St. Jerome's translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christ_Conquers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christ_Conquers

Guest
Hi,
I was wondering why St. Jerome translated the Hebrew scriptures into the Latin Vulgate, rather than translating from the Septuagint. Was there a reason for this? wasn’t the Septuagint the one the Church used?

Thanks!
 
There were a couple of reasons why he translated the Hebrew. One reason is because he was mistakenly convinced that the Hebrew version of his day was the original Hebrew, which has been proven by modern archeology to be an honest misconception since there are older manuscript readings that favor the Septuagint.

Another reason why he translated the Hebrew is it gave Christians the ability to learn the Hebrew version of the Jews, which was beneficial for Jewish and Christian dialogue. Origen was motivated to learn the Hebrew version as well for the same reason. Orthodox Jews scoffed at the Septuagint, which made it a barrier between Christians and Orthodox.
 
There were a couple of reasons why he translated the Hebrew. One reason is because he was mistakenly convinced that the Hebrew version of his day was the original Hebrew, which has been proven by modern archeology to be an honest misconception since there are older manuscript readings that favor the Septuagint.
Which is like, only 5% percent of the total, compared to 15% for Proto-Samaritan and 35% for Proto-Masoretic. A further 35% are non-aligned (in other words they are not specifically affiliated with any of the three categories) and 15% are in written in the ‘Qumran practice’.
 
There were a couple of reasons why he translated the Hebrew. One reason is because he was mistakenly convinced that the Hebrew version of his day was the original Hebrew, which has been proven by modern archeology to be an honest misconception since there are older manuscript readings that favor the Septuagint.

Another reason why he translated the Hebrew is it gave Christians the ability to learn the Hebrew version of the Jews, which was beneficial for Jewish and Christian dialogue. Origen was motivated to learn the Hebrew version as well for the same reason. Orthodox Jews scoffed at the Septuagint, which made it a barrier between Christians and Orthodox.
per the bolded above, I might be mistaken but I thought I recently read that the most recent finds show it was originally in Hebrew, not Greek, and that this surprised the experts. You might want to check on this.

God bless you.
 
per the bolded above, I might be mistaken but I thought I recently read that the most recent finds show it was originally in Hebrew, not Greek, and that this surprised the experts. You might want to check on this.

God bless you.
Yes it was in Hebrew, but the Septuagint is a translation of a Hebrew text that was older than the Hebrew text that St. Jerome used. those readings where the Septuagint differ from the Hebrew version of Jerome is usually not a mistake by the Septuagint translators but it was a reading from another Hebrew text that was different from Jerome’s Hebrew text.
 
Yes it was in Hebrew, but the Septuagint is a translation of a Hebrew text that was older than the Hebrew text that St. Jerome used. those readings where the Septuagint differ from the Hebrew version of Jerome is usually not a mistake by the Septuagint translators but it was a reading from another Hebrew text that was different from Jerome’s Hebrew text.
Not so much ‘older’ as ‘different’. The Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint is a different text-type than the ancestor of what became the Masoretic Text, and as mentioned both (as well as the ancestor of the Samaritan Torah) are attested at Qumran.
 
Not so much ‘older’ as ‘different’. The Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint is a different text-type than the ancestor of what became the Masoretic Text, and as mentioned both (as well as the ancestor of the Samaritan Torah) are attested at Qumran.
That is a good way of putting it. I often find Jerome in his writings when speaking negativly about the Septuagint then refering to the “Hebrew truth” as if his Hebrew text was the original. As for our Catholic versions of the Bible I do believe that manuscript evidence over time has been a result of God’s providence, so over time I have lightened up on my Septuagint zeal. What the Church has used as a standard for the Bible text has been sufficient for all periods of time through as it has been tweaked and revised as more light has been shed.
 
Maybe it is because Jerome was taught by Jewish rabbis. This led to his debate concerning the deuterocanonical books which, of course, the Jewish rabbis did not accept. BGut Jerome accepted the decision of the church and included the deuteros in his Vulgate.
 
Maybe it is because Jerome was taught by Jewish rabbis. This led to his debate concerning the deuterocanonical books which, of course, the Jewish rabbis did not accept. BGut Jerome accepted the decision of the church and included the deuteros in his Vulgate.
This is where things are slightly confusing. First of all, St. Jerome did not translate ‘the Vulgate’ per se. Rather, he translated and revised earlier translations of a good deal of (but probably not all) the Scriptural books which were later supplemented with preexisting Latin translations of the books which he may not have work on. Only later, well into the Middle Ages, did this collection become definitively known as the ‘common version’ (versio vulgata), when it became, well, the version of the Scriptures commonly used in the Latin Church.

The interesting thing is, Jerome seems to have had a particulary hard time accepting Baruch out of all the deuteros (the reason? because it’s not in Hebrew ;)), to the point that he did not even translate it. In fact, Tobit and Judith are the only deuterocanonical books which we are certain he translated, and these are made from Hebrew translations of Aramaic versions. (Jerome did not know Aramaic, so he had a friend translate them first into Hebrew, and made his translations from those translations.)

Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the envious, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer this because you request it. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the jealous.

The side effect of this is, Baruch is not found in Vulgate manuscripts until the 9th century, and only became common starting from the 13th: Tobit, Judith and the even other four books (1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach) made it into the anthology at a pretty early date, but it took time for someone to tuck in a translation of Baruch as well.
 
Quoting myself again:

Jerome had originally set out, under orders from Pope Damasus I in 382, to revise the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) text of the four gospels from the best Greek texts available to him; at the same time Damasus gave the seemingly contradictory command to stay as close to the existing Latin versions as possible. By the time of Damasus’ death in 384 he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter (now lost). How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge, but it would seem that either little of his work survived in the Vulgate text we have today or he did a very hasty job: the Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the old Latin versions.

Bereft of his patron, Jerome left Rome for good in 385 due to growing friction between him and the Roman clergy and headed off eastward accompanied by his brother Paulinianus and several friends, and followed a little later by the noblewoman Paula (a close acquaintance of Jerome and part of the reason why Jerome left Rome in the first place: Jerome’s enemies insinuated that Jerome and Paula were very close, which would be at odds with his denunciations of clerical indulgence and advocacy of self-denial) and her daughter Eustochium, who had resolved to end their days in the Holy Land. For a period of three years Jerome visited Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Galilee, and Egypt. By 386 he was back in Israel, and spent the remainder of his life in a hermit’s cell near Bethlehem, surrounded by a few friends, both men and women (including Paula and Eustochium), to whom he acted as priestly guide and teacher.

Amply provided by Paula with the means of livelihood and of increasing his collection of books, he led a life of incessant activity in literary production. Jerome first embarked on another revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of Origen’s Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He would similarly produce revisions of Job and Song of Songs (both of which still survive) and of Chronicles and the Solomonic books (which are lost).

Jerome’s true love, however, was Hebrew: by 390 he dropped the revision of the Old Latin according to the Hexapla, and began translating from the Hebrew instead. Thus it was that for the next fifteen years (390-405) Jerome dedicated himself to translating and revising the books of the Old Testament protocanon and a few besides, from Hebrew. The first to be translated was Samuel-Kings, and its lengthy prologue serves as a kind of programmatic statement for Jerome’s intentions and goals in this project. This, along with yet another version of the Psalms (iuxta Hebraicum) was completed in 392. This was followed by the Prophets and Job (394), Ezra-Nehemiah (394-395), and Chronicles (395). The Solomonic books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) he managed to complete within three days in the autumn of 398. From late 398 to late 404 or 405, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther were completed.

There is some disagreement as to the actual quality of Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew: his extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, as well as his seeming use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was. One camp suggests that Jerome may have been almost wholly dependent on Greek material for his interpretation of the Hebrew. Others, on the other hand, thinks that there is in some cases evidence that Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew exceeds that of his exegetes, implying a direct understanding of the Hebrew text. As Jerome completed his translations of each book, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with friends and scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived.

This translation from the Hebrew was largely undertaken at the request of friends and at no official pressure (as his revision of the gospels and Psalms at Damasus’ orders was). Indeed, Jerome actually asked one friend not to publicize his translation. Still, his work leaked into public view, causing massive controversy. Jerome complained in a letter that his new version was initially disliked by Christians who were familiar with the phrasing of the old translations. He was even accused of slighting the Septuagint (which was up to this time the standard text for Christians through its various versions and translations), which in the eyes of St. Augustine and other Christians was equally inspired with the Hebrew original.
 
Sometime between 405 and 407 Jerome also translated Tobit and Judith, though not with the same care given his other translations: he only had access to the two works through versions/paraphrases in Aramaic - a language he was not proficient in. To circumvent this problem he had these translated into Hebrew first, and then made his own (rather free) Latin paraphrase from this translated text. So in effect, what we have in this case is the translation of a translation of a (possible) translation.

Certain books, such as Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees, 3-4 (1-2) Esdras, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and perhaps the rest of the NT, are likely to be either Vetus Latina translations either revised by somebody else or totally unrevised that were appended later to Jerome’s translation to complete the set, as it were. To be more specific, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and 3-4 Esdras were old Latin versions, while Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and Laodiceans were the work of later, unknown revisers. Outside of the gospels, the reviser or revisers of the other NT books are completely unknown, but the methodology was essentially similar to Jerome in his early stage: revision of the old Latin text according to the Greek. It is likely that the letter of Paul (including Hebrews) were revised in a body by a single editor, also unknown; the preface of which group would seem to indicate this. Whether the other books were revised by several people or an individual is not known.

Out of all these books, Baruch is a very interesting case. Even after he apparently deferred to majority opinion regarding the canonicity of six of the seven disputed (by Protestants) deuterocanonicals, Jerome - the champion of Hebraica veritas that he is - continued to have some personal reservations regarding Baruch “which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews”, though he realized full well that he would he attacked for his opinion. Consequently, a Vulgate version of Baruch is not found before the 9th century, and is present only in a minority of manuscripts before the 13th century. In his Prologue to Jeremiah he says:

Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the envious, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer this because you request it. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the jealous.

This translation - or rather, group of translations - by Jerome originally never had a name. When people referred to it they used very general expressions like codices nostri (‘our codices’) or editio nostra (‘our edition’). In fact, the term versio vulgata (a calque from Greek koine ekdosis) - which BTW did not mean ‘vulgar’ tongue (i.e. common speech) but means the ‘common’, ‘current’ or ‘ordinarily used’ text - which would be applied later to the collection originally denoted something else: the Greek Septuagint - or to be more precise, that edition of the Septuagint and Theodotion in common use among Christians (what we would call the ‘Greek Vulgate’), which would later be extended to mean the form in which the Septuagint was at first known to the West, the Vetus Latina translations. Jerome himself used the phrase to denote the Septuagint: “Hoc iuxta Septuaginta interpretes diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est” (Comm. in Isa. 65.20; ibid. 30.22) Elsewhere he actually gives the Greek words (of the Septuagint) as found in editione vulgata (Comm. in Osee 7.13). This is also the sense that his contemporary Augustine understood and used the phrase (De Civitate Dei, 16.10): “Fiunt itaque anni a diluvio usque ad Abraham mlxxii, secundum vulgatam editionem hoc est interpretum septuaginta.

This term, vulgata editio, having acquired the meaning of the current or ordinarily used text of Septuagint, was once again extended to mean a corrupt or uncorrected text as opposed to the standard emended Septuagint version of Origen’s Hexapla, and in this sense is used by Jerome as synonymous with antiqua or vetus editio (‘old edition’).​
 
Quoting myself again:

There is some disagreement as to the actual quality of Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew: his extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, as well as his seeming use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was. One camp suggests that Jerome may have been almost wholly dependent on Greek material for his interpretation of the Hebrew. Others, on the other hand, thinks that there is in some cases evidence that Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew exceeds that of his exegetes, implying a direct understanding of the Hebrew text. As Jerome completed his translations of each book, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with friends and scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived.
[/INDENT]
As I’ve mentioned on some other threads in response to these comments I think Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew was quite good (along with his knowledge of various Jewish midrashic traditions) but often he fears straying too far from the Septuagint. This raises the question as to whether the Vulgate is actually a translation of the Hebrew text Jerome is using or whether the Vulgate is more of a translation of the Septuagint informed at times by Hebrew variants.

For example, Rebenich recounts the story of Jerome’s translation of the obscure plant mentioned in Jonah 4 (the qiqayyon in Hebrew) rendered as hedera (ivy) in the Vulgate when the Old Latin Bible had apparently used the word cucurbita, and the Septuagint the Greek equivalent used kolokuntha (both meaning a round gourd something like a pumpkin). When the offending passage with hedera was read aloud in Tripoli in 401, a tumult broke out in the congregation, with the potential for discrediting Jerome’s entire translation project. The ensuing controversy, which included charges of sacrilege against Jerome by the bishop, required Jerome to appeal to his ostensibly unique knowledge of Palestinian fauna in order to support his translation. As Rebenich rightly observes, this dispute was not so much about philology as such—rather, Jerome was accused of sacrilege (that is changing the Word of God) rather than poor scholarship. Ultimately, the bishop of Tripoli excised the offending word from the text and replaced it with the more traditional cucurbita. Thus Jerome learned that one changes the Septuagint only at his own peril.

Here are some sources that I think address the “camps” you’re mentioning.

Rebenich, Stefan. “Jerome: The ‘Vir Trilinguis’ and the ‘Hebraica Veritas.’” Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 50-77.

Hayward, C.T.R. Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
 
Dave, I knew you’ll back me up. 😃

The whole hedera/cucurbita incident actually sparked a mini-debate between Augustine and Jerome. In 403, Augustine protested against Jerome’s ‘innovation’ in a letter, even suggesting that Jerome might not be always right: “and so it seems also to us that you too at times could have erred in some respects.” Jerome answers that while the Septuagint does say kolokyntha “gourd,” other Greek translators like Aquila used “ivy.” He describes himself as being in a dilemma: “if I had wanted merely to transcribe ciceion, no one would have understood me; if I put down ‘gourd’, I would be saying what is not in the Hebrew; so I put ‘ivy’ to agree with other translators.” Augustine replied back: “I do not wish your translation from the Hebrew to be read in the churches, for fear of upsetting the flock of Christ with great scandal, by publishing something new (ne…tamquam novum aliquid proferentes magno scandalo perturbemus plebes Christi), something seemingly contrary to the authority of the Septuagint, which version their ears and hearts are accustomed to hear, and which was accepted even by the apostles.”

We can say that not much have changed compared to back then: even now there still seems to be some Augustinian-esque fear in certain circles that the biblical ‘innovation’ will upset something. 🤷
 
Dave, I knew you’ll back me up. 😃

The whole hedera/cucurbita incident actually sparked a mini-debate between Augustine and Jerome. In 403, Augustine protested against Jerome’s ‘innovation’ in a letter, even suggesting that Jerome might not be always right: “and so it seems also to us that you too at times could have erred in some respects.” Jerome answers that while the Septuagint does say kolokyntha “gourd,” other Greek translators like Aquila used “ivy.” He describes himself as being in a dilemma: “if I had wanted merely to transcribe ciceion, no one would have understood me; if I put down ‘gourd’, I would be saying what is not in the Hebrew; so I put ‘ivy’ to agree with other translators.” Augustine replied back: “I do not wish your translation from the Hebrew to be read in the churches, for fear of upsetting the flock of Christ with great scandal, by publishing something new (ne…tamquam novum aliquid proferentes magno scandalo perturbemus plebes Christi), something seemingly contrary to the authority of the Septuagint, which version their ears and hearts are accustomed to hear, and which was accepted even by the apostles.”

We can say that not much have changed compared to back then: even now there still seems to be some Augustinian-esque fear in certain circles that the biblical ‘innovation’ will upset something. 🤷
Yes, biblical translation can be an extremely sensitive issue. I think the phrase “…which version their ears and hearts are accustomed to hear” captures that sentiment nicely.

And you just KNOW that in the back of his mind Jerome is thinking that because Augustine understands neither Hebrew (not at all) nor Greek (not well at least) who is HE to lecture ME…?! 😉
 
Yes, biblical translation can be an extremely sensitive issue. I think the phrase “…which version their ears and hearts are accustomed to hear” captures that sentiment nicely.
When it comes to religious matters, what isn’t a sensitive issue? Heck, there were people out there who objected to the idea of even portraying Jesus on film at all.

This is probably also the key behind KJV-onlyism, methinks: I mean, for about three hundred years the KJV is the de facto English Bible; even the Challoner ‘revision’ of the Reims-Douai is highly influenced by it. There were other versions produced that time, yes, but they are either too minor or are ultimately just modified clones of the translation. Then comes the 19th-20th centuries and all of a sudden modern Bible translations spring up all over the place, upsetting the status quo.
And you just KNOW that in the back of his mind Jerome is thinking that because Augustine understands neither Hebrew (not at all) nor Greek (not well at least) who is HE to lecture ME…?! 😉
Is it just me, or is this very human episode between two venerable saints very interesting? 😃
 
Is it just me, or is this very human episode between two venerable saints very interesting? 😃
I’m toying with the idea of doing more research on Jerome. The more I find out, the more interesting he becomes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top