VULGATA IN DIALOGUE

2023 2nd Special Issue

Handbook of the

VULGATE
BIBLE
and Its Reception
Annotated Bibliography – Latin Glossary – Textual Notes

✦
Handbuch der Vulgata und ihrer Rezeption
Kommentierte Bibliographie – Lateinisches Glossar –
Anmerkungen zum Text

Bernhard Lang
✦

The Vulgate Institute

Chur (Switzerland) • 2023
Copyright © 2023 by Bernhard Lang, Berlin, Germany

ISSN 2504–5156

https://doi.org/10.25788/vidbor.v1i1.1166

2
Brief table of contents

Brief table of contents............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Preface............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Vorwort........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 1
The scholar’s minimal shelf............................................................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 2
Getting in touch with Vulgate research..................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 3
Surveys and reference works......................................................................................................................................... 26

Chapter 4
Latin today? Latin in the church?.................................................................................................................................. 32

Chapter 5
Biblical Latin for beginners............................................................................................................................................. 38

Chapter 6
Bibliographical Resources............................................................................................................................................... 45

Manuscripts –
Language –
History.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 7
Manuscripts.......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Chapter 8
Biblical Latin......................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 9
Vetus Latina....................................................................................................................................................................... 142

Chapter 10
Jerome/Hieronymus: his life and learning.............................................................................................................. 168

Chapter 11
Jerome’s Bible................................................................................................................................................................... 207

3
 Chapter 12
In Jerome’s Shadow: Rufinus the Syrian?................................................................................................................ 239

Chapter 13
Modern editions of the Jerome-Rufinus Bible...................................................................................................... 246

Chapter 14
After Jerome: The Vulgate’s
First Millennium, 400–1450.......................................................................................................................................... 255

Chapter 15
Printers, Humanists, and Reformers.......................................................................................................................... 299

Chapter 16
The Vulgate in Modern Catholicism, 1546–1979................................................................................................. 319

Chapter 17
Nova Vulgata, 1979......................................................................................................................................................... 355

Chapter 18
The Vulgate Bible in vernacular translations......................................................................................................... 364

Quick Reference...................................................................................................................................................................... 380

Chapter 19
A glossary of biblical Latin............................................................................................................................................ 381

Chapter 20
Jerome’s Bible commentaries...................................................................................................................................... 473

Chapter 21
Textual notes on the Old Testament........................................................................................................................ 511

Chapter 22
Textual notes on the New Testament...................................................................................................................... 645

Chapter 23
Textual notes on the appendix to the Vulgate..................................................................................................... 712

Reception.................................................................................................................................................................................. 725

Chapter 24
The Vulgate Bible in art, life, and literature............................................................................................................ 726

Index of persons..................................................................................................................................................................... 755

Index of subjects..................................................................................................................................................................... 759

Detailed Table of contents.................................................................................................................................................. 763

4
 Completeness is the grave of scholarship.

Hellmut Brunner

Preface

The Handbook of the Vulgate Bible and Its Reception has no model and no predecessor, being the first
work of its kind.

A neglected subject
Although the Vulgate – the Latin Bible of Western Christianity from antiquity to the twentieth century –
has for so long been present in culture, church, research, and teaching, it has been, and still is, neg ­
lected in research. To this day, four major desiderata, long known, remain unfulfilled:

• a cultural history of the Latin Bible

• a dictionary of Vulgate Latin

• a grammar of biblical Latin

• a linguistic and factual commentary on the Latin Bible.

The aim and scope of the present book

Since neither a cultural history of the Latin Bible nor other essential tools – a dictionary, a grammar, a
commentary – can be produced without a research bibliography, it is necessary to present one as a
preliminary work. The present handbook is such a bibliography, and in fact the first of its kind. Its clas ­
sification, annotations, Latin glossary, and textual notes are all designed to produce a helpful research
tool which, rather than merely listing books and articles, gives access to their contents.

Listed are printed works published in 1820 and later – and only in exceptional cases earlier. Modern
critical research of the Vulgate – the oldest manuscripts, the language, the history – began in the
second half of the 19th century, and we define two decades – the 1860s and 1870s – as the first period
of modern critical research on our subject. Our chronological arrangement of sources, books, and art­
icles makes it possible to look into the past; it also draws attention to older literature which often has
not lost its value and is only rarely completely “outdated.”

Until now, scholars have rarely felt that the Vulgate Bible could in itself be a well-defined special field
of academic research. Latin linguists, experts on the church fathers, church historians specializing on
the Middle Ages or the early-modern period have all contributed to what one may call “Vulgate stud ­
ies,” but they worked in isolation and rarely came to interact. The present book, by contrast, implies a
comprehensive definition of what multi-disciplinary Vulgate Studies might consist.

5
Things digital
Texts and resources that exist only in digital form are included in a few cases only. Digital Vulgate edi ­
tions are offered by Accordance (Accordance Bible Software) and Lexham Press (Andrew Curti, Isaiah
Hoogendyk et al.: Lexham Latin-English interlinear Bible, 2016). The present bibliography would need
to be supplemented by a webography, which to my knowledge does not (yet) exist. Express reference
should be made to the online journal Vulgata in dialogue, from which some individual contributions
are listed here. Also to be mentioned is a French online publication: Revue de linguistique latine du
Centre Ernout (De lingua latina).

I acknowledge the kind help and encouragement of Kornelia Weidner, Heinz-Josef Fabry, René
Falkenberg, Michael Graves, Roland Hoffmann, Hugh Houghton, Martijn Jaspers, Jürgen Wehnert,
Kevin Zilberberg, and, most especially, Michael Fieger and Wilhelm Tauwinkl.

I should like to ask all readers to send me corrections and additions

(Bernhard.Lang@uni-paderborn.de).

Bernhard Lang

University of Paderborn

6
 Vollständigkeit ist das Grab der Wissenschaft.

Hellmut Brunner

Vorwort

Das vorliegende Buch hat kein Vorbild und keinen Vorläufer. Es ist das erste Werk dieser Art.

Ein vernachlässigtes Thema

Obwohl die Vulgata – die lateinische Bibel des westlichen Christentums von der Antike bis heute – in
Kultur, Kirche, Forschung und Lehre stets präsent war und ist, und obwohl sie ein hervorragendes
Zeugnis auch für den hebräischen und griechischen Bibeltext darstellt, wurde und wird sie in der For ­
schung vernachlässigt. Vier große Desiderate, seit langem bekannt, sind nach wie vor unerfüllt:

• eine Kulturgeschichte der lateinischen Bibel

• ein Wörterbuch des Vulgata-Lateins

• eine Grammatik des biblischen Lateins

• ein sprachlicher und sachlicher Kommentar zur lateinischen Bibel.

Das Ziel des vorliegendes Buches

Da weder eine Kulturgeschichte der lateinischen Bibel noch die anderen grundlegenden Handbücher –
Wörterbuch, Grammatik und Kommentar – ohne eine Forschungsbibliographie erstellt werden können,
muss zuvor ein solches Werk als Vorarbeit geschaffen werden. Eine solche Bibliographie wird hier vor­
gelegt – die erste ihrer Art. Mit ihrer Klassifikation, Zusammenfassungen, lateinischem Glossar und
Stellenkommentar will sie ein hilfreiches Forschungsinstrument bereitstellen, das über die bloße Zu­
sammenstellung von Artikeln und Büchern hinausgeht, indem es den Zugang zu ihrem Inhalt vermit­
telt.

Verzeichnet sind gedruckte Werke, die 1820 und später – und nur in Ausnahmefällen früher – erschie ­
nen sind. Die moderne kritische Erforschung der Vulgata – der ältesten Handschriften, der Sprache, der
Geschichte – begann in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Wir betrachten zwei Jahrzehnte – die
1860er und 1870er Jahre – als die erste Zeit intensiver Forschungen über unseren Gegenstand. Die
chronologische Anordnung von Quellen, Büchern und Aufsätzen ermöglicht den Blick in die Vergan ­
genheit; sie erinnert an Altes, das seinen Wert oft nicht verloren hat und nur selten ganz „überholt“ ist.

7
Bislang wurde die Vulgata-Bibel nur selten als ein klar umrissenes Spezialgebiet der wissenschaftlichen
Forschung angesehen. Lateinische Sprachwissenschaftler, Experten für die Kirchenväter und Kirchenhis­
toriker, die sich auf das Mittelalter oder die frühe Neuzeit spezialisiert haben, haben alle zu dem beige ­
tragen, was man als „Vulgata-Studien“ bezeichnen kann, aber sie haben isoliert gearbeitet und sind
nur selten zusammen gekommen. Das vorliegende Buch zielt dagegen auf eine umfassende Definition
dessen, was multidisziplinäre Vulgata-Studien ausmachen könnte.

Digitales
Texte und Hilfsmittel, die nur in digitaler Form existieren, sind nur in wenigen Fällen berücksichtigt. Di­
gitale Vulgata-Ausgaben werden angeboten von den Firmen Accordance (Accordance Bible Software)
und Lexham Press (Andrew Curtis, Isaiah Hoogendyk u.a.: Lexham Latin-English interlinear Bible, 2016).
Die vorliegende Bibliographie wäre durch eine Webographie zu ergänzen, die meines Wissens (noch)
nicht existiert. Ausdrücklich verwiesen sei auf die online-Zeitschrift Vulgata in dialogue, aus der einzel­
ne Beiträge hier verzeichnet sind. Weiter zu nennen ist die französische online-Zeitschrift Revue de lin­
guistique latine du Centre Ernout (De lingua latina).

Kornelia Weidner, Heinz-Josef Fabry, René Falkenberg, Michael Graves, Roland Hoffmann, Hugh
Houghton, Martijn Jaspers, Jürgen Wehnert, Kevin Zilberberg sowie ganz besonders Michael Fieger
und Wilhelm Tauwinkl bin ich zu Dank für Hilfe und Ermutigung verpflichtet.

Alle Benutzer lade ich ein, mir Korrekturen und Ergänzungen mitzuteilen
(Bernhard.Lang@uni-paderborn.de).

Bernhard Lang

Universität Paderborn

8
Abbreviations

General

Allioli Joseph Franz Allioli’s German translation of the Vulgate Bible (cf. 18.2)

Arndt Augustin Arndt’s German translation of the Vulgate Bible (cf. 18.2)

Blaise: Dictionnaire Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire latin–français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout 1954.

CBLa Collectanea Biblica Latina. Rome

CCSL Corpus Christianorum, series Latina. Turnhout

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna

Douay Version Douay/Challoner version of the Bible in English (cf. 18.1)

Erasmus Erasmus: Solecismi. Translated as “Errors in the Vulgate” in: R.D. Sider (ed.): The
New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Leiden 2019, pp. 865–948.

Glaire Jean-Baptiste Glaire’s French translation of the Vulgate Bible (cf. 18.3)

Grundl Beda Grundl’s German translation of the Vulgate New Testament (cf. 18.2)

Hagen Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg 1863.

Houghton Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History,
Text, and Manuscripts. Oxford 2016; corrected edition, 2018.

Kaulen Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. 2nd edition.
Freiburg 1904.

Knox Ronald Knox’s English translation of the Vulgate Bible (cf. 18.1)

Labourt Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Edited by Jérôme Labourt. 8 vols. Paris 1949–1963.

Meershoek G.Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après Saint Jérôme. Nijmegen 1966.

NVg Nova Vulgata = Neo-Vulgate

PL Patrologia Latina = Patrologiae Latinae cursus completus. Edited by Jacques-

Paul Migne. Paris.

Plater/White W.E. Plater – H.J. White: A Grammar of the Vulgate. Oxford 1926.

Richards G.C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London
1934.

Rönsch Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. 2. Ausgabe. Marburg 1875.

9
Scarpat Giuseppe Scarpat: Libro della Sapienza. 3 vols. Milan 1989, 1996, 1999.

Schmid/Fieger Brigitta Schmid Pfändler – Michael Fieger (eds.): Nicht am Ende mit dem Latein.
Die Vulgata aus heutiger Sicht. Frankfurt 2023.

Tusculum-Vulgata Hieronymus: Biblia sacra vulgata. Edited by Andreas Beriger, Michael Fieger et
al. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin 2018. 5 vols. (Cf. 18.4)

Vg Vulgata, Vulgate

Weber/Gryson Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Ver­
sionem. 5th revised and updated edition. Stuttgart 2007. – The “Stuttgart Vul­
gate” (cf. 13.4).

Weinhart Benedikt Weinhart’s German translation of the New Testament (cf. 18.2).

Zürcher Paul Zürcher: Der Einfluss der lateinischen Bibel auf den Wortschatz der ital­
ienischen Literatursprache vor 1300. Bern 1970.

▲ particularly useful or noteworthy

Biblical books Cant Canticles/Song of Songs

Wisd Wisdom of Solomon
Sir Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
Gen Genesis Isa Isaiah
Exod Exodus Jer Jeremiah
Lev Leviticus Lam Lamentations
Num Numbers Bar Baruch
Deut Deuteronomy Ezek Ezekiel
Josh Joshua Dan Daniel
Judg Judges Hos Hosea
Ruth Ruth Joel Joel
1–2 Sam 1–2 Samuel Amos Amos
1–2 Kgs 1–2 Kings Obad Obadiah
1–2 Chr 1–2 Chronicles Jonah Jonah
Ezra Ezra Micah Micah
Neh Nehemiah Nah Nahum
Tobit Tobit Hab Habakkuk
Judith Judith Zeph Zephaniah
Esth Esther Hag Haggai
Job Job Zech Zechariah
Ps Psalm(s) Mal Malachi
Prov Proverbs 1–2 Macc 1–2 Maccabees
Koh Koheleth/Ecclesiastes Matt Matthew

10
Mark Mark Phlm Philemon
Luke Luke Heb Hebrews
John John Jas James
Acts Acts 1–2 Pet 1–2 Peter
Rom Romans 1–3 John 1–3 John
1–2 Cor 1–2 Corinthians Jude Jude
Gal Galatians Rev Revelation
Eph Ephesians Pr Man Prayer of Manasseh
Phil Philippians 3 Ezra 3 Ezra
Col Colossians 4 Ezra 4. Ezra
1–2 Thess 1–2 Thessalonians Ps 151 Psalm 151
1–2 Tim1–2 Timothy Laod Laodiceans
Titus Titus

11
12
 INTRODUCTION

1 The scholar’s minimal shelf

2 Getting in touch with Vulgate research

3 Surveys and reference works

4 Latin today? Latin in the church?

5 Latin for beginners

6 Bibliographical resources

13
Chapter 1
The scholar’s minimal shelf

Note. – If you are serious about the study of the Latin Bible, the books here listed should be not far
from your desk – along with the present bibliographical manual.

The two reference editions of the Vulgate

1965. Alberto Colunga OP – Laurentio Turrado (eds.): Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam clementinam. Nova
editio. Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos. xxvii, 1256 pp., 7 maps. – First issued in 1946 and
often reprinted, most recently in 2018 (15th printing), this edition offers the traditional medieval
and early modern text of the Vulgate, the so-called Sixto-Clementina (or simply Clementina) of
the 16th century. Even though there are other editions of the Clementina, this edition is said to
be particularly accurate (but see the printing errors listed below, Chapter 16.2). ▲

2007. Robert Weber – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. 4th, corrected edi­
tion 1994; 5th, improved edition 2007. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. xlix, 1980 pp. – This
edition offers the reconstructed text of the “old,” pre-medieval Vulgate according to the textual
situation of the time around 400. We are dealing here with a scholarly reconstruction; it pro ­
duced a text that Jerome would have edited if he had undertaken such an edition – which in fact
he did not. See below, Chapter 13.4. ▲

Four linguistic reference works

1904. Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg: Herder. xvi, 332
pp. – Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 2013. – The book includes a Latin word index (pp. 311–324, two
columns per page). Although somewhat aged by now, Kaulen’s linguistic commentary on the
Vulgate is still indispensable. – In the present book, it is referred to in abbreviated form: Kaulen,
p. 35 (etc.). ▲

1926. William Edward Plater – Henry Julian White: A Grammar of the Vulgate. Being an Introduction to
the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press. viii, 167 pp. Reprinted in
1997. – This book supplements the work of Kaulen (1904), occasionally departing from the lat­
ter’s judgment. Review: Alexander Souter, The Classical Review 41 (1927) 87–88, p. 88: “The
present work is indisputably superior to Kaulen, being more intelligent, accurate, and up to
date.” This claim has been strongly questioned by Bengt Löfstedt (who prefers Kaulen), see be­
low, Chapter 8.1. ▲

1954. Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire latin–français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout: Éditions Brepols. 900
pp., folio size. – Several times reprinted (2nd edition 1967, with appended “addenda et corri­
genda”). While this is a general dictionary of pre-medieval Christian Latin, it does include most –
not all – of the Vulgate’s vocabulary. The user must be warned, however: Blaise’s dictionary is
meant to supplement other Latin dictionaries; accordingly, everything you would find in stand­

14
 ard Latin dictionaries is omitted. Szantyr warns the user, pointing out that “das systematische
Lexikon (…) ist zum Teil unzuverlässig”; J.B. Hofmann – Anton Szantyr: Lateinische Syntax und Sti­
listik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Munich 1965 (xcviii, 935, 89* pp), p. 46*, perhaps too
harsh a criticism. – In the present book, this work is often referred to in abbreviated form: Blaise:
Dictionnaire. ▲

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg: Le latin chrétien. 221 pp. – English translation:
A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Translated by Grant C. Roti. Wash­
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press 1994. xvii, 157 pp. – At the time the present biblio ­
graphy was compiled, this book was hard to come by.

15
Chapter 2
Getting in touch with Vulgate research
Note. – This chapter – like Chapter 1 and Chapters 3–6 – is meant to introduce the novice to Vulgate
research. There seems to be only one essay explicitly written to serve as an introduction for Latinists (of
whatever age) who wish to do private or professional research on the Latin Bible:

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua
Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg
(vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83.

2.1 The Vulgate: an anthology of definitions and explanations, 1868–2020

2.2 The first twenty years of Vulgate research, 1860–1879

2.3 An anthology of research desiderata, 1941–2022

2.1 The Vulgate: an anthology of definitions and explanations,

1868–2020

Word studies: editio vulgata, Vulgata

Note. – The name “Vulgate” for the Latin Bible of the Middle Ages and the early modern period has
only gradually emerged. When Jerome speaks of the editio vulgata of a biblical book, he refers to the
Greek version (Septuagint) read in his time – thus for example, in the preface to the translation of the
book of Esther (Sources chrétiennes 525: 378; Tusculum-Vulgata II, p. 1276).

English
1902. Henry J. White: Vulgate. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh. Volume 4
(xi, 994 pp.), pp. 873–890. – Pages 884–885: History of the Name [Vulgate]. “Roger Bacon seems
to be the first scholar who uses the term Vulgata in its modern sense, though he also applies it
frequently to the Septuagint” (p. 885). Roger Bacon lived in Paris in the 13th century.

1948. Edmund F. Sutcliffe: The Name “Vulgate.” Biblica 29: 345–352. – Pages 348–349: Before the
Council of Trent, Roger Bacon (1214–1292, Franciscan friar) was the only one to use the term
“Vulgata” in the same sense as we do today. The first modern use of the term Vulgata for
Jerome’s version was possibly by Hieronymus Froben, 1530, printer in Basel. ▲

2012. Cornelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible between
the Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Medium Aevum Monographs 29. Oxford. ix, 309 pp. – Pages
13–21 are on the word Vulgata. Some modern scholars – Kaulen, Stummer, Witte – have
wrongly assumed that in the thirteenth century, there was a move towards calling Jerome’s ver­
sion the vulgata. ▲

16
German
1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), pp. 17–22. – Kaulen reviews some
sources and decides that it was only from the 13th century onwards that the name “Vulgate”
came to be used as the standard designation of the Latin Bible.

1894. Odilo Rottmanner OSB: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholi­
sche Deutschland 114: 31–38, 101–108. – Page 32: “Seit wann trägt die Übersetzung des Hiero­
nymus den Namen vulgata editio oder kurzweg Vulgata? Auf diese Frage vermag die Wissen­
schaft bis zur Stunde keine allseitig befriedigende Antwort geben.” Page 36: “Wie es scheint,
wurde es erst im 16. Jahrhundert Sitte, die lateinischen Bibeln auf dem Titel als Vulgata-Ausga­
ben zu bezeichnen.” This is the most detailed nineteenth-century review of the relevant patristic
and medieval sources. The author prefers a “late,” i.e., sixteenth-century dating of the general
use of the word “Vulgate” as the name of the Latin Bible. ▲

1926. Gerhard Rauschen: Grundriss der Patrologie. Achte und neunte neubearbeitete Auflage. Freiburg
(xx, 484 pp.), p. 337: “Zur Zeit des Hieronymus und noch lange nachher nannte man die LXX
[Septuaginta] ‘Vulgata.’ Vom 13. Jh. an hieß die Übersetzung des Hieronymus allgemein ‘Vulgata
editio’; erst im 16. Jh. wurde die lateinische Übersetzung der ganzen Heiligen Schrift, wie sie
heute gedruckt wird, Vulgata genannt.”

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Haec vetus et vulgata editio. Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Beiträge zur
Bibel auf dem Tridentinum. Biblica 29: 353–391. – According to the author, the two sixteenth-
century authors Faber Stapulensis (Lefèvre d’Etaples) and Erasmus may not have invented the
modern use of the term Vulgata, but they appropriated and propagated it; they are the key fig­
ures in the history of the word (p. 357: Faber Stapulensis und Erasmus haben “die heute übliche
Bezeichnung Vulgata wenn nicht geschaffen, so doch sich angeeignet und verbreitet”).

1966. Berthold Altaner – Alfred Stuiber: Patrologie. 7th edition. Freiburg. xxiii, 543 pp. – Page 398: “Die
Bezeichnung Vulgata (editio) ist seit dem 13. Jahrhundert allgemein üblich.”

French
1913. Eugène Jacquier: Le Nouveau Testament dans l’Église chrétienne. Tome second: Le texte du Nou­
veau Testament. Paris (vi, 535 pp.), pp. 166–169: Histoire du nom ‘Vulgate.’ After a review of the
evidence, the author concludes that the alleged uses of the name “Vulgate” in Roger Bacon for
our Vulgate are not convincing; an early attestation can be found in Erasmus, and, finally, the
term was established by the Council of Trent.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 216–217: Jerome refers to the Septuagint as the “Vulgate”; this usage is still followed by
Roger Bacon in the Middle Ages – and, although often claimed, Roger Bacon did not refer to the
Latin Bible as the Vulgate. It was not until the 16th century that “Vulgate” was used to refer to
the common Latin Bible, as by Erasmus and the Council of Trent.

Note. – The word “Vulgata” – English and French “Vulgate” – has three more meanings:

(1) It serves as a term for “the most widely used text form of ancient [and medieval] works” (Wolfgang
Müller: Duden Fremdwörterbuch. 3rd ed. Mannheim 1974, p. 768).

(2) It means “commonplace, common opinion.” This usage is found especially in contemporary journ ­
alism in German, English, and French. Example: “Foucault rappelle la vulgate convenue: pendant trois
siècles, du début du XVIIe siècle à l’avènement de la psychanalyse au début du XX e siècle, se serait

17
abattu une répression sans précédent sur les pratiques sexuelles non conjugales” (Jean-Claude Bour­
din: Michel Foucault. Rennes 2008, p. 279).

(3) In English, it can also refer to “vulgar language, gutter language.” The Oxford Dictionary of English
(2010) explains vulgate as “common or colloquial speech,” as distinct from cultivated and formal
speech.

Definitions: not simply by Jerome

Note. – The Vulgate Latin Bible is a fact of the reception of Latin versions of biblical books, rather than
a one-man creation by church father Jerome. This section is continued in the introductory note on
“The invention of the Vulgate,” below, Chapter 14.2.

1969. Robert Weber (ed.): Biblia Sacta iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 1st edition. Stuttgart. Volume 1. xxxi,
955 pp. – Preface: “The term Vulgate normally means the Latin Bible that has been in common
use in the Western Church since the seventh century. This Bible is not the work of one author:
nor is it the product of any one age. It is a collection of translations which differ both in origin
and in character. (…) The Vulgate, therefore, is far from being a unity, and the only justification
for calling it ‘Jerome’s Vulgate’ (as we often do) is that there is more of his work in it than there
is of anyone else’s” (first page of the preface). – “Nach dem heutigen Sprachgebrauch versteht
man unter (Editio) Vulgata die lateinische Übersetzung der gesamten Bibel, wie sie seit dem 7.
Jahrhundert in der lateinischen Kirche allgemein gebräuchlich ist. Sie ist nicht von einem einzi­
gen Autor in einem Wurf geschaffen worden, sondern stellt eine Sammlung von Übersetzungen
dar, die nach Ursprung und Wert ganz verschieden sind. (…) Zusammengenommen ist also die
Vulgata keineswegs einheitlich, und man kann sie nur in einem weiteren Sinne als Werk des hl.
Hieronymus bezeichnen, da von ihm der größere Teil stammt” (erste Seite den Vorworts).

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Pages 156–157: Jerome is
not the creator of the Vulgate (as is often claimed), but his translations and revisions were pre­
ferred to older Latin versions by the librarians of late antiquity, the creators of the Latin Bible of
the Catholic Church. (B. Lang: In other words, the work traditionally referred to as the “Vulgate”
is not the creation of a translator, but a collection that emerged in the history of the Latin Bible,
which, strictly speaking, has no original text. Jerome is not the author, but the man who bore the
brunt of the preliminary work.)

2011. Anthony J. Forte: The Old Latin Version of Sirach. In: Jean-Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The
Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (ix, 352 pp.), pp. 199–214, at p. 200: “The Vul ­
gate is the text of the Bible which took its initial form in the Carolingian period and a more
definitive shape in the 16th century with the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.”

2012. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible, c. 600 to c. 900. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Mat ­
ter (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 69–
92. – Page 69: “For the period under review, the word ‘Vulgate’ (vulgata) is not the most appro­
priate way to refer to the translations of the Bible by Jerome. First, the term is anachronistic.
Only from the beginning of the sixteenth century was it used to designate the commonly en­
counter content of Latin Bibles, which had been more or less stable since the first printing (at
Mainz, c. 1450) and even before. To identify this uniform text, the Council of Trent, in 1546, used
the expression vetus et vulgata editio. Second, it is ambiguous. When Jerome and Augustine
used the word vulgata, they meant something different – namely, the common, unrevised Greek
Bible, or the Latin translation of this, more or less what we now call Old Latin or Vetus Latina.

18
 Third, the term is misleading in that it gives us to understand that the content of a Bible – let us
say under Alcuin in 800 – was that of a Bible established already before that date, which is not
the case.”

2020. Simone Rickerby: The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve. In: Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer – Jakob
Wöhrle (eds.): The Book of the Twelve. Leiden (xix, 632 pp.), pp. 325–351. – Page 325: “The ‘Vul­
gate’ is a modern construct. In this study the term ‘Vulgate’ will be used to refer to the later edi­
tion of Jerome preserved in a wealth of manuscript evidence which is more or less similar, and
which has been gathered together to form the Clementine Vulgate and other edited texts.”

2.2 The first twenty years of Vulgate research, 1860–1879

Note. – “Erst in diesem Jahrhundert wurde mit einer eigentlich geschichtlichen Behandlung der Vulga­
ta Ernst gemacht.” Kaulen. – “Man hat (…) angefangen, sich mit der Latinität der Vulgata zu beschäfti ­
gen und anzufreunden.” Schegg (Only in this century began serious historical research on the Vulgate.
– One has begun to study and appreciate the latinity of the Vulgate.)

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), p. 12.

1871. Peter Johann Schegg: Die Vulgata. Theologisches Literaturblatt 6.1: cols. 1–4, at col. 1.

Historically, serious modern Vulgate studies began in the 1860s and 1870s. This period was the first
golden age of research into the text, language, and history of the Vulgate. This time saw the flourish­
ing of academic teaching and publishing in most countries of western Europe, with the German univer ­
sities being considered the leaders, vying with comparable institutions in France and England. The
leading paradigm of all academic study was that of historical research. A solid knowledge of languages
enabled the close study of monuments and artifacts and, above all, of written documents. The majority
of scholars was committed to the historical-critical method, to narrow specialization, and to the ideal
of collecting, checking, and publishing facts. Historical and philological research was also committed to
the idea of progress; because whoever contributed to the collection and understanding of facts, was
seen as someone who contributed to the collective pursuit of enhancing and increasing knowledge.
Historical and philological knowledge, understood as constituting “the truth,” was seen as a central
value of civilization.

In the mind of some scholars, philology was felt to be the foundational discipline of all research in
what today is called the humanities. Eberhard Nestle (1851–1913), Swabian theologian and philologist,
grew up and studied in this cultural climate. He dreamt of a new age of sacred philology that included
the study of Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. In 1893, he ventured this prophecy: “Es ist noch nicht so
weit, aber es wird mit der Zeit so kommen: nemo theologus, nisi philologus.” It is not yet the case so far,
but it will eventually be true: no one can be a proper theologian without also being a philologist. Less
dramatically, one would say that theology needs a sound philological basis; it already has one, and its
quality is steadily increasing. (Eberhard Nestle: Bengel als Gelehrter [143 pp.], p. 85, included with sep­
arate pagination in idem: Marginalien und Materialien. Tübingen 1893.)

In the 1860s and 1870s, philological knowledge, Latin and other, was produced, cultivated, and trans ­
mitted by a growing, but still very small, group of professors, teachers and unaffiliated lay researchers
who engaged in serious academic work. Scholars could produce great works of wide appeal such as
Jacob Burckhardt’s Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, 1860, or Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges’ La
Cité antique, 1864. But key works of synthesis that drew a wide readership were far from typical. Philo ­
logists generally focused on details. Working in arcane areas of knowledge, these industrious men ed ­

19
ited and studied manuscripts, and published the results of their research in scholarly (rather than pop­
ular) periodicals and books, printed in small editions and stored in university libraries. They typically
worked as independent individuals; there was no central organizing institution to promote or coordin­
ate research one any one particular area, and this is especially true of research on the Latin Bible as
carried out in the second half of the nineteenth century.

This situation changed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Charged by the Pope to prepare a
new critical edition of the Vulgate Bible, the Benedictine order organised a task force and a study
centre in Rome. From 1907 to the early 1930s, it was housed at Sant’Anselmo, the Benedictine School
of Theology in Rome; then the Vulgate commission had its own building, the Abbey of San Girolamo in
Rome, established by the Holy See. Working on the project for most of the twentieth century, the Be ­
nedictines not only produced a critical edition of the Vulgate text of the Old Testament in many
volumes (1926–1995); they also edited a collateral book series called Collectanea Biblica Latina (1912–
1988; see see Chapter 13.3). Mention must also be made of the Vetus-Latina-Institut; founded in 1945
at the Abbey of Beuron, Germany, it is still active today (see Chapter 9.7). Finally, the twenty-first cen­
tury saw the publication, from 2017, of an online-journal titled Vulgata in Dialogue, and the establish­
ment, in 2019, of a “Vulgate Institute” at the Faculty of Catholic Theology at Chur, Switzerland, headed
by the founder, Professor Michael Fieger.

Interestingly, the year 1860, here taken to be the year when serious research on the Vulgate Bible
began, is also the year when research in a comparable area seems to have started – research on the
Greek Bible, the Septuagint. This year is mentioned in the preface to Sebastian Brock et al. (eds.), A
Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. Leiden 1973 (xviii, 217 pp.), p. ix.

We present a list of some of the foremost publications relevant to Vulgate research that were pub­
lished in the 1860s and 1870s. The authors of these 51 works could be called the founders or pioneers
of modern Vulgate research. We must beware, however, of overstating the case. Vulgate research has
remained a peripheral academic pursuit in the nineteenth century and later.

Anyone who would embark on a research project on the Vulgate should not fail to consult books that
were published before 1900 and perhaps start with publications from the 1860s. The present book in ­
cludes a selection of notes on research desiderata in the area of linguistic studies on the Vulgate (be­
low, Chapter 2.3).

Teaching ecclesiastical (and Vulgate) Latin

1864. M. Adolphe Mazure: Cours de latin chrétien. Paris. 629 pp.

1874. William Dodds: The Vulgate Latin Course. Containing Grammar, Delectus, Exercise Book, and
Vocabularies. Manchester. 132 pp.

Manuscript studies and editions

1860, 1864. Carlo [Giuseppe] Vercellone: Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum Editionis. Rome. 2
volumes. cxii, 592 pp.; xxviii, 651 pp.

1864. Frederick H. Scrivener: Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (…) Edited with a critical Introduction, An­
notations, and Facsimiles. Cambridge. lxiv, 454 pp.

1868. Ernst Ranke (ed.): Codex Fuldensis. Novum Testamentum Latine Interprete Hieronymo ex manu­
scripto Victoris Capuani. Marburg and Leipzig. xxxii, 572 pp.

1868. Librorum Levitici et Numerorum versio antiqua Itala, e codice perantiquo in bibliotheca Ash­
burnhamiensi conservato, nunc primum typis edita. London. 160 pp.

20
1871–1887. Walter W. Skeat (ed.): The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon (…) together with the Early Latin
Version as Contained in the Lindisfarne Ms. Cambridge. 4 vols. xi, 258 pp.; xxxii, 144 pp.; xii, 252
pp.; xx, 197 pp.

1873. Theodor Heyse – Konstantin Tischendorf (eds.): Biblia Sacra Latina Veteris Testamenti, Hieronymo
interprete ex antiquissima auctoritate in stichos descripta. Leipzig. lxxi, 990 pp. – The Latin text of
the Clementina, compared with the readings found in Codex Amiantinus.

1874. Paul de Lagarde (ed.): Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi. Leipzig. xvi, 168 pp.

Editions of the Vulgate Bible and Vulgate texts

1861. Carlo Giuseppe Vercellone (ed.): Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Rome.
xxiv, 839 pp. – See below, Chapter 16.2. – The New Testament part of Vercellone’s edition was
also printed in Germany in 1868 (by Verlag Herder, Freiburg).

1862/63. Valentin Loch (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis juxta exemplaria ex Typographia Apostolica
Vaticana. Editio secunda. Regensburg. lxiv, 653 pp; 333 pp; 499 pp.; 364 pp.

1879. Eberhard Nestle – S.G.F. Perry (eds.): Psalterium tetraglottum Graece, Syriace, Chaldaice, Latine.
Tübingen. xvi, 161 pp.

Vernacular translation of the Vulgate Bible

1865. Benedikt Weinhart: Das Neue Testament unseres Herrn Jesus Christus. Nach der Vulgata übersetzt
und erklärt. Munich. xxxv, 783 pp.

A Latin dictionary
1879. Charlton T. Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. xiv, 2019 pp. – This dictionary in­
cludes biblical Latin.

The Vulgate Bible’s Latinity

1860. Celestino Cavedoni: Saggio della latinità biblica dell’antica Volgata Itala. Modena. 47 pp. – This
article was first published in the periodical Opuscoli religiosi, letterari e morali 7[19]: 161–180,
321–346.

1864. Johann Baptist Heiss [Heiß]: Beitrag zur Grammatik der Vulgata. Formenlehre. Munich. 20 pp.

1869. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholi­
schen Vulgata. Marburg. xvi, 509 pp. – Second edition 1875. xvi, 526 pp.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg. 34 pp.

1870. Franz Kaulen: Handbuch der Vulgata. Eine systematische Untersuchung ihres lateinischen Sprach­
charakters. Mainz. 280 pp.

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867. – A detailed critical review of literature, esp.
the work of Hermann Rönsch. The journal has another, alternative title: Jahrbücher für classische
Philologie 20 (1874). Unlike Kaulen, Ott defends the notion that the Vetus Latina (which he calls
“Itala”) originated in Africa.

1879. Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus–Hieronymus. Breslau. iv, 92 pp.

21
Textual notes
1861. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae. Freiburg. 36 pp.

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg. 106 pp. – See p. 1: “Es gibt,
soviel ich weiß, aus neuerer Zeit kein Werk, welches sich mit der Erörterung des Sprachge­
brauchs der Vulgata befaßte.”

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg 1872. 49 pp.

Jerome studies
1861. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Teil 1: Die “Quaestio­
nes in Genesin.” Breslau. 74 pp. – Pages 5–17: Hieronymus und seine jüdischen Lehrer; pp. 17–58:
Die “Quaestiones in Genesin”; pp. 59–73: Unwerth der Vulgata für die Kritik des Alten Testa­
ments.

1865. Otto Zöckler: Hieronymus. Sein Leben und Wirken. Gotha. xii, 476 pp.

1872. Emil Lübeck: Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit. Leipzig. 228 pp.

1875. Wilhelm Nowack: Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik. Göttingen.
55 pp.

History of the Vulgate Bible

1860. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Zur Geschichte der Entstehung der officiellen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Der
Katholik 40.2: 1–24.

1866. Carlo Vercellone: Sulla autenticità delle singole parti della Bibbia Volgata secondo il Decreto Tri­
dentino. Rome. 48 pp.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp.

1876. Julius Witte: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Inaugural-Dissertation. Universität Jena. Hannover. 38
pp.

1879. Leo Ziegler: Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hl. Schrift. Munich. 135 pp.

2.3 An anthology of research desiderata, 1933–2022

Note. – This brief section lists some of the complaints of researchers who have felt that previous re­
search was inadequate or that research on a certain subject is altogether missing. There are of course
many more gaps in research than documented here. Some of these are mentioned above, in the pre­
face to this book, e.g., a dictionary of Vulgate Latin. Another neglected field of research are the cultural
echoes of the Vulgate, tentatively explored below, in Chapter 24. In the long run, one would wish to
have a complete annotated translation of the Vulgate Bible, for which one of the two multi-volume an­
notated bilingual editions of the books of the Greek Bible could serve as models: (1) the Septuagint
Commentary Series, edited by Stanley Porter, Richard S. Hess, and John Jarrick (published by Brill,
2004–); (2) La Bible d’Alexandrie, edited by Marguerite Harl (published by Éditions du Cerf, 1986–),
rightly famous for its rich notes.

22
Biblical Latin
1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil.
Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 461–461: “(…) es bleibt trotzdem eine beschämende Tatsache, dass wir
keine grössere Monographie über die Vulgata besitzen, die den Ansprüchen der heutigen Wis­
senschaft genügt, und es darf ohne Übertreibung gesagt werden, dass eine derartige auch vom
rein philologischen Gesichtspunkte aus ein dringendes Desideratum ist.”

1972. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. In: Kurt Aland (ed.): Die al­
ten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Berlin (xxii, 589
pp.), pp. 1–92. – Page 14: “Hier musste man eigentlich auf die Sprache der lateinischen Bibelu­
bersetzung eingehen. Aber wir unterlassen das, weil dieses schwierige Gebiet noch ganz unge­
nugend beackert ist. Selbst Christine Mohrmann hat bisher diesen speziellen Teil der christlichen
Latinität nicht so ausfuhrlich behandelt wie andere Aspekte. Es wäre allerdings ein mehrbändi­
ges Werk notwendig, um den alten Hermann Rönsch [Itala und Vulgata, 1875] in einer Form
wieder erstehen zu lassen, die der modernen Sprachwissenschaft entspräche.” ▲

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen
Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), pp. 289–301. – Page 289: “‘Es bleibt
(…) eine beschämende Tatsache, dass wir keine grössere Monographie über die [Sprache der]
Vulgata besitzen, die den Ansprüchen der heutigen Wissenschaft genügt, und es darf ohne
Übertreibung gesagt werden, dass eine derartige auch vom rein philologischen Gesichtspunkte
aus ein dringendes Desideratum ist,’ bemerkte Einar Löfstedt, Syntactica 2 (1933), 461f. Dies gilt
jetzt nicht weniger als vor 50 Jahren. Immer noch sind wir auf die alten Handbücher von H.
Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata (2. Aufl., 1875) und F. Kaulen, Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen
Vulgata (2. Aufl., 1904; Neudruck 1973) angewiesen.”

1992. René Braun: Approches de Tertullien. Paris 1992 (vi, 345 pp.), p. 255: “… depuis le travail de H.
Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata (2e éd. Marburg, 1875) – simple inventaire d’ailleurs, dépourvu d’expli­
cations, et aujourd’hui largement périmé – aucune étude systématique n’a été consacrée au ‘la­
tin biblique’ comme tel.”

2015. Martin G. Becker: Informationsstruktur und Satzanordnung in der Vulgata und den frühen volks ­
sprachlichen Bibelübersetzungen von Lefèvre d’Étaples und Casiodoro de Reina. In: Michael
Bernsen – Elmar Eggert – Angela Schrott (eds.): Historische Sprachwissenschaft als philologische
Kulturwissenschaft. Göttingen (691 pp.), pp. 601–630. – One can rightly speak of a grammar of
the Vulgate, “whose complete description” – according to today’s linguistic standards – “is, how ­
ever, still pending” (p. 605). – Man kann mit Recht von einer Grammatik der Vulgata sprechen,
“deren vollständige Beschreibung” – nach heutigem linguistischen Standards – “allerdings noch
aussteht” (p. 605). ▲

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp. – Page 272: “The language of the Vulgate New Testa­
ment has also not been sufficiently well studied: the results of this research [by Anna Persig]
would benefit from a comparison with the Vulgate Gospels in order to see if Jerome’s principles
of revision agree or differ from those applied to the other books of the New Testament and to
identify any changes in the relationship to the Greek text and the Old Latin versions. The lan­
guage, origin and early attestations of the Vulgate and Old Latin Pauline Epistles, Acts and Rev ­
elation need to be investigated in order to determine whether the New Testament outside the
Gospels was revised at different moments and by multiple revisers, as the present research has
indicated for the Catholic Epistles.”

23
The translator’s implied dictionaries
2017. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Der lateinische Text des Ecclesiasticus: Von Philipp Thielmann bis zu
Walter Thiele. In: Gerhard Karner et al. (eds.): Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach. Atlanta,
Ga. (viii, 333 pp.), pp. 263–282, at p. 276. Bogaert calls “[die] Erstellung eines griechisch-lateini­
schen Wörterbuchs zu Sirach” a desideratum of research on Sirach (“ein Desiderat der Si­
rach-Forschung”). This would be the implied Greek-Latin dictionary used by the ancient scholars
who translated Greek Sirach into Latin. – Note that a similar work does exist, though only for the
Latin New Testament; see Bergren’s book, listed in Chapter 8.3. Moreover, no one has ever at­
tempted to reconstruct Jerome’s implied Hebrew–Latin dictionary (and Latin–Hebrew dictionary)
– the dictionary that did not exist on paper or parchment, but in Jerome’s head – or in the heads
of his Jewish informants. Accordingly, it would be a worthy project to compile Jerome’s “Geseni­
us,” a book that would also list the Hebrew words that Jerome refers to in Latin alphabetic tran­
scription.

Vetus-Latina vocabulary and Jerome’s own vocabulary

1959. Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB: Le psaume 22 (21) dans le Iuxta Hebraeos. In: Pierre Salmon et al.,
Richesses et déficiences des anciens Psautiers latins. Collectanea biblica latina 13. Rome (267 pp.),
pp. 151–187. – The author of this article on Psalm 22 (Vg 21) distinguishes between the vocabu ­
lary of the Old Latin Bible and the vocabulary of Jerome. According to P.-M- Bogaert ( Revue
théologique de Louvain 19 [1988] 156 note 69), this study is of exemplary importance. Older
works on the language of the Vulgate suffer from the fact that they do not distinguish between
the language of the Old Latin translation and Jerome’s own vocabulary. ▲

Documentation of word studies

1965. Peter Nober SJ: Biblica 46: 107 [in a book review’s final sentence]. Nober suggests that scholars
studying the vocabulary of the Vulgate (Vg) and the Vetus Latina (VL) should not hide the results
of their research in monographs hard to come by; instead, they should not refrain from publish ­
ing their material in standard periodicals, and even consider to publish very short notes. These,
moreover, would ideally be collected in the form of a specialized bibliography. “Außerdem wäre
auch eine besondere Bibliographie (mit Verbuchung von Emendationen, illustrierten Worten, Bi­
belstellen (…) in Erwägung zu ziehen – damit Vg und VL in Zukunft in der Kirche genauer gele­
sen werden.” – Peter Nober (1912–1980) worked at the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome as
bibliographer and long-time editor of the bibliographical supplement of the journal Biblica.
While Biblica still exists, the bibliography has been discontinued (see above, Chapter 6). On
Nober, see J.A. Fitzmyer: In memoriam Peter Nober S.J. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) 434.
▲

Jerome studies
1982. Bengt Löfstedt on Henri Goelzer: Étude lexicographique de saint Jérôme (Paris. xii, 472 pp.): “Dies
ist immer noch die beste Darstellung von Hieronymus’ Sprachgebrauch und enthält viel wertvol­
les Material und interessante Beobachtungen. Andrerseits ist diese Arbeit (ebenso wie die ande­
ren Monographien Goelzers) etwas mechanisch gemacht und in vieler Hinsicht überholt. Nicht
nur der Fortschritt der spätlateinischen Forschungen macht es ein Leichtes, Mehreres in Goelzers
Darstellung zu korrigieren. (…) Hoffentlich wird sich jemand der Aufgabe annehmen, uns einen
Ersatz für Goelzers Hieronymus- Monographie zu schenken.” Bengt Löfstedt: Hieronymus’ Kom­
mentare zu den kleinen Propheten. Acta classica 25 (1982) 119–126, at p. 126.

24
1991. Harald Hagendahl – Jan Hendrik Waszink: Hieronymus. In: Ernst Dassmann (ed.): Reallexikon für
Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart. Volume 15 (1262 cols.), cols. 117–139. – Column 134: “Es ist
sehr zu bedauern, dass noch keine exakten Untersuchungen der Übersetzungstechnik des Hie­
ronymus, bes. seiner Wortwahl, unternommen worden sind.” The authors regret the fact that de­
tailed analyses of Jerome’s vocabulary are lacking. ▲

Allusions to classical authors?

1941. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata. Zeit­
schrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–269, at p. 263–264. [The article
was completed in 1941.] – Stummer discusses a number of Old Testament passages that involve
allusions to classical Latin literature. “Ob eine systematische Durchforschung der Vulgata unter
diesem Gesichtspunkt sich lohnen würde, ist schwer zu sagen. Ich vermute, daß sich die Zahl der
festzustellenden Reminiszenzen wohl etwas erhöhen würde. Aber allzuviel dürfen wir nicht er­
warten. Denn Hieronymus trat an seine Übersetzungsarbeit doch nicht nur als der feingebildete
Latinist. Er war vielmehr auch bei diesem Werk Priester, geistlicher Leiter von Mönchen und
Nonnen, Mann der Kirche, christlicher Theologe.” – While Stummer is pessimistic about finding
allusions to classical Latin literature in the Vulgate, research has proved him wrong. There has
been some progress in intertextual studies, and there is scope for more; see below, Chapter
10.3. ▲

A new English translation of the Vulgate Bible

2017. Benedict Maria Andersen OSB: “Fulfilled is all that David told”: Recovering the Christian Psalter.
Sacred Music 144.4: 9–25. – Page 25: “the time is long overdue for a fresh translation of the Old
Testament based on the Latin Vulgate, with an eye perhaps also to LXX and Vetus [Latina] tradi­
tions where variant readings give rise to significant theological or spiritual insights. The Douay-
Rheims Bible, of course, is a much loved and historically significant translation, but I think there
is a need for a somewhat updated idiom, perhaps in the style of the RSV [Revised Standard Ver­
sion]. Such a translation ought to be fairly literal, especially given the genius of the fathers and
the medieval commentators for mining even the tiniest linguistic details for the choicest of spir­
itual gems. It would also be extremely beneficial for such a text to be accompanied by some
form of gloss or catena, synthesizing the insights of these commentators, as well as of modern
ones who write in their spirit.”

25
Chapter 3
Surveys and reference works

Before 1900
1833. (Anonymous) Über die Vulgata, ihren Werth, und Gebrauch in der lateinischen Kirche. Theolo­
gisch-praktische Monatsschrift 10: 157–176. Printed in Rottenburg, Germany, the volume has a
second title page: Quartalschrift für katholische Geistliche, vol. 1.

1839. Jonathan Michael Athanasius Löhnis: Grundzüge der biblischen Hermeneutik und Kritik. Giessen
(xxi, 435 pp.), pp. 332–353. – The focus of this survey of Latin Bible translations, written by a
Catholic theologian (1788–1855), is on the Council of Trent and the Clementina. In one section,
the author lists appreciations of the Vulgate text of the Bible by luminaries such as Hugo Groti­
us, J.D. Michaelis, and several Jewish authors (pp. 351–353).

1859. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scrip­
tures of the Old Testament. Translated and Enlarged by Theodore Parker. Volume I. Third Edition.
Boston (xxvii, 517 pp.), pp. 257–289: The Present Latin Vulgate [its origins and history].

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Reprint: Paderborn: Salzwasser Verlag
2020. – Page 12: “Erst in diesem Jahrhundert wurde mit einer eigentlich geschichtlichen Behand­
lung der Vulgata Ernst gemacht.” Kaulen (1827–1907) taught the Old Testament at the theolo­
gical faculty of the University of Bonn, Germany. – Reviews:

1869. Peter Johann Schegg, Theologisches Literaturblatt 4: 377–384.

1976. Jean Gribomont OSB, in: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supple­
mentary Volume. Nashville, Tenn. 1976, p. 532: Kaulen’s book is “still indispensable (…) de­
tails need checking.” (Kaulen argued that the Vetus Latina must have originated in Rome
[rather than in Africa]. This detail is no longer supported by scholarship. B. Lang.) ▲

1881. W.W.: Vulgate. In: John Kitto (ed.): The Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. Volume 2. New York (994
pp.), pp. 922–927. – Page 925: “A pure text of the Vulgate is a great desideratum.”

1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments. Zweite, verbesserte
Auflage. Freiburg. vi, 599 pp. – On the Vulgate, see pp. 111–133. – A fifth, thoroughly revised
edition is Franz Kaulen – Gottfried Hoberg: Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift. Erster Teil. Freiburg
1911. xi, 265; on the Vulgate, see pp. 199–221.

1888. Brooke F. Westcott: The Vulgate. In: Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and ed­
ited by H.B. Hackett. Volume 4. Boston (xi, pp. 2697–3667), pp. 3451–3482. – Old Latin Bible and
Vulgate.

1891. Rudolph Cornely: Historicae et criticae in u.t. [= utriusque testamenti] libros sacros compendium.
Editio altera. Paris (v, 660 pp.), pp. 105–121: De versione latina Vulgata.

1894. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Fourth Edition, Edited by Edward Miller. Volume II. London (vii, 428 pp.), pp. 56–90. Includes a
long list of Vulgate manuscripts. This section of the book was written by H.J. White and John
Wordsworth, with the help of Samuel Berger (see volume I, 1894, xix, 418 pp., at p. viii).

26
1897. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realencyclopädie für
protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig (832 pp.), pp. 24–58. – Pages
36–49: Vulgata.

1897. Eberhard Nestle: Urtext und Übersetzungen der Bibel in übersichtlicher Darstellung. Leipzig. ii, 239
pp. – This book reprints material from the Realencyclopädie. The chapter “Lateinische Bibelüberset­
zungen” is on pp. 84–118, with pp. 96–112 on the Vulgate. While the Realencyclopädie cannot be
found on the Internet, this book is easily accessible as it is available from the Internet Archive. ▲

English – complete Vulgate

1902. Henry J. White: Vulgate. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh. Volume 4
(xi, 994 pp.), pp. 873–890. – The dictionary article is by one of the editors of the critical Oxford
edition of the New Testament (see below, 13.2). White provides a good overview of the state of
research on the Vulgate at that time. ▲

1906. William Barry: Our Latin Bible. The Dublin Review 139: 1–23. – An essay.

1908. Eberhard Nestle: Latin Versions. In: Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.): The New Schaff-Herzog En­
cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume II. New York (xvi, 499 pp.), pp. 191–197.

1967. P.M. Peebles: Bible – Latin Versions. In: New Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 2. New York (1118
pp.), pp. 436–457.

1976. Jean Gribomont OSB: Latin Versions. In: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Supplementary Volume. Nashville, Tenn. (xxv, 987 pp.), pp. 527–532. – Three sections deal with:
the Old Latin Bible – Jerome and the Vulgate – History of the Vulgate in the church.

1988. Arthur Vööbus: Vulgate. In: Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.): The International Standard Bible Encyclo­
pedia. Fully Revised. Volume 4. Grand Rapids, Mich. (xix, 1211 pp.), pp. 971–974. ▲

1992. David C. Parker: Vulgate. In: David N. Freedman (ed.): The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6.
New York (xxxv, 1176 pp.), pp. 860–862. – Overview of the history of the Vulgate until today.

1992. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin Versions [of the Bible]. In: David N. Freedman (ed.): The An­
chor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6. New York (xxxv, 1176 pp.), pp. 799–803. – Pages 800–802: two
sections discuss “The books translated by Jerome” and “The Vulgate.”

1993. Margaret T. Gibson: The Bible in the Latin West. Notre Dame, Ind. 114 pp.

1997. Terrence G. Kardong OSB: Vulgate. In: Everett Ferguson (ed.): Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
2nd edition. Volume 2. New York (pp. 659–1213), pp. 1167–1169.

2005. [anonymous] Vulgate. In: F.L. Cross – E. A. Livingstone (ed.): The Oxford Dictionary of the Christi­
an Church. 3rd, revised edition. Oxford (xl, 1800 pp.), pp. 1722–1723.

2014. Geert W. Lorein: The Latin Versions of the Old Testament. In: Alberdina Houtman et al. (eds.): A
Jewish Targum in a Christian World. Leiden (xiii, 311 pp.), pp. 125–145.

2014. Michael Graves: The Story of the Latin Bible and Questions about Biblical Translation for the
Church Today. Trinity Journal NS 35: 253–273. – A very good general introduction, up to date
and complete with bibliographical references. ▲

2023. Hugh A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford. xxxviii, 522 pp. – A
collection of thirty-one essays. The following essay offers a survey of research: Thomas Johann
Bauer: Modern Scholarship on the Latin Bible, pp. 348–364. ▲

27
English – Old Testament or New Testament
1901. Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London. xi, 321 pp.
– Pages 168–204: introduction to the Old Latin biblical texts and the Vulgate.

1901. Eberhard Nestle: Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Translated
from the second edition by William Edie. London (xvi, 351 pp., 10 plates), pp. 122–132.

1951. Bleddyn J. Roberts: The Old Testament Text and Versions. Cardiff (xv, 326 pp.), pp. 247–265: The
Vulgate.

1977. Bruce M. Metzger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford. xix, 498 pp. Reprint: Oxford
2001. – Pages 330–362: The Vulgate, with the following sections: Jerome’s early training and
commission by Pope Damasus – noteworthy manuscripts of the Vulgate – noteworthy printed
editions of the Vulgate – problems concerning Jerome’s work as a reviser. Appended is an essay
by Bonifatius Fischer: Limitations of Latin in representing Greek (pp. 362–374). – The first edition
was published in 1964. Metzger’s other book, The Text of the New Testament, has a much short­
er chapter on the Latin Bible: The Text of the New Testament. Third Edition. Oxford 1992 (ix, xvi,
310 pp.), pp. 75–79; Bruce M. Metzger – Bart D. Ehrman: The Text of the New Testament. Fourth
Edition. Oxford 2005 (xvi, 366 pp.), pp. 105–109. ▲

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. A paperback edition with corrections was published in 2018. – This
reference work is also available on the Internet (“open access”). As can be seen from the title,
only the New Testament part of the Bible is treated. ▲

2020. Edward D. Andrews: From Spoken Words to Sacred Texts. Introduction-Intermediate New Testa­
ment Textual Studies. Cambridge, Ohio (xxiv, 644 pp.), pp. 401–420. – The focus is on Latin ma ­
nuscripts and textual criticism.

German – complete Vulgate

1901. Franz Kaulen: Vulgata. In: Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlexikon. 2. Auflage. Herausgegeben von
Franz Kaulen. Band 12. Freiburg (vii pp., 2106 cols.), cols. 1127–1142.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Ein Handbuch für Vorlesungen und Selbst­
unterricht. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – At the time of its publication, this was an up-to-date intro­
duction to the Latin Bible. The author supplies an index of names and biblical passages, but re­
grettably not of Latin words. – Stummer taught Old Testament at the University of Munich; for a
biographical sketch, see Alexander Hanspach: Exeget in schwierigen Zeiten. Der Breslauer Alttes­
tamentler Friedrich Stummer (1886–1955). Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte 59 (2001)
215–227. – Reviews:
1929. Arthur Allgeier, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 32.5: 364–366. “Man wird heute das weit zerstreute philolo­
gische und geschichtliche Material, das selbst vom Spezialforscher nur mehr mühsam überblickt werden
kann, nirgends so knapp und im wesentlichen vollständig, dabei zuverlässig beisammen finden wie hier”
(col. 365).

1929. Paul M. Baumgarten: Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel. Theologische Revue 28.10: 417–424. –
Baumgarten welcomes Stummer’s book – and uses his review mainly for his controversy with C.A. Kneller SJ
on the Vulgate edition of P. Sixtus V (see Chapter 16.4).

1929. Arduinus Kleinhans, Antonianum 4: 351–352.

1929. Paul Rießler, Theologische Quartalschrift 110.4: 477–479.

28
 1929. Paul Gächter, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 53: 162–164.

1929. D.B. Capelle, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 1: 507–508.

1930. Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 11.1: 122–126.

1930. Arthur Allgeier: Neuere Arbeiten zur Erforschung der Vulgata. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 83: 79–
87.

1958. Karl Theodor Schäfer in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 2nd edition. Band 2. Freiburg 1958 (xiii pp., 1256
cols.), p. 383: “vielfach überholt” (in many ways outdated) – but there is still no book, in German or any oth ­
er language, that would replace it. ▲

1938. Friedrich Stummer: Vulgata. In: Michael Buchberger (ed.): Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 10.
Band. Freiburg (viii pp., 1118 cols.), cols. 703–706.

2015. Peter Stotz: Die Bibel auf Latein – unantastbar? 3rd, updated edition. Zürich. 79 pp. – The first
edition was published in 2011. In French: La Bible en latin, intangible? Translated by Marianne
Beauviche. Avignon 2015. 142 pp. In this small book, the medieval Latinist author (d. 2020)
sketches the history of the Vulgate from its beginnings to the present day. For the newcomer to
the filed, the book provides indispensable information. ▲

2020. Thomas Johann Bauer: Von der Vetus Latina zur Nova Vulgata. Streiflichter zur Geschichte der la­
teinischen Bibel. In: Andreas Müller – Katharina Heyden (eds.): Bibelübersetzungen in der Ge­
schichte des Christentums. Leipzig (162 pp.), pp. 17–56.

2023. Brigitta Schmid Pfändler – Michael Fieger (eds.): Nicht am Ende mit dem Latein. Die Vulgata aus
heutiger Sicht. Frankfurt. 215 pp. – More than thirty authors have contributed to this collection
of systematically arranged miniature essays that survey many aspects of the Vulgate. The articles
deal with translation issues, some individual biblical books, and subjects such as the horns of
Moses, the word “paradise,” Jonah’s ivy, and Jerome in art history. Particularly welcome is the
fact that many of the essays deal with the New Testament, though the Old Testament is in no
way neglected. ▲

German: Old Testament or New Testament

1909. Eberhard Nestle: Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament. 3., umgearbeitete Auflage. Göt­
tingen (viii, 298 pp., 12 plates), pp. 121–122, 138–147.

1948. Alois Hudal – Joseph Ziegler: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Sechste Auflage, neubearbeitet
von Franz Sauer. Graz (xii, 271 pp.), pp. 81–97. – The Vulgate (Jerome) – history of the Vulgate
until the Council of Trent – the Council of Trent’s directions on the use and editing the Vulgate –
the Sistine and Clementine editions.

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hieronymi­
anischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Vertumnus 14. Göttin­
gen (256 pp.), pp. 26–80: “Hieronymus’ Vulgata: Eine vierfache Einordnung” (Roman-pagan tra­
dition – Latin Bible tradition – Greek church fathers‘ tradition – the pragmatic situations of litur ­
gy and study).

Dutch
1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond.
xvi, 296 pp. – History and twentieth-century revision of the Latin translation of the Bible. Review:

29
 Peter Nober SJ, Biblica 36.1 (1955) 119–120. Nober celebrates this well-written book as currently
the best and most complete survey of the history of the Vulgate Bible, and suggests that it
should be translated into Latin, for the benefit of theology students. Jan Olav Smit (1883–1972)
was a Catholic priest who spent most of his life in Rome – apart from a few years in Norway,
where he served as an apostolic vicar (1922–1928). The story Smit tells in his book culminates in
the production of the new critical edition of the Old Testament books of the Vulgate Bible by
the Benedictines in Rome (see below, Chapter 13.3). ▲

French
1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500.

1950. L. Venard: Vulgate. In: A. Vacant – E. Mangenot (eds.): Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique. Tome
15.2 (cols. 1547–3928). Paris, cols. 3474–3492.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – An essential, sophisticated
overview of the origins and early history of the Latin translation of the Bible, Jerome’s contribu­
tion to the formation of the late antique-medieval Biblia vulgata. There is an important section
titled “Première diffusion des versions hiéronymiennes” (pp. 289–291). ▲

2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Versions latins de la Bible. In: G. Mathon – G.-H. Baudry (eds.): Ca­
tholicisme. Hier – aujourd’hui – demain. Tome 15. Paris (1572 cols.), cols. 910–913.

2007. Yves-Marie Duval: Jérôme et la Vulgate. In: Alain Corbin et al a. (eds.): Histoire du Christianisme.
Pour mieux comprendre notre temps. Paris (468 pp.), pp. 116–120.

2014. Jean-Claude Haelewyck: Les versions anciennes. In: Christian-Bernard Amphoux (ed.): Manuel de
critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament. Brussels (xiv, 400 pp.), pp. 75–144. – Pages 76–100: the
Latin translations of the New Testament. Review: Laurent Pinchard, Novum Testamentum 58
(2016) 93–98.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 53–247: introduction; pp. 249–300: bibliography. Behind these simple titles is a compre­
hensive history of the Latin Bible, the contribution of Jerome and the history of the Vulgate up
to the end of the 16th century, prepared in the seminar led by Aline Canellis. – Reviews:
2019. Josef Lössl, Journal of Theological Studies 70: 872–874, at p. 874: “an excellent working tool for anyone who
wants to study Jerome’s œuvre more generally or his endeavour to translate the Bible more specifically.”

2019. Agnethe Siquans, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 23: 392–395. ▲

2017. Laurence Mellerin: Les versions latines. In: eadem (ed.): Lectures de la Bible. Ier – XVe siècle. Paris
(652 pp.), pp. 73–90.

Italian
1963. Gaetano M. Perella: Prelezioni bibliche. Introduzione generale alla Sacra Bibbia. Turin (xi, 443 pp.),
pp. 295–312.

2008. Mario Cimosa – Carlo Buzzetti: Guido allo studio della Bibbia latina. Dalla Vetus Latina, alla Vul­
gata, alla Nova Vulgata. Sussidi patristici 14. Rome. 201 pp. – Pages 43–61 deal with the Vulgate

30
 Bible. The book is described as “volume primo” on the title page, but no further volume has
been published.

2012. Antonio García-Moreno: La Bibbia della chiesa. Storia e attualità della Neovulgata. Città del Vat­
icano. vii, 358 pp. – The author tells the entire story of the Vulgate. The final chapter is devoted
to the Neovulgate.

Spanish
2011. Antonio García-Moreno: La Neovulgata. Precedentes y actualidad. 2nd edition. Baranain
(Navarra). 471 pp. – The first edition of the now long book was published in Pamplona in 1986.
Despite the title, the book covers the entire history of the Latin Bible. Only the final chapter is
devoted to the Neovulgate.

2014. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo: Catorce siglos de historia de las biblias Latinas: de la tradición oral a la
Biblia Políglota Complutense. Estudios bíblicos 77: 483–515.

2020. Jesús Ma Aguiñaga Fernández: Versiones latinas de la Biblia. Efemérides Mexicana 38/113: 262–
293. – Brief survey of Vetus Latina, Vulgata, and Nova Vulgata, with special emphasis on Psalms
and gospels.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74. This is the
first installment of an article of which the second one will present a bibliographical update on
each biblical book. ▲

Latin
1909. Rudolph Cornely SJ – Martin Hagen SJ: Historicae et criticae in u.t. [= utriusque testamenti] libros
sacros compendium. 6th edition. Paris 1909. xv, 712 pp. – Pages 104–119: De versione Latina vul­
gata.

1927. Jacques-Marie Vosté OP: De latina Bibliorum versione quae dicitur “Vulgata.” Angelicum 4: 153–
183. – This introduction, also available as a separate publication, was written for theology stu­
dents studying in Rome.

1940. Augustin Merk SJ: Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium. Tomus primus. Paris. xi, 615
pp. – Pages 171–195: De versione Latina Vulgata.

1950. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Introductio generalis in sacram scripturam. Editio quinta noviter recensita
quam curavit P. Benno Gut OSB. Naples (xxiv, 637 pp.). Pages 352–416 on ancient Latin transla­
tions; pp. 372–416 on the Vulgate; pp. 391–401 on the Council of Trent and the Vulgate, and pp.
401–408 on the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Vulgate Bible. – There is a sixth edition,
revised by Ludovicus Leloir, 1958 (xxiv, 582 pp.).

31
Chapter 4
Latin today? Latin in the church?
Note. – The Latin language has a problem. Today, Latinists are concerned about the decline of the
knowledge of Latin. All agree that one factor in the decline is the Catholic Church’s language policy, an
ambivalent policy that seeks, on the one hand, to promote Latin, while on the other having its liturgy –
the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours – for pastoral reasons performed in the vernacular. Guided by
the anachronistic, nostalgic and utterly unrealistic ideal of a clergy well-versed in ecclesiastical Latin,
Catholic authorities insist on the relevance of Latin for students of theology, though to no avail. What
follows are some documents and sources that indicate the changing fate of Latin in the church, espe­
cially its decline in recent times. Further material on the Catholic Church’s language policy can be
found in Chapters 16.6 (Psalterium Pianum) and 17 (Nova Vulgata).

4.1 The history of Latin in Christianity

4.2 Official statements of the Catholic Church, 1922–1983

4.3 The decline of Latin in the twentieth century

4.1 The history of Latin in Christianity

Note. – On the use of Latin in the patristic period, see below, Chapter 8.9.

Some sources, 1526–1902

1526. Martin Luther: Deutsche Messe und Ordnung Gottesdiensts. – Luther envisioned various forms of
the worship service, and did not wish to abolish the Latin mass. “The newly developed one in the
Formula Missae should continue. It was appropriate from a pedagogical and ecumenical point
of view. The schoolchildren who needed to learn Latin could practice the mass in Latin and thus
be in a position to participate in worship services in other lands. The German mass was for
simple people” (Martin Brecht: Martin Luther. Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–1532;
translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis, Min. 1990 [xvi, 543 pp.], p. 255). In Luther’s own
words: “Denn ich in keinem Weg will die lateinische Sprache aus dem Gottesdienst lassen gar
wegkommen, denn es ist mir alles um die Jugend zu tun”; D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Ge­
samtausgabe. Band 19. Weimar 1897 (viii, 666 pp.), p. 74.

1609. François de Sales [Franz von Sales]: Introduction à la vie dévote. – Part II, chapter 1: “Si vous me
croyez, vous direz votre Pater, votre Ave Maria et le Credo en latin; mais vous apprendrez aussi à
bien entendre les paroles qui y sont, en votre langage, afin que, les disant au langage commun
de l’Église, vous puissiez néanmoins savourer le sens admirable et délicieux de ces saintes orai­
sons.” – “If you follow my advice, Philothea, you will say your Pater, Ave Maria and Credo in Latin,
but you should also learn to understand well the words in your own language so that while say ­
ing them in the common language of the Church you can also appreciate the wonderful and

32
 beautiful meaning of those holy prayers.” François de Sales: Introduction à la vie dévote. Intro­
duction par Henry Bordeaux. Paris 1939 (12, 367 pp.), p. 73; Francis de Sales: Introduction to the
Devout Life. Translated by John K. Ryan. Garden City, N.Y. 1972 (315 pp.), p. 82.

1802. François René de Chateaubriand: Le génie du christianisme. Edition used: Œuvres de Chateaubri­
and. Edited by Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve. Tome II. Nendeln 1975 (749 pp.), p. 374 (reprint
of a 19th-century standard edition). – In this apologetic work, the author celebrates the beauty
of Christianity. He also defends the use of Latin (le plus bel idiome de la terre – the most beauti­
ful idiom of the world) – in worship. One of the arguments is as follows: “De plus, et c’est une
chose remarquable, les oraisons en langue latine semblent redouble le sentiment religieux de la
foule. Ne serait-ce point un effet naturel de notre penchant au secret? Dans le tumulte de ses
pensée et des misères qui assiègent sa vie, l’homme, en prononçant des mots peu familiers ou
même inconnus, croit demander les choses qui lui manquent et qu’il ignore; le vague de sa
prière en fait le charme, et son âme inquiète, qui sait peu ce qu’elle désire, aime à former des
vœux aussi mystérieux que ses besoins.” – “Moreover, and this is a remarkable thing, orations in
Latin seem to redouble the religious feeling of the crowd. Is this not a natural effect of our in­
clination to the secret? In the tumult of his thoughts and the miseries that beset his life, man, by
pronouncing unfamiliar or even unknown words, believes he is asking for things that he lacks
and of which he is ignorant; the vagueness of his prayer makes it charming, and his restless soul,
which knows little of what it desires, likes to form requests that are as mysterious as its needs.” –
Interest in that which is secret or unknown is a typically romantic feature ; the charm of vague­
ness belongs to the ideas peculiar to Chateaubriand.

1894. Ernst von Dobschütz: Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata. Leipzig. viii, 139 pp. – Page viii: “Gott hat
uns vier heilige Sprachen gegeben: in allen wollen wir sein Lob verkünden.” God’s four sacred
languages are Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

1902. Ignaz Schüch OSB: Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie. Neu herausgegeben von Virgil Grimmich
OSB. 12. Auflage. Innsbruck (xxiv, 1041pp.), pp. 442–444: Gründe für den Gebrauch der lateini­
schen Sprache als Cultsprache. “Die Feier des Heiligen und Geheimnisvollen erfordert den Ge­
brauch einer besonderen, geheiligten, Ehrfurcht erweckenden, der Entweihung nicht ausgesetz­
ten Sprache, und durch das ahnungsvolle Helldunkel einer solchen fremden und geheiligten
Sprache wird zugleich um den Gottesdienst ein gewisser geheimnisvoller Schleier gelegt, dar
das Mysteriöse des katholischen Cultus ganz treffend symbolisiert und dem religiösen Gefühle
ebenso entspricht als dasselbe fördert” (p. 443).

Secondary literature

English
2001. Françoise Waquet: Latin, or The Empire of a Sign. From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries .
Translated by John Howe. London. vi, 346 pp. – Originally published in French (Le Latin ou l’em­
pire d’un signe. Paris 1998. 414 pp.), this book includes a very detailed chapter entitled “The ‘Lat­
in Stronghold’: the Church” (pp. 41–79, notes on pp. 289–295). This chapter ends with an ac­
count of the decline of Latin after the Second Vatican Council, and a brief note on “Protestant
Latin” (pp. 78–79). ▲

2004. Paul Berry: The Latin Language and Christianity. Lewiston, NY. viii, iv, 219 pp. – A historical ac­
count.

2012. Uwe Michael Lang: The Voice of the Church at Prayer. Reflections on Liturgy and Language. San
Francisco. 206 pp. – German edition: Die Stimme der betenden Kirche. Überlegungen zur Sprache

33
 der Liturgie. Einsiedeln 2012. 261 pp. The book includes chapters on the cultural history of litur­
gical Latin. The author is member of the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri in London.

German
1905. Jakob Felder: Die lateinische Kirchensprache nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Feldkirch. 47
pp.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Zur Entstehung der christlichen Latinität. In: Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und
Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 458–473. “Zwei­
mal hat das Latein die Welt erobert, das erstemal als Stimme des jungen Römertums bei seinem
sieghaften Vordringen auf dem Schauplatz der Weltpolitik, das zweitemmal als Sprache der
abendländischen Kirche und der christlichen Gemeinde.”

1956. Christine Mohrmann: Die Rolle des Lateins in der Kirche des Westens. Theologische Revue 52: 1–
18. – Reprinted in: Chr. Mohrmann: Études sur le Latin des chrétiens. Tome II. Rome 1961 (400
pp.), pp. 35–62. The paper highlights the two trends within ecclesiastical Latin since the Renais­
sance: traditionalism and reformism. Reformists want to return to classical Latin and correct the
un-Ciceronian barbarisms of ecclesiastical texts.

1964. Leopold Lentner: Volkssprache und Sakralsprache. Geschichte einer Lebensfrage bis zum Ende des
Konzils von Trient. Vienna. 318 pp. – A survey of the use of Latin in the Western church, from
Late Antiquity to the Council of Trent. – Reviews: Georg Langgärtner, Münchener theologische
Zeitschrift 16.3–4 (1965) 314–315; Fritz Tschirch, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Literatur 95.1 (1966) 119–113 (p. 119: “Dieses Buch ist eine Enttäuschung, zumindest für einen
Germanisten.“); John Hennig, Theologische Literaturzeitung 91 (1966) 593–595.

French
1964. Bernadette Lécureux: Le Latin, langue de l’église. Paris. 117 pp. – There is another, revised edition:
Paris 1998, pp. 196. – See also eadem: Latein – die Sakralsprache der römischen Kirche. Una-Vo­
ce-Korrespondenz 31.5 (2001) 259–284. The author’s dates: 1913–2011.

2002. Simone Deléani: Les caractères du latin chrétien. In: Enrico dal Covio – Manlio Sodi (eds.): Il lati­
no e i cristiani. Un bilancio all’inizio del terzo millennio. Vatican City (ix, 518 pp.), pp. 3–25.

Italian
1960. Ugo Gallizia: Sulle recenti sollecitudini della Chiesa per lo studio e l’uso della lingua latina. Torino.
45 pp.

2002. Enrico dal Covio – Manlio Sodi (eds.): Il latino e i cristiani. Un bilancio all’inizio del terzo millennio.
Vatican City. ix, 518 pp.

Dutch
1993. Antoon A.R. Bastiaensen: Het Latijn in de Christelijke kerk van het Westen. Hermeneus. Tijdschrift
voor antieke cultuur 65: 85–94.

34
4.2 Official statements of the Catholic Church, 1922–1983

The documents
1922. Pope Pius XI: Officium omnium. Epistola apostolica de seminariis et de studiis clericorum. Acta
Apostolicae Sedis 14: 449–458. This apostolical letter reminds those who are responsible for the
education of the clergy of their duty to teach Latin to all students of theology. Acuratissime ser­
mone latino volumus alumnos institui – we want the students to be instructed thouroghly in the
Latin tongue; maiores disciplinae (…) latine et tradendae et percipiendae sunt – the major discip­
lines are to be taught and learned in Latin (p. 453).

1962. Pope John XXIII: Veterum sapientia. On the Promotion of the Study of Latin. Apostolic Constitu ­
tion. – This papal letter was issued to restore Latin as the language in which theology should be
taught to students who prepare for ministry in the Catholic Church. Rahner’s essay (see below),
published in the same year, is a response to, and an apology of this call to return to Latin teach ­
ing where it has been abandoned, e.g., in Germany. The pope’s constitution was never put to
practice, and the Second Vatican Council did not come back to it. – Text:
1962. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 54: 129–135.

1962. L’Osservatore Romano February 24, pp. 1–2.

1962. Mitteilungsblatt des Deutschen Altphilologenverbandes 5.3: 8–12.

1965. Second Vatican Council: Decree on Priestly Training. Optatam totius. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58
(1966) 713–727. – No. 13: seminarians (i.e., students preparing for the priestly ministry) eam lin­
guae latinae cognitionem acquirant, qua tot scientiarum fontes et Ecclesiae documenta intelligere
atque adhibere possint – are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to under­
stand and make use of the sources of so many [theological] disciplines and of the documents of
the Church.” – The theological disciplines for the study of which the knowledge of Latin is indis­
pensable, are listed in an apostolic letter of Pope Benedict XVI (motu proprio “Lingua Latina,” 10
November 2012; Acta Apostolicae Sedis 104 [2012] 991–995): “In our time too, knowledge of the
Latin language and culture is proving to be more necessary than ever for the study of the
sources, which, among others, numerous ecclesiastical disciplines draw from, such as, for ex­
ample, [systematic] theology, liturgy, patristics and canon law, as the Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council teaches (cf. Decree Optatam totius, no. 13).” One would like to add “church history.”

1983. Codex Iuris Canonici – Code of Canon Law. Rome. – Canon 249: “The program of priestly forma­
tion is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also un ­
derstand Latin well (linguam Latinam bene calleant).” – German: “In der Ordnung für die Pries­
terausbildung ist vorzusehen, dass die Alumnen nicht nur in ihrer Muttersprache sorgfältig un­
terwiesen werden, sondern dass sie auch die lateinische Sprache gut verstehen.”

Responses to “Veterum Sapientia” (1962)

1962. Karl Rahner SJ: Über das Latein als Kirchensprache; in: idem: Schriften zur Theologie. Band 5. Ein­
siedeln 1962 (576 pp.), pp. 411–467. – Page 421: “Der abendländische lateinische Katholik hat
also gegenüber dem Latein ein doppeltes Verhältnis: Es ist für ihn wie für alle Christen der einen
Kirche die Verkehrssprach heute und es ist die Sprache seiner eigenen geschichtlichen Vergan­
genheit in einem engeren Sinn, die er auch darum lieben und als lebendigen Grund seiner eige­
nen Geschichte pflegen wird.” Rahner’s essay is a response to the Apostolic Constitution
“Veterum sepientia” of 22 February 1962. Rahner seems to have a positive attitude to this text

35
 and celebrates the Latin language, but refrains from commenting on the pope’s wish to
strengthen and restore Latina as the main language of theological teaching. – The essay can also
be found in the following publications:
1962. K. Rahner: Über das Latein als Kirchensprache. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 84 (1962) 257–299.

1964. K. Rahner: Il latino, lingua della Chiesa. Translated by Maria Bellincioni. Brescia. 104 pp.; review: Maurice Te­
stard, Latomus 23 (1964) 580–582.

1966. K. Rahner: Latin as a church language. In: idem: Theological Investigations. Translated by Karl-H. Kruger. Vol­
ume 5. London 1966 (x, 525 pp.), pp. 366–416.

2005. Karl Rahner: Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Karl-Rahner-Stiftung. Band 16. Freiburg 2005 (xxiv, 580 pp.), pp.
231–273 (quotation at p. 239).

1963. Anton Antweiler: Das Lateinische in der Kirche. Zur apostolischen Konstitution Veterum Sapientia
vom 22. Februar 1962. Theologische Quartalschrift 143: 257–324. – Antweiler expresses his critic­
al attitude toward the restoration of Latin as the language of theological teaching. Latin, he ar­
gues, is of little help for teaching and preaching today. (At the time of its publication, this article
was seen as bold and irreverent for its harsh critique of a papal document. But in Germany and
elsewhere, everyone knew that the use of Latin in theological seminaries was a thing of the
past.)

1963. Ugo Gallizia: Il latino della Chiesa, lingua viva o morta? Salesianum 25: 263–277.

2002. Alberto Melloni: Contesti, fatti e reazioni: attorno alle “Veterum sapientia” di Giovanni XXIII (22
febbraio 1962). Rivista liturgica 83.3: 391–407.

4.3 The decline of Latin in the twentieth century

1942. Julien Green. In his published diary, the writer Julien Green, then living in Baltimore, complains
that in the Catholic Church in America, Latin seems no longer to reach the laity. “Dans les églises
catholiques d’ici, on chante en anglais, on dit en anglais les litanies et certains paroissiens ne
comportent pas un mot qui ne soit anglais. Le latin est peu à peu refoulé dans les limites de la
messe dite par le prêtre, et n’arrive plus à sortir de là. Sans doute est-ce un effet de la contagion
protestante, les églises protestantes étant essentiellement non latines. Phénomène de fin
d’époque, d’une époque à laquelle je serai, du reste, heureux de ne pas survivre” (p. 191, 5th
May 1942). – “L’Église se déromanise, en Amérique” (p. 204, 15th June 1942). Julian Green: Jour­
nal. Tome III: 1940 1943. Devant la porte sombre. Paris 1974. 253 pp.

1989. Walter Hoeres: De abolitione cultus sacri et liturgiae Latinae. Adnotationes philosophico-sociolo­
gicae de ecclesia Romana catholica. Vox Latina 25: 310–327.

2000. John P. Beal et al. (eds.): New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. New York 2000 (xxx, 1952
pp.), p. 320: “The understanding and use of the Latin language have declined dramatically,
where they have not disappeared altogether. Candidates come to seminaries today with little or,
more often, no background or experience in the Latin language. This is frequently accompanied
by lack of a desire to learn it.”

2011. Bernhard Lang: Eine Weltsprache verschwindet. Latein in der katholischen Kirche im 20. Jahrhun ­
dert. Gymnasium 118: 57–67. Reprinted in: B. Lang: Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine
Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie. Leuven 2011 (xii, 395 pp.), pp. 353–365. – Latin was able to
hold its own as a language of liturgy, law, theology, and ecclesiastical administration until the
20th century. But then it became a dead language, largely due to liturgical reforms that priv­
ileged the use of the vernacular.

36
2014. Philip Ford – Jan Bloemendal – Charles Fantazzi (eds.): Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo-Latin World.
Volume 1. Leiden. xliii, 919 pp. – Pages 719–788: Latin and the Church, with the following contribu­
tions: Jan Balserak, Theological Discourse; Irene Backus, Patristics; Carl P.E. Springer, The Reforma­
tion; Jan Michielson, Counter-Reformation; Yasmin Haskell, The Passion(s) of Jesuit Latin.

2017. Brian P. Bennett: Sacred Languages of the World. An Introduction. Hoboken, N.J. xiii, 224 pp. – A
few pages (pp. 66–72) are devoted to sketching the debate between Catholic traditionalists who
support the use of Latin in the church, and reform-minded liberals who are promote the use of
vernacular languages in worship. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued the Motu proprio “Summar ­
um Pontificum” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 99 [2007] 777–78) which declares that the Latin Mass, as
celebrated before the liturgical reform of 1970, can still be celebrated under certain circum­
stances. This statement was meant to appease those Catholics who insisted that the Mass
should be in Latin again, or be permitted to be said in Latin.

37
Chapter 5
Biblical Latin for beginners
Note. – Some of the textbooks and study aids listed here presuppose at least some knowledge of clas­
sical Latin, i.e., the language of authors such as Caesar and Cicero. The postclassical biblical Latin is dif ­
ferent. Accordingly, students must familiarize themselves with the particularities of biblical Latin.

Theory: English
1693. John Locke: Some Thoughts Concerning Education. London. vii, 264 pp. Modern standard edition:
edited by John W. Yolton – Jean S. Yolton. Oxford 1989. ix, 336 pp. – In this famous treatise
about the education of young noblemen, Locke says much about language learning. Boys must
learn not only English, but also French and Latin – not so much by studying grammar (as was
then the standard method), but by practical use, especially in speaking. In the case of Latin, the
mother should cooperate, learn some Latin herself, and have their young son read the gospels
from the Latin Bible to her. In the biblical texts thus studied, someone who knows Latin must
prepare the text by marking the long penultimate syllables of long words to ensure proper pro­
nunciation (p. 234 of the Yolton edition). Locke thinks that two to three hours thus spent each
day would facilitate the child’s practical study of Latin. Locke adds that he has actually observed
this method in real life – presumably during his stay in the Netherlands in the 1680s. – How
about mothers learning some Latin? There is a book that might shed light on this issue, but Jane
Stevenson: Women and Latin in the Early Modern Period. Leiden 2022. 116 pp. focusses on up­
per-class women who acted in political and governmental contexts, and not on mothers.

1864. Georg Büchmann, in: Pädagogisches Archiv 6: 633: “Ich erinnere nur daran, dass in Frankreich seit
langen Jahren in unteren Klassen das Lateinische an der Lektüre der Vulgata gelehrt wird .” This
reference to the teaching of Latin in France on the basis of the Vulgate is an aside in a book re ­
view. Büchmann was a well-known language teacher in Berlin, Germany.

1872. Matthew Arnold: Reports on Elementary Schools 1852–1882. New Edition by F.S. Marvin. London
1908. xxvii, 393 pp. – Arnold (1822–1888), famous as poet and novelist, worked as a school in ­
spector in Victorian England. From the report on the year 1872, pp. 148–150: “It may seem over-
sanguine, but I hope to see Latin, also, much more used as a special subject, and even adopted,
finally, as part of the regular instruction in the upper classes of all elementary schools. Of course,
I mean Latin studied in a very simple way; but I am more and more struck with the stimulating
and instructing effect upon a child’s mind of possessing a second language, in however limited
a degree, as an object of reference and comparison. Latin is the foundation of so much in the
written and spoken language of modern Europe, that it is the best language to take as a second
language; in our own written and book language, above all, it fills so large a part that we, per ­
haps, hardly know how much of their reading falls meaningless upon the eye and ear of children
in our elementary schools, from their total ignorance of either Latin or a modern language de­
rived from it. For the little of languages that can be taught in our elementary schools, it is far
better to go to the root at once; and Latin, besides, is the best of all languages to learn grammar
by. But it should by no means be taught as in our classical schools; far less time should be spent
on the grammatical framework, and classical literature should be left quite out of view. A second
language, and a language coming very largely into the vocabulary of modern nations, is what
Latin should stand for to the teacher of an elementary school. I am convinced that for his pur ­
pose the best way would be to disregard classical Latin entirely, to use neither Cornelius Nepos,

38
 nor Eutropius, nor Caesar; nor any delectus from them, but to use the Latin Bible, the Vulgate. A
chapter or two from the story of Joseph, a chapter or two from Deuteronomy, and the first two
chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel would be the sort of delectus we want; add to them a vocabulary
and a simple grammar of the main forms of the Latin language, and you have a perfectly com­
pact and cheap school book, and yet all that you need. In the extracts the child would be at
home, instead of, as in extracts from classical Latin, in an utterly strange land; and the Latin of
the Vulgate, while it is real and living Latin, is yet, like the Greek of the New Testament, much
nearer to modern idiom, and therefore much easier for a modern learner than classical idiom
can be.”

German
1979. Horst Holtermann: Vulgata-Lektüre in einer 10. Klasse. Der altsprachliche Unterricht 22.2: 52–60.

1986. Otto Schönberger: Von Nepos zum Neuen Testament. Bamberg. 96 pp. – Page 80: “Jeder, der La­
tein lernt, soll unbedingt einmal Stücke aus der Vulgata lesen, und zwar möglichst bald. Für eine
Lektüre schon auf der Unterstufe spricht die Tatsache, daß das Latein recht leicht ist und daß die
Kinder den Inhalt zum Teil schon kennen.”

1987. Paul Barié: Latein und die Bibel. Überlegungen zu einer Vulgatalektüre. In: Wilhelm Höhn – N.
Zink (eds.): Handbuch für den Lateinunterricht. Sekundarstufe I. Frankfurt (406 pp.), pp. 351–361.

1996. Andreas Fritsch: Zur Lektüre der Vulgata im Lateinunterricht. Der altsprachliche Unterricht 39, no.
6: 7–23. – The author (b. 1941) taught Latin at the Free University of Berlin from 1980 to 2007.

French
1914. Julien Bezard: Comment apprendre le latin à nos fils. Paris. 424 pp. – The author (1867–1933),
himself a schoolmaster, suggests a new method of teaching Latin, at the initial stages based on
biblical paraphrases and passages. See the articles of Michaël Devaux listed below. – Reviews:
1915. R.B. Appleton: The Teaching of Latin. The Classical Review 29: 25–26.

1917. Frances E. Sabin: A French Schoolmaster’s Method of Teaching Latin. The Classical Journal 13: 118–123.

2010. Michaël Devaux: Comment apprendre le latin à nos fils (1914) de Julien Bezard. In: Pascale Hum­
mel (ed.): Mésavoirs. Études sur la (dé)formation par la transmission. Paris (239 pp.), pp. 61–75.

2011. Michaël Devaux: La méthode de latin de Julien Bezard: des principes à la pratique (1914–1934).
In: Laurent Gutierrez (ed.): L’Éducation nouvelle. Histoire d’une réalité militante. Recherches &
Éducations 4. Nancy (143 pp.), pp. 79–91.

Spanish
1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid (588 pp.), pp. 487–495: El latín
bíblico y la didáctica del latín.

39
English textbooks
Note. – Helpful companions for all serious beginners are the following books:

2004. Norma W. Goldman: English Grammar for Students of Latin. The Study Guide for Those Learning
Latin. Third Edition. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Olivia and Hill Press. v, 170 pp.

2013. Peter Burton: English Grammar Guide for Language Students. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press.
376 pp.

Elementary courses
1874. William Dodds: The Vulgate Latin Course. Containing Grammar, Delectus, Exercise Book, and
Vocabularies. Manchester. 132 pp. – The book has often been reprinted.

1923. Joyce E. Lowe: Church Latin for Beginners in Ecclesiastical Latin. London. xii, 147 pp. Accompanied
by the author’s Key to Church Latin for Beginners. London 1923. 44 pp. – The fourth edition is
entitled: Church Latin for Beginners. An Elementary Course of Exercises in Ecclesiastical Latin. Lon­
don 1933. xii, 177 pp.

1933. Annie Mary Scarre: An Introduction to Liturgical Latin. Ditchling. 208 pp. – A second, revised edi­
tion: London 1938. 213 pp.

1944. Cora Carroll Scanlon – Charles L. Scanlon: Latin Grammar: Preparation for the Reading of the
Missal and Breviary. St. Louis. ix, 334 pp. – Originally published by Herder, it was frequently re­
printed, e.g., by Tan Books in Charlotte, N.C., 1976 and 2013.

1985. John F. Collins: A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin. Washington. xviii, 451 pp. – A textbook. Pages
411–438: Latin-English Vocabulary. The textbook, considered somewhat dry (but reliable), draws
for examples upon the Vulgate Bible. There is a key to the book that solves the tasks: John R.
Dunlap: An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin. Washington 2006. ix, 168 pp.; Dunlap
also corrects misprints and oversights of the textbook.

2002. Clifford R. Hull – Steven R. Perkins – Tracy Barr: Latin for Dummies. New York. xx, 363 pp. – This
introduction to Latin includes a chapter on church Latin (chapter 13). This chapter has disap­
peared from the 2nd edition 2022. There are several translations of this book; the one into Ger ­
man – Latein für Dummies. Weinheim 2008. 349 pp. – includes the section on “Kirchenlatein.”

2016. Reginaldus Thomas Foster OCD – Daniel Patricius McCarthy OSB: Ossa latinitatis sola ad men­
tem Reginaldi – The Mere Bones of Latin, according to the Thought and System of Reginald .
Washington. xlvi, 831 pp. – This is a comprehensive Latin course, aiming to teach the Latin of
all ages, down to the present time. The Reginaldus referred to in the title is Father Reginald
Thomas Foster OCD (1939–2020), a Carmelite priest who taught for many years in Rome and
served as a papal Latinist. Some of the reading material included in the book is from the Nova
Vulgata. The book recommends the use of the Latin-English dictionary of Lewis & Short (see
below, Chapter 8.3). ▲

2020. Derek Cooper: Basics of Latin. A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradi­
tion. Zondervan Academic Publishers. Grand Rapids, Mich. xxxi, 402 pp.

2021. Lionel Yaceczko: Jerome’s Introduction to Latin. An Elementary Latin Textbook Based on the Latin
Vulgate. Potomac, Md. xx, 242 pp.

40
Reading material
1919. J.P. Whitney – H.J. White: Selections from the Vulgate. Texts for Students. London. 60 pp.

1980. Carol D. Lanham: More on Teaching Medieval Latin. The Classical Journal 75.4 (1980) 335–339. –
The author suggests to use Vetus Latina gospel text to introduce students (who already know
classical Latin) to reading and understanding medieval Latin. A brief linguistic commentary on
Matt 2:10–11 (Vetus Latina) serves as an introductory lesson.

1990. D.A. Russell: An Anthology of Latin Prose. Oxford. xxxiii, 251 pp. – This reader has a chapter with
selections from the Vulgate (pp. 229–237): Gen 39:1–20; Koh 1:1–11; Ps 23 (Vg 22); Luke 2:1–21;
Acts 17:16– 34; 1 Cor 13. Some of these passages are accompanied by brief textual notes, esp.
on unusual words.

1995. Keith C. Sidwell: Reading Medieval Latin. Cambridge. xviii, 398 pp. – This reader includes a section
with Vulgate texts (pp. 29–42) that are printed with brief textual notes: 1 Sam 17; Cant 1; Luke
23; 1 Cor 13. A basic knowledge of classical Latin is presupposed.

2005. David J. Ladouceur: The Latin Psalter. Introduction, Selected Text and Commentary. London. 126
pp. – Intended for classroom use, the book contains an introduction to Jerome’s work on the
Psalter. The author (1948–2022) had planned to write a complete linguistic commentary on the
Latin Psalms, but the project was never realized. – Review: Jason Harris, Classics Ireland 13 (2006)
119–120.

2005. Martin Cothran: Lingua biblica. Old Testament Studies in Latin. Louisville, Ky. – No details were
available on this title.

2005. Scott E. Goins: A Vulgate Old Testament Reader. Gorgias Handbooks. Piscataway. N.J. xx, 153 pp.
– Selected texts from all parts of the Old Testament, but especially from the Psalms, with lin­
guistic explanations.; pp. 111–153: dictionary, with essential vocabulary highlighted with aster ­
isks (** and * for “very frequent” and “frequent”).

2016. Dale A. Grote: The Vulgate of Mark with the Synoptic Parallels. Wauconda, Ill. xxi, 442 pp. – This
book with the Latin text of Mark is meant to serve as reading material for undergraduate stu­
dents. To facilitate reading, each section is accompanied by a linguistic key. Pages 409–442:
Complete Latin-to-English glossary. The Latin text used is that of the Neo-Vulgate (see below,
Chapter 17), but the author uses his own punctuation (banishing, for instance, the semicolon).

2017. Randy Hilton: Latin Bible Reader. Pomfred, Md. 114 pp. – A Latin reader with translations of all
words, based on fifteen Bible passages such as Genesis 1; 22; 45:1–19: Acts 9:1–19, and Revela­
tion 22.

2018. Fredrick J. Long: Illustrated Mark in Latin. Wilmore, KY. 94 pp. – Latin text, accompanied by the
author’s literal translation.

2018. Virginia Grinch – Evan Hayes – Stephen Nimis: The Gospel of John in Greek and Latin. A Compar­
ative Intermediate Reader. Greek and Latin Text with Running Vocabulary and Commentary.
Faenum Publishing. Oxford, Ohio. xxxix, 337 pp. – The text of the Gospel is presented in Greek
and Latin on facing pages. At the bottom of each page is an apparatus of vocabulary and ana ­
lysis of word forms. There is also a Latin glossary of common words not included in the apparat­
us (pp. 335–337). Very useful, though one must realise that the Latin text is neither that of the
Clementina nor that of Weber/Gryson, but of the Nova Vulgata. ▲

2019. Vili Lehtoranta: St. Jerome Church Latin. Barnes & Noble. New York. 302 pp.

41
2020. Dale A. Grote: The Acts of the Apostles. A Latin Reader. Concord, N.C. xii, 261 pp. – Each section is
accompanied by a vocabulary list and linguistic helps for the student. This is the only recent
textbook published by a major publishing house.

2023. Jonathan Kline – Karen DeCrescenzo Lavery: Keep Up Your Biblical Latin in Two Minutes a Day.
365 Selections for Easy Review. Peabody, Mass. xiv, 370 pp.

German textbooks

Elementary courses
1866. Dominicus Mettenleiter: Faßliche und praktische Grammatik der katholischen Kirchen-Sprache.
Regensburg. xv, 263 pp. – An introductory textbook, and not, as the title seems to promise, a
systematically structured handbook of Latin grammar with paradigms and the like.

1896. Leopold M.E. Stoff: Kurzgefasste theoretisch-praktische Grammatik der lateinischen Kirchenspra­
che. Mainz. 266 pp. – Review: Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahres­
bericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102, at p. 102: “Die gram­
matikalischen Anschauungen sind ganz veraltet, die Regeln oft sehr ungeschickt gefasst.”

1911. Johannes Zwior: Einführung in die lateinische Kirchensprache. Freiburg. viii, 88 pp. – The book, in­
tended for monasteries, was published by Herder; the last, 11th and 12th editions, appeared in
1934 (viii, 138 pp.).

1924/25. Emmeram Leitl: Lateinbuch für Erwachsene. 3 Bändchen. Munich. viii, 182; viii, 158; x, 214 pp. –
Many of the readings are from the Vulgate Bible.

1927. Emmeram Leitl: Das Latein der Kirche. Munich. 175 pp. – The work, published by the Schulwis­
senschaftliche Verlag of Kösel and Pustet, is subtitled: “Natürliche und kurze Einführung in das
Kirchenlatein für alle, die mit der Kirche beten wollen.” The book is supplemented by a glossary:
Ernst Schindlbeck: Lateinisch-deutsches Wörterverzeichnis zu Dr. Emmeram Leitl: “Das Latein der
Kirche.” Munich 1927. 56 pp.; the last page of this glossary offers corrections to Das Latein der
Kirche.

1928. Benedikt Bauer: Praktisches Handbuch zum Erlernen der lateinischen Kirchenprache. 5th edition.
Rottenburg 1928. 300 pp. – The first edition was published in 1899. The book is aimed at can ­
didates for the priesthood, nuns, and organists.

1928. Franz Schneider: Die Muttersprache unserer Kirche. Eine Einführung für das Volk. Freiburg, vi,
56, 2 pp.

2004. Hanspeter Betschart: Latinitas Christiana. Einführung in die christliche Latinität. Olten. 156, 8 pp. –
Only a few biblical texts are presented (Psalm 100 and 117; Matt 2:1–20; 6:7–13; 16:13–19; 20:1–
18; Luke 2:1–20), but much grammar is provided.

2010. Monique Goullet – Michel Parisse: Lehrbuch des mittelalterlichen Lateins. Für Anfänger. Hamburg.
230 pp. – Translated from the French and edited by Helmut Schareika.

2015. Manfred Niehoff: Lerne Latein mit der Bibel! Einführung ins „Bibellatein“ bzw. Kirchenlatein. Ein­
führungen: Theologie 7. Münster. 229 pp. – There is a 2nd, enlarged edition 2020, 298 pp. The
textbook is based on the linguistics of Christian Touratier.

42
2015. Leo Bazant-Hegemark: Institutio Latina. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Sprache für Studierende der
Theologie. Heiligenkreuz. 250 pp. – Among the textual examples, those taken from the Vulgate
New Testament dominate.

Reading material
1918. Friedrich Slotty: Vulgärlateinisches Übungsbuch. Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen.
Bonn. 64 pp.

1986. Otto Schönberger: Von Nepos zum Neuen Testament. Bamberg. 96 pp. – Pages 80–95: New Test­
ament; Matt 12:2–3 in Latin, with German translation and commentary.

2000. Florian Kopp: Bilder der Bibel. Texte der Vulgata und ihre Rezeption in Europa. Bamberg. 110 pp. –
There is a teacher’s commentary (182 pp.) as a companion to this book of selected texts inten­
ded for Latin classes, also prepared by Florian Kopp. – Review: Martin Schmalisch, Forum Clas­
sicum 44 (2001) 62–64.

2008. Alois Mayr (ed.): Die Bibel. Lateinische Bibel-Texte aus der Vulgata. Munich. 188 pp. – The reader
originated in a Latin course taught at the Albrecht-Ernst-Gymnasium Oettingen.

2012. Ulf Jesper: Christliche Wurzeln Europas – die Vulgata. In: Clement Utz (ed.): Buchners Lesebuch
Latein. Ausgabe A 1. Bamberg (180 pp.), pp. 106–119.

2014. Ulf Jesper: Ein Mann im Fisch, eine Frau in der Fremde. Die Geschichten von Jona und Rut . Buch­
ners Anfangslektüre. Bamberg. 48 pp. – Selections from the books of Jonah and Ruth, with tex ­
tual notes.

2017. Franz-Joseph Grobauer et al.: Ex libris. Latein-Einstiegstexte. Vienna 2017. 64, xvi pp. – This reader
of annotated Latin texts for the use in schools has a section “Gestalten aus der Bibel.”

2018. Stefan Beck: Hieronymus, Vulgata. Tango – Antike zum Anfassen. Göttingen. 32 pp. – Text selec­
tions for the classroom, with collateral material and study aids.

2019. Katja Kersten-Babeck: Tollite, legite. Mit Augustinus Latein lernen. Speyer. 205 pp. – Although the
selections in this book are from Augustine, the first three lessons introduce vocabulary and
grammar with examples from the Vulgate. A second, revised edition (also with 205 pp.) was
published in 2021.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart. 343 pp. Published by Deutsche Bibel­
gesellschaft, this reader presents forty-six passages of the Latin text of Weber/Gryson (including
the complete texts of Ruth, Jonah, 1 Thessalonians, and Jude; and the complete text of the Sam ­
son story, Judges 13–16, as well as of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5–7), accompanied by a
very literal German working translation, grammatical and stylistic notes, and a Latin glossary. The
Latin text used is that of the Weber/Gryson edition, though wisely with punctuation added, in­
cluding quotation marks for direct speech. Among Oborski’s earlier work is the German transla­
tion of the Vulgate text of the book of Jeremiah (Tusculum-Vulgata IV, pp. 234–477); in the
present book, only two Jeremiah passages are included: Jer 1 and Jer 13:1–15. Corrigenda: p. 57,
Gen 11:6 Und er sagte (not: Und der Herr sagte); p. 127, note on 2 Sam 12:14, read morte mori­
etur; p. 317, last but one line, read morte morieris. ▲

43
French textbooks
1864. M. Adolphe Mazure: Cours de latin chrétien. Paris. 629 pp. – This is an elementary-level introduc­
tion for students who have not studied Latin at school. Readings are taken from the New Testa­
ment (pp. 324–340) and the Old Testament (pp. 360–383). Latin-French glossary, pp. 443–461.
Mazure’s outline of Latin grammar is based on the relevant French classic: Charles-François
Lhomond: Éléments de la grammaire latine, first published in the eighteenth century. Mazure’s
textbook was reprinted in Canada in 2020.

1918. Charles Dumaine: Le latin en 15 leçons. 2e édition, revue et augmentée. Paris. iv, 248 pp. – Eccle­
siastical Latin is taught on the basis of the Vulgate New Testament.

1921. Madame Joseph Flad: Cours de latin liturgique. Paris. 360 pp.

1938. Madame Joseph Flad: Le latin de l’église: étudié d’après la grammaire et la liturgie. Nouvelle édi­
tion. Paris. xvi, 342 pp. – Review: L. Rochus, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 22 (1943) 241–
244: this textbook relies on the recent, avant-garde notion of abandoning the systematic
presentation of grammar.

1984. Bernadette Lécureux: Cours de latin liturgique. Paris. 95 pp.

1996. Monique Goullet – Michel Parisse: Apprendre le latin médiéval. Manuel pour grands com­
mençants. Paris. 215 pp. (For the German translation, see above, 2010.) – There is a supplement ­
ary volume by the same authors: Traduire le latin médiéval. Manuel pour grands commençants.
Paris 2003. 233 pp.

2014. Olivier Günst Horn: Le latin par l’exemple. Initiation au latin de l’église. Flavigny-sur-Ozerain. 304
pp. – A detailed textbook of ecclesiastical Latin, with many examples from the Vulgate. A gloss ­
ary is included.

2017. Daniel Arseneault: Apprendre le latin avec la Vulgate. Cercle latin de la Nouvelle-France. 2017.
110 pp.

44
Chapter 6
Bibliographical Resources
Note. – In this chapter, we list almost exclusively printed specialist bibliographies. Researchers, how­
ever, should not fail to consult resources that list works in the wider field of biblical studies. Regularly
published in print is the Bulletin de bibliographie biblique, currently edited by Sophie Gloor on behalf
of the Institut Romand des Sciences Bibliques (Université de Lausanne). This institute maintains an
open-access database known as Bibil = Bibliographie biblique informatisée de Lausanne. Another most
useful searchable oneline bibliography, established in 2019, is the Index Biblicus of which the technical
web name is BILDI-Ix-Theo, a website maintained by the University Library of Tübingen, Germany.

Current bibliographies

Discontinues current bibliographies

Completed bibliographies

Current bibliographies
1928–. L’Année philologique. – Since 1928, the annual volumes of this comprehensive bibliography
have been published, offering, often with abstracts, the entire primary and secondary literature
on Greco-Roman antiquity. Literature on the Vulgate Bible is listed under “Hieronymus” and
“Testamenta” (= Old and New Testament). The exact title is:

L’Année philologique. Bibliographie critique et analytique de l’antiquité gréco-latin. Bibliographie

de l’année n.n. et compléments d’années antérieures. – Recent volumes:

[2017 publications] Tomes 88.1 and 88.2. Turnhout 2019. lxiv, 1751 pp.

[2018 publications] Tomes 89.1 and 89.2. Turnhout 2020. lxiii, 1915 pp.

[2019 publications] Tomes 90.1 and 90.2. Turnhout 2021. lxvi, 2089 pp.

[2020 publications] Tomes 91.1 and 91.2. Turnhout 2022. lxviii, 2166 pp.

This bibliography is also available online from the publisher, Brepols.

1964–. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Bulletin de la Bible latine. – Since volume 74 (1964), the “Bulletin
de la Bible latine” is a regular feature of the Revue bénédictine; it offers abstracts and competent
reviews of publications on the Latin Bible. Only the instalments published since 1995 are listed
here:

Revue bénédictine 105 (1995) 200–235; 106 (1996) 386–412; 108 (1998) 359–386; 110 (2000)
135–155; 112 (2002) 152–175; 114 (2004) 179–210; 116 (2006) 133–163; 118 (2010) 145–179; 121
(2011) 456–473; 123 (2013) 385–413; 125 (2015) 154–187; 127 (2017) 148–194; 129 (2019) 189–
217; 131 (2021) 450–494 (with J.-C. Haelewyck). – In 1995, the reviewers began to add numbers
to the items reviewed; between 1995 and 2021, 1385 items have been reviewed.

45
Discontinued current bibliographies
Note. – For decades, biblical and patristic studies have been well served by current bibliographies,
published in annual volumes. This has changed dramatically, as the patristics bibliography ( Schneemel­
cher) and the Latin word studies bibliography (Hiltbrunner) were discontinued in the 1990s, and the
two biblical bibliographies (Lang and the Elenchus) in 2011.

1892–1915. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie. – In the 13 volumes
of this bibliographic periodical, some of the volumes include contributions on biblical and eccle­
siastical Latin. To be recommended especially is Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896.
Kritischer Jahresbericht 5.1 (1897) 75–102.

1954–2011. Internationale Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete. – Beginning with

volume 47: 2002, it was entitled International Review of Biblical Studies (and kept the German
tittle as a subtitle). The last volume is vol. 56: 2011; then, to the regret of the editor, the series
was discontinued. Not only journals, but especially in the last volumes also books and contribu­
tions in festschrifts and anthologies were included. The entries are provided with a summary
(abstract). Still useful as a treasure trove. – Der letzte Band ist Bd. 56: 2011, dann wurde die Serie
eingestellt. Nicht nur Zeitschriften, sondern bes. in den letzten Bänden wurden auch Bücher und
Beiträge in Festschriften und Sammelbänden ausgewertet. Die Einträge sind mit einer Zusam­
menfassung (abstract) versehen. Immer noch als Fundgrube nützlich.

1959–1997. Wilhelm Schneemelcher – Knut Schäferdiek (eds.): Bibliographia Patristica. Internationale

patristische Bibliographie. Berlin. – The work ceased publication with volume 33–35: 1997 (lvii,
705 pp.; listing publications of the years 1988–1990). In the section auctores singuli, relevant ma­
terial is listed under the name “Hieronymus.”

1968–2011. Elenchus bibliographicus biblicus. – Since 1920, the journal Biblica, published by the Ponti­
fical Biblical Institute in Rome, has supplied a detailed, thematically organized bibliography.
From 1968 (as vol. 49: 1968) until 2011, the bibliography constituted a separate publication,
since 1986 under the title “Elenchus of Biblica.” The last volume is vol. 27: 2011; then the series
was discontinued. This resource is still very useful, not least because it also lists book reviews. –
Peter Nober SJ (1912–1980), who for many years served as the editor of the Elenchus, also com­
piled two supplements, published as appendices in the journal Verbum Domini: Elenchus sup­
pletorius. Verbum Domini 38 (1960) 324 and 1*–60*; 39 (1961) 1*–76*. ▲

1981–1992. Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wortforschung. Bern. Vol. 1: a – actvs.
1981. xxii, 298 pp.; vol. 2: adeo – atrocitas. 1984. 323 pp.; vol. 3: atrax – causa. 1988. 310 pp. (a
misspelling in the title: it must be atrox); vol. 4: censeo – cur. 1992. 348 pp. – The design of this
bibliography is to be commended for its thoroughness. Each entry consists of two parts: (1) a list
of books, book chapters, and articles that discuss a word (example: civitas), and (2) a short essay
that summarises the result of these studies. Due to the lack of funding (and due to the editor’s
age of seventy-nine), the project had to be discontinued. Hiltbrunner (1913–2017), a Latinist in ­
terested in Christian Latin, was one of Germany’s leading classical scholars. ▲

46
Completed bibliographies
1897. Walter Arthur Copinger: The Bible and Its Transmission, Being an Historical and Bibliographical
View of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, and the Greek, Latin and Other Versions of the Bible (…) pri­
or to the Reformation. London. viii, 340, xxvii pp. – Listed are mainly early printed editions of the
Latin Bible. The book was reprinted in 1972. Copinger (1847–1910) is remembered as a lawyer,
antiquarian, and bibliographer. The accuracy of his work has been challenged.

1897. Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der
romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102. – Review of a series of publications.

1908. Lucien Méchineau SJ: La langue des anciennes versions latines. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dic­
tionnaire de la Bible. Tome 4.1. Paris (1058 cols.), cols. 97–99. After a short thematic introduction,
the author lists relevant publications on late Latin from 1715 to 1902.

1946. John M. Lenhart: Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reformation from 1520–1570. A Bibliographical
Account. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8: 416–432.

1955. Bruce M. Metzger: Annotated Bibliography of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1914–
1939. Copenhagen. xviii, 133 pp. – Pages 34–45: The Vulgate. This chapter is in three parts: ma ­
nuscripts – editions – studies.

1979. Elena Malaspina: Gli studi sulla latinità cristiana (1951–1978). Cultura e scuola 18/7: 40–47; 18/72:
64–70.

1980. Hermann Josef Sieben: Voces. Eine Bibliographie zu Wörtern und Begriffen aus der Patristik (1918
– 1978). Berlin. 461 pp. – Pages 226–427: Latin words; not specific to the Vulgate, but sometimes
pertinent. A reprint was published in 2014.

1983. Hermann Josef Sieben: Exegesis Patrum. Saggio bibliografico sull’esegesi biblica dei Padri della
Chiesa. Rome. 150 pp. – Listed are mainly articles on how individual biblical passages were un­
derstood by the church fathers, including Jerome. Two thousand bibliographical items are listed,
arranged according to the canonical sequence of the biblical books from Genesis to the book of
Revelation.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Bibliographie sélective sur l’Ancien Testament latin: éditions de
texte et travaux essentiels. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 304–314. – The bibliography follows
the order of the biblical writings: Genesis – Exodus – Leviticus, etc. The items listed are almost
exclusively about the Vetus Latina.

1989. André Vernet – A.-M. Genevois: La Bible au Moyen Age. Bibliographie. Paris. 131 pp.

1989. Gabriel Sanders – Marc Van Uytfange: Bibliographie signalétique du Latin des chrétiens. Turnhout.
xi, 188 pp. – With an index of Latin words.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid, 588 pp. – Pages 509–521:
bibliography on biblical Latin, with many Spanish titles not listed elsewhere.

2000. Roger Aubert: Jérôme. In: Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Tome 27. Paris
(2 pp., 1518 cols.), cols. 1021–1027. – Annotated bibliography of then recent contributions to re­
search on Jerome and his work.

2001. Lorenzo DiTommaso: A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999. Sheffield. 1067 pp.
– Relevant are the sections on 4 Ezra (pp. 469–524) and the Prayer of Manasseh (pp. 717–726).

47
2002. Christian Heitzmann et al.: Lateinische Bibeldrucke. 1454–2001. Stuttgart. xxxiii, 1396 pp. – This
work, presented in three large-size volumes, gives complete and reliable descriptions of all the
printed Latin Bibles of the famous collection owned by the Württemberg State Library (Würt­
tembergische Landesbibliothek) of Stuttgart, Germany. Original prints of the Gutenberg Bible
(1454) are listed along with modern reprints, facsimiles, and even electronic versions. A model of
its kind, this publication is to be commended for its unrivalled accuracy. ▲

2004. Peter Stotz: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Volume 5: Bibliographie, Quellen­
übersicht und Register. Handbuch der Antike. Munich. 1059 pp.

2004. Pierre Jay: Jerome (ca. 347–419/20). In: Charles Kannengiesser: Handbook of Patristic Exegesis.
Volume 2. Leiden (xiv, pp. 673–1496), pp. 1094–1133. – Pages 1115–1133: bibliography.

2010. Alexey R. Fokin: St. Jerome of Stridon: Biblical Scholar, Exegete, Theologian. Moscow. 223 pp. (Rus­
sian). – Pages 184–206: A Jerome bibliography.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 363–429: Jerome bibliography. ▲

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 249–300: bibliography. Listed are not only works that deal with Jerome’s prefaces, but
also works that deal with the Vulgate and its history more generally. ▲

2018. Adalbert Keller – Beate Hartley-Lutz: Translationes Patristicae Graecae et Latinae – Bibliographie
der Übersetzungen altchristlicher Quellen. Hiersemanns bibliographische Handbücher. Stuttgart.
xx, 768 pp. – The volume replaces the first edition of the work, published in 1997 and 2004 in
two volumes. It lists the most important editions of Greek and Latin authors, including Au­
gustine and Jerome, as well as translations into German, English, French, and Spanish, arranged
alphabetically by author. An indispensable reference tool for research.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74. – This art­
icle surveys the current state of research; appended is a bibliography of c. 170 titles (pp. 60–74),
each of which is mentioned in the survey. ▲

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Panorama editorial de la Vetus Latina y la Vulgata: series, proyectos,
ediciones de referencia. Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en
España 52: 7–90. ▲

48
MANUSCRIPTS –
LANGUAGE –
HISTORY

49
Chapter 7
Manuscripts
Note. – All printed editions of the Latin Bible are ultimately based on manuscripts, some of which dat­
ing from very early times – the fourth and fifth centuries CE. In modern printed editions, variants from
important manuscripts are indicated in the critical apparatus, though today, specialists prefer to con ­
sult manuscripts directly, either in printed editions or, when available, in digital editions. Many libraries
that own important manuscripts now make them accessible for consultation online – and the user will
immediately see that without palaeographic knowledge and experience, these manuscripts cannot be
read. In the present chapter, some often-quoted Latin Bible manuscripts are listed. Those who consult
the chapter must be alerted to the fact that there are actually hundreds of relevant manuscripts in the
libraries. All modern printed editions list those that are used by the editors.

The manuscripts can be sorted into two groups. To our first group belong those whose text is evidence
of the pre-Vulgate textual tradition, called the “Vetus Latina” (Old Latin). The second group, here given
more space, is formed of Vulgate manuscripts. Scholars working with these manuscripts are quick to
discover that there is no straightforward boundary between these two groups, because copyists often
introduced Vetus-Latina readings into their copies of Vulgate texts.

7.1 Some major Vetus Latina manuscripts, mainly of the New Testament

7.2 Some major Vulgate manuscripts

7.3 Reference works and introductions

7.4 Collections of variant readings

7.5 Fischer’s “Varianten”: New Testament manuscripts statistically compared

50
7.1 Some major Vetus Latina manuscripts,
mainly of the New Testament
Note. – The focus of the present bibliography is on the Vulgate, and not on all textual forms of the
Latin Bible. Accordingly, we have chosen to present here only very few examples of manuscripts with
the Old Latin text, and selected two Old Testament and several New Testament examples. There is a
complete list of all know Vetus Latina manuscripts: Roger Gryson (ed.): Altlateinische Handschriften –
Manuscrits Vieux Latins. Répertoire descriptif. Freiburg 1999, 2004. 2 vols. 379, 364 pp.

Codex Bobiensis (Bobbiensis)

Codex Vercellensis

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis

Codex Sangallensis 1394

Palimpsestus Wirciburgensis 64a

Vespasian Psalter

Pauline Letters of Budapest

Gospel of Matthew in Codex Sangermanensis primus

Codex Bobiensis (Bobbiensis)

4th century. Codex Bobiensis (Turin/Torino: Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria 1163, GV II.15) gives the
Latin text of the four Gospels. It is believed to be the copy of another manuscript, now lost, from
the 3rd century. The manuscript has the earliest Latin text of the Gospel of Mark. Modern lists of
Bible manuscripts often refer to this manuscript as manuscript “k.” It may well have originated in
North Africa.

1913. C. Cippola (ed.): Il codice evangelico k della Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino. Turin. 70
pp. – Facsimile edition.

Secondary literature
1930. Pieter W. Hoogterp: Étude sur le latin du Codex Bobiensis (k) des Évangiles. Wageningen. 245 pp.

1953. Adolfine H.A. Bakker: A Study of Codex Evangeliorum Bobbiensis (k). Amsterdam. 84 pp.

1976. D.W. Palmer: The Origin, Form and Purpose of Mark XVI,4 in Codex Bobbiensis. Journal of Theo­
logical Studies 27: 113–122.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Esp. pp. 10, 22–23, 210. – Page 10: The text of this codex “appears
to antedate [that of church father] Cyprian. This is most clearly shown by the ending of Mark.” It
is “the only gospel manuscript in Greek or Latin which has the shorter ending by itself, while
Cyprian seems to be familiar with the longer ending of Mark 16:9 onwards.”

51
2021. Claire Clivaz: Mk 16 im Codex Bobbiensis. Neue Materialien zur conclusio brevior des Markus­
evangeliums. Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 24/Heft 47, pp. 59–85. – The article includes a sec­
tion entitled: “Zum Stand der Forschung: Die fällige Neubewertung des Codex k.” The manu ­
script has the following ending of Mark’s gospel (p. 83): “Omnia autem quaecumque praecepta
erant ei et qui cum Petro [the manuscript reads: puero] erant breviter exposuerunt posthaec et
ipse Iesus adparuit et ab orientem usque in orientem [should be: in occidentem] misit per illos
sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem [the word preadicationem is not in the text] salutis ae­
ternae. Amen.” – In German: “Alle übermittelten Weisungen aber legten auch die, die mit Petrus
waren, kurz aus; und danach erschien Jesus selbst und sandte durch sie die heilige und unver ­
gängliche Predigt des ewigen Heil vom Osten zum Westen. Amen.”

Codex Vercellensis
4th century. Codex Vercellensis, kept in the Archivio Capitolare Eusebiano in Vercelli, Italy, is a manu ­
script (634 parchment pages) of the Latin Gospels, dating from the second half of the fourth
century.

1749. Giuseppe Bianchini (Josephus Blanchinus): Evangeliarum quadruplex latinae versionis antiquae
seu veteris Italicae. 2 parts. Rome. 56, cclxiv leaves; 7, cdlxxii leaves. Included in this pioneering
work on the Vetus Latina is the first edition of the Codex Vercellensis; it has been reprinted in PL
12: 9–948 and is thus easily accessible.

1894. J. Belsheim (ed.): Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata (…) de­
nuo edidit J. Belsheim. Oslo vii, 133 pp.

1914. Aidan T. Gasquet OSB (ed.): Codex Vercellensis. Rome. 242 pp. – Another edition of the manu­
script.

Secondary literature
1927/28. C.H. Turner: Did Codex Vercellensis (a) contain the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark? Journal of
Theological Studies 29: 16–18. – The relevant page is missing from the codex, but calculations of
space make the presence of the last twelve – secondary – verses unlikely. Thus one might as­
sume that the Old Latin version did not include the secondary ending of Mark.

1977. Bruce M. Metzger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford. xix, 498 pp. – See pp. 312–
313.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See p. 26 and p. 211.

2021. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: Fragmenta Curiensia. Ein Beitrag zu Sprache und
Übersetzung des frühlateinischen Lukasevangeliums. Berlin. xxix, 289 pp. – Associated with the
Codex Vercellensis are several replacement parchment leaves dating from the 7th century. From
these, the authors have selected the fragments with Luke 11:11–29 and 13:16–34 for special
consideration; see Houghton, pp. 219–220.

2021. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Fragmenta Curiensia (a 2) as Witnesses of the
Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 12: 135–156.

2022. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of the Gos ­
pel of Luke. Early Christianity 13: 105–130. – Marred by mistakes, Gasquet’s edition of 1914 is
deemed inadequate.

52
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
c. 400. This codex, the reformer Theodore Beza’s 1581 gift to the university library of Cambridge, gives
the text of the Gospels and the book of Acts in Greek and Latin. The library’s shelf number is
“MS Nn. 2.41.” – Since 2012, one can find a complete electronic copy of this manuscript on the
website of the Cambridge University Library.

1864. Frederick H. Scrivener (ed.): Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (…) Edited with a critical Introduction,
Annotations, and Facsimiles. Cambridge. lxv, 454 pp. – A printed edition of the manuscript. Ac­
cording to the editor, it originated “early in the sixth century,” as indicated on the title page.
Pages xxxi–xlv: On the Latin Version in Codex Bezae. The editor characterizes the Latin language
of the manuscript as follows: “We must now state our reasons for believing that the Latin trans­
lator executed his work in some remote province, where the language, though still vernacular,
had far progressed in its decline.; most probably in Gaul” (p. xl). – Reprint: Pittsburgh, Penn.
1978.

1996. Antonio Ammassari (ed.): Bezae codex Cantabrigiensis. Copia esatta del manoscritto onciale gre­
co-latino. Vatican City. 947 pp.

2012. David Parker: Codex Bezae (MS Nn. 2.41). – Digital edition of the manuscript, complete with a
transcription, to be accessed from the website of the Cambridge University Library. Parker sug ­
gests that the manuscript may have been produced in Berytus (Beirut), today’s capital city of the
state of Lebanon.

Secondary literature
1689. Richard Simon: Critical History of the Text of the New Testament. Translated by Andrew Hunwick.
Leiden 2013. xxxvi, 368 pp. – The famous French author, an early-modern textual critic, reports
that he has studied this manuscript; he quotes from it extensively, see pp. 300–332 and passim.

1891. James Rendel Harris: Codex Bezae. A Study of the So-Called Western Text of the New Testament.
Cambridge. viii, 202 pp. – The Greek text was reworked on the basis of the parallel Latin text.
Very critical of Harris’s book is Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jah­
resbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102, at pp. 97–98.

1900. Cuthbert H. Turner: Notes on the Old Latin Version of the Bible. Journal of Theological Studies
2.8: 600–609, at p. 600: “It will soon, it may be hoped, be recognised with equal unanimity that it
is hopeless to start the enquiry into the Old Latin version by the examination of a witness so cor­
rupt and so peculiar as the codex Bezae.”

1910. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Die Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis. Texte und
Untersuchungen 36. Leipzig. iv, 119 pp. – This study is famous for its suggestion that the first
Latin Gospel must have been an Old Latin Gospel harmony, derived from the Diatessaron. In the
words of Daniel Plooij (A Further Study of the Liège Diatessaron. Leiden 1925 [xi, 92 pp.], p. 3):
“The Latin text of Codex Cantabrigensis is influenced by the Latin Diatessaron which was a trans­
lation from the Syriac.” ▲

1926. James H. Ropes: The Text of Acts. The Beginnings of Christianity I.3. London. cccxx, 464 pp. –
Pages lxxii–lxxiii: “Influence of the Latin on Greek” in Codex Bezae.

1946. Robert G. Stone: The Language of the Latin Text of Codex Bezae. With an Index verborum. Urbana,
Ill. 199 pp.

1963. J. Mizzi: The Vulgate Text of the Supplemental Pages of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Sacris eru­
diri 14: 149–163.

53
1979. R. Sheldon MacKenzie: The Latin Column in Codex Bezae. Journal for the Study of the New Testa­
ment 2/6: 58–76. – The numerous phonological errors in the Latin text are due to dictation. Page
74: “The Latin text in which the phonological errors occur appears to be older than the Latin text
of which the fuller readings are a part. With two exceptions [Acts 15:29; 17:19], there are no
phonological errors known to me in the fuller readings in the Latin text. This must mean that
when the Latin text became a part of the bilingual codex, the fuller readings were imported into
it from the Greek column.”

1982. David C. Parker: A “Dictation Theory” of Codex Bezae. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
5/15: 97–112. – Sheldon MacKenzie in his 1979 article has claimed that the Latin Column of Co­
dex Bezae includes errors typically found in dictated texts. This claim cannot be maintained.
There is much evidence to support the notion that the Latin column’s errors are due to visual
copying. A typically visual error is the assimilation error in trens menses for tres menses (Acts
19:8).

1986. G. J. C. Jordan: Variation in word between the Greek and Latin texts in codex Bezae. In: J.H. Petzer
– P.J. Hartin (eds.): A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African
New Testament Scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during His Visit to South Africa in
1985. Leiden (xii, 270 pp.), pp. 99–111.

1992. David C. Parker: Codex Bezae. An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text. Cambridge. xxiii, 349 pp.

1996. Antonio Ammassari: Il Vangelo di Matteo nella colonna latina del Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis.
Note di commento sulla struttura letteraria, la punteggiatura, le lezioni e le citazioni bibliche. Vati­
can City. 238 pp. – Each of the other gospels is studied in a separate volume – Il Vangelo di Mar­
co (156 pp.), di Luca (189 pp.), di Giovanni (129 pp.).

1998. Antonio Ammassari: Gli Atti del Cristo risorto. Note di commento sulla struttura letteraria e le le ­
zioni degli “Atti degli Apostoli” nella colonna latina del “Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis.” Vatican
City. 116 pp.

2009. David C. Parker: Manuscripts, Texts, Theology. Collected Papers 1977–2007. Berlin. xxii, 379 pp. –
The volume includes three papers on Codex Bezae: A Dictation Theory of Codex Bezae (pp. 5–
18); Codex Bezae and Other Manuscripts in Cambridge University Library (pp. 65–72); Codex
Bezae: The Manuscript as Past, Present and Future (pp. 103–112).

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 28 and pp. 112–113. – “Despite the textual peculiarities of
the manuscript, the overall character of the Latin version corresponds with the rest of the Latin
biblical tradition: there are a handful of early readings shared with the most ancient sources, but
in the Gospels the text is relatively close to the version immediately preceding the Vulgate (…)
This reflects the ongoing revision of the Latin translation and its being brought into ever closer
conformity with Greek texts.” According to Houghton, who follows David Parker, the manuscript
was “copied around the year 400, possibly in the legal centre of Berytus (modern Beirut)” (p. 28).

2020. Peter E. Lorenz: An Examination of Six Objections to the Theory of Latin Influence on the Greek
Text of Codex Bezae. In: H.A.G. Houghton – Peter Montoro (eds.): At One Remove: The Text of
the New Testament in Early Translations and Quotations. Piscataway, N.J. (xxiii, 337 pp.), pp. 173–
188.

2021. Peter E. Lorenz: A History of Codex Bezae’s Text in the Gospel of Mark. Arbeiten zur neutestament­
lichen Textforschung. Berlin. xvi, 1013 pp.

54
Codex Sangallenssis 1394
5th century. Twenty-five leaves remain of this fifth-century Italian Gospel codex. Sometime in the
Middle Ages, the codex was dismantled and the leaves used for bookbinding. In the early 19th
century, the leaves were discovered, and in 1822 collected into folder called Codex Sangallensis
1394 (Stuftsbibliothek St. Gallen). A few fragments were found in other libraries. The text of all
four gospels is represented among the fragments.

2012. Rudolf Gamper et al. (eds.): Die Vetus-Latina-Fragmente aus dem Kloster St. Gallen. Faksimile –
Edition – Kommentar. Dietikon–Zürich. 180 pp.

Secondary literature
2016. H.A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts.
Oxford (xix, 366 pp.), pp. 219–220.

Palimpsestus Wirciburgensis 64a

5th or 6th century. This Würzburg Codex (158 leaves = 316 pages of sheep parchment) has texts of
Augustine. The parchment leaves used are from two different Italian codices, both of which had
an earlier text arranged in two columns, now deleted, but recovered through modern palimpsest
technology. The original texts were Latin Bible texts, and the text form was that of the Vetus Lat­
ina, of which the Codex Wirciburgensis is a major witness. The text fragments recovered are
from the Pentateuch are from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; those from the Prophets in­
clude fragments of Hosea, Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. The manuscript is
kept in the university library of Würzburg, Germany; shelf number: M.p.th.f.64a. – Scholars now
use the Vetus-Latina fragments to reconstruct their Greek Vorlage which in turn reflects an un ­
derlying pre-masoretic Hebrew text.

1871. Ernst Ranke: Par Palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti Versionis
Latinae Fragmenta. Vienna. xiv, 432 pp.

Secondary literature
1927. A.V. Billen: The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. Cambridge. viii, 234 pp. – Billen presents a care­
ful study of the Pentateuchal fragments recovered from Codex Wirciburgensis. According to
him, its Latin text must have originated in “Europe,” rather than in North Africa.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 34, 41, 53.
Stummer lists the passages that one could decipher, basing his information on Ranke’s edition
of 1871.

1978. P.-M. Bogaert OSB: Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans létude de la tradition des Septante.
Ezéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967. Biblica 59: 384–395.

1984. Hans Thurn: Die Pergamenthandschriften der ehemaligen Dombibliothek. Die Handschriften der
Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg 3.1. Wiesbaden (ix, 160 pp.), p. 48. – Thurn provides a detailed
description of the manuscript.

2013. P.-M-. Bogaert OSB: De la Vetus Latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus an­
cienne Septante. Revue théologique de Louvain 44: 216–243.

2018. Manfred Pollner: Die Vetus-Latina-Fragmente im Jeremiabuch. Göttingen. 742 pp. – Review: Boni­
fatia Gesche, Theologische Literaturzeitung 144 (2019) 742–744.

55
Vespasian Psalter
c. 730s. Vespasian Psalter. Kept in the British Library, London as Cotton Manuscript Vespasian A 1, this
book of Psalms – extant is the text of Ps 2:4 to 150 – is famous for its illuminations and the inter ­
linear glosses in Old English; these glosses were added in the 9th century. The name “Vespasian
Psalter” reflects the fact that in the eighteenth century, the manuscript was kept in the section of
the British Museum which had a bust of the Roman Emperor Vespasian.

1885. Henry Sweet (ed.): The Oldest English Texts. Edited with Introductions and a Glossary. London. viii,
667 pp. – While the interest of this volume is in early English texts, Seweer transcribes (for the
first time) the complete Vespasian Psalter; the transcription is on pp. 188–401. In his introduc ­
tion, Henry Sweet reports that the Latin text of the manuscript has been largely altered by eras­
ure and otherwise, apparently in order to bring it more into conformity with the Vulgate read ­
ings and the conventional spellings.

1965. Sherman M. Kuhn (ed.): The Vespasian Psalter. Ann Arbor, Mich. xii, 327 pp. – On pp. 1–146, the
author presents a complete transcription of the Latin text and the Old English glosses.

1967. David H. Wright (ed.): The Vespasian Psalter. British Museum Cotton Vespasian A.I. Copenhagen.
100, vi pp: 160 leaves. – This is a facsimile edition with a long introduction.

Secondary literature
1940. Victor Leroquais: Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publics de France. Tome I. Ma­
con. cxxxvi, 293 pp. – Page xxix: “il a existé un type de psautier qui porte, depuis le IX e siècle, le
nom de psautier romain. Aujourd’hui encore, il est representé par plusieurs manuscrits dont les
plus anciens sont le Vespasien A. I. du British Museum, qui provient de Saint-Augustin de Canto­
béry et date des environs de 700; le psautier dit de sainte Salaberge, autrefois conservé à Laon,
aujourd’hui à Berlin (Hamilton, 553), le psautier du monastère de Notre-Dame de Soissons, au­
jourd’hui exilé à Montpellier (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Médecine, ms. 409), qui date de la fin
du VIIIe siècle et qui fait l’objet d’une notice de ce catalogue (t. I er, p. 273–277).”

1953. Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins. Edited by Robert Weber OSB. Rome. xxiii,
410 pp. – In his edition of the Roman Psalter, the editor uses the Vespasian Psalter as an import ­
ant textual witness; on p. xiii he reports that he has used a photography of the manuscript. – Re ­
view: Henry S. Gehman, Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 135–136.

2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le psautier latin des origines au XII e siècle. Essai d’histoire. In: An­
neli Aejmelaeus – Udo Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Ab­
handlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philosophisch-historische Klasse
III.230. Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 51–81. – On pp. 60–61, Bogaert comments briefly on the Roman
Psalter and the relevant manuscripts.

2017. Alderik H. Blom: The Vespasian Psalter. In: idem: Glossing the Psalms. The Emergence of the Writ­
ten Vernacular in Western Europe from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries. Berlin (xvi, 332 pp.),
pp. 161–173. Blom calls the Vespasian Psalter the oldest surviving text of the Psalterium Roman­
um (p. 161).

Pauline Letters of Budapest

c. 800. Codex latinus medii aevi I of the library of Hungary’s national museum, the Budapest National
Széchényi Library. This is a manuscript of the Pauline epistles, believed to be written in

56
 Salzburg, Austria. The Old Latin text of the Pauline epistles alternates with a brief anonymous
commentary.

1973–1974. Hermann Josef Frede: Ein neuer Paulustext und Kommentar. Freiburg. 2 volumes. 286, 413
pp. – Edition and editor’s commentary volume. Frede discovered this manuscript. The actual
commentary text is very brief; in the case of Galatians, for example, the commentary fills only fif ­
teen pages in the edition (vol. 2, pp. 218–233).

Secondary literature

2014. R.F. MacLachlan: A Reintroduction to the Budapest Anonymous Commentary on the Pauline Let ­
ters. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament. Piscat­
away, N.J. (xiv, 217 pp.), pp. 93–106. – Detailed description of the manuscript. One should not
refer to a commentator because the work reflects the work of more than one author.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu ­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 171 and 248–249. The commentary “seems to have ori ­
ginated as a series of marginal comments in a codex of the Epistles in Rome in 397 or 405” (p.
171).

Gospel of Matthew in Codex Sangermanensis primus

c. 810. Codex Sangermanensis primus. Shelf number in Bibliothèque nationale, Paris: ms. Lat. 11553.
While this Bible manuscript has, generally, a Vulgate text, its text of the gospel of Matthew is
pre-Jeromian (Vetus Latina). Some of the Old Testament books are also Vetus Latina. For the
rest, see below, Chapter 7.2 (Codex Sangermanensis primus).

1883. John Wordsworth: The Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain Ms. (g1), now
numbered Lat. 11533. Oxford. xliii, 79 pp. – This is an edition of the text of the gospel of Mat ­
thew which, unlike other parts of this manuscript, has a pre-Jeromian, Old Latin text. For an
earlier edition of this Matthew text by Jean Martianay OSB (1695), see below, Chapter 9.7.

7.2 Some major Vulgate manuscripts

Note. – The oldest and best Vulgate manuscripts that still exit offer the text of the four Gospels. The
exception is Codex Amiatinus, a “pandect,” i.e., a complete manuscript of both testaments. For the his ­
tory of pandects that became more widely produced in and after the ninth century, see below,
Chapters 14.3 (English: 2023 Lobrichon) and 14.4 (Alcuin & Theodulf: English 2023; Paris Bible).

Codex Sangallensis 1395

Codex Sangallensis 193

57
 Codex Fuldensis

Codex Lindisfarnensis

St. Cuthbert Gospel

Codex Petropolitanus

Codex Sangermanensis primus

Codex Sangallensis (interlinearis) 48

Codex Sangallensis 1395

c. 430. Fragmentary preserved codex of the four gospels, without prologue. Written in the first half of
the 5th century in Italy (probably Verona, according to Dold 1941), 110 parchment leaves, writ­
ten in two columns. A large part – 90 parchment leaves – is now in the Abbey Library of St. Gall
as part of the Codex Sangallensis 1395 (parts of Matt 6:21 to John 17:18). Six other fragments
are in other Swiss libraries and in an Austrian library; seven leaves are in the Cantonal Library of
St. Gall (shelfmark: Vadian Collection Manuscript 292a; with parts of Mark 1:27–9:7). The manu ­
script can be viewed online, linked to a description of the manuscript (e-codices.unifr.ch).

1931. Cuthbert H. Turner (ed.): The Oldest Manuscript of the Vulgate Gospels. Deciphered and Edited.
Oxford. lxiii, 216 pp. – According to Turner (d. 1930), the manuscript, dating from around 500,
was most likely meant for private study, and not for public use (pp. xiv, xxvi). In the introduction
(p. xxiii), Turner reports on the fate of this manuscript. In the Middle Ages, the manuscript, which
was considered obsolete, was taken apart, and the leaves were used as endpapers in bookbind­
ing work. It was not until the last years of the 18th century that the then librarian Ildefons von
Arx OSB (1755–1833) noticed the value of the scattered leaves, collected them and united them
in 1822 to form the composite “manuscript 1395.” Reviews:

1932. B. Capelle, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 28: 347.

1932. Walter Bauer, Theologische Literaturzeitung 57 (1932) 349.

1957. Eduard Fischer: Ildefons von Arx, 1755–1833. Bibliothekar, Archivar, Historiker zu St. Gallen
und Olten. Olten 1957. 408 pp.

1941. Alban Dold OSB: Neue Teile der ältesten Vulgata-Evangelienhandschrift aus dem 5. Jahrhundert
(der St. Galler Sammelhandschrift 1395 zugehörig). Biblica 22: 105–146. – Dold found and here
publishes a number of fragments, including several full pages from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 1–
2 and 5–12 as well as 14:62–15:5). In addition, fragments from Matt 6 and 26 as well as Luke
22:30–35. His edition complements Turner’s edition of 1931.

Secondary literature
1883. Hermann Rönsch: Zur biblischen Latinität aus dem cod. Sangallensis der Evangelien. Romanische
Forschungen 1: 419–426.

1941/66. Bernhard Bischoff: Zur Rekonstruktion des Sangallensis (Σ) und der Vorlage seiner Marginali­
en. Biblica 22: 147–158. – Revised and enlarged in: idem: Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte
Aufsätze I. Stuttgart 1966 (vi, 325, viii pp.), pp. 101–111.

58
1954. Arthur Vööbus: Early Versions of the New Testament, Stockholm. xvii, 411 pp. – Page 53: “The
oldest extant Vulgate manuscript of the Gospels is a portion of a manuscript called Codex
Sangallensis (Σ).”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu ­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 259–260: description of the manuscript; p. 49: a page from
the manuscript. “This is the oldest surviving Vulgate gospel book, which may even have been
copied during Jerome’s lifetime. It was subsequently dismembered and used for bindings” (p.
260).

Note. – According to the specialists, there exists a complete copy of the entire Codex Sangallensis
made in St. Gall or in the Lake of Constance area from the first half of the 9th century: manuscript Aa
11 of Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda (part 2 of a two-volume Bible); see Hugh A.G. Houghton:
The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts. Oxford 2016 (xix, 366 pp.),
p. 265. For a description of manuscript Aa 11, see Regina Hausmann: Die theologischen Handschriften
der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Fulda bis zum Jahr 1600. Codices Bonifatiani 1–3, Aa1–145a . Wies­
baden 1992 (lv, 374, 20 pp.), pp. 39–40.

Codex Sangallensis 193

c. 500. Codex Sangallensis 193. This is a palimpsest manuscript. Under the Latin text of sermons of
Caesarius of Arles, written around 800, one can make out a deleted biblical text in Latin: frag ­
ments of the Vulgate text of the Minor Prophets, Ezekiel, and Daniel, in a script that paleograph ­
ers date to the fifth century. The Weber/Gryson edition of the Vulgate lists the codex as having
been written in the fifth century – which makes it belong to the earliest manuscript attestations
of the Vulgate text. From another palimpsest, Codex Sangallensis 567, one can add 4 pages with
the text of Malachi. The link to the Vulgate is as follows: (1) the biblical text is that of the Vul­
gate, (2) it is accompanied by Jerome’s prologue to Daniel (Dold 1917, pp. 39–40), (3) it is writ­
ten in true Jerome fashion per cola et commata. For the per cola writing, we give an example:
verbum dni quod factum est ad Iohel filium [Fatuhel] / audite hoc sense et auribus percipite om­
nes habitatores terrae / si factum est istut [sic] in diebus vestris aut in diebus patrum vestrorum /
(…; Joel 1.1:1–2).

1913. Anselm Manser OSB (ed.): Codex Sangallensis 193: continens fragmenta plurium prophetarum
secundum translationem S. Hieronymi. Beuron. 14 pp., 152 plates. An introduction offers a paleo­
graphic analysis. The text is not edited, but presented in the form of photographic planes.

1917. Alban Dold OSB: Prophetentexte in der Vulgata-Übersetzung nach der ältesten Handschriften­
überlieferung der St. Galler Palimpseste No. 193 und No. 567. Beuron. xl, 172 pp., 2 plates. – In­
troduction and transcription of the biblical texts. “Die veröffentlichten Texte sind (…) heute die
ältesten erhaltenen Texte von Ezechiel, Daniel und den kleinen Propheten nach der Version der
Vulgata” (p. xxi).

Codex Fuldensis
546. Codex Fuldensis. Written between 541 and 546 by Victor Capuanus, Bishop of Capua, Italy, the
manuscript contains the entire New Testament; however, the Gospels are replaced by a Latin
Gospel harmony (Diatessaron). This goes back to Tatian (c. 170), but was adapted to the word­
ing of the Vulgate. Among St. Paul’s letters is also the letter to the Laodiceans (cf. below,
Chapter 23.3 of the present publication). St. Boniface acquired the manuscript and donated it

59
 to the Benedictine monastery in Fulda in 745. Today the manuscript is in the Hessian University
and State Library in Fulda (shelfmark: A.b.2, called “Bonifatianus I”; also known as “Victor
Codex”).

1868. Ernst Ranke (ed.): Codex Fuldensis. Novum Testamentum Latine Interprete Hieronymo ex manu­
scripto Victoris Capuani. Marburg and Leipzig. xxxii, 572 pp. – This edition is freely accessible on
the Internet (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek digital).

Description of the manuscript

1992. Regina Hausmann: Die theologischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Fulda bis
zum Jahr 1600. Codices Bonifatiani 1–3, Aa1–145a. Wiesbaden. lv, 20, 374 pp. – Pages 3–7: de­
scription of Codex Fuldensis (Bonifatianus I).

Secondary literature
1908. John Chapman OSB: Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels. Oxford (xi, 299 pp.), pp.
130–143: The Pauline Lectionary of the Codex Fuldensis. – A list of liturgical lessons is prefixed
to the text of the Pauline letters.

1919. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Diatessaron im Abendland. Münster (vii, 151
pp.), pp. 1–34: Das Diatessaron des Codex Fuldensis. – According to Vogels, the Fuldensis Latin
Diatessaron represents the attempt, to revise an otherwise lost Old Latin Diatessaron so as to
make it conform to the Vulgate text of the Gospels. A number of Old Latin readings apparently
escaped the unknown reviser’s notice.

1963. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Bibelausgaben des frühen Mittelalters. In: Giuseppe Ermini (ed.): La Bib­
bia nell’alto medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 10.
Spoleto (768 pp.), pp. 519–600. – Pages 545–557: the history of Codex Fuldensis.

1976. M.B. Parkes: The Handwriting of St Boniface: A Reassessment of the Problems. In: Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 98: 161–179. – The annotations are believed to
have come from Boniface, who may have owned the codex.

1987. Eduard Schick: Il codice di Fulda. Storia et significato di un manoscritto della Volgata del secolo
VI. In: Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La Bibbia ‘Volgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio in­
ternazionale 1985. Rome (197 pp.), pp. 21–29.

1995. Philip B. Payne: Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5. New Testament
Studies 41: 240–262. – The scribe has written 1 Cor 14:34-35 (mulieres in ecclesiis taceant) on the
margin. This points to a textual issue – the passage was considered problematic. See also idem:
Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34-5. New
Testament Studies 63 (2017) 604–625.

2005. B.M. Metzger – Bart Ehrman: The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration. 4th edition. New York (xvi, 366 pp.), pp. 108, 131–133.

2010. Eric Scherbenske: The Vulgate Primum quaeritur, Codex Fuldensis, and the hermeneutical role of
early Christian introductory materials. Studia Patristica 54: 139–144. – (Primum quaeritur – these
are the first words of the Vulgate prologue to the Pauline epistles, used as the designation of
this text.)

2013. Eric W. Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Ox­
ford. xii, 383 pp. – Pages 175–232 (chapter 4): Codex Fuldensis and the Vulgate Revision of the
Corpus Paulinum. Page 229: “Variant readings drawn from those highly contested parts of the

60
 Pauline corpus (especially Romans 5–6) show numerous contacts with the Pelagian controversy.
Yet this controversy left no discernable traces on the text of Codex Fuldensis. (…) The Vulgate
alignment with Rufinus’ belief in humanity’s essential goodness in these verses is most likely a
happy coincidence. (…) there is no discernable stance for or against Pelagianism in Codex
Fuldensis.” ▲

Codex Lindisfarnensis
before 700. Codex Lindisfarnensis. Written shortly before 700 by Eadfrith (from 698 Bishop of Lindis ­
farne in Northumbria, England), the manuscript contains the text of the four Gospels; a literal
rendering into Anglo-Saxon is set between the Latin lines. It is in the British Library, London,
shelf number: Cotton Nero D.iv.

1871–1887. Walter W. Skeat (ed.): The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon (…) together with the Early Latin
Version as Contained in the Lindisfarne Ms. Cambridge. 4 vols. xi, 258 pp.; xxxii, 144 pp.; xii, 252
pp.; xx, 197 pp.

1956–1960. T.D. Kendrick et al (eds.): Evangeliorum Quatuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. Otun, 2 vols. –
Volume 1: facsimile (259 leaves), Volume 2: commentary (xxiv, 295, 176 pp.).

2002. The Lindisfarne Gospels. Lucerne. 3 vols., 1 folder. – The first volume offers the manuscript in fac­
simile (259 leaves), the other two volumes the commentary by Michelle P. Brown (333 pp. and
xvi, 32 plates, 647 pp.). The document folder has 16 pp.

Secondary literature
1981. Janet Backhouse: The Lindisfarne Gospels. Oxford. 96 pp. – A book of pictures with a text mainly
on the illuminations. Some illustrations of pages and parts of pages show the Latin text and the
Anglo-Saxon interlinear version.

2011. Michelle P. Brown: The Lindisfarne Gospels and the Early Medieval World. London. vi, 184 pp.

2017. Richard Marsden: The Texts of the Lindisfarne Gospels. In: Richard Gameson (ed.): The Lindis­
farne Gospels. New Perspectives. Leiden (xxix, 228 pp.), pp. 183–199. – Review: Catherine E.
Karkov, Speculum 94 (2019) 1154–1156.

2020. Matthew R. Crawford: Do the Eusebian tables represent the closure or the opening of the biblical
text? Considering the case of Codex Fuldensis. In: Alessandro Bausi et al. (eds.): Canones. The Art
of Harmony. The Canon Tables of the Four Gospels. Berlin (xi, 258 pp.), pp. 17–28. – The volume
can be consulted on the Internet, “open access.”

Codex Amiatinus
c. 700. The Codex Amiatus (or Amiatinus Florentinus I, or Amiatino I), created in the monasteries of St.
Paul of Jarrow and St. Peter of Wearmouth (England), closely linked by a common abbot, around
700 (perhaps finished in 703, according to Chazelle 2019, p. 21), contains as a “pandect” the en ­
tire Bible, Old and New Testaments, complete with the prologues of Jerome. In 1784, the manu ­
script was transferred from the Tuscan monastery of Monte Amiata to the Biblioteca Laurenzi­
ana in Florence, where it remains today. – For the text of some biblical writings – Wisdom, Sir­
ach, books of Maccabees – the codex is the most important Vulgate manuscript; so Robert
Weber 1969 in his Vulgate edition, see Robert Weber – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblica Sacra iuxta
Vulgatam Versionem. 5th edition, Stuttgart 2007, p. xiv. One page (fol. 538v) is illustrated in
Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge 2015 (xv, 320 pp.), p. 7. A de­

61
 tailed description of the manuscript and many facsimile pages can be found in Celia Chazelle’s
book of 2019. As Chazelle points out (2019, p. 134), the codex presents the book of Psalms in
Jerome’s translation iuxta hebraeos.

1850. Konstantin Tischendorf (ed.): Novum Testamentum Latine, interprete Hieronymo, ex celeberrimo
codice Amiatino. Leipzig. xlvi, 421 pp. – Provides only the text of the New Testament part of the
manuscript. A second edition was published in 1854.

1873. Theodor Heyse – Konstantin Tischendorf (eds.): Biblia Sacra Latina Veteris Testamenti, Hieronymo
interprete ex antiquissima auctoritate in stichos descripta. Leipzig. lxxi, 990 pp. – This critical edition
presents the text of the Clementina (of Vercelllone’s 1861 edition) and adds the readings found in
Codex Amiatinus. It caused a sensation because it made it possible for the first time to compare an
ancient Vulgate text with the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, see Wilhelm Nowack: Die Bedeu­
tung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik. Göttingen 1875. 55 pp.

1884. Paul de Lagarde: Die weisheiten der handschrift von Amiata. In: idem: Mittheilungen. [Band 1].
Göttingen (384 pp.), pp. 241–378. – Annotated edition of the text of Sirach and the book of Wis ­
dom.

2000. Luigi G.G. Ricci (ed.): La Bibbia Amiatina. The Codex Amiatinus. Riproduzione integrale su CD-
ROM del manoscritto. Florence. – The unwieldy, heavy codex (34 kg) is not suitable for the pro­
duction of a facsimile; hence the digital version.

Secondary literature
1890. Henry J. White: The Codex Amiatinus and Its Birthplace. In: In: Members of the University of Ox­
ford (eds.): Studia biblica et ecclesiastica. Volume 2. Oxford (352 pp.), pp. 273–308 (with an ap­
pendix by W. Sanday, pp. 309–324). – “(…) perhaps the finest book in the world” (p. 273). White
reports on, and supports, the suggestion put forth by the Italian epigrapher Giovanni Battista de
Rossi in 1886 that the codex was written around 700 in England, on the basis of texts that ori­
ginated in Italy.

1907. Josef Schmid: Zur Geschichte des Codex Amiatinus. Theologische Quartalschrift 89: 577–584.

1922. Angelo Mercati: Per la storia del Codice Amiatino. Biblica 3: 324–328. – The author points to doc­
umentary evidence for the fact that the monks of Monte Amiatino took great care not to lose
control over their precious manuscript.

1955. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Der Vulgata-Text des Neuen Testamentes. Zeitschrift für die neutesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 46 (1955) 178–196. – Page 193 note 41: “Der [Codex] Amiatinus hat si­
cherlich nicht durchaus einen einheitlichen Text. So ist sein Psalter ziemlich schlecht, von irischer
Herkunft. (…) Ebenso hat er in Tobias eine eigene Rezension, die mit Bedas Kommentar überein­
stimmt. (…) Ohne Zweifel ist auch im Neuen Testament der Paulustext nicht so gut wie in den
Evangelien, und in den katholischen Briefen ist ein lokaler Einfluß nicht zu verkennen. (…) Dane­
ben stehen die bekannten, oft diskutierten Beziehungen zu Cassiodor und seinen Bibel-Hand­
schriften. Auch ist der Text in anderen Teilen der Bibel wirklich gut.” – Reprinted in: Bonifatius Fi ­
scher OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. Freiburg 1986 (456 pp.), pp. 51–73.
Fisher emphasizes the fact that the texts included in the codex are of unequal quality.

1990. Pierre Petitmengin: Le “Codex amiatinus”. In: J.H. Martin – J. Vezin (eds.): Mise en page et mise en
texte du livre manuscrit. Paris (471 pp.), pp. 73–77.

1995. Richard Marsden: The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge (xix, ix, 506
pp.), pp. 107–139.

62
1998. Mary Carruthers: The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400–1200.
Cambridge. xvii, 399 pp. – The book contains a detailed discussion of the ground plan repres­
entation of the Mosaic Tent Sanctuary (plate 24 and pp. 234–237).

2000. Valentina Longo – Sabina Magiri – Marco Palma: Bibliografia della Bibbia Amatina (1990–1999).
Rome. 55 pp.

2003. Michael M. Gorman: The Codex Amiatinus. A Guide to the Legends and Bibliography. Studi me­
dievali. Serie terza 44: 863–910.

2011. Richard Marsden: Codex Amiatinus in Italy. The afterlife of an Anglo-Saxon book. In: Joanna E.
Story (ed.): Anglo-Saxon England and the Continent. Tempe, Ariz. (xix, 364 pp.), pp. 217–243. –
The codex was in Rome in 1587–1590, consulted for the Biblia Vulgata Sixto-Clementina.

2011. Giorgio Giurista: Atti degli Apostoli: le divisioni dei codici Vaticanus e Amiatinus. Liber Annuus
(Studium Franciscanum Biblicum) 61: 211–227.

2015. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: IV Esdras (2 Esdras, 4–5–6 Ezra) dans les bibles latines. Revue béné­
dictine 125: 266–304. – 4 Ezra does not figure in Codex Amiatinus though numerous Vulgate
manuscripts have it.

2017. Richard Gameson: Codex Amiatinus: Making and Meaning. Jarrow. 66 pp.

2016. Christopher de Hamel: Codex Amiatinus. In: idem: Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts. Lon­
don (v, 632 pp.), pp. 54–95. German translation: Pracht und Anmut. Begegnung mit zwölf her­
ausragenden Handschriften des Mittelalters. Munich (751 pp.), pp. 73–120 and pp. 674–677. –
Written by a major specialist, this is not a popular book. It includes a bibliographical essay
placed at the end of the volume. ▲

2017. Peter Darby: The Codex Amiatinus Maiestas Domini and the Gospel Prefaces of Jerome. Specu­
lum 92: 343–371.

2018. Manuel Ortuño Arregui: El Códex Amiatinus: el manuscrito más antiguo de la Vulgata. ArtyHum:
Revista Digital de Artes y Humanidades 49: 35–51.

2019. Celia Chazelle: The Codex Amiatinus and Its “Sister” Bibles. Scripture, Liturgy and Art in the Milieu
of the Venerable Bede. Leiden. xxviii, 634 pp. – A comprehensive cultural and historical mono­
graph. The book contains, among other things, a detailed codicological description (pp. 471-
481), an overview of modern research history (pp. 25–35), an analysis of Jerome’s prologues (pp.
141–148), a survey of textual form (pp. 151–157), and numerous illustrations. The starting point
is a Latin note about Abbot Ceolfrith (in office 681–716) in Beda Venerabilis, Historia abbatum:
the abbot “himself added three pandects [complete Bibles] to the one of the old translation
[Vetus Latina] that he had brought from Rome. When he returned to Rome as an old man, he
took one of these with him among other things as a gift. Two he left to each monastery.” The
Bibles left behind are lost, the Bible brought to Rome is preserved – the Codex Amiantinus. The
other Vulgate manuscripts organized by the same abbot, which have not been preserved, may
have served to replace the Vetus Latina (pp. 456-457). ▲

2019. Meg Boulton – Jane Hawkes (eds.): All Roads Lead to Rome. The Creation, Context and Transmis­
sion of the Codex Amiatinus. Turnhout. xix, 179, 20 (plates) pp. – See esp. pp. 77–87: H.A.G.
Houghton, The Text of the Gospels in the Codex Amiatinus. Review: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert
OSB, Revue bénédictine 131 (2021) 454–457.

2019. Richard Gameson: The Colophon of Codex Amiatinus. In: Ursula Lenker – Lucia Kornexl (eds.):
Anglo-Saxon Micro-Texts. Berlin (viii, 377 pp.), pp. 89–116.

63
2019. Peter Darby: The Presentation of Jerome’s First Letter to Paulinus of Nola in the Codex Amiatinus
Pentateuch Diagram. Peritia 30: 59–87. – A diagram in the first quire of the Codex Amiatinus fea­
tures five textual captions arranged in cruciform formation, one for each book of the
Pentateuch. These are taken from Jerome’s first letter to Paulinus of Nola (Epistle 53; CSEL 54:
442–465) which was written in 394 CE. Darby suggests that the Pentateuch diagram should be
regarded as a highly original piece of visual exegesis designed to celebrate the contribution
made by Jerome to the transmission of the Latin Bible and point the viewer towards typological
interpretations of Old Testament figures and events.

Codex Amiatinus and Cassiodorus

1883. Peter Corssen: Die Bibeln des Cassiodorus und der Codex Amiatinus. Jahrbücher für protestanti­
sche Theologie 9: 619–633.

1890. Henry J. White: The Codex Amiatinus and Its Birthplace. In: In: Members of the University of Ox­
ford (eds.): Studia biblica et ecclesiastica. Volume 2. Oxford (352 pp.), pp. 273–308. – The first
four leaves of the codex were transcribed from, or physically taken out of, Cassidorus’ Codex
Grandior.

1895. Pierre Batiffol: Amiatinus (Codex). In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 1.1.
Paris. (lxiv pp. 1018 cols.), cols. 480–483. – Column 482: “On peut considérer comme acquis: 1°
que le Codex Amiatinus est absolument indépendant de Cassiodore, et 2° que le prologue sur
les divisions de la Bible, qui remplit les premiers feuillets de l’Amiatinus, est d’origine cassiodo­
rienne, mais n’a pas été fait pour l’Amiatinus.” The article is accompanied by a facsimile of one
page of the manuscript.

1908. John Chapman OSB: Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate. Oxford. xi, 299 pp. – In chapter 3,
Chapman seeks an explanation for the high quality of the Latin text of the Gospels in Codex
Amiatinus. This text may via Cassiodorus and Eugipius go back to Jerome himself. In 558, Cassi­
odorus used a gospel manuscript that had belonged to Eugipius and which was presumably
sent to Rome by none other than Jerome himself.

1926–28. John Chapman OSB: The Codex Amiatinus and Cassidorus. Revue bénédictine 38 (1926) 139–
150; 39 (1927) 12–32; 40 (1928) 130–134.

1927. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Cassiodore et l’Amiatinus. Revue bénédictine 39: 261–266.

1962. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Codex Amiatinus und Cassiodor. Biblische Zeitschrift 6: 57–79.

1996. Paul Meyvaert: Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus. Speculum 71: 827–883. Also in:
idem: The Art of Words. Bede and Theodulf. Aldershot 2008, part V. – This paper’s section 9 deals
with an illustration – the Ezra image in Codex Amiatinus (that seems to go back to a miniature
that actually meant to depict Cassiodorus). On the image of Ezra, see now: Celia Chazelle: The
Codex Amiatinus and Its “Sister” Bibles. Scripture, Liturgy and Art in the Milieu of the Venerable
Bede. Leiden (xxviii, 634 pp.), pp. 402–413.

2013. Michelle P. Brown: Images to Be Read and Words to be Seen: The Iconic Role of the Early Medi ­
eval Book. In: James W. Watts (ed.): Iconic Books and Texts. Sheffield (vi, 463 pp.), pp. 93–118. –
The author comments on the famous frontispiece of the codex: “The scribal figure depicted in
the codex Amiatinus does not only represent Ezra, but also Cassiodorus (whose own nine-
volume biblical edition is alluded to in the illumination by the books in the armarium which are
actually labeled on the spines as the works of successive biblical editors, such as Origen and Au ­
gustine), and Bede and his scribal brethren themselves, for he is everyone who receives and dis­
seminates scripture” (p. 104).

64
St. Cuthbert Gospel
c. 710/30. Manuscript of the Gospel of John. Like the Codex Amiatinus, it was made in England, prob ­
ably in the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow. The parchment manuscript is small in size,
the text is written in single columns. The text is considered a good Vulgate text. Since 1979 in
the British Library, shelfmark: Additional MS 89000.

Secondary literature
2015. Claire Breay – Bernard Meehan (eds.): The St Cuthbert Gospel. Studies on the Insular Manuscript of
the Gospel of John. London. xiii, 207 pp. – Richard Gameson provides a description of the manu­
script (pp. 13–39) as well as text collations in comparison with the texts of Codex Amiatinus, Co ­
dex Lindisfarnensis (pp. 175–176), and the standard edition of the Vulgate by Robert Weber
1983 (pp. 171–174).

Codex Petropolitanus
before 800. Gospel manuscript from England, made in the late 8th century. Today in the Russian Na­
tional Library St. Petersburg, shelfmark: Lat. F.v.I.8. Considered an important witness to the text
of Mark in the Vulgate. – Not to be confused with the Greek “Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus”:
H.S. Cronin (ed.): Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus. The Text of Codex N of the Gospels Edited (…).
Cambridge 1899. lxiv, 108 pp.

Secondary literature
2000. René Kockelkorn: Evangeliorum Quattuor Codex Petropolitanus (Lat. F.v.I.N 8). Das hiberno-säch­
sische Evangeliar in der Russischen Nationalbibliothek von St. Petersburg. Luxemburg. 20 pp., il­
lustrations.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 215–216: description of the manuscript.

Codex Sangermanensis primus

810. This “Bible of Saint-Germain-des-Prés” is now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris as “manuscrit
lat. 11553.” Its 191 leaves contain parts of the Old Testament (Paralipomena, Ezra, Esther, Pro ­
verbia, Sapientia Salomonis, Sirach) and the complete New Testament. This codex has two colo ­
phons that refer to Jerome, one attached to the book of Esther and concluding the Old Testa ­
ment, and one attached to the Epistle to the Hebrews and ending the New Testament. For a
translation of these two colophons, see below, Chapter 14.2 The invention of the Vulgate. – This
manuscript’s text of the gospel of Matthew is not that of the Vulgate, but that of the Vetus Lat ­
ina; see above, Chapter 7.1.

Secondary literature
1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Page 289: The Codex San­
germanensis reveals an initiative to put together Jerome’s translations. This is evidenced by two
colophons – one attached to the book of Esther and a second one placed at the end of the Let ­
ter to the Hebrews. These colophons point back to the 7th century, perhaps even (according to
Boniface Fischer) to the 5th century.

65
2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford (xix, 366 pp.), p. 87–88 and pp. 213–214. – Page 87: “Several of the Old Testament
books are Old Latin, as is Matthew. (…) There are a few Old Latin readings in the other Synoptic
Gospels, but in the rest of the New Testament, the manuscript is the best witness to the Vul ­
gate.” – Page 213: “This manuscript goes back to a pandect [complete Bible] assembled in the
fifth century, probably in Rome.”

Codex Sangallensis (interlinearis) 48

850. Bilingual parchment manuscript from the 9th century, Greek text of the four Gospels with in ­
terlinear Vulgate text. The codex comes from Bobbio, Italy, and is now in the Abbey Library
of St. Gall. The manuscript can be viewed online, linked to a description of the manuscript
(e-codices.unifr.ch).

1836. H.C.M. Rettig (ed.): Antiquissimus quatuor evangeliorum canonicorum Codex Sangallensis Graeco-
Latinus interlinearis. Zürich. vi, liv, 429 pp.

Secondary literature
1891. Hermann Rönsch: Zur biblischen Latinität aus dem cod. Sangallensis der Evangelien. In: idem:
Collectanea philologa. Edited by Carl Wegener. Bremen (vi, 325 pp.), pp. 89–95.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 224–225: brief description of the manuscript.

2020. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin Text of John in the Saint Gall Bilingual Gospels (Codex Sangallen­
sis 48). In: H.A.G. Houghton – Peter Montoro (eds.): At One Remove: The Text of the New Testa­
ment in Early Translations and Quotations. Piscataway, N.J. (xxiii, 337 pp.), pp. 149–172.

Codex biblicus Legionensis (Spain)

960. On this manuscript, see below, Chapter 14.4.

The Paris Bible

13th century. On the relevant manuscripts, see below, Chapter 14.4.

7.3 Reference works and introductions

English
1901. Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London. xi, 321 pp.
– Pages 171–179 list the major Vetus Latina manuscripts, pp. 193–201 surveys major Vulgate
manuscripts.

1914. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Summaries, Divisions and Rubrics of the Latin Bible. Turnhout 2014.
xxxi, 601 pp. – Reprint of a work originally published in 1914, with a preface by Pierre-Maurice
Bogaert OSB and Thomas O’Loughlin. Review: H.A.G. Houghton, Journal of Theological Studies ns
67 (2016) 766–768.

66
1977. Bruce M. Metzger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford. xix, 498 pp. – Pages 293–
319: Manuscripts of the Old Latin Versions; pp. 334–348: Noteworthy Manuscripts of the Vul­
gate. See also the shorter version of this chapter in: Bruce M. Metzger – Bart D. Ehrmann: The
Text of the New Testament. Fourth Edition. Oxford 2005 (xvi, 366 pp.), pp. 106–109. ▲

1992. J.K. Elliott: The Translations of the New Testament into Latin: The Old Latin and the Vulgate. In:
Wolfgang Haase – Hildegard Temporini (eds.): Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt.
Band II.26.1. Berlin (xxv, 812 pp.), pp. 198–245. – Pages 224–232: Vulgate manuscripts of the
New Testament; pp. 238–245 (as appendix): manuscripts of the Old Testament.

1994. Patrick McGurk: The Oldest Manuscripts of the Latin Bible. In: Richard Gameson (ed.): The Early
Medieval Bible. Its Production, Decoration and Use. Cambridge (xiv, 242 pp.), pp. 1–23.

1995. J. Harold Greenlee: Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Revised Edition. Peabody,
Mass. xiii, 160 pp. – Page 39: “No less than 8000 MSS [manuscripts] of the Vulgate are now
known, or many more than all known Greek New Testament manuscripts. This suggests that the
Vulgate Bible was the most frequently copied book of all ancient literature.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 187–281: Annotated list of Vulgate manuscripts. The book is
now supplemented by: H.A.G. Houghton et al.: The Principal Pauline Epistles. A Collation of Old
Latin Witnesses. Leiden 201. xi, 442 pp. ▲

2016–2020. Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Leiden. 6 vols., called vols. 1A (xlv, 448 pp.),
1B (xxxii, 730 pp.), 1C (xxxiv, 770 pp.) = “The Hebrew Bible”; 2A (xxxix, 497 pp.), 2B (xxxiii, 542
pp.), 2C (xxxii, 572 pp.) = “Deuterocanonical Scriptures”. – By the time of the present book’s
compilation, another set of 4 volumes of the Textual History of the Bible, called vols. 3A, 3B, 3C,
and 3D = “A Companion to Textual Criticism,” was available only oneline, and not in print, but
announced for publication in 2023. The huge volumes of the “THB” set offer articles on the tex­
tual history of the individual books of the Old Testament and the deuterocanonical writings. The
New Testament does not form part of this encyclopedia of the textual study of the Bible. As
general introductions to the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate, respectively, serve the contributions
of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Vetus Latina, volume 1A, pp. 319–330, and Michael Graves: Vulgate,
volume 1A, pp. 278–288. ▲

2020. Teunis van Lopik: On the Earliest Printed Editions of the Vulgate with a Text-Critical Apparatus.
In: H.A.G. Houghton – Peter Montoro (eds.): At One Remove: The Text of the New Testament in
Early Translations and Quotations. Piscataway, N.J. (xxiii, 337 pp.), pp. 211–238. – The very first
Latin Bible with a critical apparatus printed in the margin and listing variant readings was edited
by Alberto Castellano OP. Its title is: Biblia cum concordantijs veteris et novi testamenti. Venice
1511, 4 volumes.

2022. Andrew J.M. Irving: Latin Manuscripts Containing the Gospels, 300–c. 800 CE: VA Material Ap ­
proach. In: Harald Buchinger – Clemens Leonhard (eds.): Liturgische Bibelrezeption. Göttingen
(514 pp.), pp. 213–261. – The author explains in much detail how the early manuscripts actually
look like – size, original cover, original binding, from of script used, etc. Page 238: “The earliest
Western book of any kind that survives intact with its original cover is the St Cuthbert Gospel,
which was produced in Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in the early eighth century.” The author lists
207 manuscripts, of which three are from the fourth century; the oldest item is Codex Bobiensis
(Turin, Italy). ▲

2023. David Ganz: Early Manuscripts of the Latin Bible. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook
of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 106–120. – The author surveys the surviving ma­

67
 nuscripts of the Latin Bible copied before 800 CE, along with the evidence for their production,
correction, and use. Additional material, prefaces, canon tables, chapter lists, and illustrations are
discussed. Topics include the size and format of the books, such as luxury copies on purple
parchment, the scripts used to copy them, the liturgical annotations showing when particular
passages were read, and the presence of glosses to the biblical text. Insular Gospel Books and
Carolingian pandects receive special treatment.

2023. H.A.G. Houghton: Latin in Multilingual Biblical Manuscripts. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 152–168. – The author provides a typo­
logy of bilingual manuscripts, along with tables of multilingual codices of the New Testament
and the Psalter in which a Latin text is present. The earliest Greek-Latin documents include a pa­
pyrus fragment and majuscule codices such as Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus. These
are roughly contemporary with the Latin-Gothic bilingual tradition. Important evidence for Old
English is provided in the oldest interlinear translations, and interlinear psalters were popular in
England from the tenth to the twelfth century. Other psalters include a transliterated Greek text.
Greek-Latin bilinguals with an emphasis on language study were copied in the ninth and tenth
centuries. Later multilingual manuscripts (including Greek-Latin-Arabic trilinguals) reflect the
political and cultural situation in which they were produced.

German
1955. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn. viii,
236 pp. – This is the second edition of a book originally entitled Handbuch der neutestamentli­
chen Textkritik. Münster 1923. ix, 255 pp. This is one of the rare introductions to New Testament
textual criticism ever written. Both editions, hard to come by, are still valuable. In the 1955 edi­
tion, pp. 107–110 provide a list of the major Vulgate manuscripts. ▲

1957. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Die altlateinische Bibel. Bonn. 31 pp.

1975. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Zur Überlieferung altlateinischer Bibeltexte im Mittelalter. In: idem: Latei­
nische Bibelhandschriften im frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg 1985 (454 pp., 10 Blätter), pp. 404–421.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Handschriften der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 160–162. – An elementary in­
troduction.

French
1908. Lucien Méchineau SJ: Latins (versions) antérieurs à S. Jérôme. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dic­
tionnaire de la Bible. Tome 4.1. Paris (1058 cols.), cols. 97–123. – Colonnes 102–111: list of Vetus
Latina manuscripts arranged by the biblical books from the Pentateuch to the book of Revela ­
tion.

1985. Pierre Petitmengin: Les plus anciennes manuscrits de la Bible latine. In: Jacques Fontaine –
Charles Pietri (eds.): Le monde latin antique et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps. Paris (672 pp.),
pp. 89–117.

1987. Roger Gryson – Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB (eds.): Recherches sur l’histoire de la Bible latine. Ca­
hiers de la Revue théologique de Louvain 19. Leuven. 153 pp.

Italian
2005. Paolo Cherubini (ed.): Forme e modelli della tradizione manoscritta della bibbia. Città del Vatica­
no. xv, 562, 39 pp. – A publication of the “Scuola di Palegrafia, Diplomatica e Archivistica.”

68
7.4 Collections of Variant Readings
Note. Why should variant readings be of interest? Because Vulgate manuscripts are often influenced
by the dogmatic views of the scribes. “La dogmatique elle-même a sans doute une grande part de res­
ponsabilité dans la corruption de la Bible latine. Les altérations dogmatiques, en effet, ne sont pas
rares dans le texte de la Vulgate (…) C’est la foie en la divinité de Jésus-Christ qui s’exprime en un
grand nombre de falsifications de détail, toujours au détriment de son humanité.” Samuel Berger: His­
toire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris 1893 x(xiv, 443 pp.), p. viii.

There are two older, still useful (though not always reliable) collections of variant readings, based on
manuscripts and printed editions, one compiled in the sixteenth century for Pope Sixtus V by a com­
mission headed by Cardinal Antonio Carafa (or Caraffa, 1538–1591) and printed only in 1740, and the
other prepared by Carlo Giuseppe Vercellone (1814–1869) in the nineteenth century.

The variants collected by the Carafa Commission

1846. Codicum divinae bibliothece variantes lectiones. PL 29: 879–1096. – With a historical introduction
PL 29: 875–878. The variants collection is reprinted from the first printed edition in Josephus
Blanchius (Giuseppe Bianchini): Vindiciae canonicarum scripturarum Vulgatae Latinae editionis.
Rome 1740.

1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg 1913 (xv, 339 pp.), pp. 240–277: Tabelle der sixtinischen
Revision [of the book of Proverbs]. This comprehensive table of all the material, printed and un­
printed, that was used by the commission that prepared the Sixtine edition (1590), together with
the wording of the Sixtina.

Secondary literature
1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg 1913. xv, 339 pp. – Page 138–140: “Die Vulgatarevision
der Sixtinischen Kommission muss als eine vorzügliche Arbeit bezeichnet werden; namentlich im
Neuen Testament wurde durch das Zurückgehen auf alte gute Handschriften eine größere Kon­
formität mit dem griechischen Originaltext erzielt. Es kann deshalb nur bedauert werden, daß
das verdienstvolle Werk nicht zu Zustimmung des Papstes fand.”

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), pp. 170–180, 182–183.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Ein Handbuch für Vorlesungen und Selbst­
unterricht. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 182–186.

The “Vercellone”: Old Testament variant readings

1860, 1864. Carlo [Giuseppe] Vercellone: Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum Editionis. Rome. 2
volumes. cxii, 592 pp.; xxviii, 651 pp. – The work collects variants from prints and manuscripts,
from Genesis to the books of Kings. The author died in 1869, and his work was not continued.
Still worth consulting.

69
Secondary literature
1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80, at pp. 52–53.

1912. The entry on “Vercellone” in Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
1928 (cols. 1383–2550), col. 2396 refers to “les prolegomènes remarquables de ses Variae lec­
tiones.”

1987. Virginio Colciago: I barnabiti Luigi Ungarelli e Carlo Vercellone e la revisione della Volgata. In:
Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La Bibbia ‘Volgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio interna­
zionale 1985. Rome (197 pp.), pp. 118–136.

7.5 Fischer’s “Varianten”: New Testament manuscripts

statistically compared
Note. – It was not until the 1990s that computers became a tool regularly used in biblical studies. As
his 1970 article shows, Bonifatius Fischer, a Benedictine monk of the abbey of Beuron, Germany, was a
pioneer in using computers. Fischer also edited a computer-generated concordance published in five
huge volumes (see below, Chapter 8.2).

1970. Bonifatius Fischer: The Use of Computers in New Testament Studies, with Special Reference to
Textual Criticism. Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970) 297–308.

1988–1991. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Freiburg. 4
vols. 48*, 496 pp.; 48*, 555 pp.; 48*, 580 pp.; 48*, 569 pp. – Each volume deals with a different
Gospel: vol. 1 – variants on Matthew (1988); vol. 2 – variants on Mark (1989); vol. 3 – variants on
Luke (1990); vol. 4 – variants on John (1991). The work collates the text of 16 longer sections of
462 Latin Gospel manuscripts. The work is intended to help decide for each manuscript whether
it is a Vulgate text (in the sense of the Stuttgart edition of Weber/Gryson), a Vetus Latina text, or
a mixed text. As Fischer explains in the 2010 essay listed below, the Beuron Vetus-Latina Insti ­
tute has a computer program that allows any Gospel manuscript to be compared with any other.

2010. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Zwei Untersuchun­
gen zum Text. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 101: 119–144. – An important
addition to the four volumes of 1988–1991, Fischer provides a list showing the percent agree­
ment or difference between the 462 manuscripts he evaluated.

Assessments
1990–1992. J.K. Elliott [reviews of Fischer: Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert]. Journal
of Theological Studies NS 41 (1990) 637–640; 42 (1991) 281–282, 663–664; 43 (1992) 633–635. –
“(…) these volumes (…) contain much of abiding help and significance in their apparatus” (43:
635).

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. –
Page 9, note 8: “The most thorough collection of Latin gospel readings is Fischer (1989). How­
ever, with an average of four Latin words per page it cannot well be read as a continuous text.”
(Apart from the fact that Fischer presents a selection of Gospel texts, not complete Gospels.)

70
2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford (xix, 366 pp.), pp. 124–125. – Houghton explains how Fischer compares Latin Gos­
pel manuscripts.

71
Chapter 8
Biblical Latin
Note. – This chapter is supplemented by another one: the Latin glossary that forms Chapter 19 of the
present book.

8.1 Manuals and surveys of biblical Latin

8.2 Vulgate concordances

8.3 Dictionaries of biblical Latin

8.4 Studies of biblical lexicography

8.5 Latin names, words, and Latinisms in the Greek New Testament

8.6 Grammatical and linguistic studies of biblical Latin

8.7 Bibliographical glossary of grammatical and stylistic terms

8.8 Biblical Latin: Vulgar Latin – Late Latin

8.9 Christian Latin

8.1 Manuals and surveys of biblical Latin

Note. – There are several helpful surveys of biblical Latin, though none is very new. In German, Rönsch
(1875) and Kaulen (1904) are still indispensable, as is Plater & White in English (1926), Blaise in French
(1955, with English translation of 1994), and García de la Fuente – the most recent one (1994) – in
Spanish. See also above, Chapter 2.3, for repeated complaints about the absence of a recent mono­
graph on biblical Latin.

English
1922. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. Cambridge. xiii, 162 pp. – A reference
work, not a student textbook. Considered particularly useful from its 2nd, corrected edition 1927
(xv, 162 pp.). Reprinted several times, most recently in 2013.

1926. William Edward Plater – Henry Julian White: A Grammar of the Vulgate. Being an Introduction to
the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Oxford. viii, 167 pp. – The book is intended for
readers who have learned classical Latin and have a good command of it. Included are indexes –
an index of Latin words (pp. 143–151) and an index of Bible passages (pp. 151–166). Reviews:
1927. Alexander Souter, The Classical Review 41: 87–88, p. 88: “The present work is indisputably superior to
Kaulen [Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. 1904], being more intelligent, accurate, and up to
date.”

72
 1927. P.D., Revue biblique 36.2: 312–313, p. 312: “Le manuel (…) est remarquable par sa concision et sa sobriété.
(…) On goûtera particulièrement, dans la nouvelle grammaire, les deux chapitres consacrés aux éléments
étrangers, hébreu et grec, surtout dans la syntaxe.”

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachge­
schichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), pp. 289–301, at pp. 289–290. Souter’s assessment is not
shared by all specialists; according to Löfstedt, the Plater/White Grammar of the Vulgate is not only de­
pendent upon Kaulen’s German work of 1904, but actually inferior to it, and marred by mistakes. ▲

1988. Benjamin Kedar: The Latin Translations. In: Martin Jan Mulder (ed.): Mikra. Text, Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Assen
und Philadelphia (xxvi, 929 pp.), pp. 299–338. – Pages 313–335: Jerome and the Vulgate.

1994. Albert Blaise: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Translated by Grant
C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp. – From the French, 1955. ▲

1996. Daniel J. Sheerin: Christian and Biblical Latin. In: Frank A.C. Mantello – A.G. Rigg (eds.): Medieval
Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C. (xiv, 774 pp.), pp. 137–156. –
Pages 143–145: Lists of special Christian vocabulary, words given special meaning in the Bible
and Christianity, and syntactical peculiarities of the Vulgate; pp. 150–156: annotated biblio­
graphy. Despite its brevity a most valuable introduction to biblical Latin.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. – The
first part of this book studies the textual history of the Old Latin Gospel texts, while the second
and third parts (pp. 75–191) focus on its latinity with attention to extensions of meaning, literal ­
ism, morphology, syntax, foreign words, etc.

2009, 2010, 2011. Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax.
Volumes 1–4. Berlin. Vol. 1 (2009) xii, 561 pp.: Syntax of the sentence; vol. 2 (2010) xx, 556 pp.:
Constituent syntax: adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense; vol. 3 (2010) xxi, 529 pp.: Constitu­
ent syntax: quantification, numerals, possessions, anaphora; vol. 4 (2011) xxiii, 925 pp.: Complex
sentences, grammaticalization, typology. – This monumental work is the outcome of the com­
bined effort of an American and an Italian editor. It represents the state of what we know about
Latin syntax. The many contributors to this collective work consistently consider the vast corpus
of Early Latin (c. 240–90 BCE), Classical Latin of the golden age of latinity (90 BCE–14 CE), Post­
classical Latin (14–200 CE), and Late Latin (200–600 CE). Some of the contributors consider Vetus
Latina and Vulgate Bible passages when it comes to studying Late Latin. The biblical passages
discussed are listed in the index of volume 1 under the names of the individual biblical books
such as Ezech. and gen. (for Genesis), in volumes 2, 3, and 4 more sensibly under “Vet. Lat.” and
“Vulg.,” so that the work can be used as an up-to-date linguistic commentary on the Latin Bible.
▲

2015, 2021. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I: The Simple Clause; Volume II: The Com­
plex Sentence and Discourse. Oxford. xxiv, 1430 pp.; xxxii, 1438 pp. – This most authoritative
manual of Latin syntax is based on texts from 200 BCE to c. 450 CE (vol. I, p. 6). Volume II in ­
cludes a cumulative index of sources quoted; biblical references are listed under “Vetus Latina”
(p. 1353, 16 entries) and “Vulgate” (pp. 1354–1355, 19 entries). ▲

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428. – The linguistic form of Latin biblic­
al texts is strongly conditioned by its Greek models, and exhibits post-classical and sub-literary
traits. It became an important component of the crystallization of Christian Latinity in Late An­
tiquity, was crucial in ecclesiastical life throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to wield
great influence into the Modern era. This chapter considers the technical aspects of Latin biblical
language: the borrowing of Greek and Hebrew words; the creation of semantic calques and oth­

73
 er coinages; the addition of nuances to existing Latin words. Many peculiarities of grammar,
morphology, and syntax may be traced to the Latin Bible, especially the Vetus Latina; such de­
velopments are frequently reflected in Romance languages. Certain constructions, mostly of
Hebrew origin, gave rise to a ‘biblical style,’ which was deliberately deployed by certain writers.
The failure of humanist attempts to classicize the Latin Bible show how deeply its language had
become embedded in Christian discourse.

German
1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholi­
schen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Marburg. xvi, 526
pp. – The 1st edition was published in 1869 (xvi, 509 pp.); reprints of the 2nd edition: Munich
1965 and Hildesheim 1979. This book remains the basic work of modern research on early-
Christian Latin, including the language of the Vulgate. Pages 305-405: a list of words with special
meanings, arranged by types of words (nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, etc.). The author often
highlights the vocabulary of the books Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Sapientia Salomonis (Book of
Wisdom), both rich in words not used, or rarely used, in Jerome’s Vulgate texts. – Reviews:
1870. Moritz Aberle: Das biblische Latein. Theologisches Literaturblatt [Bonn] 5: 321–326. This work will remain
“ein unentbehrliches Hilfsmittel,” an indispensable research tool, for many years to come (col. 323).

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil. Lund (xiii,
492 pp.), p. 461: “Rönschs grundgelehrte Arbeit (…) war für die damalige Zeit eine ausgezeichnete Leistung
und ist als Stoffsammlung heute noch unentbehrlich; aber die Darstellung ist fast ausschließlich registrie­
rend lexikalisch, die sprachliche Auffassung veraltet und das kritische Fundament manchmal zu schwach.”

1992. René Braun: Approches de Tertullien. Paris 1992 (vi, 345 pp.), p. 255: this work is now largely outdated (au ­
jourd’hui largement périmé). ▲

1904. Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. Eine systematische Darstellung ihres
lateinischen Sprachcharakters. 2nd edition. Freiburg 1904. xvi, 332 pp.; reprints Hildesheim 1973
und 2013. – The 1st edition, a book of smaller size, was published in 1870 as Handbuch zur Vul­
gata. Eine systematische Darstellung ihres Sprachcharakters. Mainz. xii, 277 pp. – Kaulen (1827–
1907, Catholic Old Testament scholar in Bonn) highlights the Hebraisms of the Vulgate and ad­
vocates rendering them according to their sense, avoiding an awkward-sounding style (p. 254:
Ps 110:2 [Vg 109:2] virga virtutis tuae = dein mächtiges Zepter, not: Zepter deiner Macht; your
powerful sceptre, rather than: the sceptre of your power). The manual is indispensable to this
day, not least because of its extensive lexical lists. – Reviews:
1871. Peter Johann Schegg: Die Vulgata. Theologisches Literaturblatt 6.1 (1871) cols. 1–4. While the reviewer ap­
preciates that fact that the latinity of the Vulgate gets scholarly attention, he is critical of Kaulen’s work.
Kaulen, he argues, often misunderstands the Vulgate because he does not sufficiently take into account
that it is a translation. Schegg (col. 4) does not agree with Kaulen’s idea that desponsare in Luke 1:27 (and
Matt 1:18) means “vermählen” (to marry). For Schegg, Mary and Josef were “engaged” rather than properly
married. The relevant passage is in Kaulen’s book on p. 177 (1870 edition); in the second edition, the pas ­
sage is unchanged (p. 207).

1904. Augustinus Bludau, Theologische Revue 4.9: 262–263. “Das im J. 1870 erschienen Handbuch zur Vulgata
ewar für seine Zeit eine ganz vortreffliche Arbeit. Die neue Auflage ist um 3 Bogen starker als die erste, was
jedoch zum größten Teil auf den weitläufigeren Druck zurückzuführen ist. Durch eine Vermehrung des In­
haltes und durch eindringlichere Untersuchungen unsere Kenntnisse zu bereichern, hat offenbar nicht in
der Absicht des Verf. gelegen. Selbst in dem Literaturverzeichnis S. 7f. findet sich als jüngste Jahreszahl
1874, und doch ist seit dieser Zeit die Tätigkeit der Gelehrten auf diesem Gebiet eine recht fruchtbare ge­
wesen” (col. 262).

1906. Eugen Stolz, Theologische Quartalschrift 88: 309.

74
 1906. Johannes Leipoldt, Theologisches Literaturblatt 27: 389–391.

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata übersetzt und nach dem Literalsinn erklärt. 2. Auflage. Freiburg
(xxxv, 484 pp.), p. xxxiii: “ein zum Studium der Vulgata unentbehrliches Buch.” ▲

1996–2004. Peter Stotz: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Handbuch der Altertums­
wissenschaft. München. 5 vols. – Volume 1 (xxxi, 723 pp.), pp. 519–551: Griechische Lehnwörter
im christlichen Latein der Antike. Volume 2 (xxvi, 482 pp.), pp. 6–32: Christliche Sonderbedeu ­
tungen. – The author died in 2020. ▲

French
1884. Henri Goelzer: Étude lexicographique de saint Jérôme. Paris. xii, 472 pp. – Pages 227ff.: change­
ments de signification. – Reviews:
1884. Gustav Koffmane, Theologische Literaturzeitung 9: 361.

1982. Bengt Löfstedt: Hieronymus’ Kommentare zu den kleinen Propheten. Acta classica 25: 119–126, at p. 126:
“Dies ist immer noch die beste Darstellung von Hieronymus’ Sprachgebrauch und enthält viel wertvolles
Material und interessante Beobachtungen. Andrerseits ist diese Arbeit (ebenso wie die anderen Monogra­
phien Goelzers) etwas mechanisch gemacht und in vieler Hinsicht überholt. Nicht nur der Fortschritt der
spätlateinischen Forschungen macht es ein Leichtes, Mehreres in Goelzers Darstellung zu korrigieren. (…)
Hoffentlich wird sich jemand der Aufgabe annehmen, uns einen Ersatz für Goelzers Hieronymus-Monogra­
phie zu schenken.”

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg. 221 pp. – The reprint (Turnhout 1986. 209
pp.) is identical; only the bibliography (pp. 207–217 of the 1955 edition) is omitted. Translation:
A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Translated by Grant C. Roti. Wash­
ington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp. – While the book deals essentially with the Latin of the Church
Fathers – Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, etc. – it also often cites examples from the Vul­
gate. In paragraphs 41 to 45 (pp. 52–66 of the French edition), Blaise comments on the spirit of
Christian Latin under the titles “L’amour mystique” and “L’amour des hommes, la charité hu­
maine,” arguing that at the level of grammar, there are hardly any difference between pagan
and Christian Latin; but at the level of vocabulary and style, there are numerous ones, because
Christians, inspired by their unique sense of community, used a new language of love. Blaise
refers to this language as “le language affectif” (p. 52) and “ce latin baptisé” (p. 66). This chapter
reads like an addition to Chateaubriand’s Génie du Christianisme (1802), the famous romantic
apology of Christianity. Blaise’s inspiration comes no doubt from Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur
le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), p. 8; see the glossary, s.v.
con-, com- (Chapter 19.2). – Reviews:
1958. Eligius Dekkers, Theologische Literaturzeitung 83.6: 436–437. In § 205, dabitur ei de auro Arabiae (Ps 72:15;
Vg. 71:15) is not explained correctly. “Das Büchlein stellt keine wissenschaftlichen Ansprüche” (col. 437).

1996. Daniel Sheering, in: F.A.C. Mantello – A.G. Rigg (eds.): Medieval Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical
Guide. Washington 1996 (xiv, 774 pp.), p. 151: “This guide is dated and less complete and scientific than
one would wish, but still very useful; Blaise’s notes on the style and affective qualities of Christian Latin (pp.
17–66) deserve reading.”

1997. Michael Gleason, Classical World 90 (1997) 378–379. ▲

Spanish
1990. Olegario García de la Fuente: Introducción al latín bíblico y cristiano. Madrid. xx, 482 pp. There is
an enlarged second edition with modified title: Latín bíblico y latín cristiano. Madrid 1994. 588
pp. – Pages 81–144 (2nd ed., pp. 83–316) deal with biblical Latin; the rest of the book is about
the Latin of early-Christian authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine. The book has a

75
 long index of words on pp. 443–458 (2nd edn., pp. 527–565). This author also edited an antho­
logy of Christian texts in Latin: Antologia del latín bíblico y cristiano. Malaga 1994. 448 pp. Char­
acteristic of García de la Fuente’s approach is the rigorous separation of Biblical Latin from
Christian Latin; according to Burton, it would be better to consider Biblical Latin as a subset of a
wider Christian Latin; see Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels. Oxford 2000 (x, 232 pp.), p. 154,
note 10.

2009. Rafael Jiménez Zamudio: Versiones latinas del Libro de Rut. Una introducción al latín bíblico. Ma­
drid. 628 pp.

Italian
1975. Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo: Il latino delle antiche versioni bibliche. Rome. 130 pp. – The author offers a
brief general introduction to ancient translations of biblical texts into Greek and Latin, and, in
part 2, an analysis of selected texts of which original Hebrew and Greek texts are synoptically
presented with their ancient translations, including the Vetus Latina. Among the texts are Genes­
is 2:7, 15–18, 21–25; Ps 8; Song 1:15–17; 2: 1–3; 8:6–7; Matt 6:9–12; 14:3–42. All of these texts
(and some others) are linguistically annotated.

8.2 Vulgate concordances

Note. – A concordance is a list, alphabetically arranged, of all the words found in a text. Although
today one can use online Latin Bibles to find a text or work out statistics, older printed concordances
are still very helpful and indeed indispensable. This is especially true of the Dutripon concordance
(which is a concordance of the Clementina) and the one established by Bonifatius Fischer (which is a
concordance of the reconstructed Latin Bible of Jerome).

Several electronic editions of the Vulgate Bible exist, and all of them can be searched. A particularly
helpful one is available online in the Intratext Digital Library, based in Italy; it can be found on the web­
site www.intratext.com (Hieronymi Vulgata. Hieronymiana versio. I IntraText Edition CT. Copyright Èu­
logos 2007).

Concordances of the entire Bible

1239. Hugh of Saint-Cher OP: Concordantia Bibliae. – This was the first Vulgate concordance. Compiled
with the help of many monks, printed editions appeared in the 17th and 18th centuries in Mainz,
Vienna and Venice; for example: Sacrorum Bibliorum vulgatae editionis concordantiae, Hugonis
Cardinalis ordinis praedicatorum. Mainz 1685.

1838. François Pascal Dutripon: Vulgatae editionis bibliorum sacrorum concordantiae. Paris. xxiv, 1484
pp. – Many reprints; e.g., 2nd edition, Bar-le-Duc 1868; 8th edition, Paris 1880; Hildesheim 2006.
This is considered the most complete and reliable concordance of the Clementina. Names of
persons, cities, and countries are often introduced by a brief explanatory note; for examples, see
the entries on Petrus (pp. 1054), the twelve different individuals called Judas (pp. 759–769), Jeru­
salem (pp. 727–728), and Jesus Christus (pp. 732–733). Dutripon’s dates are 1793–1867. The
1868 edition can be found on the Internet at the “Internet archive.” – Literature:
1899. O. Rey: Dutripon. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 2.2. Paris (cols. 1195–2428), col.
1517.

1899. Eugène Mangenot: Concordances de la Bible. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 2.1.
Paris (xii pp., 1194 cols.), cols. 892–905. Col. 899: “La plus récente édition complète des Concordances la­

76
 tines est celle de F.P. Dutripon (…). Elle comprend vingt mille versets de plus que les autres et distingue
avec soin les différents noms propres, ce qu’on ne faisait pas dans les éditions antérieures.” ▲

1852. Henri de Raze SJ – Jean-Baptiste Flandrin SJ – Edmund de Lachaud SJ: Concordantiarum SS. Scrip­
turae manuale. Leiden. viii, 752. – Each entry of this concordance gives five or six words of context.
Thus, the entry “ASSISTO, assisti” begins with: “Jac 5 9 Ecce judex ante januam.” Occasionally,
words from the iuxta hebraeos Psalter are also listed. This concordance was reprinted many times,
mostly in Paris, until the 1960s, and served as a manual edition for students of theology.

1977. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Novae Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum iuxta vulgatam versionem criti­
ce editam. Stuttgart. xvii, 5699 cols. in 5 volumes. – The Latin text of the Stuttgart edition by
Robert Weber, 1975 edition, is used as a basis; cf. below, Chapter 13.4. As the preface of this
“Stuttgart Concordance” explains, only the biblical text is taken into account, excluding the pre ­
faces of Jerome. Included are several non-Vulgate texts: Jerome’s translation of the Psalms iuxta
hebraeos, and all the (apocryphal) texts printed at the end of the Weber (and Weber/Gryson)
edition of the Vulgate, i.e., the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, etc. ▲

Concordances of individual books of the New Testament

Note. – Within a series dedicated to publishing encyclopedias, indexes, and concordances in classical
philology, the “conceptual glossary” books list all words of the Latin text in thematic arrangement.
Thus in the case of the volume on the gospel of Mark, separate sections deal with the universe (sky
and atmosphere, weather and winds, matter), the earth (landscape names, water, terrain and its con ­
struction, minerals, metals), plants (including mythical plants), animals (including exotic animals), man
(with many subdivisions: physical being, mind and soul, man as a social being, social structure, the
arts), man and his environment.

2000. Andrew Wilson: Conceptual Glossary and Index to the Vulgate Translation of the Gospel according
to John. Hildesheim. xviii, 398 pp.

2002. Andrew Wilson: Developing Conceptual Glossaries for the Latin Vulgate Bible. Literary and Lin­
guistic Computing 17: 413–426.

2006. Andrew Wilson: Conceptual Glossary of the Vulgate Translation of the Petrine Epistles. Hildesheim.
xxxi, 339 pp.

2007. Andrew Wilson – Alistair Baron – Celia Worth: Conceptual Glossary and Index to the Gospel ac­
cording to Mark. Hildesheim. xxxiii, 425 pp.

Concordances of the apocrypha: 4 Ezra, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh

1990. Wilfried Lechner-Schmidt: Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testa­
ment. Tübingen. xi, 241 pp. – Includes concordances of 5 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 1–2) and 6 Ezra (= 4 Ezra
15–16); the Latin text of these two works is printed on pp.225–233. See below, Chapter 23.2.

1993. Albert-Marie Denis OP: Concordance latine des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Corpus
Christianorum. Thesaurus patrum latinorum. Supplementum. Turnhout. xvi, 631 pp. – Included in
the concordance is the text of 4 Ezra 3–14, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. The complete
running text of these three sources is printed at the end of the book (pp. 601–617 and pp. 630–
631). See below, Chapters 23.2 and 23.3). – Review: J. Verheyden: Les pseudépigraphes d’Ancien
Testament. Textes latines. À propos d’une concordance. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 71
(1995) 383–420.

77
The history of biblical concordances
1899. Eugène Mangenot: Concordances de la Bible. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible.
Tome 2.1. Paris (xii pp., 1194 cols.), cols. 892–905. – Columns 895–899 are on the history of Latin
verbal concordances. The author considers Dutripon’s edition to be the best modern Vulgate
concordance.

1926. Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: Hugo de S. Caro. Verbum Domini 6: 149–156. – On pp. 155–156, the au­
thor of this Latin article deals with Hugo’s biblical concordance, compiled in the thirteenth cen ­
tury.

1969. Hans Heinrich Schmid: Von Konkordanzen, ihren Zielen und Problemen. In: Karl Huber – Hans
Heinrich Schmid: Zürcher Bibel-Konkordanz. Volume 1. Zürich (xxxii, 862 pp.), pp. vii–xvii. – Pages
viii–ix: “Die ersten Konkordanzen, im 13. bis 15. Jahrhundert entstanden, fanden (…) vor allem
Verwendung in den scholastischen Disputationen des Hochmittelalters (…) da diese Disputatio­
nen lateinisch ausgetragen wurden, versteht sich, warum diese ersten Konkordanzen solche zur
Vulgata sind und den lateinischen Bibeltext aufschlüsseln. Als pater concordantiarum, ‘Vater der
Konkordanz’, gilt der erste Kardinal der Dominikaner, der im Kloster St. Jakob [Saint Jacques] in
Paris lebende Hugo von St. Caro. Allerdings ist von seiner zwischen 1230 und 1244 fertiggestell­
ten Konkordanz nurmehr der Titel erhalten. Sie hat in den folgenden Jahrhunderten eine Reihe
von Erweiterungen und Überarbeitungen erlebt und ist zwischen 1470 und 1687 dann in einzelnen
Ausgaben gedruckt worden. Grosse Bedeutung erlangte die 1555 erstmals erschienene Konkor­
danz von R[obert] Estienne, um derentwillen das Neue Testament in Verse eingeteilt wurde.”

1974. R.H. Rouse – Mary A. Rouse: The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures. Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum 44: 5–30. – This is the standard reference text on the subject.

1979. Frans Neirynck: La concordance de Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (1617). Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 55: 366–372. – This Latin concordance became the model for later ones.

2003. Adrian Schenker OP: Die ersten Bibelkonkordanzen. In: idem: Studien zu Propheten und Religi­
onsgeschichte. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 36. Stuttgart (x, 222 pp.), pp. 185–191.

2021. Dennis Duncan: Index, A History of the: A Bookish Adventure. London. xii, 340 pp. – German trans­
lation: Index, eine Geschichte des. Munich 2022. 376 pp. While this is not per se a book on biblic­
al concordances, these figure prominently in the text. On Hugh of St. Cher and the concordance
of the Dominicans of St Jacques in Paris and its early impact, see pp. 52–55 and 76–82 (English
edition). The concordance of the English Bible, made by John Marbeck (1510–1585) and first
suppressed by ecclesiastical authorities, was based on a Latin Bible concordance. After the au­
thorities’ destruction of his first draft work, Marbeck started again, and his English concordance
was eventually printed in 1550 (pp. 11–14, English edition).

8.3 Dictionaries of biblical Latin

Note. – Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive dictionary of Vulgate Latin. The compiler recommends
the Latin-French dictionary compiled by Albert Blaise. This author’s aim was to cover all pre-medieval
Latin authors, including the Vulgate. Users must be warned, however: Blaise’s focus is on new words and
old words given special meanings; he does not list common words that a Latinist would know from his
reading of classical authors such as Cicero, Livy, Vergil and Suetonius. This is also true of some of the
other dictionaries listed below. Accordingly, one could describe them as glossaries.

78
 Dictionaries of Vulgate Latin

Dictionaries of ecclesiastical Latin

Thesaurus linguae latinae

Other lexical resources

Latin Vulgate dictionaries of historical interest

Dictionaries of Vulgate Latin

General
1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni mor­
fologiche e sintattiche. Florence. xlii, 251 pp. – Compiled by a school teacher (Dalpane) and ed­
ited by his professor of Latin at the University of Florence, this book is in two parts: pages iii–xlv
are an introduction to biblical Latin (although based on Kaulen’s German manual of 1904, it also
has additional material; pages 1–243 are the alphabetical Latin-Italian dictionary. Typical entries
present the meaning of the Latin word in classified form (a, b, c, etc.), always with at least one
biblical reference. Of particular interest are references to non-biblical texts that are occasionally
given to indicate the wider use of a word. Noteworthy is the inclusion of geographical names
(cities, regions, countries) and names of peoples. While this dictionary is not exhaustive, it is cer­
tainly a valuable scholarly resource to be consulted regularly. ▲

1970. Paul Zürcher: Vokabular. In: idem: Der Einfluss der lateinischen Bibel auf den Wortschatz der itali­
enischen Literatursprache vor 1300. Bern (315 pp.), pp. 31–312. – Although rarely consulted by
Vulgate researchers, this is nevertheless a valuable contribution to Latin lexical studies. The au­
thor’s vocabulary consists of more than 200 entries on lexical items, especially items related to
the realms of church and piety. Each entry begins with a brief survey of what the word means in
the Vulgate; then follows a presentation of medieval Italian texts from before Dante that use the
word in its Italian form. The book does not claim to be a contribution to understanding the Vul­
gate’s vocabulary; nevertheless, the entries are often helpful. – In the present book, this work is
referred to in the form “Zürcher, p. 136.” ▲

2021. Vocabulaire latin-français. Les 1200 mots les plus frequents dans la Vulgate. Andalus Publications.
105 pp. – A simple list of equivalences. Examples from the first page: a = de, loin de, hors de; –
ab = après, par, de; – abeo = partir, aller de l’avant, aller; – abicio = rejeter, jeter. No biblical ref­
erences are given. The little book, published without indicating the author and the place of pub­
lication, is also available in English and Spanish editions: Latin-English Vocabulary. The 1200
most frequent words in the Vulgate; Vocabulario latín–español. Las 1200 palabras más frecuentes
de la Vulgata.

Psalms
1876. Josef Barták: Vocabula breviarii Romani in classicis aut non aut raro aut aliter occurrentia .
Prague. 137 pp. – As the Latin title explains, this glossary lists and explains words that are
used in the Breviary (including the Psalms) and that are not used in classical Latin or given a
different meaning.

79
1923. Stanislaus Stephan: Psalmenschlüssel. Einführung in die sprachlichen Eigentümlichkeiten und in
den Gedankengang der Brevierpsalmen. Lauban. 308 pp. (poor printing; pages 200–306 have the
numbers 100-206 by mistake). – Includes a detailed Latin-German glossary of nearly 100 pages,
closely printed, in two columns. The Latin vocabulary, according to the author, must be seen
from the rendered Hebrew words; Latin words carry Hebrew meanings.

1928. Matthew Britt OSB: A Dictionary of the Psalter: Containing the Vocabulary of the Psalms, Hymns,
Canticles and Miscellanous Prayers of the Breviary Psalter. New York. xxxvi, 299 pp.

1959. William J. Konus: Dictionary of the New Latin Psalter of Pope Pius XII. Westminster, Md. 132 pp. –
Indexes the vocabulary of the Psalterium Pianum (1945; s. below, Chapter 15.4). Review: G.H.
Guyot, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21 (1959) 553–554.

New Testament
1921. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London. xi, 125 pp. – Reprint: London:
Simon Wallenberg Press 2007. Based on the Wordsworth/White text of the New Testament Vul­
gate (see below, Chapter 13.2), this book is a glossary rather than an elaborate dictionary. The
entries are very brief, just giving an English equivalent and a few references, without any further
discussion. Omitted are common words that the student of Latin would already know; also omit­
ted are words that are very close to their English equivalent (e.g., corruptio). At least one word is
missing: iniurius = illegal, lawless (2 Pet 2:7). Worth mentioning is the introduction with its lists
of words that figure in the text of the Wordsworth/White edition but not in the Clementina, and
words that figure in the Clementina, but no longer in the Wordsworth/White edition. ▲

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London: Samuel Bagster.
xvi, 130 pp. – Based on the Wordsworth/White New Testament text of the Vulgate (see below,
Chapter 13.2), this an important lexical resource compiled by a professional Latinist, though un­
fortunately hard to come by. The book’s significant “Introduction: The Vulgate as a Translation”
(pp. iii–xvi) is followed by a glossary of 3.903 entries. Richards’s dictionary can be seen as an im ­
proved version of the 1921 dictionary of Harden (whose dates are 1871–1931). In the two books,
the words selected for inclusion overlap but also significantly differ. The noun corruptio does fig­
ure in Richards’s dictionary, as does iniurius. In a number of cases, the author offers brief de­
scriptions of word usage, e.g., of words such as adimplēre, agere, baptisma, princeps, and paenit­
entia. The dictionary offers many textual notes, some of which are included below, in Chapter
22. – The book does not state when it was published, but all library catalogues give 1934 as the
date. In the preface, the author acknowledges the help of the late Oxford classicist Cuthbert H.
Turner (1860–1930), which indeed points to that date (for Turner’s notes included in the Diction­
ary, see pp. viii, 30). A later printing is identical; the only change is an addition to the preface:
“Students are strongly recommended to use Grammar of the Vulgate, Plater and White, Claren­
don Press, 1926.” – Literature:
1934. Very brief unsigned review: Expository Times 46.1 (November 1934) 64: “This little well-printed book is cer­
tain to be of the greatest practical value.”

2004. David Gill: Richards, George Chatterton (1867–1951). In: Robert B. Todd (ed.): Dictionary of British Classicists.
Volume 3. Bristol (pp. 732–1105), pp. 814–815. Richards held the professorship of classics at the University
of Durham from 1927. The Concise Dictionary is not mentioned in this otherwise useful article. ▲

2018. Theodore A. Bergren: A Latin-Greek Index of the Vulgate New Testament and the Apostolic Fath­
ers. Tübingen. xii, 262 pp. – An earlier version was published as: A Latin-Greek Index of the Vul­
gate New Testament. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 26. Atlanta, Ga. 1991. xiii, 207 pp. (with in­
dex to the Vetus Latina, pp. 175–205, not included in the 2018 version). – This is a simple list of
the Latin vocabulary of the New Testament; each entry indicates the Greek word that was thus

80
 translated. The relevant New Testament passages are not listed, but they can be found with the
help of Alfred Schmoller: Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament. 8th edition.
Stuttgart 1989. 8, 534 pp. The Handkonkordanz supplies at each Greek entry the Vulgate’s Latin
equivalent. – Review: Anna Persig, The Classical Review 69 (2019) 484–485.

Dictionaries of ecclesiastical Latin

1926. Albert Sleumer – Joseph Schmid: Kirchenlateinisches Wörterbuch. Ausführliches Wörterverzeichnis
zum Römischen Missale, Breviarium, Rituale (…) sowie zur Vulgata und zum Codex juris canonici.
2nd edition. Limburg. 840 pp. – This edition was preceded by a 1st edition in 1916 entitled: Al ­
bert Sleumer: Liturgisches Lexikon. Ausführliches Wörterbuch zum Missale Romanum, Rituale Ro­
manum und Breviarium Romanum (339 p.). The 2nd edition has been reprinted several times,
most recently: Hildesheim 2015. Many entries are provided with references to biblical passages,
esp. from the Psalms. While this is an important work, one should not be blind to its deficiencies
– and note that too much space is taken up by encyclopedic entries on personal and topograph­
ical names that one would not expect to find in a linguistic dictionary. ▲

1954/62. Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire latin–français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout. 900 pp. – The 1962
and later reprints include Blaise’s appendix with additions and corrections (pp. 868–899). The
Blaise dictionary includes many references to Vulgate biblical passages. The dictionary is not in ­
fallible, but most useful. For an assessment, see above, Chapter 1. ▲

1961. Wilfrid Diamond: Dictionary of Liturgical Latin. Milwaukee. 156 pp. – Reprinted by various pub­
lishers.

1995. Leo F. Stelten: Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin. Peabody, Mass. xiv, 330 pp. As the preface ex­
plains, this dictionary seeks to be “as inclusive as possible of words from Sacred Scripture, from
the Code of Canon Law, from the liturgy (…).” The work is roughly equivalent in scope and intent
to the German “Sleumer” (the 1st edition, 1916), but cannot replace its 2nd edition of 1926. ▲

Thesaurus linguae latinae

1900 –. Thesaurus linguae latinae. Edited by the Academies of Berlin, Göttingen, Leipzig, Munich, and
Vienna. Volume I. Leipzig. xiv pp., 2032 cols. (A to Amyzon). – This still incomplete Latin-only dic­
tionary often lists and discusses words found in the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate. Latinists cel­
ebrate this indispensable reference tool for its careful semantic classifications, and linguists con­
sider it the most scientific of all dictionaries ever produced. When the present book was com­
piled, the latest fascicles to appear were:
2021. Volume XI.2, fascicle 7. Berlin, cols. 961–1120 (relinquo – ren[n]uo).

2022. Volume XI.2, fascicle 8. Berlin, cols. 1121–1280 (renuo – repressio).

2023. Volume XI.2, fascicle 9. Berlin, cols. 1281–1372 (repressio – resilio).

2023. Volume IX.1, fascicle 4. Berlin, cols. 513–648 (nemo – netura). The fascicles of the “N” volume began to ap­
pear only in 2011 to fill the gap left in the alphabet.

Unfortunately for the user, the Thesaurus uses many abbreviations, and secondary literature is hard to trace. – Lit ­
erature:

1968. Wilhelm Ehlers: Der Thesaurus linguae latinae. Prinzipien und Erfahrungen. Antike und Abendland 14: 172–
184.

2001. Dietfried Krömer: Thesaurus linguae latinae. In: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der
Antike. Band 15/1. Stuttgart 2001 (x pp., 1260 cols.), cols. 143–149.

81
 2012. Bianca-Jeanette Schröder: Thesaurus linguae Latinae. In: Ulrike Haß (ed.): Große Lexika und Wörterbücher
Europas. Berlin (viii, 533 pp.), pp. 293–300.

