledge, claim that the Jews, through hatred of the Christian faith, have deliberately distorted and corrupted many places of Scripture. So teach Jacob, Bishop of Chirstopolitanus, in his preface to the Psalms, and Canus bk.2 ch.13 on Theological Places.But very weighty arguments conflict with this opinion. First is Origen on Isaiah ch.8, as Jerome reports on Isaiah ch.6, and Jerome himself in the same place, who argue in this way: If the Hebrews sometimes corrupted the Scriptures, either they did it before the advent of Christ or afterwards. If before, why do Christ and the Apostles never reprove them for so signal a crime, especially since they were not silent about lesser ones. Wherefore the Lord says in John 5: “you search the Scriptures,” and Matthew 23: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, therefore whatever they say to you, that keep and do;” who will find it credible that Christ invited men, without any warning, to read corrupted Scriptures? Or that he sent them off to hear and follow corrupters? But if the corruption happened after the coming of Christ, how is it that the testimonies that are cited by Christ and the Apostles are almost all found now in Moses and the Prophets as Christ and the Apostles cited them? Would they perhaps thus have quoted them when they knew by the Spirit that they were soon to be distorted by the Jews? Therefore if neither before nor after the coming of the Savior the sacred letters were vitiated by the Hebrews, it certainly follows that they were never vitiated. And this is the argument of Jerome and Origen.
A second argument is from St. Augustine in City of God bk.15 ch.13, who proves it from this, that it does not seem in any way credible that the Jews wanted to rip the truth from their own codices so as to take away authority from us, and, even if they had wanted to, it is not likely they could have done it. But let us hear his own words: “If I ask,” he says, “which is more credible, that the nation of the Jews, diffused so far and wide, were able with one counsel to conspire in writing down this lie, and, while they envied authority in others, took truth away from themselves; or that seventy men [sc. the Septuagint], who were even themselves Jews, located in one place, begrudged the truth itself to foreign nations and then did it by common counsel? Who does not see which is more readily, more easily believed? But far be it that any prudent man believe either that the Jews were capable of so much perversity and malice in codices so many and so far and wide dispersed, or that those seventy remarkable men could have communicated this one counsel to each other about begrudging truth to the Gentiles.” So Augustine.
Someone will say that this corruption of the Hebrew codices happened after the times of Augustine and Jerome; therefore their testimony makes little for the present point. But Augustine’s reasons have place at all times. Next, if the corruption took place after the time of those Fathers, what reason can be given that Jerome’s translation of the Psalms so agrees in everything with the Hebrew text now extant? And yet the chief complaint is about the corruption of the Psalms. Surely Jerome did not translate them the way the Jews were going to falsify them? Nor in conflict with this is the place in Psalm 22 where Jerome translates “they pierced.” For in the Masoretic text, which the Rabbis wrote after the time of Jerome, they advise that in Psalm 22 “they pierced” should be written and not “as a lion”, whence is evidently collected that “as a lion” is now read by error of the scribes.
A third argument can be taken from the incredible reverence of the Jews toward the sacred books. Philo writes in his book about the Departure of the Children of Israel from Egypt, and it is also cited by Eusebius Praep. Evang. bk.8 ch.2, that up to his own times for a space of more than 2,000 years not even a word was ever changed in the law of the Hebrews, and that any Jew would rather die 100 times than let the law be changed in any respect. But as to the superstition of more recent Jews, who adore the law almost as a divine spirit, and if ever it falls on the ground decree a public fast, see John Isaac in his response to the books of Lindanus on the best sort of interpretation of the Scriptures.
A fourth argument: if the Jews had wanted to falsify the divine Scriptures in hatred of Christians, without doubt they would have taken away the chief prophecies. But that they did not do at all; since the things in which the Hebrew differs from the Greek and Latin are often of no moment as far as faith and religion are concerned, and often the Hebrew codices vex the Jews more than do the Greek and Latin ones. Certainly in the second Psalm the Latin and Greek have: “Learn discipline, lest the Lord be angry,” from which nothing openly against the Jews can be deduced; but in the Hebrew it is: “kiss the Son, lest he be angry,” that is, show reverence to the Son of God, lest he himself be angry, and this place is most invincible against the Jews. Will it therefore be credible that the Jews changed Scripture so it might more clearly give testimony to the Son of God? Again in Isaiah 53 where we have: “And we thought him as one leprous, and smitten by God, and humbled,” in the Hebrew can be read “and a God smitten, and humbled,” which certainly gives much trouble to the Jews who do not believe that Christ will be God.
A fifth and final argument is taken from the providence by which God has always cared for his Church. For it is not likely that God would have allowed that the words of so many illustrious Prophets should be generally falsified, especially since he dispersed the Jews through the whole earth, and wished them to carry about the books of the law and the Prophets, for this end, that our enemies should provide witness to Christian truth. Justin noted this fact in his speech of exhortation, and St. Augustine in his City of God bk.18 ch.46, and from Psalm 58 is manifestly deduced: “Do not kill them, lest ever my people forget; scatter them in your strength etc.” For that is why the Jews were dispersed carrying round the Sacred Books, so that when the Pagans do not believe what we say was predicted about Christ but say that prophecies of this sort were made up by us, we may send them to our enemies the Jews, who carry the prophecies with them.
But there are objections to the contrary. First are the testimonies of the Fathers, as of Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, of Eusebius in Hist. bk.4 ch.18, of Origen in Homily 12 on Jeremiah, of Chrysostom in Homily 5 on Matthew, and of Jerome in epist.89 to Augustine on Micah ch.5 and on Galatians ch.3, who suspect that the Jews erased certain things from the Hebrew codices and certain things corrupted in hatred of the Christians.
I reply that Justin and Eusebius never wrote that the Hebrew text was corrupted by the Hebrews, but that the Greek text of the Septuagint was. These are the words of Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho: “And I wish you to know,” he says, “that they took away many and whole places from the translation made by those old men who were with Ptolemy, in which places is clearly shown that he himself the crucified one is God and man and that it was foretold he would hang on a cross and die.” Thus Justin. Nor does he ever anywhere write anything about the corruption of the Hebrew text. But Eusebius says nothing other than that Trypho was convicted by Justin that his ancestors took away many chapters from the Scriptures. And this is not to be otherwise understood than as Justin himself expounded in his own words.
Origen also openly speaks of the corruption of the Septuagint version; for he says that the Jews took away from the Septuagint version the word ‘Judah’ in that verse of Jeremiah ch.17: “the sin of Judah is written with an iron pen,” and put in its place, “the sin of them is written with an iron pen.” For thus does Origen speak: “Then follows another prophecy which, not finding – I do not know why – in the Septuagint, I found in the remaining versions that agree with what the Hebrew says.” And later: “The Jews, who have falsified some of the exemplars, also in this place produce, instead of the ‘sin of Judah’, ‘the sin of them’.” Which corruption Jerome also makes mention of on this place of Jeremiah.
Further, Chrysostom speaks of the Jewish translators, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who in their translations from Hebrew to Greek produced many things falsely in hatred of the Christian faith and in censure of the Septuagint. About which Blessed Jerome speaks in his epistle to Augustine, which is number 11 among the epistles of Augustine, where he says that he wanted to translate the divine books from Hebrew so as to restore what the Jews had left out or corrupted. Now the same Jerome in the commentaries cited doubts and does not assert, but in his commentary on Isaiah, which he wrote later, as is plain from the preface to his commentary on Isaiah and from the last book about Illustrious Men, he openly mocks those who think that the Hebrew codices are false.
Second the objection is made that by the confession of the Jews, which they openly assert, many things have been changed in the sacred books by certain of their wise men; and those changes they call the correction of the Scribes.
I reply in two ways. First, perhaps it is not true that any edition of the Bible was made by the Scribes. For the origin of this opinion is the Talmud, which is a book very full of fables. Wherefore neither Epiphanius nor Jerome, who are older than the Talmud, ever make mention of this Tikkun Sophrim.
I add next that, if the Tikkun Sophrim is not a fable, it is not a corruption but a true emendation, not made by any of the Scribes but by Ezra and the other holy Prophets who, after the return from captivity, restored the sacred books and who, as the Jews relate, celebrated the Council which they themselves call the Great Synagogue, because great men were present at it; and in that Council they restored to their integrity the sacred books that had been dispersed and distorted in the time of the captivity. Certainly in our Vulgate edition those places are contained in the way the Scribes are said to have corrected them; and Blessed Jerome in his commentaries on the Prophets indicates that he read those places in the same way.
They say that in Genesis ch.18, where we now have, “Abraham was still standing in the presence of the Lord,” there was once, “the Lord was still standing in the presence of Abraham,” but that the place was changed by the Scribes. But the Vulgate edition retains the former reading. Again Numbers ch.11, where we now have, “may I find grace in your eyes, and may I not see my evil,” they say is a correction of the Scribes, and that beforehand it read, “may I not see your evil.” However, the Vulgate edition reads in the former way.
