St. Jerome and his mandate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvatore123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salvatore123

Guest
I have studied St. Jerome and in particular, his mandate from Pope Damasus I to produce a Latin translation of all available manuscripts he had as his disposal at that time.

Based on what I have read, St. Jerome was specifically told to rely on the Septuagint (which was in Greek) because:
  1. That was the prevailing language used by most Jews alive at the time of Christ (because of the Hellenisation of Greeks),
  2. The Septuagint was being successfully used to convert Jews (and Gentiles) to Catholicism (much to the chagrin of Jews who did not accept Christ),
  3. But most importantly, know that from New Testament verses quoting the OT,
Yet, it appears that in translating the OT, St. Jerome deviated from his mandate and actually relied on the Hebrew OT (based on the Jewish Massoretic texts), and in fact, did not want to include the books we call “deuterocanonical”, but was ultimately overruled.

Popes Sixtus and Clementine had St. Jerome’s “Old Latin Vulgate” (the one St. Jerome translated - NOT the manuscripts written in Latin that were floating around at the time St. Jerome began his project) designated at “THE” OT to be used, and it was used by the Catholic Church from the late 1500’s/early 1600’s until the 1970’s. I believe we refer to that Bible as the Clementine Vulgate.

My questions (assuming what I said above is correct - if any of my assumptions are incorrect, please point them out):
  1. Based on the latest evidence we have (especially since finding the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940’s/1950’s), is the Clementine Vulgate (and possibly the Knox translation of it) still considered the most accurate Bible, both OT and NT, we Catholics have?
  2. Most troublesome of all (at least for me) is the translation of Luke 1.28. Using several comparative NT translations, only the Rheims NT, Revised Standard Version, and the Christian Community Bible, refer to the Blessed Mother as “full of grace”.
The following ALL use “favored one” or “highly favored one” or some very close derivation of it, but nothing at all close to “full of grace”: New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation.

How can a Catholic, in good conscience, rely on biblical translations that do not even biblically support the first part of the “Hail Mary”?
  1. I find it also appalling that the bishops in America have approved the NAB for use at Holy Mass, when so many scholars (Catholic and non-Catholic) have found many faults with that translation. How does Rome permit this?
I sincerely appreciate any responses, and I apologize for the length. It is an interesting and important subject for me, and I wanted to get someone else’s perspective.

Regards,

Sam
 
I hope Ron Conte comments on this because he has tons of knowledge on this topic.

That being said I personally wish that Jerome would have embraced the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text that he used. One reason why Jerome and Origen got so involved with the Hebrew was so Christians could also have access to the Jew’s version in order to evangelize the them who were using the Hebrew and were critical of the Setpuagint. Jerome seemed to be more convinced that the Hebrew text of his day was the original Hebrew and that the variants between the Hebrew and the Setpuagint was errors of the Septuagint, but we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there is a much older Hebrew manuscript tradition that agrees more with the Septuagint.

But when it comes down to it, I trust the direction the Church has taken with the Vulgate and know that it worked out the way it did because God wanted it to, regardless of my favor of the Septuagint.
 
Copland,

But we know much more than even what you said.

We know that St. Jerome disobeyed his mandate to translate the OT from the Septuagint.

And, we know that, based on quotation of scriptures, Jesus and his Apostles were quoting from the Septuagint.

Does that not place St. Jerome disregarding his mandate, but also quoting from an OT that even Christ did not use?

It is one thing to say, “well, we must follow the Jews with regard to the OT, because they were authors of OT”, but is that sufficient reason to follow the very people who rejected Christ as Savior?

It just seems odd to me that we rely on the Jews for the authenticity of one thing, yet at the same time, we disregard them with respect to their rejection of Christ.
 
Salvatore123 said:
I have studied St. Jerome and in particular, his mandate from Pope Damasus I to produce a Latin translation of all available manuscripts he had as his disposal at that time.

Based on what I have read, St. Jerome was specifically told to rely on the Septuagint (which was in Greek) because:
  1. That was the prevailing language used by most Jews alive at the time of Christ (because of the Hellenisation of Greeks),
  2. The Septuagint was being successfully used to convert Jews (and Gentiles) to Catholicism (much to the chagrin of Jews who did not accept Christ),
  3. But most importantly, know that from New Testament verses quoting the OT,
Yet, it appears that in translating the OT, St. Jerome deviated from his mandate and actually relied on the Hebrew OT (based on the Jewish Massoretic texts), and in fact, did not want to include the books we call “deuterocanonical”, but was ultimately overruled.