See also Amber Leenders: A Student’s Guide to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae online (to be found on the Internet).
▲

Other lexical resources

Latin–English dictionaries
1879. Charlton T. Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. xiv, 2019 pp. – This dictionary, still
available from Oxford University Press that keeps reprinting it, has a long prehistory. Its direct
ancestor is the English translation of a German dictionary:
1834–1845. Wilhelm Freund: Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. 4 volumes. Leipzig.

1851.E.A. Andrews: Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon. New York. xxvi, 1651 pp.

Like its predecessors, the Lewis/Short dictionary is meant to be a universal Latin dictionary, i.e., one that is not
limited to the classical Latin of authors such as Cicero, Caesar, Vergil, and Livy. Biblical Latin is included. ▲

1949. Alexander Souter: A Glossary of Later Latin to A.D. 600. Oxford. xxxii, 454 pp. – Several reprints.
Souter (1873–1949) was a major Latinist.

Latin–German dictionaries
1788. Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller: Ausführliches und möglichst vollständiges lateinisch-deut­
sches Lexicon oder Wörterbuch. 2nd edition. Leipzig. xxxvii pp., 7834 cols. in 3 volumes. – In­
cludes the vocabulary of the ecclesiastical writers up to the 8th century.

1905.1907. Johann Philipp Krebs – Joseph Hermann Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache.
Siebente Auflage. Zwei Bände. Basel. viii, 811 pp.; 776 pp. – Reprint: Darmstadt 1984. – Originally
compiled by a school teacher (J. Ph. Krebs, 1771–1850) and first published in 1832, this diction ­
ary explains words as they are used by classical authors; occasionally, post-classical authors and
Vulgate Latin is considered. Although today largely forgotten, this work is still a very useful com­
panion to all other Latin dictionaries. Krebs’s Antibarbarus was not the first of its kind; its long
history includes editions of similarly titled works by Johann Friedrich Nolte, Johann Georg Sey­
bold, and Friedrich Cellarius. ▲

2004. Peter Stotz: Wortregister. In: idem: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters Handbuch
der Altertumswissenschaft. Munich. Band 5 (1059 pp.), pp. 450–1055. – The index to the multi-
volume reference work is designed as a Latin-German glossary.

Latin–Italian and Latin-French dictionaries

1893. Eugène Benoist – Henri Goelzer: Nouveau dictionnaire latin-français. Paris. xvi, 1713 pp. – Late
Latin is well represented, esp. Christian Latin. This dictionary was often reprinted; all 1903 and
later editions include revisions (xxxvi, 1713 pp.).

2000. Gian Biagio Conte – Emilio Pianezzola – Giuliano Ranucci: Il Dizionario della lingua Latina.
Florence. xlviii, 2058 pp. – This comprehensive dictionary covers all of ancient Latin down to the
6th century CE, i.e., it includes biblical and Christian Latin. Sources are regularly indicated, and
the Vulgate figures occasionally. ▲

82
Latin only dictionary
1864–1926. Egidio Forcellini: Lexicon totius latinitatis. Edited by Francisco Corradini and Guiseppe Perin.
4 vols. Padua. Vol. 1: lxxvii, 932 + 19 pp.; vol. 2: 975 + 23 pp.; vol. 3: 1032 + 14 pp.; vol. 4: 1054 +
9 pp. Reprint: Bologna 1965. – The “+” pages are supplements compiled by Perin. – This work of
large-size volumes represents the work of Forcellini (1688–1768), see Charles E. Benntt: The Au­
thorship of the Forcellini Lexicon. The Classical Weekly 5.5 (1911) 34–37. Although Forcellini did
not live to see his work published, it was often printed; the edition here listed is the standard
one used today.

Latin Vulgate dictionaries of historical interest

1473. Heinrich von Langenstein: Vocabularius perutilis terminus bibliae (…) difficiles (…) declarans. Ulm.
– The author (d. 1397) of this dictionary taught theology in Vienna. A copy of this book is in the
State Library of Berlin, Germany (shelf no. 4” Inc. 2624); another one, dating from 1468, is kept in
the University library of Kiel, Germany.

c. 1500. Exposicio vocabulorum psalterii secundum alphabetum (Explanation of the words of the Psalms
according to the alphabet). – The eight-page manuscript lists about 150 rare words of the Latin
Psalter and provides them with a German equivalent. The unique copy is located in the Zentral-
und Hochschulbibliothek Luzern, Switzerland (Sammelhandschrift MSC 40 QUART, fol. 236 recto
bis 238 verso).

1650. Petrus Ravanellus: Bibliotheca Sacra seu Thesaurus Scripturae Canonicae. Geneva. – An encyclo­
pedic treatment of Latin words of the Bible, compiled by the French Protestant scholar Pierre
Ravenel (d. c. 1680).

1760. Ignaz Weitenauer SJ: Lexicon biblicum in quo explicantur Vulgatae vocabula et phrases. Venice.
viii. 554 pp. – This edition is called “editio prima Veneta multo correctior”; the first edition was
published in 1758; further editions: Augsburg 1780, Avignon 1835, Naples 1857, Paris 1857, Tur­
in 1866. The Jesuit exegete, who taught in Innsbruck, explains words and expressions that devi ­
ate from the ordinary usage and meaning in classical Latin. An example is absque, used where
classical Latin requires praeter (p. 8 of the 1760 edition). Weitenauer is always aware of the dif­
ference between classical and biblical Latin. He is also the author of a Latin version of the Bible
known for the purity of its language.

8.4 Studies of biblical lexicography

English
1996. Daniel J. Sheerin: Christian and Biblical Latin. In: Frank A.C. Mantello – A.G. Rigg (eds.): Medieval
Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C. xiv, 774 pp. – Pages 143–145:
lists of special Christian vocabulary and words given special meaning in the Bible and Christianity.

2019. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loan-words in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin Apostolic
Fathers. Traditio 74: 1–25. ▲

German
1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg. 34 pp. – This
small fascicle of 34 densely printed pages is subtitled “Programm zur Schlußfeier des Studien­

83
 jahres 1869/70.” The author offers a richly annotated lexicographical collection of nouns, adject­
ives, verbs, prepositions, as well as observations on word formation and special word combina­
tions. – The author taught at the academy of Bamberg. He edited a Vulgate Bible with the text
of the Clementina (see below, Chapter 16.2). – Review: Peter Johann Schegg: Die Vulgata. Theol­
ogisches Literaturblatt 6.1 (1871) 1–4.

1870. Franz Kaulen: Handbuch der Vulgata. Eine systematische Darstellung ihres lateinischen Sprachcha­
rakters. Mainz. xii, 280 pp. – This is the first edition of a still useful handbook on the language of
the Vulgate Bible; it is now used in its second, 1904 edition. The two editions are not dramatic­
ally different.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholi­
schen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. Marburg. xvi, 526 pp. –
This is the “zweite, berichtigte und vermehrte Auflage” of a work originally published in 1869.
On pp. 305–405 is a list of words with special meanings, arranged according to the kinds of
words – nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, etc. – Review of the 1869 edition: Johann Nepomuk
Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und
Pädagogik 44/109 (1874) 757–792, 833–867. ▲

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie
und Grammatik 1: 68–81.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Philologus
42.2: 319–378. – Includes much on lexicography of biblical Latin. On pp. 322–323, the author
suggests that for lexicographical and linguistic studies, the Vulgate’s inner differentiation must
be taken into account. Three groups of writings must be sharply distinguished – groups A, B,
and C. To A belong Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, letter of Jeremiah, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, i.e., the
Itala (= Vetus Latina). To B belong all the books revised by Jerome, i.e., the New Testament (B 1)
and the Psalms (B2). Finally, to C belong all the books of the Old Testament that Jerome trans­
lated afresh. One must also keep in mind the sizes of the group: the smallest group is A, B is
about three times as long as A, and C about eight times as long as A (A:B:C = 1:3:8). “Charakte­
ristische Unterschiede zwischen den drei Abtheilungen ergeben sich schon aus einer ganz ober­
flächlichen Lekture, indem jede derselben Formen, Wörter und Konstruktionen aufweist, die ihr
allein eigen sind” (p. 322). ▲

1904. Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. 2nd, improved edition. Freiburg. xvi,
332 pp. – Reprint: Hildesheim 2013. Kaulen reworks the entire material offered by Loch in 1870
and Rönsch in 1875. On pp. 13–282 he treats words and word forms, arranged according to
nouns, adjectives, numeral words, pronouns, etc. The two indexes added to the work – word in ­
dex and subject index – allow the handbook to be used as a dictionary. – In the present book,
Kaulen’s Sprachliches Handbuch is referred to as “Kaulen, p. nn.” ▲

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1: 23–50. – Com­
ments on adiutorium (Gen 2:18), caput (Jer 22:6), coniunctus (Gal 4:25), eferre foras vasa (Ezek
12:4), emissarius (Sam 22:17, etc.), equus emissarius (Sir 33:6; Jer 5:8); intrare (Deut 11:30); ir­
riguum (Josh 15:19), and requiescere (Isa 66:2).

1996–2004. Peter Stotz: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Handbuch der Altertums­
wissenschaft. Munich. 5 Bände: xxxi, 723 pp.; xxvi, 482 pp.; xx, 352 pp.; xxv, 510 pp.; 1059 pp. –
Band 1, pp. 519–551: Griechische Lehnwörter im christlichen Latein der Antike. Band 2, pp. 6–32:
Christliche Sonderbedeutungen. There is a detailed lexical index in Band 5. ▲

84
2000. Bengt Löfstedt: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart.
vii, 430 pp. – Pages 310–318: Lexikalisches zur Vulgata.

2020. Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes.
Berücksichtigung der im Mittelalter benutzten Vulgata. Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft der Jo­
hann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Sitzungsberichte 57.4. Stuttgart 2020. 52
pp. – This treatise is about Latin vocabulary related to building, written by a specialist of mediev ­
al building terminology. The terms analysed include arifex, funiculus, lapis angularis, later,
norma, and perpendiculum. On these words, see the glossary below, Chapter 19.2.

French
1884. Henri Goelzer: Étude lexicographique et grammaticale de la latinité de saint Jérôme. Paris. xii, 472
pp. – Pages 227ff.: changements de signification.

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la ren­
contre entre la Bible et le monde classique. Nijmegen. xv, 256 pp. – Reprint: Turnhout 1994. –
Pages 4–64: what did Jerome think about the language of the Latin Bible?; pp. 64–240: a study
of a number of words such as confiteri, glorificare, honorare, communicare, cognoscere, renes, dii,
mare, lacus; pp. 245–249: index of biblical passages. Most of these words are alphabetically lis­
ted in the glossary below, in Chapter 19.2. According to Meershoek, Jerome occasionally de­
pends on Origen’s explanation of words (pp. 92, 115, 129, 138). – Reviews:
1968. Gabriel Sanders, L’Antiquité Classique 37: 720–722 (with a list of minor slips and printing errors, p. 722).

1969. Bengt Löfstedt, Gnomon 41: 362–365 (German). Meershoek exaggerates the difference between biblical and
non-biblical uses of the word cor, heart (p. 365). ▲

2012. Lyliane Sznajder: Quelques exemples de réorganisations lexicales en latin biblique. In: Olga Spe­
vak – Alain Christol (eds.): Les évolutions du latin. Paris (392 pp.), pp. 353–376.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al.: Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris. 326 pp. – Al­
though not dealing specifically with biblical Latin, some of the 20 words analysed are of interest:
allgoria, bilinguis, cognoscere, contumelia, examen, exigere, existimatio, fabula, fama, gerere, glor­
ia, laus, libertas, potentia, quaerere, sermo, signum, vanitas, verbum.

Italian – Spanish
1971/74. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36 (1973)
287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166.

1990. Olegario García de la Fuente: Introducción al latín bíblico y cristiano. Madrid. xx, 482 pp. – Pages
443–458: index of words. An enlarged edition was given the title Latín bíblico y latín cristiano.
Madrid 1994. 588 pp.

Latin
1933. Walter Matzkow: De vocabulis quibusdam Italae et Vulgatae christianis questiones lexicographi­
cae. Berlin. 54 pp. – This thesis defended at the University of Berlin studies ten Greek words –
ἀποκάλυψις, σωτήρ, εὐαγγέλιον, μετάνοια, βαπτίζειν, ἁγιάζειν, δικαιοῦν, ἀφθαρσία, κληρο­
νομία, δοξάζειν – and their Latin equivalents such as iustificare, iustificatio, paenitentia, salvare,
salvator, deciding in which cases a word can be considered a new Christian invention, and in
which cases there is only a shift in a meaning that already existed. The latter is the case with re­
velare and paenitentia. – Reviews:

85
 1935. J.B. Hofmann, Gnomon 10: 284–285.

1935. P. Gächter, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 59: 307.

8.5 Latin names, words, and Latinisms in the Greek New Testament
Note. – The Greek New Testament was written in a cultural situation in which Greek was dominant, but
Latin had a strong presence that can be felt in some of the books of the New Testament, especially in
the Gospel of Mark. The titulus, the inscription fixed to the cross of Christ, was in three languages:
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (hebraice, graece et latine – John 19:20). Two New Testament authors have
Latin names: Mark (Marcus) and Paul (Paulus); other Latin names in the New Testament include Felix
(Acts 23:24), Julius (Acts 27:1,3), Justus (Col 4:11), Pontius Pilate (Pontius Pilatus), and Titus. The total
number of Latin personal names in the New Testament is given as 45, of which five are female names:
Claudia, Drusilla, Julia, Junia, and Prisca/Priscilla.

The Greek name for “Christians” – christianoí – is formed with the Latin ending -anus (Acts 11:26).

Here is a partial list of Latin words (all of them technical terms) in the Greek New Testament: kênsos =
census (Matt 22:19), δηνάριον = denarius (Matt 18:28; Mark 6:37 and often), κεντυρίων = centurio
(Mark 15:39), κοδράντης = quadrans (a small copper coin, Mark 12:42), κολωνία = colonia (Acts 16:12),
κουστωδία = custodia (a guard, Matt 27:65; 28:11), λεγιών = legio (Matt 26:53), φραγέλλιον = flagel­
lum (a beating, John 2:15), φραγελλόω = flaggelare (Matt 27:26), πραιτώριον = praetorium (Matt
27:27), σικάριος = sicarius (murderer, Acts 21:38), σπεκουλάτωρ = speculator (specialist soldier, Mark
6:27), σουδάριον = sudarium (napkin, Luke 19:20), τίτλος = titulus (notice, inscription, John 19:19–20).

English
1919. A.T. Robertson: Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd edi­
tion. London. lxxxvi, 1453 pp. – Pages 108–111: Latinisms and other foreign words. “More than
forty Latin names of persons and places occur in the N.T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-
three), are military, judicial, monetary, or domestic words” (p. 109). Mark uses more Latinisms
than any other New Testament writer (p. 110). Robertson refuses to make much of the Marcan
evidence, rejecting the idea that Mark would originally have written his gospel in Latin (p. 118).

1991. David E. Aune: A Latinism in Revelation. Journal of Biblical Literature 110: 691–692. – In Revela­
tion 15:2, Greek νικᾷν + preposition ἐκ seems to echo Latin victoria ex – victory over, found in
Livy and Velleius Paterculus. Repeated in: David E. Aune: Revelation 6–16. Word Biblical Com­
mentary. Volume 52B. Nashville 1998 (xlv pp., pp. 377–903), p. 872.

1992. F.F. Bruce, Latin. In: The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4. New York 1992 (xxxv, 1162 pp.), pp.
220–222.

1993. Robert H. Gundry: Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, Mich. lv,
1069 pp. – On pp. 1043–1045, Gundry lists and discusses the Latinisms of the Gospel of Mark.

1998. Bas M.F. Van Iersel: Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Sheffield. 556 pp. – Not only lexical
items show Latin influence but also certain syntactic structures such as deviations from normal
Greek word-order and the nonfinal use of the Greek particle ἵνα (pp. 33–35).

2003. Brian J. Incigneri: The Gospel to the Romans. The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. Leiden. xiv,
426 pp. – The author seeks to establish as likely that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome in
the year 71. Pages 100–103: The extent of the Latinisms. “The most likely place for Latinisms to

86
 predominate is in the city of Rome, where the Latin and Greek languages were closely inter­
mingled as nowhere else at that time. (…) it was in Rome that the ordinary person was forced to
deal with both languages in daily life” (p. 102).

2019. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin Apostolic
Fathers. Traditio 74: 1–25. – The author’s focus is on Greek Words in the Latin New Testament,
but he also mentions many Latin loan-words in the Greek New Testament.

2022. Richard G. Fellows: Early Sexist Textual Variants, and Claims that Prisca, Junia, and Julia Were
Men. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 84.2: 252–278. – Pages 275–276: “There are forty-five Latin
names in the New Testament, and five of these belong to women (Prisca/Priscilla, Junia, Julia,
Drusilla, an Claudia). Of these, only the first three may have been unsettling for early copyists
who believed that women should not have positions of leadership (…) Drusilla (Acts 24:24) was
not a believer and is names after her husband. Claudia appears only in 2 Tim 4:21, where she is
one of four greeters and has the least prominent position behind three men. Prisca, Junia and
Julia, however, may have posed problems for misogynists.”

2023. Eleanor Dickey: Latin Loanwords in Greek. A Lexicon and Analysis. Cambridge. 700 pp. – A com­
prehensive inventory of all Latin words in Greek literature, up to ca. 700 CE. ▲

German
1961. Friedrich Blass – Albert Debrunner: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 11th edition.
Göttingen (xviii, 368 pp.), pp. 6–8 (§ 5): discussion of Latin words and Latinisms in the Greek New
Testament. It is pointed out that Luke deletes some of the Latinisms of his sources; thus κῆνσος
= census in Matt 22:17 and Mark 12:14 is replaced with φόρος (Luke 20:22, in the Vulgate: tribu­
tum).

2001. Marius Reiser: Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments. Paderborn (xiv, 257 pp.),
pp. 8–9. – Reiser speaks of 27 Latin loanwords in the Greek New Testament and gives a list of
twelve examples such as μεμβράνα = membrana (2 Tim 4:13), the Latin word for parchment.

2011. Reinhard von Bendemann: Die Latinismen im Markusevangelium. In: Martina Janßen – F.S. Jones
– Jürgen Wehnert (eds.): Frühes Christentum und religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Göttingen (218
pp.), pp. 37–52.

Italian
2000. Robert A. Maryks: I latinismi del Nuovo Testamento in relazione alla letteratura greca e alle iscri ­
zioni (II sec. a.C. – II sec. d.C.). Filologia neotestamentaria 13: 23–33.

8.6 Grammatical and linguistic studies of biblical Latin

German
1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg. iv, 106 pp. – These are a
Latin teacher’s notes. In four chapters, the author provides general considerations on the Vul­
gate, textual notes on selected biblical passages of both Testaments, and a more sustained tex­
tual commentary on passages of the gospel of Matthew. Interspersed are miniature essays on

87
 general grammatical and stylistic features of Vulgate Latin such as the introduction of direct
speech with quia, quod, and quoniam (pp. 58–61) and how interrogative sentences are articu­
lated (pp. 49–58). A digital copy was made by the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Vienna,
Austria) and can be found on the Internet.

1864. Johann Baptist Heiss [Heiß]: Beitrag zur Grammatik der Vulgata. Formenlehre. Munich. 20 pp. –
Heiss indicates how Vulgate Latin differs from classical Latin as codified in a modern textbook of
Latin grammar.

1870. Franz Kaulen: Handbuch zur Vulgata. Eine systematische Darstellung ihres lateinischen Sprachcha­
rakters. Mainz. xii, 280 pp. – For this book’s second, enlarged edition, see below, 1904.

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg. 49 pp. – The
first section (pp. 3–20) is entitled “Lateinischer Idiotismus der Vulgata, insbes. des Psalteriums.”

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867. – A detailed critical review of literature, esp.
of the work of Hermann Rönsch.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholi­
schen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. Marburg. xvi, 526 pp. –
The first edition was published in 1869.

1895. Alois Hartl: Sprachliche Eigenthümlichkeiten der Vulgata. Ried. 21 pp. – This pamphlet depends
on Franz Kaulen’s Handbuch, 1870.

1904. Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata. Eine systematische Darstellung ihres
lateinischen Sprachcharakters. 2nd edition. Freiburg 1904. xvi, 332 pp. – For the first edition, see
above, 1870.

1936. Friedrich Stummer: Hauptprobleme der Erforschung der alttestamentlichen Vulgata. In: Johannes
Hempel et al. (eds.): Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alt­
testamentliche Wissenschaft 66. Berlin (viii, 239 pp.), pp. 233–239. – The volume has been
reprinted in 2020.

1936. Friedrich Stummer: Die Landschaftskenntnis des Hieronymus und ihr Einfluss auf die Vulgata.
Das Heilige Land (Köln) 80: 65–76.

1945. Friedrich Stummer: Zur Stilgeschichte der alten Bibelübersetzungen. Zeitschrift für die alttesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1945) 195–230. – Pages 212–230: Rhythmische Satzschlüsse in der
Vulgata.

1952/53. Martin Johannessohn: Zur Entstehung der Ausdrucksweise der lateinischen Vulgata aus den
jüngeren griechischen alttestamentlichen Übersetzungen. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 44: 90–102. – Jerome prefers relative clauses to participial constructions found in
the Greek text. He avoids constructions with the infinitive, and uses paraphrases for rendering
certain nouns.

2000. Bengt Löfstedt: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart.
vii, 340 pp. – Pages 289–301: Sprachliches zur Vulgata; pp. 302–309: Übersetzungstechnisches
zur Vulgata; pp. 310–318: Lexikalisches zur Vulgata.

2015. Martin G. Becker: Informationsstruktur und Satzanordnung in der Vulgata und den frühen volks ­
sprachlichen Bibelübersetzungen von Lefèvre d’Etaples und Casiodoro de Reina. In: Michael
Bernsen – Elmar Eggert – Angela Schrott (eds.): Historische Sprachwissenschaft als philologische
Kulturwissenschaft. Göttingen (691 pp.), pp. 601–630. – Pages 605 ff.: Informationsstruktur und

88
 Satzanordnung in Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzung. One can rightly speak of a grammar of the
Vulgate, “whose complete description” – according to today’s linguistic standards – “is, however,
still pending” (p. 605). – Man kann mit Recht von einer Grammatik der Vulgata sprechen, “deren
vollständige Beschreibung” – nach heutigem linguistischen Standards – “allerdings noch aus­
steht” (p. 605).

2023. Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateini­
schen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023. vi, 413 pp. – Despite its title, this is not an introduction,
but a collective volume of individual articles; the focus of several contributions is on Latin syntax.
The editor’s introduction: Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulga­
ta (pp. 3–83).

French
2006. Lyliane Sznajder: La parole et la voix dans la Vulgate. In: Pascale Brillet-Dubois (ed.): Philologia.
Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Paris (381 pp.), pp. 329–338.

2011. Lyliane Sznajder: L’expression de la longue durée et de l’éternité dans la Vulgate. In: Claude
Moussy (ed.): Espace et temps en latin. Paris (248 pp.), pp. 109–123.

Italian
1995. Marco Jennarelli: Analisi qualitative quantitative computerizzata del latino del Nuovo Testamen­
to secondo la Biblia Vulgata. Rivista biblica 43: 381–390.

8.7 Bibliographical glossary of grammatical and stylistic terms

ablative absolute. This very characteristic feature of classical Latin also appears in the Vulgate, though
less frequently. Examples are ruptis vinculis – after having broken his chains (Luke 8:29); defi­
ciente vino – when the wine was running out (John 2:3); defuncto autem Herode – when Herod
was dead (Matt 2:19).

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.), p. 41. –
Hagen lists passages where the subject of a sentence is placed between words of the ab­
lative absolute; an example is intermissis pater tuus asinis sollicitus est pro vobis (1 Sam
10:2). One would expect intermissis asinis, pater tuus (…).

1904. Kaulen, pp. 294 (no. 191: 1 Pet 4:4), 300–301 (nos. 200–202).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 39 (§ 52), 98 (§ 116).

1994. Antonio Moreno Hernández: La reducción del ablativo en latín tardío: restricciones de uso
y distribución en la Vetus Latina. In: Fernando Sojo Rodríguez (ed.): Latinitas biblica et
christiana. Studia philologica varia in honorem Olegario García de la Fuente. Madrid (602
pp.), pp. 309–317.

1996. Antonio Moreno Hernández: The Ablative Absolut in Late Latin. In: Hannah Rosén (ed.):
Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics.
Innsbruck (735 pp.), pp. 471–482.

2021. Marina Benedetti – Felicia Logozza – Liana Tronci: Ablative absolute in the Vulgate. Some
remarks on the Gospels. In: Antonio María Martín Rodriguez (ed.): Linguisticae Dissertatio­

89
 nes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon & Pragmatics. Madrid (885 pp.), pp.
265–280.

2023. Bernard Bertolussi – Felicia Logozzo et al.: Kontinuität und Innovation in der Partizipialsyn­
tax der Vulgata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung
in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 259–328, at
pp. 275–285. – The abl. abs. is found in both testaments, often due to Jerome’s preference
of the syntax of classical Latin.

accusative

1926. Plater/White, pp. 81–82 (§ 110).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 76–79 (§§ 70–79).

accusative with infinitive (AcI). This construction, typical of classical Latin, still exists in biblical Latin;
examples are: abneges nosse me – you will deny to know me (Luke 22:34; nosse = novisse is infin­
itive perfect of noscere, to know); dicunt eum vivere – they say that he is alive (Luke 24:23).

1904. Kaulen, pp. 288–289 (no. 182a), 294–295 (no. 191).

1926. Plater/White, p. 82 (§ 110, 4). “This ordinary construction is noticeable only from its rarity;
it is usually replaced by quod, quia, or quoniam” (p. 82).

accusativus graecus

1904. Kaulen, p. 273 (no. 151).

adjectives

1875. Rönsch, pp. 332–338.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 130–160 (nos. 40–50).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xviii–xix.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 48–50.

1986. Carmen Arias Abellán: La sustantivación del adjetivo en latín. Estudios humanísticos. Filolo­
gía 8: 79–86.

2008. Rafael Jiménez Zamudio: La colocación del adjetivo en las versions Latinas del Libro de
Rut. Revista de estudios latinos 8: 73–90.

2009. Eusebia Tarriño Ruiz: El adjective. In: José Miguel Baños Baños (ed.): Sintaxis del latín clási­
co. Madrid (838 pp.), pp. 251–272.

adverbial clauses

1951. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Cambridge (xv, 162
pp.), pp. 74–74–88. Deals with clauses of: time – place – cause – purpose – consequence –
concession – condition – comparison.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 156–180 (§§ 274–323): les
propositions subordonnées circonstancielles: causales – finales – consecutives – conces­
sives – conditionelles – temporelles – comparatives – relatives.

90
adverbs

1875. Rönsch, pp. 147–150, 230.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 229–235 (nos. 117–119), 281–282 (nos. 169–171).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 60–62 (§ 87), 68–69 (§ 95).

1986. Olegario García de la Fuente: Sobre el uso de los adverbios en el latín bíblico. In: Domingo
Muñoz León (ed.): Salvación en la palabra. Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del
profesor Alejandro Diez Macho. Madrid (848 pp.), pp. 135–156.

1992. Olegario García de la Fuente: Sobre la colocación de los adverbios de cantidad en el latín
vulgar y en el latín bíblico. In: M. Iliescu – W. Maxgut (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif III.
Tübingen (x, 368 pp.), pp. 143–157.

affirmation – saying “yes.” See also below, the glossary (Chapter 19.2) s.v. dicere, est, etiam, sic.

1863. Hagen, p. 52. – On “yes” (etiam, utique, tu dixisti) and “no” (non) in the Vulgate.

1896. B.L. Gildersleeve – Gonzalez Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.),
pp. 298–299 (no. 471). How to say “yes” and “no” in classical Latin.

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp.
111–120. – Müller studies some of the 42 Vulgate passages where in a dialogue situation
someone says “yes,”; the affirmative answer comes either in the form of a particle (est –
Matt 5:37; etiam – Matt 11:9) or in the form of “focus repetition” (tu dixisti – you said so,
Matt 5:37).

anacoluthon

1904. Kaulen, p. 306 (no. 214).

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 324–325: “abgebrochene Relativsätze” (incomplete relative clauses).

article. Classical Latin does not have a definite or indefinite article. It is often claimed that Vulgate Lat ­
in begins to have the article. In addition to the literature listed here, see also the bibliography
referred to in the glossary (below, Chapter 19.2), s.v. ille, illa, illud and s.v. unus.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), pp. 419–425.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 76–80 (§§ 106, 107). – Page 76: “Latin, as is well known, has no article,
definite or indefinite.” But, p. 79: “in popular Latin an attempt was made to supply this de ­
ficiency by the use of hic, ille, or ipse” as well as unus (pp. 79–80).

1932. George L. Trager: The Use of Latin Demonstratives (especially ille and ipse) up to 600 A.D.
as the Source of the Romance Article. New York. xi, 198 pp.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. vi: “In the Old Testament Vulgate hic occasionally represents the Greek article. In
the New Testament ille, which was destined to form the article in Romance languages, be­
gins to appear.” Among the examples listed are illis undecim (Luke 24:9); ille alius discipu­
lus (John 20:3).

91
 1965. J.B. Hofmann – Anton Szantyr: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Handbuch der Altertumswis­
senschaft. Munich (xcviii, 935, 89* pp), pp. 191–194: ille (ipse) and unus as articles.

1971. Fritz Abel: L’adjectif démonstratif dans la langue de la Bible latine. Étude sur la formation
des systèmes déictiques et de l’article défini des langues romanes. Tübingen. xxii, 207 pp. –
On the basis of statistical explorations of the demonstrative pronoun ille (in a corpus of
texts that includes the Vetus Latina), Abel suggests that by the 2nd century CE, spoken
Latin (already) had an article. – This interpretation has been contested. According to Löfs ­
tedt, there is no Latin text that uses ille regularly and according to a set of rules, see Bengt
Löfstedt: Le problème de l’unité du latin vulgaire [1973]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze
zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), pp. 101–105,
at pp. 104–105.

1992. Robert Coleman: Italic. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.): Indo-European Numerals. Berlin (x,
943 pp.), pp. 389–446. – Page 390: the examples propheta unus (Luke 9:19) and una an­
cilla (Matt 26:29) show that unus can function as the indefinite article.

2011. Mari Ioanne Hertzenberg: Classical and Romance Usages of ipse in the Vulgate. Oslo Stud­
ies in Language 3.3: 173–188. The evidence for ipse as definite article in Col 2:22 and Rev
21:18 remains inconclusive.

2020. Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardinals. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 65: 438–470. – Some scholars have felt that there are clear cases in
the Vulgate where unus functions as the indefinite article. Schaden seeks to demonstrate
that the alleged cases can be understood differently – unus being used as contrastive nu­
meral (for examples, see below Chapter 21 on 1 Sam 1:1-3; and Chapter 22 on Matt
26:69–71), and unus as a partitive particle (for examples, see below Chapter 21 on Judg
9:51–54; and Chapter 22 on Matt 9:14–18 and Mark 12:38–44).

attraction. Or, more properly, “inverse attraction” [umgekehrte Attraktion]: in a sentence with a subor­
dinate clause, the case of the relative pronoun may determine the case of the noun of the main
clause.

1904. Kaulen, p. 287–288 (no. 180) provides examples from both testaments: 1 John 2:25 (vitam
aeternam, where one would expect vita aeterna).

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at pp. 146–147. Stummer adds more
examples: Gen 23:15; 44:5.

betacism (b/v interchange)

1875. Rönsch, pp. 455–456.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikogra­
phie und Grammatik 1: 68–81, at p. 78: “Der Betacismus (d.i. die volkstümliche Aussprache
des lat. v wie b), der auch sonst bekanntlich starke Verheerungen in der lateinischen Spra­
che angerichtet (…).”

1926. Plater/White, p. 43, n. 2 (§ 60).

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg (xi, 190 pp.), p. 58: b for v (laudabe­
runt for the correct laudaverunt) is frequent in Spanish manuscripts.

2011. J.N. Adams: Late Latin. In: James Clackson (ed.): A Companion to the Latin Language.
Chichester (xxvi, 634 pp.), pp. 257–28, at pp. 275–276.

92
 2022. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of
the Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 13: 105–130, at pp. 112 and 116. – Page 112, n. 25:
“The confusion between u and b, resulting from the merger of /w/ and /b/ in some re­
gions, is rather common in many Old Latin Bible texts.” Examples: obum = ovum (Luke
11:12), ueatus = beatus (Luke 11:27).

causative

1926. Plater/White, p. 23 (§ 27).

1973. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Die Wiedergabe des hebräischen Kausativs in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85: 196–219.

2008. Roland Hoffmann: Causative Constructions in Late Latin Biblical Translations. In: Roger
Wright (ed.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. VIII. Hildesheim (xiii, 623 pp.), pp. 160–172. – The
paper is published in the 8th Congress proceedings volume of the Latin vulgaire – latin
tardif series.

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip
Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1:
Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at pp. 223–224.

2014. Roland Hoffmann: Les constructions causatives dans les traductions latines des textes hé­
breux et grecs: le cas de la Vulgate de Jérôme. In: Bernard Bortolussi – P. Lecaudé (eds.):
La Causativité en latin. Paris (220 pp.), pp. 143–176.

2018. Roland Hoffmann: Zur Kausativität. Kausativ-Konstruktionen in spätlateinischen Bibelüber­

setzungen. In: idem: Lateinische Linguistik. Hamburg (xii, 301 pp.), pp. 87–110. The corpus
analyzed consists of four books: Genesis, Psalms (the two Jeromian versions), and Isaiah.
Unlike Hebrew, Latin does not have a separate form for denoting the causative mode, so
that the translator has to resort to paraphrase.

clausula. Meant is rhythmic clause-ending, also called cursus.

1915. Eduard Norden: Die antike Kunstprosa. Vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Re­
naissance. 3rd printing. Leipzig. xx, 968, 22 pp. – Pages 923–960 (in volume 2; the two
volumes are paginated consecutively): Clausula in Latin prose. “Im Altertum hieß das
rhythmische Schlußkolon clausula (…) Im Mittelalter wurde der rhythmische Satzschluß
cursus genannt” (p. 959). “Die Praxis des Hieronymus ist wiederum ganz lehrreich: da, wo
er spinöse Fragen behandelt, achtet er nicht oder so gut wie nicht auf den Rhythmus, aber
sobald seine Rede höheren Schwung nimmt, stellt er sich ein” (p. 947).

1917. Giuseppe Gullotta: Il ritmo quantitativo nella Vulgata. Bollettino della Società filologica ro­
mana 27–48. – Also as a booklet: Il ritmo quantitativo nella Vulgata. Perugia. 24 pp.

1928. 1929. Mathieu G. Nicolau: L’origine du ‘cursus’ rythmique et les débuts de l’accent d’inten ­
sité en latin. Revue des études latines 6 (1928) 319–329; 7 (1929) 47–74. – Review: A.W. de
Groot, Gnomon 11.4 (1935) 2o7–210.

1945. Friedrich Stummer: Zur Stilgeschichte der alten Bibelübersetzungen. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1945) 195–230. – Pages 212–230: Rhythmische
Satzschlüsse in der Vulgata.

1954. Friedrich Stummer: Vom Satzrhythmus in der Bibel und in der Liturgie der lateinischen
Christenheit. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 3: 233–283.

93
 1955. Blaise, p. 31 (§ 32).

1956. Jean Doignon: Sacrum – sacramentum – sacrificium dans le texte latin de la Sagesse. Re­
vue des études latines 34 (1956) 240–253, at pp. 250–252.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford.
xviii, 365 pp. – In this commentary on one of the minor works of Jerome, Gray also studies
the clausulae of his sentences (pp. 58–67), though without reference to the Vulgate.

comparison, comparative. Of the numerous possibilities of expressing the comparative in unusal

ways (all listed by Kaulen), one merits to be singled out: the positive (bonum) may stand for the
comparative (melius): bonum est sperare in Domino quam sperare in principibus – it is better to
trust in the Lord than to trust in princes (Ps 118:9, Vg 117:9); bonum erat ei si (…) – it would have
been better for him if (Matt 26:24 = Mark 14:21).

1863. Hagen, p. 24.

1864. Johann Baptist Heiss [Heiß]: Beitrag zur Grammatik der Vulgata. Formenlehre. Munich (20
pp.), p. 12.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 18–19.

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg (49 pp.),
p. 10.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), pp. 415–418, 442–443, 452–453.

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. Des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 13–
14. Genetivus comparationis.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 521.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 160–163 (nos. 51–56), 258–260 (no. 145).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. xl.

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 322–323.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 21 (§ 22), 67 (§ 94,a–c), 110 (§ 128,5).

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp. 99.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 69, 97–100.

1977. Olegario García de la Fuente: El comparativo en las antiguas versiones latinas del Salterio.
La Ciudad de Dios 190: 299–316.

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateini­
schen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 298.

94
 2009. Rafael Jiménez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115, at pp. 106–108, with examples
from the book of Genesis.

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at pp. 209–212.

2016. Brigitte L.M. Bauer: The Development of the Comparative in Late Latin Texts. In: J.N.
Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity of Change? Cambridge 2016
(xx, 470 pp.), pp. 313–339.

2016. Robert Maltby: Analytic and Synthetic Forms of the Comparative and Superlative from
Early to Late Latin. In: James Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin. Continuity
or Change? Cambridge (xx, 470 pp.), pp. 340–366.

2018. Lucie Pultrová: Periphrastic Comparison in Latin. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17.1: 93–110
(with erratum, p. 367, in the issue of the same year).

2020. Lucie Pultrová: Comparison and Negation in Latin. Glotta 96: 178–212.

2023. Lucie Pultrová: The Category of Comparison in Latin. The Language of Classical Literature.
Leiden. xv, 340 pp. – This reference monograph on adjectives and adverbs such as melior
and optime has sections on the theory of comparison and on periphrastic comparison
(the latter being exemplified by magis assiduus). The study is based on the material in­
cluded in the Oxford Latin Dictionary the vocabulary of which ends with the 5th century
CE.

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 424.

conditional clause [Bedingungssatz]

1904. Kaulen, p. 299 (no. 197). Conditions may be expressed with the imperative; e.g., facite
quae dixi, et vivetis – do as I have said, and you shall live (Gen 42:18).

consecutive clause. Clauses of consequence are generally introduced by ut or ita ut plus subjunctive.
Example: et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad ianuam – and many came together,
so that there was no room for them even at the door (Mark 2:2). See glossary s.v. ut (Chapter
19.2), textual note on Col 4:6 (Chapter 22). See also below, → infinitive.

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp.
81–82 (text identical with the 1927 edition).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 163–165.

2009. Concepción Cabrillana Leal – Eusebia Tarriño Ruiz: Finales, consecutivas y comparativas. In:
José Miguel Baños Baños (ed.): Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid (838 pp.), pp. 633–656.

2010. Herbert Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament.
Frankfurt. 352 pp. – (1) Pages 263–275: Der modale Pseudokonsekutivsatz in der Vulgata.
Ein Beitrag zur Syntax des Vulgata-Lateins; (2) pp. 277–283: Das unvollständige negierte
modale pseudokonsekutive Satzgefüge in der Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 139 [2008] 99–
105; Jerome writes ut where, according to classical rules, ut non or ne would be required);
(3) pp. 285–294: Exodus 26,9; Richter 9,45; Judit 11,15: Noch drei modale pseudokonseku­
tive Satzgefüge in der Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 145 [2010] 13–23; Jerome provides

95
 free renderings; in German, one would resort to constructions with “indem”); (4) pp. 303–
319: …, ita ut oder … ita, ut? Wie das modale Satzgefüge zum konsekutiven Satzgefüge
wurde (p. 315: “Ich möchte die Hypothese vorlegen, dass im Verlauf des 6./7. Jahrhun­
derts das modal-pseudokonsekutive Sazugefüge aus dem Spätlateinischen allmählich ver­
schwunden ist.”).

2011. Concepción Cabrillana: Purpose and result clauses. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.):
New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 4. Berlin (xxiii, 925 pp.), pp.19–92.

cursus → clausula

dative case

1904. Kaulen, p. 326 (index, s.v. Dativ).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 90–92 (§§ 112).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 86–89 (§§ 99–106).

2023. Jesús de la Villa Pollo: Die Vulgata als Erkenntnisquelle des späteren Lateins: Die Beziehun­
gen zwischen Dativ und ad + Akk. als Markierung des Benefizienten. In: Roland Hoffmann
(ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibel­
übersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 157–178.

direct speech, introduction to direct speech. See also below → quod, quia, quoniam

1904. Kaulen, pp. 290–291 (nos. 185, 186).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 150–151 (§ 264). – English
translation: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Translated by
Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp.

2012. Lyliane Sznajder: Dixit autem serpens ad mulierem / mulieri quoque dixit: la double expres­
sion de l’allocutaire dans les propositions introductrices de discours directs dans la Vul­
gate. In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire, latin tardif IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp.
271–288. – The expansion of ad + Acc. referring to the addressee with uerba dicendi as an
alternative to the dative typically occurs in biblical translations and Christian literature.
Sznajder analyses the distributional differences between these two constructions, espe­
cially regarding the category of the addressee-constituent, and points out differences in
frequency and selection restrictions between various texts (taking into account inter alia
their status as either translations or original Latin texts). It is noteworthy that, unlike the
Old Testament, the New Testament was unaffected by the development of ad-construc­
tions. A study of addressee expressions in the original languages leads to conclude that
amongst other factors that contributed to the development of the prepositional phrase,
Semitic influence strengthened an internal Latin tendency.

2020. Lyliane Sznajder: Segments introducteurs de discours direct et repérages énonciatifs en la­
tin biblique: éléments pour une étude diastratique et diachronique. Revue de linguistique
latine du Centre Ernout (De lingua latina) 11; 27 pp. (online journal).

2023. Jana Mikulová: The Variability of Late Latin: Authors’ Means for Marking Direct Discourse.
In: Ivan Foletti et al. (eds.): A Radical Turn? Reappropriation, Fragmentation, and Variety in
the Postclassical World (3rd – 8th c.). Convivium Supplementum. Turnhout (157 pp.), pp.
48–59. – Texts from the Late Latin period (c. 200–800 CE) display a change in choices of
markers – verbal, nonverbal, and zero – in direct discourse.

96
ellipsis

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 530.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 255 (no. 138b), 301–305 (nos. 203–212).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. xli: ellipsis of the verb; pp. xxv–xxvi: el­
lipsis of the noun before a genitive (1 Cor 5:11 cum eiusmodi [persona] nec cibum sumere).

1926. Plater/White, p. 30 (§ 35). “The most frequent ellipsis is that of the copulative verb to be;
this is found in both Old and New Testament, especially in proverbial or didactic sayings
(Sapiential literature; Beatitudes), in ascriptions of praise, or in exclamatory sentences in ­
troduced by quam, ecce, etc.”

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 233–274. A general treatise, without consideration of biblical
Latin.

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at p. 218: verbal ellipsis.

emphasis [Betonung, Hervorhebung]. See also below → prolepsis

1904. Kaulen, p. 279 (no. 165).

1943. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Versio Vulgata haud raro formam textus primitivi leviter auget. Ver­
bum Domini 23: 129–132. – The article is in Latin.

1948. Moritz Regula: Streifzüge auf dem Gebiet der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik. Glotta 31.1–
2: 72–92. – On pp. 73–76, the author comments on the combination of statement and
rhetorical question in sentences like quid est homo quod memor es eius? – who is man,
that you think of him? (Ps. 8:5; p. 75). The rhetorical question underlines the statement
“God cares for humankind.”

2009. Brigitte L.M. Bauer: Word Order. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives
on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1. Berlin (xii, 561 pp.), pp. 241–316. – The author men­
tions Luke 22:23 and Matt 15:20 in the section on cleft constructions used for emphasis
(p. 285).

2011. Philip Burton: Christian Latin. In: James Clackson (eds.): A Companion to the Latin Lan­
guage. Chichester (xxvi, 634 pp.), pp. 485–501, at p. 488. – Brief reference to expressions
such as veniens veniet – he shall surely come (Hab 2:3).

2014. Lyliane Sznajder – Bernard Bortolussi: Topicalisation versus Left-dislocation in Biblical Lat­
in. Journal of Latin Linguistics 13: 163–195. – The subject is how biblical Latin highlights
and emphasizes a theme.

figura etymologica/parononomasia. Examples: et timuerunt viri timore magno – and the men feared
a great fear (Jonah 1:10; similarly 1 Macc 10:8); sacrificate sacrificium – sacrifice a sacrifice (Ps
4:6); coronans coronabit – crowing he will crown (Isa 22:18); morte morietur – (it) shall die a death
(Sir 14:12). Also used in classical Latin: ire iter – to journey a journey, eine Reise reisen (Vergil:
Georgica IV, 108).

97
1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 28–29. The author speaks of “Doppelsetzung des gleichen Wortstammes.”

1884. Adolf Rieder: Quae ad syntaxin Hebraicam, qua infinitivus absolutus cum verbo finito ex
eiusdem radice conjungitur, planiorem faciendam ex lingua Graeca et Latina afferantur.
Programm des königlichen Friedrichsgymnasiums zu Gumbinnen. Gumbinnen (33 pp.), pp.
1–3. – Refers to expressions such as “to die a death” in Hebrew; the construction also ex­
ists in ancient Greek and Latin – see Livy’s expressions occidione occidere and interficione
interficere – to kill by a killing.

1893. G.R. Hauschild: Die Verbindung finiter und infiniter Verbalformen desselben Stammes in ei­
nigen Bibelsprachen. Frankfurt. 34 pp. – The Vulgate is at the centre of this study. A short­
er version with the same title was published in Berichte des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts zu
Frankfurt 9 (1893) 99–127. Reviews:
1893. (unsigned), Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 466.

1897. Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte
der romanischen Philologie 5.1: 75–102, at pp. 101–102.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 504. Examples from Sirach: retribuere retri­
butionem (Sir 17:19); possidēre possessionem (Sir 51:29), etc.

1904. Kaulen, p. 272–273 (no. 150).

1926. Plater/White, p. 23 (§ 26). – Examples mentioned include plorans poravit (Lam 1:2) and
morte moriatur (Exod 21:17).

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. xii: Expressions such as benedicens benedicam and multiplicans multiplicabo (both
in Hebr 6:14) are “strange in Latin.”

1967. Svatopluk Štech: Zur Gestalt der etymologischen Figur in verschiedenen Sprachen. Zeit­
schrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Spra­
chen 81: 134–152. – The genitivus superlativus, known from biblical expressions such as
“song of songs” (canticum canticorum) and “vanity of vanities” (vanitas vanitatum) – and
sometimes called genitivus hebraicus – must not be considered Semitisms. It is known in
many languages, including pre-biblical Latin, especially spoken Latin. The author emphas­
izes the emotive quality of these expressions.

1994. Walter Bühlmann – Karl Scherer: Sprachliche Stilfiguren der Bibel. 2nd edition. Gießen. 125
pp. – Examples from the Bible, without consideration of the Vulgate Bible (pp. 21–22.
Figura etymologica).

2007. Werner Diem: “Paronomasie.” Eine Begriffsverwirrung. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen­
ländischen Gesellschaft 157: 299–352. – Although not about Latin, this is a helpful review
of the terminology.

2011. Philip Burton: Christian Latin. In: James Clackson (eds.): A Companion to the Latin Lan­
guage. Chichester (xxvi, 634 pp.), pp. 485–501, at p. 488. – Brief reference to expressions
such as veniens veniet – he shall surely come (Hab 2:3).

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 317
(examples).

98
 2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Vertum­
nus 14. Göttingen (255 pp.), see the index s.v. figura etymologica (p. 252).

final clauses [Finalsätze]. See below → purpose

future tense; how to refer to the future. See also → tenses

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg (49 pp.),
pp. 12–13. Page 13: Gebrauch “des Futurs nicht bloss 1) von der Zukunft schlechthin, son ­
dern 2) auch, wie das hebräische Futur (imperfekt), für unser Präsens, bes. wenn von Zu­
ständen und Handlungen, die jetzt stattfinden und immer stattfinden werden, somit in die
Zukunft hinüberreichen, oder von einem Pflegen die Rede ist, daher hauptsächlich bei all ­
gemein ausgesprochenen Beobachtungen.”

1926. Plater/White, p. 103 (§ 119 – present tense sometimes used for the future tense); pp. 104–
105 (§ 121).

1927. A.V. Billen: The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. Cambridge. viii, 234 pp. – The book is
noteworthy for its annotated glossary of words used in the Old Latin texts (pp. 185–222):
future forms of verbs – periet and transiet for peribit and transibit (etc.).

1998. Antonio López Fonseca: La traducción como índice de evolución lingüística: s. Jerónimo y
la expresión del futuro en latín. In: Antonio Alvas Ezquerra et al. (eds.): IX Congreso
español de estudios clásicos. Volume 3. Madrid (viii, 281 pp.), pp. 165–170. – With ex­
amples from the New Testament.

genetivus absolutus (instead of ablativus absolutus). The absolute genitive, when used in Latin, is a
feature foreign to correct grammar; it echoes Greek syntax.

1904. Kaulen, p. 309 (no. 215). – The genitivus absolutus in 2 Cor 10:15 is a translator’s
mistake.

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osser­
vazioni morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xxv.

1926. Plater/White, p. 35 (§ 44). – Often used in the Vetus Latina, but rarely in the Vulgate;
examples incude Rom 2:15; 2 Cor 10:15, and possibly Acts 1:8.

1955. Albert Blaise: Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 85–86
(§ 96).

2023. Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begrün­

dung. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in
das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 109–136,
at p. 126, n. 57: Jerome deleted all occurrences of genitivus absolutus in his revision
of the Gospels.

2023. Bernard Bertolussi – Felicia Logozzo et al.: Kontinuität und Innovation in der Partizi­
pialsyntax der Vulgata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.),
pp. 259–328, at pp. 281–281.

genetivus auctivus → polyptoton

99
genitive

1863. Hagen, p. 19. – Expressions such as odor suavitatis – savour of sweetness = sweet savour
(Gen 8:21) are Hebraisms; examples are listed.

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer. 64 pp. – The au­
thor deals with the formation of genitive plural forms such as mensum and mensuum
(from mensis, month) where one would expect the classical form mensium that also ap­
pears in the Vulgate (pp. 5–7). He also comments on the genetivus comparationis (pp. 13–
14).

1904. Kaulen, pp. 252–255 (nos. 131–138a), 253 (no. 134). – For expressions such as Iordanis flu­
men – river Jordan, see below → names (Kaulen, 1904).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xxv–xxvi. – Among other things,
Dalpane refers to cases where the genitive is used, but the ruling noun is not expressed
(genitivo con ellissi del nome reggente, p. xxvi–xxvi).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 93–96 (§§ 113–114; by mistake, § 114 is titled “§ 116”).

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), p. 448: Genetiv des zeitlichen Ausgangs (genitive of temporal is­
sue), of which John 12:1 is an example: ante sex dies Paschae – six days before Passover.

2014. Chiara Gianollo: Competing Constructions for Inalienable Possessions in the Vulgate Gos­
pels. Journal of Latin Linguistics 13.1: 93–114. On genitive constructions such as et confest­
im mundata est lepra eius – and immediately his leprosy was cleansed (Matt 8:3) vs. (dat­
ive) non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum – you shall never wash my feet (John 13:8).

genitive of intensity → polyptoton

gerund, gerundiv

1904. Kaulen, pp. 276 (no. 159), 279–280 (no. 167), 299–300 (no. 199).

2006. Robert Maltby: Gerunds, Gerundivs and Their Greek Equivalents in Latin Bible Translations.
In: Carmen Arias Abellán (ed.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif VII. Sevilla (572 pp.), 425–442.

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp.
92–96.

glosses

1942. Patrick W. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 4.3: 230–243, at p. 239: In Wisd 14:16, hic error is a scribal gloss; it means
“there’s a mistake here.” (B. Lang: No doubt a marginal gloss by oversight incorporated
into the text.)

2021. Matthew Kraus: How Jerome Dealt with Glosses. Vulgata in Dialogue 5: 1–3. – In his trans­
lation, Jerome frequently added explanatory glosses; they are generally introduced with
id est or hoc est – that is. An example is mamzer hoc est de scorto natus – mamzer, i.e.,
born from a prostitute (Deut 23:2).

2023. Matthew Kraus: Glossentradition des Hieronymus. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 30–31.

100
Greek influence and loanwords. Graecisms. Greek influence on the Latin of the Vulgate is consider­
able, and most visible in the vocabulary, just consider angelus, ecclesia, and baptizare (Matt 3:11,
etc.). But there are many more, such as ethnicus (Matt 5:47), holocaustum (Gen 22:7, etc.),
moechari (to commit adultery, Lev 20:10, etc.), Paraclitus (John 14:16, etc.) and paralyticus (Matt
8:6). Early manuscripts use Greek characters in at least one case: ego sum α et ω (Rev 1:8; 20:6;
22:13, according to the Weber/Gryson edition).

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 7–9: Greek nouns.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), pp. 434–451.

1879. Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus–Hieronymus. Breslau. iv,
92 pp. – Pages 32–40 deal with Greek words and influence of early-Christian Latin.

1882. Oscar Weise: Die griechischen Wörter im Latein [1882] = Leipzig 1964. xiv, 546 pp. With a
glossary, pp. 326–544. On Christianity, pp. 319–321.

1891. Günther Alexander Saalfeld: De Bibliorum Sacrorum Vulgatae editionis graecitate. Qued­
linburg. xvi, 180 pp. – See also the same author’s earlier book: Thesaurus italograecus.
Ausführliches historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der griechischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter im
Lateinischen. Vienna 1884. IV pp., 1184 cols.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 98–110 (nos. 21–23), 129 (no. 37: Greek case endings such as post Pentecosten,
2 Macc 12:32).

1926. Plater/ White, pp. 28–40 (§§ 33–54).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 63–64.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. xi – list of latinised Greek words in the New Testament.

1950. Christine Mohrmann: Les emprunts grecs dans la latinité chrétienne. Vigiliae Christianae 4:
193–211 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome III. Rome 1965 (458 pp.), pp.
127–145. The author is very critical of Oscar Weise’s book of 1882 (p. 127, note 2).

1956. Christine Mohrmann: Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens (1956). In: ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp.
21–50, esp. pp. 41–47.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 88–119.

1983. André Petit: Problèmes de traduction di grec au latin de la Vulgate. Cahier du Cercle Er­
nest-Renan 132: 142–151. – Frequently, the translators simply transcribe Greek words in­
stead of translating them; thus they write angelus (which in Latin would be nuntius), and
alabastrum (Matt 26:7, which in Latin would be unguentarium). The author presents a list
of c. 60 words found in the gospel of Matthew that transcribe Greek words.

1989. Jordi Redondo: Algunos helenismos en la “Vulgata” del Nuevo Testamento. Helmántica
40/121–123: 413–418.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid 588 pp. – The author
discerns three vital influences that shape biblical Latin: Semitic influences (pp. 170–268),

101
 Greek influences (pp. 269–287), and vulgar Latin influences (la lengua popular, pp. 289–
316). As can be seen from the page ranges, the Semitic influence is dominant.

1996–2004. Peter Stotz: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Handbuch der Alter­
tumswissenschaft. Munich. 5 Bände: xxxi, 723 pp.; xxvi, 482 pp.; xx, 352 pp.; xxv, 510 pp.;
1059 pp. – Band 1, pp. 519–551: Griechische Lehnwörter im christlichen Latein der Antike.

2009. Gualtiero Calboli: Latin Syntax and Greek. In: Philip Baldi et al. (eds.): New Perspectives on
Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 65–194.
– Page 113: “In Christian Latin, the influence of Greek was stronger, as already pointed out
by Rönsch (1875: 437–442), which should be employed with caution, because he con­
siders as direct Graecisms some constructions which seem only to have been encouraged
by the imitation of Greek.”

2019. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin
Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74: 1–25. – Review: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB, Revue béné­
dictine 131 (2021) 465–466. ▲

hapax legomenon

1921. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London. xi, 125 pp. – This
glossary of New Testament Latin lists all words that are found but once in the Vulgate by
prefixing them with a dagger. Examples include: † abdicare – to renounce, 2 Cor 4:2; † ab­
errare – to go astray, 1 Tit 1:6; † absentia – absence, Phil 2:12. As can be seen from these
examples, a hapax must not be a difficult word.

2019. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loan-words in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin
Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74: 1–25. – In the lists provided by the author, all hapax legom­
ena are marked “Vulg. Hapax.” Examples: corban – dedicated, Mark 7:11; angelicus – an­
gelic, Judg 13:6.

2020. Edson de Faria Francisco: A tradução de hapax legomena absolutos nos Salmos na
Vulgata e sua relação com o texto protomasorético e a Septuaginta. Revista di cultura
teológica 97: 79–109 (Portuguese). – This essay studies how Jerome translates the Hebrew
hapax legomena in his two versions of the Psalms. Considered are words of the following
passages: Ps 21:3; 42:5; 49:4; 66:11; 68:7, 36; 71:15; 72:6; 88:5, 13; 91:8; 107:30; 124:5;
139:16; and 144:13.

Hebraisms – Semitic influence. A Hebraism in a Latin text is a wording that seeks to preserve the lin ­
guistic peculiarities of Hebrew by imitating its syntax and idiomatic use with the result of sound­
ing either unusual or even wrong in Latin.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), pp. 452–454.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 254–255 (no. 136). – The author highlights the Hebraisms of the Vulgate and
advocates rendering them according to their sense, avoiding an awkward-sounding style
(p. 254: Ps 110:2 [Vg 109:2] virga virtutis tuae = dein mächtiges Zepter, not: Zepter deiner
Macht; your powerful sceptre, rather than: the sceptre of your power).

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 314–332. – After a survey of recent translations, the author provides a re­
view of Hebraisms in the Latin Bible, with examples especially from the New Testament.

102
 “Da es aber zu einer guten Übersetzung gehört, die fremdsprachige Urschrift in den hei­
matlichen Formen wiederzugeben, so sind derartige Ausdrücke als Fremdgebilde auszu­
merzen und durch deutsche Wendungen zu ersetzen. Nur so kann die Übersetzung auch
dem ungebildeten Volke verständlich und sprachlich schön werden” (p. 316). One must
refrain from using “unedles Übersetzungsdeutsch” (p. 319, ignoble translationese). Con­
sidered are especially: use of genitive instead of an adjective (p. 318: Gen 8:21 – odor
suavitatis = odor suavis; Luke 1:48 – humilitas ancillae suae = ancilla sua humilis), genit­
ivus qualitatis instead of an adjective (John 5:29: in resurrectionem vitae = Auferstehung
zum Leben; resurrection to life), comparative use of adjectives, pronouns, use of verbs,
zeugma with particles. Those who recognize the peculiarity of Hebrew-style Latin will
prefer freer renderings to awkward literalism. ▲

1926. Plater/White, pp. 11–27 (§§ 9–32).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 64.

1956. Christine Mohrmann: Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens (156). In: ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp.
21–50, esp. pp. 47–49.

1981. Olegario García de la Fuente: Consideraciones sobre el influjo hebreo en el Latín bíblico.
Emerita 49: 307–342.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid 588 pp. – The author
discerns three vital influences that shape biblical Latin: Semitic influences (pp. 170–268),
Greek influences (pp. 269–287), and vulgar Latin influences (la lengua popular, pp. 289–
316). As can be seen from the page ranges, the Semitic influence is dominant.

1996. Jean-Claude Fredouille: “Latin chrétien” ou “latin tardif”? Recherches augustiniennes 29: 5–
23. – Page 14: odor suavitatis (Gen 8:21) – odour of sweetness, often quoted as an example
of Hebraism, has a close equivalent in classical Latin; see arbores odore mirae suavitatis –
trees of wonderful sweetness (Pliny: Historia naturalis VI, 198).

2003. Matthew Kraus: Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible. Vetus Testamentum 53:
48–513. ▲

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239. – The author studies the translation Latin of the
Vulgate Old Testament. Page 202: “In dealing with the Vulgata, it is important, albeit diffi­
cult, to distinguish between instances of direct Semitic influence and indirect influence
stemming from the Greek of the LXX and the New Testament.” There is also “an inherent
difficulty in determining that a specific feature is necessarily a Semiticism when such a
feature is attested in classical Latin as well. It is worthwhile to establish a distinction
between quantitative and qualitative Semiticisms (…): the latter are exclusive to biblical
and Cjristian Latin, whereas the former have precedents in the classical language” (p. 204).
An essential contribution to the study of biblical Latin. ▲

2009. Rafael Jimenez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115. – The author treats, among oth­
er things, the Semitisms in the Vulgate. Many of the Old Testament texts analyzed are
taken from the book of Genesis.

103
 2023. Chaja Vered Dürrschnabel: Verbum ex verbo: Hebräische Syntax im Latein der Vulgata. In:
Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der
lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 139–155. – This paper highlights
the paratactic features of biblical Latin, features that are due to the literal rendering of
Hebrew waw conjunctivum and waw copulativum.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lin­
gua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelüberset­
zung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83, at pp. 68–69.

hexameter. There is only one original Greek hexameter verse in the Bible – quoted in Titus 1:12; two
others are slightly odd but nevertheless clear enough: James 1:17 and 4:5, see William H.P.
Hatch: Note on the Hexameter in James 1:17. Journal of Biblical Literature 28.2 (1909) 149–151;
Hans Windisch: Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd edition. Tübingen 1951 (vi, 172 pp.), p. 27. Latin
hexameter verses can be found in Gen 3:5, John 8:12, and Acts 19:28 (and presumably else­
where) – but one must not look for classical Vergilian metric hexameters based on the arrange ­
ment of long and short syllables; instead, what we have here are so-called rhythmic hexameters
found in late-ancient authors such as the Christian poet Commodianus (3rd century).

1958. Dag Norberg: Introduction à l’étude de la versification latine médiévale. Stockholm. 218 pp.
– The standard text on post-classical versification, without reference to biblical Latin.

1996. M.L.Gasparov: A History of European Versification. Translated by G.S. Smith and M. Tarlin­
skaja. Oxford. xvi, 334 pp. – The author explains the shift from classical metric to medieval
rhythmic versification. No examples from the Latin Bible are given.

2015. Roberto Mori: Metrica vis sacris non est incognita libris. La bible et sa facies metrica à par­
tir de la lettre d’Arator à Vigile. In: P.F. Moretti – R. Ricci – C. Torre (eds.): Culture and Lit­
erature in Latin Late Antiquity. Continuities and Discontinuities. Turnhout 2015 (400 pp.),
pp. 129–140. – Discussed are Jerome’s many references to poetic texts in the Bible that
have metrical form – hexameter, iambic trimeter, and the like.

2018. Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger – Wilhelm Tauwinkl: Some Notes about Jerome
and the Hexameters in the Book of Job. Vulgata in Dialogue 2: 47–51 (online journal). – In
his Prologue to Job, Jerome explains that the book has prose sections and poetic sections
in Hebrew hexameter (Tusculum-Vulgata II, p. 1334; Sources chrétiennes 592: 398). (But
note that Jerome did not use hexameters in translating the book of Job.)

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Vertum­
nus 14. Göttingen (255 pp.), pp. 89–92. – Jerome takes a certain amount of interest in
rhythmic versification, but remains vague, leaving details to specialists.

homophony. Occasionally, a Latin word is used because the underlying Greek or Hebrew word sounds
similarly. The principle as such is well established in scholarship, though not many cases seem to
have been studied. For a Hebrew homophonous word used to render a Greek term, see
Bernhard Lang in Sprüche der Väter. Das Weisheitsbuch im Talmud. Stuttgart 2020 (138 pp.), p.
110 (Greek aretê, Hebrew tiferet).

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit. Archiv für lateini­
sche Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 235–277. – On pp. 275–276, Thielmann discusses
cases of homophonic translations (Übersetzung nach dem Wortklang), i.e., cases where
the Latin word echoes the underlying Greek word; examples are Latin digne for Greek
díkaia (Sir 14:30), Latin turbare for Greek thorybeîn (Sir 18:19).

104
 1925. David S. Blondheim: Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina. Paris (cxxxviii, 247 pp.), p.
cix.

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch der lateinischen

Übersetzungen des Psalters und der Evangelien. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 46: 34–48, at p. 37, note 1: Greek ῥύεσθαι translated as eruere in the New Testa­
ment (2 Cor 1:10).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 66: ho­
mophony as a translation preference in the Vetus latina, with reference to Blondheim.

1934. Arthur Allgeier: In superbia et in abusione (Ps. 30,19). Biblica 15: 185–212. The hapax ab­
usio (Ps 31:19, Vg 30:19) echoes Hebrew wabuz.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lin­
gua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelüberset­
zung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83, at pp. 69–70.

hyperbaton, also called trajection [Sperrstellung]. Said to be the most common Latin figure of style,
used in both prose and poetry. A famous line of Vergil provides a good example: felix qui potuit
rerum cognoscere causas – happy the one who is able to discern the causes of things ( Georgica
II, 490); without hyperbaton, it would be rerum causas cognoscere. Biblical examples: (1) divitias
peccatorum multas – the great wealth of the sinners (Ps 37:16 [Vg 36:16]) instead of multas di­
vitias peccatorum. – (2) cum quingentorum esset annorum – when he was 500 years old (Gen
5:31) instead of cum esset quingentorum annorum. – (3) Judg 19:27 (sparsis in limine manibus –
with her hands spread on the threshold (Judg 19:27) instead of sparsis manibus in limine. – (4)
habebis in novissimis spem – you shall have hope in the end (Prov 24:14) instead of habebis
spem in novissimis. From the point of view of Latin style, hyperbaton expressions sound better.

1971. J.N. Adams: A Type of Hyperbaton in Latin Prose. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philologic­
al Society n.s. 17/197: 1–16, esp. pp. 10–11. – In his translation from the Hebrew, Jerome
frequently uses hyperbaton. Examples: eo quod plures haberet uxores (without hyperbaton,
this would be plures uxores haberet) – for he had many wives (Judg 8:30); quam si septem
haberes filios – than if thou hadst seven sons (Ruth 4:15). In similar cases, the Latin New
Testament avoids hyperbaton.

2006. Andrew M. Devine – Laurence D. Stephens: Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and In­
formation. Oxford (xii, 639 pp.), pp. 524–610. – Detailed study on the basis of examples
from classical sources; biblical texts are not considered.

2019. Roland Hoffmann: On Word Order in the Vulgate 3: Discontinuities in the order of Noun
and Modifier. In: Béla Adamik et al. (ed.): Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
59: 213–226. – This instalment of the Acta Antiqua constitutes the proceedings volume
Latin tardif – latin vulgaire XII.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung der Vulgata im Neuen Testament. In:
idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen
Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 179–218, at pp. 198, 207–211. One of the
functions of hyperbaton placement of an adjective is to bring it into sharp focus; for an
example, see magnam habet remunerationem – has a (very) great remuneration (Hebr
10:35).

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lin­
gua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelüberset­

105
 zung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83, at p. 43. – 1 Macc and 2 Macc differ considerably in
the use of hyperbaton: the 17 hyperbata of 1 Macc echo an original Hebrew text (which
has no hyperbata), while the 95 hyperbata of 2 Macc reflect a Greek text (which has many
hyperbata).

imperative

1904. Kaulen, p. 299 (no. 197). Conditions may be expressed with the imperative; e.g., facite
quae dixi, et vivetis – do as I have said, and you shall live (Gen 42:18).

1926. Plater/White, p. 106 (§ 125). Prohibition is normally expressed by noli with infinitive.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 315: “Zu den
imperativischen Ausdrücken in der Vulgata.”

impersonal expressions and meanings [unpersönliche Ausdrücke]

1904. Kaulen, pp. 188–189 (no. 92); 224 (no. 108).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. xv.

1911. Vincenzo Ussani: Un preteso uso della Vulgata. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica
39: 550–557. – Ussani is critical of Kaulen (p. 224, no. 108) who argues that dicit and ap­
pellavit occasionally stand for dicitur and appellatur. The relevant passages are Gen 16:14;
Isa 15:5; and Ps 87:5 (Vg 86:5). See below, Chapter 21 (textual note on Gen 16:14).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 80–81 (§ 109).

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateini­
schen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 299. – Expressions to
be rendered “man” in German.

2017. Chaja Vera Duerrschnabel: (Un)Persönliche Strukturen im Lateinischen der Vulgata und
ihre hebräischen Parallelen. Philologia Classica 12: 160–176. – In the Vulgate, the trend is
toward personal expressions such as non enim pluerat dominus deus super terram – the
Lord God had not rained upon the earth (Gen 2:5), echoing the Hebrew. But impersonal
expressions do exist, see, e.g., Ps 68:15 (Vg 15): nive dealbuntur – they (kings) shall be
whitened with snow.

2022. Michela Cennamo – Claudia Fabrizio: Non-nominative arguments, active impersonals, and
control in Latin. In: Eysein Dahl (ed.): Alignment and Alignment Change in the In­
do-European Family. Oxford (xvi, 365 pp.), pp. 188–220. – On p. 198, the authors quote
Gen 19:24 as an example of a text that makes explicit what generally is expressed imper­
sonally: igitur Dominus pluit super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur et ignem a Domino de
caelo – the Lord let it rain sulphur and fire over Sodoma and Gomorra, from the Lord out
of heaven.

indirect speech. Also called “reported speech.”

1904. Kaulen, p. 292 (no. 187).

infinitive. See also → accusative with infinitive and → nominative with infinitive.

106
 1885. Philipp Thielmann: Habere mit dem Infinitif und die Entstehung des romanischen Fu­
turums. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 2: 48–89, 157–203. – Mentions
Luke 12:50 (p. 178).

1891/92. Ludwig Bertram Andergassen: Über den Gebrauch des Infinitivs in der Vulgata. Bozen. –
2 parts, each of which has 20 pp. – Review: Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–
1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897)
75–102, at pp. 100–101. The reviewer thinks that this is an uncritical essay with gaps in the
documentation of sources and the relevant scholarly literature.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 276–281 (nos. 161, 162a, 163–168), 294–295 (no. 191).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 38–39 (§ 50). See also p. 106 (§ 125): prohibition is normally expressed by
noli with infinitive (noli me tangere, John 20:17).

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp.
48–69 (passim).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 143–144 (§§ 246–250),
183–188 (§§ 327–340).

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateini­
schen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), pp. 289–301, at p. 300.

1996. Michèle Fruyt: Le syntaxe de l’infinitif en latin tardif. Études augustiniennes 29: 43–73.

2014. Christian Tornau – Paolo Cecconi (eds.): The Shepherd of Hermas in Latin. Berlin (viii, 133
pp), p. 129: “It is well known that in Late Latin infinitives as syntactical complements of
verbs and also of nouns become increasingly popular. The meaning is usually a final or a
consecutive one; especially in the translations of the Bible the construction is easily recog­
nized as a Grecism (cf. e.g., Apoc. 5,5 Vulg. Vicit leo … aperire librum …)” – the lion hath
prevailed to open the book (Douay Version).

2021. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume II. Oxford (xxxii, 1438 pp.), p. 385–386.
“The infinitive is used in Bible translation and in quotations from the Bible, where the
Greek koine text has an infinitive and the agent of the infinitive is coreferential with the
subject of the governing verb. (…) Christian authors rarely use infinitives in their own
texts” (p. 395). Examples: et sedit populus comedere ac bibere – and the people sat down
to eat and drink (Exod 32:6); paene universa civitas convenit audire verbum Dei – almost
the whole city came together to hear the word of God (Acts 13:44).

interogative pronouns and interrogative sentences [Fragepronomen, Fragesätze]. In the Vulgate,

many interrogative sentences lack an interrogative signal; for an example, see John 21: 15: diligis
me plus his – do you love me more than they? In classical Latin, it would be diligisne me (…),
marked by the enclitic particle -ne.

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg. iv, 106 pp. – Pages
49–58: Die Fragesätze in der Vulgata. The enclitic interrogative particle -ne, used by
Jerome (Gen 29:6; 43:27), is rare; many interrogative sentences are introduced by si.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 172 (no. 77) – interrogative pronoun; 293 (no. 189).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 121–123 (§: 135): dependent questions.

1948. Moritz Regula: Streifzüge auf dem Gebiet der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik. Glotta 31.1–
2: 72–92, esp. p. 75. – quid est homo, quod memor est eius? (Ps 8:5) – what is man that you

107
 pay attention to him? One must distinguish between the statement (memor es eius) and
the rhetorical question (quid est homo?); the rhetorical question serves to highlight the
statement.

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp.
97–98: Methods of asking questions.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 121–122 (§§ 192–197),
152–155 (§§ 270–273). – English translation: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morpho­
logy, and Syntax. Translated by Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp.

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la
rencontre entre la Bible et le monde classique. Nijmegen (xv, 256 pp.), pp. 234–244. – Rhet­
orical questions; see below, → quis? In the glossary (Chapter 19.2).

2014. Harry van Rooy: The Use of Interrogatives in the Book of Ezekiel and Their Translation in
the Ancient Versions. Journal for Semitics 23: 615–632.

linguistic register [Sprachebene]

1952. Meinrad Stenzel: Zum Wortschatz der neutestamentlichen Vulgata. Vigiliae Christianae 6:
20–27. – The vocabulary is characterized by inconsistency; words that belong to literary
Latin and those that belong to colloquial Latin stand side by side. The two linguistic strata
are constantly mixed. On pp. 24–26, the author lists examples; in each case the literary
Latin rendering of a Greek word is placed first: logos = sermo/verbum; thlipsis =
pressura/tribulatio; doxa = claritas/gloria; ekei = illic/ibi; hypsêlos = altus/excelsus; eipen =
ait/dixit. ▲

Menzerath rule. There is an inverse relationship between the number of words in a sentence and the
length of the words: In sentences with more words, the words are generally shorter than the
words in sentences with less words. (Or: In short sentences, you can use long words.)

2007. Marc Hug: Das Menzerath-Gesetz in der Vulgata. In: Peter Grzybek – Reinhard Köhler
(eds.): Exact Methods in the Study of Language and Text. Berlin (xxi, 767 pp.), pp. 245–257.
– A paper full of statistical tables.

meter → clausula → hexameter

2000. Mario Saltarelli: From Latin Metre to Romance Rhythm. In: John Charles Smith – Delia
Bentley (eds.): Historical Linguistics 1995. Volume 1. Amsterdam (xi, 438 pp.), pp. 345–360.

names. On Latin proper names such as Marcus, see above, Chapter 8.5.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 10 (no. 9); 110–119 (nos. 24–27: transcription of Hebrew names), 122–125 (nos.
31–32); 253 (no. 134). – Page 114: “Im allgemeinen lässt sich sagen, dass der hl. Hierony­
mus dieselbe Form der hebräischen Eigennamen, welche wir heute lesen, wiederzugeben
beabsichtigt hat; nur war er dabei von derjenigen Weise der Aussprache beeinflusst, wel­
che er von seinem jüdischen Sprachlehrer kennen gelernt hatte. Ein Einfluss der Septua­
ginta ist hierbei nicht nachzuweisen.” – Frequently, we find expressions such as Iordanis
flumen – Jordan river (Josh 15:5), with the generic noun (flumen) specified by the name in
the genitive case. Similar expressions include terra Aegypti – land of Egypt (Deut 8:14;1
Sam 12:6) and terra Iuda – land of Judah (Deut 34:2; Judg 15:9 – Iuda is indeclinable, but
here used as genitive).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 11–12 (§ 10).

108
 1947. Friedrich Stummer: Geographie des Buches Judith. Stuttgart. 40 pp. – The appendix dis­
cusses the place names used in the Vulgate (pp. 31–39).

2009. Joze Krašovec: Phonetic Factors in Transliteration of Biblical Poper Names into Greek and
Latin. Textus 24: 15–36.

2005. R. Steven Notley – Ze’ev Safrai (eds.): Eusebius. Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine
Scripture. Including the Latin Edition of Jerome. Leiden. xxxvii, 212 pp. – Greek, Jerome’s
Latin, English translation. – For another edition that provides only the English translation,
see Rupert L. Chapman – J.E. Taylor (eds.): The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Translated by G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville. Jerusalem
2003. 206, 8 pp.

2010. Joze Krašovec: The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names. London 2010. 153 pp. – See
esp. pp. 84–138 on the transmission of Semitic forms of biblical proper names in the
Greek and Latin linguistic traditions.

2013. Eyal Poleg: The Interpretation of Hebrew Names in Theory and Practice. In: Eyal Poleg –
Laura Light (eds.): Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible. Leiden (xv, 412 pp.), pp.
217–236.

2013. Tarciziu-Hristofor Serban: À la recherche des éventuelles règles de translittération des

noms propres hébraïques dans la Vulgate. In: Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et al.
(eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins Chur
in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 181–194.

2018. Virginia Grinch – Evan Hayes – Stephen Nimis: The Gospel of John in Greek and Latin. A
Comparative Intermediate Reader. Greek and Latin Text with Running Vocabulary and
Commentary. Faenum Publishing. Oxford, Ohio. xxxix, 337 pp. – On proper names in the
Gospel of John, see pp. xvii–xviii, 319–323.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 316: antono­
masia, i.e., the substitution of an epithet or title for a proper name. Example: filius David –
son of David = Jesus (Matt 21:9).

negation. See also → affirmation

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 324, 328–329. – non omnis = nullus (Matt 24:22 = Mark 13:20).

1997. Martin Haspelmath: Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford (xvi, 364 pp.), p. 191: virtutesque non
quaslibet – miracles not just any = special miracles (Acts 19:11), a case of semantic enrich ­
ment through negation.

2020. Lucie Pultrová: Comparison and Negation in Latin. Glotta 96: 178–212.

nominative with infinitive

1896. B.L. Gildersleeve – Gonzalez Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p.
146 (no. 206). The paradigm sentence of this construction is beatus esse sine virtute nemo
potest – no one can be happy without virtue.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 289–290 (no. 184).

109
nominativus pendens (nominativus absolutus). See also → emphasis and → prolepsis.

1904. Kaulen, p. 286 (no. 177).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 19 (§ 19), 80 (§ 108).

numerals

1863. Hagen, pp. 84, 90

1904. Kaulen, pp. 163–164 (nos. 57–60).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 21 (§ 23), 68 (§ 94g).

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 85–87. – On per ter – three times (Acts
10:16; 11:10).

2010. Jesús de la Villa: Numerals. In: Numerals. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New
Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 3. Berlin 2010 (xxi, 529 pp.), pp. 175–238.
With examples from the Vulgate.

participle. See also → periphrastic conjugation

1892. William McCracken Milroy: The Participle in the Vulgate New Testament. Baltimore. 32 pp.
– Review: Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über
die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102, at p. 101.

1904. Kaulen, p. 277 (no. 162). Present participle with esse to form a periphrastic conjugation:
erat enim docens eos – he was teaching them; er lehrte sie (Mark 1:22). Note that the Eng­
lish language permits the same construction.

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xxxiv–xxxv.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 108–112 (§ 128).

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. vi, note 1. – Richards lists a number of passages in which the participle is used in ­
stead of the more correct finite form of the verb. An example is homo qui (…) docens – the
man who teaches, which in standard Latin should be homo qui docet (Acts 21:28, Vg and
NVg). Other examples are Acts 27:1; Rom 2:7 (here the NVg has quaerent, instead of the
participle quaerentibus); 1 Thess 3:1; Phil 3:3; Jude 1.

1991. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Sintaxis del participio en el Libro I de Samuel de la Vulgata.
Analecta Malacitana 14.2: 267–288.

1999. Carmel Arías Abellón: Innovaciones sintácticas en el latín Cristiano: participio de presente
en lugar de forma personal del verbo. In: Hubert Petersmann – Rudolf Kettemann (eds.):
Latin vulgaire – latin tardif V. Heidelberg (xviii, 567 pp.), pp. 195–207.

2002. Jesús de la Villa Polo: The Translation of the Greek Participles in the Vulgata. In: D. Shalev
– L. Savicki (eds.): Donum Grammaticum. To honour H. Rosén. Bruxelles (xvi, 411 pp.), pp.
385–394. – Often, the Vulgate uses a Latin participle to render a Greek one.

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at p. 218.

110
 2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I. Oxford (xxiv, 1430 pp.), pp. 545–546.
esse + participle: erat autem docens in synagoga eorum – he was teaching in their syn­
agogue (Luke 13:10). This construction echoes the koine Greek’s periphrastic construction.
A Graecism.

2023. Bernard Bortolussi – Felicia Logozzo – Lyliane Sznajder – Liana Tronci: Kontinuität und In­
novation in der Partizipialsyntax der Vulgata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata.
Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg
(vi, 413 pp.), pp. 259–330.

2023. Anna Persig: Die Übersetzung griechischer Partizipien in den Katholischen Briefen der Ve­
tus Latina und der Vulgata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
359–392. – Greek participles without an article are generally rendered with a Latin parti­
ciple. Accordingly, ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους gets translated as suscipiens nuntios – she
who receives the messengers (Jas 2:25).

passive voice

2020. José Miguel Baños Baños: La traducción del griego al latín en el Nuevo Testamento: de la
pasiva morfológica a la pasiva léxica. In: Luz Conti et al. (eds.): Δῶρα τά οἱ δίδομεν
φιλέοντες. Homenaje al profesor Emilio Crespo. Madrid (649 pp.), pp. 67–74.

periphrastic conjugation – also called periphrastic participle. Examples are fuit Ioannes in deserto
baptizans – John in the desert was baptizing (Mark 1:4; instead of classical Ioannes baptizavit in
deserto – John baptized in the desert); trans Iordanem ubi erat Ioannes baptizans – beyond the
Jordan, where John was baptizing (John1:28); erat praedicans – he taught (Mark 1:39).

1904. Kaulen, p. 277 (no. 162).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 109–110 (§ 128.4).

1943. Friedrich Blaß [Blass] – Albert Debrunner: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 7.
umgearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage. Göttingen (xviii, 368 pp.), pp. 215–217 (§§ 352–
356). – Since the Latin periphrastic conjugation echoes its Greek model, it is necessary to
consider the relevant Greek evidence that can be found in this reference manual of New
Testament Greek. (Later editions of this work are mere reprints.)

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 133–134 (§ 225).

1999. Carmel Arias Abellán: Innovaciones sintácticas en el latín cristiano: participio de presente
en lugar de forma personal del verbo. In: Hubert Petersmann – Rudolf Kettemann (eds.):
Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. V. Heidelberg (xviii, 567 pp.), pp. 195–207.

2001. Marius Reiser: Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments. Paderborn (xiv, 257
pp.), pp. 46–47. – Reiser comments on the periphrastic conjugation in the Greek New
Testament.

2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I. Oxford (xxiv, 1430 pp.), pp. 545–546.
esse + participle: erat autem docens in syagoga eorum – he was teaching in their syn­
agogue (Luke 13:10). This construction echoes the koine Greek’s periphrastic construction.
A Graecism.

pleonasm

1955. Blaise, pp. 29 (§ 30), 101–102 (§ 132).

111
 2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 318. Example:
et ait David ad viros, qui stabant secum, dicens – and David said to the men who stood
with him, saying (1 Sam 17:26).

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen 2023 (256 pp.), p. 84 (note 18).

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 425–426.

plural of nouns

1904. Kaulen, pp. 126–127 (no. 35): plural of abstract nouns such as veritates – truths (Ps 12:2, Vg
11:2). “Die Pluralbildung der Abstrakta ist in der späteren Latinität sehr gewöhnlich (…) in­
des ist sie kaum irgendwo so häufig und auffallend, als in der Vulgata“ (p. 127).

1926. Plater/White, p. 18 (§ 17).

1950. Friedrich Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 1
(1950) 10–19, at p. 14: deus scientiarum – God of (all) knowledge (1 Sam 2:3), a case of
pluralis amplitudinis. Stummer supplies bibliography on this phenomenon in In­
do-European languages.

polemical language – swearwords, terms of abuse

1965. Ilona Opelt: Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen.
Heidelberg. 283 pp. – This is a fundamental study of polemical language used in Latin lit­
erature. Jerome is referred to (pp. 234–236), but not his biblical translation. See also Ilona
Opelt: Hieronymus’ Streitschriften. Heidelberg 1973 (219 pp.), pp. 172–180 and 211–219. –
Opelt’s 1965 book has inspired Wissemann’s study of 1992.

1992. Michael Wissemann: Schimpfworte in der Bibelübersetzung des Hieronymus. Heidelberg. x,

211 pp. – Wissemann collects polemical and disqualifying expressions such as canis (dog
– 1 Sam 17:43), canis mortuus (dead dog – 1 Sam 24:15), vir sanguinum (you are a man of
blood – 2 Sam 16:8), gentes apostatrices quae recesserunt a me (apostates who have with­
drawn from me – Ezek 2:3). This kind of verbal aggression appears throughout the Bible.

2001. Eberhard Bons – Bernhard Lang: Schimpfwort. In: Manfred Görg et al. (eds.): Neues Bibel-
Lexikon. Düsseldorf 2001 (xi pp.,1238 cols.), cols. 478–479.

2008. Bianca-Jeanette Schröder: Swearwords, terms of abuse. In: Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia
of the Ancient World. Volume 13. Leiden (lvi pp., 988 cols.), cols. 976–977. – Translated
from: Schimpfwörter. In: Der Neue Pauly. Band 11. Stuttgart 2002 (xi pp., 1234 cols.), cols.
173–176.

2020. Michael Wissemann: Schimpfwörter des Hieronymus. Vulgata in dialogue 4 (2020) 23–32
(online journal).

2022. Karl-Wilhelm Weeber: Schöner schimpfen auf Latein. Reclam. Ditzingen. 128 pp. – No Vul­
gate texts are mentioned, but here is much material for comparison.

2023. Michael Wissemann: Schimpfwörter in der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 39–41.

112
politeness

2017. Peter Juhás: Die biblisch-hebräische Partikel [NA] im Lichte der antiken Bibelübersetzungen.
Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer vermuteten Höflichkeitsfunktion. Leiden. xvii, 227
pp.

polyptoton. Repetition of a word within an expression. This figure of speech is also called genetivus
auctivus, a designation used in the introduction (praenotanda) of the Nova Vulgata. Examples:
caelum caelorum – heaven of heavens (Neh 9:6); caeli caelorum – heavens of heavens (Ps 148:4);
saeculum saeculi – generation of generation = forever (Ps 22:27, Vg 21:27; Ps 45:7, Vg 44:7); rex
regum – king of kings (Dan 2:37); sanctus sanctorum – holy one of holy ones (Dan 9:24, meant is
the altar, the temple, or the high priest); sanctum sanctorum – holy of holies (1 Chr 23:13, the
sacred space where the priest Aaron ministers).

1955. Blaise, p. 30 (§ 31).

1965. H. H.: Polyptoton. In: Lexikon der Alten Welt. Zurich (xv pp., 3524 cols.), col. 2401: “polyptô­
ton, figura ex pluribus casibus (…) rhetorische Wortwiederholung mit Abwandlung der Fle­
xionsform, den Wortfiguren zugehörig.” The Greek word polyptoton means “with many
cases.”

1986. John Paul II (ed.): Nova Vulgata. Bibliorum sacrorum editio. Editio altera. Città del Vaticano
(xxxi, 2316 pp.), p. xx. Examples of genetivus auctivus such as caelum caelorum and saecu­
lum saeculi, typical of biblical Latin, have been retained. – Passages are not listed, but easy
to find.

2022. Dorothea Keller: Exegetisches zu bestimmten Polyptota. In: eadem: Gattung und Stil in der
Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Bei­
spiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen 2023 (256 pp.), pp. 87–88 and 203–212.
– The following expressions are considered: caeli caelorum (Ps 148:4), civitas civitatum, oc­
cidens occidentis, ornatus ornamentorum, saecula saeculorum, of which the best known is
saecula saeculorum (Tobit 13:23; Rom 16:27; Gal 1:5; Hebr 13:21; Rev 20:10).

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 424. Stotz speaks
of “genitive of intensity.”

prepositions

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.), p. 71: In
classical Latin, two prepositions are never placed side by side as in de trans Iordanem
(Matt 4:25). There are more examples of this, see de sub coelo (Luke 17:24) and de post
tergum (Zeph 1:16).

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 23–26.

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg (49 pp.),
pp. 10, 14–15.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), pp. 389–400. – Rönsch also lists “Präpositionen in Adverbialform” (pp.
398–400) such as foras in: egressus sumus foras portam – we went out before the gate
(Acts 16:13).

113
 1904. Kaulen, pp. 236–246 (nos. 121–126).

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 327–328: praeterquam, nisi.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 83–90 (§ 111).

1951. H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford (xv, 196 pp.), pp.
100–113. – All prepositions – from a, absque, coram, clam, cum etc. to secus and supra are
listed, with examples from the Vulgate New Testament. The final section deals with pre­
positions that govern both the ablative and the accusative cases: in, sub, super.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 93–96 (§§ 119–123). –
English translation: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Trans­
lated by Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp.

1984. María Luisa Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández: Las preposiciones ab/de/ex en el ‘Liber

Sapientiae’ de la Vulgata. In: Olegario García de la Fuente (ed.): Actas del II Congreso
Andaluz de Estudios Clásicos. Madrid. Vol. 1, pp. 321–326.

1986. Olegario García de la Fuente: Sobre las preposiciones compuestas en el latín

bíblico. Analecta Malacitana 9: 3–12.

1988. Bengt Löfstedt: Übersetzungstechnisches zur Vulgata [1988]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Auf­
sätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), pp.
302–309, at p. 308: “Hebraisierende Präpositionalkonstruktion statt des Dativs.”

1998. Jesús de la Villa Polo: The substitution of instrumental ablative by prepositional phrases in
Latin. Some evidence from the Vulgata. In: B. García Hernández (ed.): Estudios de lingüísti­
ca latina. Actas del IX Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Latina. Madrid (xviii, 1155 pp.
in 2 vols.), pp. 291–308. – The instrumental ablative, when translated into the Latin of the
Vulgate, is not generally rendered by the ablative; instead, prepositional phrases are used;
an example is unanimiter in oratione (Greek: tê proseuchê, dative) – unanimous in prayer
(Acts 1:14).

2000. R. Jimenez-Zamudio: Perífrasis preposicionales latinas en la Vulgata. In: Benjamín Gar­

cía-Hernández (ed.): Latin Vulgar y Tardio. Homenaje a Veikko Väänänen. Madrid (xxx, 237
pp.), pp. 125–138.

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at pp. 215–217.

2013. J.N. Adams: Social Variation in the Latin Language. Cambridge (xxi, 933 pp.), pp. 601–605.
– Adams comments on the following compound prepositions: amodo – from now on
(Matt 23:39; John 1:19); detrans (Matt 4:25); deintus (Luke 11:7.39–40).

prolepsis (and casus pendens). Also called “left dislocation.” Examples of this construction are: Deus
meus, impolluta via eius – my God, his way is undefiled (Ps 18:31, Vg 17:31); vir respiciens in
mensam alienam, non est vita eius in cogitatione victus – the man who is a burden to someone
else’s table – his life is not spent in concern about livelihood (Sir 40:30). More examples esp. in
the 1904 and 1955 handbooks and the 1981 article.

114
 1896. B.L. Gildersleeve – Gonzalez Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p.
297. – Brief explanation; the stylistic feature is said to be typical of oral discourse; no ref­
erence to the Vulgate.

1904. Kaulen, p. 286 (no. 177).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), p. 29 (§ 29). Satanas expetivit
vos ut cribraret sicut triticum – Satan has desired you that he may sift you as wheat (Luke
22:31). The object vos is placed proleptically before the ut and thus is part of the intro­
ductory sentence. Blaise explains that the construction imitates Greek syntax.

1981. Olegario García de la Fuente: Consideraciones sobre el influjo hebreo en el Latín bíblico.
Emerita 49: 307–342. – On p. 325, the author lists three typical cases of casus pendens that
reflect Hebrew syntax: quicumque audierit, tinnient ambas aures eius – whosoever shall
hear it, both his ears shall tingle (1 Sam 3:11); Dominus in caelo sedes eius – the Lord, his
seat is in heaven (Ps 11:4; Vg 10:5; NVg 10:4); Deus meus, impolluta via eius – my God, his
way is undefiled (Ps 18:31, Vg 17:31). In all three cases, there is a back-referencing eius.
The three passages remain unchanged in the Nova Vulgata.

2014. Lyliane Sznajder – Bernard Bortolussi: Topicalisation versus Left-dislocation in Biblical Lat­
in. Journal of Latin Linguistics 13: 163–195. – The subject is how biblical Latin highlights
and emphasizes a theme.

2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I. Oxford (xxiv, 1430 pp.), pp. 759–760.
Refers to Gen 12:14: viderunt Aegypti mulierem quod esset pulchra nimis – the Egyptians
saw the woman, that she was very beautiful.

2017. Bernard Bortolussi. Topicalizations, Left Dislocations and the Left Periphery. Catalan Journ­
al of Linguistics 16: 101–123. – Uses Sir 34:17 as one of the examples: timentis Dominum
beata est anima eius – of the one who fears the Lord, blessed is the soul of him.

2020. Lyliane Sznajder: Considérations sur la prolepse en hébreu biblique et son traitement dans
la traduction biblique latine. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Ernout (De lingua Lati­
na) 7; 2 parts: 19 pp. and 20 pp. (online journal). Only the second part deals with the Latin
Bible.

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 423. Stotz speaks
of “isolated emphatic nominatives,” and gives two examples: filii hominum dentes eorum
arma et sagittae – the children of men, their teeth are weapons and arrows (Ps 57:5, Vg
56:5); omnis ergo qui confitebitur me coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram patre
meo – everyone who will confess me before men, him will I too confess before my Father
(Matt 10:32).

pronouns

1904. Kaulen, pp. 165–175 (nos. 61–85).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xx–xxi.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 69–74 (§§ 96–102).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 101–123 (§§ 131–199). –
English translation: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Trans­
lated by Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp.

115
 1975. Olegario García de la Fuente: Uso del pronombre redundante en los antiguos salterios
latinos. Durius 3: 9–26.

1985. Bent Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateini­
schen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 299.

1991. María Cruz Olivera Reyna: Pronombres en función anafórica en el Evangelio de Juan de la
Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 14.1: 159–166.

1997. Martin Haspelmath: Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford (xvi, 364 pp.), pp. 172–173: on quis in Matt
11:27; 22:24.

2000. Mark Janse: Convergence and Divergence in the Development of the Greek and Latin Clitic
Pronouns. In: Rosanna Sornicola et al. (eds.): Stability, Variation and Change of Word-
Order Patterns over Time. Amsterdam (xxxi, 323 pp.), pp. 231–258. – The author analyzes
the second-position placement of unstressed pronouns (and other unstressed words,
“Wackernagel’s Law”) in Vulgate Latin. Examples: tetigit me aliquis – someone touched me
(Luke 8:46), with me in the second position; hoc tibi do – I give you (Acts 3:6), with tibi in
the second position of the clause.

2000. Michela Cennamo: Patterns of ‘Active’ Syntax in Late Latin Pleonastic Reflexives. In: John
Charles Smith – Delia Bentley (eds.): Historical Linguistics 1995. Volume 1. Amsterdam (xi,
438 pp.), pp. 35–55. – The following Vulgate examples are discussed: et transite vobis –
and go! (Micah 1:11); permissum est Paulo manēre sibimet cum custodiente se milite – Paul
is allowed to remain with the soldier who held him in custody (Acts 28:16); non desperans
memetipsum – without despairing (2 Macc 9:22).

2009. Rafael Jimenez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115, at pp. 80–88.

purpose (clauses of purpose) [Finalsätze]. See also → infinitive.

1927. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. Second edition. Cambridge (xv,
162 pp.), pp. 79–81. – See esp. pp. 79–80 on ut.

2009. Concepción Cabrillana Leal – Eusebia Tarriño Ruiz: Finales, consecutivas y comparativas. In:
José Miguel Baños Baños (ed.): Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid (838 pp.), pp. 633–656. –
Matt 6:18 is a final clause with negation (with ne; it could also be ut non).

2011. Concepción Cabrillana: Purpose and result clauses. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin
(eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 4. Berlin (xxiii, 925 pp.), pp.19–
92.

quod quia quoniam. On these three conjunctions, see the relevant entries in the word glossary below,
Chapter 19.2.

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Über quod, quia, quoniam nach den Verbis sentiendi und declarandi
statt des Acc. C. Inf. In: idem: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.),
pp. 58–61.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der ka­
tholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache. 2nd edition. Mar­
burg (xvi, 526 pp.), p. 402.

116
1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit. Archiv für lateini­
sche Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 235–277. – Page 260 on quod, quia, etc. in the book
of Wisdom.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561. – Page 558 on quoniam and quia (quod is
not used in Sirach).

1904. Kaulen, pp. 248 (no. 127), 290–292 (nos. 185–188).

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. xxxviii–xxxix.

1943. Dag Norberg: Zur Geschichte der Konjunktion quod, in: idem: Syntaktische Forschungen
auf dem Gebiet des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala 1943 (283 pp.), pp.
232–242.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 147–151 (§§ 261–264). –
English translation: A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Trans­
lated by Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C. 1994. xvii, 157 pp.

1973. Virgilio Bejarano Sánchez: Un aspecto del latín de San Jerónimo: el uso de la conjunciones
quod, quia, quoniam. Boletín del Instituto de Estudios helénicos 7: 19–26.

1975. Virgilio Bejarano Sánchez: San Jerónimo y la Vulgata Latina. Distribución de las conjuncio ­
nes declarativas quod, quia, quoniam. Helmántica 26 (nos. 79–81): 51–55.

1977–1979. Olegario García de la Fuente: Uso de quod quia quoniam con los verbos de lengua y
entendiamento en los libros de Samuel de la Vulgata. Miscelanea de Estudios Arabes y
Hebraicos 26–28: 159–168.

1981. Olegario García de la Fuente: Sobre el empleo de Quod Quia Quoniam con los verbos de
“Lengua y entendiamento” en Samuel-Reyes de la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 4.1: 3–14.

1989. Jószef Herman: Accusatiuus cum infinitiuo et subordonnée à quod quia en latin tardif –
Nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème. In: Gualtiero Calboli (ed.): Subordination and
other topics in Latin, Amsterdam (xxix, 691 pp.), pp. 133–152.

1993. Victoria Eugenia Rodríguez Martín: Quod, quia, quoniam en las epístolas católicas de la
Vulgata: su uso con los verbos de lengua y entendimento. Analecta malacitana 16: 43–48.

1994. Pierluigi Cuzzolin: Sull’origine della costruzione “dicere quod”. Aspetti sintattici e semantici.
Firenze. 323 pp.

2012. Gualtiero Calboli: Syntaxe nominale et subordination en latin tardif. In: Frédérique Biville et
al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp. 439–451. – The birth of the
article in Romance languages was a consequence of the disappearance of the AcI and of
the participial constructions no longer supported by the cases which fell out of use. The
AcI was substituted by quod, quia, quoniam + sub./ind., even if it depended upon uerba
dicendi and sentiendi. But this happened, rather than in Latin, in the Romance languages,
while in Latin the AcI remained until the end, more or less challenged by quod, quia con­
structions. In his translation of the Bible Jerome eliminated almost all ille which was em­
ployed in the Vetus Latina to translate the Greek and Hebrew article. Jerome extended in
the Vulgata the use of quod, quia + sub./ind. even in passages where the AcI was em­
ployed in the Vetus Latina, and this influenced the Latin of the Middle Ages. Jerome
wanted to make his own translation conform with the Hebrew text where the AcI was ig­

117
 nored and the declarative clause was either introduced by the Hebrew conjunction kī or
the invariant relative asher or expressed through direct speech.

2017. Lyliane Sznajder: Quelques réflexions autour des complétives en “quia” du latin biblique.
Pallas no. 103: 263–272. – In translating the Old Testament books, Jerome used quod
(rather than quia, used in the Old Latin version).

2019. Lyliane Sznajder: Les complétives en “quoniam”: étude à partir du latin biblique. In: Lidewij
van Gils et al. (eds.): Clause and Discourse. Lemmata linguistica Latina 2. Berlin (xiii, 484
pp.), pp. 174–196. – quoniam came to be an equivalent of quia.

reciprocal expressions

1892. Philipp Thielmann: Der Ersatz des Reziprokums im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexi­
kographie und Grammatik 7: 343–388. Deals with words such as inter se, invicem, mutuo
(mutually, gegenseitig – one of Jerome’s favourites), alterutrum, and vicissim. – Review:
Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die
Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102, at p. 102.

relative clauses

1904. Kaulen, pp. 287–288 (nos. 180, 181).

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at pp. 324–325: “abgebrochene Relativsätze” (incomplete relative clauses).

1926. Plater/White, p. 127–128 (§ 138).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 179–180 (§§ 318–323).

repetition

2020. Marcin Majewski: Repetition and not Parallelism as the Determinant of Poetry in the
Hebrew Bible. A Case Study of [the] Biblical Story of Creation (Gen 1). The Person and the
Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by
John Paul II 11.2: 199–218. – While not on the Latin text of the Bible, this paper sets new
agenda for the study of Hebrew poetry.

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Vertum­
nus 14. Göttingen. 255 pp. – Deals with both repetition and variation as stylistic devices.
See p. 255 (index), s.v. Wiederholung (typological, exact, narrative, and syntactical repeti­
tions).

res pro rei defectu – the thing for the absence of the thing.

1863. Hagen, pp. 22–23, explains this figure of style in an analysis of Ps 116:15 (Vg 115:15): pre­
tiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum – precious is the death of the saints in the sight
of the Lord, which means “precious is the life of the saints (etc.).” Hagen also supplies ex­
amples from ancient (pagan) literature.

rhyme does not belong to the repertoire of classical Latin poetry and rhetoric. Retrospectively, one can
say: rhythm, not rhyme is the hallmark of Latin poetry. But this is not the whole story, and authors
such as Wölfflin and Dingeldein have demonstrated that rhyme did have a certain existence in an­
cient literature. Thielmann points out certain rhyming features in Latin Sirach. An example (not in
Thielmann) would be Sir 6:12: si humiliaverit se contra te / et a facie tua abscondet se.

118
 1884. Eduard von Wölfflin: Der Reim im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Grammatik 1: 350–389. – The author quotes rhyming expressions from the Vulgate (p.
388): cum timore et tremore (Tob 13:6; 2 Cor 7:15), in tremore – in timore (1 Macc 13:2),
timor et tremor (1 Macc 7:18).

1892. Otto Dingeldein: Der Reim bei den Griechen und Römern. Leipzig. iv, 131 pp.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 548. Examples are Sir 13:4 (Weber/Gryson:
fremebit – tacebit) and 14:22 (morabitur – meditabitur). “Irre ich nicht, so haben weitere
Untersuchungen über die Geschichte des Reims im Lateinischen an das Auftreten dessel­
ben in lat. Bibelübersetzungen anzuknüpfen; ich würde zunächst an die Psalmen denken.”

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 74:
Sir 7:35 (tuorum – sanctorum), 7:36 (propitiatio – benedictio). Peters does not seem to be
interested in the matter, but nevertheless notes the rhyming features in this passage.

1956. Jean Doignon: Sacrum – sacramentum – sacrificium dans le texte latin de la Sagesse. Re­
vue des études latines 34 (1956) 240–253, at pp. 250–252.

rhythm → clausula, → hexameter, → stylistic devices

stylistic devices, figures of speech [Stilmittel]. See also → clausula, → figura etymologica, → hexa­
meter

1994. Walter Bühlmann – Karl Scherer: Sprachliche Stilfiguren der Bibel. 2nd edition. Gießen.125
pp. – Examples from the Bible, without consideration of the Vulgate Bible.

1998. Hans Baumgarten: Compendium rhetoricum. Die wichtigsten Stilmittel. Göttingen. 33 pp. –
Examples are from classical sources. In the case of figura etymologica, a Vulgate example
is quoted: somium somniare (to dream a dream), Acts 2:17.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart. 343 pp. – Pages 316–319:
annotated alphabetic list of Latin stylistic devices. Throughout this Vulgate reader, the au­
thor comments on the stylistic devices such as alliteration, figura etymologica, metaphor,
metonymy, etc.

subjunctive [Konjunktiv]

1904. Kaulen, pp. 288 (no. 181), 291–292 (no. 186), 296–298 (nos. 194, 195).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 106–107 (§ 126); 118 (§ 134); 121 (§ 134); 122–123 (§ 135).

1947. François Thomas: À propos du subjonctif de répétition en Latin. Revue des études an­
ciennes 49: 103–110. – The subjunctive of repetition is often used in the Vulgate, esp.
Num 9:16–22; 10:35–36, with imperfect forms such as cumque elevaretur arca – whenever
the arc was taken up (Num 10:35) and cumque ablata fuisset nubes – whenever the cloud
was taken away (Num 9:17)

superlative

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 52–
53. On expressions such as a minimo usque ad magnum (Judith 15:8, Weber/Gryson).
Page 53: “die im Spätlatein eingetretene Verwirrung unter den Komparationsgraden.”

119
 1904. Kaulen, p. 162–163 (nos. 54b, 55b–c). Kaulen points out that the positive occasionally
functions as the superlative, as in mandatum magnun – the greatest commandment (Matt
22:36), benedicta in mulieribus – the most blessed of women (Luke 1:42), to which one can
add pulchra inter mulieres – the most beautiful of women (Cant 1:7). The comparative can
also function as the superlative: maior horum autem est caritas – but the greatest of these
is love (1 Cor 13:13).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 21 (§ 23), 67–68 (§ 94), 110 (§ 128,5).

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der
Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at p.
11 (with note 3; on 1 Sam 24:3).

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. xiv, note 1: “The superlative has lost its force (yet Jerome substitutes maximus for
Old Latin magnus as a stronger word in Mk v 40). The Greek superlative is generally
rendered by the Latin comparative.”

1943. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Versio Vulgata haud raro formam textus primitivi leviter auget. Ver­
bum Domini 23: 129–132. – Superlatives used for emphasis (without being required by the
original text). The article is in Latin.

1978. Olegario García de la Fuente: El superlativo en la biblia Latina. Emerita 46.2, 347–367.

1991. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Construcciones de superlativo en los libros de Samuel de la

Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 14: 29–39.

2016. Robert Maltby: Analytic and Synthetic Forms of the Comparative and Superlative from
Early to Late Latin. In: James Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin. Continuity
or Change? Cambridge (xx, 470 pp.), pp. 340–366.

supinum

1926. Plater/White, pp. 114–116 (§ 131).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg: Le latin chrétien (221 pp.), p. 183, n. 1:
“Le supin est rare chez les auteurs chrétiens.”

support verb constructions such as paenitentiam agere (instead of paenitēre)

2017. José Miguel Baños – María Dolores Jiménez López: “Odiar” en el Nuevo Testamento (odi,
odios um, odio habeo): traducción y construcciones con verbo soporte en la Vulgata. Eu­
phrosyne 45: 59–78.

2017. José Miguel Baños – María Dolores Jiménez López: ‘Arrepentirse’ en el Nuevo Testamento
en griego y en latín: el empleo de las construcciones con verbo soporte en la Vulgata [‘To
Repent’ in the New Testament in Greek and Latin: the use of constructions with a support
verb in the translation of the Vulgate]. Cuadernos de filologia clásica. Esudios latinos 37:
11–32 (article in Spanish). Both classical and late Latin use support verb constructions
much more frequently than Greek, which is richer in compound verbs and derivatives. This
differential feature between the two languages is reflected in the Vulgate Latin translation
of the original Greek text of the New Testament. Unlike the Vetus Latina, which in its
eagerness for literalism tends to translate verbum e verbo, the Vulgate (especially in the
Gospels) translates a Greek verbal form by a construction with supporting verb when
these analytical predicates are the most classical construction in Latin or the one most
widely used in the language of the fourth century CE.

120
swearwords → polemical language

tenses (tempora)

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.), pp. 95–96.

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg (49 pp.),
pp. 12–13. Page 13: Gebrauch “des Futurs nicht bloss 1) von der Zukunft schlechthin, son ­
dern 2) auch, wie das hebräische Futur (imperfekt), für unser Präsens, bes. wenn von Zu­
ständen und Handlungen, die jetzt stattfinden und immer stattfinden werden, somit in die
Zukunft hinüberreichen, oder von einem Pflegen die Rede ist, daher hauptsächlich bei all ­
gemein ausgesprochenen Beobachtungen.”

1904. Kaulen, pp. 224–228 (nos. 109–113). – Page 226: “In Bezug auf die Bedeutung der Tempo ­
ra zeigt die Vulgata besonders ihren Charakter als Übersetzung, da (…) die irrige Anschau­
ung der Septuaginta beibehalten ist, daß das hebräische Perfektum eine Tempusform der
Vergangenheit, das hebräische Imperfektum eine Tempusform der Zukunft sei.”

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. xxx.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 103–106 (§§ 119–124); 123 (§ 135).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg: Le latin chrétien (221 pp.), pp. 128–129
(§§ 216—218): Les temps dans la traduction de la Vulgate; pp. 181–182 (§§ 324–326): la
concordance des temps (though without reference to the Vulgate).

2009. Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sen­
tence. Berlin (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, esp. pp. 219–220, 230. Page 230: “In the Latin
Bible, future forms can occur when the present tense is expected. This is due to the diffi­
cult translation of the Hebrew imperfective (yqtl or yiqtol), where tense-aspect range fre­
quently covers functions fulfilled in Latin by the present and future forms.” And where the
present tense is expected, we often find perfect forms; this is gnomic perfect, typical of
biblical texts (and not continued by Christian writers); an example is Ps 14:1 (Vg 13:1): di­
xit insipiens in corde suo – the fool says in his heart, literally (as in the Douay Version): the
fool hath said in his heart (p. 219). ▲

2010. Gerd V.M. Haverling: Actionality, Tense, and Viewpoint. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin
(eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2. Berlin (xx, 556 pp.), pp. 277–
523. – The author studies the changes of the use of tenses from early and classical
through Late Latin, and considers examples from the Vulgate. ▲

2023. Gerd Haverling: Tempus, Aktionsart und Aspekt in der Vulgata und in den Vetus Lati ­
na-Übersetzungen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einfüh­
rung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 221–257.
– A study of “late Latin” features of the Vulgate’s latinity.

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 424. “With regard
to verbs, a typical feature of biblical language is the use of perfect forms with present
meaning, again reflecting a Hebraism mediated by Greek. (…) Especially famous is Psalm
1:1: Beatus uir, qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in uia peccatorum non stetit (“Blessed
is the man who did not set off in the plan of the ungodly and did not stand in the path of
sinners”),” meaning “does not set off” and “does not stand.”

121
transcription/transliteration – Jerome’s transcription of Hebrew words with Latin letters. See also →
names

1884. Carl Siegfried: Die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei Hieronymus. Zeitschrift für die alttesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 4: 34–83.

1948. Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: St. Jerome’s Pronunciation of Hebrew. Biblica 29: 112–125.

1978. Alessandro Penna: Scrittura e pronunzia dell’ebraico secondo S. Girolamo. Rivista biblica
italiana 26: 275–299.

2016. Alexey Eliyahu Yuditsky: Hebrew in Greek and Latin Transcriptions. In: W. Randall Garr –
Steven E. Fassberg (eds.): A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. Volume 1. Winona Lake, Ind. (xii,
228 pp.), pp. 99–116.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at pp. 108–110 (online journal). – This section of the paper is on transliter ­
ated words such as ephod (transliterated from Hebrew, Exod 25:7) and nycticorax (translit­
erated from Greek, Ps 102:7, Vg 101:7).

translation issues. See also → Hebraisms (esp. the 1917 article of Holzmeister) and → homophony

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2.
Paris (cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – At cols. 2460–2464, peculiarities of Jerome’s
translation language are pointed out.

1926. Plater/White, p. 7: “Jerome has the tantalizing habit of translating the same Hebrew word
by different Latin equivalents.”

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der
Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–30.

1931. Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen in der mozarabischen Liturgie und das Psalterium von Saint-
Germain-des-Prés. Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft 3: 179–236. – Pages 220–
221. “Uns Heutigen fällt es schwer, ein Verständnis für die gezwängten und dann doch
erst recht verfehlten Formen aufzubringen. Es ist eben nicht möglich, die Texte zweier
Sprachen, und wenn sie auch etwas verwandt sind [Greek and Latin], so zu übersetzen,
dass man für jedes Wort und jede Konstruktion einfach die wörterbuchmässige Entspre­
chung der andern verwendet. Aber dieses unmögliche Ziel wollte man am Anfang der la­
teinischen Psalterübersetzung und noch lange danach erreichen. Hier liegt der formale
Grund vieler Unstimmigkeiten und seltsamen Bildungen. Für den Hörer, der nicht grie­
chisch verstand, wer ein Dolmetsch bestellt, der Satz für Satz vermittelte, und für den Lese­
gebrauch wurde Wort für Wort übertragen (…) Der letzte Grund ist endlich der Glaube an
die Inspiration der Septuaginta und die Meinung, dass die Inspiration verbaliter erfolgte.”

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. vi–ix: Disadvantages of Latin as compared with Greek; advantages of the Latin
language over Greek. Richards’s introduction is a good text on “The Vulgate as a Transla­
tion” (pp. iii–xvi). ▲

1968. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: The Vulgate as a Translation. Some Semantic and Syntactical
Aspects of Jerome’s Version of the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem. 307, 15 pp. – English, with a
Hebrew abstract. According to K.-K., Jerome initially translated literally, but later de­
veloped a preference for free, less literal renderings. (This analysis has been challenged by
some later authors; see below, Keller 2023.)

122
1977. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Limitations of Latin in representing Greek. In: Bruce M. Metzger:
The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford (xix, 498 pp.), pp. 362–374. ▲

1984. Bernard Grossfeld: The Translation of Biblical Hebrew PQD in the Targum, Peshitta, Vul­
gate and Septuagint. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96: 83–101. –
Jerome often uses words for counting (numerare), but also words for „to punish, to
avenge” (visitare, Exod 20:5). His translations are often close to the Septuagint and the
Targum.

2009. Rafael Jiménez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115. – The author treats the transla­
tion of Hebrew Bible texts into Latin; special attention is given to the rendering of suffixes,
the status constructus, the relative clause, the particle waw (and), and the Semitisms in the
Vulgate. The construction “in + accusative” is also addressed. Many of the 81 Old Testa ­
ment texts analyzed are taken from the book of Genesis.

2009. Christophe Rico: La traduction du sens littéral chez saint Jérôme. In: Olivier-Thomas Ve­
nard (ed.): Le sens littéral des écritures. Paris (362 pp.), pp. 171–218. – “Les exemples que
nous venons d’exposer soulignent l’extraordinaire précision de la traduction de Jérôme.
Cette qualité se fonde d’abord sur une connaissance très fine de la langue grecque telle
qu’on la parlait et écrivait à date ancienne en Judée et Galilée. Elle s’appuie d’autre part
sur une stratégie interprétative qui le conduit à préserver, dans la mesure du possible, le
sensus altior des figures au détriment du sensus inferior. Cette même stratégie le conduira,
dans des passages clés, à laisser sa version se charger des connotations christologiques
qu’acquiert un passage de l’AT quand il est lu dans la perspective globale du texte bi­
blique, en vertu des phénomènes d’intertextualité” (p. 127).

2011. Chiara Gianollo: Native Syntax and Translation Effects. Adnominal Arguments in the Greek
and Latin New Testament. In: Eirik Welo (ed.): Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: con­
trastive approaches. Oslo Studies in Language 3.3: 75–101 (open-access online journal).

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg,
pp. 79–122. – The author discusses Jerome’s language skills, translation principles and
translation practice. With his translation, he has created a stilistically coherent, aesthetical­
ly sophisticated work of art (“mit seiner lateinischen Bibel ein stilistisch einheitliches und
literaturästhetisch anspruchsvolles Kunstwerk geschaffen,” p. 89).

2016. Christophe Rico: Le traducteur de Bethléem: le génie interprétatif de saint Jérôme à l’aune
de la linguistique. Lectio divina 270. Paris. 172 pp. – Some of the material was published in
article form between 2005 and 2009. Reviews:
2016. Paul-Hubert Poirier, Laval théologique et philosophique 72: 331–333.

2018. Etienne Nodet, Revue biblique 125: 124–129 (with Nodet’s own observations on the subject).

2018. Lukas Michael Baumann: Wort und Sinn. Übersetzungsreflexionen bei Cicero und Hierony­
mus. Freiburg. 314 pp.

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen (256 pp.). – See esp. pp. 219–221: Keller explains that there was no chronological de ­
velopment in Jerome from literal to free renderings. Variations in Jerome’s translation
style has more to do with his notions of the literary types found in the Hebrew text.

123
translation errors can often be detected by comparing the text of the Vulgate with the text of the
Nova Vulgata (see Chapter 17) because the latter represents a “corrected“ edition of the tradi­
tional Vulgate.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 306–309.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. xii–xiii.

variation, i.e., the avoidance of using the same word again. An example is the dialogue between Jesus
and Peter in John 21:15–17, where two verbs for “to love” alternate – diligere and amare.

1926. Plater/White, p. 7: “Jerome has the tantalizing habit of translating the same Hebrew word
by different Latin equivalents.”

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 114–
115.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. ix–xi. – “The enormous richness of the Latin language is shown in the deliberate
variation of rendering and the great number of synonyms. In fact, Latin agrees with Eng ­
lish, as against Greek, in disliking the repetition of the same word, if it can possibly be
helped. (…) In 2 Cor. vi 14–16 St Paul himself uses rhetorical variation. The translator is
equal to the occasion” (p. ix). “The absence of variation is so exceptional as to be notice ­
able when it occurs” (p. x).

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen (256 pp.). – See p. 255 (index), s.v. Variation (lexical, morphological, semantic, and
syntactic).

versification → hexameter

vulgar words and expressions, vulgar Latin [Vulgärlatein]. See also below, Chapter 8.8.

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 5–8.
A discussion of vulgar Latin forms in some of the Vulgate manuscripts. According to
Thielemann, Jerome would certainly prefer classical forms, but copyists occasionally
changed them.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Phi­
lologus 42: 319–378. – The author uses the term “Spätlatein,” late Latin, and gives many
examples, esp. from Sirach and the book of Wisdom. Very critical of Thielmann’s sugges­
tions about regional differences within late Latin is Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein,
1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1
(1897) 75–102, at pp. 94–95.

1891. Hermann Rönsch: Die ältesten lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen nach ihrem Wert für die
lateinische Sprachwissenschaft. In: idem: Collectanea philologa. Edited by Carl Wegener.
Bremen (vi, 325 pp.), pp. 1–32, esp. 15–16.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at pp. 542–548. Thielmann lists many features
of late, vulgar, African Latin. “Ein Kennzeichen vulgärer Diktion ist breite, pleonastische
Ausdrucksweise,” as in Sir 7:5 – noli velle videri sapiens (do not want to be seen as a sage)

124
 for Greek μὴ σοφίζου – do not play the sage (p. 542). Thielmann seems to indicate that
the latinity of Sirach may have more “vulgar” or “late Latin” features than the rest of the
books in the Vulgate.

1918. Friedrich Lammert: Die Angaben des Kirchenvaters Hieronymus über vulgäres Latein.
Philologus 75: 395–413. – Jerome refers to vulgar Latin words mainly in his commentaries
and sometimes in his letters. Actual lexical vulgarisms in his translation seem to be rare,
however. Among the words listed, only a few are also in the Bible: cubitus, murenula,
nervus, and scruta.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. xiii–xv. – A list of vulgar Latin words in the New Testament and their classical
equivalents. Example: classical metus, metuere (fear, to fear) is in the Vulgate abandoned
for timor, timēre.

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Der dritte Band der neuen römischen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Theologi­
sche Revue 36: 305–311. – Stummer reviews volume 3 of the Benedictine Vulgate that of­
fers a new text of Numbers and Deuteronomy, and discusses vulgarisms in the book of
Numbers.

1971. Paul Antin OSB: Mots “vulgaires” dans saint Jérôme. Latomus 30: 708–709.

1979. G.J.M. Bartelink: Les observations de Jérôme sur des termes de la langue courante et par­
lée. Latomus 38: 193–220.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid 588 pp. – The author
discerns three vital influences that shape biblical Latin: Semitic influences (pp. 170–268),
Greek influences (pp. 269–287), and vulgar Latin influences (la lengua popular, pp. 289–
316). As can be seen from the page ranges, the Semitic influence is dominant.

Wackernagel’s law

1892. Jacob Wackernagel: Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermani­
sche Forschungen 1: 333–436. – An excerpt can be found in: Probleme der lateinischen
Grammatik. Edited by Klaus Strunk. Darmstadt 1973 (451 pp.), pp. 388–408. The text is
also available in a bilingual edition, German and English, with a detailed introduction and
bibliography by G. Walkden: On a Law of Indo-European Word Order. Translated by
George Walkden et al. Berlin 2020. 446 pp. – Wackernagel discovered that Indo-European
languages, including Latin, give short unstressed words by preference the second position
in a clause.

Note. – Although Wackernagel did not give examples from the Vugate, the law can be il ­
lustrated from biblical texts such as Gen 1:2: terra autem erat inanis – the earth, however,
was empty; Sir 6:10: est autem amicus socius mensae – a friend, moreover, is a table fellow;
Gen 16:6: ecce, ait, ancilla tua in manu tua est – behold, he said, your handmaid is in your
hand; Matt 13:18: vos ergo audite parabolam seminantis – and now hear the parable of the
sower. In the examples, autem, ergo or ait is the “short, unstressed word.”

1994. J.N. Adams: Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the copula esse in Classical Latin.
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Supplementary Volume. Cambridge.
102 pp. – Review: Jacqueline Dangel, Revue des études latines 73 (1995) 247–248.

2000. Mark Janse: Convergence and Divergence in the Development of the Greek and Latin Clitic
Pronouns. In: Rosanna Sornicola et al. (eds.): Stability, Variation and Change of Word-

125
 Order Patterns over Time. Amsterdam (xxxi, 323 pp.), pp. 231–258. – See above → pro­
nouns, 2000.

2021. Harm Pinkster: Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume II. Oxford (xxxii, 1438 pp.), pp. 984–987.

word order [Wortstellung] Jerome was well aware of the fact that each language has its own se­
quence of words, so that the translator cannot slavishly follow the word order of his Vorlage; see
Tim Denecker: Ideas on Language in Early Christianity. From Tertullian to Isidore of Seville. Leiden
(xv, 497 pp.), pp. 276–278. See also above, → emphasis, → hyperbaton, → prolepsis, → pro­
nouns (2000), → Wackernagel’s law.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. iii: “The order of words in the Vulgate, far more than in Latin as written then or
earlier, was the order which became normal for the Romance languages. The verb comes
immediately before or after the subject, and is immediately followed by the direct object.”

1983. Olegario García de la Fuente: Orden de palabras en hebreo, griego, latín y

romanceamiento castellano medieval de Joel (I et II). Emerita 51: 41–61; 185–213.

2000. Jesús de la Villa Polo: El orden de palabras de algunos determinantes en la Vulgata y en la

obra de Jerónimo. In: Benjamin García Hernández (ed.): Latín vulgar y tardío. Homenaje a
Veikko Väänänen (1905–1997). Madrid (xxx, 237 pp.), pp. 221–237.

2009. Brigitte L.M. Bauer: Word Order. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives
on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1. Berlin (xii, 561 pp.), pp. 241–316. – The author refers
to Luke 22:23 and Matt 15:20 in the section on cleft constructions used for emphasis (p.
285).

2010. Bernard Bortolussi – Lyliane Sznajder: Ordres VSO et SVO dans la Vulgate. Journal of Latin
Linguistics 11: 273–300. – About the syntactic arrangement of subject (S), verb (V), and
object (O).

2014. Lyliane Sznajder: Ordre VOS et le statut des objets pronominaux dans la Vulgate. In: Piera
Molinelli et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif X. Volume 1. Bergamo (xx, 394 pp.), pp.
371–394.

2017. Lieven Danckaert: Subject Placement in the History of Latin. Catalan Journal of Linguistics
16: 125–161. – The author uses a Vulgate passage in his discussion of shifts in word order:
quia consolatus est Dominus populum suum – because the Lord has comforted his people
(Isa 49:13).

2017. Lieven Danckaert: The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb
Phrase. Oxford. xxii, 356 pp. – Against received wisdom, the author finds no increase in
the Verb-Object word order in the period from 200 BCE to 600 CE.

2019. Gregorio Hinijo Andrés: Precisiones sobre el orden de palabras en la “Vulgata.” In: Victoria
E. Rodríguez et al. (eds.): Studia classica et emblematica. Zaragoza (729 pp.), pp. 317–332.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung der Vulgata im Neuen Testament. In:
idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen
Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 179–218. – The author studies how the Latin
translation changes the word order found in the Greek source text.

126
8.8 Biblical Latin: Vulgar Latin – Late Latin

Is biblical Latin = vulgar/late Latin?

Is biblical Latin = North African Latin?

Vulgar/late Latin features in biblical Latin

Introductions to vulgar/late Latin

Grammars and surveys of vulgar/late Latin

Anthologies of vulgar/late Latin

Congress proceedings “Latin vulgaire – latin tardif”

Is biblical Latin = vulgar/late Latin?

Note. – Biblical Latin is not classical, Ciceronian Latin. It is different. But how to understand the differ­
ence? Two conflicting views have been proposed – the sociological and the chronological view.

(1) The sociological view. According to this view, biblical Latin is tinged by “vulgar Latin,” i.e., non-elite,
sub-elite or colloquial Latin. Historians of the Latin language often distinguish between the artificial
written Latin of elite authors and the Latin used in everyday speech. The latter, called “vulgar Latin,”
can only be reconstructed from echoes, the spoken idiom has left in written documents. One example
of such a source is a passage in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars (c. 122 CE) where the author refers to a
number of peculiarities of the Latin as spoken by the emperor Augustus; these are today taken to be­
long to vulgar Latin; Suetonius himself classifies them as such: vulgo dicitur – in vulgar language, it is
said (Suetonius: Augustus, chap. 87). Here is the passage:
That in his everyday conversation he used certain favourite and peculiar expressions appears from letters in his
own hand, in which he says every now and then, when he wished to indicate that certain men will never pay, that
‘they will pay on the Greek Kalends.’ (…) He continuously used baceolus (dolt) for stultus (fool), for pullus (dark)
pulleiaceus (darkish), for cerritus (mad) vaccerosus (blockhead); also vapide se habere (feel flat) for male se habere
(feel badly), and betizae (be like a beet) for languere (be weak), for which the vulgar term [vulgo dicitur] is lacha­
nizare. Besides he used simus for sumus, and domos in the genitive singular instead of domuos. The last two
forms he wrote invariably, for fear they should be thought errors rather than a habit. – Suetonius: De vita Caesa­
rum, Augustus 87 (Loeb Classical Library)

Twentieth-century research has made much progress in research on vulgar Latin – and it has become
clear that there is some evidence of vulgar Latin in the Vulgate. Historians of linguistic development
highlight the fact that it was from vulgar Latin, rather than from written elite Latin, that in Late An ­
tiquity and the early Middle Ages the Romance languages developed – Spanish, Italian, French, Rou­
manian, Portuguese. There are no chronological limits to vulgar Latin; as long as Latin existed, it has al­
ways been accompanied by the vulgar variety – and left echoes even in non-vulgar Latin texts. – Major
proponents:

127
1981. Veikko Väänänen: Introduction au latin vulgaire. Troisième édition revue et augmentée. Paris. xxi,
273 pp. – There are no chronological limits to vulgar Latin; it is simply the spoken variety of Lat­
in, as opposed to literary Latin. It is “la langue vivante et réelle” (p. 6).
1983. Bengt Löfstedt: Rückschau und Ausblick auf die vulgärlateinische Forschung. Quellen und Me ­
thoden. In: Wolfgang Haase (ed.): Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Band II.29.1. Ber­
lin (xv, 507 pp.), pp. 453–479; see esp. p. 453, n. 1.
2008. Eugenio Coseriu: Lateinisch – Romanisch. Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen zum sogenannten Vul­
gärlatein und zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen. Edited by Hansbert Bertsch. Tübingen.
xx, 484 pp. – Coșeriu (1921–2002) taught linguistics at the University of Tübingen, Germany. In
the preface, the editor summarizes Coșeriu’s thought: “Das ‘Vulgarlatein’ ist nicht nur eine Chif­
fre, sondern das Diasystem des gesprochenen Lateins einer bestimmten Epoche in all seinen Va­
rietäten, das im II. bis IV. Jahrhundert n. Chr. eine beschleunigte Entwicklung erfuhr und sich in
den romanischen Sprachen fortsetzt. (…) Der Sonderfall ist damit nicht das ‘Vulgarlatein,’ son ­
dern das fixierte, unveränderliche, klassische Schriftlatein” (p. xviii).
The sociological view can be represented as follows:

archaic Latin

/ \
classical Latin vulgar Latin

\
Italian, French, etc.

(2) According to the chronological view, what others call “vulgar Latin” is actually “late” Latin in the
chronological sense – the Latin that marks the transition between standard Latin and the Romance lan ­
guages such as French, Spanish, etc. Some features of this late Latin can be found throughout the Vul­
gate Bible; they announce later linguistic development. – Proponents of this view:
1929. Henry F. Muller: A Chronology of Vulgar Latin. Halle. ix, 172 pp. – See esp. p. viii: “Then, in the
fourth quarter of the eighth century, when the essential features of the new language have been
created, a rather sudden shifting of the linguistic forces takes place: the new speech is born.”
The Romance language was created in a revolutionary manner, and then came the process of
diversification into Italian, French, etc.
1932. Henry F. Muller – Pauline Taylor: A Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin. Boston ( xvii, 315 pp.), p. iv.
1987. Witold Mánczak: Origine des langues romanes: dogme et faits; in: Jószef Herman (ed.): Latin vul­
gaire – latin tardif. Tübingen 1987 (viii, 262 pp.), pp.181–188. – Mánczak represents the chrono­
logical view in the form of a linear stemma:

archaic Latin

\
classical Latin

\
vulgar Latin

\
Italian, French, etc.

128
2009. Helmut Lüdtke: Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen. Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen Kom­
munikation. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Kiel (xxii, 926 pp.), pp. 29–47. – Lütke re­
jects the notion of a bilingualism of “high Latin” and “vulgar Latin”; instead, one must posit a
gradual evolution.

See also Paul M. Lloyd: On the Definition of “Vulgar Latin”: The Eternal Return. Neuphilologische Mittei­
lungen 80 (1979) 110–122 who points out the difficulties with the expression and suggests to abandon
it altogether.

Is biblical Latin = North African Latin?

Note. – The majority of scholars is now convinced that the earliest, and presumably most, Latin trans­
lations of biblical books originated in Latin-speaking North Africa (see below, Chapter 9.4). Most
scholars are also convinced, however, that the Latin language used by North African writers was just
Latin, and not a particular regional variety of Latin, as was claimed by earlier scholarship.

Nineteenth century
1860. Celestino Cavedoni: Saggio della latinità biblica dell’antica Volgata Itala. Modena. 47 pp. – This
work was first published in the periodical Opuscoli religiosi, letterari e morali 7[19]: 161–180,
321–346. – A glossary of Latin words used in the pre-Jeromian Latin Bible. The author thought of
this first Latin Bible as having originated in North Africa during the reign of Emperor Antoninus
Pius (138–161 in office). He considered the language of this Bible to be vulgar Latin (latino vol­
gare) as spoken in North Africa.

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867. – The journal has another title: Jahrbücher
für classische Philologie 20 (1874). Unlike Franz Kaulen, Ott defends the notion that the Vetus
Latina (which he calls “Itala”) originated in Africa, and is written in African Latin. “Der Verfasser
der Itala hat das africanische Idiom für seine Zeit vortrefflich verstanden und gehandhabt und in
derselben ein Meisterwerk seiner Art geschaffen, das nicht nur der Sprachentwicklung auf africa­
nischem Boden gewaltigen Vorschub geleistet, sondern auch mittelbar die ganze patristische
Latinität beeinflußt hat. (…) Es ist geradezu unbegreiflich, wie man dem Übersetzer nur ungenü­
gende und dürftige Sprachkenntnisse zumuten kann” (p. 765).

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Zweite Ausgabe. Marburg 1875 (xvi, 526 pp.), p. 12: “Die
Sprache der Itala [= Vetus Latina] und sporadisch auch die der Vulgata ist der Hauptsache nach
unverkennbar mit der römischen Volkssprache (lingua vulgata, rustica, sermo coottidianus, ple­
beius, rusticus etc.) identisch. (…) Sie wurde in Afrika zuerst Schrift- und Büchersprache (…) Sie
kann deshalb auch afrikanische Latinität genannt werden.”

1882. Karl Sittl: Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache mit bes. Berücksichtigung des
afrikanischen Lateins. Erlangen. Iv, 162 pp. Reprint: Hildesheim 1972. – Sittl offers a thorough
study of African Latin (pp. 67–70, 77–152). The so-called Itala originated in Italy, but Sirach and
Wisdom are clearly African, possibly also 1 and 2 Maccabees (p. 152).

1897. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realencyclopädie für
protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig (832 pp.), pp. 24–58. – Page
27: “Sicher ist, daß sich in Afrika die lateinische Kirchensprache ausgebildet hat, und dies wird
wie anderswo an Hand der Bibel geschehen sein; auch der Sprachcharakter der ältesten uns er­
haltenen Stücke der lateinischen Bibel scheint uns dorthin zu weisen.”

129
1897. Wilhelm Kroll: Das afrikanische Latein. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NF 52: 569–590. Ac­
cording to Kroll, there was no specifically African, provincial variety of Latin. In North Africa,
people spoke the Latin of their time, not a dialect peculiar to that region. There is no reason for
suggesting, on linguistic grounds, that it must have been in Africa that the Wisdom of Solomon
and the book of Sirach were translated into Latin (p. 571). ▲

After 1900
1915. Eduard Norden: Die antike Kunstprosa. Vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance.
3rd printing. Leipzig. xx, 968, 22 pp. – Pages 588–598 (in volume 2; the two volumes are pagin ­
ated consecutively): Das “afrikanische Latein.” There was no African Latinity, apart from the lin­
guistic innovations of the Christians. What has been called African Latin is merely Greek Asian ­
ism (mannerism) in Latin garb.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil.
Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), p. 423: “Trotz der Zweisprachigkeit eines grossen Teils der antiken Kulturwelt
[with Latin and Greek] und trotz der gesteigerten Bedeutung der nichtrömischen Gebiete ist das
Latein im grossen und ganzen ene auffallend einheitliche, straff normalisierte Reichssprache ge­
blieben, und das früher beliebte Suchen nach dialektisch-lokalen Verschiedenheiten (Sittl) ist
grösstenteils negativ verlaufen.”

1949. Christine Mohrmann: Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome. Vigiliae Christianae 3: 67–106
= eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome III. Rome 1965 (358 pp.), pp. 67–126. – Pages
125–126: “Sauf des divergences très légères, la terminologie chrétienne de Rome et celle de Car­
thage sont identiques. Les particularités syntaxiques qui caractérisent celle langue de groupe
sont les mêmes en Italie et en Afrique. (…) La raison de cette uniformité, il faut la rechercher
dans l’unité spirituelle de la foi chrétienne.”

1957. Bernard Botte: Latines (versions) antérieures à S. Jérôme. In: Henri Cazelles (ed.): Supplément au
Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5. Paris (1480 cols.), cols. 334–347. – Columns 346–347: “La ques­
tion des africanismes est loin d’être complètement réglée. On s’accorde à admettre que ces afri­
canismes ne représentent pas en fait des particularités dialectales de l’Afrique, mais un choix fait
par tel ou tel traducteur originaire d’Afrique. Il n’y a guère d’expression qu’on ne rencontre que
dans la Bible d’Afrique. On peut se demander cependant si le choix, fait par plusieurs traduc­
teurs indépendants, de certains termes identiques ne serait pas un indice que ces mots étaient
characteristiques de la langue vulgaire d’Afrique.”

1997. Konrad Vössing: Schule und Bildung im Nordafrika der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bruxelles (690 pp.),
pp. 579–581.

1998. Hubert Petersmann: Gab es ein afrikanisches Latein? Neue Sichten eines alten Problems der la­
teinischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: B. García Hernández (ed.): Estudios de lingüística latina. Actas
del IX Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Latina. Madrid (xviii, 1155 pp. in 2 vols.), pp. 125–136.

2007. J.N. Adams: The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge (xix, 828 pp.), pp.
259–270 and 516–576. – The author affirms the existence of African Latin. With reference to
Jerome: Contra Rufinum 27 (CCSL 79: 98–99), he states that “in Jerome’s eyes, African speech
had relatively low prestige” (p. 269). (But note that Jerome merely makes fun of a north African
teacher’s peculiar pronunciation of Latin.)

130
Vulgar/late Latin features in biblical Latin

Before 1900
1860. Celestino Cavedoni: Saggio della latinità biblica dell’antica Volgata Itala. Modena. 47 pp. – This
work was first published in the periodical Opuscoli religiosi, letterari e morali 7[19]: 161–180,
321–346. – Cavedoni considers the language of the Vetus Latina to be vulgar Latin (latino vol ­
gare) as used in North Africa. Much of its vocabulary survived into the Vulgate.

1870. Franz Kaulen: Handbuch zur Vulgata. Mainz. xii, 280 pp. – Page 3: The pre-Jeromian biblical
translation had “durchaus volksmäßigen Charakter, insofern sie in dem Idiome des täglichen Le­
bens, dem sogenannten Vulgärlatein, abgefaßt war. An diesen Sprachcharakter der lateinischen
Bibel war man im ganzen Abendlande so gewöhnt, daß der sonst feingebildete heil. Hierony­
mus, der wie die höheren Stände seiner Zeit sprach und schrieb, sich doch bei seiner Überset­
zung oft an den vulgären statt an den gebildeteren Ausdruck anschloß.”

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867. – The journal has another title: Jahrbücher
für classische Philologie 20 (1874). – Pages 766–767: “Gewöhnlich sagt man, die Itala sei im Vul­
gärlatein geschrieben, eine Behauptung, die bei Licht besehen nicht stich hält. Was heißt Vulgär ­
latein? Ich denke, das Latein des vulgus, die Gestalt desselben, die es im Laufe der Zeit im Mun­
de der niederen Volksclassen, besonders des Bauern- und Handwerkerstades, angenommen hat.
(…) Im Vulgärlatein ist also die Itala nicht abgefaßt, wohl aber hat sie viele Züge mit ihm gemein­
sam.” Ott thinks that translators could not have relied on Vulgar Latin with its limited vocabulary
to produce a work of literature.

1875. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Zweite Ausgabe. Marburg 1875 (xvi, 526 pp.), p. 12: “Die
Sprache der Itala [= Vetus Latina] und sporadisch auch die der Vulgata ist der Hauptsache nach
unverkennbar mit der römischen Volkssprache (lingua vulgata, rustica, sermo cotidianus, plebei­
us, rusticus etc.) identisch. Letztere war die alltägliche Sprache des Hauses und der Familie, des
Marktes und der Strassen, der Werkstätten, des platten Landes, des Feldlagers.” Rönsch offers
two lists of ancient authors the modern researcher can use to document vulgar Latin: a list of
pagan authors (pp. 15–16: Ammianus Mercellinus, Apileius, Gellius, Petronius, etc.) and one of
Christian authors (pp. 16–17: Ambrose, Arnobius, Cyprian, Augustine, Tertullian, etc.).

1890. Fulcran Vigouroux: Manuel biblique. Ancien Testament. Septième édition. Tome Premier. Paris. xii,
704 pp. – Page 201: “Toutes les anciennes versions latines de la Bible sont écrites, non dans la
langue Classique, lingua urbana ou sermo nobilis, mais dans la langue vulgaire, lingua rustica,
telle qu’elle était parlée par le people, à Rome et dans les provinces. Elle avait été employee par
Ennius et par Plaute.”

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexiko­
graphie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at pp. 542–548. Thielmann lists many features of late, vul­
gar, African Latin. “Ein Kennzeichen vulgärer Diktion ist breite, pleonastische Ausdrucksweise,” as
in Sir 7:5 – noli velle videri sapiens (do not want to be seen as a sage) for Greek mê sophízou –
do not play the sage (p. 542). But this is just one example. Thielmann seems to indicate that the
latinity of Sirach may have more “vulgar” or “late Latin” features than the rest of the books in the
Vulgate. ▲

131
Twentieth century
1902. Henry J. White: Vulgate. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh. Volume 4
(xi, 994 pp.), pp. 873–890. – Page 884: “The Latinity of the Vulgate is (…) partly that of the Old
Latin [translation of the Bible]; and, even where Jerome was translating anew, he probably mod­
elled his style, perhaps unconsciously, on that of the older versions. The Latin of those versions
was the Latin of ordinary popular conversation, the old lingua rustica, with all its archaic charac­
teristics, spoken not simply by the lower classes, but generally, even in Rome and amongst the
higher classes; different, of course, from the classical Latin of literature, but at the same time not
simply confined to Africa in its popular use, as some writers seem to imagine. Nor, again, do we
get this Latin in its natural form; anxiety to reproduce the original as accurately as possible has
led to the introduction and preservation of numerous Graecisms and Hebraisms in the transla­
tion.”

1926. William Edward Plater – Henry Julian White: A Grammar of the Vulgate. Being an Introduction to
the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Oxford. viii, 167 pp. – On pp. 41–42, the authors ex­
plain certain peculiarities of the Vulgate’s latinity. Without aiming at terminological precision,
they refer to “Christian latinity” and the “popular element” of the language (p. 41). The elements
listed include the preference for longer forms of words, the preference for direct speech, and
the frequent use of the present participle. “In a word, we have the first stages of the process by
which the synthetical forms of the old classical languages are broken up into the analytical
forms of modern speech” (p. 42). The distinction between “synthetic” and “analytic” idioms was
already mentioned in Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Zweite Ausgabe. Marburg 1875 (xvi,
526 pp.), p. 482; it goes back to the linguistic theory of August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845).

1932. Wilhelm Süß: Das Problem der lateinischen Bibelsprache. Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27 (1932)
1–39. – On this essay, see Bernard Botte in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5 (1480
cols,). Paris 1957, col. 347: “trop générale et superficielle.” Review: Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 16.2
(1935) 224–226.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata des Hi­
eronymus. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, p, 257–258:
“Kommt man nun von der Lektüre altlateinischer Biubeltexte zur Editio Clementina (…), so hat es
in der Tat den Anschein, als sei (…) eine Rückkehr zur klassischen Sprachform vollzogen worden.
Die bereits vorliegenden vier Bände der neen römiachen Vulgata [see above, Chapter 13.3] ha­
ben uns allerdings bereits belehrt, daß der ‘Ciceronianismus’ der Vulgata zum guten Teil von Al ­
kuin herrührt. Gewiß hat Hieronymus sich an vielen Stellen dem klassischen Latein genähert,
aber doch andererseits mehr (wirkliche oder vermeintliche) ‘Vulgarismen’ beibehalten als der
bisherige Text vermuten ließ.”

1941. Alban Dold: Neue Teile der ältesten Vulgata-Evangelienhandschrift aus dem 5. Jahrhundert. Bib­
lica 22: 105–146. – Page 109: “Das hervorstechendste Charakteristikum der ältesten Latinität der
Evangelien, wie es sich gerade auf dem Boden Afrikas zeigt, ist das des Volkslateins mit seinem
vulgären Wortschatz. Notwendigerweise musste, sobald sich in den gebildeteren Kreisen der all­
mählich wieder mehr lateinisch sprechenden Kirche Roms wissenschaftliche Tendenzen regten,
der Versuch einer Textrevision dieser fruhen, vielfach unbeholfenen, in der Vulgärsprache durch­
gefuhrten Ubersetzung [i.e., the Vetus Latina] folgen.”

1961. L.R. [Leonard Robert] Palmer: The Latin Language. Third impression with corrections. London. ix,
372 pp. – Originally published in 1954 and often reprinted, this is a standard text on the early,
pre-medieval history of the Latin language. “The vulgar stamp of biblical Latin (…) reflects the
speech habits of the early Latin-speaking converts to whom the gospel was preached” (p. 188).
The features of biblical vulgar Latin pointed out by Palmer include the preference for verbs that

132
 begin with a preposition (con-, per-, etc.), for long words, and the avoidance of monosyllabic
ones. “In the Latin Bible esto is used for es [be!, 2 Sam 10:12, and often], and vade does duty for
i [go!], whereas in the plural ite appears and never vadite” (p. 169). For the description of biblical
vulgar Latin, Palmer relies on Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn
(viii, 290 pp.), pp. 57–64 (which actually comments on the latinity of the Vetus Latina).

1965. J.B. Hofmann – Anton Szantyr: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Handbuch der Altertumswissen­
schaft. Munich (xcviii, 935, 89*), p. 44*: “die] alten Bibel-Übersetzer, deren Texte (die sog. ‘Itala,’
jetzt meist durch die Sammelbezeichnung ‘Vetus Latina’ ersetzt) ein verwildertes Latein bieten,
wie es den Kündern des Evangeliums der kleinen Leute der unteren Schichten entspricht; ihren
Einfluß auf die Folgezeit beschnitt endgültig erst die stilistische Überarbeitung des Hieronymus
in der Vulgata.”

1967. Joseph Herman: Le latin vulgaire. Que sais-je? 1247. Paris. 125 pp. – English translation (revised
by the author, and with a new bibliography): József Herman: Vulgar Latin. Translated by Roger
Wright. University Park 2000. xiv, 130 pp. – The author uses the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate as
standard sources for the Latin of late antiquity. The Latin of the pre-Jeromian Bible is “un latin
d’allure populaire, imprégné de vulgarismes” (p. 31), as can be seen from Genesis 3:8 Adam and
Eva are said to hide themselves abante faciem domini (from the face of the Lord; abante = ab +
ante, which later became French avant); Jerome avoided the expression and wrote a facie
Domini Dei (pp. 31–32). A similar avoidance can be seen in Gen 37:32, where the Vetus Latina
has cognosci si tunica fili tui es taut non (si reflecting Greek ei); Jerome prefers an utrum–an con­
struction (vide utrum tunica filii tui sit an non; p. 96). An example of a vulgar-Latin preference
can be seen in the rare use of edere (to eat) in the Vulgate; commedere and manducare – the
vulgar equivalents – take over (pp. 102–103). ▲

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid 588 pp. – The author discerns
three vital influences that shape biblical Latin: Semitic influences (pp. 170–268), Greek influences
(pp. 269–287), and vulgar Latin influences (la lengua popular, pp. 289–316). As can be seen from
the page ranges, the Semitic influence is dominant. ▲

1995. Otto Hiltbrunner: Kleines Lexikon der Antike. Sechste, völlig neubearbeitete und erweiterte Au­
flage. Tübingen. xvi, 654 pp. – This small-size, one-volume dictionary of Greco-Roman antiquity
includes an entry on “Vulgärlatein” (pp. 631–632). “In der christlichen Literatur mit vulgärer Fär­
bung spielt oft nicht so sehr das Unvermögen der Verfasser mit als vielmehr der Wunsch, zu ei­
ner Gemeinde von Leuten niederer Schichten in einer ihr nahen Sprache zu reden. (…) Vulgäre
Formen, Wörter und Satzkonstruktionen finden sich besonders in den Bibel-Übersetzungen der
Vetus Latina” (pp. 631–632).

1999. Jesús de la Villa: Algunas construcciones gramaticales y no gramaticales en latín tardio: el

testimonio de la Vulgata. In: Hubert Petersmann – Rudolf Kettemann (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin
tardif V. Heidelberg (xviii, 567 pp.), pp. 287–298.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. – The
author attributes the Vetus Latina of the Gospels to “native speakers of Latin with at least a
moderate degree of education. It follows that their work must not be treated uncritically as a
repository of vulgarisms” (p. 171). “The Old Latin Gospels are not the most heavily vulgarized of
Latin texts” (p. 191).

Twenty-first century
2009. Helmut Lüdtke: Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen. Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen
Kommunikation. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Kiel (xxii, 926 pp.), pp. 93–102.

133
2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 311–315: “Das
Latein der Vulgata.”
2023. Gerd Haverling: Tempus, Aktionsart und Aspekt in der Vulgata und in den Vetus Latina-
Übersetzungen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das
Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 221–257. – A study of “late
Latin” features of the Vulgate’s latinity.
2023. Jesús de la Villa Pollo: Die Vulgata als Erkenntnisquelle des späteren Lateins: Die Beziehungen
zwischen Dativ und ad + Akk. als Markierung des Benefizienten. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.):
Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung.
Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 157–177.

Introductions to vulgar/late Latin

1866. Hugo Schuchardt: Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins. Band 1. Leipzig. xii, 476 pp. – Page 58: “Die
Hauptursache des Umsichgreifens der Rustizität liegt on der Verbreitung des Christentums. Das­
selbe schlug in den untersten Ständen am frühesten und am festesten Wurzeln (…) Die, welche
den Glauben predigten, bedienten sich eines ungeschminkten, volksthümlichen Vortrags (…).”

1873. Oskar Rebling: Versuch einer Charakteristik der römischen Umgangssprache. Kiel. 27 pp.

1899. Frédéric George Mohl: Introduction à la chronologie du latin vulgaire. Étude de philologie histo­
rique. Paris. xii, 339 pp.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil.
Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 354–365.

1949. Carlo Battisti: Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare. Bari. iv, 348 pp.

1957. Serafim da Silva Neto: História do latim vulgar. Rio de Janeiro. 230 pp.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo. 215 pp.

1961. L.R. [Leonard Robert] Palmer: The Latin Language. Third impression with corrections. London. ix,
372 pp. – Pages 148–180: Vulgar Latin.

2000. Jószef Herman: Vulgar Latin. Translated by Roger Wright. University Park. xiv, 130 pp. – The
French version was originally published in 1967; the present translation is based on a revised
edition of 1997, prepared by Jószef Herman who also prefaced the English translation. There is
also a Spanish edition: El latín vulgar. Translated from the French and updated by the author.
Barcelona. 1997. 166 pp. The Hungarian author’s small book is said to be the best survey of its
subject. – Review: Daniel Williman, Speculum 78 (2003) 200–201. ▲

2002. Peter Stotz: Das sogenannte Vulgärlatein. In: idem: Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mitte­
lalters. Erster Band. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Munich (xxxi, 723 pp.), pp. 62–76.

2006. Reinhard Kiesler: Einführung in die Problematik des Vulgärlateins. Tübingen. xi, 136 pp. – A new
edition, revised and enlarged by Volker Noll, was published in 2018 (xvi, 168 pp.).

2010. Arnulf Stefenelli: Vulgar Latin. In: Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Volume 15.
Leiden (lviii pp., 1050 cols.), cols. 531–534.

2011. J.N. Adams: Late Latin. In: James Clackson (ed.): A Companion to the Latin Language. Chichester
(xxvi, 634 pp.), pp. 257–283. – Page 265: “If one wishes to label these phenomena as ‘Vulgar Lat ­
in,’ for want of a better word, there is no harm in that, as long as one accepts the limitations of
the term. We know little about the details of spoken Latin. The term becomes problematic if it is

134
 given a purely social definition in keeping with its etymology.” Adams prefers to speak of ‘Late
Latin’ as the prelude to the Romance languages.

2018. Josef Eskhult: Vulgar Latin as an Emergent Concept in the Italian Renaissance (1435–1601).
Journal of Latin Linguistics 17: 191–230.

2021. Kees Versteegh: The Ghost of Vulgar Latin. History of a Misnomer. Historiographia linguistica
48.2–3: 205–227 (online journal). – Scholars should not construct a language placed between
Latin and the Romance languages. Romance languages developed from Latin, and not from a
scholarly construct.

Grammars and surveys of vulgar/late Latin

1907. Charles H. Grandgent: An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Cambridge. xviii, 219 pp. “Intended
primarily for students of Romance philology, it will, I hope, be of some interest to Classical
scholars as well” (p. iii). Reprinted in 1934 and 1962.

1922. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. Cambridge. xiii, 162 pp. – A reference
work, not a student textbook. Considered particularly useful is its 2nd, corrected edition 1927
(xv, 162 pp.) and subsequent reprints.

1930/31. Ernst Kiekers: Historische lateinische Grammatik. Mit Berücksichtigung des Vulgärlateins und
der romanischen Sprachen. Munich. Band 1: Lautlehre. xxiii, 167 pp; Band 2: Formenlehre. xi, 334
pp. – Several reprints.

1959. Theodoro Henrique Maurer: Gramática do latim vulgar. Rio de Janeiro. 298 pp.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo. vii, 210 pp. – Ten chapters: Preliminary remarks – Late Latin/Vul­
gar Latin/Romance – local variation in Latin – medieval Latin – the Christian influence – the influ ­
ence of Greek – changes in the nominal system – changes in the meaning of words – some pre­
positions and particles – taboo, euphemism, and primitive conceptions of language.

1963. Veikko Väänänen: Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris. xvii, 229 pp. – The second, revised and ex­
panded edition (1967. xviii, 274 pp.) and the third edition (1981. xxi, 273 pp.) as well as sub ­
sequent reprints include an annotated anthology of texts (with John 2:13–25 Vetus Latina as an
example; pp. 185–186 of the 1981 edition). The book is recommended by Joseph Herman: Le
latin vulgaire. Paris 1967 (125 pp.), p. 127. There is also a Spanish translation: Introducción al
latín vulgar. 3rd edition, revised and corrected. Madrid 1988. 449 pp.

1966. R.A. Haadsma – Jan C. Nuchelmans: Précis de latin vulgaire. Suivi d’une anthologie annotée. 2e
édition, revue et annotée. Groningen. 135 pp.

Anthologies of vulgar/late Latin texts

1932. Henry F. Muller – Pauline Taylor: A Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin. Boston. xvii, 315 pp. – The an­
thology includes gospel texts from the Vetus Latina (pp. 96–102) and a few Old Testament pas­
sages from the Vulgate (pp. 111–114: Num 23:1–8; Isa 20:1–6; 1 Macc 6:33–46).

1947. Karl Goetzke: Tabellen und Übungen zum Vulgärlatein. Genehmigter Neudruck. Leverkusen. 57
pp. – “Vulgärlatein als Grundlage der romanischen Sprachen” (p. 48).

1950. Manuel Cecilio Díaz y Díaz: Antología del latín vulgar. Madrid. 268 pp. – The revised and aug­
mented edition of 1962 (239 pp.) was frequently reprinted.

135
1950. Vittorio Pisani: Testi latini arcaici e volgari, con commento glottologico. Turin. xv, 196 pp. – The
edition now in general use is the 3rd, enhanced edition of 1975, xv, 198 pp.

1966. R.A. Haadsma – Jan C. Nuchelmans: Précis de latin vulgaire. Suivi d’une anthologie annotée. 2e
édition, revue et annotée. Groningen. 135 pp. – The first edition was published in 1963. The an­
thology includes the Vetus Latina and Vulgate versions of Luke 19:1–27.

1967. Veikko Väänänen: Introduction au latin vulgaire. Second, revised and expanded edition. xviii, 274
pp. Originally published in 1963, the 1967 and later editions include an annotated anthology of
texts. The 1981 edition includes the Vetus Latina text of John 2:13–25 (pp. 185–186).

1969. Gerhard Rohlfs: Sermo vulgaris latinus. Vulgärlateinisches Lesebuch. Dritte, verbessere und er­
weiterte Auflage. Tübingen. xiii, 90 pp. – The first edition (Halle 1951. xii, 88 pp.) included three
New Testament texts in the Vetus Latina and Vulgate versions (Luke 19:1-27; Matt 13:1–9, 24–30;
Acts 3:1–10), but the third edition has only the Matthew text (pp. 13–16).

2007. Johannes Kramer (ed.): Vulgärlateinische Alltagsdokumente auf Papyri, Ostraka, Täfelchen und In­
schriften. Berlin. iv, 182 pp.

2016. J.N. Adams (ed.): An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 BC – AD 900. Cambridge 2016. xi, 719 pp. –
Pages 429–444: John 6:51–69 in two versions – Vetus Latina and Vulgate.

Congress proceedings “Latin vulgaire – latin tardif”

Note. – The “Comité international pour l’étude du latin tardif” organizes regular international confe ­
rences. The first conference was held in Pécs (1985), for subsequent conferences, scholars met in Bo ­
logna 1988, Innsbruck 1991, Caen 1994, Heidelberg 1997, Helsinki 2000, Sevilla 2003, Oxford 2006,
Lyon 2009, Bergamo 2012, Oviedo 2014, Uppsala 2016, Budapest 2018, Ghent 2022. Some of the pro ­
ceedings volumes listed below include contributions to the study of biblical Latin.

1987. József Herman (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. Actes du 1er Colloque international sur le latin
vulgaire et tardif. Tübingen. viii, 262 pp. – Congress held in Pecs, 1985.

1990. Gualtiero Calboli (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. II. Tübingen. xii, 286 pp. – Congress held in
Bologna, 1988.

1992. M. Iliescu – W. Marxgut (eds.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. III. Tübingen. x, 368 pp. – Congress
held in Innsbruck, 1991.

1995. Louis Callebat (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. IV. Hildesheim. 723 pp. – Congress held in Caen,
1994.

1999. Hubert Petersmann – Rudolf Kettemann (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. V. Heidelberg. xviii,
567 pp. – Congress held in Heidelberg, 1997.

2003. Heikki Solin (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. VI. Hildesheim. xvi, 594 pp. – Congress held in Hel­
sinki 2000.

2006. Carmen Arias Abellán (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. VII. Sevilla. 572 pp. – Congress held in
Sevilla, 2003.

2008. Roger Wright (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. VIII. Hildesheim. xiii, 623 pp. – Congress held in
Oxford, 2006.

136
2012. Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon. 1085 pp. – Congress held in
Lyon, 2009.

2014. Piera Molinelli et al. (ed.): Latin vulgair –, latin tardif. X. Bergamo. 3 vols. xx, 1–394 pp.; x, pp. 397–
763; xi, pp. 765–1137. – Congress held in Bergamo, 2012.

2017. Alfonso García Leal et al. (eds.): Latin vulgair –, latin tardif. XI. Hildesheim. 787 pp. – Congress
held in Oviedo, 2014.

2019. Béla Adamik (ed.): Latin vulgair – latin tardif. XIII. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungari­
cae 59. Budapest. 665 pp. – Congress held in Budapest, 2018.

8.9 Christian Latin

Note. – In the twentieth century, the expression “Christian Latin” is associated with an ongoing contro ­
versy. Those who speak of “Christian Latin” highlight the presence of new vocabulary in authors such
as Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome; those who contradict downplay the difference between
Christian and non-Christian Latin, pointing out that there is not much of a linguistic difference between
pagan and Christian authors. Christians changed the discourse and invented new words, but did not
change the structure of the language. While in this section, a generally favourable stance toward the
notion of Christian Latin is presupposed, critical views are listed.

The idea of a particular Christian Latin idiom, a sort of sociolect, first suggested by the Dutch lin­
guist and Catholic priest Josef Schrijnen (1869–1938), was mainly promoted by Schrijnen’s student, the
Dutch philologist Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) who also taught at the University of Nijmegen.
While the Nijmegen hypothesis in its strong form never gained much following, it inspired many to
contribute to the study of the Latin of the patristic period. We list some of the major contributions and
critiques.

Christian Latin: major contributions – recent assessments

Jerome’s Latin

Christian Latin: major contributions – recent assessments

English
1951. Christine Mohrmann: How Latin Came to Be the Language of Early Christendom. Studies: An Irish
Quarterly Review 40, no. 159: 277–288.

1958. Mark Dilworth OSB: The Syntax of Christian Latin. Clergy Review 43.8: 462–474.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 68–87: Christian Latin is a reality, though Schrijn ­
en’s claims are occasionally exaggerated.

1966. Mark Dilworth OSB: The Vocabulary of Christian Latin. Clergy Review 51: 349–369, 429–447.

137
1987. Robert G. Coleman: Vulgar Latin and the Diversity of Christian Latin. In: József Herman (ed.): La­
tin vulgaire – Latin tardif. Actes du 1er Colloque International sur le Latin Vulgaire et Tardif. Tübin­
gen (viii, 262 pp.), pp. 37–52. – Suggests speaking of “Bible Latin,” not Christian Latin. The notion
of a Christian Latin is a mere modern fiction.

1996. Daniel J. Sheerin: Christian and Biblical Latin. In: Frank A.C. Mantello – A.G. Rigg (eds.): Medieval
Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C. (xiv, 774 pp.), pp. 137–156. –
The book was reprinted in 1999, with minor corrections. – Pages 141–142.151–152: the debate
on Christian Latin, with bibliographical references. Page 141: “Though many have rejected the
‘Christian Latin’ of the Nijmegen school in whole or in part, the theory, with various nuances,
nevertheless continues to exercise influence.” Page 150: “Christian Latin is no illusion.”

2008. Philip Burton: On Revisiting the Christian Latin Sondersprache Hypothesis. In: Hugh A.G.
Houghton – David C. Parker et al. (eds.): Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies?
Piscataway, N.J. (xvi, 193 pp.), pp. 149–171. – Page 171: “I would suggest that earlier emphasis
on radically new departures – the coinage of new words, and the creation of new senses of ex­
isting words – may have led us to overlook the specialization and the increasing frequency with
which some terms are used within Christian Latin. There is very much still to be explored here.”

2011. Philip Burton: Christian Latin. In: James Clackson (eds.): A Companion to the Latin Language.
Chichester (xxvi, 634 pp.), pp. 485–501. – This article seeks to rehabilitate the notion of Christian
Latin or, more properly, the Latin of Christians.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (xviii,
365 pp.), p. 54: “The assumption that Latin-speaking Christians used an idiom which differed sig ­
nificantly in lexicon, syntax, and morphology from surrounding secular varieties is now largely
discarded by scholars.”

German
1932. Josef Schrijnen: Charakteristik des altchristlichen Latein. Nijmegen. 56 pp. – Schrijnen’s German
text is reprinted as the appendix to Christine Mohrmann: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome
4. Rome 1977 (444 pp.), pp. 367–404. There is an Italian translation, with a contribution by
Christine Mohrmann: I caratteri del Latino cristiano antico. Bologna 1977. 135 pp. – This small
book is the first statement of the theory of the Christian special language (Sondersprache) which
the author also called “Kirchenlatein” (p. 26). According to Schrijnen, it was not Tertullian who
created Christian Latin (as often supposed, for instance by Eduard Norden); instead, the an­
onymous Christians who created the Vetus Latina.

1932. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil 1.
Nijmwegen. 270 pp. – This is one of the essential Sondersprache studies. Much of the book
comments, in alphabetical order, on Augustine’s vocabulary; pp. 74–164 list Christianisms (from
agape to tentatrix), and pp. 164–211 list indirect Christianisms (from abyssus to vivificare).

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Zur Entstehung der christlichen Latinität. In: idem: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge
zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 458–473.

1939. Christine Mohrmann: Altchristliches Latein. Entstehung und Entwicklung der Theorie der alt­
christlichen Sondersprache. Aevum 13: 339–354 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome
I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp. 3–19.

1951. Walter Dürig: Die Erforschung der lateinisch-christlichen Sakralsprache. Liturgisches Jahrbuch 1:
32–47.

138
2001. Roman Müller: Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike. Mu­
nich. 357 pp. – Pages 64–78: Das “rustike” Latein der Christen; pp. 111–115: Die augustinische
Wende: Sermo humilis im Latein der Christen.

2009. Helmut Lüdtke: Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen. Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen Kom­
munikation. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Kiel (xxii, 926 pp.), pp. 92–93, 102–107.

2019. Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann: Latinitas. Überlegungen zur sprachlichen Korrektheit zwischen
Spätantike und Karolingerzeit. In: Uta Heil (ed.): Das Christentum im frühen Europa. Berlin (ix, 508
pp.), pp. 67–90. – Page 85: “Vor allem die Auseinandersetzung mit der Bibelsprache brachte eine
Dynamisierung in der Sprachnorm: Stilistische Uberempfindlichkeiten wurden vermehrt in Frage
gestellt und Verstöße gegen die grammatikalischen Regeln dann erlaubt, wenn ein besonderer
Effekt erzielt werden sollte.”

French
1933. Antoine Meillet: Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. Paris. xiv, 292 pp. – Page 280: “le latin
écrit était la langue du christianisme en Occident. Le grammairien qui regarde les choses de près
n’a pas de peine à déceler chez saint Augustin des usages et des tours qui auraient choqué Ci­
céron. (…) Mais les formes qu’emploie saint Augustin sont en général celles de la langue clas­
sique. Cicéron n’aurait pas tout approuvé; mais ce n’est pas la forme extérieure qui l’aurait em ­
pêché de comprendre. Entre la langue la plus classique et celle de la Vulgate ou des Pères de
l’Église, il n’y a que des différences de détail.” ▲

1939.1944. Joseph de Ghellinck SJ: Latin chrétien ou langue latine des chrétiens. Les études classiques 8
(1939) 449–478; 12 (1944) 286–296 – Report on recent publications on the subject.

1939. Joseph de Ghellinck SJ: Latin chrétien ou langue latine de premiers chrétiens. Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 66: 821–823.

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain. iii, 412 pp. –
This Sorbonne thesis (submitted in 1940) is one of the major vocabulary studies made in the
spirit of Christine Mohrmann. Studied are words such as caritas, dilectio, diligere, amare amor,
frater, proximus, concordia, pax, unitas, misericordia. These words were in general use in Latin,
but used in the New Testament and by the church fathers, they were given new meanings. “Les
chrétiens continuent à employer les mots de tout le monde, mais il leur donnent un sens nou­
veau” (p. 350). – Review: G. de Plinval, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 44 (1949) 592–595. ▲

1952. Christine Mohrmann: L’étude de la latinité chrétienne: état de la question, méthodes, résultats.
In: eadem: Latin vulgaire, latin des chrétiens. Paris (35 pp.), pp. 17–35.

1954. Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire latin–français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout: Éditions Brepols. 900
pp., folio size. – Several times reprinted (2nd edition 1967, with appended addenda et corri­
genda). ▲

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg. 221 pp. – English translation: A Handbook of
Christian Latin: Style, Morphology, and Syntax. Translated by Grant C. Roti. Washington, D.C.
1994. xvii, 157 pp. – The most detailed systematic account of what constitutes Christian Latin in
late antiquity. ▲

1958–1977. Christine Mohrmann: Études sur le Latin des chrétiens. Rome. 4 vols. xxii, 468 pp.; 400 pp.;
458 pp.; 444 pp.– There is a second, 1961 edition of volume 1.

1991. Gerard J.M. Bartelink: L’œuvre scientifique de Christine Mohrmann (L’École de Nimègue). Sacris
erudiri 32: 23–37.

139
1992. René Braun: Bible et latin des chrétiens. In: idem: Approches de Tertullien. Paris (vi, 345 pp.), pp.
253–266. – There was no change in the linguistic system, but Christianity prompted “ un rajeunis­
sement du vocabulaire, une coloration nouvelle dans l’emploi des mots, une prolifération d’ex­
pressions spécifiques” (p. 266). For an earlier version of this article, see: L’influence de la Bible
sur la langue latine; in: Jacques Fontaine – Charles Pietri (eds.): Le monde antique et la Bible. La
Bible de tous les temps 2. Paris 1985 (672 pp.), pp. 129–142.

1996. Jean-Claude Fredouille: “Latin chrétien” ou “latin tardif”? Recherches augustiniennes 29: 5–23. –
Fredouille leans toward speaking about late Latin; nevertheless, he reports about his project of
producing a revised and updated version of Blaise’s Manuel du latin chrétien (1955). Fredouille
(1934–2012) seems to have abandoned the project.

1997. Simone Deléani: Le latin des Pères, un domaine encore mal exploré. In: Les Pères de l’Église au
XXe siècle. Histoire – littérature – théologie. Paris (575 pp.), pp. 251–264. ▲

2006. Eugeen Roegiest: Vers les sources des langues romanes. Un itinéraire linguistique à travers la Ro­
mania. Leuven. 265 pp. – Pages 48–61: Le latin parlé dit vulgaire. “À partir de 200, on parle le la­
tin tardif, jusqu’aux premières textes romans. Ce sont surtout les auteurs chrétiens, comme les
Africains” Tertullien et Augustin (p. 48). “Le latin chrétien est dans une certaine mesure du latin
parlé, surtout des classes inférieurs” (p. 61).

Italian – Spanish
1978. Vincenzo Loi: Origini e caratteristiche della latinità cristiana. Rome. 58 pp. – Review: Leofranc
Holford-Strevens, The Classical Review 31 (1981) 230–233.

1987. Olegario Garcío de la Fuente: El latín bíblico y el latín Cristiano en el marco del latín tardio.
Analecta malacitana 10: 3–64.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid. 588 pp. – On Christian Latin,
see the author’s general introduction (pp. 27–81) in which he lists the characteristics of Christian
Latin; according to the author, Christian Latin in antiquity reached its most perfect form in the
works of Augustine and Jerome, and Christian Latin, as it continued into the Middle Ages, rested
on the language of Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, rather than on the Language of Cicero,
Caesar, or Vergil (p. 432).

1996. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín cristiano: coincidencias y discrepancias.
Recherches augustiniennes 29: 25–41.

Jerome’s Latin
1879. Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus–Hieronymus. Breslau. iv, 92
pp.

1880. Karl Heinrich von Paucker: De latinitate B. Hieronymi. Observationes ad nominum verborumque
usum pertinentes. Editio adiecto indice auctior. Berlin. iv, 189 pp.

1884. Henri Goelzer: Étude lexicographique et grammaticale de la latinité de saint Jérôme. Paris. xii, 472
pp. – The author considers only the corpus of Jerome’s work, but not his biblical translations.
The book is said to be outdated, see the critical note of Bengt Löfstedt above, Chapter 2.3
(Jerome studies).

1905. Johann Philipp Krebs – Joseph Hermann Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Sieben­
te Auflage. Erster Band. Basel 1905. viii, 811 pp. – “Freilich muss vom hl. Hieronymus zugegeben

140
 warden, dass er sich von den Auswüchsen des pathetischen Stils nicht überall freigehalten hat,
aber ebenso sicher ist, dass er ein immerhin relative gutes und selbst fliessendes, die genaueste
Bekanntschaft mit den Schätzen der klassischen Zeit vielfach bekundendes Latein schreibt ” (p.
11, Schmalz). The Antibarbarus holds Jerome’s Latin in high esteem. An example: the adjective
coaequalis is deemed to be entirely superfluous and must not be used; but since Jerome uses it,
it cannot be said to be a barbarism (also kann es nicht geradezu als barbarisch bezeichnet wer­
den, p. 290).

1908. Henri Goelzer: Histoire du Latin du III e au VIIe siècle: le latin de l’Église. Revue internationale de
l’enseignement 55: 97–129. – A historical sketch and survey of scholarly literature about the Latin
of the church fathers.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alt­
testamentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at p. 150. In this review of Jerome’s translation
of the book of Genesis from the Hebrew, Stummer refers to Jerome’s hesitation between spoken
Latin and the classical Latin that he had studied.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata des Hi­
eronymus. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, p, 257–258:
“Kommt man nun von der Lektüre altlateinischer Bibeltexte zur Editio Clementina (…), so hat es
in der Tat den Anschein, als sei (…) eine Rückkehr zur klassischen Sprachform vollzogen worden.
Die bereits vorliegenden vier Bände der neuen römischen Vulgata [see above, Chapter 13.3] ha­
ben uns allerdings bereits belehrt, daß der ‘Ciceronianismus’ der Vulgata zum guten Teil von Al ­
kuin herrührt.”

1961. L.R. [Leonard Robert] Palmer: The Latin Language. Third impression with corrections. London. ix,
372 pp. – Page 201: “In Jerome and Augustine, the language of Latin Christianity reached its
fullest flowering.”

1961. Giuseppe del Ton: De latino scribendi genere sancti Hieronymi. Latinitas 9: 167–174.

1999. Jolanta Gelumbeckaite: St. Jerome: Christian or Ciceronian Latin? Evidence from the Syntax of His
Writings. In: Hubert Petersmann et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. V. Heidelberg (xviii, 567
pp.), pp. 375–380.

2002. Julijana Visočnik: Latinski klasiki v Hieronimovih pismih. Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca 4.2: 147–
155. – Jerome’s Latin is Ciceronian. The title of this Slovenian paper is: Latin Classics in Jerome’s
Letters.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford. xviii,
365 pp. – The introduction includes a section on Jerome’s style and language – literary Latin,
colloquial Latin, Later Latin, and Christian Latin (pp. 42–55).

2021. Miran Sajovic SDB: Preliminary Remarks on the Latin of Jerome. Clotho 3.2: 93–112. – An intro­
duction to Jerome as a writer, with emphasis on his style. Mention is made of the use of imagery
and diminutives, his attention to detail, and his love of lapidary sentences.

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus. Kontinuität und
Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einfüh­
rung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 87–108. –
Comparing Vetus Latina texts with Jerome’s revisions and translations one gets a sense of
Jerome’s preference for classical Latin forms and style. The texts considered include Matt 5:23–
24 and Judg 6:1–3.

141
Chapter 9
Vetus Latina

Note. – The Old Latin – or Vetus Latina – translations of the Bible are not the subject of this book. But
since some of the Old Latin texts entered the Vulgate without Jerome’s editing (the book of Jesus Sir­
ach, the book of Wisdom [Sapientia Salomonis], the book of Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees)
or form the more or less edited basis of the Vulgate text (as is the case with all the New Testament
writings), the study of the Vulgate text often involves a consideration of the Vetus Latina. For this reas­
on, a concise bibliography on the Vetus Latina is offered in the present chapter. See also above, the
section on Vetus Latina manuscripts (7.1), and the examples of pre-Vulgate translations of portions of
the book of Lamentations in the textual notes, below, Chapter 21.

The Latin text of the Lord’s Prayer used in the Catholic liturgy today is not from the Vulgate, but from
the Vetus Latina (see below, Chapter 22 on Matthew 6).

The term “Vetus Latina” is used today in a multiple sense: (1) as a summary designation for all Latin
biblical texts older than the Vulgate, (2) as a designation for a text older than a corresponding text
of the Vulgate, (3) as a designation specifically of the Vetus-Latina text edition of the Beuron “Vetus
Latina Institut,” housed in the Benedictine monastery at Beuron in southern Germany (see below,
Chapter 9.7).

9.1 What is the Vetus Latina and why has it disappeared?

9.2 Surveys and introductions – Vetus-Latina philology

9.3 One Vetus-Latina Bible or many Latin translations?

9.4 African origins of the Latin Bible?

9.5 Jewish origins of the Latin Bible?

9.6 Augustine’s Itala

9.7 Editions of the Vetus-Latina Bible

9.8 The Fortunatianus commentary on the Gospels (2017)

9.9 Jerome and the Vetus Latina

142
9.1 What is the Vetus Latina and why has it disappeared?

Ancient sources
180. Passio sanctorum Scillitanorum. In the Latin Acts of the Christian martyrs is a transcript of the trial
of six Christians in Carthage, North Africa. Here is an excerpt: “The proconsul Saturninus said:
What have you in your case? Speratus said: The books, and the letters of a just man, one Paul.” J.
Stevensen – W.H.C Frend (eds.): A New Eusebius. Documents Illustrating the History of the Church
to AD 337. London 1987 (xii, 404 pp.), p. 45. – Did Speratus, a book-owning intellectual, carry
with him a case of Greek scriptures? Was he an interpreter who translated Greek scriptural texts
during the liturgy? Or were these Latin scriptures, already translated? According to Bogaert,
these Christian books “were probably in Latin and consisted of codices and not of rolls” – the
earliest reference to the Vetus-Latina translation. “Es ist dies, soweit wir Wissen, die erste Erwäh­
nung einer lateinischen Bibel, genauer wohl, eines zweigeteilten neutestamentlichen Kanons aus
Büchern (= Evangelien?) und Paulusbriefen” (Ritter, p. 50). – Literature:
2007. Adolf Martin Ritter: Alte Kirche. Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte in Quellen. Band 1. 9. Auflage. Neuk­
irchen-Vluyn (xx, 277 pp.), p. 50.

2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge History
of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at p. 505.

c. 370s. Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Romans, on Rom 5:14 (PL 17: 96): “It is known that there were Lat­
in-speakers who translated ancient Greek manuscripts which preserved an uncorrupted version
from earlier times. But once these problems were raised by heretics and schismatics who were up­
setting the harmony of the church, many things were altered so that the text might conform to
what people wanted. Thus, even the Greeks have different readings in their manuscripts. I consider
the correct reading to be the one which reason, history and authority all retain. For the reading of
the modern Latin manuscripts is also found in Tertullian, Victorinus and Cyprian (nam hodie quae
in Latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita – Tertulliano et Victorino et
Cypriano).” Ambrosiaster: Commentaries on Romans and 1–2 Corinthians. Translated by Gerald L.
Bray. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2009 (xiii, 270 pp.), p. 43.

c. 396/97. Augustine: De doctrina christiana II, 36; CSEL 8: 43 (= 11,16; PL 34: 43): ut enim cuique primis
fidei temporibus in manus uenit codex graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae
habere uidebatur, ausus est interpretari. “For, in the first days of the faith, whenever a Greek ma­
nuscript came into the possession of someone who believed himself to have a modicum of abil ­
ity in both languages, he hazarded his own translation.” Augustine is very dismissive of the early
Latin translations, and does not seem to do justice to the early translators. The translation is
from Houghton, p. 11.

c. 404. Jerome: Praefatio in libro Iosue 1: apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria quot codices, et unusquisque
pro arbitrio suo vel additerit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est (Sources chrétiennes 592: 314).
“Among the Latins there are as many versions (exemplaria) as there are books, and everyone
has, according to his own judgment, either added or subtracted whatever seemed right to him,
and he indeed may not have been able to be certain what differed.” – German: “Bei den Latei­
nern gibt es ebensoviele Textfassungen (exemplaria) wie Handschriften, und jeder hat nach ei­
genem Gutdünken etwas hinzugefügt oder weggelassen.” – With these words Jerome complains
about the multitude of Latin Bible texts that differ from each other. With his translation, he
wants to put an end to this multitude by creating a new, textually reliable rendering. In modern
language: He replaces the confusion of the Vetus Latina with a new text, which later becomes
the so-called Vulgate.

143
Analysis of the ancient sources
1879. Leo Ziegler: Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hl. Schrift. Munich. 135 pp. – On pp. 4–18, the author quotes and dis­
cusses all patristic references to pre-Jeromian biblical translations.

Some modern statements

1900. H.A.A. Kennedy: Latin Versions, The Old. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume 3. Edinburgh (xv, 896 pp), pp. 47–62. – Page 47: “The name Old Latin is used here to de ­
note the Latin version or versions which existed previous to, or independent of, the great revi ­
sion made by Jerome at the close of the 4th century. The designation is derived from the Latin
Fathers themselves, who speak of ‘uetus editio,’ ‘antiqua interpretatio,’ ‘uetus translatio,’ and the
like.” A note approves of the following definition: “Old-Latin texts mean all early Latin versions of
the Bible which are not Hieronymian, of whatever date the manuscripts may be which contain
them, or on whatever country they were current.”

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Col. 2463: “Ce qui fait la supériorité de la version de saint
Jérôme sur les autres traductions anciennes de la Bible, c’est qu’elle est une œuvre scientifique,
le travail d’un lettré, tandis que les précédentes avaient plutôt les caractères d’œuvres d’utilité
pratique.”

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Page 56: The
designation Vetus Latina “will durchaus nicht alle Bibeltexte vor Hieronymus als aus einer einzi­
gen Übersetzung stammend bezeichnen, sondern sie nur unter einer gemeinsamen Bezeich ­
nung zusammenfassen.”

1994. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: “Caelorum ratio, ratio sub sole”. L’emploi de ratio chez les traduc­
teurs latins de la Bible, in: M. Fattori – M.L. Bianchi (eds.): Ratio. Florence (vi, 574 pp.), pp. 69–83.
– Page 69: “Avant 200 (Tertullian) au moins en partie, et en totalité avant 250, la Bible grecque
(Septante et Nouveau Testament) est traduite en latin, presque certainement en Afrique. Cette
version sera révisée périodiquement sur des textes grecs devenu dominants, et son vocabulaire
sera insensiblement rajeuni et ‘européanisé’ jusqu’au V e et VIe siècle. C’est la Bible des Pères la­
tins, la vetus Latina, reflet de la Bible grecque. Le texte n’en est pas fixé.”

2018. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Entre canon(s) et textes bibliques. Recherches de science religieuse
106: 53–71. – Page 65: “Si la traduction de Jérôme selon l’hébreu a revalu sur la Vetus Latina, en
dépit des préventions par Rufin et par Augustin, c’est en raison de son style. La vieille latine, jux ­
ta-linéaire du grec, faisait pale figure à côté du génie latin de Jérôme.”

9.2 Surveys and introductions – Vetus-Latina philology

English
1883. John Wordsworth: The Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain Ms. (g1), now
numbered Lat. 11533. Oxford. xliii, 79 pp. – Apart from the edition of a “old Latin” manuscript of
the gospel of Matthew, the editor also offers an introduction to the Old Latin Bible. Page xxx:

144
 The term “Old Latin” is said to be “now in the process of general adoption” to refer to “all early
Latin versions of the Bible which are not Hieronymian, of whatever date the manuscripts.”

1894. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Fourth Edition, Edited by Edward Miller. Volume II. London (vii, 428 pp.), pp. 41–56, with a de ­
tailed list of Old Latin manuscripts pf the Gospels. This section of the book was written by H.J.
White and John Wordsworth, with the help of Samuel Berger (see volume I, 1894, xix, 418 pp., at
p. viii).

1900. H.A.A. Kennedy: Latin Versions, The Old. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume. 3. Edinburgh (xv, 896 pp.), pp. 47–62. – Most of the article consists of a list of manu­
scripts that attest to the text of the Vetus Latina.

1951. Bleddyn J. Roberts: The Old Latin Translations. In: idem: The Old Testament Text and Versions.
Cardiff (xv, 326 pp.), pp. 237–246.

1976. Jean Gribomont OSB: Latin Versions. In: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Supplementary Volume. Nashville, Tenn. (xxv, 987 pp.), pp. 527–532. – Pages 528–530: The Old
Latin Bible.

1985. Eugene Ulrich: Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint. In:
N. Fernández Marcos (ed.): La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea. Madrid (285 pp.),
pp. 67–80.

1988. Arthur Vööbus: Versions. I. Latin. A. Old Latin (Vetus Latina). In: Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.): The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Volume 4. Grand Rapids, Mich. (xix,1211 pp.), pp. 969–
971. – Page 970: “We have evidence that in the 3rd century several Old Latin Versions circulated
in Italy, in Gaul, and in Spain.” On p. 970, Vööbus attributes to A. Baumstark the suggestion that
„the Old Latin version had a long history in Africa, reaching back into pre-Christian times, and
that it was later taken over by Christians“; this in fact is a suggestion made not by Baumstark but
by Blondheim; see below, Chapter 9.5.

1992. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin Versions [of the Bible]. In: David N. Freedman (ed.): The An­
chor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6. New York (xxxv, 1176 pp.), pp. 799–803. – Pages 799–800: “The
Greek Bible in Latin (Old Latin).”

1992. J.K. Elliott: The transmission of the New Testament into Latin: the Old Latin and the Vulgate. In
Wolfgang Haase (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Band II.26.1. Berlin (xxv, 812
pp.), pp. 198–245.

1996. Eva Schulz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–
662. – Pages 645–650: The Old Latin translations.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge. xv, 320 pp. – See esp. pp. 82–
83; p. 82: “Part of the bad name the Vetus Latina has received comes from the negative assess ­
ment by the church fathers. In particular, Augustine and Jerome, in their letters, frequently com­
plain about the deplorable state of the text of their Latin bible translations, and they stress the
need for correction.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 3–5: The Scintillian martyrs. Pages 9–14: Cyprian and the First
Latin Bibles; pp. 86–89: Old Latin manuscripts; pp. 113–127: modern editions of Vetus Latina
texts (with special reference to the Beuron edition). ▲

145
2021. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Vetus Latina (Old Latin). In: Alison G. Salvesen – Timothy Mi ­
chael Law (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Oxford (xvii, 791 pp.), pp. 623–638.

2023. H.A.G. Houghton: The Earliest Latin Translations of the Bible. In: In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The
Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 1–18. – The Old Latin version
(Vetus Latina) refers to the earliest Latin biblical translations and their revisions up to the end of
the fourth century. Few manuscripts are extant, so for most books the principal evidence is sup ­
plied by scriptural quotations in early Christian writers. These are used by editors to reconstruct
text-types current in particular times and places. The majority of translations probably origin ­
ated in North Africa around the end of the second century: the surviving evidence for each book
appears to derive from a single initial version which underwent multiple subsequent revisions.
Both the Old Testament and New Testament were based on Greek sources, and preserve im­
portant ancient readings. Old Latin forms of text continued to be copied for many centuries, and
their influence can be seen in theology, and liturgy, as well as paratextual material. Several of
the books later incorporated in the Vulgate, including the whole of the New Testament, are
based on Old Latin versions. ▲

German
1900. Heinrich Poggel: Die vorhieronymianischen Bibelübersetzungen. Paderborn. 84 pp.

1909. Eberhard Nestle: Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament. 3., umgearbeitete Auflage. Göt­
tingen (viii, 298 pp., 12 plates), pp. 121–138.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die lateinische Bibel vor Hieronymus und das Judentum. Theologie und Glau­
be 19: 184–199.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 4–76: The
Latin Bible before Jerome. The following subjects are dealt with: the language of the Old Latin
versions (pp. 57–64); the translation method of the Vetus Latina (pp. 64–74); the text-critical
value of the Old Latin version (pp. 74–76).

1953. Meinrad Stenzel: Zur Frühgeschichte der lateinischen Bibel. Theologische Revue 43: 97–103.

1957. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Die altlateinische Bibel. Bonner akademische Reden 17. Bonn. 32 pp. – On
the New Testament. Schäfer agrees with Joseph Vogels that the earliest Christian text in Latin
must have been a Latin version of Tatian’s Diatessaron.

1964. Otto Eißfeldt: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 3rd edition. Tübingen (xvi, 1129 pp.), pp. 973–975.

1972. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. In: Kurt Aland (ed.): Die al­
ten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Berlin (xxii, 589
pp.), pp. 1–92.

1973. Alfred Wickenhauser – Josef Schmid: Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 6th, completely revised
edition. Freiburg (xvi, 677 pp.), pp. 105–114.

1976. Rudolf Schnackenburg: Die Bedeutung der Vetus-Latina-Forschung für Wissenschaft und Geis­
tesleben. Erbe und Auftrag 52: 327–338.

1980. Sebastian P. Brock – Viktor Reichmann: Die altlateinischen Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments
(Reichmann) – Die altlateinischen Übersetzungen des Alten Testaments (S. Brock). In: Gerhard
Krause (ed.): Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band 6. Berlin (xxii, 589 pp.), pp. 172–178.

2012. Eva Schulz-Flügel: Die Vetus Latina – ein Überblick. In: Rudolf Gamper et al. (eds.): Die Vetus-La­
tina-Fragmente aus dem Kloster St. Gallen. Dietikon – Zürich (180 pp.), pp. 9–18.

146
2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 105–107: the Old Latin translations, with bibliography on p. 416.

French
1908. Lucien Méchineau SJ: Latins (versions) antérieurs à S. Jérôme. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Diction­
naire de la Bible. Tome 4.1. Paris (1058 cols.), cols. 97–123. – Cols. 102–111: list of Vetus Latina
manuscripts arranged in the traditional order of the biblical books from the Pentateuch to the
book of Revelation.

1913. Paul Capelle: Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique. Collectanea biblica latina 4. Rom.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris. xiv, 685 pp. – This treatise on the Greek manuscripts
and the early versions of the New Testament writings includes five chapters on the Vetus Latina
version of the Gospels, of the book of Acts, the Pauline letters, the Catholic epistles, and the
book of Revelation.

1957. Bernard Botte: Latines (versions) antérieures à S. Jérôme. In: Henri Cazelles (ed.): Supplément au
Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5. Paris (1480 cols.), cols. 334–347.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159, 276–314. –Page 152: “Les Pères latins
n’ont utilisé qu’exceptionnellement les traductions de saint Jérôme. Le principe même de la ve­
ritas hebraica ne s’impose nullement à eux. C’est donc bien la Vetus Latina en tant qu’elle rend
la Bible grecque qui est la Bible des Pères latins.” Page 146: “Les manuscrits bibliques et les cita­
tions patristiques révèlent la très grande inconstance de la vetus latina. Les variantes de vocabu­
laire sont innombrables; les différences de fond sont fréquentes. Augustin après Jérôme jugeait
sévèrement cette vitiotissima varietas. Mais, si l’on met à part quelques cas particuliers, ces diffé­
rences ne prouvent pas une pluralité de traducteurs pour un livre donné.” Bogaert characterizes
the history of the Old Latin Bible as the history of its revisions (p. 146). On pages 305–314, he
provides a bibliography of the Vetus Latina arranged by biblical books. ▲

1996. J.-C. Haelewyck: Les premières versions latines de la Bible. In: Christian-Bernard Amphoux – Jean
Margain (eds.): Les premières traditions de la Bible. Lausanne (304 pp.), pp. 121–136.

2017. Laurence Mellerin: Les versions latines. In: eadem (ed.): Lectures de la Bible. Ier – XVe siècle. Paris
(652 pp.), pp. 73–90, at pp. 73–77. Page 73, note 3: “Les Vieilles Latines donnent en particulier
des informations sur trois livres: elles attestent presque seules la forme brève originale du livre
de Job; elles donnent la disposition originale du Siracide, et pour Esther un type de texte entiè­
rement perdu en grec.”

Spanish
1962. Jesús Cantera Ortitz de Urbina: Origen, familias y fuentes de la Vetus Latina. Sefarad 22: 296–311.

2017. Manuel Ortuño Arregui: La Vetus Latina: Primera versión latina de la Biblia. ArtyHum Revista de
Artes y Humanidades 33: 52–67.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74. – On the
Vetus Latina, see pp. 12–25 and 35–47. ▲

147
2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Panorama editorial de la Vetus Latina y la Vulgata: series, proyectos,
ediciones de referencia. Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en
España 52: 7–90. See eps. Pp. 9–35: La Vetus Latina y sus ediciones. ▲

Italian
1988. Edoardo Vineis: Le antiche versioni latine dei Vangeli. In: Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo (ed.): Storia e pre­
istoria dei Vangeli. Genoa (142 pp.), pp. 61–90.

2008. Mario Cimosa – Carlo Buzzetti: Guido allo studio della Bibbia latina. Dalla Vetus Latina, alla Vul­
gata, alla Nova Vulgata. Sussidi patristici 14. Rome. 201 pp. – Pages 13–42: La Vetus Latina.

Latin
1940. Augustinus Merk SJ: Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium. Tomus primus. Paris. xi,
615 pp. – Pages 164–171: De versione vetere Latina. Merk’s chapter includes a list of the most
relevant manuscripts (pp. 168–169).

1950. Hildebrand Höpfl: Introductio generalis in sacram scripturam. Editio quinta noviter recensita
quam curavit P. Benno Gut OSB. Naples (xxiv, 637 pp.), pp. 352–372.

Vetus-Latina philology

Before 1900
1860. Celestino Cavedoni: Saggio della latinità biblica dell’antica Volgata Itala. Modena. 47 pp. – This
work was first published in the periodical Opuscoli religiosi, letterari e morali 7[19]: 161–180,
321–346. – Lamenting the absence of Vetus-Latina vocabulary in scholarly dictionaries of Latin,
this Italian philologist and historian compiled and here published a glossary of Latin words
found in the “Itala,” as he called the pre-Jeromian Latin Bible. He thought of this first Latin Bible
as having originated in North Africa during the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161 in of­
fice). He considered the language of this Bible to be vulgar Latin (latino volgare) as spoken in
North Africa.

1867. Hermann Rönsch: Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen im christlichen Afrika zur Zeit des Augus­
tinus. Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 37.4 : 606–634. – Rönsch compiles biblical quota­
tions from the works of Augustine, to conclude that when he wrote, several Latin Bibles circu­
lated in Africa – free translations and more literal ones. One of the more literal ones must be the
one Augustine refers to as the Itala; it circulated long before Augustine’s days, as can be seen
from echoes in Tertullian and Cyprian.

1868. Albrecht Vogel: Beiträge zur Herstellung der alten lateinischen Bibel-Übersezung. Vienna. 99 pp. –
“Unter der sogenannten Itala wollen wir uns (…) nichts anderes denken als die ursprüngliche Ge­
stalt der im 2. Jahrhunderte vermuthlich in Nordafrika entstandenen lateinischen Bibelüberset ­
zung”(p. 5).

1869. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und katholischen
Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache erläutert. Marburg. xvi, 509 pp. – A
second, enlarged edition was published in 1875 (xvi, 526 pp.). This book is one of the pioneering
works on the Vetus Latina which Rönsch calls “Itala.” ▲

1871. Hermann Rönsch: Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s. Aus den Schriften des Letzteren möglichst voll­
ständig reconstruiert. Leipzig. vi, 672 pp.

148
1887. Hugo Ehrensberger: Psalterium Vetus und die Psalterien des hl. Hieronymus. Psalm 1–17. Tauber­
bischofsheim. iv, 28 pp. – After a brief introduction, the author lists snippets of pre-Jeromian
wording found in manuscript and other sources.

English
1915. Theodore B. Foster: “Mysterium” and “Sacramentum” in the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions. The
American Journal of Theology 19: 402–415. – Page 405: The Greek verb δοξάζειν (to glorify) is
not rendered uniformly in the Vetus Latina texts of Matthew 5:16 – in the various manuscripts,
we find it rendered by magnificare, clarificare, and glorificare – the last-mentioned word is also
the one adopted by the Vulgate.

1927. A.V. Billen: The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. Cambridge. viii, 234 pp. – The book is note­
worthy for its annotated glossary of words used in the Old Latin texts (pp. 185–222): quanto for
classical quaecumque, quoad for donec, the intrusive letter t in Istrahel, iste for hic, future forms
of verbs – periet and transiet for peribit and transibit (etc.). ▲

1991. Theodore A. Bergren: A Latin-Greek Index of the Vulgate New Testament. SBL Resources for Bib­
lical Study 26. Atlanta, Ga. 1991. xiii, 207 pp. – This book has an index to the Vetus Latina vocab­
ulary of the New Testament (pp. 175–205, not included in the 2018 version of the same book).
The compiler distinguishes between “African” and “European” vocabulary in the Vetus Latina;
one example: adnuntiare (African) = evangelizare (European). ▲

1994. Natalio Fernándes Marcos: Scribes and Translators. Septuagint and Old Latin of the Books of
Kings. Leiden 1994. x, 97 pp.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. – The
first part of this book studies the textual history of the Old Latin Gospel texts, while the second
and third parts deal with its latinity with attention to extensions of meaning, literalism, morpho ­
logy, syntax, foreign words, etc. The author attributes the Vetus Latina of the Gospels to “native
speakers of Latin with at least a moderate degree of education. It follows that their work must
not be treated uncritically as a repository of vulgarisms” (p. 171). “The Old Latin Gospels are not
the most heavily vulgarized of Latin texts” (p. 191). The Latin text of the passion narrative in the
gospel of Matthew represents an earlier stratum than the rest of the gospel (pp. 40–44). ▲

2017. Julio Trebolle Barrera: Vetus Latin [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History
of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 207–211.

2017. Rolando Ferri: Regional Differentiation and the Old Latin Bible? Linguarum Varietas 6: 269–275. –
Certain rare words such as frixoria for “frying pan,” restricted to Late Latin and found only in
texts written in Italy, permit to locate certain Vetus Latina manuscripts.

2019. Benjamin Douglas Haupt: Tertullian’s Text of the New Testament outside the Gospels. Dissertation.
University of Birmingham, England. – Tertullian, when quoting the New Testament writings, did
not use an already existing Latin translation but translated anew from Greek exemplars. Al­
though Tertullian was aware of the existence of early Latin translations, he did not use them.
Haupt’s interpretation of the evidence is not new; earlier scholars were of the same opinion (H.
Hoppe: Syntax und Stil des Tertullian, 1903; Theodor Zahn: Das Neue Testament Tertullians,
1871), but the issue has now been finally decided. – Further literature:

1871. Hermann Rönsch: Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s. Aus den Schriften des Letzteren mög­
lichst vollständig reconstruiert. Leipzig. vi, 672 pp. – This work forms the basis of all sub­
sequent research.

149
 2017. B.D. Haupt: Tertullian’s Text of Galatians. In: Markus Vinzent (ed.): From Tertullian to Ty­
conius. Studia patristica 94. Leuven (xiii, 302 pp.), pp. 23–28.

2019. Hugh A.G. Houghton – C.M. Kreienecker et al.: The Principal Pauline Epistles. A Collation of Old
Latin Witnesses. Leiden. xi, 442 pp. – A collection of variant readings in Latin manuscripts of Ro­
mans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. The book includes descriptions of all the manuscripts
that were collated for this publication which can be found on the Internet (“open access”).

2021. Kevin Zilverberg: The Textual History of Old Latin Daniel from Tertullian to Lucifer. Madrid. 286
pp.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp.

2023. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo: The Latin Bible and the Septuagint. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Ox­
ford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 19–36. – The Latin Bible (especially
the Vetus Latina) plays a crucial role in the textual criticism of the Septuagint. It is an old and
faithful translation from the Septuagint, providing information for the knowledge of lost stages
of the Greek Bible and with a direct link to the oldest Hebrew tradition in Qumran manuscripts.
The Latin Bible is not only a witness for stages of the Old Greek Bible that are very close to the
original translation, but also preserves traces of the evolution of the Greek Bible in a way that
sometimes shows a richer and broader textual panorama not always preserved in the Greek ma­
nuscript tradition. The Vetus Latina thus enables researchers to follow the traces of the main
Greek revisions undertaken from pre-Christian times until the fifth century.

German
1900. Johann Heidenreich: Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian, verglichen mit dem Vulgata-Text.
Bamberg. 148 pp. – Arranged in two columns, the author supplies a canonically arranged list of
all New Testament texts quoted by Cyprian (left column), accompanied by the text of the Vul­
gate where it differs (right column). It is argued that the differences are accidental rather than
substantial (p. 138).

1909. Hans von Soden: Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians. Leipzig. x, 663 pp. –
The reference work on the relevance of Cyprian for the study of the pre-Jeromian Latin Bible.

1914. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Zur “afrikanischen” Evangelien-Übersetzung. Biblische Zeitschrift 12:
251–268.

1915. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Versuch einer Methode zur Erforschung der lateinischen Evangelien­
überlieferung. Biblische Zeitschrift 13: 322–333.

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg. xi, 190 pp. – Pages 137–187: Der Wort­
schatz der altlateinischen Psalterien. ▲

1965. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrusbriefes. Freiburg. 245 pp. ▲

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus: Kontinuität und
Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einfüh­
rung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 87–108.

2023. Matthias Geigenfeind: Wirkung durch Übersetzung. Die Vetus Latina Apocalypsis Johannis in
Nordafrika am Beispiel von Offb 11–12. Göttingen. 352 pp.

150
Italian
1971. Umberto Rapallo: Calchi ebraici nelle antiche versioni del Levitico: studio sui Settanta, la Vetus La­
tina e la Vulgata. Rome. 343 pp.

1971–1974. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36 (1973)
287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166. – Although published in a periodical, this is a monographic treat ­
ment of the language of the Vetus Latina New Testament, somewhat reminiscent of Rönsch (see
above, publications before 1900). A large part of this study is presented as an alphabetically ar­
ranged series of individual word studies. ▲

1985. Ernesto Valgiglio: Le antiche versioni latine del Nuovo Testamento. Fedeltà e aspetti grammaticali.
Naples. 337 pp. – Review: Jean Maillet, Augustinianum 27.3 (1987) 629–630.

2008. Giovanni Bazzana: La ‘Vetus Latina’ del ‘Cantico die Cantici.’ Traduzione e interpretatzione. In:
Rossana Gugliemetti (ed.): Il Cantico die Cantici nel Medioevo. Firenze (ix, 600 pp.), pp. 91–108.

9.3 One Vetus-Latina Bible or many Latin translations?

Note. – Was there one single Vetus Latina Bible before Jerome, or do we have to reckon with many
Latin translations of the Bible, partial or complete? Pierre Sabatier OSB (1683–1742), the founding fath­
er of Vetus-Latina research, was convinced that there was only one such Latin translation which he
called the Itala. The notion was debated in the nineteenth century when serious modern research in
the history of the Latin Bible began. Most scholars came to agree with Leo Ziegler who refuted Sabati ­
er’s idea by arguing for a multiplicity of complete or partial translations.

Nevertheless, Sabatier’s idea has been revived in the twentieth century, promoted by scholars such
as Karl Theodor Schäfer and scholars associated with the Vetus-Latina-Institut of Beuron.

1856. Thomas Hartwell Horne – Samuel Prideaux Tregelles: An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament. London (xxvii, 767 pp.), pp. 230–243: The Ancient Latin Versions Prior to the
Vulgate of Jerome. – Page 235: “Thus then the early citations, early testimonies, and existing ma ­
nuscripts, when rightly considered, conspire in proving that there was one early Latin version,
and one only; that this was altered by some in two ways – by transcriptional variation, and by
defective revision with Greek copies.”

1879. Leo Ziegler: Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hl. Schrift. Munich. 135 pp. – On the basis of careful scrutiny of all the
relevant ancient sources, including manuscripts, Ziegler argues that the existence of one single
Latin “Urübersetzung” of the Bible before Jerome, as assumed by Sabatier, is most unlikely.
There must have been multiple Latin translations, either of the whole Bible or of individual bib ­
lical books. On Ziegler’s work, see the discussion in Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die
lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 50–56; Stummer agrees with Ziegler, calling
Ziegler’s book a fundamental study on its subject.

1921. Ernst Diehl: Zur Textgeschichte des lateinischen Paulus. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 20: 97–132. – The author, a classical philologist, defends the notion that the Latin
Pauline letters all derive from one single translation.

1949. Rudolf Knopf – Hans Lietzmann – Heinrich Weinel: Einführung in das Neue Testament. Fünfte Au­
flage. Berlin (xvi, 444 pp.), pp. 42–43. This edition is textually identical with the fourth edition of
1934 (though with different pagination). – This handbook distinguishes between two textual

151
 types of the Vetus Latina New Testament; some manuscripts can be grouped together as rep­
resenting an African text, while others represent a European (or Italian) type. “Die weitere Frage,
die sich nun erhebt, ob wir im afrikanischen und im europäisch-italienischen Typus zwei von
Grund auf verschiedene Übersetzungen zu erkennen haben, oder ob diese beiden Typen doch
trotz großer Unterschiede auf eine gemeinsame Wurzel zurückgehen, ist noch nicht spruchreif.
Möglich ist, daß das Neue Testament sowohl in Karthago als auch in Europa (Rom oder Oberita ­
lien) ins Lateinische übersetzt worden ist; doch sind jüngst beachtenswerte Gründe für die These
beigebracht worden, daß alle altlateinischen Texte des Neuen Testaments auf einen einzigen, re­
lativ am besten in d [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis] erhaltenen Typ zurückgehen.”

1952. Ernst Würthwein: Der Text des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart 1952 (176 pp.). – Page 67: “Das Grund­
problem der Vetus-Latina-Forschung ist die Frage, ob es eine einzige Urübersetzung gegeben
hat oder ob wir mit mehreren Übersetzungen zu rechnen haben. Aussagen der Kirchenväter las­
sen an mehrere Übersetzungen denken, so wenn Augustin zwischen der Itala und mehreren an­
deren lateinischen Übersetzungen unterscheidet.”

1958. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Josef Höfer – Karl Rahner (eds.): Lexi­
kon für Theologie und Kirche. 2nd edition. 2. Band. Freiburg (xiii pp., 1256 cols.), cols. 380–384. –
“Für den Heptateuch, 1 und 2 Makk, Weish, Sir und Apg ist nachgewiesen, daß alle uns erhalte­
nen lateinischen Textformen auf eine einzige Grundübersetzung zurückgehen; dies ist auch für
das Corpus Paulinum wahrscheinlich, mit Ausnahme des Hebräerbriefs, der zweimal selbständig
übersetzt worden ist (…); bei der Apk ist die Frage noch umstritten, für die meisten anderen Bü­
cher noch völlig offen” (col. 381). See also: idem: Die altlateinische Bibel. Bonner akademische
Reden 17. Bonn. 1957. 33 pp.

1958. Walther Thiele: Wortschatzuntersuchungen zu den lateinischen Texten der Johannesbriefe. Frei­
burg. 48 pp. – At least for 1 John, the evidence points to one single Latin translation: “Wenigs ­
tens für 1 Jo läßt sich sagen, daß die lateinischen Texte auf eine Übersetzung zurückgehen” (p.
42). In a footnote the author adds that this is also the case with the book of Proverbs: “Zum
Gleichen Ergebnis kommt Schildenberger für Prv.”

1998. Rudolf Dietzfelbinger. Studien zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung mit Edition von Kapitel 1. Un­
published dissertation, University of Heidelberg. 146 pp. – According to Dietzfelbinger, the an­
cient evidence is best understood as reflecting two independent Latin translations of the book
of Exodus – one originating in North Africa, and one on the European continent.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Page viii: “For each of the books which has so far appeared [of the
Beuron Vetus Latina; see below, Chapter 9.7], both Old and New Testament, the evidence ap­
pears to point towards a single Latin version standing behind the whole of the surviving tradi­
tion. This is not to say that there were not multiple independent translations in the earliest
times, but if this were the case then they have left few, if any, traces. The variety between the
different forms of text which have been preserved can be explained as the result of numerous
later interventions, some one-off or haphazard, others more consistent, revising a Latin version
in order to bring it into accordance with a Greek source or the canons of grammar and style.”
Page 12: “Editors of Old and New Testament books in the [Beuron] Vetus Latina series have
reached the conclusion that in each case a single Latin translation underlies all the surviving
evidence for the Old Latin tradition.” Pages 13–14: “Nonetheless, the theory of a single transla ­
tion of all biblical books in the early third century is not without its problems (…) It therefore re­
mains possible that the single versions claimed to underlie the surviving Latin tradition had vari­
ous origins: while Africa provides the earliest evidence for the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles may
have originated elsewhere.”

152
2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), p. 166: “The statistical examination of the lexicon of 2
Peter supports the hypothesis of the derivation of the Old Latin text types from a single transla ­
tion, which later divided into textual branches having their own features.”

2023. H.A.G. Houghton: The Earliest Latin Translations of the Bible. In: In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The
Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 1–18. – Houghton supports the
notion of one single Old Latin translation of the New Testament and its subsequent reworking
(p. 10, with reference to relevant evidence). ▲

9.4 African origins of the Latin Bible?

Note. – As one can see from some of the studies listed below, there was a debate about the region in
which the oldest Latin Bible originated – in North Africa (as suggested by Nicholas Wiseman in 1833
and accepted by Hermann Rönsch) or in Italy, perhaps in Rome (as argued by three German Catholic
scholars – Gams, Kaulen, and Loch). Today, most scholars (including Pierre-Maurice Bogaert and H.A.
G. Houghton) think that Wiseman’s idea of an African origin of the Latin Bible is correct. This assump­
tion is in agreement with the fact that it was in North Africa that Latin quickly developed into the lan ­
guage of the Christian church – as early as the second century.

Konrad Vössing: Schule und Bildung im Nordafrika der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bruxelles 1997. 690 pp.,
documents the extent to which the elite of North Africa was latinized, but he does not specifically
comment on the Christian community.

African origins affirmed

English
1833. Nicholas Wiseman: Two letters on I John v. 7, commonly called the Three Witnesses. In: idem: Es­
says on Various Subjects. By His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman. London 1853, vol. 1 (xv, 644 pp.),
pp. 1–70. – The suggestion that the Latin Bible originated in northern Africa is made in the
second letter, originally published in 1833. Page 43: “Africa is the birthplace of the Latin version”
of the Bible. Wiseman notes that in a vague manner this idea had already been suggested earli ­
er, by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, on the basis of the “barbarism” of its language (pp. 42–43, with
reference to J.G. Eichhorn: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Fourth edition. Band 2. Göttingen
1823, p. 406). Wiseman, p. 46: “From these reflections results a strong ground of historical prob ­
ability that the first Latin version was not made in Italy, but in Africa. And this is more than a
mere conjecture. For we have positive proof, in the quotations of African writers, that such a ver ­
sion did exist in their country before the fourth century; while the whole historical evidence
which we possess regarding Italy, leads us to conclude that the Greek text was used there till the
commencement of that age. (…) the Italian text was imported from Africa.” – For Wiseman’s in ­
terest in the history of the early church, see his historically annotated novel Fabiola, or The
Church of the Catacombs (1854). On Wiseman as a biblical scholar, see Timothy Larsen: A People
of One Book. The Bible and the Victorians. Oxford 2011 (v, 326 pp.), pp. 43–65, who comments on
the wide acceptance of Wiseman’s African hypothesis (p. 59).

1888. Brooke F. Westcott: The Vulgate. In: Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and ed­
ited by H.B. Hackett. Volume 4. Boston (xi, pp. 2697–3667), pp. 3451–3482. – The author takes
the Itala to be the fourth-century revision, made in northern Italy, of the Gospel text that was

153
 originally translated in North Africa. The revision sought to eliminate the “provincial rudeness” of
the language (p. 3454).

1901. Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London. xi, 321 pp.
– Pages 168–184 introduce the Old Latin Bible and list the major relevant manuscripts. Page 169:
“The roughness of the more primitive forms of the Old Latin texts, and the characteristic peculi­
arities of its dialect and vocabulary, have commonly been held to point to Africa as its home”; p.
170: “The theory of an African origin of the Latin Bible must be said to hold the field, and to hold
it with increasing strength.”

1926. James Hardy Ropes: The Text of Acts. The Beginnings of Christianity I.3. London (cccxx, 464 pp.),
pp. cvi–cxxvii: Old Latin. – Page cxx: “Whether versions of the Latin Bible were made in Italy in in ­
dependence of the African version is not known, but there is clear evidence that texts early used
in Italy were strongly influenced by the labours of the African church in translating the Bible.”

2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cam­
bridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526. – Bogaert thinks
that the earliest biblical translations into Latin originated in North Africa, because “the church of
Rome favoured Greek up to the middle of the fourth century” (p. 506). “Itala is a term used by
Augustine in passing to designate an Italian form of the Vetus Latina, which he admired” (p.
511).

2014. Michael Graves: The Story of the Latin Bible and Questions about Biblical Translation for the
Church Today. Trinity Journal NS 35: 253–273. – “Our earliest evidence for biblical texts in Latin
comes from the second century A.D. Most scholars trace the origin of the Latin Bible to North
Africa, as evidenced by the reference to ‘books and letters of Paul’ in the Acts of the Scillitan
Martyrs, around A.D. 180” (p. 254).

2020. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Scripture and Latin Christian Manuscripts from North Africa. In: Jonathan P.
Yates – Anthony Dupont (eds.): The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part 1. Berlin (xi, 396 pp.), pp.
15–50.

German
1833. (Anonymous) Über die Vulgata, ihren Werth, und Gebrauch in der lateinischen Kirche. Theolo­
gisch-praktische Monatsschrift 10: 157–176. Printed in Rottenburg, Germany, the volume has a
second title page: Quartalschrift für katholische Geistliche, vol. 1. – Page 174: The Vetus Latina
originated in northern Africa; reference is made to J.G. Eichhorn: Einleitung in das Alte Testa­
ment. Fourth edition. Band 2. Göttingen 1823, p. 406.

1863. Hagen, p. 3. “Afrika (das proconsularische) ist, wie Wiseman aus den sprachlichen Eigenthümlich ­
keiten genügend nachgewiesen hat, und wie in den nachfolgenden Abhandlungen noch weiter
dargethan werden wird, das Vaterland der älteren Übersetzung der hl. Schrift.”

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867. – Against Pius Bonifacius Gams and Franz
Kaulen, Ott defends the notion that the Vetus Latina (which he calls “Itala”) originated in Africa
(pp. 758–759, 774–776).

1888. Theodor Zahn: Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons. Erster Band, erste Hälfte. Erlangen (v,
452 pp.), p. 59: The Latin Bible was created in north Africa between 210 and 240. Tertullian did
not have a Latin Bible, but Cyprian did. The Latin translation presupposes an already long tradi ­
tion of oral translating from the Greek into local languages – Punic and Latin. “Wenn die afrika­
nische Kirche so lange einer lateinischen Bibel entbehren konnte, so ist es äußerst unwahr­

154
 scheinlich, daß in einem anderen Theil des Abendlandes früher eine solche entstanden sei. Nir ­
gendwo gab es eine so zahlreiche, regsame, am Gesamtleben der Kirche betheiligte Christenheit
lateinischer Zunge wie in Afrika” (p. 59). – Meanwhile, Zahn’s view has become the majority
opinion. But this was not the case when he first explained it; see these reviews:
1889. Alfred Plummer: Zahn on the Canon of the New Testament. The Classical Review 3.9: 410–412. – Page 412:
“Among the various hypotheses put forward by Zahn in this half-volume, none is likely to attract more at­
tention than the theory that before Tertullian’s time there was no Latin Version of the New Testament (…)
Zahn’s theory does not seem to be a priori probable. Would not the demand for a Latin Version have pro ­
duced one, at any rate of the Gospels, before A.D. 200?”

1889. Adolf Harnack: Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200. Theodor Zahn’s Geschichte des neutestamentlichen
Kanons. Freiburg. 112 pp. – Pages 32–33, note: “In Bezug auf die Frage nach dem Ursprung der lateinischen
Bibel hat Zahn das große Verdienst, das Problem zum ersten Mal ernsthaft angefasst zu haben. Doch kann
ich nicht sagen, dass er mich überzeugt hat, indem er die lateinische Bibelübersetzung erst zwischen 220–
240 ansetzt. Man müsste die Citate bei Tertullian erst noch viel gründlicher untersuchen, bevor man dem
folgenschweren Urtheil beistimmen könnte, Tertullian habe alle seine lateinischen Bibelcitate extemporiert.”
(On Tertullian, see above, Chapter 9.2 Surveys and introductions – Vetus-Latina philology, English 2019 –
the work of Benjamin D. Haupt.) ▲

1897. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realencyclopädie für
protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig (832 pp.), pp. 24–58. – Pages
26–35: Vetus Latina. “Sicher ist, daß sich in Afrika die lateinische Kirchensprache ausgebildet hat,
und dies wird wie anderswo an Hand der Bibel geschehen sein; auch der Sprachcharakter der äl­
testen uns erhaltenen Stücke der lateinischen Bibel scheint uns dorthin zu weisen” (p. 27).

French
1901. Paul Monceaux: La bible latine en Afrique. Revue des études juives 42 [84]: 129–172; 43 [85]: 15–
49. – According to Monceau, there were multiple Latin biblical texts in existence in Africa, but
there was one main one, more or less complete by the time of Cyprian, and it is very likely
(though this cannot be demonstrated conclusively), that it originated in Africa. All African au­
thors use the same African Latin text, and its variations are negligeable. The only author who de­
parts from this rule is Augustine; his text is eclectic. He himself introduced an Italian variety of
the biblical text into Africa, and mixed it with the African text.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159, 276–314. – Page 143: The Latin Bible
originated in Roman North Africa, beginning in the second century.

African origins doubted or denied

1862. Pius Bonifacius Gams OSB: Die alte lateinische Bibelübersetzung vor Hieronymus stammt nicht
aus Africa, sondern aus Italien. In: idem: Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien. Band 1. Regensburg
(xii, 422 pp.), pp. 86–102.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Pages 107–144: Itala.– According to
Kaulen, the earliest Latin Bible originated in the city of Rome, and not in North Africa, as many
have suggested. He repeats this view in later writings:

1901. Franz Kaulen: Vulgata. In: Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlexikon. 2. Auflage. Herausgegeben
von Franz Kaulen. Band 12. Freiburg (vii pp., 2106 cols.), cols. 1127–1142, at col. 1129. K.
thinks that “für die Christengemeinden in Rom und Italien schon zur apostolischen Zeit
die heilige Schrift theilweise oder ganz in’s Lateinische übertragen wurde.”

155
 1911. Franz Kaulen – Gottfried Hohberg: Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen
Testamentes. Erster Teil. 5th edition. Freiburg (xi, 265 pp.), p.193.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg. 34 pp. – In a fi­
nal note the author speaks out against “den grassierenden Spuk des Africanismus der Itala und
der Vulgata” (p. 33; see also pp. 4–5). The Latin translation of the Bible undoubtedly originated
in Italy (Rome), not in North Africa. North African church writers like Tertullian knew the “Itala,”
the Old Latin Bible created in Italy.

1900. H.A.A. Kennedy: Latin Versions, The Old. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume. 3. Edinburgh (xv, 896 pp.), pp. 47–62. – The author believes that the oldest Latin Bible
was written in Syria. On the Syrian hypothesis, see Lucien Méchineau SJ in Dictionnaire de la
Bible. Tome 4.1. Paris 1928, col. 123: “Cette hypothèse n’a aucune vraisemblance.” One should
not dismiss the idea cavalierly, however. One argument that was then put forward, was the
name Eleasarus (for Greek Lazaros) which was later replaced by Lazarus. Why the form
Eleasarus? On this, see Cuthbert H. Turner: “(…) the primitive Latin version of St Luke’s Gospel
must have been made on ground where Semitic – that is no doubt Syriac – names were more
familiar than Greek. It might be possible to account satisfactorily for this by the Punic-Phoeni­
cian traditions of North Africa: more probably it points to the region of Antioch and northern
Syria.” Cuthbert H. Turner: Note on the Old Latin Version of the Bible. Journal of Theological
Studies 2.8 (1901) 600–609, at pp. 601–602.

9.5 Jewish origins of the Latin Bible?

Jewish origins suggested

1876. Julius Witte: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Inaugural-Dissertation. Universität Jena. Hannover. 38
pp. – This slim dissertation gives an overview of the history of the Latin Bible from its beginnings
to the 16th century. For the early period, the author assumes that the oldest Latin Bible was
already written in the 1st century, in Italy. The text was compiled by a single translator, a Greek-
educated Jew, on the basis of Greek texts.

1925. David S. Blondheim: Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina. Paris. cxxxviii, 247 pp. – Reprint:
Cambridge 2013. – The work carries a long subtitle: “Étude sur les rapports entre les traductions
bibliques en langue romane des juifs au moyen âge et les anciennes versions.” The American
Romance philologist (1884–1934) argues that the oldest Latin translation of Old Testament
books was made in the Jewish diaspora on the basis of the Greek Bible: “il est raisonnable de
croire que c’est une impulsion juive qui est responsable des traits caractéristiques de la vetus La ­
tina” (p. cxxxiii). – Reviews:
1926. Friedrich Stummer, Literarische Wochenschrift 2: 1091–1093. Stummer rejects the idea of Jewish influence
on the origins of the Vetus Latina.

1929. Max L. Margolis, Journal of the American Oriental Society 49: 82–84.

1926. Umberto Cassuto: Vetus Latina e traduzioni medioevali della Bibbia. Studi e materiali di storia
delle religioni 2: 151–158. – Like Blondheim, Cassuto attributes the Vetus Latina to Jewish trans­
lators; however, he believes the translators drew on the Hebrew text of the Bible.

1929. Arthur Allgeier, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 32.5: 364–366. – In this review of Friedrich Stum­
mer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel (1928), Allgeier rejects Stummer’s dismissal of the Blond­
heim thesis: “Stummer tritt der Meinung [Blondheims] allerdings mit beachtenswerten Gründen

156
 entgegen, ohne sie jedoch m.E. zu entkräften” (col. 364). “In allem stimme ich freilich nicht bei.
Nicht nur denken ich über Blondheim günstiger [als Stummer] und bin sogar geneigt, wenigs­
tens für den Psalter analog der LXX vorchristlichen Ursprung anzunehmen” (col. 365).

1942. Patrick W. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4.3:
230–243, at p. 230: “The current Latin text of the book of Wisdom (…) might easily be Jewish.”

1962. René Braun: “Deus Christianorum.” Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris. 645
pp. – Pages 13–14: the author considers the possibility of Jewish influence on the formation of
Christian vocabulary in Latin.

1965. Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina: Puntos de contacto de la Vetus Latina con el Targum arameo y
con la Pešitto. Hipótesis de un origen targúmico de la Vetus Latina. Sefarad 25: 223–240.

1973. Umberto Cassuto: The Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin and its Importance for the Study
of the Greek and Aramaic Versions. In: U. Cassuto: Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translated by Is­
rael Abrahams. Jerusalem. Volume 1, pp. 285–298. – There must have been an oral translation
practice of the biblical books in the synagogues of Italy.

1978. Jean Daniélou: Les origines du christianisme latin. Paris (391 pp.), pp. 21–22: “Il est très vraisem­
blable que pour les Juifs parlant latin ont existé à date ancienne des traductions latines de l’An ­
cien Testament. Nous savons que, dans les synagogues, la Bible était lue d’abord en hébreu,
puis dans la langue du pays, en araméen, en grec, en latin. (…) Ces traductions juifs étaient faites
non sur le grec, mais sur l’hébreu. Or plusieurs auteurs, Baumstark, Blondheim, Sparks ont mon­
tré les contacts de certaines traductions latines conservés par les auteurs chrétiens avec l’origi­
nal hébreu.”

1982. Gilles Quispel: African Christianity before Minucius Felix and Tertullian. In: Jan den Boeft (ed.):
Actus. Studies in Honour of H.L.W. Nelson. Utrecht (xiii, 482 pp.), pp. 257–335. – Page 261: “And
the Septuagint is a targum of the Synagogue of Alexandria, deeply rooted in the tradition of
oral translation during the service. (…) In the same way the Vetus Latina is the targum of
Carthage. We do not know whether or not it existed in written form already in the Synagogue
but we may suppose that it was handed down orally.” – This long paper is now in: Gilles Quispel:
Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica. Collected Essays. Leiden 2008 (xxv, 869 pp.), pp. 387–459.

1990. Wolfgang Wischmeyer: Die Epistula Anne ad Senecam. Eine jüdische Missionsschrift des lateini­
schen Bereichs. In: J. van Amersfoort – J. van Oort (eds.): Juden und Christen in der Antike. Kam­
pen (150 pp.), pp. 72–93. – Page 81, note 65: “Doch darf die Existenz einer lateinisch-jüdischen
Bibel (…) als gesichert gelten.”

Evidence is lacking
1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die lateinische Bibel vor Hieronymus und das Judentum. Theologie und
Glaube 19: 184–199. – There is no evidence for the existence of Latin versions of biblical books
produced by Jews.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 19–20: “Die
Septuaginta verschwand aus dem liturgischen und theologischen Gebrauch des Judentums, und
schon deswegen ist die These S. Blondheims unwahrscheinlich, daß jüdische Hände einen we­
sentlichen Anteil an der Übersetzung der Septuaginta ins Lateinische gehabt hätten.”

1931. Anton Baumstark: Aramäischer Einfluß im altlateinischen Text von Hab 3. Oriens Christianus 28 [=
ser. 3, no. 6]: 163–181. – The Vetus Latina version of Hab 3 echoes a Jewish Targum; while Blond­
heim (1925) seems to overstate his case, there must have been a Syrian element in early Chris ­

157
 tianity that was influenced by Jewish traditions. Baumstark calls the hypothesis of Blondheim
„voreilig“ (p. 169, overhasty).

1958. Christine Mohrmann: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. Rome (xxii, 468 pp.), p. 131: “Sur le
territoire latin, les chrétiens sont les premiers à traduire la Bible. (…) Cette absence d’une tradi ­
tion juive latine et cette présence d’une tradition grecque ont marqué le latin des chrétiens le
plus ancien.”

1976. Jean Gribomont OSB: Latin Versions. In: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Supplementary Volume. Nashville, Tenn. (xxv, 987 pp.), pp. 527–532. – Page 528: “Any attempt to
discover vestiges of Jewish pre-Christian Latin versions, made on an analogy with the LXX [Sep ­
tuagint], must fail for total lack of evidence.”

1988/2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogart OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique,
état des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19 (1988) 137–159. 276–314. – The idea of Je­
wish translators cannot be completely ruled out – “certains [traductions] peuvent être issus du
judaïsme” (p. 144). “On restera ouvert (…) à toute observation orientant vers une origine ou une
utilization juive” (p. 145). In a later article, Bogaert feels that the notion of Christian use of exist­
ing Latin biblical translations poses problems; instead, it is safer to assume that Christian trans ­
lators would occasionally have consulted Jewish scholars; see Bogaert: The Latin Bible. In: James
Carleton Paget – Joachim Schaper (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1.
Cambridge 2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at p. 506.

2003. Matthew Kraus: Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible. Vetus Testamentum 53: 48–513.
– There was no translation of the Bible directly from the Hebrew into Latin prior to Jerome. After
Jerome, Jewish communities utilized a Latin Bible borrowed from Christians. ▲

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp. –
Page 71, note 2: “On a jusqu’ici aucun indice convaincant pour penser que l’origine des traduc­
tions bibliques en latin serait juive plutôt que chrétienne, même si cette hypothèse reste ouverte.”

2020. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Scripture and Latin Christian Manuscripts from North Africa. In: Jonathan P.
Yates – Anthony Dupont (eds.): The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part 1. Berlin (xi, 369 pp.), pp.
15–50. – Jewish communities may have played a part in the earliest Latin translations of the
books of the Hebrew Bible, but there is little evidence to support it.

2022. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Christlicher Einfluss auf die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Jesus Si ­
rach. In: Siegfried Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 161–176. –
Page 163: “Der Grund für die Annahme, die Übersetzung ins Lateinische könne in jüdischem
Kontext entstanden sein, scheint eher unsicher.”

9.6 Augustine’s Itala

396/97. Augustine: De doctrina christiana II, 53; CSEL 80: 48 (= 15,52; PL 34: 46): in ipsis autem inter­
pretationibus, Itala ceteris praeferatur – among the [Latin] translations, the Italian one is to be
preferred. Although Augustine nowhere else refers to the “Itala,” the word has come to be the
designation of an entire group of Old Latin texts of the Bible. The reliability of Augustine’s text
has been questioned by scholars early on. In the early twentieth century, some preferred repla­
cing Itala by “Aquila” (Alberto Vaccari, Henri Quentin). But now, most scholars seem to accept
the traditional reading Itala.

158
Secondary literature
1824. Leander van ESS: Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata. Tübingen 1824 (xvi, 504 pp.), pp.
21–22. – Eß reports on conjectural emendations of Augustine’s text. In the eighteenth century,
Richard Bentley suggested the emendation illa, and Archbishop John Potter thought that usitata
(the usual one) should be read here.

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867, at p. 769: The Itala is “die Bibel der kirchli­
chen Gemeinde und liturgischen Praxis in Africa. (…) Itala war ihr volkstümlicher Name im Ge ­
gensatz zum griechischen Original.”

1879. Leo Ziegler: Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hl. Schrift. Munich. 135 pp. – Augustine’s Itala is a Latin translation
that he read in Italy; he preferred it to translations originating in North Africa.

1882. Karl Sittl: Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache mit bes. Berücksichtigung des
afrikanischen Lateins. Erlangen. iv, 162 pp. Reprint: Hildesheim 1972. – Pages 146–152: Die Hei­
mat der sogenannten Itala. The “Itala” originated in Italy, not in Africa.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 235–277. – Page 236: “Ich nenne die letzteren [i.e., the pre-Jero­
mian translations] nicht Itala; denn Itala ist nur die Bibel Augustins, und die verkehrte Terminolo­
gie hat schon viel Verwirrung gestiftet.”

1896. Francis C. Burkitt: The Old Latin and the Itala. Cambridge. viii, 96 pp. – A summary of Burkitt’s po­
sition can be found in Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testa­
ment. London 1901 (xi, 321 pp.), p. 182: “Recently, however, Bentley’s disbelief in the very exist ­
ence of the ‘Itala’ has been revived by Mr. F.C. Burkitt of Cambridge. Mr. Burkitt’s main position
is that by his ‘Itala interpretatio’ Augustine meant nothing more nor less than the Vulgate [of
Jerome] the New Testament portion of which had been published for some ten years at the time
when he [Augustine] wrote.”

1900. H.A.A. Kennedy: Latin Versions, The Old. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume 3. Edinburgh (xv, 896 pp), pp. 47–62. – Page 47: “It seems time now to abandon the mis ­
leading term ‘Itala,’ or even ‘uetus Itala,’ to denote the pre-Hieronymian type of text.”

1901. Paul Monceau: La Bible latine en Afrique (suite et fin). Revue des études juives 43: 15–49. – For
Monceau, the Itala is not a name for the pre-Jeromian Latin Bible; instead, he thinks of it as a
specifically Italian recension. Page 16: “L’Itala n’est que la plus importante de ces recensions ‘ita­
liques’ du IVe siècle, qui apparaissent chez saint Ambroise et les auteurs italiens du temps, qui se
sont conservées partiellement dans beaucoup de manuscrits, et qu’on retrouve chez saint Au­
gustin lui-même.” Monceau thinks that it was Augustine himself who introduced the Itala in
north Africa (p. 15). Burkitt’s position is rejected (p. 16, note 1).

1908. Joseph Denk: Burkitts These: Itala Augustini = Vulgata Hieronymi – eine textkritische Unmöglich­
keit. Biblische Zeitschrift 6: 225–244. – Burkitt’s suggestion is mistaken.

1910. F.C. Burkitt: Saint Augustine’s Bible and the Itala. Journal of Theological Studies 11: 258–268. –
See the discussion of the “Itala” in Schirner’s book, 2015.

1927. Henri Quentin OSB: La prétendu Itala de St. Augustin. Revue biblique 36: 216–225. – See the dis­
cussion of the “Itala” in Schirner’s book, 2015.

159
1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 56: “Man hat
an dieser Stelle [Augustinus: De doctrina Christiana II] viel herumkonjiziert, weil man früher der
Meinung war, es habe vor Hieronymus eben nur eine, und zwar in Afrika entstandene lateinische
Bibel gegeben. Allein eine unbefangene Betrachtung der Stelle lehrt doch ganz klar, daß Augus­
tinus hier eine in Italien gebräuchliche und natürlich auch dort entstandene Fassung des lateini ­
schen Bibeltextes empfiehlt. Wir haben gar keinen Grund zur Annahme, daß diese Itala eine ur ­
sprüngliche, durch Augustinus in ihr Heimatland zurückgebrachte Afra sei. Es bleibt bei der Fest­
stellung, daß wir es mit zwei Haupttypen vorhieronymianischer lateinischer Bibel zu tun haben:
der Afra und der Itala.”

1952. Johannes Schildenberger OSB: Die Itala des hl. Augustinus. In: Virgil Fiala – Bonifatius Fischer
(eds.): Colligere Fragmenta. Eine Festschrift für Alban Dold. Beuron (xx, 295 pp.), pp. 84–102. – In
De doctrina christiana II, Augustine refers to the Latin Bible text as read in Italy as interpretatio
itala, distinguishing it from the text current in Africa.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. –
Burton quotes Augustine’s passage and then explains: “The conflicting views on this controver ­
sial passage are admirably summarized by Schildenberger (1952), from which it appears that
there are three opinions: 1. The passage is corrupt. (…) 2. It is a reference to the Vulgate [i.e.,
Jerome’s translation]. (…) 3. It is a reference to an existing Old Latin tradition. This is the tradi­
tional interpretation, held by Sabatier and Jülicher; it is also upheld by Schildenberger” (p. 5).
“The complications of this issue are such that, as the distinguished scholar Bonifatius Fischer ob­
serves, the term [Itala] is best avoided” (p. 6).

2015. Rebekka S. Schirner: Inspice diligenter codices. Philologische Studien zu Augustins Umgang mit Bi­
belhandschriften und Übersetzungen. Berlin. 684 pp. – The chapter “Das Thema Bibelübersetzun­
gen und Bibelhandschriften in De doctrina Christiana” (pp. 20–53) includes a thematic section
“Die Itala-Problematik” (pp. 46–53). According to Schirner, the word Itala, used by Augustine
only once, must not be emended to “Aquila” as suggested by Vaccari and Quentin. Meant is the
Latin Bible as it was read in Italy in the days of Augustine, but it must not be equated with the
Old Latin translation as a whole. ▲

160
9.7 Editions of the Vetus-Latina Bible

A precursor: Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples

Jean Martianay OSB
Pierre Sabatier OSB
Textual example from Sabatier. The Lord’s Prayer
Giuseppe Bianchini’s Gospel
Jülicher’s Itala
The Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum)
The Beuron Vetus Latina
Vetus Latina Hispana

A precursor: Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples

1509. Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples): Quincuplex Psalterium. Gallicum, Rhomanum, He­
braicum, Vetus, Conciliatum. Paris. – The second edition, Paris 1513, has 294 leaves. The French
humanist Jacques Lefèvre d’Etables (1460–1536) presented five Latin versions of the book of
Psalms (and had it printed by Stephanus in Paris): Psalterium Romanum (then considered the
work of Jerome), Psalterium Gallicanum, Psalterium iuxta hebraeos, a pre-Jeromian version of
the Psalter, and his own Psalterium conciliatum, a slightly revised version of Jerome’s Gallican­
um. Interesting is the inclusion of a pre-Jeromian Psalter – psalterium vetus (…) vel maxime ante
editiones a Hieronymo emendatas uterentur ecclesiae – the Old Psalter, the one that the churches
used most before the editions that were corrected by Jerome (from the preface; Bedouelle, p.
26).

1966. Heiko A. Oberman (ed.): Forerunners of the Reformation. Translated by Paul L. Nyhus. New York
(x, 333 pp.), pp. 297–301. – Partial translation of the Quintuplex Psalterium’s preface.

1979. Guy Bedouelle: Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples. Un guide de lecture. Geneva (xiii,
293 pp.), pp. 22–31: Latin text and French translation of the Quincuplex Psalterium’s preface.

Secondary literature
1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Prolegomena zu einer Textgeschichte der hierony­
mianischen Psalmenübersetzungen. Freiburg (xi, 190 pp.), pp. 2–8, esp. 4–5. The Old Latin text
was evidently extracted from Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, and is similar to that recorded
in Codex I (1) of Verona’s Chapter Library (Biblioteca Capitolare), a bilingual, Greek and Latin
Psalter from the 7th century. Later authors repeat Allgeier’s suggestion; see:
1932. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: De quelques opinions sur l’ancien psautier latin. Revue biblique 41: 161–186.
For Lagrange, the Verona Psalter is “un texte revisé d’après les citations d’Augustin” (p. 176).

1979. Guy Bedouelle: Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples. Un guide de lecture. Geneva (xiii, 293 pp.), pp.
47–48.

2022. Grantley McDonald: Bible, Editions and Translations in the Renaissance. In: Marco Sgarbi (ed.): Encyclopedia
of Renaissance Philosophy. Cham. Volume 1 (xlvi, 934 pp.), pp. 383–398, at p. 387.

161
Jean Martianay OSB
1695. Jean Martianay: Vulgata antiqua Latina et itala versio Evangelii secundum Matthaeum e vetustissi­
mis eruta monumentis (…) nuncque primum edita. Paris. – A long introductory section (without
pagination) is followed by the Vetus Latina text of the gospel of Matthew (pp. 1–120) and an ap­
pended apparatus of variant readings (pp, 121–179). The text Martianay edited is that included
in Codex Sangermanensis primus (Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, lat. 11553; see above, Chapter
7.2); the variant readings are from patristic sources. This is the first attempt to publish a Vetus
Latina text. The French Benedictine monk (1647–1717) also produced a critical edition of the
Vulgate Bible as part of his edition of Jerome’s works (see Chapter 13.1).

Pierre Sabatier OSB

1743–1749. Pierre Sabatier: Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica. Reims. 3
vols.: lxxx, 910 pp.; 1109 pp.; xxxvi, 1115 pp. – Reprint: Turnhout 1976. – In three volumes – two
volumes for the Old Testament, one volume for the New Testament – Sabatier provides the bib­
lical text in a two-column synopsis. In one column is the text of the Vulgate (with him: vulgata
nova), in the other the text of the Old Latin Bible (with him: versio antiqua), so that both texts
can be easily compared. A second edition was published in Paris in 1751. The French Benedict­
ine monk (1683–1742) did not live to see the printing of his work; he died the year before its
publication.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – See pp. 30–33.
“Das Werk war für seine Zeit eine Leistung ersten Ranges, ein ehrendes Denkmal des berühmten
Benediktinerfleißes. Es hat auch heute noch seinen Wert nicht verloren. Niemand, der sich mit
der lateinischen Bibel vor Hieronymus beschäftigt, vermag es zu entbehren” (p. 33).

2003. Christian J. Wagner: Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Griechisch – Lateinisch – Syrisch – Hebräisch – Ara­
mäisch. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen. xxxiii, 241
pp. – Included in this synoptic presentation of Tobit are two Latin versions: that of the Vetus Lat­
ina (Sabatier’s text) and that of Jerome (i.e., the Vulgate text).

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 113–115.

Textual example from Sabatier: the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6)

Versio antiqua [= Vetus Latina] Vulgata nova [= Vulgata Clementina]

9. Sic ergo vos orabitis eum: Pater noster, qui es in coelis: 9. Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in coelis: sanc­
sanctificetur nomen tuum. tificetur nomen tuum.

10. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua in coelo, & 10. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coe­
in terra. lo, & in terra.

11. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. 11. Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie.

12. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus 12. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus
debitoribus nostris. debitoribus nostris.

13. Et ne passus nos fueris induci in tentationem. Sed libe­ 13. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Sed libera nos a
ra nos a malo. malo. Amen.

162
 Sabatier: Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae. Volume 3, pp. 33–34. Sabatier’s Vulgate
text (left column) is taken from the Clementina; the Jeromian version of the Lord’s Prayer offered
by Weber and Gryson in the Stuttgart Vulgate differs slightly.

Giuseppe Bianchini’s Gospels

1749. Giuseppe Bianchini (Josephus Blanchinus): Evangeliarum quadruplex latinae versionis antiquae
seu veteris Italicae. 2 parts. Rome. 56, cclxiv leaves; 7, cdlxxii leaves. – Unlike his contemporary
Pierre Sabatier, Binachini (1704–1764) does not supply a reconstruction of a single text; instead,
he transcribes and prints the text of several Vetus Latina Gospel manuscripts. Of these, the
fourth-century Codex Vercelllensis (see above, Chapter 7.1) is the most important. Bianchini’s
text of Codex Vercellensis has been reprinted in the nineteenth century in Jacques-Paul Migne’s
Patrologia Latina (PL 12: 9–948) and is thus easily accessible.

Jülicher’s Itala
1938–1963. Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung nach den Handschriften heraus­
gegeben. Berlin. 4 volumes edited by Adolf Jülicher (d. 1938), Walter Matzkow and Kurt Aland.
Volume 1: Matthäus-Evangelium, 1938, 2nd, improved edition 1972 (viii, 214 pp.); Volume 2:
Marcus-Evangelium, 1940, 2nd, improved edition 1970 (vii, 160 pp.); Volume 3: Lucas-Evangeli­
um, 1954, 2nd, improved edition 1976 (vii, 282 pp.); Volume 4: Johannes-Evangelium, 1963 (ix,
230 pp.). – Jülicher’s editions are based exclusively on Gospel manuscripts; there are no refer­
ences to quotations in patristic authors such as Cyprian, Augustine, etc.

Secondary literature
1956. Herbert Musurillo SJ: The Problem of the Itala. Theological Studies 17: 93–97.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Text and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. – See
pages 9–10. Burton bases his study on the Jülicher volumes, though pointing out their limita­
tions.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 125–127.

The Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum)

Note. – Robert Weber’s edition of the Psalterium Romanum is the only critical edition of the Vetus Lat ­
ina Psalms; it will eventually be replaced by the corresponding volume of the Beuron edition. Claims
that the Roman Psalter constitutes Jerome’s (or Augustine’s) revision of the Old Latin Psalter have
haunted research in the twentieth century, but have not found many followers; see below, Chapter
11.4. Accordingly, the Psalterium Romanum must be identified as a Vetus-Latina text. On the reception
of the Roman Psalter (which for a long time remained in liturgical use in England and in central Italy),
see below, “secondary literature,” and Chapter 14.5.

Text
1953. Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins. Edited by Robert Weber OSB. Rome. xxiii,
410 pp. – The Roman Psalter is similar to the Gallican Psalter (= Vulgate Psalter), but not identic­
al to it. – Review: Henry S. Gehman, Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 135–136.

163
Secondary literature
1913. Karl Wildhagen: Studien zum Psalterium Romanum in England und zu seinen Glossierungen. Halle.
56 pp.

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg. xi, 190 pp. – Pages Pages 25–34: History
of modern research on the Psalterium Romanum, beginning with the 1593 edition by Marius Al­
terius.

1930. Paulus Volk OSB: Das Psalterium des hl. Benedikt. Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des
Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 48: 83–97. – The Psalter of St Benedict was the Psalterium
Romanum, of which the best text can be found in Irish manuscripts.

1975. J.N.D. Kelly: Jerome. His Life, Writings and Controversies. London (xi, 353 pp.), p. 89: The extant
Roman Psalter is not the work of Jerome; it may be identical with the Psalter that Jerome read
when he produced the Gallican Psalter.

2014. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La survivance du Psautier romain dans les bibles: comment les re­
connaître? Revue bénédictine 124: 348–352. – The Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum) is quite
frequently present in Italian Bibles, because it was used in the liturgy. It is not easily distinguish ­
able from the Gallicanum (now Vulgate). This short note recalls the edition of the Romanum by
Robert Weber (1953) and gives some clues to recognize its presence.

The Beuron Vetus Latina

Note. – The Beuron Vetus Latina is based on the card files kept at the “Vetus Latina-Institut” of the Be­
nedictine monastery of Beuron, Germany. Founded in 1945 and supported by the Vetus-Latina-Stif­
tung established in 1951, the institute is still active, producing editions of the Old Latin text of indi ­
vidual biblical books, and coordinating such work done elsewhere – for example at the universities of
Birmingham, England, and Mainz, Germany. The card files have been copied and can be consulted on ­
line. The website is called Vetus Latina Database – online (VLD-O) and maintained by the Brepols pub­
lishing house in Turnhout, Belgium. This database contains all citations of the Old Latin Bible from the
writings of the Church Fathers, collected by the Bavarian priest Joseph Denk (1849–1927) in the early
twentieth century; see Heinz Haffter: Der Italaforscher Joseph Denk und der Thesaurus linguae Latinae.
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967) 139–144.

The citations can be searched individually or as a whole, following the biblical structure (book –
chapter – verse). The result of a search is an image of the relevant file card.

The “Vetus Latina-Institut” was headed by the following directors: 1945–1973 Bonifatius Fischer OSB,
1973–1998 Hermann Josef Frede, 1998–2014 Roger Gryson. Since 2014, Thomas Johann Bauer is in
charge of the institute.

1951–. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Freiburg. – Since 1951, the “Beuron Vetus Lat­
ina” has been published in individual volumes or volume instalments. By 2023, the following
items have been available: Genesis (1954, the first volume of the series, edited by Bonifatius
Fischer), Numbers (incomplete), Judges (2023, edited by Jean-Claude Haelewyck), Ruth (2005),
Ezra 1 (= the book of Ezra, 2012, edited by Bonifatia Gesche), Judith (2020, edited by J.-C.
Haelewyck), Esther (2008), Canticum canticorum (incomplete), Sapientia Salomonis (1985),
Jesus Sirach (incomplete), Isaiah (1997), Daniel (2022, edited by J.-C. Haelewyck); Mark (2018,
edited by J.-C. Haelewyck), John (incomplete), Romans (incomplete), 1 Corinthians (incom­
plete), Ephesians (1964), Philippians (1969), Colossians (1971), 1–2 Thessalonians (1977,

164
 1978), 1–2 Timothy (1981, 1982), Titus (1983), Philemon (1983), Hebrews (1991), James
(1956), 1–2 Peter (1958, 1960), 1–3 John (1966, 1967), Jude (1969, edited by Walter Thiele),
Revelation (2003). – Many volumes are now being prepared outside of Beuron – the Gospel of
John and Romans at the University of Birmingham, England (David Parker et al.), the Acts of the
Apostles at the University of Mainz, Germany (Wilhelm Blümer), Sirach at the Pontifical Biblical
Institute (Anthony J. Forte SJ), Tobit at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium (Jean-Mar­
ie-Auwers). ▲

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 115–125. Houghton provides a detailed introduction to the
Beuron Vetus Latina. He also reports (very briefly): “Editors of Old and New Testament books in
the [Beuron] Vetus Latina series have reached the conclusion that in each case a single Latin
translation underlies all the surviving evidence for the Old Latin tradition” (p. 12).

2023. Thomas Johann Bauer: The Vetus Latina Institute. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 365–377. – Since 1945, the Vetus Latina Insti­
tute at the Archabbey of Beuron has overseen the preparation and publication of a compre­
hensive edition of the remains of the Old Latin Bible in order to replace the eighteenth-century
edition of Pierre Sabatier, with material initially gathered by Josef Denk. This article sketches the
history of the Institute and describes the principles of the edition as developed by its first direct ­
or, Bonifatius Fischer. The types of evidence and the layout of each page are introduced. The In­
stitute has also been responsible for numerous publications and collaborated on other editions,
including the Stuttgart Vulgate and editions of the Greek New Testament.

Birmingham Vetus Latina (electronic) – Birmingham Pauline Epistles (printed)

2007. Vetus Latina Iohannes, edited by David Parker, Hugh Houghton and others, produced at the Uni­
versity of Birmingham. It can be found on the Internet under “Vetus Latina Iohannes. The
Verbum Project. The Old Latin Manuscripts of John’s Gospel.” The current edition: 2.0 (April
2015), accessed 3rd October 2021. This is not a new edition of the Vetus-Latina text of John, but
simply an electronic version of the relevant fascicles of the Beuron Vetus Latina. The Vetus-Lat­
ina text of the Beuron edition is being edited at Birmingham; as of 2021, both the printed and
the electronic versions are incomplete.

2019. Hugh A.G. Houghton et al. (eds.): The Principal Pauline Epistles: A Collation of Old Latin Wit­
nesses. Leiden. xi, 442 pp. – To compensate for the absence of the major Pauline letters – i.e.,
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians – in the Beuron series, Houghton and associates decided
to compile a work that offers the readings of the major Old Latin witnesses. Both manuscripts
and references in commentaries and patristic literature were exploited for this valuable edition.

Vetus Latina Hispana

Note. – The idea of a publishing Vetus Latina texts specifically associated with Spain is due to Teófilo
Ayuso Marazuela (1906–1962). He managed to publish a few volumes, but after his death, no one con­
tinued the project, though there is a significant exception – the publication of a Spanish book of Ruth
text in 1965.

1953–1967. La Vetus Latina Hispana. Edited by T. Ayuso Marazuela. Tomo I: Prolegomenos. Madrid
1953. 598 pp; Tomo II: El Octateuco. Madrid 1967. 336 pp.; Tomo V.1-3: El Salterio. Madrid 1962.
1163 pp.

165
1957. Psalterium Visigothicum Mozarabicum. Edited by T. Ayuso Mazaruela. Madrid. xi, 193 pp. – This
volume appeared in a different series: Biblia polyglotta Matritensia, but clearly belonges to
Marazuela’s project.

1965. Vetus Latina. Rut. Estudio crítico de la versión Latina prejerominiana (…) según el manuscrito 31 de
la Universidad de Madrid. Edited by Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbana. Madrid. 79 pp.

9.8 The Fortunatianus commentary on the Gospels (2017)

Note. – In 2012, the Austrian Latinist Lukas Dorfbauer discovered an ancient Latin commentary on the
gospels mentioned by Jerome (De viris illustribus 97; PL 23: 697) but thought to be lost. The manu­
script of 103 leaves is housed in the Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek of Cologne, Ger ­
many, with shelf-number Handschrift 17. The 103 folios were written in the 9th century. The text of the
commentary is almost complete. The author is Fortunatianus of Aquileia, from 342 to 369 bishop of
this Italian town, and the Latin gospel text he used is that of the Vetus Latina.

2017. Fortunatianus Aquileiensis: Commentarii in evangelia. Edited by Lukas J. Dorfbauer. CSEL 103.
Berlin. vi, 286 pp. – Reviews:
2017. Christina Kreinecker, Gnomon 91: 226–230.

2018. Ivor J. Davidson, Journal of Theological Studies ns 69: 830–833.

2017. Fortunatianus of Aquileia: Commentary on the Gospels. Translated by Lukas J. Dorfbauer and
H.A.G. Houghton. CSEL extra seriem. Berlin. xxvi, 128 pp.

Secondary literature
2013. Lukas J. Dorfbauer: Der Evangelienkommentar des Bischofs Fortunatianus von Aquileia (Mitte 4.
Jh.): ein Neufund auf dem Gebiet der patristischen Literatur. Wiener Studien 126: 177–198.

2014. Lukas J. Dorfbauer: Der Codex Köln, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek 17. Ein Beitrag
zur Überlieferung des Evangelienkommentars des Bischofs Fortunatianus von Aquileia. Mittelal­
terliche Handschriften der Kölner Dombibliothek 5: 21–68.

2017. Lukas J. Dorfbauer – Victoria Zimmerl-Panagl (eds.): Fortunatianus redivivus. Bischof Fortunatia­
nus und sein Evangelienkommentar. Berlin. x, 349 pp.

9.9 Jerome and the Vetus Latina

Note. – Jerome was thoroughly familiar with the Vetus Latina version of all parts of the Bible, Old Test­
ament and New Testament. In the case of Tobit and Judith, he produced his own translation on the
basis of the Old Latin version (see Chapter 21). But there is a more general influence of the vocabulary
and style of the Vetus Latina on Jerome’s translations from the Hebrew – apparently an aspect not of­
ten studied, no doubt due to the incompleteness of the Beuron Vetus Latina (Chapter 9.7).

1914. Otto Procksch: Die Septuaginta Hieronymi im Dodekapropheton. Greifswald. 54 pp. – The Sep­
tuagint, used and regularly quoted by Jerome (in his own Latin translation), reflects a Vetus Lat­
ina text that he had corrected on the basis of Origen’s Hexapla.

166
1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 118–119.
“Man bekommt den Eindruck, als ob Hieronymus mitunter den Stil des von ihm geschaffenen
lateinischen Alten Testament an den des Neuen hätte angleichen wollen” (p. 118). There may
also be reminiscences of Vetus-Latina expressions in Jerome’s Old Testament translations, but
this has not been adequately researched (p. 119).

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10.1: 3–30. – The final section of
the article (pp. 26–30) is entitled: Einfluss der Vetus Latina auf die sprachliche Gestalt der Vulga­
ta. Jerome wanted his new version to be in the style of the Latin gospels. One example is his use
of the formula quod interpretatur – which is interpreted. “Cephas, which is interpreted Peter”
(John 1:42) serves as the model for passages such as “the mountain Hares, which is interpreted
potsherds” (Judg 1:35).

1951. Bleddyn J. Roberts: The Old Testament Text and Versions. Cardiff (xv, 326 pp.), p. 255: “The influ­
ence of the Old Latin version is to be seen even in details of language and style in the Vulgate, a
characteristic which also brings to notice the tendency of Jerome to imitate in the Old Testa­
ment the Latin of the New Testament. The rendering of the interrogative particle as putasne is
one example of this; also, the use of respondens in connexion with ‘verbs of saying.’ These and
many other examples show how Jerome strove to render his Latin Old Testament in a form as
near as possible to the language familiar to his readers, through the use of New Testament ex­
pressions.” Roberts echoes the research of Stummer. For putasne – do you think, see Job 14:14;
Ezek 8:6; Acts 8:30. For respondens, see Gen 15:9 (respondens – inquit) and Matt 8:8 (respondens
– ait).

2020. Simone Rickerby: The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve. In: Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer – Jakob
Wöhrle (eds.): The Book of the Twelve. Leiden (xix, 623 pp.), pp. 325–351. – Rickerby is interested
in the relationship between the Old Latin version of the Minor Prophets and Jerome’s version.

167
Chapter 10
Jerome/Hieronymus: his life and learning
Note. – Jerome – actually Eusebius Hiëronymus – is an ever-present figure in Vulgate studies. Jerome
was born in Stridon (most likely a town somewhere in modern Croatia) in c. 347. Although having a
Greek name, his mother tongue is Latin. He studied in Rome where he began his career as a specialist
of the biblical text. In 386, he settled in a monastery in Bethlehem, Palestine, which he himself had
founded and where he spent the rest of his life devoted to biblical scholarship. It was there that he
died in 420. The Catholic church considers Jerome a saint (his feast day is September 30), so that he
forms, together with Gregory the Great, Ambrose and Augustine, the quadriga of “doctors of the
church” (doctores ecclesiae, Kirchenlehrer), in traditional Catholic theology invoked as the main author­
ities next to the Bible. He is also called the patron saint of translators.

In the present book, three chapters are specifically dedicated to Jerome: chapters 10 (as an introduc­
tion on Jerome and his intellectual culture), chapters 11 (Jerome as a reviser and translator of biblical
texts) and 20 (Jerome’s biblical commentaries).

Key dates of Jerome’s life:

c. 347 Jerome (J.) born in Stridon (modern Croatia, exact location unknown)

c. 376 J.’s first acquaintance with the Hebrew language

c. 378 J. is ordained priest by the bishop of Laodicea (in western Asia minor)

382–385 J. lives in Rome, closely associated with Pope Damasus (d. 384)

383 J. revises the Latin gospel texts

386 J. establishes a monastery in Bethlehem, Palestine, where he spends the rest of his life;
writes his first commentary on biblical books (on 4 Pauline letters)

386–391 J. translates a number of biblical texts (including the Psalms) from the Greek into Latin

390–407 J. translates all the books of the Hebrew Bible from the Hebrew; see 11.8

393–416 J. writes commentaries on all the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible

394–419 letters exchanged between Augustine and Jerome, initiated by Augustine

419 J. dies in Bethlehem; age c. 72 years.

Some of these dates remain conjectural; see for instance:

1973. Pierre Jay: Sur la date de naissance de saint Jérôme. Revue des études latines 51: 262–280.

1979. Alan D. Booth: The Date of Jerome’s Birth. Phoenix: The Journal of the Classical Association of
Canada 33.4: 346–353.

1981. Alan D. Booth: The Chronology of Jerome’s Early Years. Phoenix: The Journal of the Classical As­
sociation of Canada 35: 237–259.

1986. J. H. D. Scourfield: Jerome, Antioch, and the Desert: A Note on Chronology. Journal of Theologic­
al Studies 37: 117–121.

168
10.1 Jerome biographies and portrayals

10.2 Jerome bibliography

10.3 Jerome and classical culture

10.4 Jerome’s familiarity with Hebrew and things rabbinic

10.5 Hebraica veritas

10.6 Jerome and Greek Bible translations

10.7 Theory and practice of translation

10.1 Jerome biographies and portrayals

Biographies

Articles in reference works

Jerome sources in translation (selections)

Biographies: before 1900

1516. Erasmus: Eximii doctoris Hieronymi Stridonensis vita. – Modern critical edition: Opera Omnia De­
siderii Erasmi Roterdami. Vol. VIII.1. Leiden 2019 (vii, 737 pp.), pp. 1–79, edited by A. Morisi
Guerra. This was the first source-based biographical survey. Earlier Latin biographies are by
Pseudo-Gennadius (9th century; PL 22: 175–184) and Sebastian of Monetacassiono (ca. 1000; PL
22: 183–202).

1732. Dominicus Riviere: S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis presbyteri vita. PL 22: 5–176. – Originally
published in Vallarsi’s seventeenth-century edition of the works of Jerome, this work was in ­
cluded in the Patrologia Latina. The author is Cardinal Domenico Rivera (1671–1752).

1865. Otto Zöckler: Hieronymus. Sein Leben und Wirken aus seinen Werken dargestellt. Gotha. xii, 476
pp. – Zöckler refers to Jerome as “der ‘Cicero’ der altkirchlichen Literatur” (p. V), and has a long
chapter “Hieronymus als Bibelübersetzer und Exeget” (pp. 324–381). The interesting final
chapter (pp. 464–476) sketches how Jerome and his work was evaluated from Augustine to the
nineteenth century.

English
1975. J.N.D. Kelly: Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London. xi, 353 pp.

1994. Patricia Cox Miller: Jerome and His Dreams. In: eadem: Dreams in Late Antiquity. Studies in the
Imagination of a Culture. Princeton (xii, 273 pp.), pp. 205–231. See below, Chapter 10.3.

2005. Edward J. Hahnenberg: Bible Maker: Jerome. The Fascinating Story of the Author of the Latin Vul­
gate. Bloomington, Ind. xxiv, 265 pp. – A popular, novel-like biography.

169
2006. Megan Hale Williams: The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship.
Chicago. x, 315 pp. – On pp. 147–166, the author comments on Jerome’s extensive personal lib­
rary.

2009. Andrew Cain: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian
Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford. xiv, 286 pp. – See esp. pp. 43–67: A pope and his scholar; pp.
168–196: the exegetical letters.

German
1901–1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte.
Berlin. 3 Bände: viii, 298 pp.; viii, 270 pp.; viii, 293 pp. – Hans Lietzmann: “geschickt geschrieben,
aber mehr in die Breite als in die Tiefe gehend”; this statement in Lietzmann’s article:
Hieronymos. In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Band VIII.2.
Stuttgart 1913 (cols. 1315–2628), cols. 1565–1581, at col. 1581.

1961. Jean Steinmann: Hieronymus. Ausleger der Bibel. Weg und Werk eines Kirchenvaters. Translated
by Auguste Schorn. Cologne 1961. 365 pp.

1992. Stefan Rebenich: Hieronymus und sein Kreis. Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersu­
chungen. Stuttgart. 328 pp.

1998. Silvia Letsch-Brunner: Marcella. Discipula et Magistra. Auf den Spuren eines römischen Christin
des 4. Jahrhunderts. Berlin. xi, 272 pp. – A monograph about one of Jerome’s female friends, and
Jerome’s relationship with her.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. Not a narrative biography but a collection of materials on the life, social connections, and
work of Jerome. On pp. 155–157, the author supplies an annotated list of published Jerome bio­
graphies 1865–2010. ▲

2018. Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen: Hieronymus. Eine historische Biografie. Darmstadt. 320 pp. – A
narrative biography, with scholarly notes and a bibliography.

French
1922. Ferdinand Cavallera SJ: Saint Jérôme. Sa vie et son œuvre. Deux tomes. Louvain. x, 344 pp; 229 pp.
– Reviews:
1925. Henri Bremond, in: idem et al., Manuel illustré de la littérature catholique en France de 1870 à nos jours. Pa­
ris (cxvi, 255 pp.), p. xli: “C’est un des beaux livres de notre temps. Une biographie modèle.”

1967. Paul Antin OSB: Jérôme (Saint). In: Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Tome VI. Paris (1912 cols.), cols.
702–706, at col. 705: Cavallera’s work is “solide; surtout bibliographique.”

1969. Paul Antin OSB: Retouches au “Saint Jérôme” de Ferdinand Cavallera. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 70
(1969) 264–266.

1927. Henri Leclercq: Saint Jérôme. Louvain. 170 pp.

1953. Paulo Evaristo Arns: La technique du livre d’après saint Jérôme. Paris. 220 pp. – The author offers a
portrait of Jerome who dictates his works and has them expertly copied for dissemination. Re­
view: Gustave Bardy, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 48 (1953) 826–828.

1958. Jean Steinmann: Saint Jérôme. Paris. 383 pp. – Reissued 1985. – Semi-popular. Paul Antin OSB
characterises it as “vivant, admiratif, unilatéral; des lapsus”; see Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui,
demain. Tome VI. Paris (1912 cols.), cols. 705–706.

170
2002. Anne Bernet: Saint Jérôme. Étampes. 550 pp. – Popular.

2009. Philippe Henne: Saint Jérôme. Paris. 329 pp. – This popular biography includes a bibliography.

2018. Lucrèce Luciani: Le démion de saint Jérôme. Paris. 144 pp. – A psychoanalyst’s essay.

Italian
1949. Angelo Penna: San Gerolamo. Rome. 450 pp.

Articles in reference works

1913. Hans Lietzmann: Hieronymos [16]. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.
Band VIII.2. Stuttgart (cols. 1315–2628), cols. 1565–1581.

1927. Henri Leclercq: Jérôme (saint). In: Fernand Cabrol – Henri Leclercq (eds.): Dictionnaire d’archéolo­
gie chrétienne et de liturgie. Tome VII.2. Paris (cols. 1425–2784), cols. 2235–2304.

1949. F. Cavallera: Jérôme (saint). In: Louis Pirot et al. (eds.): Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible.
Tome IV. Paris (1510 cols.), cols. 889–897.

1974. Jean Gribomont OSB: Jérôme. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome VIII. Paris (1806 cols.), cols. 901–
918.

1991. Harald Hagendahl – Jan Hendrik Waszink: Hieronymus. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum.
Band 15. Stuttgart (1262 cols.), cols. 117–139. – Originally, Paul Antin OSB (1902–1980) was
meant to contribute the article on Jerome; Antin’s valuable draft article is published; see Paul
Antin: Jérôme antique et chrétien. Revue des études augustiniennes 16 (1970) 35–46; Antin also
wrote the entry “Jérôme (Saint)” in: Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Tome VI. Paris (1912
cols.), cols. 702–706.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). ▲

Jerome sources in translation (selections)

1989. J. Stevensen – W.H.C. Frend (eds.): Creeds, Councils and Controversies. Documents Illustrating the
History of the Church AD 337–461. Revised edition. London (xxii, 410 pp.), pp. 178–205: Jerome.
– A selection of documents pertaining to Jerome’s life and work, mainly from his letters, in Eng ­
lish translation.

2002. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome. London. xi, 211 pp. – A selection of Jerome texts in English translation,
with focus on lesser-known texts. The famous letter 22 (CSEL 54: 143–211) with Jerome’s dream
is not included.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg (444
pp.), pp. 253–359. – Latin selections with German translations by Fürst.

2020. Justin McClain (ed.): The Quotable Saint Jerome. Washington. 175 pp. – Brief excerpts from the
Jerome volumes in “The Fathers of the Church” series. Each excerpt is accompanied by a biblio­
graphical reference that enables the reader to locate the passage in scholarly editions.

171
10.2 Jerome bibliography
1951. Paul Antin OSB: Essai sur S. Jérôme. Paris (266 pp.), pp. 251–257.

1959. Paul Antin OSB, in: CCSL 72: ix–lii.

2000. Roger Aubert: Jérôme. In: Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Tome 27. Paris
(2 pp., 1518 cols.), cols. 1021–1027. – Annotated bibliography of then recent contributions to re­
search on Jerome and his work.

2010. Alexey R. Fokin: St. Jerome of Stridon: Biblical Scholar, Exegete, Theologian. Moscow. 223 pp. (Rus­
sian). – Pages 184–206: A Jerome bibliography.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg (444
pp.), pp. 363–429. – Fürst presents a classified Jerome bibliography in two parts, with part 1 list­
ing all of Jerome’s works with text editions and secondary literature, and part 2 listing literature
on relevant subjects such as Jerome’s theological controversies, asceticism, scholarship, biblical
translation and exegesis, and the reception of Jerome in theology and art. This seems to be the
most comprehensive Jerome bibliography ever compiled.

10.3 Jerome and classical culture

Note. – Latin is Jerome’s mother tongue. As a young man, he was sent to Rome to study under Aelius
Donatus, then the most famous grammarian (Jerome, Contra Rufinum I, 16; CCSL 79: 15). He knows
Latin literature, but he did not read works of ancient Greek literature, though he is familiar with Greek
mythology. Three examples of literary references:

(1) Jerome: Prologue to Joshua (Sources chrétiennes 592: 320; c. 404): mortiferi Sirenarum cantus – the
deadly songs of the sirens; die tödlichen Gesänge der Sirenen; reference to Homer: Odyssey XII, 158–
159. Jerome refers to the sirens also in his Commentary on Jeremiah III, 111 (CCSL 74: 119).

(2) Jerome: Commentary on Ecclessiastes (PL 23: 1085; CCSL 72: 271): saepe stylum vertat, iterum quae
digna legi sint scripturus – often you have to turn the stylus [for correction], if you want to write some­
thing that people will also read a second time; oft muss man den Griffel wenden [zur Korrektur], will
man etwas schreiben, das man auch ein zweites Mal liest. This is an allusion to Horace: Satires I, 10,80–
81.

(3) Jerome: Letter 53,8 (CSEL 54: 461): David, Simonides noster, Pindarus et Alcaeus, Flaccus quoque,
Catullus et Serenus, Christum lyra personat, et in decachordo psalterio ab inferis excitat resurgentem –
David, who is our Simonides, Pindar, and Alcaeus, our Horace, our Catullus, and our Serenus, sings of
Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltery with ten strings calls him from the lower world to rise again. David
is portrayed as summing up the complete set of ancient lyrical poets of Greece (Simonides, Pindar, Al­
caeus) and Rome (Horace, Catullus, Serenus), plus – to complete the number seven – Orpheus, who is
not named but meant, because he is the mythical singer who calls up Eurydice from the netherworld.

While references to Greek literature are minimal, Jerome’s work teems with references and quotations
to the Latin classics – the quotation from Horace is just one of many examples; on Jerome’s many ref­
erences to Vergil, see the extra note below, at the end of this section. Of much significance is the re ­
cent insight of Catherine Brown Tkacz and especially Neil Adkin that Jerome not only quotes from clas ­

172
sical authors in his letters, biblical commentaries, and prefaces, but also alludes to, or borrows from,
Latin literature in his biblical translations. While Wilhelm Süß has suggested a relevant example as early
as 1938 (a propos Jer 5:8), this is a new perspective on the Vulgate as a text spiced with literary allu ­
sions; for relevant examples, see below, the textual notes on Deut 11:10; 31:21; Judg 14:8; 20:25; Esth
5:3; 9:28; Sir 9:3; 27:15; Isa 64:6; Jer 5:9; Jonah 4:6 (all in Chapter 21) and Mark 6:22 (Chapter 22). There
is much scope for intertextual analysis especially of Old Testament Vulgate passages. ▲

Mention must also be made of Rufinus: Apologia adversus Hieronymum, a polemical treatise dating
from 401, in which Jerome is accused of his love of pagan literature. Here is a quotation:
But had he not said, What has Horace to do with the Psalter, or Maro with the Gospels, or Cicero with the
Apostle? Will not your brother be offended if he sees you sitting in that idol temple? Here of course he brings
himself in guilty of idolatry; for if reading causes offense, much more does writing. But, since one who turns to id­
olatry does not thereby become wholly and completely a heathen unless he first denies Christ, he tells us that he
said to Christ, as he sat on the judgment seat with his most exalted angel ministers around him, If I ever hereafter
read or possess any heathen books, I have denied you, and now he not only reads them and possesses them, not
only copies them and collates them, but inserts them among the words of Scripture itself, and in discourses in­
tended for the edification of the Church (etiam divinis eos verbis et sermonibus ecclesiasticae aedificationis in­
terserit). What I say is well enough known to all who read his treatises, and requires no proof. – Rufinus: Apology
against Jerome II, 8 (CCSL 20: 89).

Rufinus “accused Jerome of having broken his vow never to have anything to do with pagan literature.
He claimed that Jerome had employed Latin calligraphers in Rufinus’ own monastery to make copies
of the works of Cicero. He had paid top prices for these heathen classics. Rufinus vouched for it: he
had seen the folded sheets before they were cut and bound” (Peter Brown: Through the Eye of a
Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. Princeton
2012 [xxx, 759 pp.], p. 277, with reference to Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum II, 11; CCSL 20: 92).
Rufinus also reports that in his monastery in Bethlehem, Jerome based the education of children on
pagan literature such as Vergil (Apologia contra Hieronymum II, 11; CCSL 20: 92). In one of his letters,
Jerome defends his use of that literature by arguing that in so doing he follows the example of biblical
authors including Solomon and Saint Paul (Jerome: Letter 70; CSEL 54: 700–708; Labourt III, pp. 209–
215).

General studies

Special studies

Studies by Neil Adkin

Jerome and Vergil

Jerome’s letter 22 to Eustochium: Jerome’s dream

General studies
1872. Emil Lübeck: Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit. Leipzig. 228 pp.

1919. Arthur Stanley Pease: The Attitude of Jerome towards Pagan Literature. Transactions and Pro­
ceedings of the American Philological Association 50: 150–167.

173
1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata. Zeits­
chrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269. – Texts discussed include Ezek 8:14
(Tammuz = Adonis); Prov 26:8 (ancient custom of laying a stone at Mercury images); Jer 5:8
(echoing Cicero: Against Piso 69). ▲

1948. Pierre Courcelle: Les lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe à Cassiodore. 2nd edition. Paris (vi,
440 pp.), pp. 37–47. On Jerome’s knowledge of Greek.

1955. Rudolf Eiswirth: Hieronymus’ Stellung zur Literatur und Kunst. Wiesbaden. xiii, 96 pp.

1958. Harald Hagendahl: Latin Fathers and the Classics. A Study on the Apologists, Jerome and Other
Christian Writers. Göteborg. 424 pp. – Pages 91–328: Jerome and Latin literature. This remains
the standard scholarly treatment of the subject. ▲

1964. Robert Godel: Réminiscences de poètes profanes dans les lettres de St Jérôme. Museum Helve­
ticum 21: 65–70. – Godel adds a number of passages from Tibullus, Vergil, Ovid, Lucanus, and
Persius to the passages listed in Lübeck’s 1872 study.

1970. Paul Antin: Jérôme antique et chrétien. Revue des études augustiniennes 16: 35–46.

1974. Harald Hagendahl: Jerome and the Latin Classics. Vigiliae Christianae 28: 216–227.

1982. W.C. McDermott: Saint Jerome and Pagan Greek Literature. Vigiliae Christianae 36: 372–382.

1991. Harald Hagendahl – Jan Hendrik Waszink: Hieronymus. In: Ernst Dassmann (ed.): Reallexikon für
Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart. Band 15 (1262 cols.), cols. 117–139, esp. cols. 135–136 on
Jerome’s reading of Latin literature.

2002. Julijana Visočnik: Latinski klasiki v Hieronimovih pismih. Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca 4.2: 147–
155. – The title of this Slovenian paper is: Latin Classics in Jerome’s Letters.

2007. Ann Mohr: Jerome, Virgil, and the Captive Maiden: The Attitude of Jerome to Classical Literature.
In: John H.D. Scourfield (ed.): Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity. Swansea (xii, 345 pp.), pp. 299–
322. ▲

2007. Catherine M. Chin: Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Jerome Inside the Book. In: William E.
Klingshirn – Linda Safran (eds.): The Early Christian Book. Washington (xi, 314 pp.), pp. 101–116.
– See pp. 110–112. In his letter 53, Jerome condemns the compilation of centones (Christian
poems constructed from fragments of pagan authors); his own use of pagan authors is very dif­
ferent.

2015. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer Erzäh­
lungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart. 386 pp. – Pages 84–101: myth in the Vulgate; pp. 323–332:
complete list of ancient myths and where they are referred to in the works of Jerome and in his
biblical commentaries and translations. ▲

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of
Exodus. Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. – See esp. pp. 179–182 on
Jerome’s classical learning. Kraus insists that Jerome’s translation must be read “as a work of Lat­
in literature” (p. 179; see also p. 175). ▲

2020. José Manuel Martínez Sánchez: Hieronymus classicus et christianus. La defensa de los clásicos
como medio para los autores cristianos. Mirabilia Journal 31: 210–226 (online journal). – Spanish,
with an English abstract.

174
2021. Barbara Feichtinger: Quid facit cum psalterio Horatius? (Hier. Ep. 22, 29,7). Untersuchung zu Hi­
eronymus’ Umgang mit klassischen und biblischen Referenzen am Beispiel von Epistula 3 ad
Rufinum. Vigiliae Christianae 75: 389–454.

2023. Rebekka Schirner: Quid facit cum psalterio Horatius? Reflexionen des Hieronymus uber antike
Bildungsinhalte. In: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und Rezeption.
Stuttgart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 1–38.

Special studies
1918. Carolus Kunst: De Hieronymi studiis Ciceronis. Dissertationes philologiae Vindebonenses 12.2:
111–219. – This Latin doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Vienna, deals with
quotations and reminiscences of Cicero in Jerome’s letters. Review: Joseph Martin, Berliner
philologische Wochenschrift 39.26 (1919) 601–604.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – On pages 111–
113, Stummer refers to ancient cultural traditions such as Cocytus, the river of death (Job 21:33).

1938. Wilhelm Süß: Der heilige Hieronymus und die Formen seiner Polemik. In: Volkskundliche Ernte
Hugo Hepding dargebracht. Gießen (273 pp.), 212–238. – On p. 237, Süß explains that Jer 5:8
echoes Cicero: Against Piso 69.

1963. Ilona Opelt: Ein Senecazitat bei Hieronymus. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 6: 175–176.

1972. Ilona Opelt: Lukrez bei Hieronymus. Hermes 100: 76–81; also included in: Ilona Opelt: Kleine
Schriften. Edited by Dietmar Schmitz. Frankfurt 1997 (469 pp.), pp. 345–350.

1975. Johann Baptist Bauer: Hieronymus und Ovid. Grazer Beiträge 4: 13–19.

1978. J.J. Thierry: Hieronymus en Ovidius. Hermeneus 50: 359–361.

1984. Ilona Opelt: Der “Hebestein” Jerusalem und eine Hebekugel auf der Akropolis von Athen in der
Deutung des Hieronymus von Sach 12,1–3. In: Ernst Dassmann – Klaus Thraede (eds.): Vivarium.
Festschrift für Theodor Klauser. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 11. Müns­
ter (384 pp., 37 leaves), pp. 287–294; also included in: Ilona Opelt: Kleine Schriften. Edited by
Dietmar Schmitz. Frankfurt 1997 (469 pp.), pp. 85–94.

1995. Antonio V. Nazzaro: La presenza di Orazio in Girolamo. In: Marcello Gigante – Salvatore Cerasuo­
lo (eds.): Letture Oraziane. Naples (356 pp.), pp. 305–323.

1997. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Ovid, Jerome and the Vulgate. In: Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.): Papers
Presented at the 12th International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1995. Studia
Patristica 33. Leuven (vi, 585 pp.), pp. 378–382. – Jerome drew on Ovid’s diction in similar narrat ­
ive contexts. He uses the wording of Ovid’s Metamorphoses 2:44, Philebus’ rash promise to
Phaeton, in both the Gospel of Mark (6:22, Herod’s rash promise to Salome), and in the book of
Esther (5:3; 5:6; 7:2, Ahasverus’ rash promise to Esther). ▲

1999. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Quid facit cum Psalterio Horatius? Seeking the Classical Allusions in the
Vulgate. In: Douglas Kries – Catherine B. Tkacz (eds.): Nova Doctrina Vetusque: Essays on Early
Christianity. New York (xi, 291 pp.), pp. 93–104. – Tkacz surveys her earlier work on the subject
and supplies a statistical table of all the references in the corpus of Jerome’s work to ancient au ­
thors (pp. 101–102); his favourite authors were Vergil, Cicero, Horace and Terence. Vergil is quo­
ted “at least 174 times” (p. 95). ▲

175
2004. Benoît Jeanjean: ‘Quand il ne reste plus que le droit de gémir’: Jérôme lecteur de Cicéron et de
Sénèque le Père. In: Benoît Gain et al. (eds.): “Chartae caritatis.” Études de patristique et d’anti­
quité tardive. Paris (529 pp.), pp. 385–399.

2007. Marc Vessey: Quid facit cum Horatio Hieronymus? Christian Latin Poetry and Scriptural Poetics.
In: Willemien Otten – Karla Pollmann (eds.): Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity.
Leiden (xi, 360 pp.), pp. 29–48.

2013. Andrew Cain: Two Allusions to Terence, Eunuchus 579 in Jerome. Classical Quarterly n.s. 63:
407–412.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford. xviii,
365 pp. – Pages 33–34: the influence of Virgilian epic.

2016. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Giganten und Sirenen in der Vulgata. Griechischer Mythos in der lateini­
schen Bibel des Hieronymus. Museum Helveticum 73: 78–96. ▲

2018. Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger – Wilhelm Tauwinkl: Some Notes about Jerome and the
Hexameters in the Book of Job. Vulgata in Dialogue [online-Zeitschrift] 2: 47–51. – See also the
Latin hexameter verse Gen 3:5.

2020. Matthieu Richelle: Un verset, deux traducteurs, trois scénarios; retour sur une énigme textuelle (1
Rois 15,13). In: Innocent Himbaza et al. (ed.): La Bible en face. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95.
Leuven 2020 (xxiv, 362 pp.), pp. 223–232. – Jerome on the pagan god Priapus.

2021. Almut Trenkler – Gerd-Dietrich Warns: Beiträge zum lateinischen Ijob. Iob 16,6; 27,16–17a; 28,1-
3a bei Hieronymus und Augustinus. Göttingen. 253 pp. – Pages 92–93: In an early version of Job
27:17 (which was not adopted into the Vulgate version), Jerome uses the verb convertere in a
sense attested by Cicero (In Verrem II, 3,176): to divert money to someone who has no right to it
(Geld für jemanden abzweigen, der kein Recht darauf hat).

Studies by Neil Adkin

1984. Neil Adkin: Some Notes on the Dream of Jerome. Philologus 128: 119–126.

1994. Neil Adkin: Juvenal and Jerome. Classical Philology 89.1 (1994) 69–72.

1997. Neil Adkin: Cicero’s Orator and Jerome. Vigiliae Christianae 51: 25–35.

1997. Neil Adkin: Cicero, Pro Marcello 12 and Jerome. Philologus 141: 137–140.

1998. Neil Adkin: Vergil’s Georgics and Jerome. Epist. 125,11,3–4. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Alter­
tumswissenschaft N.F. 22: 187–198, at pp. 192–193: in Deut 11:10, Jerome uses two Vergilian
words – iacto semine (when the seed is cast; Georgics I, 104) and inriguus (watering; Georgics IV,
32).

1999. Neil Adkin: Jerome’s vow “never to reread the classics”: Some Observations. Revue des études
anciennes 101: 161–167. – Many have repeated Harald Hagendahl’s contention that Jerome in­
deed had vowed never to reread the pagan classics, and kept that vow for fifteen years. Accord­
ing to Adkin, such a vow never existed. If Jerome did indeed abstain from reading pagan literat ­
ure, it was because of his preoccupation with translating biblical texts. ▲

1999. Neil Adkin: Cicero’s ‘Academica’ and Jerome. Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estdios latínos 16:
11–25.

2000. Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40: 77–87. ▲

176
2000. Neil Adkin: Jerome, Seneca, Juvenal. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 78: 119–128. – On
Jerome’s knowledge and use of Seneca and Juvenal.

2003. Neil Adkin: Biblia Catilinaria. Maia 55: 93–98. – Judg 20:25 echoes Cicero: In Catilinam IV, 11.

2003. Neil Adkin: Jerome on Virginity: A Commentary on the ‘Libellus de Virginitate Servanda’ (Letter
22). Cambridge. xxxvi, 458 pp. – This is a scholarly commentary on Letter 22, without the Latin
text and without a translation. Reviews:
2004. Michael Winterbottom, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 55: 722–724.

2004. Y.-M. Duval, Revue des études augustiniennes 50.1: 217–219.

2004. Neil Adkin: ‘Ad fontem ewcurramus Hebraei’: Jerome, Marcella and Hebrew (Epist. 34). Euphro ­
syne n.s. 32: 215–222. – Jerome exaggerated his knowledge of Hebrew.

2005. Neil Adkin: Hieronymus Sallustianus. Grazer Beiträge 24: 93–110.

2005. Neil Adkin: Persius in Jerome. Maia 57.1: 1–11.

2011. Neil Adkin: Some Alleged Echoes of Apuleius in Jerome. Classical Philology 106: 66–75.

2011. Neil Adkin: The Death of Dido and the Vulgate Text of the Gang-bang at Gibeah. Maia 63: 451–
454. – The wording of Judg 19:27 (sparsis in limine manibus – with her hands spread on the
threshold) in Jerome’s Vulgate translation echoes Vergil: Aeneid IV, 663–665, Queen Dido’s sui­
cide. The description of the Levite’s dead concubine “uses language that comes straight from
Virgil’s account of the death of Dido” (p. 452). ▲

2011. Neil Adkin: Virgil’s Smooth-talking Pygmalion and Jerome’s Commentaries on Mordiloquent
Minor Prophets. Euphrosyne n.s. 44: 235–237.

2013. Neil Adkin: Cicero’s Pro Milone and Jerome. Euphrosyne 41: 367–374.

2018. Neil Adkin: Horace, Carm. 2,17,5 and Quintilian, Inst. 6 prooem in Jerome. Prometheus 44: 202–
208.

2019. Neil Adkin: Cicero’s Pro Sexto Roscio and Jerome. Museum Helveticum 76: 88–95.

Jerome and Vergil

Note. – In late antiquity, Vergil was felt to be the most prestigious Latin author; in this assessment,
Jerome and Augustine agreed. Augustine calls him poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque
optimus – the great poet, the most famous and best of all (De civitate Dei I, 3; CSEL 40.1:7). Here are
some of Jerome’s quotations of Vergil’s poetry from one of his prologues and from his biblical com­
mentaries (and many more could be added, especially from Jerome’s letters):

(1) Jerome: Prologue on Joshua (Sources chrétiennes 592: 320; c. 404): dum spiritus hos regit artus – as
long as the spirit guides these limbs; solange der Geist diese Glieder lenkt; without reference to Vergil
by name. Vergil: Aeneid IV, 336

(2) Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes (CCSL 72: 325): nullum cum victis certamen et aethere cassis –
with vanished folk and bodies void of breath there is no warring; kein Krieg mit Ermordeten und
Menschen ohne Atem; Vergil: Aeneid XI, 104.

177
(3) Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes (CCSL 72: 312): (…) varius et mutabile semper femina – a shift­
ing, changeful thing was woman ever; veränderlich immer schwankt ja das Weib; Vergil: Aeneid IV,
569–570.

(4) Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes (CCSL 72: 316): nescia mens hominis fati sortisque fortunae –
mind of man, blind to fate and coming doom; Menschengeist, nicht kundig des eignen Geschicks und
der Zukunft; Vergil: Aeneid X, 501.

(5) Jerome: Commentary on Jeremiah (PL 24 [1845]: 769; 24 [1865]: 798): Hippomanes, vero quod nomi­
ne dicunt pastores, lentum distillat ab inguine virus – the clammy fluid, rightly named hippomanes in
shepherds’ language, oozes from their groin (translated by J.W. MacKail); was richtig der Hirte die
Rosswut nennet, langsam enttropft das Gift dem Leibe der Stuten (translated by Johann Heinrich Voß);
Vergil: Georgica III, 280–281. This quotation appears in a description of male sexual excess which Vergil
compares to that of horses.

(6) Jerome: Commentary on Galatians (PL 26 [1845]: 347): nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinunt
agnos – I don’t know who has cast an evil eye on my tender lambs; doch weiß ich nicht, welch Aug mir
verhext hat die Lämmer die zarten; Vergil: Eclogue III, 108.

There is also a poetic form that Jerome borrows from Vergil: the hexameter verse; Jerome has the ser ­
pent use it in Paradise: eritis sicut deus, scientes bonum et malum (Gen 3:5). Rhythmic verses and parts
of verses are also found elsewhere in the Vulgate, e.g., at the beginning of Acts 17:26 – fecitqu’ex uno
omne genus.

1872. Emil Lübeck: Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit. Leipzig. 228 pp. – On pp.
167–191, the author lists the Vergil passages quoted by Jerome.

1924. Harrison C. Coffin: The Influence of Vergil on St. Jerome and St. Augustine. The Classical Weekly
17, no. 22 (April 7): 170–175.

1954. Alfons Kurfess: Vergils vierte Ekloge bei Hieronymus und Augustinus. Sacris Erudiri 6: 5–13. –
Jerome: Letter 53,7 (CSEL 54: 454) and other passages.

1958. Harald Hagendahl: Latin Fathers and the Classics. A Study on the Apologists, Jerome and Other
Christian Writers. Göteborg. 424 pp. – Pages 91–328: Jerome. Page 276: “No poet, no classic
author altogether came nearer to Jerome’s heart than Virgil (…). Virgil is mentioned even of ­
tener than Cicero, and the quotations (…) outnumber those from the master of Latin prose.
Lübeck (pp. 167–191) lists 128 cases, 19 from Eclogues, 29 from Georgics, 80 from Aeneid. (…)
Jerome’s familiartity with Virgil is set in a strong light if we consider the passages where a full
line (or more than one line) is quoted literally. They amount to 70 with a total number of
nearly 150 full lines.”

1961. Jean Steinmann: Hieronymus. Ausleger der Bibel. Cologne 1961. 365 pp. – Index s.v. “Vergil.”

1968. Alan Cameron: Echoes of Virgil in St. Jerome’s Life of St. Hilarion. Classical Philology 63: 55–56.
“Jerome’s mind was saturated with Virgil” (p. 55).

1987. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Jérôme et l’œuvre de Ben Sira. Le Muséon 100: 109–120. – Page 110: Without
giving examples, Gilbert asserts that there are more than 140 references to Vergil.

1998. Neil Adkin: Vergil’s Georgics and Jerome. Epist. 125,11,3–4. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Al­
tertumswissenschaft N.F. 22: 187–198, at pp. 192–193: in Deut 11:10, Jerome uses two Vergilian

178
 words – iacto semine (when the seed is cast; Georgics I, 104) and inriguus (watering; Georgics IV,
32).

1999. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Quid facit cum Psalterio Horatius? Seeking the Classical Allusions in the
Vulgate. In: Douglas Kries – Catherine B. Tkacz (eds.): Nova Doctrina Vetusque: Essays on Early
Christianity. New York (xi, 291 pp.), pp. 93–104. – Tkacz supplies a statistical table of all the refer­
ences in the corpus of Jerome’s work to ancient authors (pp. 101–102); his favourite authors
were Vergil, Cicero, Horace and Terence. Vergil is quoted “at least 174 times” (p. 95).

2002. Marco Tullio Messina: Due note su Virgilio in Girolamo. In: Isabella Gualandri (ed.): Tra IV e V se­
culo. Studi sulla cultura latina tardoantico. Milano (x, 331 pp.), pp. 119–139. – On two Vergil quo­
tations in Jerome’s commentaries on Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) and Isaiah.

2003. Marco Tullio Messina: L’autorità delle citazioni virgiliane nelle opera esegetiche di san Girolamo.
Rome = Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali (…) Serie 9, vol.
16, fasc. 4 (i.e., pp. 536–662).

2011. Neil Adkin: The Death of Dido and the Vulgate Text of the Gang-bang at Gibeah. Maia 63: 451–
454. – The wording of Judg 19:27 (sparsis in limine manibus – with her hands spread on the
threshold) in Jerome’s Vulgate translation echoes Vergil: Aeneid IV, 663–665, Queen Dido’s sui­
cide. The description of the Levite’s dead concubine “uses language that comes straight from
Virgil’s account of the death of Dido” (p. 452). ▲

2014. Andrew Cain: Jerome. In: Richard F. Thomas – Jan M. Ziolkowski (eds.): The Virgil Encyclopedia.
Volume II. Chichester (pp. 469–944), p. 689: “Jerome quoted Virgil more than any other classical
writer, even Cicero. He knew most, if not all, of the Virgilian corpus by heart and directly quoted
or referenced it, approximately two hundred times in his writings.”

2022. Marie Revellio: Zitate der Aeneis in den Briefen des Hieronymus. Berlin. xi, 396 pp.

Jerome’s letter 22 to Eustochium: Jerome’s dream

384. Jerome: Letter 22 to Eustochium. Jerome asks: Quid facit cum Psalterio Horatius? Cum Evangeliis
Marco? Cum Apostolo Cicero? – “What has Horace to do with the psalter, Virgil with the gospels,
Cicero with the Apostle?” (22, 29; CSEL 54: 189; Labourt I, p. 144). In the same letter he recounts
a dream in which a judge – presumably Christ – orders Jerome to be beaten for being a Cicero­
nian rather than a Christian – Ciceronianus es, non Christianus (22, 30; CSEL 54: 190; Labourt I, p.
145); in the dream, Jerome makes an oath no longer to turn to codices saeculares – pagan books
(22, 30; CSEL 54: 190–191).

Text and translations of letter 22

1910. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. Pars I. Edited by Isidor Hilberg. Vienna (vii, 708 pp.), pp. 143–
211 = CSEL 54: 143–211.

1933. Jerome: Letter XXII. In: Select Letters of St. Jerome. Translated by F.A. Wright. Loeb Classical Lib­
rary. Cambridge, Mass. (xvi, 510 pp.), pp. 52–159.

1936. Hieronymus: 22. Brief: An Eustochium. In: Des heiligen Kirchenvaters Eusebius Hieronymus aus­
gewählte Briefe. Übersetzt von Ludwig Schade. I. Briefband. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (BKV).
Munich (xxviii, 412 pp.), pp. 58–117.

1949. Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Tome I. Edited and translated by Jérôme Labourt. Collection Budé. Paris
(170 double pp.), pp. 110–160.

179
1963. The Letters of St. Jerome. Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow. Ancient Christian Writers 33.
New York (vi, 281 pp.), pp. 134–179.

1989. J. Stevenson – W.H.C. Frend (eds.): Creeds, Councils and Controversies. Documents Illustrating
the History of the Church AD 337–461. London 1989 (xxii, 410 pp.), pp. 180–181 (excerpt from
letter 22).

1990. D.A. Russell: An Anthology of Latin Prose. Oxford. xxxiii, 251 pp. – Pages 224–226: Jerome: Epit­
sula 22:29–30. Annotated Latin text, no translation.

2011. Jérôme: La lettre 22 à Eustochium, De virginitate servanda. Traduite et commentée par Yves-Ma­
rie Duval et Patrick Laurence. Bégrolles-en-Mauges. 376 pp. – A publication of the Abbaye de
Bellefontaine.

2018. Lucrèce Luciani: Le demon de saint Jérôme. Paris (139 pp.), pp. 18–20 (excerpt from letter 22).

Echoes
1444. Sano di Pietro: The Flagellation of Jerome [Die Geißelung des Hieronymus]. This Renaissance
painting, an altar predella now in the Louvre, shows a scene from Jerome’s dream – on the order
of the enthroned Christ, two winged angels punish the young Jerome.

1644. John Milton: Areopagitica. – In his famous speech against pre-publication censorship in England,
Milton refers to Jerome’s dream. He thinks that it was the devil, and not God, who ordered
Jerome to be chastised for reading Cicero. Milton, of course, was opposed to censorship and the
ban on pagan or heretical works. – John Milton: Areopagitica. Edited by John W. Hales. Oxford
1894 (xlv, 159 pp.), pp. 14–15.

Note. – Despite his familiarity with ancient pagan literature and his use of it, Jerome’s attitude towards
it was ambivalent. The most relevant document on Jerome’s ambivalence is his letter 22 to his friend
Eustochium. Interestingly, one of Jerome’s contemporaries had similar worries about his study and
knowledge of pagan literature – John Cassian; see his Collationes XIV, 12 (PL 49: 974–979). – There is
much secondary literature on Jerome’s dream as recounted in letter 22; we list mainly recent titles
some of which are interested in the psychology and interpretation of dreams.

Secondary literature
1919. Arthur Stanley Pease: The Attitude of Jerome towards Pagan Literature. Transactions and Pro­
ceedings of the American Philological Association 50: 150–167. – Page 159: “(…) it is likely that the
vision had some effect for fifteen years or so, but after that he regarded it as in no way binding.”

1920. Pierre de Labriolle. In: Vincenzo Vannutelli (preface): Miscellanea Geronimiana. Rome (viii, 330
pp.), pp. 219–226.

1958. Harald Hagendahl v: Latin Fathers and the Classics. Göteborg. 424 pp. – On pp. 318–329, the au­
thor discusses Jerome’s dream and the possible duration of his abstention from reading classical
texts.

1963. Johannes Jacobus Thierry: The Date of the Dream of Jerome. Vigiliae Christianae 17: 28–40.

1963. Paul Antin OSB: Autour du songe de saint Jérôme. Revue des études latines 41: 350–377. – Also
in: idem: Recueil sur saint Jérôme. Brussels 1968 (474 pp.), pp. 71–100.

1984. Neil Adkin: Some Notes on the Dream of Jerome. Philologus 128: 119–126.

180
1991. Barbara Feichtinger: Der Traum des Hieronymus – ein Psychogramm. Vigiliae Christianae 45: 54–
77. – Includes a commentary on Rufinus of Aquileia’s critique of Jerome (pp. 63–67).

1994. Patricia Cox Miller: Dreams in Late Antiquity. Princeton 1994 (xii, 273 pp.), pp. 210–212.

1997. Barbara Feichtinger: Ne vero sopor ille fuerat aut vana somnia … (Hier., ep. 22, 30,6). Überlegun­
gen zum geträumten Selbst des Hieronymus. Revue des études augustiniennes 43: 41–62.

2003. Neil Adkin: Jerome on Virginity: A Commentary on the ‘Libellus de Virginitate Servanda’ (Letter
22). Cambridge. xxxvi, 458 pp. – This is a scholarly commentary on Letter 22, without the Latin
text and without a translation. – Reviews:
2004. Michael Winterbottom, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 55: 722–724.

2004. Y.-M. Duval, Revue des études augustiniennes 50.1: 217–219.

2007. Ann Mohr: Jerome, Virgil, and the Captive Maiden: The Attitude of Jerome to Classical Literature.
In: J.H.D. Scourfield (ed.): Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity. Swansea (xii, 345 pp.), pp. 299–322,
at pp. 302–305.

2008. Leopoldo Gamberale: Virgilio nel sogno di Gerolamo: spunti per la costruzione di una biografia
intellettuale. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 136.2: 171–197; also in: idem: San Gerola­
mo intelettuale e filologo. Rome 2013 (xx, 181 pp.), pp. 15–39.

2008. Burkhard von Dörnberg: Der Traum bei Hieronymus. In: idem: Traum und Traumdeutung in der
Alten Kirche. Leipzig (397 pp.), pp. 318–342, esp. pp. 322–334.

2012. Bart J. Koet: Jerome’s and Augustine’s Conversion to Scripture through the Portal of Dreams. In:
idem (ed.): Dreams as Divine Communication in Christianity. Leuven 2012 (xii, 292 pp.), pp. 93–
124. – Letter 22 dates from 384; according to Bart Koet, Jerome subsequently refers to classical
literature far less than before. The present writer (B.L.) is not so sure of Koet’s conclusion, be ­
cause Jerome’s commentary on Ecclesiastes, with its most frequent references to ancient literat­
ure, dates from 388/389.

2018. Lucrèce Luciani: Le demon de saint Jérôme. Paris (144 pp.), pp. 18–20. – This is a psychoanalyst’s
essay.

2021. Jan R. Stenger: “Eines der ärgerlichsten Musterstücke verlogener Rhetorik”: Hieronymus‘ Traum
und die Begründung seiner Autorschaft. In: Gregor Britto – Bardo Maria Gauly (eds.): Auf der Su­
che nach Autofiktion in der antiken Literatur. Berlin (x, 246 pp.), pp. 213–240. – Jerome’s memory
is shaped through quotations, intertextual allusions, and topoi, so that the ‘I’ remembered is at
the same time the basis and product of his skill as an author. – The essay title quotes a line from
Alfred Schöne: Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in der Bearbeitung des Hieronymus. Berlin 1900, p.
240; Schöne considered Jerome’s dream story a pure fiction.

2023. Rebekka Schirner: Quid facit cum psalterio Horatius? Reflexionen des Hieronymus uber antike
Bildungsinhalte. In: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und Rezeption.
Stuttgart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 1–38, at pp. 5–11.

10.4 Jerome’s familiarity with Hebrew and with things rabbinic

Note. – Jerome was the first Christian Hebraist. In modern research, the extent of Jerome‘s know ­
ledge of Hebrew is controversial. It has even been suggested that Jerome invented his knowledge of
Hebrew in the interest of self-promotion. According to recent majority opinion, Jerome had a pass ­
able, though not perfect, knowledge of Hebrew. But doubts persist, and the critical arguments of

181
James Barr and E. Burstein are not to be dismissed lightly. The extreme thesis of Pierre Nautin (1977,
1986), however, that Jerome knew no Hebrew at all, is considered exaggerated. – As a Christian Heb ­
raist, Jerome did not have immediate successors. On the post-Jeromian story of Christian Hebraism,
see below, Chapter 14.8.

Sources
386. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians III (PL 26: 399): sed omnem sermonis elegantiam, et Latini elo­
quii venustatem, stridor lectionis Hebraicae sordidavit – “My reading of Hebrew, a harsh and gut­
tural language, has ruined all the elegance of my style and the charm of my Latin prose.” St.
Jerome: Commentary on Galatians. Translated by Andrew Cain. The Fathers of the Church 121.
Washington 2010 (xxv, 283 pp.), p. 204.

386/89. Jerome: Preface to the Book of Chronicles (Paralipomenon, translated from the Greek; Sources
chrétiennes 592: 340). Jerome reports that for his work, he enlisted the help of de Tiberiade legis
quondam auctorem, qui apud Hebraeos admirationi habebatur – a certain master of the Law
whom the Jews admire; einen gewissen Meister des Gesetzes, der bei den Juden in hohem An­
sehen steht.

392. Jerome: Preface to Daniel (Sources chrétiennes 592: 454). “Conscious that among them (the Jews) I
was only a smatterer, I once more began to study Chaldee. And, to confess the truth, to this day
I can read and understand Chaldee better than I can pronounce it.” – “( …) und ich, der ich mir
bei ihnen [den Juden] wie ein Halbgebildeter vorkam, begann erneut Schüler der chaldäischen
(= aramäischen) Sprache zu sein. Und um die Wahrheit zu gestehen, bis zum heutigen Tag kann
ich die chaldäische Sprache besser lesen und verstehen als aussprechen.” (German translation:
Tusculum-Vulgata IV, pp. 765/67, see below, Chapter 11.7). Knowledge of Chaldee, i.e., Aramaic,
is necessary to translate the Aramaic parts of the book of Daniel.

393. Jerome: Preface to Job (Sources chrétiennes 592: 398). – “I remember that in order to understand
this volume, I paid a not inconsiderable sum for the services of a teacher (quemdam praeceptor­
em), a native of Lydda, who was amongst the Hebrews reckoned to be in the front rank; whether
I profiled at all by his teaching, I do not know; of this one thing I am sure, that I could translate
only that which I previously understood.” – “Ich weiß noch gut, wie ich, um dieses Buch zu ver­
stehen, einen aus Lydda stammenden Lehrer (quemdam praeceptorem), der bei den Hebräern
[Juden] zu den erstklassigen zählte, teuer bezahlt habe. Ob der Unterricht bei ihm mir irgendet ­
was gebracht hat, weiß ich nicht; eines aber weiß ich sicher: Übersetzen konnte ich nur das, was
ich vorher verstanden hatte.” In the same preface, we also read: Hebraeum sermonem ex parte
didicimus – “we have acquired some slight knowledge of Hebrew” – “Immerhin habe ich die he­
bräische Sprache bis zu einem gewissen Grad erlernt.” (German translation: Alfons Fürst:
Hieronymus. Freiburg 2016 [444 pp.], pp. 335 and 337.)

393. Jerome: Commentary on Haggai, at the end (PL 25:1416). I, Jerome, must ask the reader not to pay
attention to my unpolished style and to consider “how much time I (already) lost for studying
the Hebrew language” (quam multo tempore Hebraeae linguae studio perdidi). Jerome had no
time to polish his Latin.

400. Jerome: Preface to the Pentateuch (Sources chrétiennes 592: 310) “If anywhere in the translation I
have been seen by you to err, ask the Hebrews. Consult the teachers of the many different
cities.” – “Wenn du meinst, in meiner Übersetzung sei mir irgendwo ein Fehler unterlaufen, dann
frage einen Hebräer, wende dich an einen Rabbinen (magister) in den einzelnen Städten!” (Ger­
man translation: Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Freiburg 2016 [444 pp.], p. 347.)

182
408/10. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah, on Isa 22:15,16 (PL 24 [1865]: 282: “the Hebrew who instructed
me in the Old Testament (…)” (Hebraeus autem qui nos in veteris instrumenti erudivit …) ex­
plained an item as follows.

413. Jerome: Letter 125, 12 (CSEL 56: 131). Jerome reports his first attempt to study Hebrew. This was
around 375/77, when he spent some several years with monks in the desert of Chalkis in Syria,
east of the city of Antioch. One of the monks, a convert from Judaism, gave him lessons: cuidam
fratri qui ex Hebraeis crediderat me in disciplinam dedi – I had myself be instructed by one of the
brothers who had come to the faith from the Jews; ich ließ mich ausbilden von einem gewissen
Bruder, der vom Judentum konvertiert war.

Secondary literature

Before 1900
1861. Moritz Rahmer: Hieronymus und seine jüdischen Lehrer. In: idem: Die hebräischen Traditionen in
den Werken des Hieronymus. Heft 1. Breslau (74 pp.), pp. 5–16. – On rabbi Moritz Rahmer and his
discovery of Jerome, see Görge K. Hasselhoff: Die Entdeckung des Christentums in der Wissen­
schaft des Judentums. Berlin 2010 (vii, 351 pp.), pp. 137–163; Agnethe Siquans: Hieronymus und
die Vulgata in der Wissenschaft des Judentums, in: Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata.
Quellen und Rezeption. Stuttgart 2023 (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 159–198, esp. pp. 186–195.

1875. Wilhelm Nowack: Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik. Göttingen.
55 pp. – See pp. 5–11; page 6: “Überhaupt fehlt den Sprachkenntnissen des Hieronymus, wie
dies ja auch kaum anders sein konnte, Sicherheit und feste grammatische Grundlage. Schon in
Bezug auf das Alphabet sind seine Kenntnisse ungenügend.” Nevertheless, Nowack considers
the Vulgate to be an important witness to the pre-Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible – which he
demonstrates through extensive discussion of individual passages.

1884. Carl Siegfried: Die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei Hieronymus. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentli­
che Wissenschaft 4: 34–83.

1894. Samuel Krauss: The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers: Jerome. Jewish Quarterly Review
6.2: 225–261. – Also available in book form: Samuel Krauss: The Jews in the Works of the Church
Fathers. Piscataway, N.J. 2008 (97 pp.), pp. 55–91.

1898. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 42.3: 97–107. – On passages in Jerome’s Commen­
tary on Amos.

1898. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Saint Jérôme et la tradition juive dans la Genèse. Revue biblique 7:
563–566.

English
1930. Cyrus H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49:
384–416.

1948. Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: St Jerome’s Hebrew Manuscripts. Biblica 29 (1948) 195–204.

1967. James Barr: St Jerome’s Appreciation of Hebrew. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 49: 281–302.

1970. Jay Braverman: Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition in Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel. Diss. Yeshiva
University, New York. – Also published as a book, 1978 (see the 1978 entry).

183
1974. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Jewish Traditions in the Writings of Jerome. In: D.R.G. Beattie (ed.):
The Aramaic Bible. Targums in Their Historical Context. Sheffield (470 pp.), pp. 420–430.

1978. Jay Braverman: Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Washington. xvi, 160 pp. – Sixteen Jewish interpretations are
used by Jerome, of which six are not attested elsewhere.

1987. Robert Hayward: Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim. Journal of Semitic Studies 32.1 (1987)
105–123.

1992. D.P. McCarthy: Saint Jerome’s translation of the Psalms: the question of Rabbinic Tradition. In:
H.J. Blumberg (ed.): “Open thou mine eyes …” Essays on Aggadah and Judaica presented to Rabbi
William G. Braude. Hoboken, N.J. (xx, 339 pp.), pp. 155–191.

1992. Dennis Brown: Vir Trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen. 229 pp. –
See esp. pp. 167–193: Jerome, Jews and Judaism. Brown comments on Jerome’s study of
Hebrew (pp. 71–82) and his Hebrew teachers (pp. 167–174; p. 172: Hebraeus meus = my Hebrew
tutor). – Review: John McGuckin, Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 194–196.

1993. Adam Kamesar: Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible. A Study of the Quaestiones
Hebraicae in Genesim. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford (xiii, 221 pp.), pp. 176–191.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – Pages 56–58, 60–63: synthesis of the debate about Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew. ▲

1994. Adam Kamesar: [review of: Roger Gryson, ed.: Commentaire de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe].
Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994) 728–731. Kamesar objects to Gryson’s notion of
Jerome’s lack of competence in Hebrew.

1995. Neil Adkin: A Note on Jerome’s Knowledge of Hebrew. Euphrosyne N.S. 23: 243–245.

1996. Eva Schultz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Page
655: “His knowledge of this language [Hebrew] surely was noteworthy in his time, but not suffi­
cient enough for translating quite independently. Therefore, many corrections ‘from the Hebrew’
result from the readings of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. But there are also traces which
point to the possibility that Jerome made use of the assistance of of his Jewish friends.”

2004. Neil Adkin: Ad fontem sermonis recurramus Hebraei: Jerome, Marcella and Hebrew (Epist. 34). Eu­
phrosyne N. S. 32: 215–222.

2007. Michael Graves: Jerome’s Hebrew Philology. A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah.
Leiden. xii, 228 pp. – Pages 13–75: Reading Hebrew as a “Grammarian”; pp. 76–127: The sources
of Jerome’s Hebrew scholarship. 2007. “Hebrew was not a ‘dead language’ in Jerome’s day, but
was still being used actively” (p. 81). His “combination of the Greek versions and rabbinic
Hebrew scholarship into a single philological method was Jerome’s greatest innovation as a
Hebrew philologist” (p. 127).

2007. Pieter W. van der Horst: The Site of Adam’s Tomb. In: M.F.J. Baasten et al. (eds.): Studies in
Hebrew Literature and Jewish Culture. Dordrecht (x, 320 pp.), pp. 251–255. –The view expressed
several times by Jerome that Adam was buried in Hebron (Kiryat-Arba) also determined his
translation of Josh 14:15. He traces the thought back to Hebraei (Jews) (The Life of saint Paula =
Letter 108, 11; CSEL 55: 319).

2008. David L. Everson: An Examination of Synoptic Portions within the Vulgate. Vetus Testamentum 58:
178–190. – A comparison between passages in Samuel/Kings and parallel passages in Chronicles

184
 shows progress in Jerome’s proficiency in Hebrew, as well as his later preference of a less literal,
smoother Latin style.

2008. Nathalie B. Dohrmann: Lessons from Jerome’s Jewish Teachers: Exgesis and Cultural Interaction
in Late Antique Palestine. In: eadem (ed.): Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange.
Philadelphia (viii, 340 pp.), pp. 66–86.

2008. M.H. Williams: Lessons from Jerome’s Jewish Teachers: Exegesis and Cultural Interaction in Late
Antique Palestine. In: D.B. Dohrmann – D. Stern (eds.): Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural
Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context. Philadelphia (viii, 339 pp.), pp. 66–86.

2009. Hillel I. Newman: Why Should We Measure Jerome’s Hebrew Competence? In: Andrew Cain –
Josef Lössl (eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp.
131–140.

2009. John Cameron: The Rabbinic Vulgate? In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His
Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 117–129.

2010. Robert Hayward: Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity. Leiden.
xv, 432 pp. – Pages 281–299: Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah and the
Targum of Jeremiah; pp. 300–317: Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim; pp. 318–338: Some
Observations on St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis and the Rabbinic Tradition.

2012. Görge K. Hasselhoff: Revising the Vulgate: Jerome and His Jewish Interlocutors. Zeitschrift für Re­
ligions- und Geistesgeschichte 64: 209–221.

2013. Alison Salvesen: “Tradunt Hebraei.” The Problem of the Function and Reception of Jewish
Midrash in Jerome. In: Michael Fishbane – Joanna Weinberg (eds.): Midrash Unbound. Tranform­
ations and Innovations. Oxford (viii, 472 pp.), pp. 57–82. – The texts considered include Genesis
27:15 as discussed in Jerome’s Hebrew Questions in Genesis, and Hab 3:5, as discussed in
Jerome’s commentary on Habacuc. According to Salvesen, Jerome did have a decent knowledge
of Hebrew.

2014. Geert W. Lorein: The Latin Versions of the Old Testament. In: Alberdina Houtman et al. (eds.): A
Jewish Targum in a Christian World. Leiden (xiii, 311 pp.), pp. 125–145. – The author lists the fol­
lowing passages where the Vulgate is close to the Targum: Num 19:2; Josh 19:33; Judg 4:11; 1
Sam 22:9; Eccl/Koh 1:14; Isa 5:2; Jer 2:21 (p. 128).

2015. Tim Denecker: Language Attitudes and Social Connotations in Jerome and Sidonius Apollinaris.
Vigiliae Christianae 69.4: 393–421. – On Jerome’s attitude towards the Hebrew language.

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Rabbinic Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Numbers. Journal
of Biblical Literature 16: 539–563.

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of
Exodus. Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. – Reviews:
2018. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfänder, Theologische Literaturzeitung 143: 600–602.

2018. Pieter W. van der Horst, Vigiliae Christianae 72: 107–110. ▲

2018. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Vulgata in Dialogue 2: 1–14 (on­
line journal). – Drawing on his recent research on Vulgate Exodus and Numbers, the author
presents some examples of his translation that combine Classical, Jewish, and Christian tradi­
tions in order to illustrate the translation technique of the Vulgate. This translation technique of­
fers ways of thinking about Jewish-Christian dialogue.

185
2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden.
vii, 296 pp. – Pages 124–146: Hebrew in Jerome’s Literary Production.

German
1902. Wilhelm Bacher: Eine angebliche Lücke im hebräischen Wissen des Hieronymus. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 22: 114–116.

1909. Victor Aptowitzer: Rabbinische Parallelen und Aufschlüsse zu Septuaginta und Vulgata. Zeit­
schrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 29: 241–252. – Aptowitzer (1871–1942) was a
learned Talmudist based in Vienna; in 1938, he emigrated to Palestine. Some of Aptowitzer’s ob­
servations were taken up by Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise
des Hieronymus bei der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10
(1929) 3–30. ▲

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 105–110.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Spuren jüdischer und christlicher Einflüsse auf die Übersetzung der großen
Propheten durch Hieronymus. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 8: 35–48.

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–30. – This article’s section
(i), pp. 4–20, deals with the presence of Jewish traditions in Jerome’s translation of Samuel and
Kings; for an example, see textual note on 1 Sam 1:5 (Chapter 21). The article was written in Jer­
usalem and given the date “17 August 1929.” Stummer’s main source for things rabbinical is the
1909 article of Aptowitzer.

1930. Cyrus H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49:
384–416. – Pages 384–387: history of research on Jewish influence on Jerome.

1935. Louis Ginzberg: Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern. VI: Der Kommentar des Hieronymus zu Je­
saja. In: Salo W. Baron – Alexander Marx (eds.): Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut.
New York (xciii, 614, 160 pp.), pp. 279–314.

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zu dem Problem “Hieronymus und die Targumim.” Biblica 18.2: 174–
181.

1939. Samuel Klein: Targumische Elemente in der Deutung biblischer Ortsnamen bei Hieronymus. Mo­
natsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83: 132–141.

1954. Martin Rehm: Die Bedeutung hebräischer Wörter bei Hieronymus. Biblica 35: 174–197.

1973. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Die Wiedergabe des hebräischen Kausativs in der Vulgata. Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85: 196–219.

1977. Hans Peter Rüger: Hieronymus, die Rabbinen und Paulus (2 Kor 4,16). Zeitschrift für die neutesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 68: 132–137. – Rabbinic parallels to Jerome’s comments on Koheleth
9:14–15.

1986. Pierre Nautin: Hieronymus. In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band 15. Berlin (785 pp.), pp. 304–
315. – Page 310: “Hieronymus war kaum in der Lage, eine Bibelübersetzung aus dem Hebräi­
schen anzufertigen oder auch nur eine bereits vorliegende Übersetzung am hebräischen Text zu
verifizieren. Seine iuxta hebraeos-Edition des Alten Testaments wurde ebenfalls an Hand einer
hexaplarischen Septuaginta hergestellt.”

186
1993. Günter Stemberger: Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit. In: D.A. Koch – H. Lichtenberger
(eds.): Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Göttingen
(400 pp.), pp. 347–364. Also in: Günter Stemberger: Judaica minora. Volume 2. Tübingen 2010
(ix, 787 pp.), pp. 66–81.

2002. Josef Lössl: Hieronymus und Epiphanius von Salamis über das Judentum ihrer Zeit. Journal for
the Study of Judaism 33: 411–436. – Page 415, note 16: “Die großen Diskrepanzen in der Beurtei ­
lung der Hebräischkenntnisse Hieronymus’ in der modernen Forschung resultieren weniger aus
einer Verschleierungstaktik auf Seiten Hieronymus, was seine Hebräischkenntnisse angeht, als
aus einer gewissen Unklarheit auf Seiten vieler Forscher, was sie denn unter ‘Hebräischkenntnis ­
sen’ genau verstanden wissen wollen.” Page 416: “Hieronymus und Epiphanius sahen das Juden­
tum weithin aus häresiologischer Perspektive.”

2003. Siegfried Risse: Hebräischkenntnisse des Hieronymus. In: Hieronymus: Commentarius in Ionam
Prophetam – Kommentar zu dem Propheten Jona. Translated by Siegfried Risse. Fontes Christiani
60. Turnhout (250 pp.), pp. 35–37.

2010. Friedrich Avemarie: Hieronymus und die jüdische Genesis. Hebraicae questiones und die Vulgata
im Vergleich. In: Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt (ed.): Moderne Religionsgeschichte im Gespräch. Ber­
lin (545 pp.), pp. 74–93. – Also in: idem: Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum. Ge­
sammelte Aufsätze. Tübingen 2013 (xxxiii, 966 pp.), pp. 825–839.

2014. Günter Stemberger: Hieronymus und die Rabbinen. Zum Koheletkommentar. In: Ludger
Schwienhorst-Schönberger – Elisabeth Birnbaum (eds.): Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe. In­
terdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar des Hieronymus. Leuven (xviii, 331, 7 pp.), pp.
87–104.

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomium­
übersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – Pages 68-82: Jerome and Judaism. Discussed
are, among other things, Jerome and his Jewish teachers, the expressions “Jewish” and “Hebrew”
in Jerome, Judaism and Christianity at the time of Jerome. The word iudaeus has a rather negat­
ive sound, while hebraeus has a positive, occasionally idealizing sense (p. 70).

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 79–83: Jerome’s language skills; pp. 137–144: Jerome and Jewish biblical interpreta­
tion; pp. 421–423: bibliography on Jerome and Jewish biblical Interpretation (arranged chrono­
logically, with contributions from 1854 to 2014). Fürst acknowledges Jerome’s knowledge of
Hebrew as extensive and in-depth, though not perfect (p. 81).

2023. Agnethe Siquans: Hieronymus und die Vulgata in der Wissenschaft des Judentums. In: Anneliese
Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und Rezeption. Stuttgart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 159–
198.

French
1914. Albert Condamin: L’influence de la tradition juive dans la version de saint Jérôme. Revue des
sciences religieuses 5: 1–21. – Condamin denies rabbinical influence on Jerome, an interpretation
rejected by later authors.

1934. Gustave Bardy: Saint Jérôme et ses maîtres hébreux. Revue bénédictine 46: 145–164. – When
Jerome claims to have learned a fact from his Hebrew teachers and informants, he is not always
to be trusted. In certain cases, one can show that his actual source was a Christian writer – Ori­
gen or Eusebius.

187
1975. Eitan Burstein: La compétence de Jérôme en hébreu. Explication des certaines erreurs. Revue des
études augustiniennes 21: 3–12. – Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew was rather limited.

1978. Jan Smeets: Traditions juives dans la Vulgate de Daniel et le commentaire de Jérôme. SIDIC (Ser­
vice international de documentation judéo-chrétienne) 12.2: 16–26.

1977. Pierre Nautin: Origène. Sa vie et son œuvre. Paris. 474 pp. – Nautin’s book includes long passages
on Jerome (esp. pp. 214–219, 326–361). Nautin argues the extreme thesis that Jerome exagger­
ated his knowledge of Hebrew. In fact, he had not acquired any Hebrew language skills, inven ­
ted the encounter with Jewish scholars, and had no familiarity with the Jewish art of interpreta ­
tion. What information he offers about the Hebrew biblical text is all taken from Eusebius and
Origen. See also Nautin’s other work on Jerome: Études de chronologie hiéronymienne (393–
397). Revue des études augustiniennes 19 (1973) 69–86, 213–29; 20 (1974) 251–284; idem:
Hieronymus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Volume 15. Berlin 1986 (785 pp.), pp. 304–315. –
Today, Nautin’s opinion is considered exaggerated, if not misleading. ▲

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Page 158, note 76: “La
connaissance de l’hébreu don’t Jérôme se vante est, en fait, assez limitée.”

1991. Roger Gryson: Saint Jérôme traducteur d’Isaïe: réflexions sur le texte d’Isaïe 14,18–21 dans la Vul­
gate et dans In Esaiam. Le Muséon 104: 57–72. Acording to Gryson, who follows Pierre Nautin,
Jerome’s competence in Hebrew was limited.

2011. Anne-Françoise Loiseau: Jérôme et les traditions exégétiques targumiques, en particulier dans les
XII. Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44: 81–126.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 78–83 survey what is known about Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew and the modern de­
bate about the extent of that knowledge. His passion for this ancient language derives from
Jerome’s conviction that Hebrew is the mother (matrix) of all languages, as he states in his com­
mentary on Zephaniah (CCSL 76A: 708). We may add that Augustine thought of Hebrew as the
language spoken by everyone before the Tower of Babel, including Adam and Eve in paradise
(De civitate Dei XVI, 11,1; PL 41: 490; CSEL 40.2: 146–147. Jerome must have been of the same
opinion that seems to be implied by the biblical story.

Italian – Spanish
1988. Ilona Opelt: San Girolamo e i suoi maestri ebrei. Augustinianum 28: 327–338. – At least five dif­
ferent Hebrew authorities can be found in Jerome’s work. Opelt’s work is considered funda­
mental to the question of Jerome’s Jewish teachers. ▲

1997. Sandro Leanza: Gerolamo e la tradizione ebraica. In: C. Moreschini – G. Menestrina (eds.): Motivi
letterari ed esegetici in Gerolamo. Brescia (300 pp.), 17–38. – In his edition of Eusebius of
Caesarea’s commentary on Isaiah (1706), Bernard de Montfaucon OSB realized that when
Jerome attributes an information to his Jewish masters, he may actually have taken this informa ­
tion from Eusebius. ▲

2003. Raúl González Salinero: Biblia y polémica antijudía en Jerónimo. Madrid. 294 pp.

Swedish
1986. Per Beskow: Hieronymus och judarna. In: Sten Hidal (ed.): Judendom och kristendom under de
första århundradena. II. Oslo (304 pp.), pp. 243–253.

188
Hebrew
1982. J. Schwartz: Jerome and the Jews of Judea. Zion 47: 186–191. – Hebrew, English summary.

10.5 Hebraica veritas

Note. – The reference to “Hebrew truth” expresses Jerome’s conviction that the true biblical text of the
Old Testament books is not that of the Septuagint (or other Greek versions), but the Hebrew text read
in the synagogues of his time, including the synagogues of the city of Rome and that of Bethlehem
with which he maintained a relationship apparently originally kept secret in order to avoid controversy
among Jews. Today, scholars no longer believe in the simple notion of Hebraica veritas, because they
understand that the stability and originality of the Hebrew text tacitly assumed by Jerome did not ex­
ist. Jerome would have been shocked to learn that sometimes the Septuagint provides a better text
than the Hebrew codices on which he relied. Accordingly, “Jerome’s Hebraica veritas loses its simplicity
and charm”; moreover, from a modern perspective, “there are intellectual flaws in the idea of Hebraica
veritas” (William McKane: Selected Christian Hebraists. Cambridge 1989. X, 268 pp., at p. 2). While
McKane is not very clear about the intellectual flaws, one must keep in mind that for Jerome, Hebrew
truth is always Christian truth, for he never abandoned the notion that the Jews do not have the full
(i.e., Christian) understanding of the wording of the Hebrew Bible. In other words: for Jerome, Hebraica
veritas is a philological notion, but not a theological one. According to Jerome, the Jews have the
proper philological understanding of the biblical text, but they ultimately misunderstand its theological
implication.

Sources
390. Jerome: Hebrew Questions on Genesis, preface (CCSL 72: 2): Speaking about Origen, his emulated
model, Jerome reports that this scholar, “overpowered by the Hebrew truth” (Hebraica veritate
superatus), enlisted the Hebrew language as his ally. Chronologically, this is Jerome’s first pub­
lished reference to Hebrew truth.

391/92. Jerome: Prologue to Samuel and Kings (prologus galeatus; Sources chrétiennes 592: 334): “And
when you understand anything of which you what you were ignorant before, either (if you are
grateful) consider me a translator, or (if ungrateful) a paraphraser, although I am not at all con­
scious of having deviated from the Hebrew original (quippiam de hebraica veritate). Certainly, if
you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin books and compare (them) with these little works,
and wherever you will find differences among these, ask any one of the Hebrews (…).” – German
(Tusculum-Vulgata II, p. 257): “Wenn Du verstanden hast, was Du zuvor nicht wusstest, dann
halte mich entweder für einen Übersetzer; wenn Du dankbar bist – oder für einen Paraphrasten,
wenn Du undankbar bist, obwohl ich mir ganz und gar nicht bewusst bin, irgendetwas von der
hebräischen Wahrheit (quippiam de hebraica veritate) verändert zu haben. Wenn du allerdings
misstrauisch bist, dann lies die griechischen Handschriften und die lateinischen, und vergleiche
sie mit diesen kleinen Werken, und wo auch immer du siehst, dass sie voneinander abweichen,
frag irgendeinen der Hebräer (…).”

403. Jerome: Letter to Sunnia and Fretela: “Whenever in the Old Testament there is a difference
between what the Greeks (read) and what the Latins (read), we take our refuge with the Hebrew
truth” (Letter 106, 2; CSEL 55: 249: In Veteri Testamento, si quando inter Graecos Latinosque diver­
sitas est, ad Hebraicam confugimus veritatem.) The passage can also be found, in Latin and Eng­
lish, in Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. 2022 (xix,
363 pp.), pp. 80–81. – On Jerome’s letter 106, see below, Chapter 11.4.

189
Secondary literature

English
1992. Sarah Kamin: The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s Thought. In: Mi­
chael Fishbane (ed.): Sha’arei Talmon. Winona Lake (xlix, xi, 431, 165 pp.), Ind., pp. 243–253.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – See pp. 62–65 on Jerome’s veritas hebraica controversy, i.e., the controversy about the
authority of the Septuagint, with his contemporaries.

1996. Eva-Schulz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Pages
657–662: The problem of Hebraica veritas in Jerome and Augustine.

2006. Giuseppe Veltri: Christian Theology: From the Veritas Graeca to the Veritas Hebraica. In: idem:
Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts. Leiden (xi, 278 pp.), pp. 42–77.

2008. Paul B. Decock: Jerome’s Turn to the Hebraica veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of
the Septuagint. Neotestamentica 42: 205–222. – Pages 215–220: Jerome defends his preference
of the Hebrew text by arguing that Jesus and the apostles quote from it (rather than from the
Septuagint). For Jerome, the Septuagint is a translation, not a revelation. “It is instructive to no ­
tice how in his commentaries he usually gives first his translation from the Hebrew text and then
his translation from the Septuagint in its Hexapla form. However, when quoting from memory
he may reproduce the Vetus Latina, the text which was commonly used by Latin-speaking Chris ­
tians” (p. 219).

2009. John Cameron: The Rabbinic Vulgate? In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His
Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 117–129. – Page 117: “Dominique
Barthélemy argued that Jerome sought by means of his biblical translations to replace the Old
Testament of the Church with the Bible of the rabbis. Rufinus and Augustine would likely have
been happy to concur. Undaunted by such formidable opposition, I intend to disprove the argu ­
ment.” On the basis of his study of Jerome’s translation of the Psalms iuxta Hebraeos, Cameron
concludes that, while Jerome was willing to utilize whatever philological assistance from the
Jews and Jewish written sources he could muster, he was very reticent to reflect Jewish exegetic­
al expertise in his translations.

2009. Andrew Cain: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian
Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford. xiv, 286 pp. – Pages 64–65: “Modern scholars of the Bible
take for granted a reading knowledge of Hebrew as being essential to their discipline. In the late
fourth century, however, the climate could not have been more different. The leading Latin bib­
lical scholars looked askance at ‘Hebrew verity’ as a working hermeneutical concept. By advocat ­
ing the supremacy of the Hebrew text Jerome was challenging the assumption, widely held
among Greek and Latin contemporaries, that the Septuagint was divinely inspired.” Can em ­
phasizes the opposition to his approach he was confronted with early on, e.g., by Ambrosiaster,
then the leading biblical expert in the city of Rome (p. 66).

2010. Monika Ozóg: Saint Jerome and veritas hebraica on the basis of the correspondence with Saint
Augustine. Vox Patrum 30: 511–519.

2012. Edmon L. Gallagher: The Textual Theory of Jerome and His Opponents. In: idem: Hebrew Scrip­
ture in Patristic Biblical Theory. Leiden (ix, 266 pp.), pp. 197–208.

190
2017. Kevin J. Zilverberg: The Neo-Vulgate as Official Liturgical Translation. In: Joseph Briody (ed.):
Verbum Domini. Liturgy and Scripture. Wells, Somerset (270 pp.), pp. 93–125. – Page 96: “Given
the chaos of so many divergent Greek and Latin manuscripts and the much greater conformity
of the Hebrew manuscripts then available, Jerome can be forgiven for his lack of appreciation of
textual plurality. (…) Jerome, like Origen, underappreciated the textual value of the LXX.”

2019. Teppei Kato: Hebrews, Apostles, and Christ: Three Authorities of Jerome’s Hebraica Veritas. Vi­
giliae Christianae 73: 420–439. – In the preface to the Chronicles translation, Jerome invokes
three authorities: (1) the “Hebrews” (Jews) philologically endorse his translation, – (2) the
apostles support it both philologically and theologically (Old Testament quotations being in
agreement with the Hebrew text, rather than with the Septuagint); – (3) Christ, of course, func­
tions as the highest authority.

2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden.
vii, 296 pp. – Pages 132–136: The Stability of the Hebraica Veritas.

2020. Martin Meiser: Jerome as a Textual Critic. In: idem: The Septuagint and Its Reception. Collected Es­
says. Tübingen (ix, 603 pp.), pp. 362–378.

German
1993. Gianfranco Miletto: Die “hebraica veritas” in S. Hieronymus. In: Helmut Merklein et al. (eds.): Die
Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition. Frankfurt (569 pp.), pp. 56–65. – Jerome has used
Hebrew manuscripts the text of which at times departs from that of the textus receptus. These
manuscripts have left traces in the Vulgate.

1994. Christoph Markschies: Hieronymus und die “Hebraica veritas.” In: Martin Hengel – Anna Maria
Schwemer (eds.): Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Tübingen (xii, 325 pp.),
pp. 131–181.

2008. James Alfred Loader: Die Problematik des Begriffes Hebraica veritas. Hervormde teologiese stu­
dies (Pretoria) 64: 227–251.

2014. Günter Stemberger: Hieronymus und die Rabbinen. Zum Koheletkommentar. In: Elisabeth Birn­
baum – Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds.): Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe. Leuven
(xviii, 331 pp.), pp. 87–104. – Jerome knows many Jewish traditions, though it is difficult to say
how he came to know them.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 107–111: Die “Wahrheit des Hebräischen”; with chronologically arranged bibliogra­
phy (1992–2016) on pp. 416–417. Page 109: “Mit diesem Interesse am hebräischen Text des Al­
ten Testaments war Hieronymus originell und innovativ. Es war zwar nicht gänzlich neu, doch
sehr anders gelagert als bei seinen Vorgängern. So interessierte sich Origenes für den hebräi­
schen Text und die jüngeren griechischen Bibelversionen ausschließlich zu dem Zweck, den Sep­
tuaginta-Text besser zu verstehen.”

2022. Siegfried Kreuzer: Hebraica veritas und Graecitas originalis. Hieronymus und die neuere Septua­
gintaforschung. In: idem et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 3–33.

2023. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica Veritas. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 22–23.

2023. Teppei Kato: Hebraica Veritas und die Zitate aus dem Alten Testament im Neuen Testament. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 24–25.

191
French
1984. Colette Estin: Les Psautiers de Jérôme à la lumière des traductions juives antérieures. Rome. 238
pp. – Hebrew truth, for Jerome, does not merely imply the reference to the Hebrew text; it also
means reference to the Jewish translators Theodotion and, especially, Aquila and Symmachus.
Review: Bernard Couroyer OP, Revue biblique 93.1 (1986) 149–152. ▲

Italian
1997. Emanuela Prinzivalli: “Sicubi dubitas, Hebraeos interroga.” Girolamo tra difesa dell’ “Hebraica ve­
ritas” e polemica antigiudaica. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 14: 179–206. – Jerome thought of the
correct, Hebrew-based translation of the Scriptures as a common ground for Jewish-Christian
disputes (p. 192). ▲

10.6 Jerome and Greek Bible translations

Note. – Before translating from the Hebrew, Jerome relied on the Septuagint, esp. when translating (in
388) what came to be called the Gallican (or Vulgate) Psalter. In his Hebrew Questions on Genesis (PL
23: 935–1062; see below, Chapter 20.2 Genesis), Jerome cites the textual versions of the Hebrew, Sep­
tuagint, Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. Jerome’s attitude towards the Septuagint and the other
Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (by Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion) was ambivalent. On
the one hand, he used them frequently, on the other, he was well aware of the flaws they had. Accord ­
ing to some scholars, Jerome relied more on the Greek translations than he would ever have admitted.

For surveys of the post-Septuagint translations, see:

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 20–21.

1968. Sidney Jellicoe: The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford 1968 (xix, 423 pp.), pp. 76–99. – A clas­
sical scholarly statement. ▲

2000. Armin Schmitt: Der Gegenwart verpflichtet. Studien zur biblischen Literatur des Frühjudentums.
Berlin (viii, 328 pp.), p. 51: “Aquila zeigt eine beinahe übertriebene Treue und Bindung zum he­
bräischen Original; im Gegensatz dazu ist Symmachus bestrebt, als eleganter Stilist griechischer
Idiomatik gerecht zu werden. Zwischen beiden steht Theodotion als Rezensent und Übersetzer,
der sich eng an das hebräische Original unter gleichzeitiger Schonung und Bewahrung der Sep­
tuaginta anschließt.”

2005. Michael Tilly: Einführung in die Septuaginta. Darmstadt (135 pp.), pp. 87–91.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg 2016
(444 pp.), pp. 95–105 (plus bibliography on pp. 414–415).

One post-Septuagint Greek book is easily available: Theodotion’s version of the book of Daniel, be­
cause in this case, Theodotion’s text (rather than the Septuagint version) has become part of the
standard Greek Bible. Accordingly, Greek Bibles used in Greek Orthodoxy print only the text of
Theodotion, whereas modern scholarly editions such as that of Rahlfs/Hanhart print both versions. In
the Rahlfs/Hanhart Septuaginta (revised edition, edited by Robert Hanhart, Stuttgart 2006. lxxii, 1184,
941 pp.), the Septuagint text of Daniel is placed on the upper half of the page, while the Theodotion

192
text occupies the lower half (second part, pp. 870–936). Vernacular translations of the Greek Bible also
include the two versions:

2007. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations. Edited by Albert
Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford (xx, 1027 pp.), pp. 994–1022.

2009. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Herausgegeben
von Wolfgang Kraus und Martin Karrer. Stuttgart (xxviii, 1507 pp., maps), pp. 1424–1462.

Sources

Jerome and the Septuagint (and Origen’s Hexapla)

Jerome and Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion

Sources
384. Jerome: Letter 28,2 to Marcella. Aquila qui verborum Hebraeorum diligentissimus explicator est (La­
bourt II, p. 19) – Aquila who most carefully explains the words of the Jews.

384. Jerome: Letter 32,1 to Marcella. Iam pridem cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editionem Aquilae con­
fero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi synagoga mutaverit (Labourt II, pp. 37–38) – for some
time past I have been comparing Aquila’s version of the Old Testament with the scrolls of the
Hebrew, to see if from hatred to Christ the synagogue has changed the text. – This letter shows
that Jerome very early in his career, in Rome, studied Aquila’s Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.

388/89. Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes, preface. “Translating directly from the Hebrew, I have,
however, attached myself above all to the version of the Septuagint translators, but only insofar
as they do not deviate too much from the Hebrew text. I have also sometimes mentioned the
translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. I had indeed to avoid discouraging the zeal
of my reader by too much novelty” (PL 23 [1845]:1011–1012 = PL 23 [1883]: 1062).

c. 390. Jerome: Commentarioli in Psalmos. On Psalm 9: Septuaginta interpretes Christi passionem et re­
surrectionem (…) celare voluerunt, ne a gentibus illo tempore facile nosceretur (CCSL 72: 191) –
the Seventy Translators wanted to hide the suffering and resurrection of Christ (…) lest it be eas­
ily known by the Gentiles at that time.

c. 391. Jerome: Preface to the Psalter iuxta hebraeos (Sources chrétiennes 592: 416). studiosissime pos­
tulasti ut post Aquilam, Symmachum et Theodotium novam editionem Latino sermone transferr­
em – you have earnestly requested that, in the steps of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion,
I should produce a new edition in the Latin language.

393. Jerome: Prologue to Job (iuxta hebraeos) (PL 28: 1082; Sources chrétiennes 592: 402). The Jew
Aquila and the judaising heretics Symmachus and Theodotion qui multa mysteria Salvatoris sub­
dola interpretatione celarunt – who, by deceitful translation, have obscured many mysteries of
the Saviour.

396. Jerome: Letter to Pammachius = Letter 57,11 (CSEL 54: 523). Aquila autem, proselytus et contentio­
sus interpres, qui non solum verba, sed etymologias verborum transferre conatus est, iure proicitur

193
 a nobis – On the other hand we do right to reject Aquila, the proselyte and controversial trans ­
lator, who has striven to translate not words only but their etymologies as well.

398/400. Jerome: Prologus in Pentateucho 2 (Sources chrétiennes 592: 308). “I don’t know which author
was the first to come up with the lie of putting 70 little houses in Alexandria, distributing the
translators there and having them all write the same thing. Aristaeus, however, a bodyguard of
Ptolemy, and much later Josephus have reported nothing of the sort. They write rather the Sev ­
enty would have gathered in one and the same hall and would have conferred, not prophesied.
It is one thing to be a seer, another to be a translator. In prophesying, the spirit foretells the fu ­
ture; but translating is a matter of learned knowledge and of having a rich vocabulary along with
an understanding of what is to be translated.” – German (after A. Fürst): “Ich weiß nicht, welcher
Autor sich als erster die Lüge hat einfallen lassen, in Alexandria 70 Häuschen hinzustellen, die
Übersetzer darauf zu verteilen und alle dasselbe schreiben zu lassen. Aristaeus hingegen, ein
Leibwächter des Ptolemaeus, und viel später Josephus haben nichts derartiges berichtet. Sie
schreiben vielmehr die Siebzig hätten sich in ein und derselben Halle versammelt und konferiert,
nicht prophezeit. Eine Sache ist es nämlich, Seher, eine andere, Übersetzer zu sein. Beim Prophe ­
zeien sagt der Geist künftiges voraus, beim Übersetzen kommt es auf gelehrtes Wissen und ei ­
nen reichen Wortschatz an, ferner auf das Verständnis dessen, was übersetzt werden soll.”

404/410. Jerome: Letter 106,2 (CSEL 55: 249). Jerome characterises two textual types of the Greek Bible,
calling the one the koinê or communis, the other the septuaginta. While the two represent the
same text, they are nevertheless different. The koinê type has been corrupted during the process
of transmission and is therefore unreliable. The Septuagint, by contrast, is the pure text included
in Origen’s hexapla, and this text can be found (only) in the manuscripts of scholars (in eruditor­
um libris).

Jerome and the Septuagint (and Origen’s Hexapla)

English
1998. Jennifer M. Dines: Jerome and the Hexapla: The Witness of the Commentary on Amos. In: Alison
Salvesen (ed.): Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Tübingen (xvi, 500 pp.), pp. 421–436.

2009. Annemarie Kotzé: Augustine, Jerome and the Septuagint. In: Johann Cook (ed.): Septuagint and
Reception. Essays. Leiden (x, 411 pp.), pp. 245–260.

2009. Reinhart Ceulemans: The Latin Patristic Reception of the Book of Canticles in the Hexapla. Vigili­
ae Christianae 63: 369–389. – Jerome adds to our knowledge of the Hexaplaric recension of the
Septuagint because he revised the Old Latin text on the basis of that recension.

2017. Kevin J. Zilverberg: The Neo-Vulgate as Official Liturgical Translation. In: Joseph Briody (ed.):
Verbum Domini. Liturgy and Scripture. Wells, Somerset (270 pp.), pp. 93–125. – Page 96: “Jerome,
like Origen, underappreciated the textual value of the LXX.”

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of
the Book of Exodus: Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. – See pp. 105–
134: The Critical Use of the Septuagint and Versions. ▲

2022. Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363 pp.), pp.
66–68: The Hexapla.

194
German
1861. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Durch eine Verglei ­
chung mit den jüdischen Quellen kritisch beleuchtet. Breslau (74 pp.), p. 70: “Hieronymus’
Versabteilung stimmt meist mit der massoritischen [überein]. Dagegen streitet er oft in den
Commentarien gegen die falsche Versabteilung der LXX.”

1914. Otto Procksch: Die Septuaginta Hieronymi im Dodekapropheton. Greifswald. 54 pp. – The Sep­
tuagint, used and regularly quoted by Jerome (in his own Latin translation), reflects a Vetus Lat­
ina text that he had corrected on the basis of Origen’s Hexapla.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 97–105. –
“Die Zahl der Stellen, an welchen Hieronymus der Septuaginta folgt, ist Legion” (p. 101).

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–30. – This article’s section
(ii), pp. 21–25, deals with the influence of the Septuagint on the work of Jerome.

1952. Joseph Ziegler: Die Septuaginta Hieronymi im Buch des Propheten Jeremias. In: Virgil Fiala – Bo ­
nifatius Fischer (eds.): Colligere Fragmenta. Eine Festschrift für Alban Dold. Beuron (xx, 295 pp.),
pp. 13–24.

1986. Pierre Nautin: Hieronymus. In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band 15. Berlin (785 pp.), pp. 304–
315. – Page 310: “Hieronymus war kaum in der Lage, eine Bibelübersetzung aus dem Hebräi­
schen anzufertigen oder auch nur eine bereits vorliegende Übersetzung am hebräischen Text zu
verifizieren. Seine iuxta hebraeos-Edition des Alten Testaments wurde ebenfalls an Hand einer
hexaplarischen Septuaginta hergestellt.”

2000. Eva Schulz-Flügel: Hieronymus, Feind und Überwinder der Septuaginta? Untersuchungen anhand
der Arbeiten an den Psalmen. In: Anneli Ajmelaeus – Udo Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter
und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse III.230. Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 33–50.

2014. Mogens Müller: Die Septuaginta als Bibeltext in der ältesten Kirche: Graeca veritas contra Hebrai­
ca veritas. In: Wolfgang Kraus – Siegfried Kreuzer (eds.): Die Septuaginta. Text, Wirkung, Rezepti­
on. Tübingen (xiv, 928 pp.), pp. 613–636.

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomium­
übersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – On the Septuagint, see pp. 215–239, 253–254.

2022. Siegfried Kreuzer: Hebraica veritas und Graecitas originalis. Hieronymus und die neuere Septuag­
intaforschung. In: idem et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 3–33.

2022. Eva Schulz-Flügel: Hieronymus. In: Martin Meiser – Florian Wilk (eds.): Die Wirkungs- und Rezep­
tionsgeschichte der Septuaginta. Gütersloh (689 pp.), pp. 619–627.

2023. Aline Canellis: Hieronymus, Origenes und die Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 167–169.

French
1987. Pierre Jay: L’exégèse de saint Jérôme d’après son “Commentaire sur Isaïe.” Paris (496 pp.), pp. 411–
417: Saint Jérôme et les Hexaples.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris (530
pp.), pp. 90–91: a long footnote on Jerome’s references to Origen’s Hexapla.

195
Italian
1987. Sandro Leanza: Le tre versioni geronimiani dell’Ecclesiaste. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 4: 87–108.
– The version of the lemmata in the commentary on Ecclesiastes, though a true version of the
Hebrew and sometimes more literal than that of the Vulgate, is still tied in part to the Sep­
tuagint.

2007. Valeria Capelli: Segni diacritici ed eredità filologica origeniana in Gerolamo. Adamantius 13: 82–
101.

2019. Daniela Scardia: Ex hebraeo transferre (Hier. In Mal. 3,1). Gerolamo, la Settana e I Vangeli. Com­
mentaria Classica 6: 193–241. – According to Jerome, the authors of the Gospels relied directly
on the Hebrew text, and not on the Septuagint.

Jerome and Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion

English
1827. John Jahn: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated from the Latin and German Works of
John Jahn. With additional references and notes by Samuel H. Turner and William R. Whitting­
ham. New York (xxiv, 546 pp. and indexes), p. 61: “Symmachus, according to the testimony of
Eusebius and Jerome, was a semichristian or Ebionite (…). His version, as Jerome frequently as­
serts, was published after that of Theodotion (…). Symmachus was better acquainted with the
rules of translation than his fellow interpreters, and has observed them more accurately; for he
has not, says Jerome, translated word for word, like Aquila, but according to the sense. He be ­
stowed upon his work the care of a revision, as we learn from Jerome, Commentary in Nahum 3,
and in Jeremiah 32.” – This book is based on the work of Martin Johann Jahn (1750–1816),
priest, scholar, specialist of oriental languages, and exponent of the Catholic Enlightenment.

1927. W.W. Cannon: Jerome and Symmachus: Some Points in the Vulgate Translation of Koheleth.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 45: 191–199.

1930. Cyrus H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49:
384–416, at pp. 397–404.

1991. Alison Salvesen: Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Manchester. xviii, 329 pp. See pp. 265–281: Sym­
machus’ influence on Jerome. Jerome often preferred the Symmachus rendering.

1996. Eva Schultz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Page
655: “(…) many corrections ‘from the Hebrew’ result from the readings of Aquila, Symmachus
and Theodotion.”

1999. Adam Kamesar: The Bible Comes to the West. In: James E. Bowley (ed.): Living Traditions of the
Bible. St. Louis, Miss. (206 pp.), pp. 35–61. – Pages 49–50: “A careful study of Jerome’s Latin
translation reveals that in most cases, it is very close to the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, or
Theodotion. Jerome knew these texts directly and from Origen’s Hexapla, and they served as his
primary guide to the meaning of [the] Hebrew text. The result is that the Vulgate, while it still
maintains features of the Septuagint/Old Latin translation, may be regarded in general as a sort
of representative of what I have called the ‘non-Septuagintal’ tradition of Greek translation.”

2009. John Cameron: The Rabbinic Vulgate? In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His
Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 117–129, esp. pp. 122–124 on Jerome’s re­
liance on Jewish Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible.

196
2017. Justin Rogers: Vulgate [text of the Psalms]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible.
Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 104–110. – On pp. 105–106, Rogers deals with “the use of
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion” Jerome made when translating the Psalms from the
Hebrew. Despite its title, this handbook article deals not with the Gallican Psalter, but exclusively
with the Psalter translated from the Hebrew.

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of
the Book of Exodus: Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. – See the many
references to Symmachus in the book’s index (p. 261).

2020. Simone Rickerby: The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve. In: Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer – Jakob
Wöhrle (eds.): The Book of the Twelve. Leiden (xix, 623 pp.), pp. 325–351. – In the translation of
the Twelve Prophets, Rickerby sees a strong influence of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
“Whether the influence of Symmachus on Jerome is direct or secondary (i.e., based on other
sources such as Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius) is a real question” (p. 329, n. 19).

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue:
99–119. – Pages 101–102: “The Vulgate can follow what Jerome lists as the Hebrew (Gen. 2:2 LXX
dies sexta, Vg dies septima), or Symmachus as a representative of the Hebrew (Gen. 2:23 LXX
mulier, Vg/Sym virago), or Aquila and Symmachus as representatives of the Hebrew (Gen. 2:21
LXX extasis, Vg sopor), or Aquila and Theodotion as representative of the Hebrew (Gen. 3:1 LXX
sapientior, Vg/Aq/Th callidior), or other Latin manuscripts in combination with Aquila, Sym­
machus, and primarily Theodotion (LXX ad vesperam, other Latin codices post meridiem, Vg ad
auram post merediem), or Symmachus and Aquila (Gen. 2:8 LXX oriens, Vg principium), or the
Septuagint against Symmachus (Gen. 2:15 LXX/Vg paradisum voluptatis, Sym paradisum amoe­
nitatis et deliciae).”

German
1912. Otto Bardenhewer: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Dritter Band. Munich (x, 665), p. 623.
Commenting on Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, Bardenhewer notes: “Zur Grundlage nimmt er
(i.e., Jerome) seine Übersetzung aus dem Hebräischen bzw. Aramäischen, bei den deuterokano­
nischen Stücken (…) seine Übersetzung Theodotions.”

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 97–105. –
“Nicht ungern hat Hieronymus dem Aquila Gefolgschaft geleistet” (p. 102). “Nicht immer ist es
so leicht festzustellen, welchem der drei genannten Übersetzer Hieronymus gefolgt ist” (p. 104).

1943. Joseph Ziegler: Die jüngeren griechischen Übersetzungen als Vorlagen der Vulgata in den pro­
phetischen Schriften. In: idem: Sylloge. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. Göttingen 1971
(678 pp.), pp. 139–229.

1948. M. Johannessohn: Hieronymus und die jüngeren griechischen Übersetzungen des Alten Testa ­
ments. Theologische Literaturzeitung 73: 145–152.

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomium­
übersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – See pp. 100–157: Jerome and Hexapla, influ­
ences of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. “An einer Vielzahl von Stellen lehnt Hieronymus
die Übersetzung des Theodotion ab. Dabei wendet er sich entweder der Septuaginta (Dtn
32,31), Symmachus (7,11), oder anderen jüdischen Traditionen zu (…). Eine Stelle, an der Hiero­
nymus sich gegen Theodotion und für Aquila entscheidet, ist (…) nicht zu belegen” (p. 139).

197
French
1912. Emmanuel Podechard: L’Ecclésiaste. Études bibliques. Paris (xvii, 499 pp.), pp. 211–212: Jerome
translated the book in 393 or 394, “uniquement d’après l’hébreu, mais rapidement et d’une fa­
çon assez libre. Saint Jérôme s’y inspire fréquemment de Symmaque et n’est pas très littéral.
Son original hébreu s’éloigne d’ailleurs quelquefois du texte massorétique.”

1984. Colette Estin: Les Psautiers de Jérôme à la lumière des traductions juives antérieures. Rome. 238
pp. – Hebrew truth, for Jerome, does not merely imply the reference to the Hebrew text; it also
means reference to the Jewish translators of the Bible into Greek – Theodotion and, especially,
Aquila and Symmachus. ▲

2016. Aline Canellis: Le Commentaire sur l’Ecclésiaste de saint Jérôme. In: Laurence Mellerin (ed.): La ré­
ception du livre de Qohélet, Ier-XIIIe siècle. Paris 2016 (310 pp.), pp. 205–228, at p. 212: “Si Jé­
rôme a, en général, une préférence marquée pour la traduction de Symmaque, il n’en évoque
pas moins celle d’Aquila et, à un moindre degré, celle de Théodotion.”

Spanish
1983. José González Luis: La traducción Vulgata y Símaco. Tabona 4: 267–280.

10.7 Theory and practice of translation

Note. – Jerome’s translations are generally fairly literal, though occasionally he would depart from ex­
aggerated literalism. But he did not believe in the free rending of sacred texts. It is worthwhile to com ­
pare. Evagrius of Antioch, one of Jerome’s contemporaries (and personally known to him), preferred a
less literalistic approach, as he explains in the preface to his Latin translation of the Greek Life of Ant­
ony (which is not a sacred text): “A literal translation made from one language to another conceals the
meaning, like rampant grasses which suffocate the crops. As long as the text keeps to the cases and
turns of phrase, it is forced to move in an indirect way by means of lengthy circumlocutions, and it
finds it hard to give a clear account of something which could be succinctly expressed. I have tried to
avoid this (…) and have translated in such a way that nothing should be lacking from the sense al­
though something may be missing from the words. Some people try to capture the syllables and let­
ters, but you must seek the meaning” (PL 73: 125–126; CCSL 170: 3; Carolinne White: Early Christian
Lives. London 1998 [lvii, 220], p. 799). Interestingly, Jerome quotes from this passage in his Letter to
Pammachius (Letter 57, 6; PL 22: 572; CSEL 54: 511; Labourt III, pp. 61–62).

Also note that Jerome occasionally refers to his own translation and to the Septuagint as editio, a word
that takes on the meaning of “translation”, see his reference to nostra editio = our (i.e., my) translation
(Jerome: Commentary on Jeremiah, CSEL 59: 398). editio = translation can also be found in Augustine
(used for the Septuagint: De civitate Dei XVI, 10; CSEL 40.2: 145 – secundum vulgatam editionem, hoc
est interpretum septuaginta). See Siegfried Reiter: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Hieronymus. Berliner
philologische Wochenschrift 39, no. 29: 690–695, at cols. 695–696.

Jerome texts on translating

Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (letter 57)

Messianic translations

Secondary literature on Jerome as a translator

198
Jerome texts on translating
Note. – The complete set of Jeromian reflections on translating are dealt with in the following book:
Lukas M. Baumann: Wort und Sinn. Übersetzungsreflexionen bei Cicero und Hieronymus. Freiburg 2018.
314 pp.

388. Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes, preface (CCSL 72: 249). – (…) hoc breviter admonens, quod
nullius auctoritatem secutus sum; sed de hebraeo transferens, magis me septuaginta interpretum
consuetudini coaptavi, in his dumtaxat, quae non multam ab Hebraicis discrepabant. Interdum
Aquilae quoque et Symmachi et Theodotionis recordatus sum, ut nec novitate nimia lectoris stu­
dium deterrerem, nec rursum contra conscientiam meam, fonte veritatis omisso, opinionum rivu­
los consectarer. “Let me briefly note that I have not followed any one authority. Translating from
the Hebrew, I have adopted, as I am used to, the wording of the Septuagint wherever it does not
differ much from the Hebrew. Occasionally I am noting [the Greek versions of] Aquila, Sym­
machus and Theodotion to the extent that I neither deter the reader through too much novelty,
nor follow the channels of opinion against my conscience by way of departing from the source
of truth.” – German: “Ich will kurz erklären, dass ich keiner Vorlage gefolgt bin, sondern mich bei
meiner Übertragung aus dem Hebräischen mehr an die gewohnte Fassung der Septuagin­
ta-Übersetzer gehalten habe, zumindest dort, wo sie nicht allzu sehr vom Hebräischen abweicht.
Manchmal bedachte ich auch Aquila, Symmachus und Theodotion. So wollte ich weder den Eifer
des Lesers durch allzu viel Neuheit verschrecken noch andererseits gegen mein Gewissen die
Quelle der Wahrheit verlassen.”

390. Jerome: Prologus in libro Regum (prologus galeatus). – Lege ergo primum Samuhel et Malachim
meum; meum, inquam, meum: quicquid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando sollicitus et didici­
mus et tenemus, nostrum est. Et cum intellexeris quod antea nesciebas, vel interpretem me aesti­
mato, si gratus es, vel paraphrastên, si ingratus, quamquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mu­
tasse me quippiam de Hebraica veritate (Sources chrétiennes 592: 334). – “So read my Samuel
and King books first! Mine, I say, mine! For what we have acquired by repeated translation and
very careful improvement, and what we possess, that is ours. And if you learn anything that you
did not know before, you shall take me either for a translator, if you are friendly to me; or less
friendly, for a paraphraser, though I am not at all aware that I have changed anything in the
truth of the Hebrew.” – “Lies also als erstes meine Samuel- und Königbücher! Meine, sage ich,
meine! Denn was wir uns durch wiederholtes Übersetzen und sehr sorgsames Verbessern ange­
eignet haben und was wir besitzen, das gehört uns. Und wenn du etwas lernst, was du zuvor
nicht gewusst hast, sollst du mich entweder für einen Übersetzer halten, wenn du mir freundlich
gesonnen bist; oder weniger freundlich, für einen Paraphrasierer, obwohl ich mir überhaupt
nicht bewusst bin, dass ich irgendetwas an der Wahrheit des Hebräischen geändert hätte”
(translated by A. Fürst).

392. Jerome: Origen’s Homilies on Luke, preface (Fontes Christiani 4.1: 56). – In the preface to his Latin
translation of Origen’s Greek homilies on Luke, Jerome offers this comment: “Translating is a
distressing task, like a torture – as Tullius [Cicero] says, it is writing with someone else’s taste,
and not one’s own.” German: Übersetzen “ist allerdings keine angenehme Aufgabe, eher eine
Art Marter; denn es gilt, nicht nach seinem eigenen, sondern, wie Cicero sagt, nach fremdem
Geschmack zu schreiben” (Fontes Christiani 4.1: 56/57).

199
394. Jerome: Prologue to Job (Sources chrétiennes 592: 396, 398). – Haec autem translatio nullum de
veteribus sequitur interpretem sed ex ipso hebraico arabicoque sermone et interdum syro, nunc
verba, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque resonavit. (…) hoc unum scio non potuisse me interpre­
tari nisi quod ante intellexeram. – “Moreover, this translation follows no translator of old but
comes from the Hebrew and Arabic speech and sometimes from the Syriac: here it reflects the
word, here the sense and now both together. (…) of this one thing I am sure, that I could trans­
late only that which I previously understood.” German: “Diese Übersetzung folgt keinem von
den alten Übersetzern, sondern wird aus der hebräischen und der arabischen und bisweilen der
syrischen Sprache bald die Worte, bald den Sinn, bald beides zugleich anklingen lassen. (…) Ei­
nes aber weiß ich sicher: Übersetzen konnte ich nur das, was ich vorher verstanden hatte .” (Tus­
culum-Vulgata II, pp. 1333, 1335)

396. Jerome: Letter 57 “de optimo genere interpretandi” to Pammachius (On the Best Way of Transla­
tion; PL 22: 568–579; CSEL 54: 503–526; Labourt III, pp. 55–73). – In this first statement of transla ­
tion theory written in antiquity, Jerome famously distinguishes between literal and free translat ­
ing. Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum, absque
scripturis sacris, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere
de sensu, habeoque huius rei magistrum Tullium (57,5; CSEL 54: 508). – “I do not only declare, but
loudly proclaim that in translating from the Greek – except for the Sacred Scriptures where even
the order of the words is a mystery – I do not translate word for word, but [the words] according
to their meaning. My master for so doing is Cicero.” – “Denn ich gestehe es nicht nur ein, son­
dern bekenne es offen, dass ich bei der Übersetzung der Griechen – abgesehen von den Heili­
gen Schriften, wo auch die Wort(an)ordnung ein Mysterium ist – nicht wortwörtlich, sondern sin ­
ngemäß ubersetze. Und als Lehrer dafur habe ich Cicero.” – Jerome’s option for free translation
is also evident from his praise of the work of another translator (Letter 57,6; CSEL 54: 512): “It is
enough to name, for now, Hilary the Confessor, who translated the Homilies on Job and very
many treatises on the Psalms from Greek into Latin. Nor did he stick sluggishly to a literal trans ­
lation [literally, ‘to the sleeping letter’], and he wrenched himself away from the foul method of
translation of rustics: rather, just as if by the right of victor, he translated the sense (sensus), hav­
ing captured it, into his own language.” – The setting is as follows: Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis
(Cyprus) had written a letter of gentle rebuke to Bishop John of Jerusalem. A monk who did not
read Greek had asked Jerome to translate it for him. Jerome complied. Against his wish, his
translation was made public, and fell under hostile criticism (from Rufinus, as it transpired).
Jerome was reproached for having failed to translate word for word (me verbum non expressisse
de verbo).

398/400. Jerome: Prologus in Pentateucho 3 (Sources chrétiennes 592: 308): “One thing is to be a seer
(vates), another is to be a translator (interpres). In prophesying, the spirit foretells the future; but
translating depends on learned knowledge and on having a rich vocabulary along with an un­
derstanding of what is to be translated.” – German: “Eines ist es, Seher, ein anderes, Übersetzer
zu sein. Beim Prophezeien sagt der Geist künftiges voraus, beim Übersetzen kommt es auf
gelehrtes Wissen und einen reichen Wortschatz an, ferner auf das Verständnis dessen, was über­
setzt werden soll.”

391/92. Jerome: Letter to Sunnia and Fretela (Letter 106, 55; CSEL 55: 275): eadem igitur interpretandi
sequenda est regula, quam saepe diximus, ut, ubi non fit damnum in sensu, linguae, in quam
transferimus, euphônía et proprietas conservetur. – We should always follow the rule which I have
repeated so often: that where there is no damage in the sense, we should translate idiomatically
and use euphonious language. – The passage can also be found in Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the
Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363 pp.), pp. 122–123.

200
Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (letter 57)

Text and translations

Monolingual editions: Latin

1859. Hieronymus: Epistola 57. PL 22: 568–579.

1910. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. Pars I. Edited by Isidor Hilberg. Vienna (vii, 708 pp.), pp. 503–
526 = CSEL 54: 503–526. – 2nd edition, 1996.

1974. Heinrich Marti: Übersetzer der Augustin-Zeit. Interpretation von Selbstzeugnissen. Munich. 348 pp.
– Pages 186–194: Latin excerpt from Letter 57 of Jerome to Pammachius, with explanatory notes.

1980. Hieronymus: Liber de optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula 57). Ein Kommentar von Gerhardus J.
Bartelink. Leiden. viii, 133 pp. – Latin text and German commentary, no translation. Bartelink (pp.
2–3) rejects Nautin’s 1973 interpretation of Jerome’s letter. Review: Paolo Serra Zanetti, Gnomon
58 (1986) 222–225.

Bilingual editions

1953. Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Tome III. Edited and translated by Jérôme Labourt. Collection Budé. Paris.
264 double pp. – The Pammachius letter is on pp. 55–73.

2007. Edoardo Bona: La libertà del traduttore. L’epistola De optimo genere interpretandi di Gerolamo.
Test latino, introduzione, traduzione et note. Rome. 155 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and Italian,
accompanied by a long introduction (pp. 9–70).

Translations: English – German

1893. Jerome: Letter 57. In: W. H. Freemantle: The Principal Works of St. Jerome. A Select Library of
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, volume 6. New York
(xxxv, 524 pp.), pp. 112–119. – The volume has been reprinted several times.

1937. Hieronymus: 57. Brief: An Pammachius. Über die beste Art zu übersetzen. In: Des heiligen
Kirchenvaters Eusebius Hieronymus ausgewählte Briefe. Übersetzt von Ludwig Schade. II. Brief­
band. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (BKV). Munich 1937 (512 pp.), pp. 262–287. – Reprint: Nen­
deln/Liechtenstein 1968.

1973. Hieronymus: Brief an Pammachius. In: Hans Joachim Störig (ed.): Das Problem des Übersetzens.
Darmstadt (xxxiii, 475 pp.), pp. 1–13. – This German translation, by Wolfgang Buchwald, omits
the beginning; the translation starts at 57,7 (ego enim non solum fateor …). The text translated is
CSEL 54: 508–526.

1976. Jerome: To Pammachius. On the Best Method of Translating (St. Jerome, Letter 57). Translated by
Louis G. Kelly. Ottawa. xiii, 24 pp.

1997. Jerome: The Best Kind of Translator. Letter to Pammachius. In: Douglas Robinson (ed.): Western
Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester (xxi, 337 pp.), pp. 23–30. – This
translation was first published in: The Satirical Letters of St. Jerome. Translated by Paul Carroll.
Chicago 1956 (xxviii, 198 pp.), pp. 132–151; it has been revised by Douglas Robinson for the
1997 edition.

201
2012. Jerome: Letter to Pammachius. Translated by Kathleen Davis. In: Lawrence Venuti (ed.): The
Translation Studies Reader. 3rd edition. Milton Park (xiv, 546 pp.), pp. 21–30. – The translation of
the Pammachius letter is included in the Translation Studies Reader in the 2nd (2004) and later
editions.

Discussions of the Pammachius letter

1973. Pierre Nautin: Études de chronologie hiéronymienne (suite). Revue des études augustiniennes 19:
69–86. – In his Pammachius letter, Jerome dissimulates his true intention. The letter, while on the
surface dealing with translation issues, is actually directed against John of Jerusalem and Rufinus
of Aquileia whom he in a veiled manner accuses of heresy (pp. 82–84).

1976. G. Bartelink: Quelques observations sur la lettre LVII de saint Jérôme. Revue bénédictine 86:
296–306.

1985. P. Serra Zanetti: Una nota sul mysterium dell’ ordo verborum nelle scritture. Civiltà classica e cri­
stiana 6: 507–520. – On Letter 57,5,2.

1987. Clara Montella: Et verborum ordo mysterium est. Dialettica e paradosso nel De optimo genere
interpretandi di Girolamo. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientali di Napoli 9: 253–267.

1988. Michel Banniard: Jérôme et l’elegantia d’après le De optimo genere interpretandi. In: Yves-Marie
Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 305–322.

1992. Douglas Robinson: The Ascetic Foundations of Western Translatology: Jerome and Augustine.
Translation and Literature 1: 3–25.

2007. Robert Lamberton: Theory and Practice of Translation in Late Antiquity. In: Harald Kittel et al.
(eds.): Übersetzung – Translation – Traduction. An International Encyclopedia of Translation Stud­
ies. Band 2. Berlin (xxxv pp., pp. 1064–1799), pp. 1170–1170, esp. pp. 1163–1165 with a detailed
summary of Jerome’s letter.

2010. Lawrence Venuti: Genealogies of Translation Theory: Jerome. Boundary 2. An International Journ­
al of Literature and Culture 37.3: 5–28. – This article offers a historical examination and ideolo­
gical critique of Jerome’s famous Letter to Pammachius (395 CE), exploring its complex relations
to the Roman translation tradition, on the one hand, and to an emerging Christian tradition, on
the other hand, with examples taken from the New Testament and Jerome’s own translating.
Jerome’s letter is the most influential statement of what can be called the instrumental model of
translation, the notion that translation is the reproduction or imitation of an invariant contained
in or caused by the source text. – Venuti ranks as one of the world’s leading translation theorists.

2019. Maciej Litwin: Types and Figures. Comments on Lawrence Venuti’s Reading of Jerome. Transla­
tion Studies 12.3: 357–372. – Venuti does not take into account the fact that Jerome was an or ­
thodox Christian writer.

2021. Jessica van t’Westeinde: Roman Nobilitas in Jerome’s Letters. Tübingen. xii, 287 pp. – Pages 221–
231 deal with Jerome’s letter 57 to Pammachius.

Messianic translations
1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), pp. 174–175: Isa 11:10; 16:1; Hab 3:18.

1891. Rudolph Cornely SJ: Historicae et criticae in u.t. [= utriusque testamenti] libros sacros compendium.
Editio altera. Paris (v, 660 pp.), p. 107. There are Old Testament passages that are messianic in a
very general sense (latiore quodam sensu); but Jerome made the messianic meaning explicit.

202
1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme [second ins­
talment]. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138. Condamin addresses the question of
how doctrinal considerations influenced Jerome’s translation of a number of passages.

2000. Arie van der Kooij: The Cities of Isaiah 24–27 according to the Vulgate, Targum and Septuaginmt.
In: Hendrik Jan Bosman et al. (eds.): Studies in Isaiah 24–27. Leiden (xii, 277 pp.), pp. 183–198.

2003. Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des Hi­
eronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer
Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster (x, 620 pp.), pp. 21–34.

2007. Alison Salvesen: Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations in Greek and Latin. In: Markus Bock ­
muehl – J.N. Carlton Paget (eds.): Redemption and Resistance. The Messianic Hopes of Jews and
Christians in Antiquity. London (xxvii, 381 pp.), pp. 245–261. – Page 261: Jerome’s “own [transla­
tion] choices can be surprising: sometimes non-messianic readings replace traditional Christian
interpretations, while Christological renderings can appear in unexpected places.”

2012. Martine Dulaey: Habacuc 2,1–4 chez les Pères. In: Matthieu Arnold – Gilbert Dahan – Annie No­
blesse-Rocher (eds.): “Le juste vivra de sa foi” (Habacuc 2,4). Études d’histoire de l’exégèse 3. Par­
is (144 pp.), pp. 41–73. – Jerome takes the passage to be an announcement of the coming of
Christ (CCSL 76A: 599).

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue:
99–119, at pp. 113–115 (online journal). – Exod 4:13; 6:12; Hab 3:13.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua
Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg
(vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83, at pp. 71–73: “Christliche Deutung des Alten Testaments.”

2023. Bernhard Lang: Jesus im Alten Testament. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 43–44.

Secondary literature on Jerome as a translator

426. Augustine: De doctrina christiana IV, 20, 41 (CCSL 32: 148). The “highly learned Jerome” (vir doctis­
simus) had “specifically cited the purely Hebrew verse measures used by some prophets,” but “in
the interest of faithful wording he did not translate the verse measures”; Augustine is referring
to Jerome’s prologue to the book of Job. – German: Der “hochgelehrte Hieronymus” (vir doctis­
simus) habe die von manchen Propheten “gebrauchten rein hebräischen Versmaße eigens ange­
führt”, “im Interesse des getreuen Wortlautes aber hat er die Versmaße nicht übersetzt.” Au­
gustine wrote this after Jerome’s death (Jerome died in 420).

English
1990. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Literary Studies of the Vulgate: Formula Systems. In: Proceedings of the
Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference [Villanova, Pa.] 15: 205–219. – A study of the for­
mulas secundum opera manuum eorum and super caput in twenty-four books of the Bible.

2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible. In: James Carleton Paget – Joachim Schaper (eds.):
The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526. –
Page 516: “Overall, he succeeded in producing a faithful version of the Hebrew Bible, halfway
between the Ciceronian prose of his own epistles and the laborious word-for-word style of the
Vetus Latina.” ▲

203
2014. David L. Everson: The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Exodus. In: Thomas B. Doze­
man – Craig A. Evans – Joel N. Lohr (eds.): The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Inter­
pretation. Leiden (xx, 669 pp.), pp. 370–386. – Page 385: “As the years went by, having translated
an ever-increasing number of Hebrew books, Jerome’s confidence and proficiency with the
Hebrew language resulted in in freer translations.”

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of
the Book of Exodus: Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. See esp. the in­
troduction (pp. 1–14): Jerome and translation technique. ▲

2017. Tim Denecker: Ideas on Language in Early Christianity. From Tertullian to Isidore of Seville. Leiden.
xv, 497 pp. – While this is not a book on translation theory, it offers much on Jerome’s handling
of languages. For the passages on Jerome, see this book’s index on persons and the index on
ancient sources (works of Jerome).

2022. Michael Graves: Principles of Translation in [Jerome’s] Epistle 106. In: Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the
Psalms). Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363 pp.),
pp. 55–65. – The five key concepts on biblical translation are: (1) the sense of the text should not
be damaged; (2) traditional renderings should be retained where possible; (3) each language has
its own unique manner of expression that should be respected; (4) one need not translate word for
word, if other principles demand a less literal translation; (5) the translation should reflect proper
Latin in terms of basic grammatical correctness, naturalness, and clarity (p. 65).

2023. Adam Kamesar: Jerome and the Hebrew Scriptures. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 49–64. – The great bulk of the Latin Bible
known as the Vulgate is made up of Jerome’s translations of the books of the Old Testament in
its Hebrew form. Isidore of Seville, in his Etymologiae, one of the most influential works of medi­
eval Latin literature, offers a brief statement about those translations, noting two points: Jerome
made them from the Hebrew, and did so in an eloquent fashion (Etymologiae VI, 4.5). This article
focusses on Jerome’s change of the textual basis of the Latin Old Testament from the Greek to
the Hebrew, and his work of translation as a literary endeavour.

2023. Kevin J. Redmann: Verborum Ordo: A Typological Approach to Word-Order Literalism as an Indic­
ation of Saint Jerome’s Translation Technique in the Vulgate. Rome. 232 pp. – A statistical study.

German
1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–30.

1970. F. Winkelmann: Einige Bemerkungen zu den Aussagen des Rufinus von Aquileia und des Hiero ­
nymus über ihre Übersetzungstheorie und -methode. In: Patrick Granfield OSB – Josef A. Jung­
mann SJ (eds.): Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Band II. Münster (pp. 500–972), pp. 532–
547.

1978. Ulrich Köpf: Hieronymus als Bibelubersetzer. In: Siegfried Meurer (ed.): Eine Bibel – viele Überset­
zungen. Not oder Notwendigkeit? Stuttgart (232 pp.), pp. 71–89.

1991. Harald Hagendahl – Jan Hendrik Waszink: Hieronymus. In: Ernst Dassmann (ed.): Reallexikon für
Antike und Christentum. Band 15. Stuttgart (1262 cols.), cols. 117–139. – Column 134: “Es ist sehr
zu bedauern, dass noch keine exakten Untersuchungen der Übersetzungstechnik des Hierony­
mus, bes. seiner Wortwahl, unternommen worden sind.”

204
2001. Walter Burkert: Sinn und Sinnlichkeit. Antike Wurzeln unserer Sprache. In: idem: Kleine Schriften
VIII. Philosophica. Göttingen (ix, 310 pp.), pp. 293–304. On Jerome, pp. 299–301.

2008. Markus Mülke: Der Autor und sein Text. Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren.
Berlin. 419 pp. – Pages 124–163: Hieronymus und die Übersetzung der biblischen Schriften.

2014. Andreas Gipper: Vertikales Übersetzen. Vom translatorischen Umgang mit Sakralsprache. Die
Welt des Orients 44.2: 251–262. – Sacred texts must be translated literally to conserve their sac­
red quality.

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomium­
übersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – Especially pp. 25–67: Der Übersetzer Hierony­
mus.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 83–83–93: principles and practice of translating.

2017. Gerd-Dietrich Warns: Die Textvorlage von Augustins Annotationes in Iob. Studien zur Erstfassung
von Hieronymus’ Hiob-Übersetzung iuxta Graecos. Göttingen. 590 pp. – Jerome often resorted to
translating an expression twice (Doppelübersetzung). G.-D. Warns also offers his thoughts on
Jerome’s development as textual critic and Hebraist (pp. 525–526).

2017. Michael Margoni-Kögler: Hieronymus philologus. Einblicke in sein Bibelübersetzen: Prinzipien,

Praxis, Relevanz. Vulgata in Dialogue 1: 31–69 (online journal).

2018. Lukas Michael Baumann: Wort und Sinn. Übersetzungsreflexionen bei Cicero und Hieronymus.
Freiburg. 314 pp.

2019. Tatiana Bachniak: Die Regel der Übersetzung nach Hieronymus in der Theorie und Praxis. Vox
Patrum 21: 25–42.

2022. Georg Fischer: Hieronymus, ein Pionier als Übersetzer und Ausleger. In: Veronika Bachmann et al.
(eds.): Menschsein in Weisheit und Freiheit. Leuven (x, 603 pp.), pp. 534–549.

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter. In: Ro­
land Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateini­
schen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357, at p. 333, note 6: “Moderne Gelehr ­
te sind sich immer noch nicht einig darüber, ob Hieronymus eine freie Übersetzung der Bibel
(insbesondere des Psalters) nach seinem Vorgänger Cicero oder eine wörtlichere Übersetzung
bevorzugte, die dem Leser beim Vergleich der Wiedergabe mit dem Ausgangstext besser dienen
könnte.”

2023. Daniel Schmitz: A trifaria varietate ad fontes: Hieronymus’ Übersetzungsarbeit als Weiterentwick­
lung der Heiligen Schrift. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer: 45–59 (online journal).

2023. Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründungen. In: Ro­
land Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateini­
schen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 109–137. – When Jerome defends or explains
his translation, he regularly and essentially invokes the sensus, the meaning, as his criterion,
though style sometimes also plays a role.

2023. Aline Canellis: (1) Hieronymus und die am wenigsten schlechte Art der Bibelübersetzung; (2)
Übersetzungsprobleme und Lehrmeinungen. The two introductory articles can be found in:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 158–160 and pp. 169–171.

205
French
1911–1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches
de science religieuse 2 (1911) 425–440; 3 (1912) 105–138. – The first instalment deals with
Jerome’s Hebrew text that corresponds largely to our Masoretic Text. The second part addresses
the question of how doctrinal considerations influence Jerome’s translation of a number of pas­
sages.

1920. Albert Condamin SJ: Un procédé littéraire de St. Jérôme dans sa traduction de la Bible. In: Vin­
cenzo Vannutelli (ed.): Miscellanea Geronimiana. Scritti varii publicati nel XV Centenario della
morte di San Girolamo. Rome (viii, 330 pp.), pp. 89–95.

1933. Georges Cuendet: Cicéron et Jérôme traducteurs. Revue des études latines 11: 380–400.

1938. F. Blatt: Remarques sur l’histoire des traductions latines. Classica et mediaevalia 1: 217–242. – Lit­
eral translation (le littéralisme chrétien) was promoted by Christians, whereas free translations
were more characteristic of pagan translation culture (libéralisme préchrétien).

2010. Pierre-Emmanuel Douzat: Erreurs de traduction volontaires et paresse du contresens. Anabases

11: 137–148 (with English summary, p. 293). The author comments specifically on Jerome’s “free”
renderings that support his idea of the precedence of celibacy over marriage in Tobit.

2016. Christophe Rico: Le traducteur de Bethléem: le génie interprétatif de saint Jérôme à l’aune de la
linguistique. Lectio divina 270. Paris. 172 pp.

Dutch
1978. G.J.M. Bartelink: Hieronymus over de vertaalproblematiek. Hermeneus 50: 105–111.

Spanish – Italian
1979. Antonio García-Moreno: San Jerónimo, traductor paradigmático. Scripta theologica 11.3: 889–928.

2013. Leopoldo Gamberale: Problemi di Gerolamo traduttore fra lingua, religione e filologia. In: idem:
San Gerolamo. Intellettuale e filologo. Rome (xvii, 181 pp.), pp. 41–78.

Latin
1886. Gottfried Hoberg: De Sancti Hieronymi ratione interpretandi. Bonn. 39 pp. – A doctoral disserta­
tion.

206
Chapter 11
Jerome’s Bible

11.1 Surveys and introductions

11.2 Reference works

11.3 Jerome and the Gospels

11.4 Jerome and the Psalms

11.5 Books Jerome translated more than once (non-Vulgate versions)

11.6 The biblical canon

11.7 Jerome’s prefaces

11.8 Chronology of Jerome’s biblical translations

11.9 The Eusebian canon tables

11.1 Surveys and introductions

English
1856. Thomas Hartwell Horne – Samuel Prideaux Tregelles: An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament. London. xxvii, 767 pp. – Pages 243–257: The Revision of the Latin by Jerome
– the Vulgate. – On Tregelles (1813–1875), see Timothy C.F. Stunt: The Life and Times of Samuel
Prideaux Tregelles: A Forgotten Scholar. Cham 2020. Xviii, 282 pp.

1965. W.H. Semple: St Jerome as Biblical Translator. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 48: 227–243.

1993. David Norton: A History of the Bible as Literature. Volume One: From Antiquity to 1700. Cam­
bridge. xvii, 375 pp. – Pages 30–40: Jerome.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – A splendid introduction and survey to all issues relating to Jerome’s work on the Bible.
▲

1996. René Kieffer: Jerome: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 663–681.

1996. Eva Schulz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Out­
line: bibliography – the Old Latin translations – Jerome’s Hexaplaric recension – the Vulgate, its
translational and interpretative character – the problem of Hebraica veritas in Jerome and Au ­
gustine.

207
1996. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Labor tam utilis. The Creation of the Vulgate. Vigiliae Christianae 50:
42–72.

1999. Edward A. Synan: The Vulgarity of the Vulgate. In: Douglas Kries – Catherine Brown Tkacz (eds.):
Nova Doctrina Vetusque. Essays on Early Christianity. New York (xi, 291 pp.), pp. 105–119. – An
introduction to the main figures involved with the origins of the Vulgate Bible: Pope Damasus,
Jerome, and Augustine.

2003. Dennis Brown: Jerome and the Vulgate. In: Alan J. Hauser – Duane F. Watson (eds.): A History of
Biblical Interpretation. Volume 1. Grand Rapids, Mich. (xxi, 536 pp.), pp. 355–379. – Outline:
Jerome as a translator (pp. 356–364); biblical interpretation (pp. 364–371); Jerome’s legacy (pp.
371–372); bibliography (pp. 372–379). The same author also contributed to an encyclopedia:
Jerome (c. 340–420), in: Donald K. McKim (ed.): Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. 2nd edi­
tion. Downers Grove, Ill. 2007 (xxviii, 1106 pp.), pp. 565–571.

2013. Adam Kamesar: Jerome. In: James Carleton Paget – Joachim Schaper (eds.): The New Cambridge
History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 653–675.

2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible. In: James Carleton Paget – Joachim Schaper (eds.):
The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526.

German
1912. Otto Bardenhewer: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Band 3. Freiburg. x, 679 pp. – See pp.
615–619.

1994. Henning Graf Reventlow: Eine Bibel für das Abendland: Hieronymus. In: idem: Epochen der Bibel­
auslegung. Band 2. Munich (324 pp.), pp. 39–52. Translation: A Bible for the West. In: idem: His­
tory of Biblical Interpretation. Volume 2. Translated by James O. Duke. Resources for Biblical
Study 61. Atlanta, Ga. 2009. (x, 313 pp.), pp. 32–45.

2002. Eva Schulz-Flügel: Vulgata. In: Siegmar Döpp – Wilhelm Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken
christlichen Literatur. 3rd edition. Freiburg (xviii, 763 pp.), pp. 726–727.

2009. Alexander Achilles Fischer: Der Text des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart. ix, 379 pp. – See pp. 169–
175. – Translation: The Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids,
Mich. 2014. xix, 343 pp.

2014. Elisabeth Birnbaum: Wenn ein Heiliger übersetzt. Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Bibel und Kirche
69: 14–19.

2018. Dominik Markl: Ein exzentrisches Genie. Hieronymus übersetzt die Bibel ins Lateinische. Welt und
Umwelt der Bibel 23, no. 4: 42–48.

French
2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Versions latines de la Bible. In: G. Mathon – G.-H. Baudry (eds.): Ca­
tholicisme. Hier – aujourd’hui – demain. Tome 15. Paris (1572 cols.), cols. 910–913. – Jerome ed­
ited his translations of biblical books as individual works and did not organize a complete edi­
tion. His translation initially contributed to the richness of variants of Latin translations, which he
actually wanted to overcome. The first compilation of Jerome’s translations was made around
450 by a librarian. The Codex Sangermanensis primus (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, ms. Lat.
11553; ca. 810; see above, Chapter 7.2) seems to go back to the latter’s biblical codices (in
which, however, large parts of the Old Testament are missing).

208
11.2 Reference works

English
2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – This reference work can be consulted on the Internet (“open ac­
cess”). Pages 19–42: The fourth century and the beginnings of the Vulgate; pp. 43–68: The fifth
to the seventh centuries; pp. 297–344: bibliography.

German
1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Pages 145–189: Der hl. Hieronymus.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 77–124:
Die Bemühungen des hl. Hieronymus um den lateinischen Bibeltext; pp. 222–262: Latin text of
the prefaces, without translation.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Reference work on the life and work of Jerome, with extensive bibliography (pp. 363-429).
Designed as a comprehensive handbook, the book does not primarily offer new, surprising
theses, but provides an encyclopedic overview that incorporates the author’s own research. ▲

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). – Pages 187–198: biblical translations; pp. 235–272: Jerome as exegete
and homilist. ▲

French
1911–1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches
de science religieuse 2 (1911) 425–440; 3 (1912) 105–138. – Pages 430–434: Jerome’s Hebrew ori­
ginal corresponds to the Masoretic text; pp. 434-440 (with additions, p. 105): Jerome is con ­
cerned with elegant Latin, which is why, unlike the Hebrew original, he varies the Latin expres­
sion; pp. 105–131: free translations, clarifying additions, abridgements, smoothing of literary
breaks; pp. 132-138: dogmatically biased renderings.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. ▲

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– The detailed introduction (pp. 53–300) makes this volume a standard reference resource on
the Latin Bible and its history in antiquity. ▲

11.3 Jerome and the Gospels

Pope Damasus and Jerome

Note. – Damasus, bishop of the city of Rome from 366 to his death in 384, must be seen as an enthu ­
siastic promotor of Latin in the Christian community. He is a key figure in the introduction of Latin in

209
Western Christianity, as has been shown by Maurta K. Lafferty: Translating Faith from Greek to Latin:
Romanitas and Christianitas in Late Fourth-Century Rome and Milan. Journal of Early Christian Studies
11 (2003) 21–62. Jerome’s revision of the Latin gospels must be seen within this Latin renaissance in
Pope Damasus’ Christian Rome.

382–384. Jerome edits the Latin New Testament, but probably only the four Gospels. The prologue to
the text of the Gospels is dedicated to Pope Damasus, whom he addresses as his patron: “You
urge me to make a new work out of an old one” (novum opus facere me cogis ex veteri; PL 29:
557; Sources chrétiennes 592: 470).

Secondary literature
1954. Arthur Vööbus: Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm. xvii, 411 pp. – Pages 56–57:
“There is no extant record of the order issued by Damasus, but we have its quintessence in
Jerome’s prefatory letter to Damasus (PL 29: 557) (…) Against his will, Jerome accepted the as­
signment.”

1970. T.C. Lawler: Jerome’s First Letter to Damasus (Ep. 15). In: Patrick Granfield et al. (eds.): Kyriakon.
Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Band 2. Münster (pp. 499–972), pp. 548–552.

1983. Pierre Nautin: Le premier échange épistolaire entre Jérôme et Damase – lettres réelles ou fic­
tives? Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 30: 331–344. – Jerome could have
faked the commissioning of the revision of the Latin Bible by Damasus, Bishop of Rome. In gen­
eral, Jerome had a penchant for such fictions. Accordingly, the letters claimed to be written by
Damasus were actually written by Jerome.

1992. Stefan Rebenich: Hieronymus und sein Kreis. Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Unter­
suchungen. Stuttgart. 328 pp. – Although not denying that Jerome worked under the patronage
of Pope Damasus, Rebenich thinks that the project of a revised Latin gospel text was initiated by
Jerome, and not by the Pope. Most likely Jerome managed to convince Damasus that the revi­
sion was a viable and indeed necessary project (p. 150).

2005. Andrew Cain: In Ambrosiater’s Shadow. A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Last Surviving Letter Ex ­
change between Pope Damasus and Jerome. Revue des études augustiniennes 51.2: 257–277.

2006. Annelie Volgers: Damasus’ Request: Why Jerome Needed to (Re-)answer Ambrosiaster’s “Ques­
tions.” In: F. Young et al. (eds.): Studia Patristica 43. Leuven (xviii, 569 pp.), pp. 531–536.

2009. Andrew Cain: A Pope and His Scholar. In: idem: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exeges­
is, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford (xiv, 286 pp.), pp. 43–67.

2009. Ursula Reutter: Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen. xi, 567 pp. –
The book includes a chapter on the two letters of Damasus included in the corpus of Jerome’s
own letters as letters no. 19 and 35 (pp. 21–30). The two letters are printed in Latin with a Ger ­
man translation. It is also explained that the two Damasus letters are presumably letters actually
written by Jerome himself; nevertheless, they testify to Damasus’ interest in things biblical and
to the communication between Damasus and Jerome in the years 382–384.

2015. Markus Mülke: Damasus und Hieronymus: Die lateinische Evangelienrevision und ihre papstge­
schichtliche Bedeutung. In: idem – Lothar Vogel (eds.): Bibelübersetzung und (Kirchen)politik.
Göttingen (189 pp.), pp. 41–68. – According to Mülke (pp. 50–65), Jerome’s revision of the Latin
gospels coincided with the shift from Greek to Latin in the Liturgy as celebrated in the city of
Rome. ▲

210
2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg. 444 pp. – Page
180: “Damasus fördert ideell und finanziell die Arbeiten des Hieronymus als Exeget und Überset­
zer. So korrespondierte er mit ihm über exegetische Probleme … Ferner unterstützte Damasus
(…) die Überarbeitung des lateinischen Bibeltextes, die er in Rom mit der Revision der Evangeli ­
en und des Psalters (…) in Angriff nahm. Im Hintergrund stand hier möglicherweise auch die Ein­
führung des Lateinischen als Liturgiesprache in Rom zwischen 360 und 382.” – How about the
Latin liturgy? In Italy and North Africa, too, the primary liturgical language was Greek for a long
time; the readings were in Greek, then orally translated into Latin for those not conversant with
Greek – this liturgical practice gave rise to the pre-Jeromian Latin translations; so Bruce M. Met­
zger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford 1977 (xix, 498 pp.), p. 286.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). – Page 191: One does not have to question Jerome’s claim that his re ­
vision of the gospel text has been commissioned by Damasus. It may well be that the death of
Damasus in December 384 has interrupted Jerome’s revision work.

2021. Emanuele Di Sano: Sub umbra Damasi: I rapporti fra Girolamo e Ambrosiaster alla luce del pro­
getto ecclesiologico di Damaso. In: Ingo Schaaf (ed.): Hieronymus Romanus: Studies on Jerome
and Rome on the Occasion of the 1600th Anniversary of His Death. Turnhout (609 pp.), pp. 153–
191. – Both Ambrosiaster and Jerome supported Damasus’ pastoral-ascetic project.

2022. Barbara Feichtinger: PR in eigener Sache? Untersuchungen zur Korrespondenz des Hieronymus
mit Damasus. In: Sara Fascione (ed.): Concatenantur sibi epistulae nostrae: Reading Ancient Latin
Letter Collections. Foggia (316 pp.), pp. 249–305.

Secondary literature on the Vulgate Gospels

English
1908. John Chapman OSB: Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels. Oxford. xi, 299 pp.

1922–1923. John Chapman OSB: St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament. Journal of Theological
Studies 24: 33–51. 113–125. 282–299.

1976. A.W. Argyle: Notes on the New Testament Vulgate. New Testament Studies 22: 223–228. – The
four Gospels are not consistent in their translation of certain words; this points to the possibility
that Jerome was helped in his revision by one or two assistants. Jerome seems to have revised
Matthew 1–13 and Mark 1–9, leaving the rest of these gospels to reviser B. The gospel of John
seems to have been revised either by Jerome himself or by another assistant. At any rate, it
seems that we can recognize the work of three hands. – There is a response by Albert A. Bell:
Jerome’s Role in the Translation of the Vulgate New Testament. New Testament Studies 23
(1977) 230–233. Bell objects to Argyle’s hypothesis by arguing that Jerome did not work evenly.

1979. Bruce M. Metzger: St Jerome’s Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New
Testament. In: Ernest Best et al. (eds.): Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament.
Cambridge (xv, 268 pp.), pp. 179–190; also in: B.M. Metzger: New Testament Studies: Philological,
Versional, and Patristic. Leiden (x, 234 pp.), pp. 199–210.

1992. John K. Elliott: The Translations of the New Testament into Latin: The Old Latin and the Vulgate.
In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Band II.26.1. Berlin (xxv, 812 pp.), pp. 198–245. –
The section on the Vulgate begins on p. 220.

211
2008. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Augustine’s Text of John. Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts.
Oxford. xii, 407 pp. – Discusses the deviations from the Vulgate found in Augustine’s writings.

2012. Markus Mülke: Biblical Poetry as Translation – Biblical Translation as Philology? Jerome’s Promo ­
tion of Juvencus’ Evangeliorum Libri and His Own Latin Revision of the Gospels. Variants. The
Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship 9: 19–29.

2013. Philip Burton: The Latin Version of the New Testament. In: Bart D. Ehrman – Michael W. Holmes
(eds.): The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. 2nd edition. Leiden (xii, 884
pp.), pp. 167–200. – In the 1st edition of 1995 a contribution with the same title was authored by
Jacobus H. Petzer (pp. 113–130). – Burton, p. 182: “The Vulgate New Testament is simply another
stage in the development of the Latin Bible. In the case of the Gospels, we say with confidence
that we are dealing essentially with a revision of existing traditions produced by Jerome in the
mid-380s. We may also point to his sources, a text close to Codices Vernonensis 04 (b) and (es ­
pecially in John) Corbeiensis 08 (ff2); a particular contribution of Jerome’s was his use of [a
Greek] text not unlike that of Codex Sinaiticus. For the rest, we do not know the name of the re­
viser, except that it is very unlikely to be Jerome.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 31–35: Jerome and the Vulgate Gospels. “Jerome lost mo ­
mentum as his revision of the Gospels progressed. He intervened most frequently in Matthew
and least so in John. (…) There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the revi­
sion of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament” (p. 34).

2018. Timothy William Dooley: Jerome’s Text of the Gospels, the Vetus Latina, and the Vulgate. With
Comparative Tables of Jerome’s Text of Matthew and Mark. PhD Thesis, King’s College, London.
269 pp. – This unpublished thesis, supervised by Markus Vinzent, provides tables that allow a
comparison between how Jerome in his own work quotes Matthew and Mark, and the wording
of the critically established Vulgate text. Surprisingly, the bulk of Jerome’s quotations does not
closely resemble the Vulgate text; instead, it either reflects the Vetus Latina or his personal lin­
guistic choices. The inevitable conclusion is that Jerome may not have been the only person to
have a hand in creating what came to be the Vulgate text of the gospels. Dooley speaks of “the
piecemeal production of the patchwork Vulgate” (p. 220). The most radical possible conclusion
would be: the traditional Vulgate text of the gospels does not represent the original revision
work of Jerome. Although Jerome was never consistent in his choices, the evidence would allow
for the conclusion that toward the very end of his life, he tended to adopt some Vulgate read­
ings that he had previously avoided. – (B. Lang: Dooley’s argument seems to reduce Jerome’s
contribution to the creation of the Vulgate text. The evidence of Jerome’s own Bible quotations
has been known for a long time, but was considered irrelevant by those who defended Jerome’s
authorship of the revision of the Latin text of the Pauline letters; see Alfred Durand SJ: Saint
Jérôme et notre Nouveau Testament latin. Recherches de science religieuse 6 [1916] 531–549,
esp. p. 541: “Si la divergence des citations, prises des Épîtres, d’avec le texte actuel de la Vulgate,
prouvait que saint Jérôme n’a pas révisé cette portion du Nouveau Testament, il faudrait
conclure pareillement qu’il n’a pas traduit l’Ancien Testament, ni même révisé les Évangiles, tel­
lement il cite ici et là d’une façon à peu près identique.”) ▲

2023. Christina M. Kreinecker: Jerome and the Vulgate Gospels. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 37–48. – This article revisits key ques­
tions concerning the Vulgate gospels and discusses their character as a revision in relation to
Jerome’s preface and his linguistic abilities. Various examples of typical textual features and dif­
ferences in comparison with the Old Latin are presented together with aspects of Jerome’s tech­
nique of revision. The challenge of identifying possible Latin and Greek templates is met by

212
 looking at the methodological assumptions underlying previous suggestions. These are in fact
mostly based on an outdated text-critical understanding of the New Testament manuscript tra­
dition. Instead, a broader approach to the transmission of the Vulgate gospels is to be favoured;
not limited to considering manuscripts, it makes full use of biblical quotations in then contem ­
poraneous Christian writings.

Other languages
1955. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn. viii,
236 pp. – Vogels points out the inconsistency of renderings of Greek words (pp. 104–105) and
gives examples: ἀρχιερεύς = princeps sacerdotum (Matt), summus sacerdos (Mark), pontifex
(John). (This example has already been adduced by Eberhard Nestle in the preface to his 1906
edition of the Latin New Testament.) “(…) auch innerhalb des einzelnen Buches gewahren wir
eine Mannigfaltigkeit des einzelnen Wortes, wie sie kaum einem und dem nämlichen Übersetzer
in die Feder laufen wird” (p. 104).

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74, at pp. 27–
29: La revisión jeronimiana de los Evangelios.

11.4 Jerome and the Psalms

Note. – Jerome produced three Latin versions of the Psalms: (1) a first one, translated from the Sep ­
tuagint (see De Buyne, French 1930); (2) a second one, translated from the Greek recension established
by Origen (the so-called Psalterium Gallicanum), and (3) a third one, based on the Hebrew text (iuxta
Hebraeos). Only the second one, the Psalterium Gallicanum (also, and more properly, called Jerome’s
hexaplaric psalter) became part of the Vulgate (though the Weber/Gryson edition has admitted the
iuxta Hebraeos Psalter into its pages).

Introductions – surveys

Jerome: the Gallican Psalter (= Hexaplaric Psalter = the Vulgate book of Psalms)

Jerome: Epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam (Letter 106)

Liber Psalmorum iuxta Hebraeos

Jerome’s first book of Psalms – the Psalterium Romanum?

Arthur Allgeier

Introductions – surveys

English
1932. E. Ward: Jerome’s Work on the Psalter. Expository Times 44: 87–92.

213
1992. D.P. McCarthy: Saint Jerome’s translation of the Psalms: the question of Rabbinic Tradition. In:
H.J. Blumberg (ed.): “Open thou mine eyes…” Essays on Aggadah and Judaica presented to Rabbi
William G. Braude. Hoboken, N.J. (xx, 339 pp.), pp. 155–191.

2005. David J. Ladouceur: The Latin Psalter. Introduction, Selected Text and Commentary. London. 126
pp. – Intended for classroom use, the book contains an introduction to Jerome’s work on the
Psalter.

2014. Scott Goins: Jerome’s Psalters. In: William P. Brown (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Ox­
ford (xix, 661 pp.), pp. 185–198.

2021. Alessandro Capone: Gerolamo interprete dei Salmi nel periodo romano. In: Ingo Schaaf (ed.):
Hieronymus Romanus: Studies on Jerome and Rome on the Occasion of the 1600th Anniversary of
His Death. Turnhout (609 pp.), pp. 355–393. – Concerning Jerome’s early involvement with edit­
ing the Latin Psalms, the author considers evidence from Jerome’s correspondence.

2022. Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. xix, 363 pp. –
Pages 7–12: Jerome’s three translations of the Psalms.

2023. Oliver W.E. Norris: The Latin Psalter. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin
Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 65–76.

German
1931. Arthur Allgeier: Die Überlieferung der alten lateinischen Psalmenübersetzungen und ihre kulturge­
schichtliche Bedeutung. Freiburg. 27 pp.

1954. Petrus Salmon OSB: Das Problem der Psalmen. Text und Interpretation der Psalmen zur Zeit des
hl. Hieronymus. Benediktinische Monatsschrift 30: 393–416.

2000. Eva Schulz-Flügel: Hieronymus, Feind und Überwinder der Septuaginta? Untersuchungen anhand
der Arbeiten an den Psalmen. In: Anneli Ajmelaeus – Udo Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter
und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse III.230. Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 33–50.

2005. Siegfried Risse: Überblick über die Arbeiten des Hieronymus zu den Psalmen. In: Hieronymus:
Commentarioli in Psalmos – Anmerkungen zum Psalter. Translated by S. Risse. Fontes Christiani
79. Turnhout (268 pp.), pp. 7–22.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). – On the Psalms, pp. 192–194.

2021. Michael Wissemann: Das doppelte Psalterium der Vulgata. Vulgata in Dialogue 5: 9–19 (online
journal).

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter. In: Ro­
land Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateini­
schen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357. – The article includes a survey sec­
tion entitled “Hieronymus als Übersetzer des Psalters.”

214
French
1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La reconstitution du psautier hexaplaire. Revue bénédictine 41: 297–
324. – See the critique of Arthur Allgeier: Der Brief an Sunnia und Fretela und seine Bedeutung
für die Textherstellung der Vulgata. Biblica 11 (1930) 86–107.

1930. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le problème du Psautier romain. Revue bénédictine 62: 101–126. – The
so-called Roman Psalter has nothing to do with Jerome. Jerome’s first Latin Psalter, produced in
Bethlehem, is not extant. However, some of it is accessible in Jerome’s letters sent to Rome and
especially in Jerome’s Commentarioli written ca. 386/388 (p. 125). On the Commentarioli, see be­
low, Chapter 20.2. ▲

1940. Victor Leroquais: Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publics de France. Tome I. Ma­
con. cxxxvi, 293 pp. – Pages xxvii–xl: Les trois traductions [du livre des Psaumes] de saint Jérôme.

1982. Pierre Jay: La datation des premières traductions de l’Ancien Testament sur l’hébreu par Saint Jé­
rôme. Revue des études augustiniennes 28: 208–212. – The shift from Greek to Hebrew base text
began with Jerome’s translation of the Psalms.

1977. Colette Estin: Saint Jérôme, traducteur des Psaumes. Étude sur une approche de la “verité hé­
braïque.” Paris. xv, 308 pp. – This is the manuscript of an unpublished doctoral thesis; the library
of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, has a copy.

1984. Colette Estin: Les Psautiers de Jérôme à la lumière des traductions juives antérieures. Rome. 238
pp. – The author summarizes the state of research on Jerome’s works on the Psalms (pp. 25–30):
Jerome worked on the Psalms three times: a first time in Rome, but nothing survives of his ap ­
parently cursory treatment of a pre-existing Latin Psalter; a second time in Bethlehem, where he
created a thorough treatment of the Psalms according to the Septuagint (hexaplaric Psalter, also
called Gallican Psalter because of its reception history); a third time, also in Bethlehem, he cre­
ated a Psalter according to the Hebrew (iuxta Hebraeos). Reviewers Hilhorst and Sparks feel that
Estin overestimates Jerome’s dependence upon the Greek even in his iuxta hebraeos version. –
Reviews:
1985. H.F.D. Sparks, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 36.2: 488–495.

1986. Bernard Couroyer, Revue biblique 93: 149–152.

1986. A. Hilhorst, Journal for the Study of Judaism 17.2: 245–248.

2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le psautier latin des origines au XII e siècle. Essai d’histoire. In: An­
neli Aejmelaeus – Udo Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Ab­
handlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philosophisch-historische Klasse
III.230. Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 51–81. – On pp. 58–60, Bogaert comments briefly on Jerome’s
two Psalters.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris 2017.
530 pp. – Pages 212–213: The history of Psalterium Romanum, Psalterium Gallicanum and Psal­
terium iuxta Hebraeos.

Italian – Spanish
1952. Alberto Vaccari SJ: I salteri de S. Girolamo e di S. Agostino. In: idem: Scritti di erudizione e di filo­
logia. I. Rome (xlvi, 395 pp.), pp. 207–255.

215
2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74, at pp. 29–
31: Las versionas jeronimianas del Salterio.

Jerome’s Gallican Psalter (= Hexaplaric Psalter = the Vulgate book of Psalms)

Note. – More editions of the Vulgate Psalter and collateral literature can be found below, in the textual
notes, Chapter 21.

1953. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem as codicum fidem. [Tomus] 10: Liber Psalmorum ex
recensione Sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Robert Weber OSB. Rome. xvi, 298 pp. – This volume is
part of the Benedictine Vulgate; see below, Chapter 13.3. – Review: Henry S. Gehmann, Journal
of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 134–135.

Jerome: Epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam (Letter 106)

c. 391/392. Jerome: Letter 106 – epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam. This is a treatise about the textual dif­
ferences between Jerome’s (Gallican) Psalter and a Greek manuscript that two Gothic scholars
have compared. Jerome answers their questions in a long letter. The date given is that of Graves.
Altaner’s date is c. 404/410; other authors opt for “400 or 404–410” (Sources chrétiennes 592:
117) or a date between 393 and 401.

Text
1864. Hieronymus: Epistola CVI ad Sunniam et Fretelam. PL 22: 837–867.

1912. Hieronymus: Epistulae. Pars II: Epistulae 71–120. Edited by Isidor Hilberg. Vienna (516 pp.). Letter
106 is on pp. 247–289 = CSEL 55: 247–289.

1940. Der Brief des hl. Hieronymus an Sunnia und Fretela. In: Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der Vulgata.
Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche Stellung. Paderborn (314 pp.), pp. 21–68.
Allgeier presents the Latin text after Hilberg (1912) and adds notes. Allgeier suggests an emend ­
ation (end of chap. 3): circuiter (not circuitu). No translation. – Reprint: New York 1968.

1953. Hieronymus: Epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam de Psalterio quae de LXX interpretum editione cor­
rupta sint. In: Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem as codicum fidem. [Tomus] 10: Liber
Psalmorum ex recensione Sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Robert Weber OSB. Rome (xvi, 298 pp.),
pp. 8–42.

1955. Jérôme: Lettres. Tome V. Edited and translated by Jérôme Labourt. Collection Budé. Paris. 217
double pp. – On pp. 104–144, a bilingual, Latin and French edition of letter 106, with improved
Latin text (see esp. p. 125, line 12: et septuaginta iuxta hexaplorum veritatem). See also the addi­
tional note on pp. 215–216.

2022. Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Michael
Graves. Atlanta, Ga. xix, 363 pp. – A bilingual, Latin and English edition, complete with introduct­
ory material and commentary by one of the foremost specialists on Jerome. On pp. 15–16,
Graves lists all 177 passages from the Psalms that are discussed in Letter 106. Unlike De Bruyne,
Graves does not consider Sunnia and Fretela as fictive persons (see Graves’s critique of De
Bruyne, pp. 41–46). Graves dates the letter to c. 391/392, i.e., much earlier than other authors. ▲

216
Secondary literature
1876. Otto Ohrloff: Die Bruchstücke vom Alten Testament der gotischen Bibelübersetzung kritisch unter­
sucht. Halle. iii, 45 pp. – On pp. 28–32, the author comments on Jerome’s Letter 106. Apart from
offering definitions of a few words, Jerome discusses minor translation issues that are generally
without relevance for the general meaning of a passage. The interest of Jerome’s correspond­
ents was no doubt in the method of translation, and here Jerome has much to offer. Sunna and
Fretela apparently planned to produce a Gothic translation of the Psalms. – Review: Julius Well ­
hausen, Theologische Literaturzeitung 1.12 (1876) 307–308.

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La lettre de Jérôme à Sunnia et Fretela sur le Psautier. Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 28: 1–13.– Page 1: “Sunnia et Fretela sont des personnages fic­
tifs, ils n’ont jamais écrit à Jérôme et ils n’ont jamais reçu la lettre 106. Cet écrit est un correc ­
toire du psautier, comme on en a fait plusieurs au XIII e siècle, mais Jérôme lui a donné la forme
plus vivante, plus mouvementée, d’une lettre; ceux qu’il veut instruire – ou, si l’on préfère, ceux
qu’il veut réfuter – ne sont pas des Goths, mais des Latins.” According to De Bruyne, Jerome
meant to attack Augustine or, more specifically, Augustine’s own revision of the Latin Psalter
made around the year 400. (The assumption that Augustine produced a revised book of Psalms
is a favourite idea of De Bruyne. B. Capelle supports this idea: “Le texte d’Augustin porte traces
d’une revision légère, mais sysématique, laquelle ne se rencontre que chez lui et dans les textes
qui dependent de lui”; Capelle thinks, however, that De Bruyne exaggerates the extent of Augus­
tine’s revision; see B. Capelle, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 39 [1943] 470.)

1930. Arthur Allgeier: Der Brief an Sunnia und Fretela und seine Bedeutung für die Textherstellung der
Vulgata. Biblica 11: 86–107. – Allgeier agrees with De Bruyne that the request of the two Goths is
a mere literary topos. Allgeier thinks that one should prefer the Latin wording of the Sunnia let­
ter to the wording of our modern printed Vulgate; page 91: “Durch den Brief erhält der
gedruckte Vulgatatext manche Korrekturen.”

1932. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le Psautier de Stuttgart. Speculum 7: 361–366. – Page 361: Jérôme
“discute environ 180 passages du Psautier gallican dans sa lettre 106 adressée à Sunnia et Frete ­
la. Depuis longtemps on a reconnu que cette célèbre lettre est le commentaire authentique du
Psautier gallican. Une leçon que Jérôme affirme se trouver dans ce Psautier doit être acceptée,
même si elle ne se trouve dans aucun manuscrit.”

1932. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: De quelques opinions sur l’ancien psautier latin. Revue biblique 41:
161–186. – This article is in three parts: (1) Commenting on De Bruyne’s article of 1929, Lagrange
explains why he does not accept the idea of a fictional situation that would have prompted the
writing of this letter (pp. 162–172); – (2) Lagrange rejects De Bruyne’s idea that Augustine would
have produced his own revised Latin book of Psalms (pp. 172–179); – (3) The Roman Psalter may
to have been the European (rather than African) version of the Vetus Latina Psalter; Lagrange
presents the recent theories of De Bruyne (who thinks that the Roman Psalter reflects Au­
gustine’s revision work) and Allgeier (who attributes the Roman Psalter to Jerome’s revision
work carried out during his stay in Rome) (pp. 179–186).

1935. Jacques Zeiller: La lettre de saint Jérôme aux Goths Sunnia et Fretela. Comptes rendus des
séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 79: 238–250.

1940. Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche
Stellung. Paderborn. 314 pp. Reprint: New York 1968. – Pages 23–68: Epistula ad Sunniam et Fre­
telam (letter 106). Pages 64–65: “Die Haltung, welche Hieronymus im 106. Brief zur LXX einnimmt,
ist frei von irgendwelcher Mystik, wie sie die Verehrung Augustins noch bis in die letzte Periode
des Schaffens bekundet. Für Hieronymus ist LXX eine altehrwürdige Übersetzung, die nicht unter­

217
 schätzt, aber auch nicht überschätzt wird. Auch dem Hebräischen gegenüber zeigt er ein bemer­
kenswert abgeklärtes Urteil; es hält sich namentlich von der naiven Begeisterung und Übertrei­
bung des Anfängers fern.” According to Allgeier, Jerome in this letter looks already back at his two
Psalters, and he comes to prefer the Septuagint-based one – which is Allgeier’s own, idiosyncratic
interpretation. (See the reviews of Allgeier’s book below, at the end of this Chapter 11.4)

1950. Berthold Altaner: Wann schrieb Hieronymus seine Ep. 106 ad Sunniam et Fretelam de Psalterio?
Vigiliae Christianae 4: 246–248. – The letter about the Psalms was written between the years 404
and 410. For a critique of this “late” dating, see Michael Graves in. Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the
Psalms). Translated by M. Graves. Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363 pp.), pp. 48–49.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Page 246: The letter and the addressees may be fictitious.

2022. Michael Graves: Introduction. In: Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by M. Graves.
Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363 pp.), pp. 1–76. – Although the “letter” is a treatise rather than a normal let ­
ter, Graves does not accept De Bruyne’s “fiction” theory. Graves dates the letter to c. 391/392,
i.e., a few years after the publication (in 387) of the Gallican Psalter.

2023. Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründung. In: Roland
Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bi­
belübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 109–136. – Page 115, n. 21: “Der Brief wurde biswei­
len für eine Adressatenfiktion gehalten (…); im Laufe dieser Untersuchung werden allerdings ver­
schiedene Unstimmigkeiten hervortreten, die eher darauf hindeuten, dass Hieronymus sich ech­
ten Kritikpunkten gegenüber zu rechtfertigen hatte.” Keller uses several examples from Letter
106 to shed light on Jerome’s theory of translation.

Liber Psalmorum iuxta Hebraeos

Note. – How did Jerome evaluate his two psalm versions: the Gallican Psalter and the Psalter iuxta
Hebraeos? Jerome himself indicates how he felt about the matter in his Letter 106 to Sunnia and
Fretela. Speaking about his version of Psalm 74 (Vg Ps 73), he comments that “it is clear that the psalm
should be sung as we translated it [in the Gallican Psalter], and nevertheless it should be known what
the Hebrew truth contains. For what the Seventy translated [from Hebrew into Greek] should be sung
in the churches in view of its antiquity, and what comes from scholars should be known for the sake of
understanding the Scriptures” (Letter 106, 46; CSEL 55: 270; Graves, p. 115). The Gallican Psalter, based
on the Greek of the Septuagint, is for worship, whereas the iuxta Hebraeos Psalter is for scholarship.
While we cannot say exactly when Jerome translated the Psalms from the Hebrew, the most likely date
is around 391. According to Michael Graves, Jerome began working on the translation when he was
about half way through writing his Letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela (Graves, pp. 51 and 55). – For the
references, see Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Mi­
chael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. 2022. xix, 363 pp.

Text – translation
1874. Paul de Lagarde (ed.): Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi. Leipzig. xvi, 168 pp.

1922. J.M. Harden (ed.): Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. Edited with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus.
London. xxxi, 195 pp.

1954. Henri Marcotte de Sainte-Marie OSB (ed.): Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. Édition
critique. Collectanea biblica latina 11. Rome. lxx, 262 pp. – The scholarly standard edition. It has
been incorporated into the Stuttgart Vulgate edited by Weber and Gryson (see below, 2007). ▲

218
1960. Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela (ed.): Psalterium Sancti Hieronymi de Hebraica Veritate Interpretatum.
Editio critica. Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Madrid. vii, 298 pp. – This edition is not meant to su­
persede the edition of H. de Sainte-Marie (1954). The aim is rather to recover the Latin text that
Spanish envoys copied from Jerome’s original manuscript and brought back to Lucinus in Spain;
see Jerome: Letter 71 (CSEL 55: 1–7). For his edition, the editor has collated 27 manuscripts. On
Lucinus, see Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition.
Freiburg 2017 (444 pp.), p. 210.

1994. André Frossard – Noël Bompois: Les Psaumes. Paris. 309 pp. – The translation is based on
Jerome’s translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew. Frossard (1915–1995), a French convert and
conservative Catholic, worked as a journalist and writer.

2007. Robert Weber OSB – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5th, corrected
edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 771–955. The iuxta Hebraeos is always on the pages with
odd numbers – p. 771, p. 773, etc.

2018. Hieronymus: Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Lateinisch – deutsch. Edited by Andreas Beriger et al. Berlin
(1247 pp.), pp. 23–769. – This volume of the bilingual Tusculum-Vulgata has the Latin
Weber/Gryson text and a German translation by Andreas Beriger, Sophie Holland, and others.

Secondary literature
1906. Jakob Ecker: Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi in seinem Verhältnis zu Masora, Septuaginta,
Vulgata mit Berücksichtigung der übrigen alten Versionen untersucht. In: Bernhard Johann En­
dres (ed.): Festschrift des Priesterseminars zum Bischofs-Jubiläum. Trier (572 pp.), pp. 391–496.

1926. Arthur Allgeier: Ist das Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos die letzte (3.) Psalmenübersetzung des hl.
Hieronymus? Theologie und Glaube 18: 671–687. – The Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos is traditionally
considered to be the 3rd Psalm edition of the church father. Allgeier contradicts this view. The
correct sequence is: Psalterium Romanum – iuxta Hebraeos – Gallicanum. (Scholars have not
generally agreed.)

1930. Arthur Allgeier: Die mittelalterliche Überlieferung des Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos von Hieronymus
und semitistische Kenntnisse im Abendland. Oriens Christianus series 3, Nr. 3–4: 200–231.

1950. Charles M. Cooper: Jerome’s “Hebrew Psalter” and the New Latin Version. Journal of Biblical Lit­
erature 69: 233–244. – Page 233: Jerome’s Psalter “rests on a Hebrew text that is half way
between its early situation as reflected in the LXX [Septuagint] and its final fixation in the MT
[Masoretic Text].”

1952. Alberto Vaccari SJ: I Salteri di S. Girolamo e di S. Agostino. In: idem: Scritti di erudizione e di filo­
logia I. Rome (xlvi, 395 pp.), pp. 207–255.

1956. John H. Marks: Der textkritische Wert des Psalterium Hieronymi juxta Hebraeos. Winterthur. 155
pp. – The author thinks that Jerome’s Psalter iuxta hebraeos is actually a Psalter iuxta Aquilam
(et Symmachum). – Reviews:
1957. W. Baars, Vetus Testamentum 7: 215–217.

1957. Bonifatius Fischer, Theologische Literaturzeitung 82: 579–580.

1958. A. Jeffery, Journal of Biblical Literature 77: 81–82.

1958. Ludwig Bieler: Notes on the Durham Copies of the Psalterium juxta Hebraeos. Scriptorium 12:
282–283.

219
1959. Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB: Le Psaume 22 (21) dans le iuxta hebraeos. In: Pierre Salmon OSB et
al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens Psautiers latins. Collectanea biblica latina 13. Rome 1959
(267 pp.), pp. 151–187.

1960. Joseph Ziegler: Antike und moderne Psalmenübersetzungen. Bayerische Akademie der Wis­
senschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1960, no. 3. Munich. 68 pp. – Page 22, note 1:
“Unter den alten Psalterien ist He [Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos] am besten erforscht.”

1984. Colette Estin: Les Psautiers de Jérôme à la lumière des traductions juives antérieures. Rome. 238
pp. – The author agrees with John H. Marks (1956), arguing that the iuxtra Hebraeos is based es­
sentially on Aquila’s literal version in Greek.

2006. John S. Cameron: The Vir Tricultus. An Investigation of the Classical, Jewish and Christian Influ­
ences on Jerome’s Translation of the Psalter iuxta Hebraeos. Diss. Oxford.

2009. John Cameron: The Rabbinic Vulgate? In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His
Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 117–129.

2017. Justin Rogers: Vulgate [text of the Psalms]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible.
Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 104–110. – Despite its title, this handbook article is about
the Psalms as translated from the Hebrew (and not about Jerome’s Gallican Psalter). “The
‘Hebrew’ Psalter was one of the earliest of Jerome’s translations iuxta Hebraeos. As such, the
translation is closer to the Hebrew than later translations of other biblical books. (… But) the
translation as a whole is idiomatic. The ‘Hebrew’ Psalter is not slavishly literal” (p. 105).

2022. Martijn Jaspers: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Variant Readings in Jerome’s Psalterium iuxta
hebraeos. The Fourth Book of the Psalter (Psalms 90–106) as a Case Study. Vulgata in Dialogue
6: 1–14 (online journal). – This paper examines the textual variants in the fourth book of the
Psalter (Psalms 90–106) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and compares these readings with
Jerome’s Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. Even though these variants are not exhaustively listed in
current editions of the Hebrew and Latin editions of the Psalms, several interesting agreements
between readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jerome’s Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos can be found.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74. – Page
42: As for the Latin text of the Psalms, medieval Bibles are divided: French manuscripts and the
edition of the Bible prepared by Alcuin of York have the Psalterium Gallicanum (Vulgate text),
whereas the edition of Theodulf of Orleans, the majority of Spanish Bibles and, interestingly, the
Codex Amiatinus all have the Psalter iuxta Hebraeos (p. 42).

Jerome’s first book of Psalms – the Psalterium Romanum?

Note. – In the preface to his Gallican Psalter, Jerome reports: “A short time ago when I was in Rome, I
emended the Psalter. I corrected it, although hastily, for the most part based on the Seventy translat­
ors” (Sources chrétiennes 592: 406). Traditionally, this work was believed to survive in the Psalterium
Romanum (critically edited by Robert Weber, 1953). Recent mainstream scholarship recognizes two
facts: (1) the Psalterium Romanum has nothing to do with Jerome; instead, it must be considered a
Vetus-Latina text, i.e., a pre-Jeromian version of the Psalms in Latin; (2) Jerome’s Psalms revision of c.
386/388 is not extant, though believed to survive in part in Jerome’s Commentarioli on the Psalms. –
The bibliography that follows deals exclusively with the Psalterium Romanum. – See also below,
Chapter 14.5.

220
Text
1846. Hieronymus: Liber Psalmorum iuxta Septuaginta interpretes. PL 29: 119–398. – This edition prints
the text of two Latin translations based on the Greek (Septuagint) text: the Gallican (Vulgate)
text on the left, and the Roman Psalter on the right.

1953. Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins. Edited by Robert Weber. Rome. xxiii, 410
pp. – The Roman Psalter is similar to the Gallican Psalter (= Vulgate Psalter), but not identical to
it. Review: Henry S. Gehman, Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 135–136.

Secondary literature: before De Bruyne

1912. E. Pannier: Psaumes (Livre des). In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.1. Pa­
ris (1282 cols.), cols. 807–838, at col. 829: Jerome’s first revision of the Psalter “ forme le Psalte­
rium romanum, employé autrefois à Rome jusqu’à saint Pie V [1568], maintenu dans le Missel et
dans une partie du Bréviaire, ainsi que dans l’office capitulaire de Saint-Pierre de Rome; saint Jé ­
rôme en décrit le principal caractère” as essentially conservative in his Letter 106, 12 to Sunnia et
Fretela (PL 22: 843).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 82–84. Stum­
mer assumes that the Roman Psalter represents Jerome’s revision work. (It was only with De
Bruyne’s 1930 paper that this consensus assumption collapsed.)

De Bruyne and later

1930. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le problème du psautier romain. Revue bénédictine 42: 101–126. –
Three suggestions: (1) the Roman Psalter, though traditionally associated with Jerome, cannot
be considered the work of Jerome; it contains too many erroneous readings that Jerome would
certainly have improved; (2) traces of Jerome’s very early, Bethlehemite, revision of the Psalms
may have survived in the Commentarioli in Psalmos (see below, Chapter 20.2) of the church
father; (3) the Roman Psalter represents the revision work of Augustine (as mentioned in Au­
gustine: Letter 261; CSEL 57:620). Suggestion (1) has received general acclaim, while scholars
tend to be more reserved about suggestions (2) and (3). A brief summary of De Bruyne’s article
can be found in: Bleddyn J. Roberts: The Old Testament Text and Versions. Cardiff 1951 (xv, 326
pp.), pp. 248–249. ▲

1931. Arthur Allgeier: Die erste Psalmenübersetzung des heiligen Hieronymus und das Psalterium Ro­
manum. Biblica 12: 447–482. – Page 482: “Das Psalterium Romanum ist eine Verbesserung und
Anpassung des afrikanischen Psalters an den europäischen Sprachgeist, welche in der Mailänder
Kirchenprovinz, in Spanien, in Gallien Richtung gebend wurde, vom 7. Jahrhundert ab den an­
gelsächsischen Kulturkreis eroberte und von da aus auch nach Deutschland siegreich vordrang.”
Allgeier considers the Psalterium Romanum to be the work of Jerome (an opinion that appar­
ently arose in the 8th century), while Donatien De Bruyne OSB denies the Psalterium Romanum
to the church father. Allgeier’s view has not prevailed.

1932. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: De quelques opinions sur l’ancien psautier latin. Revue biblique 41:
161–186. – Critical report on the controversy between De Bruyne and Allgeier (pp. 179–186). De
Bruyne thinks that the Roman Psalter reflects Augustine’s revision work, while Allgeier attributes
the Roman Psalter to Jerome’s revision work carried out during his stay in Rome. Lagrange tent­
atively suggests that the Roman Psalter may have been the European (rather than African) ver­
sion of the Vetus Latina Psalter (p. 186). ▲

221
1952. Alberto Vaccari SJ: I salteri de S. Girolamo e di S. Agostino. In: idem: Scritti di erudizione e di filo­
logia. I. Rome (xlvi, 395 pp.), pp. 207–255. – Pages 219–221: Jerome knew and used the Roman
Psalter.

1975. J.N.D. [John Norman Davidson] Kelly: Jerome. His Life, Writings and Controversies. London (xi, 353
pp.), p. 89: The extant Roman Psalter is not the work of Jerome; it may be identical with the Psal­
ter that Jerome read when he produced the Gallican Psalter.

2014. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La survivance du Psautier romain dans les bibles: comment les re­
connaître? Revue bénédictine 124 (2014) 348–352. – The Psalterium Romanum is often hard to
distinguish from the Psalterium Gallicanum.

Arthur Allgeier
Note.– Allgeier (1882–1952), trained as a Catholic theologian and Assyriologist, taught Old Testament
exegesis at the University of Freiburg from 1919 to 1951. After World War II, he served his university as
its first rector (1945–1946). The titles listed below represent only a selection of his contributions to re­
search on the Latin Psalter. Interestingly, his contemporary Friedrich Stummer (1886–1955) had a very
similar career and similar interests; he too was trained in Catholic theology and Assyriology, taught Old
Testament (1923–1953, after the Second World War in Munich), and specialized in research on the Lat ­
in Bible. Both scholars published important work in the 1920s, a decade in which Latin Bible studies
flourished and saw the publication of books of lasting value.

Allgeier’s favourite idea was that the Vulgate Psalter (Psalterium Gallicanum) and Letter 106 repres­
ented Jerome’s final word on the Psalms and was his most accomplished achievement. Allgeier claims
to have established the following sequence of Jerome’s work on the Psalms:

Psalterium Romanum

Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos

Psalterium Gallicanum

Letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela.

Allgeier’s sequence implies that Jerome came to disbelieve in the usefulness of his Psalterium iuxta
Hebraeos. Allgeier did not find followers. Today, most scholars are likely to believe in a different se ­
quence, namely:

Psalterium Romanum (not by Jerome)

(a lost Psalter by Jerome)

Psalterium Gallicanum

Letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela

Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos

Accordingly, Allgeier’s speculations are without a firm basis.

