Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 2: Whether the Hebrew edition is corrupt
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).
There follows now the other question, whether the Hebrew edition is entire, or corrupt and vitiated. And first, the heretics of this time, out of hatred of the Vulgate edition, attribute too much to the Hebrew edition. For Calvin in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, and Kemnitz in his Examination of the same Council, and George Major in his preface on the Psalms, will have all things examined and emended to the Hebrew text, which more than once they call a most pure fountain.
Which opinion is most openly false. For, in the first place, Calvin in the Institutes chapter 6 section 11 contends that we ought to read Isaiah 9, and he shall be called Wonderful, etc.; but the Hebrew text does not now have he shall be called [niqra], but he shall call [yiqra]. Nor was Calvin ignorant that in this place the Vulgate edition is better than the Hebrew. For thus he says: “Neither is there reason why the Jews should bark and so invert the reading: this is the name whereby God shall call him, Mighty, Father of the age to come, and finally leave this one thing to the Son, that he be the prince of peace: for to what end would so many epithets be heaped upon God in this place?” Therefore by Calvin's own confession, that fountain, which he everywhere wished to seem pure, flows somewhere turbid. By like reason Calvin will have it that in Jeremiah 23 we ought to read, and this is the name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our justice. But the Hebrew fountain constantly has [yiqra’o] he shall call him, not [the plural form] they shall call him.
Besides, in Psalm 21 there is no Christian who does not read, They have dug my hands and my feet; but the Hebrew texts read like a lion [ka’ari], not they have dug, which is said [karu]. Likewise Psalm 18 the Hebrew codices read, Their line [qavvam], that is, their line or measuring-cord, is gone out into all the earth; whereas the Seventy rendered [their sound], and blessed Paul approved their version, Romans 10, where he cites this Psalm. And what of this, that Jerome rendered from the Hebrew literally, their sound is gone out? so that it is altogether necessary either to reprehend Paul and Jerome, or at least to confess that the fountain in this place is not pure. And it is likely that we ought to read [qolam]; for by adding only one letter, [qavvam] becomes [qolam]. Add that sometimes whole sentences are wanting in the Hebrew, which are not wanting either in the version of the Seventy or in Jerome's translation. We have an example in Exodus 2, where that whole passage is wanting: She bore another also, and he called his name Eliezer, saying: The God of my father is my helper, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Pharaoh.
These things therefore being passed over, who falsely attribute to the Hebrew fountain too much purity, others also seem to be met, who, with a good zeal indeed, but I know not whether according to knowledge, altogether contend that the Jews, in hatred of the Christian Faith, studiously depraved and corrupted many places of the Scriptures. So teaches James, Bishop of Christopolis, in his preface on the Psalms, and Cano book 2 chapter 13 On theological topics.
But most grave arguments fight against this opinion. The first is Origen's, in book 8 on Isaiah (as Jerome relates on chapter 6 of Isaiah), and Jerome's in the same place, who reasons in this manner: If the Hebrews at some time corrupted the Scriptures, either they did it before the coming of Christ, or after. If before, why did Christ and the Apostles never reprehend them for so notable a crime, especially when they did not keep silence of lighter matters? Why did the Lord say, John 5, Search the Scriptures; and Matthew 23, The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do? To whom will it be credible that Christ invited men to read corrupted Scriptures without any forewarning, or sent them to hear and follow corrupters? But if it was done after the coming of Christ, how is it that the testimonies which are cited by Christ and the Apostles are almost all found now in Moses and the Prophets as they were cited by them? Did they perchance so bring them forth as knowing by the spirit that they were afterward to be depraved by the Jews? Therefore, if neither before nor after the coming of the Saviour the sacred Letters were vitiated by the Hebrews, this certainly follows, that they were never vitiated. And this is the argument of Jerome and Origen.
The other argument is Saint Augustine's, in book 15 of the City of God chapter 13, who proves it hence, that it does not seem in any way credible that the Jews would have wished to snatch the truth from their own codices, in order to detract authority from ours; and even if they had wished, it is not likely they could. But let us hear his words: “If I ask,” he says, “which is more credible, that the Jewish nation, so far and wide diffused, could have conspired by one counsel to write this falsehood, and, while they envy others their authority, took away the truth from themselves? Or that seventy men, who were themselves also Jews, placed in one place, envied the truth to alien nations, and did this by a communicated counsel? Who does not see which is the more ready and easy to be believed? But far be it that any prudent man should believe either that the Jews, of whatever perversity and malice, could do so much in codices so many and so far and wide dispersed, or that those seventy memorable men shared one counsel about envying the truth to the Gentiles.” So Augustine.