Popes Sixtus and Clementine had St. Jerome’s “Old Latin Vulgate” (the one St. Jerome translated - NOT the manuscripts written in Latin that were floating around at the time St. Jerome began his project) designated at “THE” OT to be used, and it was used by the Catholic Church from the late 1500’s/early 1600’s until the 1970’s. I believe we refer to that Bible as the Clementine Vulgate.

My questions (assuming what I said above is correct - if any of my assumptions are incorrect, please point them out):
  1. Based on the latest evidence we have (especially since finding the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940’s/1950’s), is the Clementine Vulgate (and possibly the Knox translation of it) still considered the most accurate Bible, both OT and NT, we Catholics have?
  2. Most troublesome of all (at least for me) is the translation of Luke 1.28. Using several comparative NT translations, only the Rheims NT, Revised Standard Version, and the Christian Community Bible, refer to the Blessed Mother as “full of grace”.
The following ALL use “favored one” or “highly favored one” or some very close derivation of it, but nothing at all close to “full of grace”: New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation.

How can a Catholic, in good conscience, rely on biblical translations that do not even biblically support the first part of the “Hail Mary”?
  1. I find it also appalling that the bishops in America have approved the NAB for use at Holy Mass, when so many scholars (Catholic and non-Catholic) have found many faults with that translation. How does Rome permit this?
I sincerely appreciate any responses, and I apologize for the length. It is an interesting and important subject for me, and I wanted to get someone else’s perspective.

Regards,

Sam
Click to expand...
Which documents specifically show that St Jerome was given an explicit mandate to only rely on the Septuagint.
I’m not asking because I think you are wrong but rather that I’m ignorant about this issue.
 
Salvatore123 said:
  1. Most troublesome of all (at least for me) is the translation of Luke 1.28. Using several comparative NT translations, only the Rheims NT, Revised Standard Version, and the Christian Community Bible, refer to the Blessed Mother as “full of grace”.
The following ALL use “favored one” or “highly favored one” or some very close derivation of it, but nothing at all close to “full of grace”: New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation.

How can a Catholic, in good conscience, rely on biblical translations that do not even biblically support the first part of the “Hail Mary”?
Click to expand...
You do, of course, realize that the “Hail Mary” prayer was not invented, yet. I’m also confused on what the Septuagint has to do with any of the New Testament writings. I mean, the Septuagint has nothing to do with charichitomene (sic).
 
Salvatore123 said:
It is one thing to say, “well, we must follow the Jews with regard to the OT, because they were authors of OT”, but is that sufficient reason to follow the very people who rejected Christ as Savior?
Click to expand...
It was Jews who produced/authored the Septuagint translation also. So either way, we look to the Jews for the OT.
 
In regards to ***Why ***St. Jerome chose the Hebrew texts, one simply has to see where he studied. St. Jerome learned and studied Hebrew in Jerusalem alongside other brother Jews. He spent a lot of time with them, and most likely was influenced by the Jewish scholars in his aversion to the Greek translations.
 
Thistle,

I am putting together a response - I have not ignored you.

Notworthy,

Regarding your post about the “Hail Mary”, yes, I am well aware the prayer came after the NT was written and compiled. But my point, I think, is still a valid one: why follow ANY translation that does not support one of “three” basic prayers we were taught as children to say everynight (Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be)? One new translation even has the Angel saying: “Peace Be With You!”. Next thing, the Angel will be asking Mary to sing Kumbaya with him . . .

I will reply in a separate post regarding your other post.

Copland,

What you say (and I am not trying to argue, so please do not misinterpret what I say) is, I think, not correct. Although the Church DOES have a Nova Vulgata that I believe was first “published” in 1979 and last revised in 1986, I do not believe that any binding encyclical or ex cathedra pronouncement has been issued as was done for the Clementine Vulgata/Duoay-Rheims at the Council of Trent. The Council not only, for the first time, dogmatically confirmed the canon of both the OT and NT, but it also dogmatically stated that the CV/DR was “the” bible in all respects. I am not saying the Nova Vulgata is inferior - I am simply saying that the CV/DR is the only bible I am aware of that has an ex catherdra pronouncement as far as content.

Nita,

As with Copland, I am not trying to argue - but I believe what you say is incorrect. Although there were a good many Jews around St. Jerome at the time of his translation, many Gentiles were present as well. Remember, the Diaspora had taken place, and St. Jerome was in a place when he began his translations where the majority of people spoke Greek. In addition, St. Jerome was living in a time where Jews as well as Gentiles were being converted to Christianity (that is, Catholicism). That is one reason why the Jews, when they “formally” closed their OT canon, rejected the Septuagint as the source and reverted to the Hebrew - Jesus spoke the Septuagint and Catholics were successfully converted people to Catholicism using the Septuagint. Thus, the reason for the Jewish “hostility” to the Septuagint. As Copland said (correctly), recent studies and findings have supported the argument that the Septuagint was closer to the oldest OT documents we have found than the Masoretic text used by the Jews (and by St. Jerome).

As an aside, in studying St. Jerome, I am quite surprised that a man of his temperament and willingness to engage in public discord with people as famous as Origen and St. Augustine was made a saint. I am not saying he did not deserve to - I rely on Holy Mother Church for that determination. I am simply saying I have never run across someone with such an “ill” temper being a saint.

St. Augustine was a “hell raiser” in his day (including fathering a child out of wedlock), but at least he calmed down 🙂 I think that having one’s mother (St. Monica) praying outside of your girlfriend’s window probably helps 😃
 
Salvatore123 said:
Nita,

As with Copland, I am not trying to argue - but I believe what you say is incorrect. Although there were a good many Jews around St. Jerome at the time of his translation, many Gentiles were present as well. Remember, the Diaspora had taken place, and St. Jerome was in a place when he began his translations where the majority of people spoke Greek. In addition, St. Jerome was living in a time where Jews as well as Gentiles were being converted to Christianity (that is, Catholicism). That is one reason why the Jews, when they “formally” closed their OT canon, rejected the Septuagint as the source and reverted to the Hebrew - Jesus spoke the Septuagint and Catholics were successfully converted people to Catholicism using the Septuagint. Thus, the reason for the Jewish “hostility” to the Septuagint. As Copland said (correctly), recent studies and findings have supported the argument that the Septuagint was closer to the oldest OT documents we have found than the Masoretic text used by the Jews (and by St. Jerome).
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying it was authorship that discredited the Hebrew text and not the Septuagint, when you said —
‘It is one thing to say, “well, we must follow the Jews with regard to the OT, because they were authors of OT”, but is that sufficient reason to follow the very people who rejected Christ as Savior,’
Evidently you meant that by the time of St. Jerome, the Jews had “formally” accepted the shorter Hebrew texts and not the Septuagint as their official OT text.
recent studies and findings have supported the argument that the Septuagint was closer to the oldest OT documents we have found than the Masoretic text used by the Jews (and by St. Jerome).
Click to expand...
The Masoretic text wasn’t around at St. Jerome’s time. It dates to the 10th or 11th century.
 
Nita,

Poor wording on my part (and it is what I get for rushing and trying to type on a cell phone). I know the Masoretic OT was not compiled until sometime between the 7th and 10th century AD. What I meant is that the OT manuscripts that were to become known as the Masoretic OT was relied upon by the “official” Hebrews as well as St. Jerome.

I find it ironic that Luther and other Protestants were sharply critical of St. Jerome (for several reasons), yet he was probably the most well-known Catholic to come outright and argue against the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books of the OT (which is obviously what the Protestants wanted).
 
Salvatore123 said:
As an aside, in studying St. Jerome, I am quite surprised that a man of his temperament and willingness to engage in public discord with people as famous as Origen and St. Augustine was made a saint. I am not saying he did not deserve to - I rely on Holy Mother Church for that determination. I am simply saying I have never run across someone with such an “ill” temper being a saint.

St. Augustine was a “hell raiser” in his day (including fathering a child out of wedlock), but at least he calmed down 🙂 I think that having one’s mother (St. Monica) praying outside of your girlfriend’s window probably helps 😃
Click to expand...
I often get the same image of St. Jerome. I imagine a codgety old man, like Lou Grant in the Mary Tyler Moore Show.

But, I often envision St. Paul in a similar vein.
 
Thistle,

If you (or anyone else reading this post knows the answer or has the document), I would appreciate receiving a copy as I cannot find one.

Based on letters we have that St. Jerome sent to Pope Damasus I, we can glean the following:
  1. Pope Damasus wanted a Bible for all Christians to be able to use at the time. The problems associated with the Diaspora of the Jews is that most of them (not the learned ones that would have consisted of the leaders of the Jews and their religious) could understand Greek better than Hebrew.
  2. St. Jerome confirms in a letter to Pope Damasus that with only LATIN texts of the Bible circulating (that is, the Bible IN OLD LATIN - NOT the “Old Latin Bible”; the former consisted of all of the books of the Bible translated into Latin by many different, and unknown translators, whereas the “Old Latin Bible” is what we refer to, today, as St. Jerome’s finished Vulgate), and considering most people were speaking Greek, it made sense to go to the “original” Greek sources to obtain an accurate source for use in translating the entire bible into a Latin “edition” that the Holy See could declare as valid.
  3. Although the Romans adapted many of the Greek customs, including language, by the time Pope Damasus and St. Jerome were alive and “in power”, the predominate language had changed from Greek to Latin, and would remain so for many hundreds of years.
St. Jerome recognized this problem, as noted in part of a letter he sent to Pope Damasus:

“If we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”
  1. In beginning his task of compiling the Bible that made him famous, St. Jerome worked from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. But then he established a precedent for all good translators: the Old Testament should be translated from the original Hebrew, because he realized that the Greek texts he was reviewing to make his own translation was merely a Greek translation itself of the ancient Hebrew, which everyone (including St. Jerome’s “enemies” - and I use this term loosely to refer to those who vehemently disagreed with Jerome’s approach, namely Origen, St. Augustine, and the pope following Damasus, with whom Jerome did not get along) recognized was the original language in which the OT was first written.
In translating the Old Testament, something struck Jerome: the books the Jews regarded as Holy Scripture did not include the books we know as the Apocrypha. These books had been included in the Septuagint, the basis of most older translations, and as is well-documented, Jerome incorporated them into his “ultimate” Latin translation.

But St. Jerome clearly stated that in his opinion, the Apochrypha were only liber ecclesiastici (church books to be read for edification), as opposed to the fully inspired liber canonici (canonical books to establish doctrine). Over one thousand years later, the leaders of the Reformation would follow Jerome’s personal opinion and not include the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bibles.

Thus, the problems:

A. We know (although I have not found something in writing from Pope Damasus saying so) from at least inference, including those against St. Jerome, that St. Jerome WAS instructed by Damasus to construct a new Latin translation of the Bible.

B. We know, from St. Jerome’s letter to Damasus (a portion of which I reproduced above), that he acknowledged his “commission”, and in doing so, thought a better way to compile a “new” Latin Bible would be to look to the original texts that the Greek Bible was supposedly based upon, instead of simply “re-doing” an official Latin Bible that was going to be based on admittedly corrupted Latin individual books/texts.

C. We also know from written correspondence and arguments expressed by Origen, St. Augustine, and the pope who followed Damasus, that St. Jerome PERSONALLY concluded that the OT should NOT contain the Apochrypha for the sole reason that the Jewish OT did not have the Apochrypha in it when Jerome was reviewing Hebrew “source” texts for his “official” Latin bible*.

Therefore, I am left with what seems to be a mandate from Damasus to Jerome to produce a Latin bible for the Church to use, but no specific mandate from Damasus to produce an official Latin bible for Church use, instructed Jerome on how to fulfill his commission.

This is, I think, the primary reason why MODERN Protestants focus so heavily (what irony) on Jerome, in arguing that if the Church was so enamored of Jerome that they relied on him, and him alone, to produce the Catholic Church’s “official Latin bible”, then why didn’t they rely on his “learned” conclusion that the OT should NOT contain the Apochrypha?

The answer is simple: the Catholic Church, in matters of faith and morals (which a translation of the “official” Bible adopted by the Church would certainly fall under and thus be subject to an ex cathedra pronouncement, as evidenced by Trent’s adoption of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) “trumps” the opinion of one man - St. Jerome. Simply because St. Jerome PERSONALLY did not want to include the deuterocanonicals (the proper term in Catholic usage) does not mean that his opinion is binding on the Church (which, of course, as evidenced by Trent, is not).

I would simply like to see some documents or correspondence going TO Jerome as opposed to correspondence coming FROM Jerome about the Septuagint/Hebrew OT/Latin Vulgate.

"continued in next post due to content-limits of each post)*
 
I hope the above is not too confusing. I have simply exhausted my research looking for citations that point to “official” instructions to Jerome on what he should have done DURING HIS TIME. We know from Trent that the “correct” OT included the deuterocanonicals, but I cannot find anything, other than tradition/custom “stating” that the OT should contain the deuterocanonicals.

Many people cite different Councils, the earliest being the Council of Rome, as proof of what the Latin Vulgate should contain, but my research indicates that the FIRST instance of an ex cathedra statement regarding the contents of the Catholic bible was not until Trent. All other Councils before Trent did not authoritatively deal with the “official” bible of the Catholic Church, as those councils were either ecumenical or dealt “officially” with a particular heresy, where ex cathedra statements were issued as to the heresy and NOT the contents of the official Catholic bible.

Again, I hope someone can fill in the blanks.
 
Specify replies to individual questions/comments from other members:

Nita said: “It was Jews who produced/authored the Septuagint translation also. So either way, we look to the Jews for the OT.”

Nita, as shown above (I think), St. Jerome pointed out to Damsus that the original OT language was Hebrew and NOT Greek. The Greek texts floating around that Damasus first began to use, WERE THEMSELVES translations of the ancient Hebrew OT texts that had been translated into Greek and Latin. Few people after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD and the subsequent great diaspora, INCLUDING JEWS, were fluent in Hebrew. They had come to use Greek or Latin as their primary language.

Notworthy said: “In regards to Why St. Jerome chose the Hebrew texts, one simply has to see where he studied. St. Jerome learned and studied Hebrew in Jerusalem alongside other brother Jews. He spent a lot of time with them, and most likely was influenced by the Jewish scholars in his aversion to the Greek translations.”

Notworthy, your conclusions seem to be the same as mine. That does not, however, get me past the hurdle of whether St. Jerome disobeyed a written (or even an “oral” one that was taken down ) mandate as to what texts he had to consult in his translation-work to produce the Catholic Church’s official bible.

Notworthy said: “I’m also confused on what the Septuagint has to do with any of the New Testament writings. I mean, the Septuagint has nothing to do with charichitomene (sic).”

Notworthy, I think my explanation above demonstrate why the Septuagint was so important regarding the OT. (1) It was from the Septuagint that Christ and his Apostles relied on in quoting the OT; (2) the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts we have found just in the past 100 years alone, show that the Septuagint was certainly more accurate of the “ancient” Hebrews texts than were the OT Hebrew texts adopted by the Jews as their “official” OT text several hundred years after the diaspora.

In closing, as NO original manuscripts have been found regarding either OT or NT, everything we have today constitutes a translation of a translation. I suppose the key to producing the most accurate Bible today would be to find the most ancient OT and NT texts, confirm (as best as possible) that they are accurate, and then be faithful in making an English translation.

The ultimate problem presents the following conundrum: If no original OT or NT texts survive, then we automatically must accept the fact that all texts we have found/rely upon are themselves translations. Thus, to what do we refer to in concluding that one translation is more accurate than another, other than the fact that one is older than another - and even then, a translation that is older does not automatically mean that it is more accurate.******
 
Salvatore123 said:
Notworthy said: “In regards to Why St. Jerome chose the Hebrew texts, one simply has to see where he studied. St. Jerome learned and studied Hebrew in Jerusalem alongside other brother Jews. He spent a lot of time with them, and most likely was influenced by the Jewish scholars in his aversion to the Greek translations.”

Notworthy, your conclusions seem to be the same as mine. That does not, however, get me past the hurdle of whether St. Jerome disobeyed a written (or even an “oral” one that was taken down ) mandate as to what texts he had to consult in his translation-work to produce the Catholic Church’s official bible.
Click to expand...
It seems our good Jerome felt he knew better than Pope Damasus. It would be likely,again, that he was influenced by his fellow Jewish Scholars who had already displayed a bias AGAINST the Greek texts.

I’ve never heard of this mandate that you asked about. I’m curious to how forceful Pope Damasus was in making his request.
Salvatore123 said:
Notworthy said: “I’m also confused on what the Septuagint has to do with any of the New Testament writings. I mean, the Septuagint has nothing to do with charichitomene (sic).”

Notworthy, I think my explanation above demonstrate why the Septuagint was so important regarding the OT. (1) It was from the Septuagint that Christ and his Apostles relied on in quoting the OT; (2) the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts we have found just in the past 100 years alone, show that the Septuagint was certainly more accurate of the “ancient” Hebrews texts than were the OT Hebrew texts adopted by the Jews as their “official” OT text several hundred years after the diaspora.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see your point. I was looking at it from the wrong direction. As you well know, Kecharitomone was not found in the Old Testament, which led me to my point. I did forget that the vast majority of the Old Testament quotes used in the New Testament were drawn from the Septuagint. Isaiah’s prophecy in chapter 7, “the virgin would conceive…” is a glaring example of this (the Hebrew said, “the young maiden would conceive…”).

So yes, I see the need for drawing the translations for the Old Testament from the Greek text. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
 
Notworthy,

You are spot-on correct in your statement that the Jewish scholars were against the Septuagint. After all, it was the Septuagint that was being used by Christians to peel away Jews from the Jewish faith so that they could become Christian. That is definitely ONE reason why the Jews chose to distance themselves from the Septuagint.

Although, as I mentioned, I cannot find it despite many hours of searching, “everyone” (that is, many, many articles without citing sources) seems to agree that Pope Damasus I asked St. Jerome to compile all of the existing texts into ONE bible, in Latin, that would be used as the “official” bible of the Church. Even the letter I cited above from Jerome TO Damasus, seems to confirm, at least indirectly, that he was doing a job for Damasus.

I would just love to find something in writing from around that period that confirms (1) Damasus told Jerome to compile all existing texts and to “build” ONE Latin bible for everyone to use, and (2) Damasus requested that the Septuagint be used for the OT.

I do not know if anything in writing exists, but I feel confident that Jerome disobeyed SOMEONE in authority, as he seemed aggravate Origen and St. Augustine a great deal SPECIFICALLY on this one issue. In fact, he became so “aggravating” that I believe he was forced to leave Rome after Damasus died.

Someone has to be pretty aggravating to get kicked out of Rome, considering you had just been given the task of producing a Latin bible at the request of a sitting pope 🙂
 
For those following this thread, I found the answer to my main questions:
  1. According to a German book called “Ascent and Fall of the Roman World”, a copy of instructions from Pope Damasus I to St. Jerome DOES NOT EXIST 😦
  2. The following is the only evidence we have as to what Jerome had been asked to do - and as it is a letter from Jerome to Damasus, we have to rely on Jerome’s version of events between two people:
Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus

BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER

To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,

You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly
raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books? Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed?

Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us [Hebrew > Greek > Latin].
Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of
different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.

Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books. They do not disagree with many familiar Latin readings, as we have kept our pen in control, but only those in which the sense will have been seen to have changed (from the Greek) are corrected; the rest remain as they have been.

We have also copied the lists which Eusebius the bishop of Caesarea, following Ammonius of Alexandria, set out in ten numbers, as they are had in the Greek, so that if any may then wish through diligence to make known what in the Gospels may be either the same, or similar, or singular, he may learn their differences. This is great, since indeed error has sunk into our books; while concerning the same thing, one Evangelist has said more, into another they have added because they thought it inferior; or while another has differently expressed the same sense, whichever one of the four he had read first, he will revise the other to the version he values most.

Whence it happened how in our time that all have been mixed; in Mark are many things of Luke, and even of Matthew; turned backwards in Matthew are many things of John and of Mark, yet in the remaining others, they are found to be correct. When, therefore, you will have read the lists which are attached below, the confusion of errors is removed, and you will know all the similar passages, and the singular ones, wherever you may turn to. In the first list, the four agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; in the second, three, Matthew, Mark, Luke; in the third, three, Matthew, Luke, John; in the fourth, three, Matthew, Mark, John; in the fifth, two, Matthew, Luke; in the sixth, two, Matthew, Mark; in the seventh, two, Matthew, John; in the eighth, two, Luke, Mark; in the ninth, two, Luke, John; in the tenth some peculiar ones are given which the others don’t have. Separately in the Gospels
are numbered sections of unequal length, beginning with one and increasing to the end of the books. This is written before the passage in black, and it has under it a red number, which shows to which of the ten (lists) to proceed, with the first number to be sought in the list. Therefore, when the book is open, for example, if you will wish to know of this or that chapter in which list they may be, you will immediately be shown by the lower number.

(end of letter on next post)
 
Cont’d - end of letter from Jerome to Damasus I

Returning to the beginning (of the book) in which the different lists are brought together, and immediately finding the same lists by the title in front, by that same number which you had sought in the Evangelist, which you will find marked in the inscription, you may also view other similar passages, the numbers of which you may note there. And when you know them, you will return to the single volumes, and immediately finding the number which you will have noted before, you will learn the places in which either the same things or similar things were said.

I wish that in Christ you may be well, and that you will remember me, most blessed Pope.

END OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top