1926. Arthur Allgeier: Ist das Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos die letzte (3.) Psalmenübersetzung des hl.
Hieronymus? Theologie und Glaube 18: 671–687. – The Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos is traditionally

222
 considered to be the 3rd Psalm edition of the church father. Allgeier contradicts this view. The
correct sequence is: Psalterium Romanum – iuxta Hebraeos – Gallicanum. – Reviews:
1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond (xvi, 296
pp.), p. 187, note 99 (here translated from the Dutch): “Arthur Allgeier, Theologie und Glaube 18 (1926) 671–
687 believes that the Psalterium Gallicanum was made by Jerome after the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos,
which opinion seems to be refuted by the statement of Jerome himself in the Preface to the Hebrew Psalter
about the Seventy, PL 28 (1846): 1126: Quorum translationem diligentissime emendatam olim meae linguae
hominibus dederim [whose translation, carefully corrected, I gave some while ago to those who speak my
own tongue].”

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg. xi, 190 pp. – Review: F.C. Burkitt: Jerome’s
Work on the Psalter. Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1929) 395–397.

1929. Arthur Allgeier, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 32.5: 364–366. – In this review of Friedrich Stum­
mer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel (1928), Allgeier rejects Stummer’s dismissal of the Blond­
heim thesis that postulates the existence of an oral Latin targum in the Jewish synagogue:
“Stummer tritt der Meinung [Blondheims] allerdings mit beachtenswerten Gründen entgegen,
ohne sie jedoch m.E. zu entkräften” (col. 364). “In allem stimme ich freilich nicht bei. Nicht nur
denke ich über Blondheim günstiger [als Stummer] und bin sogar geneigt, wenigstens für den
Psalter analog der LXX vorchristlichen Ursprung anzunehmen” (col. 365). – No one seems to
have shared Allgeier’s idea that the Vetus-Latina Psalter would be a pre-Christian work.

1930. Arthur Allgeier: Der Brief an Sunnia und Fretela und seine Bedeutung für die Textherstellung der
Vulgata. Biblica 11: 86–107. – Allgeier agrees with De Bruyne that the request of the two Goths is
a mere literary topos. Allgeier thinks that one should prefer the Latin wording of the Sunnia let­
ter to the wording of our modern printed Vulgate; page 91: “Durch den Brief erhält der
gedruckte Vulgatatext manche Korrekturen.”

1931. Arthur Allgeier: Die erste Psalmenübersetzung des heiligen Hieronymus und das Psalterium Ro­
manum. Biblica 12: 447–482.

1937. Arthur Allgeier, Theologische Revue 36.3: 94 (in a review): “Es ist mir nie in den Sinn gekommen,
das Ps. Romanum als eine Originalübersetzung zu betrachten. Die Überlieferung sagt ausdrück­
lich, daß die Tätigkeit des h. Hieronymus am Psalmentext eine Revision gewesen ist. Infolgedes ­
sen konnte die Revision vielerlei enthalten, was Hieronymus vermieden hätte, wenn er ganz neu
hätte aufbauen können. Man darf auch bloß das Ps. Gallicanum prüfen und dazu den 106. Brief
ad Sunniam et Fretelam halten, um auf Schritt und Tritt festzustellen, wieviel Hieronymus sogar
hier im Text stehen ließ, was einem so klassizistisch geschulten Schriftsteller in seiner eigenen
Arbeit nicht durchgegangen wäre. Ja selbst das Psalterium juxta Hebraeos erweist sich noch
stark traditionsgebunden” (col. 94).

1940. Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche
Stellung. Paderborn. 314 pp. Reprint: New York 1968. – The so-called Gallican Psalter, estab ­
lished on the basis of the Septuagint, is generally considered the earlier, the Psalter from the
Hebrew the later translation of Jerome. Allgeier proposes to reverse the chronology; the Gallican
Psalter represents a considerable advance (“einen erheblichen Fortschritt,” p. 304) over the other
rendering of the Psalms. According to Allgeier, the Gallican (Vulgate) Psalter, once it is improved
on the basis of Jerome’s Letter to Sunnia and Fretela, represents Jerome’s mature work on the
Psalms. All reviewers challenge this interpretation. In fact, Allgeier has found no following. – Re ­
views:
1941. Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 22.3: 317–322.

1941. Heinrich Vogels, Theologische Literaturzeitung 66: 250–251.

223
 1942. Josef Linder SJ, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 66: 152–153.

1943. B. Capelle, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 39: 469–470. Very critical of Allgeier’s book.

1952. Alberto Vaccari SJ: I salteri de S. Girolamo e di S. Agostino. In: idem: Scritti di erudizione e di filologia. I.
Rome (xlvi, 395 pp.), pp. 207–255, esp. pp. 221–230.

1956. John H. Marks: Der textkritische Wert des Psalterium Hieronymi juxta Hebraeos. Winterthur (155 pp.), pp. 36–46.

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Lateinische Psalmenübersetzung in alter und neuer Zeit. In: Wissenschaft und
Leben. Reden zur Universitätsfeier am 1. Juni 1946. Freiburger Universitätsreden. Neue Folge Heft
2. Freiburg (28 pp.), pp. 7–20. Allgeier repeats his idea that Jerome considered his Gallican (Vul­
gate ) Psalter his final achievement, made after the iuxta hebraeos version. Allgeier also briefly
comments on the new Psalter of Pius XII (pp. 15–17) which is ultimately linked to Jerome’s iuxta
hebraeos version, and thus represents a radical break with the Vulgate Psalter.

1951. Bleddyn J. Roberts: The Old Testament Text and Versions. Cardiff (xv, 326 pp.), pp. 253–254. – A
brief summary of Allgeier’s views.

11.5 Books Jerome translated more than once

(non-Vulgate versions)
Note. – When Jerome moved from Rome to Palestine (Bethlehem), he spent the first years there trans ­
lating biblical books from the Greek (Septuagint) version or revising Vetus-Latina texts – Job, Proverbs,
Song of Songs, Koheleth, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Psalms. Jerome’s prologues to these translations are
still extant: the prologue to 1 and 2 Chronicles (Sources chrétiennes 592: 338–347), the prologue to
Job (Sources chrétiennes 592: 384–391), the prologue to the Psalms (Sources chrétiennes 592: 406–
411), and the prologue to Proverbs, Koheleth, and Song of Songs (Sources chrétiennes 592: 422–431).
Apart from the Psalms revision, which became the Vulgate text (see above, Chapter 11.4), the other
Greek-based translations either disappeared or had a rather shady existence. Jerome himself reports in
a letter to Augustine that these texts have disappeared due to someone’s fraud: ob fraudem cuiusdam
(letter 134, PL 22: 1162; CSEL 56: 263). Fully extant is the Latin text of the book of Job. It has also been
claimed that fragments of two more books survived – Koheleth and Song of Songs.

Job
Note. – Jerome translated the book of Job twice: first from Greek (ca. 390), then, a little later (392/93),
from Hebrew. Only the latter version is included in the Vulgate. The literature listed below refers only
to the translation from the Greek, the one not adopted by the Vulgate. For the Vulgate version of Job,
see below, Chapter 21.

Text
1846. Hieronymus: Liber Job secundum Septuaginta. PL 29: 61–114. – Jerome’s translation of the book
of Job from the Greek. Still considered the standard text of this work.

1887. Paul de Lagarde: Mittheilungen. Volume 2. Göttingen (388 pp.), pp. 189–237: “Des Hieronymus
Übertragung der griechischen Übersetzung des Iob.”

1893. Carl Paul Caspari: Das Buch Hiob (1,1–38,16) in Hieronymus’ Übersetzung aus der alexandrini­
schen Version nach einer St. Gallener Handschrift saec. VIII. Kristiania. 108 pp.

224
2017. Hieronymus: Prologus iuxta emendationem graecam (in libro Iob). Sources chrétiennes 592: 384–
391. – A critical edition of Jerome’s prologue to his translation of the book of Job from the
Greek, dated to between 386 and 389 (p. 384).

Secondary literature
1945. James Herbert Gailey: Jerome’s Latin Version of Job from the Greek. Chapters 1–26. Its Texts, Char­
acter and Provenance. Princeton. Published by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 177 pp.

1950. Peter J. Erbes: Die Job-Übersetzungen des hl. Hieronymus. Maschienenschriftliche Dissertation.
Freiburg. – Unpublished typewritten thesis.

2012. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Job latin chez les Pères et dans les bibles. D’une version courte à
des versions longues sur le grec et sur l’hébreu. Revue bénédictine 122: 48–99, 366–393.

2017. Gerd-Dietrich Warns: Die Textvorlage von Augustins Annotationes in Iob. Studien zur Erstfassung
von Hieronymus’ Hiob-Übersetzung iuxta Graecos. Göttingen. 590 pp. – Augustine used Jerome’s
translation of the book of Job made on the basis of the Greek.

2017. Almut Trenkler: Die beiden Rezensionen von Augustins Adnotationes in Iob im Licht von Hierony­
mus’ erster Ijob-Übersetzung. Göttingen. 331 pp.

2021. Almut Trenkler – Gerd-Dietrich Warns: Beiträge zum lateinischen Ijob. Iob 16,6; 27,16–17a; 28,1–
3a bei Hieronymus und Augustinus. Göttingen. 253 pp. – Pages 92–93: In an early version of Job
27:17 (which was not adopted into the Vulgate version), Jerome uses the verb convertere in a
sense attested by Cicero (In Verrem II, 3,176): to divert money to someone who has no right to it
(Geld für jemanden abzweigen, der kein Recht darauf hat). – Review: Markus Witte, Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 135.1 (2023) 169–170.

Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)
Note. – Jerome created three Latin versions of the book of Koheleth. Two have survived in their en­
tirety: the first in his Koheleth commentary of 388/89, and the Vulgate version of 397 or 398. Both are
based on the Hebrew text. A third version, preserved only in fragments, represents a translation from
the Greek.

1987. Sandro Leanza: Le tre versioni geronimiani dell’Ecclesiaste. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 4: 87–108.
– The version included in the lemmata of the commentary on Ecclesiastes, though a true version
of the Hebrew and sometimes more literal than Jerome’s Vulgate version, is still tied in part to
the Septuagint.

Song of Songs (Canticum canticorum)

Note. – Donatien de Bruyne and Alberto Vaccari discovered a Jeromian non-Vulgate version of the
Song of Songs, based on the Septuagint.

225
Text
1959. Alberto Vaccari SJ (ed.): Cantici canticorum vetus Latina translatio a S. Hieronymo ad Graecum
textum hexaplarem emendata, detexit, edidit apparatu critico instruxit Alberto Vaccari. Rome. 39
pp.

Secondary literature
1926. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Les anciennes versions latins du Cantique des Cantiques. Revue béné­
dictine 38: 97–122.

1958. Alberto Vaccari SJ: Recupero d’un lavoro critico di Girolamo 3. Cantico dei Cantici. In: idem: Scrit­
ti di erudizione e di filologia II. Rome (xvi, 518 pp.), pp. 121–146.

2009. Reinhart Ceulemans: The Latin Patristic Reception of the Book of Canticles in the Hexapla. Vigili­
ae Christianae 63: 369–389. – Ceulemans tells the story of how Jerome’s hexaplaric Latin recen ­
sion was rediscovered in the twentieth century (pp. 371–375).

11.6 The biblical canon

Note. – Jerome is known for his insistence that only those books that belong to the Hebrew Bible
should qualify as “canonical” books of the Old Testament. But there is more to be said about Jerome
and the canon, as can be seem both from the sources here quotes, and the secondary literature listed.
The term canon is firmly established in Jerome’s vocabulary, and he regularly associates it with “the
Church.” When he says that the Church (ecclesia) has not received a certain book “among the canonical
Scriptures” (inter canonicas scripturas; see below, Prologus in libris Salomonis), one can ask what exactly
he means by the “Church.” A possible answer might be that Jerome is thinking of the canon of the Sac­
red Scriptures as established by the Synod held in Rome in the year 382. Although we do not know
whether the Synod of Rome used the expression scripturae canonicae – the canonical Scriptures –, the
synod of Hippo in North Africa, held in 393, did use it (Concilia Africae, edited by Charles Mounier,
CCSL 149: 21).

Sources

Secondary literature: Decretum Damasi

Secondary literature: Old Testament and apocrypha

Secondary literature: New Testament

Further secondary literature

Sources
Note. – Most of the relevant Jerome sources can be found in Latin and English in this publication: Ed ­
mon L. Gallagher – John D. Meade (eds.): The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity. Oxford 2017
(xii, 337 pp.), pp. 197–216: Prologus galeatus, Letter 53, and Letter 107. The decretum Damasi, however,
does not figure in this otherwise excellent collection. ▲

226
382. Synod of Rome. This synod, held under Pope Damasus, issued a decree (decretum Damasi) that
lists all the books that belong to the biblical canon of both testaments. Jerome was present at
this synod, presumably serving Damasus as an advisor. (This document is included in the de­
cretum Gelasianum, named after Pope Gelasius, 492–496, a sixth-century privately compiled
document. That it includes an original decree of Damasus has been controversian, but seems to
be firmly established in present-day scholarship.) For Damasus’ “canon” document, see the fol­
lowing editions:

1846. Decretum de libris recipiendis, et non recipiendis. PL 19: 787–794. – The list of canonical
books of both testaments is on cols.791–793.

1847. Conciliorum sub Gelasio habitorum relation. Concilium Romanum I. PL 59: 157–159.

1900. C.H. Turner: Latin Lists of the Canonical Books. 1. The Roman Council under Damasus, A.D.
382. Journal of Theological Studies 1.4: 554–560. – At pp. 557–559, Turner provides a critic­
al edition of Damasus’ list of the canonical biblical books.

1904. Theodor Zahn: Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Zweite vermehrte
und vielfach verbesserte Auflage. Leipzig (iv, 92 pp.), pp. 84–85: Der römische Kanon vom
Jahre 382. – Latin text of the list, without translation.

1912. Ernst von Dobschütz: Das Decretum Gelasianum (…) in kritischem Text herausgegeben und
untersucht. Leipzig. viii, 362 pp. – The text of the canon list is on pp. 5–6.

1961. Pontificia commissio de re biblica (ed.): Enchiridion Biblicum. Editio quarta. Rome (xvi, 284
pp.), pp. 12–13 (no. 26). The document, in Latin.

2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann: Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und

kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), pp. 90–91 (nos.
179–180). See also the English edition: Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.):
Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. San
Francisco 2012 (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), nos.179–180.

2009. Ursula Reutter: Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen (xi, 567
pp.), pp. 471–473, Latin and German.

393. Jerome: Prologus in libro Regum (so-called Prologus galeatus; Sources chrétiennes 592: 322–337;
Tusculum-Vulgata II, pp. 250–259). – In this pologue, Jerome addresses the question of which
books belong in the canon of the Christian scriptures. In the Prologus, he lists the books in­
cluded in the Hebrew Bible, and then adds: “Whatever falls outside these must be set apart
among the Apocrypha (inter apocrypha). Therefore Wisdom (Sapientia), which is commonly en­
titled Solomon’s, with the book of the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Her ­
mas] are not in the canon (non sunt in canone). I have found the first book of Maccabees in
Hebrew; the second is in Greek, as may be proved from its very style” (Sources chrétiennes 592:
332; Tusculum-Vulgata II, 254).

394. Jerome: Letter 53,8–9 (CSEL 54: 454–463). Addressed to Paulinus of Nola, this letter serves as an
invitation to read the books of the Bible. The enumeration of the individual books of both testa­
ments and their brief characterization gives us a good idea of Jerome’s biblical canon. Several
books are in groups: the Twelve Prophets, the trilogy of the Solomonic writings (Prov, Koh,
Cant), the “Lord’s Four” (the four Gospels), Paul’s Epistles (fourteen, including Hebrews).

227
396. Jerome: Commentary on the book of Jonah, preface (Sources chrétiennes 323: 164): Liber quoque
Tobit, licet non habeatur in canone tamen, quia usurpatur ab ecclesiasticis viris – but the book of
Tobit, while not belonging to the canon, is nevertheless used by authors of the church.

398. Jerome: Prologus in libris Salomonis (Septuaginta) (Sources chrétiennes 592: 430; Tusculum-Vulga­
ta III, p. 772). Commenting on the fact that he has not included in his translation of the So­
lomonic books neither the book of Wisdom nor that book of Jesus Sirach, he adds: “Therefore,
just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not re ­
ceive them among the canonical Scriptures (inter canonicas scripturas non recipit), so also one
may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, but not for confirming the au­
thority of ecclesiastical doctrine.”

403. Jerome: Letter 107:12 (CSEL 55: 302–303). Jerome tells a mother how to use biblical books in the
education of her (then) baby daughter. The first book to be exposed to is the book of Proverbs,
the last one, after the reading of all the other biblical books of both testaments, is the Song of
Songs (Canticles). Many of the biblical books of both testaments are named in this reading list.
There is also this warning: “Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, but if she is led to read such, (it
should not be) for the truth of the doctrines which they contain, but out of respect for the mir­
acles contained in them. Let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom
they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it re­
quires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt” (p. 303).

Secondary literature: Decretum Damasi

1900. C.H. Turner: Latin Lists of the Canonical Books. 1. The Roman Council under Damasus, A.D. 382.
Journal of Theological Studies 1.4: 554–560. – “The treatment of the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St
John betrays the influence of St. Jerome: and we know that Jerome was present at the Council of
A. D. 382. To the same source may perhaps be referred the phrase used in describing the book
of Jeremiah—cum Cinoth id est Lamentationibus suis—since it recurs word for word in the Pro­
logus Galeatus” of Jerome (p. 554).

1912. Ernst von Dobschütz: Das Decretum Gelasianum (…) in kritischem Text herausgegeben und unter­
sucht. Leipzig. viii, 362 pp. – Unlike other scholars, Dobschütz does not believe in the existence
of a Roman Synod of 382 and a canon of biblical books then decreed. The entire document is a
private compilation by a scholar working in the first half of the sixth century. This was not a par ­
ticularly intelligent scholar, because he misunderstood some of the material that he included in
his work. (Subsequently, Dobschütz’s opinion remained the minority view.) – Reviews:
1913. F.C. Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) 469–471. Endorses Dobschütz’s views.

1913. John Chapman OSB: On the Decretum Gelasianum De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. Revue bénédictine
30: 187–207, 315–333. Dobschütz got it all wrong.

1913. E. Amann, Revue biblique 10: 602–608. The author compares the views of Dobschütz and Chapman without
deciding about whose view one should adopt.

1930. Eduard Schwartz: Zum Decretum Gelasianum. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
29: 161–168. – “Fest steht, daß der das zweite Exzerpt bildende Kanon Einfluß des Hieronymus
aufweist in dem Zusatz zu Jeremia (…) cum Cinoth id est lamentationibus suis und in der
Verteilung der Johannesbriefe auf den Apostel [1 Joh] und den Presbyter (…) [2–3 Joh]. Das fällt
schwer für Damasus und die Abfassung im Jahr 382 oder später ins Gewicht” (p. 165).

1990. Anton Ziegenaus: Kanon. Von der Väterzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
I.3a. Freiburg (252 pp.), pp. 132–133.

228
2009. Ursula Reutter: Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen (xi, 567 pp.), pp.
468–513: Decretum Damasi. According to Reutter, there is good evidence for the suggestion
that Jerome had a hand in drawing up the list of the biblical books deemed to be canonical. The
Damasus list (pp. 471–473, Latin and German) includes several books which Jerome later would
not consider canonical: Tobit, Judith, and 1–2 Maccabees.

Secondary literature: Old Testament and apocrypha

1878. Samuel Davidson: The Canon of the Bible. Third edition, revised and enlarged. London. xii, 279
pp. – “It has been conjectured by [Benedikt] Welte, that the conclusions of the African councils
in 393 and 397 influenced Jerome’s views of the canon, so that his later writings allude to the
apocryphal works in a more favourable mann er than that of the Prologus galeatus or the pre­
face to Solomon’s books. One thing is clear, that he quotes different passages from the Apo­
crypha along with others from the Hebrew canon. (…) The practice of Jerome differed from his
theory; or rather he became less positive, and altered his views somewhat with the progress of
time and knowledge” (pp. 191–192). – Davidson does not know of a canon decreed by Damasus
in a council held in Rome in 382. The councils held in North Africa in Hippo (393) and Carthage
(397) are discussed in Anton Ziegenaus: Kanon. Von der Väterzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Handbuch
der Dogmengeschichte I.3a. Freiburg 1990 (252 pp.), pp. 136–137. Benedict Welte (1805–1885)
was a Catholic biblical scholar who taught at the University of Tübingen, Germany.

1909. The Influence of Saint Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church. Journal of Theological Stud­
ies 10: 481–496, at pp. 489–469.

1912. Otto Bardenhewer: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Band 3. Freiburg. x, 665 pp. – Vacillat­
ing in matters of the canon, Jerome has introduced no small confusion into the history of the
Old Testament canon (“in die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Kanons keine geringe Verwir­
rung hineingetragen”, p. 629).

1969. J.F. Hernández Martín: San Jerónimo y los deuterocanónicos del Antiguo Testamento. La Ciudad
de Dios 182: 373–384.

1985. Jérôme: Commentaire sur Jonas. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire par Yves-
Marie Duval. Sources chrétiennes 323. Paris. 460 pp. – On pp. 328–329, Duval comments on Je­
rome’s biblical canon : Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc.

1987. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Jérôme et l’œuvre de Ben Sira. Le Muséon 100: 109–120. – While initially re­
jecting the canonicity of the book of Sirach, in 404 he tacitly changed his mind and henceforth
accepted the canonicity (p. 118).

1990. Anton Ziegenaus: Kanon. Von der Väterzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
I.3a. Freiburg (252 pp.), pp. 144–146.

2012. Edmon L. Gallagher: Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory. Canon, Language, Text. Leiden.
ix, 266 pp. – Pages 50–53 and pp. 98–103: Jerome.

2012. Edmon L. Gallagher: The Old Testament Apocrypha in Jerome’s Canonical Theory. Journal of
Early Christian Studies 20: 213–233. – In the Prologus Galeatus (Preface to Samuel and Kings),
Jerome speaks in favor of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Other statements of Jerome
are more friendly towards the apocryphal writings and even show appreciation for them.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 118–156: Le canon biblique de Jérôme, pp. 119–148: L’Ancien Testament. Page 118
provides a list of all the passages where Jerome uses the words canon and canonicus. ▲

229
2018. Gilles Dorival: Problèmes du canon de l’Ancien Testament, notamment en Occident. In: Élie Ay­
roulet – Aline Canellis (eds.): L’exégèse de saint Jérôme. Saint-Étienne (381 pp.), pp. 15–30.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293. – Pages 197–198 on Jerome and deuterocanonical literature.

2021. Casey K. Croy: Sequencing the Hebrew Bible. The Order of the Books. Sheffield. xvi, 247 pp. – In­
cludes a comparison between the ordering of the biblical books in rabbinical lists and the se­
quence given in Jerome’s writings.

Secondary literature: New Testament

1909. H.H. Howorth: The Influence of Saint Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church. Journal of
Theological Studies 10: 481–496, at pp. 484–489.

1990. Anton Ziegenaus: Kanon. Von der Väterzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
I.3a. Freiburg (252 pp.), pp. 140–143.

1990. Uwe Swarat : Das Werden des neutestamentlichen Kanons. In : Gerhard Maier (ed.) : Der Kanon
der Bibel. Gießen (vi, 199 pp.), p. 27: “Mit einiger Sicherheit kann man sagen, daß eine von Bi­
schof Damasus geleitete römische Synode vom Jahr 382 ein Bibelverzeichnis aufstellte, das un­
sere 27 neutestamentlichen Bücher enthält. Da Hieronymus auf dieser Synode als Berater des
Damasus wirkte und einige Einzelheiten des Verzeichnisses mit Sondermeinungen des Hierony­
mus übereinstimmen – etwa die Unterscheidung eines Presbyters Johannes als Verfasser des 2.
und 3. Johannesbriefes und vom Apostel als Verfasser des 1. Briefes –, kann man wohl davon
ausgehen, daß der dort erstmals im Abendland so abgegrenzte Kanon wesentlich auf den Ein ­
fluß des Hieronymus zurückgeht.”

2012. Thomas O’Loughlin: Jerome’s De viris illustribus and Latin Perceptions of the New Testament’s
Canon. In: Janet Elaine Rutherford et al. (eds.): The Mystery of Christ in the Fathers of the Church.
Dublin (244 pp.), pp. 55–65. – Jerome’s De viris illustribus includes a section on the authors of
the writings that belong to the canon of the New Testament. This section can be considered a
“canon list,” because it tells us how Jerome felt about the canonical authors – and the early-
Christian authors whose writings are not considered “canonical.” (Also note that some passages
from De viris illustribus were later used as prefaces to the collection of Pauline letters, to the let­
ter of James, to the letters of Peter, and to the letter of James; the relevant passages are printed
in Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 [viii, 290 pp.], pp. 258–
262.) ▲

2016. Marius Reiser : Warum folgt in einer griechischen Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments auf die Apos­
telgeschichte der Römerbrief und nicht der Jakobusbrief? Theologische Beiträge 47: 33–36. – The
sequence of the New Testament writings is a neglected subject of scholarship. According to an­
cient Greek codices, the sequence should be “Gospels – Acts – Catholic Epistles (beginning with
James) – Paul’s Epistles – Revelation.” By contrast, all modern standard editions of the Greek
New Testament follow the Vulgate’s sequence that places the Pauline Epistles before the Cathol­
ic Epistles – and the reason for this inversion is unknown. Reiser suspects that the first popular
modern edition of the Greek New Testament, that of Eberhard Nestle, simply followed Luther
(who followed the Vulgate).

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 118–156: Le canon biblique de Jérôme, pp. 148–156: Le Nouveau Testament.

230
Further secondary literature

English
1909–1912. H.H. Howorth: The Influence of Saint Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church. Journal
of Theological Studies 10 (1909) 481–496; 11 (1910) 321–337; 13 (1912) 1–18. – With the excep­
tion of the first instalment (which is about Jerome), the series deals with what the author calls
“Jerome’s pernicious influence on the views held of the Canon in the middle ages” and beyond
(p. 496).

1952. P.W. Skehan: St Jerome and the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. In: F.X. Murphy (ed.): A Monument
to St. Jerome. New York (xv, 295 pp.), pp. 257–287.

2016. Daniel Kerber: The Canon in the Vulgate Translation of the Bible. The Bible Translator 67.2: 168–
183.

2019–2020. Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Leiden, volumes 2A (2020. xxxix, 497 pp.), 2B
(2019. xxxiii, 542 pp.), 2C (2020. xxxii, 572 pp.). – These volumes contain detailed articles on each
of the deuterocanonical writings. Volume 2A, subedited by Frank Feder and Matthias Henze, has
the survey articles; Edmon L. Gallagher writes about “The Latin Canon” (pp. 166–190) and “Latin
Texts” (pp. 398–405).

2020. Edmon L. Gallagher: The Latin Canon. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume
2A. Leiden (xxxix, 497 pp.), pp. 166–190. – This survey article begins with Jerome (pp. 172–175)
and outlines the history of the biblical canon up to the Council of Trent and the Clementine edi ­
tion of the Vulgate Bible.

2023. Edmon L. Gallagher: Deuterocanonical Books in Latin Tradition. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The
Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 91–105. – A set of biblical books
not considered canonical by all Christians has often found a place in Latin biblical manuscripts,
and in some cases has received canonical sanction. This article considers not only the so-called
Roman Catholic deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees, Additions to Daniel, Additions to Esther) but also other writings import­
ant in the Latin biblical tradition such as 3–4 Ezra. The bulk of the essay surveys each of these
books in terms of its origins in Latin, the manuscript sources, and the relevant editions. The ca ­
nonical history of these works is also discussed.

2023. Raúl Villegas Marín: Scripture and the North African Conciliar Canon Lists. In: Jonathan P. Yates –
Anthony Dupont (eds.): The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part II. Berlin (in press).

German
1910. Ludwig Schade: Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus. Biblische Studien 15, 4–5. Freiburg.
xv, 223 pp.

1970. Maurice E. Schild: Abendländische Bibelvorreden bis zur Lutherbibel. Heidelberg. 286 pp. – Pages
42–48: On Jerome, letter 53, a text in the Middle Ages often included in Bibles as a general Intro­
duction. Schild summarizes the letter.

French
1984. Otto Wermelinger: Le canon des Latins au temps de Jérôme et d’Augustin. In: Jean-Daniel Kaestli
– Otto Wermelinger (eds.): Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire. Geneva
(399 pp.), pp. 153–210.

231
2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les livres d’Esdras et leur numérotation dans l’histoire du canon de
la Bible latine. Revue bénédictine 110: 5–26.

2005. Pierre-Maurice Bogart OSB: Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition
et réintégration. Revue bénédictine 115: 286–342.

2008. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les livres des Maccabées dans la Bible latine. Contribution à l’his­
toire de la Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 118: 201–238.

2014. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les frontières du canon de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Occident latin.
In: R. Gounelles – Jan Joosten (eds.): La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité. Prahins (Switzerland) (271
pp.), pp. 41–95. – Summarized in Revue bénédictine 125 (2015) 186–187.

11.7 Jerome’s Prefaces

Note. – Many editions of the Vulgate include the prefaces that Jerome wrote to introduce his new
translations. Since he did not translate all the books of the Bible, and did not supply prefaces for all the
biblical books, medieval editors have filled this gap by various strategies. Sometimes, they excerpted
suitable passages from Jerome’s work (especially from Jerome’s De viris illustribus, PL 23: 638–650), or
wrote their own prefaces that were then thought to be by Jerome.

A special case is Jerome’s preface to the Gospels. There is an authentic Praefatio sancti Hieronymi pres­
byteri in Evangelio (critically edited in Sources chrétiennes 592: 470–481), doubled by an inauthentic
prologue to a commentary on the four Gospels (Expositio in IV Evangeliorum). Modern critics have dis­
covered the latter text’s non-Jeromian character. The modern editor dates it to c. 700 and thinks of Ire­
land as its place of origin, see José Carracedo-Fraga: El prólogo de la Expositio quattuor Evangeliorum
atribuida a Jerónimo (CPL 631 y CLH 65): presentación, edición crítica y comentario. Euphrosyne 47
(2019) 93–118 (with an English abstract).

Jerome extensively quotes from several of his prefaces in Jerome: Apologia adversus Rufinum II, 25–33
(PL 23: 448–455); translated in Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works. Translated by John N.
Hritzu. The Fathers of the Church 58. Washington 1965 (xix, 403 pp.), pp. 145–159.

Latin text only

1864. Jerome’s prefaces are included in the text of the Vulgate as printed in Jacques-Paul Migne’s
Patrologia Latina (volumes 28 and 29). Examples are the preface to the Pentateuch translation
(PL 28: 147–152), the preface to the books of Samuel and Kings (PL 28: 547–558 i.e., the famous
Prologus galeatus), and the preface to the translation of the Gospels (PL 29: 525–530).

1920. [Donatien De Bruyne OSB] Préfaces de la Bible Latine. Namur. 266 pp. – The author presents the
Vulgate prologues of Jerome (with critical apparatus), but also edits many other texts that were
used as introductions in medieval Bible manuscripts. The book is now widely accessible as a re­
print with an English title (and the editor’s name added; the 1920 edition did not indicate his
name): Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Introductions by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert & Thomas O’Loughlin.
Turnhout 2015. xv, 266 pp. Some of the non-Jeromian prologues are analysed in Otto Zwierlein:
Die antihäretischen Evanglienprologe und die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart 86 pp.).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages. 222–262:
Latin text of Jerome’s prefaces, without translation. Stummer includes the passages excerpted
from Jerome’s De viris illustribus used as prefaces for the Pauline epistles, the epistles of Peter
and the epistle of James.

232
1974. Heinrich Marti: Übersetzer der Augustinzeit. Interpretation von Selbstzeugnissen. Munich. 348 pp. –
Pages 175–178: Extracts from two prefaces (to the books of Kings, to Job) in Latin, with annota ­
tions.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Edited by Robert Weber – Roger Gryson. 4th, corrected
edition 1994; 5th, improved edition 2007. Stuttgart. xlix, 1980 pp. – This edition of the Latin Bible
includes the Latin text of Jerome’s prefaces, each placed before the biblical book it introduces.

Complete translations, bilingual editions, and selections

1893. [complete translation] The Principal Works of St. Jerome. Translated by W.H. Freemantle. A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, vol. 6. New York 1893 (xxxv, 524 pp.),
pp. 487–494.

2002. [text selections] Jerome: Preface to the Vulgate Version of the Pentateuch. In: Stefan Rebenich:
Jerome. London (xi, 211 pp.), pp. 101–105. – Rebenich’s book of Jerome text selections includes
a translation of the preface to Jerome’s translation of the Pentateuch.

2008. [text selections] Mario Cimosa – Carlo Buzzetti: Guido allo studio della Bibbia latina. Dalla Vetus
Latina, alla Vulgata, alla Nova Vulgata. Sussidi patristici 14. Rome. 201 pp. – The preface to the
Four Gospels is supplied in Latin and English (pp. 53–57).

2016. [text selections] Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition.
Freiburg. 444 pp. – Pages 326–349: bilingual selections from Jerome’s prefaces, Latin and Ger­
man; a longer quotation from the Daniel preface is given only in translation (p. 116). The first
edition, published in 2003, offered only the German translation, but not the Latin text.

2017. [text selections] Jerome: Prologus Galeatus. In: Edmon L. Gallagher – John D. Meade (eds.): The
Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity. Oxford 2017 (xii, 337 pp.), pp. 198–203. – The pro­
logue to the books of Samuel and kings, Latin with annotated English translation.

2017. [bilingual edition] Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes
592. Paris. 530 pp. – Critically edited Latin text of the complete set of Jeromian prefaces (pp. 301–
509), accompanied by a French translation, explanatory notes, and a long introduction. (One inter­
esting detail: the prologus galeatus, i.e., Jerome’s prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, is
not considered the “helmeted prologue” or “der behelmte Prolog”; instead, the expression
galeatum principium omnibus libris is rendered as “exorde empanaché à tous les livres,” which
would be “the embellishing exordium to all the books; der als Schmuck dienende Prolog zu allen
Büchern”; p. 332, note 1.) The introduction of the book tells the story of Jerome’s Bible translation.
This is an indispensable standard work on Jerome and his biblical translations. – Reviews:
2019. Josef Lössl, Journal of Theological Studies 70: 872–874.

2019. Agnethe Siquans, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 23: 392–395. ▲

2018. [bilingual edition] Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Hieronymus:
Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Lateinisch–deutsch. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin. 5 vols. 889 pp., 1483 pp.,
1247 pp., 1285 pp., 1401 pp. – Each of Jerome’s prefaces, given in Latin and German, is placed
where it belongs – before the biblical texts that it introduces. Note that this edition puts the
name of Jerome (Hieronymus) on the title page.

233
Secondary literature
1964. Paolo Igino Cecchetti: S. Girolamo e il suo “Prologus Galeatus.” Alle origine della Volgata. Latera­
num NS 30: 77–114. – Also included in: Scritti di Monsignore Paolo Igino Cecchetti. Rome 1967
(xxxvii, 470 pp.), pp. 79–118.

1970. Maurice E. Schild: Abendländische Bibelvorreden bis zur Lutherbibel. Gütersloh. 286 pp. – Pages
13–70 deal with Jerome’s prologues and the Jeromian texts that were later used as prologues in
manuscripts and printed editions of the Vulgate Bible.

1973. Klaus Gamber: Der “Liber Comitis” des Hieronymus. Ein wenig beachteter Zeuge der Vulgata. In:
Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.): Studia Evangelica 6. Berlin (676 pp.), pp. 147–153. – The prologue
preceding the Liber Comitis, an early liturgical pericope book, is considered a pseudepigraphic
work of the 6th century (Germain Morin) – wrongly. It could be a genuine, hitherto unrecog­
nized Jerome letter, not least because the pericope texts offer the text of the Vulgate. The letter
is addressed to Constantius, a confidant of the church father who lived in Rome.

2009. Domenico Ciarlo: Sui prologhi alle traduzioni bibliche di Girolamo. Koinonia 33: 27–45.

2012. Edoardo Bona: Appunti di lettura della Praefatio in Euangelio di Gerolamo (con un occhio all’epi­
stolario Gerolamo–Agostino). In: Marina Passalacqua et al. (eds.): Venuste noster. Scritti offerti a
Leopoldo Gamberale. Hildesheim (726 pp.), pp. 347–369.

2014. Andrew Cain: Apology and Polemics in Jerome’s Prefaces to His Biblical Scholarship. In: Ludger
Schwienhorst-Schönberger – Elisabeth Birnbaum (eds.): Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe. In­
terdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar des Hieronymus. Leuven (xviii, 331 pp.), pp. 107–
128. – Page 127: Jerome “used his non-expository prefaces (…) to defend himself against scurril­
ous allegations about his close association with senatorial women, acquit himself of accusations
of plagiarism, attack his critics and literary rivals, and justify his controversial Hebrew philology.”

2017. Alessandro Lagtoia: Alle soglie dei commentarii: dall’epistola prefatoria al prologo gerominiano.
Auctores nostri 18: 69–103.

2020. Michal Sołomieniuk: Saint Jerome’s Prologues to the Biblical Books in the Vulgate: The Introduct­
ory Issues. Vox Patrum 76: 67–86. – Polish, brief English abstract.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine
linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.),
pp. 3–83, at pp. 8–26. – A look at some of the prologues, esp. the two prologues to the Psalms
and the prologues to the Pentateuch and to Joshua.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Vorworte zu den Büchern der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 32–34. – A brief
survey.

11.8 Chronology of Jerome’s biblical translations

1920. Laurent Henri Cottineau OSB: Chronologie des versions bibliques de Saint Jérôme. In: Vincenzo
Vannutelli (preface): Miscellanea Geronimiana. Rome (viii, 330 pp.), pp. 42–68. – Proposes a chro­
nology of Jerome’s biblical translations. Discussed in Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die
lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 94.

1922. Ferdinand Cavallera SJ: Saint Jérôme. Sa vie et son œuvre. Deux tomes. Louvain. x, 344 pp; 229 pp.
– Tome 2, pp. 153–165: Chronology of the translation work (the details of which are questioned
today). Jerome had translated all the prophetic books by 393, the Pentateuch with Joshua and

234
 Judges were done in the years 398–406, and finally his entire translation underwent a final revi­
sion in 405/06; after that, in 407, he translated the books of Judith and Tobit. (Cavallera seems to
be the only scholar to speak of Jerome’s “final revision” of his translation.)

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – The author
presents a rough chronology of the 15-year translation effort from Hebrew, but notes by way of
introduction that although the sources on the translator’s life “flow very abundantly, they are
not sufficient to allow us to determine in what time each book of the Old Testament was trans­
lated” (pp. 91–92).

1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond
(xvi, 296 pp.), pp. 36–37 supplies a chronological table of Jerome’s translations.

1973–1974. Pierre Nautin: Études de chronologie hiéronymienne (393–397). Revue des études augus­
tiniennes 19: 69–86. 213–29; 20: 251–284. – Also see idem: Hieronymus. In: Theologische Realen­
zyklopädie. Berlin 1986. Volume 15, pp. 304–315.

1981. Alan D. Booth: The Chronology of Jerome’s Early Years. Phoenix: The Journal of the Classical As­
sociation of Canada 35: 237–259.

1982. Pierre Jay: La datation des premières traductions de l’Ancien Testament sur l’Hébreu par Saint Jé­
rôme. Revue des études augustiniennes 28: 208–212. – The shift from Greek to Hebrew base text
began with the translation of the Psalter.

1995. Hermann Josef Frede: Kirchenschriftsteller. Verzeichnis der Sigel (Vetus Latina 1.1, 4th edition).
Freiburg. 1049 pp. – Pages 510–532: chronology of Jerome’s works. This may currently be con­
sidered the standard chronology. See the chronological table below!

2013. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cam­
bridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526. – Page 515: “The
chronology of [Jerome’s] translations from the Hebrew is at all points difficult to establish.”

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris 2017.
530 pp. – Pages 94–98: Chronologie des traductions faites par Jérôme. This is a tabular overview
of various datings; the work itself follows the dates suggested by Yves-Marie Duval, noted below
within the presentation of Frede’s chronology of 1995.

2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden
2020. vii, 296 pp. – A book on the scholarly work of Jerome in the years 386 to 393, especially on
his commentaries on the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philemon and Titus.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine
linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.),
pp. 8–10 (with chronological tables based on Canellis and Duval).

Frede’s chronology of Jerome’s translations

Note. – While it seems difficult if not impossible to establish a reliable chronology of Jerome’s transla ­
tion work, one can at least hope to produce a tentative chronology of his prologues, always marking
the completion of a translation project. The following chronological outline follows H.J. Frede (1995),
but alternative opinions are indicated in brackets. Frede’s chronology has been adopted by Roger Gry­
son: Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latin de l’antiquité et du haut moyen âge. Volume 1
(Vetus Latina 1.1; 5th edition). Freiburg 2007 (575 pp.), pp. 526–548.

235
For a comparable chronological list of Jerome’s biblical commentaries, see Pierre Jay: Jérôme et la pra­
tique de l’exégèse. In: Jacques Fontaine – Charles Pietri (eds.): Le monde antique et la Bible. Bible de
tous les temps 2. Paris 1985 (672 pp.), pp. 523–542, at p. 542; see below, Chapter 20.1.

383 Praefatio in Evangelio (Duval: 383–384)

386 (after 385) Praefatio in libro Psalmorum (Psalterium Gallicanum; Duval: 386–390;
Graves: 387)

386/89 Praefatio in libro Paralipomenon (Septuaginta), according to Duval

387 Prologus in Iob iuxta emendationem Graecam (Duval: 386–389)

Prolog to Paralipomenon in the hexaplaric recension (Duval: 386–389)

Praefatio de translatione Graeca zu Prov, Eccl, Cant (Duval: 386–389)

390/92 Prologus in Danihele propheta (Duval: before 393)

Prologus in Isaia propheta

Prologus in libri Hieremiae propheta

Prologus duodecim prophetarum (Duval: before 393)

Praefatio zum Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos (Pierre Nautin: 398; Duval: before 392)

393 Prologus in Pentateucho (Duval: 398–400

Prologus in libro Regum (also known as Prologus galeatus; Duval: 391–392)

394 Prologus in libro Iob (Duval: before 394)

396 Epistula 57 – To Pammachius, about the Best Translation

Prologus in libro Paralipomenon (Duval: 396–398)

397/98 Prologus Hiezechielis (Duval: before 393)

398 Prologus in libris Salomonis

399 Prologus Tobiae (and Judith, according to Duval)

400 Praefatio in libro Ezrae (Duval: 394–395)

Epistula 106 – To Sunnia and Fretela, about the Psalms (Altaner: 404–410)

404 (shortly before 404) Prologus Hester (Duval: 404–405)

Praefatio in libro Iosue (Duval: 404–406)

407 (before 407) Prologus Iudith (Duval: 399)

11.9 The Eusebian canon tables

Note. – The Greek church father Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340) divided each of the gospels into
brief sections – Matthew into 335, Mark into 236, Luke into 342, and John into 232 sections. The first
canon lists the sections that are common to all four gospels, the second canon those sections that are
common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; the third canon those common to Matthew, Luke and John –

236
and so on; the tenth, final canon, lists passages that have no parallels in other gospels. The canon
tables are only of use if the gospel text is partitioned into the numbered Eusebian sections (called the
“Eusebian apparatus”).

Eusebius explains the system in his letter to Caprianus; the Greek text of this letter can be found in
Patrologia Graeca 22: 1276–1277 and in Nestle–Aland (eds.): Das Neue Testament Griechisch und
Deutsch. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. Stuttgart 1986 (v, 38*, 779 pp.), pp. 39*–40*. For an
English translation, see Matthew Crawford: The Eusebian Canon Tables. Ordering Textual Knowledge in
Late Antiquity. Oxford 2019 (xvii, 372 pp.), pp. 295–296.

In his prologue to the four gospels, dedicated to Pope Damasus and written in 383 or 384 (Sources
chrétiennes 592: 470–481), Jerome refers at length to the Eusebian canons. He considered them so
useful that he placed them before his Latin text of the Gospels.

Editions
1846. Eusebius: Canones Evangeliorum. PL 29: 531–542.

1920. [Donatien De Bruyne OSB] Préfaces de la Bible Latine. Namur (266 pp.), pp. 158–170. – This is a
critical edition with variant readings from a variety of medieval manuscripts. De Bruyne had this
book printed without his name on the title page, and without a preface or any other explanatory
material. The copy that is now widely available is a reprint; it is given an English title: D. de
Bruyne: Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Introductions by Pierre-Maurice Bogart & Thomas O’Laughlin.
Turnhout 2015. xv, 266 pp.

1961. Eberhard Nestle (ed.): Novum Testamentum Latine. Textum Vaticanum cum apparatu critico. Edi­
tio nona. Stuttgart (xix, 657 pp.), pp. xv–xviii. – The canon tables can be found in all editions of
the Nestle Latin New Testament, of which the first edition was published in 1906 (with the canon
tables on pp. xv–xviii of the first edition also).

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1516–1526. – Numerical table with text-critical ap­
paratus.

2018. Hieronymus: Biblia sacra vulgata. Edited by Andreas Beriger, Michael Fieger et al. Sammlung
Tusculum. Band V. Berlin 2018 (1401 pp.), pp. 25–37.

2021. Martin Wallraff: Die Kanontafeln des Euseb von Kaisareia. Untersuchung und kritische Edition.
Berlin. viii, 266 pp. – Review: Thomas J. Kraus, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 27 (2022)
127–129 (German). ▲

Secondary literature
1899. J. van den Gheyn: Eusèbe. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 2.2. Paris
(cols. 1195–2428), cols. 2051–2056, at cols. 2051–2052.

1908. Eberhard Nestle: Die eusebianische Evangelien-Synopse. Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 19: 40–51,
93–114, 219–232. – This article remains a valuable account.

1938. Carl Nordenfalk: Die spätantiken Kanontafeln. Kunstgeschichtliche Studien über die eusebianische
Evangelien-Konkordanz in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geschichte. Göteborg. Textband –
320 pp.; Tafelband – 13 pp., 168 plates.

1959. H.H. Oliver: The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus: Textual Tradition and Translation. Novum Tes­
tamentum 3: 138–145.

237
1981. Walter Thiele: Beobachtungen zu den eusebianischen Sektionen und Kanones der Evangelien.
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1981) 100–111.

1993. Patrick McGurk: The Disposition of Numbers in Latin Eusebian Canon Tables. In: Roger Gryson
(ed.): Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien. Freiburg (674 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 1, pp.
242–258.

1999. Thomas O’Loughlin: The Eusebian Apparatus in Some Vulgate Gospel Books. Peritia 13: 1–92.

2004. Petra Sevrugian: Kanontafeln. In: Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum. Band 20. Stuttgart (1292
cols.), cols. 28–42.

2010. Thomas O’Loughlin: Harmonizing the Truth: Eusebius and the Problem of the Four Gospels. Tra­
ditio 65: 1–29.

2013. Martin Wallraff: Kodex und Kanon. Das Buch im frühen Christentum. Berlin. xv, 78 pp. – Page 34:
After the Bible, the Eusebian canon tables are the best transmitted text of antiquity.

2014. Satoshi Toda: The Eusebian Canons: Their Implications and Potential. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.):
Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament. Piscataway, N.J. (xiv, 217 pp.), pp. 27–
44. The author focusses on the Passion narrative.

2014. Elizabeth Mullins: The Eusebian Canon tables and Hiberno-Latin Exegesis: the Case of Vienna,
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 940. Sacris erudiri 53: 323–343.

2019. Matthew Crawford: The Eusebian Canon Tables. Ordering Textual Knowledge in Late Antiquity.
Oxford. xvii, 372 pp. – Page 7: “Moving from the world of Greek into Latin, we find the Canons in
the majority of Vulgate gospelbooks, including most of the well-known ones, such as Codex
Fuldensis (6th c.), the St. Augustine Gospels (early 8th c.), and the Lindisfarne Gospels (early 8th
c.), not surprisingly, since Jerome incorporated a Latin version of the apparatus in the new Vul ­
gate edition he created for Pope Damasus in the earl 380s.”

2020. Matthew R. Crawford: Do the Eusebian Tables Represent the Closure or the Opening of the Bib ­
lical Text? Considering the Case of Codex Fuldensis. In: Alessandro Bausi et al. (eds.): Canones.
The Art of Harmony. The Canon Tables of the Four Gospels. Berlin (xi, 258 pp.), pp. 17–28. – The
volume can be consulted on the Internet, “open access.”

238
Chapter 12
In Jerome’s Shadow: Rufinus the Syrian?
Note. – It is generally agreed that the Vulgate text of the Gospels represents the revision work of
Jerome. It was he who poured over the Old Latin Gospels and the Greek text, and produced a revised
text that eventually became the Vulgate version of the Gospels. It is also generally felt that the rest of
the Vulgate New Testament – the Acts of the Apostles, all the epistles, and the book of Revelation –
are different. A standard idea was explained in An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Test­
ament by Thomas Hartwell Horne and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London 1856, xxvii, 767 pp.): “But in
this time he [Jerome] seems to have completed his revision of the remainder of the New Testament; a
revision less complete and uniform than that of the Gospels, and in which many parts seem to have re­
ceived hardly any alteration from his hand. This may probably have arisen from the rest of the books
having been less altered by copyists and revisers than was the case with the Gospels” (p. 245).

While the Horne/Prideaux manual thinks that a revision of the book of Acts etc. was not actually ne­
cessary, others have suggested that there was indeed a very thorough revision of the New Testament
texts not touched by Jerome:

1965. “Der unbekannte Schöpfer der Vulgata der Paulus- und der Katholischen Briefe arbeitet viel
sorgfältiger [als Hieronymus] und sucht weitaus konsequenter die Kongruenz mit dem Griechis­
chen herzustellen. Auch verzichtet er auf die eigenwilligen, ja willkürlichen stilistischen Änderun­
gen, die bei Hieronymus eine so erhebliche Rolle spielen.” Hermann Josef Frede: Der Paulustext
des Pelagius. Sacris erudiri 16 (1965) 165–183, at p. 182.

1989. “Wann der Rest des Neuen Testaments revidiert worden ist und durch wen das geschah, ist nicht
sicher. (…) Dabei ist die Revisionsarbeit hier sorgfältiger und konsequenter durchgefuhrt als das
durch Hieronymus bei den Evangelien geschah.” Kurt Aland – Barbara Aland: Der Text des Neuen
Testaments. Zweite, ergänzte und erweiterte Auflage. Stuttgart 1989 (374 pp.), p. 197.

Since the early twentieth century there has been a debate, still continuing, about who actually did the
revision: was it Jerome or, perhaps, someone else? Three answers were suggested, and three schools
developed – the critics, the apologists, and the detectives. (a) The critics argued that it was not Jerome
who did it, but we simply don’t know who it was; this interpretation was first suggested by Hugh Pope
OP in 1914. (b) The apologists sought to establish that the traditional attribution to Jerome still makes
sense. And (c) the detectives – actually just three, all of them Benedictine monks – claimed to have
found the fingerprints of the one who did the job, and to have identified the man. Accordingly, this
section is in three parts. We must start with the detectives, because most of the critics and the apolo ­
gists responded to the – exaggerated, as they argue – claims of the detectives.

12.1 Three detectives: Donatien De Bruyne, Célestin Charlier, and Bonifatius Fischer

12.2 Jeromian apologists

12.3 The critics: neither Jerome nor Rufinus

239
12.1 Three detectives:
Donatien De Bruyne, Céléstin Charlier, and Bonifatius Fischer
Note. – These three Benedictine monks suggested names for the otherwise elusive reviser of the New
Testament texts left untouched by Jerome. De Bruyne suggested the name of Pelagius, Charlier the
name of Cassiodorus, and Fischer the name of Rufinus the Syrien (who is sometimes called Pseudo-
Rufinus). De Bruyne’s suggestion prompted enormous critical reaction, with no one following him;
most of his critics sought to defend Jerome as the reviser. Charlier’s suggestion was apparently never
taken seriously. So in this section we can list only followers of Fischer.

Three detectives
1915. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Études sur les origines de notre texte latin de St. Paul. Revue biblique
n.s. 12: 358–392. – Jerome never uses the Vulgate text of the Pauline letters, not even in his
commentaries on some of the Pauline letters. The Vulgate text of Paul’s letters does not go back
to Jerome, but to Pelagius. But how could a text touched by someone who came to be seen as a
controversial figure in the history of theology become adopted into the Vulgate Bible? De
Bruyne noted that Pelagius’ particular doctrines did not influence his (Vulgate) edition of the
Latin Pauline text. – Reactions:
1917. Ernesto Buonaiuti: Pelagio e le volgata Paolina. Athenaeum 5: 108–112. – The author is critical. If Pelagius
had really made those revisions of the Latin Pauline text that De Bruyne wants to attribute to him, his fol ­
lowers would have flocked to make the master’s corrected version their own.

1961. Hermann Josef Frede: Pelagius, der irische Paulustext, Sedulius Scottus. Freiburg. 165 pp. – Most scholars, in­
cluding Frede, now believe that Pelagius already used a Vulgate text for his commentary on Paul’s letters.

1962–1963. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Pelagius und die Vulgata. New Testament Studies 9: 361–366. – Pelagius did not
know the text of our Vulgate. His text of the Pauline letters was still one that belongs to the Old Latin tradi­
tion; but it was a text that stood close to the Vulgate wording. It cannot be shown that Pelagius himself had
a hand in the production of a revised Latin text of the Pauline letters.

1963. Céléstin Charlier OSB: Cassiodore, Pélage et les origines de la Vulgate paulinienne. In: Studiorum
Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961. Volume 2. Rome. (627 pp.), pp. 461–470.
The Vulgate text of the Pauline letters was not created by Pelagius, but by Cassiodorus (c.
550/60) on the basis of Pelagius’ commentary on the Pauline letters. – It seems that this sugges ­
tion was not considered by other scholars. It remained an isolated opinion.

1972. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. In: Kurt Aland (ed.): Die al­
ten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Berlin (xxii, 589
pp.), pp. 1–92. – Page 73: “Zur Vulgata der Paulusbriefe gehört auch der Prolog Primum quaeri­
tur. Er stammt vom Autor der Vulgata und nicht von Pelagius, der ihn schon in abgewandelter
Form benützt. Damit ist der terminus ante quem der Vulgata gegeben. Einen terminus post quem
gibt die Benützung von Hieronymus, De viris illustribus 5 durch den Autor des Prologs in seinen
Ausführungen über den Hebräerbrief. Demnach ist die Vulgata [des Neuen Testaments] nach
393 entstanden und vor 404–410. Aus dem Prolog ergibt sich ferner, daß der Autor nicht Hiero ­
nymus ist, weil er über [den] Hebr[äerbrief] abweichende Ansichten vertritt. Außerdem ist zu er­
schließen, daß die Paulusbriefe zuerst revidiert wurden, wohl bewußt im Anschluß an die Evan­
gelienrevisionen des Hieronymus, dann erst die übrigen Teile des Neuen Testaments. (…)
Schließlich scheinen die Ausführungen über den Römerbrief nahezulegen, daß der Autor zwar in
Rom gearbeitet hat, aber mit dem Zustand der dortigen Gemeinde nicht zufrieden war. Das alles
läßt sich mit der (…) Hypothese vereinbaren, daß Rufin der Syrer der Autor der Vulgata war.” –
Page 49: “Wiederholt wurde darauf hingewiesen, daß die Evangelien eine Arbeit des Hieronymus

240
 sind, (…) während die übrigen Teile des Neuen Testaments [der Vulgata] eine Revision darstel ­
len, die gegen 400 in Rom vielleicht durch Rufinus den Syrer geschaffen worden ist. Diese Revi ­
sion ist nicht stufenweise erfolgt (…) Die beiden Bestandteile der Vulgata [das Werk des Hiero ­
nymus und das Werk des Rufinus] haben als gemeinsames Merkmal die entschiedene Abkehr
vom Westlichen Text [des griechischen Neuen Testaments. Vielleicht wurden sie [die beiden Tei­
le] schon zu Beginn des 5. Jahrhunderts miteinander vereinigt, und zwar in Rom. Die Überliefe ­
rung lief jedoch nicht über Handschriften des ganzen Neuen Testaments oder gar der gesamten
Bibel (…), sondern vielmehr über Teilhandschriften, und das Hauptzentrum der Verbreitung war
Italien.” – Page 68: “Die Vulgata wird zuerst benützt von Pelagius und seinen Anhängern.”

Note. – The dating of the revision of the Old Latin text by a learned reviser – whom Fischer identifies
with Rufinus the Syrian – depends on the date and authorship of the Vulgate prologue Primum quaer­
itur to the Pauline Epistles (for editions and translations, see below, Chapter 22, introductory note on
the Pauline Epistles). It is generally agreed that this prologue is not by Jerome, but it echoes a Jeromi ­
an passage on the letter to the Hebrews – Jerome’s De viris illustribus 5:9–11 (PL 23: 647–650), a work
written in 393. This leads to a date of c. 400. It stands to reason to suppose that the prologue and the
revision of the text of the letters come from the same pen – according to Fischer’s, from that of
Rufinus the Syrian. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Primum quaritur is the work of Pelagius (G.
de Plinval), but this is not a completely different option, because Rufinus is said to be an early follower
of Pelagius.

Among the few things known about this Rufinus is that he stayed for some time at Jerome’s monastery
in Bethlehem, that he was sent to Rome by Jerome, and that he did not believe in the doctrine of original
sin. The last-mentioned information comes from Augustine: De gratia Christi et de peccato originali II, 3
(PL 44: 387) – Coelestius dixit: sanctus presbyter Rufinus Romae qui mansit cum sancto Pammachio: ego
audivi illum dicentem quia tradux peccati non sit – Coelestius said: the holy presbyter Rufinus who in
Rome stayed with the holy Pammachius: I have heard him say that there was no transmission of sin.

Some followers of Fischer’s Rufinus-the-Syrian hypothesis

1972. Walter Thiele: Probleme der Versio Latina in den Katholischen Briefen. In: Kurt Aland (ed.): Die al­
ten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Berlin (xxii, 589
pp.), pp. 93–119. – Page 117: „Die ausgeprägte (…) Eigenstellung, die die Vulgata in den Katholi­
schen Briefen (und im ganzen zweiten Teil des Neuen Testaments) durch die konsequente Aus­
scheidung ‚westlicher‘ Zusätze gewinnt, paßt gut zu der von Bonifatius Fischer vorgetragenen
(…) Annahme, den Autor der neutestamentlichen Vulgata in einem Schüler des Hieronymus zu
sehen und an Rufin den Syrer zu denken, der sich freilich von Hieronymus getrennt hat, in Rom
aber im Haus des Pammachius verkehrte und nach dem Zeugnis des Marius Mercator als der
Vater des Pelagianismus im Abendland galt. Für die Katholischen Briefe sind Pelagius und seine
Anhänger wie in den Paulusbriefen die frühesten Zeugen der Vulgata.“

1974. Jean Gribomont OSB: S. Jérôme. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome VIII. Paris (1806 cols.), cols.
901–918, at col. 909: “Le caractère plus méticuleux de la révision du reste du Nouveau Testa­
ment confirme, par un argument interne, les raisons de ceux qui en retirent la paternité à Jé ­
rôme et l’attribuent à Rufin le syrien.”

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. –Page 159: “On reconnaît
(…) aujourd’hui qu’il” – Jérôme – “n’a pas touché aux Épîtres pauliniennes et catholiques, ni aux
Actes et l’Apocalypse. Les cercles pélagiens de Rome et Rufin le Syrien sont vraisemblablement

241
 le milieu d’origine et l’auteur de la révision devenue vulgate de ces livres du Nouveau Testa ­
ment.” See also Bogaert: The Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge
History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge 2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at pp. 517–518,
where he also accepts the Rufinus-the-Syrian hypothesis.

1999. Sebastian Thier: Kirche bei Pelagius. Berlin. ix, 358 pp. – Page 35: Thier agrees with Frede (1961)
and Fischer, arguing that Pelagius must have had connections with Rome where Rufinus the Syr­
ian had produced and released his edited (Vulgate) version of the Pauline letters by 399/400.

2013. Eric W. Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford
2013. xii, 383 pp. – Pages 183–184: “The regnant scholarly opinion attributes the authorship of
the Vulgate revision of the Corpus Paulinum to Rufinus of Syria. (…) Rufinus moved in the upper
echelons of society, among the social, intellectual, and ecclesiastical elite of later fourth-century
Rome, where he would have been ideally positioned to undertake the task of revising portions
of the Latin New Testament. Apparently associated with Jerome’s monastery in Bethlehem,
Rufinus of Syria appears to be the same Rufinus sent as an envoy to Milan by way of Rome,
where he was to greet Rufinus of Aquileia before the Origenist controversy [that estranged
Rufinus of Aquileia from his friend Jerome] reached a fever pitch. (…) Rufinus the Syrian’s emer ­
gence as the likely candidate for the Vulgate revision of Paul’s letters (and other parts of the
New Testament) has much to commend itself.” Scherbenske attributes Primum quaeritur – the
Vulgate prologue to the Pauline letters – to Rufinus and refers to this prologue’s “nascent Pela ­
gianism” (pp. 185–198).

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 202–203: “L’attribution de cette révision (…) au prêtre Rufin le Syrien, durant son séjour
à Rome entre 399 et 405 à Rome a été propose par B. Fischer. Elle est actuellement admise par
les spécialistes de la Bible Latine. Cette attribution est d’autant plus vraisemblable que, d’une
part, Rufin le Syrien a séjourné à Bethléem auprès de Jérôme avant 399 et que, d’autre part, il
passe pour avoir été, à Rome, l’inspirateur de Pélage (…) Cela expliquerait à la fois que Rufin ait
révisé le texte latin du corpus paulinien, dans le sillage de la révision des Évangiles par Jérôme,
et que Pélage se soit servi de la préface Primum quaeritur et de la révision rufinienne du texte
des épîtres pour ses propres commentaires.” The Canellis volume attributes the pseudo-Jeromi­
an preface Primum quaeritur to the Vulgate Pauline epistles (Sources chrétiennes 592: 492–501;
also included in the Weber/Gryson Stuttgart Vulgate) to Rufinus the Syrian.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Der Syrer Rufin. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine – Peter Lebrecht
Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter Teil. Handbuch
der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005 pp.), pp. 307–310
(§ 650.1), esp. pp. 309–310. – Duval’s short note, appended to his handbook entry on Rufinus the
Syrian briefly reports on Bonifatius Fischer’s suggestion and its reception, without actually taking
a position. While not actually affirming the hypothesis, Duval does consider it seriously.

12.2 Jeromian apologists

1916. Alfred Durand SJ: Saint Jérôme et notre Nouveau Testament latin. Recherches de science reli­
gieuse 6: 531–549. – Against De Bruyne (and earlier critics such as Erasmus), Durand defends the
traditional attribution of the revision of the entire New Testament to Jerome. This article has a
long section on how Jerome himself deals with his own versions and revisions: he rarely quotes
them literally, so that his biblical quotations cannot be a decisive argument against the attribu­
tion of the Vulgate text to Jerome. “Si la divergence des citations, prises des Épîtres, d’avec le
texte actuel de la Vulgate, prouvait que saint Jérôme n’a pas révisé cette portion du Nouveau

242
 Testament, il faudrait conclure pareillement qu’il n’a pas traduit l’Ancien Testament, ni même ré ­
visé les Évangiles, tellement il cite ici et là d’une façon à peu près identique” (p. 541).

1916. Eugène Mangenot: S. Jérôme ou Pélage éditeur des Épîtres de S. Paul dans la Vulgate. Revue du
clergé français 86: 5–22, 193–213.

1917. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La Vulgate latine de l’épître aux Galates et le texte grec. Revue bib­
lique 26 [= nouvelle série 14]: 424–450. – Jerome did revise the Latin text of Galatians – first be ­
fore he wrote his commentary on Galatians (a revision he never published), and then a second
time, afterwards; the second revision came to be our Vulgate text. There is no evidence for at ­
tributing the Vulgate revision of the Pauline letters to Pelagius (p. 448).

1918. Eugène Mangenot: Saint Jérôme réviseur du Nouveau Testament. Revue biblique n.s. 15.1–2:
244–253. – Jerome did the revision of the Pauline letters. The article is followed by a friendly re­
sponse: Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La révision de la Vulgate par saint Jérôme (pp. 254–257).

1920. Alberto Vaccari SJ: Bolletino Geronimiano. Biblica 1: 533–562. – This report on recent research on
Jerome deals mainly with De Bruyne’s hypothesis that it was Pelagius who did the revision of the
Pauline epistles (pp. 534–541). According to Vaccari, De Bruyne fails to convince his peers; the
most plausible assumption is still to assume that Jerome himself did revise all of the New Testa ­
ment.

1922/23. John Chapman OSB: St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament. Journal of Theological Stud­
ies 24: 33–51, 113–125, 282–299. The author defends Jeromian authorship of the complete revi­
sion of the New Testament against recent critical opinion. By 391, the revision was completed
and published (p. 297). “I used to suppose that having corrected the Gospels and Acts with great
care, St Jerome had slurred over the rest of the New Testament. I see now that this hasty opin ­
ion was unfounded. The variety of readings in the Gospel codices was enormous; the ‘Western’
interpolations in Acts necessitated radical operations; but in the Epistles the variations in the
Greek were small, the Old Latin variants were neither numerous nor important. Far less alteration
was necessary, and what alterations St Jerome actually made, he made with extreme caution and
timidity. I see no signs of haste or superficiality, only of reverence for a traditional text, of fear of
malignant criticism, and (especially) of deference to the wishes of his deceased patron, Pope
Damasus. I am assuming already that St Jerome revised the whole New Testament” (p. 282). –
There is a sympathetic report on Chapman’s defense of Jerome as the reviser of the entire New
Testament (and not only the Gospels):
1924. Hugo Bévenot OSB: Hieronymus und die Vulgata des Neuen Testaments. Theologische Revue 23:7: 241–244.

1940. Augustin Merk SJ: Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium. Tomus primus. Paris. xi, 615
pp. – Page 173: The opinion that the Pauline text of the Vulgate goes back to Pelagius is to be
rejected. Merk attributes the revision of text of the Pauline Epistles to Jerome; however, it is un­
clear what his Latin original looked like. In any case, it was not a “textus africanus.”

12.3 The critics: neither Jerome nor Rufinus

1914. Hugh Pope OP: Jerome’s Latin Text of St Paul’s Epistles. Irish Theological Quarterly 9: 413–443. –
The Pauline Epistles of the Vulgate are not the product of Jerome’s revision. Pope no longer be­
lieves in the accuracy Jerome’s statement that “I revised the New Testament accurately from the
Greek, the Old Testament I translated according to the Hebrew” (Novum Testamentum Graece
fidei reddidi, Vetus iuxta Hebraicum transtuli; Jerome: De viris illustribus 135; PL 23:758–759). One
of the major reasons for doubting Jerome’s involvement with producing the Vulgate text of the

243
 Pauline letters is the fact that Jerome, in his commentaries on Pauline letters, uses a Latin text
different from that of the Vulgate. ▲

1920. Ferdinand Cavallera: Saint Jérôme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Épîtres et l’Apocalypse. Bulletin de
littérature ecclésiastique 21: 269–292. – Cavallera presents the results of a painstaking analysis of
all of Jerome’s quotations of New Testament passages outside of the Gospels. The results: (1)
Jerome never claims authorship of the Latin version he quotes from, but refers to its translator
(latinus interpres) as someone distinct from him; (2) the text Paul quotes, and comments on in
his commentaries on the Pauline letters, is not the Vulgate, but not very different from it; (3) the
revision of the text of the Pauline letters and the rest of the New Testament was made after
Jerome, partly inspired by Jerome’s work.

1969. Robert Weber: Preface [to the first edition of the “Stuttgart Vulgate”]: “In the New Testament, all
books have an Old-Latin base; but this base has been revised in the light of the Greek with vary ­
ing degrees of thoroughness – in the Gospels rather hurriedly, in most other books more care­
fully. The reviser of the Gospels was certainly Jerome: the reviser(s) of the other books, or groups
of books, are altogether unknown.” Quoted from Robert Weber – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia
Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. Fourth edition. Stuttgart 1994, p. xxix.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47
[1993] 50–77. – “Stylistic reasons, especially regarding the translation of Acts, finally shake his
[Jerome’s] declaration made in De viris illustribus that he had translated the whole New Testa­
ment from the Greek into Latin” (p. 51).

2003. Roger Gryson (ed.): Apocalypsis Iohannis. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 26.2.
Freiburg. 787 pp. – Gryson hesitates to name Rufinus of Syria as the reviser of the book of Revel­
ation’s Latin text, but he does acknowledge that the Vulgate revision of the New Testament,
save for the Gospels, was carried out by one single person.

2012. Walter Dunphy: Ps-Rufinus (the ‘Syrian’) and the Vulgate: Evidence Wanting! Augustinianum 52:
219–256. The Liber de fide (PL 21:112–1154, also in PL 48:451–488), a text ascribed to Rufinus, re­
flects the Greek text of the Bible, and stays independent from both the Old Latin and Vulgate
texts. Accordingly, there is no reason for associating Rufinus with the Vulgate.

2013. Philip Burton: The Latin Version of the New Testament. In: Bart D. Ehrman – Michael W. Holmes
(eds.): The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. 2nd edition. Leiden (xii, 884
pp.), pp. 167–200. – Page 182: “The Vulgate New Testament is simply another stage in the devel ­
opment of the Latin Bible. In the case of the Gospels, we say with confidence that we are dealing
essentially with a revision of existing traditions produced by Jerome in the mid-380s. (…) For the
rest, we do not know the name of the reviser, except that it is very unlikely to be Jerome; it has
been claimed that the translation technique differs, and in any case if this were Jerome’s work,
we would expect to find at least some reference to it in his correspondence.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Page 34: “There are several indications that Jerome was responsible
for the revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament.” Page 41: “The safest
approach is to admit that the reviser of the books other than the Gospels in the Vulgate New
Testament remains unknown, although the work seems to have been carried out in Rome after
393 (the quotation from Jerome: De viris illustribus 5 in the prologue) and before 410 (the latest
date for Pelagius’ commentary).”

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión. Tem­
pus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74. – Page 38: If it

244
 is probable that Rufinus the Syrian has edited the Vulgate text of the Pauline corpus, this does
not imply that he also edited the rest of the New Testament – the book of Acts, the Catholic
epistles, and the book of Revelation.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), pp. 16–17, 263: There is no evidence in support of
Rufinus the Syrian being the Vulgate reviser. The question of who it was is still open.

2023. Anna Persig: The Vulgate New Testament Outside the Gospels. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The
Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 77–90. – The Vulgate Acts,
Epistles and Apocalypse are first attested in manuscripts dated around the sixth century; these
texts, united with Jerome’s revision of the Gospels, have been transmitted in the manuscript tra­
dition under the name of Jerome. At the beginning of the twentieth century the attribution to
Jerome was questioned and Pelagius was proposed as the reviser of these writings. Another hy­
pothesis, that the reviser was Rufinus the Syrian, a member of the Pelagian circle, was advanced
on the basis of the dating of the Primum quaeritur, the prologue to the Vulgate Pauline Epistles,
and the correspondence of Rufinus’ citations to the Vulgate. However, this theory is founded on
uncertain grounds. Anna Persig assesses earlier hypotheses and underlines the necessity of ad­
dressing the problem of the authorship of the Vulgate New Testament outside the Gospels from
different perspectives and employing new methodologies.

245
Chapter 13
Modern editions of the Jerome-Rufinus Bible
Note. – The modern editions of the Latin Vulgate Bible listed in this chapter are those that most schol ­
ars refer to when they wish to use the earliest textual form of the Vulgate, especially the original form
of Jerome’s contribution. Placed at the beginning is the Martianay-Vallarsi Vulgate, a precursor of the
modern editions. Of the standard critical editions, the Stuttgart edition of Weber and Gryson is the one
most scholars are using today. There are also translations of the scholarly reconstructed text – see es­
pecially the German “Tusculum Vulgate” (see Chapter 18.4).

For surveys of modern Vulgate editions, see:

1977. Bruce M. Metzger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford 1977 (xix, 498 pp.), pp. 348–
352: Noteworthy printed editions of the Vulgate.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Panorama editorial de la Vetus Latina y la Vulgata: series, proyectos,
ediciones de referencia. Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en
España 52: 7–90, at pp. 35–45 (Benedictine Vulgate, Oxford New Testament, Stuttgart Vulgate).

13.1 The Vulgate of Martianay and Vallarsi

13.2 The New Testament of Wordsworth and White (Oxford Vulgate)

13.3 The Old Testament of the Benedictines of Rome (Roman Vulgate)

13.4 The Stuttgart Vulgate of Weber and Gryson

13.1 The Vulgate of Martinay and Vallarsi

Note. – A first attempt to restore the original wording of the Latin Bible going back to Jerome was
made by the Benedictine monk Jean Martianay (1647–1717); he called it Divina bibliotheca and in­
cluded it in his edition of Jerome’s works (Paris 1693–1706, five volumes). Martinay’s edition of
Jerome’s works was revised by the Italian scholar Domenico Vallarsi (1702–1771); it was published in
several volumes, first in Verona, then in Venice. Vallarsi’s edition also included a Vulgate with text-crit­
ical notes.

Jacques-Paul Migne reprinted the Martianay-Vallarsi text in his Patrologia Latina, so that this edition is
still readily available – in libraries and on the Internet: PL 28 and 29, Paris 1845 and 1846; reprinted
several times, complete with Martianay’s long introduction. – For information on the story of Migne’s
Patrologia Latina, see Howard Bloch: God’s Plagiarist. Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Ir­
regular Commerce of the Abbé Migne. Chicago 1994 (vii, 152 pp.); idem: Le plagiaire de Dieu: la fabu­
leuse industrie de l’abbé Migne. Paris 1996 (238 pp.).

246
13.2 The New Testament of Wordsworth and White
(Oxford Vulgate)
Note. The Oxford edition of the Latin New Testament is the first truly critical edition of the Latin New
Testament. It forms the basis of the Weber/Gryson (Stuttgart) edition. It also prompted the compila ­
tion of two indispensable Latin-English glossaries, by Horden (1921) and Richards (1934), see Chapter
8.3.

1889–1954. John Wordsworth – Henry J. White et al. (eds.): Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu
Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi. Oxford. 3 vols. xxxviii, 779 pp. (first fascicle
1889, complete volume 1898); 765 pp. (first fascicle 1913, complete volume 1941); 596 pp.
(1954). – After the death of Wordsworth (1843–1911), White (1859–1934) was responsible for
the project, and after White’s death, the project was directed by H.F.D. Sparks. The editors used
Codex Amiatinus as their basic source (see above, Chapter 7.2). Known as the “Oxford Vulgate.”
– Reviews:
1982. J.H. Bernard: The Vulgate of St Mark. Hermathena 8: 122–126. Codex Amiatinus is generally followed (p.
125).

1955. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Der Vulgata-Text des Neuen Testamentes. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 46: 178–196.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts. Oxford
2016, pp. 129–131.

1911. Henry J. White: Novum Testamentum Latine. Secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi ad codicum
manuscriptorum fidem. Editio minor. Oxford. xx, 620 pp. – A corrected edition was published in
1920; all subsequent reprints remain unchanged. The huge apparatus of the three-volume edi ­
tion is replaced by a minimalist apparatus which lists the readings of only a few manuscripts.
Also indicated is where it departs from the text of the Clementina. The book includes Jerome’s
preface to the gospels (pp. xiv–xvi) as well as the Eusebian tables (pp. xvii–xx). ▲

Reports and assessments

1901. Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London. xi, 321 pp.
– Page 203: “It is the great service of Bishop Wordsworth and Mr. White to have given us back
the Vulgate, so far as the Gospels are concerned, much as it left the hands of Jerome, and to
have enabled us to estimate alike the materials with which he worked, and the deterioration
which his work underwent in the course of the Middle Ages.”

1909. Hans von Soden: Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians. Leipzig 1909. x, 663
pp. – Page 2, note 1: “Der Apparat ist bis zur Grenze der Übersichtlichkeit überfüllt und gibt den­
noch kein Bild der Geschichte des Vulgatatextes, wie man es, in Gedanken etwa an das schöne
Buch von [Samuel] Berger, vorgeführt zu sehen wünscht. Er unterscheidet nicht zwischen Varian­
ten und Fehlern, Wichtigem und Quisquilien.” The critical view that the Oxford edition’s apparat­
us is lacking clarity has often been repeated.

1911. H.J. White: John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, and His Work on the Vulgate New Testament.
Journal of Theological Studies 13, no. 50: 201–208.

1935. Alexander Souter: Henry Julian White and the Vulgate. Journal of Theological Studies 36, no. 141:
11–13. – Souter tells the story of the Oxford New Testament and refers to some criticism relating
to the use, or non-use, of certain manuscripts.

247
1986. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. Freiburg 1986. 456 pp.
– Page 73: “Trotz vielerlei methodischer und anderer Mängel ist das Ergebnis, der Text von
Wordsworth/White, nicht schlecht. Das kommt daher, daß die Überlieferung in den Hand­
schriften gut ist. (…) Aber selbstverständlich ist manche Einzellesung noch zu korrigieren.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and
Manuscripts. Oxford 2016. xix, 366 pp. – Page 131: “Notwithstanding the superior editorial text
of the Stuttgart Vulgate [of Weber/Gryson] and its dependence on some unreliable editions of
manuscripts and Christian authors, the Oxford Vulgate continues to provide a rich treasury of
readings and material not easily accessible.”

13.3 The Old Testament of the Benedictines of Rome

(Roman Vulgate)
Note. – The story of the Benedictine text-critical edition Vulgate of the Old Testament – called “Roman
Vulgate” or “Benedictine Vulgate” – extends from 1907 to 1995. In early 1907, the Benedictine order
was asked whether they would accept the task of producing a new, text-critical edition of the Vulgate
Bible; see the relevant document in Acta Sanctae Sedis 40 (1907) 446–448 (Letter of Cardinal Rampolla,
April 30, 1907). Upon agreement, Pope Pius X, by a breve issued on December 3, 1907, charged the
Benedictine order with the task. Under the directorship of Henri Quentin OSB (1872–1935) and the su ­
pervision of Cardinal Francis Aidan Gasquet OSB (1846–1929), work was immediately begun at
Sant’Anselmo, the Benedictine School of Theology in Rome. In 1933, the task force found a new home
and place of work in the Abbazia di San Girolamo in Rome (Pontificia Abbazia di San Girolamo in Urbe,
also known as the “Vulgate Abbey”), founded and endowed by Pope Pius XI, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis
26 (1934) 290. The first abbot was Henri Quentin OSB; in 1935, he was succeeded by Pierre Salmon
OSB (1896–1982). The first volumes, prepared by Henri Quentin, are considered by critics to have been
made on a questionable critical basis. The Roman Abbey was suppressed in 1984, but the monks were
allowed to complete the work. The final volume was published in 1995.

The text of P. Pius X’s 1907 breve can be found in: Maria Encarnación Varela Moreno: Los Benedictinos
y la historia de la edición crítica de la Vulgata. Miscelanea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos. Sección de
hebreo 24 (1975) 37–66, at pp. 60–61 (followed by other documents, on pp. 61–66).

Lively reports on the early work of the newly-founded Benedictine task force can be found in these
publications:

1909. The Revision of the Vulgate. A Report. Rome: Sant’ Anselmo. – This illustrated anonymous invita­
tion to contribute money to the project was most likely written by Francis Gasquet OSB, then the
abbot of Sant’Anselmo.

1912. Francis A. Gasquet: Vulgate, Revision of. In: Charles G. Herbermann (ed.): The Catholic Encyclope­
dia. Volume XV. New York (xv, 800 pp.), pp. 515–520. – The text of this encyclopedia is available
on the Internet (Wikimedia commons).

1927. Cunibert Mohlberg OSB: Die Vulgata der Vulgata-Kommission. Theologische Revue 26.5: 177–
184. – Col. 178: “Es war, sagt eine gute mündliche Überlieferung, der Benediktiner Ambrogio
Amelli [1848–1933] von Monte Cassino, der den Plan einer Textrevision der Vulgata zuerst er ­
wog, und dann in einer Denkschrift dem hochsel. Papste Pius X. vortrug. Am 30. April 1907 ge­
schah der erste offizielle Schritt zur Verwirklichung dieses Gedankens. Pius X. frug den damali­

248
 gen Abt-Primas des Ordens D. Hildebrand de Hemptinne, ob der Orden des h. Benedikt sich be ­
reit sähe, die langwierige Arbeit der Vulgata-Revision zu übernehmen.”

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die latinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 208–209.

1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond
(xv, 295 pp.), pp. xiv–xv, 90–107, 153–164, plus several photos showing the Abazia San Girolamo
in Rome and the Benedictines at work (plates pp. 17, 18, 21, 22, 367, 368, 273, 274).

The whole story of the making of the Benedictine Vulgate is told in the following publication:

2016. Réginald Grégoire OSB: Histoire de la révision de la Vulgate. In: Nadia Togni (ed.): Les bibles at­
lantiques. Florence (xxxi, 578, 32 pp.), pp. 183–229. – See esp. pp. 209–221: “La vie d’une com­
munauté de moines érudits. L’abbaye pontificale de Saint-Jérôme à Rome.”

The Roman Vulgate of the Benedictines: the edition

The pre-history of the Roman Vulgate: Henri Quentin OSB

Critical statements and reviews after the publication of the first volumes

More on Quentin

Assessments

Appendix: Collectanea Biblica Latina, 1912–1988

The Roman Vulgate of the Benedictines: the edition

1926–1995. Henri Quentin et al. (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fi­
dem. Rome. 18 vols., produced by Typografia Poliglotta Vaticana. – Critical text of the Old Testa­
ment, known as the “Edition of the Benedictines.” The first volume – Genesis – appeared in 1926,
and the last volume of the series – vol. 18, the books of Maccabees – in 1995. The edition of the
critically established text is presented per cola et commata, i.e., in accordance with Jerome’s way
of presenting his translation, each short meaningful unit receives its own line, and there are no
further marks such as commas or full stops. On the layout per cola et commata, see Malcolm B.
Parkes: Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot
1992 (xvi, 327 pp.), p. 161.

The pre-history of the Roman Vulgate: Henri Quentin OSB

1922. Henri Quentin OSB: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octa­
teuque. Rome and Paris. xvi, 520 pp. – On the Vulgate manuscripts of the Pentateuch and the
books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Quentin classifies manuscripts according to the Lachmann
method. For selected text sections he provides a variant apparatus, and at the end (pp. 513–515)
he offers the text of Exodus 2 with text-critical apparatus to illustrate the results of his study. The
Codex Amiatinus is one of the main textual witnesses. The individual volumes are listed below,
Chapter 21 • Textual notes on the Old Testament.

249
1922/23. F.C. Burkitt: The Text of the Vulgate. Journal of Theological Studies 24: 406–414.

1923. Emmanuel Flicoteaux OSB; [review of Quentin: Mémoire]. Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 84:
382–384. – Page 384: “le très beau chef-d’œuvre d’une science critique sûre d’elle-même.”

1923. Josef Linder SJ: [review of Quentin’s Mémoire]. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 47: 572–577.

1923. Alberto Vaccari SJ: [review of Quentin’s Mémoire]. Biblica 4: 401–407.

1924. Henri Quentin OSB: La critique de la Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 36: 137–164. – Mit Antworten
von Donatien De Bruyne OSB und F.C. Burkitt.

1924. Edward K. Rand: Dom Quentin’s Memoir on the Text of the Vulgate. Harvard Theological Review
17: 197–264. – A sharp criticism. The author considers Quentin’s method of text production to
be misguided; his mathematical tables are completely useless, despite the great amount of time
spent on their creation.

1924. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: [review of Quentin: Mémoire]. Revue biblique 33: 115–123. – “La nou­
velle théorie manque de souplesse” (p. 122).

1924. Norbert Peters, Theologische Revue 23.7: 244–247.

1925. D.J. Chapman OSB: The Families of Vulgate mss in the Pentateuch. Revue bénédictine 37: 5–46,
365–403.

1926. Henri Quentin OSB: Essais de critique textuelle (ecdotique). Paris. 177 pp. – Review: Alberto Vacca­
ri SJ, Biblica 7 (1926) 447–449.

1926. Henri Quentin OSB: La Vulgate à travers les siècles et sa révision actuelle. Rome. 24 pp. – Text of a
paper given by Quentin.

1927. Henri Quentin OSB: Une méthode de critique et de classement des manuscrits. Revue des études
latines 5: 150–155.

Critical statements and reviews after the publication of the first volumes
1926. Alberto Vaccari SJ: [review of: Biblia sacra iuxta latinam (…) Genesis]. Biblica 7: 449–455.

1927. P.D., Revue biblique 36.2: 313–315.

1927. Cunibert Mohlberg OSB: Die Vulgata der Vulgatakommission. Theologische Revue 26.5: 177–184.
– Review of the Genesis volume, “die erste Gabe der nun 19 Jahre arbeitenden Vulgata-Kommis ­
sion” (col. 180). The author indicates that the editor generally follows the readings of Codex
Amiatinus (col. 183).

1927. Alfred Rahlfs, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 189: 148–152.

1927. F.C. Burkitt: Notes on Genesis in the Latin Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 39: 251–260.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttes­
tamentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150. – On pp. 141–144, Stummer summerises
Quentin’s method, regretting that Quentin did not include in his critical apparatus the readings
found in some other manuscripts. “Es wiederholt sich die Erscheinung, die uns schon aus den
bisher erschienenen Faszikeln des Neuen Testaments von Wordsworth und White bekannt ist:
die editio Clementina entbehrt an einer nicht unbeträchtlichen Anzahl von Stellen der hand­
schriftlichen Fundamentierung” (p. 144). “Die Bedeutung des Buches ist keineswegs damit er­
schöpft, daß es über die Clementina ein gutes Stück hinaus und in sehr vielen, ja wohl den meis­
ten Fällen bei der endgültigen Lesart anlangt. Es bringt die ganze Vulgataforschung in mehr als

250
 einer Hinsicht in Fluß; die Übersetzungstechnik des Hieronymus, sein Schwanken zwischen ge­
sprochenem und gelerntem, klassischem Latein; die Geschichte des Vulgatatextes und die Ei­
genart seiner Familien kann nun in ganz anderer Intensität studiert werden als bisher” (p. 150).

1927. Josef Linder SJ: Die neue kritische Vulgata-Ausgabe. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 51: 267–
273.

1927. M.A. van den Oudenrijn OP, Angelicum 4: 196.

1927. José María Bover SJ: La nueva edición de la Vulgata. Estudios eclesiásticos 6: 79–85, 186–207,
415–428. – Bover is very critical of Quentin’s approach.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 208–221.
Stummer notes that according to Quentin’s edition of Jerome’s Genesis, there were mistakes in
the Jeromian archetype, and Quentin suggests emendations (e.g., in Gen 24:32; see below,
textual note on this passage, in Chapter 22).

1930. Alberto Vaccari SJ: [review of: Biblia sacra iuxta latinam (…) Exodus et Leviticus]. Biblica 11: 458–
464. Vaccari offers an abridged list of the critical apparatus, lamenting the fact that too many ir­
relevant variants are noted. He also points out the two major problems (difetti della critica se­
guita dall’esimio benedettino) he has with the Benedictine edition: the tenacious adherence to
two or three overvalued manuscripts, and the readiness (troppo facile) to resort to conjectures
(p. 462).

1937. Heinrich Herkenne: Zur Revision der lateinischen Kirchenbibel. Das Heilige Land 81: 93–193.

1937. Pierre Salmon OSB: La révision de la Vulgate. État des travaux, difficultés et résultats. Rome. 36 pp.

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Der dritte Band der neuen römischen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Theologische Re­
vue 36: 305–311. – Stummer reviews the volume that offers a new Vulgate text of Numbers and
Deuteronomy – and discusses the wording of many passages, esp. from the book of Numbers.

1937. Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 18.1: 126–132. – Review of the volume with the text of Numbers and
Deuteronomy.

1937/38. B. Oppermann: Die neue Benediktinervulgata. Bibel und Liturgie 12: 345–347.

More on Quentin
1935. Cunibert Mohlberg OSB: Commemorazione dell’abate Dom Enrico Quentin. Pontificia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti 11: 13–39. – Obituary.

1959. Ludwig Bieler: The Grammarian’s Craft. A Professional Talk. Folia. Studies in the Christian Percep­
tion of the Classics 10.2: 3–42. – On pp. 13–19 and in note 44 (p. 38), Bieler discusses Quentin’s
method of establishing the proper text. “The most serious objection is the practice of sample
collation of extensive texts” (p. 18). Bieler’s paper has been printed in other places as well.

1977. Henri de Sainte-Marie: L’édition critique de la Vulgate. Lettre de Ligugé 184: 7–20.

1987. Henri de Sainte-Marie: Storia dell’ edizione critica della Volgata; in: Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La
Bibbia ‘Volgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio internazionale 1985. Rome (197
pp.), pp. 144–148.

2016. Réginald Grégoire OSB: Histoire de la révision de la Vulgate. In: Nadia Togni (ed.): Les bibles
atlantiques. Florence (xxxi, 578, 32 pp.), pp. 183–229. – See pp. 204–208: La méthode de Dom
Quentin.

251
2019. Luca Avellis: Il ruolo di Dom Henri Quentin nella filologia del ’900. Vetera Christianorum 56:
31–45.

Assessments
1938. Friedrich Stummer: Vulgata. In: 1938. In: Michael Buchberger (ed.): Lexikon für Theologie und
Kirche. 10. Band. Freiburg (viii pp., 1118 cols.), cols. 703–706. – Col. 705: “Die Ausgabe ist (…) kein
‘offizieller’ Text wie die editio Clementina, sondern dient der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Sie
bietet einen zwar nicht endgültigen, aber im ganzen der Clementina weit überlegenen und die
von Hieronymus gewollte Form erreichenden Text.”

1965. Willem Baars: On a Latin Fragment of Sirach. Vetus Testamentum 15: 280–281. – Page 280: “One
of the outstanding features of the later volumes [i.e., beginning with vol. 5] of the Benedictine
Vulgate is the inclusion of the nearly complete evidence of manuscripts and fragments of manu­
scripts dating from before 800 AD.”

1992. Dominique Barthélemy OP: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg. xxiv, ccxlii,
1150 pp. – Page cci: “Nous avons relevé et mentionné ci-dessus [aux pages cci–ccii] quelques
imperfections et inexactitudes de l’apparat de l’édition des bénédictins de San Girolamo. Elle
constitue cependant l’une des plus belles réalisations qu’ait produit l’édition critique des textes
anciens. Remarquons toutefois qu’assez souvent l’édition manuelle de R. Weber (…) a amélioré
les choix textuels qu’avaient faits les éditeurs de [l’Abbaye de] San Girolamo.” – Idem: Studies in
the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii,
688 pp.), p. 530: “We have located and mentioned above several imperfections and inaccuracies
in the apparatus of the edition by the San Girolamo Benedictines. Nevertheless, it constitutes
one of the finest realizations of the critical editing of ancient texts. At the same time, R. Weber’s
manual edition (…) quite frequently improves the textual choices made by the editors of [the
Abbey of] San Girolamo.”

1997. Emanuel Tov: Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, Min. (xl, 456 pp.), p. 153, note
112: “This edition [of the Benedictines] contains a great many – mainly orthographic – variants.
But the eclectic text does not always evidence a judicious insight (…) Containing fewer data in its
apparatus, but showing a keener insight is the editio minor of R[obert] Weber.” – German: Der
Text der hebräischen Bibel. Handbuch der Textkritik. Stuttgart 1997 (xxxiv, 376 pp.), p. 128, note:
“Diese Edition [der Benediktiner] enthält eine große Zahl von – vor allem orthographischen –
Varianten. Der eklektische Text zeugt jedoch nicht immer von kluger Einsicht (…). Obwohl der
Apparat weniger Details bietet, ist doch die editio minor von R[obert] Weber (…) vorzuziehen.”
However, the verdict is unlikely to apply to all volumes of the Benedictine edition.

Appendix: Collectanea Biblica Latina, 1912–1988

Note. – The Benedictine order not only produced the critical edition of the Vulgate Old Testament; it
also published a series of seventeen books as “Collectanea Biblica Latina” (CBLa). Some of the titles are
text editions, while others are research monographs. What follows is the complete list.

1912. Ambrogio M. Amelli OSB (ed.): Liber Psalmorum iuxta antiquissimam latinam versionem. CBLa 1.
Rome. xxxiv, 174 pp.

1913. Heinrich Joseph Vogels (ed.): Codex Rehdigeranus. Die vier Evangelien nach der lateinischen
Handschrift R 169 der Stadtbibliothek Breslau. CBLa 2. Rome. xlvi, 300 pp.

252
1913. Paul Capelle: Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique. CBLa 4. Rome. xi, 267 pp.

1914. Aidan Gasquet OSB (ed.): Codex Vercellensis. 2 Volumes. CBLa 3. Rome. xxiv, 238 pp.; 242 pp.

1921. Donatien De Bruyne OSB (ed.): Les fragments de Freising: épîtres de S. Paul et épîtres catholiques.
CBLa 5. Rome. li, 68 pp.

1922. Henri Quentin OSB: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. CBLa 6. Rome. xvi, 520 pp.

1944. 1953. Pierre Salmon OSB: Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil (Paris, ms. Lat. 9427). Tome 1. Édition et étude
comparative, contribution à l’histoire de la vulgate et de la liturgie en France au temps de Méro ­
vingiens. CBLa 7. Rome. cxxiii, 233 pp. – Tome 2. 2. Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil (Paris, ms. Lat.
9427). Étude paléographique et liturgique suivie d’un choix de planches. Rome. CBLa 9. Rome. vii,
77, 66 pp.

1945. Robert Weber OSB (ed.): Les anciennes versions latines du deuxième livre des Paralipomènes. CBLa
8. Rome. li, 94 pp.

1953. Robert Weber OSB (ed.): Le psautier romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins. Édition critique.
CBLa 10. Rome. xxiii, 410 pp.

1954. Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB (ed.): Sancti Hieronymi psalterivm ivxta Hebraeos. Édition critique.
CBLa 11. Rome. lxx, 262 pp.

1959. Pierre Salmon OSB: Les “Tituli psalmorum” des manuscrits latins. CBLA 12. Rome. 190 pp.

1959. Pierre Salmon OSB et al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens psautiers latins. CBLa 13. Rome. 267
pp.

1972. Francesca Merlo (ed.): Il Salterio di Rufino. Editio critica a cura di Francesca Merlo. Commento da
Jean Gribomont OSB. CBLa 14. Rome. xi, 207 pp.

1984. Colette Estin: Les psautiers de Jérôme à la lumière des traductions juives antérieures. CBLa 15.
Rome. 238 pp.

1987. Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del Simposio Interna­
zionale in Onore di Sisto V, Grottammare, 29–31 agosto 1985. CBLa 16. Rome. 197 pp.

1988. André Thibaut OSB: L’infidélité du peuple élu: apeithō entre la Bible hébraïque et la Bible latine.
CBLa 17. Rome. 336 pp. – The title’s “Latin Bible” refers to the Vetus Latina.

13.4 The Stuttgart Vulgate of Weber and Gryson

Note. – Since the Stuttgart Vulgate is today the Latin Bible most scholars use, this is the place to point
out one of its particularities – the layout of the text in sense-lines, and the omission of punctuation
such as periods and commas. This layout is in accordance with ancient manuscript practice, as can be
seen especially in Codex Amiatinus (above, Chapter 7.2) from which the sense-lines are generally
taken. Jerome himself practiced this way of putting texts on the page, as he himself explains in the
preface to his translation of the book of Isaiah:
“No one, when he will have seen the Prophets to be written in verses, would think them to be bound in meter
among the Hebrews, and to have anything in common with the Psalms or the works of Solomon. But what is cus­
tomary to be used in writing Demosthenes and Cicero (who certainly wrote prose and not in verses): [the layout]
in distinct phrases and sections (per cola et commata), we also, providing ease of reading, have used this new
kind of writing in our new translation.” (Sources chrétiennes 592: 432; Tusculum-Vulgata IV, p. 14).

253
Another Jeromian reference to this layout can be found in the preface to the translation of the book of
Ezekiel (Sources chrétiennes 592: 449; Tusculum-Vulgata IV, p. 536).

The layout per cola and commata can also be found in other editions of the Latin Bible – the Oxford
Vulgate and the Vulgate of the Benedictines (above, Chapters 13.2 and 13.3).

Editions
1994. Robert Weber OSB – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5th revised and
updated edition. Stuttgart. xliii, 1980 pp. – This scholarly manual edition contains the text of the
Old and New Testaments with text-critical apparatus and the prefaces (prologi) of Jerome. Al­
though based on the Oxford Vulgate for the New Testament, and the Vulgate of the Benedict ­
ines of Rome for the Old Testament, the Latin text represents a revised version of these. The ed ­
itors’ aim is to present the original version produced by Jerome (and other ancient editors). This
edition was first published in 1969, followed by several improved editions in 1983 (3rd ed.), 1994
(4th ed.), and 2007 (5th ed.). The 1994 edition – with revised apparatus of the book of Wisdom,
the minor prophets, 1–2 Maccabees, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews – is often cited as the stand­
ard edition of the Vulgate Bible. Known as the “Stuttgart Vulgate” and the “Weber/Gryson Edi ­
tion.”

2007. Robert Weber OSB – Roger Gryson (eds.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5th revised and
updated edition. Stuttgart. xlix, 1980 pp. – For the 5th edition, the text-critical apparatus of the
books of Ruth, Isaiah, and Revelation was revised. Some printing errors have also been correc ­
ted. This edition was reprinted without changes in 2010. ▲

Reviews of the Stuttgart Vulgate

1969. Guy-Dominique Sixdenier: Le III e livre d’Esdras et la Vulgate de Stuttgart, Revue des Études an­
ciennes 71 (1969) 390–401. – The first part of the article, pp. 391–394, introduces the 1st edition
of the Stuttgart Vulgate.

1978. G.D. Kilpatrick: The Itala. The Classical Review n. s. 28: 56–58. – Page 57: “The Stuttgart manual
edition of the Vulgate rests on three great works of scholarship: (1) the Roman edition of the
Vulgate Old Testament (1926–) of which we still await four fascicles; (2) Wordsworth’s and
White’s edition of the Vulgate New Testament; (3) Vetus Latina, the Beuron edition of the Old
Latin (1949–). (…) It may be regarded as far as the text is concerned as a revised edition of the
Roman Vulgate and Wordsworth and White, with Vetus Latina contributing a number of correc­
tions.”

2016. Hugh A.H. Houghton: The Latin New Testament. Oxford 2016. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 127–129:
Stuttgart Vulgate. Houghton alerts readers to the fact that this edition “is not a guide to the me­
dieval Vulgate” (p. 128), but wants to present the earliest form of the Vulgate text.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Panorama editorial de la Vetus Latina y la Vulgata: series, proyectos,
ediciones de referencia. Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en
España 52: 7–90, at pp. 42–45.

254
Chapter 14
After Jerome: The Vulgate’s
First Millennium, 400–1450

14.1 From dispute to reception: Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine (a prologue)

14.2 The invention of the Vulgate

14.3 Reference works on the Bible in the Middle Ages

14.4 From Pelagius to the Paris Bible and Windesheim

14.5 The Psalms in the Middle Ages

14.6 Bible correctories

14.7 Chapters and verses (Middle Ages – Early Modern Times)

14.8 The knowledge of Hebrew in the Middle Ages

14.9 Miscellanea

14.1 From dispute to reception:

Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine (a prologue)

Rufinus’ critique of Jerome’s translation

The Jerome-Augustine correspondence

The inspiration of Scripture: Jerome’s view

Augustine’s knowledge and use of Jerome’s translation

Miscellanea on Augustine

Rufinus’ critique of Jerome’s translation

Note. – Originally and for many years, Rufinus of Aquileia was a close friend of Jerome’s. But in the
390s, their friendship ended, and the two attacked each other in polemical writing. In his Apology
against Rufinus, Jerome reports of a letter of retractation in which he, Jerome, allegedly admitted
that his translations from the Hebrew were faulty. This fake letter, Jerome explains, must have been
by Rufinus.

255
401. Rufinus: Apologia contra Hieronymum II, 36 (CCSL 20: 111): “Perhaps it was a greater piece of au­
dacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of
Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under
the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As
to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if
we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard
those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches
and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? Are they to be treated as human or
divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the
Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was ap ­
proved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to
be expiated?” (translated by W.H. Fremantle)

401/2. Jerome: Apologia adversus Rufinum II, 24 (PL 23: 447–448): “It is the same man, therefore, who
had concocted in my name this letter of penance because I had translated evilly the Hebrew
volumes, who is said to make the charge that my reason for translating Sacred Scripture was to
condemn the Septuagint, so that I stand accused whether the things that I have translated are
false or true, as long as I admit that I have erred in the new undertaking, or as long as the new
edition is considered a condemnation of the old. (…) Did I say anything against the Septuagint
translators, whose work I revised very carefully many years ago, and gave to the students of my
own language, and expound daily in the convent of my brethren; whose Psalms I constantly sing
and meditate upon? Was I so foolish as to wish to forget in my old age what I learned in my
youth? All of my treatises are interwoven with their testimonies. My commentaries on the twelve
prophets are an explanation of both my version and that of the Septuagint.” Saint Jerome: Dog­
matic and Polemical Works. Translated by John N. Hritzu. The Fathers of the Church 58. Wash ­
ington 1965 (xix, 403 pp.), pp. 144–145. – The best edition of this text can be found in Jérôme:
Apologie contre Rufin. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et index. Sources chrétiennes 303.
Paris 1983. xix, 359 pp.

1905. J. Brochet: Saint Jérôme et ses ennemis: étude sur la querelle de Saint Jérôme avec Rufin d’Aquilée
et sur l’ensemble de son œuvre polémique. Paris. xvi, 494 pp.

1947. P. Courcelle: Paulin (de Nole) et la controverse entre Jérôme et Rufin. Revue des études latines 80:
274–279.

1953. C.C. Mierow: Jerome and Rufinus. The Classical Bulletin 30: 1–20.

1963. K. Romaniuk: Une controverse entre Jérôme et Rufin d’Aquilée à propos de l’Épître aux Éphé­
siens. Aegyptus 43: 84–106.

1970. Friedhelm Winkelmann: Einige Bemerkungen zu den Aussagen des Rufinus von Aquileia und des
Hieronymus über ihre Übersetzungstheorie und -methode. In: Patrick Granfield et al. (eds.): Kyri­
akon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Band 2. Münster (pp. 499–972), pp. 532–547.

1991. Barbara Feichtinger: Der Traum des Hieronymus – ein Psychogramm. Vigiliae Christianae 45: 54–
77. – Includes a commentary on Rufinus of Aquileia’s critique of Jerome (pp. 63–67).

1993. Pierre Lardet: L’Apologie de Jérôme contre Rufin. Un commentaire. Leiden. xxxii, 564 pp. – This
commentary continues the author’s earlier work on Jerome’s Apologia adversus Rufinum, see
Lardet’s bilingual edition of this text (Sources chrétiennes 303).

256
2004. Marc Vessey: Jerome and Rufinus. In: Frances Young et al. (eds.): The Cambridge History of Early
Christian Literature. Cambridge (xxv, 538 pp.), pp. 318–327.

2013. Leopoldo Gamberale: Rufino contro Gerolamo. Conoscere e riconoscere Terenzio. In: idem: San
Gerolamo. Intellettuale e filologo. Rome 2013 (xvii, 181 pp.), pp. 153–168.

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – See pp. 52–55.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Zweite Auflage. Freiburg.
444 pp. – Pages 238–241.

The Jerome–Augustine correspondence

Note. – Jerome and Augustine, the two foremost Christian intellectuals of their day, never met. But
after Augustine had sent Jerome a first letter in 393 or 394, they maintained a correspondence for
many years, though they never became close friends. Augustine was initially very critical of Jerome’s
scholarship but eventually came to appreciate it. Here is one of Augustine’s critical notes from the year
403 (letter 71,4 in Augustine’s letters = letter 104 in Jerome’s letters; Fontes christiani 41: 162):
“For my part, I would rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical
Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation [from the Hebrew] begins to be
more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievious thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences
must arise between the Latin churches and the Greek churches.” (Translated by J.G. Cunningham)

“Im Übrigen würde ich es lieber sehen, wenn Du uns eher die griechischsprachigen kanonischen Schriften über ­
setzen würdest, die den siebzig Übersetzern zugeschrieben werden. Wenn man nämlich in immer mehr Gemein ­
den damit anfängt, für die Lesungen Deine Übersetzung [aus dem Hebräischen] zu benutzen, wird die höchst
missliche Folge die sein, dass die lateinischen Kirchen nicht mehr mit den griechischen übereinstimmen.” (Trans­
lated by Alfons Fürst)

One of Augustine’s letters (no. 19*) and one of Jerome’s letters (no. 27*) – were discovered in 1981 and
published by Johannes Divjak in 1983. The complete correspondence has been included in the works
of Jerome and in the works of Augustine, with different numbering, which occasionally causes confu­
sion; a convenient list of the correspondence in the works of Augustine and Jerome can be found in
Sources chrétiennes 592: 18.

Bilingual editions: Latin–German, Latin–French

2002. Alfons Fürst (ed.): Augustinus – Hieronymus. Epistulae mutuae – Briefwechsel. Fontes christiani
41.1–2. Turnhout. 2 vols. 543 pp.

2010. Carole Fry: Lettres croisées de Jérôme et Augustin. Traduites, présentées et annotées. Paris. lxviii,
501 pp.

The letters in English

1990. Carolinne White: The Correspondence (394–419) between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Lewis­
ton, N.Y. 252 pp. – English translation of the letters. ▲

The letters in German

1917. Augustinus: Ausgewählte Briefe I. Translated by Alfred Hoffmann. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter.
Kempten 1917. vi, 340 pp. – Includes letters 28, 40, 67, 71, 73 and 82 to Jerome, in German
translation.

257
1994. Ralph Hennings: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Ka­
non des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2,11–14. Leiden. xi, 395 pp. – The entire
correspondence and its editions are presented. (Subsequent research, esp. by Alfons Fürst, cor­
rects details as well as the chronology of the letters proposed by Hennings.)

1999. Alfons Fürst: Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus. Münster. ix, 289 pp. – A book about the let­
ters, without a consecutive translation of the text. Pages 139–145 deal with the controversy over
Jerome’s translation of the Bible.

2002. Alfons Fürst (ed.): Augustinus – Hieronymus. Epistulae mutuae – Briefwechsel. Fontes christiani
41.1–2. Turnhout. 2 vols. 543 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and German, of the letters exchanged
between Jerome and Augustine. In Volume. 1, pp. 51–60, the editor discusses Augustine’s cri­
tique of Jerome’s translations. In Volume 1, pp. 14–15, the editor supplies a chronological table
of this correspondence, covering the years 394 to 419. There is also an exhaustive bibliography
(vol. 2, pp. 508–520). ▲

The letters in French

1983. Johannes Divjak: Les lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Paris. 390 pp. –
Contains a previously unknown letter to Jerome; published here as Epistula 19*.

2010. Carole Fry: Lettres croisées de Jérôme et Augustin. Traduites, présentées et annotées. Paris. lxviii,
501 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and French. Review: Mikaël Ribreau, Revue de l’histoire des reli­
gions 229 (2012) 541–544. ▲

Secondary literature on the dispute between Jerome and Augustine

English

1979. R.J. O’Connell: When Saintly Fathers Feuded: The Correspondence between Augustine and
Jerome. Thought 54: 344–364.

1996. Eva-Schulz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Pages
657–662: The problem of Hebraica veritas in Jerome and Augustine. “Augustine is known to
have been the most important opponent of Jerome’s veritas Hebraica, and his arguments stand
for the majority of the opposition against the new version. The central point of this opposition
was not to refuse the Hebrew original as a standard as such, but to defend the obligatory au ­
thority of the Septuagint against that of the Hebrew claimed by Jerome. (…) Augustine rejected
the Hebrew text because, by abandoning the Greek authority, the unity of the Church and its
apostolic tradition would be in danger” (p. 658).

1999. Anne P. Carriker: Augustine’s Frankness in His Dispute with Jerome over the Interpretation of
Galatians 2:11–14. In: Douglas Kries – Catherine Brown Tkacz (eds.): Nova Doctrina Vetusque. Es­
says on Early Christianity. New York (xi, 291 pp.), pp. 121–138. – Page 128: “The most accurate
assessment of the interpersonal relations between Jerome and Augustine is surely Grützmacher­
’s [1908], for he writes that we owe it to Augustine’s chivalry and modesty that the dispute did
not degenerate into a bitter squabble. It is Augustine who pleads that Jerome and he be able to
conduct a friendship that does not suffer injury or envy when one corrects the other.” Carriker
surveys earlier scholarship on the subject (pp. 125–128).

2000. G. Heidl: Hebraica veritas and Hubris. Remark on the Controversy between Jerome and Au ­
gustine. In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): L’esegesi dei Padri latini. Rome (770 pp.,
2 vols. with continuous pagination), vol. 1, pp. 41–48.

258
2007. Allan K. Jenkins – Patrick Preston: Biblical Scholarship and the Church. A Sixteenth-Century Crisis
of Authority. Aldershot (xiii, 325 pp.), pp. 3–26: The roots of the problem. – Page 22: “What lay at
the heart of the disagreement between Jerome and Augustine was the authority of the Sep­
tuagint. (…) Augustine, like Origen, believed in the Septuagint to be divinely inspired, even in
those passages not found in the Hebrew. (…) Although the debate between Jerome and Au ­
gustine turned on the authority of the Septuagint, the question at issue was in effect that of the
authority of the Old Latin versions.”

2009. Annemarie Kotzé: Augustine, Jerome and the Septuagint. In: Johann Cook (ed.): Septuagint and
Reception. Essays. Leiden (x, 411 pp.), pp. 245–260.

2010. Monika Ozóg: Saint Jerome and veritas hebraica on the basis of the correspondence with Saint
Augustine. Vox Patrum 30: 511–519.

2016. Edmon L. Gallagher: Augustine and the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 67: 97–
114. – Influenced by Jerome, Augustine’s developed an innovative theory whereby both the
Hebrew text and its Greek translation could be correct, guiding the reader to spiritual insight
even if they said different things.

2018. Markus Mülke: Progress or Problem? Augustine on the Vetus Latina and Jerome’s Vulgata. In:
Antonio Guzmán – Javier Martinez (eds.): Animo decipiendi? Rethinking Fakes and Authorship in
Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christin Works. Groningen (vii, 325 pp.), pp. 245–261.

2019. Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri: Between Jerome and Augustine. Some Intellectual Preoccupations of Late
Antiquity. In: John Tolon (ed.): Geneses. A Comparative Study of the Historiographies of the Rise
of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism, and Islam. London (260 pp.), pp. 98–113.

German

1879. Franz Overbeck: Aus dem Briefwechsel des Augustinus mit Hieronymus. Historische Zeitschrift 42:
222–259. Also in: idem: Werke und Nachlaß. Edited by E.W. Stegemann et al. Band 2: Schriften
bis 1880. Stuttgart 1994 (ix, 576 pp.), pp. 335–377.

1908. P. Aßlaber: Die persönlichen Beziehungen der drei größeren Kirchenlehrer Ambrosius, Hieronymus
und Augustinus. Vienna. 134 pp.

1994. Alfons Fürst: Veritas Latina. Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen. Re­
vue des études augustiniennes 40: 105–126. – Also in: idem: Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu
Augustinus. Berlin 2011 (viii, 535 pp.), pp. 359–384.

2007. Winrich Löhr: Der Briefwechsel [Augustins] mit Hieronymus. In: Volker H. Drecoll (ed.): Augustin
Handbuch. Tübingen (xix, 799 pp.), pp. 421–427. –The 2nd edition of 2014 is unchanged.

2010. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. In: Cornelius Mayer (ed.): Augustinus-Lexikon. Vol. 3. Basel (lviii pp.,
1284 cols.), cols. 317–336.

2011. Alfons Fürst: Veritas Latina. Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen. In:
idem: Von Origenes zu Hieronymus und Augustinus. Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte.
Berlin (viii, 535 pp.), pp. 359–384.

2019. Christoph Kugelmeier: Aliud est vatem, aliud esse interpretem: zur Spannung zwischen Adres­
satenorientierung und Texttreue in Septuaginta und Vulgata. In: Katharina Heyden et al. (eds.):
Übertragen heiliger Texte in Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Tübingen (iv, 300 pp.), pp. 93–111.

259
2021. Barbara Feichtinger: Hieronymus und Aurelius von Karthago: Eine (Nicht-)Begegnung in Rom. In:
Ingo Schaaf (ed.): Hieronymus Romanus: Studies on Jerome and Rome on the Occasion of the
1600th Anniversary of His Death. Turnhout (609 pp.), pp. 51–75. – On Jerome’s letter to Au­
gustine found in 1981 – letter 27* of the corpus of Augustine letters (CSEL 88: 130–133).

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine
linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413
pp.), pp. 3–83, at p. 33: “Die ekklesiologische Funktion der Bibelübersetzung galt für Augustin
mehr als ihre wissenschaftliche Wahrheit. Hieronymus zeigte sich aber in dieser Frage wenig
nachgiebig und entschied sich in der Regel für die zweite Möglichkeit.”

French

1932. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La correspondance échangée entre Augustin et Jérôme. Zeitschrift für
die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 31: 233–248.

1939. Paul Auvray: Saint Jérôme et saint Augustin. La controverse au sujet de l’incident d’Antioche. Re­
cherches de science religieuse 29: 594–610.

1956. G. Joussard: Réflexions sur la position de saint Augustin relativement aux Septante dans sa dis­
cussion avec saint Jérôme. Revue des Études Augustiniennes 2: 93–99.

2005. Anne-Isabelle Bouton-Touboulic: Autorité et tradition. La traduction latine de la Bible selon Saint
Jérôme et Saint Augustin. Augustinianum 45: 185–229.

2008. Jeannine Siat: Pierre et Paul dans l’Épître aux Galates: la controverse Jérôme – Augustin. In: Gé ­
rard Nauroy – Marie-Anne Vannier (eds.): Saint Augustin et la Bible. Berne (ix, 345 pp.), pp. 259–
273. – The milieu in which the two scholars worked determined their respective opinions. Je­
rome “condamne les hérésies judéo-chrétiennes qui existent encore en Syrie” (p. 272). “La
crainte d’Augustin est réelle et son argumentation répond d’avantage aux affirmations des ma­
nichéens qu’aux lettres de Jérôme. Il veut qu’aucun soupçon de mensonge, fut-il officieux ou
feint, ne pèse sur les Écritures, car ce serait donner raison aux manichéens qu’Augustin connaît
bien” (pp. 272–273).

2012. Carole Fry: La parole contre la langue: les vulgarismes dans la correspondence croisée de Jérôme
et d’Augustin. In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.),
pp. 909–920. – There are topical, highly rhetorical passages in these letters, but when it comes to
discussing scholarly subjects, a less polished style is used.

2021. Mohamed-Arbi Nsiri: “Nos … inter nos eruditionis causa disseruimus”: désaccords et conciliations
dans les échanges épistolaires augustino-hiéronymiens. Clotho 3: 191–221.

Italian – Spanish – Portuguese

2012. Edoardo Bona: Appunti di lettura della Praefatio in Euangelio di Gerolamo (con un occhio all’epi­
stolario Gerolamo–Agostino). In: Marina Passalacqua et al. (eds.): Venuste noster. Scritti offerti a
Leopoldo Gamberale. Hildesheim (726 pp.), pp. 347–369. – One section is entitled: Agostino e le
traduzioni come testimonianza di autenticità del testo (pp. 361–367). According to Bona, Au­
gustine’s letter 28,2 (Fontes christiani 41.1: 98–103) may include a reference to Jerome’s preface
to the gospels.

260
2019. Teppei Kato: ¿Griego o hebreo? Agustín y Jerónimo sobre la traducción bíblica. Augustinus 64:
173–185.

2019. Marcus da Silva Cruz: Septuaginta ou Vulgata? A controvérsia acerca da tradução das Escrituras
na correspondência de Jerónimo e Agostinho. Revista Dialogos Mediterânicos 16: 45–62. –
Portuguese.

Latin

1825. Severin C.W. Bindesböll: Augustinus et Hieronymus de scriptura sacra ex hebraeo interpretanda
disputantes. Copenhagen. 27 pp.

The inspiration of Scripture: Jerome’s view

Note. – At times, Jerome speaks of the Septuaginta interpretes qui, Spiritu Sancto pleni, e aquae vera
fuerunt transtulerunt – the Septuagint translators who, full of the Holy Spirit, translated that which was
true (Preface to the book of Chronicles [Paralipomena], translated from the Greek; Souces chrétiennes
592: 342). But Jerome wavers in his evaluation of the Septuagint. He seems to have come to believe
that only the Hebrew text is divinely “inspired.”

1910. Ludwig Schade: Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus. Biblische Studien 15,4–5. Freiburg.
xv, 223 pp.

1930. Charles J. Costello: St Augustine’s Doctrine on the Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture. Wa­
shington, D.C. xiii, 118 pp.

1952. Paul Auvray: Comment se pose le problème de l’inspiration des Septante. Revue biblique 59:
321–336. – In the early church, the Septuagint translation held canonical authority and was
therefore deemed inspired. Today, one should come back to the idea and accept not only the
authority of the Hebrew text, but also that of the Septuagint.

1963. Pierre Benoit OP: L’inspiration des septante d’après les Pères. In: L’homme devant Dieu. Mélanges
offerts au Père Henri de Lubac. Tome 1. Paris (380 pp.), pp. 169–187. Also in: idem: Exégèse et
théologie. Tome 3. Paris 1968 (446 pp.), pp. 69–89.

1986. Giuseppe Veltri: L’ispirazione della LXX tra leggenda e teologia. Del racconto di Aristea alla “veri ­
tas Hebraica” di Girolamo. Laurentianum 27: 3–71. ▲

2012. Edmon L. Gallagher: Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory. Leiden (ix, 266 pp.), pp. 205–
208. – Gallagher reports on the Augustine-Jerome dispute. Augustine “consistently attributes
the prophetic gift to the original [Greek] translators” (p. 207). “We thus find in Augustine the first
sustained attempt among Christian authors to divorce the authoritative biblical text from de ­
pendence on the Hebrew” (p. 208).

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme. Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Pages 55–61: Inspiration de la Septante.

2021. Aaron D. Henderson: The Inspiration of Scripture and of the Septuagint in Book XXVIII of Au ­
gustine’s City of God. The Heythrop Journal 63: 1–9.

261
Augustine’s knowledge and use of Jerome’s translation
403. Augustine: Letter 71,6 to Jerome (CCSL 31A: 38; Fontes christiani 41.1: 164–167) in Augustine’s
collection of letters = Letter 104 in Jerome’s collection of letters. Proinde non parvas deo gratias
agimus de opere tuo, quod evangelium ex Graevo interpretatus es, quia et paene in omnibus nulla
offensio est, cum scripturam Graecam contulerimus. Unde si quisquam veteri falsitati contentious
favet, prolatis collatisque codicibus vel docetur facillime vel refellitur. – At the same time, we are
in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from
the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when
we compared it with the Greek Scriptures. By this work, any disputant who supports an old false
translation is either convinced or confuted with the utmost ease by the production and collation
of [Greek] manuscripts. – See Hugh A.G. Houghton: Augustine’s Adoption of the Vulgate Gos­
pels. New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 450–465, at p. 456: “Augustine’s first reference to
Jerome’s revision of the Gospels occurs in a famous passage in his letter to Jerome, Epistula
71.6, dated to 403. Given that Augustine does not mention this version in their earlier corres ­
pondence but offers enthusiastic praise here, it is likely that he had only recently become aware
of its existence. He also states that he has compared Jerome’s revision with a Greek text, finding
it ‘almost without fault’.”

c. 420. Augustine: Letter 261,5 (CSEL 57:620): Psalterium a sancto Hieronymo translatum ex hebraeo
non habeo – I don’t have a copy of the Psalter translated by saint Jerome. – This dictum has
been read as a straightforward expression of Augustine’s appreciation of Jerome’s work, but
Capelle says that the words, read in context, do not allow for such an interpretation; see B.
Capelle, Revue d’histoire eccésiastique 39 (1943) 469–470, at p. 470 (in Capelle’s review of Arthur
Allgeier’s book of 1941; see Chapter 11.4).

426/27. Augustine: De doctrina christiana IV, 7,15 (PL 34:96). Augustine uses the example of Amos to
show the beauty of biblical language and the elegance of prophetic rhetoric. He does not. take
the Latin biblical text from the Vetus Latina, which is based on the text of the Greek Bible (Sep ­
tuagint); he quotes it “as the priest Jerome, experienced in both languages [Hebrew and Latin],
rendered it in his translation from Hebrew into Latin” (sicut ex hebraeo in latinum eloquium –
presbytero Hieronymo utriusque linguae perito interpretante – translata sunt).

1894. Odilo Rottmanner OSB: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholi­
sche Deutschland 114: 31–38, 101–108, at p. 103: “Augustinus hat das Neue Testament oder we­
nigstens das Evangelium in der Revision des Hieronymus als vortreffliche Arbeit anerkannt und
vielfach gebraucht; was aber das Alte Testament anbelangt, hat er bei aller Hochschätzung sei­
nes gelehrten Freundes dessen Übersetzung nur ausnahmsweise verwendet oder zur Verglei­
chung herbeigezogen; von einer Vertrautheit mit dem aus dem Hebräischen übersetzten Psalte­
rium aber findet sich, außer einer kurzen Notiz aus dem Jahr 416, kaum eine Spur.”

1896. Francis C. Burkitt: The Old Latin and the Itala. Cambridge. viii, 96 pp. – A summary of Burkitt’s po­
sition can be found in Frederic G. Kenyon: Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testa­
ment. London 1901 (xi, 321 pp.), p. 182: “Recently, however, Bentley’s disbelief in the very exist ­
ence of the ‘Itala’ has been revived by Mr. F.C. Burkitt of Cambridge. Mr. Burkitt’s main position
is that by his ‘Itala interpretatio’ Augustine meant nothing more nor less than the Vulgate [of
Jerome] the New Testament portion of which had been published for some ten years at the time
when he [Augustine] wrote.”

1907. Alfred Rahlfs: Septuaginta-Studien. 2. Heft: Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters. Göttingen (256 pp.),
pp. 81–83. Rahlfs shows that Augustine actually used Jerome’s Gallican Psalter. It is evident “daß

262
 Augustin im Laufe der Zeit sich mehr an Gall[icanum] gewöhnt hat, ohne jedoch seinen alt­
lateinischen Psaltertexten ganz untreu zu werden.”

1910. F.C. Burkitt: Saint Augustine’s Bible and the Itala. Journal of Theological Studies 11: 258–268. –
Burkitt defends his view that Augustine actually used the Vulgate, which he refers to as Itala. For
one detail, see the glossary, s.v. porro (Chapter 19.2).

1913. Paul Capelle: Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique. Rome. xi, 267 pp. – Augustine’s main work on
the Psalms are his Enarrationes in Psalmos, compiled over many years, from 392 to 416 or 422.
In the later sections, especially in the 16 long ennarrationes dictated in and after 415, Jerome’s
Gallican version dominates (pp. 143–158).

1932. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil 1. Ni­
jmwegen (270 pp.), p. 63: “den Hieronymus-Text der Evangelien schätzt Augustin ungemein,”
though he uses it in his scholarly work, notably in De consensu evangelistarum (written in 400)
where exactness is relevant. Unlike Burkitt, Mohrmann does not think that the Vulgate Gospels
were used in the church of Augustine.

1986. Anne-Marie La Bonnardière (ed.): Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps 3. Paris. 462
pp. – (1) Pages 303–312: La Bonnardière: Augustin a-t-il utilisé la ‘Vulgate’ de Jérôme?; p. 304:
“Nos recherches sur la Biblia Augustiana nous ont permis de repérer progressivement les
œuvres d’Augustin qui révèlent, plus ou moins ouvertement, une connaissance des traductions
bibliques réalisées par Jérôme. Ce sont des œuvres généralement tradives.” – (2) Pages 313–322:
Madeleine Moreau: Sur un commentaire d’Amos – De doctrina christiana IV, 7, 15–21. A positive
reference to a translation of Jerome from the Hebrew (with citation of the translator) with quo ­
tation of Amos 6:1–6 is in Augustine: De doctrina christiana IV,7 (PL 34: 96). ▲

2008. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Augustine’s Adoption of the Vulgate Gospels. New Testament Studies 54:
450–465. – The author examines literal references to the Gospel of John and proposes to distin­
guish between citations from memory and citations from a consulted manuscript. The biblical
text of Augustine’s De consensu evangelistarum (400) is that of Jerome’s Vulgate.

Miscellanea on Augustine
1932. Wilhelm Süß: Studien zur lateinischen Bibel. I. Augustins Locutiones und das Problem der lateinis­
chen Bibelsprache. Acta et Communicationes Universitatis Tartuensis, B 29. Tartu. 144 pp. – A
book on Augustine’s references to textual issues of the Latin Bible he used. Augustine frequently
comments on the peculiarities of biblical Latin.

2008. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les bibles d’Augustin. In: Gérard Nauroy – Mari-Anne Vannier
(eds.): Saint Augustin et la Bible. Berne (ix, 345 pp.), pp. 17–36. – Augustine relied mainly, almost
exclusively, on the Vetus Latina. The author also discusses Augustine’s attitude towards Jerome’s
translations.

2009. Andrew Cain: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian
Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford. xiv, 286 pp. – Page 65, note 91: “Throughout his career, Au­
gustine remained loyal to the Old Latin version of the Old Testament.”

2011. Alfons Fürst: Von Origenes zu Hieronymus und Augustinus. Studien zur antiken Theolo­
giegeschichte. Berlin. viii, 535 pp. – Pages 359–384: Veritas Latina. Augustins Haltung gegenüber
Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen.

2011. Neil Adkin: Labor tam utilis. Sallust in Augustine on the Vulgate. Augustiana (Leuven) 61: 49–53.

2015. Rebekka S. Schirner: Inspice diligenter codices. Philologische Studien zu Augustins Umgang mit

263
 Bibelhandschriften und Übersetzungen. Berlin. 684 pp. – See esp. the chapter “Das Thema
Bibelübersetzungen und Bibelhandschriften in De doctrina Christiana” (pp. 20–53) which in­
cludes a thematic section “Die Itala-Problematik” (pp. 46–53); see above, Chapter 9.6. ▲

2016. Edmon L. Gallagher: Augustine on the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Theological Studies NS 67: 97–
114.

2017. Gerd-Dietrich Warns: Die Textvorlage von Augustins Annotationes in Iob. Studien zur Erstfassung
von Hieronymus’ Hiob-Übersetzung iuxta Graecos. Göttingen. 590 pp. – See also: Almut Trenkler
– Gerd-Diedrich Warns: Der Mittelteil des 1. Kapitels von Augustins Adnotationes in Iob. Vulgata
in Dialogue 2 (2018) 53–68.

2017. Almut Trenkler: Die beiden Rezensionen von Augustins Adnotationes in Iob im Licht von Hierony­
mus’ erster Ijob-Übersetzung. Göttingen. 331 pp.

14.2 The invention of the Vulgate

Note. – The “invention” of the Vulgate implies two closely linked phenomena: (a) the firm association
of Jerome’s biblical translations with good Latin versions of the books not translated or revised by
Jerome, and (b) the adoption of this Bible throughout the church in all parts of Europe and in northern
Africa. Since there is only indirect evidence of both the association and the success story of the Vul­
gate Bible, the early history of the Vulgate remains obscure. Three major players in this early period
can be discerned or conjectured, however – (1) Pammachius, (2) educated Christians such as Gregory
the Great, and (3) the booksellers of the city of Rome.

(1) Jerome’s friend Pammachius, a nobleman of Rome, supported and presumably organized the dis­
semination of Jerome’s writings, including his biblical translations, in the city of Rome. Although he
died in 410 – ten years earlier than Jerome – he nevertheless seems to have promoted the reputation
and availability of Jerome’s works in Rome. Pammachius was married to Paulina, the daughter of Paula
– the Paula to whom Jerome owed the funding of his monastery in Bethlehem and thus his entire exis­
tence.

(2) Educated readers of the biblical books who came to be convinced of the superior quality of
Jerome’s translations over earlier versions – among them, Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome from 590
to his death in 604. In his main work, the Moralia in Iob (xx, 32,62; PL 76: 174; CCSL 143A; 1048), Grego­
ry declares his confidence in Jerome’s version: haec nova translatio ex hebraeo (…) credendum est quic­
quid in ea dicitur et oportet ut verba illius nostra expositio subtiliter rimetur – “this new translation from
the Hebrew (…) one must believe whatever is said there; our own exposition must needs be conform
with it.” A selection of similar appreciative statements can be found in PL 28: 139–142; beginning with
Augustine, the relevant excerpts are arranged chronologically, with the last item being from Trithemius
(15th century).

(3) In the fifth and sixths centuries, Rome was Western Europe’s city of books; see Renate Schipke: Das
Buch in der Spatantike. Herstellung, Form, Ausstattung und Verbreitung in der westlichen Reichshalfte
des Imperium Romanum. Wiesbaden 2013 (280 pp.). The scriptoria of the city of Rome seem to have
adopted Jerome’s translations and other reliable versions which they began to collate to create a cor ­
pus. Apparently, one could make money from the production of codices with good texts, especially
with the Gospels and the Psalms – the books most in demand. But also by producing good Bibles,
complete with both testaments. As it happens, we seem to have evidence of the work of a learned edi­
tor who may have been associated with the book-selling trade of the city of Rome. This person, whose
name and identity remain unknown, has left his “fingerprints” in the form of two colophons that have
found their way into an early ninth-century biblical manuscript: the Codex Sangermanensis primus

264
(Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, ms. Lat. 11553; see above, Chapter 7.2 on the Vulgate manuscripts). The
following is the text of these two colophons (in the translation of Pierre-Maurice Bogaert: The Latin
Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge
2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at pp. 521–522:
“End of Esther. Deo gratias. Here ends the Old Testament, meaning all the canonical scriptures, numbering 24
books, which priest Jerome translated from the Hebrew truth. With the greatest care and interest, I have looked
at the codices to find (his) editions. These I have collected into a single corpus and copied into a pandect. The re­
maining scriptures, which are not canonical but known as ecclesiastical, are the following; Judith, Tobit, the two
books of Maccabees, the Wisdom known as Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, as well as the book of
the Shepherd of Hermas.”

“End of [the Epistle] to the Hebrews. Read in peace. Book collection [i.e., Bible] of Priest Jerome of Bethlehem. Ac ­
cording to the Greek from corrected copies. Beginning of the book of Shepherd.”

Interestingly, this early Vulgate edition included the “Shepherd of Hermas.” This is a second- century
Christian novel set in Rome. Its very first sentence refers to this setting: “The man who brought me up
sold me to a woman named Rhoda in Rome.” (A translation of this Greek novel can be found in Mi ­
chael W. Holmes: The Apostolic Fathers in English. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, Mich. 2006 [335 pp.], pp.
199–287.) That this text associated with the city of Rome became part of early forms of the Vulgate
would be in keeping with the idea that the Vulgate Bible was invented in Rome.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Page 126: At first,
there was opposition to Jerome’s translation, but over time, the opposition became weaker and
eventually disappeared, perhaps due to the recognition of Jerome’s superior style. “Nach und
nach verstummte freilich der Widerspruch. Es mehrten sich die Fälle, wo man die Übersetzung
des Hieronymus nicht bloß in der Theologie, sondern auch im Gottesdienst verwendete. Einer
der Gründe dafür mochte auch gewesen sein, daß die neue Übersetzung bei aller Schonung des
Hergebrachten, die Hieronymus geübt hatte, doch dem Stil- und Sprachgebrauch der gebilde­
ten und gebildeteren Kreise ziemlich weit entgegenkommt. Aber es brauchte noch Jahrhun­
derte, bis sie in den ausschließlichen Gebrauch der Kirche überging.” Page 128: “Immerhin läßt
sich aber sagen, daß im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert sich der Text des Hieronymus durchgesetzt hatte.”

1931. Cuthbert H. Turner (ed.): The Oldest Manuscript of the Vulgate Gospels. Deciphered and Edited.
Oxford 1931. lxiii, 216 pp. – Page xiv: “In sharp contrast to the later attitude of the Roman
Church to the version of St Jerome, neither pope Damasus nor his immediate successors made
any attempt, so far as we know, to recommend, still less to enforce, the acceptance of the new
revision of the Gospels for official and public use: it was left to make its way unaided by its in ­
trinsic merits, and in St Gregory’s time, two centuries later, the old and the new version still exis­
ted side by side.”

1952. Meinrad Stenzel: Zum Wortschatz der neutestamentlichen Vulgata. Vigiliae Christianae 6: 20–27.
– Page 24: “Recht lange hat es gedauert, ehe das Werk des Hieronymus allgemeine Anerken ­
nung fand. Aber sämtliche Väterzitate der nachhieronymischen Zeit zeigen uns seinen Einfluss.
Auch da, wo Kirchenväter die von ihnen verwandten Bibeltexte ad hoc aus dem Griechischen
übersetzten, sind sie in Wortwahl und Satzkonstruktion von Hieronymus abhängig. So etwa Au­
gustinus selbst bei seinen langen Zitaten im 18. Buche des Gottesstaates.”

1996. Eva-Schulz-Flügel: The Latin Old Testament Tradition. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 642–662. – Page
657. “The success of Jerome’s translation did not result from the fact Jerome himself stressed,
that is, the necessity to go back ad fontes in order to get nearer to the real truth, the Hebraica
veritas. Rather, it was the tendency to obtain a standard text which caused its final victory.”

265
2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Versions latins de la Bible. In: G. Mathon – G.-H. Baudry (eds.):
Catholicisme. Hier – aujourd’hui – demain. Volume 15. Paris (1572 cols.), cols. 910–913. – Col.
912: “Jérôme n’a certainement pas édité lui-même une Bible latine complète ni même donné
une édition groupé de ses propres traductions. Elles ont circulé d’abord séparément et, dans un
premier temps, elles n’ont fait qu’ajouter à la variété qu’elles veulent combattre.” Jerome edited
his translations of biblical books as individual works and did not organize a complete edition.
His translation initially contributed to the richness of variants of Latin translations, which he ac­
tually wanted to overcome. The first compilation of Jerome’s translations was made around 450
by a librarian. The Codex Sangermanensis primus (Bibliothèque Nationale ms. Lat. 11553; dating
from c. 810) seems to go back to the latter’s biblical codices (in which, however, large parts of
the Old Testament are missing). ▲

2018. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Entre canon(s) et textes bibliques. Recherches de science religieuse
106: 53–71. – Page 65: “Si la traduction de Jérôme selon l’hébreu a révalu sur la vetus Latina, en
dépit des préventions par Rufin et par Augustin, c’est en raison de son style. La vieille latine, jux ­
ta-linéaire du grec, faisait pale figure à côté du génie latin de Jérôme.” See also Bogaert: The
Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1.
Cambridge 2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at p. 518: “the remarkable Latinity of his transla­
tions from the Hebrew swiftly won over the ‘line-by-line’ nature of the Vetus Latina.”

14.3 Reference works on the Bible in the Middle Ages

Before 1900
1824. Leander van Eß: Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata. Tübingen. xvi, 504 pp. – On pages
134–145, the author supplies an anthology of Latin texts written between the 5th and the 13th
centuries to demonstrate that the Vulgate was not the only biblical translation used in the Latin
church. This collection is still valuable, but the user must be warned – the editor neither offers
translations nor much of a commentary. The author’s declared objective is to undermine the au­
thority that the Vulgate enjoys in the Catholic Church. Kaulen (Geschichte der Vulgata, 1868, p.
12): “Leander van Ess hat mit leidenschaftlicher Heftigkeit einen grossen Theil seines Lebens
dazu verwendet, das Ansehen der Vulgata herabzusetzen.”

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Reprint: Paderborn: Salzwasser Verlag
2020. – According to Jean Gribomont OSB, in: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible. Supplementary Volume. Nashville, Tenn. 1976, p. 532 Kaulen’s book is “still indispensable
(…) details need checking.” For the Middle Ages, see pp. 190–301. ▲

1887. Samuel Berger: De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France. Paris. 24 pp. – Text of an inaugural lecture
held at the Faculté de théologie protestante in Paris, November 4, 1887.

1893. Samuel Berger: Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris. xxiv, 443
pp. – Reprint: Hildesheim 1976. Berger tells the success story of the Vulgate from the time of the
Merovingians to the time of Charlemagne. During this time, the Vulgate established itself as the
valid biblical text in Western Europe. – Reviews:
1893. Pierre Battifol: La Vulgate hiéronymienne d’après un livre nouveau. Revue biblique 2: 544–559. Berger’s
chapter on the Theodulf revision is said to be the most accomplished of his book, amounting to a definitive
statement.

1894. T.K. Abbott: M. Berger’s History of the Vulgate. Hermathena 9, no. 20: 50–55.

266
 1894. Peter Corssen, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1: 855–875. Corssen disagrees with some of Berger’s basic as­
sumptions.

1894. Odilo Rottmanner OSB: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische
Deutschland 114: 31–38, 101–108, at pp. 103–107. “Welch wohltuenden Eindruck macht dagegen die ‘Ge­
schichte der Vulgata in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten des Mittelalters’ durch ihre sachliche Vollständigkeit
und Genauigkeit” (p. 104).

1894. Ernst von Dobschütz: Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata. Leipzig. viii, 139 pp. – Page vi: “Berger’s Versuch,
den Stoff textgeschichtlich in geographische Orientierung zu bringen, ist einer der glücklichsten Griffe, und
wird gewiß von dauerndem Erfolg begleitet sein.”

1901. H.J. White: Samuel Berger. Journal of Theological Studies 2.6 (1901) 262–265. – Obituary of the French schol­
ar, 1843–1900. Page 263: “The result of many years’ labour appeared in his Histoire de la Vulgate pendant
les premiers siècles du moyen age, published in 1893. This book was the first really scientific attempt that
had been made to unravel the tangled mass of Vulgate MSS, to group them and to trace the history of
each group; and it showed abilities of the highest order. The author was a palaeographer and a historian as
well as a textual critic, and he made use of each part of a many-sided erudition in his work. It is to him that
we owe the discovery of the lines on which the Vulgate texts travelled over Europe; how the early and pure
texts were brought from Italy to Northumbria, and were multiplied in England; how they afterwards with
the Irish and English missionary monks made their way back across the continent, spreading slowly down ­
wards through France, till in the southern provinces they met and coalesced with the less pure type of text
that had been developing in Spain and moving up northwards. The history of the text of the Vulgate anteri­
or to the Alcuinian and Theodulfian recensions of the ninth century was unknown till M. Berger wrote it in
this book. Yet, as the title showed, it was the history of the Vulgate during the first half of the Middle Ages
that he wrote; the problem of the earliest MSS of the Vulgate even he had not been able to solve.”

1895. Sir Frederic Kenyon: Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. London. vi, 255 pp. – Pages 174–188:
The Vulgate in the Middle Ages. – Pages 176–177: “The truest text of the Vulgate was no doubt
preserved in Italy. The worst was unquestionably in Gaul, which we may now begin to call
France. But two countries, situated at different extremes of Western Christendom, preserved
somewhat distinct types of text, which eventually had considerable influence upon the history of
the Vulgate. These were Spain and Ireland. Each was, for a considerable period, cut off from
communication with the main body of Christendom: Spain, by the Moorish invasion, which for a
time confined the Christian Visigoths to the north-western corner of the peninsula; Ireland, by
the English conquest of Britain, which drove the ancient Celtic Church before it, and interposed
a barrier of heathendom between the remains of that Church and its fellow Christians on the
Continent. The consequence of this isolation was that each Church preserved a distinct type of
the Vulgate text, recognisable by certain special readings in many passages of the Bible. The
Spanish Bible was complete, and its text, though of very mixed character, contains some good and
early elements; witness the Codex Cavensis and the Codex Toletanus (…). The Irish Bible as a rule
consists of the Gospels alone, and its text is likewise mixed, containing several remarkable read­
ings; but its outward form and ornamentation had a special character and a peculiar beauty, the
connection of which with the Bibles produced in northern England forms an intriguing problem.”

English

1969. Raphael Loewe: The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate. In: G.W.H. Lampe (ed.): The Cam­
bridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cambridge (ix, 565 pp.), pp. 102–154. – Now considered
outdated, essentially replaced by F. Van Liere’s contribution to the New Cambridge History of the
Bible. Volume 2, 2012 (see below).

1993. Margaret T. Gibson: The Bible in the Latin West. The Medieval Book 5.1. Notre Dame, Ind. xi, 100 p.

267
2012. Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cam­
bridge. xxii, 1045 pp. – Pages 69–92: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: The Latin Bible, c. 600 to c.
900; pp. 93–109: Frans Van Liere: The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546 (on the his ­
tory of the Latin text); pp. 380–391: Laura Light: The Thirteenth Century and the Paris Bible. ▲

2012. Cornelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Bible between the
Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Medium Aevum Monographs 29. Oxford. ix, 309 pp. – Pages 27–
78: The Vulgate and Medieval Editions of the Bible.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge. xv, 320 pp. – Pages 53–79: The
medieval canon; pp. 80–109: The text of the medieval Bible; pp. 273–302: Bibliography. – See
also: Frans van Liere: The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546. In: Richard Marsden –
E. Ann Matter (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cam­
bridge 2012 (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 93–109.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – This reference work can be found on the Internet (“open access”). –
Pages 69–95: The eighth and ninth centuries; pp. 96–110: The tenth century onwards: scholar ­
ship and heresy.

2023. Paul Mattei: The Use of the Latin Bible in the Early Church. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 121–138. – The use of the Bible is more
than simply the application of hermeneutic principles and exegetical techniques, or the literary
genres within which these are deployed. P. Mattei offers a broad account of the presence of
Scripture within the intellectual and religious life of Latin Christians in antiquity. The chronolo­
gical scope is from the beginnings of Christian literature in Latin to the time of Bede. This may
be divided into three stages: the Antenicene period, with its three major personalities of Tertul­
lian, Cyprian, and Lactantius; the zenith, from Nicaea to Chalcedon, marked by the great Christo ­
logical and Trinitarian controversies, with individuals such as Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Mil­
an, Jerome of Stridon, and Augustine of Hippo (esp. De doctrina christiana); the inheritance, with
teachers such as Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, and Bede, who lead to the
dawn of the Carolingian age.

2023. Guy Lobrichon: The Production of Medieval Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 187–207. – The author presents the develop­
ment of the Latin Bible in the West from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. Overall, five
types of bibles are found in this period: liturgical bibles, glossed bibles, portable bibles, luxury
bibles, and picture bibles. Some are in the form of pandects containing the complete text, from
the giant ‘Atlantic Bibles’ to the all-in-one Paris Bibles. Their production, contents, and organisa­
tion are described, including details of the sequence of books and their paratexts (prefaces, pro ­
logues, and argumenta). The rise of illustrated bibles is seen in the two Bibles of Pamplona and
the Bible moralisée, as well as certain ‘parabiblical’ books such as the Speculum humanae salva­
tionis and the Biblia pauperum. Consideration is given to the role played by patrons as well as
producers and users in developing new styles and formats, and the contexts in which they were
used, such as the requirements of the different religious orders and schools. – Page 187:
“Pandects, containing the entire Bible in a single volume of large dimensions, and smaller books
devoted to separate parts of Scripture, coexisted for a long time. The former were rare before
those created in Tours in the first half of the ninth century (…): they remained confined to treas ­
uries or royal or princely chapels until about the year 1000.” ▲

268
German

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 141–158:
Die Geschichte des Vulgatatextes von der Zeit Karls d. Gr. bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters.

1939. Hans Rost: Die Bibel im Mittelalter. Augsburg. 429 pp. – The large-size book offers much material
on German translations of the Vulgate Bible dating from before the Reformation.

1980. Viktor Reichmann: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. In: Gerhard Krause et al. (eds.): Theologische
Realenzyklopädie. Volume 6. Berlin (770 pp.), pp. 178–181.

2023. Dominic Bärsch: Exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa. Hieronymus und die Textgenese
der Vulgata in Spätantike und Mittelalter. In: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata.
Quellen und Rezeption. Stuttgart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 89–105.

French

1984. Pierre Riché – Guy Lobrichon (eds.): Le Moyen Âge et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps. Paris. 639
pp. – Many essays on all aspects of the (Latin) Bible in medieval religion and culture. Most im­
portant is the contribution of Laura Light: Versions et révisions du texte biblique (pp. 55–93).

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Bogaert’s essay constitutes
a standard reference work.

2008. Guy Lobrichon: Les traductions médiévales de la Bible dans l’occident latin. In: Marie-Christine
Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les bibles en latin au temps des Réformes. Paris 2008 (xii, 274 pp.),
pp. 19–36. The author presents a realistic account. There was no firm ecclesiastical control of the
text, no notion of its stability. The editorial activity of Alcuin is a modern scholarly myth. Even
the scholars active in 13th-century Paris did not care about a uniform text as much as some
modern researchers would make us believe. ▲

Italian

1996. Giuseppe Cremascoli – Claudio Leonardi (eds.): La Bibbia nel Medioevo. La Bibbia nella storia 17.
Bologna. 485 pp.

269
14.4 From Pelagius to the Paris Bible and Windesheim

Pelagius (c. 360–420)

Cassiodorus (c. 485–588)

Gregory the Great (540–604)

Isidore of Seville (560–636)

Alcuin and Theodulf: the Carolingian Bibles

The Latin Bible in Ireland

The Latin Bible in England

The Latin Bible in Italy – Atlantic Bibles

The Latin Bible in Spain

The Cistercian Old Testament of Stephen Harding (1109)

The “Paris Bible” (exemplar Parisiense, 13th century)

Roger Bacon (1220–1292)

Heinrich von Langenstein (d. Vienna 1397)

The Netherlands: Windesheim (1420s)

Pelagius (c. 360–420)

Note. – It has been suggested by Donatien De Bruyne OSB (1915) that the Latin text of the Pauline let­
ters was edited by Pelagius, and that his edition became part of the Vulgate, but the idea has been
abandoned by recent scholarship. See above, Chapter 12.2, and in the textual notes (Chapter 22) the
note on Romans 5:12. One must not confuse Donatien De Bruyn with his near-namesake Theodore de
Bryn, a recent author on Pelagius.

1961. Hermann Josef Frede: Pelagius, der irische Paulustext, Sedulius Scottus. Freiburg. 165 pp. – The
Pauline texts that Pelagius commented on is the already existing Vulgate text, and not a text
specially edited by Pelagius.

1962–1963. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Pelagius und die Vulgata. New Testament Studies 9: 361–366. – Pela­
gius did not know the text of our Vulgate. His text of the Pauline letters was still one that be­
longs to the Old Latin tradition; but it was a text that stood close to the Vulgate wording. It can­
not be shown that Pelagius himself had a hand in the production of a revised Latin text of the
Pauline letters.

270
1966. Georges de Plinval: Précisions sur l’authenticité d’un prologue de Pélage: “Primum quaeritur.”
Revue des études augustiniennes 12.3–4: 247–253. – Plinval defends Pelagius’ authorship of
Primum quaeritur, the Vulgate’s prologue to the translation of the Pauline epistles.

1968. Ernst Nellessen: Der lateinische Paulustext im Codex Baliolensis des Pelagiuskommentars. Zeit­
schrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59: 210–230. – A critical response to this article is
by Walter Thiele: Zum lateinischen Paulustext – Textkritik und Überlieferungsgeschichte. Zeit­
schrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 60 (1969) 264–273.

1972. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. In: Kurt Aland (ed.): Die al­
ten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Berlin (xxii, 589
pp.), pp. 1–92. – Page 68: “Die Vulgata wird zuerst benützt von Pelagius und seinen Anhängern.”

1993. Theodore de Bruyn: Pelagius’ Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Oxford. viii, 236 pp.
– In the appendix, the author presents a new recension of Pelagius’ commentary on Romans (pp.
155–189). Review: Yves-Marie Duval, Latomus 55 (1996) 665–667.

1999. Sebastian Thier: Kirche bei Pelagius. Berlin. ix, 358 pp. – Page 35: In agreement with Frede (1961),
the author argues that Pelagius must have had connections with Rome where Rufinus the Syrian
had produced and released his edited (Vulgate) version of the Pauline letters by 399/400.

2021. Giuseppe Caruso: Girolamo, Pelagio e Roma. In: Ingo Schaaf (ed.): Hieronymus Romanus: Studies
on Jerome and Rome on the Occasion of the 1600th Anniversary of His Death. Turnhout (609 pp.),
pp. 77–100.

Cassiodorus (c. 485–588)

1926/27. John Chapman: The Codex Amiatinus and Cassiodorus. Revue bénédictine 38 (19269 139–150;
39 (1927) 12–32.

1962. Codex Amiatinus und Cassiodor. Biblische Zeitschrift NS 6: 57–79.

1963. Céléstin Charlier: Cassiodore, Pélage et les origines de la Vulgate paulinienne. In: Studiorum
Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961. Volume 2. Rome (627 pp.), pp. 461–470.
– The author suggests that the Vulgate form of the Pauline letters was established by Cassidorus
on the basis of Pelagius’ commentary on these letters; see above, Chapter 12.1.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Of special relevance is the
section pp. 289–291: Première diffusion des versions hiéronymiennes. Page 284: “Cassiodore,
pour la première fois semble-t-il, désigne du nom de pandectes des Bibles complètes en un co­
dex. Ce ne serait pas un hasard si ce contemporain de Justinien avait emprunté à la grande
œuvre juridique du règne (533) ce nom prestigieux. Il est peut-être aussi le premier à avoir, de
fait, édité des Bible en un volume.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 58–59: Cassiodorus [485–588]. – As early as the 5th century,
the idea of the “pandect” is developed, the idea of presenting the entire Bible of the Old and
New Testaments in a single codex or a uniformly designed set of codices. Cassiodorus is also
committed to this idea. A pandect is, for example, the Codex Amiatinus, see above, Chapter 7.2.

271
Gregory the Great (540–604)
580/85. Gregory: Moralia in Iob. Two passages: (1) Book i, Epistle 5 (PL 75: 516; Sources chrétiennes
32bis: 134). novam vero translationem edissero; sed cum comprobationis causa exigit, nunc no­
vam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo; ut quia sedes apostolica, cui Deo auctore praesideo,
utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur – Now it is the new Translation that I
comment on; but when a case to be proved requires it, I take now the new and now the old for
testimony. Just as the Apostolic See, over which I preside by ordinance of God, uses both, the la ­
bours of my undertaking may have the support of both. – (2) Book xx, 32,62 (PL 76: 174; CSEL
143A: 1048). Gregory declares his confidence in Jerome’s version: qui haec nova translatio ex he­
braeo nobis Arabicoque eliquio cuncta verius transfudisse perhibetur, credendum est quicquid in
ea dicitur et oportet ut verba illius nostra expositio subtiliter rimetur – because this new transla­
tion is said to have transferred every thing from the Hebrew and Arabic more truly, we should
believe whatever is delivered in it, and our interpretation must research its words with exactness.

1829. Johann Baptist Gerhauser: Biblische Hermeneutik. Erster Theil. Kempten (xiv, 385 pp.), p. 342: “Erst
im VI. Jahrhunderte entschied das Ansehen des Papstes Gregor des Großen für die neue Version
des Hieronymus. Er legte sie bei seiner moralischen Auslegung des Buches Job zum Grunde, und
in seinen übrigen Schriften gebrauchte er dieselbe ganz allein. Dieser Vorgang des Kirchenhaup­
tes machte dem bisherigen Kampfe ein End, und verschaffte der Übersetzung den Sieg. Im VII.
Jahrhunderte wurde sie zuerst in Spanien die herrschende und anerkannte; und endlich wurde
sie nach und nach in allen lateinischen Kirchen aufgenommen.”

1908. John Chapman OSB: Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels. Oxford (xi, 299 pp.), pp.
203–216: The Vulgate Text [of the Gospels] of St. Gregory. Vulgate and Old Latin readings are
mixed in the gospel texts that are prefixed to each of Gregory’s gospel homilies.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290
pp.), p. 126: “Zur Zeit Gregors des Großen († 604) hatte sich die neue Übersetzung Gleichberech­
tigung neben der alten errungen, so daß dieser Papst beide nebeneinander verwendet.”

1951. Pierre Salmon OSB: Le texte de Job utilisé par saint Grégoire dans les Moralia. In: Adalbert Me­
tzinger (ed.): Miscellanea biblica et orientalia, Athanasio Miller OSB (…) oblata. Rome (viii, 511),
pp. 187–194. The Latin text that Gregory uses is “un bon témoin de la Vulgate” (p. 194).

1986. Jean Gribomont OSB: Le texte biblique de Grégoire. In: J. Fontaine – R. Gillet – S. Pellistrandi
(eds.): Grégoire le Grand. Paris (690 pp.), pp. 467–475.

Isidore of Seville (560–636)

c. 600. Isidore: De ecclesiasticis officiis I, 12,9 (PL 83: 748). Jerome’s translation is “generally” used, by
“all churches” (generaliter omnes ecclesiae), because it is “truer in the sentences and clearer in
the words” (veracior […] in sententiis et clarior in verbis).

c. 620. Isidore: Etymologiae VI, 4,5 (PL 82: 236): “Also the priest Jerome, skilled in three languages,
translated the same Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin speech, and rendered them eloquently
(eloquenterque transfudit). His translation (i.e., the Vulgate) is deservedly preferred over the oth­
ers, for it is closer in its wording, and brighter in the clarity of its thought ( cuius interpretatio
merito ceteris antefertur; nam est et verborum tenacior, et perspicuitate sententiae clarior) [and,
inasmuch as it is by a Christian, the translation is truer].” English translation from Isidore of
Seville: The Etymologies. Translated by Stephen A. Barney et al. Cambridge 2006 (xii, 475 pp.), p.
139. The words enclosed between square brackets are in some of the manuscripts.

272
Note. – Isidore’s words were often repeated throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. Here is one ver­
sion: Novissime superveniens sanctus Hieronymus peritus in tribus linguis: hebraica, graeca et latina.
Primo correxit translationem LXX interpretum in latino (...) postea vero transtulit immediate bibliam de
hebraeo in latinum (…) et hanc translationem nunc ubique utitur tota Romana ecclesia, licet non in om­
nibus libris. Et ipsius translationem merito ceaeteris antefertur, quia est verborum tenacior et perspicuit­
ate sententiae clarior. – Finally came saint Jerome, specialist in three languages – Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin. At first, he corrected the Latin version of the translation of the Seventy (…) and afterwards he
translated the Bible immediately from Hebrew into Latin (…) and it is this translation that is now used
in the entire Roman church, though not in all books. And his translation is rightly preferred to others,
because its words are more gripping and its meaning brighter. The passage can be found in PL 113:25
(associated with the Glossa ordinaria, the medieval handbook on the Bible) and in the preliminary mat­
ter of the Complutensia, the sixteenth-century polyglot Bible (see Chapter 15.2); from this latter
source, Allgeier quotes it (Arthur Allgeier: Haec vetus et vulgata editio. Neue wort- und begriffs­
geschichtliche Beiträge zur Bibel auf dem Tridentinum. Biblica 29 [1948] 353–391, at p. 376).

Alcuin and Theodulf: the Carolingian Bibles

English
1924. Edward Power: Corrections from the Hebrew in the Theodulfian Mss. of the Vulgate. Biblica 5:
233–258.

1931. Edward K. Rand: A Preliminary Study of Alcuin’s Bible. Harvard Theological Review 24: 323–396.

1964–1965. Felix Gryglewicz: The St.-Adalbert-Codex of the Gospels. New Testament Studies 11: 256–
278. – This Latin gospel codex originated sometime between 800 and 851, after Alcuin’s revision,
in the Benedictine monastery of St. Martin, Tours. It is the best witness to Alcuin’s text that we
have. This manuscript is kept in the Chapter Library of Gniezno (Gnesen) in Poland as MS 1. It
figures neither in the apparatus of the Oxford New Testament of Wordsworth/White nor in the
Stuttgart text of Weber/Gryson. See the note in Houghton, p. 82.

1969. Robert Weber OSB (ed.): Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Volume 1. Stuttgart (xxxi, 956
pp.). – First page of the preface: “Italy, Spain, Gaul Ireland, all had their own recensions which
differed the one from the other. In the time of Charles the Great, Theodulph of Orleans under­
took a revision, the text of which is preserved in several manuscripts. However, most manu ­
scripts of this period preserve a text associated with the name of Alcuin, which exercised no
small influence in later Vulgate history. It was a development of this ‘Alcuinian’ text that
provided the basis for the Paris Bible of the thirteenth century: the Paris text, in turn, was used
for the first printed Bible; and it appeared subsequently, with but minor variations, in all the
early printed editions, including even the official Roman edition published under the authority
of Pope Clement VIII in Rome in 1592.”

1994. Rosamond McKitterick: Carolingian Bible Production: The Tours Anomaly. In: Richard Gameson
(ed.): The Early Medieval Bible. Its Production, Decoration and Use. Cambridge (xiv, 242 pp.), pp.
63–77. – On Alcuin.

1995. Berenice M. Kaczinsky: Edition, Translation and Exegesis: The Carolingians and the Bible. In:
Richard E. Sullivan (ed.): The Gentle Voices of Teachers. Aspects of Learning in the Carolingian
Age. Columbus, Ohio (xiv, 361 pp.), pp. 171–185.

273
2012. D. Ganz: Carolingian Bibles. In: R. Marsden – E.A. Matters (eds.): The New Cambridge History of
the Bible. Volume 2: From the 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 325–337.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge. xv, 320 pp. – Page 95: “Al­
though with little doubt Charlemagne’s General Admonition provided the impetus for Alcuin and
Theodulf’s work, their texts were not promoted as official bible texts. (…) Eventually, various local
traditions blended to form the textus receptus of the medieval Vulgate.”

2014. Michael Graves: The Story of the Latin Bible and Questions about Biblical Translation for the
Church Today. Trinity Journal NS 35: 253–273. – Theodulf “employed critical signs in his Latin
edition, included Jerome’s Hebrew-based Psalter, followed more closely the Hebrew order of
books, and made corrections towards the Hebrew, probably with the help of Jews” (p. 272).

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 81–86: Charlemagne, Alcuin and Theodulf.

2023. Shari Boodts: The Bible in the Carolingian Age. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook
of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 169–186. – The author discusses the copying and
study of the Bible during the reign of Charlemagne and his immediate successors. The Carolingi­
an age was marked by technological innovations that led to a notable increase in the production
of biblical manuscripts, in particular single-volume bibles or pandects, while powerful patrons
stimulated the creation of lavishly decorated luxury bibles. The ninth century further witnessed a
dynamic tradition of study and exegesis of the Bible, steered in large part by the Carolingian
rulers’ desire to consolidate their empire through the centralization of religious practice and
education. While a large corpus of biblical commentaries was produced by leading intellectuals
such as Hrabanus Maurus, Florus of Lyons, and Haymo of Auxerre, it was the work of Theodulf
of Orleans and Alcuin of York on the text of the Bible that was decisive in shaping the Carolingi ­
an legacy.

2023. Guy Lobrichon: The Production of Medieval Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 187–207. – Page 188: “From the ninth cen­
tury, the version known as the Vulgate as revised by the team of Alcuin outranked its competit ­
ors.”

German
1930. Arthur Allgeier: Der Brief an Sunnia und Fretela und seine Bedeutung für die Textherstellung der
Vulgata. Biblica 11: 86–107. – Page 97: It is generally known that the Alcuin Bibles presented the
Psalms according to Jeromes’ translation iuxta hebraeos (and not the Gallican Psalter that later
became the standard Vulgate book of Psalms).

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata des Hi­
eronymus. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, p, 257–258:
“Kommt man nun von der Lektüre altlateinischer Bibeltexte zur Editio Clementina (…), so hat es
in der Tat den Anschein, als sei (…) eine Rückkehr zur klassischen Sprachform vollzogen worden.
Die bereits vorliegenden vier Bände der neuen römischen Vulgata [see above, Chapter 13.3] ha­
ben uns allerdings bereits belehrt, daß der ‘Ciceronianismus’ der Vulgata zum guten Teil von Al ­
kuin herrührt.”

1957. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Die Alkuin-Bibel. Freiburg. 19 pp.

1965. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Bibeltext und Bibelreform unter Karl dem Großen. In: Wolfgang Braunfels
(ed.): Karl der Große. Lebenswerk und Nachleben. Volume 2. Düsseldorf (306 pp.), pp. 156–216. –

274
 Reprinted in: Bonifatius Fischer: Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg
1985 (454 pp., 10 Blätter), pp. 101–202.

1975. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Zur Überlieferung altlateinischer Bibeltexte im Mittelalter. Nederlandse
Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 56: 19–33. – Reprinted in: idem.: Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im
frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg 1985 (454 pp., 10 Blätter), pp. 404–421.

1985. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg. 454 pp., 10
Blätter. – Pages 9–34: Codex Amiatinus und Cassiodor; pp. 101–202 Bibeltext und Bibelreform
unter Karl dem Großen; pp. 203–403: Die Alkuin-Bibeln.

French
1893. Samuel Berger: Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris. xxiv, 443
pp. – Reprint: Hildesheim 1976. Much, though not exclusive, importance is attributed to Alcuin
(730–804), a monk at St. Martin’s Monastery in Tours, who arranged for the production of cor ­
rect Bible manuscripts (pp. 185–242: Alcuin et les bibles de Tours). There is also a celebrated
section on Theodulf (pp. 145–184); cf. the assessment of Pierre Battifol: La Vulgate hiéronymi­
enne d’après un livre nouveau. Revue biblique 2 (1893) 544–559: Berger’s chapter on the Theod­
ulf revision is said to be the most accomplished of his book, amounting to a definitive state ­
ment. On Theodulf, Berger writes: “L’œuvre de Théodulf n’était pas née viable, parce qu’elle ten­
dait à perpétuer l’ancienne liberté et la diversité des textes dans un empire don’t l’unité était la
loi” (p. xvii); “l’œuvre de Théodulf n’a pas laissé une trace profonde dans la littérature biblique
de la France” (p. 184).

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris. Volume 5.2
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Columns 2474–2478: Les manuscrits de l’époque carolin­
gienne. Special reference is made to the Bible editions of Theodulf and Alcuin.

1974. François L. Ganshof: Charlemagne et la révision du texte latin de la Bible. Bulletin de l’Institut
Belge de Rome 44: 271–281.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. –Pages 291–293: the Caro­
lingian Bible.

1984. Laura Light: Versions et révisions du texte biblique. In: Pierre Riché – Guy Lobrichon (eds.): Le
Moyen Âge et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps. Paris (639 pp.), pp. 55–93. – The author character ­
izes the two Vulgate revisions of Alcuin and Theodulf as being very different – Alcuin merely
purified the Vulgate from some of the Vetus Latina interpolations (p. 63), Theoduf created a
scholarly reference text (pp. 64-65). Theodulf adopted Jerome’s Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, and
rejected a number of apocryphal writings – 3 Corinthians, 3 and 4 Ezra, Letter to the Laodiceans.

2004. Guy Lobrichon: Le texte des bibles alcuiniennes. In: Philippe Depreux – Bruno Judic (eds.): Alcuin,
de York à Tours. Rennes (507 pp.), pp. 209–219 = Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest
111.3 (2004) 209–219. – The notion of textual conformity and revision, as assumed in modern
scholarship, is a myth. In reality, the Bibles that came from the Tours scriptorium show too much
diversity to support the idea of a coherent editorial project. Moreover, “la bible offerte par Al­
cuin à son maître [Charlemagne] n’est pas destinée à faire foi, à l’instar d’un exemplar qu’on sor­
tirait du trésor pour le recopier, mais elle est destinée à la lecture liturgique dans la chapelle pa ­
latine. Les lecteurs doivent pouvoir identifier d’un seul coup d’œil les différents registres tex­
tuels, distinguer les préfaces des Pères et la parole de Dieu” (p. 216). ▲

275
2006. Caroline Chevalier: Les révisions bibliques carolingiennes. Temas medievales (Buenos Aires) 14:
7–29.

2012. A. Candiard – C. Chevalier-Royet: Critique textuelle et recours à l’hebreu à l’epoque carolin­

gienne: Le cas exceptionnel d’une Bible de Theodulf (Bible de Saint Germain, ms. Paris, BnF lat.
11937). In: Annie Noblesse-Rocher (ed.): Etudes d’exegèse medievale offertes à Gilbert Dahan par
ses eleves. Turnhout (286 pp.), pp. 13–34.

2023. Claire Tignolet: Théodulf d’Orléans (vers 760–820). Histoire et mémoire d’un évêque carolingien.
Turnhout. 291 pp.

Italian – Spanish
2009. Marco Cardinali (ed.): La Bibbia carolingia dell’Abbazia di San Paolo fuori le Mura. Vatican City. 69
pp.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74, at pp. 47–
49.

The Latin Bible in Ireland

Note. – The most famous Irish biblical manuscript (though possibly produced in Scotland or England)
is the Book of Kells of ca. 800. The illuminated manuscript has the Vulgate text of the four gospels
(with a few pages missing, and endling at John 17:13), though the text shows influence of the Vetus
Latina. The book is kept in Trinity College, Dublin, as manuscript A.1.[58].

1893. Samuel Berger: Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris (xxiv, 443
pp.), pp. 29–45. Irish and anglo-saxon manuscripts.

1961. Hermann Josef Frede: Pelagius, der irische Paulustext, Sedulius Scottus. Freiburg. 165 pp.

1975. Martin McNamara: The Bible in Ireland (AD 600–1150). Scripture Bulletin 6.2 (1975/76) 36–39.

1980. Peter Brown: The Book of Kells. Forty-eight Pages and Details in Colour from the Manuscript in
Trinity College Dublin. Selected and introduced by Peter Brown. London. 96 pp. – German trans­
lation: Das Evangeliar von Kells. Ein Meisterwerk frühirischer Buchmalerei. Übersetzt von Gottfried
Kerscher. Freiburg. 96 pp.

1987. Martin McNamara: The Text of the Latin Bible in the Early Irish Church. Some Data and Desid ­
erata. In: Próinséas Ní Chatháin et al. (eds.): Ireland and Christendom: The Bible and the Missions.
Stuttgart (xii, 523 pp.), pp. 7–55.

1990. Martin McNamara: Studies on Texts of Early Irish Latin Gospels (AD 600–1200). Steenbrugge. xv,
248 pp.

2015. Bernard Meehan: Irish Pocket Gospel Books. In: Claire Bray – Bernard Meehan (eds.): The St Cuth­
bert Gospel. Studies on the Insular Manuscript of the Gospel of John. London (xxii, 207 pp.), pp.
83–102.

2022. Martin McNamara: The Bible in the Early Irish Church, A.D. 550 to 850. Leiden. xii, 339 pp.

2023. Martin McNamara: The Bible in Insular Tradition. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook
of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 139–151. – The author considers the Latin Bible in

276
 Insular tradition, principally that of Ireland, from earliest times until around the fourteenth cen­
tury. It first examines the relevant background in Ireland during the period, noting the manifold
contacts with Northumbria, Bede, and Anglo-Saxon England. It then lists and discusses Irish bib­
lical manuscripts, in the sequence of complete Bibles, Psalters (containing the Gallicanum and
Hebraicum texts), gospel books, glosses on the Pauline Epistles and commentaries on other New
Testament books. Finally, mention is made of Irish scribes and scholars on the European
continent.

The Latin Bible in England

Note. – The most conspicuous contribution of English monks to the history of the Vulgate is the pro­
duction of two famous codices: (1) the Codex Amiatinus c. 700; see above, the manuscripts Chapter
7.2; and (2) the St. Cuthbert Gospel (formerly known as the Stonyhurst Gospel), c. 710 (see below,
2015, and above, Chapter 7.2). But England has made other, most important contributions to the study
of the Vulgate, notably the division of the biblical writings into “chapters” (see below, the article of
Saenger, 2008).

1893. Samuel Berger : Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris (xxiv, 443
pp.), pp. 29–45. Irish and anglo-saxon manuscripts.

1930. Hans Hermann Glunz: Britannien und Bibeltext. Der Vulgatatext der Evangelien in seinem Verhält­
nis zur irisch-angelsächsischen Kultur des Frühmittelalters. Leipzig. 187 pp.

1931. S. Harrison Thompson: Bishop Gundulph of Rochester and the Vulgate. Speculum 6: 468–470.

1933. Hans Hermann Glunz: History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon. Being an In­
quiry into the Text of Some Manuscripts of the Vulgate Gospels. Cambridge. xx, 383 pp. – Reprint:
Cambridge 2010. – Reviews:
1934. F.C. Burkitt: The Vulgate in England. Journal of Theological Studies 35 (no. 137): 60–63.

2012. Frans Van Liere: The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546; in: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter
(eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 93–109, at p. 95:
“His [Glunz’s] main point was that the Vulgate text of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries looked much
more like the printed editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than the critical editions based on the
early manuscript evidence.”

1937. M.L.W. Laistner: The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede. Harvard Theological
Review 30: 37–50.

1995. Richard Marsden: The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge. xix, ix, 506
pp. – The standard study of the Vulgate text in early medieval England. The Codex Amiatinus,
written in England, is the oldest known, basically intact full Bible from anywhere in Western
Europe, and for some scriptures, the oldest extant Latin manuscript of any type (p. 183). ▲

2008. Paul Saenger: The Anglo-Hebraic Origins of the Modern Chapter Division of the Latin Bible. In:
Francesco Javier Burguillo – Laura Meier (eds.): La fractura historiográfica. Salamanca (831 pp.),
pp. 177–202. – The chapter division, traditionally attributed to Stephen Langton, actually pred­
ates Langton. It was invented in twelfth-century England.

2013. Eyal Poleg: Approaching the Bible in Medieval England. Manchester. xxi, 263 pp.

2015. Claire Bray – Bernard Meehan (eds.): The St Cuthbert Gospel. Studies on the Insular Manuscript
of the Gospel of John. London. xxii, 207 pp. – With its original leather binding, this is “the earliest

277
 intact European book” (p. 1). “The text of John in the St Cuthbert Gospel is a good Vulgate – a
relatively pure version of Jerome’s translation” (p. 17). On pp. 171–183, Richard Gameson
presents a collation of the variant readings and the textual subdivisions.

2019. Celia Chazelle: The Codex Amiatinus and its “Sister” Bibles. Scripture, Liturgy, and Art in the Milieu
of the Venerable Bede. Leiden. xxviii, 634 pp.

2020. Eyal Poleg: A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553. Oxford. xxxiv, 227 pp.

2023. Peter Darby – Máirín MacCarron (eds.): Bede the Scholar. Manchester. xvi, 321 pp. – Includes
these (and other) papers: Bede’s Biblical capitula and the Oriented Reading of Scripture at Wear­
mouth-Jarrow (Celia Chazelle, pp. 53–96); Bede, Ceolfrith and Cassiodorus: Biblical Scholarship
at Wearmouth and Jarrow (Altan T. Thacker, pp. 141–174).

The Latin Bible in Italy – Atlantic Bibles

2003. Guy Lobrichon: Pour l’étude de la tradition et du texte de la Vulgate latine en Italie (XIII e siècle).
In: idem: La Bible au Moyen Âge. Paris (247 pp.), pp. 173–180.

2007. Sabina Magrini: Production and Use of Latin Bible Manuscripts in Italy during the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Century. Manuscripta 51: 209–257. – Appended is a list of manuscripts, grouped ac­
cording to provenance from Lombardy (Bologna), the Veneto (Padua, Venice), northern Italy,
and central Italy (Tuscany, Umbria).

2013. Grazia Melli – Marialuigia Sipione (eds.): La Bibbia nella letteratura italiana. V: Del Medioevo al
Rinascimento. Brescia. 712 pp. – The editor of the Bibbia nella letteratura italiana series is Pietro
Giblellini.

2021. Roberta Casavecchia – Marilena Maniaci – Giulia Orofino (eds.): La Bibbia a Montecassino – The
Bible at Montecassino. Turnhout. 438 pp. – The manuscript collection of the Montecassino Ab­
bey presents an exemplary case study, both for the total number of biblical manuscripts it pre­
serves (just under a hundred, and for the diversity of types (complete ‘monolithic’ Bibles, Old
and/or New Testament sequences of varying size and physiognomy, and individual glossed
books with commentary beside the text), as well as for the presence of a significant group of co­
dices in Beneventan minuscule produced for internal use within the same Abbey or in its de­
pendencies in a period centered around the eleventh century (with sporadic extensions into the
twelfth and thirteenth). The present catalogue aims to deepen our current knowledge of the
presence, transmission and reception of the Bible in one of the most important and emblematic
medieval Benedictine monasteries.

Atlantic Bibles
2005. Emma Condello: La Bibbia al tempo della riforma gregoriana: le Bibbie atlantiche. In: Paolo Che ­
rubini (ed.): Forme e modelli della traduzione manoscritta della bibbia. Vatican City (xv, 562, 39
pp.), pp. 347–372.

2016. Houghton, pp. 100–101: “Atlantic Bibles” (Riesenbibeln). Page 100: “Large Bibles produced in
northern Italy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries are known as Atlantic Bibles, after the giant
Atlas. These are associated with the reforms of Pope Gregory VII: some were used as control
texts for the revised liturgy, while others were commissioned by lay people and presented to
monasteries. They are very similar in format and decoration. (…) Rome was the principal centre
of production.”

2016. Nadia Togni (ed.): Les bibles atlantiques. Florence. xxxi, 578, 32 pp.

278
2023. Guy Lobrichon: The Production of Medieval Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 187–207, at pp. 191–193. – Page 192: “The
initiative of the ‘Atlantic Bibles’ came up against the wall of the churches, which were for the
most part fixed in their traditional loyalties. These Bibles therefore only experienced limited suc­
cess outside Italy.”

The Latin Bible in Spain

1893. Samuel Berger: Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge. Paris (xxiv, 443
pp.), pp. 8–28. See also pp. xiv–xv: “L’Espagne est la patrie des plus mauvais textes et des
meilleurs.” Berger also refers to an enigmatic figure 1 who calls himself Peregrinus and who is
said to be responsible for the Spanish recension of the Vulgate: “nous pouvons considérer
comme admis à la science que Peregrinus, ou l’auteur qui se cache sous ce nom, est l’éditeur de
la recension espagnole des livres saints” (p. 28).

1914–1919. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Études sur les origines de la Vulgate en Espagne. Revue bénédic­
tine 31: 373–401.

1941. José María Bover SJ: La Vulgata en España. Estudios bíblicos (segunda época) 1: 11–40, 167–185.
– See the abstract in Bruce M. Metzger, Journal of Biblical Literature 66.4 (1947) 410: The first
epoch (1), which extends from the fifth to the eighth century, is the epoch of local texts and of
autonomous transcriptions. During it two great families predominated: the Spanish and the Itali ­
an, or, better, the Italo-Anglican: besides these, two other families of less importance appear: the
Irish and the French. The two primitive Spanish editions of Peregrinus and St. Isidore belong in
this period. The second epoch (2) is characterized by two great recensions made about the year
800: that of Alcuin, based on the Italian or Italo-Anglican text, and that of Theodulf, of Visigothic
origin, based on the Spanish or Hispanicized text. The third epoch (3) is that of an artificial, uni ­
form text, produced by the Sorbonne of Paris. In tracing the fortunes of the Vulgate in Spain, the
author indicates the relationship between various codices of the Vulgate and their position in his
chronological outline.

2005. Paolo Cherubini: Le bibbie spagnole in visigotica. In: idem (ed.): In: idem (ed.): Forme e modelli
della traduzione manoscritta della bibbia. Vatican City (xv, 562, 39 pp.), pp. 108–173.

2019. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz: Les préfaces de la Bible latine dans le haut Moyen Âge hispanique.
Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études. Section des sciences historiques et philologiques
150 (2017–2018): 205–221. – After an overview of vulgate research since the end of the 19th
century, with special attention to the study of the history of the Latin Bible in Spain, the author
deals specifically with the pseudo-Isidorian biblical prologues.

2019. Eulàlia Vernet i Pons: The Bible of Vic (1268) and the Disputation of Barcelona (1263): Textual
and theological value of the Hebrew Bible glosses. In: Matthias M. Tischler et al. (eds.): Transcul­
tural Approaches to the Bible. Exegesis and Historical Writing in the Medieval Worlds. Turnhout
(viii, 253 pp.), pp. 1–22.

2021. Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella: La diffusion de la révision hiéronymienne des traductions bibliques
dans les livres liturgiques latins (Ve–XIIe siècles): l’exemple des Douze Prophètes. Clotho 3: 167–
189. – A study of Spanish liturgical sources.

Peregrinus episcopus (5th century, second half)

Note. – The otherwise unknown Spanish bishop Peregrinus produced a recension of the Vulgate. Intro­
ducing Vetus-Latina expressions into the Vulgate text, he produced a mixed version occasionally re­

279
ferred to as the “Spanish Vulgate.” Peregrinus also wrote prologues to the Pauline letters. Peregrinus’
recension is best represented in the eighth/ninth-century Codex Biblicus Cavensis (also known by the
name of its scribe as the Bible of Danila; a complete Latin Bible, today in the Cava Abbey in Salerno,
Italy).

1955, 1956. Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela: La Biblia visigótica de la Cava dei Tirreni. Estudios bíblicos 14: 49–
65, 137–90, 355–414; 15: 5–62.

1999. Paolo Cherubini: La Bibbia di Danila: un monumento ‘trionfale’ per Alfonso II di Asturie. Scrittura
e Civiltà 23: 75–131.

2010. Luciano Pedicini (ed.): La Biblia de Danila. Codex Biblicus Cavensis, MS 1 de la abadía de la Santí­
sima Trinidad de Cava dei Tirreni. Edicón facsímil. Oviedo. – Facsimile edition, without pagina­
tion, but with some unpaginated introductory material.

2010. Paolo Cherubini – José Antonio Valdés Gallego – Alfonso García Leal: La Biblia de Danila (Codex
Biblicus Cavensis, MS. 1 de la Abadía de la Santísima Trinidad de Cava dei Tirreni) . Oviedo. 206
pp. – See esp. pp. 61–111: José Antonio Valdés Gallego: El texto y la lengua del Cavensis. Review:
Carlos Benjamín Pereira Mira, Territorio, Sociedad y Poder 7 (2012) 259–264.

The Bible of Isidore (c. 600)

2014. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz: Las versiones del Salterio latino en las obras de Isidoro de Sevilla.
In: Carmen Codoñer et al. (eds.): Wisigothica: After M.C. Díaz y Díaz. Florence (xxiv, 763 pp.), pp.
49–66.

2015. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz: Ediciones y versiones altomedievales de la Biblia Latina: el caso de
Isidoro de Sevilla. In: Miguel Anxo Pena González et al. (eds.): A quinientos años de la Políglota.
Salamanca (420 pp.), pp. 67–80.

2016. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz: Isidoro de Sevilla y el texto de la Biblia Latina: el estado de la
cuestión. Aemilianense 4: 75–104.

2016. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz: Bibliothecam compilavit: la Biblia de Isidoro de Sevilla. Anuario de
Historia de la Iglesia andaluza 9: 33–44.

Codex biblicus Legionensis (960)

Note. – At the center of the studies on the Vulgate in Spain is the complete manuscript of the entire
Bible with the text of the Vulgate, written in Léon or Valencia in 960, called “Codex biblicus Legion ­
ensis” or “Codex Gothicus.” The illuminated manuscript is kept in the Royal Collegiate Library (Bibli ­
oteca de la Real Colegiata de San Isidoro) in León. A brief description of the manuscript is given in
Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts .
Oxford 2016, p. 249.

1961. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Algunas observaciones sobre el “Codex Gothicus” de la R.C. de S. Isidoro
en León y sobre la tradición española de la Vulgata. Archivos Leoneses 15: 5–48.

1965. Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela: La biblia visigótica de San Isidoro de León. Contribución al estudio de la
Vulgata en España. Madrid. 201 pp., 13 leaves of plates.

280
1999. Olegario García de la Fuente: El codex biblicus Legionensis y la introducción de la Vulgata en
España. In: Codex Biblicus Legionensis, Léon, Real Colegiata de San Isidoro. Veinte estudios. León
(339 pp.), pp. 269–280. – There is also an English translation of the entire book: Codex Biblicus
Legionensis. Twenty Sudies. Translated by Seven Dodd. Léon 1999, 339 pp.; pages 269–279: O.
García de la Fuente: The Codex Biblicus Legionense and the Introduction of the Vulgate into
Spain.

2006. Maria Teresa Muñoz García de Iturrospe: Para una historia visigoda de la Biblia Latina. In: Aires
Augusto Nascimento et al. (eds.): Actas do IV Congresso internacional de latim medieval
hispânico. Lisbon (xvii, 1005 pp.), pp. 505–517.

The Cistercian Old Testament of Stephen Harding (1109)

Note. – Stephen Harding (d. 1134), now a saint of the Catholic Church, was elected abbot at the Cister ­
cian abbey of Citeaux in France. He is credited with having revised the Latin text of the Old Testament,
producing a “clean” copy. Stephen Harding’s four-volume parchment codex is now in the Bibliothèque
municipale of Dijon (manuscripts 12 to 15). Harding is credited with the idea of compiling so-called
correctories (see below, Chapter 14.6).

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Harding is mentioned on pp. 245–246
in the chapter on correctories.

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris. Volume 5.2
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – A note on Harding is on cols. 2479–2480. Mangenot refers
to Jean Mabillon OSB (d. 1707) who discovered the Harding manuscript; Mabillon’s relevant es­
say can be found in PL 166: 1373–1376; 28: 67–69.

1917. Tiburtius Hümpfer: Die Bibel des hl. Stephan Harding. Cistercienser-Chronik 29: 73–821.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 146–147.

1939. Karl Lang: Die Bibel Stephan Hardings. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte der neutestamentlichen Vul­
gata. Bonn. 55 pp. – Partial edition of a doctoral dissertation.

1993. Matthieu Cauwe: La Bible d’Étienne Harding. Principes de critique textuelle mis en œuvre aux
livres de Samuel. Revue bénédictine 103: 414–444.

1998. [Stephan Harding] Drei Texte, die Abt Stephan Harding zugeschrieben werden. In: Hildegard
Brem – Alberich Martin Altermatt (eds.): Einmütig in der Liebe. Die frühesten Quellentexte von
Citeaux. Turnhout (xv, 341 pp.), pp. 203–215. – Among the three texts is the monitum, a letter
that tells the story of the Bible revision during which Jewish scholars were consulted. As a result
of this work, certain verses were deleted. The letter (here pp. 210–213 in Latin with German
translation) is in Dijon’s Bibliothèque municipale (ms 13, fol. 150 verso). The Latin text can also
be found in PL 166: 1373–1376 and on pp. 416–417 of Cauwe’s 1993 article.

2014. Alessia Trivellone: Images et exégèse monastique dans la Bible d’Étienne Harding. In: Gilbert Da­
han (ed.): L’exégèse monastique au Moyen Âge (XIe–XIVe siècle). Paris (340 pp.), pp. 85–111.

2015. Cornelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Bible between the
Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Medium Aevum Monographs 29. Oxford (ix, 309 pp.), p. 250 and
passim.

281
The “Paris Bible” (exemplar Parisiense, 13th century)
Note. – The Paris Bible (or exemplar Parisiense, though there presumably never was a master codex)
represents a text made for the university. Some of the Paris Bibles are illuminated display codices. In
the Paris Bibles, the biblical books are arranged more or less as they are in the Gutenberg Bible and
the Clementina, and the books are divided into chapters, also as in the Gutenberg Bible and the Clem­
entina. There are four major witnesses: (1) Bibliothèque nationale: Ms. Lat. 16719–22 (four volumes)
from the Dominican convent St. Jacques, 13th century; (2) Bibliothèque nationale: Ms lat. 15 467 from
the Sorbonne, also 13the century (1270); (3) Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris, Ms. 5, 14th century; (4) Bib­
liotheca apostolica vaticana: Codex vaticanus latinus 7664, also 14th century. – This information is from
Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 149.

English
1994. Linda Light: French Bibles c. 1200–30. A New Look at the Origins of the Paris Bible. In: Richard
Gameson (ed.): The Early Medieval Bible. Cambridge (xiv, 242 pp.), pp. 155–176. – This study of
fourteen one-volume Bibles from the first three decades of the thirteenth century concludes
that the “Paris Bible” did not all of a sudden appear around 1230, Instead, from c. 1200, some
Bibles already looked very much like the later Paris Bible. The Paris Bible was the result of only
minor modifications of a Bible already in existence. ▲

2011. Laura Light: The Bible and the Individual: The Thirteenth-Century Paris Bible. In: Susan Boynton –
Diane J. Reilly (eds.): The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages. New York (viii, 364 pp.), pp.
228–246.

2012. Laura Light: The Thirteenth Century and the Paris Bible. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter
(eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii,
1045 pp.), pp. 380–391.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 105–108: Paris Bibles.

2020. Edmon L. Gallagher: Latin Texts [of deuterocanonical books, including Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Macca ­
bees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151;
also with reference to the “Paris Bible”]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible.
Volume 2A. Leiden (xxxix, 497 pp.), pp. 398–405.

2023. Gilbert Dahan: Paris Bibles and Scholarship. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of
the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 241–257. – In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
Paris was the centre of scholarship on the Latin Bible, giving rise to a distinctive type of manu­
script known as the ‘Paris Bible.’ Dahan traces the development of biblical studies from the
schools to the university, along with the typical didactic structure of these lessons. It also gives
an account of the role of religious orders (especially the Dominicans and Franciscans). The char ­
acteristic features of the Paris Bibles are described, followed by other scholarly tools such as the
correctoria, concordances, and distinctiones. The most famous biblical commentators associated
with Paris in this period are listed, along with their principal exegetical outputs.

2023. Guy Lobrichon: The Production of Medieval Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 187–207. – On the Paris Bibles, see pp. 193–
197, with table 13.1: “Order of books and prologues in English Bibles and Paris Bibles.” ▲

282
French
1883. Samuel Berger: Des essais qui ont été faits à Paris au treizième siècle pour corriger le texte de la
Vulgate. Revue de théologie et de philosophie 16: 41–66.

1889/90. J.-P.P. [Jean-Pierre Paulin] Martin: Le texte Parisien de la Vulgate Latine. Le Muséon 8 (1889)
444–466; 9 (1890) 55–70, 301–316.

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris. xvi, 520 pp. – The early printed editions of the Latin Bible “dérivent toutes de
l’édition princeps de Mayence (vers 1452) [= bible de Gutenberg], qui reproduit elle-même le
texte alors vulgaire de l’Université de Paris, c’est-à-dire de la plus récente et de la moins pure de
toutes non recensions de la Vulgate” (p. 94).

1978. Amaury d’Esneval: La division de la Vulgate latine en chapitres dans l’édition Parisienne du XIII e
siècle. Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 62: 559–568. – The division of the biblic­
al books into the chapters as we know it is the work of Stephen Langton. His work began in c.
1200–1205, and was completed by 1220. It quickly superseded the earlier division into much
shorter chapters. The further division of the text into verses came in the 16th century.

1984. Laura Light: Versions et révisions du texte biblique. In. Pierre Riché (ed.): Le Moyen Âge et la Bible.
Bible de tous les temps. Paris (639 pp.), pp. 55–93.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Pages 297–299: Les Biblia
Parisiensia. – According to Bogaert, its origin is connected with Stefan Langton. In addition to
the standard canonical books, the Paris Bible also contains the following writings: 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra,
Prayer of Manasseh, and Baruch; but not the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

2004. Guy Lobrichon: Les éditions de la Bible latine dans les universités du XIII e siècle. In: Giuseppe
Cremasoli – Francesco Santi (eds.): La Bibbia del XIII secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi.
Florence (xvi, 379 pp.), pp. 15–34.

2010. Gilbert Dahan. Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton. In: Louis-Jacques Bataillon et al.
(eds.): Étienne Langton, prédicateur, bibliste, théologien. Turnhout (694 pp.), pp. 201–239.

2012. Laura Light: The Thirteenth Century and the Paris Bible. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter
(eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 380–
391.

2014. Chiara Ruzzier: Quelques observations sur la fabrication des bibles au XIII e siècle et le système de
la pecia. Revue bénédictine 124: 151–189. – The 13th century saw the development of the pro­
duction of Latin Bibles, mostly from Paris and other medieval university towns. Considering the
large number of surviving manuscripts (about 2000), we have to ask how this production – at
least 20 000 copies – could have been achieved in a few decades without using the “pecia sys ­
tem” that developed at the same time to increase the dissemination of academic texts. This
manufacturing technique allowed the multiplication of copies from a single manuscript divided
into sections that were rented, section by section, to different scribes working simultaneously.

2016. Patricia Stirnemann: La naissance de la Bible du 13 e siècle. Lusitania Sacra 34: 95–104. – For an
abstract, see Revue bénédictine 131 (2021) 459–460.

2021. Chiara Ruzzier: Quels sont les ancêtres des bibles portatives? Enquête sur les bibles de petite
taille antérieures au XIIIe siècle. Scrineum 18: 109–147 (open access). – The article studies the co­
dicological and textual features of seven complete Latin Bibles (pandects) dating to the second

283
 half of the twelfth century and of different origins (England, France and southern Italy) and
places their production within that of complete medieval bibles.

2022. Chiara Ruzzier: Entre Université et ordres mendiants: la production des bibles portatives au XIII e
siècle. Berlin. xiv, 338 pp. – Most 13th century Latin Bibles are portable Bibles produced in Paris
and other towns hosting a medieval university. These manuscripts were intended for personal
use and their dimensions also made them ideal preaching tools for the mendicant friars. This
volume explores the production systems of these Bibles, their material and paratextual aspects,
as well as their use, with a focus on the technical solutions devised to miniaturise the Bible.

German
1888. Heinrich Denifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für Li­
teratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4: 263–311, 471–601. – One section of this article
deals with “Das Exemplar Parisiense” (pp. 277–292). According to Denifle, there was one original
copy, though it is not extant. While the Paris Bible became the standard text of the Latin Bible,
its value is doubtful: “So hatte die Pariser Universität durch ihre Bibel der Christenheit nicht bloss
einen schlechten Dienst erwiesen, indem sie, allerdings unbewusst, einen höchst fehlerhaften
Text verbreitete, sondern sie hat auch dasjenige, was sie anstrebte, einen einheitlichen Text, nicht
durchgehends, völlig nur hinsichtlich der Kapiteleintheilung erreicht” (p. 291).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 149–155.
Stummer supplies a list of the major textual witnesses of the Paris Bible. He also addresses the
shortcomings of the Paris Bible (mixing of Old Latin and Jeromian texts) and contemporary criti­
cism of it.

1963,1965. Niels Haastrup: Zur frühen Pariser Bibel – auf Grund skandinavischer Handschriften. Classi­
ca et mediaevalia. Revue danoise de philologie et d’histoire 24 (1963) 242–269; 26 (1965) 394–
401.

2014. Matthias M. Tischler: Die Bibel in Saint-Victor zu Paris. Münster. 669 pp. – In the High and Late
Middle Ages, the Augustine Canons of Saint-Victor formed a community of scholars. The author
describes their considerable collection of Bibles, today distributed among various libraries in
Paris. Pages 51–102: Canon and canon formation in the Bible manuscripts (a unified canon the­
ory is lacking); pp. 102-104. The textual versions of the Bible manuscripts.

Italian – Spanish
2000. Sabina Magrini: La ‘Bible parisienne’ e i Vangeli. In: Francesco D’Aiuto – Giovanni Morello – Am ­
brogia M. Piazzoni (eds.): I Vangeli dei popoli. La parola e l’immagine del Cristo nelle culture e
nella storia. Vatican City (xxvii, 493 pp.), pp. 99–105.

2005. Sabina Magrini: La Bibbia all’università (secoli XII–XIV): La ‘Bible de Paris’ e la sua influenza sulla
produzione scritturale coeva. In: Paolo Cherubini (ed.): Forme e modelli della tradizione mano­
scritta della bibbia. Vatican City (xv, 562, 39 pp.), pp. 407–422.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74, at pp.
50–51.

284
Roger Bacon (1220–1292)
Note. – Roger Bacon, English Franciscan friar, today celebrated as a polymath and natural philosopher,
expressed strong objections against the “Paris Bible,” i.e., the Paris recension of the Vulgate Bible. He
spent many years in Paris as a member of the Franciscan convent, but eventually returned to England
where he died at Oxford.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), pp. 266–271.

1888. J.-P.P. Martin: La Vulgate latine au treizième siècle, d’après Roger Bacon. Le Muséon 7: 88–107.
169–169. 278–291. 381–393. – The author surveys what Roger Bacon says about the Paris Bible.
– Also available as a separate publication: Paris 1888. 73 pp.

1888. Heinrich Denifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für Li­
teratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4: 263–311, 471–601. – On pp. 277–281, Denifle
comments on Roger Bacon (and is critical about Martin’s account).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 149–152. –
Bacon was one of the fiercest enemies of the Paris Bible. He considered it a bad text, one into
which its Parisian revisers had introduced new mistakes.

1948. Edmund E. Sutcliffe SJ: The Name “Vulgate.” Biblica 29: 345–352. – Pages 348–349: Before the
Council of Trent, Roger Bacon (1214–1292, Franciscan friar) was the only one to use the term
“Vulgata” in the same sense as we do today. (This notion has been contradicted; see above,
Chapter 2.1). ▲

1988. Pierre Lardet: Un lecteur de Jérôme au XIIIe siècle. Langues et traduction chez Roger Bacon. In:
Yves-Marie Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris 1988 (508 pp.), pp. 445–463.

2001. Laura Light: Roger Bacon and the Origin of the Paris Bible. Revue bénédictine 111: 483–507.

2001. Benoît Grévin: L’hébreu des franciscains. Nouveaux éléments sur la connaissance de l’hébreu en
milieu chrétien au XIIIe siècle. Médiévales 41 (automne 2001) 65–82.2012. – Christian scholars
who studied Hebrew were often associated with Roger Bacon.

2012. Cornelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Bible between the
Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Medium Aevum Monographs 29. Oxford. ix, 309 pp. – On pages
140–153, the author discusses Roger Bacon’s objections to the Paris Bible.

Heinrich von Langenstein (d. Vienna 1397)

1985. Johann Baptist Bauer: Heinrich von Langenstein über die Vulgata des Hieronymus. In: Für Kirche
und Heimat. Festschrift Franz Loidl zum 80. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von seinen Freunden
und Schülern. Vienna (520 pp.), pp. 15–28.

The Netherlands: Windesheim (1420s)

Note. – A remarkable Bible workshop in the Windesheim monastery near Zwolle produced an accurate
version of the Vulgate Bible. It is believed to survive in two manuscripts: (1) one written written by
Thomas a Kempis, otherwise known as the author of the Imitation of Christ; for a description of this
manuscript, see below, Kurt Hans Staub, 1979; (2) and another one written by Jacobus van Enckhuysen
in 1462 to 1467, the so-called Zwolle Bible (see below, Engelhart 2012). Both manuscripts would merit
a closer look by someone specializing on the text of the medieval Latin Bible.

285
1886. Karl Grube (ed.): Des Augustinerprobstes Iohannes Busch Chronicon Windeshemense und Liber de
reformatione monasteriorum. Halle. xxxxviii, 824 pp. – In chapter 26 of his chronicle of the
Windesheim monastery, the Augustinian canon Johannes Busch (1400–1479) reports about the
canons’ search for Latin Bible manuscripts in the interest of producing a reliable edition. The Lat­
in text of Chapter 26 is on pp. 311–313. Of this text exists a German summary in: Hans Rost: Die
Bibel im Mittelalter. Augsburg 1939 (viii, 428 pp.), pp. 129–130.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150. – Stummer (p. 143) regrets that the Benedictine critical edi­
tion of the Vulgate book of Genesis has not used some late-medieval manuscripts such as the
codex written by Thomas a Kempis.

1937. Nico Greitemann: De Windesheimsche Vulgaatreviesie in de vijftiende eeuw. Hilversum. 88 pp. –

According to Greitemann, the revised text of the Windesheim congregation is best represented
in the 5 volumes of the Darmstadt Bible, a manuscript written by Thomas a Kempis in 1427 to
1439 (Universitätsbibliothek Darmstadt, Hs. 324). Greitemann found no influence of the Windes­
heim text on later printed editions; in other words: the Windesheim text did not make any wider
impact. – Reviews:
1938. J.H. Vogels, Theologische Revue 62 (1938) 174.

1939. Hans Rost: For a summary of Greitemann’s book, see Hans Rost: Die Bibel im Mittelalter. Augsburg 1939
(viii, 428 pp.), p. 130. Rost supplies a summary of Greiteman’s study.

1979. Kurt Hans Staub: Bibelhandschriften; Hermann Knaus: Ältere theologische Texte. Die Handschrif­
ten der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt. Band 4. Wiesbaden (331 pp.),
pp. 26–30. – This catalogue of the Darmstadt Landesbibliothek describes its “manuscript 324,”
the five volumes of the Bible manuscript written by Thomas a Kempis. This text includes a de­
tailed bibliography.

2012. Helmut Engelhart: Zwolle-Bibel. In: idem (ed.): Lexikon zur Buchmalerei. Zweiter Halbband. Stut­
tgart (pp. 333–757), pp. 755–757. – Today in the University Library of Utrecht, the Netherlands
(shelf no. cat. 31), this is a complete Vulgate Bible. Bound in 6 heavy volumes. Interestingly, the
last volume is a psalterium triplex; it gives the text of Psalterium Gallicanum (left), Psalterium Ro­
manum (centre), and Psalterium iuxta hebraeos (right) in three parallel columns. (Regrettably,
some pages are missing; the Psalter, e.g., begins in the middle of Psalm 2:5 – con]turbabit eos.
Ego autem […]. B. Lang.)

14.5 The Psalms in the Middle Ages

Note. – Next to the Gospels, the Psalms were the most important part of the Bible in medieval ecclesi ­
astical culture. The book of Psalms begins with a portrait of the pious man who day and night reads in
this very book, and praises him with the words Beatus vir – “Blessed is the man” (Ps 1:1). In the Middle
Ages, this man was identified with none other than the monk. The Psalms constituted (and still consti ­
tute today) the essential part of the Liturgy of the Hours as celebrated daily in all monasteries.

For the book of Psalms, medieval authors used four names: Psalterium, liber psalmorum, liber hymnor­
um, and liber soliloquiorum (see Gerhard Ebeling: Luthers Psalterdruck vom Jahre 1513. Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 50.1 [1953] 43–99, at p. 49).

The Middle Ages knew three Latin versions of the book of Psalms, and in some medieval manuscripts
(such as the Eadwine Psalter of c. 1150/60; Trinity College Cambridge, Ms. R. 17.1; or the Psalter of the

286
Zwolle Bible, see Chapter 14.4, at the end – The Netherlands), they were set in parallel columns for
comparison: the Roman Psalter, Jerome’s Psalter iuxta Hebraeos, and Jerome’s Psalter translated from
the Greek. Each of the three versions has its own history and use or non-use: (1) The Roman Psalter,
today considered a pre-Jeromian, Vetus Latina text, was the standard text of the Psalms until the early
Middle Ages, and it continued to be used in all churches of the city of Rome and in some other Italian
cities – Milan and Venice (see above, Chapters 9.7 and 11.4); (2) Jerome’s translation of the Psalms
from the Hebrew figures prominently in Spanish Bibles; the text is also used in the Codex Amiatinus
(see above, Chapter 7.2). (3) Due to the initiative of Alcuin, Jerome’s Psalter based on the Septuagint
came to be considered the actual Vulgate Psalter (so-called Gallican Psalter); it gained in importance
due to the prestige of the Paris Bible. It was the Psalter printed in the Gutenberg Bible and became the
standard text of the Psalms in post-medieval Catholicism.

Sources
c. 400. Augustine: Enarrationes in Psalmos. – Psalm 118, prooemium: Psalmos omnes caeteros, quos co­
dicem Psalmorum novimus continere, quod consuetudine ecclesiae Psalterium nuncupatur (…) – all
the other psalms, which, as we know, are included in the book of Psalms, which ecclesiastical us­
age calls Psalterium (…) (PL 36/37: 1501). Augustine explains that the book of Psalms is also
known as Psalterium. What he does not say, seems to be implied, namely, that psalterium actu­
ally refers to a string instrument (see Ps 57:9; Vg 56:9), so that it is by metonymy that the book
of Psalms is given this title. In other words: the church calls the book of Psalms “The Harp.”

c. 550. Benedict of Nursia: Regula. – In chapters 8–20 of the Rule, Benedict gives detailed instructions
about which psalms are to be sung when. The instruction is based on the idea that all of the 150
psalms are to be sung each week (Rule no. 18: ut omni hebdomada psalterium ex integro numero
centum quinquaginta psalmorum psallatur). For a summary of Benedict’s instructions, see Susan
Gillingham: Psalms through the Centuries. Volume 1. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Oxford (xviii,
382 pp), pp. 51–55.

842. Walahfrid Strabo: Libellus de exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticorum 25 [26]: Psalmos au­
tem, cum secundum LXX Interpretes Romani adhuc habeant, Galli et Germanorum aliqui secun­
dum emendationem quam Hieronymus pater [read: presbyter] de LXX editione composuit, Psalte­
rium cantant. Quam [emendationem] Gregorius, Turonensis episcopus, a patribius [read: partibus]
Romanis mutuatam, in Galliarum dicitur ecclesias transtulisse (PL 114: 957) – “However, although
the Romans still have the psalms according to the Seventy Interpreters [i.e., the Septuagint], the
Gauls and some of the Germans chant the Psalter according to the version which the priest
Jerome composed from the Seventy [Interpreters], which Gregory, bishop of Tours, is said to
have borrowed from Roman areas and brought to the churches of Gaul.” – Walahfrid’s book
About the Origins and Development of Things pertaining to the Church is considered the first
treatise on liturgical history ever written.

1920. [Donatien De Bruyne OSB] Préfaces de la Bible Latine. Namur (266 pp.), pp. 42–117. – This is a
critical edition of Psalm prefaces (by Jerome, Pseudo-Jerome, Cassiodore, etc.) found in mediev­
al manuscripts of the Psalms, complete with an apparatus of variant readings from these manu­
scripts. – De Bruyne had this book printed without his name on the title page, and without a
preface or any other explanatory material. The copy that is now widely available is a reprint; it is
given an English title: D. de Bruyne: Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Introductions by Pierre-Maurice
Bogart & Thomas O’Laughlin. Turnhout 2015. xv, 266 pp.

287
Secondary literature

English
1929. F.C. Burkitt: Jerome’s Work on the Psalter. Journal of Theological Studies 30: 395–397. – The wide
diffusion of the Gallican Psalter is connected with the diffusion of the New Hymnary that ousted
the old Benedictine Hymnary, not very long after the time of Charlemagne (p. 396 – an aside,
without further elaboration),

1991. John Harper: The Forms and Origins of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century.
A Historical Introduction and Guide for Students and Musicians. Oxford. xiv, 337 pp. – Pages 67–
72: The Psalter. After a general introduction, this chapter deals with “problems of numbering
and nature,” the Psalms in the Mass and in the daily office, and psalmody.

1998. Martin McNamara: The Psalms in the Irish Church. In: John L. Sharpe – Kimberley van Kampen
(eds.): The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition. London (xi, 260 pp.), pp. 89–103.

2000. Martin McNamara: The Psalms in the Early Irish Church. Sheffield. 492 pp. – A collection of es­
says.

2008. Columba Stewart OSB: Prayer among the Benedictines. In: Roy Hammerling (ed.): A History of
Prayer. The First to the Fifteenth Century. Brill’s Companion to the Christian Tradition. Leiden
(xviii, 484 pp.), pp. 201–221. – Pages 205–206: The communal liturgy of the Benedictines does
not allow for personal prayer within the communal liturgy; this “may suggest the beginnings of
a shift from the earlier understanding of psalmody as a sharing of sacred text that invited a re­
sponse in prayer, to the medieval (and later) view that the act of singing psalms was itself pray ­
er, not requiring any pause for silent prayer amidst the psalmody.”

2012. Theresa Gross-Diaz: The Latin Psalter. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter (eds.): The New Cam­
bridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 427–445.
– The author surveys the reception history of the Psalterium Romanum, the Psalterium iuxta
hebraeos, and the Psalterium gallicanum. ▲

2013. Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik: Text and Context in Jerome’s Psalters: Prose Translations into Old,
Middle and Early Modern English. PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of Lublin. 789 pp. – This
thesis is available online.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge. xv, 320 pp. – Pages 29–33:
Psalters. “One of the most common types of partial bibles was the psalter. In fact, it was so com ­
mon to have the Psalms in a separate psalter that some bible codices did not even include the
Psalms” (p. 29).

2017. Alderik H. Blom: Glossing the Psalms. The Emergence of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe
from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries. Berlin (xvi, 332 pp.), pp. 37–41: the Psalms in monastic
life – the text of the Latin Psalter – spread and use of the different Psalter versions. Page 40: “In
Gaul the Gallicanum was probably already widespread as early as 500. In this region it had a
strong influence on local liturgical texts still based on Old Latin versions, resulting in various
mixed varieties.194 In the wake of the Carolingian liturgical reforms, however, the text of the
Gallican Psalter itself gradually spread throughout Europe. Thus, in Germany, Central and South­
ern Italy it ousted the [Psalterium] Romanum, in Northern Italy and Gaul it replaced various Old
Latin versions and in Spain it finally took the place of the Mozarabic Psalter by the twelfth cen ­
tury. (…) In Ireland, too, the Gallican Psalter was the most commonly used version from the late
sixth or early seventh century onwards, and it became standard throughout the medieval Gaelic
world.” ▲

288
2023. Oliver W.E. Norris: The Latin Psalter. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin
Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 65–76.

German
1926. Arthur Allgeier: Ist das Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos die letzte (3.) Psalmenübersetzung des hl. Hie­
ronymus? Theologie und Glaube 18: 671–687. – “Es ist immer noch nicht gelungen, die Persön­
lichkeit oder die Stelle ausfindig zu machen, von der die plötzliche Einführung des Gallikanums
in der abendländischen Kirche ausgegangen ist. Vielfach ist Gregor von Tours [d. 594] vermutet
worden. Bei Beda Venerabilis [c. 700] ist der Prozeß bereits im Gang. Es fehlt aber nicht an frühe ­
ren Spuren. Bereits ist von den enarrationes in psalmos des hl. Augustin [420] die Rede gewesen”
(p. 686).

1930. Paulus Volk OSB: Das Psalterium des hl. Benedikt. Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des
Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 48: 83–97. – The Psalter of St Benedict was the Psalterium
Romanum, of which the best text can be found in Irish manuscripts.

1940. Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche
Stellung. Paderborn. 314 pp. – Pages 303–307: Die lateinische Psalmenüberlieferung des Mittel­
alters.

1970. Johann Marböck: Das Eindringen der Versio Gallicana des Psalteriums in die Psalterien der Bene­
diktinerklöster Oberösterreichs. Vienna. xvi, 122 pp.

1986. Heinz Meyer: Der Psalter als Gattung in der Sicht der mittelalterlichen Exegese. Frühmittelalterli­
che Studien 20: 1–24.

2013. Felix Heinzer: “Wondrous Machine.” Rollen und Funktionen des Psalters in der mittelalterlichen
Kultur. In: Jochen Bepler – Christian Heitzmann (eds.): Der Albani-Psalter. Stand und Perspektiven
der Forschung. Hildesheim (230 pp.), pp. 15–31.

French
1893. Germain Morin: Une révision du Psautier sur le texte grec par un anonyme du neuvième siècle.
Revue bénédictine 10: 193–197. – Manuscript Munich 343 represents a revision of the Ambrosian
Psalter.

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La reconstitution du psautier hexaplaire latin. Revue bénédictine 41:
294–324. – In the ninth century, monks in Saint-Gall and on the Reichenau island compiled psal ­
ters that displayed the texts of several Latin versions in synoptic columns. They were the first, it
seems, to have given one of these columns the name of Gallican Psalter, and another one the
name Roman Psalter. This is where these designations originated (pp. 299–300). De Bruyne
wants to abandon the designation “Gallican Psalter”; instead, he would suggest speaking of “le
psautier hexaplaire latin.” ▲ – See the critique of Arthur Allgeier: Der Brief an Sunnia und Fretela
und seine Bedeutung für die Textherstellung der Vulgata. Biblica 11 (1930) 86–107.

1932. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: De quelques opinions sur l’ancien psautier latin. Revue biblique 41:
161–186. – Page 179–180 on the Roman Psalter: “On le trouve pour la première fois dans la
règle de saint Benoît, puis sous la plume de Cassiodore et surtout de saint Grégoire le Grand.
Aux temps carolingiens on l’attribua à saint Jérôme, et cette opinion régnait sans conteste
quand De Bruyne l’a contredite nettement.”

1940. Victor Leroquais: Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publics de France. Tome I. Ma­
con. cxxxvi, 293 pp. – The author’s long introduction comments on the history and use of the

289
 Latin Psalms in the Middle Ages. There is also a second volume (519 pp.) and a volume of plates
(cxl planches). – Review: R. Maere, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 40 (1944) 201–204.

1948. Henri Leclercq: Psautier. In: Henri Marrou (ed.): Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de litur­
gie. Tome XIV.2. Paris (cols. 1225–3146), cols. 1950–1967.

2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le psautier latin des origines au XII e siècle. Essai d’histoire. In: An­
neli Aejmelaeus – Udo Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Ab­
handlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philosophisch-historische Klasse
III.230. Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 51–81. – The author provides a survey that chronicles twentieth-
century research on the text of the Latin Psalms in North Africa, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. ▲

2008. Martin Morard: La harpe des clercs. Réceptions médiévales du Psautier latin entre usages popu­
laires et commentaires scolaires. Paris. 2833 pp. – Microfiche edition of a long dissertation defen­
ded at the University of Paris.

Italian – Spanish
2005. Paul Vézin: I libri dei Salmi e dei Vangeli durante l’alto medioevo. In: Paolo Cherubini (ed.): Forme
e modelli della traduzione manoscritta della bibbia. Vatican City (xv, 562, 39 pp.), pp. 267–280.

2022. Álvaro Cancela Cilleruelo: Vetus Latina y Vulgata: síntesis histórica y estado de la cuestión.
Tempus. Revista de Actualización Científica sobre el Mundo Clásico en España 51: 7–74, at pp. 23–
25 and 42. As for the Latin text of the Psalms, medieval Bibles are divided: French manuscripts
and the edition of the Bible prepared by Alcuin of York have the Psalterium Gallicanum (Vulgate
text), whereas the edition of Theodulf of Orleans, the majority of Spanish Bibles and, interest ­
ingly, the Codex Amiatinus all have the Psalter iuxta Hebraeos (p. 42).

14.6 Bible correctories

Note. – Medieval correctories are lists of Bible passages that need to be corrected in the biblical ma­
nuscripts in common use. The idea seems to have originated with the Cistercian monk Stephen
Harding in the early 1100s (see above, Chapter 14.4). The compilers were Dominicans and Franciscans.
A passage from the Correctorium of the Franciscan friar William de la Mare (1240–1290) exemplifies
the idea:
[1 Sam 9:20] Nonne tibi et domui patris tui. Antiqui non interponunt omni nec etiam septuaginta, quare presumo
quod non fuit in antiquis hebreis.

Translation: [1 Sam 9:20, read:] not for you and for your father’s house. The ancients do not put in all [et omni
domui tui – and for all your father’s house], not even the Septuagint, so I would assume that it was not in the ori­
ginal Hebrew text.

A remarkable correction; the word omni is in the Vulgate, but not in the Greek text. The corrector at­
tempts to produce a more original text by consulting a Greek Bible. The reference to the Septuagint is
accurate – the Septuagint does not have the word. The Massoretic text, however, reads kol bet-abika –
“all your father’s house.” So on modern standards, the corrector’s note would be irrelevant. Neverthe ­
less, the example shows the corrector’s attention to detail. (The example is from Gilbert Dahan 2000, p.
228, see below.)

290
Secondary literature

Before 1900
1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Pages 244–278: Correctorien.

1883. Samuel Berger: Des essais qui ont été faits à Paris au treizième siècle pour corriger le texte de la
Vulgate. Revue de théologie et de philosophie 16: 41–66.

1888. Heinrich Denifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für Li­
teratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4: 263–311, 471–601. – Denifle’s study culminates
in his edition of the 13th-century Latin text of the book of Proverbs, accompanied by an edition
of the relevant passages from several correctories (pp. 483–566). Review: Odilo Rottmanner OSB:
Zur Geschichte der Vulgata. Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland 114
(1894) 31–38, 101–108, at pp. 107–108. ▲

1899. J. van den Gheyn: Nicolas Maniacoria, correcteur de la Bible. Revue biblique 8: 289–295.

1899. Eugène Mangenot: Correctoires de la Bible. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible.
Tome 2.1. Paris (1194 cols.), cols. 1022–1026.

English
1902. H.J. White: Vulgate. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Edinburgh. Volume 4 (xi,
994 pp.), pp. 873–890, at p. 879: List of the major correctories: (1) Correcorium Parisiense (also
called correctorium Seninense; Bibliothèque nationale, ms. Lat. 17); (2) correctorium sorbonicum
(included in a Sorbonne manuscript); (3) correctorium of the Dominicans (Bibliothèque na­
tionale, ms. lat. 16,719 – 16,722), c. 1240, represents an attempt to bring the Vg text closer to
the Hebrew and Greek; (4) correctorium Vaticanum (Bibliotheca apostolica vaticana, ms. Lat.
3466). The Correctorium mentioned in the last place is considered by the author to be the best;
it is also cited in the Oxford Vulgate of the New Testament (see above, Chapter 13.2).

2000. Gilbert Dahan: Genres, Forms and Various Methods in Christian Exegesis of the Middle Ages. In:
Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1.2.
Göttingen (729 pp.), pp. 196–236.

2012. Cornelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Bible between the
Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Medium Aevum Monographs 29. Oxford. ix, 309 pp. – On pages
140–153, the author discusses Roger Bacon’s objections to the Paris Bible.

German
1931. Gotthold Prausnitz: Über einige Bibelkorrektorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Theologische Studien und
Kritiken 103: 457–464.

1931. Gotthold Prausnitz: Französische Bibelkorrektorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Zentralblatt für Biblio­
thekswesen 48: 649–664.

French
1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Col. 2481: “D’après les notes manuscrites de l’abbé Paulin
Martin, conservés à la bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, nous pouvons signaler
quelques Bibles, reproduisant les notes critiques des Correctoria, à savoir, les mss. Latins 20, 22,

291
 28, 31, 10420 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris et les Bibles latines, 13 de la bibliothèque
Mazarine et A.L.S., de la bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève de la même ville.”

1977. Vittorio Peri: “Corretores immo corruptores.” un saggio di critica testuale nella Roma del XII se ­
culo. Italia medioevale e umanistica 20: 19–125.

1987. Jean Gribomont: Les Orthographica de la Bible latine: éditions, manuscrits, fragments, instru­
ments de travail. In: Alfonso Maierù (ed.): Grafia e interpunzione del Latino nel Medioevo. Rome
(224 pp.), pp. 1–13.

1992. Gilbert Dahan: La connaissannce de l’hébreu dans les correctoires de la Bible du xiii e siècle. Revue
théologique de Louvain 23: 178–190.

1997. Gilbert Dahan: La critique textuelle dans les correctoires de la bible du xiii e siècle. In: Alain de Li­
bera et al. (eds.): Langages et philosophie. Hommage à Jean Jolivet. Paris (xx, 426 pp.), pp. 365–
392.

1998. Gilbert Dahan: La connaissance du grec dans les correctoires de la Bible du XIII e siècle. In: Dona­
tella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda – Jean-François Genest (eds.): Du copiste au collectionneur. Mélanges
d’histoire des textes et des bibliothèques. Turnhout (xxiv, 684 pp.), pp. 89–109.

2004. Gilbert Dahan: Sorbonne II. Un correctoire biblique de la seconde moitié du xii e siècle. In: Gisep­
pe Cremascoli – Francesco Santi (eds.): La bibbia del XIII secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi.
Florence (xvi, 379 pp.), pp. 113–153.

2009. Gilbert Dahan: La critique textuelle au moyen âge et l’apport des victorins. In: Rainer Berndt SJ
(ed.): Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris. Münster (692 pp.), pp. 443–458. – Page
444: “Sous réserve de ce que nous apprendront les travaux de M. Matthias Tischler, nous ne
connaissons qu’une seule bible confectionnée à Saint-Victor au xii e siècle, celle que conservent
les manuscrits 14359 et 14396 du fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale de France et le ma ­
nuscrit 47 de la Bibliothèque Mazarine; elle daterait de 1145–1150.” On pp. 457–458, the author
gives examples of lists of variants and quotes variant readings in Gen 37, 1 Sam 14, and Gal 3.

2018. Gilbert Dahan: La critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament dans les correctoires du XIII e siècle.
In: Christian-Bernard Amphoux et al. (eds.): Philologie et Nouveau Testament. Aix-en-Provence
(328 pp.), pp. 17–28. – The author considers three correctories: Hugh of Saint-Cher, Sorbonne I,
and Sorbonne II.

2021. Gilbert Dahan: La traduction de Jérôme dans les correctoires bibliques du XIII e siècle. Revue
d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 67.1: 125–137. – The author studies the following pas­
sages: Isa 7:14; 14:19; 21:11; 26:10.17; 38:14; 60:4; 63:14.

14.7 Chapters and Verses

(Antiquity – Middle Ages – Early Modern Times)
Note. – This note ought to begin with punctuation (in Latin, distinctio); although the relevance of this
subject is generally acknowledged, we will touch it only briefly. In antiquity, punctuation was not sup­
plied by an author or scribe, but by the reader; accordingly, the reader of (Latin) biblical texts at times
has a difficult task, and may make mistakes; see Augustine: De doctrina Christiana III, 2 [3–5] (PL 34:
66–67). Also consider the fact that Jerome sought to help the reader by writing his biblical translations
per cola et commata (see above, Chapter 13.4 Note). On the subject of punctuation, see Malcolm B.
Parkes: Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot 1992. xvi,

292
327 pp.; Gilbert Dahan: La punctuation de la Bible au XII e et XIIIe siècles; in: Valérie Fasseur et al. (eds.):
Ponctuer l’œuvre médiévale. Geneva 2016 (718 pp.), pp. 29–56.

Another subject not considered here are the Eusebian canones evangeliorum, a list of sections of the
four Gospels in the interest of facilitating comparison; see above, Chapter 11.8.

On the history of chapter divisions in the Greek Bible, see Charles E. Hill: The First Chapters. Dividing
the Text of Scripture in Codex Vaticanus and Its Predecessors. Oxford 2022. xxiii, 488 pp.

The story of chapters and verses is, roughly, as follows: originally, there were no chapter divisions in
biblical books. In the Gospels, for the sake of easy comparison between them, Eusebius in the fourth
century devised a system of sections that were smaller than the later chapters; Jerome adopted the Eu­
sebian system and noted the section numbers in the margin (as does the Weber/Gryson edition of the
Vulgate). In the thirteenth century, chapter divisions were introduced into the entire Bible. Each
chapter was further divided into sections marked with the letters A to G, placed in the margin. Eventu­
ally, verse numbers were introduced. How did early printers handle the matter? Here are some ex­
amples:

1454. Gutenberg Bible. – All books are divided into numbered chapters. There are no further divisions.
(Below, Chapter 15.1.)

1528. Robertus Stephanus: Biblia. – Has chapters that are divided into sections A, B, C etc. These letters
are printed in the margin. (Below, Chapter 15.2.)

1547. Louvain Bible. – This edition divides its chapters into sections A, B, C etc. These letters are printed
in the margin. (See below, Chapter 16.3.)

1555. Robertus Stephanus: Biblia. – This edition divides its chapters into A, B, C. etc. sections, but adds
(presumably for the first time in a Latin Bible) verse numbers that are inserted into the text. After
each verse, a pilcrow sign (¶) and a number are inserted (¶ 1, ¶ 2 etc.).

1592. Clementina. – The Clementina has chapters and verse numbers – very much like the Bibles we
are used to. The chapters are no longer divided into A, B, C etc. sections. The verse numbers are
placed beside each column of text, and, and in the running text, an asterisk (*) is inserted
between each verse. (Below, Chapter 16.5).

Despite its undeniable merits, the division of the biblical text into chapters, and the chapters into
verses, is not without problems. (1) Complete uniformity of the reference system was never achieved.
The most obvious example are the Psalms where the traditional Vulgate (and Catholic) numbering de ­
parts from that of the Hebrew and Protestant Bibles. There are also other inconsistencies. The final
verse of the book of Malachi is Mal 4:6 in the English Bibles, including the New Revised Standard Ver­
sion (1989); in Hebrew Bibles, the textually identical last verse is Mal 3:24. (2) Not all the traditional
chapter divisions make sense to the modern reader who would at times divide the text into different,
more adequate sections. Interestingly, the rather unconventional New English Bible (1970) did not use
the chapter and verse numbers as divisions within the biblical text; instead, they were printed unob ­
trusively in the margin. This decision is explained as follows: “Any system of division into numbered
verses is foreign to the spirit of this translation.” It would be desirable to follow the New English Bible
and to insert verse numbers into the running text only in editions meant for scholarly use. A similar ap­
proach was used as early as 1864 in Augustin Crampon’s French translation of the four Gospels (and
explained in the preface to this translation).

293
Chapters and verses

Before 1900
1888. Heinrich Denifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für
Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4: 263–311, 471–601. – On the chapters, pp.
281–282, 289–291. Denifle attributes the new chapters to Stephan Langton whose work pred­
ated the creation of the Paris Bible which uses Langton’s system. Langton must have devised his
system of chapters before 1206, i.e., before he left the university to became a cardinal.

1892. Otto Schmid: Über verschiedene Eintheilungen der heiligen Schrift. Insbesondere über die Capitel-
Eintheilung Stephan Langtons im XIII. Jahrhunderte. Graz. 120 pp. – Page 103: “Stephan Langton
ist also der Urheber der modernen Capitel-Eintheilung, doch haben viele andere daran
verbessernde Änderungen getroffen.” The numbering of the verses as they are used today were
devised by Robert Étienne; he introduced them into his Latin Bible of 1555 (p. 109). ▲

1893. George F. Moore: The Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of
Biblical Literature 12: 73–78. – Sixteenth-century printed Hebrew Bibles adopted the Vulgate’s
reference system.

1899. Eugène. Mangenot: Chapitres de la Bible. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible.
Paris. Volume 2.1 (xii pp., 1194 cols.), cols. 559–565.

English
1998. J.S. Penkower: The Chapter Divisions in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible. Vetus Testamentum 48: 350–374.

2007. Joop H.A. van Banning: Reflections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton. In: M.C.A.
Korpel et al. (eds.): Method in Unit Delimitation. Leiden (231 pp.), pp. 141–161.

2007. Adrian Schenker OP: Chapter and Verse Divisions. In: Hans Dieter Betz et al. (eds.): Religion Past
and Present. Volume II. Leiden (cxii, 664 pp.), pp. 489–490.

2007. Christopher R. Smith: The Beauty behind the Mask: Rediscovering the Books of the Bible. Toronto.
148 pp. – Pages 13–40: The Problem with Chapters and Verses. The history of chapter and verse
division is briefly presented, ending on a critical note: “Chapter and verses keep us from recog­
nizing what kind of literature we are reading” (p. 16).

2008. Paul Saenger: The Anglo-Hebraic Origins of the Modern Chapter Division of the Latin Bible. In:
Francesco Javier Burguillo – Laura Meier (eds.): La fractura historiográfica. Salamanca (831 pp.),
pp. 177–202. – The chapter division, traditionally attributed to Stephen Langton, actually pred­
ates Langton. It was invented in twelfth-century England. ▲

2011. H.A.G. Houghton: Chapter Divisions, Capituala Lists, and the Old Latin Versions of John. Revue
bénédictine 121: 316–356.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge. xv, 320 pp. – Pages 43–45:
Chapter and Verse.

2014. Geert W. Lorein: The Latin Versions of the Old Testament. In: Alberdina Houtman et al. (eds.): A
Jewish Targum in a Christian World. Leiden (xiii, 311 pp.), pp. 125–145. – Page 138: “Stephan
Langton was the first to introduce the current division of the Bible into chapters. (…) His system
did not reach its final form on his first attempt, but in 1207 it must have reached it; from 1220 it
spread rapidly and widely, together with the Paris Bibles.”

294
German
1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 162–163.

1969. Hans Heinrich Schmid: Von Konkordanzen, ihren Zielen und Problemen. In: Karl Huber – Hans
Heinrich Schmid: Zürcher Bibel-Konkordanz. Volume 1. Zürich (xxxii, 862 pp.), pp. vii–xvii. – Page
ix: “Grosse Bedeutung erlangte die 1555 erstmals erschienene [lateinische] Konkordanz von
R[obert] Estienne, um derentwillen das Neue Testament in Verse eingeteilt wurde.”

1994. Bernhard Lang: Die Bibel. Eine kritische Einführung. 2nd edition. Paderborn. 284 pp. – Pages 38–
40: Die Einteilung in Kapitel und Verse.

2001. Hellmut Haug: Zur abweichenden Kapitel- und Verszählung im Alten Testament. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113: 618–623. – In English Bibles there are several Old Testa­
ment passages where the numbering of chapters and verses differs from the usual Hebrew
numbering. The reason for this was discovered, though never published, by Eberhard Nestle
(1851–1913): the standard division of the Hebrew text into chapters and verses goes back to the
Hebrew Bible printed in Amsterdam in 1661 by Joseph Athias.

French
1912. [anonymous] Versets dans la Bible. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris. Vo­
lume 5.2 (cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2403–2404.

1978. Amaury d’Esneval: La division de la Vulgate latine en chapitres dans l’édition Parisienne du XIII e
siècle. Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 62.4: 559–568. – The division of the bib­
lical books into the chapters as we know it is the work of Stephen Langton. His work began in c.
1200–1205, and was completed by 1220. It quickly superseded the earlier division into much
shorter chapters. The further division of the text into verses came in the 16th century. ▲

1987. Jean Vézin: Les divisions du texte dans les évangiles jusqu’à l’imprimerie. In: Alfonso Maierù (ed.):
Grafia e interpunzione del Latino nel Medioevo. Rome (224 pp.), pp. 1–13.

2010. Louis-Jacques Bataillon (ed.): Étienne Langton: prédicateur, bibliste, théologien. Turnhout. 694 pp.

2019. Mike Arcieri: La division des versets dans le Nouveau Testament. Théologie évangélique 18: 93–
121.

14.8 The knowledge of Hebrew in the Middle Ages

Note. – The two foremost sources for our knowledge about the study of Hebrew in the Middle Ages
are a thirteenth-century Hebrew-Latin-French glossary originating in the Ramsey abbey, and a decree
of the Council of Vienne (1312). Here are the details:

Ramsey glossary. The Benedictine Abbey of Ramsey in England was a centre of Hebrew learning. Its
Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary, known as the “Longleat House Dictionary” (Longleat House MS 21
ff.29–143) is still extant, kept in the library of Longleat House near Warminster (Wiltshire). The Hebrew
is transliterated with Latin characters, and when the Vulgate translation does not correspond, a new
Latin version is suggested. The work has been edited; see below, 2008.

Council of Vienne, 1312. According to Decree no. 24, the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna and
Salamanca as well as “the place, where the papal court resides” (which was then Avignon) and the to
establish language schools in which Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic is taught – not to train biblical schol­

295
ars (who are not mentioned at all) but to train missionaries sent out to preach in these languages to
Jews and Muslims. – Literature:

1933. Berthold Altaner: Die Durchführung des Vienner Konzilsbeschlusses über die Errichtung von
Lehrstühlen für orientalische Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 52 (1933) 226–236.

1934. Ewald Müller: Das Konzil von Vienne. Münster 1934 (xiii, 756 pp.), pp. 636–642.

1973. Joseph Alberigo et at. (eds.): Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. 3rd edition. Volume 2. Bolo­
gna 1973 (655 pp.), pp. 379–380: Council of Vienne, 1312.

2008. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger – A. Grondeux (eds.): Dictionnaire hébreu–latin–français de la Bible hé­

braïque de l’abbaye de Ramsey (xiiie siècle). Turnhout 2008. cxliv, 289 pp.

Before 1900
1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. 2nd, improved edition. Freiburg. vi, 599 pp. – Page.
126: “Das Studium des Hebräischen, Chaldäischen und Arabischen war im späten Mittelalter
theils durch die rege literarischen Thätigkeit der Juden, theils durch die Controverse mit den
spanischen Arabern neu belebt worden und wurde durch die Päpste eifrigst gefördert.” Kaulen
mentions the names of two Christian biblical philologists: Raimund Martin (d. 1286) and Nicho­
las of Lyra (d. 1340).

1893. Samuel Berger: Quam notitiam linguae hebraicae habuerint Christiani medii aevi temporibus in
Gallia. Paris. xii, 60 pp.

1893. Eberhard Nestle: Nigri, Böhm und Pellican. Ein Beitrag zur Anfangsgeschichte des hebräischen
Sprachstudiums in Deutschland. 35 pp. – This chapter in Nestle’s Marginalien und Materialien.
Tübingen (a book of the author’s scholarly papers, without continuous pagination) deals with
the early scholarly study of biblical Hebrew in fifteenth- and early-sixteenth-century Germany.

English
1924. E. Power: Corrections from the Hebrew in the Theodulfian Mss. of the Vulgate. Biblica 5: 233–
258.

1935. Edmund F. Sutcliffe: The Venerable Bede’s Knowledge of Hebrew. Biblica 16.3: 300–306.

1989. William McKane: Selected Christian Hebraists. Cambridge. x, 268 pp. – Pages 42–75: Andrew of St
Victor [d. 1175]. While the Hebrew knowledge of this English-born Parisian scholar was poor, his
Bible commentaries are characterized by great interest in Hebrew. See also Rainer Berndt: André
de Saint-Victor († 1175), exégète et théologien. Turnhout 1991. 403 pp.

1999. A. Bergquist: Christian Hebrew Scholarship in Quattrocento Florence. In: W. Horbury

(ed.): Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Edinburgh (xiv, 337 pp.), pp. 224–233.

2000. G.R. Evans: The Impact of Christian Contact with Jewish Exegetes. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I.2. Göttingen (729 pp.), pp. 254–
257. – Page 254: “Hugh of St Victor consulted Jews on the Hebrew text and he included translit ­
erations of certain Hebrew words [in his biblical commentaries]. Stephen Harding had led the
way here. To judge from his use of explanations which do not appear to have a Christian source
and which he himself refers to ‘the Jews,’ he also tried to follow the exegetical methods of the

296
 Hebrew tradition where it seemed appropriate to him.” – Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1142) was the
leading exegete in Paris.

2000. Gilbert Dahan: Hebrew, knowledge of. In: André Vauchez (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages.
Volume I. Cambridge (xviii, 809 pp.), p. 657. “Herbert of Bosham was undoubtedly the first true
Hebraist: his commentary on the Psalms shows a real knowledge of the Hebrew language.”

2006. Deborah L. Goodwin: “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew”: Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism.
Leiden. xii, 300 pp.

2012. Stephen G. Burnett: Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500–1600). Leiden. xx, 344 pp.

2014. Eva de Visscher: Reading the Rabbis. Christian Hebraism in the Work of Herbert of Bosham.
Leiden. viii, 222 pp. – Herbert of Bosham, c. 1120–1194.

2017. Marie Thérèse Champagne: Christian Hebraism in Twelfth-Century Rome: A Philologist’s Correc­
tion of the Latin Bible through Dialogue with Jewish Scholars and their Hebrew Texts. Studies in
Church History 53 (2017) 71–87. – Based in Rome, the Christian Hebraist Nicolaus Maniacutius
worked on the Latin Psalter with the help of Abraham Ibn Ezra. An important paper on Christian
Hebraism in the Middle Ages. ▲

2022. Paul F. Grendler: Humanism, Universities, and Jesuit Education in Late Renaissance Italy. Leiden.
xiii, 517 pp. – Pages 59–105: Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy 1515–1535. This article
features several Christian Hebraists, esp. Agostino Giustiniani (1470–1536) and Fra Felice da
Prato (1460–1559).

2022. Frans van Liere: “Hebraica Veritas”: The History of a Christian Idea. In: Johannes Heil – Sumi Shi­
mahara (eds.): From Theodulf to Rashi and Beyond: Texts, Techniques, and Transfer in Western
Europe 800–1100. Leiden (xviii, 510 pp.), pp. 21–42.

2023. Damian Fleming: Bede and the Hebrew Alphabets. In: Peter Darby – Máirín MacCarron (eds.):
Bede the Scholar. Manchester (xvi, 321 pp.), pp. 175–197.

German
1930. Arthur Allgeier: Die mittelalterliche Überlieferung des Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos von Hieronymus
und semitistische Kenntnisse im Abendland. Oriens Christianus series 3, 3–4: 200–231.

1973. Matthias Thiel: Grundlagen und Gestalt der Hebräischkenntnisse des frühen Mittelalters. Spoleto.
449 pp.

2022. Ursula Schattner-Rieser: Notizen zu zwei jüdisch-stämmigen Leibärzten im Umfeld Maximilians I.

Wegbereiter des humanistischen Interesse an der Hebraistik. In: Markus Debertol et al. (eds.):
“Per tot discrimina rerum.” Maximilian I. (1459–1519). Vienna (528 pp.), pp. 157–170.

French
1961. Henri de Lubac SJ: Exégèse médiévale 3: Les quatre sens de l’écriture. Paris 1961. 562 pp. – The
book has a chapter on the appreciation of Jerome’s work in the Middle Ages; we refer to the
English edition: Medieval Exegesis. Volume 3: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by E.M.
Macierowski. Grand Rapids, Mich. 2009. xvii, 777 pp. Pages 177–193: The Hebrew, the Greek, and
saint Jerome. Page 177: “On every side, during the Carolingian age, Hebraic studies were exal­
ted.” But compare p. 180: “Nevertheless, this veritas hebraica, or auctoritas hebraica that is un­
ceasingly invoked often seems more like a dogma of faith than an established fact.” And p. 181:
“(…) practically speaking, the veritas hebraica is quite simply the Latin text of Jerome.”

297
1992. Christoph Dröge: Quia morem Hieronymi in transferendo cognovi. Les débuts des études hé­
braïques chez les humanistes italiens. In: Ilana Zinguer (ed.), L’Hébreu au temps de la Renais­
sance. Leiden (260 pp.), pp. 65–88.

1992. Gilbert Dahan: La connaissance de l’hébreu dans les correctoires de la Bible du xiii e siècle. Revue
théologique de Louvain 23: 178–190.

1993. Gilbert Dahan: L’enseignement de l’hébreu en occident médiéval. Histoire de l’éducation 57: 3–
22.

1996. Gilbert Dahan: Lexiques hébreu/latin? Les receuils d’interprétations des noms hébraïques. In: Jac­
queline Harnesse (ed.): Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’antiquité tardive à la fin du
moyen âge. Louvain-la-Neuve (xiii, 723 pp.), pp. 480– 526.

2001. Benoît Grévin: L’hébreu des franciscains. Nouveaux éléments sur la connaissance de l’hébreu en
milieu chrétien au XIIIe siècle. Médiévales 41 (autumne 2001) 65–82.

2011. Gilbert Dahan (ed.): Nicolas de Lyre. Franciscain du XIV e siècle – exégète et théologien. Paris. 398
pp.

2012. Adrien Candiard OP – Caroline Chevalier-Royet: Critique textuelle et recours à l’hébreu à

l’époque carolingienne. In: Annie Noblesse-Rocher (ed.): Études d’exégèse médiévale. Turnhout
(412 pp.), pp. 13–34.

2018. Gilbert Dahan – Anne-Zoë Rillon-Mame (eds.): Les hébraïsants chrétiens en France au XVI e siècle.
Geneva. 442 pp.

14.9 Miscellaneous
1963. Giuseppe Ermini (ed.): La Bibbia nell’alto medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di stu­
di sull’alto medioevo 10. Spoleto. 768 pp.

1979. Jean Gribomont – Jean Mallet: Le latin biblique aux mains des barbares. Les manuscrits VEST des
prophètes. Romanobarbarica 4: 31–106. – The authors address the question of how much the
“barbarians” actually understood of the Latin biblical text they copied. The result: some things
may indeed have remained obscure to them (p. 96).

1984. Pierre Riché – Guy Lobrichon (eds.): Le Moyen Âge et la Bible. Paris. 639 pp.

2003. Guy Lobrichon: La Bible au Moyen Âge. Paris. 247 pp. – This volume reprints 14 papers published
earlier, all of them bearing on the Bible in the Middle Ages. There is also a general introduction
(pp. 7–15).

298
Chapter 15
Printers, Humanists, and Reformers
Note. – The primordial event that changed the history of the Bible (and cultural history as a whole) was
the invention of printing. Around 1500, the generation that grew up with printing developed two key
ideas about the Bible: that one should produce, and make available through printing, correct editions
of the Latin Bible; and that one should produce and print vernacular translations of the biblical text.
The 16th century has come to be associated primarily with the second of the two ideas, the translation
of the Bible into vernacular languages such as German, English, and French. That we hardly associate
the sixteenth century with the printing of Latin Bibles has to do with twenty-first century cultural am ­
nesia in a time in which people no longer think of Latin as an important language. Latin, of course, was
then the language of higher education and higher culture, including religious culture. Humanists and
reformers sought to produce correct editions of the Vulgate, and even sought to produce new Latin
versions, thought to be superior to the Vulgate.

For a recent general assessment of early printing culture, see Thomas Kaufmann: Die Druckmacher.
Wie die Generation Luthers die erste Medienrevolution entfesselte. Munich 2022. 325 pp.

On early printed Bibles, see:

2002. Christian Heitzmann et al.: Lateinische Bibeldrucke. 1454–2001. Stuttgart 2002. xxxiii, 1396 pp. (3
large-size volumes). – This work lists all the printed Latin Bibles of the famous collection owned
by the Württemberg State Library (Württembergische Landesbibliothek) of Stuttgart, Germany.
Original prints of the Gutenberg Bible (1454) are listed along with modern reprints, facsimiles,
and even electronic versions. ▲

2012. Frans Van Liere: The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546; in: Richard Marsden – E. Ann
Matter (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp.
93–109, at pp. 107–109.

2023. Paul Needham: The Latin Bible in the Renaissance and Early Print Culture. In: H.A.G. Houghton
(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 274–291. – Four
stages may be identified in the transmission of the Vulgate text in the first century of its print ­
ing. (1) First is the Gutenberg Bible, probably completed in 1455, closely related to the tradi ­
tion of Paris Bibles. (2) Next come the partial corrections in a 1462 Mainz edition, followed by
additional adjustments in Franz Renner’s 1475 Venice Bible. (3) Finally, there are the emenda ­
tions of Robert Estienne’s Paris editions of 1528, 1532, and 1540, leading to (4) the Six ­
to-Clementine Vulgate. Other humanist printers and scholars made major contributions in this
period, most notably Desiderius Erasmus, Anton Koberger, Lucantonio Giunta, Santi Pagnini,
and Sebastian Münster. The most advanced textual scholarship, by Gobelinus Laridius on the
Old Testament, did not become part of broader tradition. An important role was also played
by the development of multilingual editions, especially the Complutensian Polyglot and mul ­
tiple-column psalters. Developments in the selection of biblical books and the creation of par ­
atextual material and indexes are also considered, as well as the printing of the standard me ­
dieval commentaries alongside the biblical text.

299
 15.1 The Gutenberg Bible, 1454

15.2 Castellano – Complutensia – Stephanus

15.3 Lorenzo Valla (Erasmus’ precursor)

15.4 Erasmus

15.5 Martin Luther

15.6 Protestant Latin Bibles

15.1 The Gutenberg Bible, 1454

Note. – The famous Gutenberg Bible is the first printed edition of the Vulgate Latin Bible. It became
the model for subsequent printings. Despite intensive research, it is unknown from which manuscript
the printing was made. Since this Bible does not have a title page that would indicate the name of the
printer, the association with Johann Gutenberg (c. 1400–1468) rests on indirect evidence. While in the
past some scholars doubted the Bible’s association with Gutenberg, this is no longer the case today.

The Gutenberg Bible

1454/55. [Gutenberg-Bible] Mainz. 2 vols. 1268 pp. – This printed edition, completed in 1454 or early
1455, does not have a title page. There are recent facsimile reprints: (1) Wieland Schmidt –
Friedrich Adolf Schmidt-Künsemüller (eds.): Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel.
Faksimile-Ausgabe. Munich 1977, 1979. 2 vols. 325 leaves (vol. 1, facsimile); 205 pp. (vol. 2, com­
mentary). – (2) La Bible de Gutenberg de 1454. Cologne 2018. 2 vols. 324, 317 leaves, accompan­
ied by a booklet of 144 pages written by Stephan Füssel.

Secondary literature
English

1941. Robert H. Pfeiffer: Introduction to the Old Testament. New York (xiii, 917 pp.), p. 125: “The first
printed edition of the Vulgate, the Bible of 42 lines, or Mazarin Bible (issued before August 15,
1456), is attributed on insufficient evidence to J. Gutenberg (d. 1468), the reputed inventor of
printing.” – At the time of compiling the present bibliography (2023), there is general agreement
that there is enough evidence for Gutenberg to be the printer of the Bible.

1952. Francis J. Crump: Gutenberg Bible. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14: 213–218.

1987. Paul Needham: The Text of the Gutenberg Bible. In: Giovanni Crapulli (ed.): Trasmissione dei testi
a stampa nel periodo moderno. II. Rome (x, 329 pp.), pp. 43–84.

1996. Martin Davies: The Gutenberg Bible. London. 64 pp. – An illustrated publication of the British Lib­
rary.

2001. Christopher De Hamel: The Book. A History of the Bible. London. xi, 352 pp. – German translation:
Das Buch. Eine Geschichte der Bibel. Berlin 2001. xi, 325 pp.

300
2012. Dominique Barthélemy OP: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen Pis­
ano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. (xxxii, 688 pp.), pp. 497–513. – Translated from the French edition,
1992.

2015. Stephan Füssel: Gutenberg Bible. In: Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 10. Berlin
(xxviii pp., 1216 col.), cols. 1022–1024. – “By the year 1500, the end of the age of incunabula,
ninety-four complete editions of the Latin Vg. were published, twenty-two of which had a direct
connection to the Gutenberg Bible” (col. 1024).

2017. Eric Marshall White: Editio princeps. A History of the Gutenberg Bible. Turnhout. 465 pp. – The au­
thor not only describes the making and original impact of this Bible, but also comments on its
complete oblivion during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Gutenberg Bible was re­
discovered around 1700, and has been an object of admiration and research ever since. White’s
book is the authoritative reference source on the Latin Gutenberg Bible. Review: Mart van Duijn,
Renaissance Quarterly 72 (2019) 1048–1049. ▲

German

1954. Heinrich Schneider: Der Text der Gutenbergbibel. Zu ihrem 500jährigen Jubiläum untersucht.
Bonn. 120 pp. – See also idem: Fünfhundert Jahre Gutenbergbibel. Bibel und Kirche 9 (1954) 68–
72. Schneider (1908–1994), who taught Old Testament at the Theological Faculty of the Guten­
berg University, Mainz, scrutinized all the Latin Bible manuscripts still available in Mainz, or
known to have been there in the fifteenth century, to find the manuscript on which the Guten­
berg Bible was based. To no avail. He managed, however, to find one manuscript that came rel ­
atively close (Stadtbibliothek Mainz II 67 Biblia latina, ca. 1300 Northern France).

1979. Robert Weber: Der Text der Gutenbergbibel und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der Vulgata. In:
Wieland Schmidt – Friedrich Adolf Schmidt-Künsemüller (eds.): Johannes Gutenbergs zweiund­
vierzigzeilige Bibel. Faksimile-Ausgabe. Volume 2. Munich (205 pp.), pp. 13–31.

1979. Heinrich Karpp: Die kirchengeschichtliche Bedeutung der Gutenberg-Bibel. Zeitschrift für Theolo­
gie und Kirche 76: 310–330.

1993. Leonhard Hoffmann: Die Gutenbergbibel. Eine Kosten- und Gewinnschätzung des ersten Bibel ­
drucks auf der Grundlage zeitgenössischer Quellen. Archiv für die Geschichte des Buchwesens 39:
255–319. – The subtitle indicates the author’s economic-history approach, but the article deals
with many other subjects relevant to understanding the Gutenberg Bible. ▲

1993. Kurt Aland: Die Ausgaben der Vulgata des Neuen Testaments von Gutenberg bis zur Clementina.
In: Roger Gryson (ed.): Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien. Freiburg (674 pp. in 2
vols.), vol. 2, pp. 654–669.

2009. Gerhardt Powitz: Der Text der Gutenberg-Bibel im Spiegel seiner zeitgenössischen Rezeption.
Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 84: 29–70.

French

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris. xvi, 520 pp. – The early printed editions of the Latin Bible “dérivent toutes de
l’édition princeps de Mayence (vers 1452) [= bible de Gutenberg], qui reproduit elle-même le
texte alors vulgaire de l’Université de Paris, c’est-à-dire de la plus récente et de la moins pure de
toutes non recensions de la Vulgate” (p. 94; cf. p. 76).

301
1992. Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg (xxiv, ccxlii,
1150 pp.), pp. clxxix–clxxxix. – Barthélemy calls the Gutenberg Bible the editio princeps of the
Vulgate Bible. He lists all the minor Old Testament textual differences between the book’s first
and second printing. Translation: Dominique Barthélemy: Studies in the Text of the Old Testa­
ment. Translated by Stephen Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), pp. 497–513.

2018. Stephan Füssel: La Bible de Gutenberg de 1454. Cologne. 116 pp. – This booklet accompanies a
facsimile edition of the Gutenberg Bible (Taschen Verlag).

Spanish

1953. Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela: Valor crítico de la Biblia de Gutenberg. Cultura bíblica 109: 165–167. –
The Gutenberg Bible’s text represents the medieval Paris text which, as is generally agreed, is
not of much value for reconstructing the authentic Vulgate text.

15.2 Castellano – Complutensia – Stephanus

Alberto Castellano
1511. Biblia cum concordantijs veteris et novi testamenti. Edited by Alberto Castellano OP. Venice 1511.
4 volumes.

1922. Henri Quentin OSB: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie:
Octateuque. Rome – Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), pp. 96–99.

2020. Teunis van Lopik: On the Earliest Printed Editions of the Vulgate with a Text-Critical Apparatus.
In: H.A.G. Houghton – Peter Montoro (eds.): At One Remove: The Text of the New Testament in
Early Translations and Quotations. Piscataway, N.J. (xxiii, 337 pp.), pp. 211–238. – The very first
Latin Bible with a critical apparatus printed in the margin and listing variant readings was edited
by Alberto Castellano OP.

Complutensian Polyglot edition

1514–1517. Polyglotta Complutense. Alcalá. 6 vols. – A facsimile edition was published in Rome, 1983–
1984. Vols. I–IV contain the Old Testament: Hebrew text in the outer columns, the Greek of the
Septuagint in the inner column, and the Latin Vulgate in the center. There are no verse divisions.
There are chapter divisions with subdivisions marked by capitals A, B, C, and D. Volume V con­
tains the New Testament in Greek and Latin in two columns. The Acts of the Apostles are posi ­
tioned after the Epistle to the Hebrews following the Pauline Epistles. Vol. VI contains aids for
students of the Hebrew and Greek texts; also provided is a glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic
words with Latin equivalents, and explanations of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek names in the Bible. Vol. V, printed in 1514, presented – for the first time in history – a
printed Greek text of the New Testament, two years before Erasmus published his Greek New
Testament. Accordingly, one must consider this text the editio princeps of the Greek New Testa­
ment.

1998. Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros: Vorbemerkung zu der Complutenser Polyglottbibel. In: Nicolette
Mout (ed.): Die Kultur des Humanismus. Reden, Briefe, Traktate, Gespräche von Petrarca bis Kep­
ler. Munich (420 pp.), pp. 149–153. – German translation of Cisneros’ preface to the Polyglot
Bible. An excerpt: “Schließlich ist im Buch der Psalmen noch daran zu erinnern, daß die von uns

302
 verwendete übliche lateinische Übersetzung als Interlinearversion über die Zeilen des griechi­
schen Septuagintatextes gesetzt ist, weil sie ihm fast Wort für Wort entspricht. Die Übersetzung
des heiligen Hieronymus nach dem hebräischen Urtext haben wir dagegen in die mittlere Ko ­
lumne gesetzt” (p. 153). English: Finally, it should be remembered concerning the book of
Psalms that the usual Latin translation we use is set as an interlinear version over the lines of the
Greek Septuagint text, because it corresponds to it almost word for word. The translation of St.
Jerome according to the original Hebrew text, on the other hand, is placed in the middle
column. – Part of Cisneros’ text is quoted in the original Latin in two publications:
1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque. Rome and
Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), p. 99.

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Haec vetus et vulgata editio. Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Bibel auf
dem Tridentinum. Biblica 29: 353–391, at p. 375. ▲

Secondary literature
1912. Eugène Mangenot: Polyglottes. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris. Volume
5.1 (1282 cols.), cols. 513–529. On the Complutensia, see cols. 514–518.

1917. Mariano Revilla Rico: La Políglota de Alcalá. Estudio histórico-crítico. Madrid. 3, xvi, 178 pp.

1935. R. Miquelez – P. Martínez: El códice complutense o la primera Biblia visigótica de Alcalá. Anales
de la Universidad de Madrid 2: 204–219.

1968. Basil Hall: The Trilingual College of San Ildefonso and the Making of the Complutensian Polyglot
Bible. Studies in Church History 5: 114–146.

2002. Maria Victoria Spottorno: The Textual Significance of Spanish Polyglot Bibles. Sefarad 62: 375–
392. – “The texts of the Complutensian Polyglot are still in the need of a deep and sound study
within the scope of today’s textual advances” (p. 384).

2008. Maria Teresa Ortega-Monasterio: Textual Criticism of the Bible in the Spanish Renaissance. TC: A
Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 13. (online journal, without continuous pagination; this article
has 9 pp.)

2008. Adrian Schenker OP: The Polyglot Bible of Alcalá 1514–17. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume II. Göttingen (1248 pp.), pp. 286–
291. – Page 291: “Except for the Psalter where the editors prepared a Latin recension of their
own, they tried to prefer the authentic Vulgate text.” Contrary to what is often claimed, the ori­
ginal texts were never assimilated to the Vulgate wording. ▲

2014. Luis Vegas Montaner: Las versiones latinas en la Políglota Complutense. Estudios Bíblicos 72:
177–202. – The Complutensian Polyglot Bible contains a Vulgate text edited by the humanist
Elio Antonio de Nebrija (1441–1522). Mention is made of the disagreement between Cardinal
Cisneros and Nebrija on the criteria to be applied to the edition of the Vulgate text – Nebrija
wanted a revision of the Vulgate text on the basis of the original texts, while the Cardinal
wanted to have the traditional Vulgate. – Apparently, Nebrija’s participation in the Polyglot task
force was only a brief episode; see Thomas Hudgins: The Greek New Testament of the Com­
plutensian Polyglot. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Madrid 2017 (367 pp.), pp. 46–55.

2016. Antonio Alvar Ezquerra (ed.): La Biblia Políglota Complutense en su contexto. Alcalá de Henares.
379 pp.

2016. Frances Luttikhuizen: The Ximenez Polyglot. Unio cum Christo 2.1: 83–98. – The Ximenez Polyglot
Bible was part of a larger educational project—the University of Alcalá—implemented by Car­

303
 dinal Cisneros at the turn of the sixteenth century in order to revive learning and encourage the
study of the Scriptures. Following a brief biography of Cisneros, his reforms, and the social-reli­
gious context in which the Bible was produced, this article goes on to discuss the project itself,
the manuscripts consulted, the printing, and the scholars involved. Cisneros’ focus on biblical
studies at the University of Alcalá developed into an interest in Christian humanism and the writ­
ings of Erasmus, which would later bring forth fruit in the evangelical movements in Seville and
Valladolid in the 1550s.

2017. Natalio Fernández Marcos: The First Polyglot Bible. In: Andrés Piquer Otero – Pablo A. Torijano
Morales (eds.): The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions. Leiden (xix, 575 pp.), pp. 3–18.

2020. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo: La Vulgata en las políglotas de Alcalà y Amberes. In: Gilbert Dahan –
Annie Noblesse-Rocher (eds.): La Vulgate au XVIe siècle. Turnhout (279 pp.), pp. 165–219.

Note. – The Complutensian Polyglot Bible did not remain the only one of its kind. The largest and
most famous one became the London Polyglot Bible of the mid-seventeenth century, also known as
the Walton Polyglot Bible. On this subject, see Adrian Schenker OP: The Polyglot Bibles of Antwerp,
Paris and London: 1568–1658. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its
Interpretation. Volume II. Göttingen (1248 pp.), pp. 774–784.

Stephanus’ Bible(s)
Note. – Robert Estienne (alias Robertus Stephanus, 1503–1559) is the most important printer of the
16th century. His first Latin Bible of 1528 is considered the first attempt to produce a critically com­
piled Vulgate text. Estienne drew on several manuscripts. He also printed Greek and Hebrew editions
of the Bible as well as ancient classics. He earned special merit for the insertion of verse numbers in
various Bible editions (not yet in the 1528 edition, but in the 1555 edition, see above, Chapter 14.6).

1528.1555. Robertus Stephanus (ed.): Biblia. Paris. – In these two years, Stephanus published important
Latin Bibles with a text that he himself had revised.

Secondary literature
1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80, at pp. 56–59.

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome – Paris. xvi, 520 pp. – Pages 104–120: Les bibles de Robert Estienne (1528–1557). Estienne
was the first to use old manuscripts, the first to devise a critical apparatus in the form familiar to
modern textual critics, and the first to use verse numbers.

1954. Elizabeth Armstrong: Robert Estienne, Royal Printer: An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus.
Cambridge. xx, 309 pp. – Unrevised reprint edition by Cambridge University Press, 2011. There is
also a revised and enlarged edition: Appleford 1986. xxii, 342 pp.

1960. Heinrich Schneider: Der Vulgata-Text der Oratio Manasse, eine Rezension des Robertus Stepha­
nus. Biblische Zeitschrift NF 4: 277–282.

1986. Dominique Barthélemy OP: Robert Estienne éditeur de la Bible [and subsequent sections]. In:
idem: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 2. Fribourg (xviii, *71, 1013 pp.), pp. *29–
*43, *47. This text has been translated: Robert Stephanus, Bible Editor. In: idem: Studies in the

304
 Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688
pp.), pp. 175–192. – A very detailed, rich account of Robert Estienne’s Bible editions and his con ­
flict with the Inquisition.

2008. Bernard Roussel: La Biblia éditée par Robert Estienne à Paris, en 1532. In: Marie-Christine Go­
mez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les bibles en latin au temps des Réformes. Paris (xii, 274 pp.), pp. 107–
128.

2020. Eran Shuali: Le travail de Robert Estienne sur ses éditions de la Vulgate (1528–1557): pratique et
conception d’une critique textuelle. In: Gilbert Dahan – Annie Noblesse-Rocher (ed.): La Vulgate
au XVIe siècle. Turnhout (279 pp.), pp. 107–122. – A study of Etienne’s Latin text of Gen 9 and
Mark 1.

15.3 Lorenzo Valla (Erasmus’ precursor)

Note. – The Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) was the first to systematically address the is ­
sue of the Latin language of the Vulgate and point out its differences from classical Latin. Valla’s relev­
ant work remained unpublished during his lifetime. One manuscript was found by Erasmus and pub­
lished in 1505 as Adnotationes. An earlier form of Valla’s manuscript was discovered only in the twenti­
eth century and published by Alessandro Perosa as Collatio Novi Testamenti (1970).

Editions
1505. Lorenzo Valla: In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Graecorum exempla­
rium Adnotationes. Edited by Erasmus. – The text can be found in: Lorenzo Valla: Opera omnia.
Edited by Eugenio Garin. Turin 1962, vol. 1 (viii, 1010 pp.), pp. 801–895 (reprint of the 1540 Basel
edition of Valla’s Opera omnia) where it is titled In Novum Testamentum (…) annotationes.

1970. Lorenzo Valla: Collatio Novi Testamenti. Edited by Alessandro Perosa. Florence. lvii, 304 pp.

Secondary literature
1977. Jerry H. Bentley: Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Schol ­
ars of the Gospels. The Sixteenth Century Journal 8.2 (July 1977) 8–28. – See also the same au­
thor’s book: Humanists and Holy Writ. New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance. Princeton
1983 (xiii, 245 pp.), esp. pp. 36–66.

1994. Christopher S. Celenza: Renaissance Humanism and the New Testament: Lorenzo Valla’s Annota­
tions to the Vulgate. The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 24, 33–52.

2012. Christopher S. Celenza: Lorenzo Valla’s Radical Philology: The “Preface” to the Annotations to the
New Testament in Context. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 42: 365–394.

2013. Carlo Carena: Le ‘Annotationes in Novum Testamentum’ di Erasmo da Rotterdam e Lorenzo Val­
la. In: Grazia Melli – Marialuigia Sipione (eds.): La Bibbia nella letteratura italiana. V: Del Medioe­
vo al Rinascimento. Brescia (712 pp.), pp. 399–414. – The general editor of the Bibbia nella lette­
ratura italiana series is Pietro Gibellini (b. 1945).

2014. Christopher Calenza: Lorenzo Valla und das Neue Testament. In: Anna Heinze – Sebastian Möck ­
el – Werner Röcke (eds.): Grenzen der Antike. Die Produktivität von Grenzen in Transformation­
sprozessen. Berlin (vi, 414 pp.), pp. 145–168.

305
2016. Annet den Haan: Valla on Biblical Scholarship. Renaessanceforum [Denmark] 11: 23–39. – The au­
thor comments on humanistic scholarship at the papal court of Nicholas V in the 1450s.

15.4 Erasmus

Erasmus’ edition of the New Testament

Secondary literature on Erasmus’ New Testament and related writings

Erasmus and Edward Lee

Erasmus and Frans Titelmans

Erasmus’ edition of the New Testament

Note. – (1) Erasmus’ edition of the New Testament is a heavy tome, complete with Annotations that
are actually a commentary on the entire New Testament. Historians of biblical scholarship celebrate it
as one of first ever printed editions of Greek New Testament; though not the editio princeps (which can
be identified: it is in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, printed in 1514), it was most significant. While
this is true, it is not the whole story. It stands to reason to assume that Erasmus’ idea was not in the
first place to supply a printed edition of the Greek text. Instead, he wanted to produce a reliable Latin
version, one that corrects the mistakes of the Vulgate – the mistakes the ancient translators made, and
the corruptions that have crept in during the process of transmission. Erasmus attributed the mistakes
in the Vulgate mainly to obtuse, ignorant scribes who produced an adulterated version of Jerome’s ori­
ginal Latin edition. One may compare Erasmus’ Latin New Testament with Luther’s vernacular Bible.
Whereas Luther wanted a Bible for everyone, Erasmus wished to supply one for the educated elite. This
is how Erasmus distinguishes himself from Jerome: “Jerome’s undertaking is different from mine. He
introduced a new text into the church, I introduce it only into private homes and studies” (Collected
Works of Erasmus. Volume 72: Controversies [with Edward Lee]. Edited by Jane E. Phillips. Toronto 2005
[xxxviii, 449 pp.], p. 100).

Several editions of Erasmus’ New Testament supplied just the Latin text (no Greek, no annotations),
one printed by Erasmus’ own printer, Johannes Froben, in 1522; for details, see R.D. Sider (ed.): The
New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Leiden 2019 (xxvi, 1062 pp.), pp. 183–184.

(2) Example of Erasmus’ translation, from the 1519 edition of Erasmus’ Greek-Latin New Testament of
1519):

Luke 1:1–4 (Erasmus, 1519): Quoniam complures aggressi sunt contexere narrationem earum quae inter
nos certissime fidei sunt, rerum, sicuti tradiderunt nobis ii qui ab initio suis oculis viderant, ac pars aliqua
fuerant eorum quae narrabant: visum est et mihi, ut, cunctis ab initio exacta diligentia pervestigatis,
deinceps tibi scriberem optime Theophile, quod agnoscas eorum de quibus edoctus fueras, certitudinem .
– In literal German translation: Da ja ziemlich viel (complures) sich angeschickt haben, die Erzählung
derjenigen Begebenheiten aneinander zu reihen (contexere), welche unter uns von der sichersten
Glaubwürdigkeit sind, soweit es uns diejenigen überliefert haben, welche es von Anfang an mit eige­

306
nen Augen gesehen hatten und zu einem bedeutenden Teil (pars aliqua) Beweis dafür gewesen waren
(fuerant eorum), worüber sie berichteten: [so] schien es auch mir gut zu sein, dass ich – nach gründli­
cher Erforschung des Gesamten (cunctis pervestigatis) seit Beginn mit genauer Gewissenhaftigkeit – dir
der Reihe nach (deinceps) schriftlich berichte, mein bester Theophilus, damit du die Echtheit dessen er­
kennen könntest, worüber du unterrichtet worden warst. – Latin Text and German translation from:
Stefan Sonderegger: Philologische Probleme der deutschen Bibelübersetzung: der Prolog des Lu­
kas-Evangeliums; in: Vilmos Ángel – Andreas Gardt et al. (eds.): Das Wort – seine Strukturelle und kultu­
relle Dimension. Tübingen 2002 (xv, 344 pp.), pp. 201–216, at pp. 202–203. Erasmus’ version is in clas­
sical Latin and pays more attention to the tenses than the Vulgate version.

(3) Why did Erasmus call the first edition of his Greek-Latin New Testament “Novum Instrumentum”
rather than “Novum Testamentum”? The Latin noun instrumentum means “document,” and some of
the early-Christian authors have actually used the word to designate the Old Testament. Examples can
be found in Jerome (Commentary on Isaiah, on Isa 22:15,16; PL 24 [1865]: 282) and Augustine. The lat­
ter indicates that the book that is commonly called Vetus Testamentum would be more properly called
Vetus Instrumentum (quod distinctius vetus instrumentum quam vetus testamentum vocatur; Augustine:
Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum III, 4,12; PL 44: 595).

1516. Erasmus (ed.): Novum Instrumentum omne. Basel. – This first edition of Erasmus’ bilingual, Greek
and Latin, edition of the New Testament left the press on August 19, 1516. Erasmus had estab­
lished a critical Greek text to which he added his own Latin version, though the underlying Vul ­
gate text can frequently be recognized. Erasmus made several improved editions – now retitled
to Novum Testamentum omne – that were published, all in Basel by the same printer, Johann
Froben (d. 1527), in 1519, 1522, and 1527; the 1535 edition was printed by Johann Froben’s son
Hieronymus Froben.

1967. Erasmus: In Novum Testamentum Praefationes – Vorreden zum Neuen Testament. In: Erasmus
von Rotterdam: Ausgewählte Schriften. Acht Bände lateinisch und deutsch. Edited by Werner
Welzig. Darmstadt. Vol. 3 (xl, 495 pp.), pp. 1–115. – This is a bilingual, Latin and German edition
of the three prefaces – paraclesis, methodus, apologia – that Erasmus printed at the beginning of
his New Testament. The translation is by Gerhard B. Winkler.

1986. Erasmus: Novum Instrumentum omne. Stuttgart. xli, 324, 630 pp. – This facsimile edition, intro­
duced by Heinz Holeczek, reproduces the first edition (xli, 324, 630 pp.).

2001–. Erasmus: Novum Testamentum ab Erasmo recognitum, edited by Andrew J. Brown. Amsterdam
and Leiden. – This critical edition forms part of the Amsterdam/Leiden edition of Erasmus’ Op­
era omnia. Of this edition of the Novum Testamentum, vols. 2, 3, and 4 are already available
(Leiden 2001, 2004, and 2013), but vol. 1 is still not published (as of 2023).

2019. Erasmus: Solecismi – Errors in the Vulgate. Translated by Alexander Dalzell, in: Robert D. Sider
(ed.): The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Collected Works of Erasmus, volume 41. Leiden
2019 (xxvi, 1063 pp.), pp. 865–948. – One of the texts Erasmus included in the editions of 1519,
1522, and 1527 is entitled “Solecismi,” the word for “linguistic mistakes.” It consists of several
lists of mistranslations, linguistic inaccuracies, interpolations and the like in the Vulgate text.

2019. Erasmo de Róterdam: Escritos de introducción al Nuevo Testamento. Edited by Inmaculada Del­
gado Jara and Victoriano Pastor Julián. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 754. Madrid. xl, 405 pp.
– Spanish translation of the introductory material included in Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum
omne.

307
2020. Robert D. Sider (ed.): Erasmus on the New Testament. Selections from the Paraphrases, the An­
notations, and the Writings on Biblical Interpretation. Toronto. 336 pp.

Secondary literature on Erasmus’ New Testament and related writings

English
1976. Jerry H. Bentley: Erasmus’ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the
Gospels. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 67: 33–53. – Page 38: “By far the greatest number of
the notes are concerned with the justification, defense, explanation, or criticism of the Latin
translation, either that of the Vulgate, or Erasmus’ own.”

1980. Henk Jan de Jonge: Erasmus and the comma Johanneum. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
56: 381–389.

1983. Jerry H. Bentley: Humanists and Holy Writ. New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance. Prin­
ceton, N.J. xiii, 245 pp.

1984. Andrew J. Brown: The Date of Erasmus’ Latin Translation of the New Testament. Transactions of
the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8: 351–380. – Up to 1514, Erasmus had no intention of
publishing a new Latin translation. In fact, the first, 1516, edition of his Greek New Testament in ­
cluded a Latin version “much closer to the Vulgate” (p. 369) than the later editions.

1984. Henk Jan de Jonge: Novum Testamentum a nobis versum. The Essence of Erasmus’ Edition of the
New Testament. Journal of Theological Studies NS 35: 394–413. – Erasmus called the first edition
of his New Testament an “instrument” (instrumentum) because he used the Greek text to im­
prove the Latin translation. He did not evaluate the Greek text on its own terms.

1986. Henk Jan de Jonge: Erasmus’ Method of Translation in his Version of the New Testament. The
Bible Translator 37: 135–138. – Erasmus’ aim was to attain greater clarity by replacing the clumsy
Late Latin by a clear and idiomatically pure Latin of the classical period. The result was a radically
revised Vulgate text in which about forty per cent of the words were changed.

1987. John C. Olin: Erasmus and Saint Jerome. The Close Bond and Its Significance. Erasmus of Rotter­
dam Society Yearbook 7: 33–53.

2006. Jan Krans: Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament .
Leiden (ix, 384 pp.), pp. 67–90: The importance of the Vulgate.

2007. Allan K. Jenkins – Patrick Preston: Biblical Scholarship and the Church. A Sixteenth-Century Crisis
of Authority. Aldershot. xiii, 325 pp. – Two chapters deal with Erasmus: Erasmus and the return to
the original languages of Scripture (pp. 27–52), Erasmus’ debates with traditionalists (pp. 53–80).
Pages 53–64 deal specifically with the authority of the Vulgate. Maarten Dorp, one of Erasmus’
critics, “shared Erasmus’ pleasure in good Latin and had no problem with his improving the Latin
style of the Vulgate, but he considered that to suggest on the basis of the Greek that the Vul­
gate was in error at any point would gravely undermine its authority” (p. 53).

2011. Grantley Robert MacDonald: Raising the Ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Re­
ligious Differences in Early Modern Europe. PhD Dissertation: University of Leiden. – Published in
2016, see below!

2013. Marie Barral-Baron: Philological Practice and Religious Controversy: Erasmus, Critical Reader of
the Vulgate and Patristic Texts. In: Michael Van Dussen – Paval Soukup (eds.): Religious Contro­
versy in Europe, 1378–1536. Turnhout (viii, 350 pp.), pp. 315–339.

308
2016. Jan Krans: Deconstructing the Vulgate. Erasmus’ Philological Work in the Capita and Solecismi. In:
Martin Wallraff et al. (eds.): Basel 1516. Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament. Tübingen (xix,
319 pp.), pp. 187–206.

2016. Grantley McDonald: Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma,
and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge. xvii, 384 pp.

2016. Marijke H. de Lang (ed.): [Erasmus]. The Bible Translator 67: 5–68. This thematic issue includes the
following contributions: M.H. de Lang: “Fidelius, apertius, significantius” (the book’s editorial, pp.
5–8); J.K. Elliott: “Novum Testamentum editum est.” The Five-Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’
Greek New Testament (pp. 9–28); H.J. de Jonge: Erasmus’ Translation of the New Testament: Aim
and Method (pp. 29–41); G. McDonald: Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7–8) (pp.
42–55); Alejandro Coroleu: On the Reception of Erasmus’ Latin Version of the New Testament in
Sixteenth-Century Spain (pp. 56–68). – Elliott and de Jonge agree: Erasmus’ original motive for
editing the Greek New Testament was to present his new version of the Latin text (a Jeromian
project). The Greek was to be there to enable learned readers to check the reliability of his trans­
lation.

2016. Toan Do: A Plea for the “Novum Instrumentum.” Erasmus and His Struggle for a New Translation.
Philosophy & Theology 28: 141–163. – Erasmus’ idea was to provide an “instrument” that helps
understand the New Testament properly.

2016. Hilmar M. Pabel: St. Jerome’s Exegetical Authority in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s “Annotations on the
New Testament.” Church History and Religious Culture 96.4 : 565–549.

2018. Henk Jan de Jonge: Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum of 1519. Novum Testamentum 61: 1–25.

2019. Robert D. Sider (ed.): The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Toronto 2019. xxvi, 1062 pp.
This is volume 41 of the Toronto English edition of the “Collected Works of Erasmus.” – Pages 3–
388: The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. An Introduction. On pp. 25–84, Sider offers a
description and analysis of the first (1516) edition of Erasmus’ New Testament. The original plan
had been to place the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate text side by side, but eventually, Erasmus
replaced the Vulgate version by his own translation in which, nevertheless, the Vulgate still
provides the substratum (p, 41). “Erasmus undertook his work on the New Testament to repair
the inadequacies of the text of the Vulgate (…) whose faults he imputed (…) to the Translator.
Erasmus was certain that the translator responsible for the Vulgate was not Jerome, but some
unknown individual” (p. 63). Erasmus wants “to make the biblical prose more Latinate. This gen­
erally coincides with efforts to express the Greek with more precision than one found in the Vul­
gate” (p. 47). One of the problems Erasmus was confronted with by some of his critics – such as
Frans Titelmans of Leuven – was that they considered the Vulgate to be divinely inspired (pp. 20,
333). ▲

2020. Riemer Faber: Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum (1516): Reforming the Bible into the Bible of the
Reformation. In: J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay – Herman J. Selderhuis (eds.): Renaissance
und Bibelhumanismus. Göttingen (376 pp.), pp. 295–312. – Page 299: “While the Novum Instru­
mentum represents the first published Greek text of the New Testament, it does not present a
text necessarily superior to that of the Vulgate.”

2023. Jan Bloemendal: Erasmus and Biblical Scholarship. In: Eric MacPhail (ed.): A Companion to
Erasmus. Leiden (x, 362 pp.), pp. 68–89.

309
German
1975. Heinz Holeczek: Humanistische Bibelphilologie als Reformproblem bei Erasmus von Rotterdam,
Thomas More und William Tyndale. Leiden. vi, 413 pp.

2016. Petra Schierl: Die lateinische Übersetzung. Erasmus’ Revision der Vulgata. In: Ueli Dill – Petra
Schierl (eds.): Das bessere Bild Christi. Das Neue Testament in der Ausgabe des Erasmus von Rot­
terdam. Basel (220 pp.), pp. 111–114.

2017. Moisés Mayordomo (ed.): Theologische Zeitschrift 73, Heft 3: 205–338: Erasmus. – Henk Jan de
Jonge: Erasmus’ Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. Ziel und Methode (pp. 207–221; Erasmus
wanted to publish an improved, corrected Latin version of the New Testament for the use of the
educated); Ueli Zahnd: Der Humanist und die Scholastiker. Alte Reaktionen auf ein Neues Testa­
ment? (pp. 275–298; unlike Erasmus, Maarten van Dorp was convinced of the correctness of the
Vulgate; it did not need any factual correction, but only linguistic improvement); Martin Karrer:
Das Neue Testament des Erasmus und Luthers (pp. 299–324; Luther used Erasmus’ edition of the
New Testament).

2023. Ingo Schaaf: ... quem [...] hominem fuisse non possum diffiteri. Anmerkungen zu Hieronymus in
der humanistischen Rezeption. In: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen
und Rezeption. Stuttgart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 107–122: Jerome in the work of Erasmus and other hu­
manists.

French
1950. L. Venard: Vulgate. In: A. Vacant – E. Mangenot (eds.): Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique. Tome
15.2. Paris (cols. 1547–3928), cols. 3474–3492. – Column 3486: “Le cardinal Cajétan [Thomas de
Vio Cajetan OP, 1469–1534], influencé par l’autorité d’Erasme, désireux d’autre part de faciliter
les controverses avec les protestants qui refusaient de prendre pour base le text de la Vulgate et
entendaient fonder leur argumentation sur les seuls textes originaux, adopta dans l’ensemble la
position d’Erasme, attribuant par exemple une autorité théologique moindre à l’épître aux Hé­
breux et aux deux petites épîtres johanniques [2 Joh, 3 Joh], rejettant nettement aussi l’authenti ­
cité de la finale de Marc, XVI,9 sp., du récit de la femme adultère, Joa., VII,53–VIII,11 (…) et du
Comma johanneum.” Of Cajetan the following word has been transmitted: non interpretis graeci
et latini sed ipsius tantum hebraei textus authoritas est – “the authority is not located in the
Greek and Latin translators, but only in the Hebrew text”; mentioned by Eberhard Nestle: Lateini­
sche Bibelübersetzungen, in: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realenzyclopädie für protestantische Theologie
und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig 1897 (832 pp.), pp. 24–58, at p. 52.

2020. Thierry Amalou – Alexandre Vanautgaerden (eds.): 1516. Le Nouveau Testament d’Erasme. Re­
gards sur l’Europe des humanistes. Turnhout. xix, 370 pp. – A collection of scholarly papers read
at a 2016 conference held at the library of the Sorbonne, Paris. Here is a selection: André Godin:
‘Novum Instrumentum’, ‘Philosophia Christi’: Enjeux et mis en œuvre d’un humanisme biblico-
patristique (pp. 47–52; Erasmus published his book as a “study Bible” in the interest of promot­
ing piety); Luigi-Alberto Sanchi: Guillaume Budé et la critique érasmienne du Nouveau Testa­
ment en latin (pp. 53–60); Alexandre Vanautgaerden: “Monumentum paratum est.” Chronique
des traveaux récents sur le Nouveau Testament d’Érasme (2016–2020) (pp. 211–302). There is
also a list of Erasmus’ works (pp. 345–354).

Italian
2020. Cecilia Asso: Erasmo et l’interpres. Le polemiche sulla Vulgata del Nuovo Testamento. In: Gilbert
Dahan – Annie Noblesse-Rocher (eds.): La Vulgate au XVIe siècle. Turnhout (279 pp.), pp. 77–106.

310
Erasmus and Edward Lee
1520. Edward Lee: Annotationes Edouardi Lei in Annotationes novi testamenti Desiderii Erasmi. Paris. –
Lee, an English cleric (born c. 1485, he was substantially younger than Erasmus; Lee became
archbishop of York) was one of Erasmus’ fiercest critics, and listed 243 objections against
Erasmus’ annotations in his first edition of the New Testament, and another 25 objections to
Erasmus’ annotations in the 1519 edition. Erasmus made an effort to refute them all, esp. in two
printed pamphlets: Responsio de annotationes Lei and Liber tertius E.R. quo respondet reliquis an­
notationibus Ed. Lei, both printed in 1520. – Annotated translations of Erasmus’ writings against
Lee can be found in: Collected Works of Erasmus. Volume 72: Controversies [with Edward Lee].
Edited by Jane E. Philipps. Toronto 2005. xxxvii, 449 pp.

Secondary literature
1902. Augustinus Bludau: Die beiden ersten Erasmus-Ausgaben des Neuen Testaments und ihre Gegner.
Freiburg. vi, 145 pp. – A brief version with the same title was published in Biblische Studien 7
(1902) 86–125.

1986. Robert Coogan: The Pharisee against the Hellenist: Edward Lee versus Erasmus. Renaissance
Quarterly 39: 476–506. – Coogan focuses on the theological side of the dispute – the charge of
Pelagianism.

1992. Robert Coogan: Erasmus, Lee and the Correction of the Vulgate. The Shaking of the Foundations .
Geneva. 125 pp. – Expanded version of the author’s 1986 paper. Review: R. Bergley, Renaissance
Quarterly 47 (1994) 994.

1999. Gerard Huijing: Textual Variation in Erasmus’ Polemics. In: H.T.M. Vliet (ed.): Produktion und Kon­
text. Tübingen (vii, 347 pp.), pp. 111–124.

2008. Cecilia Asso: Martin Dorp and Edward Lee. In: Erika Rummel (ed.): Biblical Humanism and Schol­
asticism in the Age of Erasmus. Leiden (viii, 336 pp.), pp. 167–196.

2019. Robert D. Sider (ed.): The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Leiden (xxvi, 1063 pp.), pp. 151–
153.

Erasmus and Frans Titelmans

2003. Paolo Sartori: La controversia neotestamentaria tra Frans Titelmans ed Erasmus da Rotterdam
(1527–1530 ca.). Humanistica Lovaniensia 52: 77–135.

2009. Paolo Sartori: Divine Inspiration and Biblical Translators: The Vetus Interpres of the Latin New
Testament in a Comparison of Erasmus, Petrus Sutor and Frans Titelmans. In: Wim François et al.
(eds.): Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early
Modern Period. Leuven (xviii, 488 pp.), pp. 87–110.

2019. Tomasz Karol Mantyk: Migrations of the Word of God: Francis Titelmans’ Defence of the Vul ­
gate. The Biblical Annals 9.3: 525–546 (article in Polish). Against Erasmus, Titelmans’ Prologus
apologeticus pro veteri et ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti Latina interpretatione (Antwerp 1530)
argues that when migrating to Latin, the text was closely supervised by God so as to ensure its
correctness.

311
15.5 Martin Luther

Luther’s Latin Bible texts – Luther and the Vulgate

Editions
1513. [edited by Luther] Sepher Tehillim hoc est liber laudum sive hymnorum qui psalterium David dicit­
ur. Wittenberg. – Facsimile edition with Luther’s handwritten notes: Wolfenbütteler Psalter 1513–
1515. Edited by Eleanor Roach – Reinhard Schwarz. 2 Bände. Frankfurt. 3, 115 leaves (facsimile);
xxxvi, 558 pp. (studies). – Literature:
1953. Gerhard Ebeling: Luthers Psalterdruck vom Jahre 1513. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 50.1: 43–99; also
in: idem: Lutherstudien. Band 1. Tübingen 1971 (xii, 341 pp.), pp. 1–68.

2014. Jun Matsuura: Psalterdruck und Manuskripte zu Luthers Psalmenvorlesung (1513–1515) – Ihre Wege durch
die Geschichte. In: Irene Dingel – Henning P. Jürgens (eds.): Meilensteine der Reformation. Gütersloh (296
pp.), pp. 28–45.

1529. [partial Vulgate Bible, edited by Luther] Pentateuchus. Liber Iosue. Liber Iudicum. Liber Regum.
Novum Testamentum. Wittenberg. – Offered is a text of the Vulgate, revised to conform more
closely to the Hebrew and Greek. For an example, see below, textual note on Phil 4:22 (Chapter
22). Interestingly, this edition omits the “comma Johanneum” (1 John 5:7–8; see below, Chapter
22). – Literature:
1912. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelstudien in Wittenberg 1529. Philologus 71: 314–317. – In Matt 8:3 volo
mundare (mundare being not an infinitive but a passive imperative) is replaced with mudus esto; and the
nobilis decurio (Mark 15:43) is made an honestus senator. These and other examples show that the Vulgate
text is deemed inadequate and needs emendation in the interest of linguistic elegance and readability.

1914. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Reihe “Deutsche Bibel”: Band 5. Weimar 1914 (xxvii, 804
pp.). This is the work in the “Weimar Edition,” the modern historical-critical edition of the works of Luther;
the responsible editors of this volume are Eberhard Nestle (d. 1913) and Erwin Nestle. At pp. 2–12 is Luther­
’s Latin preface to the Old Testament, at pp. 475–479 his preface to the New Testament.

1987. Martin Brecht: Martin Luther. Volume 3. Stuttgart (471 pp.), p. 108 (= idem: Martin Luther. The Preservation
of the Church, 1532–1546. Minneapolis, Min. 1993 [xvii, 511 pp.], p. 102). – In modern Luther biographies
such as this one, the Vulgate revision is mentioned only briefly.

2019. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Nova propemodum translatio”: Luther and the Vulgate. Archiv für Reformations­
geschichte 110: 7–22, esp. pp. 16–19. – A full discussion of this work.

2020. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: Luthers Übersetzung der Bibel ins Deutsche und Lateinische. In: Andreas Müller et
al. (eds.): Bibelübersetzungen in der Geschichte des Christentums. Leipzig (162 pp.), pp. 73–100.

1529. [Latin Psalter, edited by Luther] Psalterium translationis veteris correctum. Wittenberg. Reprinted
with a new preface in 1537. – This is a Vulgate Psalter, revised according to the Hebrew. – Liter ­
ature:
1957. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Reihe “Deutsche Bibel”: Band 10.II. Weimar 1957 (ci, 349
pp.), pp. 158–289. This is the modern critical edition of this text. Pages 185–192 print the text of two pre­
faces, one by Luther alone, and one by Luther and Justus Jonas.

2019. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Nova propemodum translatio”: Luther and the Vulgate. Archiv für Reformations­
geschichte 110: 7–22, esp. p. 20.

1530. Martin Luther: On Translating: An Open Letter [Ein Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen]. In this treatise
on translating, Luther explains his approach mainly with reference to translating into German ex­
pressions found in the Vulgate. – Literature:

312
 1909. Luther: Ein Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen. In: D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 30.2.
Weimar 1909 (viii, 716 pp.), pp. 632–639. – Critical edition.

2007. Luther: On Translating. In: Selected Writings of Martin Luther. Edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Volume 4:
1529–1546. Minneapolis, Min. 2007 (xxiii, 403 pp.), pp. 173–194.

Secondary literature
English

1946. John M. Lenhart: Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reformation from 1520–1570. A Bibliographical
Account. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8: 416–432.

1976. Heinz Bluhm: The Nature of the Wittenberg 1529 Revision of the Vulgate: Galatians I. Aquila 3:
1–20.

2010. Bruce Gordon: The Authority of Antiquity. In: Polly Ha – Patrick Collinson (eds.): The Reception of
Continental Reformation in Britain. London (xxxvii, 250 pp.), pp. 1–22. – Pages 9–10: “Following
the tradition of Erasmus, Protestant culture retained a complex relationship with the Vulgate,
and the story is by no means exhausted by the polemical denunciations found throughout the
writings of the reformers. The first Protestant Latin Bible appeared in Wittenberg in 1529. Ori ­
ginally intended as a revision of the Vulgate, the team of scholars led by Melanchthon, accord­
ing to their preface, discovered the text to be so corrupt that they had little choice but to return
to the Hebrew, leading to an extensive revision (…). In the preface Luther made a crucial and re ­
vealing distinction: this translation of 1529 was intended only for the use of students and theo ­
logians, and not for the wider body of the faithful. In other words, it was to be circulated among
scholars only and not those clergy that might be able to use it in sermon preparation. They, the
preface continued, were to remain with the version of the Vulgate.”

2019. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Nova propemodum translatio”: Luther and the Vulgate. Archiv für Re­
formationsgeschichte 110: 7–22. – “in a research project at the University of Marburg, we recon ­
structed Luther’s work on the Latin Bible over the course of his life. This article outlines (…) the
results of this research” (p. 9). Schäufele also tells the story of the “Wittenberg Vulgate” and the
Wittenberg Latin Psalter, both published in 1529 (pp. 16–20). After having completed these pro ­
jects, Luther lost interest in revising the Vulgate text. The Vulgate Bible “no longer played a role
for Luther; he used the Larin scholarly language sovereignly and autonomously in order to guar­
antee the best possible and most accurate rendering of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) or Greek sense
of Scripture” (p. 21).

German

1918. Ernst Thiele: Eine Handschrift der Vulgata aus Luthers Bücherei. Theologische Studien und Kriti­
ken 91: 138–143. – An 11th-century codex.

1941. Hermann Dippelt: Hatte Luthers Verdeutschung des Neuen Testaments den griechischen Text
zur Grundlage? Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 38: 300–330. – Page 326: “Der Vulgatatext ist
seine Grundlage geblieben” (the Latin text remained his foundation). Page 329: “Das Griechische
fand nur gelegentlich, zumeist auf Anregung durch die Annotationes des Erasmus Berücksichti­
gung.” ▲

1947. Heinrich Bornkamm: Die Vorlagen zu Luthers Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. In: idem:
Luther. Gestalt und Wirkungen. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Gütersloh 1975 (308 pp.), pp. 65–73. –
Agrees with Dippelt’s essay of 1941.

313
1988. Rudolf Riedinger: Nach welcher Vorlage übersetzte Martin Luther den Hebräerbrief für das
Septembertestament 1522? Römische historische Mitteilungen 30: 93–112. – The text from which
Luther translated Hebrews for the “September Testament” is not the Greek text, but that of the
Vulgate. ▲

1992. Rudolf Riedinger: Welchen Grundtext übersetzte Martin Luther für seine deutsche Bibel?
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 42: 325–330. ▲

1999. Martin Brecht – Eberhard Zwink (eds.): Eine glossierte Vulgata aus dem Umkreis Martin Luthers.
Vestigia Bibliae 21. Berne. 407 pp. – Subtitle: “Untersuchungen zu dem 1519 in Lyon gedruckten
Exemplar in der Bibelsammlung der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart.”

2015. Martin Rösel: Revision und Neuübersetzung. Die Apokryphen in der Lutherbibel 2017. In: Al­
brecht Buschmann (ed.): Gutes Übersetzen. Berlin (ix, 399 pp.), pp. 283–295. – Page 289: Some of
the apocryphal books were translated from the Vulgate, with no or minimal participation of
Luther: Judith, Tobit, and 1 Maccabees. The translation of Judith and Tobit was the work of Jus­
tus Jonas, 1 Macc was translated by Melanchthon.

2015. Eberhard Zwink: Die lateinische Biblia Sacra Vulgata: zu ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Bedeutung für
die reformatorische Bibelübersetzung. In: Jürgen Schefzyk – Eberhard Zwink (eds.): Luthers Meis­
terwerk. Ein Buch wie eine Naturgewalt. Mainz (112 pp.), pp. 18–25. ▲

2017. Christine Christ-von Wedel: Erasmus und Luther als Ausleger der Bibel. In: eadem – Sven Grosse
(eds.): Auslegung und Hermeneutik der Bibel in der Reformationszeit. Berlin (xvii, 425 pp.), pp.
367–380. Both Luther and Erasmus worked with the Vulgate as their basic text, but their interests
differed widely. Luther’s interest is theological, Erasmus’ focus is on historical and philological
questions. The author discusses how the two read Galatians. Luther frequently relied on
Erasmus’ notes and text, without acknowledging it. ▲

2017. Menno Aden: Woraus hat Martin Luther übersetzt? Die Erasmus-Edition in Latein und Griechisch
als Vorlage. Sprachspiegel 73.3: 74–82. – Luther translated the New Testament from the Latin
text of Erasmus, and only for certain words took the Greek text into account.

2020. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: Luthers Übersetzung der Bibel ins Deutsche und ins Lateinische. In: An­
dreas Müller et al. (eds.): Bibelübersetzungen in der Geschichte des Christentums. Leipzig (164
pp.), pp. 73–100.

15.6 Protestant Latin Bibles

General

The Zurich Latin Bible

Sébastian Castellio’s Latin Bible

314
General
1946. John M. Lenhart: Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reformation from 1520–1570. A Bibliographical
Account. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8: 416–432. – A survey of Protestant editions of the Vulgate
Bible (and not about new translations into Latin).

2008. Jean-Pierre Delville: L’évolution des Vulgates et la composition de Nouvelles versions latines de
la Bible au XVIe siècle. In: Marie-Christine Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au
temps des Réformes. Paris (xii, 274 pp.), pp. 71–106. – This volume includes another interesting
article: Olivier Millet: La distinction de la prose et de la poésie dans la disposition typographique
des Bibles latines de la Renaissance (1505–1557), pp. 191–209.

2012. Josef Eskhult: Latin Bible Translations in the Protestant Reformation. In: Bruce Gordon – Matthew
McLean (eds.): Shaping the Bible in the Reformation. Leiden (xii, 306 pp.), pp. 167–185. The same
paper is also published in the journal Kyrkohistorisk Årsskrift 106 (2006): 31–67. – This article sur­
veys the development of Latin translations of the Old Testament in the period 1500–1750, from
the beginning of biblical Hebrew humanism about 1500 until the era of Enlightenment in the
middle of the eighteenth century. The methods of translation are investigated and the reception
among contemporary critics is accounted for. The article also surveys the use of and attitude to ­
wards the Vulgate among Protestants.

2012. Mark W. Elliott: Looking backwards: The Protestant Latin Bible in the Eyes of Johannes Piscator
and Abraham Calov. In: Bruce Gordon – Matthew McLean (eds.): Shaping the Bible in the Re­
formation. Leiden (xii, 306 pp.), pp. 291–302.

2015. Bruce Gordon: Creating a Reformed Book of Knowledge: Immanuel Tremellius, Franciscus Junius,
and Their Latin Bible, 1580–1590. In: Karen E. Spierling (ed.): Calvin and the Book. The Evolution
of the Printed Word in Reformed Protestantism. Göttingen (170 pp.), pp. 95–121.

2017. Bruce Gordon: Teaching the Church: Protestant Latin Bibles and Their Readers. In: Jennifer Powell
McNutt – David Lauber (eds.): The People’s Book. The Reformation and the Bible. Downers Grove,
Ill. (ix, 249 pp.), pp. 13–32. – Page 19: “Despite the polemical bursts, Protestants could not and
did not wish to separate themselves from the Vulgate, whatever its shortcomings, for it was es ­
sential to theirv claim to the tradition of the church. They were not prepared to part company
with the Vulgate, and its influence in the Protestant culture, although seldom acknowledged, re­
mained powerful. All the work of the Protestant translators of the Bible into Latin stood in the
shadow of Jerome’s Bible which they continued to consult and never claimed to replace.”

2020. Marie-France Monge-Strauss: Traduire le livre de Jonas. De Lefèvre d’Etaples à la version révisée
de Genève (1530–1588). Paris. 688 pp. – The appendix (pp. 633–660) presents in synoptic form
the Vulgate text of Jonah together with other Latin translations.

2023. Annie Noblesse-Rocher: Protestant Latin Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook
of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 320–332. – Despite its emphasis on translations
into the vernacular, the Protestant Reformation also saw a series of revisions and new editions of
the Latin Bible in the sixteenth century. Some of these reflected Humanist interest in original
sources and Latin learning (Sebastian Castellio). Others involved greater or lesser alteration of
the Vulgate text with reference to Hebrew or Greek, and the provision of annotations (the Zurich
Bible, Andreas Osiander, Martin Luther, Sebastian Münster, Immanuel Tremellius, Theodore
Beza). Bilingual and polyglot editions are also considered (Biblia francolatina, Biblia germanola­
tina, Elias Hutter, David Wolder, Antwerp polyglot). The nature of the revisions is examined with
particular reference to the book of Genesis.

315
The Zurich Latin Bible
1543. Biblia sacrosancta testament veteris et novi e sacra Hebraeorum lingua Graecorumque fontibus .
Zurich. – The famous Zurich Latin Bible is a new translation, not just a revised edition of the Vul­
gate Bible.

Secondary literature
1996. Claire Gantet: La religion et ses mots: la Bible latine de Zurich (1543) entre la tradition et l’inno­
vation. Zwingliana 23: 143–167.

2008. Marie-Christine Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes. Paris. xii,
274 pp. – A volume of essays on Latin Bibles in the 16th century.

2008. Christoph Bultmann: Beyond the Vulgate. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120.1:
92–106. – Page 95, n. 12: “The translation is the work of a reformed scholar at Zurich, Leo Jud
(1482–1542), complemented by Theodor Bibliander (1505–1564), and was first published in
Zurich in 1543. Among other editions, it was republished by Robert Stephanus (1503–1559) in
Paris in 1545, together with exegetical notes by Franciscus Vatablus (d. 1547). See Realencyklo­
padie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., ed. by A. Hauck,vol. 3 (1897), 49–57 (52f.);
185–187; vol. 9 (1901), 550–553. On Bibliander see C. Christ-von Wedel (ed.), Theodor Bibliander
1505–1564, 2005; H. Amirav and H.-M. Kirn, Notes on the Reformation, humanism, and the study
of Hebrew in the sixteenth century: the case of Theodore Bibliander (1505–64), in: Dutch Review
of Church History 87 (2007), 161–171.”

2010. Bruce Gordon: The Authority of Antiquity. In: Polly Ha – Patrick Collinson (eds.): The Reception of
Continental Reformation in Britain. London 2010 (xxxvii, 250 pp.), pp. 1–22. – This paper includes
a section on the Zurich Latin Bible of 1543 (pp. 16–18).

2014. Bruce Gordon: Remembering Jerome and Forgetting Zwingli: The Zurich Latin Bible of 1543 and
the Establishment of Heinrich Bullinger’s Church. Zwingliana 41: 1–33.

2020. Annie Noblesse-Rocher: Les “révisions” de la Vulgate dans les cercles protestants au XVI e siècle.
In: Gilbert Dahan – Annie Noblesse-Rocher (eds.): La Vulgate au XVIe siècle. Turnhout (279 pp.),
pp. 123–142.

Sébastien Castellio’s Latin Bible

1551. The French humanist Sébastien Castellio (Chateillon, 1515–1563) published a Latin Bible which in
its reception came to be overshadowed by the French Bible produced by the same author (first
printed in 1555). Castellio’s Latin Bible is a re-written Vulgate, intent on offering a text that satis­
fies the taste of those who wished to read the Bible in the language of Cicero rather than that of
Jerome. Accordingly, Castellio eliminated almost all Hebraisms. A feast for Latin scholars!

2008. Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis interpretation, eiusque postrema recognitione. Préface de
Jean Ercole. Hildesheim. Pars 1: Libri Veteris Foederi.18* pp., 1518 cols. – Pars 2: Libri Novi
Foederis. 2*, 506 cols., followed by indexes without pagination. – This is a fine two-volume edi ­
tion of Castellio’s Latin Bible, printed in Frankfurt (Germany) in 1697, reprinted in Hildesheim
2008 as part of the collected works of the German philosopher Christian Wolff (1679–1754) who
used the Castellio Bible whenever referring to the biblical text. This edition also includes, at the
end of volume 1, IV Ezra (cols. 1281–1318) and extracts from Josephus (cols. 1318– 1334 and
1405–1518); the Josephus texts were added by Castellio to the 1554 edition of his Bible. ▲

316
2020. Sebastian Castellio: Annotationes in Pauli epistulam ad Romanos ex cap. IX. Critical Edition and
English Translation by Michiel Op de Coul and Mirjam van Veen. Geneva. xxxvi, 66 pp. – Castel­
lio’s Latin Bible has an extensive apparatus of exegetical notes placed at the foot of each page.
In the case of Romans 9, an extended note runs over several pages (in the 2008 reprint edition,
see Pars 2, cols. 243–252). This note is presented in Latin together with an English translation
and an introduction. – Review: Jean-Pierre Sternberger, Études théologiques et religieuses 97
(2022) 264–265.

Secondary literature
1870. Moritz Aberle: Das biblische Latein. Theologisches Literaturblatt [Bonn] 5: 321–326. – Col. 321:
“Unter den Gründen der Abneigung (…) womit in der Renaissanceperiode die Vulgata betrachtet
wurde, steht in erster Linie die Sprache derselben. Je mehr diese Zeit in der Ausdrucksweise des
Cicero (…) das Ideal und die höchste Norm der Gedankenmitteilung erblickte, um so mehr muß­
te sie sich durch das ihr vielfach gemein und selbst barbarisch klingende Latein der Vulgata ab ­
gestoßen fühlen. Daher die Versuche, dieses Erbstück der alten Kirche durch neue, dem herr­
schenden Geschmack entsprechende Übersetzungen zu verdrängen oder das Ärgernis dadurch
zu beseitigen, daß man wenigstens dem Texte classisch gewendete Paraphrasen an die Seite
stellte. Wir legen auf diese Arbeiten nur noch geringen Werth. Die Bibel des Castalio z.B. hat für
uns nur noch die Bedeutung einer literarischen Curiosität, und weit entfernt, in ihr unter dem
Gesichtspunkt des Geschmacks eine Verbesserung zu sehen, müssen wir sie in dieser Hinsicht
als eine schwere Verirrung erklären.”

1897. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realencyclopädie für
protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig (832 pp.), pp. 24–58, at pp. 53–
54.

1997. Hans Guggisberg: Sebastian Castellio: 1515–1563. Humanist und Verteidiger der religiösen Toler­
anz im konfessionellen Zeitalter. Göttingen (ix, 353 pp.), pp. 55–78: Bible translations.

2003. Hans Guggisberg: Sebastian Castellio, 1515–1563. Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration
in a Confessional Age. Translated by Bruce Gordon. Aldershot (xiv, 303 pp.), pp. 49–72: The Bible
Translations.

2008. Marie-Christine Gomez-Géraud – Anne-Laure Metzger-Rambach: Reformuler la Vulgate? Castel­

lion devant le IVe livre d’Esdras. In: Marie-Christine Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les bibles en latin
au temps des Réformes. Paris (xii, 274 pp.), pp. 157–172. Castellio presents a text that is massively
edited in the interest of having an elegant, almost classical Latin.

2008. Nicole Geunier: Le “Cantique des Cantiques” dans la Bible latine de Castellion. In: Marie-Christine
Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Biblia. Les bibles en latin au temps des Réformes. Paris (xii, 274 pp.), pp.
145–156.

2012. Irena Backus: Moses, Plato and Flavius Josephus. Castellio’s Conceptions of Sacred and Profane
in His Latin Versions of the Bible. In: Bruce Gordon – Matthew McLean (eds.): Shaping the Bible
in the Reformation. Leiden (xi, 306 pp.), pp. 143–166.

2013. Josef Eskhult: Castellion, traducteur de la Bible latine: Image de soi et réception durant la Renais­
sance et l’Âge Classique. In: Marie-Christine Gomez-Géraud (ed.): Sébastien Castellion: des Écri­
tures à l’écriture. Paris (567 pp.), pp. 109–138.

2018. Peter Stotz: Castellios neues Sprachkleid für die Bibel – was hat es dem sermo piscatorius vo ­
raus? In: Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (ed.): Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) – Dissidenz und Tole­

317
 ranz. Göttingen (613 pp.), pp. 103–130. – On Castellio’s attempt to improve the Bible’s Latin that
was said to be in the language of fishermen (sermo piscatorius).

2018. Mirjam van Veen: Johan Jakob Wettstein’s (1693–1754) Use of Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563).
In: Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (ed.): Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) – Dissidenz und Toleranz.
Göttingen (613 pp.), pp. 575–588.

318
Chapter 16
The Vulgate in Modern Catholicism, 1546–1979

16.1 The Council of Trent (1546) and the authority of the Vulgate

16.2 Protestant critics of the Council of Trent and of the Vulgate

16.3 Louvain Bible

16.4 The Bible of Pope Sixtus V, 1590

16.5 The “editio Clementina,” 1592

16.6 The Popes and the Latin Psalms, 1568–1969

16.1 The Council of Trent (1546) and the authority of the Vulgate

The council

Secondary literature

Official declarations, 1941 and 1943

The council
1546. Council of Trent. Fourth Session: De editione et usu librorum sacrorum – On the Edition and Use
of the Sacred Books (also known as the Decree “Insuper” and “the Vulgate decree”; 8th April
1546). – “Considering that no little utility may accrue to the Church of God if, out of all the Latin
editions now in circulation, it would be known which is to be held as authentic, the sacred and
holy synod ordains and declares: that the old and vulgate edition – which by long usage of so
many ages has been approved in the Church – be held as authentic (pro authentica habeatur) in
public lectures, disputations, sermons, and exposition. No one is to dare or presume to reject it
under any pretext soever.” – German: “Erwägend, dass der Kirche Gottes nicht wenig Nutzen zu­
teil werden könne, wenn bekannt wird, welche von allen lateinischen Ausgaben, die von den hei­
ligen Büchern im Umlauf sind, für authentisch zu halten sind, beschließt und erklärt dasselbe
hochheilige Konzil, dass diese alte Vulgata-Ausgabe, die durch den langen Gebrauch so viele
Jahrhunderte in der Kirche anerkannt ist, bei öffentlichen Lesungen, Disputationen, Predigten
und Auslegungen als authentisch gelten soll (pro authentica habeatur), und dass niemand wa­
gen oder sich unterstehen soll, diese unter irgendeinem Vorwand zu verwerfen.” The Council de­
crees that editions of the Bible may not be printed without prior examination by the bishop.

319
 Strangely enough, it was John Calvin who was the first to publish the Council’s decrees in
print – accompanied by his critique; see below, Chapter 16.2.

Text of the decree in Latin and in translation:

2002. Josef Wohlmuth (ed.): Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien. Band 3. Paderborn (xviii, pp.
875–1135, 1*–170* ), pp. 664–665. Latin and German.

2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und
kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), nos. 1506–1508
(pp. 497–498). Latin and German.

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and De­
clarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), nos. 1506–1508.
Latin and English.

Secondary literature

Before 1900
1591. Robert Bellarmine: De editione Latina vulgata, quo sensu a Concilio Tridentino definitum sit, ut
pro authentica habeatur – On the Latin Vulgate edition, in which sense the Council of Trent
wanted it to be taken as authentic. This theological treatise, first printed in 1749, is edited in:
Xavier-Marie Le Bachelet SJ: Bellarmin et la Bible Sixto-Clémentine. Étude et documents inédits.
Paris 1911 (xi, 210 pp.), pp. 107–125.

1685. Richard Simon: Histoire critique du Vieux Testament. Rotterdam. – New edition: Paris 2008. 954
pp., edited by Pierre Gibert, with slightly modernized spelling. Pages 431–440 (Gibert’s edition):
“En quel sens l’ancienne version latine a été déclaré authentique par le concile de
Trente.” Conclusion: “le texte hébreux est véritablement authentique,” but all translations made
in good faith are “aussi authentiques à leur manière.” Accordingly: “Cette question qu’on exa­
mine d’ordinaire avec tant de chaleur, si la Vulgate est seule authentique et la véritable Écriture,
me paraît assez inutile” (p. 432).

1720. Augustin Calmet OSB: Nouvelles Dissertations. Paris. 8 leaves, 540 pp. – Pages 39–54: Dissertation
sur la Vulgate. “(…) il faut convenir que la Vulgate, qui est en usage dans l’Église Romaine & Ca­
tholique, est encore la plus parfaite & la meilleure Traduction que nous ayons de la Bible.” The
declaration of the Council of Trent that the Vulgate is authentic does not mean that it is prefer ­
able to the original text.

1820. Georg Riegler: Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata. Sulzbach. xii, 156 pp. – The author’s interest is in
the Council of Trent and the question of whether Catholics are bound to the Vulgate at the ex­
pense of the original text, a question much debated among Catholics until the 20th century. Rie ­
gler steers a sound middle course between contempt of the Vulgate and exaggerated loyalty to
it. Nevertheless, Hildebrand Höpfl warns that Riegler’s book “fußt auf dem unzuverlässigen
Angaben und tendenziösen Entstellungen des Paolo Sarpi”; see Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge
zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen.
Freiburg 1913 (xv, 339 pp.), p. 1, note. Paolo Sarpi (1552–1623) is the author of the first critical
history of the Council of Trent: Istori del concilio Tridentino. London 1619 – published under the
pseudonym Pietro Solave Polano; it was published in London to circumvent Italian censorship.

1824. Leander van Eß: Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allgemeinen, und zunächst in
Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret. Tübingen. xvi, 504 pp. – Added is the subtitle: “Oder: Ist der

320
 Katholik gesetzlich an die Vulgata gebunden?” Van Eß emphasizes the value of the Vulgate, but
restricts it (like Georg Riegler, 1820).

1829. Johann Baptist Gerhauser: Biblische Hermeneutik. Erster Theil. Kempten (xiv, 385 pp.), p. 336. “Das
Dekret des Kirchenrathes von der Authentie der Vulgata ist nicht dogmatisch, sondern nur diszi­
plinarisch, d.i. es wird dadurch keine Glaubenslehre vorgetragen, sondern nur eine kirchliche
Anordnung getroffen.” In other words: when you reject the authentic character of the Vulgate,
you are wrong, but you cannot be called a heretic, because you don’t reject a dogma.

1838. Giuseppe Brunati: Dissertationi bibliche. Milan. 276 pp. – Pages 53–86: Del nome, dell’autore,
de’correttori, dell’autorità e dell’uso della Volgata, in spiegazione e difesa del decreto del Conci­
lio di Trento sulla medesima. – There is a Latin version of this essay, printed as a separate publi ­
cation: Josephus Brunati: De nomine, auctore, emendatoribus et authentia Vulgatae dissertatio.
Vienna 1827. 80 pp.

1866. Carlo Vercellone: Sulla autenticità delle singole parti della Bibbia Volgata secondo il Decreto Tri­
dentino. Rome. 48 pp.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Pages 379–419: Concil zu Trient; pp.
420–496: Officieller Text.

1890. Pierre Battifol: La Vaticane de Paul III à Paul V, d’après des documents nouveaux. Paris. viii, 154
pp. – The book is on the history of the Vaticana, the papal library in Rome. On pp. 72–80, the au­
thor reports on Cardinal Antonio Carafa’s interpretation of the Council of Trent’s view of the
Vulgate. Carafa died on January 14, 1591. Review: (anonymous) Zeitschrift für katholische Theo­
logie 15 (1891) 778–780.

1892. Alfred Loisy: La question du canon des Écritures au concile de Trente. In: idem: Histoire critique
du texte et des vesions de la Bible. Tome premier. Amiens (255 pp.), pp. 247–255.

1894. Emil Lingens SJ: Die Vulgata und das Tridentinum. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 18: 759–
761. – On the basis of new studies by Catholic scholars it is argued that dogmatic writers such as
the cardinals Franzelin and Mazella have exaggerated the church’s teaching authority in things
biblical. The Church has no power to determine what pertains to historical scholarship.

English
1947. James M. Vosté OP: The Vulgate at the Council of Trent. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9: 9–25. – The
author tells the story of the Council of Trent’s Vulgate decree, promulgated on the eighth of
April, 1546. The author emphasizes this decree’s disciplinary, rather than dogmatic, nature, and
discusses the meaning of the word “authentic.”

1948. Edmund F. Sutcliffe: The Council of Trent and the Authentia of the Vulgate. Journal of Theological
Studies 49: 35–42.

1953. Peter G. Duncker: The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 15: 277–299. – A careful review of all available sources, including diaries.

1963. Joseph Crehan SJ: The Bible in the Roman Catholic Church from Trent to the Present Day. In: S.L.
Greenslade (ed.): The Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 3. Cambridge (ix, 589 pp.), pp. 199–
237.

1966. Robert E. McNally SJ: The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles. Theological Studies 27: 205–
227.

321
1994. William McCuaig: The Tridentine Ruling on the Vulgate and Ecclesiastical Censorship in the
1580s. Renaissance and Reformation 18.3: 43–55. – Four works by the historian Carlo Signonio
(1523–1584) were the target of censures in the early 1580s. In his Old Testament studies, Signo ­
nio relied on Jewish sources such as the Septuagint, Philo, and Josephus, and was attacked as a
“Judaizer.” His books, though, were never placed on the index of prohibited books. His case re ­
veals the mentality that prevailed after the Council of Trent.

2002. Theodore P. Letis: The Vulgata Latina as a sacred text: what did the Council of Trent mean when
it claimed that Jerome’s Bible was ‘authentica’? Reformation 7: 1–21.

2008. Jared Wicks: Catholic Old Testament Interpretaion in the Reformation and Early Confessional
Eras. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation.
Volume II. Göttingen (1248 pp.), pp. 617–648. – This encyclopedic account includes sections on
the Council of Trent’s biblical canon (pp. 624–627), the authenticity of the Vulgate (pp. 627–629),
and the Sixto-Clementine Bible edition (pp. 623–636).

2016. Antonio Gerace: What Is the Vulgate? Girolamo Seripando’s Notes on the Vulgate. Annuarium
Historiae Conciliorum 48 (2016/17) 440–462. – Transcription and first edition of previously un­
published material.

2016. Antonio Gerace: Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after
the Sixto-Clementine (1592). Journal of Early Modern Christianity 3: 201–237.

2016. Daniel D. Kerber: The Canon in the Vulgate Translation of the Bible. The Bible Translator 67: 168–
183.

2019. Luke Murray: Jesuit Biblical Studies after Trent. Franciscus Toletus and Cornelius a Lapide. Göttin­
gen. 218 pp. – The book offers a chapter on the Bible at the Council of Trent (pp. 41–47) and
discusses the attitude of the two scholars – Toletus (1532–1596), Lapide (1567–1637) – to the
Vulgate (pp. 101–104, 145–150). Neither felt bound by the Vulgate text of the Bible. Toletus was
involved in the preparations of the Sixto-Clementina.

2020. Edmon L. Gallagher: The Latin Canon. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume
2A. Leiden (xxxix, 497 pp.), pp. 166–190. – Pages 186–188: Council of Trent.

2020. Benedict D. Fischer – Wim François et al.: The “Golden Age” of Catholic Biblical Scholarship
(1550–1650) and Its relation to Biblical Humanism. In: J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay – Her­
man J. Selderhuis (eds.): Renaissance und Bibelhumanismus. Göttingen (376 pp.), pp. 217–274. –
This richly documented essay discusses the following subjects: (1) Catholic biblical humanism
into the Council of Trent, c. 1500–1550; (2) the “Golden Age” of Catholic biblical scholarship in
the second half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century. The “Golden Age”
came to an end with the rise of historical criticism. The Council of Trent and the subsequent edi ­
tions of the Latin Bible are dealt with on pp. 233–236, 242–243. There is a rich bibliography on
pp. 261–274.

2023. Antonio Gerace: The Council of Trent and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. In: H.A.G. Houghton
(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 292–304. – The author
outlines the history of the Latin Vulgate in the sixteenth century, from the discussions leading to
the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent (1546), when it was proclaimed as the ‘authentic’ edi ­
tion, up to the eventual publication of the Sixto-Clementine edition in 1592. It sets out the four
abuses of the Scriptures condemned by the Council and the responses through which these
were addressed, as well as the two Tridentine decrees on Scripture. The important work in Louv­
ain of John Henten and Francis Lucas of Bruges on editions of the Vulgate is described, which
played a key role in the activity of the five Roman Committees for the Emendation of the Vul ­

322
 gate. Information is also given on the membership of these committees and the failure of the
Sixtine Vulgate of 1590. – One detail (p. 295, note 6): In one of the Council sessions Bishop Ber­
tani maintained that the Vulgate Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It had always been in use
in the Church, and even Christ and his disciples used it (immo Christus et discipuli ea usi sunt);
but here either the Italian bishop or the diarist who records the matter seems to have confused
the Vulgate with the Greek Bible.

German
1912. Johann Baptist Nisius SJ: Vulgata. In: Michael Buchberger (ed.): Kirchliches Handlexikon. Band 2.
Munich (8 pp., 2932 cols.), col. 2646. – “Im Sinne der Konzilsdekrete [des Konzils von Trient]
muss (…) nicht nur die Authentizität der Vulgata im Allgemeinen, sondern wenigstens in ‘dog­
matischen’ Texten eine wesentliche Konformität der Vulgata mit dem Urtext festgehalten wer­
den. Über die nähere Bestimmung dieser Authentizität gehen die Urteile der katholischen Theo­
logen noch weit auseinander.” Generally rejected was early on – e.g., by Bellarmine, the notion
of the Vulgates “absolute perfection.” If it could be shown that a dogmatically relevant passage
such as 1 John 5:7 was not in the original Vulgate, then this passages authenticity would not be
guaranteed by the Council.

1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Das Tridentinische Dekret über die Authentizität der Vulgata. In: idem:
Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruckten und ungedruckten
Quellen. Freiburg (xv, 339 pp.), pp. 1–43. – The Vulgate Bible is authentic only in matters pertain ­
ing to faith and morals; this is what the Council of Trent had in mind, and this was also the posi ­
tion of Robert Bellarmine.

1914. Albert Maichle: Das Dekret “De editione et usu sacrorum librorum.” Seine Entstehung und Erklä­
rung. Freiburg. xvi, 118 pp. – On the Council of Trent’s decree on the Vulgate Bible. On the basis
of new documents, it is no longer possible to take the decree as intending to make an authorit­
ative doctrinal (dogmatic) statement. The author also elucidates the term “authentic” (pp. 98–
118). ▲

1914–1916. Wilhelm Koch: Der authentische Charakter der Vulgata im Lichte der Trienter Konzilsver­
handlungen. Theologische Quartalschrift 96 (1914) 401–422. 542–572; 97 (1915) 225–249. 529–
549; 98 (1916) 313–354.

1929. Norbert Peters: Unsere Bibel. Die Lebensquellen der Heiligen Schrift. Paderborn. xvi, 528 pp. –
Pages 74–81: Die Vulgata. – Among others things the author discusses the notion of authenti­
city. “Der Satz: Die Vulgata ist authentisch heißt (…) nichts weiter als: Die Vulgata ist die von der
Kirche als zuverlässig und beweiskräftig anerkannte Bibelgestalt” (pp. 75–76).

1940. Arthur Allgeier: Authentisch auf dem Konzil von Trient. Eine wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Un­
tersuchung. Historisches Jahrbuch 60: 142–158.

1946. M.A. van den Oudenrijn OP: Unsere authentische Kirchenbibel. Olten. 38 pp.

1957. Hubert Jedin: Geschichte des Konzils von Trient. Band 2. Freiburg (x, 550 pp.), pp. 42–82. – A de­
tailed historical account on the council’s biblical debates, based on all available sources.

1983. Ulrich Horst OP: Der Streit um die Autorität der Vulgata. Zur Rezeption des Trienter Schriftde­
krets in Spanien. Revista da Universidade de Coimbra 29: 195–280. – Reprinted in: idem: Päpstli­
che Unfehlbarkeit wider konziliare Superiorität? Studien zur Geschichte eines (ekklesiologischen)
Antagonismus vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert. Paderborn 2016 (426 pp.), pp. 195–280.

323
1988. Hermann Josef Sieben: Die Kontroverse zwischen Bossuet und Leibniz über den alttestamentli­
chen Kanon des Konzils von Trient. Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 3: 201–214. – Controversy
over the status of the deuterocanonical writings. The philosopher end ecumenical protagonist
Leibniz believed that the Council of Trent had banned those who held to the canon of the an­
cient church (the canon without deuterocanonical writings).

2000. Ulrich Horst OP: Melchior Cano und Dominicus Bañez über die Autorität der Vulgata. Zur Deu­
tung des Trienter Vulgatadekrets. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 51: 331–351. – Cano (Span­
ish Dominican theologian, 1509–1560), defended the value of the Vulgate before the Council of
Trent. Cano’s central thesis: “Wenn unter Katholiken in Glaubensdingen Streit entsteht, ist er an
Hand der Vulgata zu entscheiden. Theologen, die durch ihre Kritik das Ansehen der Vulgata
mindern, spielen den Häretikern in die Hände” (p. 335).

2013. Sandra Hübenthal – Christian Handschuh: Der Trienter Kanon als kulturelles Gedächtnis. In: Tho­
mas Hieke (ed.): Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der An­
tike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart (267 pp.), pp. 104–150.

2015. Peter Walter: Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung auf dem Konzil von Trient. In: Wilhelm
Damberg – Ute Gause et al. (eds.): Gottes Wort in der Geschichte. Reformation und Reform in der
Kirche. Freiburg (333 pp.), pp. 85–95.

2016. Ulrich Horst OP: Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit wider konziliare Superiorität? Studien zur Geschichte ei­
nes (ekklesiologischen) Antagonismus vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert. Paderborn. 426 pp. – Pa­
ges 195–280: Der Streit um die Autorität der Vulgata. Zur Rezeption des Trienter Konzils in Spa ­
nien; pp. 281–304: Melchior Cano und Dominicus Bañez über die Autorität der Vulgata. Zur Deu ­
tung des Trienter Vulgatadekrets; pp. 305–335: Robert Bellarmin und die Vulgata.

2017. Matthias Geigenfeind: Die Patmos-Worte lateinisch gelesen. Vergleich des Textes der Johannesa­
pokalypse in der Vulgata Sixtina (V-Sixt) von 1590 und der Sixto-Clementina (SC) von 1592. In:
Marcus Sigismund – Darius Müller (eds.): Studien zum Text der Apokalypse II. Berlin (viii, 546 pp.),
pp. 231–282. – Pages 232–235: Die Vulgata(-Revision) als Krönung und Abschluss des Tridentin ­
ums.

French
1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Cols. 2484–2490: Authenticité [de la Vulgate] déclarée par
le concile de Trente.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 294–307.

1942. Siméon Vailhé: L’autorité de la Vulgate et le concile de Trente. L’année théologique 2: 244–264.

1984. G. Bedouelle: Le canon de l’Ancien Testament dans la perspective du Concile de Trente. In: Jean-
Daniel Kaestli et al. (eds.): Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Geneva (399 pp.), pp. 253–282.

1993. Pierre Petitmengin: Bible latine et Europe savant. In: Jacques Fontaine et al. (eds.): Patristique et
antiquité en Allemagne et en France de 1870 à 1930. Paris (xvi, 322 pp.), pp. 73–92.

2020. Gilbert Dahan – Annie Noblesse-Rocher (eds.): La Vulgate au XVIe siècle. Les traveaux sur la tra­
duction latine de la Bible. Turnhout. 279 pp. – Two papers are of special interest: G. Dahan, Les
éditions de la Vulgate de 1500 à 1546 (pp. 13–52); Antonio Gerace, 1547–1592: dalla Vulgata Lo­
vaniensis alla Sisto-Clementina (pp. 221–237).

324
Italian
1946. G.-M. Vosté – Jacques-Marie Vosté OP: La Volgata al Concilio di Trento. Biblica 27: 301–319.

1946. Alberto Vaccari SJ: Esegesi ed esegeti al Concilio di Trento. Biblica 27: 320–337. – Cf. idem: Note
tridentine. Biblica 27: 404–411.

1953. Beniamino Emmi OP: Il decreto tridentino sulla Vulgata nei commenti della prima polemica pro­
testantico-cattolica. Angelicum 30: 107–130. See also the article’s sequel in Angelicum 30: 228–
272.

1957. Beniamino Emmi OP: Una votazione pro e contro I testi originali della S. Scrittura al Concilio di
Trento? Angelicum 34: 379–392. – The Council did not position the Vulgate against the Greek
and Hebrew texts; instead, it affirmed its superiority to vernacular translations.

2009. Carlo Buzzetti: La traduzione della Bibbia e il Concilio di Trento. Salesianum 72: 473–490. – Ver­
nacular translations of the Bible were discussed, but no decision was made.

Spanish
1946. S. Múñoz Iglesias: El decreto tridentino sobre la Vulgata y su interpretación por los teólogos del
siglo XVI. Estudios bíblicos 5: 137–169. – About Luis de León.

1956. Olegario García de la Fuente: El Canon bíblico en el Concilio de Trento según Jerónimo
Seripando. Ciudad de Dios 169: 35–72.

1958. Félix Asensio SJ: Juan de Mariana ante el binomio vulgata-decreto tridentino. Estudios bíblicos 17:
275–288. – On a recently discovered and published report that Juan de Mariana wrote about a
case of suspected heresy.

Latin
1946. Jacques-Marie Vosté OP: Vulgata in Concilio Tridentino. Franciscan Studies 6.4: 418–436.

1951. Peter G. Duncker OP: De singulis S. Scripturae libris controversis in Concilio Tridentino. In: Adal ­
bert Metzinger (ed.): Miscellanea biblica et orientalia, Athanasio Miller OSB (…) oblata. Rome (viii,
511), pp. 66–93. – The author presents how, according to all available sources (including diaries
and thematic treatises), theologians felt about the canonicity and relevance of the deutero-ca­
nonical writings of the Bible.

Official declarations, 1941 and 1943

1941. Schreiben der päpstlichen Bibelkommission an die Bischöfe Italiens (20. August 1941). Explained
is the meaning of the Council of Trent’s decree on the authority of the Vulgate. The letter sup­
ports the general notion that a translation can never be superior to the original text (German:
“die allgemeine Auffassung, die niemals annehmen wird, dass eine Übersetzung dem Original­
text überlegen sein könne”; no. 3795 in Denzinger/Hünermann). For the text in the original Itali­
an and in translation, see:
2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen
Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), nos. 3794–3796 (pp. 1045–1046).

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Mat­
ters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), nos. 3794–3796.

325
1943. Pope Pius XII: Encyclical letter “Divino afflante Spiritu” (30th September 1943). – The encyclical
letter comments on the “authenticity of the Vulgate” emphasized by the Council of Trent, stating
that the Vulgate’s authority is actually limited. As is known today, the text of the encyclical was
drafted by Augustin Bea SJ, a German Jesuit close to the pope, and associated with the Pontifical
Biblical Institute as this institute’s director from 1930 to 1949. This institute was committed to
studying the biblical languages Hebrew and Greek, and thereby contributed to diminishing the
authority of the Vulgate. On this institute’s new Latin book of Psalms, the Psalterium Pianum,
see below, Chapter 16.6. For the text in Latin and in translation, see:
2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen
Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), no. 3825.

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Mat­
ters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), no. 3825.

16.2 Protestant critics of the Council of Trent and of the Vulgate

Note. – The Council of Trent’s appreciation of the Vulgate Bible prompted critical voices. The foremost
of those who attacked the Vulgate as a translation that distorts true biblical doctrine was a Frenchman
– the reformer John Calvin (1509–1564). His polemical stance toward the Vulgate Bible was redis ­
covered and developed by two Englishmen in the nineteenth century: Clarence Esme Stuart (1828–
1903) and George Henslow (1835–1925). Henslow is also remembered for his contributions to botan­
ics, and he figures in the history of spiritualism in which he believed.

The most prominent Catholic counter-critic was the Italian Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino (1542–1621),
made a saint of the Catholic church in 1930, and declared a doctor of the church in 1931. He is chiefly
remembered as a representative of the Counter-Reformation.

As a matter of fact, not all Protestants were as critical toward the Vulgate Bible as these men; some
actually defended its quality. A prominent voice is that of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) who sought to
promote Christian unity. In his Votum pro pace ecclesiastica (Amsterdam 1642. 118 pp.) he discusses
biblical translations and states: At tutissima omnium iis, qui nec hebraice nec graece dedicerunt, est vul­
gata versio, quae nullum habet malum dogma, sicut tot saeculorum & gentium consensus judicavit. “But
the most reliable of all (translations) for those, who have studied neither Hebrew nor Greek, is the Vul­
gate Version; according to the consensus of so many centuries and peoples, it has no bad doctrine.”
The notion of consensus gentium, known to classical authors such as Cicero and Seneca, is often in­
voked to support claims of truth. We can also refer to Thomas Hartwell Horne – Samuel Prideaux Tre ­
gelles: An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London 1856 (xxvii, 767 pp.), p.
252; commenting on the Sixtina and the Clementina editions of the Vulgate, they state that “It has of­
ten been supposed that these papal recensions were in some measure biased by doctrinal considera ­
tions; but it would be hard to prove this, the points in which the Vulgate is doctrinally wrong were just
the same prior to all such revision.”

John Calvin

Martin Chemnitz

Bellarmine, counter-critic

Stuart, Henslow, and others

326
John Calvin
1547. John Calvin: Acta Synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto. In: Ioannis Calvini Opera que supersunt om­
nia. Edited by Wilhelm Baum et al. Volumen VII. Braunschweig 1868 (lv pp., 748 cols.), pp. xxxiv–
xxxvii, cols. 365–506. – English translation: Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Anti­
dote. In: idem: Tracts Relating to the Reformation. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Volume III. Ed­
inburgh 1851 (521 pp.), pp. 17–188. – Calvin criticizes: (a) the Council of Trent’s list of biblical
books for its inclusion of the apocrypha; (b) the questionable teachings based on the apo­
crypha, as, e.g., purgatory on 2 Maccabees and exorcism on the book of Tobit; (c) the numerous
translation errors (with many examples). – In translationibus, praeter unam vulgatam, damnan­
dis, ut crassior est inscitia, ita magis barbarum edictum. Sacra Dei oracula Moses et prophetae lin­
gua hebraica, apostoli graeca prodiderunt (…) Porro qui linguas tenant, hanc interpretationem
[i.e., Bibliam Vulgatam] deprehendunt infinitis erratis scatere: idque apertissimis demonstrationi­
bus planum faciunt. Patres decernunt ex adverso, etiam si ex fonte ipso purum liquorem proferant,
etiamsi ex certa veritate falsum coarguant, minime esse audiendos (col. 414). In summa, hoc vo­
luit spiritus Tridentinus suo decreto, ne quid nobis significet scriptura, nisi quod monachi somnian­
do luserint (col. 417–418). – English translation: “In condemning all translations except the Vul ­
gate, as the error is more gross, so the edict is more barbarous. The sacred oracles of God were
delivered by Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew, and by the Apostles in Greek. (…) [Those] who
are acquainted with the languages perceive that this version [the Vulgate] teems with innumer ­
able errors; and this they make manifest by the clearest evidence. On the other hand, the Fath ­
ers of Trent contend that, although the learned thus draw the pure liquor from the very fountain
and convict the infallible Vulgate of falsehood, they are not to be listened to” (p. 71). “The sum
is, that the spirit of Trent wished, by this decree, that Scripture should only signify to us
whatever dreaming monks might choose” (p. 76).

1953. Beniamino Emmi OP: Il decreto tridentino sulla Vulgata nei commenti della prima polemica pro­
testantico-cattolica. Angelicum 30: 107–130. – Emmi deals with the anti-Tridentine polemics of
Philipp Melanchthon (pp. 112–117) and Calvin (pp. 117–124) and the relevant Catholic reponses.
The article has a sequel entitled: Il decreto tridentino sulla Vulgata nei commenti della seconda
polemica protestantico-cattolica. Angelicum 30: 228–272.

1970. Theodore W. Casteel: Calvin and Trent. Calvin’s Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of
His Conciliar Thought. Harvard Theological Review 63: 91–117. – Casteel points out that there is
a French version of Calvin’s book on the Council of Trent, “somewhat longer and earthier than
the Latin original” (p. 100). The title is Les Actes du Concile de Trent, avec le remède contre la poi­
son. Geneva 1548. 347 pp.

1999. Johannes Calvin: Acta Synodi Tridentinae, cum Antidoto – Die Akten des Trienter Konzils, mit ei ­
nem Gegengift. In: idem: Reformatorische Kontroversen. Calvin Studienausgabe 3. Neuk­
irchen-Vluyn (xi, 378 pp.), pp. 107–206. – This is a long excerpt rather than the complete text,
though there is an introduction by Eberhard Busch, and the excerpted passages in Latin and
German.

2003. Rémi Gounelle: Jean Calvin et le décret sur les livres sacrés du Concile de Trente. In: Marc Boss –
Raphaël Picon (eds.): Penser le Dieu vivant. Mélanges offerts à André Gounelle. Paris (499 pp.), pp.
315–326.

2017. Michael Horton: John Calvin’s Commentary on the Council of Trent. In: Jennifer Powell McNutt –
David Lauber (eds.): The People’s Book. The Reformation and the Bible. Downers Grove, Ill. (ix, 249
pp.), pp. 155–170.

327
2018. Emidio Campi: The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers. In: Wim François – Violet
Soen (eds.): The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700).
Volume 1. Göttingen (423 pp.), pp. 277– 309. On Calvin and the Vulgate, see pp. 298–300.

Martin Chemnitz
1565/73. Martin Chemnitz: Examen decretorum Concilii Tridentini. 4 volumes. Frankfurt. – The German
Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586), by some called the “second Martin” (i.e., the
second Martin Luther), published this important and very influential critique of the Council of
Trent’s decrees. From the first volume’s section “Concerning Sacred Scripture”: “Although in the
old version [the Vulgate] the true sense of the Scripture is often not sufficiently expressed, and
often also corrupted through errors of copyists, they decree that the Vulgate edition must be
considered the authentic one so that no one may dare to take it upon himself to reject it in dis ­
putations or expositions under any pretext whatsoever, even though it is clearly shown to depart
from the original sources.”
1971. Martin Chemnitz: Examination of the Council of Trent I. Saint Louis, Missouri (706 pp.), p. 39–40, translated
by Fred Kramer.

Bellarmine, counter-critic
1586. Robert Bellarmine: De verbo Dei. – The Jesuit theologian’s lectures On the Word of God includes a
detailed interaction with Calvin’s lists of errors in the Vulgate. There is a nineteenth-century edi­
tion of Bellarmine’s book in: Robertus Bellarminus: Disputationes. Edited by Franz Sausen. Mainz
1842 (xiii, 424 pp.); on pp. 137–146 (de auctoritate Latinae editionis vulgatae) he defends the au ­
thority of the Vulgate as stated by the Councill of Trent; on pp. 147–166 he defends the wording
of many Vulgate passages against the criticism of Calvin and Martin Chemnitz. A German sum­
mary of Bellarmine’s arguments can be found in: Karl Werner: Geschichte der apologetischen und
polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie. 4. Band. Schaffhausen 1865 (xviii, 780 pp.), pp.
419–425. There is also a brief excerpt from De verbo Dei in English translation, included in:
Richard J. Blackwell (ed.): Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible. Notre Dame, Ind. 1991 (x, 291 pp.),
pp. 187–194.

2020. Tadhg Ó hAnnracháin: The Bible and the Early Modern Catholic Tradition. In: Erminia Ardissino –
Élise Boilet (eds.): Lay Reading of the Bible in Early Modern Europe. Leiden (xv, 312 pp.), pp. 113–
135. – Bellarmine was aware that his Protestant critics possessed many cogent arguments con ­
cerning the inaccuracies that abounded in the Vulgate text. Yet, he would defend the sufficiency
(rather than the inerrancy) of the Vulgate (p. 116).

Stuart, Henslow, and others

1856. Clarence Esme Stuart: The Bible and the Versions of the Bible. Or, The Vulgate Compared with the
Original Scriptures. London. 75 pp. – Subtitle: An attempt to show that the Vulgate can neither
be made a substitute for the original Scriptures, nor the basis of modern translations.

1909. George Henslow: The Vulgate. The Source of False Doctrines. London. x, 141 pp. –Reprint 2015.
Henslow (1835–1925) discusses and critiques theological terms derived from the Vulgate and
doctrines associated with them, such as sacrifice, satisfaction, purgatory, predestination.

2008. Michael Wood: The Jerome Conspiracy. Second edition. Bloomington, Ind. 160 pp. – Set in a
modern fictional frame, the book argues that, looked at from the vantage point of the New
Testament, the Septuagint must be seen as the Christian Old Testament, and not, as Jerome

328
 claimed, the Hebrew Bible. Jerome got is all wrong, and therefore the Vulgate Bible with its em ­
phasis on “Hebrew truth” must be rejected. One of the new, and problematic, teachings of
Jerome is the doctrine of eternal damnation in hell. (It is interesting to see the doctrine of etern ­
al damnation to be traced to Jerome. Most scholars would identify Augustine as the main pro­
ponent of this doctrine – as the one whose legacy continues to shape Christian teaching. B.
Lang)

2013. David W. Daniels: Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible? The True History of God’s Words.
Ontario, Cal. 199 pp. – This anti-Catholic cartoon book, originally published in 2005 and now ex­
panded, calls the Vulgate Jerome’s “Latin perversion” of the Bible (p. 53).

16.3 Louvain Bible

Note. – Between 1547 (publication of the Louvain Bible’s first edition) and 1592 (publication of the
Vulgata Clementina), the Leuven Latin Bible was considered to be the best Vulgate Bible then avail ­
able. In was published immediately after the Council of Trent, in 1546, had expressed the wish for
church-approved editions (see above, Chapter 16.1). Eventually, the Louvain Bible was used by the
editors of the Clementina. The name of the first edition’s editor is Johannes Henten alias Hentenius
(1499–1566), the editor of the second, revised edition of 1574 is François Luc de Bruges (Lucas Bru ­
gensis, 1549–1619).

1547. Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigate (…). Leuven. – Latin preface by John Hen­
ten (Ioannes Hentenius). Here is a passage from the first page of Henten’s preface (translated by
Dominique Barthélemy: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen Pisano et
al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), p. 196–197: “There is no one who does not know, to
give only one example among many, what assiduous work and what expenses Robert
Stephanus, royal printer at Paris (quem honoris causa nomino – whom I name with praise) under­
took in order to place at our disposition Bibles that are carefully prepared and perfectly accurate
(…). And meanwhile deceitful Christians have influenced that courageous man, rapacious wolves
disguised in lambs’ skin, have swayed him particularly in the marginal notes, prefaces and in­
dices. And since they have corrupted even the best books (…) his Imperial Majesty had every
reason to decide that these pernicious books (…) be removed from the hands of the people.”

1574. Biblia. – This is the second, revised edition of the Leuven Bible, edited by the philologist Lucas of
Bruges. Lucas published companion materials in which he explained his textual choices, based
on linguistic insight and the manuscripts that he consulted. His “Variae lectiones in latinis bibliis”
have been reprinted in: Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.): Sacrae Scripturae cursus completus. Tomus 28.
Paris 1845 (668 cols.), cols. 599–620.

Secondary literature
1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), pp. 433–440.

1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80, at pp. 54–56.

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris. xvi, 520 pp. – Pages 128–146: Les bibles de Louvain.

329
1986. Dominique Barthélemy OP: La Bible de Louvain. In: idem: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament.
Tome 2. Fribourg (xviii, 71, 1013 pp.), pp. *46–*49. This text has been translated: The Louvain
Bible. In: idem: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen Pisano et al.
Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), pp. 195–199. – While Barthélemy’s focus is on vernacular
Bibles, he also refers to the Louvain Vulgate edited by John Henten. He explains that Henten’s
Bible closely follows Robert Stephanus’ Vulgate text, but differs in the notes.

2008. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible de Lobbes à Trente? Revue bénédictine 118: 135–147. –
Since the end of the seventeenth century, local traditions refer to the sending of some handwrit ­
ten Bibles to Councils (Constance, Basel, Trent). As for the Lobbes Bible (Tournai, Sem. 1, is the
first volume), it is possible to prove that both volumes were sent to Louvain where Franciscus
Lucas Brugensis was preparing before 1580, in coordination with Rome (Bellarmin) and Anvers
(Plantin), a critical edition of the Vulgate according to the wish of the Council of Trent.

2012. Wim François: Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain (1560–1660). In:
Bruce Gordon – Matthew McLean (eds.): Shaping the Bible in the Reformation. Leiden (xii, 306
pp.), pp. 235–289.

2016. Antonio Gerace: Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after
the Sixto-Clementine (1592). Journal of Early Modern Christianity 3: 201–237.

2018. Wim François – Antonio Gerace: Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project? In: Wim François
– Violet Soen (eds.): The Council of Trent in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700). Volume 1. Göttin­
gen (423 pp.), pp. 131–174.

2019. Antonio Gerace: Biblical Scholarship in the Louvain “Golden” Sixteenth Century. Göttingen. 296
pp. – Pages 41–83: Louvain and the “Authentic” Text of the Vulgate.

2020. Antonio Gerace: 1547–1592: Dalla Vulgata Lovaniensis alla Sisto-Clementina. In: Gilbert Dahan –
Annie Noblesse-Rocher (ed.): La Vulgate au XVIe siècle. Turnhout (279 pp.), pp. 221–238.

Another Catholic Bible

1923. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Eine päpstlich approbierte Vulgata vor 1590? Zeitschrift für katholische
Theologie 47: 328. – There is a 1573 Latin Bible printed in Lyon, entitled: Biblia ad vetustissima
exemplaria nunc recens castigate Romaeque revisa, cum licentia summi pontificis – revised in
Rome, and published with papal permission.

16.4 The Bible of Pope Sixtus V, 1590

Note. – In 1546, the Council of Trent had decided that “henceforth Holy Scripture, especially the old
and common edition, is to be printed as carefully as possible” (decernit et statuit, ut posthac sacra
scriptura, posissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur ; Den­
zinger/Hünermann, no. 1508). This was generally understood that theological faculties should co-oper­
ate with printers in the production of good editions of the Latin Bible (see Kneller and Quentin). But
one of the post-Tridentine popes, Felice Peretti alias Sixtus V, in office from 1585 to his death on Au ­
gust 28, 1590, set himself the aim of producing his own edition of the Vulgate, a recension that should
be the authoritative text for the entire church. There was a papal commission, but to speed up things,
Sixtus himself made many suggestions and decided about the readings to be adopted. By the spring
of 1590, the book had been beautifully printed in the Vatican’s own printshop, and it began to be dis ­
tributed. But then, in August, Sixtus died. He was followed by four popes in quick succession: Urbanus
VII (September 1590), Gregory XIV (December 1590 to October 1591), Innocent IX (October to Decem­

330
ber 1591), and Clement VIII (January 1592 to March 1605). What exactly happened with the new edi­
tion of the Bible after the death of Pope Sixtus is not entirely clear. There was some crisis around this
Bible, a new recension was produced, and published under the auspices of Pope Clement – the edition
known as the Clementia or Sixto-Clementina (though it has little to do with the edition produced un­
der Sixtus V). The official version of what had happened, stated in Bellarmine’s autobiography, refers to
Pope Gregory as a key figure, and reads as follows:
In 1591, when Gregory XIV was considering what to do with the Bible published by Sixtus V, in which a great
many erroneous changes had been made, there was no lack of distinguished men who were of opinion that that
Bible ought to be publicly banned; but N. (i.e., Bellarmine) proved in the presence of the Pope that this Bible
ought not to be banned, but so corrected that it might be published in an improved form without detriment to
the honour of Pope Sixtus V. This could be done by removing the erroneous alterations as quickly as possible and
reprinting the Bible under the name of the same Sixtus, with the addition of a preface in which it was suggested
that some errors, whether by the typesetters or others, had crept into Sixtus’ first edition as a result of its hasty
production. (…) The advice of N. pleased Pope Gregory, and he ordered that his commission be formed to quickly
revise the Sistine Bible and to make it conform again to the ordinary Bible, namely the Louvain Bible. (…) and af ­
ter the death of Gregory and Innocent IX, Clement VIII published the revised Bible under the name of Sixtus, with
a preface written by the same N. (i.e., Bellarmine). (Bellarmine, pp. 38–39)

This brief account seems to conceal more than it reveals. What are the real reasons of the opposition
against the Vulgata Sixtina? Is it really the many mistakes? Was there a conspiration against this edi ­
tion? But why and what for? To this day, only fragments of the real story seem to be known; but the
best survey can be found in Stummer’s Einführung in die lateinische Bibel.

1887. Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin. Lateinisch und deutsch mit geschichtlichen Er­
läuterungen. Herausgegeben von Joh. Jos. Ign. von Döllinger und Fr. Heinrich Reusch. Bonn (iv,
352 pp.); the above excerpt is on pp. 38–39 in Latin, on p. 63 in German translation.

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), pp. 136–138.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: 1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii,
290 pp.), pp. 181–205 (Die Vulgatarevision unter Sixtus V. und Klemens VIII.), 263–272. ▲

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declara­
tions on Matters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco 2012 (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), no. 1508.

Editio Sixtina

The papal bull Aeternus ille celestium

Secondary literature

The Baumgarten debate, 1907–1935

Editio Sixtina
1590. Biblia Sacra vulgatae editionis (…) a Sixto V P.M. recognita et approbata. Rome: Typographia
Apostolica Vaticana. 3 vols. – Many major libraries have a copy of this edition: Bodleian Library,
Oxford; Bibliothèque nationale, Paris; Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. The copy of the Bayerische

331
 Staatsbibliothek, Munich, can be found on the Internet (open access). For exact bibliographical
descriptions of the Sixtina, see:
1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage . Innsbruck (xiii,
212 pp.), pp. 117–120. – The author also provides the official list of this edition’s printing mistakes (pp.
136–148).

2002. Die Bibelsammlung der württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. Erste Abteilung. Vierter Band:
Lateinische Bibeldrucke 1454–2001; Teil 2: 1565–2001. Stuttgart (pp. 477–977), pp. 633–634 (no. D 942).

The papal bull Aeternus ille celestium

1590. Sixtus V: Aeternus ille celestium. March 1, 1590. This is the bull that promulgated the new edition
of the Latin Bible. The text is used as the preface of the Bible (11 unnumbered pages). The cent ­
ral passage reads as follows: “For glory of God almighty, the conservation and advancement of
the Catholic faith, and the use of the holy and universal Church, we decree and declare by this
our ordinance which is to endure forever, that the Latin Vulgate edition of the sacred pages of
both the Old and New Testaments, which has been received as authentic by the Council of
Trent, is, without any doubt or controversy, to be esteemed the very text which we now amend
and publish. (…) If any inquisitor or bishop should deliver to a printer, to be published, a copy
differing in any manner from this now printed in the Vatican press, or should, by his seal or sig­
nature, approve any printed copy which differed from this, – to him, if he were alive, – even
though he were resplendent with the dignity of an archbishop, primate, patriarch, or any other
or greater dignity, it is prohibited to enter any church; but if he is of an inferior rank, he incurs
the sentence of excommunication by the very act.” – The beginning of this passage in Latin: ad
(…) Catholicae fidei conservationem (…) hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione (…) statuimus
et declaramus, eam Vulgatam (…) quae pro authentica a Concilio Tridentino recepta est, sine ulla
dubitatione aut controversia censendam esse hanc ipsam, quam nunc (…) evulgamus. (The Latin
can be found in van Eß, p. xvii; Hetznauer, p. 63; Baumgarten, p. 55; and Jan Olav Smit, p. 227.) –
We list translations and editions:
1822. Leander van Eß (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis juxta exemplar ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana Ro­
mae 1592. Tübingen. Pars III (xxvi, 342 pp.), pp. x–xxi.

1859. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the
Old Testament. Translated and Enlarged by Theodore Parker. Volume I. Third Edition. Boston (xxvii, 517 pp.),
pp. 284–286: English translation of part of Sixtus’ bull.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), pp. 449–457. Latin text with commentary.

1887. Ignaz Dölliger: [Anmerkung] 25. In: Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin. Lateinisch und deutsch mit
geschichtlichen Erläuterungen. Herausgegeben von Joh. Jos. Ign. von Döllinger und Fr. Heinrich Reusch.
Bonn (iv, 352 pp.), pp. 114–116. – German translation of part of the bull as printed in the 1590 Bible. The
crucial passage reads as follows: “Zur Erhaltung und Mehrung des katholischen Glaubens (…) verordnen
und erklären Wir durch diese Unsere Constitution, die ewig gelten soll, (…) dass die von Uns jetzt veröffent­
liche Ausgabe ohne alle Anzweiflung und Bestreitung als die Vulgata anzusehen ist, welche das Tridentiner
Concil als authentisch recipiert hat” (p. 115).

1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Innsbruck (xiii, 212
pp.), pp. 51–69. Complete text in Latin.

1911. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Die Vulgata Sixtina und ihre Einführungsbulle. Münster 1911 (xx, 170 pp.), pp. 40–
65. – This is not the text as it appears in the 1590 Bible, but the text of the bulla as a separate text, found in
the Vatican Archive by Baumgarten.

1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond 1948 (xv,
295 pp.), pp. 225–227. – A long Latin excerpt, no doubt copied from Baumgarten.

332
Secondary literature

Before 1900
1824. Leander van Eß: Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allgemeinen, und zunächst in
Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret. Tübingen. xvi, 504 pp. – According to Friedrich Stummer
(Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928, p. 207), Eß misunderstands the history of
the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate; Stummer points out Eß’ “total irrigen Meinung, [Papst] Sixtus
habe Handschriften benutzt, welche die Herausgeber der Klementinen vernachlässigt hätten.”

1847. Aloisio M. Ungarelli: De castigatione vulgatae bibliorum editionis peracta iussu Concilii Tridentini.
In: idem: Praelectiones de Novo Testamento et Historia vulgatae bibliorum editionis a Concilio Tri­
dentino. Rome (vi, 228 pp.), pp. 111–224. – Ungarelli offers a detailed account of the making of
the Sixtina and Clementina. He also supplies a selection of original documents (pp. 217–224),
appended to his account. Still a useful resource. – Variant form of the author’s name: Luigi Maria
Ungarelli (1779–1845). Ungarelli was one of the very first Egyptologists who could read the
hieroglyphs.

1855. [Aloisio Maria Ungarelli] Histoire de la correction de la Vulgate d’après le P. Ungarelli, Barnabite.
Analecta Juris Pontificii. Recueil de dissertations sur différents sujets de droit canonique, de liturgie
et de théologie. Septième livraison. Rome, cols. 1331–1341. – A French summary of Ungarelli’s
research.

1860. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Zur Geschichte der Entstehung der officiellen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Der
Katholik 40.2: 1–24. – Against the claim that the Sixtina was never published, it must be stated
that this assertion has been disproved by Ungarelli (p. 11).

1887. Ignaz Döllinger: Die Vulgata-Ausgaben von Sixtus V. und Clemens VIII. In: Die Selbstbiographie
des Cardinals Bellarmin. Lateinisch und deutsch mit geschichtlichen Erläuterungen. Heraus­
gegeben von Joh. Jos. Ign. von Döllinger und Fr. Heinrich Reusch. Bonn (iv, 352 pp.), pp. 111–
128. – Church historian Döllinger (1799–1890) appended to his edition of Bellarmine’s autobio ­
graphy a note in which he presented a historical reconstruction of the rise and fall of the Sixtina,
with special attention to Bellarmine.

1892. [Eberhard Nestle] Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9. November 1892. 27 pp. – The an­
onymously published pamphlet is signed “E. N.” A summary of Nestle’s account can be found in:
Paul Maria Baumgarten: Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590 und ihre Einführungsbulle. Münster 1911
(xx, 170 pp.), pp. 20–22.

1897. Eberhard Nestle: Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen. In: Albert Hauck (ed.): Realencyclopädie für
protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition. 3. Band. Leipzig (832 pp.), pp. 24–58. – On
pages 46–48 the author tells the story of the creation of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. Nestle
attributes the destruction of the Sistine Vulgate edition printed in 1590 to Cardinal Bellarmine
SJ: “Namentlich der Jesuit Bellarmin, dessen Controversiae [Papst] Sixtus auf den Index [der ver­
botenen Bücher] gesetzt hatte, wußte [Papst Gregor] XIV. zu bereden, daß eine neue Verbesse­
rung der Vulgata zu veranstalten sei, wobei er auch die Lüge nicht scheute, daß Sixtus noch
selbst die Verbesserung seiner Ausgabe befohlen habe” (p. 47).

After 1900
1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg. xv, 339 pp. – Page 149: “So ist die Bibel Sixtus’ V. im
Grunde genommen eine verbesserte Ausgabe des Bibeltextes des 13. Jahrhunderts, während die

333
 von der Kommission vorgeschlagenen [und von P. Sixtus abgelehnten] Korrekturen mehr den äl­
testen Handschriften und der Kritik entsprechen.” On pp. 240–277, Höpfl supplies, as an ex­
ample, a synoptic table that shows all the commission’s materials and suggestions relating to
the book of Proverbs, together with the Pope’s final text.

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie: Octateuque.
Rome and Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), pp. 170–180 (La commission sixtine présidée par le Cardinal Cara ­
fa), 181–192 (Sixtina).

1926. Ludwig von Pastor: Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters. Zehnter Band.
Freiburg (xxxi, 666 pp.), pp. 147–152, 154–164. – According to Pastor (who follows C.A. Kneller,
SJ), the Vulgate bull of P. Sixtus was never published.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 181–205: Die
Vulgatarevision unter Sixtus V. und Klemens VIII. – Still the best survey of what we know about
the two revisions. Stummer is fully aware of and appreciative of Baumgarten’s contributions (see
below in this Chapter). He ponders Bellarmine’s claim that Sixtus had actually planned to with­
draw his edition of the Bible and decides that one must call this a lie, or rather a “Notlüge” (p.
202; white lie). To which one may add: Bellarmine may have resorted to a white lie which, ac ­
cording to Jesuit casuistry, is famously permitted in certain cases. ▲

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 307–312: L’édition officielle de la
Vulgate. – Page 310: “Dom Quentin a bien mis en lumière (…) que l’animosité contre l’œuvre de
Sixte V ne venait pas des partisans d’une correction plus complète, telle qu’avait été proposé par
le Card. Carafa. On trouvait au contraire que le Pape avait changé beaucoup trop la tradition ou
la routine représentée par la bible de Louvain (…). L’obstruction opposée aux corrections venait
donc d’une tendence ultra-conservatrice.” ▲

1941. Sebastian Tromp SJ: De revisione textus Novi Testamenti facta Romae a Commissione Pontificia
circa a. 1617 praeside S.R. Bellarmino. Biblica 22: 303–306. – A revision of the New Testament
text of the Sixto-Clementia, undertaken by a commission headed by Robert Bellarmine, was
completed, but not approved by the pope and therefore not introduced into the Six­
to-Clementine Vulgate Bible.

1948. Jan Olav Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roermond
(xv, 295 pp.), pp. 67–74, 225–227. – Pages 225–227: excerpts from the Latin text of the papal bull
Aeternus ille caelestium, with which P. Sixtus promulgated his Latin Bible.

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Lateinische Psalmenübersetzung in alter und neuer Zeit. In: Wissenschaft und Le­
ben. Reden zur Universitätsfeier am 1. Juni 1946. Freiburger Universitätsreden. Neue Folge Heft 2.
Freiburg (28 pp.), pp. 7–20, at p. 14: “Als Papst Sixtus V. daran ging, (…) eine neue Ausgabe der
Vulgata herauszugeben, ließ er die ältesten Handschriften vergleichen. Dazu gehören der Codex
Amiatinus, ein Codex Toletantus und ein Codex Vallicellianus. Die beiden ersten Zeugen stam­
men aus dem 7. Jahrhundert, der Amiatinus aus England, der Toletanus aus Spanien, der Valle ­
cellianus gehört der Schrift nach dem 9. Jahrhundert an und ist gallischer Herkunft. Nur in ihm
steht das Psalterium Gallicanum,” whereas the others have the Psalterium iuxta hebraeos. The
Pope, of course, decided for the Gallicanum.

1987. Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La Bibbia ‘Volgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio interna­
zionale 1985. Rome. 197 pp. – Pages 61–67: Henri de Sainte-Marie: Sisto V e la Volgata; pp. 68–
97: Francesco Andreu: Il teatino Antonio Angellio e la Volgata Sistina.

334
2008. Ulrich Horst OP: Robert Bellarmin und die Vulgata. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die päpstliche
Unfehlbarkeit. Theologie und Philosophie 83: 179–208. – Reprinted in: idem: Päpstliche Unfehl­
barkeit wider konziliare Superiorität? Studien zur Geschichte eines (ekklesiologischen) Antagonis­
mus vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert. Paderborn 2016 (426 pp.), pp. 305–335.

2011. Thomas Dietrich: Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung bei Robert Bellarmin (1542–1621). In:
Christoph Bultmann – Lutz Danneberg (eds.): Hebraistik – Hermeneutik – Homiletik. Berlin (viii,
576 pp.), pp. 341–356.

2017. Ronald Hendel: The Dream of a Perfect Text. Textual Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy in Early
Modern Europe. In: Joel Baden et al. (eds.): Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. Volume 1. Leiden (xliv,
725 pp.), pp. 517–538, esp. pp. 525–527.

The Baumgarten debate, 1907–1935

Note. – Paul Maria Baumgarten (1860–1948) was originally trained as a historian, but in Rome he stud ­
ied theology and was ordained Catholic priest in 1894. His discovery of the original document with
which Pope Sixtus V had promulgated his new edition of the Latin Bible prompted an extended con ­
troversy between Baumgarten and several Jesuit historians. The latter defended the old Jesuit notions
that this Bible had never been formally published, that Sixtus himself felt ambivalent about it and
would have it revised, and that today, only very few copies existed. As Baumgarten showed, all of this
was wrong. It seems that a final critical account of the “Sixtina,” its origins and fate, is still lacking
today. Since a full documentation of the Baumgarten controversy would take up too much space, only
a few relevant publications are listed.

Baumgarten’s publications
1907. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Die Veröffentlichung der Bulle ‘Eternus ille celestium’ vom 1. März 1590.
Biblische Zeitschrift 5: 189–190. – Brief report about the author’s discovery of the original manu­
script of the papal bull in the Vatican archive.

1907. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Das Original der Konstitution ‘Eternus ille celestium’ vom 1. März 1590.
Biblische Zeitschrift 5: 337–351. – This is a critical edition of the papal bull with which P. Sixtus V
promulgated the new edition of the Vulgate Bible.

1911. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590 und ihre Einführungsbulle. Aktenstücke und
Untersuchungen. Münster. xx, 170 pp. – According to Baumgarten, the Sixtine Vulgate Bible was
superior in its design and text to the Clementine edition. “Die sixtinische Bibel von 1590 war (…)
eine druckerische Leistung allerersten Ranges. (…) Die Clementina von 1592 hat viel mehr Druck ­
fehler” (p. v). “Auf Grund von ganz einwandfreien zeitgenössischen Mitteilungen kontte ich (…)
feststellen, daß Sixtus nicht einen Augenblick daran gedacht hat, das von ihm mit ganzer Kraft
geförderte Werk seiner Bibelausgabe als mißlungen wieder einzuziehen” (p. xi). – Positive Re­
views:
1912. Norbert Peters, Theologie und Glaube 4: 20.

1912. Eberhard Nestle, Theologisches Literaturblatt 33.3: 57.

1915. Alfred Rahlfs, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 177, no. 5: 292–305.

1922. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Neue Kunde von alten Bibeln. Rom: Im Selbstverlage des Verfassers. xxii,
402 pp. – A collection of valuable articles not published elsewhere, esp. on Bellarmine’s autobio ­
graphy (pp. 166–210), the creation and subsequent demotion of the Sixtine Bible (pp. 263–290),
and his own contributions to the debate about the Sixtine Bible (pp. 364–374).

335
1922. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Einige Tatsachen über die Bibelbulle Sixtus’ V. und ihre kanzleimäßige
Behandlung. Theologie und Glaube 14: 298–306.

1922. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Neue Forschungen zur Vulgata Sixtina von 1590. Zeitschrift für schwei­
zerische Kirchengeschichte 16: 161–191, 241–270. – A series of nine brief studies, all of which
deal with the Sixtina, the promulgation bull of March 1, 1590, the surviving copies of the Sixtina,
the letters accompanying the presentation copies of the Sixtina sent to European royalty, etc. On
pages 256–261, Baumgarten offers a list of printing errors found in the Sixtina. Baumgarten is
critical of the views of J.B. Nisius who argues that the papal bull of March 1, 1590 was never
formally published (and is therefore irrelevant). Review: Ignaz Rohr, Theologische Quartalschrift
104 (1923) 265 – “Die Untersuchung zeigt souveräne Beherrschung des Materials.”

1924. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Zur Vulgate Sixtina von 1590. Theologische Revue 23.4: 121–124.

1927. Paul Maria Baumgrten: Neue Kunde von alten Bibeln. Des zweiten Bandes erster Teil. Krumbach.
xix, 176, 151 pp.

1929. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel. Theologische Revue 28.10: 417–
424. Baumgarten offers a critique of the articles of C.A. Kneller SJ and laments the fact that Lud­
wig von Pastor, in vol. 10 of his History of the Popes, uncritically follows this Jesuit scholar (cols.
420–422).

1930. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Eine neue Bellarmino-Biographie. Theologische Revue 29.5: 185–192.

2013. Isa-Maria Betz: Paul Maria Baumgarten – Deutscher Kirchenhistoriker und römischer Priester.
Hamburg (318 pp.), pp. 169–228: Baumgarten inmitten der Vulgata-Bellarmin-Kontroverse. A
detailed account of a German historian’s controversies about the publication of the Vulgata Six­
tina in 1590, and its abolishment by Bellarmine who replaced it with the Clementina in 1592.
Pages 176–177: Baumgarten acted as the modern, critical historian. He paid no attention to cler­
ical sensibilities and the wish of the Jesuits, to keep any criticism away from the pope and the
soon-to-be-sainted Bellarmine in a political situation in which the Pope’s extended state no
longer existed (and was eventually reduced to the Vatican State in 1929). ▲

Contributions to the debate, mostly critical of Baumgarten

1910. François Xavier Le Bachelet SJ: Ce que Bellarmin dit de la Bible de Sixte-Quint en 1591. Re­
cherches de science religieuses 1: 72–77.

1911. François Xavier Le Bachelet SJ: Bellarmin et la Bible Sixto-Clémentine. Les attaques. Études 126:
748–773.

1911. Xavier-Marie Le Bachelet SJ: Bellarmin et la Bible Sixto-Clémentine. Étude et documents inédits.
Paris. xi, 210 pp. – Documents on pp. 103–199.

1912. Enrico Rosa SJ: La storia della Volgata Sistina e l’opera del Bellarmino. Civiltà Cattolica 3:161–180.

1912. Joseph Michael Heer: Zur Kontroverse über die Sixto-Clementinische Vulgata. Der Katholik.
Vierte Folge 9: 418–426. Heer accepts that the Sixtina was duly promulgated by Pope Sixtus (as
argued by Baumgarten), but nevertheless argues in favour of the possibility that the Pope may
have expressed the wish to withdraw the publication. Heer appreciates the sound judgment of
Bellarmine; he should not be accused of bad faith and perpetrating an intrigue against the Six­
tina.

1912. Fridolin Amann: Die Bibel Sixtus’ V. Ein Überblick über ihre Geschichte mit neuem Quellenmaterial
aus dem venezianischen Staatsarchiv. Freiburg. 31 pp.

336
1912. Fridolin Amann: Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590. Eine quellenmäßige Darstellung ihrer Geschichte
mit neuem Quellenmaterial aus dem venezianischen Staatsarchiv. Freiburg. xix, 160 pp. – Pages
37–44: Die Arbeitsweise und die kritischen Grundsätze der sixtinischen Kommission. Page 3:
“Sixtus V. wollte nur verwirklichen, was das Konzil von Trient angeregt hatte.”

1912. Johann Baptist Nisius SJ: Zur Geschichte der Vulgata Sixtina. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
36: 1–47, 209–251. – The author summarises the study of Baumgarten 1911, which he also criti­
cizes. The Sixtina was beautifully designed externally, but its many printing errors prevented it
from being useful (p. 211).

1913. Eugène Mangenot: La Vulgate de Sixte-Quint. Paris. 44 pp.

1914. Johann B. Nisius SJ: Schlussergebnisse der Forschung und Kontroverse über die Vulgata Sixtina.
Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 38: 183–266. – The author summarizes the results of recent
research on the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, with special reference to the contributions of
Hildebrand Höpfl and Fridolin Amann.

1922–1924. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Zur Vulgata Sixtus’ V. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 46 (1922)
313–325. 468–479; 47 (1923) 154–160, 601–611; 48 (1924) 133–151.

1923. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: [review of Baumgarten: Neue Kunde von alten Bibeln]. Zeitschrift für katholi­
sche Theologie 47: 585–593.

1927. August Merk SJ: Bibel und Bulle Sixtus’ V. Scholastik 2: 515–540. – Unlike Jesuits Nisius and
Kneller, Merk leans toward the assumption that Sixtus did promulgate his Bible.

1928. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Die Bibelbulle Sixtus’ V. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 52: 202–224.

1935. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Neue Studien zur sixtinischen Vulgatabulle. Zeitschrift für katholische Theo­
logie 59: 81–107. 268–290. – According to Kneller, Pope Sixtus V prepared a bull to promulgate
his edition of the Vulgate Bible, but the document, although eventually printed, was not formally
published.

16.5 The “editio Clementina,” 1592

Note. – Published at the behest of Pope Clement VIII in 1592, the Biblia Clementina henceforth served
as the official biblical text of the Catholic Church until the end of the twentieth century. Interestingly,
this edition did not claim to be authoritative in the way it was stated in the papal bull Aeternus ille ce­
lestium that had promulgated the 1590 editio Sixtina (see above, Chapter 16.4). On the title page of
the 1592 printing does not figure a pope’s name. The 1604 edition and subsequent ones mention two
names – Sixtus V and Clement VIII. This work is referred to as the “Clementine Vulgate,” “Clementina,”
“Sixto-Clementina” or “Xystina-Clementina.”

Editio princeps: the Clementina

Modern editions of the Clementina: standard editions – scholarly editions

Secondary literature: the Clementina

Thomas James, Protestant polemicist

337
Editio princeps: the Clementina
1592. Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis Sixti quinti pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita. Rome. 1131, 23
pp. – The “editio Clementina” was prepared by a Vulgate commission under Cardinal Marcanto ­
nio Colonna. The title page does not mention the name of Pope Clement VIII, though the pre ­
face refers to him by name. This edition has an appendix with three extra, non-canonical ancient
writings: the prayer of Manasseh, the Third book of Ezra, and the Fourth book of Ezra. For biblio­
graphical descriptions of the Clementina, see:
1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Innsbruck (xiii, 212
pp.), pp. 127–131.

2002. Die Bibelsammlung der württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. Erste Abteilung. Vierter Band:
Lateinische Bibeldrucke 1454–2001; Teil 2: 1565–2001. Stuttgart (pp. 477–977), pp. 638–640 (no. D 950).

1592. (Preface and papal bull of promulgation) The praefatio ad lectorem (In multis magnisque benefi­
ciis, unsigned, but known to be by Robert Bellarmine) is followed by the bull of Clement VIII
(Cum sacrorum Bibliorum vulgatae editionis textus). These two Latin texts are often included in
later editions of the Clementina such as the Colunga/Turrado one. In the praefatio, Bellarmine
explains: “Sixtus V commanded the work thus finished to be put to the press; and when it was
printed, and ready for publication, the same pontiff, perceiving that many errors had crept into
the Holy Bible, through fault of the press (…), declared and decreed that the whole edition
should be recalled; but he was unable to accomplish this, being prevented by death. Gregory
XIX, (…) who had succeeded Sixtus in the pontificate, determined to follow up and finish his
plan.” In Latin: Sixtus V (…) opus tandem confectum typis mandari iussit. Quod cum jam esset ex­
cusum et ut in lucem emitteretur, idem pontifex operam daret, animadvertens non pauca in sacra
Biblia praeli vitio irrepisse (…) totum opus sub incudem revocandum censuit atque decrevit. Id vero
cum morte praeventus praestare non potuisset, Gregorius XIV qui (…) Sixto successerat, eius animi
intentionem executus perficere aggressus est. – For preface and papal bull, see:
1859. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the
Old Testament. Translated and Enlarged by Theodore Parker. Volume I. Third Edition. Boston (xxvii, 517 pp.),
pp. 287–288: English translation of part of Bellarmine’s preface.

1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Innsbruck (xiii, 212
pp.), pp. 69–76. Latin text of the preface and the papal bull, without translation.

Note. – The Clementina was typeset not from a new manuscript but from corrected sheets of the Six ­
tina Bible; see Joseph Michael Heer: Zur Kontroverse über die Sixto-Clementinische Vulgata. Der Kath­
olik. Vierte Folge 9 (1912) 418–426, at pp. 425–426.

The text of the Clementina is very carefully and beautifully presented, using many features of the
best typography then available. Here is one sentence in this edition’s typography: Eritque ſemen tuum
quaſi pulvis terræ: dilataberis ad Occidentem, & Orientem, & Septentrionem, & Meridiem, & BENE­
DICENTUR IN TE & in ſemine tuo cunctæ tribus terræ. (Gen 28:14) In this example one can see the use
of the “long s” (in semen and quasi), the use of capitalized words (such as Occidentem), of complete
phrases in capital letters, the use of the ampersand (&), a ligature (æ), the distinction between v and u
(as in tuum and pulvis) and especially the rich punctuation with commas and colons. Long sequences
of words without punctuation are studiously avoided, so that there is never an unbroken sequence of
more than ten words. Other features include the use of the letter j in words such as ejus, round brack­
ets, and the question mark (though not of the exclamation mark and inverted commas). Chapters and
verses are carefully numbered – chapters with Roman numerals (caput xxviii) and verses with Arabic
numerals (1, 2, 3…). Moreover, quotations are frequently marked off from the rest of the text by being

338
indented. Occasionally, parts of a sentence are placed between brackets for easy reading; an example
is (erant autem scenofactoriae artis) – they were tent-makers by trade (Acts 18:3). Each page has two
columns; while this feature clearly echoes medieval manuscripts and remained characteristic of the lay ­
out of Bibles through the centuries, it also functional because it allows the reader to focus easily on a
sentence. – Some editions of the Clementina reproduce all or most of these features, for instance the
Nestle New Testament of 1906 listed below.

Two subjects must also be considered for those who work with the Clementina and its precursor: the
textual differences between the two, and printing errors:

(1) Differences between the Sixtina and the Clementina. These are minor differences, but they are nev­
ertheless noteworthy. Some of these are listed and discussed in the following publications:

1600. Thomas James: Bellum papale sive concordantia discors Sixti Quinti et Clementis Octavi circa
Hieronymiam editionem. London 1600. 78 pp.

1822/24. Leander van Eß (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis juxta exemplar ex Typographia Apostolica
Vaticana Romae 1592. Tübingen. 3 vols.: 646 pp.; 648 pp.; xxvi, 342 pp. – Volume III was pub­
lished in 1822, volumes I and II followed in 1824. The critical apparatus lists readings of the Six­
tia (1590).

1856. Thomas Hartwell Horne – Samuel Prideaux Tregelles: An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament. London 1856 (xxvii, 767 pp.), pp. 256–257.

1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80, at pp. 61–80.

1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Inns­
bruck (xiii, 212 pp.), pp. 148–155: a synoptic presentation of what the author thinks were the ma­
jor differences.

1922. Henri Quentin OSB: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Première partie:
Octateuque. Rome and Paris (xvi, 520 pp.), pp. 186, 195–198.

(2) Printing errors. Despite its careful design, the printing was done in haste, within four months. As a
result, the Clementina edition includes a large number of uncorrected printing errors, so that an index
of corrigenda – a new correctorium (cf. above, Chapter 14.6) – had to be appended. Several lists of er­
rors have been published:

1845. Lucas Brugensis (Lucas of Bruges): Romanae correctionis in latinis bibliis editionis vulgate jussu
Sixti V. Pont. Max. recognitis, loca insigniora. In: Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.): Sacrae Scriturae cur­
sus completus. Tomus 28. Paris (668 cols.), col. 485–600. – This is the private scholarly work of the
editor of the 1574 edition of the Louvain Bible. After the Sixto-Clementina had been published,
he offered notes with suggestions for improvement. A typical entry reads (col. 568): Matt 12:31.
Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittitur. Cave ne nominativum blasphemia commutes cum
genitivo blasphemiae. – Beware of exchanging the nominative blasphemia for the genitive blas­
phemiae.

339
1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Inns­
bruck (xiii, 212 pp.), pp. 136–148 – the official list of printing errors (Correctorium Vaticanum).

1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg. xv, 339 pp. – See pp. 292–296: Die Korrekturen des P.
Toletus zur Bibel von 1593 (inkl. Die Vorschläge von Lucas Brugensis); pp. 297–301: Liste der von
Lucas Brugensis und Colvenerius gesammelten anscheinenden Errata in der Bibel von 1593, mit
den Bemerkungen des Baronius.

1919. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Zur Geschichte der klementinischen Vulgata-Ausgaben. Zeitschrift für ka­
tholische Theologie 43: 391–438. – While Lucas of Bruges published his own textual notes, there
were also official lists of corrigenda; Keller’s article prints them and provides a discussion. ▲

Modern editions of the Clementina

Note. – Most printers and editors of Vulgate Bibles seek to present a clean text in which earlier errors
and mistakes are corrected. In what follows we list some editions reputed for their accuracy. Most of
the “scholarly editions” listed below have a critical apparatus.

Standard editions
1849. Valentin Loch (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis. Juxta exemplaria ex Typographia Apostolica
Vaticana, Romae 1592 et 1593. Regensburg. 4 parts, bound as 2 volumes. xlii, 416 pp.; 349 pp.;
318 pp.; 404 pp. – In the 1st part, the Jerome Prologues are printed in Latin on pp. xvii-xlii. At
the very end, after the New Testament, the Latin text of three writings is printed under the head ­
ing “Libri apocryphi”: Oratio Manassae, Esdrae liber III, Esdrae liber IV. – The editor taught at the
Lyceum of Bamberg, a university-like academic institution.

1862/63. Valentin Loch (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis juxta exemplaria ex Typographia Apostolica
Vaticana. Editio secunda. Regensburg. lxiv, 653 pp; 333 pp; 499 pp.; 364 pp. – This second edi­
tion, and further editions of Loch’s Vulgate, sought to present an improved edition. In order to
achieve this, Loch introduced a number of new readings; for examples, see the textual notes on
Josh 4:14 and 2 Sam 3:1 (Chapter 21).

1906. Michael Hetzenauer OFM Cap. (ed.): Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis. Ex ipsis exemplaribus vatica­
nis. Innsbruck. xxxvii, 1142, 173* pp. – In the appendix (pages with an asterisk *), the editor sup­
plies lists of differences between various editions of the Vulgate Bible. Hetzenauer (1860–1928)
subsequently published more editions, including one in pocket size (five small volumes, Regens­
burg 1922). His text of the New Testament was reproduced by Eberhard Nestle (see below,
scholarly editions, 1906). Review:
1908. G. Mallows Youngman: Hetzenauer’s Edition of the Vulgate, The American Journal of Theology 12: 627–636.
According to Yougman, Hetzenauer’s edition is superior to Vercellone’s, because it is based on the 1593
edition of the Clementina (and not on the inferior one of 1592, the one used by Vercellone).

1927. Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Ediderunt complures scripturae sacrae professores Fa­
cultatis Theologiae Parisiensis et Seminarii Sancti Sulpitii. Paris. xiv, 1280, 288, 31, 16 pp. –
Known as the Paris professors’ Bible (die Pariser Professorenbibel), much used in theological
education in Rome, France, Germany, Belgium, and elsewhere, in many editions. One example:
the 1956 printing has xli, 1280, [288], 152*, 16 pp. and includes the Psalterium Pianum on pp.
1*–120* (see below, Chapter 16.6).

1965. Alberto Colunga OP – Laurentio Turrado (eds.): Biblia sacra juxta vulgatam clementinam nova
editio. Biblioteca de autores cristianos. Madrid. xxvii, 1256 pp., 7 maps. – First published in 1946

340
 and often reprinted – most recently in 2018 (15th printing) – the Colunga-Turrado edition is said
to be the most reliable edition of the Clementina currently available. Some of its features: the
Old Testament is titled “Antiquum Testamentum”; not used are the letter “j,” (Iesus, eius, iudex),
ligatures such as æ, and quotation marks; the Vulgate book of Psalms is printed, synoptically,
with the Psalterium Pianum of 1945 (see below, Chapter 16.6); the Clementina appendix (Prayer
of Manasseh etc.) is not included in the 1965 edition, though some earlier, illustrated editions of
the Colunga-Turrado Vulgate, including one printed in 1946 (xxiv, 1592, 122 pp.), have these
books in a separately paginated appendix of 122 pages. – Reviews:
1946. Teófilo Ayuso: Una edición Española de la ‘Vulgata.’ Arbor 6: 460–463.

2016. Houghton, p. 132: “The Clementine Vulgate is often a better guide to the text of the medieval Vulgate than
the critical editions of the earliest available text. The current standard reference edition is that of Colunga &
Turrado 1946, a form of which is available online.” The online version can be found on the website of the
“Internet archive.”

2023. Bernhard Lang: In my 1965 copy, I detected several printing errors: p. 35, Gen 41:23 read quoque (not
quoqne); p. 257: in 2 Sam 12:31, read serravit (not servavit, though this is a manuscript reading); p. 706: in
Isa 35:4, the first word must be dicite (not dicit); p. 991, in the text of Matt 28:16, the first letter of the name
of Iesus is missing; p. 1103, there is a note on Rom 11:2, but it must be Rom 11:3, and the Old Testament
parallel indicated there must be 3 Reg 19:10.14 (and not 91). ▲

2003. Alberto Colunga OP – Michelangelo Tábet (eds.): Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis Sixti V pontificis
maximi iussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita. Cinisello Balsamo (Milano). 1277 pp. –
A new edition, printed in Italy, of the text edited by Alberto Colunga in 1946 by the publishing
house “San Paolo.”

2005. Michael Tweedale (ed.): Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Editio electronica. London. xi,
1512 pp. – Unlike the original Clementina, the text distinguishes between prose and poetry.
There is no appendix with Oratio Manassae etc. The orthography distinguishes between i and j,
so that we find ejus, judicare, and Jesus (not eius, iudicare, etc.). Also used is the trema in words
such as introëuntes (Mark 11:2) to alert the reader that meant is not oe (œ). This digital edition,
approved by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, is easily found on the In ­
ternet: under “The Clementina Vulgate Project,” or on the website academia.edu under the name
Abel Covarrubias, or at www.wilbourhall.org. The file can be downloaded as a PDF free of
charge. The Clementina text used is that of Colunga/Tábet (see above, 2003), and Michael
Tweedale has seen to it that textual mistakes such as typos have been eliminated from the elec­
tronic edition; by now, it should be free from errors.

Scholarly editions
1822/24. Leander van Eß (ed.): Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis juxta exemplar ex Typographia Apostolica
Vaticana Romae 1592. Tübingen. 3 vols.: 646 pp.; 648 pp.; xxvi, 342 pp. – Volume III was pub­
lished in 1822, volumes I and II followed in 1824. The critical apparatus lists readings of the Six­
tia (1590) as well as readings found in the Clementina editions of 1593 and 1598.

1842. 1850. Karl Lachmann – Philipp Buttmann (eds.): Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. 2 vols.
Berlin. lv, 720 pp; xxv, 701 pp. – Published in two volumes in 1842 and 1850, this is the second
edition of Lachmann’s New Testament in Greek and Latin. His first edition of a Greek New Testa ­
ment and Latin Vulgate, published in 1831, was heavily criticised for relying on a narrow range
of sources. The second edition takes into account later Latin manuscripts. There is a recent re­
print edition, published by Cambridge University Press.

1855. G.C.C. Theile – R. Stier (eds.): Novum Testamentum Tetraglottum. Bielefeld. viii, 1060 pp. – The
book was reprinted by Diogenes Verlag, Zürich 1981, as an inexpensive paperback. – In the

341
 1840s, the two Lutheran scholars Karl Gottfried Wilhelm Theile (1799–1854) and Ewald Rudolf
Stier (1800–1862) produced a complete polyglot Bible of several volumes. The most successful
part, the New Testament, was subsequently (1855) published in smaller format. It included the
Greek textus receptus, Luther’s German translation, and the Authorized Version, plus the Vulgate
text of the Clementina. The Clementina column has a small critical apparatus that lists variant
readings, esp. from Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus.

1861. Carlo Giuseppe Vercellone (ed.): Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Rome.
xxiv, 839 pp. – This work was considered the most careful edition of the Vulgate at the time. In
the introduction, Vercellone lists c. 250 Old Testament and c. 80 New Testament passages where
he corrects obvious mistakes of the early editions of the Clementina; but he refrains from intro­
ducing new readings. Vercellone has made an outstanding contribution to the study of the Vul­
gate text; see above, Chapter 7.4.

1873. Theodor Heyse – Konstantin Tischendorf (eds.): Biblia Sacra Latina Veteris Testamenti, Hieronymo
interprete ex antiquissima auctoritate in stichos descripta. Leipzig. lxxi, 990 pp. – This critical edi­
tion presents the text of the Clementina (of Vercelllone’s 1861 edition) and adds the readings
found in Codex Amiatinus.

1906. Eberhard Nestle (ed.): Novum Testamentum Latine. Textus Vaticanus cum apparatu critico. Stut­
tgart. xx, 657 pp. – The edition, often reprinted, also includes the Letter to the Laodiceans (p. xix;
see below, Chapter 23) and Jerome’s letter to Pope Damasus which is the prologue to the Gos­
pels (PL 29: 525; Sources chrétiennes 592: 470). The 2nd edition of 1912 is changed in details;
later editions are only reprints. A 9th edition appeared in 1961. Eberhard Nestle (1851–1913),
born in Stuttgart, was a Lutheran theologian. – Editions from 1984 on, edited by Kurt Aland and
Barbara Aland, do not offer the text of the Vulgate, but the text of the “Nova Vulgata,” i.e., a
modern Vulgate revision (see below, Chapter 17). ▲

1965. Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V [quinti] Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII [octavi]
auctoritate edita. Editio emendatissima apparatu critico instructa cura et studio Monachorum Ab­
batiae Pontificae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe Ordinis Sancti Benedicti. Marietti editore. Turin. xv,
1244 pp., 8 plates. – Edited by the Benedictine monks of the Pontifical Abbey of Saint Jerome
(Rome) who are otherwise responsible for producing the critical edition of the Vulgate Old Test ­
ament (see above, Chapter 13.3). Originally published in 1959, this so-called “Marietti Bible” is a
most unusual edition of the Clementine text of the Vulgate Bible, because it has a critical appar­
atus that lists some of the readings of the Abbey’s critical Vulgate edition. In the case of the
Psalms, this edition prints three Latin translations in synoptic arrangement: the Psalterium Gal­
licanum (Vulgate text), Jerome’s iuxta hebraeos, and the Psalterium Pianum, pp. 434–665. – Re­
view (of the 1959 edition): Joseph Ziegler, Biblische Zeitschrift NF 5 (1961) 116–117.

Secondary literature: the Clementina

Before 1900
1847. Aloisio M. Ungarelli: De castigatione vulgatae bibliorum editionis peracta iussu Concilii Tridentini.
In: idem: Praelectiones de Novo Testamento et Historia vulgatae bibliorum editionis a Concilio Tri­
dentino. Rome (vi, 228 pp.), pp. 111–224. – Ungarelli offers a detailed account of the making of
the Sixtina and Clementina. He also supplies a selection of original documents (pp. 217–224),
appended to his account. Still a useful resource. – Variant form of the author’s name: Luigi Maria
Ungarelli (1779–1845). Ungarelli was one of the very first Egyptologists who could read the
hieroglyphs.

342
1855. [Aloisio Maria Ungarelli] Histoire de la correction de la Vulgate d’après le P. Ungarelli, Barnabite.
Analecta Juris Pontificii. Recueil de dissertations sur différents sujets de droit canonique, de liturgie
et de théologie. Septième livraison. Rome, cols. 1331–1341. – A French summary of Ungarelli’s
research.

1860. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Zur Geschichte der Entstehung der officiellen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Der
Katholik 40.2: 1–24.

1868. Franz Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. viii, 501 pp. – Pages 420–496: Officieller Text.

1887. Ignaz Döllinger: [Anmerkung] 25. In: Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin. Lateinisch und
deutsch mit geschichtlichen Erläuterungen. Herausgegeben von Joh. Jos. Ign. von Döllinger und
Fr. Heinrich Reusch. Bonn (iv, 352 pp.), pp. 111–128.

1893. Eberhard Nestle: Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9. November 1892. 27 pp. In: idem:
Materialien und Marginalien. Tübingen (several studies with individual pagination, bound into
one volume), at the very end of the book.

After 1900
1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80. – Jacob identifies the
Löwen critical editions of the Vulgate as the basis of both the Sixtina and the Clementina. But
while the Sixtina generally rejects the marginal critical notations, the Clementina accepts these.
“C[lementina] zieht in der Regel die Randlesart der Pariser und Löwener kritischen Ausgabe vor
und zwar auf die Autorität des griechischen Textes hin. (Wenn auch vereinzelte lateinische Zeu­
gen zugestimmt haben mögen). Was sich bisher nur schuchtern am Rande aufgehalten hatte,
das wird jetzt mit programmatischer Entschiedenheit als einzig legitime Lesart in den Text auf­
genommen. Das aber ist ein Zeichen der neuen Zeit” (p. 639). Jacob’s essay includes a compar­
ative list of the Latin Psalm titles as they appear in the Sixtina and the Clementina (pp. 64–80).

1908. Eberhard Nestle: Latin Versions. In: In: Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.): The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume II. New York (xvi, 499 pp.), pp. 191–197. – Page
196: “As a matter of fact, the Sixtine edition is typographically more correct than the Clementine,
but the text of the Clementine is an improvement on that of the Sixtine.”

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Cols. 2490–2498: La Bible sixto-clémentine.

1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg. xv, 339 pp. – See esp. pp. 278–279: Tabelle der klemen­
tinischen Revision.

1913. René Michaud: La question de la Bible Sixto-Clémentine. Nouvelle revue théologique 45: 759–768.

1919. Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Zur Geschichte der klementinischen Vulgata-Ausgaben. Zeitschrift für
katholische Theologie 43: 391–438. – “Über die Entstehungsgeschichte der klementinischen Vul­
gata ist viel geschrieben worden, über ihre späteren Geschicke sehr wenig” (p. 391). The article
aims to remedy this deficiency. Kneller provides helpful lists of correctories that improve the text
of the Clementina and that have often been disregarded. Since Kneller accurately lists the con­
tents of the proofreadings (i.e., tabulates the erroneous and the correct readings in each case),
this is an important, foundational essay for textual criticism of the Clementina. ▲

1922. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Neue Kunde von alten Bibeln. Rome. xxii, 402 pp. – This self-published
book has a few pages on the early editions of the Sixto-Clementina, all produced by the Vatic­

343
 an’s own printers. Of the first edition, the 1592 folio, only 500 copies were printed, and it took
almost a decade until they were sold (p. 320). Of the quarto edition of 1593, 2.800 copies were
printed, and sold very quickly (pp. 326, 328).

1922. Henri Quentin: Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Rome and Paris. xvi, 520 pp. –
Pages 192–208: L’édition de Clément VIII. “Dans l’ensemble, l’édition Clémentine est un peu
meilleure que la Sixtine, mais elle ne marque pas un progrès considérable” (p. 197).

1927. Ludwig von Pastor: Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters. Elfter Band. Freiburg
(xxxix, 804 pp.), pp. 473–476.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Pages 158–174:
Die Vulgata von der Erfindung des Buchdruckerkunst bis zum Konzil von Trient; pp. 174–181: Die
ersten Arbeiten zur Revision der Vulgata; pp. 181–205: Die Vulgatarevision unter Sixtus V. und
Klemens VIII. On pp. 263–272, Stummer offers previously unpublished Italian and Latin texts on
the history of the origin of the Clementine Vulgate. Stummer’s opinion on the textual character
of the Clementina (p. 203): the text is far from representing the work of Jerome. It is nothing but
a slightly revised version of the Paris Bible (on the latter, see above, 14.4). ▲

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg. xi, 190 pp. – Pages 14–25: Die Psalterfrage
und die Sixto-Clementina.

2016. Bruce Gordon – Euan Cameron: Latin Bibles in the early modern period. In: Euan Cameron (ed.):
The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 3. Cambridge (xx, 975 pp.), pp. 187–216.

2017. Matthias Geigenfeind: Die Patmos-Worte lateinisch gelesen. Vergleich des Textes der Johan­
nesapokalypse in der Vulgata Sixtina (V-Sixt) von 1590 und der Sixto-Clementina (SC) von 1592.
In: Marcus Sigismund – Darius Müller (eds.): Studien zum Text der Apokalypse II. Berlin (viii, 546
pp.), pp. 231–282.

2023. Antonio Gerace: The Council of Trent and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. In: H.A.G. Houghton
(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 292–304. – The author
outlines the history of the Latin Vulgate in the sixteenth century, from the discussions leading to
the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent (1546), when it was proclaimed as the ‘authentic’ edi ­
tion, up to the eventual publication of the Sixto-Clementine edition in 1592. The important work
in Louvain of John Henten and Francis Lucas of Bruges on editions of the Vulgate is described,
which played a key role in the activity of the five Roman Committees for the Emendation of the
Vulgate. Information is also given on the membership of these committees and the failure of the
Sixtine Vulgate of 1590.

Thomas James, Protestant polemicist

1600. Thomas James: Bellum papale sive concordantia discors Sixti Quinti et Clementis Octavi circa
Hieronymiam editionem. London. 78 pp. – A polemical treatise about the differences between
the Vulgate edited under P. Sixtus and the edition published under P. Clement. – Reviews:
1870. Fr. Heinrich Reusch: Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vierte, verbesserte Auflage. Freuburg (ix,
229 pp.), p. 212: “Die Differenzen zwischen der sixtinischen und der clementinischen Ausgane (s. Thomas
James, Bellum papale, London 1600) sind alle ohne doctrinelle Bedeutung und größtentheils auch kritisch
nicht sehr bedeutend.”

1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Frei­
burg (vii, 599 pp.), p. 130: “Wer sich die Mühe geben will, die von Thomas James (…) aufgesuchten Unter­
schiede zwischen der sixtinischen und der clementinischen Ausgabe näher anzusehen, wird leicht zweierlei
entdecken: erstens, wie geringfügig die Verschiedenheiten sind, und wie wenig dabei Glaube und Sitten,

344
 das Object der päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit, in Betracht kommt; zweitens, wie viel mehr die kritischen Gründe
auf Seiten der späteren Ausgabe stehen. Bemerkenswert ist insbesondere, daß an den bezüglichen Stellen
gewöhnlich Sixtus von der Festsetzung seiner Commission abgewichen, die clementinische Ausgabe aber
wieder zu derselben zurückgekehrt ist.”

1688. Thomas James: A Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers. London. 14 leaves,
560 pp. – Includes an English version of the author’s Bellum papale.

1843. Thomas James: A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates,
Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, for the Maintenance of Popery. Revised and Corrected
from the Editions of 1612 and 1688. By John Edmund Cox. London. xlii, 348 pp. – Cox is also the
editor of an 1841 edition of James’s Bellum papale.

1900. Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16.
Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20: 49–80, at pp. 51–52: a brief
summary of the contents of James’s Bellum papale and its reception. The author also mentions
that James’s work threw a shadow on Bellarmine’s reputation and prevented him from becom­
ing a canonized saint of the Catholic Church.

1935. Carl A. Kneller SJ: Neue Studien zur sixtinischen Vulgatabulle. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
59: 81–107. 268–290. – Kneller tells the story of Thomas James’s research on the official papal
promulgation of the (first, 1590) Sixtine Bible (pp. 82–85). James was told by several Catholic
theologians that this Bible had never been officially promulgated.

1991. R.W. Clement: Librarianship and Polemics. The Career of Thomas James (1572–1629). Libraries &
Culture 26 (1991) 269–282. – Thomas James was the first librarian of the Bodleian library in Ox­
ford. James’s polemics against the pope’s Vulgate edition is part of his librarianship. The Bodlei­
an was founded as a repository of truth, as a resource in the battle against Christianity’s corrup ­
tion by Jesuits and the pope.

16.6 The Popes and the Latin Psalms, 1568–1969

Note. – There are four Latin versions of the Psalms that were at one time or another considered the
standard or ecclesiastically approved text: (1) Psalterium Romanum, (2) Psalterium Gallicanum (= Vul­
gate Psalter), (3) Psalterium Pianum, and (4) the book of Psalms included in the Nova Vulgata. The
Liturgy of the Hours or breviary read (or recited or sung) every day by Catholic priests and religious,
either individually or in community, is based on the Psalter. Several popes felt responsible for supply­
ing good Latin texts; they gave directions or made suggestions. It may actually be that Pope Damasus
(in office 366–384) ordered or supported Jerome’s revision of a Latin Psalter, but the evidence for this
is not strong enough to allow for considering Damasus the first pope to give instructions about the
Latin Psalms. The first pope to do so was Pius V.

Pope Pius V and the Breviary Psalter, 1568

Pope Pius X and the Breviary Psalter, 1911/13

Psalterium Pianum – the Latin Psalter of P. Pius XII, 1945

Psychologically problematic Psalms, 1968

The Neovulgate Psalter of P. Paul VI, 1969

345
Pope Pius V and the Breviary Psalter, 1568
1568. Pius V.: Bull “Quod a nobis” (9th July 1568). This document prescribes the use of the Psalterium
Gallicanum in the Liturgy of the Hours. Later, the same pope (by the bull “Quo primum,” 14th
July 1570) prescribes its use for all editions of the Missale Romanum. The 1568 text can be
found, in Latin and German, in the following publications:
2006. Alexander Zerfaß – Angelus A. Häußling: Die Bulle “Quod a nobis” Papst Pius V. vom 9. Juli 1568 zur Pro­
mulgation des nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48: 334–353.

2012. Angelus A. Häußling OSB: Die Bulle “Quod a nobis” Papst Pius V. vom 9. Juli 1568 zur Promulgation des
nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum. In: idem: Tagzeitenliturgie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Münster
(356 pp.), pp. 186–205.

Pope Pius X and the Breviary Psalter, 1911/13

1911. Pius X: Constitutio apostolica “Divino afflatus” de nova psalterii in breviario romano dispositione
(1st November 1911). Acta Apostolicae Sedis 3: 633–651. The reform concerned the distribution
of the Psalms of the breviary.

1913. Pius X: Motu proprio “Abhinc duos annos” (23rd October 1913). Acta Apostolicae Sedis 5: 449–
451. This document promulgates the breviary reform announced in 1911.

Secondary literature
2011. Paul Cavendish: An Introduction to the Reform of the Roman Breviary. Usus Antiquior. A Journal
Dedicated to the Sacred Liturgy 2: 32–60, 129–152.

2014. Honoré Vinck: Pie X et les réformes liturgiques de 1911–1914: psautier, bréviaire, calendrier, ru­
briques. Münster. 530 pp. – The architect of the reform was Pietro Piacenza.

Psalterium Pianum – the Latin Psalms of P. Pius XII, 1945

Note. – The desire for a Latin Psalter in better language, closer to classical Latin, was occasionally dis­
cussed by Catholic theologians; for examples, see the following works:

1928. Heinrich Herkenne: Das Problem einer Revision der Psalmen mit besonderer Rücksichtnahme auf
das Brevier. Bonner Zeitschrift für Theologie und Seelsorge 5: 234–248.

1929. Xaver Schmid: De Breviario Romano reformando commentatio. Ephemerides liturgicae 48: 25–33.

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La reconstitution du psautier hexaplaire latin. Revue bénédictine 41:
294–324. – Page 324: A careful edition of the Vulgate Psalter “nous laisse très loin de l’idéal qui
doit être de donner aux prêtres un psautier intelligible et conforme au texte primitif. Il faudrait
pour cela une réforme plus profonde qui est de plus en plus désirée par l’élite du clergé .” To
which De Bruyne adds that “l’usage du psautier hexaplaire [i.e., the Gallican Psalter of the Vul­
gate] n’est nullement ancien, et son introduction dans la liturgie a été une faute; il était unique­
ment destiné à l’étude.”

1938. Joseph Coppens: Pour une nouvelle version du Psautier sur la base du Psautier gallican et à
l’usage de la récitation privée. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 15: 5–33.

1940. Victor Leroquais: Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publics de France. Tome I. Ma­
con. cxxxvi, 293 pp. – Page xl: The author briefly comments on the Benedictine Vulgate and its

346
 Psalter (which was eventually published in 1953). He considers this revised Latin Psalter to be
only one step towards what is yet to be produced: a Latin psalter – “une traduction exacte et
limpide du psautier, traduction faite sur l’original hébreu, préalablement reconstitué et rendu à
sa pureté primitive.”

The idea was taken up by Pope Pius XII, known for his admiration of Ciceronian Latin. He asked the Je ­
suit Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome to produce a revised text; Augustine Bea SJ served as the chair ­
man of the committee that produced the new version that was subsequently recommended for brevi ­
ary prayer by Pope Pius XII in 1945. The Vulgate language was completely abandoned. The Latin text
of the Psalterium Pianum was not widely received in the Church, but several translations based on it
were; in Germany, for example, the Guardini Psalter.

1945. Pope Pius XII: Motu proprio “In cotidianis precibus” (24th March). “We have ordered [on January
19, 1941] that a new Latin translation of the Psalms should be made, which should follow exactly
and faithfully the original texts, taking into account as far as possible the ancient venerable Vul­
gate and other ancient translations, as well as evaluating the various readings according to the
norms of criticism. (…) The intended new translation having been made with due effort and care
by the professors of our Pontifical Biblical Institute, we present it with paternal affection to all
those who are obliged to pray daily the church’s liturgy of the hours.” – German: “ Wir haben [am
19. Januar 1941] befohlen, es solle eine neue lateinische Übersetzung der Psalmen erscheinen,
die sich genau und getreu nach den ursprünglichen Texten richten, soweit als möglich die alte
ehrwürdige Vulgata und andere alte Übersetzungen berücksichtigen sowie die verschiedenen
Lesarten nach den Normen der Kritik bewerten solle. (…) Nachdem die beabsichtigte neue Über­
setzung von den Professoren unseres päpstlichen Bibelinstituts mit der angemessenen Mühe
und Sorgfalt angefertigt worden ist, legen wir sie mit väterlicher Zuneigung allen denen vor, die
verpflichtet sind, die kirchlichen Tagzeiten täglich zu beten.” – Editions and translations:
1945. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 37: 65–67.

1945. P. Pius XII: Litterae apostolicae motu proprio datae: de novae Psalmorum conversionis Latinae usu in per ­
solvendo divino officio. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7.3: 348–350. Latin, no English translation.

1945. P. Pius XII: On the New Latin Psalter and Its Use in the Divine Office. Orate Fratres 19: 337–340.

1946. P. Pius XII: The New Latin Psalter and Its Use in the Divine Office. In: Liber Psalmorum – The Psalms: A Pray­
er Book. New York (xiv, 416, 29* pp.), pp. vi–x. Translation reprinted from Orate Fratres 19 (1945) 337–340.

1949. German translation in: Athanasius Miller OSB: Die Psalmen nach dem neuen in Auftrage von Papst Pius XII.
hergestellten lateinischen Wortlaut. Lateinisch und Deutsch. Freiburg (xiii, 543 pp.), p. xi.

Editions of the 1945 Psalter

1945. Liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Romani. Nova e textibus primigeniis interpretatio latina,
cura professorum Pontificii Instituti Biblici. Rome. xxxi, 349 pp. Second edition, also 1945: xxiv,
350 pp. – While this is essentially a new translations of the book of Psalms, the new Liber Psal­
morum includes, as indicated by its title (cum Canticis …), several other poetic texts, the so-c­
alled liturgical canticles: the canticle of the three boys (Dan 3:52–88), of David (1 Chr 29:10–13),
of Isaiah (Isa 12:1–6 and 45:15–26), of Tobit (Tobit 13:1–10), of Hezekiah (Isa 38:10–20), of Judith
(Judith 16:15–21), of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10), of Jeremiah (Jer 31:10–14), of Moses (Exod 15:1–18
and Deut 32:1–43), of Habakkuk (Hab 3:1–19), of Sirach (Sir 36:1–16), of Zachary (Luke 1:68–79),
the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), and the Nunc dimittis (Luke 2:29–32).

347
1946. Psalmi et Cantica Breviarii Romani. Neue lateinische Übersetzung aus dem Hebräischen nach der
Editio typica Vaticana. Im Auftrag des Bischofs von Münster herausgegeben von Heinrich
Gleumes. Münster. 184 pp.

1946. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Nova editio. Edited by Alberto Colunga OP and Lau­
rentio Turrado. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. Madrid (xxiv, 1256 pp.), pp. 449–582. – This of­
ten-reprinted edition of the Vulgate presents the new Psalms translation synoptically with the
Vulgate Psalter, explaining in a two-line note that the new version enjoyed papal approval for
liturgical use.

1956. Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Edited by the professors of the seminary Saint-Sulpice
in Paris. Paris. xli, 1280, 288, 120* pp. – Originally published in 1927, but subsequently revised,
the Saint-Sulpice edition was meant for Catholic seminary students in all countries. The 1956
edition includes the text of the Psalterium Pianum as an appendix with separate pagination (pp.
1* – 120*).

Glossaries
1947. J. Knackstedt: Kurzes Psalmen-ABC. Bibel und Kirche. Jahrbuch 1947. Stuttgart, pp. 31–33. – Brief
glossary of rare words used in the new translation.

1947. Paul Wermers: Wörterverzeichnis zur neuen lateinischen Übersetzung der Psalmi et Cantica Bre­
viarii Romani. Münster. 47 pp.

1949. Arthur Allgeier: Die neue Psalmenübersetzung. Der liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Ro­
mani. Mit einer Tabelle des neuen Wortschatzes. Freiburg. 347 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and
German. With a long Latin–German glossary, pp. 259–347.

1959. William J. Konus: Dictionary of the New Latin Psalter of Pope Pius XII. Westminster, Md. 132 pp. –
Lists the vocabulary of the Psalterium Pianum. Review: G.H. Guyot, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21
(1959) 553–554.

English translation
1946. Liber Psalmorum – The Psalms: A Prayer Book. New York. xiv, 416, 29* pp. – The Latin and English
titles in full: Liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Romani, nova e textibus primigeniis interpret­
ation Latina cura professorum Pontificii Instituti Biblici auctoritate Pii Papae XII edita – The Psams:
A Prayer Book. Also the Canticles of the Roman Breviary. New English Translation (…) with Ecclesi­
astical Approbation. – This is a bilingual, Latin and English, edition of the Psalterium Pianum.
After the Pope’s apostolic letter “In cotidianis precibus” (pp. vi–x) there is an introductory essay
by William H. McClellan SJ entitled “Purpose of the Psalms” (pp. xi–xv). The fourth, enlarged edi­
tion of 1947 has more introductory material (xxiv, 416, 29* pp.). – Review: Dominic J. Unger,
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8 (1946) 355–359.

1947. Ronald Knox: The Psalms. A New Translation. New York. 239 pp. – Review: Graves H. Thompson,
Interpretation 1 (1947) 525: “The translation is rather free, and often approaches interpretation.”
Psalm 1:6 is given as an example: “They walk, the just, under the eye of the Lord’s favour, the
path of the wicked, how soon is it lost to sight.” The underlying Latin: Quoniam Dominus curat
viam justorum, et via impiorum peribit. – There was also a bilingual, Latin and English edition, of
Knox’s translation.

1949. New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. New York. 1086, 367 pp.
– Edited under the patronage of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine by Howard G. Cavalero,
this Bible supplies the text of the Douay/Challoner Bible, but includes a new English version of

348
 the Psalms based on the Psalterium Pianum. With minor revisions, this version of the Psalms sur­
vives in the original, 1970, edition of the New American Bible.

1949. Ronald Knox: The Old Testament Newly Translated from the Latin Vulgate. London 1949. xi, 1604
pp. – The translation includes, as an appendix, an “Alternative Version of the Psalms,” i.e., a
translation of Psalterium Pianum.

German translation
1947. Claus Schedl: Die Psalmen nach dem neuen römischen Psalter übersetzt. Vienna. ix, 315 pp.

1948. Simon Stricker OSB: Der vatikanische Psalter. Deutsch-lateinisch. Münster. 367 pp. – A bilingual,
Latin and German edition. The translator is a monk of the Benedictine Abbey Maria Laach.

1949. Athanasius Miller OSB: Die Psalmen nach dem neuen in Auftrage von Papst Pius XII. hergestellten
lateinischen Wortlaut. Lateinisch und Deutsch. Freiburg. xiii, 543 pp.

1949. Arthur Allgeier: Die neue Psalmenübersetzung. Der liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Roma­
ni. Mit einer Tabelle des neuen Wortschatzes. Freiburg. 347 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and Ger­
man. With an introduction by Allgeier, and a long Latin–German glossary, pp. 259–347. Reviews:
1950. Meinrad Stenzel, Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 1: 102–104. The German version is owed to three
young scholars: Heinrich Schneider (Ps 1–50), Othmar Haggelbacher (Ps 51–100), and Alfons Deißler (Ps
102–150); Stenzel notes the differences of style and translation methods between the three translators.

1951. Rudolf Meyer, Theologische Literaturzeitung 76.11: 682. Friendly.

1950. Romano Guardini: Deutscher Psalter. Nach der lateinischen Ausgabe Papst Pius’ XII. übersetzt im
Auftrag der Deutschen Bischöfe. Munich. 255 pp. – A note in this first edition of the “Guardini
Psalter” explains that the fidelity to the original was verified by the Old Testament scholar
Hubert Junker (1891–1971). In German-speaking lands, the Guardini Psalter was considered the
authoritative liturgical Psalter for three decades, until the publication of the “Einheitsüberset­
zung” of the Bible in 1980. The Einheitsübersetzung’s book of Psalms is an “ecumenical” text,
translated from the Hebrew by a committee with Catholic and Protestant members. – Review:
Arthur Allgeier, Theologische Literaturzeitung 76 (1951) 40.

French translation
1948. S. Ely: Le Psautier romain. Traduction et commentaire du Liber Psalmorum édité par l’Institut Bi­
blique Pontifical à Rome. St-Maurice. 465 pp.

1951. Le Psautier du bréviaire romain. Latin et français. Nouvelle version. Paris. xvi, 104*, 574 pp.

Spanish and Italian translations

1947. Junta parroquial del Carmen: El Salterio del Breviario Romano. Tucumán (Argentina). 232 pp.

1948. Juan Prado: Nuevo Salterio latino–español. Madrid. 1400 pp. – The bilingual, Latin and Spanish
edition is supplemented by an exhaustive scholarly commentary on the Psalms.

1949. Primilio Galetto: I Salmi e i Cantici del Breviario Romano. Traduzione italiana dei testi originali se­
condo la nuova versione Latina del Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Rome. xxxvi, 720 pp.

Dutch translation
1969. Adelbert Willem Bronkhorst OP: Psalterium voor gemeenschapsgebed. Boxtel. 403 pp.

349
Secondary literature
English

1946. Augustine Bea SJ: The New Psalter: Its Origin and Spirit. Translated by Augustin Ward. Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 8: 4–35.

1946. Matthew Stapleton: Catholic Bible Translation. The Journal of Bible and Religion 14: 198–202.

1947. P.P. Saydon: The New Latin Translation of the Psalter. Melita theologica (Malta) 1.2: 13–32. – The
author is enthusiastic about the new version: “I believe that the new Psalter will become univer ­
sal before it is made obligatory” (p. 32).

1947–1949. Ernest Lussier: The New Latin Psalter: An Exegetical Commentary. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 9 (1947) 226–234; 324–328; 465–470. – 10 (1948) 81–86; 196–202; 291–295; 408–412. –
11 (1949) 82–88; 207–212; 316–322; 447–452.

1948. Reginald Ginns: The New Latin Psalter. Blackfriars 29, no. 337: 188–192. – Presentation of the
Psalterium Pianum and review of Augustin Bea: Le nouveau Psautier latin, 1947.

1949–1950. Thomas E. Bierd: Some Queries on the New Psalter. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 11 (1949)
76–81, 179–187, 296–307; 12 (1950) 34–47, 213–220, 301–310.

1950. Charles M. Cooper: Jerome’s “Hebrew Psalter” and the New Latin Version. Journal of Biblical Lit­
erature 69: 233–244.

1950. W. Rees: The New Latin Translation of the Psalms. Scripture 4.7: 205–212.

1953. Christine Mohrmann: The New Latin Psalter: Its Diction and Style. American Benedictine Review 4:
7–33 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome II. Rome 1961 (400 pp.), pp. 109–131.
Translated from Christine Mohrmann: Quelques observations linguistiques à propos de la nou­
velle version du Psautier. Vigiliae Christianae 1 (1947) 114–128, 168–182. – Page 115 (of Études
sur le latin des chrétiens. Vol. II): “The most striking innovation of all lies really in the region of
linguistic form. The Latin of the early Christians has been replaced by a classicist Latin, although
a few Christian elements have been retained. The result is an artificial and dualistic Latin, a hu ­
manistic Latin with some concessions to Christian usage.” According to Mohrmann, the translat­
ors failed to take the Vulgate language into account. The words confessio and confiteri (praise, to
praise) have been eliminated (pp. 122–123), and the same is true of salutare (pp. 123–124). ▲

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: The Nova Vulgata. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin
Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 378–391. – The new Latin Psalter can be considered a “failed
experiment at a time of strong momentum for the Catholic Liturgical Movement” (p. 380).

German

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Methodische Folgerungen aus der neuen römischen Psalmenübersetzung. Theol­
ogische Literaturzeitung 73: 203–208. – “Die neue Übersetzung deckt sich mit der Vulgata selten”
(col. 203). The author presents Ps 29 (Vg 28) in synoptic fashion so that one can see the differ­
ences between the new version and that of the Vulgate. At the end of the article, Allgeier briefly
refers to his (controversial) idea that Jerome produced first the Psalterium iuxta hebraeos, and
then, as an improved version, the (Vulgate) Psalterium gallicanum (see above, Chapter 11.4).

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Lateinische Psalmenübersetzung in alter und neuer Zeit. In: Wissenschaft und
Leben. Reden zur Universitätsfeier am 1. Juni 1946. Freiburger Universitätsreden. Neue Folge Heft
2. Freiburg (28 pp.), pp. 7–20. – The new Psalter of Pius XII, ultimately linked to Jerome’s iuxta

350
 hebraeos version, represents a radical break with the Vulgate Psalter which is based on the
Greek text (pp. 15–17).

1948. Joseph Ziegler: Die neue lateinische Übersetzung der Psalmen und Cantica des Breviers. In: Gus­
tav Söhngen (ed.): Aus der Theologie der Zeit. Regensburg (229 pp.), pp. 144–189.

1949. Augustin Bea SJ: Die neue lateinische Psalmenübersetzung. Ihr Werden und ihr Geist. Freiburg. viii,
170 pp. – See esp. pp. 95–130 on the new translation’s latinity. The book was first published in
French and Spanish; the Spanish translation is: El nuevo Salterio latino. Translated by Pablo Ter­
mes Ros. Barcelona 1947, 186 pp. This book is generally understood as revealing Bea as the
driving force behind the “Psalterium Pianum”; accordingly, some authors speak of the “Bea Psal­
ter.” Review: David Winton Thomas, Erasmus 2 (1949) 451–454.

1949. Heinrich Bleienstein SJ: Zur neuen lateinischen Psalmenübersetzung. Das Psalterium Pianum und
seine ersten Übersetzungen. Geist und Leben 22: 310–314.

1950. Barnabas Steiert: Das Psalterium Pianum in seiner sprachlichen Neuheit gegenüber der Vulgata.
Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis [Analecta Cisterciensia] 6: 166–180.

1951. Joseph Ziegler: Das neue lateinische Psalterium. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
63: 1–15.

1951–1955. Barnabas Steiert: Einführung in die neue römische Psalmenversion. Analecta Sacri Ordinis
Cisterciensis [Analecta Cisterciensia] 7 (1951) 91–166; 11 (1955) 199–324.

1964. Arnold M. Goldberg: Der Psalter im liturgischen Gebrauch. II: Zu Problemen der deutschen Über ­
tragung. Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 9: 82–91.

1971. Georg Schmuttermayr: Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22, Studien zu einem Doppeltext. Problem der Tex­
tkritik und Übersetzung und Psalterium Pianum. Munich. 240 pp.

1989. Stjepan Schmidt: Augustin Bea. Der Kardinal der Einheit. Graz (1050 pp.), pp. 114–116. – This is an
important source because the author, personal secretary to Bea for many years (1959 to 1968),
corrects a myth that has never ceased to circulate. Told was the story that the new Latin Psalter
was Bea’s die, and that he imposed it in Pope Pius. The very opposite is true: the new psalter
was the Pope’s own idea, and he imposed it on Bea. Bea himself would have preferred a more
prudent, less radical revision of the Vulgate text. ▲

2011. Bernhard Lang: Eine Weltsprache verschwindet. Latein in der katholischen Kirche im 20. Jahrhun ­
dert. Gymnasium 118: 57–67. Reprinted in: idem: Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine
Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie. Leuven 2011 (xii, 401 pp.), pp. 353–365. – The author tells
the story of the introduction and regrettable eventual demise of the Psalterium Pianum.

French

1945. Gustave Lambert: La nouvelle traduction des Psaumes. Nouvelle Revue Théologique 67: 431–442.

1946. Augustin Bea SJ: Le nouveau psautier. La Maison-Dieu 5: 60–106.

1947. Augustin Bea SJ: Le nouveau Psautier latin. Éclaircissements sur l’origine et l’esprit de la traduction.
Paris 1947, 209 pp.

1947. Christine Mohrmann: Quelques observations linguistiques à propos de la nouvelle version du

Psautier. Vigiliae Christianae 1: 114–128, 168–182. – The author points out that the Psalterium
Pianum eliminates the verb confiteri in the sense of “to praise,” replacing it with laudare. Thus

351
 the traditional in aeterum confitebor tibi (Ps 30:1, Vg 29:13) becomes in aeternum laudabo te. –
For an English version of this text, see Christine Mohrmann: Études sur le latin des chrétiens.
Tome II. Rome 1961 (400 pp.), pp. 109–131.

1949. Clément Van Puyvelde: Le Nouveau Psautier. Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales 30.2: 49–52.

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Nijmegen (xv, 256 pp.), p. 85. –
The new translation eliminates confiteri = to praise, replacing it with gratias agere, laudare and,
dubiously, celebrare. On celebrare, see also p. 100.

2009. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Le nouveau Psautier latin: 1945. In: idem: L’Institut Biblique Pontifical. Un
siècle d’histoire (1909–2009). Rome (488, 8 pp.), pp. 127–131, 206–209. This is the quasi-official
account, written by the chronicler of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome; the book prints the
text of several documents not available elsewhere (pp. 206–209). ▲

Italian

1945. Augustin Bea SJ: La nuova traduzione Latina del Salterio. Biblica 26: 203–237.

1946. Augustin Bea SJ: Il nuovo Salterio Latino. Chiarimenti sull’origine e lo spirito della traduzione.
Rome. iv, 180 pp.

1950. Giuseppe Scarpat: Il Liber psalmorum e il Psalterium Gallicanum. Milan. 46 pp.

1955. Augustin Bea SJ: I primi dieci anni del nuovo Salterio latino. Biblica 36: 161–181.

1955/1956. Andrea d’Alpe: La versione dei Salmi di S. Girolamo confronta con la Volgata e la nuova
versione del P.I.B. Rivista biblica [italiana] 3 (1955) 311–331; 4 (1956) 17–33. – P.I.B. = Pontificio
Istituto Biblico. The text discussed in most detail is Psalm 95:1–11 (Vg 94:1–11 – venite exul­
temus).

Spanish

1948. Agustin Bea SJ: El nuevo Salterio latino. Revista Bíblica [Argentina] 10: 2–8.

1962. S. Bartina SJ: El salmo 78,72 y la reciente versión Latina. Estudios bíblicos 21: 311–314. – In Psalm
78:72 (Vg 77:72), the Psalterium Pianum has et pavit eos (…) et prudentiā manuum suarum duxit
eos. A better wording would be et pasceret eos (…) et prudentiā manuum suarum duxeret eos.

Psychologically problematic Psalms, 1968

Note. – Theologians and liturgists have long been debating the appropriateness of using certain
psalms in liturgical prayer, psalms that seem to contradict Christ’s command to love one’s enemies. In
1968, P. Paul VI approved of the papal liturgy commission’s decision not to use the problematic pas ­
sages in the Liturgy of the Hours. Theologians, however, still debate the wisdom of this decision. Some
would argue that to vent one’s anger in prayer has therapeutic value for those who pray.

1968. P. Paul VI, handwritten note of January 3, sent to Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the papal Council
of the Liturgy. “In my view it is preferable that a selection be made of psalms better suited
to Christian prayer and that the imprecatory and historical psalms be omitted (though these last
may be suitably used in certain circumstances).” Annibale Bugnini: The Reform of the Liturgy
(1948–1975). Translated by Matthew J. Connell. Collegeville, Min. (xxxiii, 974 pp.), p. 509. – Litur­

352
 gical scholars remember Bugnini (1912–1982) as the “architect” of the Catholic Church’s liturgic­
al reforms.

1968. Congregatio de Cultu Divino – Congregation of Divine Worship: General Instruction of the
Liturgy of the Hours – Allgemeine Einführung in das Stundengebet. – No. 131: “Three psalms
(78, 83, and 109) have been omitted from the psalter cycle because of their curses; in the same
way, some verses have been omitted from certain psalms (…) The reason for the omission is a
certain psychological difficulty, even though the psalms of imprecation are in fact used as prayer
in the New Testament, for example, Revelation 6:10, and in no sense to encourage the use of
curses.” – German: “Die drei Psalmen 58, 83 und 109, in denen der Fluchcharakter überwiegt,
sind in das Psalterium des Stundengebets nicht aufgenommen. Ebenso sind einzelne derartige
Verse anderer Psalmen ausgelassen. (…) Diese Textauslassungen erfolgten wegen gewisser psy­
chologischer Schwierigkeiten, obwohl Fluchpsalmen sogar in der Frömmigkeitswelt des Neuen
Testaments vorkommen (z.B. Offenbarung 6,10) und in keiner Weise zum Verfluchen verleiten
sollen.” – United States Catholic Conference (ed.): General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours.
Washington 2005. – This document, issued with approval of P. Paul VI, removes from the Liturgy
of the Hours (or Divine Office) c. 120 verses.

The debate about problematic psalms

1962. E. Bernimont: L’inégale valeur des psaumes. Remarques à propos d’une éventuelle refonte du
psautier liturgique. Nouvelle Revue Théologique 84: 843–852.

2013. Daniel Michael Nehrbass: Praying Curses. The Therapeutic and Preaching Value of the Imprecat­
ory Psalms. Eugene, Oregon. xiii, 213 pp.

Secondary literature on the liturgical reform

1990. Annibale Bugnini: The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975). Translated by Matthew J. Connell. Col­
legeville, Min. (xxxiii, 974 pp.). – This is the quasi-autobiography of Bugnini (1912–1982) who
from 1948 to 1975 headed the pontifical liturgical commission. On pp. 491–511 he describes the
debate that led to the exclusion of the deprecatory psalms from Catholic worship. The book was
originally published in Italian (1983); there is also a German translation: Die Liturgiereform 1948–
1975. Übersetzt von Heinrich Venmann. Freiburg 1988. 1014 pp.

2016. Gabriel Torretta OP: Rediscovering the Imprecatory Psalms. A Thomistic Approach. The Thomist
80: 23–48. – The author tells the story of the elimination of the deprecatory psalms from the
liturgy, suggests an interpretative framework, and argues for the cautious reintroduction of the
passages.

2021. Bernhard Lang: Der allegorische Imperativ. Vier Methoden zum Umgang mit Gewalttexten des
Alten Testaments. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 105: 103–115. –
One section of this article comments on the “General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours”
and its attitude towards the so-called imprecatory psalms (German: Rache- und Fluchpsalmen).

2022. Wojciech Węgrzyniak: The Imprecatory Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours after the Second Vatic­
an Council: Reform, Reception and the Current State of the Debate. Verbum Vitae 40.4: 1075–
1096. – Page 1089: “Removing difficult fragments from the Bible at first glance may seem fruitful
and sensible, but in the long term, it risks a perversion of understanding the proper meaning of
Divine Revelation.” The article includes a long bibliography (pp. 1089–1091) and all the problem­
atical Psalm passages in English translation (pp. 1092–1096).

353
The Neovulgate Psalter of P. Paul VI, 1969
Note. – In anticipation of the 1971 reform of the “liturgy of the hours” in the Catholic Church, a revised
version of the Vulgate book of Psalms was issued. Although this was not explicitly stated, it was meant
to supplant both the old Vulgate Psalter and the Psalter of P. Pius XII. Interestingly, the papal commis ­
sion charged with the revision of the Vulgate Bible was originally headed by Augustine Cardinal Bea
who had been the driving force behind the Psalterium Pianum of 1945. But Bea (d. 1968) did not live to
see the publication of the new book of psalms.

First edition
1969. Pontificia commissio pro Nova Vulgata bibliorum editione (ed.): Liber Psalmorum. Città del Vat­
icano. xii, 177 pp. – The preface is signed by Pedro Rossano, secretary of the Pontifical Commis ­
sion for the Edition of the Nova Vulgata.

Secondary literature
1969. Stefano Schmidt: Il primo libro della Neo-Vulgta: Il Salterio. Civiltà Cattolica 120: 556–560.

1987. Jean Gribomont: La révision conciliaire du Psautier de la Neo-Vulgate. In: Tarcisio Stramare (ed.):
La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Vatican City (197 pp.), pp. 192–197.

2005. F.L. Cross – L.A. Livingstone (eds.): The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Third Edition
Revised. Oxford (xl, 1800 pp.), p. 1353 (in the unsigned entry “Psalter,” pp. 1353–1354): The Latin
text in the Roman Catholic Breviary of 1971 “is an eclectic one which seeks to combine fidelity to
the Hebrew with some of the felicities of style of the Vulgate.”

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: The Nova Vulgata. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin
Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 378–391, at pp. 381, 382, 386–387. – Due to its frequent use,
the book of Psalms was the first biblical book revised for the Nova Vulgate. Its first text, pub ­
lished in 1969, was subsequently slightly revised in 1974, 1979, and 1986.

354
Chapter 17
Nova Vulgata, 1979
Note. – The Nova Vulgata, or Neovulgate, is a modern revision of the Vulgate, prepared by theolo ­
gians and philologists on ecclesiastical commission, with the aim of bringing the traditional Vulgate
text into conformity with the underlying original Hebrew and Greek texts. In the Nova Vulgata project
that began to be worked on in 1966, the goal of improving the Latin style was not pursued. The pres ­
ident of the papal commission was Eduard Schick (1906–2000), former professor of New Testament
and Bishop of Fulda, Germany. Also involved were Cardinal Augustin Bea SJ (1881–1968) and Tarcisio
(Tarsicio) Stramare OSJ (1928–2020).

The idea of a Nova Vulgata – an improved version of Jerome’s Latin Bible – was not entirely new when
it was thought up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. We can name at least two authors
who had expressed the idea earlier: Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP and Robert Weber OSB. In 1924, com­
menting on the Benedictine Vulgate, Lagrange remarked that “on eût pu concevoir une révision du
travail de saint Jérôme, d’après la science moderne mieux informée” (Revue biblique 33 [1924] 118). A
similar idea was expressed by Robert Weber in a privately printed publication in which the learned au ­
thor made suggestions for a revised Vulgate Psalter for use in the monastic liturgy of the Hours
(Robert Weber: Psalterii secundum Vulgatam Bibliorum Versionem Nova Recensio. Pro manuscripto.
Clervaux 1961. 192 pp., see p. 8).

Chapters 6 to 13 of this handbook are about three textual types of the Latin Bible: (1) the Vetus Latina
(dealt with in Chapter 6), (2) the Latin Bible as it existed in the patristic period – Jerome’s Vulgate as
reconstructed by modern scholarship (for editions, see Chapter 13), (3) the medieval and early modern
Vulgate, best represented by the Clementine edition of 1592 (dealt with in Chapter 16.2). The Neovul­
gate of the Catholic Church, published in the late twentieth century, adds (4) a fourth Latin Bible text.
One way of defining the relationships of these four textual types of the Latin Bible is as follows:

– The Vetus Latina (1) belongs to the prehistory of the Latin Bible.

– Jerome’s Vulgate (2) as reconstructed by modern scholarship is actually nothing but a schol­
arly afterthought on the Clementine edition (3).

– The Clementine edition (3) has been the Catholic Church’s Bible for close to four centuries, and
we may consider it the “real” Vulgate.

– The Neovulgate (4) is a kind of modern ecclesiastical afterthought on the Clementine Bible (3),
based on a combination of what scholars have reconstructed as Jerome’s Vulgate (2) with
modern Hebrew and Greek textual studies.

17.1 Official documents

17.2 Editions

17.3 Secondary literature

355
17.1 Official documents
1966. Paul VI: [Speech to the Cardinals, 23rd December 1966]. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 1967) 48–59,
at pp. 53–54. – This speech includes a brief reference to the commission charged with the pro­
duction of the Nova Vulgata. “The work in progress of the Commission, presided over by Car­
dinal Agostino Bea, for the preparation of a new Bible in Latin, the Neo-Vulgate, as it is already
called, would require a different discourse; an edition desired by the progress of biblical studies
and by the need to give the Church and the world a new and authoritative text of Sacred Scrip­
ture. We are thinking of a text in which the Vulgate of St. Jerome will be respected to the letter,
where it faithfully reproduces the original text, as it results from the present scientific editions; it
will be prudently corrected where it deviates from it, or does not interpret it correctly, adopting
for this purpose the language of the Bible. It will be prudently corrected where it deviates from it
or does not interpret it correctly, adopting the language of Christian latinitas biblica for this pur­
pose; in such a way that respect for tradition and the sound critical demands of our time are re­
conciled.” – This is the first papal document that refers to the Nova Vulgata by its Italian name,
Neo-Volgata. The Jesuit Cardinal Augustine Bea, in charge of the project, did not live to see its
completion; he died in 1968.

1979. John Paul II: Apostolic Constitution “Scripturarum thesaurus” (22nd April 1979). The papal consti ­
tution entitled “The Treasure of the Scriptures” declares the Neovulgate to be the authentic bib­
lical text of the Catholic Church. This document means the end of a period of four hundred
years that began in 1546 when the Council of Trent recognized the Vulgate to be the church’s
Bible. – Text:
1979. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 71: 557–559.

1997. Heinrich Rennings – Martin Klöckener (eds.): Dokumente zur Erneuerung der Liturgie. Kevelaer 1997. Vol. 2
(801 pp.), pp. 340–342 (nos. 3706–3709). German translation.

2001. Congregatio de Cultu Divino – Congregation of Divine Worship: Instruction “Liturgiam authen­
ticam” (7th May 2001). The English subtitle of this document reads: “On the use of vernacular
languages in the publication of the books of the Roman liturgy.” Article no. 24: “Furthermore, in
the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by
the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described else­
where in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the
Latin Liturgy. (…) It is advantageous to be guided by the Nova Vulgata wherever there is a need
to choose, from among various possibilities [of translation], that one which is most suited for ex ­
pressing the manner in which a text has traditionally been read and received within the Latin
liturgical tradition.” Article no. 37: “If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is com­
posed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be
borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation
of the canonical text.” – German: “(24) Ebenso soll man bei der Erarbeitung von Übersetzungen
der Heiligen Schrift für den liturgischen Gebrauch den Text der vom Apostolischen Stuhl pro­
mulgierten Nova Vulgata als Hilfe heranziehen, um die exegetische Tradition zu wahren, vor al ­
lem hinsichtlich der lateinischen Liturgie. (…) (37) Wenn die Bibelübersetzung, aus der das Lek­
tionar schöpft, Lesarten aufweist, die von denjenigen des lateinischen liturgischen Textes abwe­
ichen, ist darauf zu achten, dass sich alles, was die Festlegung des kanonischen Schrifttextes bet­
rifft, nach der Norm der Nova Vulgata richtet.” – Text and translations:
2001. De usu linguarum popularium in libris liturgiae Romanae edendis. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 93: 685–725.

2001. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments: Liturgiam authenticam. Vernacular
Languages in the Books of the Roman Liturgy. Instruction. Catholic Truth Society. London. 52 pp.

356
 2001. Der Gebrauch der Volkssprache bei der Herausgabe der Bücher der römischen Liturgie. Verlautbarungen des
Apostolischen Stuhls 154. Bonn. 111 pp. Latin and German.

2005. English Translation of Liturgiam authenticam. In: Peter Jeffery: Translating Tradition. A Chant Historian
Reads Liturgiam authenticam. Collegeville, Min. (168 pp.). pp. 121ff.

17.2 Editions
Note. – The Neovulgate has a number of typographical features absent from the Clementina. Intro­
duced were exclamation marks (!) in addition to the Clementina’s question marks; an example is the
emphatic “no” in Romans 6:2, where the Neovulgate has «Absit!» Direct speech is always placed within
French guillemets (« … »), and within direct speech, quotations are marked with double inverted com­
mas (“…”). Sayings and slogans are also marked out with guillemets; examples are «Omnia licent!» (1
Cor 10:23) and «Cretenses semper mendaces (etc.).» (Tit 12). Moreover, italics are used to indicate
echoes or quotations from the Old Testament. Here are a few examples: Et ait Dominus ad serpentem:
«Quia fecisti hoc, maledictus es inter omnia pecora et omnes bestias agri! (…)». (Gen 3:14 NVg) – Iesus
autem dixit: «Ego sum, et videbitis Filium hominis a dextris sedentem Virtutis et venientem cum nubibus
caeli». (Mark 14:62 NVg) The typography of quotation marks follows modern style, as does the placing
of the full stop after the quotation mark. The Neovulgate is visibly «made in Italy.»

Another feature absent from the Clementina (and from the NVg’s online version) is the critical apparat­
us in the printed editions published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. There are three kinds of apparat ­
us: (1) most of the Old Testament books have a small number of textual notes that justify the Latin text
in places where it differs from the Hebrew text or, in the case of Greek books (such as 1 and 2 Macc),
from the Greek; (2) the books of Tobit and Judith have an apparatus that lists manuscripts, much in the
form of standard critical editions such as the Weber/Gryson Vulgate; (3) all the books of the New Test ­
ament have a detailed apparatus that gives the traditional wording of the Clementina or
Weber/Gryson when the main text differs.

A preliminary edition
1969. Pontificia commissio pro Nova Vulgata bibliorum editione (ed.): Liber Psalmorum. Città del Vat­
icano. xii, 177 pp. – This thorough revision of the traditional Vulgate text provides the text of the
Psalms for the new Liturgy of the Hours of the Catholic Church, introduced in 1971. The text was
subsequently made part of the Nova Vulgata. The preliminary edition is important for its proleg­
omena (pp. vii–xii) which explain why many passages were revised, especially in the interest of
avoiding ungrammatical phrases.

Editio princeps
1979. John Paul II (ed.): Nova Vulgata. Bibliorum sacrorum editio. Città del Vaticano. xiii, 2154 pp. – The
second edition (editio altera) of 1986 (xxxi, 2316 pp.) and later reprints include the text of the
Apostolic Constitution “Scripturarum thesaurus” (iii–viii), a “praefatio ad lectorem” (ix–xiv, signed
by Eduard Schick) and “praenotanda” (xv–xxviii). The second, 1986 edition includes minor revi­
sions of the Latin wording; the most notable change is the suppression of Iaveh, in the first edi­
tion used in a small number of passages such as Exodus 6:3 (where Jerome has Adonai). Some
further changes are briefly noted in Kevin Zilverberg: The Nova Vulgata. In: H.A.G. Houghton
(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 378–391, at p. 382.

357
Further editions
1992. Kurt Aland – Barbara Aland (eds.): Novum Testamentum Latine. 2nd edition. Stuttgart. [xi], 680
pp. – With text-critical apparatus. The names of the two editors are in small print in the book’s
long subtitle; in big letters, above the title, we read “Nestle–Aland,” in memory of previous edi­
tions of the Latin New Testament, but this is misleading, because the editions prior to 1984 had
the traditional text of the Clementina. The 1st edition of the Aland-Aland Novum Testamentum
Latine was published in 1984; a third, updated one in 2014, “durch Apparate und Perikopen­
überschriften ergänzt” (xxi, 789 pp.). The copyright statement reads: “Copyright 1986 Libreria
Editrice Vaticana.” – Review: Roger Gryson, Revue théologique de Louvain 16 (1985) 65–67;
Gryson objects to this edition as overestimating the importance of the Nova Vulgata; for this
small-size edition it would have been better to retain the traditional Vulgate text.

2015. Fortunato Frezza (ed.): La Sacra Bibbia. Testo bilingue latino–italiano. Città del Vaticano. lvi, 4417
pp.– This bilingual edition prints the text of the Nova Vulgata and the translation of the Italian
Bishops’ Conference (3rd edition, 2008). The two versions – the NVg Latin text and the Italian
text – often have different textual bases; in other words: you cannot use the Italian text as a
translation of the Nova Vulgata. The Italian translation is accompanied by brief exegetical notes.
For the researcher more relevant are the notes to the Latin text, because they indicate the tex­
t-critical basis of the Latin text.

Psalterium monasticum
Note. – The Benedictine order (OSB) has its own liturgy of the Hours (or Divine Office, officium
divium). It has adopted the Psalter of the Neovulgate. The edition of 1981 is the editio princeps of the
new Benedictine book of the Hours.

1981. Psalterium cum canticis Novi et Veteris Testamenti iuxta regulam S.P.N. Benedicti. Edited by the
Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes. Paris. xi, 560 pp. – On the cover, the book is called Psalterium
monasticum, the name by which this book is generally known.

17.3 Secondary literature

The papal constitution Scripturarum thesaurus (22nd April 1979)

The authority of the Neovulgate

Reviews of the text of the Neovulgate

The papal constitution Scripturarum thesaurus (22nd April 1979)

1979. Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis: Die Neovulgata von Papst Johannes Paul promulgiert. Zur Apostolischen
Konstitution “Scripturarum Thesaurus.” Bibel und Liturgie 52: 204–207.

1980. Antonio Garcia Moreno: Scripturarum thesaurus (promulgación de la Neovulgata), primer aniver­
sario. Scripta Theologica Pamplona 12: 849–869.

2008. Mario Cimosa – Carlo Buzzetti: Guida allo studio della bibbia latina. Dalla Vetus Latin, alla Vul­
gata, alla Nova Vulgata. Rome. 201 pp. – Pages 62–93: history and idea of the Neovulgate; pp.

358
 171– 191: Latin text of the Apostolic Constitution “Scripturarum thesaurus” 1979 by P. John Paul
II, complete with “praefatio ad lectorem” and “praenotanda.”

The authority of the Neovulgate

Note. – Some of the authors listed here object to the Roman instruction Liturgiam authenticam (7th
May 2001) that it confers upon the Neovulgate an authority that the original Vulgate never seems to
have had.

English
2001. John Fitzsimmons: Rome’s Tight Rein. The Tablet 26th May: 765–766. – “From a biblical scholar’s
point of view, which is what I am by profession, to be told that all matters of textual doubt must
be resolved by reference to the Neo-Vulgate is risible as well as insulting.”

2001. Joseph Jensen OSB: Liturgiam authenticam and the New Vulgate. America 185.5 (August 13: 13.

2001. Richard J. Clifford SJ: The Authority of the Nova Vulgata: A Note on a Recent Roman Document.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63: 197–202. – On the instruction “Liturgiam authenticam” (2001).

2005. Peter Jeffery: Translating Tradition. A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam authenticam. Collegeville,
Min. 168 pp. – Said to be the most sustained critique of Liturgiam authenticam.

2011. Dennis MacMannus: Translation Theory in “Liturgiam authenticam.” In: Neil J. Roy (ed.): Benedict
XVI and the Sacred Liturgy. Dublin (204 pp.), pp. 116–131.

2016. Oliver G. Dy: The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation. Historical Perspectives on
Liturgiam authenticam. Études le liturgie/Studies in Liturgy 97:141–170. – The assignment of an
important role to the Vulgate is an obstacle to the Catholic Church’s ecumentical agenda. The
article is in French.

2019. Mario Toni Subardijo: The Fundamental Criterion of Liturgical Translation: Valde utilis apud pop ­
ulum. Jurnal teologi (Santa Dharma University) 8:17–30.

Other languages
2002. Boris Repschinski SJ: Anmerkungen zu einigen Thesen von Liturgiam authenticam. Protokolle zur
Bibel 11: 71–76. – The Instruction “Liturgiam authenticam” (2001) published by the Congregation
for Divine Worship exaggerates the authority of the Nova Vulgata by declaring it the absolute
standard for all vernacular biblical texts used in the liturgy.

2004. Dieter Böhler SJ: Anmerkungen eines Exegeten zur Instructio Quinta “Liturgiam authenticam.” Li­
turgisches Jahrbuch 54: 205–222.

2005. Jean Delisle: Les nouvelles règles de traduction du Vatican. Meta. Journal des traducteurs 50.3:
831–850.

2019. Giuseppe de Virgilio – Tarcisio Stramare: Die Bedeutung der Neo-Vulgata anlässlich ihres
vierzigjährigen Jubiläums. Theologisches 49.9–10: 493–502.

2021. Ignacio Carbajosa Pérez: Hebraica veritas versus Septuaginta auctoritatem: ¿ Existe un texto
canónico del Antiguo Testamento ? Estella. 147 pp. – This survey on the authority of biblical
translations, especially the Vulgate, through the ages, ends with a chapter on the Neovulgate.

359
Reviews of the text of the Neovulgate
Note. – Many of the articles on the Neovulgate are by Tarcisio Stramare OSJ (1928–2020, who died a
victim of the corona pandemic; his first name is sometimes spelled Tarsicio). Since 1973, Stramare was
involved with the production of the Neovulgate as one of its editors.

English
1982. Sean Quinlan [review of Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio]. Irish Theological Quarterly 49:
305. – The reviewer notes that the old (theological) crux of Romans 5:12 (in quo omnes pec­
caverunt) has received a new interpretation (eo quod omnes peccaverunt). He regrets the ab­
sence of textual notes that would explain such passages.

1992. J.K. Elliott [review of Fischer: Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. IV]. Journal of
Theological Studies NS 43 (1992) 633–635. – Page 634: “In the [present] John volume, we again
see that in its desire to provide a Latin counterpart to the Greek text of NA26 [Greek New Testa ­
ment, 26th edition by Nestle and Aland], the Latin textual support [of the Neo-Vulgate] is often
shaky.” (One has to keep in mind, however, that the Nova Vulgata is based upon recent editions
of the Greek New Testament, but its editors have not sought support from early Latin manu­
scripts such as those analysed by Fischer. B. Lang.)

2017. Kevin J. Zilverberg: The Neo-Vulgate as Official Liturgical Translation. In: Joseph Briody (ed.):
Verbum Domini. Liturgy and Scripture. Wells, Somerset (270 pp.), pp. 93–125. – Pages 102–112:
authority und use of the NVg; 112–116: NVg textual improvements; 120–125: bibliography. –The
author offers a defense of the New Vulgate and presents many textual examples. “I maintain
that the NV [Nova Vulgata] stands in continuity with our Judean-Christian tradition of Greek and
Latin biblical translation” (p. 116). Zilverberg is one of the foremost apologists of the NVg.

2017–2018. John Francis Elwolde: A Text-critical Study of the Nova Vulgata of Sirach 41. Tamid: Revista
Catalana Annual d’Estudis Hebraics 12 (2016–2017) 7–63; 13 (2018) 35–93. The NVg new text of
Sirach is closer to the text of the Septuagint than the traditional Vulgate text that was used as
the basis for revision. The author is not quite satisfied with the NVg text of Sirach and suggests
that it should be revised.

2018. Benno A. Zuiddam: The New Vulgate and the “Missing” Verses: Do all changes lead to Rome?
Neotestamentica 52: 433–470. – In the New Testament, the Clementina edition of the Vulgate
Bible echoes the Greek textus receptus, whereas the Nova Vulgata is based on today’s text-critic­
al editions of the Greek text. The author provides two lists; the first one lists and discusses all the
passages where the Nova Vulgata omits complete Clementina verses (such as Matt 17:21), the
second one lists and discusses all passages where significant words or phrases are absent from
the Nova Vulgata (such as Matt 5:44; 6:13; and Rom 8:1). Here is the list of Clementina verses
omitted in the NVg: Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24. This study clearly shows that the Greek textus
receptus and the Clementina represent slightly expanded versions of the original biblical text. ▲

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: The Nova Vulgata. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin
Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 378–391. – The Nova Vulgata, or Neo-Vulgate, is a revised
Vulgate Bible published in 1979 by the Catholic Church for use principally in Latin-language
liturgies, and as a template for vernacular lectionaries. The Second Vatican Council’s 1963 call
for a revised Latin Psalter led to the formation of a committee that was soon expanded to un­
dertake a revision of the entire Bible. The dozen committee members and their collaborators
used modern editions of biblical texts in the original languages to correct the Vulgate when it
significantly diverged from these. The near-total collapse of the use of Latin in Catholic liturgies

360
 after the Council has meant that the Neo-Vulgate is read mostly by a minority of clergy and
laypeople, still numbering in the thousands, who daily pray the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. Zil­
verberg comments on the prehistory of the Nova Vulgata: “The Italian Benedictine Isidoro Chiari
produced a predecessor to the Neo-Vulgate in 1542 by using Hebrew and Greek to correct the
Vulgate. He strove for moderation and recognized the importance of maintaining continuity
with the received text, even as he claimed to have I made eight thousand interventions. Chiari’s
Bible, however, was just one among many editions that did not gain approval for liturgical use”
(p. 379).

German
1972. Eduard Schick: Eine Neuausgabe der Vulgata. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 120 (1972)
345–347.

1978. Eduard Schick: Die ‘Neue Vulgata’. Anlaß, Methode und Ziel der 1977 abgeschlossenen Revision
der Vulgata. Die Bibel in der Welt. Jahrbuch des Verbands der Ev. Bibelgesellschaften in Deutsch­
land 18: 203–211.

1978. Vinzenz Hamp, Biblische Zeitschrift 22.2: 284–285.

1979. Vinzenz Hamp: Die neue Vulgata. Klerusblatt. Zeitschrift der katholischen Geistlichen in Bayern
und der Pfalz 9: 195–197.

1979. Fritzleo Lentzen-Dies: Die Neovulgata von Papst Johannes Paul promulgiert. Zur apostolischen
Konstitution “Scripturarum Thesaurus.” Bibel und Liturgie 52: 204–207.

1981. Tarcisio Stramare: Die Neo-Vulgata. Zur Gestaltung des Textes. Biblische Zeitschrift 25: 67–81.

1981. Eduard Schick: Bedeutung der Neo-Vulgata. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 129: 376–378.

French
1979. Albert L. Descamps: La Nouvelle Vulgate. Espirit et Vie 89: 598–603.

1987. Tarcisio Stramare (ed.): La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorini. Rome. 297 pp. – Pages
176–191: Jean Mallet, La latinité de la Néo-Vulgate; 192–197: Jean Gribomont, La révision conci­
liaire de la Néo-Vulgate.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Revue théologique de
Louvain 19: 137–1159. 276–314. – On p. 304, the Nova Vulgata is characterized as follows:
“D’une manière générale, elle vise à incorporer à la Vulgate les acquis les plus sûrs de l’exégèse
en respectant autant que possible la langue et le texte des anciens traducteurs. Cependant pour
Tobie et Judith, l’adaptation hiéronymienne a été totalement abandonnée au profit d’une nou­
velle version sur le grec, très proche de la vetus latina. Le livre d’Esther retrouve à leur place na­
turelle non seulement les suppléments du grec, mais aussi ceux que la vetus latina est seule à
avoir conservés, par exemple la prière de Juifs en 3,15d–i et la magnifique litanie des huit ego
audiui ex libris maiorum meorum de la prière d’Esther en 4,17s–aa.”

1996. Tarcisio Stramare: Die Neo-Vulgata. Zur Gestaltung des Textes. Archiv für katholisches Kirchen­
recht 165: 67–81.

2005. Christophe Rico: L’art de la traduction chez saint Jérôme. La Vulgate à l’aune de la Néovulgate:
l’exemple du quatrième Évangile. Revue des études latines 83: 194–218. – English abstract (p.
194) : Jerome’s translation appears to be stylistically more elegant and semantically more pre­
cise than the Neovulgate.

361
2008. Régis Courtray: La traduction de Daniel-Vulgate face à la Néovulgate. Anabases 8: 107–126.

2016. Christophe Rico: Le traducteur de Bethléem: le génie interprétatif de saint Jérôme à l’aune de la
linguistique. Lectio divina 270. Paris. – Pages 145–152: Vulgate et Néovulgate.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris. 530 pp.
– Page 222: “Pour l’historien, la Nova Vulgata est une sorte de monstre, un texte artificiellement
construit.”

Italian
1978. Tarcisio Stramare: La Neo-Volgata. Bibbia e Oriente 20: 271–277.

1979. Tarcisio Stramare: Il libro dell’Ecclesiastico nella Neo-Vulgata. In: Kirche und Bibel. Festgabe für
Bischof Eduard Schick. Herausgegeben von den Professoren der Philosophisch-theologischen
Hochschule Fulda. Paderborn (502 pp.), pp. 443–448. This article is also in Rivista biblica [Italiana]
27 (1979) 219–226.

1979–1980. Tarcisio Stramare: La Neo-Vulgata: impresa scientifica e pastorale insieme. Estudios bíblicos
38: 115–138.

1981. Tarcisio Stramare: Storia e caratteristiche della Neo-Volgata. Bibbia e Oriente 23: 193–199.

1987. Giuseppe Scarpat: Osservazioni sul testo della “Sapientia” nella Nova Vulgata. Rivista biblica 35:
187–194. – The Neovulgate’s version of the book of Wisdom includes many bad, unnecessary
and unjustified alterations of the traditional Vulgate text. The examples considered are Wisd 1:2,
5, 6, 8, 14, 15; 2:15, 20, 22; 4:3, 20; 5:22. ▲

1987. Tarcisio Stramare: La Neo-Volgata. Storia della revisione, sue finalità e caratteristiche. In: idem
(ed.): La Bibbia ‘Volgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio internazionale 1985. Rome
(197 pp.), pp. 149–175.

1989. Giuseppe Scarpat: Libro della Sapienza. Volume primo. Brescia 1989 (478 pp.), p. 401, note 1:
“The only thing to be hoped for is that the Nova Vulgata in its entirety will soon be rejected by
the experts (as is already happening), and will also be taken off the market to make way once
again for the reprinting of the Vulgate, in a text critically reconstructed with work already well
underway and entrusted to competent scholars” (B. Lang’s translation). Scarpat’s notes on the
Latin text (pp. 413–478) often refers to the Nova Vulgata, criticizing its textual choices or para­
phrases. ▲

2001. Tarcisio Stramare: Il cammino della Scrittura nella tradizione testuale Latina. Ricerche storico bi­
bliche 13: 133–151. – Includes comments on the Neovulgate.

Spanish
1986. Néstor Giraldo Ramírez: La nueva vulgata. Cuestiones teológicas 13/137: 513–524.

2011. Antonio García-Moreno: La Neovulgata. Precedentes y actualidad. 2nd edition. Baranain

(Navarra). 471 pp. – The first edition was published in Pamplona 1986. Only the book’s last
chapter deals with the Neovulgate.

Dutch
1981. Willem Baars: Exit Vulgata. Nabetrachting bij een Bijbelvertaling. Nederlands theologisch Tijd­
schrift 35: 101–110.

362
Latin
2017. Caelestis Eichenseer OSB: De versione Latina retractata epistularum Novi Testamenti. Vox latina
53/209: 347–354. – The Latin text of the epistolary corpus within the New Testament constitutes
an improvement over the corresponding text of the Vulgate. This is a reprint of an article origin­
ally published earlier; Eichenseer (1924–2008) was a Latinist who promoted spoken Latin in
which he was famously fluent.

363
Chapter 18
The Vulgate Bible in vernacular translations

Note. – Until the twentieth century, Catholic vernacular Bibles had to be based on the Clementine
Bible. What follows is just a selection of the most common translations in some Western languages –
English, German, French. Some of these – especially the Douay Version and the Allioli Bible – became
bestselling Bibles in English and German. For a survey, see:

2023. Olivier Dy – Wim François: Vernacular Translations of the Latin Bible. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.):
The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 392–405. – The stated use
of the Latin Vulgate as a source text for translation is a characteristic feature of Catholic ver ­
nacular Bibles published before the twentieth century. In a milieu shaped and informed by con­
fessional confrontations, Catholic translators felt compelled by the declaration of the Vulgate’s
authenticity at Trent in 1546 to recognize and deploy the Vulgate as their primary source in a
clear and visible expression of Catholic identity. The later shift in the choice of source texts away
from the Vulgate and towards the texts of Scripture in the original languages occurs as a result
of developments both in Catholic biblical scholarship and in the understanding of the Tridentine
decree, following the release of new information about Trent with the opening of the Vatican
Archives in 1880. Changes in the choice and prioritization of the source texts of biblical transla­
tion are illustrated through a historical survey of Catholic Bibles in German, French, English, and
Dutch.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Übersetzungen der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 162–165. – An elementary in­
troduction to translations into English and German, esp. Allioli, Tusculum-Vulgata, Douay Ver­
sion, and Knox.

There is no clear-cut border between Bible translations based on the Vulgate and translations based
on the Hebrew and Greek text, because the Vulgate has influenced, and continues to influence, mod ­
ern biblical translations. For examples, see Sakae Kubo: The Influence of the Vulgate on the English
Translations of Certain Psalms. Andrews University Seminary Studies 3.1 (1965) 34–41.

18.1 English translations

18.2 German translations

18.3 French translations

18.4 Scholarly translations: English, German, and Romanian

364
18.1 English translations

The Wyclifite Bible

Douay Version (also known as Douay-Rheims Version)

The Knox Bible

The Wyclifite Bible

Note. – In the circle of John Wyclif (1330–1384) of Oxford originated a literal middle-English transla­
tion of the Vulgate Bible, in the 1370s and 1380s. It seems that the Douay Version echoes some of the
linguistic decisions made by the Wyclifite translators.

Editions
1850. Josiah Forshall – Frederic Madden (eds.): The Holy Bible (…) in the Earliest English Versions Made
from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers. Oxford. 4 Volumes. lxiv, 687 pp.; 888
pp.; 897 pp.; 749 pp. – Vol. 1 has a long introduction and a list of the manuscripts (pp. i–lxiv).
The biblical text is printed twice, for there are two versions, by the editors called “Earlier Version”
(EV) and “Later Version” (LV). The two versions are printed in synoptic columns.

2010. Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible. In: Mary Dove (ed.): The Earliest Advocates of the English Bible.
The Texts of the Medieval Debates. Exeter (lxvii, 236 pp.), pp. 3–85. – With introduction (pp. xx–
xxix) and notes (pp. 188–201). – This “prologue” has recently received scholarly attention; see
below, Somerset, 2014.

Secondary Literature
1952. Hugh Pope OP: The Wyciffite Versions of the Bible. In: idem – Sebastian Bullough OP: English
Versions of the Bible. Revised and Amplified. St. Louis – London (ix, 787 pp.), pp. 67–88.

1984. F.F. Bruce: John Wycliffe and the English Bible. Churchman 98: 294–306.

1993. David Norton: The History of the Bible as Literature. Volume 1 Cambridge (xvii, 375), pp. 78–84,
314–316. – On pp. 314–316, the author presents in synoptic layout the Latin text of Matt 4: 18–
25 with the two versions of the Wyclifite Bible (in modernised spelling).

1998. Christina von Nolcken: Lay Literacy, the Democratization of God’s Law and the Lollards. In: John
L. Sharpe – Kimberley van Kampen (eds.): The Bible as Book. The Manuscript Tradition. London
(xi, 260 pp., 32 leaves), pp. 177–196.

2003. David Daniell: The Bible in English. Its History and Influence. New Haven. xx, 899 pp. – Pages 66–
95: The Wyclif (“Lollard”) Bibles.

2006. Mary Dove: Wyclif and the English Bible. In: Ian Christopher Levy (ed.): A Companion to John
Wyclif, Late Medieval Theologian. Leiden (xxi, 489 pp.), pp. 396–406.

2011. Susan Boynton – Diane J. Reilly (eds.): The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Production, Re­
ception, and Performance in Western Christianity. New York. viii, 364 pp. – Includes articles on

365
 “The Bible in English in the Middle Ages” and “The first complete vernacular Bible,” as well as a
glossary.

2012. Richard Marsden: The Bible in English. In: idem – E. Ann Matter (eds.): The New Cambridge His­
tory of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp. 217–238. –
Marsden also tells the story of English Bible translations before the Wyclifite Bible.

2014. Frans van Liere: An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge 2015 (xv, 320 pp.), pp. 199–203:
The Wiclyffite Bible.

2014. Fiona Somerset: Feeling like Saints. Lollard Writings after Wyclif. Ithaca, N.Y. (xiii, 315 pp.), pp.
166–202: Lollard Parabiblica. – On the “General Prologue” to the Wyclifite Bible.

2016. Henry Ansgar Kelly: The Middle English Bible. A Reassessment. Philadelphia. xiv, 349 pp. – A revi­
sionist account. Kelly suggests to distinguish between the actual Bble translation (which has
nothing to do with Wyclif and his circle) and the Wyclifite prologue (that is sometimes included
in the manuscripts). Kelly expresses doubts about Wyclif’s command of Latin – a suggestion that
does not sound convincing.

2020. Elizabeth Solopova – Jeremy Catto – Anne Hudson (eds.): From the Vulgate to the Vernacular.
Four Debates on an English Question c. 1400. Toronto. cxxxxvi, 8, 216 pp. – Nicholas of Hereford
is identified as one of the translators of the Wyclif Bible.

2020. Alina Markova: Wyclifsche Bibelübersetzung. Ein Projekt im Spannungsfeld zwischen Anforderun­
gen und Möglichkeiten. Frankfurt. 280 pp. – One section deals specifically with this translation’s
rendering of the Latin ablativus absolutus.

2020. Andrew Kraebel: Biblical Commentary and Translation in Later Medieval England. Cambridge. xiv,
302 pp.

Douay Version (also known as Douay-Rheims Version)

Note. – The English Douay version, of which the New Testament was published ten years before the
Clementina, is based on a text that is close to, but not identical with, the Clementina (see below, the
note on the bilingual edition of 2010–2013). Subsequently, the Douay Bible came to be known for its
antiquated language. In the eighteenth century, its language was so thoroughly revised that it still
reads very well today. The revision was done by Richard Challoner (1691–1781) who diminished the
Latinisms and made the Douay Bible more conform with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. (An ex­
ample of a Latinism that survived the revision can be found in Matt 22:6: “And the rest laid hands on
his servants and, having treated them contumeliously, put them to death.”) What today – and in the
present book – is referred to as the Douay Version could actually be called the Challoner version, be ­
cause only the Challoner revision became widely used by Catholics. It ceased to be the Bible of Eng ­
lish-speaking Catholics towards the end of the 20th century when new Catholic Bibles such as the Jeru­
salem Bible (1966) and the New American Bible (1970) were published. These were based upon the ori­
ginal languages rather than on the Vulgate.

Today, the Douay Version is appreciated as a very literal rendering of the Latin text; in the words of
Tuuka Kauhanen: “the translation is literal enough to almost work as an interlinear translation” ( Arctos.
Acta Philologica Fennica 50 [2016] 197, in a book review).

Why is this version called the Douay or Douay-Rheims Bible? Because it originated at Douay (Douai) in
France, where the English Catholics had their seminary for theological research and the training of fu ­
ture priests. Founded in 1568, the college moved to Rheims in 1578–1593. It then returned to Douay,
moved to Durham in England in 1795 (due to its being closed subsequent to the French Revolution)

366
where it became Ushaw College. The college there functioned as a Catholic seminary until 2011 when
it had to be closed due to the shortage of vocations for the priesthood.

1582. [Gregory Martin] The Nevv Testament of Iesus Christ. Translated Faithfully into English out of the
Authentical Latin (…) in the English College of Rhemes. Reims. – This is the first, New Testament
part of the “Douay-Rheims” Bible. The Old Testament followed in 1609 and 1610 in two volumes
printed in Douay (Douai). Gregory Martin and William Allen, members of the English Catholic
College in Douai, France, are believed to be the main translators responsible. The Douay-Rheims
Bible available today offers the text revised by Richard Challoner in the 18th century. Challoner’s
thorough revision served to align the translation with the Clementina; it is also said to be under
the influence of the King James Bible.

1749. [Richard Challoner] The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Translated out of
the Latin Vulgat (…) First Published by the English College of Rheims, Anno 1582. Newly Revised,
and Corrected according to the Clementin Edition of the Scriptures. [Dublin?]. [iv], 500 pp. – It was
with this revision that the “Douay” Version’s success began.

1872. The Vulgate New Testament. With the Douay Version of 1582 in Parallel Columns. London:
Samuel Bagster & Sons. xi, 352 pp. – Unlike most editions of the Douay Version, this one has the
original English wording, rather than that of the Challoner revision.

1952. Hugh Pope OP – Sebastian Bullough OP: English Versions of the Bible. Revised and Amplified. St.
Louis – London. ix, 787 pp. – The appendix reprints the preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testa­
ment (pp. 601–650) and the preface to the 1609 Rheims Old Testament (pp. 651–665).

1956. Bernard Griffin (ed.): The Holy Bible. Douay Version. London. ix, 1282, 351 pp.– This pocket edi­
tion, distributed by the Catholic Truth Society and reprinted several times, has this note on the
title page: “Translated from the Latin Vulgate (…) This edition contains notes compiled by Bishop
Challoner, 1691–1781.”

Research editions
1975. The Douay Bible: The Holie Bible Faithfully Translated into English. A Facsimile of the 1609/1610
Edition. English Recusant Literature 265, 266. 2 Volumes. Ilkley, Yorkshire 1975. 1115, 1124 pp.

2010–2013. Angela M. Kinney – Swift Edgar (eds.): The Vulgate Bible. Douay-Rheims Translation. Dum­
barton Oaks Medieval Library. Cambridge, Mass. 7 volumes: 1: xxxvii, 1151 pp. (Pentateuch); 2A:
xxxvi, 1125 pp., and 2B: xii, pp. 1128– 1921 (the historical books of the Old Testament); 3: xxxvii,
1167 pp. (poetical books); 4: xxxvii, 1130 pp. (major prophets); 5: xxxvii, 631 pp. (minor prophets,
Maccabees); 6: xxxix, 1538 pp. (New Testament). – Latin and English. Each volume includes the
preface of Swift Edgar; in volume 1, it is on pp. vii–xxx. The English Douay-Rheims translation,
published in 1582 (New Testament) and 1609/10 (Old Testament), is used as a starting point.
The Latin text provides the Vorlage used by the translators. It corresponds to the text of the
printed Latin Bibles of the type of the Gutenberg Bible common at that time. The Latin text is
not that of the Clementina, but an earlier form that at times differs from it. – Reviews:
2016. Tuukka Kauhanen, Arctos. Acta Philologica Fennica 50: 196–197.

2017. Michael Graves, Glimpses into the History of the Hebrew Bible through the Vulgate Tradition; in: Andrés
Piquer Otero – Pablo A. Torijano Morales (eds.): The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Traditions. Leiden 2017
(xix, 575 pp.), pp. 217–254. According to Graves (p. 219 ▲), this work fails as a convincing scholarly publica­
tion, because the English text is not that of the original Douay version, but that of the Challoner revision;
moreover, the Latin text is that of the standard modern Vulgate editions, but emended to conform with the

367
 English translation. Such a reconstruction of the presumed Vorlage of the Douay translation is both doubt ­
ful and superfluous. The Douay text Vorlage is actually quite close to the Clementina.

Revisions of the Douay Version

1859. Francis Patrick Kenrick: The Book of Job and the Prophets. Baltimore. 799 pp. – The translator,
bishop of Baltimore, translates from the Vulgate and offers, as the title page explains, “a revised
edition of the Douay version.” Cf. Hugh Pope OP – Sebastian Bullough OP: English Versions of
the Bible. Revised and Amplified. St. Louis – London 1952 (ix, 787 pp.), pp. 458–463: Dr. Kenrick’s
Version of the Bible, 1849–60.

1949. New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. New York. 1086, 367 pp.
– Edited under the patronage of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine by Howard G. Cavalero,
this Bible supplies a revised version of the Douay/Challoner Bible, but includes a new English
version of the Psalms based on the Psalterium Pianum (see Chapter 16.6).

2009. Ronald L. Conte (translator): The Holy Bible: Catholic Public Domain Version. Morrisville, N.C. – As
the title page explains, this version is “translated from the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII
Latin Vulgate Bible, using the Challoner-Douay Version as a guide.” The translator has rewritten
the Douay version in contemporary English. He also placed the text on the Internet where it is
readily available (complete with minor revisions of the printed edition).

Secondary literature
1837. Nicholas Wiseman: Catholic Versions of Scripture. Dublin Review, April 1937; now in: idem: Essays
on Various Subjects. By His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman. London 1853, vol. 1 (xv, 644 pp.), pp.
71–100. Wiseman does not think very highly of Challoner’s revision of the original Douay Ver ­
sion. “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish version is an abuse of terms. It has been
altered and modified till scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published; and as far as
simplicity and energy of style are concerned, the changes are in general for the worse. For
though Dr. Challoner did well to alter many too decided Latinisms which the old translators had
retained, he weakened the language considerably by destroying inversion where it was congeni­
al, at once to the genius of our language and to the construction of the original, and by the in­
sertion of particles where they were by no means necessary” (p. 75). As an example, Wiseman
quotes Hebrews 13:9; in the original 1592 Rheims edition, we read: “With various and strange
doctrines be not led away”; which became in Challoner’s revision: “Be not carried away with vari­
ous and strange doctrines.” Here, the powerful inversion has been removed, and the force of the
sentence weakened – as in many other passages. Wiseman calls for a new translation for Cathol­
ics. – Wiseman (1802–1865), a famous Catholic churchman, is known for his sense of language,
style, and literature; see above, Chapter 9.4.

1859. John Henry Newman: The Text of the Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture. The Rambler.
A Catholic Journal and Review 1859, July number: 145–169. – An essay by the famous convert to
Catholicism who in 2019 was declared a saint of the Catholic Church. The Rambler was then ed­
ited by Newman. According to Newman, “Challoner’s version is even nearer to the Protestant
than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and dic­
tion.” ▲

1902. James G. Carleton: The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible. Oxford. vii, 259 pp. –
Much of the book consists of synoptic tables that show the influence of the Douay-Rheims ver­
sion on the English Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version. The author de­
plores “the frequent transference to its (the Douay Version’s) pages of Latin expressions,

368
 strange, then and now, to the English ear” (p. 20). Some examples: supersubstantial bread (Matt
6:11); he was assumpted (Acts1:2; Douay/Challoner Version: he was taken up); odible to God
(Rom 1:30; Douay/Challoner Version: hateful to God).

1904. J.H. Lupton: Versions (English). In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Extra Volume.
Edinburgh (xiii, 936 pp.), pp. 236–271. – The Douay version and its revision by Challoner are
dealt with on pp. 251–253.

1940. Hugh Pope: Some Omissions in the Rheims-Douay Version. Clergy Review 19: 112–121.

1943. James A. Kleist SJ: Monsignor A. Knox’s New Rendering of the New Testament. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 5: 311–317. – “After the old Douay Version, with its occasional variations, had gone
into our flesh and blood through its use for centuries, it was felt that a new age required a new
translation” (p. 311). “The Douay V. is a venerable document. It has edified and instructed and
consoled generations of Catholic readers throughout the English-speaking world. No standard
history of English literature can pass it by unnoticed and unsung. But even the best things in the
world have their limited day of glory when their literary value is bound up with some practical
and immediate purpose in our lives. (…) Beyond its literary quality, therefore, it must have the
power to speak to us in accents to which we are accustomed in our day. Students of English lit ­
erature will continue to consult and appreciate the old Douay V., but if the common man of the
twentieth century is to live by his English Bible, it must be bone of his bones and flesh of his
flesh” (p. 312).

1947. R.C. Fuller: Bishop Challoner and the Douay Bible. Scripture 21: 8–18.

1952. Hugh Pope OP – Sebastian Bullough OP: English Versions of the Bible. Revised and Amplified. St.
Louis – London. ix, 787 pp. – Pages 249–272: The Rheims Version of the New Testament, 1582;
pp. 294–307: The Douay Version of the Old Testament; pp. 355–371: Dr. Challoner’s Revisions;
pp. 479–496: Editions of the Rheims-Douay since 1896. The most detailed account, esp. valuable
for its chapter on Challoner’s revisions. ▲

1982. Bruce Vawter: The Jerusalem Bible. In: Lloyd A. Bailey (ed.): The Word of God. A Guide to English
Versions of the Bible. Atlanta, Ga. (228 pp.), pp. 98–112. – In the 18th century, Bishop Richard
Challoner, assisted by Francis Blyth, revised the Douay Bible several times – first in 1749 (New
Testament), then particularly incisively in 1752, but again thereafter. The printings of the Douay
Bible that have appeared since then offer diverse texts, as they are based on different editions of
the Douay/Challoner Bible.

1993. David Norton: A History of the Bible as Literature. Volume One: From Antiquity to 1700. Cam­
bridge (vii, 375 pp.). – On pp. 122–138, the author discusses the origins and controversies sur ­
rounding the Rheims-Douai Bible. Very readable presentation. ▲

2003. David Daniell: The Bible in English. Its History and Influence. New Haven 2003. xx, 899 pp. – Pages
358–368: The Rheims New Testament, 1582. – Review: Germain Marc’hadour: The Bible in
Europe from Reuchlin to Benedict XVI. Moreana 43 [165] (2006) 158–190, esp. pp. 169–186; the
reviewer is critical of Daniell’s book.

2007/8. Peter Borggraefe: Zur Druckgeschichte der Douai-Bibel. Analecta Coloniensia 7/8: 53–56. –
“Diese von Challoner redigierte Ausgabe [von 1749 und 1750] ist seitdem bis heute die Basis für
alle Neuauflagen der Douai-Bibel. Eine zweite Auflage erscheint 1764 in London. Danach ist der
Bann gebrochen. Die Douai-Bibel, in zahlreichen Ausgaben in England und Irland gedruckt, wird
die offizielle Bibel der britischen Katholiken im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert” (p. 56).

369
2013. Daniel Cheely: Douay-Rheims Version. In: Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Berlin.
Volume 6 (xxvii pp., 1230 cols. ), pp. 115–118.

2015. Katrin Ettenhuber: “A comely gate to so rich and glorious a citie”: The Paratextual Architecture of
the Rheims New Testament and the King James Bible. In: Kevin Killeen et al. (eds.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Bible in Early Modern England, c. 1530–1700. Oxford (xxi, 793 pp.), pp. 54–70.

2018. Gordon Campbell: The Catholic Contribution to the King James Bible. In: Robert Armstrong et al.
(eds.): The English Bible in the Early Modern World. Leiden (x, 217 pp.), pp. 131–140. – See above,
James G. Carleton: The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, 1902. According to
Campbell, proof that the King James translators used the Douay Version emerged in 1969, when
Ward Allen published the notes of one of the translators (p. 133). The relative lack of Latinisms
in the King James text of the Old Testament may reflect the fact that the translators did not have
the Douay Old Testament to hand (p. 134). The language that the King James translators spoke
during their meetings was Latin rather than English (p. 135). In the eighteenth century, Richard
Challoner’s revision of the Douay Version “was an extraordinary accomplishment. He took his
pruning shears to the Latinisms” (p. 138). ▲

The Knox Bible

Note. – Ronald Knox (1888–1957), translator, Englishman, convert, Catholic priest, classical scholar, and
writer, made this translation on behalf of the Catholic bishops of Great Britain, and received their ap ­
proval. The Knox Bible is generally known to be a free, “dynamic” translation. Unlike Protestant trans ­
lators, Knox never intended his version to gain an authority comparable to the original biblical text. For
him, as for most Catholic theologians then, the Latin text was considered the stable foundation of
theology, preaching, and spirituality. Translations are meant to serve the believer, and not the scholar
who would always refer to the Latin text.

1947. 1949. Ronald A. Knox: The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Newly Translated
from the Latin Vulgate. London 1947. xiii, 605 pp. (one volume); The Old Testament Newly Trans­
lated from the Latin Vulgate. London 1949. xi, 1604 pp. (two volumes). – There were also earlier
editions, published in 1944 and 1949, “printed for private circulation,” “for private use only.”
Noteworthy is the translation of the alphabetic acrostics, the Old Testament poems in which
each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The Vulgate offers no equivalent
of this form, but Knox uses the English alphabet in texts such as Proverbs 31:10ff.

Secondary literature
1943. James A. Kleist SJ: Monsignor A. Knox’s New Rendering of the New Testament. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 5: 311–317. – The British Catholic magazine The Tablet published in its January 9, 1943
issue Ronald Knox’s new English translation of Luke 2:42–52. Kleist offers a critique and pro­
poses a revised version of it. (B. Lang: Kleist supposes that Knox translates the Greek text; but in
fact, Knox translates the text of the Vulgate.)

1947. Edward F. Siegman: A Lesson in Bible Translation: Msgr. Knox’s New Testament. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 9: 65–88.

1949. Patrick W. Skehan [review of Knox’s translation of the Old Testament]. Theological Studies 10:
325–332.

1949. Ronald Knox: The Trials of a Translator. New York. xii, 113 pp. – The translator’s own story.

370
1952. Hugh Pope OP – Sebastian Bullough OP: English Versions of the Bible. Revised and Amplified. St.
Louis – London. ix, 787 pp. – Pages 502–504: The Work of Monsignor Knox, 1944–49. “Msgr.
Knox worked with a committee (which included Father Pope) which passed the draft edition. (…)
In this version Msgr. Knox breaks entirely new ground; he translates the Vulgate into excellent
English of a most readable type, of set purpose ignoring all previous versions.”

1959. Evelyn Waugh: The Life of the Right Reverend Ronald Knox. London. 354 pp. – German translation:
Ronald Knox. Biographie. Übersetzt von Hugo Maria Kellner. Würzburg 1965. 340 pp.

1985. Milton T. Walsh: Ronald Knox as Apologist. Rome. ix, 488 pp. – A doctoral dissertation, submitted
to the Gregoriana in Rome.

1993. Solange Dayras: The Knox Version, or The Trials of a Translator. In: David Jasper (ed.): Translating
Religious Texts. London (xiv, 143 pp.), pp. 44–59. – Knox worked for 15 years on his translation of
the Vulgate Bible.

2013. Aidan Mathews: The Holy Bible: Knox Version. The Furrow 64: 565–570. – An Irish drama produ­
cer’s essay on the Knox version.

2016. Francesca Bugliani Knox (ed.): Ronald Knox: A Man for All Seasons. Essays on His Life and Works.
Toronto. xvi, 386 pp. – The book includes a contribution on “Ronald Knox as Translator of the
Bible” by Sheridan Gilley. – Review: David Jasper, Literature and Theology 32 (2018) 373–374.

2022. Andrew J. Horne: On Criticising the Knox Bible. Classical Reception Journal 14: 204–221. ▲

18.2 German translations

Note. – The classic German translation of the Vulgate Bible, that of Allioli, dates from the nineteenth
century. It stands at the end of a long series of earlier German translations. From among the earliest,
medieval ones, two have been selected for comment: the Wenceslas Bible (a manuscript) and the Men­
telin Bible (a printed edition).

The Wenceslas Bible (Wenzelsbibel)

The Mentelin Bible

The Allioli Bible

Further German translations

The Wenceslas Bible (Wenzelsbibel): a historic German translation

1385–1400. The so-called Wenceslas Bible is an unfinished, magnificently illuminated manuscript with
the German text of most of the Old Testament (the Minor Prophets, the two nooks of Macca­
bees and the New Testament are missing), translated from the Vulgate. The German language is
the German spoken in Prague at that time. The manuscript is in the Austrian National Library in
Vienna as “Codices 2759 to 2764.”

371
1990. Wenzelsbibel. König Wenzels Prachthandschrift der deutschen Bibel. Erläutert von Horst Appuhn.
Mit einer Einführung von Manfred Kramer. Dortmund. 8 vols. 416 pp.; 314 pp.; 268 pp.; 300 pp.;
304 pp.; 288 pp.; 312 pp.; 367 pp. – This reduced-size facsimile edition contains all pages of the
Wenceslas Bible, but does not provide a transcription of the German text of the Wenceslas Bible
itself; instead, it prints Augustin Arndt’s modern German Vulgate translation. In the introductory
essay (Volume 1, pp. 7–20), Manfred Kramer explains that we do not know the translator’s name,
but we do know who his client was: Martin Rotlev, the king’s banker who probably had the Bible
translation made around the year 1375. The Wenceslaw Bible is considered the best of the Ger­
man Bible translations before Luther. Kramer points out the richness of the translation’s vocabu­
lary and the non-intrusive use of Latinisms: “Latinismen stören nicht die Flüssigkeit und Les­
barkeit des Textes; ungewöhnlich ist der reiche Wortschatz” (p. 12).

2023. Die Wenzelsbibel. Digitale Edition und Analyse. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien. Vienna.
– Alternative title: Wenzelsbibel digital. This digital edition, produced by Fachbereich German­
istik of the University of Salzburg under the directorship of Professor Manfred Kern, can be ac­
cessed on the internet (https://edition.onb.ac.at/wenzelsbibel). In the summer of 2023, the digit­
al edition had only the German text of the book of Genesis, but more is to follow.

Secondary literature
1889/92. Wilhelm Walther: Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters. Braunschweig (vii pp., 766
cols.), cols. 291–306.

1898. Franz Jelinek: Die Sprache der Wenzelsbibel (…). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen
Sprache. Görz. 110 pp. – Reprint: Graz 1975. – In this linguistic study, only the prologue to the
translation is presented (pp. 6–8).

1900. Wilhelm Kurrelmeyer: The Wenzelbible. Cod. Pal. Vindeb. 2759–2764. American Journal of Philo­
logy 21.1: 62–75. – The article presents, in transcription, the text of 3 Ezra 8:85–91 (a text in ­
cluded in the Clementina’s appendix; see below, Chapter 23.2) and Tobit 5:23–27.

1970. František M. Bartoš: Der Schöpfer der Rotlew-Bibel. In: Horst Gericke et al. (eds.): Orbis mediaeval­
is. Festgabe für Anton Blaschka. Weimar (274 pp.), pp. 31–44. – The translator could be Heinrich
of Mügeln or Johannes of Tepl (1350–1415).

1999. Heimo Reinitzer: Wenzelsbibel. In: Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon. 2 Au­
flage. Teil 10. Berlin (ix pp., 1692 cols.), cols. 869–875; with an addition in Teil 11. Berlin 2004 (xv
pp., 1714 cols.), col. 1648.

The Mentelin Bible

1466. The printer Johannes Mentelin (1410–1478) published the first complete German Bible in Stras­
bourg.

1904–1915. Wilhelm Kurrelmeyer (ed.): Die erste deutsche Bibel. 10 Bände. Tübingen. 5006 pp. – Pub­
lished as part of the “Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart.” Presented is the wording
of the Strasbourg 1466 edition, and noted are the variant readings of the subsequent printings
published elsewhere between 1470 and 1518. The anonymous translation originated in the four­
teenth century in the area of Nürnberg, Germany.

372
Secondary literature
1939. Hans Rost: Die Bibel im Mittelalter. Augsburg (viii, 428 pp.), pp. 364–365.

1987. Heimo Reinitzer: Oberdeutsche Bibeldrucke. In: Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasser­
lexikon. 2 Auflage. Teil 6. Berlin (vi pp., 1290 cols.), cols. 1276–1290; with an addition in Teil 11.
Berlin 2004 (xv pp., 1714 cols.), cols. 1073–1074.

2022. Michael Landgraf: Deutsche Bibeln vor und nach Luther. Stuttgart. 160 pp. – Pages 64–99:
Deutschsprachige Bibeldrucke 1466 bis 1522.

The Allioli Bible

1830. Joseph Franz Allioli (translator): Die heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes. Erster Theil,
welcher die fünf Bücher Mosis und das Buch Josue enthält. Nürnberg. xl, 418 pp. – This is the first
volume of the first edition of the often-reprinted Allioli Bible. In the preface (“Vorwort,” pp. xxxii–
xxxvii) Allioli explains his aim and method of translation: Unlike other Catholic translations, he
explains, he seeks to stay strictly with the Vulgate text, and not compromise his translation by
mixing it with what the original ancient texts say. “Was die Übersetzung betrifft, so folgte ich mit
gewissenhafter Treue unserer lateinischen Kirchenübersetzung in der Art, dass ich sie zwar im
Sinne des Originals aufzufassen bemüht war, so lange es sich nur mit der Latinität vertrug, nie
aber mir erlaubte, sie darnach abzuändern. Durch eine Vermengung des Originals mit dem latei­
nischen Texte, wie sie in so vielen katholischen Bibel-Übersetzungen (…) zu finden ist, schien mir
die Absicht der Kirche, welche sie bei der Herausgabe einer authentischen Übersetzung hatte,
nicht nur nicht erreicht, sondern gewissermaßen illudiert [untergraben], indem durch derlei
Übersetzungen derselbe Misstand hervorgerufen wird, dem eben durch die Gutheißung einer
Kirchenübersetzung begegnet werden sollte” (pp. xxxii–xxxiii). In accordance with this program,
Allioli always translates the Vulgate text; if the Hebrew or Greek text differs, this is noted in a
footnote but not entered in the text.

1838. Joseph Franz Allioli: Die Heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes. Landshut. 3., durchgese­
hene und verbesserte Auflage. Six volumes. Landshut. – The New Testament volume titled Das
Neue Testament. Aus der Vulgata mit Bezug auf den Grundtext neu übersetzt von Dr. Joseph
Franz Allioli is available from the German “Books on Demand” publisher; edited by Conrad
Eibisch, it provides the text of the 1838 edition (Norderstedt 2018. 476 pp.).

1942. Das Neue Testament. Deutsch nach der Vulgata. Übersetzt von Joseph Franz von Allioli. Kolmar.
832 pp. – The text of the annotated translation is on pp. 10–772, the rest is preface and ap ­
pendix. Allioli’s translation is slightly edited, and the commentary indebted to Martin Dibelius,
Otto Dibelius, and Romano Guardini. The editor’s name is indicated as “L.A.W.” which is Ludwig
Athanasius Winterswyl (Wintersig), a Catholic theologian and writer associated with the then
modern theology of Guardini.

1965. Das Neue Testament. Die Übersetzung von Allioli anhand des griechischen Textes neu erarbeitet
von Eleonore Beck und Gabriele Miller. Stuttgart. 769 pp. – This adaptation marks the departure
from the Allioli Bible in Germany. Allioli himself wanted to reproduce the Vulgate and explicitly
did not want to follow the Greek biblical text.

Secondary literature
1965. Paul Heinz Vogel, in: Johannes Schildenberger OSB et al.: Die Bibel in Deutschland. Das Wort
Gottes und seine Überlieferung im deutschen Sprachraum. Stuttgart. 408 pp. – The success story
of the Allioli Bible is told on pp. 284–287. From the 7th edition in 1851, the bilingual Latin and

373
 German main edition was published by the Pustet publishing house in Regensburg, which
placed the editing of the 10th edition (1899–1900) in the hands of Augustin Arndt SJ.

1975. Engelbert M. Buxbaum: Joseph Franz von Allioli (1793–1873); in: Heinrich Fries – Georg
Schwaiger (eds.): Katholische Theologen Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. Band 2. Munich (550
pp.), pp. 233–268.

1993. Wilhelm Baumgärtner (ed.): Joseph Franz von Allioli 1793–1873. Leben und Werk. Amberg. 252
pp. – Exhibition catalog and collection of essays.

1998. Markus Lommer: Ein Oberpfälzer erobert den deutschen Sprachraum. Die Bestseller-Bibel des
Joseph Franz von Allioli (1793–1873). Die Oberpfalz 86: 202–212.

Further German translations

1851. Valentin Loch – Wilhelm Reischl: Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Nach der
Vulgata mit steter Vergleichung des Grundtextes übersetzt und erläutert. 4 Bände. Regensburg.
xxxiv, 498 pp.; xii, 640 pp., xxiv, 660 pp.; xlviii, 1215 pp. – Several editions of this translation were
published until the early twentieth century, with a fifth edition in 1915. The translation is accom ­
panied by a commentary that takes up much space – and prevented this translation from be­
coming popular.

1865. Benedikt Weinhart: Das Neue Testament unseres Herrn Jesus Christus. Nach der Vulgata übersetzt
und erklärt. Munich. xxxv, 783 pp. – Reprinted several times, also in partial editions, for example:
Das Neue Testament unseres Herrn Jesus Christus. Evangelien und Apostelgeschichte. Taschenaus­
gabe. Freiburg 1920. vii, 320 pp. – The translator, professor of Catholic dogmatics in Freising,
died in 1901.

1898. Beda Grundl OSB: Das Buch der Psalmen. Augsburg. xxiv, 300 pp. – Subsequently, several revised
editions were published.

1900. Beda Grundl OSB: Das Neue Testament unseres Herrn Jesus Christus. Nach der Vulgata übertra­
gen. Augsburg. 2 Teile – iv, 579 pp; iv, pp. 582–1232. – Several times reprinted (12th edition,
Augsburg 1916. viii, 710 pp.); there is also a partial edition: Die vier heiligen Evangelien und die
Apostelgeschichte. 2nd edition. Augsburg 1904. viii, 496 pp.

1900. Augustin Arndt SJ: Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis – Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testa­
ments. 3 Bände. Regensburg. – Bilingual edition, Latin and German, of which the first edition was
published in 1899–1901. Subsequent editions were slightly revised. The details of the 6th edition
of 1914 are as follows: xlv, 22, 1468 pp.; 1475 pp.; 1019 pp. Arndt has thoroughly revised the Al ­
lioli translation, which resulted in a new version. – Literature:

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41: 303–
332, at p. 308–309: “Der Verleger Pustet hatte P. Augustin Arndt S.J. gewonnen, für den
altbewährten Allioli die 10. Auflage zu bearbeiten. Nach dem Beispiele des hl. Hieronymus
unterzog sich der Herausgeber seiner Aufgabe in der Weise, dass er zunächst (1898–1900)
sich mit einer leichten Verbesserung begnügte, um dafür in der nächsten Ausgabe tiefer
zu schürfen und eine durchaus selbständige Arbeit vorzulegen. (…) Wie man vernimmt, ist
gegenwärtig eine Neubearbeitung im Gange.” The planned new edition to which
Holzmeister refers never materialised; the last edition remains that of 1914. Arndt died in
1925.

374
1910. Augustin Arndt S.J.: Das Neue Testament unseres Herrn Jesus Christus. Regensburg. vi, 760, 14*
pp.

1923. Athanasius Miller OSB: Die Psalmen. Übersetzt und kurz erklärt (Ecclesia orans). 5. bis 10. Auflage.
Freiburg. xiv, 547 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and German. The Latin text is that of the Vulgate,
but the author’s translation is often based on the Hebrew text, as appears from the translator’s
textual notes. The 1923 edition of Miller’s translation represents a reworked edition of a book
originally published in 1920.

2021. Rodrigo H. Kahl OP: Die liturgischen Psalmen der lateinischen Kirche. Lateinisch – deutsch. Text­
fassungen der Vulgata. Wörtliche Übersetzung. Kulmbach. xxxii, 528 pp. – This bilingual edition,
Latin and German, offers a literal rendering, complete with some grammatical notes. The intro­
duction discusses the merits of some earlier German renderings.

18.3 French translations

The Sacy translation

Note. – Le Maistre de Sacy – actually Isaac Louis Le Maistre (1613–1684) – is a French priest closely as­
sociated with the controversial Jansenist monastery of Port-Royal. His French translation of the Vulgate
Bible used to be celebrated as a masterpiece of French literature that had its classical age in the seven ­
teenth century – l’âge classique of Blaise Pascal, Jean de La Fontaine, Jean Racine, Molière et Jacques-
Bénigne Bossuet.

1667. [Isaac Louis Le Maistre, called de Sacy] Le Nouveau Testament de Nostre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ
traduit en françois selon l’édition Vulgate. Mons. 2 volumes. – This edition is also known as “le
Nouveau Testament de Mons.” The work was completed by Sacy’s translation of the Old Testa ­
ment, published in 30 volumes, 1665–1695. It is known as “la bible de Sacy” and “la bible de
Port-Royal.”

1864. La sainte Bible traduite par Le Maistre de Sacy. Éditions Furnes & Cie. Paris. 1020 pp.

1990. Philippe Sellier (ed.): La Bible. Traduction de Louis-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy. Edited by Philippe Sel­
lier. Éditions Robert Laffont. Paris 1990. 1680 pp. – Unfortunately for historians and philologists,
the language of this edition has been slightly edited. Accordingly, it must be used with caution.

Secondary literature
1858. Benjamin Pozzy: La Bible et la version de Lemaistre de Sacy. Paris. 56 pp. – The Protestant minister
attacks de Sacy’s translation as being manipulated so as to prove standard Catholic doctrines
not shared by Protestants.

1899. Eugène Mangenot: “La traduction (…) n’est pas toujours assez littérale; elle vise plus à la clarté et
à l’élégance qu’à la fidélité. De toutes les versions françaises, elle est la plus pure au point de
vue du langage, et la mieux écrite,” notes Mangenot in: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de
la Bible. Tome 2.2. Paris (cols. 1195–2428), col. 2368.

1910. Daniel Lortsch: Histoire de la Bible en France. Paris. xxi, 590 pp. – Written by a protestant minister,
this book includes a chapter on the Sacy translation.

375
1978. Michel de Certeau: L’idée de la traduction de la Bible au XVII e siècle: Sacy et Simon. Recherches
de science religieuse 66: 73–91.

1987. Christian Cannuyer: Versions modernes de la bible. In: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert et al. (ed.): Dic­
tionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible. Turnhout (43, 1363 pp.), pp. 1329–1338. – “En 1665, les jan­
sénistes français travaillèrent à une nouvelle traduction de la Bible, essentiellement l’œuvre de
Louis-Isaac Le Maistre de Sacy. Cette version de Port-Royal fut interdite dès 1665 par le roi de
France. Les jansénistes comme Lefèvre et Benoist avant eux, confinèrent alors leur manuscrit à
des imprimeurs du Nord. La maison hollandaise Elzevier supporta l’entreprise financièrement et
techniquement, et un éditeur du Mons (Hainaut belge), Gaspard Migeot, diffusa ce Nouveau
Testament en 1667, s’étant d’abord assure des autorités ecclésiastiques et civiles des Pays-Bas
catholiques. L’ouvrage, interdit en France par les autorités de ce pays, puis par une bulle du
pape Clément IX en 1668, connut cependant un succès de librairie étonnant et demeura autorisé
dans les Pays-Bas catholiques, ou une quarantaine d’éditions en furent commercialisées entre
1668 et 1734. Par ailleurs, en 1668, Le Maistre de Sacy était encouragé par le roi de France à re ­
prendre, avec l’aide de théologiens sûrs et patentés, sa traduction intégrale; celle-ci parut de
1672 à 1696” (p. 1332).

2007. Bernard Chédozeau: Port-Royal et la Bible: un siècle d’or de la Bible en France, 1650–1708. Paris
2007. 511 pp.

2008. Bertram E. Schwarzbach: Louis Isaac Le Maistre de Sacy, in: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Band II. Göttingen 2008 (1248 pp.), pp. 566–575, esp.
pp. 574–575. – According to Schwarzbach, people have exaggerated the literary quality and lin­
guistic elegance of the Sacy translation.

2013. Bernard Chédozeau: L’univers biblique catholique au siècle de Louis XIV. La Bible de Port-Royal.
Paris 2013. 905 pp. in 2 volumes. – Sellier’s 1990 edition does not include the translator’s long
prefaces, but these have been made available in this work.

2021. Gilbert Dahan: Le Maistre de Sacy et la Vulgate. In: Hubert Aupetit – Simon Icard – Élisabeth
Vuillemin (eds.): Port-Royal et l’interprétation des Écritures. Paris (330 pp.), pp. 17–28. – De Sacy
was well aware of alternative readings of the Latin text. He used the work of François Luc de
Bruges (see above, 16.3 Louvain Bible). For an abstract of Dahan’s article, see Revue biblique
129 (2022) 143–144.

2021. Jean-Robert Armogathe: Antoine Arnauld et le Nouveau Testament de Mons. In: Hubert Aupetit
– Simon Icard – Élisabeth Vuillemin (eds.): Port-Royal et l’interprétation des Écritures. Paris (330
pp.), pp. 29–48. – There were literary controversies about the Sacy translation of the New Testa­
ment; Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694) defended the translation. For an abstract of Armogathe’s
article, see Revue biblique 129 (2022) 144.

Other French translations

Note. – The major Vulgate translations, both going back to the 19th century, are by Augustin Cram­
pon, Jean-Baptiste Glaire, and Louis-Claude Fillion. The last-mentioned translator avoids Glaire’s ex­
treme (but for the scholar helpful) literalism. Note that only early editions (and reprints) of Crampon’s
New Testament are based on the Vulgate; the classical French “Bible de Crampon,” representing his
later translation work, is based on the original languages (and not the Latin Bible). Interestingly, French
Catholics in the twentieth century generally no longer relied on a translation of the Vulgate. German
and English-speaking Catholics, by contrast, still often relied on Vulgate-derived versions such as the
Allioli Bible and the Douay Version.

376
1864. Augustin Crampon: Les Quatre Évangiles. Traduction nouvelle. Paris. xvi, 579 pp. – From the
translator’s preface: “Nous avons suivi, pour la traduction, la Vulgate latine, dont le mérite est
aujourd’hui reconnu des meilleurs critiques, tels que Lachmann et Tischendorf; les rares et lé­
gères différences du texte grec sont indiquées en note.” – It was with this edition that Crampon
(1826–1894), canon of the Amiens Cathedral, started to publish his translation of the Vulgate
New Testament.

1885. Augustin Crampon: Nouveau Testament de N.S. Jésus Christ. Traduit sur la Vulgate. Tournai. xii,
542 pp. – Facsimile reprint: Bouère, 1989.

1888–1904. Louis-Claude Fillion: La Sainte Bible commentée d’après la Vulgate. Paris. 8 volumes. – Fil­
lion (1843–1927) provides the Vulgate text and a French translation in synoptic arrangement.
The work revises Le Maistre de Sacy’s translation so as to bring it closer to the Vulgate.

1889. Augustin Crampon: Le Livre des Psaumes suivi des Cantiques des Laudes et de Vêpres. Traduction
nouvelle sur la Vulgate. Paris 470 pp. – Another edition: Le Livre des Psaumes suivi des Cantiques
du Bréviaire Romain en Latin–Français. Traduction sur la Vulgate. Paris 1925. 723 pp.

1911. Jean-Baptiste Chabot: Les saints Évangiles. Traduction nouvelle d’après la Vulgate. Tours. 98, 480
pp. – There is a second edition, 1923. (The translator is not the same person as the orientalist by
the same name.)

1992. Jean-Baptiste Glaire: La Sainte Bible selon la Vulgate. Traduite par Jean-Baptist Glaire. Argenté-
du-Plessis. xxx, 1968 pp. – This is a new printing of a nineteenth-century very literal translation
that began to be published in 1861. There are many editions, including bilingual, Latin and
French ones, some edited by Fulcran Vigouroux. Glaire (1798–1879), a Catholic priest, taught
Hebrew and oriental languages at the Sorbonne’s faculty of theology (which was closed down in
1885).

1994. André Frossard – Noël Bompois: Les Évangiles. Paris. 337 pp. – A translation of the Vulgate text,
by Frossard (1915–1994), a then well-known French journalist, intellectual, member of the
French Academy, and convert to Catholicism.

18.4 Scholarly translations: English, German, and Romanian

Note. – While most of the vernacular translations mentioned above are official or semi-official texts,
often approved by ecclesiastical authorities, made for both private and liturgical reading. The transla­
tions listed in this section are of a different character. Based on the Stuttgart Vulgate Bible of Weber
and Gryson (see above, Chapter 13.4), they are private translations meant for scholarly study.

The Cunyus translation (partly Latin and English)

Note. – The American pastor John G. Cunyus translated the complete Vulgate Bible on the basis of the
Stuttgart (Weber/Gryson) edition’s text of 1994. Some of his books offer only the English translation,
but some also give the Latin text, as indicated below. In the bilingual volumes, the Latin text is not
printed as a continuous text; instead, after each Latin verse the translation is given. This is good for
study, but not for quick reading. All books are published by Searchlight Press, Dallas, Texas. – The list
that follows is incomplete.

2008. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Way of Wisdom: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. A
Latin–English Interlinear Translation. Glen Rose, TX. 396 pp.

377
2009. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Audacity of Prayer. A Fresh Translation of the Book of Psalms.
Latin–English edition. Glen Rose, TX. 400 pp.

2010. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Gospel according to Mark. A Latin–English Verse-by-Verse Trans­
lation. Dallas, TX. 122 pp.

2010. John G. Cunyus (translator): Pastoral and General Epistles. A Latin–English Verse-by-Verse Trans­
lation. 296 pp.

2010. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Latin Torah. Fresh Translation of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num­
bers, Deuteronomy. Dallas, TX. 788 pp.

2011. John G. Cunyus (translator): Romans. A Latin–English Verse-by-Verse Translation. Dallas, TX. 126
pp.

2012. John G. Cunyus (translator): Luke–Acts. A Latin–English Verse-by-Verse Translation. Dallas, TX. 296
pp.

2016. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Latin Testament Project New Testament. Dallas, TX. 772 pp.

2016. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Latin Testament Project Bible. Dallas, TX. 944 pp.

The bilingual Tusculum Vulgate (Latin and German)

2018. Hieronymus: Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Lateinisch–deutsch. Sammlung Tusculum. Edited by Andreas
Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger. Berlin. 5 vols. 889 pp. (Pentateuch), 1483 pp.,
1247 pp. (includes the Psalms), 1285 pp., 1401 pp. (New Testament). – The Latin text is that of
Weber and Gryson (5th edition, 2007), which the translation seeks to reproduce as faithfully as
possible. Both versions of the Jerome Psalter are translated separately. The prefaces of Jerome
are also included in both languages. The translation of each individual book is signed; thus the
translation of Genesis is by Rebekka Schirmer and Jessica Wanzek, Exodus by Dorothea Keller,
and the Psalms by five translators including Andreas Beriger and Sophie Holland. – Reviews and
notes:
2019. Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers: Richtlinien für Übersetzer. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer 2019: 37–38 (online
journal).

2019. Martin Karrer: Die Übersetzung der Vulgata und der Septuaginta ins Deutsche – Gemeinsamkeiten und Un­
terschiede. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer: 1–15 (online journal).

2019. Jutta Krispenz: Die Übersetzung eines “kanonischen Textes” – Der hermeneutische Rahmen für die Vulgata
Tusculum Deutsch. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer: 17–20.

2019. Hans Förster, Theologische Revue 115: 461–463.

2020. Matthew Kraus, Bryn Mawr Classical Review (online journal).

2020. Friedemann Weitz, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 23: 1135–1140. Weitz points out inconsisten­
cies and feels that there should be more and more helpful explanatory notes.

The Romanian bilingual edition

2015. Adrian Muraru – Wilhelm Tauwinkl (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata VII. Evangeli et Actus Apostolorum
– Evangheliile si Faptele Apostolior. Bukarest. – The following studies are related to this edition:
2015. Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et al. (eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des
Vulgata Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 133–141: Wilhelm Tauwinkl: Consec­
vența traducerii în contrapondere cu stilul limbii. Variante de redare a termenilor caro și corpus în traduce ­

378
 rea românească a Vulgatei; – pp. 151–162: Monica Broșteanu: A Few Words Used in Paul’s Letters which
Have Proved Challenging for the Translators into Romanian.

2018. Ștefan Șuteu, Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Theologia Catholica 63 (2018) 161–163. An English review of
the bilingual edition.

379
QUICK REFERENCE

380
Chapter 19
A glossary of biblical Latin
Note. – Those looking for the meaning of a particular word in the Vulgate will first consult one of the
dictionaries, especially the dictionaries of Blaise and Dalpane – and will regret the fact that there is no
comprehensive dictionary of Vulgate Latin. Other relevant sources are the manuals of Kaulen,
Plater/White, and Meershoek. Also very helpful is Scarpat’s commentary on the book of Wisdom. The
glossary offered below is based on these reference manuals of biblical Latin, on recent articles pub ­
lished in periodicals and collective volumes, and on the compiler’s cursory reading of Vulgate texts. Al ­
though we have allowed for some exceptions, the glossary is bibliographic in nature, in keeping with
the rest of the present book.

One would think that the traditional Christian Latin derives from the Vulgate Bible. While this is true
in a way, it is not the whole story. Since the text of the Vulgate Bible was for the most part created or
fixed around the year 400, one has to consider the fact that the words of Scripture frequently echo
already established theological or ecclesiastical vocabulary and semantics.

19.1 Essential lexical resources

19.2 Glossary

19.1 Essential lexical resources

Note. – For these and more lexical resources, see above, in the “Biblical Latin” section (Chapter 8.3),
where all titles are annotated.

English
1879. Charlton T. Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. xiv, 2019 pp.

1921. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London. xi, 125 pp.

1926. W.E. Plater – H.J. White: A Grammar of the Vulgate. Oxford 1926. viii, 167 pp. – Referred to as
Plater/White, followed by page number.

1927. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 2nd edition. Cambridge. xv, 162 pp. – In­
cludes many notes on words.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London. xvi, 130 pp. ▲

German
1904. Franz Kaulen: Sprachliches Handbuch der biblischen Vulgata. 2nd, improved edition. Freiburg. xvi,
332 pp. – Here referred to as “Kaulen, p.” (followed by page number).

381
1926. Albert Sleumer – Joseph Schmid: Kirchenlateinisches Wörterbuch. Ausführliches Wörterverzeichnis
zum Römischen Missale, Breviarium, Rituale (…) sowie zur Vulgata und zum Codex juris canonici.
2nd edition. Limburg. 840 pp.

1970. Paul Zürcher: Vokabular. In: idem: Der Einfluss der lateinischen Bibel auf den Wortschatz der itali­
enischen Literatursprache vor 1300. Bern (315 pp.), pp. 31–312. – A glossary of more than 200
lexical items, alphabetically arranged from abominari to zizania. – In this glossary referred to as
Zürcher, followed by page number.

French
1954/62. Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire latin–français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout. 900 pp. – The 1962
and later reprints include Blaise’s appendix with additions and corrections (pp. 868–899). Blaise
often, though not systematically, lists Vulgate texts, sometimes also Vetus Latina ones. It seems
that he prefers listing New Testament passages, at the expense of Old Testament ones. – Here
referred to as Blaise: Dictionnaire (followed by page number or lemma).

Italian
1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni mor­
fologiche e sintattiche. Florence. xlii, 251 pp.

19.2 Glossary
Note. – At the beginning of each entry, essential lexical equivalents are given in English and, put
between square brackets [ ], in German and sometimes in French. The body of the entry is generally in
English, but often German and French translations are added. The entries are not meant to be exhaust ­
ive.

As for the spelling, these are the preferences now adopted by all scholarly editions: caelum (not
coelum), caritas (not charitas, which is the spelling of the Clementina), femina (not foemina), eius (not
ejus), paenitentia (not poenitentia), viri (not uiri). An exception is coenaculum (Clementina) which the
Weber/Gryson edition and the Nova Vulgata spell cenaculum (Luke 22:12).

A
a, ab – by, from [von, seit]. The use of this preposition in the Vulgate is often puzzling due to literal
renderings echoing Hebrew or Greek. Examples: iustificatae sunt enim a te – they are more justi­
fied than you (echoing Hebrew min, Ezek 16:52); quid habet amplius sapiens a stulto – what has
the wise man more than the fool? (Koh 6:8). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 24: comparison.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 25–26: prepositions ab and in. In many cases, these prepositions have “eine so frap­
pante und fremdklingende Verwendung, daß Nachahmung und Herübernahme aus einer
anderen Sprache unverkennbar sind” (p. 25).

1875. Rönsch, pp. 409, 442, 426, 452.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 236–237 and 258–259 (comparison).

382
 1926. Plater/White, p. 98.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner: a, ab, abs. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), pp. 1–12.

abire – to walk, to go; to leave, to go away [gehen, wandeln; weggehen]. The first meaning – to walk,
to go – is the most common (Ps 1:1; Matt 4:24; 12:1; John 4:47; Acts 1:25, and often); when re ­
quired by the context, the second meaning (the usual one in classical Latin) is meant, as in Matt
19:15; Mark 6:1; John 4:8. There are also passages where it is hard to decide between the two
possibilities, such as 1 Kgs 17:5. For the first, normal meaning, see Hagen and Rönsch. → ire –
Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 83.

1875. Rönsch, p. 346.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner: abeo. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), pp. 23–24.

abominari, abominatio, abominatus, abominabilis – to hate, to abhore, abomination, abominable

[verabscheuen, Abscheu/Greuel, abscheulich]. Lev 26:13; Deut 18:12; Ps 5:7; Prov 3:32; 11:20;
15:9; Isa 49:7; Tit 1:16. The lexical group belongs to the religious and moral vocabulary of distan­
cing. God is often the subject: omnia enim haec Dominus abominabitur – the Lord abhorreth all
these things (Deut 18:12), i.e., everything associated with pagan magic. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 69, 144, 297.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 61, 139.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 31–33.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner – M.E.H. Hermans: abomino, abominor. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibli­
ographie zur lateinischen Wortforschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), p. 47.

absque – besides, without [außerdem, ohne]. (1) besides. In some passages, absque replaces the clas­
sical praeter: absque me non est deus (Isa 44:6; cf. Isa 44:8; 45:6) – besides me there is no God. –
(2) without. In some passages, it replaces sine: absque fratro vestro minimo (Gen 43:5) – without
your youngest brother. – (3) away from, as in absque synagogis facient vos (John 16:2) – they will
separate you from the synagogues, literally: they will make you away from the synagogues. – Lit­
erature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 389–390.

1904. Kaulen, p. 237.

1926. Plater/White, p. 99.

1973. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at pp. 364–365.

abusio – abuse [Herabsetzung]. Used only in Ps 31:19 (Vg 30:19). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 61–62.

1934. Arthur Allgeier: In superbia et in abusione (Ps. 30,19). Biblica 15: 185–212.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner: abusio. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), pp. 109–110.

383
abyssus – fem. abyss, Hades [Abgrund, Unterwelt]. Gen 1:2; Rom 10:7, etc. On the full range of mean­
ings, see the literature:

1932. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil
1. Nijmwegen (270 pp.), p. 165. In Ps 36:7 (Vg 35:7), abyssus refers metaphorically to the
depth (unermessliche Tiefe) of God’s judgements.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 33–34.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner: abyssus. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), pp. 112–115.

accipere – to take, to accept, to receive [nehmen, annehmen]. calicem salutaris accipiam – I will take
the chalice of salvation (Ps 116:13; Vg 114/115:13). Special meanings: (1) In military contexts,
this common verb can have the special meaning of to conquer, erobern (Stummer): Judith 3:15;
see also Deut 20:15 (urbes, quas in possessionem accepturus es – the cities that you will take into
possession). – (2) In a military context, accipere can also refer to taking something as spoil, car­
rying it off (1 Macc 1:23–24) or destroying it (1 Macc 1:33). – (3) to carry, or have, something
about one; etwas mit sich herumtragen, dabei haben – such as bread (Matt 16:5). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 347–348.

1926. Plater/White, p. 57.

1934. Friedrich Stummer: Lexikographische Bemerkungen zur Vulgata. In: Pontificio Istituto Bibli­
co (ed.): Miscellanea Biblica. Volume 2. Rome (406 pp.), pp. 179–202, at pp. 180–182.

1981. Otto Hiltbrunner: accipio. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 1 (xxii, 298 pp.), pp. 171–180.

ad – to [zu], preposition. → aio, ait → dicere. – Literature:

2016. John Adams – Wolfgang de Melo: Ad versus the Dative: from Early to Late Latin. In: J.N.
Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity of Change? Cambridge (xx,
470 pp.), pp. 87–131.

2023. Jesús de la Villa Pollo: Die Vulgata als Erkenntnisquelle des späteren Lateins: Die Beziehun­
gen zwischen Dativ und ad + Akk. als Markierung des Benefizienten, in: Roland Hoffmann
(ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen
Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 157–177.

Adam – Adam, personal name. Jerome seems to have used the form “Adam” for all cases
(Weber/Gryson edition), while texts not touched by him have Adae as genitive case (Sir 35:24). In
the Clementina, one can see the effort to use Adae for better syntactic comprehension; thus Gen
2:20 (Clementina) has Adae as dative case (dativus commodi – “for Adam”). The matter is dis­
cussed by Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beiga­
be zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), pp. 4–
5.

addere – to add, to repeat [hinzufügen, wiederholen]. In Hebrew, repeated action is expressed by pre ­
fixing the verb “to add”; the Vulgate imitates this: et addidit alterum servum mittere – and again,
he sent another servant (Luke 20:11; addere followed by accusative with infinitive). See also Judg
10:1; 1 Macc 10:88, etc. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 25–26.

1875. Rönsch 453.

384
 1904. Kaulen, p. 235 (no. 120).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 23–24 (§ 28).

adinventio – invention [Erfindung]. Not used in the New Testament, but used in pre-Jeromian texts
(Wisd 14:12; Sir 40:2) and often in Jerome’s translations: Deut 28:20; Judg 2:19; 1 Chr 16:8; Ps
106:39 (Vg 105:39); Jer 17:10, etc. “The use of inventio in the text of Jerome is a remnant of an
older textual tradition (possibly preferred by Jerome), rather than an introduction of new vocab ­
ulary by Jerome”; Simone Rickerby: Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible.
Melbourne College of Divinity – University of Divinity (307 pp.; unpublished PhD thesis), p. 170.
Rickerby’s thesis is a study of the noun adinventio.

adiutorium – help [Hilfe]. This is a frequent noun in the Vulgate (Judith 8:10 etc.). Stummer posits a
second meaning, based on Gen 2:18 (with echoes in Sir 36:26; Tob 8:8): helper, adiutrix [ Hilfs­
kraft, Gehilfin]. – Literature:

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1: 23–50,
at pp. 23–26.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire. Blaise lists the Vulgate word, defining it as “aide, personne qui as­
siste.”

Adonis – Adonis. Pagan god, mentioned only in Ezek 8:14. See the textual note on this passage in
Chapter 21.

adorare – to honor, to worship [huldigen, verehren]. Meant is the performance of a gesture of submis ­
sion, either for curtesy, or for religious worship. The everyday meaning of “saluting” appears in 2
Sam 18:21, the religious meaning in Exod 34:14 (noli adorare Deum alienum – do not venerate a
foreign god). The expression adorabunt coram te, Domine (Ps 86:9, Vg 85:9) means: they shall
prostrate before you, o Lord. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 439.

1904. Kaulen, p. 176.

1926. Plater/White, p. 37.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 157–165.

1970. Zürcher, p. 35.

1995. Olegario García de la Fuente: Notes de sémantique biblique latine: le verbe adorare. In:
Louis Callebat (ed.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IV. Hildesheim (723 pp.), pp. 219–236.

advena – stranger, alien [Fremder]. Used in both testaments, e.g., advena sum et peregrinus – I am a
stranger and sojourner (Gen 23:4; Douay Version). – Literature:

1984. Otto Hiltbrunner: advena. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 2 (323 pp.), pp. 17–19.

2009. Lyliane Sznajder: L’étranger immigré dans le texte biblique du Pentateuque d’une langue à
une autre. In: Bernard Bortolussi et al. (eds.): Traduire, transposer, transmettre dans l’Anti­
quité gréco-romaine. Paris 2009 (229 pp.), pp. 27–46. Sznajder also discusses related
words such as peregrinus, colonus, proselytus.

aeger, aegrotus – sick [krank]. The Clementina has the form aeger in Mark 6:13; 16:18; Acts 5:16, while
Jerome seems to have preferred aegrotus (Ezek 34:4 and Mark 6:13; 16:18 in the Weber/Gryson

385
 edition). Outside the Bible, this is not a common word for “sick”; see textual note on Mark 16:18
below, Chapter 22.

aio, ait – I said, he said [ich sagte, er sagte]. (1) ecce, ait, ancilla tua in manu tua est – behold, he said,
your handmaid is in your hand (Gen 16,6); this is the most general way in which the verb is used,
as in classical Latin. – (2) The verb may be followed either by the dative (as in classical Latin), as
in cui ille ait (1 Sam 4:16) – he said to him; or by ad, as in ait ad eam rex (2 Sam 14:5) – and the
king said to her. – Literature:

1911. Eberhard Nestle: “He Said” in the Latin Gospels. Journal of Theological Studies 12 (July
1911) 607–608. ait is often used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, less frequently in John and
Acts. In some manuscripts it is almost or altogether absent, no doubt due to the idea of
some grammarians that when you quote something using ait, you imply that he is wrong.

2016. John Adams – Wolfgang de Melo: Ad versus the Dative: from Early to Late Latin. In: J.N.
Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity of Change? Cambridge (xx,
470 pp.), pp. 87–313.

ait vs. dixit – he said [er sagte]. (1) Both words are used to say “he said,” but there is a difference in
style. The word ait (Exod 34:6; Matt 26:15.25; Luke 17:22) belongs to classical, dixit to postclas­
sical usage; see Stenzel. – (2) Jerome occasionally uses the two words in the interest of variation,
as in Gen 1:9.11; Num 24:3; Jer 3:10–11. → dicere – Literature:

1952. Meinrad Stenzel: Zum Wortschatz der neutestamentlichen Vulgata. Vigiliae Christianae 6:
20–27.

aliquis – someone [jemand]. Deut 22:23; Judg 4:20 and very frequently. Chiara Gianollo: Latin aliquis as
an epistemic indefinite. In: S. Chiriacescu (ed.): Proceedings of the VI Nereus Workshop. Fachbe­
reich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier 127. Universität Konstanz 2013
(150 pp.), pp. 55–81 (open access).

allocutio – speech, consolation, appeasement [Rede, Trost, Beschwichtigung]. In the book of Wisdom
(Wisd 3:18; 8:9; 19:12), allocutio means consolation and appeasement.

1875. Rönsch, p. 305.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), pp.
60– 61.

1989. Scarpat I, p. 444; Scarpat also points out that passages in Catullus and Seneca come close
to this meaning.

amare – to love [lieben] → amicus, amicitia etc.

ambitio – retinue, entourage [Gefolge]. 1 Macc 9:37; Acts 25:23. – Rönsch, p. 522; Kaulen, p. 13;
Plater/White, p. 54 (suggests “pomp”).

Amen. – In several passages, prayers end on Amen, as used in Christian worship today (Neh 13:3; Tobit
13:3; Prayer of Manasseh; the Lord’s prayer Matt 6:13 [Clementina, but not in Weber/Gryson],
Rom 11:36). Two particularities deserve special mentioning: (1) The book of Psalms, where one
might expect a final Amen, ends on Alleluia. In the Hebrew, four of the five sections (or books)
of the Psalms end on Amen, but the Vulgate and the Neovulgate have fiat (so be it), see Ps 41:14
(Vg 40:14); 72:19 (Vg 71:19); 89:53 (Vg 88:53); 106:48 (Vg 105:48). – (2) Subscriptional Amen at
the end of biblical books. No book of the Old Testament has Amen as its final word – the one
exception being the Prayer of Manasseh (Weber/Gryson, Clementina). Do all New Testament
writings end on Amen? According to the Clementina, most do (though not Matthew, Mark, John,

386
 James, 2 and 3 John). The Weber/Gryson edition is only slightly more restrictive, but does place
it at the end of the Gospel of John. Very restrictive in its use is the Nova Vulgata; it places Amen
to the end of only five letters, in agreement with standard critical editions of the Greek New
Testament – Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Jude, and 2 Peter. – Literature:

1896. W.H. Hogg: “Amen.” Notes on Its Significance and Use in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times.
Jewish Quarterly Review 9: 1–23.

2017. Régis Courtray: Les Pères latins face aux mots hébreux et araméens non traduits: alleluia,
amen, hosanna, maranatha. In: Clémentine Bernard-Valette et al. (eds.): Nihil veritas
ervbescit. Mélanges offerts à Paul Mattei. Turnhout (xxv, 838 pp.), pp. 327–348.

amicus, amicitia, amare, amor – friend, friendship, to love, love [Freund, Freundschaft, lieben, Liebe].
(1) The Song of Songs uses amica (Cant 1:8,14; 2:1,10,13,16,17; 6:3) for “female friend,” but the
male friend is generally called dilectus (Cant 1:12,15; 2:3,8–10; 5:10, etc.) rather than amicus
(which nevertheless is used once: Cant 5:16; see also the amici in the plural: Cant 5:1; 8:13). The
expression amore langueo – I languish with love (Douay Version), I am love-sick (Cant 2:5; 5:8) –
is used twice. In the one passage where one would definitely expect amor, Jerome has dilectio:
fortis est ut mors dilectio – strong as death is love (Cant 8:6). – (2) Abraham is called amicus Dei
– friend of God (Judith 8:22; Jas 2:23). – (3) David and Jonathan are called amabiles (friends, lov­
ers, 2 Sam 1:23), and David says of Jonathan: amabilis super amorem mulierum, sicut mater unic­
um amat filium suum, ita ego te diligebam – a friend above the love of women, as the mother
loves her only son, so I did love you (2 Sam 1:26). – (4) The New Testament love passages gen­
erally use caritas and diligere, and not amor and amare (John 4:7–11; 5:1–3; 1 Cor 13), but there
are exceptions: amor fraternitatis – brotherly love (1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7); Jesus to Peter: Simon
Ioannis, amas me – Simon, son of John, do you love me? (John 21:17). The claim that “God is
love” is rendered Deus caritas est (1 John 4:8). – Literature:

412–426. Augustine: De civitate Dei XIX, 7 (CSEL 40.2: 12–14). Augustine discusses the scriptural
terminology of love – caritas, dilectio, diligere, amare. One of the texts referred to is John
21:15–17, where diligere and amare alternate. The chapter is titled amorem et dilectionem
indifferenter et in bono et in malo apud sacras litteras inveniri – that the words love (amor)
and regard (dilectio) are in Scripture used indifferently of good and evil affection (trans­
lated by Marcus Dods).

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain. iii, 412
pp. – According to the author, it was only due to the theology of Augustine that by the
end of the fourth century, amor had established itself as another word for Christian love
(pp. 97–98).

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 78: Blaise prefixes his entry on amor by stating that “chez les chré­
tiens, on trouve plus souvent affectio, dilectio, caritas.”

1971. Elisabeth Mayer: Amicitia bei Hieronymus, Ambrosius und Augustinus. Dissertation, Univer­
sity of Vienna. 279 pp.

1984. Viktor Reichmann: amo. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wortfor­
schung. Bern. Vol. 2 (323 pp.), pp. 201–214. In the same volume, pp. 171–190, is Reich­
mann’s article “amicitia.”

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Hieronymus über Freundschaft (amicus, amici­
tia), in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 140–142.

2023. Anna Kraml: Liebe in der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 53–54.

387
angariare – to exact service [zu Dienstleistung nötigen]. Matt 5:41; 27:32; Mark 15:21. The cultural
background of the word is explained in Hagen, p. 30.

anima – soul [Seele]. (1) Generally meaning “soul,” the word takes on multiple meanings. Note the re­
peated use of anima mea (my soul) as self-address in the Psalms: Ps 42:6.12 (Vg 41:6.12); 43:5
(Vg 42:5); 103:1.2.22 (Vg 102:1.2.22); 104:1.35 (Vg 103:1.35). – (2) To tanslate or not to translate?
In many cases, anima does not have be translated at all, because anima mea (my soul) means “I”
(Gen 27:4.25; Isa 1:14; Luke 1:46 – maginificat anima mea dominum – my soul praises the Lord =
I praise the Lord), anima tua “you” (Gen 27:19), anima nostra “we” (Josh 2:14)), anima eius “he”
(Isa 15:4), etc. Where the Vulgate has sana animam meam (Ps 41:5 [Vg 40:5]) – heal my soul, the
Psalterium Pianum says sana me – heal me. An interesting case is Sir 40:30: alit enim animam
suam cibis alienis – he nourishes his soul (= himself) with other people’s food; in classical Latin,
one would say: alit enim se cibis alienis. – (3) quaerere animam alicuius – to seek someone else’s
life – means: to seek to kill him (Ps 35:4 [Vg 34:4]; 86:14 [Vg 85:14], and often).The expression
echoes a Hebrew idiom. – (4) The dative plural may take the form animabus instead of animis,
e.g., 1 Macc 3:21, Hebr 13:17, and 4 Ezra 7:100, to distinguish it from animis (dative plural of an­
imus = spirit). The form animabus is also in the title of Augustine’s De duabus animabus (On the
Two Souls, CSEL 25.1: 51–80). – Literature:

1949. Alexander Southern: A Glossary of Later Latin. Oxford (xxxii, 545 pp.), s.v. anima (re: ani­
mabus).

1970. Zürcher, p. 48.

1978. Olegario García de la Fuente: Anima en la Biblia Latina. Helmántica 29: 5–24. Classification
of the meanings, esp. pp. 11–13.

1984. Viktor Reichmann: anima. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 2 (323 pp.), pp. 230–241.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford
(xviii, 365 pp.), p. 232. – “The only instance of the vocative anima without mea occurs at
Luke 12:19.”

annulare – to destroy [vernichten]. Sir 21:5. Jerome did not like the word which he considered vulgar. –
Meershoek, pp. 46–49.

aperire – to open [öffnen]. Olegario García de la Fuente: Aperire (abrir) y claudere (cerrar) en la Vulga­
ta. Analecta Malacitana 17.2 (1994) 249–270.

aqua – water [Wasser]. Olegario García de la Fuente: Significados y simbolismo de aqua (el agua) en la
Vulgata. Analecta malacitana 18 (1995) 271–318.

architectus – master builder [Baumeister]. Sir 38:28; Isa 3:3; 1 Cor 3:10; 2 Macc 2:30. – Literature:

1998. Günther Binding: Der früh- und hochmittelalterliche Bauherr als sapiens architectus. 2. Au­
flage. Darmstadt (480 pp.), pp. 245–281.

2020. Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen.
Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart (52 pp.), pp. 20–22.

argumentum – mark, riddle, miracle [Merkmal, Rätsel, Wunder]. These three special meanings of the
Latin noun can be found in Wisd 5:12 (characteristic feature), Wisd 8:8 (riddle), and Acts 1:3 (mir­
acle). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 305–306.

388
 1926. Plater/White, p. 54.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 61.

1984. Adolf Lumpe: argumentum. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 2 (323 pp.), pp. 299–302.

1989. Scarpat I, p. 462.

artifex – specialized craftsman, artificer [Kunsthandwerker, der Kunstferige]. (1) Carpenter: Ooliab, de­
scribed as artifex lignorum egregius (Exod 38:23) – an excellent artificer in wood (Douay Version),
ein hervorragender Künstler in Holzarbeit; artifex sapiens – skilful workman (Isa 40:20); artifex
faber – carpenter (Wisd 13:11); opus artificis – work of a craftsman/stonecutter (Sir 45:11 [Vg
45:13]). – (2) Metalworker: Demetrius the silversmith is an artifex (Acts 19:24). The quotation of
the name – Ooliab, Demetrius – implies the high reputation that specialized craftsmen enjoyed.
– (3) God is called artifex et conditor of a civitas (Hebr 11:10) – artificer and founder; Kunstferti­
ger und Gründer; meant is no doubt: architect and founder. – Literature:

1984. Otto Hiltbrunner: artifex. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 2 (323 pp.), pp. 315–321.

2020. Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen.
Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp. 22–32. Discussion
of the terminology and selected Vulgate passages.

aruspex – diviner, seer [Opferschauer, Seher]. The classical haruspex appears as aruspex in 2 Kgs 21:6;
23:5; Dan 2:27. Bruno Poulle: Les haruspices de saint Jérôme. In: idem (ed.): L’Etrusca disciplina
au Ve siècle après J.-C. Besançon 2016 (259 pp.), pp. 147–155.

auris – ear [Ohr]. Olegario García de la Fuente: Uso y significados de auris (el oído) en la Vulgata.
Analecta Malacitana 19.1 (1996) 29–40.

autem – but, and [aber, und]. Often used as a sentence connector. – Literature:

1892. Jacob Wackernagel: Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanis­
che Forschungen 1: 333–436. – Also available in a bilingual edition, German and English,
with a detailed introduction and bibliography by G. Walkden: On a Law of Indo-European
Word Order. Translated by George Walkden et al. Berlin 2020. 446 pp.

Note. – Wackernagel discovered that Indo-European languages, including Latin, give

short unstressed words by preference the second position in a clause.Although Wack­
ernagel did not give examples from the Vugate, the law can be illustrated from biblical
texts such as Gen 1:2: terra autem erat inanis – the earth, however, was empty; Sir 6:10: est
autem amicus socius mensae – a friend, moreover, is a table fellow; Tobit 7:9: postquam
autem locuti sunt – after they had spoken; Matt 8:22: Iesus autem ait illi – but Jesus said to
him; Matt 14:6: die autem natalis Herodis – on Herod’s birthday. In these examples, autem
is the “short, unstressed word.”

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 58:
on Sir 6:10 – “autem Lat ist einfach verknüpfend (= ferner, weiter, und).”

2023. Matthew Kraus: Satzverbindungen. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 28–29.

389
B
baptizare – to baptize [taufen]. Very frequently in the New Testament. The original meaning of “to
wash” is used only Sir 34:30; Judith 12:7; Mark 7:4. Jerome does not use the word in his transla ­
tion; his word for “to wash” is lavare. In the case of Judith 12:7, he echoes the Vetus Latina. –
Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum
Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), p. 24.

benedicere – to bless [segnen]. The verb is also used in the sense of maledicere = to curse (Job 2:9; 1
Kgs 21:10.13). One could call this a euphemism, but Plater/White, p. 22 derives this meaning
from benedicere = to speak a final blessing, to say farewell to. – Zürcher, p. 62.

benefacere – to do good [Gutes tun]. For a study of the whole range of words with bene- and bon-,
i.e., benefacere, benignus, benignitas, bonitas in the New Testament, see Hélène Pétré: Caritas.
Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), pp. 184–189.

bilinguis – double-tongued, with a double tongue [doppelzüngig]. Prov 8:13; Sir 6:1; 28:15; 1 Tim 3:8.
Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020 (326
pp.), pp. 26–34 (but there is no reference to the Latin Bible in this article).

-bilis, -ilis – Formative element of adjectives such as acceptabilis (for classical acceptus, 2 Cor 6:2 and
frequently), amabilis (2 Sam 1:23), contemptibilis (for cuntemptus, Wisd 10,4), docibilis (John
6:45), honorabilis (precious, Ps 72:14, Vg 71:14; NVg has pretiosus), incredibilis (for incredulus,
Luke 1:17; incredulus is used in John 3:36), inhabitabilis (Jer 17:6, uninhabited), rationabilis (Röm
12,1), inconsutilis (for inconsutus, John 19:23). These endings, rather than indicating a possibility,
indicate a fact – as in classical Latin dissociabilis (Horace), genitabilis (Lucretius), penetrabilis
(Ovid). → docibilis – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 109–116.

1893. J.H. Bernard: The Vulgate of St Luke. Hermathena 8: 385–389, at p. 386.

1904. Kaulen, p. 139–1142.

1926. Plater/White, p. 48.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 59.

C
cadere – to fall [fallen]. – cecidit, cecidit Babylon – fallen, fallen is Babylon (Isa 21:9). But note the spe­
cial sense of “to come (before)”: si forte cadat oratio eorum in conspectu Domini – if their sup­
plication may come before the Lord (Jer 36:7; Plater/White, p. 22). – Literature:

1970. Zürcher, p. 69.

1988. Adolf Lumpe – Otto Hiltbrunner: cado. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinis­
chen Wortforschung. Bern. Vol. 3 (310 pp.), pp. 169–173.

1994. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Los verbos cadere y caedere en la Vulgata. Analecta Malac­
itana 17: 25–52.

caedere – to cut down, to kill [fallen, töten]. Literature:

1988. Adolf Lumpe – Otto Hiltbrunner: caedo, -ere. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur
lateinischen Wortforschung. Bern. Vol. 3 (310 pp.), pp. 178–181.

390
 1994. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Los verbos cadere y caedere en la Vulgata. Analecta Malac­
itana 17: 25–52. – Page 25 (translated from the Spanish): “In this article we intend to re­
view the whole range of meanings presented in the Vulgate by two verbs which, on the
basis of their formal resemblance (for example, in the perfect), unconsciously and involun­
tarily, speaking of one leads us to evoke the other. Moreover, as will be seen, many of
these meanings, at least in cadere, are proper to biblical-Christian Latin and, for this very
reason, novel. Let us begin by saying that both verbs have an important representation in
the Vulgate, more important in the case of cadere, which appears a total of 412 times as
opposed to 95 for caedere. Likewise, cadere is also the one with the most significant rich­
ness, especially in biblical-Christian meanings, while almost all the meanings of caedere
are those already common in classical times.”

caelum – heaven, sky [Himmel]. (1) The word appears in Gen 1:1 (in principio creavit Deus caelum et
terram) and is often used throughout the Bible. God is rex caeli – king of heaven (Dan 4:37),
Deus caeli – God of heaven (Tobit 12:6), Dominus Deus caeli – Lord God of heaven (Gen 24:7;
Neh 1:5), and dominus caeli – Lord of heaven (Tobit 7:20). The word is also used in the plural:
caeli enarrant gloriam Dei (Ps 19:2; Vg 18:2) – the heavens shew forth the glory of God (Douay
Version); die Himmel erzählen die Herrlichkeit Gottes (Allioli); les cieux racontent la gloire de
Dieu (Glaire). The risen Christ says: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra – all power
has been given to me in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18). – (2) sky or heaven? In Latin, one
could make this distinction by using caelum for the abode of God, and aer (genitive aeris) for
the sky. Accordingly, one could speak of princeps potestatis huius aeris (Eph 2:2) – the prince of
the power of the sky. The Vulgate, however, hardly anywhere makes this distinction, and uses
caelum for the sky also: volatiles caeli (Gen 1:26) – the birds of the sky; facies caeli – the face of
the sky (Matt 16:3) = “das veränderliche Aussehen des Wolkenhimmels” (Lumpe-Hiltbrunner, p.
195). – (3) caeli – the heavens. The plural of caelum is very rare in classical Latin (see Meershoek,
pp. 188–197), but frequently used in the Bible, e.g., in Genesis (Gen 2:1 perfecti sunt caeli and
terra – finished were the heanvens and the earth) and in Lord’s Prayer: pater noster qui es in
caelis (Matt 6:9). – Literature:

1966. Meershoek, pp. 182–197.

1970. Zürcher, p. 70.

1988. Adolf Lumpe – Otto Hiltbrunner: Caelum, caelus. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie
zur lateinischen Wortforschung. Band 3. Bern (310 pp.), pp. 187–195.

1996. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Caelum en la Vulgata. Fortunatae. Revista canaria de Filología,
Cultura y Humanidades Clásicas 8: 235–265.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 34 suggests the
meaning “firmament” for caeli in Gen 2:1.

cantrix – female singer [Sängerin]. The word is used twice in the Weber/Gryson edition of the Vulgate
(2 Sam 19:35, Koh 2:8); in both passages, the Clementina has the more common cantatrix, and
Blaise: Dictionnaire, lists only cantatrix. The Nova Vulgata has cantrix in 2 Sam 19:36 (= 2 Sam
19:35 Weber/Gryson), but cantatrix in Koh 2:8.

caritas – love [Liebe]. In the New Testament, caritas is a key word. caritatem dedit nobis pater – the
Father has love (Douay Version: charity) bestowed upon us (1 John 3:1). → amicus, amicitia,
etc. – Literature:

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain. iii, 412
pp. – See esp. the sections “diligere, caritas et leurs synonyms dans le latin classique” (pp.

391
 30–42) and “diligere, caritas et leurs synonyms dans le latin biblique” (pp. 43–61). Accord­
ing to the author, it was only due to the theology of Augustine that by the end of the
fourth century, amor had established itself as another word for Christian love (pp. 97–98).
– Review: G. de Plinval, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 44 (1949) 592–595.

1988. Viktor Reichmann: caritas. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Bern. Vol. 3 (310 pp.), pp. 249–261.

2023. Anna Kraml: Liebe in der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 53–54. The same volume also in ­
cludes Kraml’s article “Vielfalt der caritas” (pp. 101–103) and Benedict Collinet, “Die
geordnete Liebe (caritas ordinata) (Hld 2,4b)” (pp. 56–57). On caritas ordinata see also F.
Chatillon: Au dossier de la caritas ordinata, Revue du moyen-âge latin 4 (1948) 65–66.

causa – reason, pofit [Ursache, Gewinn, Nutzen]. In the idiom sine causa, the word means “profit”; ac­
cordingly, sine causa = without profit, i.e., in vain; vergeblich; Blaise: en vain, pour rien. This
idiom is frequently used, see Ps 73:13 (Vg 72:13); Matt 15:9; Gal 3:4. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 87–88.

1875. Rönsch, p. 306.

1904. Kaulen, p. 14.

1926. Plater/White, p. 54.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 61.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 140.

celte – ablative of celtis, chisel [Meißel]. While a word celtis (chisel) may actually exist in the Latin
vocabulary, it is presumably safer to declare celte in Job 19:24 an error for certe. See below,
Chapter 21, textual note on Job 19:24.

chaos – dark gulf? [dunkler Abgrund?]. Used only once in the Vulgate, in Luke 16:26 (Clementina,
NVg), the Greek word seems to designate the “gulf” between two parts of the netherworld. The
element of “darkness” is normally associated with the Greek word – therefore “dark gulf” in J.M.
Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London 1921 (xv, 126 pp.), p. 18. But manu­
script evidence and the Greek text of the passage suggest that one must read chasma, gulf
(Weber/Gryson). See below, textual note on Luke 16:26 in Chapter 22.

civitas – city [Stadt]. (Cain) aedificavit civitatem – (Cain) built a city (Gen 4:17). In biblical Latin, civitas is
the standard word for “city,” and the English word actually derives from it. A fragment of the Ro­
man writer Ennius explains the original difference between urbs and civitas as follows: urbs est
aedificia, civitas incolae – urbs refers to the buildings, civitas to the inhabitants; see Gesine
Manuwald (ed.): Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. Vol II. Göttingen 2012, p. 260, no. 130. →
urbs. – Literature:

1961. Paul Antin: La ville chez saint Jérôme. Latomus 20: 298–311, esp. 304.

1970. Zürcher, p. 82.

1992. Adolf Lumpe: Civitas. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 55–68. Bibliographical list and survey.

clamare, clamor – to proclaim, to shout; call [verkünden, rufen; Rufen]. The words function in two se­
mantic domains: prophecy and prayer: (1) In prophecy, clamare refers to prophetic proclama­
tion, as in the well-known expression vox clamantis in deserto (Isa 40:3) – the voice of one crying

392
 out in the desert. Here, as often, clamare means “parler de façon inspiré” (Meershoek, p. 142,
where the author also lists ancient texts that use clamare for the proclamation of a philosophical
message). – (2) When used in the context of prayer, clamare highlights the urgence of one’s re­
quest (Meershoek, pp. 140–156): clamor meus ad te [Deus] veniat (Ps 102:2, Vg 101:2) – let my
cry come to thee (Douay Version); misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda nostra clamantem Abba
Pater (Gal 4:6) – he has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, (and the Spirit) cries – Abba,
Father. It seems that there are no pagan parallels to this use of clamare.

clarificare – to glorify [verherrlichen]. (1) Frequently in John (John 12:28; 13:31, etc.). Jerome does not
use the word; he prefers glorificare, but explains that in revising the Old Latin text of John, he
did not wish to change whot the ancient read, because the meaning was the same – noluimus
ergo immutare quod ab antiquis legebatur, quia idem sensus erat (Letter 106, 30; CSEL 55: 262). –
(2) In Acts 4:21, the verb means “to extol; preisen.” → -ficare – Literature: Rönsch, p. 175; Meer­
shoek, pp. 108–111.

claritas – light, splendour [Licht, Glanz]. In the Old Testament, the word is used only in Tob 13:20 and
Wisd 7:25 (i.e., Vetus Latina). The word is not used in Matthew and Mark, but used in Luke (2:9),
John, Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians and the book of Revelation. It seems that
Jerome avoided it. – Literature:

1956. Antonius J. Vermeulen: The Semantic Development of Gloria in Early Christian Latin. Nijme­
gen (xxii, 236 pp.), pp. 24–25.

1966. Meershoek, p. 97: “Le silence de Jérôme sur claritas peut s’expliquer du fait que claritas se
présent beaucoup moins dans les textes européens Si les philologues de nos jours
peuvent constater qu’effectivement maiestas se présente plutôt dans les textes européens
et claritas dans les textes africains, ce fait se trouve confirmé par les témoignages expli­
cites de Jérôme et d’Augustin.” Unlike Jerome, Augustine did use the word claritas.

1992. Otto Hiltbrunner: Claritas. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 69–72, esp. 72.

claudere – to shut [schließen]. Olegario García de la Fuente: Aperire (abrir) y claudere (cerrar) en la
Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 17.2 (1994) 249–270.

clementia – benignity, indulgence [Milde, Güte]. breviter audias nos pro tua clementia – listen to us
briefly according to your benignity (Acts 24:4). Clementia is a typical attitude expected of Roman
men in authority, e.g., an emperor or, as in the Acts passage, a Roman procurator. While the
word is used only once in the New Testament (Acts 24:4), Jerome uses it several times in the Ro­
man sense, ascribing it to a king (Prov 16:15; 20:28; Esth 4:11; 8:4; 13:2). The noun is used once
in the Psalterium Pianum (Ps 143:11; Vg 142:11): pro clementia tua educ de angustiis animam
meam – in thy mercy rescue me from my cruel affliction (Knox). A famous treatise about the
subject is Seneca: De clementia (On Mercy, 55/56 CE), dedicated to emperor Nero. – Literature:

1957. Karl Winkler: Clementia. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Band 3. Stuttgart (1272
cols.), cols. 206–231.

1970. Traute Adam: Clementia Principis. Der Einfluß hellenistischer Fürstenspiegel auf den Ver­
such einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca. Stuttgart. 148 pp.

1992. Otto Hiltbrunner: Clementia. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 92–106.

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter.
In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium

393
 der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357, at p. 351: “Warum
verwendet Hieronymus das Adjektiv clemens (…)? Die Antwort könnte wieder in klas­
sisch-lateinischen Texten gefunden werden, in denen clemens und clementia als positive
Eigenschaften, ja als Tugenden (virtutes) des Menschen angesehen werden, während mi­
sericors und misericordia bei klassischen Autoren (besonders bei stoischen Philosophen)
als negative Emotionen, ja als Laster (vitia) galten.”

2023. Elisa Della Calce: “Mos uetustissimus” – Tito Livio e la percezione della clemenza. Berlin. 460
pp.

coenaculum/cenaculum. – dining room [Speisezimmer]. In the New Testament, coenaculum is used

to translate hyperôon, “upper room” (Luke 22:12). Jerome uses it in his rendering of a Hebrew
word that actually means “upper room,” presumably to echo New Testament usage; see Judg
3:20; 2 Sam 19:1 (Vg 18:33), 1 Kgs 17:19, and often. → triclinium – Friedrich Stummer: Ein­
führung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 118.

cogitare, cogitatio – to think, thought, to worry, worries [denken, Gedanke, sich Sorgen machen, Sor­
gen]. The semantic domain of worrying, echoing Greek merimnáô, surfaces in Wisd 8:9; Sir 31:1–
2; Matt 6:27. Another meaning is “to plan,” see 1 Sam 24:11; Judith 5:26.– Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 308, 352–353.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 15, 294.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 61.

1989. Scarpat I, pp. 418, 424–425, 454, 455–456, 464–465.

cognoscere – to know, to get acquainted with [wissen, jemanden kennenlernen]. The typically biblical
meaning is that of “carnal knowledge,” i.e., making love to someone: Adam vero cognovit uxor­
em suam Hevam: quae concepit et peperit Cain (Gen 4:1) – Adam knew Eve his wife who con­
ceived and gave birth to Cain. See also Matt 1:25. Interestingly, Latin also occasionally uses
cognoscere in the sense of having sexual relations: Octavius Pontiam Postumiam stupro cogitam
et nuptias suas abnuentem impotens amoris interfecerat (Tacitus: Histories IV, 44) – Octavius had
known Pontia Postumia through rape, and, as she refused to marry him, he murdered her in a fit
of amatory passion. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 186.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 127–132.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 35–53, esp. 43–44.

colaphizare – to buffet, to beat [schlagen, misshandeln]. Not a Latin word, colaphizare and the noun
colaphus (blow, cuff; Schlag) echo Greek kolaphizein. For the verb, see 2 Cor 12:7, 1 Pet 2:20;
noun, Matt 26:27, 1 Cor 4:11. – Kaulen, p. 223.

columba – dove [Taube]. The dove appears in both testaments. Today, we know that Jerome mistrans­
lated certain expressions in the books of Jeremiah and Zephaniah by introducing columba for a
word that actually means “destruction, destructive” (Jer 25:38; 46:16; 50:16, Zeph 3:1). – Literat ­
ure:

1986. Michael Wissemann: Jona gleich Taube? Zu vier Vulgataproblemen. Glotta 64: 36–47.

2023. Bernhard Lang: “Taube” (columba) als Fehlübersetzung. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 96–97.

394
comedere – to eat [essen]. (1) In older Latin, edere means “to eat.” It has two lower-register synonyms:
comedere (to eat up completely, manger entièrement, ganz aufessen) and manducare (“to
chew,” the more vulgar word). Jerome uses mostly comedere (Gen 2:17; Deut 32:13, 38; Prov 6:8,
etc.), rarely edere, in his original translations of the Old Testament; he had to adopt manducare
in his revisions of the text of the Psalms and the New Testament because he had less scope for
his own stylistic decisions. comedere is “das dem Hieronymus am meisten geläufige Wort fur es­
sen, das er nicht weniger als 512mal verwendet (in Tobias nur 4:17, fehlt in Judith), wogegen es
in den ubrigen Partien der Vulgata eine ziemlich bescheidene Rolle spielt” (Thielmann 1884, p.
352).– (2) In order to vary the word, Isa 7:22 uses both comedere and manducare; Matt 12:1–4
has manducare – comedere – edere. – (3) Derived nouns meaning “eater, glutton” are comestor
(of which Wisd 12:5 is the first attestation in Latin) and comessator (Prov 28:7, Rönsch and Scarp­
at). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 55.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen.
Philologus 42.2: 319–378, at p. 352.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 40–41.

1967. Joseph Herman: Le latin vulgaire. Que sais-je? 1247. Paris (125 pp., pp. 102–103.

1996. Scarpat II, p. 541.

2005. Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In:
Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études lin­
guistiques. Tübingen (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 333.

2009. Helmut Lüdtke: Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen. Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen
Kommunikation. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Kiel (xxii, 926 pp.), pp. 99 and
101–102. “(…) das volkstümliche, bei den Gebildeten verpönte manducare” (p. 102).

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford
(xviii, 365 pp.), p. 45, note 165.

communis, communicare – common, held in common, to participate in; unclean, to defile [gemein­
sam, teilnehmen an; unrein, verunreinigen]. (1) As far as the semantic domain of communication
is concerned, there are passages where communicare means “to have fellowship with” – Sir 13:1,
2, 21; Kaulen, p. 177. – (2) The specific biblical meaning is that of defilement: verbum commu­
nicat proprie scripturarum est et in publico sermone non teritur – the expression “it defiles” is pe­
culiar to the Scriptures, and not used in public speech (Jerome: Commentary on Matthew, PL 26:
106–107, on Matt 15:11). commune aut immundum (Acts 11:8) – common or unclean (Douay
Version)/common, i.e., unclean, reflecting Greek koinon ê akátharton; hard to translate because
the second word is meant to explain the first; accordingly, it would suffice to say: unclean. – Lit­
erature:

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain (iii,
412 pp.), pp. 267–269 on communicare.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), p. 104.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 117–126.

compati/conpati – to suffer with [mitleiden]. Verbum deponens. The verb may denote the solidarity in
suffering – when one member of one’s body suffers, then the entire body suffers (1 Cor 12:26);
when we suffer together with Christ, we will be resurrected together with him (Rom 8:17). In 1

395
 Pet 3:8, believers are exhorted to be compatientes – compassionate. – Hélène Pétré: Caritas.
Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), pp. 341–348.

complacēre – to be acceptable to, to please [wohlgefällig sein, gefallen]. The verb is constructed either
personally or impersonally. Personally, as in complacuit sibi in illo anima mea (Isa 42:1) – my soul
finds pleasure in him, is pleased with him. Impersonally as in in quo bene complacuit animae
meae (Matt 12:18) – in whom there is a good pleasure for my soul. For detailed studies, see Ha­
gen, pp. 69–70; Rönsch, pp. 184–185; Kaulen, pp. 187, 204, 263.

complēre, implēre, explēre – to fulfil, to fill up [erfüllen, vollenden]. Typical idiomatic expressions are
impleti sunt dies ut pareret (Luke 2:6) – fulfilled are the days so that she gave birth; iam tempus
expletum est (Gen 29:21) – the time is now fulfilled. These verbs are used in an idiom that re­
flects the Hebrew notion of a cycle to be completed. Hagen, pp. 43–46; Kaulen, pp. 177, 236.

comprehendere – to take hold of, to overwhelm, to know, to understand [festhalten, wissen, verste­
hen]. (1) Intellectually: For “to know,” see 1 Cor 9:24; for “to understand,” John 1:5 (see the relev­
ant textual note in Chapter 22); Eph 3:18. – (2) Physically: The meaning “to overwhelm” applies
in John 12:35, while in Acts 1:16, “to arrest” would be the proper translation. – Literature:

1921. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London. xi, 125 pp.22.

1934. Richards, p. 23.

con-, com- – with [mit]. Identical with the preposition cum, con- serves as a formative element, pre­
fixed to nouns and verbs [Bildungselement am Anfang von Nomina und Verben]. – See below
the textual notes (Chapters 21 and 22) on Sir 37:4 and Phil 2:18. – Literature:

1891. Hermann Rönsch: Zeitwörter mit cum zusammengesetzt. In: idem: Collectanea philologa.
Edited by Carl Wegener. Bremen (vi, 325 pp.), pp. 245–246.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 203–207. – A list of compound verbs with con/com-.

1932. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil
1. Nijmwegen (270 pp.), pp. 96–99. Composite words with con-/com-, though often based
on Greek words starting with syn-, are typically Christian words.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.). “Syn meaning ‘along with’ occurs in the Greek N.T. in composition with nouns, ad ­
jectives and verbs. The literal translation of such compounds leads to an extension of the
Latin vocabulary. (…) The compound verbs become more frequent in the Epistles” (p. viii).
In classical Latin, the semantic value of the prefix con- is different: it serves to strengthen
the meaning of the word.

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain (iii,
412 pp.), p. 8: Some of the con- words reflect the Christian notion of community – “tra­
duisent l’aspect communautaire essentiel au christianisme: par exemple le développe­
ment de compati, compassio [to suffer together, mitleiden] s’explique par le notion du
corps mystique dans lequel tous les membres souffrent ensemble; si les chrétiens ont ai­
mé à se donner le titre de conservi [fellow servants, Mitknechte], c’est parce qu’ils se sa­
vaient étroitement unis dans le service d’un même maître. Dans un cas comme celui-ci, ce
sont bien les idées chrétiennes elles-mêmes qui ont entraîné la prédilection pour une cer­
taine forme des mots.”

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 59. According to Al­
bert Blaise, words prefixed with con- and com- are typically Christian, echoing a new

396
 sense of community and fellowship (ein neues Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein): “Les compo­
sés avec le préfixe cum sont en grande faveur, soit pour renforcer le sens du mot simple,
soit pour marquer d’une manière plus expressive l’union avec nos frères, avec leurs joies
et leurs souffrances” (p. 59).

2005. Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In:
Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études lin­
guistiques. Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336. Moussy lists many verbs and some
nouns: congaudēre and congratulari – to rejoice together with, sich mitfreuen; compatiri –
to suffer with, mitleiden; condolēre – to suffer with another, to have compassion, mitlei­
den, Mitleid empfinden; collaborare – to work together with, zusammenarbeiten; conser­
vus – fellow-servant, Mitknecht (Rev 19:10); contribulis – fellow-tribesman,
Stammesgenosse (Lev 25:17).

2011. Claude Moussy: La polysémie en latin. Paris (320 pp.), pp. 189–205. On the various mean­
ings of the prefix con-/com-.

concordia – unanimity [Eintracht]. Wisd 18:9; Sir 25:2; Job 25:2. It is interesting to see that this word,
dear to Roman political sentiment, is almost absent from the Bible. One would expect it in Acts
1:14; 2:46 (which has unanimiter), but concordia is never used in the New Testament. – Litera­
ture:

1932. Eiliv Skard: Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes – Concordia. Oslo 1932. 106 pp.

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain (iii,
412 pp.), pp. 315–319; see also pp. 325–329 on unanimiter.

1967. Eiliv Skard: Concordia. In: Hans Oppermann (ed.): Römische Wertbegriffe. Darmstadt (xi,
552 pp.), pp. 173–208.

1992. Viktor Reichmann: Concordia. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen
Wortforschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 185–210.

concupiscere, concupiscentia – to desire, desire; concupiscence [begehren; das Begehren, die Lust].
non concupisces uxorem proximi tui – do not desire (or: lust for) the wife of your neighbour
(Deut 5:21; cf. Exod 20:17); ex hoc concupiscentia quasi ignis exardescit – and from this (the beau­
ty of women) lust is enkindled as a fire (Sir 9:9; Douay Version); concupiscentia carnis (…) et con­
cupiscentia oculorum – concupiscence of the flesh (…) concupiscence of the eyes (1 John 2:16,
Douay Version); circa reliqua concupiscentiae – the lusts after other things (Mark 4:19, Douay
Version), promiscuous worldly desires (Richards, p. 24). – Literature:

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 541. The author lists concupiscere and
concupiscentia as a word that belongs to the specifically Christian vocabulary.

1934. Richards, p. 24.

1965. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrusbriefes. Freiburg (245 pp.), pp. 24, 31 and
96.

1992. Otto Hiltbrunner: (1) concupiscentia; (2) concupisco. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliogra­
phie zur lateinischen Wortforschung. Band 4. Bern 1992 (348 pp.), pp. 215–218, 218–220.

condere, conditor, conditio – create, creator, creation [erschaffen, Schöpfer, Schöpfung]. The Vulgate
Bible’s standard term for “to create” is creare, but some passages use condere (Col 1:16) and de­
rivatives: conditor (only Hebr 11:10) and conditio (Ezek 28:15). Condere also functions in other

397
 contexts, see, e.g., condere leges (Isa 10:1), “to legislate, to establish laws.” – [first name not in­
dicated] Köchling: Condo. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Band 4. Bern 1992 (348 pp.), pp. 220–226, esp. 225.

confitēri, confessio – to acknowledge, to confess, to praise; confession, praise [anerkennen, bek­

ennen, preisen; Bekenntnis, Lobpreis]. This group of words has four meanings: (1) to acknow­
ledge God or Christ (Rom 10:9); (2) to declare openly, offen erklären (Matt 7:23; John 1:20); (3)
to confess one’s sins, Sünden bekennen: confiteor peccatum meum – I acknowledge my sins
(Gen 41:9); cf. 1 John 1:9; and (4) to praise God, Gott loben (Ps 33:2, Vg 32:2; Sir 17:25–27; Matt
11:25; Luke 2:38; 10:21, and frequently). The fourth meaning is the most characteristic Christian
innovation. Jerome laconically explains that confessio pro laude posita est – confessio is put for
praise (Commentarioli in Psalmos VI, CCSL 72: 187; cf. Commentarioli in Psalmos CXXXV, CCSL
72: 241). See also Jerome: Commentary on Matthew XI, 25: confessio non semper paenitentiam,
sed gratiarum actionem significat, ut in psalmis saepissime legimus (CCSL 77: 85) – confessio does
not always refer to pentitence, but to thanksgiving, as we often read in the Psalms. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 83.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 15, 178.

1906. Gottried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata übersetzt und nach dem Literalsinn erklärt. 2.,
vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg (xxxv, 484 pp.), p. 15: in the Vulgate Bible,
confiteri more often means “to praise” than “to acknowledge.”

1939. Christine Mohrmann: Altchristliches Latein. Aevum 13: 339–354 = eadem: Études sur le
latin des chrétiens. Tome I. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp. 3–19, at pp. 11–12: “Wenn (…)
das bestehende Wort confiteri die Bedeutung ‘den christlichen Glauben bekennen’ erhielt,
so haben wir es mit einem unmittelbaren (direkten) Christianismus zu tun.”

1949. Hans Rheinfelder: Confiteri, confessio, confessor im Kirchenlatein und in den romanischen
Sprachen. Die Sprache 1: 56–67.

1956. Christine Mohrmann: Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens (1956). In: ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp.
21–50, at pp. 30–33. “Pendant les premiers siècles l’idée de la confession de foi, plus tard
celle de la confession des péchés était dominante. Le sens de ‘louer Dieu’ appartenait au
latin biblique et n’a pas été usuel dans la langue courante.”

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 78–79.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 67–85.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 85–86.

1980. Ernesto Valgiglio: Confessio nella Bibbia e nella letteratura cristiana antica. Turin. 355 pp. –
Review: J. den Boeft, Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982) 191–193.

1992. Helmut Nowicki: Confessio. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wort­
forschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 226–232. In the same volume, by the same author:
Confiteor (pp. 238–243). Page 230: “Im christlichen Latein (…) hat confessio drei Bedeu­
tungsaspekte: 1. Bekenntnis des Glaubens, 2. Bekenntnis der Sünden, 3. Bekenntnis des
Ruhmes Gottes bzw. Lobpreis (…); die beiden ersten Aspekte gehen auf Beeinflussung von
griechisch exhomológêsis und exagóreusis zurück, die beide mit confessio wiedergegeben
werden, der dritte Aspekt ergab sich aus der Wiedergabe der hebr. Verbalbildung hôdâh

398
 ‘bekennen, preisen’ durch griechisch exhomologeitai, das im biblischen Latein mit confite­
tur übersetzt ist.”

2019. Kevin Zilberberg: Cultic Verbs in Vetus Latina Daniel and in Jerome’s Translation of the
Greek Additions to Daniel. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59: 445–452.
– Page 451: “Jerome (…) prefers confiteor over exomologesin facio, and repeats this choice
for its many occurrences in Dan 3. In fact, exomologesis, a well-established word in Christi­
an literary Latin by Jerome’s time, makes no appearance in his translations and revisions
that make up most of the Vulgate. Again, this must be due in part to the growth and the
growing confidence of the Latin church, which would have included many faithful ignor­
ant of Greek. Indeed, from the 5th century onward exomologesi is less frequently attested
in Christian writings.”

conflatile → idolum

congratulari – to join in rejoicing (“to co-rejoice”) [sich mitfreuen]. 2 Sam 8:10; Luke 1.58; 15:6; Phil
2:17–18. ut salutaret eum congratulans – to greet him as one who shares his joy (1 Sam 8:10).
vos gaudete et congratulamini mihi – rejoice and rejoice with me (Phil 2:18; not: beglückwünscht
mich, as in Tusculum-Vulgata). The synonymous congaudēre is used 1 Cor 12:26; 13:6. Cf. Livy:
Ab urbe condita III, 54,7: congratulantur libertatem concordiamque civitatem restitutum – togeth­
er, they rejoice in the community’s restored liberty and concord. → gratulari – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 355.

2005. Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In:
Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études lin­
guistiques. Tübingen (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 329: “Congratulor, forme ancienne
attesté depuis Plaute, a d’abord signifié ‘féliciter’, mais chez les écrivains chrétiens, depuis
la Vetus Latina, le préverbé est devenu synonyme de congaudeo et de collaetor.”

congregare – to gather, to have pity on someone [versammeln, Mitleid haben mit jemandem]. The
verb has two meanings: (1) passive voice: to be gathered (Gen 25:8; 49:29); – (2) active voice: to
have pity on someone or something, to comfort (Jes 54:7; Sir 30:24). – Claude Moussy: Nou ­
veaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin
– Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguistiques. Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606
pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 334.

conscientia – conscience [Gewissen]. In the Old Testament only Gen 43:22; Prov 12:18; Koh 7:23; Wisd
17:10 (perturbata conscientia – a troubled conscience); Sir 13:30; but very often in the New Test ­
ament, esp. in the Pauline letters: Rom 2:15; 1 Cor 8:7; 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Tim 3:9; Tit 1:15; 1 Pet 2:19;
3:16, etc. – opus legis scriptum est in cordibus suis, testimonium reddente illis conscientia ipsorum
– the works of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them (Rom
2:15, Douay Version). New Testament scholars debate whether Paul’s notion of conscience (syn­
eidêsis) echoes Stoic and Roman philosophy – Paul, writing in Greek, but thinking like a Roman.
– Literature:

1922. Joseph Hebing: Über conscientia und conservatio in philosophischem Sinne von Cicero bis
Hieronymus. Philosophisches Jahrbuch 33: 136–152, 215–231, 298–326. – In the scholarly
debate about the historical origins of the notion of conscience, Cicero plays an important
role; Hebing comments on the relevant passages of Cicero’s forensic speeches on pp.
217–221.

1955. Gunnar Rudberg: Cicero und das Gewissen. Symbolae Osloenses 31.1: 96–104.

399
 1969. Peter W. Schönlein: Zur Entstehung eines Gewissensbegriffs bei Griechen und Römern.
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NF 112.4: 289–305. – The notion of “conscience,” so im­
portant for ethical discourse, is a genuinely Roman invention, and has its original setting
in forensic rhetoric.

1992. Helmut Nowicki: Conscientia. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur lateinischen
Wortforschung. Band 4. Bern (348 pp.), pp. 243–250. More than 50 articles and books on
conscientia are listed (years 1863 to1989), followed by a brief survey in which Cicero and
Seneca figure prominently. “Im biblischen Latein ist conscientia subjective Grundlage,
nicht aber Triebfeder sittlichen Handelns” (p. 249).

2003. Philip Bosman: Conscience in Philo and Paul. A Conceptual History of the Synoida Group.
Tübingen 2003 (x, 318 pp.), pp. 71–75: conscientia. Bosman is critical of the account of
Schönlein (1969), arguing that “it has to be accepted that either the words [Greek syn­
eidêsis, Latin conscientia] developed independently or that the Romans borrowed their
word from the Greeks” (p. 75).

2008. Marleen Verschoren: Lex in cordibus scripta and conscientia (Romans 2:15). Augustiniana
58.2: 75–93.

2014. Richard Sorabji: Moral Conscience through the Ages: Fifth Century BCE to the Present.
Chicago. 265 pp. – Traces the notion to ancient Greek dramatists.

2023. Atilla Németh: The Metaphors of conscientia in Seneca’s Epistles. Mnemosyne 76.2: 258–
286.

consummare – to finish, to complete [vollbringen, vollenden]. This is the most common meaning, as in
consummatum est (John 19:30) – it is finished, es ist vollbracht. There are several other mean­
ings: (1) to spend, to waste (money); verbrauchen, verschwenden; dépenser (Luke 15:14); (2) to
destroy; vernichten; anéantir (Ps 119:87, Vg 118:87). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 355–356.

1904. Kaulen, p. 235.

2005. Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In:
Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguis­
tiques. Tübingen (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at pp. 334–335.

contumelia – insult, abuse, reproach, dishonour [Beleidigung, Misshandlung, Tadel, Unehre]. facere
vas in contumeliam (Rom 9:21) – façonner une vase destiné à des usages vils (Blaise); contumeli­
is affectos occiderunt (Matt 22:6) – killed those that were abused (Richards: contumeliā [ablative]
afficere = “almost to scourge”). – Literature:

1934. Richards, p. 28.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 218.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 54–60 (without reference to the Bible).

convallis – valley [Tal]. A variant of vallis. Jos 15:8; Cant 2:1; Ps 104:10 (Vg 103:10); Ezek 31:12. Jerome
seems to use the word occasionally in the form convalle, see Siegfried Reiter: Sprachliche Be­
merkungen zu Hieronymus. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 39, no. 28 (1919) 666–671, at
col. 667.

400
conversatio, conversari – conduct, manner of living, social contact [Verhalten, Lebensweise, sozialer
Umgang]. One of the typical Vulgate words. (1) manner of living: date ex vobis viros sapientes et
gnaros, et quorum conversation sit probata (Deut 1:13) – give me from among you wise men
whose manner of life is approved; deponere vos secundum pristinam conversationem veterem
hominem (Eph 4:22) – to put off the old man (shaped) according to the former way of life; nos­
tra autem conversatio in caelis est (Phil 3:20) – our way of life is in heaven. – (2) social contact:
dii quorum non est cum hominibus conversatio (Dan 2:11) – the gods whose conversation is not
with men (Douay Version); the gods who do not associate with men; qui adeptus est gloriam in
conversatione gentis (Sir 50:5) – he obtained glory in his conversation with the people (Douay
Version); who obtains honour through his dealings with the people (problematic is the transla­
tion of Tusculum-Vulgata: er hat Ruhm erlangt durch den Lebenswandel des Volkes). – (3) In Sir
18:21.24, however, conversatio means “change” (= conversio); Blaise: Dictionnaire. – (4) In Sir
38:14, read conservationem; see textual note, Chapter 21. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 310, 356.

1904. Kaulen, p. 16 (read Eccli instead of “Pred”).

1934. Richards, p. 29. – Two special meanings: “community” (Eph 2:12) and “citizenship” (Phil
3:20 – nostra autem conversatio in caelis est).

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 219.

1964. H. Hoppenbrouwer OSB: Conversatio. Une étude sémasiologique. In: A.J. Vermeulen et al.:
Le développement sémasiologique d’épipháneia [and further studies]. Nijmegen 1964 (144
pp.), pp. 45–95.

convertere, conversus – to turn, to be turned; again [wenden, gewendet; wieder, abermals]. „Again“:
this special use of convertere (to turn) and conversus is based on an idiomatic use of the Hebrew
verb šūb – “to do something yet again.” Examples: (1) conversusque fecit illud vas alterum – and
turning he made another vessel (Douay Version), i.e., he made again another vessel (Jer 18:4). –
(2) Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos – God, you will make us alive again (Ps 85:7, Vg 84:7; see
also Ps 71:20–21, Vg 70:20–21). – (3) non convertar ut disperdam Ephraim – I will not return to
destroy Ephraim (Douay Version), i.e. I will not again destroy Ephraim. – (4) sic conversus co­
gitavi – so turning again I have thought (Douay Version); i.e., so again I have thought (Zech
8:15). – (5) et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos – and thou, being once converted,
confirm thy brethren (Douay Version). This standard translation is to be corrected: and you
(Peter) strengthen again your brothers (Luke 22:32). – (6) nisi conversi fueritis ut efficiamini sicut
parvuli – unless you become like children again (Matt 18:3). – (7) convertit autem Deus et tradid­
it eos servire militiae caeli – but God had them serve again the host of heaven (Acts 7:42). – Lit­
erature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 20–21.

1868. Gerhard Schneemann: Versuch einer Exegese von Luc. 22,32. Der Katholik 48.1: 404–428,
esp. p. 409.

1904. Kaulen, p. 236.

1953. Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: “Et tu aliquando conversus,” St Luke 22,32. Catholic Biblical Quar­
terly 15: 305–310

2001. See also Hebrew dictionaries s.v. shub, such as Ludwig Koehler – Walter Baumgartner: The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M.E.J. Richardson. Vol­
ume II. Leiden 2001 (xiv, pp. 907–2094), p. 1430.

401
cor – heart [Herz]. In biblical language, the heart often stands for “mind” and “intelligence,” see the
phrase propter cordis inopiam (Prov 6:32) – because of the poverty of his mind. Two idioms are
of interest: (1) loqui ad cor: et loquar ad cor eius (Hos 2:14) – and I will speak to her heart (words
of love). While this expression does not sound strange to the modern ear, Jerome thought of it
as a difficult biblical idiom; in two passages, where it could appear – Gen 34:3; 50:21 – he resorts
to paraphrase that omits the word cor. Interestingly, the Nova Vulgata retains Jerome’s para­
phrase in Gen 50:21, but in Gen 34:3, it offers a literal rendering: locutus est ad cor eius – he
spoke to her heart. – (2) The idiom dicere/loqui in corde suo – to say in one’s heart – means “to
think”; Ps 14:1 (Vg 13:1: dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus – the fool hath said in his heart:
there is no God; Douay Version); Koh 2:1; 4 Ezra 9:38. – Literature:

1926. Plater/White, p. 15. On the semantic range of cor.

1951. H. Flasche: El concepto del “cor” en la Vulgata. Estudios bíblicos 10: 5–49.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 223.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 166–176.

1969. Bengt Löfstedt, Gnomon 41: 362–365 (German). Meershoek exaggerates the difference
between biblical and non-biblical uses of the word cor, heart (p. 365).

creatura – creation, creature [Schöpfung, Geschöpf]. praedicate evengelium omni creaturae – preach
the gospel to all creatures, i.e., to all human beings (Mark 16:15). Rendering Greek ktísis (cre­
ation) and ktísma (creature) and unknown in classical Latin, this noun came to be an often-used
Christian word. Since creare in classical Latin means “to endow with growth” (Wachstum schen­
ken), it was not a natural choice (Bastiaensen). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 41.

1904. Kaulen, p. 92.

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Florence (xlii,
251 pp.), p. 61.

2006. Antoon A.R. Bastiaensen: Wortgeschichte im altchristlichen Latein: creatura und genimen.
In: André P.M.H. Lardinois et al. (eds.): Land of Dreams. Greek and Latin Studies in Honour
of A.H.M. Kessels. Leiden (xxiv, 414 pp.), pp. 339–354.

credere – to believe, to trust [glauben, vertrauen]. (1) Secular: credidit ergo Achis David – Achis be­
lieved (or trusted) David (1 Sam 27:12); innocens credit omne verbo – the innocent believes (or
trusts) every word (Prov 14:15). In both examples, credere is followed by the dative case. – (2)
Religion. While faith is → fides, the corresponding verb is credere which became a technical
term, not necessarily followed by an object. Examples of the absolute use: multi autem eorum
qui audierunt verbum crediderunt – many of those who heard the word believed (Acts 4:4); om­
nis qui credit – everyone who believes (Acts 13:39); credentes – believers (Acts 4:32); si credis ex
toto corde – if you believe with all your heart (Acts 8:37). – (3) The usual sentence constructions
are as follows: (a) credere + dative: credidit Abram Deo – Abram believed God (Gen 15:6); (b)
credere + in + acc.: crede in Dominum Iesum – believe in the Lord Jesus (Acts 16:31); non cre­
debant in eum – they did not believe in him (John 12:37); (c) credere + in + ablative: crediderunt
multi in Domino – many believed in the Lord (Acts 9:42); (d) credere + acc. and infinitive (AcI):
credo filium Dei esse Iesum Christum – I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God (Acts 8:37).
The AcI variety can also be found in classical Latin, see redisse primo legiones credunt – at first,
they supposed (historic present tense) that the legions had returned (Caecar: De bello Gallico VI,
39). – Kaulen, p. 264; Zürcher, p. 104.

402
cubiculum – bedroom [Schlafzimmer]. Ezek 8:12 and many times. For a list and discussion of all refer ­
ences, see M. Manuela Gächter OP: Cellar or Bedroom? Observations on Song 1,3 Vulg (1,4).
Vulgata in Dialogue 3 (2019) 47–58 (online journal).

cubitus – forearm, cubit [Unterarm, Elle]. A masculine word. Jerome explains that whenever the cubit is
meant, the word should be cubitum; but in his translation, he would follow the vulgar usage –
cubitus for both forearm and cubit (Commentary on Ezekiel; CCSL 75: 561–562). – Literature:

1966. Meershoek, pp. 62–63.

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford
(xviii, 365 pp.), p. 44.

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus. Kontinuität
und Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
87–108, at p. 97.

custodire – to guard, to preserve [bewachen, bewahren]. – Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Custodire y su

familia de palabras en la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 19 (1996) 395–418.

cutis – skin [Haut|]. Examples: let hunger devour the beauty of his skin (pulchritudinem cutis eius, Job
18:13); the skin of the head with hair (cutis capitis cum capillis, 2 Macc 7:7). For literature, see →
pellis.

D
datum, data (plur) – gift, gifts [Gabe, Gaben]. Classical Latin would generally use dona rather than
data. Sir 4:3 (and often); Matt 7:11; Luke 11:13; Jam 1:17. In the expression secundum datum
suum – according to his gift (Sir 1:10; meant is: because of his gift), the translator may have
thought of → datus.

datus, -ūs – gift [Gabe]. A rare word, in the Vulgate only in Sir 7:37; 18:18. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 89.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikogra­
phie und Grammatik 1: 68–81, at p. 74.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 238.

de – from, of [von]. Preposition. Special uses: (1) partitive preposition, as in Acts 2:17: effundam de
spiritu meo – I will pour out of my spirit (Douay Version); ich will von meinem Geist ausgießen
(Allioli, Grundl, Arndt); je répandrai de mon Esprit (Glaire). A better translation would be: I will
pour out my spirit, because the partitive particle de corresponds to the partitive particle in mod­
ern French which has no equivalent in English and German. Further examples: quidem de filiis
Levi sacerdotium accipientes (Hebr 7:5) – those of the sons of Levi, having received the priest­
hood = the Levites, having received the priesthood; sapiens de architectis (Isa 3:3) – a sage from
the architects = a wise master bulder; dabitur ei de auro Arabiae (Ps 72:15; Vg. 71:15) – gold of
Arabia will be given to him. – (2) concerning. de bono opere non lapidamus te (John10:33) – con­
cerning good works we do not stone you; though one may also translate “it is not because of
good works that we are stoning you.” indignati sunt de duobus fratribus (Matt 20:24) – indignant
at the two brothers. – Literature:

403
 1875. Rönsch, pp. 392–396.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 238–239.

1921. Anne-Marie Guillemin: La préposition ‘de’ dans la littérature latine et en particulier dans la
poésie latine du Lucrèce à Ausone. Chalon-sur-Saône. viii, 134 pp. – Not specifically on late
Latin.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 99–100.

dea – goddess [Göttin]. Used only once in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament: So­
lomon worships Astharte, the goddess (dea) of the Sidonians (1 Kgs 11:5,33), and saint Paul is
not guilty of “blasphemy against your goddess (dea),” i.e., against Diana of Ephesus.

devotus, devovēre – devote, pius; to vow [fromm, hingebungsvoll; weihen]. Exemples: (1) mente de­
vota (Exod 35:21, 29; 2 Chr 29:31) – with a devout mind (Douay Version), mit opferwilligem Her­
zen (Arndt), mit hingebungsvollem Sinn (Tusculum-Vulgata). – (2) iuxta quod mente devoverat,
ita faciet ad perfectionem sanctificationis suae (Num 6:21) – according to that which he had
vowed in his mind, so shall he do for the fulfilling of his sanctification (Douay Version). – (3) de­
voverunt se dicentes (Acts 23:12) – they vowed by saying (…). Note that devotio – used only Acts
23:14 – means “cursing, curse,” like devotatio (1 Kgs 8:38). – Literature:

1957. Jean Chatillon: Devotio. In: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome 3. Paris (1884 cols.), cols. 703–
710, esp. cols. 705–706. Chatillon separates the use of devovēre etc. in Acts 23 from the
other occurrences, because in Acts, meant is not just a vow or promise (as a superficial
reading would suggest), but something more powerful; see the Douay version’s “they
bound themselves under a curse” (to kill the apostle Paul). The other occurrences of this
terminology represents a semantic development toward designating an interior act of
piety, a development that later came to be characteristic of Christian Latin.

diaconus, diaco(n) – deacon [Diakon]. The two Latin equivalents for saying “deacon” (echoing Greek
diakôn) are mixed in the New Testament; see the textual notes (Chapter 22) on Philippians 1:1
and 1 Timothy 3:8.12. – Literature:

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, has two separate entries – diacon and diaconus.

1970. Zürcher, p. 116.

dicere – to say [sagen]. (1) The verb is either followed by the dative (dicere alicui, as in classical Latin)
or by the preposition ad – dicere ad aliquem. Examples: dixitque ad eos (Gen 37:6) – and he said
to them; ego autem dico vobis (Matt 5:28) – but I say to you. Cf. Adams/de Melo. – (2) When it
comes to translating dicere, one has to be flexible; one example: ego dixi, Domine, miserere (…)
(Ps 41:5; Vg 40:5) – I said, o Lord, be merciful on me, or: I asked, o Lord, (…). Sometimes, the best
translation may be “to think” (Sir 31:13); in this case, dicere means almost the same thing as
dicere in corde – so say in one’s heart, i.e., to think secretly (Ps 4:5; 53:1 [Vg 52:1]). – (3) tu dicis,
tu dixisti (Matt 26:25) – you said (it), yes. – (4) tibi dico – I say to you (Luke 7:14), the formula of
persuasion (Überredungsformel, Hofmann 1936, p. 125). – (5) ut ita dicam – so to speak, sozus­
agen: a rhetorical flourish, used in 1 Sam 20:3 (see the textual note on this passage, below
Chapter 21). – (6) dicens is sometimes treated as indeclinable; example: vidi alterum angelum
(…) dicens magna voce – I saw another angel (…) who said with a mighty voice (Rev 14:6–7; in­
stead of: dicentem); Plater/White, p. 19 (§ 19). – See also → ait vs. dixit → inquit. – Literature:

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg (xxxv, 484 pp.), p. 10:
“dicere in corde oder auch bloß dicere, nach der Anschauung der Hebräer denken.” Ps 4:5
quae dicitis in corde vestris – was ihr [in eurem Herzen] denket (p. 8).

404
 1911. Vincenzo Ussani: Un preteso uso della Vulgata. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica
39: 550–557. – Ussani is critical of Kaulen (p. 224, no. 108) who argues that dicit and ap­
pellavit occasionally stand for dicitur and appellatur. The relevant passages are Gen 16:14;
Isa 15:5; and Ps 87:5 (Vg 86:5).

1936. J.B. Hofmann: Lateinische Umgangssprache. Zweite, durch Nachträge vermehrte Auflage.
Heidelberg (xvi, 252 pp.), p. 125.

1966. Paul Antin OSB: Ut ita dicam chez Saint Jérôme. Latomus 25: 299–304. – For an occurrence,
see 1 Sam 20:3: ut ita dicam – as I may say.

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp.
111–120.

2016. John Adams – Wolfgang de Melo: Ad versus the Dative: from Early to Late Latin. In: J.N.
Adams – Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge (xx,
470 pp.), pp. 87–131.

dies – day [Tag]. Among special expressions, note antiquus dierum – the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9, a
name of God, Kaulen, p. 254: ein Hochbetagter). Olegario García de la Fuente: Significados y
simbolismo de “dies” (dia) en la Vulgata. In: Luis Gil Fernández (ed.): Corolla Complutensis. In
memoriam Josephi S. Lasso de la Vega. Madrid 1998 (787 pp.), pp. 539–548.

diffamare – to spread abroad, to slander [verbreiten, verleumden]. Literally, to spread the fama = ru­
mour, news; Gerücht, Kunde. The positive or neutral meaning is the more frequent one (Matt
9:31; Mark 1:45; 1 Thess 1:8). The negative meaning is used Wisd 2:12 and Luke 16:1. – Hagen, p.
80; Kaulen, p. 208; Richards, p. 36 (who has “to accuse” for Luke 16:1, in accordance with the
Douay Version).

dignari – to grant [geruhen]. This deponens is difficult to translate. It is a word of elevated speech and
politeness: someone eminent such as God or a nobleman does not simply act, but he “deigns to
act,” er geruht zu handeln. The idiom indicates that the eminent person acts freely, not being
forced by anyone, even when asked by someone to act. Examples: (1) sicut castra Aegyptorum
videre dignatus es (Judith 9:6) – as thou (God) wast pleased to look upon the camp of the Egyp­
tians (Douay Version); as thou didst let them (your eyes) fall long ago on the Egyptians (Knox;
very free, dignatus es remains untranslated); wie du damals geruht hast, das Lager der Ägypter
zu betrachten (Tusculum-Vulgata). – (2) et nosse me dignareris peregrinam mulierem (Ruth 2:10)
– and that thou shouldst vouchsafe to take notice of me a woman of a foreign country (Douay
Version); why wouldst thou take notice of an alien woman such as I am? (Knox); und mich, eine
fremde Frau, zu erkennen gewürdigt hast? (Tusculum-Vulgata). Also note that the two cases are
dissimilar in that the act of the eminent person is inimical in example (1), and friendly in example
(2). – Of dignari the Antibarbarus states: “Im christlichen Latin ist es sehr beliebt”; Johann Philipp
Krebs – Joseph Hermann Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Siebente Auflage. Er­
ster Band. Basel 1905 (viii, 811 pp.), p. 447.

diligere, dilectio – to love, love [lieben, Liebe]. fortis est ut mors dilectio – strong as death is love (Cant
8:6). – Anna Kraml: Liebe in der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 53–54.

dimittere. – to send away, to forgive, to allow, to leave behind [entlassen, (Schulden) erlassen, er­
lauben, hinterlassen]. The most famous passages are (1) dimitte nobis debita nostra (Matt 6:12) –
relieve/cancel our debts; forgive us our debts (Douay Version); erlass uns die Schulden; remet­
tez-nous nos dettes (Glaire); (2) quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam (Matt 19:9 – whoever sends

405
 away (i.e., divorces) his wife. The complete range of meanings is explained and documented by
Hagen, pp. 68–69; Kaulen, pp. 178–179.

disciplina – knowledge, instruction; chastisement [Wissen, Unterweisung, Züchtigung]. (1) knowledge,

instruction. educate illos in disciplina et correptione Domini (Eph 6:4) – bring them up in the
teaching and correction of the Lord; see below, textual note on Eph 6:4 (Chapter 22). – (2) chas­
tisement: virga disciplinae (Prov 22:15; cf. Sir 33:25) – rod of correction, Zuchtrute; recipere dis­
ciplinam (Lev 26:23) – to amend, sich bessern; see esp. Hebr 12:5–11. – Literature:

1989. Scarpat I, p. 414.

2002. Rainer Berndt: Scientia und disciplina in der lateinischen Bibel und in der Exegese des ho ­
hen Mittelalters. In: idem – Matthias Lutz-Bachmann et al. (ed.): “Scientia” und “disciplina.”
Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftspraxis im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert. Berlin (294 pp.),
pp. 9–36.

discolus → dyscolus

docibilis – instructed, taught (and not “docile”) [unterrichtet, belehrt, aber nicht “gelehrig”]. erunt
omnes docibiles Dei (John 6:45) – they shall all be taught by God. This meaning is far away from
the semantic range of standard Latin, where docilis refers to the one who learns easily, and
docibilis simply does not exist in the vocabulary, as has been observed by Erasmus. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 110.

2003. Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami. Amsterdam. Vol. 6.6, p. 92: docilis autem est is
qui facile discit. ‘Docibilis’ vox est Latinis auribus inaudita.

doctrina – teaching, knowledge, wisdom [Lehre, Wissen, Weisheit]. The contents of the book of Sirach
is called doctrina sapientiae et disciplinae – the teaching of wisdom and instruction (Sir 50:29). At
the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew states: cum consumasset Iesus verba haec, ad­
mirabatur turba super doctrina eius (Matt 7:28) – when Jesus had fully ended these words, the
people were in admiration of his doctrine (or teaching); the Douay Version has “doctrine,” Knox
has “teaching.” The teaching of the apostles is called doctrina apostolorum (Acts 2:42). – Darius
Alekna: Doctrina dans la Bible latine et le De doctrine christiana d’Augustin. Freiburger Zeitschrift
für Philosophie und Theologie 65 (2018) 315–333.

doma – house, roof [Haus, Dach]. Prov 21:9; 25:24; Neh 8:17; Jer 19:13. This is a Greek loanword (dô­
ma). Jerome thinks of the typically oriental house with a flat top (Letter 106, 63; CSEL 55: 278). –
Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 241–242.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 221–233. Note that Meershoek insists, against Blaise, that doma is never
used in the Vetus Latina.

dominari – to rule, to have dominion over [herrschen über]. Verbum deponens, followed by dative,
genitive, or accusative; also by the prepositions super (+ accusative) and in (+ accusative or ab­
lative). An example with dative: tu dominaris potestati maris (Ps 89:10, Vg 88:10) – you have
dominion over the power of the sea; du herrschst über die Gewalt des Meeres. Example with in:
superbiam nunquam in tuo sensu (…) dominari permittas – never allow pride to rule over your
mind (Tobit 4:14). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 91–92.

1875. Rönsch, p. 438. Examples of dominari + genetive.

406
 1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 12–
13. The most detailed discussion.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 264–265. Refers only to dominari followed by genitive.

1926. Plater/White, p. 36–37 (§ 47). Followed by genitive like Greek κυριεύειν.

domus, fem. – house [Haus]. (1) The word can also mean “family” (Jer 31:31; Luke 1:27) and “house­
hold” (Acts 16:15; esp. Phil 4:22 – qui de Caesaris domo sunt, i.e., who are members of Nero’s
household; see the textual note in Chapter 19.2). – (2) domūs viduarum – the houses of the wid­
ows (Matt 23:14; Luke 20:47) = the property of the widows; das Vermögen der Witwen. – (3)
domi, in classical Latin, means “at home”; in Tobit 2:20, it stands for domum = to the home. – Lit­
erature:

1863. Hagen, p. 94.

1904. Kaulen, p. 18.

1934. Richards, p. 39.

2004. Bernhard Linke: Domus. In: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopedia of
the Ancient World. Volume 4. Leiden (xviii pp., 1202 cols.), cols. 651–652.

2013. Michael J. Mordine: Domus Neroniana: The Imperial Household in the Age of Nero. In:
Emma Buckley et al. (eds.): A Companion to the Neronian Age. Chichester (xvi, 486 pp.), pp.
102–117. – The imperial household (domus) was a physical space, a patrilineal social unit,
a political apparatus, and a component in the imperial ideology of power. Also note that
later, in the 2nd century CE, the domus Caesaris came to be called aula Caesaris, the im­
perial “court.” Aloys Winterling: Aula Caesaris. Studien zur Institutionalisierung des römi­
schen Kaiserhofes in der Zeit von Augustus bis Commodus (31 v. Chr. – 192 n. Chr.). Munich
1999. x, 285 pp.

dulcis, dulcedo – sweet, sweetness [süß, Süße]. Often applied to God: Ps 31:20 (Vg 30:20); 1 Pet 2:3,
etc. suavis (sweet) can be used synonymously: o quam bonus et suavis est, Domine, spiritus tuus
in omnibus – o how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things (Wisd 12:1, Douay Version).

1937. Joseph Ziegler: Dulcedo Dei. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der griechischen und lateinischen Bi­
bel. Münster 1937. viii, 107 pp.

1957. Jean Chatillon: Dulcedo, dulcedo Dei. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome 3. Paris (1884
cols.), cols. 1777–1795, esp. cols. 1781–1783: Les versions latines de l’Écriture.

1985. Paul Maiberger: Zur “dulcedo dei” im Alten Testament. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 94.2:
143–157; also published under the same title in Analecta cracoviensia 18 (1986) 167–184.
– Some of Ziegler’s suggestions are not well-founded. The sweetness of God has more
background in the pre-Vulgate biblical text than assumed by Ziegler.

duo – two [zwei]. Olegario García de la Fuente: Significados y simbolismo de duo (dos) y sus derivados
en la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 20.1 (1997) 5–22.

dyscolus – perverse, deformed [missgestimmt]. The Weber/Gryson edition spells discolus. Used only
once in the Vulgate Bible, in 1 Pet 2:18, where it characterizes a slave’s master who is unkind and
unfriendly rather than gentle. J.M. Harden (Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London.
1921 [xi, 125 pp.], p. 37) and Richards (p. 40) suggest “peevish, irritable.” In classical Greek, the
noun dyskolos is a well-known word for the unfriendly person; a fourth-century BCE Greek char­

407
 acter comedy by Menander, entitled Dyskolos, has received the English title of The Grouch, in
German Der alte Griesgram.

E
ecce – behold! [siehe!]. Presentative particle, generally placed at the beginning of a sentence, implying
a gesture of presentation or indicating surprise or suddenness. – (1) In direct speech, ecce is of­
ten the first word: Si ergo dixerint vobis: Ecce in deserto est, nolite exire (Matt 24:26) – if they will
say to you: Behold, he is in the desert, do not go out. See also the verbal exchange in 1 Sam 9:6–
8. In John 19:26 (ecce filius tuus – here is your son, or: this is your son) it has deictic function.–
(2) In the form et ecce, it points to a new element of a story (Gen 25:24; 34:25; Matt 28:9; Luke
1:20, 36; 2:25) or, in direct speech, a new statement (Matt 28:20). – (3) ecce figures prominently
in reports on visions, see Ezek 8:2; Zech 1:18; 2:1; 5:1; 6:1. – Literature:

1893. Albrecht Köhler: Zur Etymologie und Syntax von ecce und em. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 221–234.

1926. Plater/White, p. 80 (§ 108).

1939. Martin Johannessohn: Das biblische kai idou in der Erzählung samt seiner hebräischen
Vorlage. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 66.3–4: 145–195

1954. Martin Johannessohn: Et ecce und sein Ersatz in der Vulgata. Glotta 33: 125–156.

1971. D. Vetter: hinnē siehe. In: Ernst Jenni – Claus Westermann (eds.): Theologisches Hand­
wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Band I. Munich (xli pp., 942 cols.), cols. 504–507. – Eng­
lish: hinnēh behold; in: Jenni – Westermann (eds.): Theological Lexicon of the Old Testa­
ment. Volume 1. Peabody. Mass. 1997 (lii, 448 pp.), pp. 379–380. – This is a dictionary
entry on the Hebrew presentative adverb hinnē with statistics on its occurrence in Old
Testament books; it is most frequently used in Jeremiah, Genesis, and Ezekiel. – Jerome’s
rendering is ecce.

2020. Camilo Andrés Bonilla Carvajal: The Syntax of the Latin Presentative Adverb ecce. Journal
of Latin Linguistics 19.1: 27–57.

2023. Ruth Montreal: Aeneas als Held und Erzähler. Zur narrativen Gestaltung von Vergils Aeneis.
Göttingen (423 pp.), pp. 137–145: Zur narrativen Funktion von ecce.

ecclesia – assembly, church [Versammlung]. Transcribing Greek ekklêsía, this word is used in both
Testaments. Ecclesia sanctorum – the assembly of the saints (the pious) – Ps 89:6 (Vg 88:6); super
hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam – upon this rock I will build my church (Matt 16:18;
metaphorically, the ecclesia is seen as a building). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 320: lists some early patristic evidence for ecclesia = church building.

1904. Kaulen, p. 103.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 119–120.

1989. Israel Peri: Ecclesia und Synagoga in der lateinischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments.
Biblische Zeitschrift 33: 245–251.

edere – to eat [essen]. → comedere

408
eius, eorum, earum – of him, of them [von ihm, von ihnen]. (1) These genitive singular and plural
forms are often used instead of the possessive pronoun suus, sua, suum. Example: orabat
Dominum (…) ut dirigeret viam eius – she prayed to the Lord that he would direct her action (in
classical Latin, viam suam). The two ways of expressing possession can be used side by side, see
Rev 19:2 (iusta sund iudicia eius; in prostitutione sua; servorum suorum). – (2) Occasionally, eius is
used pleonastically and defies translation: beatus cuius Deus Iacob adjutor eius – blessed the one
whose helper is the God of Jacob (Ps 146:5, Vg 145:5).

eloquium – word, speech [Wort, Rede]. fluat ut ros eloquium meum – let my speech flow like dew
(Deut 32:2); Rom 3:2, etc. → sermo → verbum

1904. Kaulen, p. 18.

2006. Lyliane Sznajder: La parole et la voix dans la Vulgate. In: Pascale Brillet-Dubois (ed.): Philo­
logia. Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Paris 2006 (381 pp.), pp. 329–338, at p. 332: “Elo­
quium se présente comme un synonyme nouveau venu de verbum – sermo (il ne présen­
tait pas le sens de ‘parole’ en latin Classique), relativement peu fréquent (48 occurrences
dans l’AT, quasiment absent du NT), spécialisé dans les emplois hors du Pentateuque.”

emissarius – the one sent out [der Ausgesandte]. This literal meaning can be seen in the expression
caper emissarius (Lev 16:8, 26) – emissary goat, der zu entlassende Bock, le bouc émissaire. But
the word has taken on special meanings – one is sent out for a special purpose. Two special
meanings are prominent: (1) murderer, robber, functionary of a tyrannical régime; Räuber,
Mordgeselle, Scherge (1 Sam 22:17; Ezek 7:22; Micah 1:14). Jerome explains it as meaning
latrunculus in his commentary on Micah (PL 25:1217). Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikogra­
phie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 32–33. Blaise, Dictionnaire, suggests
“sicaire.” – (2) The expression equus emissarius (Sir 33:6; Jer 5:8), rendered “stallion horse”
(Douay Version), is the horse used for reproduction. One may think of emissio seminis, sperm
ejaculation.

eo quod – because [weil] → quod (4)

epulari – to eat [speisen]. Verbum deponens. Luke 15:32; 16:19. Note that in Luke 12:19, epulare (im­
perative form of the verbum deponens) sums up eating and drinking in one word, like German
“schmausen” (Grundl). See below, Chapter 22, textual note on Luke 12:19.

epulum, epulae, epulatio – meal, feast, banquet [Mahl, Gastmahl]. mira exultatio, epulae atque con­
vivia, et festus dies (Esth 8:17) – wonderful rejoicing, feasts and banquets, and festive days. –
Renzo Petraglio: Epulum, epulae, epulatio nella Volgata. Considerazioni sul latino biblico. Brescia
1975. 192 pp.; review: Raymond Tournay OP, Revue biblique 83 (1976) 635–636.

eques, -itis. – rider, horseman [Reiter]. This is the normal meaning, as in Ezek 38:4. But in several pas­
sages, it stands for “horse [Pferd]” (= equus), as in Exod 15:19; Isa 21:7 (but not Jer 46:4). Inter­
estingly, Blaise (Dictionnaire, p. 312) considers eques in Exod 15:19 an adjective, and translates: il
entra à cheval (eques) dans la mer. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 19: “eques heißt nach altem Sprachgebrauch nicht bloß Reiter, sondern auch
Roß,” and refers to an Ennius fragment in support of the equation eques = equus.

1934. Friedrich Stummer: Lexikographische Bemerkungen zur Vulgata. In: Pontificio Istituto Bibli­
co (ed.): Miscellanea Biblica. Volume 2. Rome (406 pp.), pp. 179–202, at pp. 188–192.

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1: 23–50,
at pp. 48–50.

409
ergo – because, therefore, consequently; but; nevertheless [daher, infolge dessen; trotzdem]. Connect­
ive particle. (1) The meaning “because, therefore” is well attested: Gal 3:21; Hebr 2:14; John
18:37; 1 John 4:19. – (2) The adversative meaning, though rare, is exemplified by Matt 15:33:
unde ergo nobis in deserto panes tantos? – but whence so much bread in the desert? Thesaurus
linguae latinae. Vol. V.2. Leipzig 1931 (2134 cols.), col. 769. – (3) The meaning “nevertheless” is
used in Ps 82:7 (Vg 81:7 iuxta Hebraeos); Matt 13:27. Blaise, Dictionnaire, p. 313.

eruere – pluck out, deliver [ausreißen, befreien]. The semantics of deliverance is more frequent (Ps
22:21; Vg 21:21, etc.), but the “plucking” is meant in Matt 5:29; 18:9; Jer 39:7.

es, esto – you are; be! [du bist; sei!]. This form of esse (to be) is frequently used: tu es Petrus – you are
Peter (Matt 16:18). The same form, in classical Latin, also means be! (imperative), but the Vulgate
never uses es in this sense. Instead, the Vulgate uses esto, plural estote (32 times): esto mihi in
Deum protectorem – be thou unto me a God, a protector (Ps 31:3, Vg 30:3, Douay Version); es­
tote sicut ego – be like me (Gal 4:12). – Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur his­
torischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil. Lund 1933 (xiii, 492 pp.), p. 38.

esse – to be [sein]. One of the most common words of Latin; see → es, esto → est. A peculiar con­
struction is esse in + accusative = to be something, to function as something: ut sis in populum
peculiarem (Deut 14:2) – so that you are his own people; esto mihi in Deum protectorem (Ps 31:3,
Vg 30:3) – be thou unto me a God, a protector. One would expect esse + nominative (ut sis pop­
ulus peculiaris, esto mihi Deus protector). This construction seems to be a colloquialism, see B.L.
Gildersleeve – Gonzalez Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p. 247 (no.
385.3, note 3 on esse in and habere in + accusative).

est – he/she/it is [er/sie/es ist]. This very common verb is also used to answer a question in the affirm ­
ative – “yes!” Matt 5:37 (locus classicus); 2 Cor 1:17–20; Jas 5:12. See also → etiam → sic →
utique. – Literature:

1934. Richards, p. 43.

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon 2012 (1085 pp.),
pp. 111–120, at pp. 116–118, with discussions of parallel passages in Latin literature (Ci­
cero, Seneca, Appendix Vergiliana).

esto → es, esto

et – and [und]. “And” is not always the best equivalent of et, because it frequently introduces a state­
ment that modifies or elucidates an antecedent statement. Examples: (1) erat autem hora tertia
et crucifixerunt eum – it was the third hour when they crucified him (Mark 15:25); (2) homo nas­
citur ad laborem, et avis ad volatum – man is born for labour, as the bird is for flying (Job 5:7);
(3) ita ut accepti essent tam Deo quam hominibus et cunctis habitantibus in terra – so that they
found favour with God and with men, yes, with all the inhabitants of the land; here et has explic­
ative force (and does not serve as a conjunctive particle; cf. Nissen). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 230 (instead of etiam), 296 (modificative Sätze – “statements of modification”).

1915. Paul Nissen: Die epexegetische Copula (sog. et explicativum) bei Vergil und einigen anderen
Autoren. Kiel. 59 pp.

2009. Rafael Jimenez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115, at pp. 97–100: how Vetus Latina
and Vulgate render the Hebrew connective particle waw; examples from Genesis.

410
 2023. Chaja Vered Dürrschnabel: Verbum ex verbo: Hebräische Syntax im Latein der Vulgata. In:
Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der
lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 139–155. – This paper highlights
the paratactic features of biblical Latin, features that are due to the literal rendering of
Hebrew waw conjunctivum and waw copulativum.

etiam – also, yes; even [auch, ja; sogar]. (1) The affirmative meaning – yes – is rare, but found several
times in the New Testament (Hagen, Müller): Matt 11:9; 15:27; Acts 5:8; Rev 22:20; sensibly, the
Nova Vulgata sets it off by a comma placed after it. → est → sic → utique. – (2) etiam may also
mean “even”: ecce luna etiam non splendet – behold, even the moon does not shine (Job 25:5). –
Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 82.

1950. Friedrich Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 1
(1950) 10–19, at p. 17 (on Job 25:5).

1981. Veikko Väänänen: Introduction au latin vulgaire. Troisième édition, revue et augmentée.
Paris (xxi, 237 pp.), p. 151. – A list of words for saying “yes”: certe, plane, immo, verum, ita,
sic, etiam.

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp.
111–120, at p. 116.

euge – euge – well done! [trefflich!, recht so!]. Interjection, often repeated: euge euge. Ps 35:21, 25 (Vg
34:21, 25); 40:16 (Vg 39:16); 70:4 (Vg 69:4); Ezek 25:3; 26:2; Matt 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17. This Greek
word transliterates Greek euge; the only passage where it is not in the Greek is Ezek 25:3.

ex – out of, from [aus, von]. Preposition, followed by ablative. Vulgate Latin occasionally uses ex as the
partitive particle (→ de as partitive preposition): si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane (John 6:52) – if
any man eat of this bread (Douay Version). A better translation would omit the preposition, be­
cause English, like German (but unlike French), does not use a partitive preposition: if anyone
eats this bread. More examples: et qui missi fuerant, erant ex pharisaeis (John 1:24) – and they
who were sent were Pharisees. A special case may be et ex illis occidetis (Matt 23:34) – and you
will kill them (according to the Douay Version – you will kill some of them); the translator has to
decide whether the notion of “some of them” is or is not required by the context.

examen – swarm [Schwarm]. This special meaning of examen can be found in the book of Judges: ex­
amen apum – swarm of bees (Judg 14:8); see below, the relevant textual note in Chapter 21.

exemplum – example [Beispiel]. In several passages (notably Ruth 4:11; Deut 29:22 [Vg 29:23]; Esth
1:18), exemplum is a plus with no precise equivalent in the source language (Skemp).

1996. Pierre Hamblenne: L’exemplum formel dans l’œuvre de Jérôme. Augustinianum 36.1: 93–
146. – On the genre exemplum in der work of Jerome.

2011. Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions
of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285.

expiare – to expiate, to cleanse ritually [entsühnen, rituell reinigen], used only in the Old Testament.
Expiabis sanctuarium (Ezek 45:18) – you shall expiate the sanctuary. – Stanislas Lyonnet SJ: Expia­
tion et intercession. À propos d’une traduction de saint Jérôme. Biblica 40 (1959) 885–901 – an
article on the rendering of ritual vocabulary in the Vulgate.

411
exterminare, exterminatio – to destroy, destruction [zerstören, Zerstörung]. Note the name Extermin­
ans (Rev 9:11), which has disappeared from the Nova Vulgata. In Matt 6:16, the verb has the
special meaning “to disfigure.” – Hagen, p. 75; Kaulen, p. 180; Meershoek, pp. 53–56; Scarpat I,
pp. 422–423.

F
fabricare, fabricator, fabrica – to make, maker, the thing made [herstellen, Hersteller, das Gemachte].
A necklace is made (fabricare) by a craftsman (artifex, Cant 7:1), and God is the Maker (fabricat­
or) of everything (Koh 11:5). In the book of Ezekiel, fabrica refers to the building as that which is
“erected” (Ezek 43:10–11). – Günther Binding – Susanne Lindscheid-Burdich: Planen und Bauen
im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Darmstadt 2002 (652 pp.), p. 298.

fabula – story, proverb [Erzählung, Spruch]. The meaning “proverb,” known from classical Latin, ap­
pears in Deut 28:37; 1 Kgs 9:7; Tobit 3:4. – Literature:

1863. Hagen (p. 20) quotes several passages from classical literature for comparison; one of his
examples is Horace: Epistle I, 13: Asinaeque paternum / cognomen vertas in risum et fabula
fias – turn your paternal name of Asina into a jest, and make yourself a common story (or
proverb); another example: Ovid: Amores III, 1,21: fabula tota jactaris in urbe – you are
talked of all over the city.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020
(326 pp.), pp. 98–115. Strangely, fabula = proverb is not mentioned in this otherwise de­
tailed semantic history.

facere – to do, to make [tun, machen]. One of the most frequent words of Latin; facio – “I do,” me­
moriam facio – I make mention of (Eph 1:16). Special cases: (1) facere followed by infinitive is a
frequent construction. Examples: fecitque eam regnare (Esth 2:17) – and he made her rule; faci­
am vos fieri piscatores hominum (Matt 4:19) – I will make you to be fishers of men. – (2) The spe­
cial meaning of “to celebrate” is found in expressions such as apud te facio pascha – with you I
will celebrate Passover (Matt 26:18). This meaning may also be intended in hoc facite in meam
commemorationem – this you shall do/celebrate in memory of me (1 Cor 11:24); see Richards, p.
xvi. – (3) facere may also be used for saying “to spend time”: data est ei potestas facere menses
quadraginta duo – given to him is the power to spend forty-to months (Rev 13:15); ut diem
Pentecosten facerent Hierosolymis – to spend the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 20:16); see
also Matt 20:12; Acts 15:33; Jas 4:13. – (4) (et) factum est – and it happened. This frequently used
expression marks the beginning of an episode in a story; see Josh 1:1; 1 Sam 1:12; 4:1; Neh 6:1;
Matt 11:1; 19:1; 26:1. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 306–307.

1886. Philipp Thielmann: Facere mit dem Infinitiv. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Gram­
matik 3: 180–238.

1904. Kaulen, p. 278.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. xii and xvi.

1947. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quar­
terly 9 (1947) 106–110. – “The overabundance of facere in the Scriptures is owing to
Hebrew influence” (p. 109).

412
fascinare, fascinatio – to bewitch, bewitching [verhexen, Verhexung]. Meant is: to injure with the evil
eye; see Elliott and textual notes on Wisd 4:12; Gal 3:1, below, Chapters 21 and 22. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 74, on fascinatio, Wisd 4:12.

1904. Kaulen, p. 69, on fascinatio, Wisd 4:12.

2016. John H. Elliott: Beware the Evil Eye. Volume 3. Eugene, Ore. 2016 (xxx, 348 pp.), pp. 13, 56
and 219–220 on Wisd 4:12; Gal 3:1.

femina → mulier

-ficare. – Compound verbs with -ficare at the end, referring to a “making into something,” are very
common in the Vulgate. Kaulen notes 16 verbs; among these, the following are used more than
once: beatificare, clarificare, convivificare, fructificare, glorificare, honorificare, iustificare (import­
ant for the subsequent theological discourse about “justification”), magnificare (Luke 1:46: mag­
nificat anima mea Dominum – my soul praises the Lord; see also Ps 20:6, Vg 19:6), mortificare,
salvificare, sanctificare, → vivificare. The last item can be used as a semantic paradigm: vivificare
= vivum facere, to make alive, keep alive, as in 2 Kgs 8:5: cuius vivificaverat filium – (the woman)
whose son he had (miraculously) revived, restored to life. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 174–180.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, at pp. 512–513.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 218–221.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 52–53.

1932. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil
1. Nijmwegen (270 pp.), pp. 255–256.

2014. Emanuela Marini: Les verbes en -ficare dans les siècles II/II à VII: une mise au point. In:
Piera Molinelli et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. X. Volume 1. Bergamo (xx, 394), pp.
133–150.

fides (fem.), fidelis – faith, trust; faithful, trusting [Glaube, Vertrauen; gläubig, der Gläubige, vertrau­
end]. (1) Secular: argumentum fidei – proof of fidelity (Gen 39:16); qui denudat arcana amici fi­
dem perdit – who discloses a friend’s secrets loses his trust (Sir 27:17); also 2 Kgs 12:15. – (2) Re­
ligious: a basic word in the Bible, especially in the New Testament. iustus autem in fide sua vivet
– the just man shall live by his faith (Hab 2:4; cf. Rom 1:17). Scholars discuss the relationship
between Greek pistis and Roman fides, two words with largely overlapping semantics. – Litera­
ture:

1879. Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus–Hieronymus. Breslau (iv,
92 pp.), pp. 54–55.

1904. Kaulen, p. 19.

1909. Walter F. Otto: Fides. In: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 6.
Band. Stuttgart (2878 cols.), cols. 2281–2886. Col. 2281: “Den Römern der klassischen Zeit
galt die Treue [fides] in öffentlichen und privaten Angelegenheiten als eine echt altrömis­
che Tugend.”

1916. E. Fraenkel: Zur Geschichte des Wortes Fides. Rheinisches Museum 71: 187–199.

413
 1929. Richard Heinze: Fides. Hermes 64: 140–166; reprinted in: idem: Vom Geist des Römertums.
Edited by Erick Burck. 3rd, enlarged edition. Darmstadt 1960 (458 pp.), pp. 59–81. This art­
icle is considered a statement of reference on the Roman notion of fides.

1958. Otto Hiltbrunner: Latina graeca. Semasiologische Untersuchungen über lateinische Wörter
im Hinblick auf ihr Verhältnis zu griechischen Vorbildern. Berne (208 pp.), p. 189 (index).

1969. Carl Becker: Fides. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Band 7. Stuttgart (1288 cols.),
cols. 801–839. – The author diagnoses the Christian reception of the Roman notion of
fides in the age of the church fathers.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 134–135.

1977. Olga Weijers: Some Notes on ‘fides’ and Related Words in Medieval Latin. Archivum latini­
tatis medii aevi 40: 77–102.

1986. Gérard Freyburger: Fides. Étude sémantique et religieuse depuis les origines jusqu’à l’époque
augustéenne. Paris. 361 pp. – This is a fundamental study of the meaning of fides in pre-
Christian, pagan Latin texts. Reprinted in 2009.

2006. Gérard Freyburger: Points de vue récents sur la fides romaine. In: J. Champeaux – M. Chas­
signet (eds.): Aere perennius. Hommage à Hubert Zehnacker. Paris (702 pp.), pp. 185–196.

2006. Angela Standhartinger: Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römis­
chen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum. Novum Testamentum 48: 51–82. – Page
54: “die Mehrzahl der Belege von pistis in den Pastoralbriefen nimmt das römische
Konzept der fides, der Bundestreue und Loyalität der Untertanen und Kinder gegenüber
Imperium und Vätern auf.”

2014. Gerson Schade: “You too, my child?” On Trust and Perfidy in Classical Literature. Symbolae
Philologorum Posnanensium Graecae et Latinae 25 (2014) 185–201.

2015. Suzan J.M. Sierksma-Agteres: Pistis and Fides as Civic and Divine Virtues. A Pauline
Concept through Greco-Roman Eyes. In: Cilliers Breytenbach (ed.): Paul’s Graeco-Roman
Context. Leuven (xxi, 757, 7 pp.), pp. 525–543.

2015. Teresa Morgan: Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Em­
pire and the Early Churches. Oxford 2015. xi, 626 pp. – The basic notion is trust, fidelity, al­
legiance.

2017. Thomas Schumacher: Den Römern ein Römer. Die paulinischen Glaubensaussagen vor
dem Hintergrund des römisch-lateinischen fides-Begriffs. In: Jörg Frey (ed.): Glaube. Das
Verständnis des Glaubens im frühen Christentum und in seiner jüdischen und hellenis­
tisch-römischen Umwelt. Tübingen 2017 (xxv, 957 pp.), pp. 207–218.

2019. Robert D. Sider in: idem (ed.): The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Toronto (xxvi,
1063 pp.), p. 802, n. 20: fidelis in the Vulgate New Testament means either “faithful” or
“trusting.”

2020. Carlos Lévy: De l’éloquence à la philosophie: l’évolution sémantique de “fides.” In:

Christophe Grellard et al. (eds.): Genèses antiques et médiévales de la foi. Paris (252 pp.),
pp. 209–224.

fiducia – confidence, boldness [Zuversicht, Mut]. (1) Engels distinguishes between the powerful wit­
nessing of the early-Christian preachers (Acts 4:29) and the good conscience that enables the
believer to have a good relationship with God (Hebr 4:16). In both cases, the Vulgate uses fidu­

414
 cia. According to Renswoude (p. 10), fiducia belongs to the vocabulary of Stoic philosophy
where it refers to “stability and tranquility, and flowing on from that undisturbed state of mind,
to the ability to speak with courage and self-confidence.” – Literature:

1964. L. J. Engels: Fiducia dans la Vulgate: le problème de la traduction parrêsia–fiducia. In: A.J.
Vermeulen et al.: Le développement sémasiologique d’épipháneia [and further studies]. Nij­
megen (144 pp.), pp. 94–141.

1964. Giuseppe Scarpat: Parrhesia: storia del termine e delle sue tradizioni in latino. Brescia (143
pp.), pp. 122–134: il termine fiducia. There is a new, revised edition of this book: Parrhesia
greca, parrhesia cristiana. Brescia 2001. 186 pp.

2019. Irene van Renswoude: The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle
Ages. Cambridge. x, 272 pp.

2022. Hartmut Leppin: Paradoxie der Parrhesie. Eine antike Wortgeschichte. Tübingen. viii, 263
pp.

firmamentum – fortress, firmament, strength [Burg, Firmament, Stärke]. (1) Basic examples: fiat firma­
mentum – let there be a firmament – Gen 1:6; fortress – Ps 71:3 (Vg 70:3); strength – Ps 73:4 (Vg
72:4); Sir 3:34 (or, as the Douay Version has it: a sure stay; Peters: eine Stütze). The word is
already used in the Vetus Latina, see Augustine: De Genesi ad litteram II, 1,1 (PL 34: 263). – (2)
Special cases. (a) firmamentum panis (Ps 105:16, Vg 104:16) – the essential (foundational) supply
of bread; see the textual note on this passage, below, Chapter 21. (b) In 1 Tim 3:15, the meaning
seems to be “basis, foundation”; one senses that the translator refers to what is elsewhere called
fundamentum (Job 38:4; Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26). See also the textual note on 1 Tim 3:15, below,
Chapter 22. (c) In Sir 3:34, firmamentum seems to mean something like moral strength, virtue.
(d) In Sir 4:29, firmamentum could mean “the main point” (see textual note on the passage,
Chapter 21). – Literature:

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p.
49: suggests fundamentum = Hauptsache for Sir 4:29.

1945/46. Guy-Dominique Sixdenier: Notes sur l’emploi par la Vulgate du mot firmamentum.
Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 19: 17–22.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 136–137.

1989. Scarpat I, p. 448.

foedus, -eris, neutr. – alliance, treaty, covenant [Bund]. For foedus as a political treaty, see Hos 10:4;
12:2 (Vg 12:1). Jerome translates Hebrew berit as foedus (Jer 31:31) or pactum (Ezek 37:26), with
the exception of a few traditional expressions, whereas in the sections not translated by Jerome,
the Latin text has → testamentum. “Hieronymus und die weiteren Bearbeiter der Vulgata zeigen
sichere Konstanz im Umgang mit den Rechtsbegriffen. Wenn Gott sich mit den Menschen ver­
bündet, passt sowohl der allgemeine Begriff pactum mit dem zugehörigen Verb pangere als
auch der im Wechsel gebrauchte Begriff foedus” (Becker, p. 95). – Literature:

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique,
état des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314, at pp. 156–157.

2019. Christoph Becker: “Bund” in der Vulgata aus rechtshistorischer Sicht. Vulgata in Dialogue 3:
1–12.

2022. Christoph Becker: Vertrag, Bund und Testament in der Heiligen Schrift. Diktion römischen
Rechts aus Vetus Latina und Vulgata. In: Franz Sedlmeier – Hans Ulrich Steymans (eds.):

415
 Bundestheologie bei Hosea? Eine Spurensuche. Berlin (xii, 438 pp.), pp. 69–106. The noun
“foedus bezeichnet im römischen Recht hauptsächlich den Vertrag zwischen Völkern,
geschlossen von einem Repräsentanten des römischen Gemeinwesens mit einem
Repräsentanten eines anderen Gemeinwesens“ (p. 88).

2023. Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen: Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus. In: Christian
A. Eberhardt – Wolfgang Kraus (eds.): Covenant. Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testa­
mentum. Tübingen (x, 720 pp.), pp. 611–625. The article traces the development of
Jerome’s covenant theology, beginning with the theological explanations he gave to
Damasus in 383 and ending with its impact on his translation work in Bethlehem. A strong
anti-Jewish orientation of the theology of the covenant is also manifest in some of
Jerome’s works; evidence of this is his interpretation of the book of Job. The reference of
Jerome’s terminology to the foedus concept of the late antique state is also considered.

2023. Christoph Becker: Foedus: Die Darstellung der Bündnisse im Alten Testament. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 171–174.

foras – outside of, without [außerhalb], adverb, followed by accusative. foras portam exteriorem – out­
side the outer gate (Ezek 47:2). See also Lev 16:27; Acts 21:5.

forma – model [Vorbild]. One of the many meanings of forma is “model to be emulated; nachzuah­
mendes Vorbild,” as in Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Thess 3:9.

fornicarius – male prostitute [Prostituierter]. According to the Lewis/Short dictionary (p. 770; see
Chapter 8.3), the word derives from the architectural term fornix, arch or vault; fornix also came
to mean brothel, because brothels could be in underground vaults. This notion echoes Isidore:
Etymologiae X, 110, who refers to the female prostitute (fornicatrix) as a woman whose body is
made publicly available under vaults. A conspicuous passage is 1 Cor 6:9: fornicarii are excluded
from the kingdom of God; translations simply transcribe the word as “fornicators” (Douay Ver­
sion) or “fornicateurs” (Glaire) or use vague terms such as “the debauched” (Knox), “Unzüchtige”
(Allioli) or “Hurer” (Tusculum-Vulgata). All of these renderings imply “fornication” understood as
“sexual intercourse between people not married to each other” (Oxford Dictionary of English).
Along the same lines, Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 361, offers “fornicateur, adultère, débauché” for for­
nicarius. Early-modern commentators thought that in 1 Cor 6:9 the word would refer to peder ­
asts; Adam L. Wirrig: Trial of Translation. An Examination of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Vernacular
Bibles of the Early Modern Period. Eugene, Ore. 2022. 174 pp.

forsitan – perhaps [vielleicht]. Jerome does not use the synonymous adverb fortasse. – Peter Juhás:
Beobachtungen zum biblisch-hebräischen Satzadverb ʾulaj. Funktionen, Übersetzungslösungen
des Hieronymus und Problemstellen der antiken Bibelübersetzungen. Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 97.1 (2021) 1–36, at pp. 18–21.

frater, fraternitas – brother, brotherhood [Bruder, Bruderschaft]. (1) In the New Testament, all believ­
ers are “brothers,” and Paul addresses them as such (1 Cor 3:1). Paul also calls his fellow Jews
fratres (Rom 10:1). – (2) fraternitas is never used as an abstract concept like the French fraternité;
instead, it is just another way of referring to brothers in the plural. In 1 Pet 3:8, believers are ad ­
monished to be fraternitatis amatores – lovers of the brotherhood (Douay Version), lovers of the
brethren (Knox); Pétré avoids the noun by referring to charité fraternelle (Pétré, p. 324), and the
same avoidance suggests itself for caritate fraternitatis invicem diligentes – loving each other
with brotherly love (Rom 12:10). – Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la char­
ité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), pp. 104–140, esp. pp. 113–117 on the New Testament.

416
funiculus – rope (Koh 12:6), guideline (rope/string used in building and surveying) [Seil, Richtschnur
bei Bauen und Landvermessung]. Meant is a string attached to two stakes to establish a straight
line. A funiculus is not used for measuring distances. According to Binding, the building process
was initiated by laying out a grid with the help of two strings (funiculi) that form a right angle.
funiculum (ex)tendere (2 Kgs 21:13; Lam 2:8) – to tighten, i.e, to use, the rope/guideline. fu­
niculus mensorum (Zech 2:1) – surveyors’ rope. funiculus lineus (Ezek 40:3) – lining rope, lineus
being the qualifying adjective of linea = guideline. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 20–21. Refers to metaphoric uses such as funiculum maris (Zeph 2:5) – sea
coast [Meeresküste].

2002. Günther Binding – Susanne Lindscheid-Burdich: Planen und Bauen im frühen und hohen
Mittelalter. Darmstadt 2002 (652 pp.), pp. 119–126.

2013. Günther Binding: Zur Bedeutung von funiculus und linea als Richtschnur in Antike und
Mittelalter. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 48: 447–470.

2020. Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen.
Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart (52 pp.), pp. 12–1.

G
gaudēre → laetare, laetitia

genimen – fruit, produce [Frucht, Erzeugnis]. genimina agri – produce of the field (Ezek 36:30); genimi­
na viperarum – offspring of vipers (Luke 3:7). Echoing Greek gennêma, this word in unknown in
classical Latin. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 26.

1904. Kaulen, p. 95.

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence 1911 (xlii, 251 pp.), p.100.

2006. Antoon A.R. Bastiaensen: Wortgeschichte im altchristlichen Latein: creatura und genimen.
In: André P.M.H. Lardinois et al. (eds.): Land of Dreams. Greek and Latin Studies in Honour
of A.H.M. Kessels. Leiden 2006 (xxiv, 414 pp.), pp. 339–354.

gentes – peoples, pagans, non-Christians [Völker, Heiden, Nichtchristen]. Ps 2:1; 96:5 (Vg 95:5); Isa 9:1;
Matt 6:32; 1 Cor 1:23; 5:1. In late Latin, the word has the secondary meaning “barbarians,” which
prepares the way for the Vulgate meaning “pagans.” → natio, nationes – Literature:

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 464–467.

1956. Christine Mohrmann: Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens (1956). In: ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp.
21–50, at pp. 26–27.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 74–75.

1965. Ilona Opelt: Griechische und lateinische Bezeichnungen der Nichtchristen. Ein terminolo­
gischer Versuch. Vigiliae Christianae 19: 1–22.

417
 1965. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des ersten Petrusbriefes. Freiburg 1965 (245 pp.), pp.
185–189: nationes, gentes.

1970. Zürcher, p. 146.

2018. Tim Denecker: Among Latinists. Alfred Ernout and Einar Löfstedt’s Responses to the ‘Nij­
megen School’ and Its Christian Sondersprache Hypothesis. Historiographia Linguistica 45:
325–362. – The author comments on the differences between Mohrmann and Löfstedt in
their assessment of the concept of gentes: Löfstedt describes the new Christian meaning
of gentes as merely a semantic shift (Umprägung), while Mohrmann sees it as a complete
semantic innovation (Neuprägung).

gigas, gigantes – giant, giants [Riese, Riesen]. Gen 6:4; Job 16:14; etc. (19 Old Testament passages).
Jerome usually follows the Septuagint in the use of this mythological word, but occasionally (Ps
88:11 [Vg 87:11]; Isa 24:14), he introduces it himself. – Literature:

2015. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer
Erzählungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart 2015 (386 pp.), pp. 90–91.

2016. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Giganten und Sirenen in der Vulgata. Griechischer Mythos in der
lateinischen Bibel des Hieronymus. Museum Helveticum 73: 78–96.

2018. Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Übersetzungsvarianten der Schlüsselbegriffe in Gen 6,4: Wie fü­
gen sich die gigantes aus Genesis 6,1–4 in den Kontext der hebräischen Bibel? Vulgata in
dialogue 2 (2018) 15–30 (online journal).

gloria – glory, honour, majesty [Herrlichkeit, Ruhm, Ehre]. There are two semantic domains to be dis­
tinguished: the traditional Latin meaning, and the specifically biblical meaning. (1) Traditionally,
gloria means the honour people seek in society, as stated in Matt 23:5. This meaning can be
analysed in terms of the anthropology of “honour and shame.” Two biblical texts tell the reader
not to impair one’s gloria through crimen or macula (1 Macc 9:10; Sir 33:24). – (2) Jerome: “In
the sacred scriptures, gloria means something else – (it is used) when something sublime and
divine manifests itself to human perception” (significat et aliud in scripturis divinis gloria, cum
augustius aliquid et divinius hominum se praebet obtutibus; Jerome: Commentary on Galatians III,
5 on Gal 5:26; PL 26 [1845]: 423, CCSL 77A: 200). impleverat enim gloria Domini domum Domini
(1 Kgs 8:11) – for the Glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord; denn die Herrlichkeit des
Herrn erfüllte das Haus Gottes (in similar statements, Jerome has → maiestas: 2 Chr 7:1–2; Ezek
43:4). But this is not the only meaning of gloria; see da gloriam Deo – give glory to God (John
9:24), where gloria means “praise.” – (3) In Sir 43:10, gloria is used of the light of the stars: spe­
cies caeli gloria stellarum (Clementina, NVg) – the beauty of heaven (consists in) the light of the
stars; Weber/Gryson has gloriosa stellarum. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 36: gloria = Ursache des Ruhms (Ps 89:18 [Vg 88:18]).

1951. Mauritius Steinheimer OFM: Die Doxa tou theou in der römischen Liturgie. Munich. 117 pp.
– The Latin equivalents of Greek doxa are claritas, gloria, and maiestas.

1954. Christine Mohrmann: Note sur Doxa (1954). In: eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens.
Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp. 277–289.

1956. Antonius J. Vermeulen: The Semantic Development of Gloria in Early Christian Latin. Nijme­
gen. xxii, 236 pp. – On the Vetus Latina, see pp. 18–23, on the Vulgate, pp. 24–27. Page 26:
“On closer examination we see that gloria has acquired practically all the different mean­
ings of δοξα.” Page 27: “gloria was the predominant word in the Vulgate, and also we
may presume in the common parlance of the Christians. Still, it did not do justice to the

418
 aspect of light in δοξα; it could hardly express the idea of material light without the ad­
mixture of some spiritual, immaterial nuance. Claritas expressed the idea of light more ef­
fectively. Maiestas was a little more frequent than claritas, but covered the idea of δοξα
only partially. It emphasized the aspect of power in δοξα, and often signified the impos­
ing appearance of God. The content of δοξα, therefore, is spread over three different
words, gloria, claritas and maiestas. Of those three gloria has become the most important
and frequent rendering of δοξα.”

1965. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des ersten Petrusbriefes. Freiburg 1965 (245 pp.), pp.
179–184.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 86–113.

1967. Ulrich Knocke: Der römische Ruhmesgedanke. In: Hans Oppermann (ed.): Römische Wert­
begriffe. Darmstadt (xi, 552 pp.), pp. 420–445. – Page 444: “Die Projektierung der Gloria in
die Sphäre des Transzendenten, des Ewigen, ihre Bindung an die Betätigung der
christlichen Tugenden, vor allem die Lösung aus dem Kreis der sozialen Wertgedanken er­
wirkt die gründlichste Änderung ihres Inhalts: die aeterna gloria, die gloria bei und durch
Gott, ist allein die wahre gloria.”

1970. Zürcher, p. 147–149.

1989. Scarpat I, pp. 445–446.

1998. María Eugenia Steinerg: Doxa-gloria, una serie compleja: doxa en la Septuaginta y el
Nuevo Testamento; gloria en la Vulgata. Nova tellus 16.2: 175–204.

2002. Jean-François Thomas: Gloria et laus: étude sémantique. Leuven 2002. 460 pp. pp. – Re­
view: Jean-Paul Brachet, Bulletin de la Société linguistique 98 (2002) 283–285.

2008. Lyliane Sznajder: Gloria dans la Vulgate ou le double poids de la traduction biblique latine,
in: Gislaine Viré (ed.): Autour du lexique latin. Communications lors du XIII e Colloque Inter­
national de linguistique latine. Bruxelles 2008 (294 pp.), pp. 203–217.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020
(326 pp.), 144–155. – Pages 147–148: “dans la Vulgate, gloria correspond à grec doxa, ‘re­
nom’, et à l’époque hellénistique ‘éclat, majesté, splendeur royale’, le terme grec tradui­
sant hébr. kābôd lorsqu’il dénote la puissance et la splendeur de Dieu qui se manifeste
entre autres, à traves les théophanies. Gloria fut choisi parce qu’il exprime l’idée de
brillant, ce que corrobore le fait que les autres termes retenues pour traduire le même
mot grec exprimant aussi l’éclat et le prestige éclatant: claritas dans les traductions
d’Afrique de la Vetus Latina, maiestas dans les autres.”

glorificare – to honour, to praise, to glorify [ehren, lobpreisen, verherrlichen]. The verb has several
meanings: (1) to honour someone – God or a human person: 1 Sam 2:30; 1 Macc 14:39, also ex ­
pressed by gloriam dare (John 9:24); – (2) to praise someone or something: Exod 15:2; Lam 1:8;
2 Cor 9:13. – (3) There are also special uses, associated with “glorification”: cum glorificatus fuero
in Pharaone (Exod 14:18) – when I have manifested my glory with Pharaoh (Douay Version: when
I shall be glorified in Pharao). quia Iesus nondum fuerat glorificatus (John 7:39) – because Jesus
had not yet been elevated to the state of glory (see also John 12:16). → -fiacre – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 175–176.

1904. Kaulen, p. 219.

419
 1928. Arthur Allgeier: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Sprachgebrauch der lateinischen
Übersetzungen des Psalters und der Evangelien. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 46: 34–49, at pp. 44–47, on Jerome’s preference for this verb (over magnificare).

1966. Meershoek, pp. 99–113. Page 99: This verb “était probablement une formation nouvelle,
créée pour les besoins d’une traduction aussi littérale que possible du grec doxazein.”

1970. Zürcher, p. 150.

grandis – big, large, great, grand [groß, riesig]. In late Latin, this adjective tends to supplant the corres­
ponding classical adjectives magnus and ingens. In the book of Jonah, the “big fish” is piscis
grandis (2:1), the “mighty storm” tempestas grandis (1:11), but also tempestas magna (1:4) and
ventus magnus (1:4), because Jerome loves variation. Israel is natio grandis – a great nation
(Deut 4:7). In Ezek 17:7 we have also the variation: aquila grandis, magnis alis, a large eagle with
big wings. In the New Testament, grandis appears only in Mark 14:15 (coenaculum grande – a
large dining-room) and Hebr 5:11; 11:24. – Literature:

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Phi­
lologus 42.2: 319–378, at p. 358: “Dagegen bekundet Hieronymus, bei dem (…) auch ma­
gnus einen breiten Raum einnimmt, eine auffallende Neigung fur das doch mehr volks­
tumliche grandis (104 Stellen); streben nach Abwechslung mag auch hier der Grund sein.
Auch das rhetorische ingens, das ihm namentlich aus seiner Lektüre des Vergil geläufig
sein musste, verwendet er 16mal.”

2015. Christa Gray: Jerome, Vita Malchi. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford
(xviii, 365 pp.), p. 186–187.

gratulari – to rejoice [sich freuen]. qui gratulati sunt in tua ruina (Bar 4:31) – those who rejoiced at
your ruin (Rönsch, p. 367). → congratulari

H
habēre – to have [haben]. Several special meanings are noteworthy: (1) habēre aliquid contra aliquem
– to have something against someone, meaning: to have been wronged by someone (Matt 5:23;
Mark 11:25; Rev 2:4). – (2) bene habēre, deterius habēre – to feel good, to feel bad; Mark 5:26;
16:18. – (3) habēre followed by infinitive may refer to an ability – “to be able to”: non habent re­
tribuere (Luke 14:14) – they have not anything to give in return. – (4) habēre followed by infinit­
ive can also be a way of periphrastically refering to the future; Plater/White quote examples
from the Vetus Latina only. A possible example is Luke 12:50: baptismo autem habeo baptizari –
there will be a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized (though Thielmann, p. 178 thinks that this
passage does not belong here). – (5) habēre followed by participle perfect passive serves as a
paraphrase for the simple verb. Example: habe me excusatum (Luke 14:18) – hold me excused
(Douay Version), consider me to be excused (for simple imperative me excusa – excuse me). The
expression excusatum habēre is good classical Latin: vitiosa excusata habe (Ovid: Tristia IV, 1,1–2)
excuse the faults (in my book); see further on Luke 14:18 in the textual notes, Chapter 22. – Lit­
erature:

1863. Hagen, p. 42.

1885. Philipp Thielmann: Habere mit dem Infinitif und die Entstehung des romanischen Futu­
rums. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 2: 48–89, 157–203. – Mentions
Luke 12:50 (p. 178).

420
 1885. Philipp Thielmann: Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie
und Grammatik 2: 372–423, 509–549. – Mentions Luke 14:18 (p. 540).

1904. Kaulen, pp. 277–278 (no. 163) on necessity; 281 (no. 170) on “to feel good,” etc.

1926. Plater/White, p. 38 (§ 50b).

1934. Richards, p. 55: habēre plus infinitive (above, no. 3) is good classical Latin. Example: de re­
publica nihil habeo ad te scribere – I have nothing to write to you (or: nothing to report)
about the republic (Cicero: Ad Atticum II, 22,6).

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg (221 pp.), pp. 129–131 (§§ 219–221).

1996. Michèle Fruyt: Le syntaxe de l’infinitif en latin tardif. Recherches augustiniennes 29 (1996)
43–73, at pp. 60–68.

2013. J.N. Adams: Social Variation in the Latin Language. Cambridge (xxi, 933 pp.), pp. 654–660:
habeo-future.

2014. George B. Tara: Les périphrases verbales avec habeo en latin tardif. Paris (402 pp.), pp. 298–
304.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship
with the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), pp. 214–215 on habēre + infinitive.

haruspex → aruspex

hedera – ivy [Efeu]. The word belongs to the bucolic vocabulary of Vergil, Jerome’s favorite ancient au­
thor. In Jonah 4:6–10, Jerome paints a scene in which the corrupt city of Nineveh, expected to
perish, is surrounded by a bucolic landscape. The word also appears in 2 Macc 6:7 in a pagan
context – Jews had to wear ivy-wreaths in honor of Bacchus.

hoc est → id est

homo – man, someone [Mensch, Mann, jemand]. – (1) Note expressions such as homo rex – a king
(Matt 18:23; 22:2), homo paterfamilias – a father (Matt 20:1; 21:33), inimicus homo – an enemy
(Matt 13:28), with pleonastic homo. – (2) homo is often to be rendered impersonally: probet
autem se ipsum homo – everyone should test himself (1 Cor 11:28); et homo non erat – and there
was no one (Gen 1:5); non potest eas (i.e., res difficiles) homo explicare sermone – no one can ex­
plain difficult things using human language (Koh 1:8). Further examples can be found in Exod
33:11; Lev 25:10; 1 Kgs 8:31; 1 Cor 4:1; and Gal 6:1. – Literature:

1917. Urban Holzmeister SJ: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des Neuen Testa­
ments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41 (1917)
303–332, at p. 325.

2011. Anna Giacalone Ramat – Andrea Sansò: L’emploi indéfini de homo en latin tardif: aux ori­
gines d’un européanisme. In: Michèle Fruyt – Olga Spevac (eds.): La quantification en latin.
Paris (457 pp.), pp. 93–116. – Many examples from the Vulgate are quoted.

2014. Brigitte Bauer: Indefinite Homo in the Gospels of the Vulgate. In: Piera Molinelli et al.
(eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif X. Volume 2. Bergamo (x, pp. 397–763), pp. 415–436.

homo interior – the inner man [der innere Mensch]. – Rom 7:22: “cette partie supérieure de l’âme qui
trouve sa satisfaction dans la loi de Dieu” (Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 392). – Hans Peter Rüger: Hie­
ronymus, die Rabbinen und Paulus (2 Kor 4,16). Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissen­
schaft 68 (1977) 132–137.

421
honestus, honestas, honestare – wealthy, rich, wealth, to make rich [reich, Reichtum, reich machen].
This group of words in the Vulgate often refers to “wealth” rather than to “honor”; see Tobit
1:16; Sir 11:14 (paupertas et honestas a Deo sunt); 31:1; Wisd 10:11. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 48–49.

1875. Rönsch, p. 367.

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 51–
52.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Phi­
lologus 42.2: 319–378, at p. 325: only Sir 37:13 is honestas = Anständigkeit (decency, hon­
esty).

1908. Joseph Michael Heer: Die versio latina des Barnabasbriefes und ihr Verhältnis zur altlateini­
schen Bibel. Freiburg. lxxxiv, 132 pp. – “Da sich der Klassenunterschied in der römischen
Kaiserzeit in einer Schroffheit entwickelte, dass die Bürgerschaft nicht nur nach dem Besitz
in Arm und Reich, sondern zugleich nach der Ehre in die sehr ungleichen Hälften der ho­
nestiores und der humiliores geschieden wurde, so fiel honestus und dives faktisch in eins
zusammen. (…) Man hat den Gebrauch von honestus = reich früher als Afrikanismus in An­
spruch genommen (Thielmann u.a.). Ein ursprünglicher Provinzialismus mag es immerhin
sein” (p. xlix).

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 200.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 61.

honorare – to honour [ehren]. Jerome points out that honorare in biblical language often has the spe­
cial meaning of “to honour with gifts,” as is the case when parents are to be honoured or wid ­
ows and elders (Matt 15:4; 1 Tim 5:3, 17; Commentary on Matthew, PL 26: 105–106 on Matt 15:4).
Meershoek, pp. 114–116. → honorificare

honorificare – to make a donation, to support with financial means [eine Gabe geben, finanziell unter­
stützen]. Matt 15:5–6. See esp. Sir 7:33: honorifica sacerdotes – make donations to the priests. –
Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín cristiano. Madrid 1994 (588 pp.), p. 253. → -fi­
care

horripilare – to bristle with hair [von struppigen Haaren strotzen]. This verb is attested only once – in
Sir 27:15; the wording echoes the episode in Apuleius’ Golden Ass (III, 24) where the hero Lucius
metamorphoses into a hairy donkey. See the textual note on Sir 27:15 in Chapter 21. – Philipp
Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie
und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, at p. 512.

I
id est – that is, that means [das ist, das heißt]. Like hoc est, id est introduces explanatory glosses. Ex­
amples: mamzer hoc est de scorto natus – mamzer, i.e., born from a prostitute (Deut 23:2); ne vo­
cetis me Noemi id est pulchram – you shall not call me Noemi, i.e., beautiful (Ruth 1:20). – Literat­
ure:

2021. Matthew Kraus: How Jerome Dealt with Glosses. Vulgata in Dialogue 5: 1–3.

422
 2023. Matthew Kraus: Glossentradition des Hieronymus. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 30–31.

idipsum / id ipsum, in idipsum – altogether, equally; immediately [allesamt, gleichfalls; sofort]. The
expression seems to refer to “oneness in the abstract sense” (Einssein als Abstraktum, Kaulen),
and is used either temporally or socially. (1) Examples of the social meaning: exaltemus nomen
eius in idipsum – let us extol his name together (Ps 34:4 [Vg 33:4], Douay Version); id ipsum sapi­
entes – feeling the same way (Phil 2:2); ut idipsum dicatis omnes – that you all speak (dicere, sub­
junctive) unanimously (1 Cor 1:10). – (2) Examples of the temporal meaning: in pace in idipsum
dormiam et requiescam – in peace I lay down now (or: immediately), and rest (Ps 4:9, Hoberg),
or: I will at once fall asleep; et loquebatur in idipsum – and immediately spoke (Ps 41:7–8 [Vg
40:7–8], with in idipsum belonging to the previous verse; Hoberg, p. 142; but see textual note on
Ps 41:7–8, Chapter 21). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 29–31.

1904. Kaulen, p. 170: “das Einssein als Abstraktum.”

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg (xxxv, 484 pp.), p. 11.

1921. Plater/White, p. 72.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. vii. Richards refers to Ammianus Marcellinus who starts a sentence with is ipse (xvi,
10,16).

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 476.

1973. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at pp. 341–342.

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon 2012 (1085 pp.),
pp. 111–120, at pp. 113 and 118: id ipsum may also mean “yes” (and one may ponder the
relevance of this fact for understanding some of the Vulgate passages, B. Lang).

idolum – idol [Götzenbild], a loan-word from the Greek (eidôlon). Rachel furata est idola patris sui (Gen
31:19) – Rachel stole away her father’s idols (Douay Version); Rachel stahl die Hausgötzen ihres
Vaters (Allioli). The word is also used in the New Testament: Rom 2:22; 1 Cor 8:4; 10:19, etc. The
form idolium is attested only once (1 Cor 8:10, reflecting Greek eidôlion. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 243: idolium.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 168–169.

2008. Lyliane Sznajder: Non facietis vobis idolum et sculptile (vulg. Lev. 26,1). In: Danièle Auger –
Étienne Wolf (eds.): Culture classique et christianisme. Paris 2008 (420 pp.), pp. 399–411
(deals with idolum, sculptile, and conflatile).

2022. Stefanie Peintner: Gott im Bild. Eidôlon. Studien zur Herkunft und Verwendung des Begriffs
für das Götterbild in der Septuaginta. Turnhout. 289 pp.

Iesus – Jesus. Jesus Christ is not the only person with this name. Joshua (Iosue) is occasionally called
Iesus (title of the book of Joshua, Sir 46:1), and there are three more persons called Iesus: a high
priest (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:3–9, renamed Iesua in NVg), the author of the book of Ben Sira (Ecclesias­
ticus, prologue), and Iesus qui dicitur Iustus (Col 4:11). Jerome has introduced the name of Jesus
(Christ) in Hab 3:18 (changed in NVg), as has a Christian interpolator in 4 Ezra 7:28. – Bernhard
Lang: Jesus im Alten Testament. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 43–44.

423
ille, illa, illud – he, she, it [er, sie, es]. Occasionally, ille (like → ipse) functions as what eventually will
become the definite article in Romance languages: ille recusabat stuprum – he refused the (act
of) adultery (Gen 39:10); et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius Petro – and the other disciple
ran faster than Peter (John 20:4); et ille discipulus – and this disciple (John 20:8). – Literature:

1919. G. Wolterstorff: Entwickelung von “ille” zum bestimmten Artikel. Glotta 10.1–2: 62–93. –
Review: Otto Roßbach, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 39, no. 28: 50–51.

1926. Plater/White, p. 79.

1932. George L. Trager: The Use of Latin Demonstratives (especially ille and ipse) up to 600 A.D.
as the Source of the Romance Article. New York. xi, 198 pp.

1971. Fritz Abel: L’adjectif démonstratif dans la langue de la Bible latine. Étude sur la formation
des systèmes déictiques et de l’article défini des langues romanes. Tübingen. xxii, 207 pp.

1992. Maria Selig: Die Entwicklung der Nominaldterminanten im Spätlatein. Tübingen. 238 pp.

1996. Michèle Fruyt: Remarques sur les origines latines de l’article défini des langues romanes.
Antiquité Tradive 4 (1996) 345–350.

2009. Gualtiero Calboli: Latin Syntax and Greek. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New
Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin (xxii, 561
pp.), pp. 65–194. – Page 116: “I have previously explained this usage [of ille], following
Abel (1971), as an inner-Latin development and not a Graecism – I no longer hold this po­
sition; for two reasons: first, ille (or ipse) does not occur in Latin as a quasi-article; second,
Jerome was a purist and a lover of Cicero, but this is not relevant to the presence of Grae­
cism in the Vetus Latina, which seems to be Vulgar Latin or a basilect, from which Grae ­
cism was not excluded. Coleman (…) and Adams (…) considered this problem construct­
ively, but their treatment is rather disappointing.”

2012. Gualtiero Calboli: Syntaxe nominale et subordination en latin tardif. In: Frédérique Biville et
al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon (1085 pp.), pp. 439–451. – In his translation
of the Bible Jerome eliminated almost every ille that was employed in the Vetus Latina to
translate the Greek and Hebrew article.

2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. I. Oxford (xxiv, 1430 pp.), p. 1149: “the overall
conclusion must be that ille did not function as a fully-fledged article in the period
covered by this Syntax. The same must be said for ipse.” The period covered by Pinkster’s
Syntax is 200 BCE to 450 CE.

impius, impietas → pius

implēre → complēre

improperium – shame, reproach [Schmach, Schmähung, Vorwurf]. verba improperii (Sir 31:42) – words
of reproach, Schmähworte; improperium expectavit cor meum – my heart expected reproach (Ps
69:21; Vg 68:21). “Improperium (…) ist ursprünglich nur in der afrikanischen Latinität gebräuch­
lich und häufig in der Vulgata” (Hagen, p. 19). See also Kaulen, p. 42; and, specifically on impr­
operare (to reproach), Rönsch, p. 368.

in – in, into, because, with etc. [in, wegen, mit usw.] To the reader, this preposition’s use in the Vulgate
poses many problems due to echoing either Greek or Hebrew. Moreover, compared to classical
Latin, the ablative often stands for the accusative, and vice versa. Examples: (a) humiliavit in ter­
ra vitam meam (Ps 143:3; Vg 142:3) – he has brought down my life to earth (humiliare in + ab­
lative; one would expect accusative in terram, which is actually used in the Psalterium Pianum;

424
see Chapter 16.6). (b) ne pereamus in anima viri istius (Jonah 1:14) – so that we will not perish
because (in + ablative) of this man. (c) qui poenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Jonae (Matt
12:41) – who repented because of Jonah’s preaching. (d) ut sis in populum peculiarem (Deut
14:2) – so that you are (esse in + accusative) his own people. For another example of esse in +
accusative, see esto mihi in Deum protectorem (Ps 31:3, Vg 30:3) – be thou unto me a God, a
protector. (e) ponam te in gentibus (Gen 17:6) – I will make you into (ponere in + accusative)
(many) peoples. (f) delectaverunt te filiae regum in honore tuo (Ps 45:9–10, Vg 44:9–10) – the
daughters of kings have delighted you to honour you (one would expect: in honorem tuam); in
means “for the sake of, aiming at.” (g) iurare in auro templi (Matt 23:16) – to swear by the gold
of the temple; one would expect per aurum templi. – (h) si percutimus in gladio? (Luke 22:49) –
should we fight with the sword? – classical Latin would use the mere ablative, without the pre ­
position in; this is “instrumental in” (Löfstedt, pp. 452–453). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 14–16.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg (34 pp.),
pp. 25–26: Die Präpositionen ab und in. “In vielen Fällen” haben diese Präpositionen “eine
so frappante und fremdklingende Verwendung, daß Nachahmung und Herübernahme
aus einer anderen Sprache unverkennbar sind” (p. 25).

1875. Rönsch, pp. 396–397.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 239–241: in has all the meanings of the Hebrew preposition “b”; he lists 6
meanings: with = accompaniment (mit = Begleitung); with = modality (mit = Modalität);
because of, in order to (wegen, um … willen); by, by means of = instrumentality (durch,
vermittels); of (in enumerations; an – bei Aufzählungen); as, in the role of (wie, als, in der
Eigenschaft von).

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Zweite, vermehrte Auflage. Freiburg (xxxv, 484
pp.), p. 108: exultare in Domino (Ps 33:1, Vg 32:1) = des Herrn wegen frohlocken, to re­
joice because of the Lord. (Alternatively, the expression might be considered an untrans­
latable religious idiom. B. Lang).

1922. Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. Cambridge (xv, 162 pp.), pp. 110–
112.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 452–456: instrumental in (in gladio = with the sword), reflects
Greek en, but also the Hebrew preposition be. “So ist letzten Endes hinter manchen oben
zitierten bibellateinischen Konstruktionen nicht nur griechisches Vorbild deutlich zu er­
kennen, sondern es schimmert vielfach, obwohl schwächer und entfernter, auch hebräi­
scher Einfluss hindurch” (p. 456).

1947. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quar­
terly 9: 106–110, at p. 108: “The preposition in is used countless times throughout the Vul­
gate, and following the Greek model, to express various Hebrew shades of adverbial
ideas, such as instrumentality, cause, means, etc.”

1973. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at pp. 360–361.

2010. Silvia Luraghi: Adverbial Phrases. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspect­
ives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2. Berlin (xx, 556 pp.), pp. 19–108. Page 52: “Typical

425
 of Christian Latin is the instrumental use of in plus ablative,” as in the expression in gladio
(see example h).

2023. Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Linguistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 425. Stotz com­
ments on “the use of the preposition in before a predicate (in praedicativum), a Hebraism
mediated through Greek (εἰς) that subsequently became common. It usually has a consec­
utive or resultative character, as in factus est homo in animam uiuentem (“The human be­
came into a living soul”; Gen 2:7) or enutriuit eum sibi in filium (“she brought him up into
a son for herself ”; Acts 7:21).”

incipere – to begin, to do (in the future) [anfangen, tun (in der Zukunft)]. incipere + infinitive is a peri­
phrastic way of referring to the future. incipiam vos semper commonēre – I will always remind
you (2 Pet 1:12; cf. the literal but clumsy Douay Version: I will begin to put you always in remem­
brance). More examples: John 4:47 (incipiebat enim mori – he was going to die); Jas 2:12 (incipi­
entes iudicari – those who are to be judged); Acts 3:3; 27:10. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 369–370.

1926. Plater/White, p. 105 (with note 1).

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 422.

2016. Giovanbattista Galdi: On coepi/incipio + infinitive: Some New Remarks. In: J.N. Adams –
Nigel Vincent (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity of Change? Cambridge 2016 (xx, 470
pp.), pp. 246–264.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship
with the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), pp. 64–65.

incredibilis – not believing, incredible [ungläubig, unglaublich]. – (1) not believing (non credens) [un­
gläubig]. But, against one’s expectation, the word is not used to say “not to be trusted, not to be
believed.” Accordingly, incredibilis animae memoria (Wisd 10:7) – monument of a soul that does
not believe; incredibiles ad Dominum (Bar 1:19) – not believing in the Lord. – (2) hardly to be be­
lieved, incredible, extraordinary; unglaublich, außergewöhnlich. Incredibili furore libidinis (Judg
20:5) – with incredible fury of lust; incredibili pulchritudine (Esth 2:15) – (a woman) of
incredible/extraordinary beauty; (eine Frau) von unglaublicher Schönheit; (une femme) d’une in­
croyable beauté (Glaire). – Literature:

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at pp. 529, 532.

1875. Rönsch, pp. 332–333.

1904. Kaulen, p. 147.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 59.

infidelis – faithless, unbelieving [ungläubig]. The adjective may also mean “unreliable” [unzuverlässig]
(Koh 5:3, Kaulen). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 333.

1904. Kaulen, p. 130.

1951. H. Schmeck: Infidelis. Ein Beitrag zur Wortgeschichte. Vigiliae Christianae 5: 129–147.

426
 1965. Ilona Opelt: Griechische und lateinische Bezeichnungen der Nichtchristen. Ein terminolo­
gischer Versuch. Vigiliae Christianae 19: 1–22.

1988. André Thibaut OSB: L’infidélité du peuple élu. Rome 1988 (3336 pp), pp. 263–265 (only Ve­
tus Latina and non-biblical Christian Latin).

infirmitas – illness [Krankheit]. This is the most common word for “illness, sickness”; less often but
prominent is also languor. The most common classical term, → morbus, is not used in the Vul­
gate. Annette Weissenrieder – Andé Luiz Visinoni, Illness, Suffering, and Treatment in a Chan­
ging world. Old Latin Gospels and “Medical” Vocabulary. Early Christianity 13.3 (2022) 317–341,
at pp. 321–335.

ingens – great, mighty [groß, mächtig, riesig]. This very common Latin adjective is used in the Old
Testament (e.g., Esth 4:3 planctus ingens – a great mourning; 1 Chr 5:23 ingens numerus – a
great number), but never in the New Testament. → grandis

iniquitas – iniquity [Bosheit]. – Literature:

1989. Scarpat I, p. 453.

170. Zürcher, p. 177.

2006. Lyliane Sznajder: Impietas et iniquitas dans la Vulgate, in: Jean-Paul Brachet – Paul Moussy
(ed.): Latin et langues techniques. Paris (334 pp.), 295–316.

iniurius – lawless, illegal, unjust [ungerecht]. Although clearly attested (2 Pet 2:7), this adjective is ab­
sent from the standard dictionaries such as Blaise, Souter, and Harden; but it does figure in
Richards’ dictionary. In 2 Pet 2:7, iniuria is not a noun (inuiria = injury, injustice), but an adjective
belonging to conversatione; accordingly, iniuria ac luxuriose conversatione – by unjust and lewd
behaviour. For details, see below, Chapter 22, textual note on 2 Pet 2:7.

inquit – he said [er sagte]. The word marks direct speech as in delebo, inquit, hominem quem creavi – I
will destroy, he said, the man whom I have created (Gen 6:7); ne appropinquies, inquit, huc – do
not, he said, come near (Exod 3:5). To use inquit rather than dixit is more elegant. Moreover, the
word “adds stress to the word after which it appears.” – Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and
Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Exodus: Translation
Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden 2017 (xiii, 266 pp.), p. 88, note 74.

inspirare – to breath into [einhauchen]. Divine inbreathing in the Vulgate generally refers to God’s
breathing-in of life into man, as in Gen 2:7; Wisd 15:11; Sir 4:11 (Vg 4:12). The only passage that
clearly speaks of the inbreathing of words (in the sense of verbal inspiration) is 2 Pet 1:21. – John
C. Poirier: The Invention of the Inspired Past. Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scrip­
ture. London 2021 (xvi, 249 pp.), pp. 17–19 speaks of vivificationist vs. inspirationist inbreathing.

intelligere – to understand, to be wise [verstehen, weise sein]. The meaning “to be wise” is well at­
tested (Ps 2:10; Wisd 6:2). In some passages, however, the verb does not refer to mere intellec­
tual comprehension; instead, it implies a decision or emotional involvement, so that in modern
languages, one would resort to expressions that include the word “heart.” Examples: beatus qui
intelligit super egenum et pauperem (Ps 41:2; Vg 40:2) – blessed the one who has a heart for the
poor and need; omnis qui audit verbum regni et non intelligit (Matt 13:19) – everyone who hears
the message of the kingdom and does not take it to heart. Cf. also Ps 5:2; 50:22 (Vg 49:22); Matt
13:23; 24:15; Mark 13:14. – Hagen, pp. 84–85; Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 462.

intendere – to hearken, to consider mercifully [hören, sich etwas zu Herzen nehmen]. pulchritudine tua
intende (Ps 45:5, Vg 44:5) is a special case; see the textual note below, in Chapter 21. – Literature:

427
 1875. Rönsch, pp. 371–372.

1979. Eva Odelman: Note sur l’emploi du verbe intendere dans le psaume XLIV de la Vulgate.
Revue bénédictine 89: 303–305.

inter – among, between [unter, zwischen]. The preposition inter is also “used to express a superlative
in accordance with Hebrew usage”; as in benedicta tu inter mulieribus (Luke 1:42) – you are the
most blessed of women. – Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. Cambridge
(xv, 162 pp.), p. 106.

investigabilis – unsearchable [unerforschlich]. Although investigare means “to test” (Ps 139:3, Vg
138:3), investigabilis, with privative in-, is not to be emended to ininvestigabilis, a form found in
the Codex Fuldensis (Eph 3:8, Weber/Gryson). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 148.

1956. Otto Hiltbrunner: Der Schluss von Tertullians Schrift gegen Hermogenes. Vigiliae Chris­
tianae 19: 215–228: a long discussion of ininvestigabilis.

1959. J. Mehlmann: Anexichníastos = investigabilis (Röm 11,33; Eph 3,8). Biblica 40: 902–914.

invocare – to call upon [anrufen]. Examples: invocare nomen Domini – to call upon the name of the
Lord (Gen 4:26; cf. Deut 32:3; 2 Sam 6:2); laudans invocabo Dominum – with praise I will call
upon the Lord (Ps 18:4, Vg 17:4). With 162 occurrences in the Vulgate (though not used in the
Gospels), this is a standard verb for “to pray.” – Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella: Vocare, uocatio,
leurs préverbés et préfixés: étude sémantique. Doctoral dissertation. Université de Lyon 2012 (483
pp.), pp. 284–306; page 305: “il est remarquable que, quand le complément d’inuocare a un réfé­
rent qui n’est pas le Seigneur et qui n’appartient pas au domaine de la religion, cet emploi soit
toujours dans un passage où la traduction latine s’écarte du texte original ou dans un livre bi­
blique qui n’a pas été traduit par Jérôme.”

ipse – self [selbst] In the Vulgate, ipse (self) is often used as an intensifying pronoun, but also as a per­
sonal pronoun, and, finally, in the sense of “the same.” – (1) Intensifying personal pronoun: (a)
ipse dominabitur tui (Gen 3:15) – he will dominate you. (b) anima enim ipsius in eo est (Acts
20:10) – his soul is in him (lit.: the soul of him (…); i.e., he is alive). (c) mulier timens Dominum
ipsa laudabitur (Prov 31:30) – a woman who fears the Lord, she will be praised. (d) et ipsa con­
cepit filium (Luke 1:36) – and she has conceived a son. (e) quae sont omnia in interitum ipso usu
(Col 2:22) – which all are unto destruction by the very use (Douay Version). (f) ipsa vero civitas
(Rev 21:18) – but the city itself. Hagen, p. 77; Plater/White, p. 72. (g) ipse intrabit in regnum
caelorum – only he will enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 7:21). – (2) Personal pronoun. et
ipse vobis demonstrabit cenaculum grande (Mark 14:15) – and he will show you a large dining
room. Many examples are listed in Hertzenberg, pp. 176–181. – (3) ipse = idem. The statement
ex ipso ore procedit benedictio et maledictio (Jas 3:10) is to be rendered “out of the same mouth
comes blessing and cursing.” Christus heri et hodie ipse (idem, NVg) et in saecula (Hebr 13:8) –
Christ yesterday and today, (is) also the same forever. Kaulen, p. 169. – (4) ipse can also serve as
a substitute of the definite article (which does not exist in classical Latin); see the textual note on
Ps 32:1 (Vg 31:1) in Chapter 21. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 77.

1875. Rönsch, pp. 422–423, 480 note 5. – On ipse as definite article.

1904. Kaulen, p. 168 (no. 73).

1926. Plater/White, pp. 72, 79.

428
 1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), pp. 107–108 (§§ 154–
158).

2011. Mari Ioanne Hertzenberg: Classical and Romance Usages of ipse in the Vulgate. Oslo Stud­
ies in Language 3.3 (2011) 173–188, esp. pp. 176–181.

ire – to go [gehen]. (1) The perfect form ivit (he went) is occasionally used, instead of the classical iit,
see Gen 12:4; 2 Sam 11:10; Matt 21:30. Also iebat (imperfect) for classical ibat – he went (see Ju­
dith 12:7 Weber/Gryson: exiebat). – (2) The imperative i (go!) is never used in the Vulgate; in­
stead, the Vulgate uses vade (181 times); the reason is the avoidance of monosyllabic verb
forms. Accordingly, one says vadit (21 times), never it for “he goes,” and vadis (10 times), never
is for “you go.” Rarely used is eo (2 times) for “I go,” the normal form is vado (Löfstedt, p. 38
after Wackernagel). Well-known passages: vade in pace – go in peace (Mark 5:34), vade et tu fac
similiter – go and do likewise (Luke 10:37). – (3) The semantic range is wide; ire cum aliquem
means “to be with, to accompany” (Gen 12:4; Num 22:12; Luke 7:11, etc.). → abire → vadere –
Literature:

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), pp.
48–49.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 38–40. Page 38: “Den dezidiert zweisilbigen und den dreisilbi­
gen Formen von ire macht vadere fast keine Konkurrenz.”

1998. María Dolores Verdejo Sánchez: El verbo “eo” en la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 21.2:
603–609; this paper is included in the online edition: Analecta Malacitana electronica 24
(June 2008).

2016. Andrea Nuti: Between aspect and deixis: Vado in classical Latin and the evolution of
motion verbs. Pallas 102: 69–77.

irriguum – water place, source [Wasserstelle, Quelle]. Stummer postulates the existence of this word
for Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel.
Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 37–43. The word is neither in Blaise ( Dictionnaire) nor in Souter
(A Glossary of Later Latin).

ita – so, thus [so]. Hagen (p. 80) suggests the meaning “yes” for Luke 15:7,10, and places a comma
after it.

-iter, -ter – Formative element appended to create adverbs. In classical Latin, adverbs are formed with
the affix (i)ter only from adjectives such as levis, fortis, celer, felix and elegans; this kind of word
formation has been generalized in Vulgate Latin: duriter (Wisd 5:23), infirmiter (Wisd 4:4), sincer­
iter (Tob 3:4), where the classical forms would be dure, infirme, sincere. – Kaulen, pp. 233–234;
Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 59.

iudicare – to judge [richten]. Depending upon the context, the verb has the following meanings: (1) to
judge [richten], with direct object (iudicare aliquem, instead of classical iudicare de aliquo): Matt
19:28. – (2) to rule, to govern [herrschen] – a semantic Hebraism: Ps 2:10. – (3) to do justice, to
promote someone’s right, to vindicate [recht schaffen], as in iudica me, Deus (Ps 43:1, Vg 42:1) –
do me justice, o God; schaffe mir recht, Gott. In classical Latin, one would say: ius redde mihi,
Deus (Ps 42:1, Psalterium Pianum). – Hagen, pp. 90–91. – (4) to punish, to condemn: qui credit in
eum, non iudicatur – who believes in him, will not be condemned (John 3:18); et iudicabo te iudi­
cium adulterarum – and I will inflict the punishment of adulteresses on you (Ezek 16:38).

429
iugis, iugiter – continual (adjective), continually (adverb) [immerwährend, immer]. quasi iuge convivi­
um – like a continual feast (Prov 15:15); holocaustum iuge – continual sacrifice (Ezra 3:5); per sin­
gulos dies iugiter – every day continually (Exod 29:38). Rönsch, pp. 118–119 and p. 150; Kaulen, p.
233 (read: 2 Mos. 29,38); Claude Moussy: Les emplois de iugis et iugiter dans la latinité tardive,
in: Louis Callebat (ed.): Latin vulgaire – Latin tardif. IV. Hildesheim 1995 (723 pp.), pp. 237–249.

Iunia – Junia. Latin female name, mentioned only Rom 16:7. See the discussion in Chapters 8.5 (intro­
ductory note; English 2022) and 22 (Rom 16:7).

Iuppiter, genitive Iovis – The deity Jupiter appears in 2 Macc 6:2 and Acts 14:12–13 (Vg 14–12); 19:35
(Iovisque prolis – and Jupiter’s offspring).

ius – law, justice [Gesetz, Recht] – used only in the Old Testament. – Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman
Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di Berardino et al., Lex et
religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at pp. 117–
141: discussion of words from the realm of law; considered are: aequitas, caerimonia, consu­
etudo, edictum, fas, ius, iudicium, iustitia, lex, mandatum, mos, ordo, praeceptum, rectum, regula,
ritus, veritas. “The text of the Vulgate leaves no doubt that Jerome used the Roman legal notions
thoughtfully” (p. 117).

iustus, iustitia – just, the Just One; justice [gerecht, der Gerechte; Gerechtigkeit]. In several Old Testa­
ment passages, iustus is used as a messianic title: the Just One; see Isa 41:2.10; 45:8; 51:5.7;
62:1.2; Zeph 3:3. – Literature:

2003. Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des
Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und
ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster 2003 (x, 620
pp.), pp. 21–34.

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter.
In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium
der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357.

2023. Benedikt Collinet: Das Wortfeld Gerechtigkeit in der Vulgata (iustitia, iustus). In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 60–61.

K
kalendae – calends [die Kalenden]. Used only in the plural (plural tantum). This typically Latin word
designates the first day of the month. Jerome uses the word freely in his translations of Old
Testament books: Num 10:10; 29:6; 1 Sam 20:5.18.24.27.34, etc. One example: calendas vestras
et solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea – my soul hates your calends and your solemnities (Isa
1:14). The underlying Hebrew ḥôdeš refers to the day of the new moon which, according to the
ancient Israelite lunar calendar, is the first day of the month. In the New Testament, kalendae is
not used; its place is taken by neomenia – new moon (Col 2:16). Vernacular translations of the
Vulgate render kalendae in Isa 1:14 as: new moons (Douay Version), the new month begins
(Knox), Neumonde (Allioli), calends (Glaire), Kalenden[feiern] (Tusculum-Vulgata).

430
L
labor, laborare – labour, to labour [Arbeit, arbeiten]. Metonymically, labor also refers to the “fruit of
labour” (Deut 28:33; John 4:38). Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 36. On metonymical meaning.

2008. Christophe Rico: Figure et théorie du signe: les solutions de Saint Jérôme. Modèles linguis­
tiques 58 (2008) 79–98.

lactare (I), ablactare – to suckle, to wean [stillen, entwöhnen, abstillen]. Gen 21:7–8; 1 Kgs 1:23; 6:10;
Job 3:12; Luke 2:29, et al. → nutrire, nutrix. Jean Trinquier: Le lexique latin de l’allaitement. In:
Yasmina Foehr-Jansens et al. (eds.): Allaiter de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Turnhout 2023 (989 pp.),
pp. 177–180.

lactare (II) – to entice, to allure [verlocken, verführen]. ego lactabo eam (Hos 2:16, Vg 2:14) – I will al­
lure her (Douay Version). See also lactatum – enticed, the correct reading in Job 31:27
(Weber/Gryson; the Clementina has laetatum – rejoiced [gefreut]). – Rönsch, pp. 213–214; Alber­
to Vaccari SJ: “Lacto” nella Volgata. Biblica 2 (1921) 219–221.

lacus – cistern, pond, pit [Zisterne, Teich]. (1) Forms. For Jerome, the genitive is laci (Isa 14:15; Jer
37:15), while classical Latin has the genitive lacūs (1 Macc 9:33). Kaulen, p. 120. – (2) Meanings.
The normal, classical meaning of lacus, “sea,” is completely absent from the Vulgate. Most oc­
currences require the meaning cistern or pond (Gen 40:15; Exod 7:19; Jer 38:6). In the book of
Daniel the lacus leonum (Dan 6:7), usually rendered lions’ den, is a pit. – Literature:

1975. Rönsch, pp. 315–316.

1966. Meershoek, pp. 211–220.

1970. Zürcher, p. 180.

1994. Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín Cristiano. Madrid (588 pp.), p. 256.

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus. Kontinuität
und Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
87–108, at pp. 96–97.

laetari, laetitia – to rejoice, joy [jubeln, Freude]. The stem laet- is used very frequently in the Vulgate:
368 times in the Old Testament, but only 9 times in the New Testament. The statistics for the se­
mantically synonymous gaudēre/gaudium is more balanced: 162 occurrences in the Old Testa­
ment, and 119 in the New Testament. – Anna Kraml: “Tu laetitia Israhel” (Jdt 15,10 Vg). The re­
ception of ‘Joy’ in the Vulgate’s translation of the Old Testament. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special is­
sue (2023) 75–84 (online journal). Kraml studies the relevant vocabulary in Genesis, Deutero­
nomy, Tobit, and Judith. Interestingly, the Greek text of Judith has no reference to “joy.”

lapis angularis – cornerstone [Eckstein]. This architectural term most likely refers to the main stone in
a building’s foundation, so that cornerstone = foundation stone. The biblical passages (such as
Ps 118:22 [Vg 117:2]; Matt 21:42; 1 Pet 2:6) are discussed by Binding. – Literature:

1998. Günther Binding: Der früh- und hochmittelalterliche Bauherr als sapiens architectus. 2. Auf­
lage. Darmstadt (480 pp.), pp. 315–323.

2020. Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen.
Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp.34–41.

431
later – brick [Backstein, Ziegel]. coctus later (Isa 16:7.11; cf. Gen 11:3) is fired brick [gebrannter Back­
stein], whereas later (Ex 5:7; Isa 9:1; Nah 3:14), without the adjective, is the sun-dried mud-brick
[luftgetrockneter Lehmziegel]. – Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung
baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.),
pp. 44–46.

latinus, latine – Latin, in Latin [lateinisch, auf Lateinisch]. The Latin language is referred to only rarely
in the Bible. It appears in the description of the note (titulus) fixed to the cross of Christ in Luke
23:38 (litteris latinis – [written] with Latin letters) and John 19:20 (scriptum Latine – written in Lat­
in). It also figures in Rev 9:11 (Weber/Gryson, Clementina): latine habet (Clementina: habens)
nomen Exterminans – in Latin he has the name Destroyer.

laus – praise [Lob]. Very frequently used in both Testaments. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire
intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020 (326 pp.), pp. 156–166; this source explains the
semantic closeness to → gloria, adding that “la laus a alors un caractère moins solennel que la
gloria” (p. 160).

legere – to read [lesen]. In Acts 27:13, this verb has a special nautical meaning – “to sail along the
coast, to coast along”; see textual note on this passage, below, in Chapter 22.

lex – law [Gesetz]. Cristóbal Macías Villalobos: Lex en la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 23.1 (2000) 171–
190.

libertas – freedom [Freiheit]. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguis­
tique. Paris 2020 (326 pp.), pp. 167–179.

lignum – stick (of wood), tree [Stock (aus Holz), Baum]. – (1) stick, stave: existis cum gladiis et lignis –
you came out with swords and staves (Mark 14:48). – (2) tree: in many passages, lignum is used
for saying “tree”: silva lignorum germinantium – a wood of sprouting trees (Koh 2:6); omnia
ligna silvarum – all the trees of the woods (Ps 96:12, Vg. 95:12). See also Gen 1:11; 2:16–17; 3:2–
3.6; Ps 105:33 (Vg 104:33); Prov 3:18; 11:30; Koh 11:3; Cant 2:3; Ezek 17:24; Joel 1:19; Rev 22:2. In
classical Latin, lignum is used for “tree” very rarely, the main occurrence being Vergil: Aeneid XII,
767: venerabile lignum – tree held in reverence; but there is also the dictum in silvam ne ligna
feres (Horace: Satires I, 10,34; quoted by Jerome at the end of his Preface to the Psalter iuxta
hebraeos), to be translated either “Don’t carry wood into the forest” or “Don’t carry trees into
the forest.” More frequently used for “tree” is arbor (Gen 21:15; Matt 3:10, and often). – Literat­
ure:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 23–24.

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence 1911 (xlii, 251 pp.), pp. 139–140.

1969. Olli Makkonen: Waldterminologie im Latein. Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica. Nova Series
6: 81–90. – Page 83: “Das Wort lignum durfte ursprunglich das Holzmaterial bedeutet ha­
ben. Weil aber die allgemeinste Gebrauchsweise des Holzes Verbrennen zur Erzeugung
von Wärme war, wird damit meistens gerade Brennholz gemeint, während Bauholz mate­
ria oder materies heisst.”

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 316–317:
lignum (wood) can be used metonymically for arbor (tree).

ligurius, ligyrius – Ligurian (stone) [ligurischer (Stein)]. Exod 28:19; 39:12. Jerome translates the
Hebrew word lešem as ligyrius (Weber/Gryson) or Ligurius (Clementina) = Ligurian stone, be­

432
 cause one of the trade routes of Baltic amber ended in Liguria. – Felix Albrecht: Vom Bernstin
zum Luchsstein. Der im Hebräischen mit lšm bezeichnete Stein und seine Äquivalente in Septua­
ginta und Vetus Latina. Indogermanische Bibliothek. Heidelberg 2020. 103 pp.

lucifer – light bearer, i.e., the planet Venus, the morning star [Lichtträger, d.h. der Planet Venus, der
Morgenstern]. Job 11:17; 38:32; Ps 110:3 (Vg 109:3); Isa 14:12; 2 Pet 1:19. In Isa 14:12, the word is
used as a personal name of Satan. According to Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus.
Zur christlichen Transformation paganer Erzählungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart 2015 (386 pp.),
pp. 86–90, Jerome, when using the name, did not think of a pagan deity.

M
magis – more, rather [mehr, vielmehr]. In late Latin, magis is often used in periphrastic comparison. An
example is magis bonus – better (Wisd 8:20) which would be melior in classical Latin. In the ex­
pression quanto magis melior – how much better (Matt 12:12), the word magis is actually super­
fluous. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 75–76.

1875. Rönsch, p. 342.

1955. Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 98.

2018. Lucie Pultrová: Periphrastic Comparison in Latin. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17.1: 93–110,
at p. 108.

magnus – great, big; biggest, greatest [groß; der größte, höchste]. Occasionally, the positive is used in­
stead of the superlative, and typically so in the case of magnus, so that magnus means “the
biggest one,” as in a minimo usque ad magnum – from the smallest to the biggest (Judith 15:8);
sacerdos magnus – the high priest, literally the greatest priest (Sir 50:1); quod est mandatum
magnum in lege – what is the greatest (most important) commandment in the Law (Matt 22:36);
rex magnus super omnem terram – the greatest king, ruler of all the world (Ps 47:3, Vg 46:3); rex
magnus super omnes deos – the greatest god, ruler of all gods (Ps 95:3, Vg 94:3); rex magnus
ego, dicit Dominus exercituum – I am the greatest king, says the Lord of Hosts (Mal 1:14). – In
some passages, the superlative meaning of magnus may be considered: Esaias propheta magnus
et fidelis in conspectu dei – the prophet Isaiah, great and faithful in the sight of God, could actu ­
ally mean: the greatest and most faithful prophet in the sight of God (Sir 48:25). A New Testa­
ment example is the acclamation magna Diana Ephesiorum – great (or: the greatest) is Diana of
the Ephesians (Acts 19:28). – Kaulen, p. 162. → grandis

maiestas – glory, majesty [Hoheit, Würde, Herrlichkeit, Majestät]. Deriving as it does from maius (big­
ger), maiestas does not have an exact Greek equivalent. The NVg often has gloria where the
Clementina has maiestas. – (1) Divine majesty. Most of the 34 Vulgate passages (2 Chr 7:1; Ezek
43:4; Matt 19:28, etc.) that use it speak of the maiestas of God, see esp. Ezek 43:4: et maiestas
Domini ingressa est templum – and the glory/majesty of the Lord entered the temple (also see
the parallel passage that uses → gloria, 1 Kgs 8:11). Christ will come cum virtute multa et
maiestate (Matt 24:30) – with much power and majesty (or: in all his power and glory, in all his
majesty, → virtus and maiestas being synonymous). Only one passage, Acts 19:27, refers to the
maiestas of goddess Diana; meant is her reputation; translators have a variety of suggestions for
the Acts passage: Douay Version: majesty, Grundl: Erhabenheit, Knox: greatness, Glaire: la
majesté. – (2) One passage is special: qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimitur a gloria (Prov 25:27)
– a searcher of majesty will be overwhelmed (Douay Version). Knox has: “search too high, and

433
 the brightness shall dazzle thee”; and adds in a note that this is what the Latin seems to mean,
“but it is difficult to derive this or any meaning from the Hebrew text as it stands.” – Frederic
Raurell: Valor teològic específic de ‘maiestas’ en la Vulgata. Revista Catalana de Teología
(Barcelona) 20.1 (1995) 1–35.

mamona – mammon [Mammon]. Matt 6:24; Luke 16:9,11,13. This is a Semitic word, spelled either
mammona (Clementina) or mamona (Weber/Gryson). – B.A. Mastin: Latin mam(m)ona and the
Semitic Languages. A False Trail and a Suggestion. Biblica 65 (1984) 87–90.

manducare – to eat [essen] → comedere. Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den
Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil 1. Nijmwegen (270 pp.), pp. 192–193.

mansuetus – meek [sanftmütig]. In Zeph 2:3, mansueti are the good people, the righteous ones, while
quaerite mansuetum – search for the Meek One, takes mansuetus to be a messianic title. The
Christian type of the messianic mansuetus is the prophet Jeremiah, see ego quasi agnus mansu­
etus qui portatur ad victimam – I was like a meek lamb, carried to be a victim (Jer 11:19). – Sara
Margarino: Lessico profetico del servo sofferente in Girolamo – il mansuetus. In: Sandra Isetta
(ed.): Il capro espiatorio. Mito, religione, storia. Genoa 2007 (345 pp.), pp. 219–235.

manus, -ūs – hand [Hand]. Several idioms are noteworthy: (1) anima mea in manibus meis – my soul is
in my hands (Ps 119:109, Vg 118:109), i.e., in danger. This is a literal rendering of the underlying
Hebrew idiom. – (2) Aegypto dedimus manum – we have given the hand to Egypt (Lam 5:6), i.e.,
we have surrendered to Egypt. – (3) etiamsi manus ad manum fuerit – though hand should be
joined to hand (Prov 16:5, Douay Version). This expression does not make sense in Latin; the ex ­
pression echoes a Hebrew idiom for saying “I am sure.” See textual note on Prov 216:5 (Chapter
21). – (4) mittentes per manus Barnabae et Sauli (Acts 11:30) – sending (the money) in the care
of Barnabas and Saul; or simply: by B. and S.

mare – sea [Meer]. The noun is used for the sea as a general concept (Gen 1:10 – the plural maria;
Prov 8:29; Koh 1:7; Dan 3:78), the Mediterranean (mare occidentale, Deut 11:24; mare Palaes­
tinorum, Exod 23:31), but also for lakes such as the lake of Galilee (Matt 15:29). Moreover, mare
is used in topographical and geographical descriptions to indicate the western direction be­
cause the Mediterranean is the western limit of Palestine ( occidens, occidentalis). mare quod
respicit ad occidentem (Num 35:5) – the sea that looks to the west. – Meershoek, pp. 202–210.

Maria – personal name. Note only the mother of Jesus (and some other women) are called Maria in
the New Testament. The name also occures in the Old Testament as rendering of Miriam the
prophetess (Maria prophetissa, Exod 15:20). On the latter, see Agnethe Siquans, Mirjam (Mari) in
der Vulgata; in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 125–126.

medium – middle [Mitte]. abyssi in medio mari – the depths in the midst of the sea (Exod 15:8, Douay
Version); firmamentum in medio aquarium – a firmament in the middle of the waters (Gen 1:6).
In classical Latin, medius (central) is an adjective with spacial meaning. In Vulgate Latin, medium
appears as a new spatial noun. – Eusebia Tarriño Ruiz: El adjective. In: José Miguel Baños Baños
(ed.): Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid (838 pp.), pp. 251–272, at p. 268.

melior – a better one [einer, der besser ist], adjective. Note the following syntactic possibilities: num­
quid non ego melior tibi sum quam decem filii – am I not better to you than ten sons? (1 Sam 1:8;
melior quam is classical Latin); melius est modicum iusto super divitias peccatorum multas – bet­
ter is a little to the just than the great riches of the wicked (Ps 37:16 [Vg 36:16]; melius super is
late Latin).

-mentum – formative element of many nouns (Bildungselement vieler Nomina), used to form long,
impressive words. – Literature:

434
 1875. Rönsch, pp. 22–25.

1926. Plater/White, p. 46.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 57:
We can see “daß die Sprache der lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen beim Nomen jene
volltönenden Endungen liebt, die dann später in lautgesetzlich abgewandelten Formen in
die aus der lingua vulgaris entstandenen romanischen Sprachen übergegangen sind. So
treffen wir deliramentum (Luc 24,11) für delirium (vgl. ital. deliramento); exsecramentum
(Sir 15,13) für exsecratio; aeramentum (Sir 12,10) für aes; figmentum (Ps 103,14, Vg
102,14); inquinamentum (2 Cor 7,1), iuramentum (Matth 5,33 u. oft); Apoc 5,8 steht odora­
mentum für odor.”

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. viii: “The Latin language is full of heavy and sonorous form-endings” such as
-mentum. Richards says this in a section in which he lists the advantages Latin has over
Greek.

mingere – to urinate [urinieren]. Jerome’s literal rendering mingens ad perietem – one urinating
against the wall (1 Sam 25:22.34; 1 Kgs 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8) of the underlying Hebrew
stands for “male”. Some vernacular versions of the Vulgate have the exact equivalent: any that
pisseth against the wall (Douay Version); (was) an die Wand pisset (Allioli); der die Wand nässt
(Arndt), while others prefer something like “every male” (Knox). NVg gets rid of the expression
by saying quidquid masculini sexūs – someone of male sex.

minutum – something small [etwas Kleines]. In several gospel passages (Mark 12:42; Luke 12:59; 21:2),
this participle-turned-noun is used to render Greek leptón, the name of a small coin. Apparently,
the translator invented this Latin word for the occasion. – Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo 1959
(vii, 210 pp.), p. 107.

miserēri, misertus – to have compassion for/on someone [sich jemandes erbarmen; avoir pitié de].
Verbum deponens. The verb can be followed by: (1) the person in the dative case (dativus com­
modi), as in misertus est eis (Matt 14:14) – he felt compassion for them; (2) the person in the
genitive case as in misrere nostri (Luke 17:13) – have pity on us!; (3) the preposition in, as in in
servis suis miserabitur (Deut 32:36) – he will have mercy on his servants; (4) the preposition su­
per, as in misertus est super eos (Mark 6:34) – he felt compassion for them. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 86.

1875. Rönsch, pp. 413–414.

1904. Kaulen, p. 268.

1973. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at pp. 327–329.

2013. Cristina Tur Altarriba: Las construcciones de miseret y de misereor/miseror en

latín. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 33.2: 239–251. – The article deals
only with classical Latin; biblical Latin is not considered.

misericordia – compassion, mercy [Barmherzigkeit]. diligit misericordiam et justitiam, misericordia ple­

na est terra – he loveth mercy and judgment, the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord (Ps 33:5
[Vg 32:5]). Compare this Latin dictum of Caesar: Haec nova sit ratio vincendi, ut misericordia et
liberalitate nos muniamus – let this be our new method of conquering – to fortify ourselves by
mercy and generosity (Evelyn S. Shuckburgh); let this be the new style of conquest, to make

435
 mercy and generosity our shield (D.R. Shackleton Bailey in the Loeb Classical Library); transmit­
ted in Cicero: Ad Atticum IX, 7. – For a semantically similar word, see → clementia. – Literature:

1948. Hélène Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain (iii,
412 pp.), pp. 229–239.

2002. Jutta Schöggl: Misericordia. Bedeutung und Umfeld dieses Wortes und der Wortfamilie in
der antiken lateinischen Literatur. Graz. viii, 234 pp.

2021. Paola Francesca Moretti: Misericordia: Some Remarks on the Word and Its Pagan History.
In: Markus Vinzent (ed.): Studia Patristica 113.10. Leuven (xiii, 132 pp.), pp. 9–27.

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter.
In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium
der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357. – A study with fo­
cus on Psalms 33 (Vg 32) and 112 (Vg 111).

moechari – to commit adultery [Ehebruch begehen], a loan-word from Greek moicháomai/moicheúô.

Classic passages are Matt 5:8; 19:9. The noun moechia – adultery is used only once (Wisd 14:26).
– Milena Z. Joksimovic: Terminology of Adultery in Vulgate and Its Social, Historical and Cultural
Context. Doctoral dissertation, University of Belgrade; this unpublished thesis in Serbian (with
English abstract) can be found on the Internet website “academia.edu.”

morbus – illness [Krankheit]. This very common Latin word is used only once in the Clementina: nos et
patres nostri talibus morbis languemus – we and our fathers suffered from such illnesses (4 Ezra
8:31). The Weber/Gryson edition has mortalibus moribus egimus (have acted according to mortal
customs) and relegates morbis to the apparatus. The standard Vulgate word for illness is → in­
firmitas.

mucus – saliva [Speichel]. Peters suggests reading mucus (instead of mutus – mute; stumm) in Sir
20:31: “And like mucus (or saliva) in their mouths they hold back their rebukes; und wie Schleim
im Munde halten sie ihre Rügen zurück.” The conjectured word occurs only here in the Bible. –
Norbert Peters: Ein neues Wort (mucus) der lateinischen Bibel? Theologie und Glaube 1 (1909)
210.

mulier – woman [Frau]. Latin has two standard words for ‘woman’: femina and mulier. The Vulgate
prefers mulier; mulier occurs c. 500 times, femina only 35 times. In the New Testament, femina is
used only 5 times. See textual note on 2 Sam 1:26 (Chapter 21). – Literature:

1948. Christine Mohrmann: Mulier. À propos de II Reg. 1,26. Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 117–
119 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome III. Rome 1965 (458 pp.), pp. 269–271,
at p. 270.

2008. Otto Hiltbrunner: Mulier oder femina. Augustinus im Streit um die richtige Bibelüberset­
zung. Vigiliae Christianae 62.3: 285–302. In his Sermons Augustine opposes the wish to re­
place mulier with femina in the scriptures, i.e., the world of popular language (mulier) with
that of the literary word (femina). He explains the matter as follows: it is only in popular
speech that mulier means a married woman, whereas in the Bible women of any age – in­
cluding the Virgin Mary – are called mulieres. Femina is a word which in Old Latin inspires
reverence through its use in sacral contexts and which was preferred by poets from Au ­
gustan times onwards. Thus, it is regarded as more elevated than the commoner mulier.
Nevertheless, because mulier, unlike femina, agrees with Hebrew iššâh and Greek γυνή in
being used only of human beings (though applicable to women of all ages and condi­

436
 tions), it remains the most appropriate Latin translation. See esp. Augustine: Sermon 291
(PL 38: 1317–1318).

2023. Giulia Leonardi: Das Frauenbild des Hieronymus und seine Auswirkungen auf die Überset ­
zung der Bibel (mulier, uxor, femina). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 121–122.

2023. Agnethe Siquans: Frau, Ehefrau (mulier) in der Vulgata. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 122–124.

multivolus – unstable, promiscuous [unbeständig, der Promiskuität zugeneigt]. The adjective is used
only once in the Bible – in Sir 9:3: ne respicias mulierem multivolam – look not upon a woman
that hath a mind for many (Douay Version): sieh nicht nach einem buhlerischen Weibe (Allioli).
The adjective multivolus – literally: longing for many, viel begehrend – in Catullus: Carmina 68a,
128, describes Lesbia, Catullus’ promiscuous lover. The Sirach translator echoes Catullus’ lan­
guage; see the textual note on Sir 9:3 (Chapter 21). – Rönsch, p. 226; Kaulen, p. 151.

N
natale, gen. natalis – birthday [Geburtstag]. die autem natalis Herodis – on the day of Herod’s birth (=
on H.’s birthday; Matt 14:6); here natalis is genitive of the noun natale; otherwise, one would ex­
pect die natali (with natalis as adjective “pertaining to birth”). The noun natale is also used 2
Macc 6:7; Mark 6:21. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 86.

1875. Rönsch, p. 104.

1934. Richards, p. 79: anniversary of birth or accession day.

natio, nationes – nation, nations [Volk, Völker]. (1) Wisd 6:3 (nationes); viri religiosi ex omni natione
(Acts 2:5) – devout men out of every nation. Occasionally, as in Judith 5:22, nationes are “pagan
nations.” – (2) For Wisd 12:10, the meaning “generation” has been suggested (Douay Version;
similarly Allioli: Geschlecht). – Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des ersten Petrusbriefes.
Freiburg 1965 (245 pp.), pp. 185–189 (nationes, gentes). → gentes

nazaraeus – Nazirite, holy [Nasiräer, heilig]. “Nazirite” is the standard meaning of the word (Num 6:21;
Judg 16:17); in Matt 2:23, it is, in the mind of Jerome, only loosely associated with the town of
Nazareth. Accordingly, in Matt 2:23, nazaraeus is an adjective meaning “holy.” – Michael L. Mor­
an: Nazirites and Nazarenes: The Meaning of Nazaraeus in Saint Jerome. Zeitschrift für antikes
Christentum 9.2 (2006) 320–366.

ne – so that not, in order not [sodass nicht, damit nicht], followed by subjunctive, introduces result and
purpose clauses. faciem tuam lava, ne videaris hominibus ieiunians – wash your face so that you
are not seen as one who is fasting (Matt 6:18); orate ne intretis in tentationem – pray in order not
to fall into temptation (or: so that you won’t fall into temptation; Luke 22:40).

necessitas – necessity, use; distress [Bedürfnis, Gebrauch; Bedrängnis]. For the meaning “distress,” see
Sir 6:10; 18:25; 29:2; 2 Cor 6:4; 12:10.

nequam – evil, wicked, worthless [schlecht, böse, nichtsnutzig, wertlos]. This adjective is irregular be­
cause it is indeclinable; see, e.g, nequam est natio eorum – theirs is a wicked generation (Wisd
12:10 Clementia; the Weber/Gryson edition has nequa est natio eorum). nequam can also serve
as the plural form: alii duo nequam – two other evil men (Luke 23:32). The declinable adjective
nequs appears in the Weber/Gryson edition of Sir 28:23 (lingua nequa – wicked tongue); Wisd
12:10. The superlative nequissimus is a normal adjective, though it may have the attenuated

437
 sense of “an evil person.” – Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Bu­
ches Judith. Beigabe zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer
1883 (64 pp.), pp. 9–10.

nervus – nerve, sinew, stocks [Nerv, Sehne, Fußstock]. (1) nervus ferreus cervix tua – your neck is an
iron sinew (Isa 48:4; Douay Version). – (2) mitti/mittere in nervum – to be put/to put in the stocks
(2 Chr 16:10; Jer 20:2; 29:26). On this torture instrument, see the textual note on Jer 20:2 in
Chapter 21. Du Cange’s Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis notes nervus = ξυλοπέδη, i.e.,
wooden block for fixing the feet.

nomen – name, person [Name, Person]. In Acts 1:15 (Weber/Gryson); Rev 3:4; 11:13, nomen is the
word for “person.” According to Blaise, this usage is compatible with classical Latin poetry. – Lit ­
erature:

1954. Albert Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 556.

1954. Christine Mohrmann: A propos de deux mots controversés de la latinité chrétienne: tro­
paeum – nomen. Vigiliae Christianae 8: 154–173 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens.
Tome III. Rome 1965 (458 pp.), pp. 331–350, at pp. 344–350. According to the author, the
New Testament influenced the semantic development of nomen in Christian Latin.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 207–208.

1985. Bengt Löfstedt: Lexikalisches Zur Vulgata (1985). In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur
lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 316–317.

nonne → num, numquid

norma – try square, angle measure [Rechtewinkelmaß], a tool in the form of a right-angled triangle,
used in house building. 1 Kgs 7:9; Isa 44:13 (extendere normam – to apply the try square); Jer
31:39 (norma mensurae – angle measure – seems to be a more descriptive expression). – Gün­
ther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes.
Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp. 9–12; idem – Susanne Lindschei­
d-Burdich: Planen und Bauen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Darmstadt 2002 (652 pp.), pp.
139–144.

novissimus – the last one [der letzte]. si quis vult primus esse, erit omnium novissimus – if any man de­
sire to be first he shall be the last of all (Mark 9:34, Douay Version). Certain special meanings are
noteworthy: (1) novissimus virorum is “the last,” i.e., “the most abject of men” (Isa 53:3, Douay
Version; cf. Jer 50:12), but novissimus has a different, positive meaning in the phrase primus et
novissimus – the first and the last one, said of God or Christ (Isa 41:4; 48:12; Rev 22:13). See tex­
tual note on Isa 53:3 (Chapter 21). – (2) novissima (plur.) – the last things, or perhaps the last
hours, is used metonymically for “death” in Christian Latin. Examples: (a) novissima mea (Num
23:10), parallel to mea mors – my end (cf. also Deut 32:20); (b) habebis in novissimis spem (Prov
24:14) – you shall have hope in the end (in your end); (c) memento novissimorum (Sir 28:6; 38:21)
– remember the latter end (Douay Version at 38:21); look at thy last end – bethink thee of thy
own end (Knox); gedenke der letzten Dinge (Tusculum-Vulgata). – (3) novissima may also mean
“the future”: novissima iustorum (Wisd 2:16) – the future of the righteous (cf. also Deut 32:29);
novissima tua (Job 8:7) – your future things, i.e., your future wealth. – Philipp Thielmann: Die
lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8
(1893) 511–561, at p. 530.

num, numquid – if, whether [ob]. These particles are used to introduce an interrogative clause when a
negative answer is expected, as in num custos fratris sum ego?(Gen 4:9) – am I my brother’s

438
 keeper? If, a positive answer is expected, the introductory particle is nonne or numquid non; see
numquid non ego melior tibi sum quam decem filii? (1 Sam 1:8) – am I not better to you than ten
sons? – Hagen, pp. 50–51.

nutrire, nutrix – to feed, to suckle; nurse [füttern, stillen; Amme]. accipe, ait, puerum istum et nutri
mihi – take this boy and suckle (him) for me (Exod 2:9); sicut portare solet nutrix infantulum – as
a nurse usually carries the baby (Num 11:12). → lactare

nycticorax – nightraven (Douay Version) [Nachtrabe]. Deut 14:17; Ps 102:7 (Vg 101:7): in both in­
stances, Jerome transliterates the bird’s name from the Septuagint. Jerome explains the name in
Letter 106, 63 (CSEL 55: 279). The word is kept in NVg.

O
oblivio – oblivion, being forgotten [Vergessenheit]. Note the classical Latin phrase nulla (or numquam)
oblivione deleri – not (or: never) to be consigned to oblivion, not to be forgotten, used in Deut
31:21; Esth 9:28; Jer 23:40; 50:5; Koh 6:4 (but never used in the New Testament). See textual note
on Esth 9:28 (below, Chapter 21).

obsecrare – to implore, to entreat [beschwören, bitten]. The verb is often used in the first person sin­
gular – obsecro – to say “please,” both in prayer (Gen 24:12; Num 14:19; 2 Kgs 20:3; 1 Chr 21:8)
and in interhuman communication (1 Kgs 3:17). → quaeso → rogare – Literature:

1936. J.B. Hofmann: Lateinische Umgangssprache. Zweite, durch Nachträge vermehrte Auflage.
Heidellberg (xvi, 252 pp.), pp. 130–131.

2017. Peter Juhás: Die biblisch-hebräische Partikel na im Lichte der antiken Bibelübersetzungen.
Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer vermuteten Höflichkeitsfunktion. Leiden 2017 (xvii,
227 pp.), esp. p. 77.

occidens, occidentalis – west, western [West, westlich]. In several books of the Old Testament, espe­
cially in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and Ezekiel, cardinal points are often invoked in topographical
and similar descriptions. For designating the west, the Hebrew text regularly uses the “Sea,” the
Mediterranean. Jerome often renders it literally, using mare (sea), but even more often, he
prefers to speak about occidens or occidentalis. Occasionally, he combines mare and occidens:
haec est plaga contra mare, ad occidentem (Josh 18:14) – this is the coast towards the sea, west­
ward (similarly Exod 36:27, 32). – Meershoek, p. 209.

odisse, odio habēre – to hate [hassen]. – (1) In classical Latin, this is a defective verb. Its forms in the
perfect tense express the present tense: odi = I hate (not: I hated). The Vulgate often treats it like
a normal verb odire, so that we get forms such as odiens = hating (Wisd 11:25) and odiētur = will
be hated (Sir 20:8; 21:31). Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 281–283.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 60.

2017. José Miguel Baños – María Dolores Jiménez López: “Odiar” en el Nuevo Testamento (odi,
odios um, odio habeo): tradución y construcciones con verbo soporte en la Vulgata. Eu­
phrosyne 45: 59–78. Analysed are all instances of miseô = to hate in the New Testament.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship
with the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), pp. 245, 257: odientes, Jude 1:23.

439
 2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus. Kontinuität
und Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
87–108, at p. 98 (with note 28).

offerre – to give (to God), to sacrifice [(Gott etwas) geben, opfern]. Offeretis holocaustum (…) Domino –
you shall offer a holocaust (…) to the Lord (Num 29:2). Zürcher, p. 213: “Offerre ‘opfern’ gehört
vor allem dem Alten Testament an. In der biblischen Bedeutung treffen wir es hier weit über 200
mal. Neben ihm führen die von den heidnischen Römern verwendeten Verben wie vovere und
consecrare ein viel kümmerlicheres Dasein, während donare fast immer Gott als handelnde Per­
son hat, und dicare überhaupt fehlt. Die Vermutung liegt nahe, dass Hieronymus hier bewusst
die heidnisch-sakralen Termini gemieden hat und ein Verb für eine profane Tätigkeit ins Sakrale
erhoben hat.” English: Offerre ‘to sacrifice’ belongs especially to the Old Testament. In the biblic­
al meaning we meet it here well over 200 times. Next to it, the verbs used by the pagan Romans,
such as vovēre and consecrare, lead a much more puny existence, while donare almost always
has God as the acting person, and dicare is absent altogether. It seems reasonable to assume
that Jerome here deliberately avoided the pagan sacred terms and elevated a verb for a profane
activity to the sacred. – Literature: Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augus­
tinus–Hieronymus. Breslau 1879 (iv, 92 pp.), p. 64; Zürcher, p. 213.

omnipotens – almighty [allmächtig]. A regular epithet of God in both testaments. In Jerome’s version,
God presents himself to Abraham, saying ego deus omnipotens – I am God almighty (Gen 17:1);
see also Exod 3:15 (Omnipotens nomen eius – the Almighty is his name) and Tobit 13:4 (non est
alius Deus omnipotens praeter eum – there is no other almighty God beside him). The word is
frequently used in the book of Revelation (Rev 4:8; 11:17; 19:15, etc.). The Prayer of Manasseh
begins with the words Domine Deus omnipotens patrum nostrorum – Lord, almighty God of our
fathers. In Roman pagan discourse, omnipotens had come to be a regular epithet of Jupiter who
is “almighty Olympus, the Father of heaven, the ruler of mankind” and “the almighty Father, the
first Lord of the universe” (pater omnipotens rerum cui prima potestas, Vergil: Aeneid X, 1–2; X,
100). The epithet was taken over by Christians for their God. While the original meaning in Latin
seems to be “having power over all things” or “having power in all things,” the standard Christi­
an notion is “having all power” (Lewis). – Literature:

2009. C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain. San Francisco (167 pp.), p. 16.

2018. Bernhard Lang: God Almighty: Divine Power and Authority in the Biblical and Patristic Peri­
ods. In: Benedikt P. Göcke – Christian Tapp (eds.): The Infinity of God. Notre Dame, Ind. (vii,
436 pp.), pp. 187–211, esp. pp. 206–208.

onocentauri – donkey centaurs [Eselskentauren]. Isa 34:14, translation based on the Septuagint. The
word, unknown to Greek mythology, clearly echoes hippocentauri, mythical beings that combine
a human and a horse body (mentioned in Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes I, 37). – Literature:

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, at p. 252.

2015. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer
Erzählungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart (386 pp.), pp. 94–96.

orare, oratio – to pray, prayer [beten, Gebet]. These very frequent words are used in both testaments.
intende voci orationis meae – listen to the voice of my prayer, cries the Psalmist (Ps 5:3). The
Lord’s prayer is introduced with the words sic ergo vos orabitis – thus therefore shall you pray
(Matt 6:9). Less often, the Bible uses precari and preces. For saying “speech,” the Vulgate never

440
 uses oratio, which would be the normal word in classical Latin. – The noun oratorium (Judith 9:1)
– place of prayer – is a hapax in the Vulgate. Jerome: Letter 140,4 (CSEL 56: 272): oratio iuxta
grammaticos omnis sermo loquentium est; (…) in scripturis autem sanctis difficile orationem
secundum hunc sensum legimus: sed eam quae ad preces et obsecrationes pertinet – according to
the grammarians, oratio is all speech of those who are speaking; (…) but in the sacred scriptures,
we hardly find this meaning of oratio; instead, it has to do with requests and supplications. – Lit­
erature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 319.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikogra­
phie und Grammatik 1: 68–81, at p. 78: “die drei Stadien der Bedeutungsentwicklung von
orare: reden, bitten, beten.”

1904. Kaulen, pp. 25, 269.

1907. Johann Philipp Krebs – J.H. Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Siebente Au­
flage. Zweiter Band. Basel 1907 (776 pp.), pp. 224–225.

1911. Einar Löfstedt: Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Uppsala (359 pp.), p.
41: “Als die neue Religion eine spezielle Bezeichnung für den ausserordentlich wichtigen
Begriff des Betens bedurfte, hat man mit richtigem psychologischem Instinkt das alte,
feierliche, in der Alltagssprache schon ungebräuchliche orare / oratio aufgegriffen und
diesen Worten damit ein neues und dauerndes Leben gesichert.”

1929. C. Mueller: Oratio – oratorium. In: Donum Natalicum Schrijnen. Nijmegen (xxvii, 926 pp.),
pp. 717–718.

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 463–464.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 218–220.

1996. Claude Moussy: Oratio, sermo, contentio. Lingua latina 4: 35–44.

2022. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of
the Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 13: 105–130, at p. 123; refers to orare as “addressing
the Caesar, asking for anything that should be done.”

orbis – circle [Kreis], often used in the collocation orbis terrae (Ps 19:5 [Vg 18:5]; Ps 50:12 [Vg 49:12];
Luke 4:5) and orbis terrarum (Ps 24:1 [Vg 23:1]; Wisd 1:14; 2:24; 13:2) – circle of the earth, Erdkre­
is. These are genuine Latin expressions, well attested in classical Latin. The expression occurs for
the first time in a fragment of P. Rutilius Rufus, the consul of 105 BCE. Both orbis terrae and orbis
terrarium describe “the circular aspect of the terrestrial sphere as it presents itself to Jupiter
cruising about in the ether or enjoying a cycloramic view of the earth from his watch-tower in
the skies. These two fancies are both suggested in Aeneid I, 223–33 and the latter version of the
conceit is explicitly set forth by Ovid in Fasti I, 85f.” (de Witt, p. 362). A significant use is Cicero:
De natura deorum II, 66,165: qui quasi magnam insulam incolunt quam nos orbem terrae vo­
camus – those (i.e., the human beings) who inhabit the big island that we call the circle of the
earth. – Literature:

1907. Johann Philipp Krebs – J.H. Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Siebente Au­
flage. Zweiter Band. Basel 1907 (776 pp.), pp. 657–658. “Was das Verhältnis von orbis ter­
rae zu orbis terrarum betrifft, so bedeutet das erstere das Erdganze, das andere das

441
 römische Weltreich. (…) Doch wird dieser Unterschied nicht durchgängig beobachtet” (p.
657).

1942. Norman W. de Witt: Orbis terrarium. The Classical Journal 37: 362–363.

ordo – order [Ordnung]. The word has multiple contextual meanings. (1) “Rarely ordo is used in the
meaning ‘institutionalized regulation’. The most evident example is found in the vision of the
prophet Ezekiel [Ezek 43:11]: universa pracepta eius cunctumque ordinem eius et omnes leges
eius ostende eis.” Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in
the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di Berardino et al.: Lex et religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135.
Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at p. 124. Note the juxtaposition of praecepta, ordo, and
leges. – (2) ordo caeli (Job 38:33), read in the light of the verse immediately preceding (v. 32),
means “how heaven works.” – (3) secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Ps 110:4; Vg 109:4) – accord­
ing to the rule (Greek taxis) applied to Melchisedech. (4) The septem ordines (“seven orders,” in
all English translations) of 4 Ezra 7:91 are seven ways in which the blessed are rewarded in the
hereafter; commentators indicate the possibility that the terminology reflects seven levels of
heaven.

ornamentum, ornatus – ornament, adornment [Schmuck, Zierde]. In Latin, the two nouns are origin­
ally synonymous, but authors often use them in ways that impose a slight distinction. (1) orna­
mentum. In the Vulgate used 18 times; examples: et ornavi te ornamento (Ezek 16:11) – I decked
thee with ornaments (Douay Version, Knox), ich habe dich mit Schmuck geschmückt (Tusculum-
Vulgata); videntes simulacra aurea et argenta et ornamenta eorum (2 Macc 2:2) – seeing the idols
of Gold and silver and the ornaments of them (Douay Version), en voyant des statues d’or et
d’argent et les ornements dont elles étaient revêtues (Moussy). – (2) ornatus. In the Vulgate
used 15 times. Exeamples: nunc depone ornatum tuum (Exod 33:5) – lay aside thy ornaments
(Douay Version), meant are “les habits de fête,” i.e., fine clothing (Moussy); mulier ornatu mere­
tricio (Prov 7:10) – a woman in right harlot’s guise (Knox). For Gen 2:1 as a special case, with
Ciceronian echoes, see textual note on this passage (Chapter 19.2). – Claude Moussy: Ornamen­
tum et ornatus: de Plaute à la Vulgate. Revue des études latines 74 (1996) 92–107.

osculum dare, osculari – to kiss, to give a kiss [küssen, einen Kuss geben]. Daniel Ayora Estevan: “Dar
un beso” (philêma dounai) y “besar” (phileô, kataphileô) en el Nuevo Testamento: sus
traducciones al latín, gótoco y antiguo eslavo eclesiástico. Euphrosyne 47 (2019) 457–478. All
Latin renderings of the Greek words for “kissing, giving a kiss” in the New Testament are ex­
amined, starting with osculum mihi non dedisti (Luke 7:45) – you have not given me a kiss, i.e.,
you have not welcomed me.

P
pactum – covenant [Bund]. → foedus – Literature:

1970. Zürcher, p. 221.

2023. Christoph Becker: Pactum als Ausdruck einer gegenseitigen Willensübereinkunft. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 174–175.

paenitēre, paenitentiam agere – to repent, to do penance; but also: to regret [Buße tun; auch: be­
dauern]. This is a specifically Christian meaning of a word that classical Latin uses mostly imper ­
sonal (me paenitet – I regret). paenitentiam agere – to do penance; Buße tun (Wisd 5:3; Matt 3:2).
See also Luke 10:13 (to do penance in sackcloth and ashes), Judith 5:19 (to regret). In Rev 2:21,
paenitēre a fornicatione means: to repent of fornication. – Literature:

442
 1934. G.C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130 pp.), p.
86: the preposition “ab denotes what is given up by the penitent, Heb vi 1: paenitentiam
habēre, to feel penitent, like gratiam habēre, to feel gratitude, Lk xiii 3: paenitentiam agere
(common), to express penitence in words, like gratias agere, to return thanks.”

1952. Raphael Loewe: Jerome’s Treatment of an Anthropopathism. Vetus Testamentum 2: 261–

272. – In his commentaries, Jerome is more tolerant of the possibility of paenitentia of
God than in some of his renderings of nḥm in his translations.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 237–238, 240.

1971. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at pp. 245–246.

1989. Scarpat I, p. 458.

2017. José Miguel Baños – María Dolores Jiménez López: ‘Arrepentirse’ en el Nuevo Testamento
en griego y en latín: el empleo de las construcciones con verbo soporte en la Vulgata [‘To
Repent’ in the New Testament in Greek and Latin: the use of constructions with a support
verb in the translation of the Vulgate]. Cuadernos de filologia clásica. Esudios latinos 37:
11–32 (article in Spanish). The paper discusses paenitēre/paenitentiam agere and defines
the place of these words in this history of the Latin language.

2017. Menno Aden: Woraus hat Martin Luther übersetzt? Die Erasmus-Edition in Latein und
Griechisch als Vorlage. Sprachspiegel 73.3: 74–82. Page 79: “Poenitentia ist die durch Strafe
ausgedruckte Wiedergutmachung; vgl. paeniteo jemanden peinigen. Hier scheint die latei­
nische Sprache kein passendes Wort zu haben, denn das ist eine geradezu verfälschende
Wiedergabe des griechischen Begriffs metanoia, als dessen Ubersetzung poenitentia im
NT durchwegs erscheint.”

pallidus, pallor – pale, paleness [bleich, Blässe].– (1) The adjective pallidus is used only once in the
Vulgate, in Rev 6:8. García Ureña et al. suggest to render equus pallidus (Rev 6:8), normally
rendered “pale horse,” as “a death-green horse” (p. 191). – (2) pallor is rare: Lev 1437; Judith 6:5;
Esth 15:10. Note esp. Ps 68:14 (Vg 67:14): the back feathers of a dove are in pallore auri – in a
pale green gold. – Lourdes García Ureña et al.: The Language of Colour in the Bible. Berlin 2022
(xv, 238 pp.), pp. 185–204.

pallium – cloak, garment [Mantel, Gewand]. Worn by men (Gen 39:12; 2 Kgs 2:13) and women (Isa 3:22
Weber/Gryson [the Clementina has palliola]; Cant 5:7). For details, see textual note on Isa 3:22
(Chapter 21).

panis – bread [Brot]. → subcinericius

parabola – parable, proverb [Gleichnis, Sprichwort/Spruch]. factus sum illis in parabolam – I became a
byword for them (Douay Version), ich wurde ihnen zum Gespött (Hoberg) (Ps 69:12, Vg 68:12);
et docebat eos in parabolis multa – and he taught them much through parables (Marc 4:2). In
late Latin, parabola came to mean “word,” i.e., French parole. – Literature:

1644. Hugo Grotius: Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum (Paris), on 1 Kgs 5:12 (Vg 4:32): parabolae
= gnômai (Greek), sententiae. That is, in modern language: proverbs. Quoted by Christoph
Bultmann: Beyond the Vulgate. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120.1
(2008) 92–106, at p. 98.

1863. Hagen, pp. 18–20.

443
 1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage.
Freiburg (xxxv, 5484 pp.), pp. 237, 240.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 83–84.

1970. Zürcher, p. 222.

1989. Giuseppe Scarpat: Note sul termine parabola. In: Mnemosynum. Studi in Onore di Alfredo
Ghiselli. Bologna (xxxi, 562 pp.), pp. 507–514.

2023. Frank Oborski: Weisheitsspruch (sententia, proverbium, parabola). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp.
92.

Paraclitus – Paraclete [Paraklet]. As for the spelling, the Clementina has paraclitus, while the
Weber/Gryson edition prefers paracletus. Greek loanword in the Fourth Gospel: John 14:16, 26;
15:26; 16:7. “Probably agent at law, advocate, representative (…), in 1 Jo ii 1 the same word is
rendered advovatus” (Richards, p. 87). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 106: paraclītus, with a long “i.”

1926. Plater/White, p. 32 (§ 39: Greek terms).

1934. Richards, p. 87.

2021. Marie Frey Rébillé Borgella: La traduction de paraklêtos dans les citations bibliques des
Pères de l’Église latins: paracletus, advocatus ou consolator? In: Markus Vinzent (ed.): Stu­
dia Patristica 123. Leuven (462 pp.), pp. 271–288.

paradisus – paradise [Paradies]. Used several times in the paradise story of Genesis (Gen 2:8, 9; 3:1) for
the Garden of Eden, it is also used to designate the abode of the blessed in heaven (Sir 44:16;
Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7), most explicitly in 4 Ezra (4 Ezra 7:36, 123; 8:52). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 106.

1926. Plater/White, p. 9, note 3.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 223–224.

1923. Kevin Zilverberg: Von der Vetus Latina zu den Übersetzungen des Hieronymus. Kontinuität
und Wandel im Sprachlichen. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische
Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
87–108, at p. 100.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Beschreibung des Paradieses (paradisus). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 181–183.

pars – part [Teil]. The plural partes in Matt 2:22 means “region”: secessit in partes Gailaeae – he went
away to (the region of) Galilee. See also Iesus secessit in partes Tyri et Sidonis – he retired into
the coasts of Tyre and Sidom (Matt 15:21, Douay Version). This semantics is typical of late Latin.
– Literature:

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 440–441. – This semantics reflects that of the Greek word
mérê (plural of méros), “parts” = regions.

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), p. 113.

pellis – skin [Haut]. The Vulgate has two words for “skin”: pellis and cutis. In the book of Job, both
words are used, see Job 7:5 and 30:30 for cutis, and 10:11 and 19:26 for pellis. – Anne Grondeux:

444
 “Cutis” ou “pellis”: les dénominations médiolatines de la peau humaine. In: Claudio Leonardi
(ed.): La pelle umana – The human skin. Florence 2005 (776 pp., 86 plates), pp. 113–130.

persona – person, face [Person, Angesicht]. Used in both testaments in approximately the same sense
as our “person.” (1) A typically biblical phrase is acceptio personae – respect of person (German:
Ansehen der Person): sine acceptione personarum iudicare – to judge without respect of persons
(1 Petr 1:17; cf. Deut 16:19; Lev 19:15; Rom 2:11; Col 3:25), i.e., without considering someone’s
social status or class. – Hans Rheinfelder: Das Wort “Persona.” Geschichte seiner Bedeutung mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung des französischen und italienischen Mittelalters. Halle 1928 (xiii, 200
pp.), pp. 81–83. – (2) A special case is 2 Cor 2:10 where persona may mean “face,” as in Lev
19:15; see textual note on 2 Cor 2:10 (Chapter 22).

Pharao – title of the king of Egypt. – Henri Quentin: Sur la forme indéclinable du mot Pharao dans les
manuscrits de la Bible latine. Biblica 8 (1927) 92–94.

pharetra – quiver [Köcher]. Jer 51:11; Ezek 7:11. Rykle Borger: Die Waffenträger des Königs Darius. Ein
Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Exegese und zur semitischen Lexikographie. Vetus Testamentum
22.4 (1972) 385–398.

pietas (fem.) – loyalty, godliness, piety [Loyalität, Pflichtgefühl, Frömmigkeit]. The noun is a key term of
1 Timothy: 1 Tim 2:10; 3:16; 4:7,8; 6:5,6. The Douay Version’s word for pietas is “godliness” (ac­
cepted by Richards, p. 91); Knox tries “virtuous life” (2:10), “holiness” (4:7,8), and “religion” (6:5,6).
Allioli and Grundl have “Gottesfurcht” (2:10) and “Gottseligkeit” (3:16; 4:7,8; 6:5,6), while Arndt
decides for “Frömmigkeit.” In French, Glaire opts for “piété.” In ancient Roman culture, pietas is
considered one of the main virtues – and difficult to translate. See also → fides and the textual
note on Acts 10:2 (Chapter 22). – Literature:

1879. Charlton T. Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Oxford (xiv, 2019 pp.), p. 1374: “duti­
ful conduct towards the gods, one’s parents, relatives, benefactors, country, etc., sense of
duty.”

1941. Carl Koch: Pietas. In: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue
Bearbeitung. 39. Halbband. Stuttgart (1312 cols.), cols. 1221–1232. – Cols. 1221–1222: “Im
Gegensatz zu fides, deren Verwendung wesentlich der außerfamiliären Seite des römi­
schen Lebens angehört und die als Fides populi romani dem göttlichen Schirmherrn der
Staatsordnung Iuppiter unterstellt ist, liegt die Entstehung und der maßgebliche Verwen­
dungsbereich des Begriffs pietas im Kreis der Familie und Blutsverwandtschaft. (…) pietas
bezeichnet ursprünglich den Zustand des Menschen, der allen Pflichten, welche die di pa­
rentes seines Geschlechts von ihm verlangten, gewissenhaft nachgekommen ist.”

1958. Walter Dürig: Pietas liturgica. Studien zum Frömmigkeitsbegriff und zur Gottesvorstellung
der abendländischen Liturgie. Regensburg. 243 pp.

1967. Josef Liegle: Pietas. In: Hans Oppermann (ed.): Römische Wertbegriffe. Darmstadt (xi, 552
pp.), pp. 229–273.

1992. James D. Garrison: Pietas from Virgil to Dryden. University Park, Penn. x, 340 pp.

2003. Mary Rose D’Angelo, Eusebeia: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4
Maccabees and the Pastorals. Biblical Interpretation 11: 139–165. – Page 141: “eusébeia
appears to carry the implications of pietas, the Roman and imperial virtue that best ap­
proximates ‘family values’ combined with religious observance.”

2004. Blandine Colot: Pietas. In: Barbara Cassin (ed.): Vocabulaire européen des philosophies. Paris
(xxiv, 1531 pp.), pp. 942–945.

445
 2006. Angela Standhartinger: Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römi­
schen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum. Novum Testamentum 48: 51–82. See
esp. pp. 58–68: eusébeia und pietas in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Page 81: “Mit der Einfüh­
rung der eusébeia greifen die Pastorlbriefe den politisch-gesellschaftlichen Diskurs um die
pietas auf.”

2011. Bonnie J. Flessen: An Exemplary Man. Cornelius and Characterization in Acts 10. Eugene,
Ore. (ix, 195 pp.), pp. 68–113. – Although the word pietas is not used, the characterization
of Cornelius paraphrases the Roman virtue of pietas.

2012. Bianca-Jeanette Schröder: Römische ‘pietas’ – kein universelles Postulat. Gymnasium 119:
335–358.

pinna, pinnaculum – pinnacle [Zinne]. These nouns are used only in Luke 4:9 and Matt 4:5, in the
same episode of Jesus and his being tempted by the devil. On the Latin word, see Rönsch, p. 38;
Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of the
Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 13 (2022) 105–130, at pp. 128–129.

pius, impius, impietas – pious, wicked, wickedness [fromm, gottlos, Schlechtigkeit]. – In Rev 15:4,
translators often opt for the meaning of “holy” (the Greek has ὅσιος): quia solus pius es – thou
alone art holy (Douay Version); du allein bist heilig (Allioli); accordingly, the Nova Vulgata has
quia solus solus Sancus. But the Latin, as it stands, may mean: car vous seul êtes miséricordieux
(Glaire). Impius is more often used than pius. – On pius in the pagan Latin vocabulary → sanctus
– Literature:

2002. Lyliane Sznajder: Les emplois de impius et impietas dans la Vulgate; in: Lionel Mary – Mi­
chel Sot (eds.): Impies et païens entre Antiquité et Moyen Âge. Paris (187 pp.), pp. 31–53.

2003. Sten Hidal: Why Is the Latin Bible so Impious? On pius and Its Compounds in the Vulgate,
in: Anders Piltz (ed.): For Particular Reasons. Studies in Honour of Jerker Blomqvist. Lund
(345 pp.), pp. 143–148.

2006. Lyliane Sznajder: Impietas et iniquitas dans la Vulgate, in: Jean-Paul Brachet – Paul Moussy
(eds.): Latin et langues techniques. Paris (334 pp.), pp. 295–316.

plebs, plebis, fem. – people [Volk]. Ps 28:8 (Vg 27:8); 85:7 (Vg 84:7); Luke 1:68; 7:16, etc. In the Vulgate,
plebs is not used in contexts that oppose Plebeians to Patricians as in classical sources; plebs is
simply synonymous with populus. In Exod 11:2–3, Jerome uses the two words for the sake of
stylistic variation: dices ergo omni plebe (…) dabit autem Dominus gratiam populo suo – say to all
people (…) and the Lord will give favour to his people; the same variation appears in Prov 30:25–
26, though in reverse order (populus – plebs). In the Psalms, the Psalterium Pianum, known for its
preference for classical Latin, avoids plebs and uses populus. – Literature:

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 469–470.

1965. Vincenzo Loi: Populus Dei – plebs Dei. Studio storico-linguistico del ‘Popolo di Dio’ nel la­
tino paleo-cristiano. Salesianum 27: 606–628.

plenus, repletus, replēre – full, to fill [voll, füllen]. Luke 1:28 (gratia plena – full of grace; see textual
note on this passage, below, Chapter 22); 1:41, 67. In Rom 15:19, replēre evangelium is unusual;
see the textual note below, in Chapter 22. – Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Exegese der Vulga­
ta. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 62 (1950) 152–167, at p. 161–167.

446
pontifex – pontiff, high-priest [Pontifex, Hoherpriester]. pontifex id est sacerdos maximus inter fratres
suos – the pontiff, i.e., the chief priest among his brothers (Lev 21:10). In this passage, Jerome
uses a pagan word, but then goes on to explain it. The word is also used in the New Testament,
though only in John (Joh 11:52; 18:22) and Hebrews (Hebr 3:1 and often) . → sacerdos – On the
use of pontifex in Christian and biblical texts, see Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni:
The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of the Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 13 (2022) 105–
130, at pp. 120–123.

populus → plebs

porro – further, moreover, but [weiter, aber]. porro unum est necessarium (Luke 10:42) – but one thing
is necessary; porro homines mirati sunt (Matt 8:27) – but people wondered. This word belongs to
Jerome’s vocabulary; it rarely, if ever, appears in texts not touched by him (Bogaert). – Literature:

1910. F.C. Burkitt: Saint Augustine’s Bible and the Itala. Journal of Theological Studies 11: 258–
268, at p. 262. Burkitt notes that porro is typical of the Vulgate version of Luke 10:42; ac­
cordingly, when Augustine quotes this passage in sermons 104 and 169, it must be the
Vulgate that he quotes.

1934. Richards, p. 92: “then, in consequence,” to which he adds “Jerome.”

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique,
état des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314, at p. 157.

portentum – miracle [Wunder]. “Un examen rapide des emplois des noms latins du prodige dans la
Vulgate montre que les deux termes les plus utilisés sont portentum et prodigium, mais se ren­
contrent aussi des occurrences de monstrum et d’ostentum (…) On peut observer une certaine
répartition entre ces vocables selon les livres de l’Ancien Testament ou du Nouveau Testament:
p. ex., portentum se lit surtout dans le Deutéronome et dans les livres des Prophètes, ostentum
dans l’Exode, prodigium dans les Psaumes, monstrum dans le livre de la Sagesse et dans le Sira­
cide. Dans le Nouveau Testament, on rencontre surtout prodigium et parfois virtus.” Claude
Moussy: Signa et portenta. In: Lea Sawicki – Donna Shalev (eds.): Donum grammaticum. Studies
in Latin and Celtic Linguistics. Leuven 2002 (xvi, 411 pp.), pp. 265–275, at p. 268.

potentia – strength, power [Kraft, Stärke]. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin.
Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020 (326 pp.), pp. 180–209.

praedicare, praedicatio – to preach, to proclaim; preaching, proclamation [predigen, verkünden; Pre­

digt, Verkündigung]. These are real Bible words, used in both testaments. A public fasting is
publicly ordered/proclaimed (1 Kgs 21:9), one proclaims forgiveness and liberation to the cap ­
tives (Isa 61:1), John the Baptist proclaims: “do penance” (Matt 3:1–2), Jesus does likewise (Matt
4:17), the risen Lord tells his disciples to preach the gospel to all creatures (Mark 16:15), Paul
preaches circumcision (Gal 5:11) and the crucified Christ (1 Kor 1:23), ministers are told to preach
“the word” (i.e., the Christian message; 2 Tim 4:2). In all of these cases, preaching or proclaiming
has a content that is indicated. But praedicare can also be used absolutely, without indication of
what is proclaimed; thus Lady Wisdom “preaches abroad” (Prov 1:20, Douay Version), Jonah is
told to go to Niniveh and preach there (Jonah 1:2), the disciples go forth and preach everywhere
(Mark 16:20). – Literature:

1954. Christine Mohrmann: Praedicare, tractare, sermo. Essai sur la terminologie de la prédica ­
tion paléochrétienne. La Maison-Dieu 39: 97–107.

1962. René Braun: “Deus Christianorum.” Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien.
Paris (644), pp. 430–434.

447
 1970. Zürcher, p. 241 (not completely reliable).

precari – to pray [bitten, beten]. precamini vos pro me ad Dominum (Acts 8:24) – pray for me to the
Lord.

2011. Frédéric Chapot: Le vocabulaire de la prière dans la première littérature chrétienne, in: So ­
phie Roesch (ed.): Prier dans la Rome antique. Études lexicales. Paris (143 pp.), pp. 115–
137.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020
(326 pp.), pp. 210–224: precari. – Page 214: According to E. Benveniste (1969), “ le trait dis­
tinctif de *prek- c’est une demande orale, addressée à une autorité supérieure, et qui ne
comporte pas d’autres moyens que la parole.”

presbyterus – elder, dignitary, priest [alter Mann, Honoratior, Priester]. A loanword that transltierates
Greek presbyteros. The specifically Christian meaning of “priest” is clearly present in James 5:14
(presbyteri ecclesiae – the priests of the church, Douay Version). In Sirach, we find the original
meaning of “elder, dignitary” (Sir 6:34 [Vg 6:35]; 7:14 [Vg 7:15]; 8:9). – Richards, p. 95; Zürcher,
pp. 244–245.

Priapus – Name of a pagan god, 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chr 15:16.

1912. (anonymous) Priape. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.1. Paris
(1282 cols.), cols. 662–663. – “Il n’est pas nommé dans le texte original des Écritures, mais
saint Jérôme a traduit par son nom le mot hébreu mifletset III Reg xv,13; 2 Par xv, 16 (…)
parce que mifletset désigne, d’après le contexte, un objet idolâtrique obscène en l’hon­
neur d’Astarthé” (pp. 662–663).

1920. Maurice Vernes: Une curiosité exégétique: le culte de Priape en Israël d’après la Vulgate.
Journal asiatique 15: 100–107.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269. – Page 254: interpreta­
tio Romana.

2016. Philippe Borgeaud: Jérôme traducteur et la Mère des dieux (“Commentaire à Osée”). In:
Corinne Bonnet et al. (eds.): Dieux des Grecs, dieux des Romains. Bruxelles (249 pp.), pp.
229–238.

2020. Matthieu Richelle: Un verset, deux traducteurs, trois scénarios: retour sur une énigme tex­
tuelle (1 Rois 15,13). In: Clemens Locher – Innocent Himbaza (eds.): La Bible en face.
Études textuelles et littéraires. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95. Leuven (xxiv, 362 pp.), pp.
95–111.

pro eo quod – because [weil] → quod (4)

prodigium → portentum

prophetissa / prophetis – prophetess, female prophet [Prophetin]. Maria prophetissa – Mary the
prophetess (Exod 15:20, Clementina). The Weber/Gryson edition has Maria prophetis, using
prophetis as the feminine of propheta (male prophet). Jerome uses the form prophetis (acc.
prophetin, abl. prophetide) several times in his Commentary on Isaiah. – Literature:

1989. Robert Gryson: Barachie et la prophétisse. Revue biblique 96.3: 321–337, at pp. 328–334.

2023. Agnethe Siquans: Prophetin (prophetis, prophetissa). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 124–126.

448
proximus – nearest, next, neighbour [der Nächste]. (1) proxima, fem. = the closest female. omnis
homo ad proximam sanguinis sui non accedet – a man may not approach the closest of blood (Lev
18:6). – (2) “The neighbour,” a central concept of biblical ethics: qui despicit proximum suum
peccat – who despises his neighbour, commits a sin (Prov 14:21); dixit ad Iesum: Et quis est Proxi­
mus meus? – and he said to Jesus: And who is my neighbour (Luke 10:29). – Hélène Pétré: Cari­
tas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), pp. 141–160,
esp. 141–146 on the New Testament.

Q
quaerere deum – to seek God [Gott suchen]. Ps 9:11; 1 Chr 16:11; 2 Chr 34:3; Acts 17:27, and often.
The set expression’s original meaning has to do with seeking information from the deity by
means of an oracle; however, it came to mean “to be religious.” – Literature:

1963. Giuseppe Turbessi: Quaerere Deum. Il tema della “ricerca di Dio” nell’ambiente ellenistico
e giudaico, contemporaneo al Nuovo Testamento. Analecta Biblica 18: 383–398.

1964. Giuseppe Turbessi: “Quaerere Deum”: la ricercar di Dio in antichi testi cristiani. Rivista de
ascetica e mistica 9: 240–255.

quaeso – I ask [ich bitte]. In direct speech, this defective verb takes the place of our “please”: dixit ergo
Abram ad Lot: ne quaeso sit iurgium inter me et te – Abram said to Lot: Please let there be no
quarrel between you and me (Gen 13:8). The Douay Version has “I beseech you,” but Arndt
omits it in his German translation. For the use of quaeso in prayer, see 2 Kgs 30:3. – Another way
of saying “please” is rogo te (I ask you); → rogare. Also used are oro (Gen 44:18) and obsecro (→
obsecrare).

quare – why, because [warum, weil]. In classical Latin, quare is the interrogative particle “why?” (often
used in the Vulgate: Ps 2:1 etc.); in late Latin, it is also used as the causal conjunction “because”
(Josh 10:4).

quia – because, that [weil, dass]. This entry’s focus is not on the causal conjunction, but on specialized
uses that are semantically different. (1) Often, the word loses its semantic content and, placed
after a verbum dicendi, signals direct discourse, echoing Greek hoti: et mulieri dicebat quia iam
non propter tuam loquelam credimus – and they said to the woman: We now believe, not for thy
saying (John 4:42; Douay Version); the Clementina places a colon [:] before quia, but it should be
placed after quia. See also Matt 5:20; 26:72; 24:7; Mark 6:23; John 1:20; Acts 2:13; Rom 3:10, and
often in the New Testament. Interestingly, and sensibly, the Nova Vulgata consistently omits
quia.– (2) quia may introduce a dependent clause, meaning “that”: omnes gentes agnoscant quia
tu es Deus (Judith 9:19) – all nations shall acknowledge that you are God. → quod → quoniam. –
Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 58–61.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 692.

2017. Lyliane Sznajder: Quelques réflexions autour des complétives en “quia” du latin biblique.
Pallas no. 103: 263–272.

quis? – who? [wer?]. (1) Rhetorical questions are a regular feature of the biblical style, used mostly to
point out a difficulty, something rare, or an impossibility. quis consurget mihi adversus mali­
gnantes? (Ps 94:16, Vg 93:16) – who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Many examples
and Jerome’s commentaries are discussed in Meershoek, pp. 234–240. – (2) The “bare interrog­

449
 ative pronoun“ is also used in sentences such as these: si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium –
if someone dies, having nos on (Matt 22:24); neque patrem quis novit, nisi filius – neither knows
anyone the Father, save the son (Matt 11:27). Martin Haspelmath: Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford
1997 (xvi, 364 pp.), pp. 172–173.

quod – that [das, was], a multipurpose particle. – (1) As in classical Latin, quod is the neuter relative
pronoun (qui, quae, quod): mandatum hoc, quod ego pracipio tibi hodie – this commandment
which I command you today (Deut 30:11). – (2) quod often introduces direct speech, echoing
the Greek particle ὅτι; Sed sicut scriptum est quod oculus non vidit (…) – but, as it is written: That
eye hath not seen (…) (1 Cor 2:9; Douay Version); see also Luke 4:10 and many New Testament
passages. → quia → quoniam – Literature:

1875. Hagen, pp. 58–61.

1904. Kaulen, p. 290.

1981. O. García de la Fuente: Sobre el empleo de quod quia quoniam con los verbos de lengua y
entendimiento en Samuel–Reyes de la Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 4: 3–14.

1994. O. García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín cristiano. Madrid (588 pp.), pp. 238–239.

(3) quod may introduce a clause that depends upon a verb of declaring or perceiving, meaning
“that” (and becoming que in French): ne aestimet dominus meus rex quod omnes pueri filii regis
occisi sunt – my lord should not think that all the king’s sons were killed (2 Sam 13:32); vidit
Deus lucem quod esset bona – God saw the light that it was good (Gen 1:4); Iesus autem videns
quod sapienter respondisset – Jesus, seeing that he answered wisely (Mark 12:34); agnovi quod in
his quoque esset labor – and I came to understand that in these things is pain (Koh 1:17). This
frequent construction replaces the classical AcI (accusativus cum infinitivo) construction that
would be ne aestimet (…) omnes pueros filios regis occisos esse; Iesus autem videns eum sapienter
respondisse; agnovi in his esse laborem. – Literature:

1926. Plater/White, p. 119–120 (§ 134).

1943. Dag Norberg: Zur Geschichte der Konjunktion quod, in: idem: Syntaktische Forschungen
auf dem Gebiet des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala 1943 (283 pp.), pp.
232–242.

1967. Lorenzo di Fonzo OFM Conv.: Ecclesiaste. Torino (xx, 379 pp.), p. 143.

1989. J. Herman: Accusatiuus cum infinitiuo et subordonnée à quod quia en latin tardif – Nou­
velles remarques sur un vieux problème. In: Gualtiero Calboli (ed.): Subordination and oth­
er topics in Latin, Amsterdam 1989 (xxix, 691 pp.), pp. 133–152.

1994. Pierluigi Cuzzolin: Sull’origine della costruzione “dicere quod”; aspetti sintattici e semanti­
ci. Firenze 1994. 323 pp.

(4) quod with other particles indicates a causal relationship – because [weil, weshalb]: (a) eo
quod / pro eo quod (Gen 3:10; Jer 25:8–9; Ezek 28:6; Am 5:11; also propter quod – Jas 4:2–3); see
Kaulen, pp. 249–250 (no. 128); Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume II. Oxford 2021
(xxxii, 1438 pp.), pp. 292–293; (b) iuxta quod (Acts 2:24); (c) propter quod (Luke 4:18; Acts 8:11).
Plater/White, p. 63. – (5) quod si – but if: quod si pauper est (…) – but if he is poor (Lev 14:21).
The expression quod si refers to something that precedes it – an elegant expression known from
classical Latin; examples are listed in Charlton T. Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Ox­
ford. (xiv, 2019 pp.), p. 1518 (s. v. quod viii).

450
quoniam – for, because, that [denn, wegen, dass]. Conjunction; → quia → quod. Special uses: (1) The
word often functions as the signal that announces direct speech, like Greek ὅτι: si quis dixerit
quoniam diligo Deum, 1 John 4:20; see also Mark 8:31; Acts 6:14; Hebr 7:7, and many passages in
the New Testament. – (2) quoniam may introduce a dependent clause, meaning “that”: ut an­
nuntient quoniam rectus (est) Dominus Deus noster (Ps 92:16, Vg 91:16) – that they proclaim that
the Lord our God is righteous; nemo cum temptatur dicat quoniam Deo temptor – let no one say,
when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God (Jas 1:13). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, pp. 58–61.

2021. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. II. Oxford (xxxiii, 1438 pp.), p. 79.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship
with the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), p. 53: “quoniam is the most frequent con­
junction in the Vulgate.”

R
ratio – reason, order [Grund, Ordnung]. The most distinctive use of ratio is in Job 38:33.37 and Koh
8:17: “Il y a une ratio dans la création, mais elle échappe à l’homme”; thus Bogaert, p. 81. – Liter­
ature:

1933. Albert Yon: Ratio et les mots de la famille reor. Contribution à l’étude historique du vocabu ­
laire latin. Paris. xvi, 290 pp. – Review: W. Kroll, Gnomon 11.11 (1935) 621–623.

1994. P.-M. Bogaert: “Caelorum ratio, ratio sub sole”. L’emploi de ratio chez les traducteurs latins
de la Bible. In: M. Fattori – M.L. Bianchi (eds.): Ratio. Florence 1994 (vi, 574 pp.), pp. 69–83,
at p. 81. Bogaert suggests a Ciceronian background for Jerome’s introduction of ratio in
the Job and Koheleth passages (pp. 73–74: Cicero: De natura deorum II, 46,119; In Verrem
II, 2, 52).

rationale – pectoral, breastplate [Pektoral, Brustschild]. In Exodus 28:15, rationale is the word for the
highpriests’ pectoral. Since rationale is based on the Greek translation’s lógion, one might sup­
pose that what is meant is something like “spiritual (instrument)” (B. Lang). The word is dis­
cussed by P.-M. Bogaert: “Caelorum ratio, ratio sub sole”. L’emploi de ratio chez les traducteurs
latins de la Bible, in: M. Fattori – M.L. Bianchi (eds.): Ratio. Florence 1994 (vi,574 pp.), pp. 69–83,
at pp. 78–79.

recordari – to remember [sich erinnern]. recordamini qualiter locutus est vobis (…) et recordatae sunt
verborum eius – remember how he spoke unto you (…) and they remembered his words (Luke
24:6,8). – Arthur Allgeier: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Sprachgebrauch der lateinischen
Übersetzungen des Psalters und der Evangelien. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
46: 34–49, at pp. 41–44.

religio, religiositas, (ir)religiosus – piety, pious observance, pius (impious) person [Frömmigkeit,
fromme Beachtung, frommer (unfrommer) Mensch]. The noun religiositas is used only in Sirach
(Sir 1:17.18.26). In the Vulgate, religio essentially means “piety” and “pious observance” (Exod
12:43; Lev 7:36). Examples: (a) The vir irreligiosus (Sir 37:12) is the man who lacks any sense of
sanctitas. (b) Dan 3:90: benedicite, omnes religiosi, Domino (Douay Version: o all ye religious,
bless the Lord; Allioli: preiset, alle Frommen, den Herrn) uses religiosus in the sense of “the pious
person.” (c) viri religiosi ex omni natione (Acts 2:5) – devout men out of every nation (Douay

451
 Version). – In Acts 26:5, however, nostra religio is “our (Jewish) religion.” – For another word de­
noting “religion,” see → ritus. – Literature:

1879. Gustav Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus–Hieronymus. Breslau (iv,
92 pp.), pp. 55–56.

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 540.

1971. Robert Schilling: L’originalité du vocabulaire religieux latin. Revue belge de philologie et
d’histoire 49: 31–54, at pp. 40–44: on the words religio and religiosus in classical (pagan)
Latin.

1986. Ernst Feil: Religio. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs vom Frühchristentum bis
zur Reformation. Göttingen 1986 (290 pp.), pp. 53–56: Der Befund der Vulgata. Checking
whether the later concept of religion is already present in the Latin Bible, Feil decides that
it is not. (B. Lang: Feil overlooks that modern Bible translations such as the Douay Version
of Acts 26:5 and Jas 1:26-27 render the noun religio used there as “religion,” which actu­
ally makes sense in the case of Acts 26.)

1998. Axel Bergmann: Die ‘Grundbedeutung’ des lateinischen Wortes Religion. Marburg. 69 pp. _
The word derives from rem ligere = to bind something, idiomatic for considering some­
thing skeptically and acting with hesitation.

2018. Christian Tornau: Religio. In: Robert Dodaro et al. (eds.): Augustinus-Lexikon. Band 4. Basel
(lxiv pp., 1322 cols.), cols. 1134–1145.

2021. Pedro Giménez de Aragón Sierra: Antiguos orígenes cristianos del actual concepto de re­
ligión. Isidorianum 30.1: 11–58. – A study of the notion of religio in Jerome’s Old Testa­
ment translations and in the New Testament text of the Vulgate.

renes – kidneys [Nieren]. In Old Testament Texts, the kidneys are referred to as the seat of thinking,
paralleling the semantics of cor (heart; Jer 17:10). Jerome explains that he has not found this
metaphor elsewhere (Tractatus in Psalmos, CCSL 78: 375, on Ps 15:7): usque ad noctem increpu­
erunt me renes mei (Ps 16:7, Vg 15:7) – until (late) at night, my kidneys have admonished me. In­
stead of speaking of kidneys, translations such as the Douay Version speak of “reins,” a word lis­
ted as archaic in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1951), but not in the Oxford Dictionary of
English (3rd edition, 2010). The Psalterium Pianum has deleted the renes from Ps 15:7, replacing
it with cor, heart: per noctem me monet cor meum. – Meershoek, pp. 177–181; Scarpat I, pp. 416–
417.

replēre → plenus.

reptilia – reptiles [Reptilien, Kriechtiere). Gen 1:20.24. This word, used as designation of a specific class
of animals, does not exist in classical Latin; it was invented by the translators of the Vetus Latina;
see Augustine: De Genesi ad litteram III, 11,16 (PL 34: 285). See Kaulen, p. 141 and esp. the entry
reptilis by Charles Kuper in a forthcoming fascicle of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

retiaculum – net [Netz]. In Ps 141:10 (Vg 140:10), retiaculum, used metaphorically, is a hunter’s and
fisher’s instrument. In Exod 38:5 and Jer 52:23, the word refers to a net-like structure associated
with ritual buildings. – Literature:

1870. Wilhelm Schmitz: retiaculum. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NF 25: 625–627.

1875. Rönsch, pp. 219–220.

452
 1904. Kaulen, p. 52.

retro – back, behind, before; after, in the future [zurück, rückwärts, bevor; künftig], adverb and prepos­
ition. (1) vade retro me – go behind me (Mark 8:33); ex omnibus retro maioribus – from all the
ancestors before (them) (Esth 14:5). Rönsch, pp. 343, 399. – (2) The meaning “in the future” is
rare, but attested in Exod 16:32; see the textual note on this passage (Chapter 21).

revelare, revelatio – to unveil, to reveal; unveiling, revelation [enthüllen, offenbaren; Enthüllung, Of­
fenbarung]. sed est Deus in caelo, revelans mysteria – there is a God in heaven who reveals mys­
teries (Dan 2:28). Used in both testaments, these words belong to the specifically biblical and
theological language. In his Galatians commentary, Jerome comments on this fact – something
new requires new language (CCSL 77A: 26–27). – Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen
bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründung. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistis­
che Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413 pp.), pp.
109–136, at pp. 125–126.

ritus, ritūs – (Luke 14:18). → obsecrare → quaeso ceremony, rite; religion [Zeremonie, Ritus; Religion].
(1) hic est ritus leprosi – this is the rite of a leper (Lev 14:2, Douay Version). – (2) Several transla­
tions, including the Douay Version and the Tusculum-Vulgata, suggest “religion” for ritus in Ju­
dith 14:6. → religio

rogare – to ask [bitten]. In direct speech, this verb is also used for saying “please”: rogo te, habe me ex­
cusatum – please hold me excused

S
sabbatum – sabbath, week [Sabbat, Woche]. This technical term means “week” in Matt 16:2; Luke
18:12; 24:1; John 20:1. – Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 728.

sacerdos – priest [Priester]. It has been observed that archhiereus (high priest) does not have a stable
Latin equivalent in the gospels – we find pontifex, princeps sacerdotum, and summus sacerdos.
Burkitt thinks that Jerome would use pontifex (Mark 15:11) and princeps sacerdotum (Mark 1:44;
2:26), but not summus sacerdos. – F.C. Burkitt: “Chief Priests” in the Latin Gospels. Journal of The­
ological Studies 9 (1908) 290–297, esp. p. 295.

sacramentum – secret, mystery, sanctuary [Geheimnis, Heiligtum]. (1) secret (Wisd 2:22: sacramenta
Dei – the secrets of God; 1 Tim 3:16: magnum est pietatis sacramentum – graet is the mystery of
godliness [Douay Version]; Eph 5:32; Rev 1:20; 17:7) is the normal meaning in the Vulgate. – (2)
sanctuary (Wisd 12:5). – → sacrum, sacramentum, sacrificium – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 323.

1904. Kaulen, p. 26.

1915. Theodore B. Foster: “Mysterium” and “Sacramentum” in the Vulgate and Old Latin Ver­
sions. The American Journal of Theology 19: 402–416. The article deals only with the New
Testament.

1934. Richards, p. 107.

1956. Jean Doignon: Sacrum – sacramentum – sacrificium dans le texte latin de la Sagesse. Re­
vue des études latines 34 (1956) 240–253.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 262–263.

453
sacrum, sacramentum, sacrificium – holy thing, mystery, sacrifice [Heiliges, Geheimnis, Opfer]. These
three words are used to translate Greek mystêrion. The original Latin equivalent is sacrum, as can
be demonstrated on the basis of epigraphic evidence. As can be seen in the book of Wisdom,
Christians preferred sacramentum. The actual innovation of the book of Wisdom’s Latin translat­
or is the use of sacrificium for mystêrion; the reason is the Latin style: the use of sacrificium per­
mits the creation of alliterations, clausula rhythm, and rhyme (Doignon). – Literature:

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit. Archiv für
lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 235–277, at pp. 268–269.

1924. J. de Ghellinck S.J. et al.: Pour l’histoire du mot “sacramentum.” I. Les Anténicéens. Louvain.
ix, 392 pp.

1925. Odo Casel OSB: review of J. de Ghellinck et al. Theologische Revue 24.2: 41–47.

1956. Jean Doignon: Sacrum – sacramentum – sacrificium dans le texte latin de la Sagesse. Re­
vue des études latines 34: 240–253. The author is critical of what Thielmann writes about
the words in question.

saeculum – age, generation, time, eternity, world [Zeitalter, Generation, Zeit, Ewigkeit, Welt]. This
world shares the semantic range of Greek aiôn. – (1) eternity – the eternity formula, Ewigkeits­
formel. pseudopropheta cruciabitur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum (Rev 20:10) – the false
prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Douay Version; literally: unto the
ages of the ages); der falsche Prophet wird gequält werden in alle Ewigkeit (Allioli); (le diable) et
le faux prophète seront tourmentés jour et nuit dans les siècles des siècles (Glaire). As can be
seen from these renderings, only the French has a (conventional) literal translation – siècles des
siècles. Saecula saeculorum, often used (Tobit 13:23; Rom 16:27; Gal 1:5; Hebr 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11),
is a polyptoton (also called genetivus auctivus) expression, see above, Chapter 8.7, in the gram­
matical glossary s.v. polyptoton. A variant is saeculum saeculi – siècle du siècle, age of the age =
forever (frequently in the Psalms: 9:6; 22:27, Vg 21:27; 45:7, Vg 44:7; 83:18, Vg 82:18). – (2) world.
Koh 9:6 (nec habent partem in hoc saeculo – they have no part in this world); Wisd 13:9 (aesti­
mare saeculum – to make a judgment of the world, Douay Version); Matt 13:22 (sollicitudo sae­
culi istius – the care of this world; Rom 12:2 (nolite conformari huic saeculi – be not conformed
to this world, Douay Version); 2 Tim 4:9; Tit 2:12. In some instances, mundus is synonymous, cf.
nolite diligere mundum – do not love the world (1 John 2:15). – (3) In certain cases, the decision
between the temporal and the spatial meaning, between “eternity” and “world,” remains unclear.
tu es Deus conspector saeculorum (Sir 36:19) – you are God, the beholder of all ages (Douay Ver­
sion); le Dieu qui voit dans les siècles (Glaire); der die Zeitalter überblickt (Tusculum-Vulgata). All
vernacular translations of the Vulgate, and all translations of the Greek text (ho theòs tôn aiônôn
– God of the ages) think of the temporal semantics. But the spatial meaning is not impossible:
God, overseer of the word (or worlds); see Bauer 1988, col. 54, and the reference of Peters (1913,
p. 297) to “Gott der Welt.” See also the textual commentary on Hebr 1:2 (Chapter 22). – Literat­
ure:

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue
Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867, at pp. 765–766.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 27–28.

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. Münster
(lxxviii, 470 pp.), p. 297.

454
 1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 470–473 on the pejorative semantics of saeculum, the “evil
world.”

1934. Richards, p. 107.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, pp. 732–733.

1970. Zürcher, p. 265.

1970. Árpád P. Orbán: Les dénominations du monde chez les premiers auteurs chrétiens. Nijme­
gen xviii, 243 pp.

1988. Walter Bauer: Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und
der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin (xxiv pp., 1796 cols.),
col. 54. – Within the lemma aiôn, Sir 36:17 is listed in the sub-section “die Welt als räum­
licher Begriff,” but it is added that some of the passages listed may actually have a tem­
poral meaning.

2011. Lyliane Sznaijder: L’expression de la longue durée et de l’éternité dans la Vulgate. In:
Claude Moussy (ed.): Espace et temps en latin. Paris (248 pp.), pp. 109–123.

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen (256 pp.), pp. 206–208.

saltem – at least, at all events [zumindest, auf jeden Fall]. Focus particle of argumentative force. While
the literature does not refer to Vulgate examples (Josh 10:28; Jer 3:4), it is nevertheless illuminat­
ing:

2001. Bernard Bortolussi – Lyliane Sznajder: Syntaxe et interprétation de saltem. Journal of Latin
Linguistics 7.1: 35–59.

2016. Rodie Risselada: The Pragmatics of “at least”: saltem, utique, dumtaxat, certe. Pallas 102:
191–199.

salus, salvare, salvator – salvation, to save, saviour [Heil, erlösen, Erlöser, Heiland]. These are new
Christian words or, more precisely, words that were given new, specifically Christian meanings.
The underlying Greek words σωτηρία, σώζειν and σωτήρ, do not translate easily into Latin. In
the words of Cicero: hoc (σωτήρ) quantum est? ita magnum ut latine uno verbo exprimi non pos­
sit. Is est nimirum Soter, qui salutem dedit (In Verrem IV, 63 [154]) – and what does this word
mean? It means so much that it cannot be rendered by any single Latin word; Soter in fact is the
one who has furnished safety. In the Latin version of the book of Wisdom, the translator uses
sanitas (health; Wisd 6:26; 18:7). – Literature:

1893. Eduard Wölfflin: Salvator. Salvare. Mediator. Mediare. Mediante. Archiv für lateinische Lexi­
kographie und Grammatik 8: 592.

1897. Wilhelm Kroll: Das afrikanische Latein. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NF 52 (1897)
569–590, at p. 583, note 2.

1904. Kaulen, p. 183–184.

1926. Plater/White, p. 9–10.

1939. Pierre de Labriolle: Salvator. Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 14: 23–36.

455
 1941. Pierre de Labriolle: Salvator, in: Mélanges en hommage à la mémoire de Fr. Martroye. Paris
(xxiii, 394 pp.), pp. 59–72.

1950. Christine Mohrmann: Les emprunts grecs dans la latinité chrétienne. Vigiliae Christianae 4
(1950) 193–211, at pp. 203–205.

1956: Christine Mohrmann: Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens (1956). In: ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome I. 2e édition. Rome 1961 (xxiv, 468 pp.), pp.
21–50, at pp. 23–24.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 267–270.

2003. Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des
Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und
ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster (x, 620 pp.), pp.
21–34, at p. 24, note 15: a collection of Jerome’s references to salvator in his biblical com­
mentaries.

2023. Anna Persig: The Language of Imperial Cult and Roman Religion in the Latin New Testa­
ment: The Latin Rendering of “Saviour.” New Testament Studies 69.1: 21–34. – On p. 24,
the author supplies a list of the occurrences of salvator and salutaris in the Latin New
Testament (Vulgate and Vetus Latina).

salutare – to greet [grüßen]. intravit in domum (…) et salutavit Elisabeth – she entered the house (…)
and greeted Elisabeth (Luke 1:41). There seem to be two special meanings of the verb: (1) to vis­
it, see textual note on Luke 10:4 (Chapter 22); – (2) to rescue (salutare = salvare), Rönsch, p. 380,
see textual note on Sir 22:31 (Chapter 21).

salutare, gen. salutaris – salvation [Heil]. calicem salutaris accipiam (Ps 116:13, Vg 114/115:13) – I will
take the cup of salvation. One would expect calicem salutarem, because salutaris is also an ad­
jective, but salutare is often used as a noun, see Gen 49:17; Ps 21:2 (Vg 20:2); Ps 132:16 (Vg
131:16); Luke 2:29. In Ps 68:20 (Vg 67:20), Deus salutarium nostrorum – God of our salvations,
the plural salutaria can be understood as augmentative plural; Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 734 – Dieu,
qui nous sauve de toutes manières.

salvator – saviour [Erlöser, Heiland]. (deus) qui est salvator omnium hominum – (God) who is the sa­
viour of all men (1 Tim 4:10). – Literature :

1937. Pierre de Labriolle: Histoire du mot latin salvator. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Acadé­
mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 81 : 110–111.

1939. Pierre de Labriolle: Salvator. Archivum latinitats medii aevi 14 : 23–36.

1941. Pierre de Labriolle : Salvator. In: Société nationale des antiqaires de France (ed.) : Mélanges
en hommage à la mémoire de François Martroye. Paris (394 pp., 23 plates), pp. 59–72.

salvus – safe, healed, healthy [wohlbehalten, heil]. It is not easy to translate this standard word of the
biblical and Christian vocabulary. A typical expression is salvum facere aliquem – to save
someone, to keep someone free of harm, as in salvum me fac Deus meus – save me, o my God
(Ps3:8, Vg 3:7); Domine salvum fac regem – o Lord, save the king (Ps 20:10, Vg 19:10); fides tua te
salvum fecit – your faith has healed you (Douay Version: your faith hath made you whole, Luke
17:19). – Literature:

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Sprachgebrauch der lateinischen

Übersetzungen des Psalters und der Evangelien. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 46: 34–49, at pp. 35–39: salvum facere/fieri, esp. in the Gospels.

456
 2022. Annette Weissenrieder – Andé Luiz Visinoni, Illness, Suffering, and Treatment in a Chan­
ging world. Old Latin Gospels and “Medical” Vocabulary. Early Christianity 13.3: 317–341,
at p. 338.

sanctificare – to sanctify, to make holy [heiligen, heilig machen]. Used in the Lord’s Prayer: sancti­
ficeter nomen tuum – your name shall be made holy (Matt 6:9), and often (Gen 2:3; 1 Cor 6:11;
etc.). It may also mean “to sacrifice” (Exod 13:2). – Rönsch, p. 178; Kaulen, pp. 220–221; Zürcher,
pp. 270–271.

sanctus, sanctitas – sacred, holy, holiness [heilig, Heiligkeit]. Literature:

1970. Zürcher, pp. 271–273.

1982. Olegario García de la Fuente: Sobre la colocación del adjetivo sanctus en el latín bíblico.
Analecta malacitana 5 (1982) 205–210.

2009. Joachim Becker, Biblica 90.3: 432: Under the influence of the Vetus Latina, Jerome regular­
ly uses sanctus for Hebrew ḥāsîd.

2013. Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella: Sanctus et sanctitas dans les Bibles latines. Conserveries mé­
morielles 14: 2013 (online journal). – “Dans le monde latin non-chrétien, quand sanctus est
appliqué à un homme, il désigne l’homme inviolable en raison d’une fonction religieuse
ou l’homme qui possède certaines qualités, indépendamment de la religion. Le uir sanc­
tus est un homme intègre, irréprochable, en raison de qualités morales intrinsèques qui
ne sont pas liés au monde divin. Dans les livres bibliques, l’homme sanctus est un homme
fidèle à Dieu, croyant, qui respecte celui en qui il croit et qui accomplit ses devoirs envers
lui [examples discussed: 1 Sam 2:9; Ps 18:26, Vg 17,26; 145:17, Vg 144:17; Prov 2:7; Mic
7:2]. La notion la plus proche dans le vocabulaire latin serait celle de pietas, d’homme
pius.”

2022. Annette Weissenrieder – André Luiz Visinoni: The Codex Vercellensis (a, 3) as Witness of
the Gospel of Luke. Early Christianity 13: 105–130, at pp. 124–128.

sanguis, plur. sanguines – blood [Blut]. (1) There is the alternative form sanguen (genitive sanguinis);
see Kaulen and textual note on Deut 12:16 (Chapter 21). – (2) The Greek language can form the
plural of “blood”: ta haimata means bloodshed, acts of bloodshed. On the basis of the Greek,
the Vetus Latina uses sanguines for saying “acts of bloodshed,” in Latin a strange-sounding neo­
logism used in Ezek 9:9 and Ps 51:16 (Vg 50:16); in 2 Sam 16:8 and Prov 29:10, vir sanguinum =
man of bloodshed(s), muderer. – (3) A special case is John 1:13, where it is stated that believers
are born from God, and not ex sanguinibus – not of blood (Douay Version); nicht aus dem
Geblüte (Beda Grundl); the “blood” here may actually be the male sexual fluid (B. Lang). – Liter ­
ature:

c. 400. Augustine: Enarrationes in Psalmos 50 (PL 36: 579). Augustine comments on the fact that
the plural sanguines is not part of the standard Latin vocabulary.

1875. Rönsch, p. 273.

1904. Kaulen, p. 121 (no. 30): sanguen = blood in Ex 30:10; Ezek 45:19; p. 126 (no. 34): sanguines
= Blutschulden.

1971. Edoardo Vineis: Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala. L’Italia Dialettale 34 (1971) 136–248; 36
(1973) 287–372; 37 (1974) 154–166, at p. 203.

2009. Jacob Wackernagel: Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and German­
ic. Translated by David Langslow. Oxford (xx, 982 pp.), p. 18.

457
sanitas – health [Gesundheit]. non est sanitas in carne mea (Ps 38:4, Vg 37:4) – there is no health in my
flesh; restituta est sanitati – (the hand) is restored to health (Matt 12:13). Other meanings include
welfare (Wisd 6:26) and salvation (Wisd 18:7), in both cases a translation of Greek σωτηρία. In
Isa 58:2, sanitas also refers to salvation. – Literature:

1999. Giuseppe Scarpat: “sanitas” come traduzione Latina di σωτηρία (Sap 6,26; 18,7). In: Núria
Carduch Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.): Treasures of Wisdom. Leuven (xxvii, 463, 7
pp.), pp. 241–253.

2018. Isabelle Schrive: Isaïe 58: Une critique textuelle. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Stras­
bourg. 281 pp. (unpublished doctoral thesis). Et sanitas tua citius orietur (v. 8) – et ta santé
se lèvera rapidement; “nous retenons le sens Classique de santé, au sens de santé phy­
sique et mentale.”

→ salus, salvare, salvator

sapientia, sapiens – wisdom, wise [Weisheit, weise]. Frequently used in both testaments.

1974. S. Koster: Vir bonus et sapiens. Hermes 102: 590–619.

1965/66. G. Garbarino: Evoluzione semantica dei termini sapiens e sapientia nei secoli III e IV a.
C. Atti del’accademia delle scienze di Torino. Classe di scienze morali 100: 253–284.

2021. Juliette Dross: Sapientia, virtus, philosophia. Quelques remarques sur les représentations
de la sagesse dans l’œuvre philosophique de Sénèque (enjeux, héritage et postérité). In:
Stéphanie Anthonioz – Cécile Dogniez (eds.): Représentations et Personnification de la Sa­
gesse dans l’antiquité et au-delà. Leuven (442 pp.), pp. 281–303.

scala – ladder, flight of stairs [Leiter, Treppe]. In classical Latin, the word scalae is plurale tantum, but
Gen 28:12–13 uses scala in the singular. In 1 Macc 5:30, scalae is plural “ladders.” – Kaulen, p.
126.

scientia – knowledge [Wissen]. – Rainer Berndt: Scientia und disciplina in der lateinischen Bibel und in
der Exegese des hohen Mittelalters. In: idem – Matthias Lutz-Bachmann et al. (eds.): “Scientia”
und “disciplina.” Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftspraxis im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert. Berlin
2002 (294 pp.), pp. 9–36.

scruta, plur. – cheap, low-quality stuff [billiges Zeug, Trödel]. Jerome seems to have liked the expres ­
sion scruta vendens – seller of cheap stuff: 1 Kgs 10:15; Neh 3:31 (Vg 3:30), though in these pas­
sages, there is no emphasis on the cheapness, doubtful quality or second-hand kind of what is
sold. The Douay Version has “they that sell by retail, sellers of small wares.” Jerome found the
expression in Horace: Epistles I, 7,65 (see Chapter 21, textual note on 1 Kgs 10:15), a passage al­
most verbally echoed in Jerome: Life of Hilario 38 (PL 23: 48). – Literature:

1918. Friedrich Lammert: Die Angaben des Kirchenvaters Hieronymus über vulgäres Latein.
Philologus 75: 395–413, at p. 406: Lammers considers scruta a word of vulgar Latin.

2000. Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40: 77–87, at pp.
81–82.

sculptile – image [Bild]. Rönsch, p. 117. → idolum

sculptura – bas-relief, low relief [Flachrelief]. 1 Kgs 7:24; 2 Chr 2:14; Acts 17:29. This is a technical term
for a particular kind of artwork, not to be confused with three-dimensional “sculpture” in the
modern sense of the term.

458
secus – near, by [nahe, bei], preposition followed by the accusative case. Anna autem sedebat secus
viam – Anna sat by the wayside (Tobit 11:5); praeteriens secus mare Galilaeae – as he passed by
the sea of Galillee (Mark 1:16); quaedam ceciderunt secus viam – some fell by the wayside (Matt
13:4; also 13:19; Luke 8:5). The use of secus as a preposition belongs to postclassical Latin. Ac­
cording to Burkitt, this use of secus is not attested before the fourth century CE. – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 399.

1904. Kaulen, p. 244.

1908. F.C. Burkitt: secus. Journal of Theological Studies 9: 297–300.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 69 (§ 95), 88 (§ 111: in the Vulgate only as preposition, in classical Latin
mainly as adverb).

sensus, sensatus – mind, understanding, sense; the one who has understanding [Verstand, Sinn, der
Einsichtige]. The meaning depends upon the context. In Sirach, sensus is the normal word for
“understanding, Verstand,” see Sir 1:30; 3:15,25, etc. (Thielmann); sensatus (Sir 21:8) is the one
who has understanding. In Rom 1:28, “frame of mind” has been suggested (R. Knox translation).
In Rom 14:5, “opinion” (R. Knox) is a good option; in German: Meinung (Allioli), Überzeugung
(Grundl). – Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateini­
sche Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, at p. 538.

sentire – to feel, to think, to judge, to perceive [fühlen, denken, urteilen, wahrnehmen]. – Pedro Riesco
García: La multimodalidad de “sentio.” Un verbo para la expresión perceptiva, emotiva y
valorativa en latín. In: Laura Camimno Plaza et al. (eds.): Scripta manent. Nuevas miradas sobre
los estudios clásicos y su tradición. Santiago de Compostela 2022 (410 pp.), pp. 89–102.

sermo – word, speech [Wort, Rede]. (1) While less frequent than verbum, sermo is synonymous; the
two are interchangeable, and often function in the same context; see Ps 19:3–4 (Vg 18:3–4),
where the translator uses verbum, loquela, and sermo. The noun sermo has lost the classical
meaning of “language, level of language, way of talking.” The noun very rarely refers to conver ­
sational exchange or a sequence of words; instead, it may refer to a single word (1 Sam 3:17). In
the Old Testament, the plural sermones refers to the words transmitted in an act of communica­
tion (Gen 24:33), but never to successive speeches that are exchanged. In the Old Testament,
sermones are never sermons in the Christian sense (which emerges in the 4th century), though
the expression sermo exhortationis (Acts 13:15) comes close. – (2) In Acts 1:1, the gospel of Luke
is called primus sermo, rendered as “former treatise” (Douay Version), “erstes Buch” (Grundl).
This is clearly postclassical usage. – (3) In John 1:1, the Vulgate has in principio erat verbum,
while the Vetus Latina has in principio erat sermo. – (4) In a few passages, sermo means “deed,
incident, matter,” no doubt a Hebraism (Hagen, Kaulen, Plater/White): 2 Sam 12:21 (quis est
sermo quem fecisti – what is the deed that you have done?); 1 Kgs 15:5 (excepto sermone Uriae
Hetthei – except the matter of Urias the Hittite); Acts 8:21. Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 33.

1904. Kaulen, p. 28

1926. Plater/White, p. 18 (§ 16).

1954. Christine Mohrmann: Praedicare, tractare, sermo. Essai sur la terminologie de la prédica ­
tion paléochrétienne. La Maison-Dieu 39: 97–107.

1977. Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle: Sermo: Reopening the Conversation on Translating Jn 1,1. Vigili­
ae Christianae 31: 161–168.

459
 1996. Claude Moussy: Oratio, sermo, contentio. Lingua latina 4: 35–44.

2006. Lyliane Sznajder: La parole et la voix dans la Vulgate. In: Pascale Brillet-Dubois (ed.): Philo­
logia. Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Paris (381 pp.), pp. 329–338, at p. 332.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 246–255.

si – particle with multiple usages. Examples: (1) si – if [wenn] – introduces the conditional clause: vovit
etiam votum, dicens: si fuerit Deus mecum (…) – and he made a vow, saying: if God shall be with
me (…) (Gen 28:20). – (2) interrogative particle, left untranslated. Example: et respondens dixit Je­
sus ad legisperitos et Pharisaeos, dicens: si licet sabbato curare? – and Jesus answered the teach­
ers of the law and the Pharisees, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? (Luke 14:3). – Litera­
ture:

1863. Hagen, p. 49–50: interrogative particle si.

1904. Kaulen, p. 248 (no. 127).

2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. I. Oxford 2015 (xxiv, 1430 pp.), p. 334.

2021. Peter Juhás: Beobachtungen zum biblisch-hebräischen Satzadverb ʾulaj. Funktionen, Über­
setzungslösungen des Hieronymus und Problemstellen der antiken Bibelübersetzungen.
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 97.1: 1–36. – The adverb expresses epistemic mod­
ality, mostly with its dubitative nuance and to signal politeness. To translate this adverb,
Jerome prefers hypotactic constructions with the junctures si forte and si quo modo which
he uses synonymously (pp. 23–24). Also discussed are si, si quid (pp. 21–22) and sin autem
(pp. 22–23).

sic – so, thus, yes [so, auf diese Weise, ja]. In late Latin, sic is one of the words used for saying “yes.” A
possible biblical example is Sir 31:13 (re-punctuated: Non dicas: Sic, multa …). Philipp Thielmann:
Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Gram­
matik 8 (1893) 511–561, at p. 545. → est → etiam → utique

signum – sign, miracle [Zeichen, Wunder]. Exod 4:8-9; John 2:11. – Literature:

1970. Zürcher, p. 291.

2002. Claude Moussy: Signa et portenta. In: Lea Sawicki – Donna Shalev (eds.): Donum gram­
maticum. Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics. Leuven 2002 (xvi, 411 pp.), pp. 265–275.

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 256–282, esp. pp. 270–271.

similitudo – likeness, parable, saying [Gleichnis, Spruch]. The unnusal meaning of “saying” is used in
Wisd 5:3; Ps 44:15 (Vg 43:15), echoing the underlying Greek parabolê. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 18.

1874. Johann Nepomuk Ott: Die neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des Bibellatein. Neue
Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 44/109: 757–792, 833–867, at pp. 765–766.

1904. Kaulen, p. 28: in Wisd 5:3 and Ps 44:15 (Vg 43:15), similitudo means “mockery” (German:
Gespött). According to Kaulen, these two passages support the notion that the Vetus Lat­
ina was translated by someone with limited linguistic competence.

simplex, simplicitas – honest, frank, guileless; simplicity, openness [ehrlich, aufrichtig, unverdorben;
Einfachheit, Offenheit]. volo vos sapientes esse in bono et simplices in malo – I would have you to

460
 be wise in good and simple in evil (Rom 16:19, Douay Version); estote ergo prudentes sicut ser­
pentes et simplices sicut columbae – be wise as serpents and simple as doves (Matt 10:16); ut sit­
is sine querela, et simplices filii Dei, sine reprehensione – that you may be blameless and sincere
(simplices) children of God, without reproof (Phil 2:15; Douay Version). Otto Hiltbrunner: Latina
graeca. Semasiologische Untersuchungen über lateinische Wörter im Hinblick auf ihr Verhältnis zu
griechischen Vorbildern. Bern 1958 (208 pp.), pp. 15–105; “Die lateinischen Kirchenschriftsteller
(…) übernahmen (…) das Wort im wesentlichen so, wie es in der profanen Sprache gebraucht
wurde. Der moralische Wertbegriff, so wie er sich im zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert
gefestigt hatte, wird in die christliche Wertordnung hineingenommen” (p. 93).

sincerus, plur. sinceres, sincere, sinceriter – sincere, honest [ehrlich, aufrichtig, ungeheuchelt]. non
ambulavimus sinceriter coram te – we have not walked sincerely before thee (Tobit 3:5, Douay
Version); quidam autem ex contention Christum annuntiant non sincere – some out of contention
preach Christ not sincerely (Phil 1:17, Douay Version). The original meaning of sincerus is “intact,
unimpaired” [unversehrt, intakt, unbeeinträchtigt]; see Otto Hiltbrunner: Latina graeca. Semasiol­
ogische Untersuchungen über lateinische Wörter im Hinblick auf ihr Verhältnis zu griechischen
Vorbildern. Bern 1958 (208 pp.), pp. 106–154.

sirenes – Sirens [Sirenen]. Figures of Greek mythology, mentioned only once in the Bible, in Isa 13:22
(as in the Septuagint, Isa 13:21). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, pp. 245–246.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, at p. 252.

1994. Sabine Wedner: Tradition und Wandel im allegorischen Verständnis des Sirenenmythos.
Frankfurt (277 pp.), pp. 173–175.

2004. Manolis Papoutsakis: Ostriches into Sirens. Towards an Understanding of a Septuagint

Crux. Journal of Jewish Studies 55: 25–36. – The author explains how the Sirens, not men­
tioned in the Hebrew Bible, entered the Greek translation.

2015. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer
Erzählungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart (386 pp.), pp. 91–93.

2016. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Giganten und Sirenen in der Vulgata. Griechischer Mythos in der
lateinischen Bibel des Hieronymus. Museum Helveticum 73 (2016) 78–96, at pp. 89–94.

2023. Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründung. In:
Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der
lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 109–136, at pp. 118–120.

spiritus, gen. spiritūs – wind, breath, spirit, demon [Wind, Atem, Geist, Dämon]. Normally, spiritus is
used for “spirit.” A special case is Acts 2:2 where spiritus refers to “wind.” Jean-Marie Sevrin: Spi­
ritus dans les versions latines de la Bible; in: M. Fattor – M. Bianchi (eds.): Spiritus. IV° Colloquio
Internazionale Roma 7–9 gennaio 1983. Rome 1984 (xii, 644 pp.), pp. 77–91.

stibium – antimony [Spießglanz]. Used as eyepaint: oculos stibio depingere (2 Kgs 9:30, Jer 4:30, Ezek
23:40). The word stibium is also part of a female name, see textual note on Job 42:1 (Chapter
21). – Literature:

1898. G.M. Mackie: Eye. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 1. Edinburgh
(xv, 864 pp.), p. 814: “Eye-paint was a paste made of antimony powder, giving a brown-
black burnished stain to the eyelashes.”

461
 1925. E.A. Wallis Budge: The Mummy. A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology. 2nd edi­
tion. Cambridge (xxii, 513 pp.), p. 259. In Jer 4:30, Budge sees “an allusion to the wide-
open appearance which stibium gives to women’s eyes in the East.”

1954. Blaise, Dictionnaire, p, 775: “poudre d’antimoine (pour farder en noir)” – antimon powder
for black blush.

structura – structure, architectural design [Gefüge, Bauart]. Meant is not the built object, but the archi­
tectural design. aspice quales lapides et quales structurae (Mark 13:1) – behold what kind of
stones and what a design; siehe, welche Steine und welche Gefüge/Bauart. – Günther Binding:
Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksichtigung
der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp. 32–34.

suavis – sweet [süß]. → dulcis, dulcedo

subcinericius – (baked) under ashes [(unter Asche) gebacken]. subcinericius panis – ash bread; Gen
18:6; Exod 12:39; Judg 7:13; 1 Kgs 19:6; Hos 7:8. For the relevant baking method, see textual
note on Gen 18:6 (Chapter 21).

subter – under, beneath [unter, unterhalb]. This word belongs to Jerome’s vocabulary; it is often used
in the Old Testament, and absent from the New Testament. (1) preposition: et sederet subter
unam juniperum – he sat under a juniper-tree (1 Kgs 19:4); in classical Latin, one would say sub.
– (2) adverb: et eris semper supra, et non subter – you shall always be above, and not beneath
(Deut 28:13). – Plater/White, p. 89.

summus sacerdos → sacerdos

super – above, because [über, wegen]. Preposition. Two notable usages: (1) Followed by the accusat­
ive, this preposition also serves in comparisons, being the equivalent of English “than” or “more
than”; see super mel dulcis – sweeter than honey (Sir 24:24:27); melius est modicum iusto super
divitias peccatorum multas – better is a little to the just than the great riches of the wicked (Ps
37:16 [Vg 36:16]); diligebat Ioseph super omnes filios suos – he loved above all his sons (Gen 37:3,
Douay Version). – (2) More rarely, super means “because” or “relating to”: nomini tuo da gloriam
super misericordia tua – give glory to your (God’s) name because of your mercy (Ps 114:1–2 [Vg
113B:1–2]; Kaulen, p. 242). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 242.

1911. 1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osser­
vazioni morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. 222.

super- – over- [über-]. Many verbs are formed with the preposition super: superabundare, superaedifi­
care, supererogare etc. While in some cases, the formative element contributes to the meaning,
this is not always the case. In the case of supergaudēre, the meaning is to assert one’s triumph
over (super) someone by rejoicing: non supergaudeant mihi – they (the enemies) shall not rejoice
over me (Ps 35:19, Vg 34:19; alternatively, one could say non gaudeant super me). One also
senses the preference for long words in late Latin. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 74: “der mit super componierten Wörter gibt es eine große Anzahl, namentlich
in den Büchern, welche der alten Vulgata [= Vetus Latina] angehören.”

1875. Rönsch, pp. 200–202: list of 17 verbs prefixed by super-.

1904. Kaulen, pp. 215–217.

1926. Plater/White, p. 52.

462
suscipere – to take, to receive, to support [nehmen, erhalten, unterstützen]. Besides these common
meanings, the verb suscipere can have at least one special meaning: that of “to focus on some­
thing or someone” in the interest of overwhelming and gaining full control; Ps 17:12 (Vg 16:12)
indicates a technical term of hunting and warfare, see the textual note on Ps 17:12 (Chapter 22)
and Friedrich Stummer: Lexikographische Bemerkungen zur Vulgata. In: Pontificio Istituto Biblico
(ed.): Miscellanea Biblica. Volume 2. Rome 1934 (406 pp.), pp. 179–202, at pp. 199–201

synagoga – assembly, place of assembly [Versammlung, Versammlungsort]. Transcribing Greek

synagôgê, the word is used in both Testaments. (1) In Acts 13, we hear of the regular religious
assembly on Sabbath where passages from the Bible are read and Paul speaks up (v. 14, 15, 43).
This terminology may have influenced Exod 34:31 where Israel’s elders are called principes syn­
agogae – heads of the assembly. – (2) A building for religious meetings is clearly meant in Matt
23:6; Luke 7:5. – (3) Examples of meetings or groups that are not specifically religious: Ps 86:14
(Vg 85:14): synagoga potentium quaesierunt animam meam – the assembly of the mighty have
sought my soul (i.e., sought to kill me; German: trachteten mir nach dem Leben); Ps 7:8; 82:1 (Vg
81:1– the assembly of the gods). – Kaulen, p. 109; Zürcher, p. 291–292; Israel Peri: Ecclesia und
Synagoga in der lateinischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments. Biblische Zeitschrift 33 (1989)
245–251.

T
tectum – roof [Dach]. passer solitarius in tecto (Ps 102:8, Vg 101:8) – a lonely sparrow on the roof, or,
perhaps, in the nest; the second possibility is indicated in Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 809. In Jer 30:18,
tectum may be a tent (as suggested by the parallelism with tabernacula, tents) or a house. –
Meershoek, pp. 221–233.

-ter → -iter

testamentum – covenant, treaty, witness [Bund, Zeugnis]. (1) A testamentum = covenant or better:
treaty may be concluded between humans (1 Macc 1:12). But characteristically, the covenant is
between God and Israel: arca testamenti Domini et Mayses – the ark of the covenant between
the Lord and Moses (Num 14:44) or between God and king (Ps 89:40, Vg 88:40). God’s testa­
mentum = covenant with Aaron, Phineas, and David is referred to in Sir 45:8 ( testamentum
aeternum).19.30.31 (though the Douay Version has “testament” in v. 19). The expression novum
testamentum (new covenant) is used Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24. In Jer 31:31, where one would ex­
pect novum testamentum, the Vulgate has foedus novum; → foedus. – (2) The translation “cov­
enant” does not cover the whole range of meanings: testamentum may also be used for “divine
commandment, law” (Ps 25:10, Vg 24:10), for “promise” (Judith 9:18; 1 Macc 2:54) and “last will”
(Hebr 9:16). Becker (2022) prefers the rendering as “testimony.” – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 30–31.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 294–295.

2022. Christoph Becker: Vertrag, Bund und Testament in der Heiligen Schrift. Diktion römischen
Rechts aus Vetus Latina und Vulgata. In: Franz Sedlmeier – Hans Ulrich Steymans (eds.):
Bundestheologie bei Hosea? Eine Spurensuche. Berlin (xii, 438 pp.), pp. 69–106. Jerome’s
words are foedus and pactum, the Vetus Latina and the New Testament (in continuity with
the Vetus Latina of the Old Testament) has testamentum. Becker consistently translates
testamentum as witness [Zeugnis]. “Der juristische Gehalt des in der Evangelienüberset­

463
 zung benutzten Begriffs testamentum ist Zeugnis, insbesondere Bezeugung des Willens,
was mit dem eigenen Vermögen nach dem Tode geschehen solle” (p. 93).

2023. Christoph Becker: Testamentum: Die Darstellung des Erblasserwillens im Neuen Testament.
In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 176–178.

2023. Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen: Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus. In: Christian
A. Eberhardt – Wolfgang Kraus (eds.): Covenant. Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testa­
mentum. Tübingen (x, 720 pp.), pp. 609–623. The article traces the development of
Jerome’s covenant theology, beginning with the theological explanations he gave to
Damasus in 383 and ending with its impact on his translation work in Bethlehem. A strong
anti-Jewish orientation of the theology of the covenant is also manifest in some of
Jerome’s works; evidence of this is his interpretation of the book of Job. The reference of
Jerome’s terminology to the foedus concept of the late antique state is also considered.

testimonium – witness, testimony [Zeugnis]. In passages such as Acts 14:3 and 16:2, one can see dif­
ference between testimonium and → testamentum: testimonium is the more general word, lack­
ing the specifically legal connotation. – Christoph Becker: Vertrag, Bund und Testament in der
Heiligen Schrift. Diktion römischen Rechts aus Vetus Latina und Vulgata. In: Franz Sedlmeier –
Hans Ulrich Steymans (eds.): Bundestheologie bei Hosea? Eine Spurensuche. Berlin 2022 (xii, 438
pp.), pp. 69–106, at p. 99.

thyinus – scented, of the citrus-tree [vom Citrusbaum]. This adjective is used only in the expression
lignum thyinum – scented wood, attested only in the Vulgate Bible (1 Kgs 10:11–12; 2 Chr 9:10–
11; Rev 18:12). The word transliterates Greek thyinos – of the citrus-tree. – Literature:

1862. Karl Jacobitz – Ernst E. Zeller: Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. 2nd edition. Leipzig 1862
(xviii, 1845 pp.), p. 719: Greek thya – “bei den Römern citrus, ein afrikanischer Baum von
wohlriechendem Holze, wovon Balken zu Tempeleindachungen, Türen etc. und farbige
Maserstücke zu Tischplatten benutzt wurden, wahrscheinlich thuia cypressoidea.”

1904. Kaulen, p. 142: “vom Sandelbaum herrührend.”

1998. David E. Aune: Revelation 17–22. Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich 1998
(xlvi, pp. 905–1354), pp. 999–1000: a detailed discussion of this tree and its products.

tormentum – torment, torture [Qual]. Wisd 2:19; 3:1; Rev 18:7. – S. Brant: Tormenta. Ein Beitrag zur
Kenntnis der Sprache der Itala. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 5 (1888) 286–
289.

tractare, tractatus – to discuss, to treat; thought (abhandeln, behandeln; Gedanke). male tractare – to
treat someone badly (Acts 7:6). recte tractare verbum veritatis – to discuss the word of truth cor­
rectly (2 Tim 2:15; Douay Version: rightly handling the word of truth). cogitatio atque tractatus
(Josh 22:24) – thought and design (Douay Version, Knox); Gedanke und Verabredung (Arndt); la
pensée et le but (Glaire). – Gustave Bardy: Tractare, Tractatus. Recherches de science religieuse 33
(1946) 211–235.

triclinium – dining room [Speisezimmer]. This is what the noun means in 1 Sam 9:22. In two passages,
it refers to the women’s room or women’s private quarters (2 Kgs 11:2; Esth 2:13), made explicit
in the Esther passage: triclinium feminarum. The word is not used in the New Testament; when
the notion is referred to, the word used is → coenaculum / cenaculum (Luke 22:12).

tunica – shirt, tunic [Hemd, Tunica]. This typically Latin word is used to designate the priestly garment
(Lev 17:4, Douay Version: tunick), but also the undergarment (Cant 5:3), the fine coats of Joseph
and Jesus (Gen 37:3; John 19:23) and the shirt of Peter (John 21:7). “The tunica, cut and sewn

464
 from two pieces of generally white woolen or linen material, was worn by both men and women
of the Roman upper classes as an undergarment underneath the toga, and as the sole garment
by the lower classes”; Rolf Hurschmann: Tunica. In: Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient
World. Volume 15. Leiden (lviii pp., 1050 cols.), col. 28.

U
unicornis – unicorn [Einhorn]. Used in Isaiah (Isa 34:7) and the Psalms (Ps 22:22 [Vg 21:22], 28:6 [Vg
29:6], 77:69 [Vg 78:69], 91:11 [Vg 92:11]). The use of the word most likely entered the biblical
vocabulary via Aquila’s Greek translation. Jerome explains the word as meaning rhinoceros
(Commentary on Habacuc, PL 25: 1314). – Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB: Le psaume 22 (21) dans le
Iuxta Hebraeos. In: Pierre Salmon OSB et al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens Psautiers latins.
Collectanea biblica latina 13. Rome (267 pp.), pp. 151–187, at pp. 163–164.

unigenitus – only, only begotten [einzig, eingeboren]. This Christian word echoes Greek μονογενής
which, in Greek, means “only, unique,” and does not put an emphasis on “begetting.” An early
attestation is Tertullian’s quotation of John 1:14 (Adversus Praxean 15; PL 2: 197). It was only in
Jerome’s days, subsequent to christological debates, that it came to mean “only begotten.” Ac­
cordingly, Jerome in John 1:14.18; 3:16.18; 1 John 4:9 changed the Vetus Latina unicus to uni­
genitus. All of these passages are christological, though unigenitus is also used in the quasi-
christological passage Hebrews 11:17 (where it refers to Abraham’s son Isaac). – Dale Moody:
God’s Only Son. Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953) 213–219.

unus, -a, -um – one [einer, eine, eines], forms. In classical Latin, this is an irregular adjective: unius
(genitive), uni (dative), unum (accusative), uno (ablative). Vulgar Latin uses uno also for the dat­
ive case; see lateri uno – for one side (Exod 27:14); arieti uno – for one ram (Num 29:14). –
Kaulen, p. 164 (no. 60).

unus, -a, -um – one [einer, eine, eines], used as an indefinite article. Classical Latin does not have an
indefinite article, but in biblical Latin unus may be used in this function. Examples: subter unam
juniperum – under a juniper-tree (1 Kgs 19:4; note that trees are fem.); puer unus – a boy (John
6:9; classical Latin would have puer quidem); propheta unus – a prophet (Luke 9:19); drachma
una – a drachma (Luke 15:8). This interpretation of unus is suggested by Plater/White, Coleman,
and Pinkster, but Schaden suggests a new interpretation.

1875. Rönsch, p. 425.

1926. Plater/White, pp. 79–80 (§107).

1992. Robert Coleman: Italic. In: Jadranka Gvozdanovic (ed.): Indo-European Numerals. Berlin (x,
943 pp.), pp. 389–446. – Page 390: the examples propheta unus (Luke 9:19) and una an­
cilla (Matt 26:29) show that unus can function as the indefinite article.

2010. Jesús de la Vila: Numerals. In: Philip Baldi et al. (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin
Syntax. Volume 3. Berlin (xxi, 529 pp.), pp. 175–238. – Pages 225–233: The evolution of
unus into the indefinite article.

2015. Harm Pinkster: The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. I. Oxford (xxiv, 1430 pp.), p. 1114. Pinkster’s
example: et accessit ad eum una ancilla dicens – and a servant girl came to him and said;
the indefinite article una is used to indicate that a new entity is introduced into the dis­
course.

2020. Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardinals. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 65: 438–470. Schaden seeks to demonstrate that the alleged cases

465
 can be understood differently – unus being used as contrastive numeral (for examples,
see below in Chapter 21 on 1 Sam 1:1-3; and in Chapter 22 on Matt 26:69–71), and unus
as a partitive particle (for examples, see below in section 21 on Judg 9:51–54; and in
Chapter 22 on Matt 9:14–18 and Mark 12:38–44).

urbs – city [Stadt]. In classical Latin, urbs is the usual word for “city,” often denoting the city of Rome.
In the Old Testament Vulgate urbs is frequently used, also for Rome (ab urbe Roma – 1 Macc 7:1;
15:15). It is never used in Sirach, and in the New Testament only in Acts 16:12, 39 (for Philippi). In
the New Testament civitas is the ordinary word for “city,” and Jerusalem is called sancta civitas
(Matt 27:53). In the Old Testament, both urbs and civitas are used; in the book of Jonah, Nineveh
is consistently called a civitas (Jonah 3:2.3; 4:11). – Literature:

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), pp. xiv–xv: a brief note on the sematic field of settlement: urbs, civitas, castellum.

1961. Paul Antin: La ville chez saint Jérôme. Latomus 20: 298–311.

2013. Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vul­
gate. In: Angelo Di Berardino et al., Lex et religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135.
Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at p. 113–115. The author explores the semantic field
of “settlement” (ager, castellum, castrum, civitas, oppidum, pagus, urbs, vicus, villa).

ut – particle with multiple meanings that introduces certain clauses. (1) Clauses of consequence (con­
secutive or result clauses) are often introduced by ut or ita ut with subjunctive = so that: sic
enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret (John 3:16) – God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son; et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad ian­
uam (Mark 2:2) – and many came together, so that there was no room for them even at the
door. More examples in H.P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. 3rd edition. Oxford
1951 (xv, 196 pp.), p. 81. – (2) The particle ut also introduces clauses that indicate a purpose; see
textual note on Col 4:6 (Chapter 22). With negation: vigilate et orate ut non intretis in tenta­
tionem – be vigilant and pray so that you won’t enter into temptation (Matt 26:41; cf. Mark
14:38); this may also be considered a clause of purpose. – (3) In classical Latin, clauses of con­
cession can be introduced by ut = although; Wiseman suggests that this is also the case in Isa
7:15; see below, textual note on Isa 7:15 (Chapter 21). – (4) Special cases are studied in Herbert
Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Frankfurt 2010. 352
pp. – Pages 277–283: Das unvollständige negierte modale pseudokonsekutive Satzgefüge in der
Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 139 [2008] 99–105; Jerome has ut, where standard grammar would
require ut non or ne); pp. 303–319: …, ita ut oder … ita, ut? Wie das modale Satzgefüge zum
konsekutiven Satzgefüge wurde.

utique – yes, certainly [ja]. (1) In Psalm 55:13 (Vg 54:13), utique is used as an adverb meaning “cer­
tainly.” The particle is also used to say “yes” in laconic affirmative answers: creditis quia hoc pos­
sum facere vobis? dicunt ei: utique – do you believe that I can do this for you? They said: yes
(Matt 9:28); Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 862. For another example, see Matt 21:16. See also → est →
etiam → sic. – (2) non utique – not indeed (1 Cor 5:10). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 52.

1875. Rönsch, p. 344.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 862 takes utique to be a strong affirmation – si certainement, oui
certainement.

uxor – wife [Ehefrau] → mulier

466
V
va → vah

vadere – to go [gehen]. (1) In the Vulgate, vadere is practically synonymous with ire. Dixit ad eam
Agar ancilla Sarai unde venis et quo vadis (Gen 16:8) – he said to her: Agar, handmaid of Sarai,
where do you come from and where do you go?; vade in pace (Mark 5:34) – go in peace. In late
Latin, there is a particular preference for the imperative form vade (181 times), as in the example
from Mark; it replaces i (imperative of ire). For more on vadere as replacement for ire, see → ire.
–– (2) The meaning “to be, to stay” echoes Hebrew usage, as in ego vadam absque liberis (Gen
15:2) – I will remain childless; see the textual note on Gen 15:2 below, in Chapter 21. – Literature:

1933. Einar Löfstedt: Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter
Teil. Lund (xiii, 492 pp.), pp. 38–40.

2016. Andrea Nuti: Between aspect and deixis: Vado in classical Latin and the evolution of
motion verbs. Pallas 102: 69–77.

vae – woe [wehe], interjection of lamentation (vae mihi – woe is me [Douay Version, New Revised
Standard Version], Isa 6:5) or menace. The Douay Version also renders it as “alas” (Jer 22:18). The
word can also be used as a noun (Prov 23:29; Ezek 2:9; Rev 9:12). When used as an interjection,
vae, in classical Latin, is followed by the dative case (vae victis – woe to the conquered, wehe
den Besiegten; Livy, Ab urbe condita V, 48,9). The dative case is also used in the Vulgate, see vae
impio – woe to the wicked one (Isa 3:11); vae tibi, terra, cuius rex puer est – woe to you, land,
whose king is a child (Koh 10:16). But vae can also be followed by a nominative or vocative: vae
qui contradicit fictori suo – woe to him who gainsays his Maker (Isa 45:9); vae domine, vae inclyte
– alas, o lord, alas, o nobleman (Jer 22:18; cf. Rev 18:19). – Literature:

1982. Bengt Löfstedt: Hieronymus’ Kommentare zu den kleinen Propheten. Acta classica 25:
119–126, at p. 125; supplemented by idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen
Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 292.

2023. Hans Förster: Weherufe im Matthäusevangelium. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 117–119. – Förster
thinks of the vae of Matt 23:13 as a word indicating a threat or menace (not expressing
grief, as in the underlying Greek).

Note. – In English “woe is me” has become proverbial, though today it is used humorously. It is
found in the Douay version for vae mihi, see Ps 120:5 (Vg 119:5); Isa 6:5; Jer 4:31; 10:19 (and in
more passages of Jeremiah); Micah 7:1; see also 1 Cor 9:16, where vae enim mihi est is rendered
“woe is unto me.” The expression is also used in versions not based on the Latin, such as the
King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, the New
American Bible, and the Standard English Version. The expression “woe is me” is to be explained
as follows: woe is a noun, me an archaic dative case rendering Latin mihi. Some modern transla­
tions avoid the “woe,” replacing it with alas, too late, shame, oh, ah, or trouble – all found in the
New English Bible (which has “ah me” in Jer 4:31, but “woe is me” in Isa 6:5).

vaenire, vaeneo – to be sold [verkauft werden]. Also spelled venire, though this causes confusion with
venire, venio = to come. The verb is used in Matt 10:29; Luke 12:6; John 12:5; 1 Cor 10:25. The
spelling in the printed editions varies. Nestle consistently spells vaenire, the Colunga/Turrado
edition is inconsistent (veneunt Matt 10:29, elsewhere ae), and Weber/Gryson and NVg always
have the simple e.

vah – ah! [oh!]. Exclamation. Matt 27:40 (Clementina, but omitted in Weber/Gryson, NVg); Mark 15:29.
The Weber/Gryson edition adopts the spelling va, but NVg stays with vah. The Douay Version

467
 leaves the word untranslated, Knox has “come now.” German translators are divided between
“ei” (Allioli, Grundl), “ha” (Arndt), and “seht mal” (Tusculum-Vulgata). Glaire opts for “Ah.” Ac­
cording to Hofmann, the word originally expressed pain, but came to be used in various con ­
texts so that only gestures and body language would allow the audience to understand. – J.B.
Hofmann: Lateinische Umgangssprache. 4. Auflage. Heidelberg 1978, pp. 14–15.

vallicula – small valely, small cavity [kleines Tal, kleine Vertiefung]. The word is attested only once be­
fore Jerome – by Servius in his commentary on Vergil: Aeneid XI, 522 (in the form vallecula). –
Olga Monno: Una “piccola valle” tra la grammatica e i testi sacri. Vetera Christianorum 48 (2011)
273–283.

vanitas, vanus – emptiness, frustration, vanity; empty, vain, profitless [Leere, Vergänglichkeit, leer,
vergeblich, erfolglos]. In classical Latin, “emptiness” would be the translation of choice. In Deut
32:21, vanitates means “empty gods”. More examples: vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas – van­
ity of vanities, and all is vanity (Koh 1:1; Douay Version); vani autem sunt omnes homines in
quibus non subset scientia Dei – but all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God
(Wisd 13:1, Douay Version); vanitati enim creatura subjecta est – created nature has been con­
demned to frustration (Rom 8:20, Knox; Tusculum-Vulgata: Vergänglichkeit). The idea of “frus­
tration” is suggested by Jerome’s occasional translation of Hebrew hebel as frustra (Koh 6:4). –
Literature:

1907. Johann Philipp Krebs – J.H. Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Siebente Au­
flage. Zweiter Band. Basel 1907 (776 pp.), pp. 713–714.

1999. Scarpat III, p. 347.

2006. Jean-Jacques Lavoie: Habel habalim hakol habel. Histoire de l’interprétation d’une formule
célèbre et enjeux culturels. Science et Esprit 58: 219–249. – Page 226: Jerome “rend hbl par
vanitas, mot déjà utilisé par la Vetus Latina et par Ambroise pour rendre hbl en Qo 1,2 (In
Psalmum xxxix enarratio; PL 14: 1110), et qui signifie ‘mensonge, opinion trompeuse, vani­
té, frivolité, jactance’. Or, c’est cette signification moralisatrice du mot vanitas que retien­
dront presque tous les commentateurs latins du Moyen Âge.”

2011. Gérard Fry in Jérôme: Commentaire de l’Ecclésiaste. Translated by G. Fry. Paris (353), pp.
70–71, note 25: “Le latin uanitas, formé sur uanus, ‘vide, inutile’ signifie littéralement ‘état
caracterisé par le vide’. ‘Néant’ pourrait en être une traduction satisfaisante.”

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 283–291. It is surprising that the article on vanitas does not include references to
the Bible.

2023. Andreas Vonach: Ist die Vergänglichkeit absurd? Zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Wiedergabe
von hebel als vanitas. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue: 175–183. – A study of the use of
vanitas and vanescere in Jerome’s Old Testament translations. Page 179: “Deutlich sichtbar
wurde, dass Hieronymus Derivate von vanescere grundsätzlich für eher abstraktere Wort­
bedeutungen verwendet, außer wenn es um Fremdgötter geht, während er bei sehr kon­
kreten Aussagen über das menschliche Leben und Dasein eher auf Begriffe wie frustra
und dergleichen zurückgreift. Verwendet er das abstraktere vanescere, so kommt das
Hauptaugenmerk auf das Motiv des ‘Flüchtigen / Vergänglichen / Unbeständigen’ und in
der Weiterführung dann des ‘Verwehenden / Vergeblichen’ zu liegen.”

vas, vasis – vessel [Gefäß]. vasa argentea et aurea – vessels of silver and gold (Exod 11:2; 12:35). Spe­
cial meanings: (1) In Ezek 12:4, vas refers to the “field pack” of someone to be deported.; see the
relevant textual note in Chapter 21. – (2) In 1 Thess 4:4, the “vessel” is the wife as a man’s sexual

468
 partner; see the textual note on this passage (below, Chapter 22) and Doignon. – (3) On dis­
puted suggestions about vas as a nautical term meaning “sea anchor,” see below, Chapter 22
(Acts 27:17). – Literature:

1911. Francesco Dalpane – Felice Ramorino: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Con osservazioni
morfologiche e sintattiche. Florence (xlii, 251 pp.), p. 237.

1970. Zürcher, pp. 305–306.

1982. Jean Doignon: L’exégèse latine ancienne de I. Thessaloniciens 4:4–5 sur la possession de
votre vas. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 83: 163–177.

velle, volo – to wish, to love [wollen, lieben]. Volo means not only “I want,” but often “I love, I delight
(in something),” especially in the Psalms: Ps 18:20 (Vg 17:20); 22:9 (Vg 21:9); 34:13 (Vg 33:13);
112:1 (Vg 111:1: in mandatis eius volet nimis – he delights in his laws), but never in the New
Testament (but see the textual note on Matt 27:43; Chapter 22). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 185.

1916. Albert Sleumer: Liturgisches Lexikon. Limburg (339 pp.), p. 334.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, s.v. volo (aimer quelqu’un, se complaire en lui).

venire → vaenire

verbum – word [Wort]. A striking feature of the Vulgate semantics of verbum is the meaning “event”
(Hagen, Kaulen): nuntiavit David omnia verba praelii – reported to David all the events of the
battle (2 Sam 11:18); non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum – no thing will be impossible
with God (Luke 1:37). → sermo – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 36 – a list of passages where verbum = res. (But note that Exod 1:14 is erro­
neously listed.)

1904. Kaulen, p. 32.

1926. Plater/White, p. 18 (§ 16).

1950. Christine Mohrmann: Les emprunts grecs dans la latinité chrétienne. Vigiliae Christianae 4
(1950) 193–211, at pp. 205–206.

2006. Lyliane Sznajder: La parole et la voix dans la Vulgate. In: Pascale Brillet-Dubois (ed.): Philo­
logia. Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Paris (381 pp.), pp. 329–338, at p. 332: “Verbum –
verba est le terme le plus utilisé (plus de 700 occurrences dans l’Ancien Testament, plus
de 150 dans le Nouveau Testament) et il est assez proche des emplois classiques. Cepen ­
dant, verbum au singulier a régulièrement le sens de ‘ensemble de propos tenus’ bien
plus que celui, Classique et usuel, de ‘mot isolé’. Les verba sont à l’occasion, comme en la­
tin classique, des paroles confiés à l’écrit: omnia verba legis huius quae scripta sunt in hoc
volumine (…) (Deut 28,58). Le terme peut avoir un contenu préscriptif (decem verba, Deut
4,13, etc.: ‘les dix commandements’).”

2020. Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris (326
pp.), pp. 292–308, esp. 298–299.

veritas – truth [Wahrheit]. Literature:

1904. Kaulen, pp. 126–127 (no. 35): plural of abstract nouns such as veritates – truths (Ps 12:2, Vg
11:2). “Die Pluralbildung der Abstrakta ist in der späteren Latinität sehr gewöhnlich (…) in­
des ist sie kaum irgendwo so häufig und auffallend, als in der Vulgata“ (p. 127).

469
 1934. Richards, p. 126: veritas = truth, reality, sincerity.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 842: In Ps 54:7 (Vg 53:7), veritas means “véracité, sincérité (des
promesses).”

2023. Kevin Zilverberg: Worship in Truth (John 4:23–24): Polyvalent Alētheia and Veritas in the
Greek and Latin Church Fathers of Africa. In: Mariusz Biliniewicz (ed.): Worship in Spirit
and in Truth: Essays to Mark the Twentieth Anniversary of the Publication of Benedict XVI /
Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy. Wells, Somerset, England (252 pp.), pp. 163–
184.

vesper, -a, -um – of the evening [abendlich], adjective. Used only in the expression verspera hora – the
time of the evening (Mark 11:11); Kaulen, p. 132; see textual note on Mark 11:11 (Chapter 19.2).

vidēre – to see [sehen]. Intent on rendering the Hebrew as literally as possible, Jerome does not de­
part from his ambitious project when it comes to render the Hebrew word for seeing even in
cases where the experience meant is not actually visual. Examples include verba Amos (…) quae
vidit super Israel (Am 1:1) – the words of Amos (…) which he saw concerning Israel (Douay Ver­
sion); ne obliviscaris verborum quae viderunt oculi tui (Deut 4:9) – do not forget the words that
your eyes have seen. – Literature:

1966. Meershoek, pp. 133–139.

2001. Fernando Soja Rodríguez: Significados del verbo “video” en la Vulgata. In: Antonio Alberte
Gonzales et al. (eds.): Actas del Congreso internacional “Cristianismo y tradición latina.”
Madrid (434 pp.), pp. 175–182.

vir – man, male person [Mann]. This is the normal meaning, but vir can also mean “each one [jeder]”;
an example is clamaverunt viri ad deum suum (Jonah 1:5) – everyone cried to his god. See also
Isa 14:18; 1 Kgs 12,24; Cant 8:11. – Kaulen, p. 173; Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y
latín cristiano. Madrid 1994 (588 pp.), pp. 198–200.

virgo – young woman, virgin [junge Frau, Jungfrau]. Gen 24:43; Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23, etc. See textual
note on Isa 7:14, where “virgin” is the traditional rendering (Chapter 21). In Ps 45:15 (Vg 44:15),
virgines are just “young women,” not “virgins.”

viridis, viror – green, verdure [grün, das Grün]. in viridi ligno (Luke 23:31) – in the green wood (Douay
Version); am grünen Holze (Arndt). – Lourdes García Ureña et al.: The Language of Colour in the
Bible. Berlin 2022 (xv, 238 pp.), pp. 133–184. This work also studies the associated vocabulary –
viriditas, virēre, virescere.

virtus – strength, power [Kraft]. The noun has many meanings: (1) strength, power: in omni virtute tua
serva vias eius (Sir 6:27) – serve her (i.e., wisdom) with all your power. Power can embody itself in
city walls that are called virtus (singular) in Ps 48:14 (Vg 47:14); 122:7 (Vg 121:7). – (2) army (Ju­
dith 2:7), as in English “armed forces,” in German “Streitkräfte.” This meaning is derived from
virtus = strength, see armavit viros virtutis – he armed strong men (1 Macc 14:32). – (3) virtutes
= miracles (Matt 7:22). – (4) virtutes – the “powers,” a name given to a class of angels (Rom
8:38). – (5) fruit, produce (Joel 2:22). – (6) divine majesty. a dextris virtutis Dei (Matt 26:64; Mark
14:62) – the right hand of the majesty of God; cum virtute multa et maiestate (Matt 24:30) – with
much power and majesty (or: in all his power and glory, in all his majesty, virtus and → maiestas
being synonymous). – (7) Do we have to add “virtue” (i.e., moral strictness) as another meaning?
The meaning “virtue,” though adopted by some translators for Ruth 3:11 (mulierem te esse vir­
tutis) and 4:11 (exemplum virtutis), does not seem to be correct; in both cases, “strength” in the
sense of determination seems to be preferable. This is also the case in Sir 31:23 (Vg 31:28), if the

470
 conjecture virtutis (for veritatis) is accepted. Two interesting passages from the book of Judith
must also be considered: Judith 10:4 (non ex libidine sed ex virtute) and 16:26 (virtuti castitatis
adiunca); in either case one comes close to “virtue,” but “strength, determination” seems to be
what Jerome had in mind. But it is hard not to say “she was adhering to the virtue of chastity”
(Judith 16:26); one has to bear in mind, however, that “virtue of chastity” is not a pleonasm, be ­
cause virtus per se does not imply chastity. When chastity comes into view, it must be made ex­
plicit. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 78: “Das Wort virtus, sowohl im Singular als im Plural, kommt in der Vulgata nur
in der Bedeutung von dynamis vor, nie im moralischen Sinne für ‘Tugend.’”

1904. Kaulen, p. 33–34, lists only four meanings: power/strength, army, “the powers” (a class of
angels), produce.

1970. Zürcher, p. 308.

2014. Silke Schwandt: Virtus. Zur Semantik eines politischen Konzepts im Mittelalter. Frankfurt
2014 (227 pp.), pp. 45–53 on virtus in the Vulgate Bible.

2022. Annette Weissenrieder – Andé Luiz Visinoni, Illness, Suffering, and Treatment in a Chan­
ging world. Old Latin Gospels and “Medical” Vocabulary. Early Christianity 13.3 (2022)
317–341, at pp, 336–337.

2023. Andreas Vonach: Tugend/Tugendhaftigkeit (virtus). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 61–63. – The au­
thor detects an increasing “moralization” of the virtus concept, so that it shades into our
“virtuousness.”

visitare, visitatio – to visit, visitation [besuchen, heimsuchen; Heimsuchung, Besuchung]. Etymologic­

ally derived from vidēre “to see,” this verb has many meanings, in some of which the visual as­
pect is lost. – (1) to visit: this is the normal meaning in classical Latin. infirmus (eram) et visitastis
me – I was ill, and you have visited me (Matt 25:36). In English, “to see” also means “to meet, to
visit,” generally in an informal way. When Samson wants to “see” his wife, Jerome uses not visit­
are but invisere: invisere volens uxorem suam – meaning to visit his wife (Douay Version; Judg
15:1). – (2) to pay attention to someone: quid est homo (…) quoniam visitas eum – what is man
(…) that you pay attention to him? (Ps 8:5). In this case, the visual meaning is present, so that
Hoberg translates “was ist der Mensch (…), dass du auf ihn siehst?”Another possible translation:
what is man (…), so that you look after him (care for him)? Here also belongs Gen 21:1: visitavit
autem Dominus Saram sicut promiserat – and the Lord took care of Sarah, as he had promised
(and she became pregnant); and Jer 27:22: usque ad diem visitationis – until the day of the visita­
tion (i.e., until the day, God will again take care of his people). – (3) to punish; this meaning is
peculiar to Christian Latin. In 71 passages, visitare renders the Hebrew verb pāqad among whose
many meanings is that of “to avenge, to punish”. Example: visitans iniquitatem partum in filios –
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (Exod 20:5; Douay Version). German transla­
tions traditionally use “heimsuchen.” – Literature:

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2., vermehrte Auflage. Freiburg (xxxv, 484 pp.),
p. 20.

1951. Friso Melzer: Der christliche Wortschatz der deutschen Sprache. Lahr (528 pp.), pp. 321–322.

1965. Heinrich Fürst: Die göttliche Heimsuchung. Semasiologishe Untersuchung eines biblischen
Begriffes. Rome. 77 pp.

471
 1984. Bernard Grossfeld: The Translation of Biblical Hebrew PQD in the Tragum, Peshitta, Vul­
gate and Septuagint. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96: 83–101, esp. p.
87.

Note. – The traditional German rendering of visitare as “heimsuchen” is problematic in cases

where the divine visitation is meant as an act of grace, rather than as one of punishment. Such is
the case Luke 1:78: visitavit nos oriens ex alto – uns heimsuchte der Aufgang aus der Höhe
(Grundl). The Tusculum-Vulgate combines “besuchen” und “erscheinen,” but only “besuchen”
would be a literal rendering. The problem is well known to German authors, see Bardo Weiß: Ek­
stase und Liebe. Die unio mystica bei den deutschen Mystikerinnen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts.
Paderborn 2000 (ix, 987 pp.), pp. 140–141, who suggests “besuchen” and, for visitatio – “Be­
suchung.”

vivere – to live [leben]. This is a very common verb. Notable is its use in oath-like assertions such as
vivo ego – as I live (Zeph 2:9; Ezek 35:6; Allioli: so wahr ich lebe). A notable expression of asser­
tion is vivit Dominus in vivit Dominus quia rectus es tu (1 Sam 29:6) – as the Lord liveth, thou art
upright (Douay Version). – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 40.

1926. Plater/White, p. 23 (§ 25).

1959. Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 84–85.

vivificare – to bring to life [lebendig machen]. – Vinzenzo Loi: Il verbo latino vivificare. Annali dell’Isti­
tuto Orientale di Napoli, sezione linguistica 7 (1966) 105–117; Zürcher, pp. 310–311. → -ficare

vocare, vocatio – to call, to name, to invite; calling [rufen, benennen, einladen; Berufung]. Especially
the verb is very frequent, in both testaments (665 occurrences of the verb). Vocare is a paradox­
ical term in the Vulgate. Some of its uses (those that concern the most common communica­
tion) make it a verb of the common, even daily lexicon, while others (mainly in the New Testa ­
ment) characterize the technical term, which belongs to the biblical idiolect – the divine call to
conversion. – Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella: Vocare, uocatio, leurs préverbés et préfixés: étude sé­
mantique. Doctoral dissertation. Université de Lyon 2012 (483 pp.), pp. 30–97, 129–137.

Z
zelotypia – jealousy [Eifersucht]. Used Numbers 5:14–15, this word transcribes the Greek ζηλοτυπία
which Cicero: Tusculanae disputationes IV, 8 still inserts into his text in Greek letters. The Sep ­
tuagint uses the word in Num 5:15. Here is Cicero’s definition: obtrectatio est ea, quam
ζηλοτυπίαν intelligi volo, aegritudo ex ea, quod alter quoque potiatur eo, quod ipse concupiverit –
detraction (and I mean by that, jealousy) is a grief even at another’s enjoying what I had a great
inclination for (C.D. Yonge’s translation); Missgunst aber ist – und zwar die, die ich als ζηλοτυπία
verstanden haben möchte – Kummer darüber, dass auch der andere das erreicht, was man selbst
begehrt hat (Erst A. Kirfel’s German translation). – Kaulen, p. 110.

472
Chapter 20
Jerome’s Bible commentaries

Note. – Strictly speaking, Jerome’s commentaries do not belong in a Vulgate bibliography. But re ­
searchers are likely to consult them for the translator’s understanding of the biblical text. It seems that
in some cases, Jerome worked on the translation and the commentary at the same time. This is the
conclusion of Caterina Moro’s work on the minor prophets. She argues that after having finished his
commentaries, Jerome most likely went over his translation again, bringing it closer to the Hebrew; see
Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13 (2007) 102–125.

Several passages in Jerome’s work explain what a commentary is and should be, and what manner of
writing it entails:

(1) A commentary must “explain the dark, deal succinctly with the obvious, dwell longer on the doubt­
ful” (obscura disserere, manifesta perstringere, in dubiis immorari). – Jerome: Commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians, CCSL 77A: 158.

(2) “In the commentaries (…) there is freedom of discussion” (in commentariolis ubi libertas est diss­
erendi). – Jerome: Apologia contra Rufinum I, 19; CCSL 79: 19; PL 23: 413.

(3) “What is the task of a commentary? It is to interpret someone else’s work, to put in plain language
what is expressed obscurely. It also enumerates the opinions of many, saying: some interpret the pas­
sage in this sense, others in that; the one support their opinion by such and such evidence or reasons –
so that the intelligent reader, after reading these different explanations and having many brought be­
fore his mind for acceptance or rejection, may judge which is true, and like a good money changer
may reject the coins of spurious mintage.” (Commentarii quid operis habent? Alterius dicta edisserunt,
quae obscurae scripta sunt plano sermone manifestant, multorum sententias replicant, et dicunt: Hunc
locum quidam sic edisserunt, alii sic interpretantur, illi sensum suum et intelligentiam his testimoniis et
hac nituntur ratione firmare, ut prudens lector, cum diversas explanationes legerit et multorum vel pro­
banda vel improbanda didicerit, iudicet quid verius sit et, quasi bonus trapezita, adulterinae monetae pe­
cuniae reprobet. – Jerome: Apologia contra Rufinum I, 16; CCSL 79: 14–15; PL 23: 409–410; written in
401). In some of his commentaries – for example, the commentaries on Habakkuk, Galatians and
Daniel – Jerome often notes the opinions of others, even without evaluating them, a fact that has led
to speaking of “multiple-choice exegesis.” See also the article by Bernhard Lang 2014 in the general
bibliography below.

(4) A commentary is not a thematic dissertation and therefore it is not possible to polish one’s style
and display eloquence – writes Jerome in the introduction to his Commentary on Ephesians (PL 26:
440).

A chronology of Jerome’s commentaries (according to Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wis­
senschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg 2016 [444 pp.], pp. 390–397):

473
386 Commentaries on Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Titus

388/89 Commentary on Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)

391/92 Hebrew Questions on Genesis

392 Commentarioli in Psalmos (before 393)

393 Commentaries on Nahum, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Habakkuk

396 Commentaries on Jonah, Obadiah

398 Commentary on Matthew

406 Commentaries on Zechariah, Malachi, Hosea, Joel, Amos

407 Commentary on Daniel

408/10 Commentary on Isaiah

410/14 Commentary on Ezekiel

414/16 Commentary on Jeremiah

20.1 Introduction

20.2 Jerome’s Old Testament commentaries

20.3 Jerome’s New Testament commentaries

20.4 Jerome: Letter 53

20.1 Introduction

Bibliographies
2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 390–397: list of Jerome’s commentaries, with bibliography of secondary literature.

2018. Adalbert Keller – Beate Hartley-Lutz: Translationes Patristicae Graecae et Latinae – Bibliographie
der Übersetzungen altchristlicher Quellen. Hiersemanns bibliographische Handbücher. Stuttgart.
xx, 768 pp. – The section on Jerome (pp. 379–394) lists the complete set of Jerome’s comment­
aries. The main editions (in most cases without PL, though) are followed by translations into
English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Unfortunately, not all entries are reliable because
they often indicate the bilingual character of what is in fact either an edition of the Latin text or
what is simply a translation (without the Latin text).

474
Introductions and thematic studies

English
1923. John Chapman OSB: St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament. III. Journal of Theological Studies
24 (April 1923) 282–299. – Page 282: “It was well known that as a commentator he [Jerome] was
free, inconsistent, amassing all sorts of incongruous and even unorthodox material, so that the
results are of ever varying value.”

1927. Alexander Souter: The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul. Oxford. x, 244 pp. –
Page 137: “Among all the ancient commentators on the Bible he stands supreme. Though his
commentaries were rapidly produced, not painstakingly copied out by his own hand, but dic­
tated to n amanuensis, sometimes at the rate of a thousand lines per day, though he is fully
conscious of their defects, and though he writes in a plain every-day style, the commentaries
hold their commanding position because their author approached his task with a well-furnished
mind (…) with a determination to use the very best authorities at his command.”

1952. L. Hartmann: Jerome as an Exegete. In: F.X. Murphy (ed.): A Monument to St. Jerome. New York
(xv, 295 pp.), pp. 37–81.

1981. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: The Hebrew Text of Joel as Reflected in the Vulgate. Textus 5: 16–35.
– Page 17: “Jerome’s writings include numerous remarks on his translation. However, these have
to be used cum grano salis. Jerome’s translation technique was not consistent, and his letters
and commentaries were not necessarily produced simultaneously with the translation. His trans­
lation of the book of Joel (ca. 392) antedated this commentary (ca. 407) by approximately 15
years. It is not reasonable to assume that Jerome was then able to remember correctly why he
had chosen a certain rendition fifteen years earlier. Yet, used with caution, the evidence of the
Vulgate and remarks in the commentary, can contribute to the verification of variants.”

1992. Dennis Brown: Vir Trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen. 229 pp. –
Jerome was eager to find good manuscripts but he believed, erroneously, that older manu­
scripts would necessarily have the more accurate text. Although Jerome believed in hebraica
veritas, he remained attached to the Septuagint. – Reviews:
1995. John McGuckin, Novum Testamentum 37: 194–196.

1995. J.Cl. Haelewyck, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 90: 121–123.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – Pages 53–55: Jerome in his biblical commentaries relies heavily on the commentaries of
Origen, exploiting them to the point of plagiarism – which did not remain unnoticed by his con­
temporary critics.

1996. René Kieffer: Jerome: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics. In: Magne Saebø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I.1. Göttingen (847 pp.), pp. 663–681.

1999. Mark Stansbury: Early-Medieval Biblical Commentaries, Their Writers and Readers. Frühmittelal­
terliche Studien 33: 49–82. – Pages 55–56: Jerome’s view of the nature of the commentary.

2004. Pierre Jay: Jerome (ca. 347–419/20). In: Charles Kannengiesser: Handbook of Patristic Exegesis.
Leiden. Volume 2 (xiv, 673–1496 pp.), pp. 1094–1133. – The author comments specifically on the
popularity that Jerome’s commentaries enjoyed in the Middle Ages.

2005. Pierre Jay: Science and Biblical Philology: Jerome, in: Claudio Moreschini – Enrico Norelli: Early
Christian Greek and Latin Literature. Volume 2. Peabody, Mass. (xxv, 734 pp.), pp. 298–320. –

475
 Page 313: “Some of Jerome’s commentaries were devoted to the New Testament, but they do
not represent the best of his exegetical activity.”

2005. Richard Sharpe: The Varieties of Bede’s Prose. In: Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds.): Aspects of the
Language of Latin Prose. Oxford (x, 497 pp. ), pp. 339–354. – Page 350: Sharpe comments on
how Bede imitates Jerome’s language. This language is often hard to understand because of the
long, rambling sentences. Sharp points to one example in Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel: “(…)
in discussing Ezek 28:1–10 (CCSL 75: 386–388) Jerome produced a single ‘sentence’ of 532
words; there are passages in this lengthy commentary where several such rambling ‘sentences’
follow one another. With quotations heaped up there are often complete sentences within the
exegetical ‘sentence,’ and one cannot define the number of sentences simply by where the
[modern] editor has chosen to include a full stop.”

2007. Michael Graves: “Judaizing” Christian Interpretations in the Prophets as Seen by Saint Jerome.
Vigiliae Christianae 61.2: 142–156. – Jerome attributes certain interpretations with which he dis­
agrees to “our Judaizers.”

2007. Catherine M. Chin: Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Jerome Inside the Book. In: William E.
Klingshirn – Linda Safran (eds.): The Early Christian Book. Washington (xi, 314 pp.), pp. 101–116.
– Jerome’s letters 53 and 85 are important sources for understanding Jerome’s reading of biblic ­
al texts. In order to understand Scripture, you need a guide, someone who shows the way ( mon­
strans semitam; Letter 53:6).

2016. Aline Canellis: Jerome’s Hermeneutics. How to Exegete the Bible? In: Tarmo Toom (ed.): Patristic
Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers. Cambridge (xv, 262 pp.), pp. 49–76.

2020. Bernhard Klinger: Between Scylla and Charybdis: Jerome as Interpreter of the Minor Prophets.
Vulgata in Dialogue 4: 5–22 (online journal).

2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden
2020. vii, 296 pp. – Hunt writes about Jerome’s commentaries on several New Testament epistles
– Philemon, Titus, Ephesians, Galatians.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue:
99–119 (online journal). – Through a consideration of select textual examples, this paper recom­
mends intertextual reading of the biblical translation by demonstrating the value of comparing
specific renderings of the Vulgate to Jerome’s exegetical comments. Such comparisons clarify
noteworthy features of the translation and offer evidence of how readers may have understood
his renderings.

German
1906. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 2.
Berlin. viii, 270 pp. – Page 111 on Jerome’s biblical commentaries: “Dieses Riesenwerk (…) verliert
bei näherer Betrachtung viel von dem imponierenden Eindruck, den es zunächst macht. Es ist
sehr ungleichartig und größtenteils sehr unselbständig gearbeitet.”

1912. Otto Bardenhewer: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Volume 3. Freiburg. x, 679 pp. – Pages
619–630. The author briefly summarizes the content of the commentaries. His presentation con­
cludes with an evaluative review (pp. 627–630). Jerome lacked a clear exegetical conception. In
the course of his work, he turned away more and more from Origen and his allegorism in order
to value the meaning of the literal sense more highly. He also vacillated in matters of the canon
and has introduced no small confusion into the history of the Old Testament canon (“in die Ge­
schichte des alttestamentlichen Kanons keine geringe Verwirrung hineingetragen,” p. 629).

476
1970. Wilfrid Hagemann: Wort als Begegnung mit Christus. Die christozentrische Bibelauslegung des Kir­
chenvaters Hieronymus. Trier. xxxi, 236 pp.

1993. Caroline P. Bammel: Die Paulus-Kommentare des Hieronymus: die ersten wissenschaftlichen la­
teinischen Bibelkommentare? In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): Cristianesimo lati­
no e cultura greca sino al sec. IV. Rome (430 pp.), pp. 187–207.

2014. Bernhard Lang: Die Bibelkommentare der Kirchenväter (ca. 200–600). Kleines Kompendium mit
Forschungsstand und Beispieltexten. In: David Kästle – Nils Jansen (eds.): Kommentare in Recht
und Religion. Tübingen (xii, 465 pp.), pp. 57–97. – Refers to Jerome: Adversus libros Rufini I,16
(CCSL 79: 14–15; PL 23: 409–410; written in 401); see above, introductory note to Chapter 20.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Pages 122–144: biblical exegesis (with a helpful chronological list of Jerome’s biblical com ­
mentaries, pp. 124–125); pp. 390–397: list of Jerome’s commentaries, with bibliography of sec ­
ondary literature. Jerome did not comment on the Pentateuch and the historical writings of the
Old Testament (Joshua, Judges, books of Samuel and Kings, etc.). He commented mainly on the
prophetic books of the Old Testament.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). – The chapter on Jerome’s commentaries and homilies is on pp. 235–
272. ▲

2022. Georg Fischer: Hieronymus, ein Pionier als Übersetzer und Ausleger. In: Veronika Bachmann et al.
(eds.): Menschsein in Weisheit und Freiheit. Leuven (x, 603 pp.), pp. 534–549.

French
1941. F.M. Abel: Parallélisme exégétique entre S. Jérôme et S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Vivre et Penser 1:
49–119, 212–230.

1985. Pierre Jay: L’exégèse de saint Jérôme d’après son “Commentaire sur Isaïe”. Paris. 496 pp. –
Jerome’s commentaries are much indebted to the grammarians of the Hellenistic period and the
teaching of his own teacher Donatus. His use of allegory is prudent, and he often resorts to spir ­
itual and tropological exegesis.

1985. Pierre Jay: Jérôme et la pratique de l’exégèse. In: Jacques Fontaine – Charles Pietri (eds.): Le
monde antique et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps 2. Paris 1985 (672 pp.), pp. 523–542. – At p.
542 there is a convenient chronological list of Jerome’s biblical commentaries. The earliest com­
mentaries are on the New Testament – on Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus (years 386
and 387); then Jerome turned to writing commentaries on books of the Old Testament (388 to
416). He began with Koheleth (388/89), and subsequently produced commentaries on all the
prophetic books. He interrupted the production of prophetic commentaries only once, in 398,
for writing a commentary on the gospel of Matthew. ▲

1985. Yves-Marie Duval: Introduction aux commentaires de Jérôme. In: Jérôme: Commentaire sur
Jonas. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. Sources chrétiennes 323. Paris (460
pp.), pp. 25–104. – This thorough introduction to Jerome’s biblical commentaries ins in four
parts: la préface; les lemmes et leurs différences; la “lettre” et l’histoire; l’interprétation spiri­
tuelle. ▲

477
1990. Pierre Lardet: Jérôme exégète. Une cohérence insoupçonnée. Revue des études augustiniennes
36: 300–3007.

1990. Pierre Jay: Saint Jérôme et le triple sense des Écritures. Revue des études augustiniennes 36: 214–
227.

1992. Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg 1992 (ccxliii,
1150 pp.), pp. ccii–cciii: Jérôme commentateur de la Vulgate. – Note esp. p. ccii: “Parfois le com­
mentaire de Jérôme, en justifiant l’authenticité de certaines traductions larges de la Vulgate
nous permet de comprendre comment le traducteur les rattachait au sens littéral de l’hébreu
qu’il avait sous les yeux.” – Idem: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Stephen
Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), p. 532: “Sometimes Jerome’s commentary, in
justifying the authenticity of certain broad translations of the Vulgate, provides an understand­
ing of how the translator related those translations to the literal sense of the Hebrew text that
he had in front of him.” ▲

1995. Pierre Jay: Jérôme, lecteur de l’Écriture. Cahiers Évangile, supplement 104. Paris. 75 pp.

2001. Jérôme: Commentaire de l’Ecclésiaste. Traduction, introduction, annotations, guide thématique de

Gérard Fry. Paris. 353 pp. – Page 317, note placed at the end of the translation: “ Comme il le fera
toujours, et selon l’usage en vigueur, sans procéder à la moindre synthèse ni tirer le moindre en ­
seignement, Jérôme termine abruptement. Le lecteur moderne aura un sentiment d’inachevé
devant cette fin où s’accumulent simplement toute une série de considérations destinées à ex­
pliquer le dernier stique. On pourrait tirer de cette absence de fin – qui ne fait que répondre à
l’absence d’une vraie introduction – qu’un commentaire de ce type n’est fait pour être consulté,
et qu’à l’image des chaînes, il n’est pas prévu pour avoir une cohérence issue de la présence
d’un fil conducteur méthodologique, didactique (…) ou thématique.”

2017. Paul Mattei : Jérôme. Le grand bibliste offre une synthèse équilibrée des tendances de l’exégèse
latine. In : Laurence Mellerin (ed.): Lectures de la Bible. Ier – XVe siècle. Paris (652 pp.), pp. 259–
268. With Jerome’s commentaries on Isa 1:3; Am 8:9–10; Hos 11 :1–2; Mark 8:22–26 in French
translation.

2018. Élie Ayroulet – Aline Canellis (eds.): L’exégèse de saint Jérôme. Saint-Étienne. 381 pp. – Papers of
an international conference held in France in 2015.

2018. Benoît Mounier: La figure du prophète dans l’œuvre exégétique de Jérôme. In: Frédéric Chapot
et al. (eds.): Figures mythiques et discours religieux dans l’Empire gréco-romain. Turnhout (293
pp.), pp. 79–96.

Italian
1950. Angelo Penna: Principi e carattere dell’esegesi di S. Gerolamo. Rome. xvi, 235 pp.

2002. Emanuela Prinzivalli: Il sacrificio in Girolamo. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 19: 111–126. – A study
on Jerome’s interpretation of sacrifice, based on four passages from his commentaries: In Esa­
iam I, 1 and XVIII, 66 (CCSL 73: 73: 16–17 and 771); In Hieremiam II, 40 (CCSL 74: 81); In Malachi­
am I, 1 (CCSL 76: 911–912).

2005. Adam Kamesar: San Girolamo, la valutazione stilistica de profeti maggiori, ed i generi dicendi.
Adamantius 11: 179–183.

2012. Valeria Capelli: Gerolamo e le citazioni dell’Antico nel Nuovo Testamento: testimonianze di tradi­
zione indiretta? In: Marina Passalacqua et al. (eds.): Venuste noster. Scritti offerti a Leopoldo

478
 Gamberale. Hildesheim (726 pp.), pp. 315–346. – How Jerome comments on Old Testament pas­
sages that are referred to in the New Testament.

2013. Leopoldo Gamberale: Pratica filologica e principi di metodo in Gerolamo. In: idem: San Gerola­
mo. Intellettuale e filologo. Rome (xvii, 181 pp.), pp. 79–97.

A statement on the quality of available editions

1993. Commentaires de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe, I–IV. Edited by Roger Gryson and P.-A. Deproost.
Freiburg. 496 pp. – In the introduction, Gryson notes that the editions of Jerome’s biblical com­
mentaries in the CCSL series do not meet today’s standards (pp. 118–119). They correct the tex­
tus receptus and construct an apparatus based on a few selected manuscripts. In other words:
they are not complete critical editions based on all the available material.

Note. – Jerome’s biblical commentaries were edited for a first print edition by Erasmus, and later many
times, until they have found their way into series such as Patrologia Latina (PL) and Corpus Christianor ­
um Series Latina (CCSL). PL is notoriously inadequate. But by today’s critical standards, not even the
CCSL editions are adequate. New editions are called for. The best new ones are those by Roger Gryson
(Isaiah), Yves-Marie Duval (Jonah), Sincero Mantelli (Habakkuk) and Régis Courtay (Daniel). Others are
in the making (see below, Benoît Mounier on Hosea).

20.2 Jerome’s Old Testament commentaries

Genesis

Psalms

Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Daniel

The twelve Minor Prophets

Genesis

Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis

1883. Hieronymus: Liber hebraicarum quaestionum in Genesim. PL 23: 935–1062.

1959. Hieronymus: Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Edited by Paul de Lagarde. CCSL 72: 1–56.
Turnhout.

479
1995. Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Translated by C.T. Robert Hayward. Oxford. xiii, 274
pp. – Hayward offers both a translation and a thorough commentary. Interestingly, the Vulgate
and the Hebrew Questions on Genesis agree 99 times and disagree approximately 80 times, in­
cluding 24 occasions where the Vulgate follows the Septuagint, even when Jerome shares con ­
cerns about the Septuagint in the Hebrew Questions on Genesis (p. 11). ▲

2002. Jerome: Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions. In: Stefan Rebenich: Jerome. London (xi, 211
pp.), pp. 93–97. – Rebenich’s book of Jerome selections includes a translation of the preface.

2004. San Jerónimo: Cuestiones relativas al Antiguo Testamento. Translated by Rosa María Herrera Gar­
cía. Madrid. xxvii, 607 pp. – This is volume 4 of the bilingual Spanish edition of Jerome’s Obras
completas. It includes the “Cuestiones hebreas sobre el Génesis.”

2016. Hieronymus: Untersuchungen zur hebräischen Sprache im Buch Genesis. Vorwort. In: Alfons
Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg (444 pp.), pp. 322–327. –
Jerome’s prologue in Latin and German.

2016. Girolamo: Questioni ebraiche. Translated by G. Polizzi. Opere di Girolamo 2. Rome. 582 pp. –
Latin text with Italian translation.

Secondary literature
1861. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Teil 1: Die “Quaes­
tiones in Genesin.” Breslau. 74 pp. – On the Quaestiones, see pp. 17–58. This work will be re-is­
sued with critical commentary: Susanne Plietzsch: Präsenz des Judentums im Christentum. Kom­
mentar zu den patristisch-rabbinischen Motivparallelen in Moritz Rahmers “Die hebräischen Tra­
ditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus” zum Buch Genesis. Europäisch-jüdische Studien. Berlin
2024 (forthcoming). – There are differences between Jerome’s renderings in the Vulgate text of
Genesis and his explanations in the Questiones; Rahmer explained this by assuming that the Vul­
gate text was corrupt. But this assumption is incorrect, because between the translation and the
writing of the Quaestiones, Jerome may have changed his opinion; see C.H. Gordon: Rabbinic Ex­
egesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49: 384–416, at p. 385. On Rahmer
and Jerome, see also Agnethe Siquans: Hieronymus und die Vulgata in der Wissenschaft des Ju­
dentums, in: Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und Rezeption. Stuttgart 2023 (ix,
212 pp.), pp. 159–198, esp. pp. 186–195.▲

1898. Marie-Joseph Lagrange: Jérôme et la tradition juive dans la Genèse. Revue biblique 7: 563–566.

1992. Dennis Brown: Vir Trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen. 229 pp. –
Review: John McGuckin, Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 194–196.

1993. Adam Kamesar: Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible. A Study of the Quaestiones He­
braicae in Genesim. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. xiii, 221 pp. – This is the basic scholar­
ly work on the subject. Reviews:
1995. Charles Wilke, Speculum 70: 160–162.

1995. G. Dorival, Latomus 54 (1995) 894–897. According to Dorival, the author has not demonstrated the inde­
pendence of Quastiones 41,43 of Origen.

2006. Rainer Jacobi: Argumentieren mit Terenz. Die Praefatio der Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim.
Hermes 134: 250–255.

2010. Robert Hayward: Some Observations on St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis and the Rab­
binic Tradition. In: idem: Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity.
Leiden (xv, 432 pp.), pp. 318–338.

480
2011. Helen Kraus: Gender Issues in Ancient and Reformation Translations of Genesis 1–4. Oxford (xiii,
241 pp.), pp. 85–94: Jerome and the Vulgate.

2013. Friedrich Avemarie: Hieronymus und die jüdische Genesis. Hebraicae Quaestiones und Vulgata
im Vergleich. In: idem: Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze.
Tübingen (xxxiii, 966 pp.), pp. 825–839. – Originally in: Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt (ed.): Moderne
Religionsgeschichte im Gespräch. Berlin 2010 (545 pp.), pp. 74–93.

Psalms
Note. – Around 1900, Germain Morin OSB (1861–1946) produced critical text editions of Jerome’s
works on the Psalms. He reconstructed three works: (1) Commentarioli in Psalmos (incipit: Proxime
cum Origenis Psalterium), (2) Tractatus in Psalmos (incipit: Psalterium ita est quasi magna domus – the
Psalter is like a stately mansion), (3) Tractatus in Psalmos XIV (series altera). Morin’s editions are in­
cluded in the Corpus Christianorum (CCSL). – Not considered in what follows is Hieronymus: Breviari­
um in Psalmos. PL 26: 821–1278, because today, this work is believed to be a non-Jeromian compila­
tion (that may include some authentic Jeromian passages).

In some his letters, Jerome makes the explanation of a psalm the focus of his writing; here is the list:

Ps 45 (Vg 44), discussed in Letter 65; CSEL 54: 616–647; Labourt III, pp. 140–167. See the textual note
on Ps 45 (Chapter 22).

Ps 90 (Vg 89), discussed in Letter 140; CSEL 56: 269–289; Labourt VIII, 75–96.

Ps 119 (Vg 118), discussed in Letter 30; CSEL 54: 243–249; Labourt II, 31–35.

Ps 127 (Vg 126), discussed in Letter 34; CSEL 54: 259–264; Labourt II, 44–48.

On the Psalms in Jerome’s letters, see Hieronymus: Commentarioli in Psalmis – Anmerkungen zum
Psalter. Translated by Siegfried Risse. Fontes christiani 79. Turnhout 2005 (268 pp.), pp. 10–12.

Also relevant is Letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela (CSEL 55: 247–289; Labourt V, 104–144) which is a
treatise on textual questions associated with the Latin Psalms. See Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms).
Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. xix, 363 pp., and above,
Chapter 11.4.

Jerome’s commentary (commentarioli)

1845. Hieronymus: Liber de expositione Psalmorum. PL 26: 1277–1300 (beginning with the words
Psalterium ita est quasi magna domus). – Including as it does much non-Jeromian material, this
edition is deemed inadequate and should no longer be relied on. Note that this volume also
presents the text of non-Jeromian commentaries: Breviarium in Psalmos (PL 26: 801–1270) and
Secunda expositio super Psalmum cxix (PL 26: 1269–1278).

1895. Germain Morin OSB (ed.): Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri qui deperditi hactenus putabantur Com­
mentarioli in Psalmos. Anecdota Maredsolana III.1. Maredsous – Oxford. xx, 114 pp.

1959. Hieronymus: Commentarioli in Psalmos. Edited by Germain Morin OSB. CCSL 72: 163–245.

2004. San Jerónimo: Cuestiones relativas al Antiguo Testamento. Translated by Rosa María Herrera Gar­
cía. Madrid. xxvii, 607 pp. – This volume 4 of the bilingual Spanish edition of Jerome’s Obras
completas includes the “Fragmentos selectos del Salterio.”

2005. Hieronymus: Commentarioli in Psalmos – Anmerkungen zum Psalter. Translated by Siegfried

Risse. Fontes Christiani 79. Turnhout. 268 pp. – The translator supplies a long introduction in

481
 which he also surveys (pp. 7–22) Jerome’s work on the Psalms. According to Risse, the old stand­
ard edition of the Commentarioli in PL 26: 821–1270 should no longer be consulted for scholarly
purposes.

Jerome’s homilies (tractatus in Psalmos, homilies 1–59)

1897. Hieronymus: Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos, in Marci evangelium
aliaque varia argumenta. Edited by Germain Morin OSB. Anecdota Maredsolana III.2. Maredsous
– Oxford. v, 424 pp. – The Latin text of the homilies is edited on pp. 1–316.

1958. Hieronymus: Tractatus LIX in Psalmos. Edited by Germain Morin. Editio altera, aucta et emendata.
CCSL 78: 1–352.

1964. Jerome: The Homilies of Saint Jerome. Volume I (1–59 On the Psalms). Translated by Marie Liguori
Ewald. Fathers of the Church 48. Washington. xxxi, 430 pp. – Homilies nos. 1–59.

1999. San Jerónimo: Comentarios a los Salmos. In: idem: Obras homiléticas. Translated by Mónica Mar­
cos Celestino. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 593. Madrid. xviii, 1035 pp. – This is volume 1 of
the Spanish bilingual edition of Jerome’s Obras completas.

2018. Girolamo: 59 Omelie sui Salmi (1–115). Omilia sul Salmo 41 ai neofiti. Translated by Alessandro
Capone. Rome. 521 pp. – Volume 9.1 of Opera omnia di San Girolamo.

2018. Girolamo: 59 Omelie sui Salmi (119–149). Omelie sui Salmi, seconda serie. Translated by Alressan­
dro Cappone. Rome. 443 pp. – Volume 9.2 of Opera omnia di San Girolamo.

Jerome’s homilies on the Psalms, second series (homilies 60–74)

1902. Germain Morin: Quatorze nouveaux discours inédits de Saint Jérôme sur les Paumes. Revue bé­
nédictine 19: 113–144.

1903. Hieronymus: Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos quatuordecim. Edited
by Germain Morin OSB. Analecta Maredsolana III.3. Maredsous – Oxford xxi, 203 pp.

1958. Hieronymus: Tractatus in Psalmos series altera. Edited by Germain Morin. Editio altera, aucta et
emendata. CCSL 78: 355–447.

1967. Jerome: Homilies on the Psalms. Translated by Marie Liguori Ewald. Fathers of the Church 57.
Washington. x, 295 pp. – The homilies 60–74 are translated on pp. 3–118.

1999. San Jerónimo: Comentarios a los Salmos. In: idem: Obras homiléticas. Translated by Mónica Mar­
cos Celestino. Madrid. xviii, 1035 pp. – This is volume 1 of the Spanish bilingual edition of
Jerome’s Obras completas.

Secondary literature on the commentary and the homilies

English

1907. Arthur Stanley Pease: Notes on St. Jerome’s Tractates on the Psalms. Journal of Biblical Literature
26: 107–131. – Analysis of the three bodies of commentaries distinguished by Germain Morin.
(1) Commentarioli (on 125 Psalms): much learned material is presented, reference to other
scholar’s opinions is made; addressed is a learned readership. – (2) Tractatus in Psalmos (homil­
ies 1–59 on 59 Psalms): these are sermons orally delivered to monks. “Jerome’s style is always
rapid, but in these sermons, it is marked by an unusual swiftness. Short sentences succeed one
another with the simplest sorts of connectives; unusual words and long periods are avoided; the

482
 enthusiasm of the speaker leads to frequent use of apostrophe, rhetorical questions, and repeti­
tion. (…) it is clear that he is not addressing a learned audience” (p. 109). The monastic life
comes into view, and mentioned are several heresies that are to be shunned. The language is in ­
formal, colloquial, and less classical than the language of the Commentarioli. – (3) Tractatus,
second series (homilies on 14 Psalms). Psalms 10 and 15 are dealt with in a scholarly manner, so
that we have a written work. The other Psalms, by contrast, are dealt with in the informal, collo ­
quial style. ▲

1987. J.C. Howell: Jerome’s Homilies on the Psalter in Bethlehem. In: Kenneth G. Hoglund et al. (eds.):
The Listening Heart. Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms. Sheffield (xiii, 351 pp.), pp. 181–197.

2018. Andrew Cain: Jerome. In: Anthony Dupont et al. (eds.): Preaching in the Patristic Era. Leiden (xii,
541 pp.), pp. 274–293. – Cain comments on the unpolished oral style of Jerome’s homilies. ▲

2021. Lorenzo Perrone: Mysteria in Psalmis. Origen and Jerome as Interpreters of the Psalter. In: Mari­
usz Szram – Marcin Wysocki (eds.): The Bible in the Patristic Period. Leuven (x, 209 pp.), pp. 59–
86. – This is vol. 103 of the series Studia Patristica.

French

1909. Germain Morin: Les tractatus de Saint Jérôme sur les Psaumes X et XV. Revue bénédictine 26:
467–469.

1930. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le problème du Psautier romain. Revue bénédictine 62: 101–126. – The
so-called Roman Psalter has nothing to do with Jerome. Jerome’s first Latin Psalter, produced in
Bethlehem, is not extant. However, some of it is accessible in Jerome’s letters sent to Rome and
especially in Jerome’s Commentarioli written ca. 386/388 (p. 125).

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la ren­
contre entre la Bible et le monde classique. Nijmegen. xv, 256 pp. – Pages 177–179: on Jerome’s
interpretation of the renes in Ps 16:7 (Vg Ps 15:7) in Tractatus in Psalmos (CCSL 78: 375).

1988. Pierre Jay: Jérôme à Bethléem: les Tractatus in Psalmos. In: Yves-Marie Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre
l’occident et l’orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 363–380. – The Psalms homilies, though inspired by Ori­
gen, must be seen as authentic Jeromian compositions. Vittorio Peri (in his Italian book, 1980)
got it all wrong.

1993. Pierre Jay: Jérôme et Augustin lecteurs d’Isaïe. A Propos du ‘Tractatus de Psalmo 96’ de Jérôme.
Augustinus 38: 291–302.

1993. Benoît Jeanjean: Contribution à la datation des Tractatus de Psalmis (Altera Series). In: E.A. Liv ­
ingstone (ed.): Studia Patristica 28. Leuven (vii, 259 pp.), pp. 49–53.

Italian

1954. Pierre Salmon OSB: Il testo e l’interpretazione dei Salmi ai tempo di S. Girolamo e di S. Agostini.
Rivista biblica 2: 193–219.

1980. Vittorio Peri: Omelie origeniane sui salmi: Contributo all’identificazione del testo latino. Città del
Vaticano. 196 pp. – According to Peri, the homilies traditionally attributed to Jerome are actually
by Origen.

483
2013. Alessandro Capone: “Folia vero in verbis sunt”: parola divina e lingua umana nei Tractatus in
psalmos attributi a Gerolamo. Adamantius 19: 437–456. – The author studies the image of the
tree, and, following G. Morin, supports Jeromian authorship.

2016. Daniela Scardia: Ex parte totum: la sineddoche nei Tractatus in Psalmos di Gerolamo tra esegesi,
polemica e retorica. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 13: 115–158.

2017. Giovanna Stefanelli: Cristiani, giudei, pagani: lessico, esegesi e polemica nel ‘Tractatus in Psal­
mos’ di Gerolamo. Augustinianum 57: 81–105.

2017. Alessandro Capone: Numeri e simboli nell’esegesi geronimiana dei Salmi. Rivista di cultura clas­
sica e medioevale 59: 163–168.

2018. Alessandro Capone: Scomposizione e composizione dei Tractatus in psalmos di Gerolamo. In: Élie
Ayroulet – Aline Canellis (eds.): L’exégèse de saint Jérôme. Saint-Étienne 2018 (381 pp.), pp. 131–
152.

2018. Daniela Scardia: Melius dicitur graece: termini greci ed esegesi nei Tractatus in Psalmos di Gero­
lamo. In: P.B. Cipolla et al. (eds.): Spazi e tempi delle emozioni. Dai primi secoli all’età bizantina.
Rome (327 pp.), pp. 231–269.

2019. Daniela Scardia: Spunti polemici e questioni filologiche nel Tractatus in Psalmum 15 di Gero­
lamo. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 16: 131–214.

2019. Giulio Malavasi: Sulla datazione dei “Tractatus in Psalmos 89 e 90 series altera” di Gerolamo. Sac­
ris erudiri 58: 95–109.

2020. Daniela Scardia: Tractatus in psalmum 15,8 (series altera). Gerolamo tra rispetto dei modelli e au­
tonomia esegetica. Augustinianum 60: 427–452. – Jerome’s exegesis depends upon that of Ori­
gen.

Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)

Jerome’s commentary
Note. – Written in the year 388, this is the first fully extant Old Testament commentary by of Jerome.
The work bristles with quotations from ancient authors such as Vergil; for examples, see above,
Chapter 10.3.

1845. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. PL 23 [1845]: 1009–1116. – The pagination of the

1883 edition differs: PL 23 [1883]: 1061–1174.

1959. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 72: 249–361.

2001. Jérôme: Commentaire de l’Ecclésiaste. Traduction, introduction, annotations, guide thématique

de Gérard Fry. Paris. 355 pp. – The guide to this commentary’s themes is on pp. 319–34. The au­
thor also lists the ancient sources quoted or alluded to (pp. 343–344) – notably passages from
Vergil and Horace, Jerome’s favourite Latin authors.

2004. San Jerónimo: Cuestiones relativas al Antiguo Testamento. Translated by Rosa María Herrera Gar­
cía. Madrid. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. xxvii, 607 pp. – This volume 4 of the bilingual Span ­
ish edition of Jerome’s Obras completas includes the “Comentario al Eclesiastés.”

484
2004. Jerónimo: Comentario al Eclesiastés. Translated by José Boira Sales. Biblioteca de patrística 64.
Madrid. 248 pp.

2012. St. Jerome: Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Translated by Richard J. Goodrich and David J.D. Miller.
Ancient Christian Writers 66. New York. vii, 258 pp.

2014. Elisabeth Birnbaum (transl.): Der Koheletkommentar des Hieronymus. Einleitung, revidierter Text,
Übersetzung und Kommentierung. Latin text revised by Michael Margoni-Kögler. Berlin. viii, 428
pp. – This is a CSEL volume, unnumbered, extra seriem. Bilingual edition, Latin and German, with
a revised CSEL text, and an introduction (pp. 1–45).

Secondary literature
1986. Sandro Leanza: Sulle fonti del commentario all’Ecclesiaste di Girolamo. Annali di storia dell’ese­
gesi 3: 173–199.

1988. Sandro Leanza: Sull commentario all’Ecclesiaste di Girolamo. Il problema esegetico. In: Yves-
Marie Duval (ed): Jérôme entre l’occident et l’orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 267–282.

1989. Hans Thurn: Zum Text des Hieronymus-Kommentars zum Kohelet. Biblische Zeitschrift 33: 234–
244.

1994. Rainer Berndt: Skizze zur Auslegungsgeschichte der Bücher Proverbia und Ecclesiastes in der
abendländischen Kirche. Sacris erudiri 34: 5–32.

1999–2000. Matthew A. Kraus: Christian [sic], Jews, and Pagans in Dialogue: Saint Jerome on Ecclesi ­
astes 12:1–7. Hebrew Union College Annual 70–71: 183–231. ▲

2014. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger – Elisabeth Birnbaum (ed.): Hieronymus als Exeget und The­
ologe. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar des Hieronymus. Leuven. xviii, 331, 7 pp.

2016. Aline Canellis: Le recours aux poètes latins dans le “Commentaire sur l’Écclésiaste” de saint Jé­
rôme. Latomus 75.1: 156–179.

2016. Aline Canellis: Le Commentaire sur l’Ecclésiaste de saint Jérôme. In: Laurence Mellerin (ed.): La ré­
ception du livre de Qohélet, Ier-XIIIe siècle. Paris 2016 (310 pp.), pp. 205–228.

2017. Aline Canellis: “Laetare, Israel”: relecture de l’histoire d’Israël dans le Commentaire sur l’Ecclé­
siaste de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 91: 159–175.

2020. Stuart Weeks: Ecclesiastes 1–5. International Critical Commentary. London. lxxiv, 658 pp. – Pages
217–221: Note on the peculiarity of Jerome’s commentary on the book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes)
and the translation of the book, with tables on readings of the Hebrew text presupposed by
Jerome. In his own commentary, Weeks also occasionally refers to the Vulgate (cf. pp. 497 and
500). On p. 400, Weeks discusses Jerome’s commentary on Koh 2:5.

Isaiah

Jerome’s commentary
1865. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Isaiam prophetam libri duodeviginti. PL 24: 17–704. – The 1845
edition prints the text on columns 17–678.

1963. Hieronymus: In Isaiam. Edited by Marc Adrien. CCSL 73 and 73A: 1–799.

485
1993–1999. Commentaires de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe. Edited by Roger Gryson, P.-A. Deproost, and
others. Freiburg. 1991 pp. – Published in 5 fascicles, this is an edition of the Latin text, based on
manuscripts. Reviews:
1994. Adam Kamesar, Journal of Theological Studies 45: 728–731; Kamesar finds that Gryson’s notion of Jerome’s
lack of competence in Hebrew is unconvincing.

1995. Marc Milhau: Commentaires de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe. Revue des études augustiniennes 41: 131–143.

1996. Yves-Marie Duval, Latomus 55: 418–420.

2007. San Jerónimo: Comentario a Isaías. Translated by José Anoz. Madrid. 2 vols. xvii, 933 pp.; 589 pp.
– These are volumes 6a and 6b of the bilingual Spanish edition of Jerome’s Obras completas.

2013–2017. Girolamo: Commento a Isaia. 4 volumes. Translated by Riccardo Maisano. Rome. 368pp.;
421 pp.; 42 pp.; 580 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and Italian.

2015. St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah. Including St. Jerome’s Translation of Origen’s Homilies 1–9 on
Isaiah. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Writers 68. New York. xii, 1120 pp.

Secondary literature
1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 3.
Berlin. viii, 293 pp. – Pages 178–193: Der Jesajakommentar.

1916. Félix-Marie Abel OP: Le commentaire de saint Jérôme sur Isaïe. Revue biblique nouvelle série 13:
200–225.

1935. Louis Ginzberg: Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern. VI: Der Kommentar des Hieronymus zu Je­
saja. In: Salo W. Baron – Alexander Marx (eds.): Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut.
New York (xciii, 614, 160 pp.), pp. 279–314.

1960. Serafin Gozzo OFM: De s. Hieronymi Commentario in Isaiae librum. Antonianum 35: 49–80, 169–
214. The author points out that among the Latin fathers, Jerome is the only one who wrote a
complete commentary om Isaiah.

1972. A.F.J. Klijn: Jerome’s Quotations from a Nazorean Interpretation of Isaiah. Recherches de Science
Religieuse 60: 241–255. – In his commentary on Isaiah, written in 403, Jerome five times refers to
an interpretation found among the Nazoreans.

1983/84. R.G. Jenkins: The Biblical Text of the Commentaries of Eusebius and Jerome on Isaiah. Abr-
Nahrain 22: 64–78.

1984. Manlio Simonetti: Sulle fonti del commento a Isaia di Girolamo. Augustinianum 24: 451–569.

1984. Bengt Löfstedt: Zu Hieronymus’ Jesaja-Kommentar. Orpheus n.s. 5: 197–203.

1985. Pierre Jay: L’exégèse de saint Jérôme d’après son “Commentaire sur Isaïe.” Paris. 496 pp. ▲

1988. Jean-Claude Haelewyck: Le lemme vulgate du commentaire de Jérôme sur Isaïe. In: Yves-Marie
Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 391–402.

1988. Roger Gryson: La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Jérôme sur Isaïe. In: Yves-Marie Duval
(ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 403–425.

1989. Roger Gryson – P.-A. Deproost: La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Jérôme sur Isaïe
(Livres I et II). Scriptorium 43: 174–222.

486
1990. Adam Kamesar: The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth
Century. Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 41: 51–75. – Pages 62–75 deal with Jerome’s under­
standing of Isa 7:14. ▲

1999. Michael J. Hollerich: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah. Christian Exegesis in the Age
of Constantine. Oxford. ix, 230. – In his own commentary on Isaiah, Jerome relied on the com­
mentaries of Origen and Eusebius. Page 54–55: “In the preface Jerome lists his predecessors in
the study of Isaiah and mentions that Eusebius’ commentary was written iuxta historicam ex­
planationem (CCSL 73: 3). In book 5 of the commentary Jerome twice refers to Eusebius’ promise
to give a historical interpretation of Isaiah, which Jerome acknowledges was not at all Origen’s
intention. But he criticizes Eusebius for inconsistently falling back upon Origen’s clever allegoriz­
ations whenever the literal sense failed him (CCSL 73: 160).”

2004. Charles Kannengiesser: Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. 2 Volumes. Leiden. xxxiv, 669 pp.; xii, pp.
671–1496. – Volume 2: “(…) the Commentary on Isaiah, finished in 410, is at once the fullest and
the finest of all Jerome’s exegetical works” (p. 1098). “It is the Commentary on Isaiah (…) which
enjoys the greatest favor [in antiquity] in spite its size. Thirty manuscripts predating the predat­
ing the tenth century have come down to us” (p. 1100).

2009. Andrew Cain: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian
Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford. xiv, 286 pp. – Pages 156–157: In the Isaiah commentary (In
Isaiam XVI, on Isa 58:7; PL 24 [1865]: 587), the passage Isa 58:7 (if you see a man who is naked,
clothe him) prompts Jerome to sound a word of criticism against those who, to gain popularity
with the masses, tear a cloak in parts and give it to the poor. Jerome is here thinking of the fam­
ous cloak episode in Sulpicius Severus: Life of Martin 3:1–2. (Paul Antin was the first to point out
the reference.)

2021. Krystina-Maria Redeker: Aspects of the “Suffering Servant” in the Commentaries on the Book of
Isaiah by Jerome and Haimo of Auxerre. In: Markus Vinzent (ed.): Studia Patristica 128. Leuven
(xvi, 438 pp.), pp. 205–214.

Homily
1963. Hieronymus: In Esaia parvula adbreviatio. Edited by Germain Morin. CCSL 73A: 801–809.

1993. Yves-Marie Duval: L’In Esaia parvula adbreviatio de capitula paucis de Jérôme. In: Roger Gryson
(ed.): Philologia Sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien für Josef Frede und Walter Thiele .
Freiburg (10, 674 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 2, pp. 422–482.

De Seraphim
Note. – This treatise on Isaiah 6:1–9 is part of the corpus of Jerome’s letters, counted as letter no. 18B
(CSEL 54: 97–103). It is most likely a text to be attributed to Origen. – Letter 18B must not be confused
with the “Treatise against Origen on the Vision of Isaiah,” which is an altogether different text. This
treatise, discovered and first published by Ambrosius Amelli in 1901, was attributed to Jerome, but is
now generally considered a work of Theophilus of Alexandria; see Origenes: Die Homilien zum Buch
Jesaja. Eingeleitet und übersetzt von Alfonst Fürst und Christian Hengstermann. Berlin 2009 (400 pp.),
pp. 180–187 (introduction) and pp.330—365 (bilingual edition, Latin and German).

487
Jerome’s/Origen’s commentary

1910. Hieronymus: Epistula 18B. In: Isidor Hilberg (ed.): Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. Pars 1. Vien­
na = CSEL 54:97–103.

1949. Jérôme: Lettres 18A et 18B. In: Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Edited by Jérôme Labourt. Tome I. Paris
(lxvii, 170 pp.), pp. 53–78. – Bilingual edition. Latin and French.

2009. Hieronymus: Brief 18B. In: Origenes: Die Homilien zum Buch Jesaja. Eingeleitet und übersetzt von
Alfons Fürst und Christian Hengstermann. Berlin (vii, 400 pp.), pp. 322–329. Bilingual edition, Lat­
in and German, with introduction on pp. 18–20. Fürst attributes this treatise to Origen and thinks
that Jerome translated it c. 380 in Constantinople.

2015. St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah. Including St. Jerome’s Translation of Origen’s Homilies 1–9 on
Isaiah. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Writers 68. New York. xii, 1120 pp. –
Appendix 2: Jerome’s Epistle 18 AB to Damasus (translated into English).

Secondary literature

1988. Pierre Nautin: Le “De Seraphim” de Jérôme et son appendice “Ad Damasum.” In: Michael Wisse­
mann (ed.): Roma renascens. Beiträge zur Spätantike und Rezeptionsgeschichte. Frankfurt (450
pp.), pp. 275–293. – The treatise, allegedly written in Constantinople in 380, largely on the basis
of Origen’s work, is actually a work that dates from 387, i.e., from after the Death of Damasus (d.
384) to whom it is dedicated. “Notons que le texte [biblique] qu’il cite est toujours celui de la
Septante. Nulle trace d’une utilization de l’hébreu” (p. 268).

2007. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus gegen Origenes: Die Vision Jesajas im ersten Origenismusstreit. Revue
des études augustiniennes 53: 199–322. – Also in: idem: Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Au­
gustinus. Berlin 2011 (viii, 535 pp.), pp. 239–274.

2022. Zoltá Olah: Vor und nach der Hinwendung zum Prinzip der veritas hebraica bei Hieronymus. Die
Auslegung von Jesaja 6 als Testfall. In: Siegfried Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Pader­
born (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 297–308.

Jeremiah (Hieremias)

Jerome’s commentary
Note. – The commentary on the book of Jeremiah is unfinished; it includes only chapters 1 through 32.

1845. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Ieremiam prophetam. PL 24: 679–900. – In the 1865 edition of PL
24, the column numbers are 707–936 (with incomplete prologue; there was one page not print­
ed).

1913. Hieronymus: In Hieremiam prophetam libri sex. Edited by Siegfried Reiter. CSEL 59: 1–440.

1960. Hieronymus: In Hieremiam. Edited by Siegfried Reiter. CCSL 74: 1–347. – Has the same text as the
1913 edition.

488
2008. San Jerónimo: Comentario al profeta Jeremías. Libros I–VI. Edited and translated by Mónica Mar­
cos Celestino. Madrid. xlvi, 592 pp. – This is volume 7 of the Spanish bilingual edition of
Jerome’s Obras completas.

2012. Jerome: Commentary on Jeremiah. Translated by Michael Graves. Ancient Christian Texts. Down­
ers Grove, Ill. li, 232 pp.

2015. Hieronymus: Kommentar zum Buch Jeremia. In: Marianne Schlosser (ed.): Die Gabe der Unter­
scheidung. Texte aus zwei Jahrtausenden. 2nd edition. Sankt Ottilien (367 pp.), pp. 41–50. – Ger­
man translation, by Florian Mair OFM, of brief passages on Jeremiah 23 and 28 where Jerome
discusses the theme of false prophecy.

Secondary literature
1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 3.
Berlin. viii, 293 pp. – Pages 212–221: Der Jeremiakommentar.

1919. Siegfried Reiter: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Hieronymus. Im Anschluß an meine Ausgabe von
In Hieremiam libri sex. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 39, no. 27: 642–646; no. 28: 666–671;
no. 29: 690–695. In the first instalment, the author discusses the words obsetrix/obsterix and
decalogus (the latter as a feminine word); in the second, abyssus, mole, convalle, complacitio, plu­
ral noun neuter + verb in singular; in the third, constructio ad sensum, causal qua, maxime cum,
magis = rather, editio = translation (cols. 695–696), statuere = auferre.