Someone will say that this general depravation of the Hebrew codices happened after the times of Augustine and Jerome; and so their testimonies make little to the present matter. But Augustine's reasons hold at every time. Then, if that depravation had happened after the times of those Fathers, what cause could be given why Jerome's interpretation of the Psalms agrees in all things with the Hebrew text which now exists? And yet the chief complaint is of the depravation of the Psalms. For did Jerome so render as the Jews were going to falsify? Nor does that place of Psalm 22 contradict these, where Jerome renders they have dug. For in the Masorah, which they wrote after Jerome's times, the Rabbins admonish that in Psalm 22 it ought to be written [karu], not [ka’ari]; from which it is evidently gathered that by an error of the Scribes there is now read [ka’ari].
The third argument can be taken from the incredible religion of the Jews toward the sacred books. Philo writes, in the book On the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt (and it is cited also by Eusebius book 8 chapter 2 of the Preparation of the Gospel), that down to his own times, through a space of more than two thousand years, not even a word was ever changed in the Law of the Hebrews, and that any Jew would rather die a hundred times than suffer the Law to be changed in anything. And of the superstition of the more recent Jews, who adore the Law almost as a divinity, and if it ever falls to the ground induce a public fast, see John Isaac in his answer to the books of Lindanus On the best manner of interpreting the Scriptures.
The fourth argument: If the Jews had wished to falsify the divine Scriptures in hatred of the Christians, without doubt they would have taken away the chief prophecies; but this they by no means did; since those things in which the Hebrew differs from the Greek and Latin are often of no moment as far as concerns Faith and religion, and often the Hebrew codices vex the Jews more than the Greek or Latin. Certainly in Psalm 2 the Latins and Greeks have, Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry, from which nothing openly against the Jews can be deduced; but in the Hebrew it is [nashequ bar], Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, that is, show reverence to the Son of God lest he be angry, etc. — which place is most invincible against the Jews. Will it then be credible that the Jews changed the Scripture, that it might more brightly bear witness to the Son of God? Likewise Isaiah 53, where we have, And we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted, in the Hebrew it can be read, struck God, and humbled, [Hebrew phrase] — which certainly makes great trouble for the Jews, who do not believe that Christ was to be God.
The fifth and last argument is drawn from the providence whereby God always watches over his Church. For it is not likely that God would have suffered the words of so many illustrious Prophets to be generally falsified, especially since to this end he dispersed the Jews through the whole world, and willed them to carry about the books of the Law and the Prophets, that our enemies might give testimony to the Christian truth. This Saint Justin observed in his hortatory oration, and Saint Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapter 45, and it is manifestly deduced from Psalm 58: Slay them not, lest at any time they forget my people; scatter them by thy power, etc. For the Jews were dispersed carrying about the sacred books for this reason, that when the Pagans do not believe the things which we say were foretold of Christ, but think such prophecies were forged by us, we may send them to our enemies the Jews, who carry the prophecies with them.
But on the contrary they object. First, testimonies of the Fathers, as of Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho, Eusebius book 4 of the History chapter 18, Origen homily 12 on Jeremiah, Chrysostom homily 5 on Matthew, and Jerome in epistle 89 to Augustine, on chapter 5 of Micah, and on chapter 3 to the Galatians, who suspect that the Jews erased certain things from the Hebrew codices, and corrupted certain things in hatred of the Christians.
I answer: Justin and Eusebius nowhere wrote that the Hebrew text was corrupted by the Hebrews, but the Greek text of the Seventy interpreters. The words of Justin are these, in the Dialogue with Trypho: “And I would have you know,” he says, “that they took away many whole passages from the translation of those elders who were with Ptolemy, in which it is clearly shown that this very crucified one was declared to be God and man, and to hang and die upon the cross.” So Justin. Nor does he anywhere else write anything of the corruption of the Hebrew text. And Eusebius says nothing else than that Trypho was convicted by Justin that his ancestors took away certain chapters from the Scriptures. Which is to be understood no otherwise than as Justin himself set forth in his own words.
Origen too speaks openly of the corruption of the version of the Seventy; for he says that the word Juda was taken away by the Jews in the version of the Seventy in that of Jeremiah 17, The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, and there was put, Their sin is written with a pen of iron. For thus Origen speaks: “Then another prophecy follows, which, not finding it (I know not why) among the Seventy, we found in the other editions, which agree with the Hebrew speech.” And below: “The Jews, who falsified some copies, in this place too, for the sin of Juda, put their sin.” Of which corruption Jerome also makes mention on this place of Jeremiah.
Further, Chrysostom speaks of the Jewish interpreters, that is, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who in their interpretations from Hebrew into Greek put down many things wrongly, in hatred of the Christian Faith, and in reprehension of the Seventy Interpreters. Of whom blessed Jerome also speaks in the epistle to Augustine, which is the eleventh among Augustine's epistles, where he says that he wished to translate the divine books from the Hebrew, that he might restore what the Jews had either omitted or corrupted. But the same Jerome in the cited Commentaries doubts, he does not assert. But in his Commentaries on Isaiah, which he wrote later (as is plain from the preface of the Commentary on Isaiah, and from the end of the book On Illustrious Men), he openly laughs at those who think the Hebrew codices were falsified.
