Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 1: That the Hebrew edition of Moses and the Prophets never perished
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have discoursed in the former book of the sacred books themselves, that we might vindicate their number and authority from the calumnies of the heretics. It follows that we discourse briefly of the various editions of those same books — that is, the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek, Latin, German, French, and the like, which are called vernacular. For it would profit little not to be ignorant of the number of the divine books, if we were ignorant to which edition, out of so many as now exist, authority is to be given.
That we may begin, then, with the Hebrew edition, there are two things that come into question. One, whether that very Scripture which was composed by Moses and the Prophets has come down even to us. The other, whether that Scripture which is contained in the Hebrew codices has been, by the perverse zeal of the Jews, so corrupted and depraved that it merits no authority in the Church.
Concerning the former question there is a twofold opinion. One is of those who teach that the whole sacred Scripture perished in the time of the Babylonian captivity, when the city was overthrown and the Temple burned, and was then restored anew by Esdras, the Holy Ghost suggesting and dictating all things to him just as they had been before. So Basil seems to think, in the epistle to Chilo: “This is the field,” he says, “in which, having withdrawn, Esdras poured forth all the divine books at the command of God.” So he. Some add to the same opinion Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, but these do not teach this openly.
This opinion seems to us improbable. For it rests on no other foundation than the testimony of an apocryphal book, that is, the 4th of Esdras chapter 14, where it is written in express words that Esdras, for a full forty days breathed upon by the divine spirit, dictated to five men, who with the greatest speed took down what was said by him, and that in that way the whole Scripture, which had plainly perished, was restored. But this book is not only apocryphal, and never received by the Catholic Church, but also in many places savors of Jewish fables, and in this very chapter 14 speaks of certain hidden and more perfect books no otherwise than all the Talmudists do of their Cabala. Wherefore the testimony of this book rather detracts from the credit of this opinion than adds to it; but from the canonical books nothing of the kind is gathered.
And what some say, that this is gathered from the 2nd of Esdras chapter 8, is so far from being true that rather the contrary is gathered thence. For thus we have: They said to Esdras the scribe, that he should bring the book of the law of Moses; Esdras therefore brought it, etc. They did not say that he should again compose the book of the Law, but that he should bring it, because they knew it was still to be found. Besides, although the Scripture which was publicly kept in the Temple was burned and perished, yet it is incredible that there were not also some copies, or at least parts of them, with private men, and especially with Ezechiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Aggeus, Zacharias, Mardochaeus, and Esdras himself, who then lived, and to whom without doubt the Law of the Lord was a care.
There is therefore another opinion: that Esdras was indeed the restorer of the holy books, not by dictating all things anew, but by collecting and ordering into one body the Scriptures whose parts he had found in various places, and also by emending them, if any had been depraved by the negligence of the scribes, since throughout the whole time of the captivity the Law was negligently kept, when the Jews had neither Temple nor tabernacle.
So the gravest authors seem to have thought. For Chrysostom, homily 8 on the epistle to the Hebrews, teaches that Esdras composed it again out of the remains of the Scripture. Hilary, in his preface on the Psalms, says that Esdras collected all the Psalms and made of them one book. Theodoret, in his preface on the Psalms, says that the old Scripture, depraved in the time of the captivity, was restored by Esdras. The same thing Irenaeus book 3 chapter 25, Tertullian in the book On women's apparel, and Clement book 1 of the Stromata seem to me to signify. For they say that Esdras reviewed and restored all the books of the Old Testament; but they do not add “by memory,” nor do they make mention of that history which is had in the 4th of Esdras.
Blessed Jerome, in the Helmeted Prologue, says that Esdras found new Hebrew letters, and left the ancient ones indeed to the Samaritans, but delivered the new to the Jews, which we use even now. For, as the same Jerome testifies on chapter 9 of Ezechiel, the last letter of the ancient Hebrew alphabet was like the Greek T, and bore the figure of a cross, because the end of the law is Christ crucified; but now the last letter of the alphabet seems to have no likeness of a cross. Accordingly, without doubt, we have new letters. But of a new edition of the holy books made by Esdras, Jerome says nothing, although there most of all would have been a place for saying it.
