Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 9: On the author of the Vulgate edition
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).
It is no small question concerning this our Vulgate Latin edition: whether it be the ancient one, which was before Jerome, or Jerome's own. Sanctes Pagninus, in the preface of his interpretation of the Bible to Clement VII, and Paul, Bishop of Fossombrone, book 2 chapter 1 On the day of the Lord's Passion, think, or at least suspect, that it is the ancient. On the contrary, that it is blessed Jerome's, Augustinus Eugubinus and John Pico of Mirandola contend, in books published on this matter, and certain others. But that it is mixed of the old and the new, John Driedo teaches book 2 chapter 1 On Ecclesiastical doctrines and Scriptures, and Sixtus of Siena book 8 of the Holy Bibliotheca, at the end.
We therefore, for the sake of brevity and clearness, will embrace our opinion in four propositions.
The first proposition: “The Latin New Testament of the Vulgate edition we have from the ancient version, which nevertheless blessed Jerome emended.” This we prove chiefly by this argument, that many places which blessed Jerome reprehends in the ancient version we find in ours so corrected as he affirms they ought to be corrected. And, to compare some places: in his Commentary on chapter 2 of Matthew he says that that In Bethlehem of Judea ought to be In Bethlehem of Juda. In book 1 against Jovinian he reprehends that of 1 Corinthians 7, The woman and the virgin is divided, and will have it read, The unmarried woman and the virgin, etc. In the epistle to Marcella, at the end of the second volume, he reprehends that of Romans 12, Serving the time, and will have it read, Serving the Lord. In the same place he reprehends that of 1 Timothy 1, A human saying, and teaches it should be read, A faithful saying. In his Commentary on chapter 2 of Galatians he reprehends that To whom we yielded for an hour, and restores, To whom we yielded not, no not for an hour. And in his Commentary on the same chapter he reprehends that Your persuasion is from God, and will have it read, This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. In his Commentary on chapter 1 to the Ephesians he reprehends that, Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of adoption, and will have it read, Unto the redemption of the purchased possession. But all these, and very many others of the kind, we now have in the Vulgate edition just as he admonishes they ought to have been read.
Besides, it is established that Jerome emended the New Testament by command of Pope Damasus; it is established also that his emendation was received, and greatly pleased the men of his time, as can be understood from epistle 10 of Augustine to Jerome. It is therefore not likely that it was afterward rejected, but rather retained and preserved.
Nor ought it to move us that certain places are not emended as Jerome admonished they should be emended, such as that of Romans 12, To be wise unto sobriety, which Jerome book 1 against Jovinian will have read, To be wise unto chastity; and that of 1 Corinthians 13, If I should deliver my body so that I burn, which Jerome on chapter 5 to the Galatians will have read, So that I glory; and certain others which he himself corrects in the Commentaries on the epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to Titus. For he himself in the preface of the Gospels to Damasus confesses that he did not correct all the things which he thought ought to be corrected, lest he should seem to have changed too many.
Besides, it can be that, while he wrote those Commentaries, he judged those things ought to be changed which afterward, when he undertook to emend the New Testament, the matter being better considered, he judged ought not to be changed. For that he wrote those Commentaries before he emended the New Testament is gathered from the end of the book On Illustrious Men; and indeed our version in these two places is better than that which blessed Jerome then wished to substitute.
The second proposition: “The Psalter of the Vulgate Latin edition is not that which blessed Jerome translated from the Hebrew, nor that which he translated from the Greek version of the Seventy Interpreters, but that which he himself emended, translated by an ancient interpreter from the edition of St. Lucian the Martyr; since blessed Jerome labored four times upon the Psalter. For he translated it from the Hebrew into Latin, as is plain from his epistle to Sophronius; likewise he turned it from Greek into Latin from the pure edition of the Seventy, as is had in the Hexapla of Origen, as he himself testifies in the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela; and finally he twice emended the ancient Latin edition, which had been translated from the common and Vulgate Greek, as is plain from the preface of the Psalter to Paula and Eustochium.” But let us briefly demonstrate the several points.
We say therefore that our Psalter is not that which blessed Jerome translated from the Hebrew, and this is certain: for that one is extant in the works of blessed Jerome, and almost everywhere differs from ours, at least as to the words.
We add: neither is it that which he turned from the Hexapla of Origen, but that common one which he twice emended, and this is proved from the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela. For there he says that what is had Psalm 5, Direct my way in thy sight, is had otherwise among the Seventy and in all the other interpretations, the common and Vulgate excepted; but our edition has it so; therefore our edition is that common and Vulgate one, and distinct from the pure interpretation of the Seventy Elders. Besides, in the same place Jerome says that what is had Psalm 73, Let us make all the festival days of God to cease from the land, is had among the Seventy in the Hexapla, and among all the other interpreters, Let us burn up all the festival days, and only in the Vulgate is had, Let us make to cease; but we have, Let us make to cease. Likewise what we have Psalm 103, The rock is a refuge for the hedgehogs, he says the Seventy rendered, A refuge for the hares; therefore ours is not that very version of the Seventy.
Finally in that whole epistle he very often sets down the words of the Latin Psalter as it then was in common use and was sung in the Churches; but all those we find in ours; therefore ours is that common and widely-spread Psalter. Moreover that that is called “common” by Jerome which Origen, and afterward Lucian, emended, is clear from that very epistle to Sunnia and Fretela; for thus at the beginning of the epistle St. Jerome speaks: “Know that there is one edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greek commentators call [koinēn], that is, common, and Vulgate, and which by very many is now called [Lucian's]; and another of the Seventy Interpreters which is found also in the Hexapla codices.”
The third proposition: “It is probable to us that the book of Wisdom, and of Ecclesiasticus, and of Maccabees, we have not from the version of Jerome, but from an ancient translation whose author is unknown.” To this we are moved. First, because blessed Jerome nowhere affirms that he translated these books, nor are any prefaces of his on these books extant, although in epistle 89 to Augustine (which is the eleventh among Augustine's epistles) he says that he prefixed little prefaces to the several books. Secondly, because blessed Jerome thought these books apocryphal, as is plain from the Helmeted Prologue and from the preface to the Proverbs; accordingly it is likely that he neglected the interpretation of these books. Thirdly, because many things are cited from these books by blessed Cyprian, especially in the book On the exhortation to martyrdom, and by other Fathers more ancient than blessed Jerome, in altogether the same manner as we have them in our Vulgate edition.
The fourth proposition: “All the rest we have in the Vulgate edition from Jerome's version out of the Hebrew.” This is proved. First, because it is established that blessed Jerome first and alone of the ancients translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, and again it is established that our edition is a translation from Hebrew into Latin, excepting the Psalms, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees. That Jerome translated from the Hebrew he himself testifies at the end of the book On Illustrious Men. That he first of the ancients did so is plain from Augustine in epistles 8 and 10, and book 18 of the City of God chapter 43, and from all the prefaces of Jerome, in which he always deprecates the calumny that he dared to translate from the Hebrew. That after him, down to our times, no one attempted the same, is more certain than certain.
Now that the Vulgate edition is a translation from the Hebrew, it in a manner itself cries out, since almost everywhere it agrees with the Hebrew and differs from the Greek. There are besides certain indications of this thing in almost all the books. For in the Pentateuch, especially Genesis 5, all the ancient books, because they were expressed from the version of the Seventy, contained that error about the number of the years; but our edition agrees with the Hebrew truth. In the books of Esther and Daniel, we often find in the books themselves little annotations of blessed Jerome saying that he faithfully expressed what was in the Hebrew, but added the rest from the Vulgate edition or from Theodotion.
In the preface on Job he says that in the ancient Latin and Greek edition of the book of Job there were wanting about 800 verses, which he himself set down from the Hebrew in his edition; but our edition is most entire and most full, no less than the Hebrew. Finally in the Commentaries on the Prophets he almost everywhere sets down and expounds two versions, that is, his own which is our Vulgate, and the other of the Seventy Interpreters.
Secondly it is proved, because all those things which blessed Jerome, in his preface on the Pentateuch and in the book On the best kind of interpreting, says are not had in the edition of the Seventy, and that he himself added in his translation from the Hebrew, we find in our Vulgate edition, as that, Out of Egypt have I called my son, Osee 11; and, They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, Zacharias 12; and, The eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee, what things thou hast prepared for them that wait for thee, Isaiah 64.
Thirdly it is proved from those places which blessed Jerome admonishes he translated otherwise than the Seventy translated, all which we find in our edition as he says he translated. In epistle 89 to Augustine (which is the eleventh among Augustine's epistles) he says that at Jonas 4 he translated Ivy, where the Seventy translated Gourd. Likewise in the Hebrew Questions on Genesis he says that Genesis 2 ought to be read, God finished on the seventh day his work, whereas among the Seventy it was read on the sixth day. In the same place he says it ought to be read, She was called Woman [virago], whereas among the Seventy it is said Woman. In the same place he says it ought to be read, He cast a deep sleep upon Adam, whereas among the Seventy it is, He cast an ecstasy. Many like things are found, both in the Hebrew Questions and in the Commentaries on the Prophets.
St. Gregory too, book 20 of the Morals chapter 32, expounding that, Thou art changed to me into one that is cruel, says that the ancient translation had it far otherwise, but that this new one made from the Hebrew is better. But in ours it is, Thou art changed to me into one that is cruel, Job 30.
Fourthly it is proved from the prefaces. For he himself testifies in the epistle to Augustine already cited that he prefixed to his edition from the Hebrew little prefaces to almost every book, which even now we see in the Bibles of the Vulgate edition, nor did anyone ever deny that they are Jerome's; but certainly it is not credible that the whole work perished except only the little prefaces. For those who cast away or neglected blessed Jerome's edition, why, I ask, did they preserve the little prefaces?
But to the contrary three arguments are chiefly wont to be made. The first argument, of Paul of Fossombrone and Sanctes Pagninus, is taken from many places in which our version differs from the Hebrew truth; for it is not credible, they say, that Jerome, most skilled in the Hebrew tongue, could have slipped in that matter. I answer: it happened for a twofold cause that our version sometimes seems to differ from the Hebrew text. One, and that far and wide extending, is the carelessness of the copyists, of which he himself everywhere in his prefaces complains. The other cause is that often blessed Jerome studied to express not so much the words as the sense, as he himself teaches ought to be done in the book On the best kind of interpreting. Let the example be in those words of Ecclesiastes 1, The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite. For these words seem to sound far otherwise than the Hebrew, which word for word has thus: [Hebrew phrase], that is, The perverse cannot be set right, and the fool cannot be numbered. But certainly Jerome most elegantly expressed the sense. Of this argument we shall say more in the following chapter.
The second argument: Jerome, in his preface on the Psalms, and on Job, and on Paralipomenon, admonishes that he distinguished his edition by asterisks and obeli; but in our Vulgate we do not see these signs; therefore our Vulgate edition is not Jerome's. I answer, from Jerome himself in the epistle to Augustine cited above: Jerome distinguished by asterisks and obeli that edition which he had made from the Greek, but not that which he had made from the Hebrew. In our Vulgate Psalter, therefore, there ought to have been the asterisks and obeli which Jerome mentions in the preface, but they fell out by the negligence of the copyists; nor is this to be wondered at, for even in his own time they had begun to fall out, as is plain from that very preface and from the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela. But in the book of Job and of Paralipomenon of our Vulgate edition there never were, nor ought there to be, asterisks or obeli. For hence we have two prefaces both on Job and on Paralipomenon, of which the former, in which no mention is made of asterisk and obelus, pertains to our version which is from the Hebrew; the latter, in which mention is made 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 which blessed Jerome, in the Hebrew Questions, in the book On the best kind of interpreting, in the Commentaries on the Prophets, and on Ecclesiasticus, teaches ought to have been translated otherwise; therefore it cannot be that our Vulgate edition is that very translation which Jerome made from the Hebrew. I answer: for four causes it happened that there are certain things in our text which blessed Jerome reprehends. The first is the error and negligence of the copyists. The second cause is the various signification of words, for sometimes they can signify two things, and blessed Jerome followed now one, now the other signification. We have an example in Ecclesiastes; for blessed Jerome twice translated Ecclesiastes, as is plain from the preface of his Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the preface to the Proverbs. And indeed in his first translation he rendered chapter 2, I thought to draw my flesh into wine; and so also in his Commentary he expounds it; but in the second translation he preferred to render, I thought to withdraw my flesh from wine, which reading we have, and our reading is better. For the Hebrew word [be-] can signify in wine or into wine, and also of wine or from wine; for the letter [beth] serves both for in and for of; but the context rather requires from wine than into wine. For there follows, that I might transfer my mind to wisdom.
That the letter [beth] is frequently taken for [min], that is, out of, of, from, is clear from these places: Exodus 12 verse 43, Exodus 35 verse 32, Exodus 38 verse 8, Leviticus 8 verse 32, and 2 Paralipomenon chapter 16 verse 6. And that blessed Jerome is wont to translate in various ways when the words bear it, he himself testifies book 1 of his Apology against Rufinus, where he says that he translated the Psalm, Adore purely; and yet in his Commentary expounded, Adore the Son, since the Hebrew word is ambiguous.
The third cause is that he himself afterward changed his opinion and corrected his places. And, to bring forward some example: in the book On the best kind of interpreting and in the preface on the Pentateuch, he says that Isaiah 11 ought not to be read, A flower shall rise up out of his root, but A Nazarene shall rise up out of his root, and that the Seventy wrongly passed over this name of the Nazarene, and that this place is cited by Matthew chapter 2, where he says, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, that he shall be called a Nazarene; but he himself afterward translated as the Seventy had translated, namely, And a flower shall rise up out of his root. And in his Commentary on chapter 11 of Isaiah he gives the reason of this thing, since the Hebrew word there set down is written with Tsade, whereas Nazarene is said from a word with Zain; wherefore in his Commentary on chapter 2 of Matthew he says that that He shall be called a Nazarene is not taken from any one Prophet, but from this, that all the Prophets foretold that the Lord should be holy. By like reason, book 5 of his Commentary on Isaiah, he confesses that at chapter 19 he wrongly translated, The land of Juda shall be to Egypt for a festivity, whereas it ought rather to have been translated, for a terror; and in this latter way we now have it in the Vulgate edition.
The fourth cause is that, although blessed Jerome sometimes thought certain things ought to be changed in his version, and noted them in his Commentaries, yet the Church afterward rather judged the first version true, and preferred to retain it in the Vulgate edition. For book 5 of his Commentary on Isaiah, where blessed Jerome says he translated Festivity for Terror, in the same place he says he wrongly translated Bridling for Wanton; and yet we see in our Vulgate edition the former correction of Jerome admitted, the latter not admitted — which certainly seems done not by chance, but by the judgment of posterity, or rather of the Church herself. And in this way answer can be made to many other things. For the Vulgate edition, although for the greatest part it is Jerome's, yet is not that pure one which he turned from the Hebrew, but is in some manner mixed, not a few things being added from the version of the Seventy which are not found in the Hebrew; and this is chiefly seen in the first book of Kings and in the Proverbs.
To all these may be added that sometimes Jerome seems to reprehend our version, when nevertheless he does not reprehend it, but only explains what is the force of the Hebrew word, as when in the Hebrew Questions he says on chapter 1 of Genesis that, for what we have, The Spirit of the Lord was carried over the waters, in the Hebrew it is, He brooded or cherished after the manner of a bird.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. De auctore vulgata editionis. Non parva quaestio est de hac nostra vul¬ gata Latina editione : sitne illa antiqua, quae erat ante Hieronymum, an vero ipsius Hie¬ ronymi : arbitrantur, vel certe suspicantur Sanctes Pagninus praefat. suae interpretationis Bibliorum ad Clementem VII. Pontificem Ma¬ ximum, Paulus Foro Sempronii Episcopus CAPUT IX. 135 lib. II. cap.l. de die Passionis Domini. Con¬ tra, esse B. Hieronymi contendunt Augusti¬ nus Eugubinus, et Joannes Picus Mirandula- nus in libris de hac re editis, aliique non¬ nulli. At mixtam esso ex vetere et nova, do¬ cent Joannes Driedo lib. II. cap. 1. de Ec- cles. dogmat. et Scripturis, et Sixtus Senen¬ sis lib. VIII. Biblioth. S. extr. Nos igitur gratia brevitatis et claritatis, sententiam nostram quatuor propositionibus complectemur. Prima propositio : « Testamentum novum Latinum editionis vulgatae ex antiqua ver- sione habemus, quam tamen B. Hierony¬ mus emendavit » : id vero eo potissimum argumento probamus, quod multa loca quae B. Hieronymus reprehendit in antiqua ver- sione, nos in nostra invenimus ita Correcta, ut ipse affirmat esse corrigenda. Ac ut aliqua loca conferamus : in Commentar, cap. II. Matth. dicit, illud In Bethlehem Judcece, de¬ bere esse, In Bethlehem Judce (i). Lib. I.in Jovin. reprehendit illud. I. Corinth. VII. Divisa est mulier et virgo , et vult legendum, Mulier innupta et virgo etc. (2) In epist. ad Marcellam, ad finem secundi tomi, repre- dit illud Boman. XII. Tempori servientes , et legi vult, Domino servientes (3). Ibidem re¬ prehendit illud I. Timqth. I. Humanus ser¬ mo , et docet legendum, Fideli s sermo (4). In Comment. cap. II. Galat. reprehendit illud Quibus ad horam cessimus, et restituit, Quibus neque ad horam cessimus (5). Et in Comment. cap. reprehendit illud Persuasio vestra ex Deo est , et vult legi, Non est ex eo qui vocat vos (6). In Comment. c. I. ad Ephes. repre¬ hendit illud : Qui est pignus hcereditatis in re¬ demptionem adoptionis (7), et vult legi, In re¬ demptionem acquisitionis . Haec autem omnia, et alia id genus permulta ita nunc habemus in editione vulgata, ut ipse monet legi de¬ buisse. Praeterea constat, Hieronymum emendasse novum Testamentum jussu Pontificis Da- masi : constat etiam ejus emendationem fuisse receptam, et valde placuisse hominibus ejus temporis, ut intelligi potest ex epist. 10. Au¬ gustini ad Hieronymum, non est igitur veri¬ simile postea fuisse rejectam, sed potius re¬ tentam et conservatam. Neque movere debet , quod quaedam loca non sunt emendata , ut Hieronymus ,monuit emendanda, quale est illud Bom. XII. Sapere ad sobrietatem (8), quod Hieronymus lib. I. in Jovinianum vult legi, Sapere ad pudicitiam. Et illud I. Corinth. XIII. Si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam (9), quod Hieronymus in c. 5. ad Galat. vult legi, Ita utglorier ; et quaidam alia, quae ipse corrigit in Comment. epistola¬ rum ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, et ad Titum. Nam ipse idem prsefat. Evangel. ad Dama- sum fatetur, se non omnia correxisse, quae corrigenda esse putabat, ne nimis multa im- Njnutasse videretur. Praeterea potest fieri , ut dum. ista Com¬ mentaria scriberet, existimaret illa esse mu¬ tanda, quae tamen postea cum Testamentum novum suscepit emendandum, re melius con- siderata, judicavit non esse mutanda. Nam prius eum scripsisse ista Commentaria, quam Testamentum novum emendaverit, colligitur ex lib. de vir. illustr. extremo , et sane nos¬ tra versio in his duobus locis melior est, quam illa, quam B. Hieronymus substitui tunc volebat. Secunda propositio : « Psalterium vulgatae editionis Latinae non est illud quod Beatus Hieronymus transtulit ex Hebraeo, neque il¬ lud quod transtulit ex versione Grseca LXX Interpretum, sed illud quod ipse emendavit, translatum ab antiquo interpreto ex editione S. Luciani Martyris ; siquidem Beatus Hiero¬ nymus circa Psalterium, quater laboraxit. Transtulit enim illud ex Hebraeo in Latinum, ut patet ex epistola ejusdem ad Sophronium ; item convertit ex Graeco in Latinum e pura editione Septuaginta, ut habetur in hexaplis Origenis, ut ipse testatur in epistola ad Su- niam et Fretellam : denique bis emendavit antiquam Latinam editionem, quae translata orat ex Graeco communi et vulgata , ut patet ex praefat. Psalt. ad Paulam etEustochiam.» Sed singula breviter demonstremus. Dicimus igitur Psalterium nostrum non esse illud quod B. Hieronymus transtulit ex Hebraeo, idque certum est: nam illud exstat in operibus B. Hieronymi, et fere ubique dissentit a nostro saltem quoad verba; Addimus : neque esse illud quod ipse ver¬ tit ex Origenis hexaplis, sed illud commune quod bis emejidavit, idque probatur ex epis¬ tola ad Suniam et Fretellam : nam ibi dicit, quod habetur Psal. Y. Dirige in conspectu tuo viam meam (10), aliter' haberi apud LXX et (1) Matth. II, 1. — (2) I. Cor. VII, 34. — (3) Rom. XII, 11. — (4) I. Tim. I, 15. — (5) G^at. II, 5. _ (6) Ibid. V, 8. — (7) Eph. I, 14. — (8) Rom. XII, 3. — (9) I. Cor. XIII, 3.— (10) Psalm. V, 9. 136 LIBER II. omnes alias interpretationes, excepta com¬ muni et vulgata : at nostra editio ita habet; igitur nostra editio est illa communis et vul¬ gata et a pura interpretatione LXX Senio¬ rum distincta. Praeterea ibidem Hieronymus dicit quod habetur Psal.LXXIII. Quiescere fa¬ ciamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra (1), haberi apud LXX in hexaplis, et apud omnes alios interpretes, Incendamus, vel comburamus om¬ nes dies festos, et solum in vulgata haberi. Quiescere faciamus : at nos habemus , Quies¬ cere faciamus. Item quod habemus Psal GUI. Petra refugium herinaciis (2) dicit LXX ver¬ tisse Refugium leporibus ; igitur nostra non est illa ipsa versio LXX. • Denique in tota illa epistola saepissime po¬ nit verba Latini Psalterii, ut tunc erat in com¬ muni usu, et in Ecclesiis cantabatur : at illa omnia in nostro invenimus ; igitur nostrum est Psalterium illud commune et pervulga¬ tum. Porro commune ab Hieronymo vocari il¬ lud, quod Origenes, et postea Lucianus emen¬ davit, perspicuum est ex illa ipsa epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam; sic enim initio epist. S. Hieronymus loquitur :« Sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes, et Caesariensis Eusebius, omnesque Graeci tractatores, xoivnv, id est, communem appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc louy.icr.-jb? dicitur, aliam septuaginta Interprtum quae et in i^xnloi? co¬ dicibus reperitur. » Tertia propositio : « Probabile nobis est, librum Sapientiae, et Ecclesiastici, et Macha- baeorum, nos non habere ex versione Hiero¬ nymi, sed ex antiqua translatione, cujus au¬ ctor ignoratur, a Ad hoc movemur. Primo, quia B. Hieronymus nusquam affirmat se transtulisse hos libros, neque ulla; exstant praefationes ejus in hos libros, cum tamen in epist. 89. ad August., quae est XI. inter epist. August., dicat, se singulis libris prae¬ fatiunculas praefixisse. Secundo , quia B. Hieronymus hos libros arbitrabatur apo¬ cryphos, ut patet ex prologo Galeato, et ex prsefat. Proverb. ; proinde verisimile est, eum neglexisse horum librorum interpreta¬ tionem. Tertio, quia multa citantur ex his libris a B. Cypriano, praesertim in lib. De exhortat. mart., et aliis Patribus B. Hierony¬ mo antiquioribus, eo modo prorsus, ut nos in nostra vulgata editione habemus.' Quarta propositio. « Reliqua omnia ex Hieronymi versione ex Hebraeo habemus in editione vulgata. » Id probatur. Primo, quoniam constat, B. Hieronymum primum et solum ex antiquis transtulisse ex Hebraeo in Latinum Testamentum vetus, et rursum constat, nostram editionem transla¬ tionem esse ex Hebraeo in Latinum, exceptis Psalmis, Sapientia, Ecclesiastico, et Macba- baeis. Quod Hieronymus transtulerit ex He¬ braeo, ipse testatur lib. de vir. illustri extre¬ mo. Quod ipse primus ex antiquis, patet ex Augustino in epist 8. et 10. et lib. XYIII. de Civit. Dei cap. 43. et ex omnibus Hiero¬ nymi praefationibus, in quibus semper de¬ precatur calumniam, quod ausus sit ex He¬ braeo transferre. Quod post eum usque ad nostra tempora, nemo idem tentaverit, certo certius est. Jam vero quod vulgata editio translatio sit ex Hebraeo, ipsa quodammodo clamat, dum pene ubique concordat cum Hebraeo, et a Graeco dissentit. Sunt praeterea certa indicia hujus rei fere in omnibus libris. Nam in Pentateucho, praesertim Genes. Y. omnes libri antiqui, quia erant ex versione LXX expressi, continebant errorem illum de nu¬ mero annorum : at nostra editio Hebraicae veritati consentit. In lib. Esther et Danielis, saepe in ipsis libris invenimus annotatiun¬ culas B. Hieronymi dicentis, se expressisse fideliter, quae erant in Hebraeo, reliqua au¬ tem de editione vulgata, vel ex Theodotione addidisse . Praefatione in Job dicit, in antiqua editio¬ ne I^atina et Graeca libri Job deesse ad 800. versus, quos ipse de Hebraeo in sua editione posuerit : at nostra editio integerrima et plenissima est, non minus quam Hebraica. Denique in Comment. Prophet., fere ubi¬ que duas versiones ponit et explicat, id est, suam quae est nostra vulgata, et aliam sep¬ tuaginta interpretum. Secundo probatur, quia illa omnia quae B. Hieronymus prsefat. in Pentat., et lib. de opt. gen. interpret. dicit, non haberi in edi¬ tione LXX, et se addidisse in sua translatio¬ ne ex Hebraeo, in nostra vulgata editione in¬ venimus, ut illud : Ex sEgypto vocavi filium meum (3), Oseae XI. et « Aspicient in me quem transfixerunt (4)» , Zach. XII. et e Ocu¬ lus non vidit , Deus absque te quce praeparasti expectqntibus te (S). Isai LXIV. (1) Psal. LXXIII, 8. — (2) Psal. CIII, 18. — (3) Osee XI, 1. — (4) Zach. XII, 10. - (5) Isai. LXIV. 4. CAPUT IX. 137 Tertio probatur ex iis locis, quae B. Hie¬ ronymus monet se aliter vertisse, quam LXX verterint, quae in nostra editione omnia in¬ venimus, ut ipse se vertisse dicit. In epist. 89. ad August , quae est 11. inter epistolas August., ait Jonse IV. se vertisse Hederam , ubi LXX verterunt Cucurbitam. Item in q. Hebr. in Genesim dicit, Gen. II. legendum : Complevit Deus die septima, opus suum , cum apud LXX legeretur die sexta. Ibidem dicit legendum : Vocata est virago , cum apud LXX dicatur Mulier. Ibidem dicit legendum : Im¬ misit soporem in Adam (1). cum apud LXX sit, Immisit ecstasim. Similia multa inveniun¬ tur, tum in quaest. Hebr., tum in Comment. Prophet. S. Gregorius quoque lib. XX. Moral. cap. 32. explicans illud : Mutatus es milii in cru¬ delem, dicit, antiquam translationem longe aliter habuisse, sed hanc novam ex Hebraico factam esse meliorem. At in nostra est, Mu¬ tatus es mihi in crudelem (2), Job. XXX. Quarto probatur ex praefationibus. Nam ipse testatur in epist. ad August. jam citata, se editioni suae ex Hebraeo singulis pene li¬ bris praefatiunculas praefixisse, quas etiam nunc videmus in Bibliis vulgatae editionis, nec ullus unquam negavit eas esse Hierony¬ mi : at certe non est credibile totum opus periisse, praeter solas praefatiunculas. Qui enim abjecerunt vel neglexerunt editionem B. Hieronymi, cur, quaeso, praefatiunculas conservarunt? At in contrarium tria argumenta potissi¬ mum fieri solent. Argumentum primum Pauli Foro-Semproniensis et Sanctis Pagnini sumitur ex multis locis, in quibus nostra versio ab Hebraica veritate dissentit ; nec enim credibile est, Hieronymum Hebraeicae linguae peritissimum in ea re labi potuisse. Respondeo : duplici de causa accidisse, ut nostra versio ab Hebraico textu aliquando dissentire videatur. Una est, eaque longe lateque patens, incuria Librariorum, de qua re passim ipse in praefationibus suis conque¬ ritur. Altera causa est, quia saepe B. Hiero¬ nymus non tam verba, quam sensum expri¬ mere studuit, ut faciendum esse ipse idem docet in lib. De opt. genere interpret. Exem¬ plum sit in illis verbis Eccl. 1. Perversi diffi¬ cile corriguntur , et stultorum infinitus nume¬ rus (3). Videntur enim haec verba longe aliud sonare quam Hebraica, quae ad verbum sic habent : 'lirp io ]!HDm 'ppni ^30 hsyfe rvr san hoc est, Perversum non poterit ad di¬ rigere , et stultum non poterit ad numerari. Sed certe Hieronymus elegantissime sensum ex¬ pressit. De hoc argumento plura dicemus in sequenti capite. Argumentum secundum. Hieron. praefat. in Psal. et in Job, et in Paralip. admonet, se distinxisse suam editionem per asteriscos et obeliscos : at in nostra vulgata non vide¬ mus ista signa; non igitur est Hieronymi vulgata nostra editio. Respondeo ex ipso Hieronymo in epist. ad August. sup. cit. : Hieronymum distinxisse per astericos et obeliscos eam editionem quam fecerat ex Graeco, non autem eam quam fecerat ex Hebraeo. In Psalterio igitur nostro vulgato debuissent esse asterisci et obelisci, quorum meminit Hieronymus in praefat., sed exciderunt negligentia Libra¬ riorum, neque hoc est mirum, nam etiam tempore ipsius coeperant excidere, ut patet ex illa ipsa praefat., et ex epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam. In libro autem Job et Parali- pomenon nostrae editionis vulgatae nunquam fuerunt, nec esse debent asterisci vel obe¬ lisci. Hinc enim duas praefationes nos habe¬ mus tam in Job, quam in Paralipomenon, queirum prior, in qua non fit mentio asterisci et obelisci, pertinet ad nostram versionem, quae est ex Hebraeo, posterior in qua fit mentio eorum signorum pertinet ad aliam versionem, quem fecit ex Graeco. Tertium argumentum. Multa inveniuntur in nostra editione vulgata, quae B. Hierony¬ mus in quaestionibus Hebraicis, in lib. de opt. gen. interpret., in Comment. Prophet., et in Ecclesiasticum docet, aliter fuisse ver¬ tenda : igitur fieri non potest, ut editio nostra vulgata sit illa ipsa translatio, quam Hieronymus fecerat ex Hebraeo. Respondeo : quatuor de causis accidisse, ut quaedam in nostro textu sint, quaeB. Hie¬ ronymus reprehendit. Prima est error et negligentia Librariorum. Secunda causa est, varia significatio vocabulorum, inter¬ dum enim possunt duo significare, et B. Hieronymus modo unam , modo alteram significationem secutus est : exemplum ha¬ bemus in Ecclesiaste ; nam B. Hieronymus bis vertit Ecclesiastem, ut patet ex praefat. Comment. in Ecclesiast., et praefat Proverb. Et quidem in primo translatione vertit cap. (1) Gen. XI. 2. 21. et 23. — (2) Job. XXX. 21. — (3) Eccl. I, 15. 138 LIBER II. II. Cogitavi trahere carnem meam in vinum ; et sic etiam in Commentario exponit : at in secunda translatione maluit vertere : Cogi¬ tavi abstrahere carnem meam flwno(I), quam lectionem nos habemus, et melior est nostra lectio. Nam verbum Hebraeum pia potest significare in vino , seu in vinum , et etiam de vino sive a vino : nam littera 2 deservit et loco in et loco de : contextus autem magis requirit a vino , quam in vinum. Sequitur enim, ut animum meum transferrem ad sapien¬ tiam. Quod autem littera '2 accipiatur frequen¬ ter pro t 553, id est, ex , de, ab, perspicuum est his locis, Exod. XII, vers. 43. Exod. XXXV, vers. 32. Exod. XXXVIII, vers. 8. et Levit. 8. vers. 32. et II, Paralipom. cap. XVI, vers. 6. Quod vero B. Hieronymus soleat variis modis vertere quando verba id ferant, testa¬ tur ipsemet lib. I. apolog. cont. Ruffin., ubi dicit Psalm. secundum se vertisse : Adorate pure : et tamen in Comment. exposuisse : Adorate Filium , quoniam vox Hebraea am¬ bigua est. Tertia causa est, quia ipsemet postea mu¬ tavit sententiam, et loca sua correxit. Ac ut exemplum aliquod proferamus, lib. de opt. gen. interpret., et preefat. in Pentat., dicit Isai. XI. non debere legi \ Flos de radice ejus ascendet ; sed Nazarceus de radice ejus ascen¬ det (2) : et LXX hoc nomen Nazaraei male praetermisisse, et hunc locum citari a Mat¬ thaeo cap. II. ubi dicit : Ut impleretur quod dictum est per Prophetas , quoniam Nazarceus vocabitur (3) : at ipse idem postea vertit, si¬ cut verterant Septuaginta, nimirum : Et flos de radice ejus ascendet. Et in Comment. cap. XI. Isaiae, reddit rationem hujus rei, quoniam verbum Hebraeum ibi positum 'lyj scribitur per Tsade, cum Nazaraeus dicatur a verbo 'lij per Zain, quocirca Comment. cap. II. Matth. dicit illud Quoniam Nazarceus vocabi¬ tur, non esse desumptum ex aliquo uno Pro¬ pheta, sed ex eo, quod omnes Prophetae Do¬ minum sanctum futurum esse praedixerunt. Pari ratione lib. V. Comment. in Isai. fatetur cap. XIX, male se vertisse Erit terra Judce FEgypto in festivitatem (4), cum potius verti debuerit, in pavorem, et hoc posteriore mo¬ do nos jam habemus in vulgata editione. Quarta causa est, quia etsi B. Hierony¬ mus interdum senserit, quaedam mutanda in sua versione, et ea notaverit in suis Com¬ mentariis ; tamen Ecclesia postea magis ju¬ dicavit veram primam versionem, et illam retinere maluit in editione vulgata. Nam lib. V. Comment. in Isa. ubi B. Hier, dicit se vertisse Festivitatem, pro Pavore, ibidem dicit se male vertisse Refrcenantem, pro Las¬ civientem : et tamen videmus in nostra edi¬ tione vulgata priorem correctionem, Hiero¬ nymi admissam, posteriorem non admissam, quod certe non videtur cr.su factum, sed ju¬ dicio posteritatis, vel potius ipsius Ecclesiae. Et hoc modo ad multa alia responderi po¬ test. Editio enim vulgata, quamvis maxima ex parte Hieronymi sit : tamen non est illa pura, quam ipse ex Hebraeo convertit, sed est aliquo modo mixta, additis non paucis ex versione LXX, quae in Hebrseo non inve¬ niuntur, atque id potissimum perspicitur in lib. I. Reg. et in Proverb. His omnibus addi potest, interdum Hiero¬ nymum videri reprehendere versionem no¬ stram, cum tamen eam non reprehendat, sed solum explicet, quae sit vis Hebraeae vo¬ cis, ut cum in quaest. Hebr. dicit cap. I. Ge¬ nesis, pro eo quod nos habemus, Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas (5) : in Hebraeo esse, Incubabat seu fovebat more avis.