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

Chapter Nine: On the Author of the Vulgate Edition

There is no little question about this our Vulgate Latin edition, whether it is the ancient one that existed before Jerome, or whether it is of Jerome himself, or is mixed from both. That it is not of Blessed Jerome is thought or certainly suspected by Sanctes Pagninus in the preface to his translation of the Bible to Pope Clement VII, by Paul Foro Bishop of Sempronius in his Day of the Passion of the Lord bk.2 ch.1. That it is on the contrary of Jerome is maintained by Augustine Eugubius and John Pico della Mirandola in the books they edited on this matter, and by some others.

But that it is mixed from the old and the new is taught by John Driedo on Ecclesiastical Dogmas and Scriptures bk.2 ch.1, and by Sixtus Senensis at the end of Holy Library bk.8.

We therefore for the sake of brevity and clarity will embrace our opinion in four propositions.

First proposition. The Latin New Testament of the Vulgate Edition we have from the old version, which however Blessed Jerome emended. This we prove most of all by the argument that many places which Jerome blames in the old version we find in our edition corrected in the way he affirms they need to be corrected. And to bring forward some places: in his commentary on Matthew ch.2 he says this: “in Bethlehem of Judea” should be “in Bethlehem Juda.” In Against Jovinian bk.1 he blames this verse in I Corinthians ch.7: “divided is woman and virgin,” and he wants to be read, “an unmarried woman and a virgin etc.” In the epistle to Marcella, at the end of the second volume, he blames this verse of Romans ch.12: “serving the time,” and wants to be read, “serving the Lord.” In the same place he blames the verse in I Timothy ch.1: “human speech,” and teaches that “faithful speech” should be read. In his commentary on Galatians ch.2 he blames the verse: “to whom we yielded for an hour,” and restores, “to whom we yielded not for an hour.” And in his commentary on ch.5 he blames the verse: “your persuasion is from God,” and wants to be read, “it is not from him who calls you.” In his commentary on Ephesians ch.1 he blames the verse: “who is the pledge of inheritance for the redemption of adoption,” and wants to be read, “for the redemption of acquisition.” But all these things and many others of that sort we now have in the Vulgate edition the way he himself advises they should be read.

Besides, it is clear that Jerome emended the New Testament by order of Pope Damasus; it is also clear that his emendation was accepted and greatly pleased the men of his time, as can be understood from epistle 10 of Augustine to Jerome. It is not therefore likely that it was afterwards rejected but that it was rather retained and preserved.

Nor should one by moved by the fact that there are some places not emended as Jerome advises they should be emended, such as is the verse in Romans ch.12, “to be wise unto sobriety,” which Jerome

Against Jovinian bk.1 wants to read, “to be wise unto chastity.” And the verse of I Corinthians ch.13, “if I hand over my body so as to burn,” which Jerome on Galatians ch.5 wants to read, “so as to glory,” and certain other things which he himself corrects in his commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus. For he himself in his preface to the Gospels to Damasus confesses that he did not correct everything that he thought should be corrected, lest he seem to have changed too much.

Further, it can happen that while he was writing these commentaries he thought those things needed to be changed which afterwards, when he undertook to emend the New Testament, he judged on better consideration should not be changed. For that he wrote those commentaries before he emended the New Testament is collected from his book on Illustrious Men at the end, and indeed our version in these two places is better than that which Jerome then wanted to have substituted.

Second proposition. The Psalter in the Latin Vulgate edition is not that which divine Jerome translated from the Hebrew, nor that which he translated from the Greek Septuagint, but that which he himself emended, it having been translated from the edition of St. Lucian the martyr, since Blessed Jerome labored four times on the Psalter. For he translated it from Hebrew into Latin, as is plain from his epistle to Sophronius; again he translated it from Greek into Latin, from the pure Septuagint version as it was contained in the Hexapla of Origen, as he himself testifies in his epistle to Sunia and Fretella. Finally he twice emended the old Latin edition, which was translated from the common and vulgate Greek, as is plain from his preface to the Psalms to Paul and Eustochius. But let us briefly prove each point.

We say then that our Psalter is not that which Blessed Jerome translated from the Hebrew, and this is certain; for it is extant in the works of Blessed Jerome and it almost everywhere differs from ours, at least in words.

We add that neither is it that which he translated from Origen’s Hexapla, but the common one which he twice emended. And this is proved from his epistle to Sunia and Fretella, for there he says that what is contained in Psalm 5, “Direct my way in thy sight,” is contained differently in the Septuagint and in all other translations save the common and Vulgate one. But our edition has it thus, therefore our edition is the common and Vulgate one and is distinct from the pure translation of the Septuagint. Besides in the same place Jerome says that what is contained in Psalm 73, “make us rest all the feast days of our God from the land,” is contained in the Septuagint in the Hexapla, and that in all other translators is “let us go or let us consume all the feast days,” and only in the Vulgate is there contained, “make us rest.” But we have “make us rest.” Again what we have in Psalm 103, “the rock a refuge for hedgehogs,” he says is translated by the Septuagint, “a refuge for hares;” therefore ours is not that very Septuagint version.

Finally in the whole epistle he very often sets down the words of the Latin psalter, as it was then in common use and sung in Churches; but we find them all in our psalter, therefore ours is that common and Vulgate psalter. Further that the common one is called by Jerome the one that Origen and afterwards Lucian emended, is clear from that very epistle to Sunia and Fretella. For thus does Jerome speak at the beginning of the epistle: “Know that there is another edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greeks who deal with it call common and vulgate, and now by several it is called Lucianic, different from the Septuagint which is found in the Hexapla.”

Third proposition. It is for us probable that the book of Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus, and of Maccabees we do not have from the version of Jerome but from the old translation, whose author is unknown. We are moved to this first because Blessed Jerome nowhere affirms that he translated these books, nor are any prefaces by him extant on these books, although however in epistle 89 to Augustine, which is number 11 among the epistles of Augustine, he says that he prefixed little prefaces to each of the books. Second because Blessed Jerome thinks these books apocryphal, as is plain from the Galeatic Prologue and from his preface on Proverbs; therefore it is likely that he neglected to translate these books. Third because many things are cited from these books by Blessed Cyprian, especially in his book Exhortation to Martyrdom, and by other Fathers older than Jerome, wholly as we have them in our Vulgate edition.

Fourth proposition. All the rest from Jerome’s version from the Hebrew we have in the Vulgate edition. Proof of this:

First, since it is clear that Blessed Jerome was the first and only one of the ancients who translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin, and it is again clear that our edition is a translation from the Hebrew to Latin, with the exception of Psalms, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees.

That Jerome translated from the Hebrew he himself testifies in his book on Illustrious Men at the end. That he was first among the ancients is plain from Augustine in epistles 8 and 10 and City of God bk.18 ch.43 and from all the prefaces of Jerome, in which he always deprecates calumny because he dared to translate from the Hebrew. That after him up to our times no one tried the same is more certain than certain.

But that now the Vulgate edition is a translation from the Hebrew, it itself in some way proclaims when almost everywhere it agrees with the Hebrew and differs from the Greek. There are besides certain signs of this fact in almost all the books.

For in the Pentateuch, especially Genesis ch.5, all the ancient books, which were translated from the Septuagint version, contained the error about the number of years; but our edition agrees with the Hebrew truth. In the book of Esther and of Daniel we often find in the books themselves notes by Blessed Jerome saying that he expressed faithfully what was in the Hebrew, but the rest he added from the Vulgate edition or from Theodotion.

In the preface to Job he says that in the ancient Latin edition and in the Greek of the book of Job there were lacking up to 800 verses, which he himself put in his edition from the Hebrew; but our edition is very complete and full, no less than the Hebrew. Finally in his commentaries on the Prophets he puts and explains almost everywhere two versions, that is, his own, which is our Vulgate, and the other from the Septuagint.

A second proof is that all the things that Blessed Jerome in his preface to the Pentateuch, and in his book on the Best Kind of Translating, says are not contained in the Septuagint and that he added in his translation from the Hebrew, we find in our Vulgate edition, as this: “out of Egypt have I called my son,” Hosea ch.11, and: “they will look upon him they pierced,” Zachariah ch.12, and: “eye has not seen and ear has not heard nor has it come into the heart of man what things he has prepared for those who love you,” Isaiah ch.64.

The third proof is from the places that Blessed Jerome advises he translated differently than the Septuagint did, all of which we find in our edition in the way he says he himself translated them. In epistle 89 to Augustine, which is number 11 among the epistles of Augustine, he says that in Jonah ch.4 he translated “ivy” where the Septuagint translated “gourd.” Again in Hebrew Questions on Genesis he says that in Genesis ch.2 should be read: “God completed his work on the seventh day,” although in the Septuagint is read, “on the sixth day.” In the same place he says should be read, “she was called a manly maiden,” although in the Septuagint is said, “woman.” In the same place he says should be read, “he sent a deep sleep on Adam,” although in the Septuagint is, “he sent an ecstasy.” Many like things are found both in the Hebrew Questions and in the commentaries on the Prophets.

St. Gregory also Morals bk.20 ch.24, when explaining the verse, “he is changed for me to cruel,” he says the old translation had it very differently, but that this new one made from the Hebrew is better. But in our edition there is, “he is changed for me to cruel,” Job ch.30.

The fourth proof is from the prefaces. For Jerome himself testifies in the epistle to Augustine already cited that he prefixed little prefaces to almost each of the books in his edition from Hebrew, which even now we see in the Bibles of the Vulgate edition, nor has anyone ever denied that they are Jerome’s; but certainly it is not credible that his whole work perished apart only from the prefaces. For why, I ask, did those who rejected or neglected the edition of Blessed Jerome keep the prefaces?

But three arguments most of all are wont to be made to the contrary. The first from Paul Foro of Sempronius and Sanctis Pangnini is taken from the many places in which our version differs from Hebrew truth; for it is not credible that Jerome, who was most skilled in the Hebrew tongue, could have made a lapse in this matter.

I reply that it happened for two reasons that our version seems sometimes to differ from the Hebrew text. One is, and it is plain far and wide, the carelessness of the copyists, about which he himself everywhere complains in his prefaces. The second cause is that often Blessed Jerome studied to express not so much the words as the sense, as he himself teaches should be done in his book on the Best Kind of Translating. There is an example in the words of Ecclesiastes ch.1: “the perverse are with difficulty corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.” For these words seem to carry a far different meaning than the Hebrew which reads verbally thus: “it will not be possible to direct the perverse, and not possible for the fool to be numbered.” But certainly Jerome very elegantly expressed the sense. About this argument we will say more in the following chapter.

A second argument is that Jerome in his preface to the Psalms and to Job and to Chronicles advises that he has distinguished his edition by asterisks and obelisks; but in our Vulgate edition we do not see these signs; therefore our Vulgate edition is not Jerome’s.

I reply from Jerome himself in the epistle to Augustine cited above, that Jerome distinguished by asterisks and obelisks the edition that he made from the Greek but not that which he made from the Hebrew. In our Vulgate Psalter therefore there should be asterisks and obelisks of which Jerome makes mention in his preface, but they have fallen out by the negligence of the copyists; nor is this remarkable, for even in his own time they began to fall out, as is plain from that preface itself and from the letter to Sunia and Fretella. But in the book of Job and Chronicles of our Vulgate edition there never were nor should there be asterisks and obelisks. For we have hence two prefaces to both Job and Chronicles, the first of which, where there is no mention of asterisk or obelisk, pertains to our version, which is from the Hebrew, but the second of which, where there is mention of those signs, pertains to the other version, which he made from the Greek.

The third argument. Many things are found in our Vulgate edition that Blessed Jerome in Hebrew Questions, in his book on the Best Kind of Translating, and in his commentaries on the Prophets and on Ecclesiastes teaches should be differently translated, and therefore it cannot be that our Vulgate edition is that very translation which Jerome made from the Hebrew.

I reply that for reasons has it happened that there are certain things in our text which Jerome blamed. The first is the error and negligence of the copyists. The second cause is the various signification of nouns, for sometimes they can signify two things, and Blessed Jerome followed now one and now the other meaning; we have an example in the case of Ecclesiastes; for Blessed Jerome translated Ecclesiastes twice, as is clear from the preface to this commentaries on Ecclesiastes and in his preface to Proverbs. And indeed in the first translation he translates in ch.2: “I thought to draw my flesh together into wine,” and so also does he expound in his commentary; but in the second translation he preferred to write: “I thought to withdraw my flesh from wine,” which is the reading we have, and our reading is better. For the Hebrew word can signify ‘in wine’ or ‘into wine’ and even ‘of wine’ or ‘from wine’; for the relevant Hebrew letter serves both the place ‘in’ and the place ‘of’, but the context requires rather ‘from wine’ than ‘into wine’. For there follows: “so that I might carry my soul to wisdom.”

But this Hebrew letter is taken frequently for another, that is, for ‘out of’, ‘of’, ‘from’ is clear from this places, Exodus ch.12 v.43, ch.35 v.32, ch.38 v.8, and Leviticus ch.8 v.32, and II Chronicles ch.16 v.6. But that Blessed Jerome is wont to translate in various ways when the words bear it, he himself testifies in Apology against Ruffinus bk.1, where he says he translated Psalm 2, “Adore the son,” since the Hebrew word is ambiguous.

The third reason is that he himself later changed his opinion and corrected his own places. And so as to provide an example, in his book on the Best Kind of Translating and in his preface to the Pentateuch he says that in Isaiah ch.11 should not be read: “The flower will rise from its root,” but: “The Nazarean will rise from his root;” and that the Septuagint badly passed over this name Nazarean, and that this place is cited by Matthew ch.2 where it says: “So that what was spoken by the Prophet might be fulfilled, that he will be called a Nazarean;” but he himself later translated it as the Septuagint had, namely: “And the flower will rise from its root.” And in his commentary to Isaiah ch.2 he gives a reason for this matter, since the Hebrew word put there is written in one way, while Nazarean is stated by a word written in another way, wherefore in his commentary on Matthew ch.2 he says that this phrase: “that he will be called a Nazarean,” is not taken from any one Prophet but from the fact that all the Prophets predicted that the Lord would be holy. For like reason in his Commentary on Isaiah bk.5 ch.19 he says he translated badly, “the land of Juda will be in festivity for Egypt,” since it should rather be translated “in fear,” and we have it this latter way now in our Vulgate edition.

The fourth reason is that although Blessed Jerome sometimes thought that certain things should be changed in his version, and although he noted them in his commentaries, yet the Church later judged the first version to be correct and preferred to retain it in the Vulgate edition. For in his Commentary on Isaiah bk.5, where Blessed Jerome says he badly translated “festivity” for “fear”, he says in the same place that he badly translated “holding back” for “being wanton”, and yet we see in our Vulgate edition that the first correction has been admitted and the second one not admitted, which certainly does not seem to have happened by chance but by the judgment of posterity, or rather of the Church itself. And in this way response can be made to many other things. For the Vulgate edition, although it is in its greatest part from Jerome, yet is not that pure version which he himself translated from the Hebrew but is in some way mixed, with not a few things added from the Septuagint that are not found in the Hebrew, and this is most of all seen in I Kings and Proverbs.

To all these things can be added that sometimes Jerome seems to be censuring our version although however he is not censuring it but only explaining what the force of the Hebrew word is, as when in Hebrew Questions he says that in Genesis ch.1 for what we now have, “the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters,” there is in Hebrew “was covering or cherishing” in the manner of a bird.

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