Secondly they object the confession of the Jews, who everywhere affirm that many things were changed by certain of their wise men in the sacred books; and these changes they call the correction of the Scribes [tiqqun sopherim]. I answer in two ways. First, that perhaps it is not true that any emendation of the Bible was made by the Scribes. For the origin of this opinion is the Talmud, which is a most fabulous book. Wherefore neither Epiphanius nor Jerome, who are more ancient than the book of the Talmud, ever made mention of this Tiqqun Sopherim.
I add then, if the Tiqqun Sopherim is not a fable, that it is not a corruption, but a true emendation, made not by any Scribes whatsoever, but by Esdras and other holy Prophets, who after the return from the captivity restored the sacred books — who, as the Jews report, held a Council which they call the great synagogue, because great men took part in it, and in it restored to their integrity the sacred books which in the time of the captivity had been dispersed and depraved. Certainly in our Vulgate edition those places are had just as the Scribes are said to have corrected them; and blessed Jerome in his Commentaries on the Prophets signifies that he read those places in the same way.
They say that in Genesis 18, where we now have, Abraham was yet standing before the Lord, it was of old, The Lord was yet standing before Abraham, but the place was changed by the Scribes. But the Vulgate edition retains the former reading. Likewise Numbers 11, where we now have, Let me find grace in thy sight, and let me not see [my] evil, they say it is a correction of the Scribes, and that before it was [thy] evil. But the Vulgate edition reads it in the former way. They say moreover that in Osee 9 it was of old [in my flesh from them], but the Scribes corrected it [when I depart from them]. But the Vulgate edition has When I shall depart from them, and so also blessed Jerome reads. Likewise they say that in Habacuc 1 it was before, Art not thou from the beginning, O Lord my God, my holy one, [thou shalt not die]? but the Scribes corrected it [we shall not die.] But the Vulgate edition has it in this latter way, and so also blessed Jerome reads. They say too that in Malachi 1 it was, And you have blown [me] away, but the Scribes corrected it, And you have blown [it] away. But certainly the Vulgate Latin edition, with Jerome and the seventy Elders, has not Me, but It, or Them. I say the same of the other corrections of the Scribes, which Porchetus collected in book 1 On the victory against the Jews, and Figuerola of Valencia in chapter 3 of the first part of his book against the Jews.
From which it appears that certain men imprudently, while they believe they are assailing the Hebrews, are assailing the Church herself. For if those corrections of the Scribes are corruptions of the Hebrew text, it follows openly that the Vulgate edition too is most corrupt — which nevertheless the Church has delivered to us as the authentic version.
Thirdly, they object that in Psalm 13 eight little verses are wanting in all the printed Hebrew codices, namely these: Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they acted deceitfully; the venom of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and unhappiness in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Which nevertheless are cited by the Apostle Romans 3, and are had among the Seventy. But this does not seem to have been able to happen from the negligence of the copyists, but from the pure malice of the Jews, who withdrew these verses from the Hebrew, to show that our Apostle did not faithfully bring forward the testimony of the Psalm.
Blessed Jerome answered this objection, which had of old been made to him also, in the preface of book 16 on Isaiah: that these verses do not properly pertain to Psalm 13, but are alleged by the Apostle out of various places of Scripture, and then were transferred by someone else out of the Apostle into the Psalter. For the first and second of those verses are found in Psalm 5, the third in Psalm 139, the fourth in Psalm 9, the fifth, sixth, and seventh are had in Isaiah 59, the last in Psalm 35. And in the same place Jerome added that these verses are not in the interpretation of the Seventy, nor did any Greek author in his Commentaries wish to expound these verses. Origen too, in his Commentary on chapter 3 of the epistle to the Romans, says that the Apostle took these verses out of various places of Scripture. By which words he manifestly signifies that those verses are found neither in the Hebrew text nor in the interpretation of the seventy Elders.
But they insist and prove that these verses were at some time in the Hebrew, because they are now found in a certain most ancient English codex. I answer: those verses of the English codex are manifestly added. For neither are all the words Hebrew, as that [goral], lot; nor even the phrasing, especially in that verse, [Hebrew phrase] whose mouth deceit and bitterness hath filled. For the Hebrews are not wont to place the verb at the end. See more of this matter in the book of notations on the various readings of the Vulgate edition of Franciscus Lucas of Bruges.
You will say, if it is so, why does the Church suffer these little verses to be in the Vulgate edition? Truly for this cause, because they too are certain parts of sacred Scripture; and because they could not be taken away without disturbance and scandal of the people, since they have now been there a long time: just as it also suffers some errors of the printers.
Lastly Cano objects that it is evident that the divine codices were corrupted by the Hebrews, because in Genesis 8 there is read in the Hebrew, The raven went forth and returned; whereas the Vulgate edition, and the Seventy, and all the Fathers read, did not return. I answer: in the Hebrew there is not had and returned, but [yatzo’ vashob], that is, and it went out going and returning, until the waters were dried up; which does not signify that the raven returned within the Ark, but that it flew about the Ark, going and returning to the roof of the Ark, and thence departing, and that repeatedly, until the waters were dried up; with which it well coheres that it went forth and did not return, namely, within the Ark. Add that there are also not wanting Latin codices which have it went forth and returned, as can be known from the various readings noted to the Louvain Bibles.
These two opinions therefore being refuted, there remains the third, which I think most true, which is Driedo's, book 2 On Ecclesiastical doctrines and Scriptures chapter 1, and of others who teach that the Hebrew Scriptures are not universally depraved by the work or malice of the Jews, nor yet are altogether entire and pure, but have certain errors of their own, which have partly crept in through the negligence or ignorance of the copyists (especially since in the Hebrew it is easy to err on account of certain most similar letters, such as [beth and kaph], [yod and vav], [he, cheth, and taw], [vav and zayin]), partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins who added the points. For since Hebrew words can be read in various ways if they lack the points, it is no wonder if sometimes they too erred from the truth in the noting of the points. It can also happen that, from a depraved affection and hatred of Christ, that reading was sometimes more approved by them which less favored the Christians.
But errors of this kind are not of such moment that in those things which pertain to Faith and good morals the integrity of sacred Scripture should be wanting. For generally the whole discrepancy of the various readings is placed in certain words which change the sense either little or nothing. And the errors which happened from the addition of the points do nothing at all against the truth: for the points were added from without, and do not change the text. And so we can, if we will, take away the points, and read otherwise.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II.
Num Hebraica editio sit corrupta.
flh
Sequitur nunc altera quaestio, integrane,
an corrupta et vitiata sit Hebraica editio. Ac
primum haeretici hujus temporis odio editio¬
nis vulgatae, nimium tribuunt editioni Hebrai¬
cae. Calvinus enim in Antid. Cone. Trid.,
necnon Kemnitius in exam. ejusdem Cone.;
et Georgius Major praefat. in Psal. omnia
examinari et emendari volunt ad Hebraeum
textum, quem purissimum fontem non semel
appellant.
Quae sententia apertissime falsa est. Nam
in primis Calvinus Institut. cap. VI §.11.
contendit, esse legendum IsaiaelX. et vocabi¬
tur admirabilis , etc. at Hebraeus textus modo
non habet vocabitur , id est N7pl sed vocabit
>Hpi; neque ignoravit Calvinus, meliorem
hoc loco vulgatam editionem esse, quam He¬
braicam. Sic enim ait : « Neque est, quod
oblatrent Judaei, et sic lectionem invertant :
hoc est nomen quod vocabit eum Deus, for¬
tis, pater futuri saeculi, ac demum hoc unum
Filio reliquum faciant, ut sit princeps pacis :
quorsum enim tot epitheta in Deum hoc loco
congesta forent? » Igitur confessione Calvi¬
ni, turbidus alicubi fluit ille fons, quem ipse
idem ubique purum videri volebat. Pari ra¬
tione Hierem XXIII. vult ibidem Calvinus
esse legendum, et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt
eum , Dominus justitia nostra. At fons Hebrai¬
cus constanter habet !)fop!> vocabit eum , non
iriNlp^ vocabunt eum.
Praeterea Psalm. XXI. nemo Christiano¬
rum est qui non legat : Foderunt manus meas
et pedes meos : textus vero Hebraici legunt,
sicut leo *niO non foderunt , quod dicitur !)*□ :
item Psal. XVIII. Hebraici codices legunt :
In omnem terram exivit DYp, id est, linea, sive
perpendiculum eorum ; cum tamen LXX. ver¬
terint Qiyqog aurwv ; et eorum versionem ap¬
probaverit B. Paulus Rom. X. ubi hunc Psal.
citat. Quid quod Hieronymus ad litteram
reddidit ex Hebraeo exivit sonus eoruml ut om¬
nino necesse sit, aut Paulum et Hieronymum
reprehendere , aut certe fateri , fontem hoc
loco non esse purum. Verisimile autem est
legi debere □Sip. una enim littera tantum
addita, ex mp fit n-rip. Adde, quod inter¬
dum desunt integrae sententiae in Hebraeo,
cum non desint nec inversione LXX., nec in
Hieronymi translatione. Exemplum habemus
Exod. II. ubi deest totum illud. Alium quoque
genuit , et vocavit nomen ejus Eliazer dicens :
Deus patris mei auxiliatus est mihi , et liberavit
me de manu Pharaonis (1).
His igitur omissis, qui Hebraico fonti ni¬
miam puritatem falso attribuunt ; aliis quo¬
que occurrendum videtur, qui zelo quidem
bono, sed nescio an secundum scientiam,
omnino contendunt, Judaeos in odium Chris¬
tianae Fidei studiose depravasse, et corru¬
pisse multa loca Scripturarum. Ita docet Ja-
cobus Episcopus Christopolitanus praefat. in
Psalm., et Canus lib. II. cap. 13. deloc. Theo-
log.
Pugnant autem adversus hanc sententiam
gravissima argumenta. Primum est Origenis
in VIII. lib. in Isaiam, ut Hieronymus refert
in c. 6. Isaiae, et Hieronymi ibidem qui hunc
in modum ratiocinatur : Si Scripturas Hebraei
aliquando corruperunt , vel id fecerunt ante
Christi adventum, vel postea. Si antea ; quare
Christus et Apostoli nunquam eos de tam in¬
signi crimine reprehenderunt , praesertim
cum leviora non tacuerint ? Quare Dominus
ait Jo : V. Scrutamini Scripturas; et Matth.
XXIII. Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scri¬
bae et Phariscei ; omnia ergo qucecumque dixe¬
rint vobis servate, et facite (2) ? Cui credibile erit,
Christum ad corruptas Scripturas legendas
sine ulla praemonitione homines invitasse :
vel ad corruptores audiendos et sequendos
amandasse? Sin autem post Christi adven¬
tum id factum est ; quo pacto testimonia
quae a Christo et Apostolis citantur, omnia
fere inveniuntur nunc in Mose et Prophetis
ut ab illis citata sunt ? Numquid forte sic ea
protulerunt, ut per spiritum cognoscebant
depravanda postmodum a Judaeis fuisse?Igi-
(1) Exod. II, 22. — (2) Joan. V, 39.; Math. XXIII, 2.
122
LIBER II.
tur si nec ante, nec post Salvatoris adventum
sacrae Litterae ab Hebraeis vitiatae sunt, illud
certe sequitur, ut nunquam vitiatae sunt. At¬
que hoc Hieronymi, etOrigenis argumentum
est.
Alterum argumentum est S. August. in
lib. XV. de Civit. Dei cap. 13. qui inde hoc
probat, unde quod non videatur ullo modo
credibile, Judaeos voluisse suis codicibus eri¬
pere veritatem, ut nostris detraherent aucto¬
ritatem : et etiam si voluissent, non sit veri¬
simile potuisse. Sed verba ipsius audiamus:
« Si quaeram, inquit, quid sit credibilius, Ju¬
daeorum gentem tam longe late que diffusam,
in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno con¬
silio conspirare potuisse : et dum aliis invi¬
dent auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse veritatem ?
An 70 homines, qui etiam ipsi Judaei erant,
in uno loco positos, ipsam veritatem genti¬
bus alienigenis invidisse, et communicato
istud fecisse consilio; quis non videat , quid
proclivius, faciliusque credatur ? Sed absit,
ut prudens quispiam vel Judaeos cujuslibet
perversitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse
credat in codicibus tam multis, et tam longe
lateque dispersis, vel LXX. illos memorabi¬
les viros hoc de invidenda Gentibus veritate
unum communicasse consilium. » Haec Au¬
gustinus.
Dicet aliquis, generalem istam depravatio¬
nem Hebraicorum codicum post Augustini et
Hieronymi tempora accidisse : proinde eo¬
rum testimonia parum ad rem praesentem
facere. At Augustini rationes omni tempore
locum habent Deinde si post illorum Pa¬
trum tempora depravatio illa contigisset ;
quae causa reddi posset , cur Psalmorum in¬
terpretatio Hieronymiana ita cum textu He¬
braico, qui nunc exstat, in omnibus conve¬
niret? et tamen de Psalmorum depravatione
praecipua querimonia est. Nam ita Hierony¬
mus vertit, sicut Judaei falsaturi erant? ne¬
que his repugnat locus Psal. XXII, ubi Hiero¬
nymus vertit, foderunt. In Massoreth enim,
quem post Hieronymi tempora scripserunt,
monent Rabbini in Psal. XXII. scribi debere
Vlfo3 non n&3 ex quo evidenter colligitur,
errore Scribarum nunc legi ruo.
Argumentum tertium sumi potest ab in¬
credibili religione Judaeorum erga sacros li¬
bros. Scribit Philo in libro de egressu lilio¬
rum Israel ab Aegypto, et citatur etiam ab
Eusebiolib. VIII. c4 2. Praepar. Evangel.
usque ad sua tempora per spatium amplius
quam duorum millium annorum, ne verbum
quidem fuisse unquam in Lege Hebraeorum
immutatum , et quemlibet Judaeum centies
potius moriturum, quam ut pateretur Legem
in aliquo mutari. De superstitione autem re-
centiorum Judaeorum, qui Legem fere ut nu¬
men adorant, et si aliquando in terram ceci¬
derit, jejunium publicum inducunt; vide
Joannem Isaac in responsione ad libros Lin-
dani de optimo genere interpretandi Scrip¬
turas.
Argumentum quartum : Si Judaei falsare
voluissent divinas Scripturas in odium Chris¬
tianorum, sine dubio praecipua vaticinia sus¬
tulissent : id autem minime fecerunt ; siqui¬
dem ea in quibus discrepant Hebraea a Grae¬
cis et Latinis, saepe nullius momenti sunt,
quantum attinet ad Fidem, et religionem, et
saepe codices Hebraei magis Judaeos vexant,
quam Graeci aut Latini. Certe in II. Psalm.
Latini et Graeci habent : Apprehendite disci¬
plinam , ne irascatur Dominus { 1), ex quo nihil
aperte contra Judaeos deduci potest : at in
Hebraeo est, 73 TU3 Osculamini Filium ne
irascatur , id est, reverentiam exhibite Filio
Dei ne ipse irascatur , etc. qui locus est invic¬
tissimus contra Judaeos. An-ne igitur credi¬
bile erit Judaeos mutasse Scripturam , ut lu-
chlentius Dei Filio testimonium perhiberet?
Item Isaiae LIII. ubi nos habemus : Et nos
putavimus eum quasi leprosum , et percussum a
Deo, et humilitatem, (2)' in Hebraeo legi po¬
test, percussum Deum , et humiliatum , nJSQS
Dins MQ quod certe magnum negotium Ju¬
daeis facessit, qui Christum futurum esse
Deum non credunt.
Quintum et ultimum argumentum a pro¬
videntia ducitur, qua Deus Ecclesiae suae
semper prospicit. Non enim verisimile est,
Deum id passurum fuisse, ut verba tot illus¬
trium Prophetarum generaliter falsarentur,
praesertim cum ad hunc finem Judaeos dis¬
perserit per totum orbem terrarum , et cir¬
cumferre eos voluerit libros Legis et Prophe¬
tarum , ut inimici nostri Christianae veritati
testimonium praeberent. Observavit id Sanc¬
tus Justinus in oratione exhortatoria, et San-
tus Augustinus lib. XVIII. De Civit. Dei cap.
45. ej, ex Psal. LVIII. manifeste deducitur :
Ne occidas eos, nequando obliviscantur populi
mei , disperge illos in virtute tua, etc. (3). Ideo
enim dispersi sunt Judaei libros sacros cir-
(1) Psalm. II, 12. - (2) Isai. LIII, 4. — (3) Psalm. LVIII, 12. *
CAPUT II.
123
cumferentes, ut cum Pagani non credunt ea,
quse dicimus de Christo esse praedicta, sed a
nobis ejusmodi vaticinia conficta, mittamus
eos ad inimicos nostros Judaeos, qui vaticinia
secum ferunt.
At contra objiciunt. Primo Patrum testi¬
monia, ut Justini in dial. cum Triph. Eusebii
lib. IY. hist. cap. 18. Origenis hom. 12. in
Hierem., Chrysost. hom. 5. in Matth. et
Hieronym. in epist. 89. ad August. , in c. Y.
Michaeae, et in cap. III. ad Galatas , qui sus¬
picantur, Judaeos quaedam erasisse ex He¬
braicis codicibus, quaedam in odium Christia¬
norum corrupisse .
Respondeo : Justinum et Eusebium nus¬
quam scripsisse, ab Hebraeis textum Hebrai¬
cum esse corruptum , sed textum Graecum
LXX. interpretum. Verba Justini haec sunt
in dial. cum Triph. : « Ac, inquit, quod illi
multos et integros prorsus locos illarum ex
translatione eorum, qui cum Ptolomaeo fuere
Seniorum sustulerint , in quibus clare hunc
ipsum crucifixum Deum , et hominem esse,
eumque in cruce pendere et mori pronun¬
tiatum esse ostenditur, scire vos volo. »Haec
Justinus. Neque usquam alibi scribit quid¬
quam de corruptione textus Hebraici. Euse-
bius autem nihil dicit aliud, quam convi¬
ctum a Justino Triphonem fuisse, majores
suos e Scripturis quaedam capitula abstu¬
lisse. Quod non aliter intelligendum est, quam
ut ipse Justinus verbis suis exposuit.
Origenes quoque aperte loquitur de cor¬
ruptione versionis LXX., dicit enim, subla¬
tam a Judaeis in versione Septuaginta vocem
Juda in illo Hierem, XVII. Peccatum Juda
scriptum est stylo ferreo : et positum, Pecca¬
tum eorum scriptum est stylo ferreo (1). Sic
enim Origenes loquitur : « Deinde alia sequi¬
tur prophetia, quam nescio quare apud LXX.
non invenientes, in caeteris editionibus, quae
cum Hebraeo sermone consentiunt, reperi-
mus. » Et infra : « Judaei, qui exemplaria non¬
nulla falsarunt, etiam in hoc loco pro pecca¬
to Juda, peccatum eorum posuerunt. » Cujus
etiam corruptionis meminit Hieronymus in
hunc locum Hieremiae.
Porro Chrysostomus loquitur de interpre¬
tibus Judaeis , id est. Aquila, Symmacho, et
Theodotione , qui in suis interpretationibus
de Hebraeo in Graecum multa perperam po¬
suerunt in odium Christianae Fidei, et in re¬
prehensionem LXX Interpretum. De quibus
etiam loquitur B. Hieronymus in epistol.
ad August., quae est XI. inter epistolas Au¬
gustini, ubi dicit, se voluisse ex Hebraeo ver¬
tere divinos libros, ut restitueret quae Judaei,
vel omiserant, vel corruperant. Idem autem
Hieronymus in Commentariis citatis dubitat,
non asserit. At in Commentariis Isaiae, quae
posterius scripsit , ut patet ex praefat. Gom-
ment. in Isa. et ex lib. de vir. illustr. extre¬
mo, aperte ridet eos, qui putant Hebraeos
codices esse falsatos.
Secundo objiciunt confessionem Judaeo¬
rum, qui passim affirmant , multa a quibus¬
dam suis sapientibus mutata esse in sacris
libris ; et eas mutationes vocant correctio¬
nem Scribarum onsiD “ppl.
Respondeo dupliciter. Primum , forte non
esse verum, ullam emendationem Bibliorum
factam a Scribis. Origo enim hujus senten¬
tiae est Thalmud, qui liber est fabulosissimus.
Quare nec Epiphanius nec Hieronymus, qui
sunt antiquiores libro Thalmud , unquam
meminerunt hujus Tikun Sophrim.
Addo deinde , si Tikun Sophrim non est
fabula, non esse corruptionem, sed veram
emendationem, non factam a quibuscumque
Scribis, sed ab Esdra, et aliis sanctis Prophe¬
tis, qui post reditum a captivitate libros sa¬
cros reparaverunt, qui , ut Judaei perhibent.
Concilium celebraverunt, quod ipsi vocant
magnam synagogam, quia magni viri inter¬
fuerunt, et in eo libros sacros, qui tempore
captivitatis dispersi et depravati fuerant,
suae integritati restituerunt. Certe in editione
nostra vulgata ista loca ita habentur, ut Scri¬
bae dicuntur correxisse ; et B. Hieronymus in
Comment. in Prophet. eodem modo ista loca
se legisse significat .
Aiunt Gen. XVIII. ubi nunc habemus:
Abraham adhuc stabat coram Domino (2), olim
fuisse : Dominus adhuc stabat coram Abraham :
sed a Scribis locum fuisse mutatum. At
vulgata editio priorem lectionem retinet.
Item Num. XI ubi nunc habemus ; Inveniam
gratiam in oculis tuisf et non videam (3) injm
hoc est, malum meum : dicunt esse correctio¬
nem Scribarum, et antea fuisse Tjnjli malum
tuum. Gaeterum priore modo legit editio vul¬
gata.
Aiuntpraeterea Oseae. IX. olim fuisse ana
Viyh, id est, in carne mea ex eis : Scribas
autem correxisse D'rT)3 5TK&3 cum recessero ab
eis (4). At vulgata editio habet Cum recessero
(1) Jerera. XVII, 1. — (2) Gen. XVIII, 22. — (3) Num. XI, 15. — (4) Osee IX, 12.
124
LIBER II.
ab eis; et sic etiam legit B. Hieronym. Item
aiunt Habacuc I. antea fuisse. Nurnquid non
tu a principio Domine Deus meus sancte meus ,
'ni an nS non morieris (1)? Scribas autem cor¬
rexisse h Ybi ab nonmoriemur. At hoc ultimo
modo habet editio vulgata , et sic etiam le¬
git B. Hieronymus. Aiunt quoque Malach. I.
fuisse : Et exsufflastis ihlfc me : Scribas vero
correxisse, Et exsufflastis Tfi& illud (2). At
certe vulgata Latina editio cum Hieronymo
et septuaginta Senioribus non habet , Me ,
sed, Illud, aut Illa. Idem dico de aliis corre¬
ctionibus Scribarum , quas collegit Proche-
tus in I. lib. De victoria contra Judaeos , et
Figuerola Valentinus cap. III. partis primae
libri sui contra Judaeos.
Ex quo apparet, imprudenter quosdam,
dum se Hebraeos oppugnare credunt, Eccle¬
siam ipsam oppugnare. Si enim illae correc¬
tiones Scribarum sunt Hebi-aici textus cor¬
ruptiones, sequitur aperte, vulgatam quoque
editionem esse corruptissimam : quam tamen
nobis Ecclesia pro versione authentica tra¬
didit.
Tertio, objiciunt, in Psalm. XIII. deesse
octo versiculos in omnibus impressis He¬
braeis codicibus, nimirum illos:
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum.
Linguis suis dolose agebant.
Venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum.
Quorum os maledictione , et amaritudine plenum
est.
Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem.
Contritio et infelicitas in viis eorum.
Et viam pacis non cognoverunt.
Non est timor Dei ante oculos eorum (3). ,
Qui tamen citantur ab Apostolo Rom. III. et
habentur apud Septuaginta. Hoc autem non
videtur potuisse accidere ex negligentia scri¬
ptorum, sed ex pura malitia Judaeorum, qui
hos versus detraxerunt ex Hebraeo, ut osten¬
derent, Apostolum nostrum non fideliter pro¬
tulisse testimonium Psalmi.
Respondit B Hieronymus ad hanc objec¬
tionem, quae ipsi etiam olim facta fuerat, in
praefat. lib. XVI. in Isaiam, hos versus non
pertinere proprie ad Psal. XIII. sed ab Apo¬
stolo allegari ex variis Scripturae locis ; dein¬
de ab aliquo alio ex Apostolo in Psalterium
esse translatos. Inveniuntur enim primus, et
secundus eorum versuum Psal. Y. tertius
Psal. CXXXIX. quartus Psalm. IX. quintus,
sextus et septimus habentur Isaiae LIX. ulti¬
mus Psal. XXXY. Atque ibidem addidit Hie¬
ronymus, hos versus non esse in interpreta¬
tione LXX, nec ullum Graecum auctorem in
suis Commentariis hos versus exponere vo¬
luisse. Origenes quoque in Comment. cap.
III. epist. ad Rom. dicit, Apostolum hos ver¬
sus sumpsisse ex variis Scripturae locis. Qui¬
bus verbis manifeste significat , eos versus
nec in Hebraeo textu, nec in LXX Seniorum
interpretatione reperiri.
Sed instant etprobant, aliquando hos ver¬
sus fuisse in Hebraeo, quia nunc reperiuntur
in quodam codice vestutissimo Anglicano.
Respondeo : illos versus codicis Anglicani
manifeste esse addititios. Nam nec verba
sunt omnia Hebraica , ut illud bja sors : nec
etiam phrasis, praesertim in illo versu; ‘"ijrfc
KTQ 'rhm ams quorum os dolus et ama¬
ritudo implevit. Non enim Hebraei verbum ad
finem collocare solent. Vide plura de hac re
in libro notationum ad varias lectiones vul¬
gatae editionis Francisci Lucae Brugensis.
Dices, si ita est , cur Ecclesia in editione
vulgata hosversiculos esse patitur? Nimirum
ea de causa, quoniam sunt etiam ipsi sacrae
Scripturae partes quaedam ; et quoniam sine
turbatione et scandalo populi non possent
auferri, cum longo jam tempore ibi fuerint :
quomodo etiam patitur nonnullos errores ty-
pographorum.
• Ultimo objicit Canus, evidens esse ab He¬
braeis corruptos esse divinos codices , quia
Gen. VIII. in Hebraeo legitur : Corvus egre¬
diebatur , et revertebatur ; cum vulgata editio,
et LXX, et omnes Patres legant, non reverte¬
batur (4). Respondeo : in Hebraeo non habe¬
ri, et revertebatur , sed 'aifh nW Nlh5? , hoc
est, et exiit exeundo redeundo , donec siccaren¬
tur aquae \ quod non significat , corvum re-
diisse intra Arcam, sed volitasse circa Ar¬
cam eundo et redeundo ad tectum Arcae , et
inde abeundo, idque saepius donec siccaren-
rur aquae ; cum quo bene cohaeret , quod
egrediebatur, et non revertebatur, nimirum
intra Arcam. Adde, quod etiam non desunt
Latini codices, qui habeant, egrediebatur et
revertebatur : ut ex variis lectionibus ad Bi-
blia Lovaniensia annotatis cognosci potest.
His ergo duabus sententiis refutatis, restat
tertia, quam ego verissimam puto, quae est
Driedonis lib. II. De Ecclesiast. dogmat. et
(1) Hab. I, 14. — (2) Mach. I, 13. — (3) Psalm. XIII, 3. et seq. — (4) Gen. VIII, 7.
CAPUT III.
125
Scriptur. cap. 1. , et aliorum qui docent,
Scripturas Hebraicas non esse in universum
depravatas , opera vel malitia Judaeorum;
nec tamen esse omnino integras et puras,
sed habere suos quosdam errbres , qui par-
tim irrepserint negligentia , vel ignorantia
Librariorum , praesertim cum in Hebraeo fa¬
cile sit errare ob litteras quasdam similli¬
mas, quales sunt; 2 et 3 : i et 'i : n, n, et h :
1 et ^ ; partim ignorantia liabbinorum qui ad¬
diderunt puncta. Cum enim possint dictio¬
nes Hebraicae variis modis legi , si punctis
careant ; non est mirum , si aliquando ipsi
quoque in notatione punctorum a vero aber¬
raverint. Potest etiam fieri , ut ex pravo af¬
fectu, et odio in Christum ea lectio interdum
ipsis magis probata sit, quae minus Christia¬
nis favebat.
Gaeterum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmo¬
di errores, ut in iis quae ad Fidem et bonos
mores pertinent, Scripturae sacrae integritas
desideretur. Plerumque enim tota discrepan¬
tia variarum lectionum in dictionibus qui¬
busdam posita est, quae sensum aut parum,
aut nihil mutant. Errores autem qui ex addi¬
tione punctorum acciderunt , nihil omnino
veritati officiunt : puncta enim extrinsecus
addita sunt, nec textum mutant. Itaque pos¬
sumus, si volumus, puncta detrahere, et ali¬
ter legere.