Finally, if Esdras had again dictated the holy books, it is likely that he would have done it not in the Hebrew tongue, but in the Chaldaic, or in one mixed of Hebrew and Chaldaic, which was then in use, and in which we see the books of Esdras and of Daniel were written. But it is certain that the holy books, besides those of Esdras and Daniel, were written in the Hebrew tongue, and in that very one in which Adam and Eve and all the Patriarchs spoke. Which is manifestly gathered from the etymology of proper names, which is often not found in any other tongue.
And, to bring forward a few examples out of many: Adam said of his wife newly created, She shall be called woman, [in Hebrew ishshah], because she was taken out of man, who in the Hebrew is called [ish]. But in no other tongue have “man” and “woman” this likeness of name. For in the Chaldaic tongue, which is akin to the Hebrew, “man” is said by one word, “woman” by another, which have not even one letter in common. By like reason the Greek words [anēr and gynē] and the Latin, vir and mulier, have no likeness of letters between them. Either therefore Adam did not say those words which we set down above, and that most excellent of Prophets [Moses] will be lying, or we must needs confess that the divine books were written in that tongue which the first men used. Like are the things which are said in the Scriptures of the reason of the name of Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Noe, Phaleg, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of all his sons; and also of mountains, rivers, cities, and many other things; since indeed in the Hebrew tongue those allusions of like words are always found, but in the other tongues either never or rarely.
Finally, that the Hebrew tongue, in which we see the sacred books were written, is the most ancient, and indeed the first of all tongues, both its brevity and simplicity, and the authority of most learned men, testify. See Eusebius book 10 of the Preparation of the Gospel chapter 2, Ambrose on chapter 3 to the Philippians, Jerome in the epistle to Damasus On the vision of Isaiah, and Augustine book 16 of the City of God chapter 11. Nor does that contradict these which Augustine, book 16 of the City of God in the last chapter, says — that the Hebrew tongue was found after the times of Noe. For Augustine did not mean to indicate that this tongue did not exist before, but only that it then first began to be called the Hebrew tongue. For, as Eucherius rightly explains on chapter 11 of Genesis, before the division of tongues the Hebrew tongue was common to all men, and therefore had no fixed name; but in the time of Heber, when many tongues had begun to be, that common one was, for distinction from the others, called Hebrew, because it remained in the house of Heber, whence they were called Hebrews.
Since therefore it is plain that the books of Esdras are full of Chaldaic words, but that the books of the Law and the Prophets were written in the pure Hebrew idiom, it ought also to seem plain that the books of the Law and the Prophets were written not by Esdras, but by Moses and the ancient Prophets. [The closing clause of the Latin is garbled in the scan.]
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT I. Ostenditur , editionem Hebraicam Mosis, et Prophetarum nunquam periisse. Disseruimus libro superiore de libris ipsis sacris, ut eorum numerum et auctoritatem ab haereticorum calumniis vindicaremus. Sequitur, ut de librorum eorumdem variis editionibus, id est, Hebraica, Chaldaica, Graeca, Latina, Germanica, Gallica, et simi¬ libus, qua? vulgares dicuntur, breviter disse¬ ramus. Parum enim prodesset, librorum di¬ vinorum numerum non ignorare, si cui edi¬ tioni ex tam variis, quae nunc exstant, auc¬ toritas tribuenda sit ignoraremus. Ut igitur ab editione Hebraica ordiamur, duo sunt quse veniunt in quaestionem. Unum, an Scriptura illa ipsa quse a Mose et Pro¬ phetis condita est, ad nos usque pervenerit. Alterum, an ea Scriptura quae Hebraicis co¬ dicibus continetur, perverso studio Judaeo¬ rum ita corrupta ac depravata sit, ut aucto¬ ritatem nullam in Ecclesia mereatur. De priore quaestione duplex sententia est. Una eorum qui docent, Scripturam sacram universam periisse tempore captivitatis Ba¬ bylonicae, quando civitas eversa, et Tem¬ plum incensum fuit, ac deinde ab Esdra fuisse rursum reparatam, Spiritu sancto ei suggerente et dictante omnia, sicut antea fuerant. Ita sentire videtur Basilius in epist. ad Chilonem : « Hic campus, inquit, in quo secessu facto, Esdras omnes divinos libros ex mandato Dei eructavit. » Haec ille. Ad¬ dunt quidam in eamdem sententiam Irenaeum, Tertullianum, et Clementem Alexandrinum, sed illi non aperte hoc docent. Haec opinio improbabilis nobis videtur. Non enim alio fundamento nititur, quam tes¬ timonio libri apocryphi, id est, lib. IV. Es- drae cap. 14., ubi disertis verbis scribitur, Esdram totis quadraginta diebus divino spi¬ ritu afflatum dictasse quinque viris, qui summa celeritate quae ab eo dicebantur ex¬ cipiebant, atque eo modo universam Scrip¬ turam quae plane perierat esse reparatam. Sed hic liber non modo apocryphus est, et ab Ecclesia Catholica nunquam receptus, sed etiam multis in locis redolet fabulas Ju¬ daicas, et in hoc ipso cap 14. non aliter loquitur de quibusdam libris occultis et per¬ fectioribus, quam omnes Thalmudistae fa¬ ciant de sua Gabala. Quare potius testimo¬ nium libri hujus detrahit huic sententiae fi¬ dem, quam afferat : ex libris autem cano¬ nicis nihil tale colligitur. Quod autem quidam dicunt, id colligi ex lib. II. Esdrae cap. VIII. tantum abest, ut sit verum, ut potius contrarium inde colligatur. Sic enim habemus : Dixerunt Esdrae Scribae , ut adferret librum legis Mosis : attulit ergo Esdras, etc. (1) non dixerunt, ut iterum componeret librum Legis, sed ut adferret, quia sciebant adhuc inveniri . Praeterea etsi Scriptura quae publice servabatur in Templo (1) I.Esdr.VIII, 1. 120 LIBER II. v \ fuerit incensa, et perierit ; tamen incredibile est, non fuisse etiam aliqua exempla, vel certe partes eorum apud privatos homines, et praecipue apud Ezechielem, Danielem, Hieremiam, Aggaeum, Zachariam, Mardo- chseum, et ipsum Esdram, qui tunc vive¬ bant, et quibus sine dubio curse fuit Lex Domini. Est ergo altera sententia, fuisse quidem Esdram librorum sanctorum instauratorem, non omnia iterum dictando, sed colligendo et ordinando Scripturas in unum corpus, quarum partes variis in locis invenerat, et etiam emendando, si quse depravata erant negligentia scribarum, cum toto tempore captivitatis negligenter Lex servata sit, cum non haberent Judsei Templum et taberna¬ culum. Ita sensisse videntur gravissimi auctores. Nam Chrysostomus bomil. 8. in epist. ad Hebr. docet, Esdram ex reliquiis Scripturae iterum eam composuisse. Hilarius praefat. in Psal. ait, Esdram omnes Psalmos colle¬ gisse, et ex eis unum librum confecisse. Theodoretus prsefat. in Psalm. ait, Scriptu¬ ram veterem depravatam tempore captivita¬ tis, ab Esdra fuisse restitutam. Quod idem mihi significasse videntur lrseneus lib. III. cap. 25. Tertullianus lib. de hab. mulier ., et Clemens lib. I. Stromat . Dicunt enim, Es¬ dram recensuisse et instaurasse libros omnes Testamenti veteris : sed non addunt, memo¬ riter , nec meminerunt historiae illius, quae habetur in lib . IV. Esdrae. B. Hieronymus in prolog. Galeat dicit, Esdram invenisse novas litteras Hebraicas, et antiquas quidem reliquisse Samaritanis, novas autem tradidisse Judaeis, quibus etiam nunc utimur. Nam ut idem Hieronymus in cap. IX. Ezech. testatur, littera postrema alphabeti Hebraici antiqui similis erat T Graecorum, et figuram crucis referebat, quo¬ niam finis legis Christus crucifixus est: nunc postrema littera alphabeti nullam videtur habere crucis similitudinem. Proinde sine dubio novas litteras habemus. De nova au¬ tem librorum sanctorum editione per Esdram facta nihil Hieronymus dicit, cum tamen ibi maxime esset locus dicendi. Denique, si Esdras libros sanctos iterum dictasset, verisimile est, eum id facturum fuisse non lingua Hebraica, sed Chaldaea, vel mixta ex Hebraica et Chaldaea, quae tunc erat in usu, et qua videmus scriptos esse li¬ bros Esdrae, et Danielis : at certum est, san¬ ctos libros praeter istos Esdrae et Danielis lingua Hebraica esse scriptos, et illa ipsa, qua Adam et Eva, et Patriarchae omnes lo¬ cuti sunt. Quod manifeste colligitur ex no¬ minum propriorum etymologia, quae saepe non invenitur in ulla alia lingua. Ac ut pauca exempla de multis profera¬ mus. Dixit Adam de uxore sua recens crea¬ ta : Hcec vocabitur virago , Hebraice quia sumpta est de viro , qui in Hebraeo dicitur (1). At in nulla alia lingua vir et mulier habent hanc nominis similitudinem. Nam Chaldaica lingua, quae Hebraicae est affinis, vir dicitur , mulier fcnnifc quae ne unam quidem litteram communem habent. Pari ratione Graeca vocabula a vbp et 7 et Lati¬ na, vir et mulier, nullam inter se habent si¬ militudinem litterarum. Aut igitur non dixit Adam ea verba, quae supra posuimus, et Prophetarum eximius mentietur : aut fatea¬ mur necesse est, ea lingua divinos libros scriptos esse, qua primi homines utebantur. Similia sunt quae in ScripWis dicuntur de ratione nominis Evee, Cain, Abel, Seth, Noe, Phaleg, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et omnium ejus filiorum ; necnon montium, fluminum, urbium , aliarumque multarum rerum : si¬ quidem in Hebraica lingua semper allusio- nes illae similium vocum reperiuntur ; in caeteris linguis aut nunquam, aut raro. Denique linguam Hebraicam , qua sacros libros scriptos esse videmus, antiquissimam, atque adeo primam omnium linguarum esse testatur, tum ipsius brevitas et simplicitas, tum auctoritas doctissimorum hominum. Vide Eusebium lib X. Praeparat. Evangel. c. II. Ambrosium in cap. III. ad Philippen. Hie¬ ronymum in epist. ad Damasum de visione Isaiae; Augustinum lib. XVI. De Civit. Dei cap. 11. Neque his repugnat, quod Augusti¬ nus lib. XVI. De Civit Dei capit, ult. dicit, linguam Hebraeam inventam post tempora Noe. Non enim Augustinus indicare voluit, eam linguam antea non fuisse, sed solum tunc primum coepisse vocari linguam Hebraeam. Ut enim recte explicat Eucherius in cap. XI. Genes . , ante divisionem linguarum , lingua Hebraea communis erat omnibus hominibus, et ideo non habebat certum nomen : at tem¬ pore Heber, cum multae linguae esse coepis¬ sent, illa communis ad distinctionem aliarum (1) Gau. II, 23. CAPUT II. 121 dicta est Hebraea, quia mansit in domo Heber, unde Hebrsei dicti sunt. Cum igitur planum sit, libros Esdrae plenos esse vocibus Chaldaicis : libros autem legis et Prophetarum puro Hebraico idiomate scri¬ ptos esse; planum quoque videri debet, Le¬ gis et Prophetarum libros non ab Esdra, sed a Mose et antiquis Prophetis conscriptos non habere .