{"id":22004,"date":"2023-03-05T21:15:15","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T05:15:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nemoslibrary.com\/patristics\/?p=22004"},"modified":"2023-03-05T21:49:39","modified_gmt":"2023-03-06T05:49:39","slug":"jerome-on-the-septuagint-and-the-vulgate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nemoslibrary.com\/patristics\/jerome-on-the-septuagint-and-the-vulgate\/","title":{"rendered":"Jerome on the Septuagint and the Vulgate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"St.
St. Jerome Writing. Caravaggio 1605<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the attacks of my calumniators, who maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to work to forge a new version to take the place of the old. They thus test ability as they do wine; whereas I have again and again declared that I dutifully offer in the Tabernacle of God what I can, and have pointed out that the great gifts which one man brings are not marred by the inferior gifts of another. But I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended with the old edition Theodotion\u2019s translation and used throughout the work as distinguishing marks the asterisk * and the obelus \u2020, that is the star and the spit, the first of which makes what had previously been defective to beam with light, while the other transfixes and slaughters all that was superfluous. But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, \u2018Out of Egypt have I called my Son\u2019 (Matt. ii. 15): \u2018For he shall be called a Nazarene\u2019 (Ibid. 23): and \u2018They shall look on him whom they pierced\u2019 (John xix. 37): and \u2018Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly\u2019 (John vii. 38): and \u2018Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him\u2019 (1 Cor. ii. 9), and many other passages which lack their proper context … let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4) …It is not for me to explain the causes of the error. The Jews say it was deliberately and wisely done to prevent Ptolemy who was a monotheist from thinking the Hebrews acknowledged two deities. And that which chiefly influenced them in thus acting was the fact that the king appeared to be falling into Platonism. In a word, wherever Scripture evidenced some sacred truth respecting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they either translated the passage differently, or passed it over altogether in silence, so that they might both satisfy the king, and not divulge the secrets of the faith. I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas, the champion of that same Ptolemy, and Josephus, long after, relate nothing of the kind; their account is that the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator. The former through the Spirit, foretells things to come; the latter must use his learning and facility in speech to translate what he understands. It can hardly be that we must suppose Tully was inspired with oratorical spirit when he translated Xenophon\u2019s \u0152conomics, Plato\u2019s Protagoras, and the oration of Demosthenes in defence of Ctesiphon. Otherwise the Holy Spirit must have quoted the same books in one sense through the Seventy Translators, in another through the Apostles, so that, whereas they said nothing of a given matter, these falsely affirm that it was so written. What then? Are we condemning our predecessors? By no means; but following the zealous labours of those who have preceded us we contribute such work as lies in our power in the name of the Lord. They translated before the Advent of Christ, and expressed in ambiguous terms that which they knew not. We after His Passion and Resurrection write not prophecy so much as history. For one style is suitable to what we hear, another to what we see. The better we understand a subject, the better we describe it. Hearken then, my rival: listen, my calumniator; I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets (1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11), while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place.
\n…
\nThe Septuagint version [of Daniel] was very different from the original … We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion … the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon … are not contained in the Hebrew Bible
\n…
\nThe Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words \u201cHe that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,\u201d and in the words used on the cross itself, \u201cEli, Eli, lama sabachthani,\u201d which is by interpretation \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d not, as it is given by the Septuagint, \u201cMy God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

References:<\/p>\n