They say besides that in Hosea ch.9 there was once “in my flesh from them;” but the Scribes corrected it to “when I will go back from them.” But the Vulgate edition has “when I will go back from them;” and thus did even Blessed Jerome read. Again they say that Habbakuk ch.1 was before: “Surely from the beginning Lord my God, my holy one, thou shalt not die?” But the Scribes corrected it to “we shall not die.” But the Vulgate edition reads this in the last way, and Blessed Jerome too read it thus. They say also that Malachi ch.1 was, “And they have blown me out,” but the Scribes corrected it to, “And you have blown it out.” But certainly the Vulgate edition, along with Jerome and the Septuagint does not have ‘me’ but ‘it’ or ‘them’. I say the same about the other corrections of the Scribes that are collected by Procherus in his first book on Victory against the Jews, and Figuerola Valentinus in ch.3 of the first part of his book Against the Jews.
From this is apparent that certain people, when they believe they are attacking the Hebrews, are impudently attacking the Church itself. For if those corrections of the Scribes are corruptions of the Hebrew text, then it follows openly that the Vulgate edition too is most corrupt, which edition, however, the Church has handed down to us as an authentic version.
Third they object that in Psalm 13 eight lines are missing in all the printed Hebrew codices, namely the following:
“Their mouth is an open sepulcher, With their tongues they act deceitfully.
The poison of asps is under their tongues. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood.
And they have not known the way of peace. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
These lines, however, are cited by the Apostle in Romans ch.3, and are contained in the Septuagint. But this does not seem to have been capable of being done by the negligence of the writers, but from the pure malice of the Jews, who took these lines away from the Hebrew to show that our Apostle did not faithfully put forward the testimony of the Psalm.
Blessed Jerome responds to this objection, which had once been made by himself, in his preface to bk.16 on Isaiah, that these lines do not pertain properly to Psalm 13 but are cited by the Apostle from various places of Scripture; then they were transferred into the Psalter by one of the other Apostles. For the first and second lines are found in Psalm 5, the third in Psalm 139, the fourth in Psalm 9, the fifth, sixth, and seventh are found in Isaiah ch.59, the last one in Psalm 35. And in the same place Jerome adds that these lines are not in the Septuagint nor has any Greek author wished to expound them in his commentaries. Origen also in his commentaries on Romans ch.3 says that the Apostle took these lines from various parts of Scripture. By which words he manifestly indicates that these lines are not found in the Hebrew text or in the Septuagint.
But they make objection and prove that these lines were once in the Hebrew, because now they are found in a certain very ancient English codex. I reply that those lines of the English codes are manifestly additions. For neither are all the words Hebrew, as the word for ‘fate’, nor even is the phrasing, especially in the line “their mouth is deceit, and bitterness has filled it.” For the Hebrews are not wont to place the verb at the end. See many things about this matter in the book of notes on various readings of the Vulgate edition by Francisco Luca of Bruges.
You will say that if things are so why does the Church allow these lines to be in the Vulgate edition? Surely for this cause, that they are also themselves certain parts of sacred Scripture, and that they could not be removed without disturbance and scandal for the people, since they have been there for a long time, just as too the Church allows some errors of typography.
Finally Canus objects that it is evident the divine codices have been corrupted by the Hebrews because Genesis ch.8 in Hebrew reads: “the raven departed and returned,” while in the Vulgate edition and the Septuagint and all the Fathers read, “did not return.” I reply that this is not read in the Hebrew but that the raven went out in going and returning until the waters dried up, which does not signify that the raven returned to the Ark, but that it flew around the Ark going and returning as birds are wont to do, and perhaps also by returning to the roof of the Ark and then departing, and doing so often until the waters dried up; with which well coheres that it departed and did not return, namely within the Ark. Add that there are also not lacking Latin codices that have that it departed and returned, as can be learnt from various readings in the notes to the Louvain Bible.
So, with these two opinions refuted, the third remains, which I think to be most true, and it is from Driedo in bk.2 of Ecclesiastical Dogmas and Scriptures ch.1 and from others who teach that the Hebrew Scriptures have not been wholly distorted by the industry or malice of the Jews; nor yet are they altogether whole and pure but have some errors that have crept in partly through the negligence or ignorance of the copyists, especially since in Hebrew it is easy to go wrong because of certain letters that are very similar; partly too by the ignorance of the Rabbis who added the pointings. For since Hebrew words could be read in various ways if they lack pointings, it is not remarkable if sometimes they themselves also in marking the pointings erred from the truth. It can also happen that from corrupt feeling and hatred for Christ the reading sometimes was more approved by them which favored Christians less.
Besides, these sorts of errors are not of so great moment that in what pertains to faith and good morals the integrity of the sacred Scripture is deficient. For to a great extent the discrepancy in the various readings is found in certain words that do not much or at all change the sense. But the errors that happen from the addition of pointings, do not at all damage the truth; for the pointings are extrinsic additions and do not change the text. Therefore we can, if we wish, remove the pointings and read differently.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME