Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions

Chapter Eleven: The Objections of the Heretics against the Vulgate Edition are Solved

The arguments of the heretics against the Vulgate edition can be reduced to three.

The first is that Blessed Jerome translated many things differently from what we have, and blamed many things in our Vulgate edition; but response has been given to this above in chapter eight [and nine].

Second argument. The word of God is more to be believed that is contained in the sources of the Hebrew and Greek codices than what is contained in the streams of the translations; for the Hebrew and Greek codices are of the Prophets and Apostles who could not err; but the Latin ones are of various translators who could err. For it is one thing to be a translator, another to be a Prophet, as Jerome teaches in his preface to the Pentateuch. And the same Jerome everywhere blames the old translation in his commentaries and Against Jovinian bk.1; but Blessed Augustine not only in general says that a translator can err, Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.12 and epist.19 and 59, but also in epist.8 to Jerome asserts that Jerome could have erred in his translation.

Add that the Fathers everywhere teach that one must have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek sources. Jerome in Against Helvidius and in epistle to Marcella, which begins “After the first epistle,” teaches that the Latin edition of the Gospels must be recalled to the Greek sources; and he says the same about emending the Latin edition of the Old Testament from the Hebrew in his commentary on Zachariah ch.8. The same is contained in Augustine Christian Doctrine bk.2 chs.11, 12, 15, and epist.59 and elsewhere. And what is more remarkable, in Pontifical Law itself dist. can.9. As for the old books it says: “As the faith of the old books has been examined from the Hebrew volumes, so the truth of the new ones needs the standard of the Greek.”

I reply that it cannot be denied but that the sources of the Scriptures are to be preferred to the streams of the translations when it is clear that the sources are not muddied; but that now the sources are flowing muddily in many places we have already showed above, and it can scarcely be denied but that, just as the Latin Church was more constant in retaining faith than the Greek Church, so also it was more vigilant in defending its codices from corruption. For Jerome once wrote this in a letter to Damasus about the word hypostasis, namely that, with the patrimony squandered by the Greeks, the inheritance of the Fathers is only preserved incorrupt among the Latins.

But as to the objection that the translators could sometimes have had lapses, there are not lacking those who reply that the old translator of the New Testament and also Blessed Jerome as translator of the Old Testament, being illumined by the special light of the Holy Spirit, could not have erred; but there is no need to have recourse to this escape. For we admit that a translator is not a prophet and could have erred, but we say that he did not err in the translation which the Church has approved.

For the Vulgate edition is not from one author, but some is from Jerome, some from Lucian, some from Theodotion, some from some other unknown translator, but it seems silly to say that the heretic Theodotion could not have erred, and even that Jerome never erred, since he himself on Isaiah ch.9 says that he erred, and the Church has accepted his correction. The Church then has not canonized those authors, but has only approved this version; yet it has not so approved it that it asserted that no errors of the copyists can be found in it; but it wished to make us certain that in things especially that pertain to faith and morals there are no errors of the translators in this version.

To the other point about emendation of the Latin codices by the Hebrew and Greek, I reply that there are four times when we are permitted to have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek sources, as the Fathers advise.

First, when there seems to be an error of the copyists in our codices; thus we see that in the new Missals the verse of Ecclesiastes ch.45 has been emended to, “He gave precepts in his presence (coram),” when before it corruptly read: “He gave him a heart for the precepts (cor ad).” For in the Greek it says “kata prosōpon [in his presence]” where there is no reason to doubt the meaning, but a change from coram to cor ad was easy to make. So in Ecclesiastes ch.24, “I am as the river Dorix,” should be corrected to, “I am as a ditch of a river,” as it is in the Greek. For there is nowhere a river Dorix. For although Rabanus in his commentary on this place says, on the opinion of certain persons, that there is a river in Armenia called Dorix, yet he proves it from no author. But the Greek ‘dioryx’ is a ditch drawn from a river to irrigate the land.

So Wisdom ch.12, “You condemn him who should not be punished, and you banish the stranger by your strength,” we see is not badly corrected in the Louvain Bibles in this way, “Him who should not be punished you think by your strength to have condemned outside,” as is clearly collected from the Greek; and it is manifestly an error of the copyists, although St. Gregory Morals bk.3 ch.11 piously expounded the first opinion.

Thus the verse of Psalm 41, “to God the living fount,” could be safely changed into, “to God living and strong.” For in the Hebrew it is plainly “to God living, strong,” and in the Greek it is the same, where there is no occasion for error. In our translation ‘strong’ (fortem) could easily have been changed into ‘fount’ (fontem), especially since the preceding words are, “my soul has thirsted.” So too in the Missal we see that this verse of John ch.19 has been emended, “He took her into his own (sua),” which before read, “for his own (suam),” although the Greek codex plainly has “into his own.”

Second, when the Latin codices vary such that it cannot be certainly established what the true Vulgate reading is, we can then have recourse to the sources and be therefrom aided to find the true reading. So in Joshua ch.5 certain Latin codices have, “to whom he swore that he would show them a land flowing with milk and honey,” and others have, “that he would not show them etc.” The latter seems to be the true reading, for in the Hebrew a ‘not’ is firmly added. Just as on the contrary in Joshua ch.11 some codices have, “there was not a city to which he might not hand himself over,” and others have, “there was not a city where he might hand himself over,” and the latter is truer because it is conformed to the Hebrew, and the following words require it. So in Luke ch.1 some codices have, “redemption of his people,” and others have, “for his people,” and the latter seems truer, since so it is in the Greek.

Third, when the words or sentence in Latin is ambiguous we can have recourse to the sources, if it happen that there is no ambiguity in them. So what we read in Genesis ch.3, “cursed is the earth in your work,” can be understood of future work, that is, when you cultivate it, and about the past, that is about Adam’s sin, because of which the earth has been cursed. But in the Hebrew there is no ambiguity, since the Hebrew word can only signify ‘because of you’, that is, because of your sin. Hence also Blessed Jerome advises in his Hebrew Questions that they translated correctly who said, “cursed is the earth in your transgression.” However I am not convinced it could so have happened that this reading was in the Hebrew and it was changed by a fault of the copyists.

Thus too what we read in Luke ch.2, “On earth peace to men of good will,” the ‘of good will’ is ambiguous for it can be referred to ‘men’ and to ‘peace’; but from the Greek it is collected that it is better joined with ‘peace’ so that the sense is, “on earth peace to men; peace, I say, of the good will of God toward men.” For ‘good will’ in Greek is for the most part not the good will of man but the good will of God toward men. So Psalm 2, “lest when the Lord is angry,” and, “when his anger flared up for a moment,” and, “blessed are they who trust in him.” In the Latin there is a doubt whether these things are said of the Father or the Son, for there is mention of both in this Psalm. But from the Hebrew one manifestly collects that these things are said of the Son. Finally in Psalm 138, “my face (os) is not hidden from you,” there is doubt in the Latin whether it is ‘face’ (os, oris) or ‘bone’ (os, ossis). But in Hebrew it is clear, for the word is ‘face’.

Fourth, and last, it is licit to have recourse to the sources to understand the force and propriety of the words. Thus the verse in Exodus ch.1, “he has built them houses,” we must understand from the Hebrew phrase that it signifies fertility and abundance of sons. So also in Psalm 112, “who makes the barren inhabit a house.” The verse too of Psalm 138, “your eyes have seen me imperfect,” the Hebrew clearly indicates that it properly signifies an embryo. And the verse in the same place, “your knowledge is made marvelous out of me,” is made readily clear from the Hebrew text, for it signifies that the knowledge is more marvelous than man can grasp.

Those too who are skilled in this language will recognize what sort of Hebraism is found in the words of Paul in Ephesians ch.3, “to know also the love of Christ surpassing knowledge.” For the sense is not that the love of Christ is a gift that is more eminent than knowledge, as the words seem to mean, but that the love of Christ is greater than can be grasped by knowledge.

The heretics take a third argument from various places in which the Vulgate edition seems altogether to contain error. And although they bring forward these places without any order, we however will relate them in order. First places that they adduce from various books of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; then those they adduce from the Psalms; finally those they adduce from the New Testament.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME