Latin Bible versions the age of Reformation and post-Reformation: On the delopment of new Latin versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew and on the Vulgate as revised and evaluated among the Protestants

(1)

årsskrift 2006

Särtryck

Josef Eskhult

Latin Bible Versions in the Age of Reformation and

Post-Reformation: On the development of new Latin versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew and on the Vulgate as revised and evaluated among the Protestants

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

Redaktör: Anders Jarlert, professor i kyrkohistoria vid Lunds universitet.

Skrifter utgivna av Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen 106:1 isbn 91-85582-57-3, issn 0085-2619

(2)

Josef Eskhult

Latin Bible Versions in the Age of Reformation and Post-Reformation:

On the development of new Latin versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew and on the Vulgate as revised and evaluated

among the Protestants

1. Introduction

1.1 Aim and scope

In the age of the Reformation (1517–1580) and post-Reformation (1580–1720) many biblical scholars, Hebraists and Grecists alike, made new Latin translations of the Old and New Testaments from Hebrew and Greek by individual enterprises.

Most of the translators belonged to the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. Some new Latin versions enjoyed universal approval as long as Latin was the language of scholarship. Nevertheless, the Lutheran and Reformed churches continued to use the Vulgate, although they revised and emendated it from the source languages of the Bible.

The question of what Latin Bible versions were developed and used in the age of Reformation and post-Reformation must be considered a matter of great signifi cance in Neo-Latin philology as well as church history. However, the Latin versions of the whole Old Testament elaborated in the period 1500–

1750 have received only limited attention in modern scholarship, which has concentrated on the Bible versions in European vernaculars during the sixteenth century and, if Latin Bible versions have been considered at all, scholarship has dealt with Lorenzo Valla’s criticism of the Vulgate, Erasmus’ Latin version of the New Testament or some humanist translator of an individual biblical book (e.g. the Psalter).¹

Modern research, too, has devoted little attention to the Vulgate among the Protestants in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, viz. the extent to which they used it and how they evaluated it.

This article is meant to help remedy the defi ciency in this fi eld of research. The purpose is accordingly twofold: to give a survey of Latin versions of the entire or complete Old Testament from the Hebrew source language that came into being up to the middle of the eighteenth century, and, secondly, to present the most important revisions of the Vulgate within the Luth- eran Church as well as to probe the opinions of the Vulgate among Protestants. I shall also touch upon an adjacent area, the theory behind Bible translation.

1.2 Outline of the study

The survey is arranged as follows: First, previous research is presented. Then the three methods are described to which the humanist Hebraists resorted to establish a Latin Bible for the Church’s use. This leads to an account of the revisions of the Vulgate by the Lutherans and the opinions of the Vulgate among the Protestants. Next follows a survey of the Latin versions of the Old Testament from its Hebrew original in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In introductory sections there is an attempt to describe the humanistic Latin Bible versions in their historical context, and, further, what Hebrew source text the translator in question set out from, and the

(3)

views on Bible interpretation as expressed by humanist theorists (Huet and Humphrey). The description of each Latin version of the Old Testament is arranged as follows: fi rst, the appearance of the different editions will be accounted for. Then, the focus will fall on the various methods of translation, as described by the translators in question, and, last, the reception history of the respective Bible versions will be dealt with, how they were estimated by critics in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century. The reception history will be investigated by means of a selection of the opinions voiced by critics. After this survey the editions of the Vulgate and the Latin Bible versions are placed in a chronological overview. Then follows an exposition that tries to penetrate some key concepts that the Bible translators in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century had in mind.

The qualities of proprietas, i.e. proper signifi cation, latinitas or puritas, i.e. linguistic correctness, and perspicuitas, i.e. clearness, turn out to be the most important terms in the conceptual framework. The different concerns for these qualities have been evaluated in the Latin versions under consideration. Finally, some specimens of biblical passages are adduced in order to elucidate different linguistic features in the Latin Bible versions considered.

2. Earlier investigations

2.1 Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century research

(Simon, Kortholt, Carpzov, le Long, Masch)

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there appeared exhaustive surveys and critical reviews of the emendated and revised editions of the Vulgate and the new Latin Bible translations. Those attracting special interest and those that are of major importance will be mentioned in the following account.

Richard Simon (1638–1712), the famous French exegete and biblical critic (Catholic) wrote Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (1685), where he deals with the history of Bible translations. On the basis of his own readings, as it appears, he makes judicious remarks about the new Latin translations of the Bible up to his time.²

Christian Kortholt (1633–1694), professor of theo- logy at the University of Kiel (Lutheran), De variis Scripturae Sanctae editionibus tractatus theologico- historico-philologicus (1686), deals with the Vulgate and presents a survey of new Latin Bible translations, where he above all has collected a body of information about contemporary scholars’ critical judgements on the versions considered.³

Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679–1767), professor of theology at the University of Leipzig (Lutheran) is to be credited with the most extensive exposition on the present matter among all surveys that were written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the voluminous treatise on textual criticism of the Old Testament Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti (1728) he investigates inter alia the Vulgate, its age and origin, its genuine author, its errors of translation, the editions of it since the Carolingian Renaissance (Alcuin, Beda and so on), the question of its authority and its use, as well as the new Latin translations of the Old Testament from the original language, wherein he accounts for the aim which the translator in question had in view with his translation, the methods of translation, the varying estimations among the critics, the general character of the translation and the technique of translation, which is thoroughly exemplifi ed, and, fi nally, the different editions and revisions of the Bible version at issue.⁴

Jacque le Long (1665–1721), a French librarian (Catholic), wrote an extensive chronological list of editions of the Bible in all various languages, Bib- liotheca Sacra seu syllabus omnium ferme Sacrae Scripturae editionum ac versionum (Paris 1709) encompassing the period from the fi rst printed editions of the Bible in the 1450’s up to his days. In one section he enumerates the editions of the Vulgate by Catholics, and in another section he lists the editions of the Vulgate as issued and annotated by the Pro- testants. He devotes yet another entire section to the new Latin Bible versions from the Hebrew original.

Andreas Gottlieb Masch (1724–1807), a librarian and a divine (Lutheran), considerably enlarged and supplemented Jacque le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra.

Masch’s revision and enlargement of Bibliotheca sacra is marked by systematics in minute details, apparent in the conspectus, which is to be found after the preface of the third volume. The third volume (1783) and the fourth volume (1785) deal with the

(4)

Latin versions of the Bible. The fi rst chapter is on old Latin Bible versions. The second chapter treats editions of the Vulgate version. The third chapter is occupied with versions from the original languages (1785). These chapters are divided into a great number of sections and entries. Masch not only lists editions, but also in many cases includes the preface by each editor, and in the case of the humanistic Latin Bible versions he inserts a lot of critical judgements by renowned critics.⁵

Two Swedish scholars also reviewed the Latin versions of the Bible in the mid eighteenth century, Pet- rus Ekerman (1696–1783), professor of eloquence at Uppsala University and Samuel Johansson Alnander (1731–1772), lecturer of literary history at Uppsala University. Neither is, however, original nor do they convey any basic research, but base their descrip- tions on secondary sources. Ekerman largely relied on the above-mentioned Carpzov, but not without acknowledging his indebtedness through frequent references.⁶

It is necessary to point out that all the handbooks mentioned above are in Latin, except for Richard Simon and Samuel Alnander. In studying the reception history of the various Latin Bible versions I have made ample use of the source material accounted for above. I have also availed myself of a number of other sixteenth-, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century critics, who wrote in Latin. All English translations from Latin, French, and Swedish sources occurring in this paper are mine.

2.2 Modern research (Rosenthal, Lenhart, Hall, Lloyd Jones, Roussel, Hobbs)

In modern times primarily historians of the biblical exegesis in the Reformation have summarily dealt with the present matter as a part in major works, but not in its own right. The modern scholars mentioned below have only paid regard to the Latin Bible versions of the sixteenth century (i.e. the Bible versions by Schmidius, Clericus and Houbigant have been left without consideration).

Erwin Rosenthal, an English Hebraist and Arabist, in an article on Raschi and the English Bible (1940), summarily deals with the Latin translations by Pagninus, Münster, Leo Jud and Tremellius & Junius in as far as these works transmitted the rabbinic med-

ieval exegesis to English versions, viz. Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and King James Version. In another article about Sebastian Münster’s knowledge and use of Jewish exegesis (1943) he thoroughly illustrates Münster’s dependence on Jewish rabbis such as Raschi, Kimchi and Ibn Esra.⁷

John M. Lenhart, an American scholar specialized on Franciscan libraries and the typography in the sixteenth century, in the article ‘Protestant Latin Bible of the Reformation from 1520-1570: a bibliographical account’, surveys the revisions of the Vulgate in Luth- eran countries and pays regard to the Old Testament and the New Testament as well as parts of both of them.⁸

Furthermore, Basil Hall, an English Church historian, has written an excellent exposition ‘Biblical scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ (1963), which deals with the foremost revisions of the Vulgate by Catholic and Protestants and the complete Latin Bible versions from Hebrew in the sixteenth century.⁹

G. Lloyd Jones, an English church historian, in an introductory chapter of a book devoted to Hebrew scholarship in sixteenth-century England, discusses the Latin Bible translations of Sanctes Pagninus, Sebastian Münster, Leo Jud and Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Junius in their capacity as sources of infl uences for the different humanistic English Bible versions.¹⁰

Bernard Roussel (French church historian), as a part in a great project on the Bible as interpreted and dealt with in all ages, treats the Latin text of the Bible in the age of the Reformation and very briefl y discusses the revisions of the Vulgate and the new Latin versions developed during the Reformation. Roussel considerably relies on Basil Hall, but has also his own contributions.¹¹

R. Gerald Hobbs, an American church historian, mentions the main revisions of the Vulgate in the sixteenth century and in summary terms calls attention to some new Latin Bible versions: Pagninus, the Zurich version, Castellio, Tremellius & Junius.¹²

(5)

3. The methods to establish a correct Latin text of the Bible

The humanists understood that the transmitted Vulgate was full of copyist errors. Some Catholic and most of the Protestant humanists doubted that Jerome was the author of the modern Vulgate. Others believed that the text transmitted was contaminated with the ancient Latin version (Vetus Latina or Itala).

When they saw that the Vulgate version in some passages was corrupted by the copyists and in others did not correspond to the Hebrew and Greek sources,¹³ they decided to reconstitute a correct Latin version of the Bible. To re-establish such a Latin biblical text three different methods were used:¹⁴ (1) to revise the text of the Vulgate from ancient manuscripts, (2) to correct the Vulgate from the Hebrew and Greek original, and (3) to translate the text into Latin anew from the source languages. The last alternative was con- sistent with the humanist motto ad fontes, which in biblical scholarship involved a return to the Hebrew and Greek source languages. This was further accen- tuated by the formal principle of the Reformation, viz.

sola scriptura ”the Scripture alone”. As far as com- plete Latin Bible versions are concerned, the general tendency is that the Catholics chose the fi rst method, the Lutherans preferred the second option, and the Reformed scholars dwelt on the third alternative. My survey is meant to cover the outcomes of the second and third methods. As was stated in the introduction (1.2), the revisions of the Vulgate by Protestants will be treated and the new Latin versions of the Old Testament will be surveyed.

For the sake of completeness I also have to mention the efforts of Catholic printers and scholars in the sixteenth century to correct the transmitted Vulgate text from early manuscripts, which represent the fi rst method pointed out. A great many emendations of the Vulgate, based on an early modern method of textual criticism, were undertaken on private initiatives, for instance by the printer-scholar Robert Estienne (1503–1559) who published an edition in 1528 (Paris) under the title of Biblia. In a later revision, issued in 1532, he claimed that he has restored the Vulgate to the form in which the translator himself wrote it.

New editions followed 1540, 1545, 1546 and 1557.

Estienne also combined his editorial activity with Bible commentary and included annotations in the

margin to elucidate the biblical text. The annotations were in many cases drawn from rabbinical medieval exegesis (see further section 5.1.1). Isodorus Clarius (1495–1553), bishop of Foligno in Italy, presented an edition the Vulgate text in 1542 (in Venice), emendated in passages where he thought it to disagree with the Hebrew text; the alterations numbered eight thousand.¹⁵ Estienne’s and Clarius’ editions were sus- pected of heresy and entered on Index librorum pro- hibitorum. Louvain scholars published on the public authority of the Roman Catholic Church a revised edition in 1547 (Antwerp), based on a later version of Estienne’s edition (1538–40) and on the collation of some thirty manuscripts. The Spanish orientalist Arias Montanus (1527–1598) improved the Louvain edition in his edition of the Vulgate in the Antwerp Polyglott (1569–72).¹⁶ In the corrections undertaken by papal authority in the 1580’s and 1590’s, attempts were done to establish the original readings of the Vulgate through three methods, namely collation of ancient Latin manuscripts, the expositions of the church Fathers and ancient translators, and consideration to the Hebrew and Greek text.¹⁷ The Sixto- Clementine edition was issued in 1592 as the authentic Vulgate, in order to fulfi l the decree of the council of Trent to print as emendated an edition as possible.

Henceforward the authors, typographers, and sellers of revised editions were threatened with punishments and with excommunication. The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate remained the fi nal edition for some hundreds of years. For an elaborate account of the appearances of editions of the Vulgate in Catholic countries, see Masch (who deals with the matter in volume 3, chapter 2, section 1).

4. The Vulgate as revised, used and evaluated in the

Protestant world

4.1 Introduction:

Valla and Erasmus

When the humanists that were profi cient in Greek and Hebrew began to compare the Vulgate with the text of the source languages they discovered copyist errors as well as mistakes of translation. The fi rst humanist to make collations with a Greek manuscript was Lorenzo Valla in Collatio Novi Testamenti, 1444.

(6)

He asserted the principle that the Greek original should be preferred to the Vulgate. When they dif- fered, the Greek original should be regarded as more reliable. To many of his contemporaries this was a heretical opinion. Lorenzo Valla and Leonardo Bruni wished to discard the Vulgate and replace it with a new Latin translation, but things changed with the counter-Reformation, symbolized in the decree of the Tridentine Council (1545–63), which declared the Vulgate to be the authentic version (see further section 4.3). Erasmus found a draft of Lorenzo Valla’s work and published it under the title Annotationes in 1505. Erasmus subseqently developed the philological method for the interpretation of the Holy Writ.

However, his Latin translation, published within the edition of the Greek New Testament (Novum Instru- mentum in 1516), was only meant for scholarly use;

Erasmus wished the text of the Vulgate to be read in the schools just as before, sung in the churches and recited at public lectures.¹⁸ Nevertheless, Erasmus’

Latin version of the New Testament came to be much used in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.

4.2 Revisions of the Vulgate by the Lutherans

The Lutherans did not reject the Vulgate. They did not, however, accept it as authoritative. The Vulgate was, as it seems, used as the standard Latin Bible in the Lutheran schools and universities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but it did not enjoy an authoritative position. The early Lutheran theologians retained the Vulgate in their scholarly work. I have examined a number of biblical passages, chosen at random, in the Latin versions of the Lutheran Creeds, viz. Confessio Augustana (1530), Apologia Confessionis (1531 originally written in Latin by Philipp Melanchthon), Articuli Smalcaldici (the German original was written in 1537, the Latin version made in 1584) and Formula Concordiae (the Latin version of which was begun by Lucas Osiander 1577, continued by Jacob Heerbrand and revised by Nicolaus Selneccer and Martin Chemitz, completed in 1584).¹⁹ In general, the Scriptural passages turn out to be identical with or very close to the Vulgate text.

Thus, by virtue of its great age, the ancient Latin version, the Vulgate, continued to be used in the schools and universities in the Protestant countries after the breakthrough of the Reformation. Lutheran

and Reformed theologians took measures, however, to restore the integrity of the Vulgate by having it compared both to ancient manuscripts and in particular to the Hebrew and Greek sources. It was obviously regarded as important to edit as faultless editions as possible for the students’ use. In the case of annotated editions of the Vulgate (Biblia glossata or annotata) this purpose was combined with the intention of spreading evangelical teaching and tenets among the educated classes in Catholic Europe.²⁰

A reading consistently corrected in the Lutheran revisions of the Vulgate is the pronoun ipsa in Gen. 3, 15: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius. Ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo illius. The Lutherans consis- tently altered ipsa to ipse or ipsum, because—as was rightly argued—the Hebrew pronoun hu’ grammati- cally and contextually can only refer to the promised seed, semen, of the women, viz. Christ our Saviour.

Between 1521 and 1570 Protestant, mainly Luth- eran, editors and printers issued fi fty-eight editions of the Vulgate.²¹ The most signifi cant editions will be accounted for. A full account of the editions of the Vulgate by Protestants is to be found in Masch (1783 pp. 308–352).

Andreas Osiander the Elder (1496–1552), a divine and professor of Hebrew at Nuremberg, was the fi rst to venture a revision of the Vulgate (Biblia Sacra 1522).²² In the preface to the edition, he states that he had no access to old manuscripts and therefore he was compelled to discover spurious readings and to conjecture the plausible ones by consulting the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Furthermore, Osi- ander states that he removed errors that he surmised as being typographical and grammatical. In passages where the Vulgate did not appear to equal and correspond to the Hebrew text, he gave the meaning of the Hebrew words in marginal annotations. In the same year (1522) Protestant typographers at Stras- bourg²³ and at Basel²⁴ issued editions of the Vulgate.

These editions represent texts deviating from each other, although established by collation of the best and oldest manuscript.

Five years later, in 1527, a scholar-typographer in Nuremberg, Johann Petreius, issued his revision of the Vulgate.²⁵ Petreius corrected the readings when the manuscripts that he used did not agree with each other. For disagreeing readings he made conjectures

(7)

from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Consequently, Petreius primarily used the Hebrew original as a means in the text-critical establishment of original readings of the Vulgate. Masch (1783, p. 311) states that Petreius’ edition in many places differs from Osiander the Elder’s.

Again, seven years after Osiander, in 1529, Wittenberg scholars issued a corrected edition of the Vulgate from the original languages comprising the Pentateuch, Josua, Judges, Samuels and Kings and the entire New Testament.²⁶ It was prefaced by Luther, but was probably carried out by a team of Wittenberg Bible scholars (Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Matthäus Aurogallus, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Jonas, Georg Spalatin, all of the latter assisted Luther in translating the Bible into German).²⁷ In the preface Luther says that the aim at fi rst only was to correct the errors of the copyists, in order to achieve a puri- fi ed edition of the Vulgate for the students. During the work they realized that the Vulgate text was so corrupt that they had to take recourse to the authentic Hebrew text, especially as they lacked old manuscripts. They cancelled spurious readings and replaced them with emendations.

In that way, Luther contends, an almost new version arose, whose aim was that the Latin text would cor- respond to the Hebrew one (nova propemodum trans- latio nata est, ut per omnia responderet latina lectio Ebraicae). Moreover, Luther lays stress upon the fact that his edition was intended for the use of theological students (ad utilitatem discentium sacras literas), and not to be received in the churches and publicly read in the place of the old one (non ut haec nostra edicio reciperetur in templis et publice pro veteri legeretur);

Luther prefers to keep the old standard form of the Vulgate text for public use (nam publice satius est vete- rem et ubique similem lectionem retinere). Carpzov in his Critica sacra (1728) shows by examples that this edition surpasses the Vulgate and Luther’s own Ger- man version of the Bible in the accuracy of rendering the source text.²⁸ In 1529 Luther also edited a correc- ted Psalterium of the Vulgate text (Gallicanum)²⁹.

Johann Brenz (1499–1570), a prominent Lutheran divine, was the author of an emendated edition of the Vulgate (Leipzig 1544).³⁰ In the edition Brenz incorpo- rated St. Jerome’s prolegomena to the different biblical books. Another edition of the Vulgate was due to the fact that the Elector of Saxony took the initiative to

introduce a Latin Bible consistent with Luther’s Ger- man translation in the schools of Saxony. Paul Eber (1511–1569), a professor of Hebrew in Wittenberg, and George Major (1502–1574) were thus given the task of correcting the Vulgate, in order that it would agree with Martin Luther’s German version. They edited a Latin Bible printed in parallel to the German text in ten volumes (1565).³¹ Moreover, Victor Strigel (1524–1569) at Leipzig in the 1560’s made a revision of the Vulgate from the Hebrew text and supplied it with his summaries and annotations.³²

Gradually it had become evident that the Vulgate contained a lot of errors in translation. The Lutheran theologian Lucas Osiander the Elder (1534–1604), Superintendent in Stuttgart and Chaplain of the Prince of Würtemberg, carried out an extensive emen- dation of the Vulgate. Lucas Osiander introduced a new method of revising the Vulgate: he remoulded the Vulgate text in all passages where he estimated that it diverged from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

He does not, however, dismiss the Vulgate text, but always keeps it, and immediately adds his emendations in italics. The improvements are usually concerned with single words, which are brought in closer conformity with the proper meanings of the correspon- ding Hebrew words. The emendations occur in a great number and extend to almost every biblical passage.

Osiander states in the preface that he chose the method of adding his own improvements to the Vulgate text in order that it might be possible to evaluate his corrections and the readings of the Vulgate. He lays stress on the fact that he has made the ancient Vulgate more clear and plain, as far as he has changed obscure and ambiguous passages. Osiander argues in the preface that Jerome sometimes comes so close to the Hebrew phrases that it is impossible to surmise what is actually meant. Furthermore, Osiander supplied the biblical text with short and clear explanations, mainly relying on the Bible commentaries of Martin Luther and John Brenz, with the aim of emphasizing evangelical tenets.

The annotations are embedded in the current text after every verse. A heavily annotated edition came in seven volumes 1574–1586,³³ reprinted 1599.³⁴ An edition without commentaries was fi nished in 1578–80, reprinted in 1593.

It is signifi cant that Abraham Calovius (1612–1686), a Lutheran exegete and dogmatician, in his brief sur- vey of Latin Bible versions in the introduction to Biblia

(8)

Testamenti veteris illustrata regards Lucas Osiander’s revision of the Vulgate as a new translation, although he knew that it was a revision. Furthermore, Richard Simon states that Osiander would have undertaken a new Latin version, if time had suffi ced for such an enterprise. He approves of Osiander’s method to translate, as it were, the Bible while keeping the ancient version accepted in the Church for so long a time. This method, he says, is to be considered the best and the most secure, because it does not reject a version aut- horized long ago. Richard Simon also underlines that both Lucas Osiander as well as Andreas Osiander (see below) were well acquainted with the Hebrew language. If they had placed the corrections in the margin, it is stated, he would not have anything to blame in their editions of the Bible.

In the preface Lucas Osiander states that it is as evident that it is not necessary to prove that the Vulgate version (vetus illa translatio) is in everyone’s hand, especially among students of theology, and thus still has a public authority. He says that he has decided to correct and expound the Vulgate because it is still retained in the schools and in the theological exercises on account of its old age. Osiander also states the purpose that he wishes his work to reach those who are not able to read Luther’s salubrious German version (ii, qui Germanicae linguae cognitione destituuntur, Lutheri labore saluberrimo frui not possunt).

Andrew Osiander the Younger (1562–1617) was a son of Lucas Osiander. He became General Superin- tendent in Tübingen and Chancellor of the University there. He continued the revision of the Vulgate and Bible commentary initiated by his father. The corrections in italics occur, as far as I have noticed, in the same passages as in Lucas Osiander and they are the same. As far as the annotations in the margin are concerned, Andrew Osiander to a large extent added new ones, and modifi ed and supplemented those in Lucas Osiander’s work. The page layout is also entirely different: the biblical text is arranged in two columns in the middle of the page; the two surrounding columns show references to doctrinal passages (loci communes or sedes doctrinae) and the farthest columns contain the annotations, taken from the writings of prominent Lutheran teachers and the Formula of Concord (1577–

80) itself. The fi rst edition of his annotated Latin Bible was issued in 1600. The best-known edition, the fi fth in order, was printed at Frankfurt in 1618.³⁵

Having surveyed the main revisions of the Vulgate in the Lutheran Church, we will turn to the achieve- ments in this area in the Reformed Church. It is to be noticed that the only Calvinistic scholar to revise the Vulgate from the Hebrew source text was Conrad Pel- lican (1478–1556), a Swiss Hebraist.³⁶ The revision was not issued separately, however, but was integrated and embedded in his commentary on the Bible, Zurich 1532–1539, reprinted in 1582.³⁷ There are great diffi culties in many biblical passages, Pellican admits in the preface, but at the same time he argues that there is never any insuperable obscurity as far as the essential doctrines are concerned, provided that the interpreter is pious, loves the truth, divine glory and the salvation of humans, and that an ardent desire is present, pro- fuse prayers alike, a wakeful mind, a sacred assiduity, simple accuracy, energetic toil, and provided that he has a constant purpose to discover the innate meaning of the Scripture.³⁸ As regards the revision of the Vulgate Pellican maintains that he would have retained the Vulgate text, if he had not been asked by his col- leagues (fratres) to emendate it (p. 11). Pellican says that he would himself all the better keep a translation of venerable authority unaltered and unchanged in the Christian congregations. In the preface he states that in his revision he has rendered the Hebraisms more appropriately than the Vulgate, even though not translating them exactly (p. 12). The Fathers of the Church thought it more advisable, Pellican maintains (p. 11), to permit a barbarism than to remove the smallest matter from the meaning of the divine prophesies. They did not think, he continues to argue, that a legitimate method of translation in the sphere of the Holy Writ possibly can be extended as far as in profane literature, i.e. to weigh, as it were, the meaning while the words are not accounted for,³⁹ because in the divine speeches the separate words conceal a mystery.⁴⁰ He affi rms (p.

12) that as far as possible he has changed the Hebrew modes of expression into words and terms sounding good in Latin. He says that he diverges from Jerome’s wordings only when the Hebrew original text appears to hint at something more (non ... nisi ubi aliquid amp- lius subindicare videretur). However, in passages where the meaning of the Hebrew original is doubtful Pel- lican preferred to rely on the authority of the Fathers (Jerome and the Septuagint) and remain uncertain with them, rather than to rely on the medieval Jewish exegetes and to pretend the problem to be settled (p. 12).

(9)

4.3 The Vulgate as evaluated among the Protestants (Chemnitz, Walton,

Calovius, Carpzov)

Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586), a German theologian (Lutheran), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini under- lines that the Lutheran Churches do not condemn the Vulgate version, but retain it in use with discrimi- nation, in such a way that one has to return to the Hebrew and Greek sources in passages that are incor- rectly rendered, altered, mutilated or added. Thus, he continues, it is unacceptable that the Vulgate version according to the tenor of decree of the Tridentine Council should be considered authentic, i.e. reliable, in public readings, disputations, sermons and explanations, and that one should not dare to criticize it under any pretext whatever.⁴¹ In the cases where it diverges from the source text, we would otherwise be forced to accept the errors of the translator and would not be allowed to reject them, even after having explored the original wordings.⁴² Chemnitz states that even Augustine was aware of the fact that a version cannot be made authorative against the sources themselves. In passages where there is some doubt we have to take recourse to the Greek and Hebrew models (De doctrina Christiana 2,12). The vindica- tion of the Vulgate among the Catholic theologians of the Tridentine council was, according to Chemnitz, not without secret reasons, in so far as the Vulgate contains erroneously translated passages supporting papal tenets, as in the case of the above-mentioned reading ipsa in Gen 3, 15, alleged to prove the inter- cession of Mary, and Psalms 150,1 laudate Dominum in sanctis ejus “praise the Lord in his saints”, alleged to defend the invocation of the saints.⁴³

Brian Walton (1600–1661), English Orientalist (Anglican), in the prolegomenon to the London Poly- glot 1655–57, shows that most of the subsequent Cat- holic scholars rejected the Tridentine declaration concerning the authority of the Vulgate. They modifi ed the decree to imply that the Vulgate version contained no errors in matters of faith and in moral questions (in rebus fi dei et morum), since one cannot possibly maintain that it is inspired and exempted from errors whatever. Walton himself makes reservations against the Vulgate as acknowledged as divine, but points out that it ought to be held in high esteem and is not to be criticized without due reason, considering its old age and the widespread use of it in the Western Church

through a thousand years and with regard to the translator’s erudition and fi delity.

Walton enumerates some learned Protestant scholars who held the Vulgate in high esteem. Among others he mentions Paulus Fagius (1504–1549), a French Hebraist (Lutheran), who showed that the Vulgate follows the Septuagint, the Targum or some rabbinical source in the passages where it differs from the Hebrew. Moreover, he points out Ludewijk de Dieu (1590–1642), a Dutch scholar, who asserts that the translator of the Vulgate was very learned and testi- fi es that he admires his judicious choices and fi delity even in passages where it seems barbaric. Walton also draws attention to Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614), a great French polyhistor, who preferred the Vulgate to the modern Greek manuscripts of the New Testa- ment and to Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch Bible scholar, who used the Vulgate as the text from which he set out in his celebrated annotations of the Old Testament, arguing that he always has appreciated the Vulgate not only because it does not contain any insalubrious dogmas, but also because it has a good deal of erudition, although suffi ciently rough and rude in style.⁴⁴

In the seventeenth century the errors of translation in the Vulgate were even more explored and presented in a number of extensive treatises. Several Protestant scholars thoroughly demonstrated such inaccuracies.

The criticism of the Vulgate was in particular voiced by two prominent scholars, namely Sixtinus Amama (1593–1629), a Dutch Hebraist, professor of Hebrew at the University of Franeken, in Censura Vulgatae atque a Tridentinis canonizatae versionis quinque librorum Mosis (1620) and Anti-barbarus Biblicus (1628), its second and third book,⁴⁵ and Abraham Calovius, professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, in Criticus Sacer (1643).⁴⁶

Leaving Amama aside for future research, I will concentrate on Calovius. In the second part of the above-mentioned work he deals with the foremost versions of the Bible; he mainly occupies himself with the Vulgate. He begins by describing the diverging interpretations of the Tridentine decree concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate by Catholic theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.⁴⁷ A debate arose among the Catholics regarding the purport of the decree, especially of what was meant by “authentic”, whether the Vulgate was to be preferred to other

(10)

Latin versions or if it was to be ranked equal with the original texts. Isodorus Clarius, for instance, thought that no version can be placed on equality with the texts in the original languages, but that the Vulgate was to be preferred to all others, provided that it is corrected from the source text. The major part of the Catholic theologians considered that the version that since long had been read in the churches and accepted in the schools was necessarily to be held as divine and authenic; otherwise, the Lutherans would be granted the victory and a door would be opened to innumerable heresies and continuous tumults all over Christian world. Calovius reduces the different opinions to three categories: the fi rst opinion being that the Vulgate is divine and inspired by the Holy Spirit,⁴⁸ (so was asserted by Petrus Sutor, Franciscus Titelmannus, Jacob Gretser and Johannes Morinus), the second being that the Vulgate, although not inspired by God, is still exempt from all errors of translation, even smaller ones,⁴⁹ (so contended the assembly of the Cardinals in 1576, and Luis de Tena, Juan de Pineda,⁵⁰ Gregorius de Valentia, Domingo Bannes and Christoph a Sacrobosco), and the third being that the Vulgate is authentic in the sense that it is exempt from errors that concern the faith and morals,⁵¹ (a position taken by Andreas Vega, Jacob Payva Andradius, Joan. Stephan Menochius, Jean Driedo, Juan de Mariana, Robert Bellarmin and Nicolaus Serarius).

Calovius refutes each of these opinions in order.

In refuting the fi rst opinion, the main points are the following: (1) there is a lack of proof and that which the Catholics still allege is refuted; (2) the assistance of the Holy Spitit has to be denied, because it was confi ned to the Prophets and Apostles; (3) an investi- gation of the Vulgate version shows that it does not corresponds everywhere to the Hebrew and Greek truth, but differs in many passages. Calovius asks:

Who can possibly believe that the Holy Spirit did not understand himself? There are also a lot of solecisms and barbarisms that are not to be imputed to the Holy Spirit as the creator of the language; (4) the very emendations of the Vulgate are impious, provided that the version is inspired; (5) the matter of fact is that there are contrary hypotheses on this point among the Cat- holics: even Gretser concedes that there are words not rightly rendered in the Vulgate.⁵² Calovius opposes Johannes Morinus’s argument that the Vulgate dif-

fers from the Hebrew original because the Hebrew text has been changed since the time of Jerome.⁵³

In disproving the second opinion, the history of emendations of the Vulgate provides with the fi rst argument, and passages criticized and noted as worthy of emenda- tion by Catholic scholars such as Pagninus, Cajetanus, Forerius and Oleastrius have not been corrected in the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. However, the major part of the refutation lies in classifying and exemplifying the various inaccuracies in the Vulgate. Eight groups of mistakes (sphalmata) are discerned: ἀντιφατικὰ^i.e.

renderings being contradictory to the Hebrew sources, ἀριθμετικὰ i.e. numerals rendered wrongly, ἐλλειπτικὰ i.e. entire verses and single words have been left out, πλεοναστικὰ^i.e. redundant elements, namely clauses and sentences introduced independently of the Hebrew original, γραφικὰ i.e. mistakes made by the copyists of the Vulgate, διαιρετικὰi.e. mistakes that separate that which is to be joined and join together that which is to be separated, due to failure to observe the pun- ctuation marks in the Hebrew original, ὀνομαστικὰ i.e. confusions of proper names and appellations, and παραλειπομένοι i.e. all other errors, especially renderings that are too close to the Hebrew idiom or those that are not appropriate or even careless.⁵⁴

In proving the third opinion false, Calovius empha- sizes approximately the same points as in the previous demonstration. The Vulgate thus offends against the faith in several respects: (1) it contradicts the Word of God, in so far as it sometimes omits negations, sometimes puts in the affi rmative that which contains a negative in the Hebrew. (2) It adds something that not is divinely inspired to the word of God or it takes away something that is inspired. (3) It diversifi es words and alters senses. Thus, the same is not said as in the original and even different meanings may be brought in. (4) It distorts numbers in the reckoning of years and in other accounts of the history. (5) It varies recurrent details in the sacred history. (6) It approves of false- hoods. (7) It causes and promotes deceptive supposi- tions and inept and empty disputations. (8) It distorts divine regulations. (9) It lays false foundations of the faith and the divine mysteries. (10) It alters the sacred proverbs and sayings. (11) It weakens the main points of the faith. (12) It defends heretical opinions. Calovius explains each point exhaustively. To the last category he refers among other passages the reading ipsa in Gen.

3,15, mentioned above.⁵⁵

(11)

In the introduction to his commentary on the Old Testament (1672) Calovius again underlines that the Vulgate contains many errors and those who only use the Vulgate or consider it authentic will be diverted from the true sense.⁵⁶ In Criticus Sacer Calovius also deals with the question to what extent the Vulgate it to be preferred to other Latin versions. In fact, he gives the Vulgate some advantages over the new Latin versions of the Bible, in respect of its great age (ratione antiquitatis), its widespread use and renown (ratione amplitudinis et celebritatis), and its perspicuity and proper signifi cation (ratione perspicuitatis et proprie- tatis). As regards the last qualities, Calovius admits that the Vulgate preserves the proper signifi cation of Latin words and that most things are explained clearly. On that account, the Vulgate is to be preferred to the most new Latin translations, which either suf- fer from too a great obscurity or they do not enough attain to the idiosyncrasy of the Latin language and sometimes appear to neglect it intentionally.⁵⁷

Carpzov discusses in his Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti the matters that pertain to the history and criticism of the Vulgate,⁵⁸ namely the questions of its origin and of its author, its errors of translation, the emendations of it in past times, the question of its authenticity and authority,⁵⁹ and the arguments for its usefulness and value. In dealing with the last issue, he says: Although the Vulgate is not worthy of the praise by which the Catholics extol it, it enjoys a dignity and a use, which is not to be regretted, among the Protestants. As compared with other Latin versions, the Vulgate can claim four advantages: (a) It has a glorious old age (gloria aetatis), through which it refl ects the understanding of diffi cult passages in the ancient Western Church and shows the origin of traditional biblical exposition as well as the sources of the Catholic errors. (b) It deserves precedence since it is generally approved and used (applausus universalis fere receptionis et usus); for no other Latin version has dominated so far and so wide; it has been employed publicly in the Church and also privately read; al though the recent Latin versions are superior to the Vulgate in accuracy and fi delity, none has wrested the Vulgate from the hands of the learned or entirely shaken its fi rm position, because it is still quoted and used by scholars of the orthodox church.

(c) It provides a display of perspicuity and proper sig- nifi cation of the words (testimonium perspicuitatis

and proprietatis verborum). Here Carpzov refers to the assessments of L. de Dieu, Hugo Grotius and Calo- vius. (d) It possesses a great polemical value against the Catholics (usus denique Polemicus contra Ponti- fi cios haut proletarius) in the passages that testify to the truth against the Catholics’ own errors.⁶⁰

5. The Old Testament translated from Hebrew

into Latin: a survey of versions in the period 1500-1750

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The historical context and the purpose of the Latin versions

The development of new Latin versions of the Old Testament as written in its original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) was due to the establishment of Hebrew scholarship and by the renewal of biblical exegesis in the sixteenth century.

The bulk of these Latin versions were attempts to bring the Latin text into closer conformity with the Hebrew original. This is contingent on the shift of her- meneutical paradigm in the Reformation. The medieval exegesis had been directed towards unfolding four meanings of the biblical text, viz. literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. The Reformers laid all effort on identifying the literal meaning of the biblical text, a meaning which they equated with the prophetic sense,⁶¹ which, in turn, was conceived to be Christological, as taught in the New Testament (Luke 24,25; 24,44, John 5,39, Acts 2,31; 3,18). An accurate Latin version provided the exegetes with a good starting-point.

The Hebraists of the sixteenth century challenged the Jews to the right of precedence of the interpretation of the Old Testament. In antiquity and during the Middle Ages the Jews were in a position of linguistic advantage, in so far as the knowledge of Hebrew was almost exclusively limited to them. This state of affairs changed when Hebrew was added to the humanistic educational program. In the early sixteenth century prominent Hebrew scholars appeared, among whom were Sanctes Pagninus, Sebastian Münster and Conrad Pellican and Paul Fagius. Münster’s Latin version of the

(12)

Old Testament represented a clear counterclaim to the Jewish non-Christological understanding of the Old Testament. This purpose is emphasized in Münster’s preface and in his annotations.

At the same time the early Hebraists were still depen- dent on the rabbis for a linguistic understanding of the biblical text. The increasing knowledge of Hebrew in the fi rst decades of the sixteenth century had opened the access to the medieval rabbinical commentaries on the Old Testament, indispensable for an advanced understanding of the proper senses of diffi cult biblical words and expressions. Münster’s, Leo Jud’s, Castellio’s and Tremellius’ versions are full of philological annota- tiones, annotations that transmit the medieval Jewish exegetical efforts. The commentated Latin versions of the Old Testament developed in the Reformation were important for vernacular Bible translations in the sixteenth centuries, especially many English versions of the Bible down to King James Version.⁶²

As indicated above, the Latin versions of the Bible were not developed for liturgical use in the Churches, but for scholarly work and for private reading of a learned public. In other words they would serve as international standard translations within the acade- mic world. The new versions were also used as aids by students of theology in their learning of Hebrew and Greek and by scholars whose knowledge in the sacred languages was insuffi cient.

The access to Bible translations in European vernaculars did not lead to a decrease in the printing of Latin Bibles. The importance of vernacular versions should not be denied, however, in so far as they became the daily companion of common people, but it is important to realize that the Church and the learned world still used Latin as the means of communication. We might suppose that “an educated man or woman despised vernacular books as trash in the same way as educated people in our days despise ungrammatical speech of the plain man and the cheap productions of scribb- lers.”⁶³ There was consequently a continuous need of Latin Bibles among the educated classes in Europe. The Latin Bible strongly dominated the market in the sixteenth century, because they could sell over all Europe, whereas the circulation of vernacular versions was for obvious reasons more limited.

5.1.2 About the Hebrew source text The authors of the Latin Bible versions under con-

sideration do not, at least not in their prefaces, state which Hebrew Bible edition they used as the source text. This question must accordingly be settled through inferences. To begin with the two earliest translators, Pagninus, who commenced his translato- rial work about 1497, must have used the fi rst printed Hebrew Bible of Socino 1488 or the Brescia edition of 1494 (in octavo format). Luther used the Brescia edition when he began his German translation of the Old Testament. When Sebastian Münster began to translate the Old Testament into Latin in the early 1520’s, he relied on the biblical text of the fi rst rabbinical Bible, printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice in 1516 after the effort of Felix Pratensis. Münster edited it in parallel with his own Latin translation.

The subsequent translators in all probability star- ted from the Masoretic text as available in Daniel Bomberg’s second rabbinical Bible,⁶⁴ printed at Venice in 1524-25. This second rabbinical Bible was accomplished through the scholarship of Jacob ben Hayyim.⁶⁵ It represented the Masoretic text⁶⁶ of the Old Testament in a reliable way and was for centuries accepted as the standard text. Johannes Buxtorf issued a revised edition in 1618-19, where he made a selection of the best rabbinical commentaries in the earlier editions of the Bomberg Bible. Concerning the Masoretic text he did not, however, undertake any corrections on account of textual criticism.⁶⁷

As for the Zurich Latin version, the editor Con- rad Pellican in the preface states that Leo Jud used a correct manuscript (in transferendo usus est Leo Hebraico exemplari eoque emendatissimo), which he followed strictly (quod religiosissime sequutus est). Sometimes, especially in diffi cult and ambigu- ous passages, Conrad Pellican states that he has also consulted other copies (interim consuluit etiam alia exemplaria) and taken counsel from the Greek and various Latin versions, even though he was aware that they did not contain the ultimate truth.

Furthermore, Castellio says that he has translated the whole Bible from the original languages, except the major passages in Aramaic (some parts of Daniel and Esra). Neither Tremellius nor Schmidius state anything about their source text used. In his preface Johannes Clericus states on the other hand that he has used the Masoretic text (textum masoreticum) as his source text, but does not say which edition.