Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Twelve: The Places are Defended that Chemnitz says are Distorted in the Vulgate Edition
The first place is Genesis ch.3 where we read, “she will crush your head.” This place Chemnitz says has been corrupted to prove the intercession and patronage of Mary, since it should be read, “it will crush your head,” for the Scripture is speaking about seed, that is, about Christ, as all the ancients teach.
I reply that the Vulgate edition has various readings; for some codices have ‘he’, and some have ‘she’. And for this reason it is not against the Vulgate edition if it is persuasively shown that ‘he’ or ‘it’ should be read.
I say second that it is not improbable that ‘she’ should be read, nor is this a distortion by Papists. For even though many Hebrew codices have the word for ‘it’, yet one is read in which was written the word for ‘she’, and that man indeed is most uneducated who does not know that, when the pointings are removed, the Hebrew word can be translated as ‘she’. For everywhere in the Sacred Bible one word appears for the other. So in Genesis ch.3 v.12, Exodus ch.3 v.8. Add that ‘she’ was read by Claudius Marius Victor on Genesis bk.1, by Alcimus Avitus in Songs bk.3 ch.6, by Chrysostom Homily 17 on Genesis, by Augustine On Genesis against the Manichees bk.2 ch.18, On Genesis to the Letter bk.11 ch.36, by Ambrose On Flight from the Age ch.7, Gregory Morals bk.1 ch.38, Eucherius, Rupert, Bede, Rabanus, Strabus, and Liranus on this place, and Bernard Sermon 2 on ‘He was sent’. So Chemnitz speaks a like when he says that all the ancients read ‘it’.
But you will say the word ‘he will crush’ is in Hebrew of the masculine gender, therefore it refers to ‘seed’, which is also of the masculine gender, and not to ‘woman’, which is feminine. I reply that this is not new in Scripture, that masculine pronouns or verbs are joined with feminine nouns, as in Ruth ch.1 v.8 where Ruth speaks to her daughters-‐in-‐law, and in Esther ch.1 v.20, and Ecclesiastes ch.12 v.5, and many others of this sort are found.
The second place is from Genesis ch.6 where we read, “all the thought of his heart is intent on evil,” which place Chemnitz wants to have been corrupted for purpose of extenuating original sin, since in the Hebrew it is, “the imagination of his heart is only evil all the day.”
I respond that the sense is the same; for the phrase ‘imagination of the heart’ signifies the thought of the heart because by the heart is it made up and formed, as even the Hebrews teach on this place. But the sense of “all the thought of his heart is intent on evil” is the same as “the imagination,” that is, “the thought of his heart is only evil.” Now it does not follow from this, as the Lutherans think, that all the works of men are evil; for this is a hyperbole in Scripture, which it often uses to emphasize something; just as is said in the same chapter, “all flesh has corrupted its own way.” And yet in the same place is said, “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.”
The third place is from Genesis ch.9 where we read, “he who sheds the blood of man, his blood will be shed.” This place, says Chemnitz, has been mutilated, since in Hebrew it is, “he who sheds the blood of man, by man will his blood be shed.” I reply that this omission does not make the sense false, or imperfect; therefore it is not of great moment. For the sense is, both in Hebrew and in Latin, that he who kills a man will also be killed himself.
The fourth place is from Genesis ch.14 where we read, “now Melchizedek was king of Salem, bringing forward bread and wine, for he was a priest of the Most High God.” This place he says has been corrupted to enable us to prove the sacrifice of the Mass; for in Hebrew there is no word for offering, nor any connecting word giving a reason [sc. ‘for’], as there is in the Vulgate edition.
I reply that Chemnitz falsely says that the verb for offering is contained in the Vulgate edition. For we do not read ‘he offered’ but ‘he brought forward’ bread and wine. Now the Vulgate edition does have a connecting word giving a reason, but so also does the Hebrew text, although Chemnitz did not see it for lack of skill, or did not want to see it for malice. For although the Hebrew word is not the word ‘for’ but the word ‘and’, yet ‘and’ is often taken as ‘for’, the way it is in Isaiah ch.64, “you are angry and we have sinned,” that is, because we have sinned, and Genesis ch.20, “behold you will die because of the woman whom you bore, and she has a man,” and Genesis ch.30, “I have learnt by experience, because the Lord has blessed me;” and many places of this sort are found in the codices of the Hebrews.
Therefore that Melchizedek brought forward bread and win, so as to offer it in sacrifice to God, because he was priest of the Most High God, and that by this deed he bore the figure of our sacrifice, whereby under the species of bread and wine we offer the body and blood of Christ to God, is affirmed by all the old Greeks and Latins, as Clement of Alexandria Stromaties bk.4, Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel bk.5, Epiphanius Heresy 79, Chrysostom Homily 35 on Genesis, Cyprian bk.2 epist.3, Ambrose on Sacraments bk.4 ch.3, Jerome in his commentary on Matthew ch.26, Augustine City of God bk.17 ch.17, Eucherius on Genesis bk.2 ch.18. Lastly in Psalm 109 it is said of Christ, “you are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” as Paul expounds in Hebrews chs.5 and 7. But why is Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek save because he offered bread and wine, here himself under the species of bread and wine?
The fifth place is from Numbers, last chapter, where we have, “every man shall take a wife of his tribe and of his kindred, and every woman shall receive a husband from the same tribe,” which place is not noted by Chemnitz but by Osiander in his notations to Gospel Harmony. For this precept seems contrary to many examples in Scripture. For Josabeth, daughter of King Joram of the tribe of Judah, was wife of the High Priest Joiada of the tribe of Levi, 2 Chronicles ch.22. Ruth the Moabitess was wife of Booz of the tribe of Judah, Ruth ch.4. Michol of the tribe of Benjamin was wife of David of the tribe of Judah, I Kings ch.18. Again all the Hebrews swore in the last chapter of Judges that they would not give wives of their daughters to anyone of the tribe of Benjamin; therefore if the oath had not intervened, they were permitted to give the daughters from one tribe to men of another tribe. And the Blessed Virgin Mary of the tribe of Judah was related to Elizabeth of the tribe of Levi, Luke ch.1.
Lastly it seems also against the text of the Hebrews, where is only read that women who are heiresses of paternal goods could not marry men other than those of their own tribe; but about men and women who were not heirs, there was no law.
Abulensis on this place says that this law did not include the tribe of Levi, nor women of foreign nations; and in case of necessity, and because of great Princes and Kings, a dispensation could be made from it. So does he respond to all the examples adduced. But no one can dispense from divine law. Next, David, when he took Michol to wife, was not king, nor was his marriage with Michol so necessary that he should have been dispensed from the law.
Canus responds better On Places bk.2 ch.14, but he does not fully explain the thing. Therefore the sense of the law both in the Vulgate edition and in the Hebrew text here is that when a woman lacks brothers and is therefore an heiress, she cannot marry anyone who is not of her own tribe, and no man can take her, even if she wishes, unless he is of her tribe. Therefore the law is given both to men and to women, but yet because of the goods of the women.
That this is the sense of the law is plain from the end of the law. For its end is, as is said there, that inheritances not be mixed together and pass from one tribe to another. Further to obtain this end it was not necessary to bid absolutely that marriages not be contracted outside one’s own tribe, but only that marriages not be contracted outside the tribe when the women about to be married is an heiress. And in this way satisfaction is made to all the adduced examples.
But as to the remark that it is read differently in the Hebrew, I reply that this is false. For the law given to women in the Hebrew text is clear, as it is also in the Latin. Now the law given to men, which they say is not contained in the Hebrew, is comprehended in this words, “the sons of Israel will hold each one in the possession of the tribe of his fathers.” The adversaries think that this word (‘will hold’) refers to possession, so that the sense is, ‘they will hold the possession,’ that is, ‘they will remain in possession of their own tribe’; but it is not so but the reference is to the wife, so that the sense is, ‘the sons of Israel will hold’, namely to their wife, that is, each one will contract marriages in the possession of his tribe, that is, without passing through marriage to the possession of another tribe. That this is the sense is collected from what follows. For what follows is, “and every daughter inheriting a possession will hold to a man of her own tribe etc.,” and thus was this place understood by Eusebius Hist. bk.1 ch.6, Epiphanius Heresy 78, Ambrose on Luke ch.3, Bede on the first chapter of Luke, Damascene bk.4 ch.15.
The sixth place is Ezra bk.1 ch.9, where Chemnitz says that we have “his peace” (pax illius) when it should be “a small stake” (paxillus). I reply that this also is an error of the copyists, for the Hebrew word is stake or stick, and many Latin codices do have ‘stake’.
The seventh is from Job ch.5, “Call if there is anyone who may respond to you, and turn you to any of the saints.” This place Chemnitz wants to have been distorted so as to prove the invocation of the saints. I reply that perhaps Chemnitz was drunk when he wrote this, for very openly do the words in the Hebrew of Job ch.5 literally read, “Call now, if there is one responding to you, and look to someone from the saints.” And certainly if an express word is being asked for, this one is very express.
The eighth place is from Proverbs ch.16 where we have, “weight and balance are the judgments of the Lord, and his works are all stones of the age (saeculi),” although it ought to be “stones of a sack (sacculi)” according to the Hebrew, which signifies ‘pouch’ not ‘age’. I reply that in our edition there are various readings, and that the one that has ‘sack’ is true, while in others ‘age’ has been put by error of the scribes.
The ninth is from Ecclesiastes ch.9, “man does not know whether he is worthy of hate or love.” Which place Chemnitz wants to have been distorted so that doubt about remission of sins might be proved; which same thing Calvin wrote before, Institutes ch.5 sect.38.
I reply that our translator translated very well, not indeed by numbering the Hebrew words but by weighing them and expressing their sense. For the Hebrew text has the sense literally of “both love and hate man is not knower of, but all things before their face.” That this is the sense of these words is what Jerome wants in his commentary on this place, “Further,” he says, “the sense is this: I have found indeed that the works of the just are in the hands of God, and yet whether they are loved by God or not is now not possible to know; therefore they will know in the future, and in their face are all things, that is, there goes before them, when they depart from this life, knowledge of this thing, because then there is judgment, now contest.” So Jerome. This very true understanding of this place the translator could not have rendered better than in these words, “man does not know whether he is worthy of hate or love, but all things in the future are kept uncertain.”
But lest anyone object that the impious know they are worthy of hate, one must note that Ecclesiastes is speaking only of the just who, although they are conscious to themselves of no sin, yet cannot establish certainly while they live here whether they are just or not; from which it follows that they do not know whether they are worthy of hate or love.
The tenth is from Ecclesiasticus ch.5, “about propitiated sin do not be without fear.” This place too Chemnitz wants to have been distorted so as to prove the uncertainty of remission of sins. I reply that there are here various readings, as Cornelius Jansenius shows on this place. For certain codices have ‘about propitiated sin’, and others ‘about propitiation’ or ‘about the propitiation of sin’, which last seems better, since it is more conform to the Greek text.
But also from here the opinion of the heretics is proved to be false, whereby they bid man to believe certainly that he is just, or will be just, if he believes; for either the Wise man is speaking of propitiation already obtained, so that ‘about the propitiation of sin’ and ‘about propitiated sin’ are the same, and what the heretics say is false, that man should be secure about having obtained pardon; or he is speaking of propitiation to be obtained, and then what the same say is false, that man ought to be secure about obtaining pardon. But of these matters in their own place.
The eleventh is from Ecclesiasticus ch.16, “mercy will make the place for each according to the merit of his works.” Chemnitz complains that we have added the word ‘merit’, which is not in the Greek, and that thus we have distorted this place to show the merit of good works, just as Calvin complained before, Institutes ch.10 sect.52. I reply that in the Greek text there is not the word ‘merit’, because this word is Latin and the text is Greek, yet there is something that signifies the same and that is rightly expressed by the name of merit. For the Greek is ‘according to works’, but no one who is but a little skilled in the Greek tongue can deny but that ‘according to works’ signifies in Latin ‘for the merit of works’.
The twelfth is from Joel ch.2, “Preeminent above malice.” These words Chemnitz says signify nothing, and are sung in our Church without any understanding. I reply that Jerome put this word in his text and in his commentary also used this word, and Chemnitz must put up with our attributing more to Jerome than to him. But “preeminent above malice” signifies “excellent in having mercy and in condoning sins” which properly belongs to God. And it is the same as this, “penitent above malice,” which is the literal Hebrew, for the Hebrew word means ‘to repent’. It could also, if we consider the Latin words, not badly be that “preeminent above malice” is the same as “greater than to be able to be overcome by malice.” Which indeed is very true, because the infinite kindness of God is never overcome by the enormity or the number of sins.
The thirteenth is in Micah ch.5, where we read, “And thou Bethlehem Ephrata art little among the thousands of Judah, out of you will come for me he who will be dominator in Israel.” This place Osiander, in his annotations on Gospel Harmony wants to have been distorted, and thinks that “thou art little…” should be corrected to “it is too little for you to be among the thousands of Judah.” For he says that the unskilled translator did not notice that the Hebrews lack a neuter gender and use the feminine or masculine in its place; therefore although the Hebrew word is of masculine gender yet it should be translated as the neuter ‘it is too little’ and not ‘thou art little’. And he proves it because what follows, “from you will come out for me etc.” does not rightly cohere with what precedes unless it be said, “it is too little etc.”
I reply that our translator translated correctly; for the Greek and Chaldee codices agree with it, and Jerome so read in his commentary on this place and, what is greater, Matthew thus cited it in his second chapter, for he said “thou art least” not “it is too little;” and although the Hebrews use the other genders for the neuter, yet not always. As to his reason, I say that the following words very well cohere with the preceding ones, provided the preceding ones are read with a question mark, as Matthew reads, who for this reason translates it negatively, “thou art least by no means,” because he had read “thou art little?”
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME