Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 11: The objections of the heretics against the Vulgate are solved
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).
The arguments of the heretics against the Vulgate edition can be reduced to three. The first is, because blessed Jerome translated many things otherwise than we have them, and reprehends many things in our Vulgate edition; but this has already been answered above, chapter 8.
The second argument: It is rather to be believed that the word of God is what is had in the fountains of the Hebrew and Greek codices than what is had in the streamlets of the versions; for the Hebrew and Greek codices are of the Prophets and Apostles, who could not err; but the Latin are of various interpreters, who could err. For that it is one thing to be an interpreter, another to be a Prophet, Jerome teaches in the preface on the Pentateuch. And the same Jerome everywhere reprehends the old interpreter in his Commentaries, and in book 1 against Jovinian; and blessed Augustine not only in general says that interpreters can err, book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 12, and epistles 19 and 59, but even epistle 8 to Jerome asserts that Jerome could have erred in his interpretation.
It is added that the Fathers everywhere teach that we must have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek fountains. Jerome in the book against Helvidius, and in the epistle to Marcella which begins After the former epistle, teaches that the Latin edition of the Gospels is to be recalled to the Greek fountains; and the same he says of the Latin edition of the Old Testament to be emended from the Hebrew, in his Commentary on chapter 8 of Zacharias. The same has Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapters 11, 12, and 15, and epistle 59, and elsewhere. And what is more wonderful, in the Pontifical law itself, distinction 9, canon Ut veterum, it is thus said: “As the fidelity of the old books is to be examined from the Hebrew volumes, so the truth of the new requires the standard of the Greek speech.”
I answer: it cannot be denied that the fountains of the Scriptures are to be preferred to the streamlets of the versions, when it is established that the fountains are not disturbed; but that the fountains now flow turbid in many places we have already shown above, and certainly it can scarcely be doubted that, as the Latin Church was more constant in retaining the Faith than the Greek, so also it was more vigilant in defending its codices from corruption. For what Jerome once wrote to Damasus in the epistle On the word hypostasis now most of all holds place, namely, that, the patrimony being squandered by the Greeks, among the Latins only the incorrupt heritage of the Fathers is preserved.
But to that which was objected, that the interpreters could sometimes slip, there are not wanting those who answer that the old interpreter of the New Testament, and also blessed Jerome the interpreter of the New Testament and of the Old, being illumined by a peculiar light of the Holy Ghost, could not err; but there is no need to flee to that. For we admit that the interpreter is not a Prophet, and could have erred; yet we say that he did not err in that version which the Church approved.
For the Vulgate edition is not of one author, but has some things from Jerome, some from Lucian, some from Theodotion, some from some other unnamed interpreter; and it seems foolish to say that Theodotion the heretic could not err, and also that Jerome nowhere erred, since he himself on chapter 19 of Isaiah says that he erred, and the Church received his correction. The Church therefore did not canonize those authors, but only approved this version; nor yet so approved it as to assert that no errors of the copyists are found in it, but wished to make us certain that in this version, especially in those things which pertain to Faith and morals, there are no errors of the interpreters.
To the other, about the emendation of the Latin codices to the Hebrew and Greek, I answer: at four times it is lawful for us to have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, as those Fathers admonish.
First, when in our codices there seems to be an error of the copyists. So we now see corrected in the new Missals that of Ecclesiasticus 45, He gave him precepts before his face, whereas before it was wrongly read a heart unto the precepts; for in the Greek it is [kata prosōpon], where there is no ground of doubting, but it was easy from coram to make cor ad. So Ecclesiasticus 24, that, I am like the channel of a river, ought to be corrected, I like the channels of a river, as it is in the Greek; for a river named Diorix is nowhere. Although Rabanus in his Commentary on this place says, from the opinion of some, that there is a river of Armenia called Dorix, yet he proves it by no author; but a [diōryx] is a ditch drawn from a river to water the land.
So Wisdom 12, Thou who oughtest not to be punished dost condemn, and thinkest it foreign to thy power, we saw not ill corrected in the Louvain Bibles thus: Thou thinkest it foreign to thy power to have condemned him who ought not to be punished, and it is clearly gathered from the Greek; and it is manifestly an error of the copyists, although St. Gregory book 3 of the Morals chapter 11 piously expounded the former sentence.
So that of Psalm 41, God the living fountain, could safely be changed to the living strong one; for in the Hebrew it is plainly [el El chai], to God, to the living strong one, and in the Greek it is also [pros ton Theon ton zōnta], where there is no occasion of error; in ours it could easily be changed from fortem (strong) to fontem (fountain), especially since there precedes My soul hath thirsted. So also in the Missal we see corrected that of John 19, He took her to his own, which before was into his own, whereas the Greek codex plainly has [eis ta idia].
Secondly, when the Latin codices vary, so that it cannot be certainly established which is the true Vulgate reading, we can have recourse to the fountains, and thence be helped to find the true reading. So Josue 5, certain Latin codices have, To whom he swore that he would show them the land flowing with milk and honey; certain have, that he would not show, etc. The true reading seems to be the latter; for in the Hebrew Not is constantly added. So on the contrary Josue 11, certain codices have, There was not a city that did not deliver itself; certain have, There was not a city that delivered itself; and this is truer, because it is conformable to the Hebrew, and the following words require it. So Luke 1, certain codices have, The redemption of his people [genitive]; certain, to his people [dative]; and this seems truer, since in the Greek it is [tō laō autou].
Thirdly, when the words or the sentence in the Latin are doubtful, we can have recourse to the fountains, if perchance there be no ambiguity there. So what we read Genesis 3, Cursed is the earth in thy work, can be understood of a future work, that is, while thou shalt till it, and of the past, that is, of the sin of Adam on account of which the earth is cursed. But in the Hebrew it is not ambiguous, since [the word] can signify nothing but on account of thee, that is, on account of thy sin; whence also blessed Jerome in the Hebrew Questions admonishes that they translated rightly who said, Cursed is the earth in thy transgression. Although I do not deny that it could have happened that in the Hebrew there was [daleth], and by the fault of the copyists Daleth was changed into Resch.
So also what we read Luke 2, On earth peace to men of good will; that of good will is ambiguous, for it can be referred to men and to peace; but from the Greek it is gathered that it is better joined with peace, so that this be the sense: on earth peace to men — peace, I say, of the good will of God toward men. For [eudokia], for the most part, is not the good will of man, but the good will of God toward men. So Psalm 2, Lest at any time the Lord be angry, and When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, and Blessed are all they that trust in him, among the Latins it is doubtful whether these are said of the Father or of the Son, for of both mention is made in that Psalm; but from the Hebrew it is manifestly gathered that these are said of the Son. Finally Psalm 138, My bone is not hidden from thee, in the Latin it is doubtful whether it be os of the mouth or os of the bone; but in the Hebrew it is clear, for it is [otzmi], not [pi].
Fourthly and lastly, it is lawful to have recourse to the fountains, to understand the energy and propriety of the words. So that of Exodus 1, He built them houses, we understand from the Hebrew phrase to signify fecundity and abundance of children. As also that of Psalm 112, Who maketh a barren woman to dwell in a house; also that of Psalm 138, Thy eyes did see my imperfect being, the Hebrew word plainly declares it properly signifies the embryo; and that in the same place, Thy knowledge is become wonderful out of me, is easily explained from the Hebrew text; for it signifies that the knowledge of God is more wonderful than a man can grasp. Which same Hebraism those skilled in this tongue will recognize in those words of Paul, Ephesians 3, To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth knowledge. For the sense is not that the charity of Christ is a gift more eminent than knowledge, as the words seem to sound, but that the charity of Christ is greater than can be comprehended by knowledge.
The third argument they take from various places in which the Vulgate edition seems altogether to contain an error. And although they set forth those places without any order, we nevertheless will report them in order: first the places which they bring from the various books of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; then those which they bring from the Psalms; lastly those which they bring from the New Testament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
capot xr.
Solvuntur objectiones haereticorum contra
vulgatam Latinam editionem.
Argumenta haereticorum contra vulgatam
editionem ad tria revocari possunt. Primum
est, quia B. Hieronymus multa aliter vertit,
quam nos habeamus, et multa reprehendit
in nostra editione vulgata : sed jam est res¬
ponsum supra cap. 8.
Secundum argumentum. Magis creden¬
dum est esse verbum Dei quod habetur in
fontibus Hebraicorum et Graecorum codi¬
cum, quam quod habetur in rivulis versio-
num : nam Hebraei et Graeci codices, Pro-
phetarum et Apostolorum sunt, qui errare
non poterant: Latini autem sunt variorum
interpretum, qui errare poterant. Nam aliud
esse interpretem, aliud Prophetam, docet
Hieronymus praefat. in Pentat. Et idem Hie¬
ronymus passim reprehendit veterem inter¬
pretem in suis Commentariis, et lib . i . contra
Joviniam: B. Augustinus autem non solum
in genere dicit, interpretes posse errare lib.
II. de doct. Christ. cap. 12. et epist. 19. et
59. sed etiam epist 8. ad Hieronymum asse¬
rit, Hieronymum in sua interpretatione er¬
rare potuisse.
Accedit, quod Patres passim docent, ad
fontes Hebraeos et Graecos esse recurrendum.
Hieronymus in lib. cont. Helvid. et in epist.
ad Marcellam quae, incipit Post priorem epis¬
tolam, docet, Latinam editionem Evangelio-
rum ad Graecos fontes revocandam: et idem
dicit de Latina editione Testamenti veteris
emendanda ex Hebraeo, in Comm. cap. 8.
Zachariae. Idem habet Augustinus lib. II. de
doct. Christ. cap. 11, 12 et 15. et epist. 59.
et alibi. Et quod mirabilius est, in ipso jure
Pontificio dist. 9. can. Ut veterum , ita dici¬
tur: «Ut veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis
voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum
veritas Graeci sermonis normam desiderat. »
Respondeo : negari non posse, quin sint
fontes Scripturarum anteponendi rivulis ver-
sionum, quando constat fontes non esse tur¬
batos : nunc autem fontes multis in locis
turbidos fluere jam ante ostendimus, et
certe vix dubitari potest, quin sicut Latina
Ecclesia constantior fuit in Fide retinenda,
142
LIBER II.
quam Graeca ; ita etiam vigilantior fuerit in
suis codicibus a corruptione defendendis.
Quod enim olim Hieronymus scripsit ad Da-
masurn in epist. de nomine hypost. nunc
maxime habet locum, videlicet, profligato a
Graecis patrimonio, apud Latinos tantum in¬
corruptam Patrum haereditatem servari.
Ad illud autem quod objiciebatur, inter¬
pretes interdum labi potuisse, non desunt qui
respondeant: veterem interpretem novi Tes¬
tamenti, et etiam B. Hieronymum interpre¬
tem novi Testamenti, veteris peculiari Spi¬
ritus sancti lumine illustratos errare non
potuisse, sed non est opus eo confugere.
Admittimus enim, interpretem non esse Pro¬
phetam, et errare potuisse : tamen dicimus,
eum non errasse in illa versione, quam Ec¬
clesia approbavit.
Nam vulgata editio non est unius auctoris,
sed quaedam habet ex Hieronymo, quaedam
ex Luciano, quaedam ex Theodotione, quae¬
dam ex alio quodam interprete innominato :
stultum autem videtur dicere, Theodotionem
haereticum non potuisse errare, et etiam
Hieronymum nusquam errasse, cum ipse in
c. XIX. Isaiae dicat, se errasse, et Ecclesia
correctionem ejus receperit. Non igitur auc¬
tores illos canonizavit Ecclesia, sed tantum
hanc versionem approbavit : nec ita tamen
approbavit, ut asseruerit nullos in ea Libra¬
riorum errores reperiri : sed certos nos red¬
dere voluit, in iis praesertim, quae ad Fidem
et mores pertinent, nulla esse in hac ver¬
sione interpretum errata.
Ad aliud de emendatione Latinorum co¬
dicum ad Hebraeos et Graecos, respondeo:
quatuor temporibus licere nobis recurrere
ad fontes Hebraeos et Graecos, ut illi Patres
monent.
Primo, quando in nostris codicibus vide¬
tur esse errorLibrariorum, sic videmus nunc
in Missalibus novis emendatum illud Eccl.
XLV. Dedit illi coram praecepta, cum antea
prave legeretur Cor ad praecepta (1). Nam in
Graeco est xa ra 7r/>d;&>7rov, ubi nulla est ratio
dubitandi : facile autem fuit, ex coram facere
cor ad. Sic Eccles. XXIV. illud : Ego quasi
fluvius Diorix, deberet corrigi Ego quasi flu¬
vii Diorix (2), ut est in Graeco; nam Diorix
fluvius nusquam est. Quamquam enim Ra-
banus in Commentario hujus loci dicat, ex
sententia quorumdam, flumen Armeniae esse,
qui Dorix appelletur; tamen id nullo auctore
probat. Atw/au? autem est fossa a flumine de¬
ducta ad irrigandam terram.
Sic Sapient. XII : Ipsum qui non debet pu¬
niri condemnas , et exterum cestimas a tua vir¬
tute (3) ; non male correctum vidimus in Bi-
bliis Lovaniensibus hoc modo : Ipsum qui
non debet puniri condemnasse exterum putas a
tua virtute , et clare ex Graeco colligitur : et
manifeste Librariorum est error, licet S.
Gregorius lib. III, Moral. cap. 11, priorem
sententiam pie exposuerit,
Sic illud Psal. XLI, Deum fontem vivum,
tuto mutari posset in fortem vivum : nam in
Hebraeo est aperte Vn bm Dffliw ad Deum ,
ad fortem vivum (4), et in Graeco est etiam
7r phg tov 0sov tir/ypbv, ubi nulla est occasio er¬
roris, in nostro facile potuit mutari fortem in
fontem , praesertim cum praecedat Sitivit ani¬
ma mea. Sic etiam in Missali emendatum vi¬
demus illud Jo. XIX, Accepit eam in sua , (5)
quod ante erat in suam, cum Graecus codex
aperte habeat ets ra. X §i«.
Secundo, quando Latini codices variant,
ut non possit certo statui, quae sit vera vul¬
gata lectio, possumus ad fontes recurrere,
et inde juvari ad veram lectionem invenien¬
dam, Sic Josue V, quidam Latini codices ha¬
bent : Quibus juravit, ut ostenderet eis terram
fluentem lacte et melle{ 6) ; quidam habent, ut
non ostenderet efc. Vera lectio videtur esse
posterior : nam id Hebraeo constanter addi¬
tur Non. Sicut e contrario Josue XI, quidam
codices habent : Non fuit civitas quce non se
traderet : quidam habent Non fuit civitas quce
se traderet (7) ; et hoc est verius, quia con¬
forme est Hebraeo, et verba sequentia id re¬
quirunt. Sic Luc. I quidam codices habent :
Redemptionem plebis suce : quidam, plebi
suce (8) ; et haec videtur verior, cum in Grae¬
co Sit ru ku cclitov.
Tertio, quando verba aut sententia in La¬
tino est anceps, possumus recurrere ad fon¬
tes, si forte ibi non sit ambiguitas. Sic quod
legimus Genes. III, Maledicta terra in opere
tuo (9) , potest intelligi de opere futuro, id est,
dum coles eam : et de praeterito, id est, de
peccato Adae propter quod terra maledicta
est. At in Hebraeo non est ambiguum, siqui¬
dem non potest significare nisi prop¬
ter te, id est, propter peccatum tuum ; unde
etiam monet B. Hieronymus in quaest.Hebr.,
— (5) Joan.
(1) Eccl. XLV, 6. — (2) Eccl. XXIV, 41. — (3) Sap. XXII, 15. — (4) Psalm. XLI, 3.
XIX, 27. — (6) 3 os. V, 6. — (7) Jos. XI, 19. — (8) Luc. I, 68. — (9) Gen. III, 17.
I
CAPUT XII.
143
recte vertisse eos, qui dixerunt : Maledicta
terra in transgressione tua. Quamquam non
inficior potuisse fieri, ut in Hebraeo esset
3 et Librariorum vitio mutatum sit Da-
leth in Resch.
Sic etiam quod legimus Luc. II : In terra
pax hominibus bonce voluntatis (1) : illud bonce
voluntatis ambiguum est, potes! enim referri
ad homines, et ad pacem : sed ex Graeco
colligitur, melius conjungi cum pace, ut hic
sit sensus, in terra pax hominibus , paxx in¬
quam, bonae voluntatis Dei erga homines.
Nam euSoxia, ut plurimum non est bona vo¬
luntas hominis, sed bona voluntas Dei erga
homines. Sic Ps. II : Ne quando irascatur
Dominus : Et Cum exarserit in brevi ira ejus :
Et Beati qui confidunt in eo (2), apud Latinos
dubium est, an haec dicantur de Patre, an de
Filio, nam de utroque fit mentio in Psalmo
isto : sed ex Hebraeo manifeste colligitur, haec
dici de Filio. Denique Psal. CXXXVIII: Non
est occultatum os meum a te (3), in Latino du¬
bium est, an sit os oris, an os ossis. Sed in
Hebraeo est clarum, est enim non !»s.
Quarto et ultimo, licet recurrere ad fon¬
tes, ad energiam et proprietatem vocabulo¬
rum intelligendam. Sic illud Exod. I. NEdi-
f cavit illis domos (4) : intelligimus ex He¬
braica phrasi significare fecunditatem et fi¬
liorum copiam. Ut etiam illud Psal. CXII :
Qui habitare facit sterilem in domo (5) : illud
quoque Psal. CXXXYIII : Imperfectum meum
viderunt oculi tui (6), Hebraea vox aperte de¬
clarat proprie embrionem significare : et il¬
lud ibidem Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex
me , ex Hebraeo textu facile declaratur ; signi¬
ficat enim mirabiliorem esse scientiam Dei,
quam ut possit homo capere. Qualem etiam
Hebraismum agnoscent, qui hujus linguae
periti sunt, in illis Pauli verbis Ephes. III :
Scire etiam supereminentem scientiae charita-
tem Christi (7). Non enim sensus est, chari-
tatem Christi donum esse scientia eminen¬
tius, ut verba sonare videntur, sed charita-
tem Christi majorem esse, quam ut scientia
comprehendi possit.
Argumentum tertium sumunt ex variis lo¬
cis, in quibus videtur omnino vulgata editio
errorem continere. Et quamquam absque
ullo ordine ista loca ipsi proponunt, nos ta¬
men ordine referemus; primum loca qua?
adferunt ex variis libris ScripturarumTesta-
menti veteris ; deinde quae, adferunt ex Psal¬
mis ; postremo quae adferunt ex Testamento
novo.