1989. William McKane: Jerome’s Use of the Septuagint in His Commentary on Jeremiah. In: idem: Se­
lected Christian Hebraists. Cambridge (x, 268 pp.), pp. 199–200, 246.

2007. Michael Graves: Jerome’s Hebrew Philology. A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah. Lei­
den. xii, 228 pp. – In his commentary on Jeremiah, Jerome discusses 76 Hebrew words (p. 97).
His “combination of the Greek versions and rabbinic Hebrew scholarship into a single philolo ­
gical method was Jerome’s greatest innovation as a Hebrew philologist” (p. 127).

2009. Philip Rousseau: Jerome on Jeremiah: Exegesis and Recovery. In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (ed.):
Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy. Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 73–83.

2010. Robert Hayward: Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity. Leiden.
xv, 432 pp. – Pages 281–299: Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah and the
Targum of Jeremiah.

2017. Giuseppe Caruso: Le accuse di Pelagio nel ‘Commentarium in Hieremiam’ di Girolamo. Augus­
tinianum 57: 107–121.

2017. Giuseppe Caruso: “Noua ex ueteri haeresis.” Echi della controversia pelagiana nei prologhi del
commentario In Hieremiam di Girolamo. In: Clémentine Bernard-Valette et al. (eds.): Nihil veritas
ervbescit. Mélanges offerts à Paul Mattei. Turnhout (xxv, 838 pp.), pp. 299–312. – Jerome under­
took the composition of the Commentarium in Hieremiam in the last years of his life. In those
same years he was deeply concerned about the rise of the Pelagian controversy, against which
he had already made a stand. Although the Commentarium has a predominantly exegetical pur­
pose, there is a clear echo of Jerome’s commitment to fight Pelagius and his epigones. This is
clear from the text itself but it is even clearer from the prologues to the first four books.

2018. Paul-Irénée Fransen: Projet lyonnais d’un abrégé du commentaire de Jérôme sur Jérémie. Revue
bénédictine 128: 316–326. – In the manuscripts Lyon 448 (+ Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat.
152) and Lyon 468 (+ Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, n. acq. lat. 602), marginal markings (“po­
tences”) reveal the preparation of an abridged form of Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah in the

489
 circle of Florus. If it ever existed, it is not preserved. It is possible nevertheless to reconstruct
roughly what it would have been.

2022. Georg Fischer SJ: Hieronymus, ein Pionier als Übersetzer und Ausleger. In: Veronika Bachmann et
al. (eds.): Menschsein in Weisheit und Freiheit. Leuven (x, 603 pp.), pp. 534–549. – Page 546:
Jerome’s commentary on the book of Jeremiah “ist sozusagen das ‘Glanzstuck,’ das letzte große
Werk, mit dem Hieronymus seine biblisch-exegetische Tätigkeit beschließt und das ihn auf der
Höhe seines Könnens zeigt. Seine Auslegung besticht u.a. durch die Präzision der Übersetzung,
die Breite des Wissens, die Feinfuhligkeit fur Textdetails, die theologische und geistliche Ausrich­
tung. Fur die westliche Kirche war eine solche Kommentierung in der Antike, noch dazu in ge ­
schliffenem, elegantem Latein, mit reichhaltigem Wortschatz, vom Niveau her uber Jahrhunderte
unerreicht, und sie sollte es bis ins Mittelalter bleiben.”

Ezekiel (Hiezechiel)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Prophetam Ezechielem libri quatuordecim. PL 25: 15–490.

1964. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Ezechielem. Edited by François Glorie. CCSL 75: 3–743.

2005–2006. San Jerónimo: Comentario a Ezequiel. Translated by H.B. Riesco Álvarez. Madrid. 2 vols. xxi,
599 pp.; xii, 794 pp. – These are volumes 5a and 5b of the Spanish bilingual edition of Jerome’s
Obras completas.

2017. Jerome: Commentary on Ezekiel. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Writers 71.
New York. xii, 695 pp.

Secondary literature
1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 3.
Berlin. viii, 293 pp. – Pages 199–211: Der Kommentar zu Ezechiel. Page 203: “Allerdings hat er
[im Ezechiel-Kommentar] nicht so ausgiebig wie in seinem Jesajakommentar die jüdische Ausle­
gung referiert. Es sind mehr Einzelheiten, die er berichtet. So erklärten die Hebräer Ez 24,15: Ich
werde dir die Augenlust hinwegnehmen, von den Stirnbinden, die die babylonischen Rabbinen
um das Haupt trugen, auf denen der Dekalog aufgezeichnet war.”

1935. Friedrich Stummer: Monumenta historiam et geographiam Terreae sanctae illustrantia. Prima
series. Florilegium Patristicum 41. Bonn. 95 pp. – This collection of Jerome texts on the geo­
graphy of the Holy Land includes the Latin text of the commentary on Ezekiel 47:15–21 (PL 25:
497–502) with Stummer’s explanatory notes.

2002. Douglas Kries: Origen, Plato, and Conscience (‘synderesis’) in Jerome’s Ezekiel Commentary. Tra­
ditio 57: 67–83.

2009. Andrew Cain: The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian
Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford. xiv, 286 pp. – Page 156: In his commentary on Ezekiel 36:1–
15, Jerome rejects the expectation of a this-worldly millennium current among some of his con­
temporaries including Sulpicius Severus (Jerome: In Ezechielem XI on Ezek 36:1–15; PL 25: 339).

2014. Aline Canellis: L’exégèse de la première vision d’Ezéchiel dans In Hiezechielem de saint Jérôme.
Hiezechiel quoque uidit Dominum in forma hominis sedentem super Cherubim. In: Françoise
Vinel (ed.): Les visions de l’Apocalypse. Héritage d’un genre littéraire. Turnhout (259 pp.), pp. 127–
153.

490
2016. Benjamin Garstad: Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre in Jerome’s “Commentary on Ezekiel.” Vigiliae
Christianae 70.2: 175–192.

Daniel (Danihel)
Note. – Augustine, with reference to the succession of four kingdoms indicated in the visions of
Daniel, recommends Jerome’s commentary: “Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying
those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness
of this interpretation may read Jerome’s book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and
erudition (legant presbyteri Hieronymi librum in Danielem, satis diligenter eruditeque conscriptum).” Au­
gustine: The City of God XX, 23 (PL 41: 635; CSEL 40.2: 488; as translated by Marcus Dods).

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam liber unus. PL 25: 491–584.

1958. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer. Grand Rapids, Mich. 189 pp. –
Reprinted: Eugene, Ore. 2009.

1964. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Danielem libri tres (quatuor). Edited by François Glorie. CCSL
75A: 771–950.

1966. San Girolamo: Commento a Daniele. A cura di Silvano Cola. Rome. 210 pp.

2006. San Jerónimo: Comentario a Ezequiel. Comentario al profeta Daniel. Translated by H.B. Riesco Ál­
varez. Madrid. xii, 794 pp. – This is volume 5b of the Spanish bilingual edition of Jerome’s Obras
completas.

2016. Alfons Fürst: 2016. Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg (444 pp.), p.
116: German translation of a long passage from the preface to the Commentary on Daniel.

2019. Jérôme: Commentaire sur Daniel. Introduction, texte, traduction, nites et index par Régis Cour­
tray. Sources chrétiennes 602. Paris. 622 pp. – Bilingual edition Latin and French. The translator
supplies a newly-established text that improves the one edited by F. Glorie in 1964. According to
Courtray, the commentary was writen in 407 CE. – Reviews:
2021. Michael Winterbottom, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 72: 999–1001.

2022. Heinrich Holze, Theologische Literaturzeitung 147: 693–694.

Secondary literature
1897. J. Lataix: Le commentaire de St Jérôme sur Daniel. Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse 2:
164–173. 268–277. – This article is actually by Alfred Loisy.

1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 3.
Berlin. viii, 293 pp. – Pages 164–177: Der Danielkommentar.

1912. Otto Bardenhewer: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Dritter Band. Munich (x, 665), p. 623:
“Er [i.e., Jerome] wollte nicht mehr, wie bei den kleinen Propheten, den gesamten Text bespre­
chen, sondern das Wichtigste und Schwierigste herausgreifen und in freierer Weise erörtern. Mit
besonderer Einläßlichkeit behandelt er die Weissagung von den 70 Jahrwochen. Breiten Raum
widmet er auch der den ganzen Kommentar durchziehenden Polemik gegen den Neuplatoniker
Porphyrius und seine Angriffe auf das prophetische Buch. Er schöpft dabei, wie er selbst angibt,
aus älteren Streitschriften gegen Porphyrius (…) Im übrigen stützt er sich in erster Linie wieder

491
 auf Origenes. Zur Grundlage nimmt er seine Übersetzung aus dem Hebräischen bzw. Aramäi­
schen, bei den deuterokanonischen Stücken (…) seine Übersetzung Theodotions.”

1975. Teodoro Larriba: Comentario de San Jerónimo al Libro de Daniel. Las profecías sobre Cristo y el
Anticristo. Scripta theologica (Navarra) 7: 7–50.

1978. Jan Smeets: Traditions juives dans la Vulgate de Daniel et le commentaire de Jérôme. SIDIC (Ser ­
vice international de documentation judéo-chrétienne) 12.2: 16–26.

1978. Jay Bravermann: Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel. A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian
Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. Washington. xvi, 160 pp. – Sixteen Jewish interpretations are
used by Jerome, of which six are not attested elsewhere. Review: David Satran, Tarbiz 52
(1982/83) 145–153.

2000. Josef Rist: Hieronymus als Apologet, Exeget und Geschichtstheologe in den Commentarii in
Danielem. In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): L’esegesi dei Padri latini. Rome (770
pp., 2 vols. with one pagination), vol. 2, pp. 439–448.

2005. J.P.K. Kritzinger: St Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel 3. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 16: 54–69.

2007. Régis Courtray: Der Danielkommentar des Hieronymus. In: Katharina Bracht et al. (eds.): Die Ge­
schichte der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Studien zur Kommentierung
des Danielbuches in Literatur und Kunst. Berlin (xi, 394 pp.), pp. 123–150.

2009. Régis Courtray: Prophète des temps derniers. Jérôme commente Daniel. Paris. 508 pp. – A compre­
hensive work (originally a thesis) by a scholar who would later edit and translate Jerome’s Daniel
commentary for the “Sources chrétiennes” series.

The twelve Minor Prophets

Jerome’s commentaries
Note. – The commentaries on the individual books of the Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Jonah, etc.) are in ­
cluded in the editions listed below. Some of them are listed again, for bibliographical convenience, un­
der the individual minor prophets Hosea, Joel, etc.

1884: Hieronymus: In duodecim prophetas minores commentariorum viginti libri. PL 25: 809–1585. –
Contents: Hosea (PL 25: 815–946), Joel (PL 25: 947–988), Amos (PL 25: 989–1096), Obadiah (PL
25, 1097–1118), Jonah (PL 25: 1117–1152), Micah (PL 25: 1151–1230), Nahum (PL 25: 1231–
1272), Habakkuk (PL 25: 1273–1338), Zephaniah (PL 25: 1337–1388), Haggai (PL 25: 1387–1416),
Zechariah (PL 25: 1415–1542), Malachi (PL 25: 1541–1578).

1969/70. Hieronymus: Commentarii in prophetas minores. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76 and 76A. –
Contents: In Osee, CCSL 76: 1–158; In Ioelem, CCSL 76: 159–209; In Amos, CCSL 76: 211–348; In
Abdiam, CCSL 76, 349–375; In Ionam, CCSL 76: 377–419; In Michaeam, CCSL 76: 421–524; In
Naum, CCSL 76A: 525–578; In Abacuc, CCSL 76A: 579–654; In Sophoniam, CCSL 76A: 655–711; In
Aggeum, CCSL 76A: 713–746; In Zachariam, CCSL 76A: 747–900; In Malachiam, CCSL 76A: 901–
942. – Bengt Löfstedt warns of this edition; the editor, he says, often misunderstands the text;
Löfstedt offers a thorough critique and numerous textual notes; see Bengt Löfstedt: Hieronymus’
Kommentare zu den kleinen Propheten. Acta classica 25 (1982) 119–126.

492
2000, 2003. San Jerónimo: Comentarios a los profetas menores. Translated by A. Domínguez García.
Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 606 & 631. Madrid. 2 vols. xxiv, 949 pp.; xii, 840 pp. – These are
volumes 3a and 3b of the Spanish annotated bilingual edition of Jerome’s Obras completas.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

Secondary literature
1902. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Teil 2: Die Commen­
tarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten. Berlin. 47, 19, 48, 60 pp.

1906. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 2.
Berlin. viii, 270 pp. – Pages 110–127: Der Kommentar zu den fünf kleinen Propheten Nahum,
Micha, Zephanja, Haggai und Habakuk; pp. 195–207: commentary on Jonah and Obadiah. In the
first section (pp. 110 ff.), the author comments on Jerome’s commentaries in general, while in
the second section (pp. 195 ff.) he deals with the commentaries on Jonah and Obadiah individu­
ally.

1908. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 3.
Berlin. viii, 293 pp. – Pages102–114: The commentaries on Zechariah, Malachi, Hosea, Josel, and
Amos.

1914. Otto Procksch: Die Septuaginta Hieronymi im Dodekapropheton. Greifswald. 54 pp. – The Sep­
tuagint, used and regularly quoted by Jerome (in his own Latin translation), reflects a Vetus Lat­
ina text that he had corrected on the basis of Origen’s Hexapla.

1978. Adelrich Staub OSB: Die exegetische Methode des Hieronymus im Kommentar zum Zwölf­
prophetenbuch: eruditio saeculi und scientia scripturarum. Uznach. xxiv, 289, 67 pp. – A thesis
presented to the Pontificio Atheneo Sant’Anselmo, Rome, the university of the Benedictine or­
der.

1982. Bengt Löfstedt: Hieronymus’ Kommentare zu den kleinen Propheten. Acta classica 25: 119–126. –
A series of important textual notes meant to improve the edition in CCSL 76 and 76A.

1997. Susanne Müller-Abels: Hieronymus, Prologe zu den Kommentaren zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Ex­
egese und Rhetorik. In: E.A. Livingstone (ed.): Studia Patristica 33. Leuven (ix, 612 pp.), pp. 345–
351.

2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Girolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125. – The au­
thor compares the fragments of Latin text used as lemmata in the commentaries, with the ver­
sion that became the Vulgate. In many cases, the Vulgate is closer to the Hebrew text than what
is offered in the commentary.

2011. Neil Adkin: Virgil’s Smooth-talking Pygmalion and Jerome’s Commentaries on Mordiloquent Mi­
nor Prophets. Euphrosyne n.s. 44: 235–237.

2011. Anne-Françoise Loiseau: Jérôme et les traditions exégétiques targumiques, en particulier dans les
XII. Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44: 81–126.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg (444 pp.), pp. 393–
395. – A bibliography of commentary editions, with indication of much secondary literature.

2020. Bernhard Klinger: Between Scylla and Charybdis: Jerome as Interpreter of the Minor Prophets.
Vulgata in Dialogue 4: 5–22 (online journal).

493
Hosea (Osee)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Osee prophetam libri tres. PL 25: 815–946.

1969. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Osee. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 1–158.

2006. Girolamo: Commento a Osea. Introduzione, traduzione e note di Marco Tullio Messina. Rome.
326 pp.

2015. Jérôme: Commentaire sur Osée. – In his thesis on this commentary, Benoît Mounier (see below,
secondary literature) supplies a critical edition of the prologue and book 1 (pp. 209–257, with
critical apparatus); in a separate fascicle (without pagination), he offers a French translation of
prologue and book 1 based on his critical text, and a translation of the rest of the commentary
based on the CCSL text. The thesis is available on the Internet.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

Secondary literature
1995. Maria Christina Pennachio: “Quasi ursa rapis catulis.” Os 13,8 nell’esegesi di Gerolamo e Cirillo di
Alessandria. Vetera Christianorum 32: 143–161.

1997. A.A. Macintosh: Hosea. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, pp. lxxxii–lxxxiii. – Page
lxxxii: “Of considerable importance in evaluating [Jerome’s] translation of Hosea is his own com­
mentary on the prophecy, which clearly reflects his Christian standpoint and, replete with refer ­
ences to the New Testament, becomes at times devotional in character. An example of lyrical
beauty is his comparison of 2.9 with the parable of the Prodigal Son of Lk 15.11–32. If the com ­
mentary is marked by such characteristics, there remains much useful material on textual mat­
ters.” Page lxxxiii: “The Vulgate displays no particular or consistent knowledge of Hosea’s dialect
and no textual variant not found in the earlier versions is adopted in this commentary on the
basis of this version.”

2001. Eberhard Bons: La signification de arkos aporuumenê en LXX Osée XIII 8. Vetus Testamentum 51:
1–8. – Jerome takes this to mean ursa indigens cibo – famished bear (CCSL 76: 145), but the
more likely meaning is “cornered bear,” an animal that cannot escape from the hunters.

2015. Benoît Mounier: “In manu prophetarum assimilatus sum” (Osée 12,10). Recherches sur le Com­
mentaire sur Osée de Jérôme. Philologie et herméneutique, avec les prolégomènes d’une édition
critique. Diss. Strasbourg. vii, 649 pp. – Abstract: Composé à la fin de 406, le Commentaire sur
Osée de Jérôme se trouve à la charnière entre ses commentaires bibliques sur les Petits et les
Grands prophètes. Au sein de ce vaste projet exégétique, l’ouvrage constitue un bon exemple
d’une herméneutique désormais bien maîtrisée. Avec un fort souci de cohérence, l’exégète y dé­
ploie l’interprétation littérale essentiellement historique pour lancer l’interprétation spirituelle
déclinée en deux sens, l’un anti-hérétique, l’autre mystique, tous deux présentés comme fonda­
mentaux pour comprendre le livre d’Osée. L’œuvre constitue également un témoin clé pour sai ­
sir l’importance de la typologie, christocentrique et ecclésiale, pour expliquer les Prophètes se­
lon Jérôme.

2016. Philippe Borgeaud: Jérôme traducteur et la Mère des dieux (“Commentaire à Osée”). In: Corinne
Bonnet et al. (eds.): Dieux des Grecs, dieux des Romains. Bruxelles (249 pp.), pp. 229–238.

494
Joel (Ioel, Iohel)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Ioelem. PL 25: 947–988.

1969. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Ioelem. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 159–209.

2010. Girolamo: Commento ad Aggeo e a Gioele. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 198 pp.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp. – See vol. 2, pp. 262–300: “On
the Prophet Joel to Pammachius.”

Secondary literature
2004. Aline Canellis: Julien d’Éclane et l’In Ioel 1,4 de saint Jérôme. In: Benoît Gain et al. (eds.): Chartae
caritatis. Études de patristique et d’antiquité tardive. Paris 2004 (529 pp.), pp. 359–375.

2013. Aline Canellis: Saint Jérôme et l’In Ioel 3,18C. De la traduction à l’exégèse spirituelle. In: Alessan ­
dro Garcea et al. (eds.): Polyphonia Romana. Hildesheim (xix, 874 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 2, pp. 523–
531.

2023. Aline Canellis: Die Auslegung der Antiochenischen und Alexandrinischen Schulen durch Hierony­
mus am Beispiel des kleinen Propheten Joel. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 165–167.

Amos

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Amos. PL 25: 989–1096.

1969. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Amos. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 211–348.

2002. Bettina Höhmann: Der Amos-Kommentar des Eusebius Hieronymus. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung,
Kommentar. Münster. 484, xxiii pp. – Provides a translation (pp. 96–317), followed by the Latin
text (pp. 318–484, without notes). Jerome often refers to pagan literature, including Cicero, Ho­
race, and Virgil, listed on p. 51.

2016. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Amos prophetam. In: Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wis­
senschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg (444 pp.), pp. 352–359. – Bilingual, Latin and
German text of one section (II, 4,4–6; CCSL 76: 260–262).

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

Secondary literature
1898. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 42.3: 97–107. – On passages in Jerome’s Commen­
tary on Amos.

1981. Pierre Lardet: Culte astral et culture profane chez s. Jérôme. A propos d’une tournure suspecte
(errore combibimus) et d’allusions non élucidées du Commentaire sur Amos. Vigiliae Christianae
35: 321–345.

495
1998. Jennifer M. Dines: Jerome and the Hexapla: The Witness of the Commentary on Amos. In: Alison
Salvesen (ed.): Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Tübingen (xvi, 500 pp.), pp. 421–436.

2009. Aline Canellis: L’érudition dans le Livre I du Commentaire sur Amos de saint Jérôme. Eruditio an­
tiqua 1: 45–62.

Obadiah (Abdias)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Abdiam. PL 25: 1097–1118.

1969: Hieronymus: In Abdiam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 349–375.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2019. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Abdia e Zaccaria. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 408 pp.

Secondary literature
1906. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 2.
Berlin (viii, 270 pp.), pp. 203–207.

2009. Aline Canellis: L’art de la consequentia dans l’In Abdiam de saint Jérôme. In: Perrine Galand-Halyn
et al.(eds.): Manifestes littéraires dans la latinité tardive. Paris (366 pp.), pp. 187–204.

Jonah (Ionas)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Jonam prophetam liber unus. PL 25: 1117–1152.

1956. Jérôme: Sur Jonas. Translated by Paul Antin OSB. Sources chrétiennes 43. Paris. 137 pp. – In­
cludes a detailed introduction, pp. 7–33.

1969. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Ionam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 377–419.

1985. Jérôme: Commentaire sur Jonas. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire par Yves-
Marie Duval. Sources chrétiennes 323. Paris. 460 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and French; bilin ­
gual text on pp. 160–317. This new edition of the text of Jerome’s commentary is to be preferred
to all earlier editions. Review: Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB, Revue bénédictine 99 (1989) 221–236.
▲

1991. Timothy Michael Hegedus: Jerome’s Commentary on Jonah. Translation with Introduction and
Critical Notes. Master’s thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ont. (available online).

1992. Girolamo: Commento al libro di Giona. Translated by Nicoletta Pavia. Collana di testi patristici 96.
Rome. 113 pp.

2003. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Ionam prophetam – Kommentar zu dem Propheten Jona. Translat­
ed by Siegfried Risse. Fontes christiani 60. Turnhout. 250 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and Ger ­
man, with a comprehensive introduction.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

496
2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Sofonia, Aggeo, Abacuc e Giona. Translated by Marco T. Messina.
Rome. 405 pp.

Secondary literature
1906. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Berlin.
Volume 2 (viii, 270 pp.), pp. 195–203.

1966. Yves-Marie Duval: Saint Augustin et le Commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jérôme. Revue des études
augustiniennes 12: 9–40.

1973. Yves-Marie Duval: Le livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine. Sources et in­
fluence du commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jérôme. Paris. 2 vols. 749 pp. – Much of Jerome’s com­
mentary depends upon the work of Origen.

1988. Jean-Louis Gourdain: Les Psaumes dans l’explication de la prière de Jonas (In Ionam 2,2–10). In:
Yves-Marie Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 381–389.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293. – Page 250: “Der Kommentar zu Jona beutet neben Origenes eine jüdische
Quelle zum Auftrag des Propheten in Ninive aus und enthält einen heftigen Angriff gegen die
Vorstellung der Apokatastasis.”

2020. Katharina Bracht: The Appropriation of the Book of Jonah in 4th Century Christianity by
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Jerome of Stridon. In: Valentino Gasparini et al. (eds.): Lived Reli­
gion in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Berlin (viii, 597 pp.), pp. 531–552, esp. pp. 541–548.

2020. Katharina Bracht: Die Rezeption des Jona-Buches bei Hieronymus von Stridon: Der Jona-Kom­
mentar als heteronomer Text. Annali di storia dell esegesi 37: 29–52.

Micha (Michaea)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Michaeam. PL 25: 1151–1230.

1969. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Michaeam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76: 421–524.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Goove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Naum e Michea. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 338 pp.

Nahum (Naum)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Naum. PL 25: 1231–1272.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Naum. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A, pp. 525–578.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

497
2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Naum e Michea. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 338 pp.

Secondary literature
1984. Yves-Marie Duval: Jérôme et Origène avant la querelle origéniste: la cure et la guérison ultime du
monde et du diable dans l’In Nahum. Augustinianum 24: 471–494.

Habakkuk (Abacuc, Habacuc)

Note. – This commentary is distinguished by its particularly learned character, no doubt due to its ad­
dressee, Chromatius of Aquileia.

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Abacuc. PL 25: 1273–1338.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Abacuc. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A: 579–654.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Sofonia, Aggeo, Abacuc e Giona. Translated by Marco T. Messina.
Rome. 405 pp.

2018. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Abacvc. Edited by Sincero Mantelli. CCSL 76–76A bis 1: 5–98. –
New edition in the series “CCSL.”

Secondary literature
2000. Yves-Marie Duval: Jérôme et le “sens des prophètes.” De la nécessité, et des difficultés de la
consequentia. L’exemple de l’In Habacuc. In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): L’esege­
si dei Padri latini. Rome (770 pp., 2 vols. with one pagination), vol. 2, pp. 411–438.

2007. Sara Margarino: Nos coeptum carpamus iter … I prologi al libro di Abacuc, un tassello nel mosai­
co geronimiano ai profeti minori. Auctores nostri 4: 263–288.

2010. Sincero Mantelli: Quia scrabaeus uel cantharus uermis est stecoris. Una glosa erasmiana nel
Commentario ad Abacuc di Girolamo. Augustinianum 50: 443–451. – The words quoted in the
title, though found in printed editions of Jerome’s commentary on Habakkuk (CCSL 76A: 606),
constitute a gloss introduced by none other than Erasmus: “the scarab or cantharus actually is a
dung beetle.” There are other editorial intervention due to Erasmus.

2012. Sara Margarino: Il commento al Cantico di Abacuc in Girolamo. Un esempio di esegesi speculare
all’Apocalisse. In: Sandra Isetta (ed.): Apocalisse. Il senso della fine. Futur Antico 8. Genova (182
pp.), pp. 59–69.

2012. Martine Dulaey: Habacuc 2,1–4 chez les Pères. In: Matthieu Arnold – Gilbert Dahan – Annie No­
blesse-Rocher (eds.): “Le juste vivra de sa foi” (Habacuc 2,4). Études d’histoire de l’exégèse 3.
Paris (144 pp.), pp. 41–73. – Jerome takes the passage to be an announcement of the coming of
Christ (CCSL 76A: 599).

498
2013. Sincero Mantelli: La visione di Isaia nella controversia origenista: note sull’In Habacuc di Gerola­
mo. Adamantius 19: 185–202. – The author takes up a topic that has already been treated by
Duval and Fürst, but needs a new treatment; for the earlier studies, see:

2000. Yves-Marie Duval: Jérôme et les “sens des prophètes” de la nécessité et des difficultés de
la consequentia. L’exemple de l’In Habacuc. In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.):
L’esegesi dei Padri latini. Rome (769 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 2, pp. 411–438.

2007. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus gegen Origenes. Die Vision Jesajas im ersten Origenismusstreit.
Revue des études augustiniennes 53: 199–233.

Zephaniah (Sofonias)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Sophoniam. PL 25: 1337–1388.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Sophoniam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A: 655–711.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Chris­
tian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Sofonia, Aggeo, Abacuc e Giona. Translated by Marco T. Messina.
Rome. 405 pp.

Haggai (Aggeus)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Aggaeum. PL 25: 1387–1416.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Aggaeum. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A: 713–746.

2008. Le Commentaire sur Agée de Jérôme. Traduction et notes d’Eran Shuali. Mémoire – Unpublished
master’s thesis, accessible on the author’s Internet site (academia.edu).

2010. Girolamo: Commento ad Aggeo e a Gioele. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 198 pp.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2017. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Sofonia, Aggeo, Abacuc e Giona. Translated by Marco T. Messina.
Rome. 405 pp.

Secondary literature
2008. Marco Tullio Messina: La simbologia numerica nel commento a Aggeo di San Girolamo. In: Paola
Francesca Moretti et al. (eds.): Debita dona. Studi in onore di Isabella Gualandri. Naples (566 pp.),
pp. 299–315.

499
Zechariah (Zaccharias)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Jonam prophetam liber unus. PL 25: 1415–1542.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in prophetam Zachariam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A: 747–900.

2009. Girolamo: Commento a Zaccaria – Commento a Malachia. Translated by Domenico Ciarlo. Rome.
362 pp.

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

2019. Girolamo: Commenti ai profeti Abdia e Zaccaria. Translated by Marco T. Messina. Rome. 408 pp.

Secondary literature
1968. Pierre Jay: Le vocabulaire exégétique de saint Jérôme dans le commentaire sur Zacharie. Revue
des études augustiniennes 14: 3–16.

1999. Neil Adkin: Sallust, Hist. frg. 2, 64 and Jerome’s Commentary on Zechariah. Latomus 58: 635–639.

2007. Aline Canellis: Le livre II de l’In Zachariam de saint Jérôme et la tradition alexandrine. Sacris
erudiri 46: 111–141. – The article is also published in Adamantius 13 (2007) 66–81.

2009. Aline Canellis: L’In Zachariam de Jérôme et la tradition alexandrine. In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl
(eds.): Jerome of Stridon. His Life, Writings and Legacy. Farnham (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 153–162.

Malachi (Malachias)

Jerome’s commentary
1884. Hieronymus: Commentarii in Malachiam. PL 25: 1541–1578.

1970. Hieronymus: Commentarii in prophetam Malachiam. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 76A: 901–942.

2009. Girolamo: Commento a Zaccaria – Commento a Malachia. Translated by Domenico Ciarlo. Rome.
362 pp.

2016. Hieronymus: Commentarius in Malachim prophetam. In: Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und
Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg (444 pp.), pp. 348–353. – Bilingual, Latin
and German text of one section (I, 11–13; CCSL 76A: 911–913).

2016/17. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. 2 vols. xxx, 310 pp.; xli, 416 pp.

Secondary literature
1999. Yves-Marie Duval: Vers l’In Malachiam d’Origène. Jérôme et Origène en 406. In: Wolfgang A. Bie­
nert et al. (eds.): Origeniana Septima. Leuven (xxv, 848, 7 pp.), pp. 233–259.

500
20.3 Jerome’s New Testament commentaries

Matthew

Mark

The episteles of St. Paul (introduction)

Galatians

Ephesians

Titus

Philemon

Matthew (Evangelium secundum Matheum/Matthaeum)

Jerome’s commentary
1845. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei libri quatuor. PL 26: 15–218. – Based on a
printed edition of Jerome’s works from the 18th century – and today considered outdated
(though still useful).

1969. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in Mattheum libri quatuor. Edited by David Hurst and Marc Adri­
aen. CCSL 77: 1–283.

1977/79. Jérôme: Commentaire sur S. Matthieu. Translated by Émile Bonnard. Sources chrétiennes 242
et 259. Paris. 348, 259 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and French, with a long introduction (pp. 9–
50).

1982. Alexandre Olivar: Trois nouveaux fragments en onciale du commentaire de saint Jérôme sur
l’Évangile de Matthieu. Revue bénédictine 92: 76–81.

1999. Jerónimo: Comentario al Evangelio de Mateo. Introducción y notas: Roberto Peña OSB,
traducción: Hnas. Bernarda Bianchi di Carcano y María Eugenia Suárez OSB. Biblioteca de
patrística 45. Madrid. 343 pp. – The translation is by two Benedictine nuns.

2002. San Jerónimo: Comentario a Mateo [and other works]. Translated by Virgilio Bejarano. Madrid.
xxx, 767 pp. – This is volume 2 of the bilingual Spanish edition of Jerome’s Obras completas.

2008. St. Jerome: Commentary on Matthew. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. The Fathers of the Church
117. Washington. xvi, 347 pp. – Translated is the Latin text provided in CCSL 77. Pages 15–16:
“Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew was written in Bethlehem in March 398. (…) Jerome dictated
his Commentary on Matthew over the course of two weeks. The work shows signs of hasty com­
position, such as, at times, extreme brevity and numerous inaccurate citations from the Bible
and Josephus. Jerome’s commentary is not very extensive. He translates the text of Matthew’s
Gospel in the lemma and then paraphrases or explains the words with brief glosses and com­
mentary notes.”

501
Secondary literature
1906. Georg Grützmacher: Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte. Band 2.
Berlin. viii, 270 pp. – Pages 244–270: Der Matthäuskommentar des Hieronymus. Grützmacher
notes Jerome’s dependence upon Origen’s commentary, and refers to many passages where
Jerome quotes variant readings in the manuscripts that he consulted. As a bad historian, Jerome
committed a number of mistakes such as having John the Baptist decapitated somewhere in Ar­
abia (p. 260). Grützmacher thinks of Jerome’s Christianity as deficient, lacking any interest in the
Sermon on the Mount (a most important text for Grützmacher’s Protestant contemporaries).

1935. Alexander Souter: Greek and Hebrew Words in Jerome’s Commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Harvard Theological Review 28: 1–4. – A list of the many words written with Greek letters found
in manuscripts collated by the author.

1935. Friedrich Stummer: Hamesukan terumah (Jes 40,20) in der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 53: 283–285. – Page 285, note 1: Stummer comments on Jerome’s expla­
nation of Matt 1:1 (PL 26[1866]: 21): why is David mentioned before Abraham? For stylistic rea ­
sons.

1941. Alexander Souter: Notes on Incidental Gospel Quotations in Jerome’s Commentary on St. Mat­
thew’s Gospel. Journal of Theological Studies 42: 12–18. – Of 104 quotations from the gospel of
Matthew, only 33 harmonize with the Vulgate text, while the other 71 are definitely different.
“From all this it is clear that Jerome had no particular respect for his own revision (…) even when
he was writing a commentary on a Gospel” (p. 13).

1958. Harald Hagendahl: Latin Fathers and the Classics. Göteborg. 424 pp. – Page 212: Unlike Jerome’s
commentaries on the books of the prophets and the Pauline epistles, his commentary on Mat­
thew “is completely devoid of quotations and other borrowings from classical [Latin] poetry.”

1978. Berthold Altaner – Alfred Stuiber: Patrologie. 8th edition. Freiburg. xxiii, 672 pp. – On p. 400 it is
noted that Jerome’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew is “superficial” (oberflächlich).

1983. Bengt Löfstedt: Notizen zu Hieronymus’ Matthaeus-Kommentar. Aevum 57: 123–124.

1988. Hervé Savon: Jérôme et Ambroise, interprètes du premier Évangile. In: Yves-Marie Duval (ed.):
Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 205–225.

2011. Megan H. Williams: Chromatius and Jerome on Matthew. In: Pier Franco Beatrice et al. (eds.):
Chromatius of Aquileia and His Age. Turnhout (xi, 711 pp.), pp. 193–226.

2013. Peter Widdicombe: The Patristic Reception of the Gospel of Matthew. The Commentary of
Jerome and the Sermons of John Chrysostom. In: Eve-Marie Becker – Anders Runesson (eds.):
Mark and Matthew II. Comparative Readings. Tübingen (viii, 418 pp.), pp. 105–119.

2020. Yves-Marie Duval: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. In: Jean-Denis Berger – Jacques Fontaine –
Peter Lebrecht Schmidt (eds.): Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.). Zweiter
Teil. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 8. Abteilung, Band 6.2. Munich (xlii, 1005
pp.), pp. 122–293 (§ 647). – On the Matthew commentary, see pp. 253–254 (with bibliography).

2021. Daniela Scardia: I cristiani come genus regale et sacerdotale nel Commento a Matteo di Gero­
lamo. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 18: 605–644.

502
Mark

Jerome’s homilies
Note. – In what follows, we do not consider the pseudo-Jeromian commentary on Mark included in
Jerome’s works in Patrologia Latina (PL 30: 589–644). Considered are exclusively the ten homilies dis­
covered and subsequently edited by Germain Morin. They do not figure in any of the older collections
of patristic texts.

1897. Germain Morin OSB (ed.): Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos, in Mar­
ci evangelium aliaque varia argumenta. Anecdota Maredsolana III.2. Maredsous – Oxford (v, 423
pp.), pp. 317–370.

1958. Hieronymus: Tractatus in Marci Evangelium. Edited by Germain Morin OSB. CCSL 78: 451–500.

1965. S. Girolamo: Commento al Vangelo di S. Marco. Traduzione R. Minuto, prefazione R. Marsiglio.

Rome. 104 pp.

1966. Jerome: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Mark on Various Topics. In: The Homilies of St. Jerome. Vol­
ume 2. Translated by Marie Liguori Ewald. The Fathers of the Church 57. Washington (x, 295 pp.),
pp. 119–192. – These are Jerome’s homilies 75 to 84.

1986. Marc commenté par Jérôme et Jean Chrysostome. Translated by Marie-Hélène Stébé. Paris. 170
pp.

1988. Jerónimo: Comentario al Evangelio de San Marcos. Translated by Joaquín Pascual Torró. Introduc­
ción y notas de F. Guerrero Martínez. Biblioteca de Patrística 5. Madrid. 104 pp. – Later editions:
1995. 132 pp.; 2015. 140 pp.

1990. Girolamo: Omilie sul vangelo di Marco. Translated by Silvano Cola. In: idem: Omelie sui vangeli e
su varie ricorrenze liturgiche. Collana di test patristici 88. Rome (244 pp.), pp. 33–117. – Transla ­
tion of the ten homilies.

1999. San Jerónimo: Comentario a San Marcos. In: idem: Obras homileticas. Translated by Mónica Mar­
cos Celestino. Madrid. xviii, 1035 pp. – This is volume 1 of the Spanish bilingual edition of
Jerome’s Obras completas.

2005. Jérôme: Homélies sur Marc. Translated by Jean-Louis Gourdain. Sources chrétiennes 494. Paris.
232 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and French. The Latin text is from Germain Morin’s edition
(CCSL 78).

2017. Paul Mattei : Jérôme. Le grand bibliste offre une synthèse équilibrée des tendances de l’exégèse
latine. In : Laurence Mellerin (ed.): Lectures de la Bible. Ier – XVe siècle. Paris (652 pp.), pp. 259–
268. With Jerome’s commentary on Mark 8 :22–26 in French translation (pp. 267–268).

Secondary literature
2020. Ana Rodríguez Láiz: La receptión del Evangelio de Marcos desde Jerónimo hasta Erasmo.
Mirabilia Journal 31 (2020) 322–336 (online journal). – Spanish with English abstract.

503
The epistles of St. Paul

Jerome’s commentaries
Note. – Jerome did not write commentaries on the entire Pauline corpus, but only on four letters:
Galatians, Ephesians, Titus and Philemon.

1845. Hieronymus. PL 26: 307–618. – Contents: Commentaria in epistolam ad Galatas (PL 26: 307–438),
ad Ephesios (PL 26: 439–554), ad Titum (PL 26: 555–599), ad Philemonem (PL 26: 599–618).

2010. San Jerónimo: Comentarios paulinos. Translated by Manuel A. Marcos Casquero. Madrid. lxxv,
783 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and Spanish, volume 9 of Jerome’s Obras completas.

2010. St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus and Philemon. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.
Notre Dame, Ind. xi, 416 pp.

Secondary literature
1918. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La révision de la Vulgate par saint Jérôme. Revue biblique 27: 254–
257. – “Saint Jérôme, dans ses commentaires des épîtres paulines, s’est comporté s’il n’avait pas
révisé la version latine antérieurement. M. [Eugène] Mangenot croit toujours à l’existence anté ­
cédente de cette révision; peut-être saint Jérôme n’en avait-il pas un exemplaire à Bethléem. En
tout cas, il ne l’a pas commenté. De cette attitude je concluais qu’elle n’existait pas” (p. 254).

1919. Adolf von Harnack: Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes. II.
Leipzig. iv, 183 pp. – Pages 141–168: Origenistisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung
in den Kommentaren zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheser- und Titusbrief.

1923. John Chapman OSB: St. Jerome’s Quotations from the Epistles in the Commentaries on St. Paul.
Journal of Theological Studies 24 (January 1923) 113–125.

1927. Alexander Souter: The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul. Oxford (x, 244 pp.),
pp. 96–138, esp. pp. 100–104.

1979. Pierre Nautin: La date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres paulinienne. Revue d’histoire
ecclésiastique 74:5–12. – The were all written in one year, between spring and autumn 386.

1993. Caroline P. Bammel: Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: die ersten wissenschaftlichen
lateinischen Bibelkommentare? In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): Cristianesimo la­
tino e cultura greca sino al sec. IV. Rome (430 pp.), pp. 187–207.

2004. Jonathan Yates: Weaker Vessels and Hindered Prayers. Augustiniana 54: 243–259. – „The fact that
all of Jerome’s Pauline commentaries (there were four in total: Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians
and Titus) were written at the urging of his female friends and supporters Paula, Eustochium,
and Marcella most probably rendered his comments more ‘philogynist’” (p. 245, n. 9).

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg (444
pp.), pp. 390–392. – Bibliography on the Pauline commentaries of Jerome – text editions, transla­
tions, and secondary literature.

2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden
2020. vii, 296 pp. – A book on the scholarly work of Jerome in the years 386 to 393, especially on
his commentaries on the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philemon and Titus.

504
2021. Andrew Cain: Polemic, Patronage and Memories of Rome in the Prefaces to Jerome’s Pauline
Commentaries. In: Ingo Schaaf (ed.): Hieronymus Romanus: Studies on Jerome and Rome on the
Occasion of the 1600th Anniversary of His Death. Turnhout (609 pp.), pp. 485–508.

2021. Andrew Cain: Jerome’s Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles and the Architecture of Exegetical
Authority. Oxford. xi, 290 pp. – Page 13: “Jerome dictated all four of his Pauline commentaries in
quick succession between the (early?) summer and early autumn of 386. (…) The one on Philem­
on came first.”

Galatians

Jerome’s commentary
1845. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in epistolam ad Galatas libri tres. PL 26: 307–438.

2006. Hieronymus: Commentarii in epistulam Pauli apostoli ad Galatas. Edited by Giacomo Raspanti.
CCSL 77A. Turnhout. clxxx, 315 pp. – The commentary is CCSL 77A: 5–227 (with notes on pp.
231–284). – Raspanti has also produced the 2010 annotated Italian translation of this commen­
tary.

2010. Girolamo di Stridone: Commento alla Epistola ai Galati. Translated by Giacomo Raspanti. Corpus
Christianorum in Translation 1. Turnhout. 396 pp.

2010. St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus and Philemon. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.
Notre Dame, Ind. (xi, 416 pp.), pp. 47–275. – On p. 237 (CCSL 77A: 187), Scheck translates aemu­
latio, one of the vices mentioned in Gal 5:20, as jealousy, but meant is envy. Review: E.J. Hutchin­
son, The Medieval Review 2011, no. 11.10.06 (online journal).

2010. St. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians. Translated by Andrew Cain. The Fathers of the Church 121.
Washington. xxv, 283 pp.

Secondary literature
1914. J.B. Lightfoot: Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London (xiv, 384 pp.), p. 232: “Though abound­
ing in fanciful and perverse interpretations, violations of good taste and good feeling, faults of
all kinds, this is nevertheless the most valuable of all the patristic commentaries on the Epistle to
the Galatians: for the faults are more than redeemed by extensive learning, acute criticism, and
lively and vigorous exposition.”

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la ren­
contre entre la Bible et le monde classique. Nijmegen (xv, 256 pp.), pp. 86–88. – Meershoek com­
ments on Jerome’s explanation of the term gloria (in Jerome’s commentary on Gal 5:26; PL 26:
423).

1970. Margaret A. Schatkin: The Influence of Origen upon Saint Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians.
Vigiliae Christianae 24: 49–58.

2002. Alfons Fürst: Der Disput [zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus] über Paulus’ Konflikt mit Petrus
(Gal 2,11–14). In: Augustinus – Hieronymus: Epistulae mutuae – Briefwechsel. Übersetzt und ein­
geleitet von Alfons Fürst. Erster Teilband. Fontes christiani 41.1. Turnhout (259 pp.), pp. 27–51.

2004. Giacomo Raspanti: Agrediar opus intemptatum. L’Ad Galatas di Gerolamo e gli sviluppi del com­
mentario biblico latino. Adamantius 10: 194–216. – Jerome is an innovative commentator; his

505
 commentary project has a polemical side to it, because Jerome was confronted with the work of
other commentators (Marius Victorinus and Ambrosiaster).

2007. Martin Meiser: Galater. Novum Testamentum Patristicum 9. Göttingen. 373 pp. – Page 39: “Hie­
ronymus stellt in seinem im Sommer 386 verfassten und als Frühwerk einzustufenden, von Ori­
genes beeinflussten umfangreichen Werk den Galaterbrief in den Gesamtkontext der paulini­
schen Briefe: Das Thema ist dasselbe wie im Römerbrief, nur der Fassungskraft der Galater (Gal
3,1) gemäß dargeboten und auf ihre Situation bezogen. Schon im Prolog nimmt der Gelehrte
auf Gal 2,11–14 Bezug, benennt die Grundsätze seiner Auslegung und polemisiert gegen Por­
phyrius. Im weiteren Verlauf hält er gegen Marcion an der Identität des allegorisch auszulegen­
den alttestamentlichen Gesetzes fest, wie es auch in Gal 4,4 ex muliere und nicht per mulierem
heißt. Der Kommentar zeugt von Belesenheit in der Bibel, aber auch in der pagan-antiken Litera ­
tur und ist wertvoll nicht nur für die damalige textkritische Situation.” The phrase ex muliere (Gal
4:4) is taken to refer to the virgin birth.

2009. Giacomo Raspanti: The Significance of Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians in His Exegetical Pro­
duction. In: Andrew Cain – Josef Lössl (ed.): Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy.
Abingdon (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 163–171.

2009. Andrew Cain: Tertullian, Cyprian, and Lactantius in Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians. Revue des
études augustiniennes 55: 23–51.

2010. Andrew Cain: An Unidentified Patristic Quotation in Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians (3,6,11).
Journal of Theological Studies 61: 216–225. – On Gal 6:11.

2011. Andrew Cain: Jerome’s Pauline Commentaries between East and West. Tradition and Innovation
in the Commentary on Galatians. In: Josef Lössl – John W. Watt (eds.): Interpreting the Bible and
Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Farnham (vi, 343 pp.), pp. 91–110.

2011. Ian Christopher Levy: The Letter to the Galatians. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids,
Mich. (xii, 277 pp.), pp. 25–29. “Saint Jereome wrote the largest of the Latin Galatians comment­
aries” (p. 25).

2014. Hugh A. Houghton: The Biblical Text of Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians. Journal of Theologic­
al Studies n.s. 65: 1–24. – Numerous Old Latin readings occur in both the editorial text and the
critical apparatus of the recent edition of Giacomo Raspanti (2010).

2014. Michel Fédou: Jérôme lecteur de l’épître aux Galates: l’héritage d’Origène. In: Isabell Bochet – Mi­
chel Fédou (eds.): Exégèse patristique de l’épître aux Galates. Paris (277 pp.), pp. 133–154.

2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden.
vii, 296 pp. – Pages 181–202: Paul and the Incarnation in Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians.

2022. Joseph Verheyden: Paul, Jerome and Galatians: Two Comments in the Margin of Martin Meiser’s
Galater. In: Siegfried Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 309–
334.

Ephesians

Jerome’s commentary
1845. Hieronymus: Commentariorum ad epistolam ad Ephesos libri tres. PL 26: 439–554.

506
1996/97. Francesco Pieri: L’esegesi di Girolamo nel Commentario a Efesini. Diss. Bologna. Unpublished.
– The annotated critical edition of the commentary text established by Pieri is translated by
Ronald Heine (2002).

2002. Ronald E. Heine: The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians .
Oxford. xi, 297 pp. – Heine also translates Origen’s commentary and supplies an introduction.
The commentary of Jerome depends on Origen. On pp. 10ff., the author deals with the dispute
between Jerome and Rufinus.

2010. Girolamo: Commento alla lettera agli Efesini – Commento alla lettera a Tito. Translated by Dag
Tessore. Rome. 352 pp.

Note. – Jerome defends several of the interpretations he suggested in this commentary in another one
of his works: Apologia adversus Rufinum I, 21–29 (PL 23: 414–421); translation in Saint Jerome: Dog­
matic and Polemical Works. Translated by John N. Hritzu. The Fathers of the Church 58. Washington
1965 (xix, 403 pp.), pp. 86–97.

Secondary literature
1963. Kazimierz Romaniuk: Une controverse entre Jérôme et Rufin d’Aquilée à propos de l’épître de
saint Paul aux Ephésiens. Aegyptus 43: 84–106.

1975. F. Derriau: Le commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens nous permet-il de connaître celui d’Ori­
gène? In: Henri Crouzel et al. (eds.): Origeniana: premier colloque international des études origé­
niennes. Bari (374 pp.), pp. 163–179.

1987. Elizabeth A. Clark: The Place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy:
the Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals. Vigiliae Christianae 41: 154–171.

1988. Jean-Marie Matthieu: Grégoire de Naziance et Jérôme: Commentaire de l’In Ephesios 3, 5,32. In:
Yves-Marie Duval (ed.): Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 115–127. In his
commentary on Eph 5:32, Jerome quotes Gregory of Nazianzus.

1991. S.M. Oberhelman: Jerome’s Earliest Attack on Ambrose: On Ephesians, Prologue (ML 26: 469D–
70A). Transactions of the American Philological Association 121: 377–401. – Jerome initiated and
conducted for almost thirty years a malicious assault on Ambrose’s character, as well as his liter ­
ary and exegetical merits. (The abbreviation ML is not used in the present book; we use PL =
Migne’s Patrologia Latina.)

1998. Neil Adkin: The Prologue to Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians: Quia nostra non scribas.
Rheinisches Museum 14: 95–96.

1999. Francesco Pieri: Mit und nach Origenes. Über einige christologische Themen im Epheser­
briefkommentar des Hieronymus. In: Wolfgang A. Bienert – Uwe Kühneweg (ed.): Origeniana
Septima. Leuven (xxv, 848, 7 pp.), pp. 623–631.

2000. Francesco Pieri – Ronald E. Heine: Recovering Origen’s Commentary on Ephesians from Jerome.
Journal of Theological Studies NS 51: 478–514.

2006. Johannes B. Bauer: Et numquam laeti sitis. Zur Interpretation von Ev. Hebr. (Hieronymus, In Eph.
5,4). Vigiliae Christianae 60: 342–345. – Jerome quotes a dominical word from the Gospel ac­
cording to the Hebrews; the logion may echo Luke 14:12.

507
2020. Thomas E. Hunt: Jerome of Stridon and the Ethics of Literary Production in Late Antiquity. Leiden.
vii, 296 pp. – Pages 57–85: Recapitulation and Literary Ethics in the Commentary on Ephesians;
pp. 86–105: Imitation in the Commentary on Ephesians; pp. 106–123: Reading and Being in the
Commentary on Ephesians.

Titus

Jerome’s commentary
1845. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum liber unus. PL 26: 555–600.

2003. Hieronymus: Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli ad Titum et Philemonem. Edited by Federica
Bucchi. CCSL 77C. Turnhout. cxviii, 126 pp. – CCSL 77C: 3–73: Ad Titum.

2010. St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus and Philemon. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.
Notre Dame, Ind. (xi, 416 pp.), pp. 277–349.

2010. Girolamo: Commento alla lettera agli Efesini – Commento alla lettera a Tito. Translated by Dag
Tessore. Rome. 352 pp.

Secondary literature
1976/77. Ilona Opelt: Hieronymus bei Dante. Deutsches Dante-Jahrbuch 51/52: 65–83. – In Paradiso
XXIX, 22–45, Dante refers to Jerome by name as an authority on the assumption that the angels
were created before the world. The implied reference is to Jerome’s commentary on Titus (PL 26
[1845]: 559–560).

2001. Federica Bucchi: Sulla tradizione manoscritta del Commento alla Lettera a Tito di Girolamo.
Eikasmos 12: 301–321.

2002. Federica Bucchi: Il Commento alla Lettera a Tito di Gerolamo. Adamantius 8: 57–82.

2004. Federica Bucchi: Edizione critica di commenti di Girolamo alle epistole paoline a Tito e a Filemo ­
ne. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 21: 379–385.

2004. Jonathan Yates: Weaker Vessels and Hindered Prayers. Augustiniana 54: 243–259. – Jerome’s
commentary on Titus is “a relatively superficial work composed in haste in 386” (p. 244).

2019. Tim Deneker: Getting the Accent Right: Jerome in Tit. 3:9 in Isidore eccl. Off. 2.11.4. Vigiliae
Christianae 73: 138–148. – Isidore of Seville picks up the Jeromian commentary on Titus 3:9 in
De ecclesiasticis officiis (section: De lectoribus).

Philemon

Jerome’s commentary
1845. Hieronymus: Commentariorum in epistolam ad Philemonem liber unus. PL 26: 599–618.

2003. Hieronymus: Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli ad Titum et Philemonem. Edited by Federica
Bucchi. CCSL 77C. Turnhout. cxviii, 126 pp.– CCSL 77C: 77–106: Ad Philemonem.

2010. St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus and Philemon. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.
Notre Dame, Ind. (xi, 416 pp.), pp. 351–382.

508
Secondary literature
2000. Ronald E. Heine: In Search of Jerome’s Commentary on Philemon. Harvard Theological Review 93:
117–133.

2004. Federica Bucchi: Edizione critica di commenti di Girolamo alle epistole paoline a Tito e a Filemo­
ne. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 21: 379–385.

2010. Alfred Friedl: St. Jerome’s Dissertation on the Letter to Philemon. In: D. Francis Tolmie (ed.):
Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin (xii, 394 pp.), pp. 289–316.

20.4 Jerome: Letter 53

394. Jerome: Letter 53. Jerome urges the priest Paulinus, the future bishop of Nola (southern Italy), to
study the Bible and supplies a survey of the books of both testaments. In medieval Bible manu ­
scripts, the letter was often used as Jerome’s preface to the Latin Bible. The text is also included
in the Gutenberg Bible (see Chapter 15.1); placed before the book of Genesis, it fills this edi­
tion’s first pages.

Editions: Latin and bilingual

1910. Sancti Hieronymi Epistula LIII ad Paulinum. Edited by Isidor Hilberg. CSEL 54: 442–465. – This is
the standard critical text edition.

1920. [Donatien De Bruyne OSB]: Préfaces de la Bible Latine. Namur (266 pp.), pp. 1–7. Now widely ac­
cessible as a reprint: Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Introductions by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert &
Thomas O’Loughlin. Turnhout 2015. xv, 266 pp.

1926. Epistula LIII S. Hieronymi ad Paulinum Presbyterum. In: Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam ver­
sionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 1: Librum Genesis ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi recen­
suit D. Henricus Quentin. Rome (xlviii, 427 pp.), pp. 3–37.

1928. Epistula LIII S. Hieronymi ad Paulinum presbyterum. In: Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die
lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 222–232. – Latin text of the Quentin edition
1926, no translation.

1953. Jérôme: Lettre 53. In: Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Tome III. Edited and translated by Jérôme Labourt.
Collection Budé. Paris (215 double pp., and pp. 219–264), pp. 8–25. Bilingual edition, Latin and
French.

1958. Girolamo: Le tre lettere del Santo Dottore a S. Paolino di Nola. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e
note a cura di Pietro Giuseppe Cirillo. Tivoli. 113 pp.

2017. Jerome: Epistle 53. In: Edmon L. Gallagher – John D. Meade (eds.): The Biblical Canon Lists from
Early Christianity. Oxford 2017 (xii, 337 pp.), pp. 203–210. Bilingual edition, Latin and English, of
sections 8 and 9, where Jerome discusses the biblical books of both testaments. The English text
has explanatory notes.

Translations
1893. Jerome: To Paulinus [on the Study of Scripture]. In: A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. Second Series. Volume 6: St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. Translated by W. Freman­
tle. New York (xxxv, 524 pp.), pp. 96–102.

509
1937. Hieronymus: Brief 53: An den Priester Paulinus. In: Des heiligen Kirchenvaters Eusebius Hierony­
mus ausgewählte Briefe. Übersetzt von Ludwig Schade. II. Briefband. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter
(BKV). Munich (512 pp.), pp. 241–250.

Secondary literature
1970. Maurice E. Schild: Abendländische Bibelvorreden bis zur Lutherbibel. Heidelberg. 286 pp. – Pages
42–48: German summary of the letter.

2006. Aline Canellis: Une amitié par lettres et ses aléas: la correspondance entre Paulin de Nole et
Jérôme. In: Patrick Laurence – François Guillaumont (eds.): Epistulae Antiquae IV. Louvain (421
pp.), pp. 215–232.

2007. Catherine M. Chin: Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Jerome Inside the Book. In: William E.
Klingshirn – Linda Safran (eds.): The Early Christian Book. Washington (xi, 314 pp.), pp. 101–116.

2014. E.J. Hutchinson: And Zeus Shall Have no Dominion; or, How, When, Where, and Why to “Plunder
the Egyptians”: The Case of Jerome. In: Peter Escalante et al. (eds.): For the Life of the Nations. Es­
says on Creation, Redemption, and Neo-Calvinism. Landrum, SC (xvi, 281 pp.), pp. 49–80, at pp.
63–70.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris (530
pp.), pp. 205–209.

2020. Thomas Tsartsidis: Jerome, Ep. 53.7 and the Centonist Proba. Classical Quarterly 70.1: 453–458.

510
Chapter 21
Textual notes on the Old Testament

Note. – Students of the Vulgate Bible would love to have a textual commentary that explains linguistic
(including lexical) peculiarities, rare words, differences between the standard editions of the Vulgate
(the Clementina and the Stuttgart Vulgate), and elucidates certain obscure matters relevant for under­
standing a passage properly. Such a commentary, alas, has never been compiled. The notes here
offered cannot fill this gap, but they will no doubt be helpful for student and scholar alike. – The biblic ­
al books are arranged in the sequence they have in the Weber/Gryson or “Stuttgart” edition of the Vul­
gate.

Genesis

Text
1926. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 1: Librum Genesis ex
interpretatione sancti Hieronymi recensuit D. Henricus Quentin. Rome. xlviii, 427 pp. – This is
volume 1 of the text-critical Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3, and the reviews listed
there.

Secondary literature
1898. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Saint Jérôme et la tradition juive dans la Genèse. Revue biblique 7:
563–566.

1927. F.C. Burkitt: Notes on Genesis in the Latin Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 39: 251–260.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttes­
tamentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150. – “Tatsächlich erweist sich der Vulgatatext der
Genesis als im großen sehr konstant überliefert. (…) Es wiederholt sich die Erscheinung, die uns
schon aus den bisher erschienenen Faszikeln des Neuen Testaments von Wordsworth und White
bekannt ist: die editio Clementina entbehrt an einer nicht unbeträchtlichen Anzahl von Stellen
der handschriftlichen Fundamentierung” (p. 144).

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290), p. 116: “Bei der Gene­
sis hat man geradezu den Eindruck, Hieronymus habe ein Buch in gut lesbarem Latein schaffen
wollen.”

1942. D.F. Reuschenbach: Hieronymus als Übersetzer der Genesis. Diss. theol. Fribourg.

1948. Felix Reuschenbach: Hieronymus als Übersetzer der Genesis. Fribourg. 122 pp. – Part of a thesis
defended in 1942.

1969. 1974. Emanuele Testa: Genesi. Torino. xix, 455 pp.; xviii, 667 pp. – Published in the series “La Sac­
ra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary
presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. The first volume is on
Gen 1–11.

511
1982. Jane Barr: The Vulgate Genesis and St. Jerome’s Attitude to Women. In: Elizabeth A. Livingstone
(ed.): Studia Patristica 17.1. Oxford (xx, 460 pp.), pp. 268–273. – This article is sometimes wrongly
attributed to Jane Barr’s husband, the biblical scholar James Barr.

1986. Umberto Neri: Genesi. Versione ufficiale italiana confrontata con ebraico masoretico, Greco dei
Settante, sirico della Peshitta, latino della Vulgata. Torino. cxlvi, 662 pp. – This publication prints
an Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and indicates whether ancient versions, including the
Vulgate, differ. In the introduction, the author offers a brief portrait of Jerome’s version of Gen­
esis (pp. lxxii–lxxvi).

2009. Rafael Jimenez Zamudio: Técnicas de traducción en las antiguas versiones de la Biblia.
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios latinos 29: 75–115. – The author treats the translation of
Hebrew Bible texts into Latin (Vetus Latina, Vulgata); special attention is given to the rendering
of suffixes, the status constructus, the relative clause, the word waw (and), and the Semitisms in
the Vulgate. The construction “in + accusative” is also addressed. Many of the 81 Old Testament
texts analyzed are taken from Genesis.

2012. David L. Everson: The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Genesis. In: Craig A. Evans –
Joel N. Lohr – David L. Petersen (eds.): The Book of Genesis. Leiden (xxiii, 763 pp.), pp. 519–536.

2017. Matthew Kraus: Vulgate [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 189–195. – The Hebrew text underlying Jerome’s
translation of the Pentateuch is close to the Masoretic text. ▲

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 29–69. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation) of Gen 1:1–2:25; 3:1–24; 4:1–15; 5:31–9:19; 11:1–9; 12:1–
8; 18; 22:1–18, with explanatory notes on vocabulary and grammar.

Textual notes
Gen 1:1–4:15a. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 29–43.

Gen 1:1–8. Cécile Biasi: “Commencer” et “créer” (Genèse 1,1–8). L’approche d’historien et d’hébraïsant
de saint Jérôme à la lumière de la Préface au Pentateuque. In: Béatrice Bakhouche (ed.): Science
et exégèse. Les interprétations antiques et médiévales du récit biblique de la création des éléments
(Genèse 1,1–8). Turnhout 2016 (384 pp.), pp. 189–224.

Gen 1:2. spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas – the spirit of God moved over the waters (Douay Version).
“The Hebrew has merefeth, which we can render as ‘was brooding over’ or ‘was keeping warm,’
in the likeness of a bird giving life to its eggs with warmth,” explains Jerome in his Hebrew Ques­
tions on Genesis (PL 23: 939). Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vul­
gata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 99–119, at pp. 110–111 (online journal).

Gen 1:5. factumque est vespere et mane dies unus (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – and it happened
/ in the evening and in the morning / day one; und es geschah / am Abend und am Morgen /
Tag eins. This sounds grandiose, but it is a series of unrelated phrases. It does not make sense.
In his very literal French translation, Glaire (see Chapter 18.3) has: “et d’un soir et d’un matin se
fit un jour unique.” Castellio (see above, Chapter 15.6) transforms the sentence: ita extitit ex ves­
pere & mane dies primus – the first day came to exist of evening and morning; apparently un­
derstanding mane as an archaic noun without declension.

512
Gen 2:1. perfecti sunt caeli et terra et omnis ornatus eorum – so the heavens and the earth were fin­
ished, and all the furniture therein (Douay Version; similarly Knox), also wurden Firmament und
Erde verfertigt und all ihr Schmuckwerk (Oborski), also wurden die Himmel und die Erde und ihr
ganzer Schmuck vollendet (Tusculum-Vulgata). What is the precise meaning of ornatus? Jerome
may have thought of the expressions ornatus mundi and ornatus caeli, both used in Cicero (De
natura deorum II, 17; II, 94) who may have tried to find Latin expressions for Greek κόσμος. “Ci­
céron aime se servir d’ornatus pour décrir le bel ordre du monde (ornatus mundi) ou la beauté
du ciel (ornatus caeli)” (Moussy, p. 101). The idea is that the world has a beautiful order. See
Cicero: Topica XX, 77: ipse mundus eiusque omnis ordo et ornatus – the world itself, and its whole
order and ornaments (translated by C.D. Yonge; one may translate: order and beauty). – Litera­
ture:

1996. Claude Moussy: Ornamentum et ornatus: de Plaute à la Vulgate. Revue des études latines
74 (1996) 92–107, at pp. 101 and 107.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Stuttgart (343 pp.), p. 34. ▲

Gen 2:7. spiraculum vitae – breath of life (Douay Version). Jerome translates very carefully. As early as
c. 200, Tertullian insisted that the reference here is not to God’s spiritus but to his afflatus, see
Tertullian: Against Marcion II, 9,1–2 (Sources chrétiennes 368: 62–64).

Gen 2:8. plantaverat autem Dominus Deus paradisum voluptatis a principio – the Lord God had planted
a paradise of pleasure in the beginning. (1) Jerome does not place the garden “in the east”
(which is the Septuagint’s correct rendering), but he has it created “in the beginning.” Jerome
follows the rabbinical notion that the paradise was created before the creation of heaven and
earth, as mentioned by Jerome: Hebrew Questions on Genesis (PL 23: 940). – (2) Here and in
some subsequent verses (Gen 2:9.10.15.16; 3:1, etc.) Jerome uses the word paradisus. Although
the word paradise does exist in the Hebrew vocabulary (as pardes, see Cant 4:3, Koh 2:5), it is ab­
sent from what is today known as the “paradise story.” It was introduced into this story before
Jerome in the Septuagint (Gen 2:8.9.10.15.16; 3:1, etc.) which uses it to render Hebrew gan
(garden). The Vetus Latina follows in the steps of the Septuagint. – (3) paradise of pleasure:
Jerome follows Symmachus’ understanding of eden as description of paradise, not its location.

Gen 2:18. faciamus ei adiutorem similem sui (Benedictine Vulgate 1926; see above, Chapter 13.3) – let
us make him a helper, his equal. Stummer conjectures adiutorium simile sui – a help, his equal,
taking adiutorium as a word for “Hilfskraft, Gehilfe” (help), repeated in Sir 36:26 and Tob 8:8. The
Clementina reads: faciamus ei adjutorium simile sibi; Weber/Gryson: faciamus ei adiutorium sim­
ilem sui. – Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1
(1937) 23–50, at pp. 23–26.

Gen 3:1. sed et serpens erat (…) – literally, this would be “but and the serpent was,” reflecting Jerome’s
double translation of the Hebrew we (and). Some translations seek to echo Jerome: aber auch
die Schlange war (Tusculum-Vulgata); aber nun war die Schlange (Frank Oborski: Vul­
gata-Lesebuch. Stuttgart 2022 [343 pp.], p. 37). The NVg has et serpens (omitting the sed). In
classical Latin, one would say serpens autem erat.

Gen 3:5. eritis sicut dii, / scientes bonum et malum. – Rhythmic hexameter verse, reproducible in Eng­
lish and German: You shall be as Gods, / knowing good and evil (Douay Version, King James
Version); You will be like gods, / knowing both good and evil (New English Bible); wissend um
Gut und Böse, / werdet Ihr werdet sein wie Götter (cf. the German translation of Paul Rießler:
Und ihr seid wie Gott, / erkennend Gutes und Böses). For another Hexameter verse, see John
8:12. See Chapters 8.7 (hexameter); 24:5 (German literature, 1806).

513
Gen 3:15. ipsa conteret caput tuum (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – she (mulier) will crush your head.
This translation gives the woman enormous power over the serpent. The context would require
ipsum, referring back to semen (neutr.): ipsum conteret caput tuum – it (the semen – seed, off­
spring) will crush your head, or perhaps: they will crush. Some manuscripts have ipse, the mascu­
line form, which à la rigueur could also refer to semen. – Literature:

1769. Claudius Franssen: Disquisitiones biblicae. Editio Altera. Tomus primus. Luca (xii, 648 pp.),
pp. 231–233.

1927. Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at p. 147: ipsa is the reading of both the Clementina
and the Benedictine edition (and the Weber/Gryson one); Stummer would opt for ipse as
the original Jeromian word.

1929. Paul Maria Baumgarten: Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel. Theologische Revue 28.10:
417–424, at col. 424. ipsa or ipse? Baumgarten tells this anecdote: “Vor langer Zeit erzähl­
te mir Kardinal Gasquet, daß er einst bei Pius X. auf die Sache zu sprechen kam. Als der
Papst hörte, daß man in Zukunft wohl ipse werde lesen müssen, wurde er zunächst sehr
betroffen, sagte aber dann, wenn man eine Lesart mit Sicherheit als die richtige erweisen
könne, müsse man sich damit abfinden, da dogmatische Schwierigkeiten nicht vorlägen.”
(Pius X died 1914, so he did not live to see the Genesis volume of the new Benedictine
edition which, in fact, reads ipsa.)

1948. Jan Olaf Smit: De Vulgaat. Geschiedenis en herziening van de latijnse bijbelvertaling. Roer­
mond (xvi, 296 pp.), pp. 133–145; p. 273 reproduces the page of the Benedictine edition –
with ipsa in the main text, and ipse in the apparatus.

1952. Alberto Vaccari SJ: Occhio al commento! A proposito di ‘ipse’ o ‘ipsa’ in Gen 3,15. In: Virgil
Fiala – Bonifatius Fischer (eds.): Colligere Fragmenta. Eine Festschrift für Alban Dold. Beu­
ron (xx, 295 pp.), pp. 34–39 – Vaccari supports the reading ipsa.

2007. Alison Salvesen: Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations in Greek and Latin. In: Markus
Bockmuehl – J.N. Carlton Paget (eds.): Redemption and Resistance. The Messianic Hopes of
Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London (xxvii, 381 pp.), pp. 245–261, at pp. 256–257.

Gen 3:20. vocavit Adam nomen uxoris suae Hava/Heva – the name of Eve has the form Hava in the
Weber/Gryson edition of the Vulgate, whereas the Sixto-Clementine edition has the spelling
Heva. Interestingly, the Nova Vulgata (see above, Chapter 17) changes her name to Eva.

Gen 4:1–16. Lizette Harritsø: Kainfortaellingen i antikke oversaettelser og fortolkninger. Dansk teolo­
gisk tidsskrift 75.3 (2012) 187–202.

Gen 4:8. egrediamur foras (Vg, NVg) – let us go forth abroad (Douay Version). This sentence is not in
the Hebrew text, but in the Greek translation. – Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s
Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 99–119, at p. 111 (online journal).

Gen 5. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hi­
eronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen
2022 (256 pp.), pp. 133–137 and 155–157.

Gen 6:4. gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis – but giants were on earth in those days. –
Literature:

2016. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Giganten und Sirenen in der Vulgata. Griechischer Mythos in der
lateinischen Bibel des Hieronymus. Museum Helveticum 73: 78–96.

514
 2018. Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Übersetzungsvarianten der Schlüsselbegriffe in Gen 6,4: Wie fü­
gen sich die gigantes aus Genesis 6,1–4 in den Kontext der hebräischen Bibel? Vulgata in
dialogue 2: 15–30 (online journal).

Gen 6:5. videns autem Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis in­
tenta esset ad malum omni tempore – moreover, God seeing that the badness of human beings
was great on earth, and all the thought of their heart was bent toward evil all the time. The Latin
vocabulary seems to echo that of Cicero: cogitatio is the reasoning power or faculty of thought,
and intentus (the words intenta esset ad are without basis in the Hebrew) describes the direction
of human thought toward specific objects. C.T.R. Hayward: Jerome and the ‘Inclination’ (yetser):
The Evidence of the Vulgate. In: James Aitken et al. (eds.): The Evil Inclination in Early Judaism
and Christianity. Cambridge 2021 (ix, 371 pp.), pp. 232–246. ▲

Gen 7:13. articulus = point of time. – Plater/White, p. 54.

Gen 8:1. recordatus est autem (…) (Benedictine Vulgate). Stummer argues that the insertion of est
(which is not in the Clementina), spoils the grammar of the sentence. In fact, the Weber/Gryson
edition omits the est and thereby returns to the wording of the Clementina. – Friedrich Stum­
mer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at p. 147.

Gen 8:7. Noah sent a raven out of his ark – qui egrediebatur, et [non] revertebatur = which went forth
and did [not] return. The word non is in the Clementina, but omitted in the Weber/Gryson edi­
tion and the Nova Vulgata. Even medieval text critics realized that non does not belong here. –
Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 151–
152, 203, 217.

Gen 8:21. (1) et ait ad eum (Weber/Gryson) – and said to himself. The Hebrew has “and said to his
(own) heart” (NVg: locutus est Dominus ad cor suum), a Hebrew idiomatic way of saying “he
thought by himself.” The Clementina omits the awkward-sounding, non-classical ad eum (Stum­
mer). –– (2) odor suavitatis (Gen 8:21) – odour of sweetness, often quoted as an example of Heb­
raism, has a close equivalent in classical Latin; see arbores odore mirae suavitatis – trees of won­
derful sweetness (Pliny: Historia naturalis VI, 198); cf. Fredouille. – Literature:

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der
Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–20, at p. 6.

1996. Jean-Claude Fredouille: “Latin chrétien” ou “latin tardif”? Recherches augustiniennes 29: 5–
23, at p. 14.

Gen 9:23. operuerunt verenda patris sui (Clementina) – covered the nakedness of their father (Douay
Version). Literally: covered the venerable things. The Benedictine and Weber/Gryson editions
have verecunda, a word with the same meaning; its originality is defended by Stummer. – Fried­
rich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die alttesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at p. 145.

Gen 15:2. ego vadam absque liberis – I will remain childless; I must go the way of childless men (Knox).
The meaning “to be, to stay” for vadere echoes Hebrew usage. Here are some problematic
translations that suggest an emphasis on dying in childlessness: I shall go without children
(Douay Version), ich gehe kinderlos dahin (Arndt), moi, je m’en irai sans enfants (Glaire).

Gen 16:14. propterea appelavit puteum illum – therefore, this source is called (…); deswegen nennt
man diesen Quell. Not: therefore she (Hagar) called this source (…). (1) According to Kaulen (p.
224), appelavit is a Hebraism for appelatur. The third person is used where the English uses the

515
 passive voice, and the German uses “man”; for a similar case, see the textual note on Exod 15:23.
Kaulen adds that many translations based on the Vulgate (Douay Version, Allioli, Tusculum-Vul­
gata) had themselves tricked into believing that it was Hagar who did the naming (“sich von
dem scheinbar naheliegenden Zusammenhang täuschen lassen und Agar [Hagar] als Subjekt
betrachtet”). According to Kaulen, the etiology of the name is associated with the Hagar epis­
ode, but Hagar is not the name-giving agent. – (2) Reception of the Kaulen argument. Augustin
Arndt follows Kaulen’s rendering: “Darum nannte man jenen Brunnen den Brunnen des Lebendi­
gen und des mich Sehenden.” The grammar section of Dalpane’s dictionary also accepts
Kaulen’s view: Francesco Dalpane: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Florence 1911 (xlii, 251
pp.), p. xv. – (3) Kaulen’s view is rejected by Ussani; Hagar must be considered the name-giving
agent; see Vincenzo Ussani: Un preteso uso della Vulgata. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione clas­
sica 39 (1911) 550–557.

Gen 17:6. ponam te in gentibus (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – I will make nations of thee (Douay
Version); ich will dich zu Völkern machen (Allioli), but Blaise suggests: “je te placerai à la tête des
nations“; Albert Blaise, Dictionnaire, p. 633 (s.v. ponere). The Tusculum-Vulgata has: “ich werde
dich unter die Völker setzen.”

Gen 18:6. fac subcinericios panes – make ash bread (B. Lang); mache in der Asche gebackene Brote
(Tusculum-Vulgata); fais des pains cuits sous la cendre (Glaire). Translations not recommended
include: make cakes upon the hearth (Douay Version); make girdle-cakes (i.e., cakes baked on a
heated flat metal plate; Knox). The adjective subcinericius is also used Exod 12:39; Hos 7:8 etc. –
a common word in Jerome’s vocabulary. The Lewis/Short dictionary (8.3) says “baked under the
ashes” – the most ancient way of baking: the dough is buried in the hot leftover ashes of a fire.
Known to anthropologists as “ash bread”; for a detailed description of primitive “baking without
baking tools,” see Gustaf Dalman: Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Band IV. Gütersloh 1938 (xiv, 452
pp, plates), pp. 29–38. In today’s Spanish, “pan subcinericio” refers to pita bread (German:
Fladenbot).

Gen 20:16. mementoque te [i.e., Saram] deprehensam – and remember that you (Sarah) have been con­
victed (of lying), und gedenke, dass du (Sara, der Lüge) überführt worden bist. – This is a clarify ­
ing addition; deprehendere means here: to convict of the lie, as in classical Latin prendere, pre­
hendere. Jerome alludes to the fact that Sarah had been passed off as Abraham’s sister (Gen
20:2). So we are dealing with the debate about the so-called sins of the patriarchs of Israel.
Loosely translated: And do not forget that you are to blame for this yourself.

Gen 21:1–2. Jerome simplifies and suppresses the traces of the combination of various source docu ­
ments. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Re­
cherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at pp. 137–150.

Gen 22:1–19. Literature:

2022. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen (256 pp.), pp. 137–150 and 157–163.

2023. Benedikt Collinet: Die Bindung Isaaks (Gen 22,1–19). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 145–147.

Gen 24:32. paleas et faenum et aquam ad lavandos pedes [respective] camelorum et virorum – hay and
straw and water to wash the feet – for the camels and for the men, respectively ; Heu und Stroh
und Wasser zum Waschen der Füße – für die Kamele beziehungsweise für die Männer. This
translation is proposed as corresponding to Jerome’s style by Alberto Vaccari, who argues for
the authenticity of the formulation. Thus, the Latin text is not to be corrected. – Vaccari’s two

516
 papers were prompted by the Benedictine’s critical edition of Genesis, published in 1926; this
edition had a conjectural text (p. 241): ad lavandos pedes eius et virorum (= NVg; a reading also
adopted by the New English Bible). The Weber/Gryson edition departs from the Benedictine text
by returning to the traditional reading: ad lavandos pedes camelorum et virorum. – Literature:

1926. Alberto Vaccari SJ: Ad lavandos pedes camelorum (Gen 24,32 Vulg.)? Biblica 7: 439–443.

1927. Alberto Vaccari SJ: “Viri qui venerant cum eo” (Gen. 24,32 Vulg.). Biblica 8 (1927) 94–95.

1927. Friedrich Stummer: Die neue römische Ausgabe der Vulgata zur Genesis. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft NF 4 [45.1]: 141–150, at p. 149. Stummer, like Vaccari, de­
fends the traditional wording.

Gen 27:4.19.25. anima mea – anima tua – anima mea: in each case, anima does not have to be trans­
lated; as often in the Vulgate, these expressions refer to “me” and “you.” Accordingly, not “my
soul may bless thee” (Douay Version), but simply “I may bless you.” – Olegario García de la
Fuente: Anima en la Biblia Latina. Helmántica 29 (1978) 5–24, at pp. 11–13.

Gen 27:12. et inducam super me maledictionem (Clementina) – I shall bring upon me a curse (Douay
Version); ich würde über mich einen Fluch bringen. The form inducam is “ein übel angebrachter
Vorschlag der Sixtinische Kommission; aber unglücklicherweise hat Sixtus V. gerade diesen sich
zu eigen gemacht, und aus seiner Bibel ist er dann auch in die Klementina übergegangen. ” All
manuscripts have inducat – he brings upon me a curse, er bringt einen Fluch über mich. – Fried­
rich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 216.

Gen 27:28. abundantiam frumenti et vini – abundance of corn and wine. Some manuscripts add et olei
– and oil, echoing Psalm 4:8. For the manuscript evidence, see the apparatus in Weber/Gryson.

Gen 31:31–32. quid inscio te pofectus sum – quod autem furti me arguis = I have left without your
knowledge – that you accuse me of theft; ich bin gezogen ohne dein Wissen – dass du mich des
Diebstahls beschuldigst. Jerome’s explanatory additions. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de
la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p.
107.

Gen 33:1–2. In Hebrew Questions on Genesis (PL 23: 989), Jerome explains that Jacob divided his chil­
dren in two (rather than three) groups. – Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical
Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 99–119, at p. 112 (online journal).

Gen 34:5–7. Condamin refers to this passage as an example to demonstrate the elegance of Jerome’s
translation: “Il va sans dire que, dans son gout pour l’élégance de la forme, Jérôme rompt le plus
possible la monotonie de la phrase hébraïque par l’emploi des participes passés ou des
conjonctions avec le subjonctif.” – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la
Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 105, note 2.

Gen 34:27. caeteri filii Iacob – the other sons of Jacob (or: the rest of the sons of Jacob). The word cae­
teri does not have an equivalent in the Hebrew. Jerome adds the word for clarity, as does the
New English Bible.

Gen 37–50. Valerio Barbieri: La linguistica testuale applicate alla Vulgata: le parti narrative di Gn 37–50.
Liber Annuus (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum) 63 (2013) 9–44. – This is a study of Jerome’s way
of rendering the Hebrew tenses. Jerome sought to produce an elegant Latin text that avoids the
simple paratactic structure characteristic of biblical Hebrew prose.

Gen 38:12. opilo – shepherd, Schafhirt. A rare word, but Plautus uses it: opilo qui pascit alienas oves
(Asinaria III, 1,36). – Kaulen, p. 43.

517
Gen 39:3–6. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hi­
eronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Vertumnus 14.
Göttingen 2022 (256 pp.), pp. 151–153 and 163–164.

Gen 39:10–19. A free translation or rather paraphrase in which Jerome introduces the word stuprum –
adultery (v. 10) that has no basis in the Hebrew text. The Nova Vulgata keep’s Jerome’s ille re­
cusabat stuprum – he refused the (act of) adultery. Also note Jerome’s use of ille as a personal
pronoun meaning “he.” – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint
Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at pp. 107–108.

Gen 39:19. nimium credulus verbis coniugis – giving too much credit to his wife’s words (Douay Ver­
sion). This is not in the Hebrew, but represents an explicative addition by Jerome. The Nova Vul ­
gata omits the words.

Gen 40:21–23. Jerome supplies a free translation. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduc­
tion de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 108.

Gen 42:36. (a) absque liberis me esse fecistis, Ioseph non est super, Simeon est in vinculis – you have
made me without children: Joseph is no more (Glaire: Joseph n’est plus), Simeon is in bonds.
Jerome does not render the Hebrew text literally; according to the Hebrew and Greek texts,
Simeon is also said to be no more. Jerome seeks to be more precise. The Nova Vulgata keeps
close to Jerome’s version (Simeon tenetur in vinculis). The problem with Jerome’s rendering is
that it weakens Jacob’s lament. Luther did not like Jerome’s version here, and sounded a note of
regret (Luther, Weimarer Ausgabe, vol. 44, p.513). Cf. Umberto Neri: Genesi. Torino (cxlvi, 662
pp.), p. lxxvi. – (b) Ioseph non est super – Joseph is no more. This is not very good Latin; it should
be non superest; superesse = to survive (see Blaise: Dictionnaire, s.v. supersum), like supervivere
(Exod 21:21). Alternatively, one could think of a shortened form of non est superstes.

Gen 49:10. donec veniat qui mittendus est et ipse erit expectatio gentium – until the one comes who is
sent, he that the nations are expecting; bis der kommt, der gesandt werden soll, er, auf den die
Völker warten. – One of the most profiled messianic prophecies of the Vulgate. The Hebrew text
is difficult. In the Targum Onkelos we find the following rendering: “(…) until the Messiah comes,
to whom belongs the kingdom, and him shall nations obey”; Bernard Grossfeld: The Targum On­
qelos to Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 6. Edinburgh 1988 (xiv, 193 pp.), p. 158. Jerome seems to be
indebted to the Jewish interpretation.

Gen 49:22–26. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur
hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen
2022 (256 pp.), pp. 153–154 and 164–166.

Exodus

Text
1929. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 2: Libros Exodi et
Levitici ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (485 pp.), pp. 73–293. – This is volume 2 of the
Benedictine Vulgate, edited by the monks of the Abbazia San Girolamo, Rome; see above,
Chapter 13.3.

518
Secondary literature
1996. Matthew Aaron Kraus: Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Exodus Iuxta Hebraeos in Relation to
Classical, Christian, and Jewish Traditions of Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, University of Michi­
gan, Ann Arbor.

2014. David L. Everson: The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Exodus. In: Thomas B. Doze­
man – Craig A. Evans – Joel N. Lohr (eds.): The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Inter­
pretation. Leiden (xx, 669 pp.), pp. 370–386.

2017. Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of
the Book of Exodus: Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden. xiii, 266 pp. – Page 61: “Des­
pite his assertion in Ep. 57 that biblical translation requires the literal (verbum ad verbum) meth­
od, Vg Exodus itself is a free translation.” Pages 223–244: bibliography; pp. 263–266: index of
words. – Reviews:
2018. Pieter W. van der Horst, Vigiliae Christianae 72: 107–110.

2019. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfänder, Theologische Literaturzeitung 143: 600–602. ▲

2017. Matthew Kraus: Vulgate [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 189–195.

Textual notes
Exod 4:22–26. This is a notoriously difficult passage. Kraus offers the following commentary: “Does
Moses say to Pharaoh or does God say to Moses ‘Lo, I will kill your firstborn son’ (4:23)? Does
God meet Moses or his firstborn son, and does God intend to kill Moses or his firstborn son?
And why does Zipporah circumcise the son? Jerome both maintains and resolves these ambigu­
ities. By beginning verse 24 with the clause connector cumque, he joins verse 24 to 23. This con­
nection makes sense only if he understood ‘Lo, I will kill your firstborn son’ (ecce ego interficiam
filium tuum) as addressed to Moses. The referent of the third person singular in verse 24 –
Dominus (…) volebat occidere eum ‘the Lord (…) sought to kill him’ – remains ambiguous be­
cause it may refer to Moses or Moses’s son. The Latin, however, clarifies why Zipporah knew to
circumcise her son: idcirco ‘for this reason,’ because God was intending to kill him [Moses or the
child].” – Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical Traditions in Jerome’s
Translation of the Book of Exodus. Leiden 2017 (xiii, 266 pp.), p. 192.

Exod 5:3. Lorenzo Malusà: L’interpretazione gerominiana di “ḥrb” in tre passi biblici. Bibbia e oriente
19 (1977) 259–261. – This article comments on Exod 5:3; Lev 26:7; Deut 28:22

Exod 6:3. et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – and my name AD­
ONAI I did not shew them (Douay Version). Strangely departing from Jerome’s reference to the
Jewish name of God, the Nova Vulgata has Dominum rather than Adonai.

Exod 11:2–3. Ancient versions of this passage and Exod 12:35–36 are studied by Domenico Lo Sardo:
‘[…] et adcommodauerunt illis’: The Despoiling of the Egyptians in Exod 11:3b and the Role of
the Vetus Latina. Biblische Notizen NF 196 (2023) 25–49.

Exod 12:16. F. Luciani: Ex. 12,16b secondo la Vetus Latina e la Volgata. Rivista biblica 33 (1985) 461–
464.

Exod 12:36. ut commodarent eis – so that they lent them. commodare = to lend; commodarent is sub­
junctive imperfect.

519
Exod 15:14. ascenderunt populi, et irati sunt (Clementina) – nations rose up, and were angry (Douay
Version). The Weber/Gryson edition has adtenderunt populi (…) – nations paid attention – a con­
jecture based on the Hebrew text; the Nova Vulgata follows the conjecture with attenderunt.

Exod 15:19. ingressus est enim eques Pharao cum curribus et equitibus in mare – literally: the horseman
of Pharaoh with chariots and horsemen entered the sea. Instead of eques (horseman) one would
expect equi (horses). Explanations: (1) The standard explanation is that in this passage, eques
means “horse” (see glossary, s.v. eques, Chapter 19.2) and is used with collective meaning – the
horses. (2) Another suggestion is to emend eques to equus, with collective meaning “the horses”
(Hagen, pp. 6–7). (3) Yet another suggestion is that of Blaise (Dictionnaire, p. 312); he considers
eques an adjective meaning “on horseback,” and translates: il entra à cheval dans la mer.

Exod 15:20. Maria prophetissa (Clementina) – Mary the prophetess. The Weber/Gryson edition has
Maria prophetis, using a rare form for saying “female prophet.” See above, the glossary under
prophetissa / prophetis (Chapter 19.2).

Exod 15:23. Et venerunt in Mara, nec poterant bibere aquas de Mara, eo quod essent amare: unde et
[congruum loco] nomen imposuit, [vocans illum] Mara, [id est, amaritudinem] – and they came to
Mara, but could not drink the water of Mara, because it was bitter: therefore one gave [the place
an appropriate] name, [calling it] Mara, [that is, bitterness]. Jerome expands the explanation by
adding what is placed between brackets. Note that imposuit is to be translated impersonally
“one imposed (the name),” in German: man gab den Namen. For a similar case of impersonal
name-giving, see the textual note on Gen 16:14.

Exod 16:15. dixerunt ad invicem: manhu? [quod significat: quid est hoc?] – they said to each other:
manhu? [which menas: what is this?]. The words placed within brackets are Jerome’s explanatory
gloss, without equivalent in the Hebrew text; the addition reads like an ancient grammarian’s
comment. – Matthew Kraus: How Jerome Dealt with Glosses. Vulgata in Dialogue 5 (2021) 1–3,
at p. 2 (online journal).

Exod 16:32. in futuras retro generationes – in future generations. The adverb retro here refers to the
future, not to the past (as in classical Latin); it underlines the adjective futurus; a possible transla­
tion is “all future generations.” Jerome uses it elsewhere in this sense, see Jerome: Life of Hilari­
on XI [20] (PL 23: 39). – Neil Adkin: Jerome, ‘Vita Hilaronis’ 11,13. La parola del passato 54, no.
306 (1999) 192–197.

Exod 18:20. caerimonias et ritus – the ceremonies and the manner of worshipping (Douay Version). (1)
Here Jerome departs from both the Greek and the Hebrew text, producing a reading “which is
quite questionable because in both texts [Hebrew and Greek] not a word is said about a rite”;
Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vulgate . In:
Angelo Di Berardino et al., Lex et religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013
(782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at p. 123. – (2) The expression caerimonias et ritus is a typical enumerat­
ive Latin way of saying what in modern jargon is simply called religious ritual or, in German, Kult;
see Bernhard Lang: Wie sagt man “Kult” auf lateinisch und griechisch? Versuch einer Antwort an­
hand antiker und christlicher Texte. In: Christoph Auffarth et al. (eds.): Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς οἰκουμένης.
Studien zur römischen Religion in Antike und Neuzeit. Stuttgart 2002 (284 pp.), pp. 29–36.

Exod 19:2. castrametati sunt in eodem loco, ibique Israel fixit tentoria – they prepared the ground for
the camp there, and it was there that Israel pitched the tents. The Hebrew text says twice that
the Israelites pitched camp – presumably evidence of a redactional problem. Jerome varies the
expression to produce a smooth text. – Wolfgang Oswald: Moderne Literarkritik und antike
Rezeption biblischer Texte; in: Helmut Utzschneider et al. (eds.): Lesarten der Bibel. Beiträge zu
einer Theorie der Exegese des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart 2006 (319 pp.), pp. 199–209, at p. 203.

520
Exod 23:13. per nomen externorum deorum non iurabilis. Instead of iurabilis, one would expect com­
memorabilis. What we have here is a specifically Jeromian interpretation. – Augustin Merk SJ: In­
troductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium. Paris 1940 (xi, 1092 pp. in 2 vols.), tomus primus,
p. 176.

Exod 26:9. ita ut sextum sagum in fronte tecti duplices – in this way you double the sixth curtain in
front of the roof. Jerome translates freely; in German, one would resort to a construction with
“indem.” Herbert Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament.
Frankfurt 2010. 352 pp. – Pages 285–294: Exodus 26,9; Richter 9,45; Judit 11,15: Noch drei
modale pseudokonsekutive Satzgefüge in der Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 145 [2010] 13–23).

Exod 29:43. Mathias Ederer: Ein Altar zu viel? (Ex 29,43b). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 87–89.

Exod 32:8. isti sunt dii tui Israel – these are your gods, Israel. Note that God (who is speaking) does not
simply repeat what Aaron said (hi sunt dii […], Exod 32:4); instead, God uses iste which has a
derogatory connotation in Latin. – Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Exegetical
Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Exodus: Translation Technique and the Vulgate .
Leiden 2017 (xiii, 266 pp.), pp. 200–201.

Exod 33:7. omnis populus qui habebat aliquam quaestionem – all the people that had any question
(Douay Version). – Following the Hebrew more closely, the NVg has omnis qui quaerebat
Dominum – everyone who sought the Lord. – Matthew Kraus: Befragung (quaestio) (Ex 33,7), in:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 70–71.

Exod 33:14. facies mea praecedet te – I myself (lit. “my face”) will go before you; je marcherai en per­
sonne devant toi. – Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 111 (§
167).

Exod 34:29. ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua – he knew not that his face was horned; er wusste
nicht, dass sein Antlitz gehörnt war; the famous passage that attributes “horns” to the face or
head of Moses. Jerome’s translation echoes the Greek version of Aquila which has ὅτι
κεκεράτωτο. – See also below, Chapter 24.7.

1769. Claudius Franssen: Disquisitiones biblicae. Editio Altera. Tomus primus. Luca (xii, 648 pp.),
pp. 253–254.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p.
102.

1970. Ruth Melinkoff: The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought. Berkeley, Cal. xix, 210 pp.

1976. L.R. Bailey: Horns of Moses. In: Keith Crim (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Supplementary Volume. Nashville (xxv, 998 pp., maps), pp. 419–421.

2019. Eric X. Jarrard: Double Entendre in Exodus 34: Revisiting the QRN of Moses. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 388–406 (on the Hebrew text of the pas­
sage).

2020. Gerd Blum: “In foramine petrae.” Michelangelos wörtliche Auslegung der Vulgta und die
Hörner seines Moses in San Pietro in Vincoli. Vulgata in dialogue 4, 45–78 (online journal).

2023. Martin Mark: Die Hörner des Mose (cornutus), in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 49–51.

2023. Matthew Kraus: Auffallende Stellen zu Hörnern (Ex 34,29-35; Num 10,5-7). In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 51–53.

521
Exod 35:10–11, 17–18. Binding suggests the following literal translation: “Wer immer von euch
klug/geschickt (sapiens) ist, möge kommen und machen, was der Herr befohlen hat, nämlich das
Zelt (tabernaculum) und seine Bedeckung (tectum) sowie Umkleidung (operimentum), die Ringe
(anulos) und das Bretterwerk (tabulata) mit den Türrigeln (vectibus), die Pflöcke (paxillos), und
die Sockel (bases) (…) die Vorhänge (cortinas) der Halle (atrii) mit Säulen (columnis) und Sockeln
(basibus), den Vorhang (tentorium) im doppelflügligen Eingang (in foribus) des Vorhofes (vesti­
buli), die Pflöcke (paxillos) des Zeltes (tabernaculi) und der Halle mit ihren Seilen (funiculi).” Gün­
ther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes.
Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), p. 46.

Exod 36:27. The Hebrew text says: “six boards at the rear of the Mishkan, to the Sea.” Jerome para­
phrases: contra occidentem vero, id est, ad eam partem tabernaculi quae mare respicit, fecit sex
tabulas – but against the west, to wit, at the side of the tabernacle which looketh to the Sea, he
made six boards (Douay Version). Why the paraphrase? Because Jerome wanted to keep the
/Mediterranean) Sea, used in the biblical text rather often to indicate the west.

Exod 39:3. priorum colorum – of the previous colours (i.e., those listed in Exod 39:1). Jerome abbrevi­
ates by not repeating what the reader knows already.

Exod 39:8. fecit et rationale opere polymito – he also made a “rational” with embroidered work (Douay
Version); sodann machte er den Brustschmuck in kunstvoll gewirkter Arbeit (Arndt). The ablative
opere polymito is best understood as ablativus descriptivus (Ablative of quality); see B.L. Gilder­
sleeve – Gonzalez Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p. 257 (no. 400).

Exod 39:17–21. Jerome omits several details that are already known from chapter 28.

Exod 40:3. dimittesque ante illam velum – and shalt let down the veil before it (Douay Version). Since
dimittere actually means “to remove,” the correct form should be demittesque (demittere = to let
down) as suggested by Valtentin Loch in the preface to his 1849 Vulgate edition (p. viii). This
reading is listed in the apparatus of Weber/Gryson. The Nova Vulgata has abscondes illam velo –
screen it off with a veil.

Exod 40:13. Jerome shortens the sentence.

Leviticus

Text
1929. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 2: Libros Exodi et
Levitici ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (485 pp.), pp. 337–485. – On this edition, see
above, Chapter 13.3.

Jerome on Leviticus
394. Jerome: Letter 53, 8: in promptu est Leviticus liber, in quo singula sacrificia, immo singulae paene
syllabae et vestes Aaron et totus ordo Leviticus spirant caelestia sacramenta (CSEL 54: 454). “The
meaning of Leviticus is self-evident – every sacrifice that it describes, nay more: every word that
it contains, the description of Aaron’s vestments, and everything concerning the Levites is re ­
plete with heavenly mysteries!” (B. Lang’s translation)

2023. Elise Albanese: Die Opferterminologie in der lateinischen Übersetzung des Buches Levitikus. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 139–140.

522
Secondary literature
1941. Heinrich Kaupel: Beobachtungen zur Wiedergabe des [hebräischen] Infinitivus absolutus in der
Vulgata des Buches Leviticus. Biblica 22: 252–262. – “Wo Hieronymus in Lv den Inf. abs. überset­
zt, erfasst er dessen Funktion treffend. Das läßt sich oft sogar von der Wahl der Ausdrucksweise
sagen, z.B. hinsichtlich der Adverbien und Hilfsverben” (p. 262). Jerome did a good job.

1971. Umberto Rapallo: Calchi ebraici nelle antiche versioni del Levitico: studio sui Settanta, la Vetus La­
tina e la Vulgata. Rome. 343 pp.

2017. Matthew Kraus: Vulgate [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 189–195.

Textual notes
Lev 1–7. Innocent Himbaza: Textual Witnesses and Sacrificial Terminology in Leviticus 1–7. In: Yohanan
Goldman et al. (eds.): Sofer mahir. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker. Leiden 2006 (viii, 307
pp.), pp. 95–111.

Lev 5:21–24 (Vg 6:2–5). Jerome translates freely. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction
de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at pp. 108–109.

Lev 23:8. F. Luciani: Lev. 23,8b secondo la Vetus Latina e la Volgata. Rivista biblica 33 (1985) 465–468.

Lev 9:10. Canillo Neri: Il grasso per la salvezza (Lv 9,10). Adamantius 10 (2004) 33–40.

Lev 10:11. doceatisque filios Israel omnia legitima mea quae locutus est Dominus (Clementina,
Weber/Gryson, NVg) – and may teach the sons of Israel all my rules which the Lord has spoken.
The problem word is mea which does not fit the context; the Weber/Gryson edition keeps it but
indicates in the apparatus that the Benedictine edition has omitted it (as a conjectural emenda ­
tion). The expression legitima mea (my laws) appears in 1 Kgs 9:4.

Lev 11:5. choerogryllus – hare. Jerome transliterates the Septuagint word choirogryllios, as he does in
the parallel passage Deut 14:7. In other passages, he translates the underlying Hebrew šāfān as
herinacius – hedgehog (Ps 104:18, Vg 103:18; Douay Version: irchin, Allioli: Igel) and lepusculus –
rabbit (Prov 30:26). Jerome discusses the matter in Letter 106,65 (CSEL 55: 281–282; Jerome:
Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Michael Graves. At­
lanta, Ga. [xix, 363 pp.], pp. 132–133). – Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen: La conception et la ter­
minologie de l’alimentation chez saint Jérôme. In: Marie-Hélène Marganne et al. (eds.): Pratiques
et strategies alimentaires dans l’Antiquité tardive. Liège 2022 (169 pp.), pp. 119–127, at pp. 125–
127.

Lev 14:21. quod si pauper est (…) – but if he is poor. The expression quod si refers to something that
precedes it – an elegant expression known from classical Latin; examples are listed in Charlton T.
Lewis – Charles Short: A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. (xiv, 2019 pp.), p. 1518 (s. v. quod viii).

Lev 14:37. vallicula = cavity, Vertiefung. Before Jerome, the word is attested only once – in Servius’
commentary on Vergil: Aeneid XI, 522 (in the form vallecula). – Olga Monno: Una “piccola valle”
tra la grammatica e i testi sacri. Vetera Christianorum 48 (2011) 273–283.

Lev 18:6. turpitudo – ugliness. Meant are the sexual organs, and one can feel the ascetic translator’s
fear of sexuality. The Douay Version mitigates the sentence by speaking of of “nakedness,” but
Allioli has “Schande.” The Nova Vulgata has kept turpitudo. The humanist Sebastian Castellio (d.
1563; see Chapter 15.6) in his Latin Bible replaces turpitudo with natura.

523
Lev 19:15. non consideres personam pauperis, nec honores vultum potentis – respect not the person of
the poor, nor honour the countenance of the mighty. Both persona and facies translate Hebrew
pānîm, “face.” As often, Jerome varies, as required by good Latin style. Persona means here “the
exterior of the human individual” (das Äußere des Menschen), see Hans Rheinfelder: Das Wort
“Persona.” Geschichte seiner Bedeutung. Halle 1928 (xiii, 200 pp.), p. 81.

Lev 20:2–27. morte moriatur – he will die a death (Douay Version: dying let him die). The morte mori
formula, first used in v. 2, and then six more times in the same chapter, plus another three times
elsewhere in Leviticus (Lev 24:16.17; 27:29) to render Hebrew môt yamût and similar expressions,
is close to occidione occidi used by Livy (Ab urbe condita IX, 38,3) and therefore acceptable Latin.
Jerome uses the morte mori formula only “wenn kürzere, feierliche autoritative Worte in geho­
bener Sprechweise vorliegen, besonders in Gottessprüchen” (p. 258). – Heinrich Kaupel: Beob­
achtungen zur Wiedergabe des [hebräischen] Infinitivus absolutus in der Vulgata des Buches Le ­
viticus. Biblica 22 (1941) 252–262, esp. pp. 255–258.

Lev 22:24. Jerome adds the “testicles” (testiculi) that are not in the Greek and Hebrew, no doubt be­
cause of decency. – Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der
Deuteronomiumübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart 2016 (280 pp.), pp. 196–197.

Lev 23:8. Ferdinando Luciani: Lv 23,8b secondo la Vetus Latina e la Volgata. Rivista Biblica 33 (1985)
465–468.

Lev 25. Giuseppe Marocco: Dallo “Yobel” del testo ebraico al “Giubileo” della Volgata. Archivio teologi­
co torinese 7 (2004) 51–61.

Lev 25:17. contribulis – fellow-tribesman, Stammesgenosse (as in 2 Macc 4:10; 1 Thess 2:14).

Lev 26:7. Lorenzo Malusà: L’interpretazione gerominiana di “ḥrb” in tre passi biblici. Bibbia e oriente 19
(1977) 259–261. – This article comments on Exod 5:3; Lev 26:7; Deut 28:22.

Numbers (Numeri)

Text
1936. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 3: Libros Numerorum
et Deuteronomii ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Henri Quentin. Rome (xi, 528 pp.),
pp. 63–285. – On the Benedictine Vulgate of which this is volume 3, see above 13.3.

Secondary literature
1937. Friedrich Stummer: Der dritte Band der neuen römischen Ausgabe der Vulgata. Theologische Re­
vue 36: 305–311. – Stummer reviews volume 3 of the Benedictine Vulgate that offers a new text
of Numbers and Deuteronomy, and discusses the wording of many passages, esp. from the
book of Numbers.

2017. Matthew Kraus: Rabbinic Traditions in Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Numbers. Journal of
Biblical Literature 136: 539–563. ▲

2017. Matthew Kraus: Vulgate [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), 189–195.

524
Textual notes
Num 2:4. septuaginta quatuor milia sescentorum (Benedictine Vulgate, Weber/Gryson) – seventy-four
thousand and six hundred. One would expect sescenti (nominative plural), and not genitive plur­
al sescentorum. Friedrich Stummer (Theologische Revue 36 [1937] 308) calls it a vulgarism. The
Clementina has sexcenti, the Nova Vulgata sescenti.

Num 3:4. mortui sunt [enim] Nadab et Abihu – [then] Nadab and Abihu died. The Benedictine Vulgate
and Weber/Gryson omit the word enim, the Clementina and the New Vulgate have it. Historic­
ally, enim appears first in the Gutenberg Bible. According to Stummer (Theologische Revue 36
[1937] 307), it may nevertheless be original, because it would reflect Jerome’s translation style.

Num 5:31. maritus = husband, Ehemann is a mistranslation; meant is the lover of the adulteress, not
her husband. – Guillaume Cardascia: Sur quelques erreurs de la Vulgate. Nombres 5,31 – Luc
10,36. Revue biblique 111 (2004) 419–422.

Num 7:23. hircos quinque – five buck-goats, fünf Ziegenböcke. Thus correctly in the 7th edition 2007
of the Weber/Gryson Vulgate (see above, Chapter 13.4). Earlier editions have the printing error
hi cos quinque.

Num 8:4. ex auro ductibili tam medius stipes quam cuncta [quae] ex utroque calamorum latere nasce­
bantur – of beaten gold (was) both the shaft in the middle, and all that came out of both sides
of the branches (Douay Version). The quae (in the Clementina, but not in the Benedictine Vul­
gate and Weber/Gryson) is necessary, otherwise the sentence does not make sense. – Friedrich
Stummer, Theologische Revue 36 (1937) 309–310.

Num 10:5–6. prolixior atque conscius clangor – a longer and uninterrupted tone; pari ululatu tubae –
the same howling of the trumpet. – Matthew A. Kraus: Auffallende Stellen zu Hörnern. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 51–53: the rendering in the German Tusculum-Vulgata is not exact.

Num 13:30 (Vg 13:31). murmur populi qui oriebatur contra Mosen (Benedictine Vulgate,
Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – the murmuring of the people that arose against Moses. One
would expect quod (not qui), because murmur is a neuter word. Friedrich Stummer (Theologische
Revue 36 [1937] 308) calls it a vulgarism. But it may be that the qui is linked to populus (rather
than to murmur).

Num 14:3. utinam mortui essemus in Aegypto et non in hac solitudine, utinam pereamus et [non] intro­
ducat nos Dominus in terram istam – oh that we had died in Egypt, and not in this vast wilder­
ness! Oh that the Lord may [not] bring us into this land! This text, complete with the word non
(here placed within brackets), is in the Benedictine Vulgate and in the Weber/Gryson edition.
The Clementina has a wrong punctuation and lacks the first non. – Friedrich Stummer, Theolo­
gische Revue 36 (1937) 310.

Num 15:11-15. Jerome abridges and provides a free translation. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères
de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at
p. 109.

Num 16:23–35. Jerome abridges, thereby making incoherencies invisible (incoherencies that are relev­
ant evidence for source criticism). – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la
Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 124–127.

Num 21:1. (venisse Israel) per exploratorum viam – after the manner of scouts, that is, singly and
scattered; nach Art von Kundschaftern, d.h. einzeln und zerstreut. Venire here has the meaning
“to walk, to wander,” in German “gehen, wandern.” – Kaulen, pp. 32 and 185.

525
Num 21:10–20. The reasons for the significant differences between the Hebrew Text and the Vulgate
are not to be explained by the existence of textual variants, but rather derive from a thorough
reception of Rabbinic interpretations of Num 21:14–20. – Literature:

2023. Matthias Ederer: Unforeseen Miracles along the Banks of the Arnon River. Num 21:10-20
in the Vulgate and in Rabbinic Traditions. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue: 157–173.

2023. Matthias Ederer: Wie kommt das Rote Meer in das Bergland östlich des Jordan? (Num
21,14f.). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 84–85.

Num 21:20. vallis (…) et quod respicit contra desertum (Weber/Gryson) – a valley (…) and it looks to­
ward the desert. According to Stummer, this would be the correct text, even though quod is a
vulgarism for quae (because vallis is feminine). The standard editions are problematic: the Clem­
entina does not have the et (which is well attested in the manuscripts), and the Benedictine Vul­
gate has et quo. – Friedrich Stummer, Theologische Revue 36 [1937] 308.

Num 22:22. The Hebrew text reads, “Then the wrath of God was kindled because he went”; Jerome
omits the phrase because he went. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la
Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 127.

Num 24:17. orietur stella ex Iacob et consurget virga de Israel – a star shall rise out of Jacob, and a rod
(or: stem, Knox) shall spring up from Israel. “It is noteworthy that in the Vulgate the most faithful
rendering of the Hebrew is offered, without messianic overtones at all,” argues Johan Lehmans:
“To bless with a mouth bent on cursing”: Patristic Interpretations of Balaam (Num 24:17), in:
George H. van Kooten – Jacques van Ruiten (eds.): The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in
Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, Themes in Biblical Narrative 11. Leiden 2008 (xx, 328 pp.),
pp. 287–299, at p. 289. – One should be aware, however, that some vernacular translations of
the Vulgate text introduce a strong messianic element by rendering virga with “sceptre” (Douay
Version) and “Scepter” (Arndt).

Num 29:14. arieti uno – for one ram (dative). One would expect uni as the dative case of unus, but
here Jerome uses late Latin. The NVg retains uno.

Num 33:1–49. Aline Canellis: L’exégèse de Nombres 33,1-49 : d‘Origène à saint Jérôme (Epist. 78 à
Fabiola). In: Emauele Prinzivalli et al. (eds.): Transmission et réception des Pères grecs dans l’Occi­
dent, de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance. Paris 2016 (597 pp.), pp. 57–79.

Num 33:48–50. Matthias Ederer: Ein neues Ende für eine langwierige Perikope? (Num 33,48–49.50). In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 86–87.

Num 35:15–31. The Vulgate seems to have a good feeling for the nuances of the text which, while re­
fraining from having God himself pronounce curses, seeks to denounce certain unlawful acts
very strongly. “[Der Übersetzer hat] ein feines Empfinden für den Inhalt des Textes (…), der nicht
von Gott direkt gesprochene Droh- und Strafsentenzen bringen will, sondern eine schärfere Ab­
grenzung von verschiedenen möglichen Fällen gibt” (p. 257). “Darüber hinaus befließigt sich hier
Hieronymus überhaupt einer freieren, abwechslungsreichen, ja gut lateinischen Wiedergabe des
etwas eintönigen H[ebräischen]” (p. 257). – Heinrich Kaupel: Beobachtungen zur Wiedergabe
des [hebräischen] Infinitivus absolutus in der Vulgata des Buches Leviticus. Biblica 22 (1941)
252–262.

Num 35:23–24. Jerome abridges and provides a free translation. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères
de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at
p. 110.

526
Deuteronomy (Deuteronomium)

Text
1936. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 3: Libros Numerorum
et Deuteronomii ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Henri Quentin. Rome (xi, 528 pp.),
pp. 347–528. – This is volume 3 of the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomium­
übersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart. 280 pp. – Review: Martin Meiser, Theologische Literatur­
zeitung 142 (2017) 353–355.

2017. Matthew Kraus: Vulgate [text of the Pentateuch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), 189–195.

2025. Kevin J. Zilverberg: Old Latin and Vulgate Versions of Deuteronomy. In: Dominik Markl – Craig A.
Evans – Kyung S. Baek (eds.): The Book of Deuteronomy: Composition, Contexts, Interpretation,
and Reception. Leiden (forthcoming).

Textual notes
Deut 1:37–38. nec miranda indignatio, cum (v. 37) – pro te – exhortare et (v. 38) = not surprising (is his)
wrath against the people, since – instead of you – admonish and; nicht verwunderlich (ist sein)
Zorn – anstelle von dir – ermahnen und. Jerome adds explanatory words. – Literature:

1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherch­
es de science religieuse 3: 105–138, at p. 128.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 117: “Der
ganze Passus (…) ist Auffüllung und hat keine Entsprechung im Original, sondern ist ein­
gesetzt, um den Gedankengang deutlicher und den Fluß der Rede angenehmer zu ma­
chen.”

Deut 4:34. si fecit Deus ut ingrederetur (…) – if God made that he would go. The word fecit may reflect
the word used by Symmachus, though Symmachus’ version of the verse is not known. A literal
version of the Hebrew text would require something like “if God has attempted”; but this may
have seemed theologically inappropriate and was changed. – Abraham Geiger: Urschrift und
Übersetzungen der Bibel. Frankfurt 1928 (x, 500, 51 pp.), p. 287.

Deut 6:12. cave diligenter – take heed diligently (Douay Version). An apt rendering of the Hebrew da­
tivus ethicus (leka), notes Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1929
(viii, 290 pp.), p. 117.

Deut 8:15. serpens flatu adurens et scorpio ac dipsas – the serpent with its burning breath and the
scorpion and the dipsas snake. According to Kryscuk, the dipsas snake, absent from the Hebrew,
takes the place of what in the Hebrew text is “dry land”; Jerome’s version echoes, though mis ­
reads, a Greek version that he consulted – most likely the text of Symmachus (which is not ex ­
tant). – Literature:

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart (280 pp.), pp. 129–130. “Dass Hieronymus nach

527
 den brennenden Schlangen und den Skorpionen noch das Wort dipsas, eine weitere
Schlangenart, verwendet, stellt ein Kuriosum dar. Nirgends sonst ist dieses Wesen bei Hie­
ronymus belegt” (p. 129).

2021. Lukasz Krzysczuk: The Question of St. Jerome’s Translation ex Hebraica veritate: the Exam ­
ple of Deut. 8:15. Philologia classica 16: 241–261.

Deut 11:10. ubi iacto semine in hortorum morem aquae ducuntur inriguae – where, when the seed is
cast, waters are to water it after the manner of gardens. The translator makes the sentence into
a line of poetry by using Vergilian words: iacto semine (when the seed is cast) is from Vergil:
Georgics I, 104, and inriguus (irriguus, watering) from Georgics IV, 32. – Literature:

1998. Neil Adkin: Vergil’s Georgics and Jerome. Epist. 125,11,3–4. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die
Altertumswissenschaft N.F. 22: 187–198, at pp. 192–193. ▲

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart (280 pp.), pp. 240–241. Jerome “behilft (…) sich
mit dem ihm wohl vertrauten Bild von Bewässerungsgräben, die die Felder durchziehen”
(p. 241).

Deut 11:30. vallem tendentem et intrantem procul vos – the valley that reaches far away from you; das
Tal, das sich weit von euch weg erstreckt. Stummer equates tendens and intrans. – Friedrich
Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 35–
37.

Deut 12:16. absque esu dumtaxat sanquinis quod (…) efundes (Benedictine Vulgate, Weber/Gryson) –
without the eating of the blood that you (…) shall pour out. One expects quem (instead of quod),
because sanguis is masculine, not neuter. Stummer calls this a vulgarism, while Herkenne be­
lieves it to be due to an archaic form of the word for blood: sanguen (which is neuter); Kevin Zil­
verberg leans toward Herkenne’s solution (personal communication). The Clementina and the
Nova Vulgata have quem. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 121 (no. 30) discusses sanguen, sanguinis (blood) as an alternative form of san­
guis, without, however, referring to Deut 12:16.

1937. Friedrich Stummer, Theologische Revue 36: 308.

1937. Heinrich Herkenne, Das Heilige Land 81: 103.

Deut 14:28. aliam decimam – another tithe. “By itself, the reference to another tithe” (alia decima) in
Deuteronomy 14:28 may seem peculiar because it does not follow the Hebrew which also does
not make a special point to distinguish between the tithe mentioned in verses 14:22–23. The
Commentary on Ezechiel 45:1 indicates that Jerome was quite conscious of different types of
tithes and therefore highlights that the third-year tithe mentioned in Deuteronomy is specifically
dedicated to priests. The fact that he emphasizes this in the translation indicates that not only
was he aware of different types of tithes, but he also chose to bring this detail to the attention
of the reader” (Kraus, p. 107). – Literature:

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart (280 pp.), pp. 174–177.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at pp. 106–108 (online journal).

Deut 17:9. “The notion of veritas was so important for Jerome that occasionally he appended it
without any evident necessity. Thus, in Deuteronomy we read that in difficult cases one should

528
 seek the advice of men versed in laws who will ‘announce you the verdict.’ The Hebrew text says
(…) literally: ‘they will reply you the word of justice’ (…) Jerome slightly modifies the phrase:
iudicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem thus making reference to the ‘verity of the judgment.’” Igor Filip­
pov: Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di
Berardino et al., Lex et religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp.
105–141, at p. 139.

Deut 19:3. in tres aequaliter partes totam terrae tuae provinciam divides – you shall divide in an equal
manner the entire area of your land into three parts. Note that the translator uses the adverb
aequaliter to qualify the verb, and not the adjective to qualify the noun (which would produce
partes aequales); aequaliter is introduced for purely stylistic reasons – it lacks an equivalent in
the Hebrew but has Latin parallels (Isidore of Seville; Etymologiae XIV, 2,2: non aequaliter di­
videre). Also note the close parallel in Caesar: De bello gallico I, 1,1: Gallia est omnis divisa in
partes tres – all Gaul is divided into three parts.

Deut 21:22. adiudicatus morti adpensus fuerit in patibulo – (when) the one condemned to death has
been hanged on the gallows; (wenn) der zum Tode verurteilte am Galgen aufgehängt worden
ist. Jerome interprets the text christologically, harmonizing it with the New Testament passion
narratives. – Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der
Deuteronomiumübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart 2016 (280 pp.), pp. 245–246.

Deut 23:3 (Vg 23:2). mamzer hoc est de scorto natus – mamzer, i.e., one born from a prostitute. The
explanatory gloss is Jerome’s addition. On such glosses, see Matthew Kraus: How Jerome Dealt
with Glosses. Vulgata in Dialogue 5 (2021) 1–3 (online journal).

Deut 23:12. habebis locum extra castra, ad quem egrediaris ad requisita naturae – you shall have a
place outside the camp to which you may go “for the necessities of nature.” The expression ad
requisita naturae, added by Jerome for clarification, has no basis in the Hebrew text; it seems to
echo Sallustius as quoted in Qunitilian: Institutio oratoria VIII, 6,59. – Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana:
Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40 (2000) 77–87, at pp. 82–87. ▲

Deut 26:5. Syrus persequebatur patrem meum – the Syrian pusued my father (Douay Version). Very dif­
ferent from the underlying Hebrew. The NVg has Syrus vagus erat pater meus – my father was a
wandering Syrian. – Literature:

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart (280 pp.), pp. 199–205.

2023. Teppei Kato: Ein wandernder Aramäer? (Dtn 26,5). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 68–70.

Deut 26:10. et dimittes eas in conspectus domini Dei tui, et adorato Domino Deo tuo (Clementina, NVg).
Two ways of translating the second half of the sentence have been suggested: (1) and thou
shalt leave them (the first-fruits) in the sight of the Lord your God, and worship the Lord your
God (imperative); (2) (…), after having worshipped the Lord your God (ablatives absolutus). The
problem with (1) is that adorare is normally followed by the accusative. Kaulen (pp. 261–262)
prefers the first possibility, thinking that the wording of the Clementina requires it. But the
Weber/Gryson edition, with its omission of the et before adorato, would favour the second pos­
sibility.

Deut 28:22. Three kinds of fever: febris, frigor, ardor – a free, but nevertheless adequate translation. –
Literature:

1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg (vi, 599
pp.), p. 122.

529
 1977. Lorenzo Malusà: L’interpretazione gerominiana di “ḥrb” in tre passi biblici. Bibbia e oriente
19 (1977) 259–261. This article comments on Exod 5:3, Lev 26:7, Deut 28:22.

Deut 28:50. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Ein äußerst unverschämter Volksstamm (Dtn
28,50). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 68.

Deut 29:10 (Vg 29:11). exceptis lignorum caesoribus, et his qui comportant aquas – except for the
hewers of wood and those who bring water. In his translation, Jerome excludes the hewers of
wood and the water-carriers from the ritual community. This is either a mere mistake of the
translator, or a conscious decision to exclude the lowest on the social scale. More likely seems to
be the idea that Jerome made a mistake. Alternatively (not mentioned by Makkonen) one could
think of a Jewish interpretation that came to Jerome’s knowledge. – Literature:

1868. Friedrich Kaulen: Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz (viii, 501 pp.), p. 175: “gerade das Gegen­
theil vom Hebräischen.”

1969. Olli Makkonen: Waldterminologie im Latein. Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica. Nova Series
6: 81–90, at pp. 84–85.

Deut 29:22 (Vg 29:23). The noun exemplum (example) does not have an equivalent in the Hebrew
text. – Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions
of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285.

Deut 31:21. quod nulla delebit oblivio – which no oblivion shall delete. Compare Cicero: Ad familiares
II, 1,2: meam tuorum erga me meritorum memoriam nulla umquam delebit oblivio – my memory
of your kindnesses toward me will never be deleted by oblivion, i.e., I will never consign to obli ­
vion your kindness toward me. This must not be a specific echo of Cicero, but the parallel shows
that Jerome used an expression from classical Latin. The same phrase is used elsewhere in
Jerome’s translation – Esth 9:28; Koh 6:4; Jer 23:40; 50:5. – Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical
Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40 (2000) 77–87, at pp. 80–81. ▲

Deut 32:1–43. Kamphausen presents his reconstruction of Jerome’s original wording on the basis of a
selection of textual witnesses such as Codex Amiatinus. Here is a list of the differences between
Kamphausen’s version and [Weber/Gryson]: v. 6 – reddes [reddis]; v. 15 – salvatore [salutari]; v.,
17 – ignoraverunt [ignorabant]; v. 42 – de captivitate [et de captivitate]. – Adolf Hermann Heinrich
Kamphausen: Das Lied Moses Deut. 32,1–43. Leipzig 1862 (xii, 331 pp.), pp. 315–323: “Das Lied
des Mose nach der lateinischen Übersetzung des Hieronymus.”

Deut 34:6. et sepelivit eum – and he buried him. “Weigert discusses this passage where the singular of
the verb “bury” in the version according to the Hebrews contrasts with the plural in the Sep­
tuagint. The singular indicates that God, not the Israelites, buried Moses, while the comment in
Epistula 109 indicates that Jerome was aware of the issue and legitimates the divine burial with
his translation” (Kraus, p. 115). – Literature:

2016. Sebastian Weigert: Hebraica veritas. Übersetzungsprinzipien und Quellen der Deuteronomi­
umübersetzung des Hieronymus. Stuttgart (280 pp.), pp. 211–212.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue (2023) 99–119, at p. 115.

530
Joshua (Iosue)

Text
1939. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 4: Libri Iosue, Iudicum,
Ruth ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xi, 490 pp.), pp. 37–186. – This is volume 4 of the
Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1952. Donato Baldi: Giosuè. Torino. xiv, 177 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina
e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin
text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2008. Sipilä Seppo: The Book of Joshua in the Vulgate. In: Voitila Anssi (ed.): Scripture in Translation.
Leiden (xxxviii, 748 pp.), pp. 17–26.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Hebraismen im Buch Josua. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 34–35.

Textual notes
Josh 4:14. advivere (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – to be still alive; noch leben. The verb is not to be
changed into adhuc viveret (a reading of many printed editions, adopted in Loch’s 1863 edition
of the Vulgate, and by Loch rendered as “solange er lebte” – as long as he lived), see the discus­
sion in Kaulen (p. 202). Since the expression is unusual, NVg has omnibus diebus vitae suae – all
the days of his life.

Josh 5:1. reges Chanaan, qui propinqua possidebant magni maris loca (Clementina) – kings of Kanaan
who owned places close to the Big Sea. In classical Latin, propinquus is followed by the dative
case, so that magno mari would be correct – and this is the reading of Weber/Gryson and NVg.

Josh 9:7. ne forsitan in terra qae nobis sorte debetur habitetis – don’t you perhaps live in the land that
will fall to us by lot?; wohnt ihr vielleicht nicht im Land, das uns durchs Los (zuteil) werden soll? –
Peter Juhás: Beobachtungen zum biblisch-hebräischen Satzadverb ʾulaj. Funktionen, Überset­
zungslösungen des Hieronymus und Problemstellen der antiken Bibelübersetzungen.
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 97.1 (2021) 1–36, at pp. 25–26.

Josh 14:15. The view expressed several times by Jerome that Adam was buried in Hebron (Kiryat-Arba)
also determined his translation of Jos 14:15. He traces the idea back to Hebraei (Jews) (The Life
of Saint Paula = Letter 108, 11; CSEL 55: 319). – Pieter W. van der Horst: The Site of Adam’s
Tomb. In: M.F.J. Baasten et al. (eds.): Studies in Hebrew Literature and Jewish Culture. Dordrecht
2007 (x, 320 pp.), pp. 251–255.

Josh 15:19. iunge irriguam (Weber/Gryson: inriguam) – add a water place (or source); füge hinzu eine
Wasserstelle (oder Quelle). Stummer postulates a noun irriguum = water place, source. –
Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50,
at pp. 37–43.

Josh 18:14. haec est plaga contra mare, ad occidentem – this is the coast towards the sea, westward.
Jerome paraphrases in the interest of clarity; the Hebrew text has “this (is) towards the Sea,” i.e.,
the Mediterranean.

531
Josh 19:15. The place is called Jerala (not: Jedala); Jerome – or his informant – mistook the Hebrew
letter dalet for the similarly looking letter resh.

Josh 22:24. cogitatio atque tractatus – thought and design (Douay Version, Knox); Gedanke und Ve­
rabredung (Arndt); la pensée et le but (Glaire). – Gustave Bardy: Tractare, Tractatus. Recherches
de science religieuse 33 (1946) 211–235.

Judges (Liber Iudicum)

Text
1939. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 4: Libri Iosue, Iudicum,
Ruth ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xi, 490 pp.), pp. 215–368. – Volume 4 of the
Benedictine Vulgate, see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1888. Franz von Hummelauer SJ: Commentarius in libros Judicum et Ruth. Paris, 20–22: The author
compares the masoretic text with the Vulgate version, indicaring that Jerome tends to add ex ­
planatory glosses, especially Judges 19–21.

1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de
science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at pp. 110–111: Following Franz von Hummelauer, the au­
thor lists Jerome’s most important explanatory additions.

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Col. 2461: “Par amour de la clarté, le traducteur latin ajoute
parfois quelques mots d’explication. (…) Comme l’a remarqué le P. de Hummelauer, Commenta­
rius in libros Judicum et Ruth, Paris 1888, pp. 20–22, les explications ajoutées pour éclaircir le
texte sont assez fréquentes dans le livre des Juges. Voir quelques spécimens, ii 19; viii 1, 11; ix
25, 36; xi 39; xv 9, 16, 19; xvii 9; leur nombre augmente à partir du c. xix.”

1963. Angelo Penna: Giudici e Rut. Torino. viii, 287 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Vol­
gata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

Textual notes
Judg 1:15. da et inriguam aquis (Clementina: da et irriguam aquis) – give me also a source with water.
See note on Joshua 15:19.

Judg 4–5. Agnethe Siquans: Debora (Debbora) in der Vulgata; in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 127–128.

Judg 6:18. nec recedas hinc (Clementina) – and you shall not depart from here. Weber/Gryson has ne
recedes hinc, which is closer to classical usage (because nec = neque means “and not,” and does
not include ne).

Judg 9:25. Jerome adds this gloss: dum illius praestolabantur adventum – while they waited for his ar­
rival; während sie auf seine Ankunft warteten. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduc­
tion de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 111 (af­
ter Franz von Hummelauer).

532
Judg 9:45. Jerome translates freely; in German one resorts to formulations with “indem.” – Herbert
Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Frankfurt 2010 (352
pp.), pp. 285–294: Exodus 26,9; Richter 9,45; Judit 11,15: Noch drei modale pseudokonsekutive
Satzgefüge in der Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 145 [2010] 13–23).

Judg 9:51–54. mulieres (…) una mulier (…) a femina interfectus – women (…) a certain woman (…) slain
by a woman. The una of una mulier is partitive; it means “one of these women.” – Gerhard
Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardinals. Canadian Journal of Lin­
guistics 65 (2020) 438–470.

Judg 11:30–38. A. Penna: The Vow of Jephtah in the Interpretation of Jerome. In: F.L. Cross (ed.): Stu­
dia Patristica IV. Berlin 1961 (viii, 533 pp.), pp. 162–170.

Judg 12:6. Matthew Kraus: Sprachspiel (Ri 12,6). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 38–39.

Judg 13–16. The Samson story. Complete text, Latin and German working translation, accompanied by
notes on vocabulary and grammar, in: Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Leses­
tücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stutt­
gart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 69–87.

Judg 14:8. examen apum – a swarm of bees. For this meaning of examen, see Vergil: Aeneid VII, 64–67:
“A strange thing happened now: a tight-packed swarm of bees / came loudly humming through
the limpid air, and settling / upon the top of that tree, they interlocked their feet. / Next mo ­
ment a swarm (examen) was hanging down from the green bough.” It may well be that in trans­
lating the biblical passage, Jerome thought of the Vergilian text (B. Lang). On examen as
“swarm,” see Michèle Fruyt et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris
2020 (326 pp.), pp. 61–73, esp. 62–63. The translation of Vergil is from The Aeneid of Virgil.
Translated by C. Day Lewis. New York 1952. 288 pp. ▲

Judg 18:30. Gersam filii Moysi – Gershom son of Moses (Vg, NVg). The Hebrew text has “son of Man­
asseh,” but the Vulgate has the correct reading accepted by modern textual criticism.

Judg 19:4. comedens cum eo et bibens familiariter (Vg, NVg) – eating with him and drinking familiarly.
The Hebrew has: they ate and drank and he stayed there.

Judg 19:27. ecce concubina eius iacebat ante ostium sparsis in limine manibus – behold, his concubine
lay before the door with her hands spread on the threshold. (1) Why with her hands spread
(sparsis manibus)? Because this wording echoes Vergil’s Aeneid IV, 663–665, the suicide of Dido.
– Neil Adkin: The Death of Dido and the Vulgate Text of the Gang-bang at Gibeah. Maia 63
(2011) 451–454. – (2) Note the elegant hyperbaton: sparsis in limine manibus (instead of sparsis
manibus in limine). ▲

Judg 20:25. eruperunt filii Beniamin de portis Gabaa; et occurrentes eis tanta in illos caede bacchanti
sunt – Benjaminites burst forth from the Gates of Gibeah and meeting them raged like a bac­
chant against them with such great slaughter (Kraus’s translation). (1) Why like a bacchant? Be­
cause the passage parallels, and no doubt echoes, Cicero: In Catilinam IV, 11: aspectus Cethegi
et furor in vestra caede bacchantis – the sight of Cethegus and his madness raging amid your
slaughter; das Bild des rasenden Cathegus bei eurer Niedermetzelung. Neil Adkin: Biblia Catilin­
aria. Maia 55 (2003) 93–98; Matthew A. Kraus: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Traditions in
Jerome’s Translation of the Book of Exodus. Translation Technique and the Vulgate. Leiden 2017
(xiii, 266 pp.), pp. 39–40. – (2) How is cedere to be understood: as “to cut off, to kill” (caedere) or
as “to flee” (cedere)? The first possibility is chosen by the Douay Version (“they thought to cut
them off”), the second possibility in Arndt’s German translation (“sie meinen nämlich, dass jene,
wie sie vorher getan, flohen”). ▲

533
Judg 20:32. putaverunt enim solito eos more cedere. – How is cedere to be understood? Two options:
(1) cedere = caedere, to kill: for they thought to cut them off [or: kill them, B. Lang], as they did
before (Douay Version); car ils pensaient qu’ils les tailleraient en pieces comme de coutume
(Glaire). – (2) cedere = to flee: sie meinten nämlich, daß jene, wie sie vorher getan, flohen
(Arndt); sie glaubten nämlich, dass sie auf die gewohnte Weise nachgaben (Tusculum-Vulgata).
While the main text of the Benedictine Vulgate edition (p. 351) has cedere, the apparatus lists
manuscripts that have the spelling caedere.

Ruth

Text
1939. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 4: Libri Iosue, Iudicum,
Ruth ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xi, 490 pp.), pp. 369–392. – Part of the Benedic­
tine Vulgate, see above, Chapter 13.3.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 358–363. – Compared to earlier editions of the
“Stuttgart Vulgate,” the text-critical apparatus of the book of Ruth has been revised in this 5th
edition.

Secondary literature
1963. Angelo Penna: Giudici e Rut. Torino. viii, 287 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Vol­
gata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2017. Vincent Skemp: Vulgate [text of the Five Scrolls]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 441–446.

2018. Andreas Vonach: Theologische Akzentsetzungen in der Vulgataversion des Rutbuches. Vulgata
in dialogue 2: 31–46 (online journal).

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 88–103. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation), with explanatory notes on vocabulary and grammar.

2023. Andreas Vonach: Eheterminologie und Ehemoral im Buch Rut. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 82–83.

Textual notes
Ruth 1:1–5.16–17-20. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchun­
gen zur hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göt­
tingen 2022 (256 pp.), pp. 169–175 and 186–192.

Ruth 2:16. ut absque rubore colligat, et colligentem nemo corripiat – that she may gather without being
shamed (or: without blushing), and nobody rebuke her when she gathers. Jerome inserts absque
rubore – an elegant explanatory gloss without equivalent in the Hebrew text. But what exactly
does the addition mean? Two possibilities have been suggested: (1) without blushing, i.e.,
without shame (Douay Version), ohne Scheu (Allioli), sans honte (Glaire); (2) without being

534
 shamed, without being molested, unbehelligt, i.e., “dass sie ohne Beschämung sammle, und nie­
mand sie tadle beim Sammeln” (Valentin Loch; see Chapter 18.2). –The Nova Vulgata omits abs­
que rubore.

Ruth 2:19–3:1. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur
hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen
2022 (256 pp.), pp. 175–181 and 192–194.

Ruth 3:4–14. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur
hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen
2022 (256 pp.), pp. 194–196.

Ruth 3:11–4:22. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur
hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen
2022 (256 pp.), pp. 178-185 and 196–202.

Ruth 3:11. mulierem te esse virtutis – that thou art a virtuous woman (Douay Version); dass du eine tu­
gendhafte Frau bis (Arndt; similarly Luther); tu es une femme de vertu (Glaire). But considering
the fact that virtus rarely, if ever, has this meaning in the Vulgate, one should perhaps translate
differently – “that you are a capable woman”; see on Ruth 4:11. – Kaulen, p. 34.

Ruth 4:6. This is perfect legal Latin (in schönstem Juristenlatein ausgesprochen), esp. the noun privi­
legium belongs to legal language. – Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hi­
eronymus. Untersuchungen zur hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer
Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen 2022 (256 pp.), pp. 180 and 181, note 46.

Ruth 4:11. ut sit exemplum virtutis – (1) she may be an example of virtue (Douay Version); qu’elle soit
un exemple de vertu (Glaire); dass sie ein Tugendbeispiel sei (Arndt). However, as Kaulen (see on
Ruth 3:11) explains, this would be the only context where virtus actually refers to virtue. Accord­
ingly, one might well consider a different translation, one that highlights Ruth’s strength and
capability. Ronald Knox avoids “virtue”; instead, he speaks of “worth”: a bride worth the winning
(3:11); may Ephratha know her worth (4:12). – (2) See also Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Ex­
ample. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65
(2011) 257–285 who points out that the noun exemplum lacks a precise equivalent in the source
language.

Ruth 4:11–15.18–22. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchun­
gen zur hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göt­
tingen 2022 (256 pp.), pp. 181–185.

1–2 Samuel (Liber I–II Samuhelis, Liber I–II Regum)

Text
1944. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 5: Liber Samuhelis ex
interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome. xvi, 377 pp. – The text of 1 Sam is on pp. 71–232; the
text of 2 Sam on pp. 233–365. This volume is part of the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chap ­
ter 13.3.

535
Secondary literature
1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20. At pp. 4–16, the
author comments on a number of passages from 1 and 2 Samuel where he detects rabbinic in ­
fluence.

1946. Robert Weber OSB: Les interpolations du livre de Samuel dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate. In:
Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati. Volume 1. Studi e Testi 121. Rome, pp. 19–39. – Jerome’s wording
was often expanded by additions copyists found in other Latin manuscripts – manuscripts that
offer a text based on the Septuagint.

1960. Gino Bressan: Samuele. Torino. xvi, 739 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata lat­
ina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern
Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The
Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge: aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Page 295: The text of 1–2
Samuel that Jerome offers is shorter than the text of the Vetus Latina. This did not escape the
notice of the users – and they filled in what was missing in Jerome’s text. Thus, pieces of the
Vetus Latina found their way into the Vulgate. The same phenomenon can be observed in other
biblical books (e.g., in the book of Proverbs).

1991. C. Macias Villalobos: Construcciones de superlativo en los libros de Samuel de la Vulgata.

Analecta Malacitana 14: 29–39.

Textual notes
1 Sam 1:1–3. fuit vir unus (…) duas uxores (…) duo filii – there was one man (…) two wives (…) two sons.
The unus of vir unus may be explained not as an indefinite article; instead, it may indicate a nu­
merical contrast. – Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardi­
nals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65 (2020) 438–470.

1 Sam 1:5. Annae autem dedit partem unam tristis – but to Anna he gave one portion with sorrow
(Douay Version); Anna aber gab er traurig einen einzigen Anteil (Arndt). Why tristis? The Hebrew
text would require “a double share.” The reason for Jerome’s rendering is unknown. Stummer
points out that in medieval Judaism, David Kimchi’s explanation is compatible with Jerome’s ver­
sion, and may either reflect an ancient exegetical tradition, or even betray David Kimchi’s know­
ledge of the Vulgate text. – Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des
Hieronymus bei der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10
(1929) 3–20, at pp. 4–5.

1 Sam 1:6. affligebat quoque eam aemula eius, et vehementer angebat, in tantum, ut exprobraret quod
Dominus conclusisset vulvam eius – her rival also afflicted her, and troubled her exceedingly, so
that she [Anna] became angry that the Lord had had shut up her womb. – Friedrich Stummer: Ei­
nige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Übersetzung des Alten Tes­
taments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at pp. 5–6.

1 Sam 2:1–10. An in-depth linguistic analysis against the background of the Hebrew text can be found
in Friedrich Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 1
(1950) 10–19.

536
1 Sam 2:1. et exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo (Clementina) – and my horn is exalted because of
my God. (1) The expression in Deo meo has its basis in the Greek, i.e., in the Vetus Latina. The
Weber/Gryson edition has in Domino – in the Lord. – (2) cornu – horn is a symbol of power and
courage both in Hebrew and Latin. The Hebrew-Latin analogy is pointed out in Lewis/Short Latin
dictionary (see Chapter 8.3), p. 471 at the end of the cornu entry. Stummer refers to Horace:
Carmina iii, 21,18: you (the wine chalice) give horns (= courage) to the poor man (addis cornua
pauperi), an allusion to the horns protruding from Bacchus’s head. – Stummer: Die Vulgata zum
Canticum Annae (as in the note on 1 Sam 2:1–10), p. 12.

1 Sam 2:3. et ipsi [= ab ipso] cogitationes praeparantur – and by him planes are prepared; und von ihm
werden Pläne vorbereitet. – Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae, p. 15 (as in the note on
1 Sam 2:1–10).

1 Sam 2:6. deducit ad infernum (Clementina: ad inferos) et reducit (Weber/Gryson) – he bringeth down
to hell and brineth back again (Douay Version). The Clementina’s text represents a stylistic and
rhythmic improvement of Jerome’s original sentence. – Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum
Annae, p. 18 (as in the note on 1 Sam 2:1–10).

1 Sam 2:8. cardines terrae – the (four) points of the earth. Meant are the north, south, west and east
points of the earth, imagined as a flat disk. This is authentically Roman terminology. – Friedrich
Stummer: Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae, p. 18 (as in the note on 1 Sam 2:1–10). ▲

1 Sam 2:14. sic faciebant universo Israeli venientium in Silo – thus they did to all Israel who came to
Silo. One would expect venienti (NVg), in accordance with universo (rather than plural genitive
venientium). Löfstedt suggests to understand venientium as a partitive form: each of those com­
ing to Silo. Bengt Löfstedt: Sprachliches zur Vulgata [1985]. In: idem: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur
lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (ix, 430 pp.), p. 293.

1 Sam 2:17. retrahebant (Clementina) or detrahebant (Weber/Gryson)? “In der Vulgata ist ein Schreib­
fehler: r statt d” (note in Arndt’s translation). The Weber/Gryson reading is to be preferred: the
young men try to prevent people from offering sacrifice.

1 Sam 9:6. What the man of God says sine ambiguitate veniet – will undoubtedly come. An apt render­
ing of the doubling of the Hebrew verb. – Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel.
Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 117.

1 Sam 10:2. intermissis pater tuus asinis sollicitus est pro vobis – forgetting about the asses, your father
is concerned about you. The subject of the sentence is placed between words of the ablative ab­
solute; one would expect intermissis asinis, pater tuus (…). – Hagen, p. 41.

1 Sam 11:7. et egressi sunt. Thus correctly in the 7th, 2007 edition of the Weber/Gryson Vulgate. Earlier
editions have a printing error (egressis unt).

1 Sam 14:41. Et dixit Saul ad Dominum Deum Israel: [Domine Deus Israel,] da indicium: [quid est quod
non responderis servo tuo hodie? Si in me, aut in Ionatha filio meo, est iniquitas haec, da osten ­
sionem: aut si haec iniquitas est in populo tuo, da sanctitatem.] Et deprehensus est Ionathas et
Saul, populus autem exivit – And Saul said to the Lord God of Israel: O Lord God of Israel, give a
sign. Why is it that you do not respond to your servant today? If this iniquity is in me, or in my
son Jonathan, give a sign; but if this iniquity is in your people, give sanctity. And Jonathan and
Saul were taken, and the people escaped. The complete text is in the Clementina; the text placed
within square brackets is left out in the Weber/Gryson edition (following early manuscripts). It
seems that Jerome’s version, as it appears in the best manuscripts, is defective. – Marie-Joseph
Lagrange OP: La révision de la Vulgate. Revue biblique nouvelle série 5.1 (1908) 102–113, at pp.
107–108.

537
1 Sam 15:4. et recensuit eos quasi agnos – he (Saul) counted them like lambs. The Hebrew, misunder­
stood by Jerome, has “counted them at Telaim” (NVg: recensuit eos in Telem). Friedrich Stum­
mer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Übersetzung des Al­
ten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at p. 8, thinks that Jerome’s ren­
dering echoes a Jewish understanding of the passage.

1 Sam 15:12. et erixisset sibi fornicem triumphalem – and he had erected for himself a triumphal arch.
The noun fornix is the technical term for the free-standing Roman arch. The translator makes
King Saul look like a roman general – “Saul im Gewande eines römischen Kaisers” – who immor ­
talizes his victory in having an arch built in his honour. – Literature:

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–269, at p. 255.

2021. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid: The Interpretatio Romana as a Principle of Translation in
Jerome. Vulgata in Dialogue 5: 41–44.

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Die Inszenierung Sauls als römischer Kaiser
(1Sam 15,12). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 35–37.

1 Sam 16:14–18:30. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see
Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit di­
daktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 104–120.

1 Sam 17:4. vir spurius – a baseborn man (Douay Version), ein Bastard (Arndt). The adjective spurius, in
Roman legal language, means “illegitimate,” see the dictionary of Lewis & Short (see Chapter
8.3). According to Aptowitzer and Stummer, this characterization may reflect a Jewish exegetical
tradition, see Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus
bei der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at pp.
8–9. The Nova Vulgata has vir propugnator – a warrior.

1 Sam 20:3. uno tantum (ut ita dicam) gradu ego morsque dividimur – I and death – we are just one
step from each other, so to speak. The words ut ita dicam constitute an elegant rhetorical flour­
ish, added by the translator. Jerome “mildert nach Rhetorenart eine Kühnheit des Ausdrucks für
seine Leser durch ut ita dicam”; Wilhelm Süß: Das Problem der lateinischen Bibelsprache. His­
torische Vierteljahrschrift 27 (1932) 1–39, at p. 39. Jerome often uses ut ita dicam and similar ex­
pressions in his own writings, see Paul Antin OSB: Ut ita dicam chez Saint Jérôme. Latomus 25
(1966) 299–304.

1 Sam 20:30. fili mulieris ultro rapientis – thou son of a woman that is the ravisher of a man (Douay
Version). The Septuagint has a similar expression: “you son of traitorous girls.” Stummer sus ­
pects an underlying Jewish exegetical tradition (“ein ganz klares Beispiel des rabbinischen Ein­
flusses auf Hieronymus,” Stummer, p. 9). The NVg changes the expression to fili mulieris perver­
sae – you son of a woman of evil manners. – Literature:

1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der
Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10: 3–20, at pp. 9–10.

2023. Michael Fieger: Mother’s curse at the court of King Saul in 1 Sam 20:30. Vulgata in Dia­
logue. Special issue: 149–155 (online journal).

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Du liebst den Sohn Isais (1 Sam 20,30). In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 57–58.

538
1 Sam 21:8 (Vg 21:7). erat autem ibi quidam de servis Saul (…) intus tabernaculo Domini – but there
was one of Saul’s officials inside the Tent of the Lord. There is nothing about the Lord’s Tent in
the Hebrew; the addition of the Tent echoes a Jewish interpretation of the passage. Jewish tradi­
tion grants Doeg the status of a teacher of the Law. – Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen
über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der he­
braica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at pp. 10–11.

1 Sam 22:9. Doeg Idumaeus, qui assistebat, et erat primus inter servos Saul – Doeg the Idumaean, who
was present, and who was the first among Saul’s officials. The Hebrew does not say that Saul
was “the first among Saul’s officials”; this information is based on Jewish exegetical tradition as
found in the Targum. – Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hi­
eronymus bei der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929)
3–20, at p. 11.

1 Sam 23:13. dissimulare. – The verb has two meanings; here are the preferences of translators: (1) to
abstain from doing something: to forbear (Douay Version), to say no more about (Knox), keine
Erwähnung tun (Allioli, Arndt), versäumen (Rönsch, p. 523); (2) to pretend: feindre (Glaire),
vorgeben (Tusculum-Vulgata). The underlying Hebrew as well as the Greek translation would
support the first option.

1 Sam 28:6. et non respondit ei neque per somnia neque per sacerdotes – and he (God) did not answer
him, neither by dreams, nor by priests. The “priests” are not in the Hebrew text which refers to
urim (hence NVg: neque per Urim), some kind of oracle in the hands of priests. Jerome offers a
free rendering.

2 Sam 1:18. considera Israel, pro his qui mortui sunt super excelsa tua vulnerati (Clementina) – consider,
o Israel for them that are dead, wounded on thy high places. As Lagrange has observed, this
passage must be deleted from the Vulgate, because it represents an addition to Jerome’s text.
What we have here is the pre-Vulgate wording, based on the Septuagint; Jerome’s version is
given in the next verse (v. 19: inclyti, Israel, super montes …). The Weber/Gryson edition omits
the passage, and so does the NVg. – Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La révision de la Vulgate. Re­
vue biblique nouvelle série 5.1 (1908) 102–113, at p. 107.

2 Sam 1:26. amabilis super amoren mulierum [sicut mater unicum amat filium suum, ita ego te dilige­
bam] – lovable above the love of women. [As a woman loves her only son, so did I love you.] The
sentence placed between brackets is in the Clementina, but Weber/Gryson and the Nova Vul­
gata omit it. It is clearly an explanatory gloss, added to explain why mulier is used here, and not
femina. According to Mohrmann, mulier is the woman who has lost her virginity. Interestingly,
the Douay version has “as the mother loveth her only son.” – Christine Mohrmann: Mulier. À pro­
pos de II Reg. 1,26. Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 117–119 = eadem: Études sur le latin des chré­
tiens. Tome III. Rome 1965 (458 pp.), pp. 269–271. See also the glossary, Chapter 19.2 (s.v. muli­
er).

2 Sam 3:1. David proficiscens (Clementina) – David marching forward. The Latin participle does not
make sense here. Loch in his 1862/63 edition replaced it with proficiens – making progress,
translating “David stieg” – David ascended (in his German translation of the Old Testament); this
is also the reading of the Weber/Gryson edition The NVg has invalescens – growing stronger.

2 Sam 8:10. ut salutaret eum congratulans – to greet him as one who shares his joy, or: to greet him
and rejoice with him. See glossary s.v. congratulari, Chapter 19.2.

539
2 Sam 11:1–12:15. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see
Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit di­
daktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 120–127.

2 Sam 12:31. populum quoque eius adducens serravit, et circumegit super eos ferrata carpenta; divis­
itque cultris, et traduxit in typo laterum – and bringing forth the people thereof (i.e., of the city),
he sawed them, and drove over them with knives, and made them pass through brick-kilns
(Douay Version); die Bevölkerung derselben führte er gleichfalls herbei und ließ sie zersägen, mit
Eisen beschlagene Wagen über sie herfahren, sie mit Messern zerhacken und durch Ziegelöfen
ziehen (Arndt); et amenant ses habitants, il les scia, fit passer sur eux les chariots armes de fer,
les partagea avec des couteaux, et les fit passer dans le moule des briques (Glaire). – (1) The He­
brew text and the Septuagint say that David made the prisoners of war do forced labour;
Jerome, by contrast, saw here a particularly cruel method of torture and execution. Interestingly,
the Targum seems to think of torture: “And he brought forth the people who were in it, and he
set them [B. Lang: to work?, to be tortured?] at saws and pricks of iron and at axes of iron. And
he dragged them in the streets”; Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Introduction, transla­
tion and notes by Daniel J. Harrington SJ and Anthony J. Saldarini. Edinburgh (x, 320 pp.), p. 181.
– (2) The Colunga/Turrado edition of the Vulgate (see Chapter 16.2) has servavit – he spared
(them); all other recent editions of the Clementina have serravit, but servavit does exist in manu­
scripts and quotations. For the manuscript evidence, see the Benedictine Vulgate, vol. 5, p. 286
(apparatus) which refers to the 6th-century manuscript G 82 Sup. in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana,
Milan. An example of a quotation with servavit is listed in Pseudo-Jerome: Quaestiones on the
Book of Samuel. Edited by Avrom Saltman. Leiden 1975 (173 pp.), p. 127 (no. 142).

1–2 Kings (Liber II–III Regum)

Text
1945. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 6: Liber Malachim, ex
interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome. viii, 354 pp. – The text of 1 Kings is on pp. 67–20ß, the
text of 2 Kings on pp. 209–342. This is volume 6 of the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter
13.3.

Secondary literature
1929. Friedrich Stummer: Einige Beobachtungen über die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Über­
setzung des Alten Testaments aus der hebraica veritas. Biblica 10 (1929) 3–20, at pp. 16–20.
Stummer comments on a number of passages that seem to show the influence of Jewish ex­
egetical traditions.

1951. Salvatore Garofalo: Il libro dei re. Torino. ix, 295; second edition 1960, ix, 299 pp. –Published in
the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo),
this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated
Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1993. Antonio Moreno: Afinidades léxicas entre Vetus Latina y Vulgata en los libros de Reyes. In: Roger
Gryson (ed.): Philologia sacra. Biblische und partistische Studien. Freiburg (10, 674 pp. in 2 vols.),
vol. 1, pp. 74–89.

540
2014. Julio Trebolle – Pablo Torijano: The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vul­
gate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1–2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Ver ­
sion. In: Elvira Martin-Contreras – Lorena Miralles Maciá (eds.): The Text of the Hebrew Bible. Göt­
tingen (262 pp.), pp. 101–133.

2020. Matthieu Richelle: Un verset, deux traducteurs, trous scénarios: retour sur une énigme textuelle
(1 Rois 15,13). In: Clemens Locher – Innocent Himbaza (eds.): La Bible en face. Études textuelles et
littéraires. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95. Leuven (xxiv, 362 pp.), pp. 95–111. – In the books of
Kings, Jerome “suit généralement de manière très fidèle son modèle hébraïque, qui est sensible­
ment identique au texte masorétique” (p. 95).

Textual notes
1 Kgs 5:1 (Vg 4:21). a flumine terrae Philisthiim – from the river of the land of the Philistines. The
wording of the Vulgate is incorrect; it must be: a flumine [i.e., the Euphrates] terram Philisthiim –
from the Euphrates River [King Solomon controlled] the land of the Philistines, etc. – Hugo
Grotius: Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum (Paris 1644), quoted in Christoph Bultmann: Beyond
the Vulgate. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120.1 (2008) 92–106, at p. 99. NVg
has: a Flumine usque ad terram Philisthim.

1 Kgs 7:9. norma – try measure, a builder’s tool; see glossary s.v. norma (Chapter 19.2).

1 Kgs 10:15. universique scruta vendentes – and all who sell cheap stuff. The word scruta (plural) is a
rare word; Jerome found it no doubt in Horace: Epistle I, 7,64–65: Vulteium mane (…) vilia
vendentem tunicato scruta popello – (he met) Vulteius as he was selling early in the morning
worthless old stuff to people who wear just a tunic. See also Neh 3:31 (Vg 3:30) and the glossary
s.v. scruta (Chapter 19.2). – Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustini­
anum 40 (2000) 77–87, at pp. 81–82. ▲

1 Kgs 15:13. (1) Maacham matrem suam amovit ne esset princeps in sacris Priapi et in luco eius quem
consecraverat – he removed his mother Maacha from being the princess in the sacrifices of Pri­
apus, and in the grove which she had consecrated to him (Douay Version). The pagan god Pri­
apus, portrayed as a standing male figure with erected penis, was known throughout the Roman
world. Jerome’s explanatory paraphrase draws upon the Septuagint, rabbinic tradition, and his
own familiarity with pagan sacred groves and grottoes. – (2) simulacrum turpissimum – the filthy
idol (Douay Version); the adjective turpissimum is the translator’s explanatory gloss. – Literature
on Priapus:

1920. Maurice Vernes: Une curiosité exégétique: le culte de Priape en Israël d’après la Vulgate.
Journal asiatique 15: 100–107.

2016. Philippe Borgeaud: Jérôme traducteur et la Mère des dieux (“Commentaire à Osée”). In:
Corinne Bonnet et al. (eds.): Dieux des Grecs, dieux des Romains. Bruxelles (249 pp.), pp.
229–238.

2020. Matthieu Richelle: Un verset, deux traducteurs, trois scénarios: retour sur une énigme tex­
tuelle (1 Rois 15,13). In: Clemens Locher – Innocent Himbaza (eds.): La Bible en face.
Études textuelles et littéraires. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95. Leuven (xxiv, 362 pp.), pp.
95–111. See also on 2 Chr 15:16. –

1 Kgs 17:7. post dies – after some time (Douay Version). Literally rendered “after days,” must be an
idiom. Knox says “after a while,” and Löfstedt suggests “nach einigen Tagen,” and one might
consider: “schon nach wenigen Tagen.” For similar, more elaborate expressions, see Gen 4:3

541
 (post multos dies) and Gen 38:12 (evolutis autem multis diebus). – Bengt Löfstedt: Ausgewählte
Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000 (vii, 430 pp.), p. 317.

1 Kgs 18:27. forsitan loquitur – perhaps he is speaking; vielleicht spricht er. Peter Juhás: Beobachtun­
gen zum biblisch-hebräischen Satzadverb ʾulaj. Funktionen, Übersetzungslösungen des Hierony­
mus und Problemstellen der antiken Bibelübersetzungen. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
97.1 (2021) 1–36, at pp. 26–28.

1 Kgs 21:1. haec vinea erat Naboth Hiezrahelitae qui erat in Hiezrahel – this vineyard was of Nabot the
Jezrehalite, who (qui) was in Jezrahel. This is the Weber/Gryson reading. But the text requires
quae, referring to the vineyard. Modern editions of the Clementia have the correct reading:
quae, e.g., the editions of Loch, Hetzenauer, and Colunga/Turrado.

1 Kgs 22:38. Anne-Françoise Loiseau: Jérôme dans le sillage d’Aquila et du Targoum: Vg iuxta He­
braeos Ps 42[41],2 et Vg 1 R 22,38. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies 51 (2018) 156–169.

2 Kgs 11. Benedikt Collinet: Athaliah on the Throne (2 Kgs 11 = 4 Reg 11). Considerations on the
Source-Problems in Early Latin History of Interpretation. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023)
37–43 (online journal).

2 Kgs 21:6. pythones et aruspices. Jerome uses special terms for soothsayers from the Greco-Roman
world. The noun aruspex (haruspex) is also used 2 Kgs 23:5 and Dan 2:27.

1–2 Chronicles (I–II Paralipomenon)

Text
1948. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 7: Libri Verborum
Dierum ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome. xii, 323 pp. – This is a volume of the Benedic­
tine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1966. Lino Randellini: Il libro delle Cronache. Torino. xv, 507 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bib­
bia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary
presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2008. David L. Everson: An Examination of Synoptic Portions within the Vulgate. Vetus Testamentum 58:
178–190. – A comparison between passages in Samuel/Kings and parallel passages in Chronicles
leads to the following conclusion: As translations, Samuel and Kings tend to be more literal with
regard to temporal clauses, word order, use of conjunctions, and redundant maintenance of
subjects. Chronicles is less literal and frequently adds material for clarification. Changes were
made and liberties taken to create a smoother style.

2017. Edmon L. Gallagher: Vulgate [text of 1–2 Chronicles]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 688–692.

542
Textual notes
1 Chr 2:52. qui videbat dimidium reqietionum – Allioli translates “und er sah die Hälfte der Ruhe” (and
he saw half of the repose) and explains: “besaß die Hälfte des elterlichen Gutes” (owned half of
the parental estate). – Die Heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments. Aus der Vulgata (…)
von Joseph Franz Allioli. Dritte, durchgesehene und verbesserte Auflage. Band 2. Landshut 1838
(506 pp.), p. 289.

1 Chr 10:13. pythonissa – witch (Douay Version, Knox), prophetess, fortune-teller, Wahrsagerin.
Mohrmann argues that the word belongs to Christian everyday language (“der lebendigen
christlichen Umgangssprache angehört,” p. 202). Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sonder­
sprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil 1. Nijmwegen (270 pp.), pp 201–202.

1 Chr 16. Martijn Jaspers: Bis repetita placent: Jerome’s translations of Psalm citations in 1 Chronicles
16. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 61–74 (online journal). – Detailed comparative ana­
lysis of Jerome’s renderings of Ps 105:1–15 (Vg 104:1–15) = 1 Chr 16:8–22 and Ps 96:1–13 (Vg
95:1–13) = 1 Chr 16:23–33.

2 Chr 15:16. On the pagan god Priapus in Jerome, see Matthieu Richelle: Un verset, deux traducteurs,
trois scénarios; retour sur une énigme textuelle (1 Rois 15,13). In: Clemens Locher – Innocent
Himbaza (eds.): La Bible en face. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95. Leuven 2020 (xxiv, 362 pp.), pp.
223–232. See also on 1 Kgs 15:13.

2 Chr 15:17. excelsa autem [non] derelicta sunt in Israel, attamen cor Asa erat perfectum cunctis diebus
eius – but the high places were [not] abolished in Israel, nevertheless the heart of Asa was per­
fect all his days; die Höhen aber wurden in Israel [nicht] abgetan; doch war das Herz Asas unge­
teilt (perfectum), so lange er lebte. The non is not attested, but required by the sentence (and
the underlying Hebrew). Valentin Loch inserts it in his 1849 Vulgate edition, explaining in his
preface (p. ix) that it is his own suggestion. Strangely enough, the Neovulgate did not add the
non.

2 Chr 16:10. iussit mitti eum in nervum – he ordered him to be put in the nervus. The Douay Version
and Knox have “prison” for nervus, but Jer 20:2 seems to require “stocks,” a torture instrument;
see textual note on Jer 20:2, so this may apply here as well.

2 Chr 29:19. coram altare Domini (Clementina) – before the altar of the Lord (Douay Version). The
noun altare follows the paradigm mare, maris (sea), with the accusative case being altare, and
the ablative altari. Since coram is followed by the ablative case, the correct form is altari, the
reading adopted by Weber/Gryson and NVg.

Ezra – Nehemiah (Liber I–II Ezrae)

Text
1948. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 8: Libri Esrae, Tobiae,
Iudith ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xii, 280 pp.), pp. 17–151. – A volume of the
Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

543
Secondary literature
1957. Bruno M. Pelaia: Esdra e Neemia. Torino. xii, 231 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2017. Edmon L. Gallagher: Vulgate [text of Ezra-Nehemiah]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 630–634.

Textual notes
Ezra 4:2. ecce nos immolamus victimas – behold, we have offered sacrifices; siehe, wir haben Opfer
dargebracht. According to Kaulen, ecce should be replaced by ei, a word missing but required in
the Latin: ei nos immolamus – to him we have offered sacrifices; ihm haben wir Opfer darge­
bracht. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments. 2.,
verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 131. The Neovulgate omits the words ecce
nos, and simply writes: et immolavimus.

Neh 3:31 (Vg 3:30). scruta (plural) – cheap stuff; see textual note on 1 Kgs 10:15.

Neh 9:7. ex igne Chaldaeorum – from the fire of the Chaldeans (instead of de Ur Chaldaeorum [NVg]
– from Ur of the Chaldeans). On this, see Jerome: Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos on
Gen 11:28 (PL 23: 1005): tradunt autem Hebraei ex hac occasione istiusmodi fabulam tradunt
quod Abraham in ignem [Hebrew or, actually meaning “light”] missus sit, quia ignem colere
noluerit quem Chaldaei colunt, et dei auxilio liberatus de idolatriae igne profugerit (as for the
name Ur, the Jews hand down the fable that Abraham was thrown into the fire because he did
not want to worship fire; with God’s help liberated from the fire of idolatry, he fled; – anlässlich
des Namens Ur überliefern die Juden die Fabel, Abraham sei ins Feuer geworfen worden, weil er
das Feuer nicht verehren wollte; mit Gottes Hilfe aus dem Feuer des Götzendienstes befreit, sei
er geflohen). Gen 11:31 is rendered correctly by Jerome: eduxit eos de Ur Chaldaeorum. He­
braicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. – A note to the passage of Hebraicae questiones explains
that the rabbinic story can be found in Pirke de R. Eliezer (PL 23: 1005).

Tobit (Liber Tobiae)

Note. – Liber quoque Tobit, licet non habeatur in canone tamen, quia usurpatur ab ecclesiasticis viris –
but the book of Tobit, while not belonging to the canon, is nevertheless used by authors of the church.
Jerome: Commentary on the book of Jonah, preface (Sources chrétiennes 323: 164).This is why Jerome
could be persuaded to produce a Latin translation. In his preface to the book of Tobit, Jerome explains
how he worked: a Hebrew interpreter translated the Aramaic text into Hebrew (apparently orally), and
Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin, which he dictated to his scribe (Sources chrétiennes 592:
370). One may doubt the accuracy of this description because it seems to exaggerate Jerome’s know ­
ledge of Hebrew. Moreover, Jerome does not mention his use of the Vetus Latina text of Tobit which
modern research identifies as another source used by him. The Aramaic text mentioned by Jerome is
not extant, but fragments have turned up in Qumran (fragments 4Q196–199).

The Neovulgate (1979; see above, Chapter 17) has abandoned the traditional Jeromian Vulgate version
of the book of Tobit. Instead, it supplies a new Latin version based on the so-called “longer” Greek text
of the book of Tobit, close to the Vetus Latina version. The Neovulgate calls the book “Liber Thobis,”

544
the hero Thobias, and the hero’s father Thobi. The notes that follow are about the old, Jeromian ver ­
sion of Tobit.

Text
1948. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 8: Libri Esrae, Tobiae,
Iudith ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xii, 280 pp.), pp. 163–209. – This is volume 8 of
the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

2003. Christian J. Wagner: Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Griechisch – Lateinisch – Syrisch – Hebräisch –

Aramäisch. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen. xxxiii, 241
pp. – Included are two Latin versions: that of the Vetus Latina (Sabatier’s text) and that of
Jerome (i.e., the Vulgate text). Jerome’s translation occasionally echos the Vetus Latina version.
Wagner’s introduction comments extensively on the Vulgate version (pp. xxiv–xxviii). The Vul­
gate text, though reproducing that of the Weber/Gryson edition, introduces punctuation for
easier reading.

2004. Stuart Weeks – Simon Gathercole – Loren Stuckenbruck (eds.): The Book of Tobit. Texts from the
Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in
Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Berlin. x 792. pp.

Translation
1545. Martin Luther (translator): Die gantze Heilige Schrift Deudsch. Wittenberg 1545. – This is the last
edition of the complete German Bible translated and edited by Luther. It includes a German
translation of the Vulgate text of the book of Tobit, contributed by Luthers associate Justus Jo ­
nas. The translation can be found in this edition: Luther: Die gantze Heilige Schrift Deudsch. Her­
ausgegeben von Hans Volz et al. Munich 1972 (2 vols., continuous pagination: 144*, 2516 pp.),
vol. 2, pp. 1733–1750: Das Buch Tobie.

1857. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg. l, 144 pp. – Reusch’s
commentary is on the Vulgate text which is presented in synoptic fashion, Latin and German.
The German version follows the Latin text as closely as possible.

Secondary literature

English
1995. Neil Adkin: Tobit and Jerome. Helmántica 46: 109–114.

1996. Carey A. Moore: Tobit. A New Translation and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York. xxx, 336
pp. – Pages 61–63: Moore discusses the text of Jerome, and in a table lists individual phrases
and expressions that may be considered the translator’s personal ingredient; some of these ex­
press Jeromian preference for celibacy (lust not a reason for marriage, sexual abstinence for the
first three nights of marriage – Tobit 3:16–18; 6:17–20.) Jerome’s translation is “a hasty rework­
ing of the Old Latin on the basis of an Aramaic text” (p. 62).

2000. Vincent T.M. Skemp: The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses. Atlanta, Ga.
486 pp. – From this study, the Vulgate book of Tobit emerges as a revision of its Vetus Latina
predecessor. The revision was based on an Aramaic Vorlage which Jerome’s Jewish informant
translated into Hebrew for him, and it was with the Hebrew version that Jerome actually worked.
Occasionally, Jerome embellishes the text or highlights certain ideas dear to his own theology.–

545
 Pages 6–15: earlier research on the Vulgate text of the book of Tobit; pp. 15–21: Jerome’s pro ­
logue. Page 463: In the extra material in the Vulgate of Tobit there is a tendency to add refer ­
ences to tears (at least 6 times), especially in prayers made with tears (4 times). – Reviews:
2003. Christian J. Wagner, Theologische Literaturzeitung 128: 1021–1023.

2004. Jean-Marie Auwers, Journal of Semitic Studies 49: 357–359. ▲

2002. Vincent T.M. Skemp: Jerome’s Tobit. A Reluctant Contribution to the Genre Rewritten Bible. Re­
vue bénédictine 112: 5–35. – A re-study of Jerome’s dependance upon the Vetus Latina text.

2009. Danuta Shanzer: Jerome, Tobit, alms, and the “Vita aeterna.” In: Andrew J. Cain – Josef Lössl
(eds.): Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy. Aldershot (xiii, 283 pp.), pp. 87–103.

2015. Edmon L. Gallagher: Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith? Harvard Theological Review
108: 356–375. – Pages 374–375: the (brief) prologues for Tobit and Judith, Latin and English.

2019. Michaela Hallermayer: Latin [text of Tobit]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Vol­
ume 2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 440–443.

2020. José Lucas Brum Teixeira: Magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum (Hier. in Prol. Jud.):
Jerome’s Translation Art in the Vulgate of Tobit. Revista de cultura teológica 97: 22–35.

2022. Beate Ego – Lucas Brum Teixeira: “Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg): Jerome’s Vulgate
of Tobit as a Wundergeschichte. In: Jószef Zsengellér (ed.): Understanding Texts in Early Judaism.
Berlin (xi, 482 pp.), pp. 153–160.

German
1800. Karl David Ilgen: Die Geschichte Tobi’s nach drey verschiedenen Originalen, dem Griechischen,
dem Lateinischen des Hieronymus und einem Syrischen. Übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen exegeti­
schen und kritischen Inhalts, auch einer Einleitung versehen. Jena. cclxviii, 268 pp.

1853. Otto Fridolin Fritzsche: Die Bücher Tobit und Judith. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den
Apokryphen des Alten Testaments. Zweite Lieferung. Leipzig. 212 pp. – On the Vulgate, pp. 12–
14. Jerome translated an Aramaic text, and subsequently edited it thoroughly on the basis of the
Vetus Latina version.

1857. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg. l, 144 pp. – The introduc­
tion has a section on the Vulgate (pp. xxxii–xlii). According to Reusch, Jerome’s Vulgate version
is not a literal translation. It echoes the Vetus Latina version (which explains the non-Jeromian
character of some of its vocabulary) and constitutes an abridgement of the original text. “Der
Text, welchen die Clementinische Ausgabe der Vulgata gibt, ist im Ganzen in kritischer Hinsicht
gut. (…) An einigen Stellen ist indeß der recipirte Text [der Vulgata] sicher corrupt; auch ist mit ­
unter die Interpunction desselben unzweckmäßig” (p. xlii). Reusch’s commentary is on the Vul­
gate text which is presented in synoptic fashion, Latin and German. The German version follows
the Latin text as closely as possible. ▲

1965. Friedrich Dingermann: Tobis. In: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 2. Auflage. Freiburg (15* pp.,
1448 cols.), cols. 215–217. – Col. 216: “Die Vulgata, die Hieronymus (…) in Anlehnung an die alt­
lateinische Übersetzung anfertigte, ist mitunter mehr Paraphrase als Übersetzung.”

1969. Johann Gamberoni: Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias in der griechischen und lateinischen Kirche
der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis um 1600. Munich. 355 pp. – For Martin Luther’s
German Bible, the book of Tobit was translated from the Vulgate by his assistant Justus Jonas
(pp. 238–241).

546
2023. Lucas Brum Teixeira: Buch Tobit in der Vulgata des Hieronymus und das mittelalterliche Juden ­
tum. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 71–73.

French
1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogart OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Page 159: “L’insistance de
Tobie grec en faveur de l’endogamie est remplacée dans la version hiéronymienne par un plai­
doyer en faveur de la chasteté dans le mariage.” According to Bogaert (p. 158, note 78), Jerome
produced the book of Tobit on the basis of the Vetus Latina. See also Bogaert: The Latin Bible .
In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1. Cambridge
2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at p. 516: “When he agreed to produce Tobit and Judith in
Latin, he largely paraphrased the Vetus Latina.”

2010. Pierre-Emmanuel Douzat: Erreurs de traduction volontaires et paresse du contresens. Anabases

11: 137–148 (with English summary, p. 293). The author comments specifically on Jerome’s “free”
renderings that support his idea of the precedence of celibacy over marriage in Tobit.

Italian – Spanish
1928. R. Galdos: Valor de la version Jerominiana del libro de Tobit. Estudios eclesiásticos 7: 129–145.

1953. Giuseppe Priero: Tobia. Torino. 147 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e
traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin
text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1975. Francesco Vattioni: Tobia nello Speculum e nella prima Bibbia di Alcalà. Augustinianum 15: 169–
200.

1976. Tullio Aurelio: La giustitia di Sara e Tobia. Confronnto tra testo Greco e Vulgata. Bibbia e Oriente
18: 273–282.

1978. Francesco Vattioni: La Vetus Latina di Tobia nella Bibbia di Roda. Revista catalana de teologia 3:
173–201.

1978. J.R. Busto Saiz: Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edición crítica del libro
de Tobit. Sefarad 38: 53–69.

Textual notes
Tobit, title. In the Vulgate, no distinction is made between the name of Tobit and his son Tobias. Both
are called Tobias.

Tobit 1–3. In his translation, Jerome took many liberties with the text; thus, in chapters 1–3, he trans ­
formed the original first-person narrative into a third-person one.

Tobit 1:1–3. In the Latin, this is one single sentence.

Tobit 1:16. honorare = to honour, to reward; honorieren, belohnen. – Kaulen, p. 181.

Tobit 2:20. haedum caprarum (…) detulisset domi (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – she brought the
young kid home. While this is the natural translation, the Latin expression sounds odd, because
literally, it means “she brought the kid at home.” Instead of domi (at home) one would expect
domum. The Nova Vulgata translates differently, without using domi or domum (Tobit 2:13 NVg).

547
Tobit 2:12–18. Jean-Marie Auwers: Tobie 2,12–18 (Vulgate) et la tradition latine d’interprétation du
livre de Tobie. In: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum (ed.): L’esegesi dei Padri latini. Rome
(770 pp., 2 vols. with one pagination), vol. 1, pp. 77–82.

Tobit 5:23. Daniel A. Bertrand: “Un baton de vieilesse”: à propos de Tobit 5,23 et 10,4 (Vulgate). Revue
d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 71 (1991) 33–37.

Tobit 6:16–18. (16) Then the angel Raphael said to him, ‘Listen to me, and I shall show you who they
are over whom the demon can prevail. (17) For they are those who so enter marriage that in
their minds they shut out God from themselves and give themselves over to their lust, as a horse
or a mule that has no understanding; over those the demon has power. (18) But when you take
her, go into the bridal chamber, and for three days keep yourself continent from her; occupy
yourself with nothing else bt prayers with her. (19) That very night, burn the fish’s liver on fire,
and the demon will be put to flight. (20) But on the second night you will be admitted to com­
panionship with the holy patriarchs. (21) On the third night, you will obtain a blessing that
healthy children may be born to you both. (22) After the third night has passed, in the fear of
the Lord you will take the virgin, moved rather for love of children than for lust, so that in the
seed of Abraham you may obtain a blessing in children.’ – Translation of the Vg text by Joseph
A. Fitzmyer: Tobit. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin 2003 (xviii, 374 pp.), pp. 219–
220.

Tobit 6:17–20. A midrashic expansion: Raphael counsels sexual abstinence for the first three nights of
Tobias’ marriage. “In this pious expression of self-restraint an interpolation supplied by Jerome,
the celibate? Or was it in his particular Aramaic text?” Carey A. Moore: Tobit. A New Translation
and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York 1996 (xxx, 336 pp.), p. 63. Tobias follows the an­
gel’s counsel, see Tobit 8:4.

Tobit 6:22. Lucas Brum Teixeira: Accipies virginem cum timore Domini (Tob 6:22 Vg). Jerome’s Transla­
tion Technique and Ascetic Ideals in the Vulgate of Tobit. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue
(2023) 85–92 (online journal).

Tobit 7:9. postquam autem locuti sunt – after they had spoken. Considered in isolation, this passage
does not pose any difficulty. But compared to other ancient versions, one wonders whether
locuti sunt is the proper reading. One of the Greek versions (Greek II) refers to taking a bath:
“Now when they had bathed and washed themselves (…).” Accordingly, one would expect laver­
unt (and not locuti sunt), or perhaps loti sunt (lotus being the participle perfect of lavare – to
wash) – they washed – both attested as Vetus Latina readings. As for the Vulgate, one could
consider locuti sunt a corruption of an earlier loti sunt. Couroyer opts for a different explanation:
the Aramaic verb that Jerome translated most likely referred to washing, but that word sounds
very much like the Aramaic word for speaking. – Literature:

1857. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg (l, 144 pp.), p. xlii,
note 2, and p. 77: read loti.

1984. Bernard Couroyer OP: Tobie, VII,9. Problème de critique textuelle. Revue biblique 91.3:
351–361; with Couroyer’s summary in Revue biblique 93.1 (1986) 152.

2003. Christian J. Wagner: Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Göttingen (xxxiii, 241 pp.), p. 81. – Tob 7:8
(Vetus Latina) includes the phrase et postquam laverunt.

Tobit 7:14. ut ista coniungeretur cognationi suae – so that she would be married to her kindred. One
would expect “married to her kinsman,” i.e., Tobit (cognato suo), and this is how Reusch trans­
lates. – Franz Heinrich Reusch: Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg 1857 (l, 144 pp.),
p. 78.

548
Tobit 9:8. invenit Tobiam descumbentem: et exsiliens [salutavit eum], osculati sunt se invicem (Clemen­
tina) – he found Tobias as he was reclining (at the table), and he leaped up [and greeted him],
and they kissed each other. The words in square brackets are not in the text; they are added by
Reusch on the assumption that they must have dropped out and must be restored. – Franz
Heinrich Reusch: Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg 1857 (l, 144 pp.), p. 97, note 2.

Tobit 10:10. vacca – cow (French la vache, Italian vacca). The original Vulgate reading may have been
in vasis (instead of Vg in vaccis), a reference to “vessels, Gerätschaften.” – Franz Heinrich Reusch:
Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt. Freiburg 1857 (l, 144 pp.), p. 100, note 5.

Tobit 14:16. et completis annis nonaginta novem in timore Domini, cum gaudio sepelierunt eum (Clem­
entina) – and after he had lived ninety-nine years in the fear of the Lord, with joy they buried
him (Douay Version). The Clementina punctuation, followed by the Douay Version, is clearly
wrong; the comma must be placed after gaudio: (…) in the fear of the Lord with gladness, they
buried him. A typical fairy-tale ending.

Tobit 14:17. ita ut accepti essent tam Deo quam hominibus et cunctis habitantibus in terra – so that
they found favour with God and with men, yes (or: i.e.), with all the inhabitants of the land. The
et has explicative force (and does not serve as a conjunctive particle). For et explicativum, see
Paul Nissen: Die epexegetische Copula (sog. et explicativum) bei Vergil und einigen anderen Auto­
ren. Kiel 1915. 59 pp.

Judith
Note. – In his preface to Judith, Jerome claims to have used an Aramaic text, but he actually worked
from a Greek Vorlage and often followed the Old Latin translation. As Jerome explains, he did not pro­
duce a literal rendering, but a free one: magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum transferens – not
rendering (the text) word by word, but rather sense by sense (Sources chrétiennes 592: 374; Tusculum-
Vulgata II, p. 1220).

The Neovulgate (1979; see above, Chapter 17) has abandoned the traditional Jeromian Vulgate version
of the book of Judith. As in the case of the book of Tobit, it supplies a new Latin version based on the
Greek text of Judith, close to the Vetus Latina version.

Text
1948. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 8: Libri Esrae, Tobiae,
Iudith ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Pierre Salmon OSB. Rome (xii, 280 pp.), pp.
219–280. – This is one of the volumes of the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature

English
1899. F.C. Porter: Judith, Book of. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 2. Edin­
burgh (xv, 870 pp.), pp. 822–824. – Although Jerome had the Old Latin version before him, he
followed an Aramaic version that is reflected even in the homiletic passages (p. 822).

1925. Edwin Edgar Voigt: The Latin Versions of Judith. Leipzig. 54 pp. – Reprint: Eugene, Ore. 2022. –
While the bulk of this Yale dissertation deals with the Vetus Latina text of the book of Judith, pp.
46–54 are on the Vulgate. According to Voigt, Jerome worked from an Aramaic text rather than

549
 (as has been suggested) producing a hasty abridgement of the Old Latin version. There is no
evidence that he depends upon the Old Latin version. The Vulgate adds 32 verses that are unat­
tested in the Greek and Old Latin texts; among these are Judith 4:12–14; 5:15–19; 6:16–18; 7:19–
22; 8:24–25; 9:7–9; 14:9–10.

2012. Stephen D. Ryan OP: The Ancient Versions of Judith and the Place of the Septuagint in the Cath­
olic Church. In: Géza G. Xeravits (ed.): A Pious Seductress. Studies in the Book of Judith. Berlin (225
pp.), pp. 1–21. – Demonstrates the influence of the Vetus Latina on Jerome’s version of the book
of Judith. Several passages of Jerome’s version of Judith are analysed in detail: Judith 8:6, 14,
31–33; 9:16; 10:4; 15:11; 16:26.

2015. Edmon L. Gallagher: Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith? Harvard Theological Review
108: 356–375. – Pages 374–375: The (rather brief) prologues to Tobit and Judith, Latin and Eng­
lish.

2015. Simone Rickerby: Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible. Melbourne College
of Divinity – University of Divinity. 307 pp. (unpublished PhD thesis). – There is a short section
(pp. 252–253) on the book of Judith. “It is almost as if Jerome started each verse by glancing at
the older Latin tradition but then turned his attention exclusively to the Aramaic/Hebrew” (p.
253).

2017. Barbara Schmitz – Lydia Lange: Judith: Beautiful Wisdom Teacher or Pious Woman? Reflections
on the Book of Judith. In: Eileen Schuller – Marie-Theres Wacker (eds.): Early Jewish Writings.
Bible and Women 3.1 Atlanta, Ga. (xv, 299 pp.), pp. 29–48. – Includes a section that compares
the figure of Judith as portrayed in the Greek text with the portrait in Jerome’s version.

2019. Lawrence M. Wills: Judith. A Commentary on the Book of Judith. Hermeneia. Minneapolis. xxviii,
498 pp. – Pages 389–438: Jerome’s Vulgate and Septuagint Compared. This section of Wills’s
commentary includes a study of Jerome’s version of the book of Judith, and a synoptic present ­
ation of the Vulgate and Septuagint versions of the book in English. ▲

2019. Stephen Ryan: Latin [text of Judith]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume 2C.
Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 77–82.

2020. Dionisio Candido: Manipulating God? On the Theology of the Book of Judith. In: Eberhard Bons
et al. (eds.): Die Septuaginta – Themen, Manuskripte, Wirkungen. Tübingen (xii, 944 pp.), pp. 79–
90, at pp. 87–88: Some changes in the Latin textual tradition.

2021. Barbara Schmitz: “Lord, God of all might” (Jdt 13:4 LXX). A Comparison between the Greek Ver­
sion (Jdt 13:4-5, 7 LXX) and Vulgate (Idt 13:6–7, 9 Vulg.). In: Angela Kim Harkins – Barbara
Schmitz (eds.): Selected Studies on Deuterocanonical Prayers. Leuven (xi, 241 pp.), 89–111. – Page
109: “The Vulgate version is (…) much more than a mere translation – it can be understood as a
glimpse of the theological and cultural transition from the 4th to the 5th centuries CE.”

2022. Chris L. de Wet: Virtue, Asceticism, and the Masculinized Woman: Judith in Early Christian Greek
and Latin Interpretations from the Second to the Fifth Century CE. In: Johann Cook – Gideon R.
Kotzé (eds.): The Septuagint South of Alexandria. Leiden (xix, 485 pp.), pp. 114–134.

2022. Giulia Leonardi: The Original Language of the Book of Judith: A Comparison with the Vulgate. In:
Gideon R. Kotzé et al. (eds.): XVII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies. Atlanta, Ga (xxiii, 837 pp.), pp. 89–112. – On the basis of Jerome’s Latin text, the
author suggests that Jerome’s Aramaic Vorlage echoes a lost Hebrew archetype.

550
German
1853. Otto Fridolin Fritzsche: Die Bücher Tobit und Judith. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den
Apokryphen des Alten Testaments. Zweite Lieferung. Leipzig. 212 pp. – On the Vulgate, pp. 121–
123. Fritzsche thinks of Vulgate Judith as a free reworking of the Old Latin text. Jerome’s reliance
on the Old Latin text can be seen in many Latin words and constructions that Jerome does not
use elsewhere. “Als Resultat ergibt sich so, dass Hieronymus hauptsächlich nur nach Hand­
schriften des Vet. Lat. arbeitete, aber dabei so flüchtig verfuhr und so große Willkür sich gestat ­
tete, dass auf diese Weise ein so unfertiges Werk zu Stande kam wie das vorliegende ist” (p.
122).

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum
Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer. 64 pp. – Jerome’s Vorlage
was the Vetus Latina text (p. 37); from the Vetus Latina, he copies the verb baptizare (to wash),
which he otherwise never uses (p. 24). Jerome’s departures from the Vetus Latina version are
due not to his Aramaic Vorlage; instead, all changes are due to Jerome’s creative intervention,
especially to his interest in elaboration and adding a flourish here and there (pp. 54–55). On pp.
39–54, Thielmann comments on individual Judith passages. ▲

1947. Friedrich Stummer: Geographie des Buches Judith. Stuttgart. 40 pp. – The appendix discusses the
place names used in the Vulgate (pp. 31–39).

2012. Barbara Schmitz: Ιουδιθ und Iudith. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis der Judit-Erzählung in der LXX
und der Vulgata. In: Johann Cook – Hermann-Josef Stipp (eds.), Text-Critical and Hermeneutical
Studies in the Septuagint. Leiden 2012 (xvi, 493 pp.), pp. 359–379. – On the basis of a caraful ana­
lysis of Jerome’s preface, Schmitz reconstructs the phases of Jerome’s work on the book of Ju­
dith: “Im ersten Arbeitsschritt ist der ‘chaldäische‘ Judit-Text von einem Dolmetscher mundlich
ins Hebräische ubersetzt worden, den Hieronymus im zweiten Arbeitsschritt ad hoc ins Lateini­
sche ubertragen hat. Diese Ubertragung wurde dann im dritten Arbeitsschritt von einem Schrei­
ber schriftlich festgehalten. Diesen von ihm selbst erstellten lateinischen Text hat Hieronymus im
vierten Arbeitsschritt mit anderen ihm vorliegenden Textfassungen, wahrscheinlich altlateini­
schen Handschriften, verglichen. Den funften Arbeitsschritt beschreibt Hieronymus folgender­
maßen: ‘Die sehr fehlervolle Verschiedenheit der vielen Handschriften habe ich weggeschnitten:
Nur das, was ich in chaldäischen Worten voll verständlich finden konnte, habe ich lateinisch aus­
gedruckt.’ Hieronymus hat somit eine eigene Auswahl aus dem ihm vorliegenden Textbestand
getroffen” (p. 375).

2015. Lydia Hilt: Dominus contulit splendorem (Idt 10,4). Das Motiv der Schönheit im Buch Judith. In:
Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et al. (eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vul­
gata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt (234 pp.), pp. 91–108.

2016. Lydia Lange: Die Juditfigur in der Vulgata. Eine theologische Studie zur lateinischen Bibel. Berlin. X,
456 pp. – Jerome’s translation is not an exact rendition of the Greek text. Instead, Jerome actu­
ally retold the story, often using his own words. By way of adding a sentence here and there, he
manipulated the story to say what he wanted it to say. His aim was to present Judith as a model
of chastity, cf. Judith 15:11 and 16:26 of the Vulgate version. Judith’s literary portrait corres ­
ponds exactly to the ideal of female chastity and asceticism that Jerome extolled and fervently
recommended to the recently widowed Salvina; the relevant letter, dating from 400, actually
mentions Judith (letter 79:11). As Lange explains, Jerome’s textual additions, compared to the
rest of the text, are syntactically more complex (p. 387).

551
French
1903. F. Prat: Judith, livre de. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 3.2. Paris (cols.
1053–1916), cols. 1822–1833. – Col. 1825: Jerome most likely proceeded the same way as with
the book of Tobit: he used a Hebrew interpreter who translated for him. He also used the Vetus
Latina. Jerome’s tendency to abridge the text resulted in a version about twenty per cent shorter
than the Vetus Latina text.

1966. André Marie Dubarle OP: Judith. Formes et sens des différentes traditions. Rome. 2 volumes, 191
pp., 203 pp. – Especially valuable for its synoptic presentation of source texts to highlight
Jerome’s indebtedness to the Vetus Latina and the (lost) Aramaic version that he used. Accord­
ing to Dubarle, the Hebrew or Aramaic version of Judith, echoed in Jerome’s version, survived as
it were underground in Jewish circles, only to surface again in medieval midrashim.

1968. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La version latine du livre de Judith dans la première Bible d’Alcala.
Revue bénédictine 78: 7–32.

1975. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Recensions de la vieille version latine de Judith, I. Aux origines de la
Vulgate hiéronymienne: le Corbeiensis. Revue bénédictine 85: 7–37. – It can be shown that
Jerome relied on the Old Latin version of Judith. ▲

1988. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état
des questions. Revue théologique de Louvain 19: 137–159. 276–314. – Page 185: As Philipp
Thielemann has shown long ago (1883), Jerome produced his version of the book of Judith from
the Vetus Latina, despite the disrespect he expresses for it in his preface. See also Bogaert: The
Latin Bible. In: Richard Marsden et al. (eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1.
Cambridge 2013 (xxvii, 979 pp.), pp. 505–526, at p. 516: “When he agreed to produce Tobit and
Judith, he largely paraphrased the Vetus Latina.”

1993. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Judith dans la première Bible d’Alcala (Complutensis 1) et dans la
version hiéronymienne (Vulgate). In: Roger Gryson (ed.): Philologia sacra. Biblische und
patristische Studien. Freiburg (10, 674 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 1, pp. 116–130.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris (530
pp.), p. 374, note 6. – The possibility is considered that after having produced his translation of
Tobit with the help of an interpreter who knew Aramaic, Jerome no longer needed the interpret­
er when he worked on his Latin version of the book of Judith, because he had made progress in
his knowledge of Aramaic. (B. Lang: This idea of “progress in Aramaic” seems unlikely. In his pre­
face to Judith, Jerome simply omits the details of his procedure.)

Italian
1959. Giuseppe Priero: Giuditta. Torino. x, 139 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata lat­
ina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern
Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The
Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2020. Giulia Leonardi: Giuditta “mulier sancta et venerabilis”: la rivisitazione moralistica dell’eroina nella
Vulgata di Gerolamo. Adamantius 26: 525–536. – Jerome’s modifications of his Vorlage serve a
double purpose: (1) to emphasize Judith’s chastity, simplicity, secluded lifestyle and “manliness”
(mulier virilis); (2) to exalt the values of penance and prayer. In order to understand the reasons
for these changes, the relevant passages of the Vulgate are compared to extracts from other
works of Jerome. ▲

552
Textual notes
Judith 1:6. Iadason (Clementina) or Hyadas (Weber/Gryson)? The name of the river is unstable in the
textual transmission. Thielmann emends to Hydaspen. – Literature:

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), p.
39.

1925. Edwin Edgar Voigt: The Latin Versions of Judith. Leipzig (54 pp.), p. 53. Most likely, Jerome
transcribed this name from a corrupt spelling found in the Aramaic text that he translated.

Judith 4:1. habitabant in terra Juda (Clementina) – they dwelt in the land of Judah. Weber/Gryson has
in terra Iudaeae.

Judith 4:8. in ieiuniis et orationibus (Clementina) – in fastings and prayers. The Weber/Gryson edition
omits et orationibus, words imported from Judith 4:12. –Thielmann: Beiträge, p. 40 (see above,
on Judith 1:6).

Judith 5:1. praepararent se (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – they prepared themselves. One would ex­
pect praeparassent (pluperfect subjunctive), a reading found in Codex Amiatinus. Thielmann:
Beiträge, pp. 40–41, thinks that the Amiatinus text is the correct Jeromian one.

Judith 5:4. obviam nobis (Clementina) – to us. Thielmann (Beiträge, pp. 41–42; see on Judith 1:6)
prefers the reading in obviam nobis, as does the Weber/Gryson edition.

Judith 5:22. exterminati sunt proeliis multis nationibus (Weber/Gryson) – they were destroyed in many
battles by the (pagan) nations. The Clementina has a multis nationibus – in battles by many na­
tions, but the a should perhaps have been placed before nationibus (were destroyed in many
battles by the nations). Thielmann: Beiträge, p. 42 (see on Judith 1:6).

Judith 6:13. dum vinceret filios Israhel – when he would have defeated the sons of Israel; quand il au­
rait vaincu les fils d’Israël; sobald er die Israeliten besiegt habe. In classical Latin, it would be
cum vicisset. Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 175 (§ 311).

Judith 8:2. in diebis messis hordiariae (Weber/Gryson) – in the days of the barley harvest. The reading
hordeaceae (Clementina) is to be rejected, because this adjective means “made of barley” (as in
Num 5:15). – Thielmann: Beiträge, pp. 43–44 (see on Judith 1:6).

Judith 8:5. secretum cubiculum – private chamber (Douay Version). “An enclosed room on the top
storey of her house, a typical feature of houses in Roman times,” Barbara Schmitz: “Lord, God of
all might” (Jdt 13:4 LXX). A Comparison between the Greek Version (Jdt 13:4-5, 7 LXX) and Vul ­
gate (Idt 13:6–7, 9 Vulg.). In: Angela Kim Harkins – Barbara Schmitz (eds.): Selected Studies on
Deuterocanonical Prayers. Leuven 2021 (xi, 241 pp.), 89–111, at p. 103.

Judith 9:11. tabernaculum nominis tui (Clementina) – dwelling-place of your name; or tabernaculum
honoris tui – dwelling-place of your honour (Weber/Gryson)? Thielmann (Beiträge, pp. 45–46)
opts for the latter version.

Judith 10:4. Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions
of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285.

Judith 11:15. Jerome translates freely; in German one resorts to formulations with “indem.” – Herbert
Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Frankfurt 2010. 352
pp. – Pages 285–294: Exodus 26,9; Richter 9,45; Judit 11,15: Noch drei modale pseudokonsekuti­
ve Satzgefüge in der Vulgata (= Biblische Notizen 145 [2010] 13–23).

553
Judith 12:8. orabat dominum deum Israel ut dirigeret viam eius – she prayed to the Lord the God of Is­
rael that he would direct her way; sie bat den Herrn, den Gott Israels, dass er ihren Weg lenke.
For viam eius, with possessive pronoun in the genitive case, it would have to be viam suam in
classical Latin. – Kaulen, p. 168.

Judith 13:6–9. Barbara Schmitz: “Lord, God of all might” (Jdt 13:4 LXX). A Comparison between the
Greek Version (Jdt 13:4-5, 7 LXX) and Vulgate (Idt 13:6–7, 9 Vulg.). In: Angela Kim Harkins – Bar­
bara Schmitz (eds.): Selected Studies on Deuterocanonical Prayers. Leuven 2021 (xi, 241 pp.), 89–
111.

Judith 13:22. benedixit te Dominus (…) quia per te (…) – the Lord has blessed you, because through
you. The quia is to be changed to qui, as suggested by Thielmann: Beiträge, p. 50 (see above, on
Judith 1:6).

Judith 13:29–14:6. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Jérôme hagiographe et conteur. La conversion

d’Achior dans le livre de Judith. In: Geert Van Oyen – André Wénin (eds.): La surprise dans la
Bible. Leuven (xli, 474 pp.), pp. 111–123.

Judith 14:6. relicto gentilitatis ritu credidit Deo – leaving the religion (ritus) of the Gentiles, he believed
in God. This description of conversion echoes Christian fourth-century notions. Of special in­
terest is the possibility of translating ritus as “religion,” as is done in the Douay Version, the Tus­
culum-Vulgata, and Schmitz, while Allioli has “Dienst,” and Glaire “culte.” Knox elegantly avoids
the issue by speaking of “heathenry.” – Barbara Schmitz: “Lord, God of all might” (Jdt 13:4 LXX).
A Comparison between the Greek Version (Jdt 13:4-5, 7 LXX) and Vulgate (Idt 13:6–7, 9 Vulg.). In:
Angela Kim Harkins – Barbara Schmitz (eds.): Selected Studies on Deuterocanonical Prayers.
Leuven 2021 (xi, 241 pp.), 89–111, at p. 107.

Judith 13:31. in omni gente quae audierit nomen tuum (Weber/Gryson) – in every nation that will hear
your name. Thielmann (Beiträge, p. 50; see Judith 1:6) suggests an emendation: qui audierit – in
every nation the one who will hear your name (…).

Judith 15:7. onustati sunt valde (Clementina) – they were laden exceedingly (Douay Version). The
onustati must be chnged to honestati (Weber/Gryson) – they were much honoured, or rather:
they were made rich. – Thielmann: Beiträge, pp. 51–52 (see Judith 1:6).

Judith 15:8. a minimo usque ad magnum (Weber/Gryson) – from the least to the greatest. magnum as
“greatest” (rather than merely “great”) is typical of late Latin. The Clementina has a minimo
usque ad maximum, which is classical Latin (and is used in Gen 19:11). – Thielmann: Beiträge, pp.
52–53 (see above, on Judith 1:6).

Judith 16:7. confodit (Clementina) or confudit (Weber/Gryson)? confodere – to stab, to pierce; confun­
dere – to put to shame. Thielmann: Beiträge, p. 53 (see above, on Judith 1:6) prefers confudit.

Judith 16:26. Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revi­
sions of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285; Stephen D. Ryan OP: The Ancient
Versions of Judith and the Place of the Septuagint in the Catholic Church. In: Géza G. Xeravits
(ed.): A Pious Seductress. Studies in the Book of Judith. Berlin 2012 (225 pp.), pp. 1–21, at p. 8.

Esther (Hester)
Note. – Jerome’s text of the book of Esther is presented in two parts: first, the translation of the
Hebrew text (Est 1:1–10:3), then, appended, the seven additional passages that Jerome found in Greek
manuscripts. This sequence (which makes sense to the textual scholar) is reproduced in the Roman Be ­

554
nedictine edition of 1951 and in the Weber/Gryson edition. This was also the way in which the Clem­
entina and all its subsequent Latin editions and translations presented the text. On Jerome’s editorial
decisions, see the discussion by Jószef Zsengellér: Addition or edition? Deconstructing the Concept of
Additions, in: Géza X. Xeravits et al. (eds.): Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Ber­
lin 2010 (180 pp.), pp. 1–15.

In the Neovulgate of 1979, by contrast, the presentation of the Vulgate text of Esther has been re ­
designed by placing the extra passages where they belong in the story. This way, the book of Esther
begins with a dream of Mordechai rather than with the deposition of the Persian queen who is then
replaced by Esther. In the words of Bogaert: “Le livre d’Esther retrouve à leur place naturelle non seule­
ment les suppléments du grec, mais aussi ceux que la vetus latina est seule à avoir conservés, par
exemple la prière de Juifs en 3,15d–i et la magnifique litanie des huit ego audiui ex libris maiorum
meorum de la prière d’Esther en 4,17s–aa.” Pierre-Maurice Bogaert: La Bible latine des origines au
moyen âge. Revue théologique de Louvain 19 (1988) 137–1159. 276–314, at p. 304. The Neovulgate was
not the first Bible to abandon Jerome’s (scholarly) method of presenting the text. Some Catholic ver­
nacular Bibles had done so already, e.g., the New American Bible (1970). Scholars, however, still prefer
Jerome’s editorial decision.

Text
1951. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 9: Hester et Iob ex in­
terpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome. xi, 207 pp. –This is one of the volumes of the Benedictine
Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
2017. Vincent Skemp: Vulgate [text of the Five Scrolls]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 441–446.

2019. Jean-Claude Haelewyck: Latin [text of the Additions to Esther]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual His­
tory of the Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 405–408. – “The Vulgate additions are
completely independent of the Old Latin tradition. The translation was in fact done from the text
of the LXX [Septuagint]” (p. 406).

2019. Simon Bellmann – Anathea Portier-Young: The Old Latin Book of Esther: An English Translation.
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 28: 267–289. – This is a wonderful resource for com­
paring Jerome’s rendering with the Vetus Latina version of Esther. For a German version of this
translation, see the appendix (p. 319 ff.) of Simon Bellmann: Politische Theologie im frühen
Judentum. Eine Analyse der fünf Versionen des Estherbuches. Berlin 2020. xiii, 386 pp.

Textual notes
Esth 1:6. (1) carpassini. Kaulen does not want carpasini to be understood as a color adjective (in the
colour of cotton, baumwollfarben, from carpasus, cotton), but as a noun: cotton curtains. Kaulen,
p. 142. – (2) aërius – having the colour of the air or the sky, ie., sky-blue; luftfarbig, himmelblau.
Also used in Esth 8:15. Kaulen, p. 130; Hermann Rönsch: Semasiologische Beiträge zum lateini­
schen Wörterbuch. II. Heft. Leipzig 1888 (87 pp.), p. 1.

Esth 1:13. leges ac iura maiorum. The expression “should be interpreted as ‘laws and judicial customs
of ancestors’ rather than ‘laws and rights of ancestors’.” Interestingly, the word “ancestors” does
not figure in the relevant Hebrew and Greek texts of Esther. Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman Law.

555
 The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di Berardino et al.: Lex et reli­
gio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at p. 117.

Esth 1:18. The noun exemplum is a plus with no precise equivalent in the Hebrew text. Vincent T.M.
Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions of Biblical Books.
Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285.

Esth 5:3. quid vis Esther regina? quae est petition tua? Etiam si dimidiam partem regni petieris, dabitur
tibi – what do you want, Queen Esther? What is your request? If you should even ask one half of
the kingdom, it shall be given to you. According to Tkacz, this wording echoes Ovid: Meta­
morphoses 2:44, Philebus’ rash promise to Phaeton: quodvis pete munus; but Adkin does not ac­
cept the Esther passage as an echo of Ovid.
1997. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Ovid, Jerome and the Vulgate. In: Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.): Papers Presented at
the 12th International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1995. Studia Patristica 33. Leuven (vi,
585 pp.), pp. 378–382. Tkacz also refers to similar passages: Esth 5:6; 7:2; Mark 6:22.

2000. Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40: 77–87, at pp. 77–78. ▲

Esth 5:6. See textual note on Esth 5:3.

Esth 7:2. See textual note on Esth 5:3.

Esth 9:4. fama quoque nominis eiuscrescebat cotidie et per cunctorum ora volitebat – the fame of his
name increased daily, and was spread abroad through the mouths of all. The phrase volitare per
ora is from Vergil: Georgics III, 1, and is a favourite expression of Jerome. – Neil Adkin: Biblia Pa­
gana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40 (2000) 77–87, at pp. 78–80. ▲

Esth 9:28. Isti sunt dies quos nulla umquam delebit memoria – these are the days that shall never be
forgotten. Compare Cicero: Ad familiares II, 1,2: meam tuorum erga me meritorum memoriam
nulla umquam delebit oblivio – my memory of your kindnesses toward me will never be deleted
by oblivion, i.e., I will never consign to oblivion your kindness against me. This must not be a
specific echo of Cicero, but the parallel shows that Jerome used an expression from classical Lat­
in. The same phrase is used elsewhere in Jerome’s translation – Deut 31:21; Koh 6:4; Jer 23:40;
50:5. – Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40 (2000) 77–
87, at pp. 80–81. ▲

Job (Iob)
Note. – The Vulgate includes Jerome’s translation of the book of Job from the Hebrew. Another, earlier
version by Jerome, was based on the Greek; see above, Chapter 11.5.

Text
1951. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 9: Libri Hester et Iob ex
interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Rome. xi, 207 pp. – One of the volumes of the Benedictine Vul­
gate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Translations
1884. Johann Langer: Das Buch Job in neuer und treuer Übersetzung nach der Vulgata. Luxemburg. xvi,
213 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and German, accompanied by a commentary. A 3rd edition was

556
 published in Freiburg 1989. xix, 219 pp. – The third edition of 1889 has xx, 219 pp. In some lib ­
rary catalogues, the author is listed as Jean Langer.

1925. Louis Barret (translator): Job selon la Vulgate. Toulon. 126 pp. – A French translation of the book
of Job, based on the Vulgate text.

Secondary literature
1950. Peter J. Erbes: Die Job-Übersetzungen des hl. Hieronymus. Diss. Freiburg. – Typewritten thesis,
submitted to the University of Freiburg, Germany.

1953. Pierre Salmon OSB: De quelques leçons du texte du Job dans la nouvelle édition de la Vulgate.
In: Romualdo Ma Díaz (ed.): Miscellanea biblica B. Ubach. Montserrat (xi, 474 pp.), pp. 177–184. –
The “new edition” of the Vulgate of Job is the Benedictine one listed above.

1957. Johann Baptist Bauer: Initium viarum suarum “primitiae potentiae Dei” (Job 40,19, cf. 26,14 et
Prov 8,22). Verbum Domini 35: 222–227. – A German abstract is in Internationale Zeitschriften­
schau für Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete 6 (1958/59) 71 (no. 483). – In this Latin article,
Bauer suggests a new interpretation on the assumption that Hebrew drk here means “power”
(potentia), and not “way” (via). His suggestions were not received into the Nova Vulgata, but
continues to be discussed in scholarship on this passage.

2012. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Job latin chez les Pères et dans les bibles. D’une version courte à
des versions longues sur le grec et sur l’hébreu. Revue bénédictine 122: 48–99, 366–393. – The
first Latin translation of Job was made from the original short Greek text (Old Greek) of the Sep ­
tuagint. It was subsequently revised according to long Greek texts (with the supplements of
Theodotion), among others by Jerome whose first translation on the Greek is preserved. After­
wards Jerome translated Job a second time on the Hebrew. The essay reconstructs this complic­
ated history on the basis of patristic citations of the short text and of the revised texts. Some
manuscripts of the translation of Jerome on the Hebrew (Vulgate) try to recover “pluses” of the
Septuagint.

2018. Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger – Wilhelm Tauwinkl: Some Notes about Jerome and the
Hexameters in the Book of Job. Vulgata in dialogue 2, 47–51 (online journal). – See also the
hexameter verse in Gen 3:5, and Chapter 8.7 (s.v. hexameter).

2019. Jason Soenkensen: Latin [text of Job]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume
1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 198–202.

2023. Tobias Häner: Job, the “vir simplex” (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3): Ambiguities in the Hebrew Book of Job and
the Vulgate. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 121–131 (online journal). – The author
comments on ambiguities in the portrayal of God (Job 1:16; 2:3) and of Job (Job 9:22; 32:1).
There is also a section on Job 1:1.

2023. Tobias Häner: Rezeptionsgeschichte des Buches Hiob. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 80–181.

Textual notes
Job 1:1. vir ille simplex – this simple man. “What Jerome intends by translating tm with ‘simplex’ in Job
1:1 and further on is to shift the image of Job from ‘Job the blameless’ – i.e., Job as an example
of virtue and moral integrity, to ‘Job the simple’ – i.e, Job as a rather ordinary person that is
steadfast in his trust in God’s grace” (p. 129). – Tobias Häner: Job, the “vir simplex” (Job 1:1, 8;
2:3): Ambiguities in the Hebrew Book of Job and the Vulgate. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue
(2023) 121–131, at p. 129 (online journal).

557
Job 5:7. homo nascitur ad laborem, et avis ad volatum – man is born for labour, as the bird is for flying;
der Mensch ist für die Arbeit geboren, wie der Vogel zum Flug. Since this is a comparison,
Kaulen (p. 296) suggests to render et with as or like, to produce a more dynamic proverb.

Job 19:24. celte (Clementina) is seen as a problem word. Two options: (1) It may refer to a celtis =
chisel; see Kaulen, p. 39; Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 142: “burin de graveur. Iob 19,24 pour graver des
lettres dans la pierre.” This is the opinion of the revisers of the NVg who exchange it for stilo
ferreo – with an iron chisel. (2) It is an incorrect reading for certe, the reading adopted by
Weber/Gryson on the basis of Codex Amiatinus. – See also above, Chapter 19.2, in the glossary
s.v. celte! – On the scholarly debate, see:
1875. Rönsch, p. 93.

1876. Karl von Becker: Die sogennnten Celte oder Streitmeißel. Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung Augsburg. 24.
Dezember, pages 5503–5504. The word celtis does not exist, and to derive from this word the name of the
Celts and their weapons, is unfounded. “Streitmeißel hat es nie gegeben, und dieses sonderbare Wort ist
nur zur Begründung einer unmöglichen Theorie erfunden“ (p. 5504). Mention is made of Job 19:24. The au ­
thor of the article was a then well-published author on the history of the Celts.

1889. Johannes Heller: Das Wort celte in der Clementinischen Vulgata. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 13:
207–210.

1916. F.C. Burkitt: On celtis ‘a chisel’: A Study in Textual Tradition. Journal of Theological Studies 17.7: 389–397.

1921. F.C. Burkitt: On celtis ‘a chisel’: A Further Note. Journal of Theological Studies 22.4: 380–381.

1969. Aelred Baker: The Strange Case of Job’s Chisel. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31: 370–379.

Job 19:25(–27). scio enim quod redemptor meus vivat et in novissimo de terra resurrecturus sim (We­
ber/Gryson) – but I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the last (day) I will rise up. The
Greek, the Hebrew, and the Vetus Latina have no equivalent of in novissimo (Weber/Gryson; the
Clementina reads: in novissimo die), i.e., they make Job expect to be restored to health in the
present life. In the Vulgate, by contrast, Jerome attributes to Job a personal confession of faith in
the eschatological resurrection of the dead. According to Jerome (Letter 53, 8; PL 22: 545; CSEL
54: 455–456), the passage does indeed announce the resurrection of the dead. Interestingly, the
Nova Vulgata keeps Jerome’s interpretation by retaining in novissimis. – The beginning of the
passage has become a frequently quoted scripture: aber ich weiß, dass mein Erlöser lebet (Luth­
er); for I know that my redeemer liveth (King James Version, 1611).

2016. Françoise Mies: Exégèse critique et histoire de la réception de Job: “Je sais que mon ré ­
dempteur est vivant.” In: Olivier-Thomas Venard – Régis Burnet (eds.): “Dieu a parlé une
fois – Deux fois j’ai entendu.” L’exégèse de l’Écriture à l’heure de l’histoire de la réception.
Paris 2016 (382 pp.), pp. 153–216, at p. 175: “C’est la Vulgate qui a rendu notre passage
[Job 19:25–27] vraiement célèbre.”

2021. Carsten Ziegert: “Ich weiß, dass mein Erlöser lebt.” Hiob 19,25–27 in der Septuaginta und
in der Vulgata. Biblische Zeitschrift 65: 134–150.

2021. Andrea Ravasco: The Latin Manuscript Evidence in Job 19:25–26. A Comparison with the
Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Lumina 5: 217–226.

Job 21:33. dulcis fuit glareis Cocyti – he hath been acceptable to the gravel of Cocytus (Douay Ver­
sion), den Kiseln des Cocytus war er angenehm. Jerome refers to the death river Cocytus known
from Greco-Roman mythology. – Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Pader­
born 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 111; cf. the note in the Tusculum-Vulgata II, p. 1407.

558
Job 25:5. ecce etiam luna non splendet – behold, even the moon does not shine; siehe, sogar der
Mond leuchtet nicht. On etiam = even (German: sogar), see Friedrich Stummer: Die Vulgata zum
Canticum Annae. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 1 (1950) 10–19, at p. 17.

Job 28:28. timor Domini (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – fear of the Lord. Patristic sources have a
second version: pietas Domini – devotion toward the Lord. – Georges Folliet: La double tradition
patristique du verset Job 28,28. “pietas/timor Domini est sapientia.” Sacris erudiri 45 (2006) 159–
189: the expression timor Domini was introduced by Jerome (against the Septuagint and Au­
gustine).

Job 29:18. Françoise Lecoq: Y a-t-il un phénix dans la Bible? À propos de Job 29,18, de Tertullien (De
resurrectione carnis 13, 2–3) et d’Ambroise (De excessu fratris 2, 50). Kentron. Revue pluridisci­
plinaire du monde antique 30 (2014) 55–82. – Includes a section on the Vetus Latina and
Jerome’s rendering of the verse.

Job 31:27. lactatum (Weber/Gryson) – enticed, verführt, is the correct reading. The Clementina has
laetatum – rejoiced, gefreut. Alberto Vaccari SJ: “Lacto” nella Volgata. Biblica 2 (1921) 219–221. –
Interestingly, the Nova Vulgata has decepit me – it (my heart) has deceived me.

Job 36:16. Patrick W. Skehan: Job 36:16. Vulgate. In: idem: Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom.
Washington 1971 (xii, 25 pp.), pp. 89–95.

Job 38:33.37. ratio here means “order.” For this word, Jerome may be indebted to Cicero who uses it
in a similar context; cf. Cicero: De natura deorum II, 46,119; In Verrem II, 2, 52; see the entry on
ratio in the glossary (above, Chapter 19.2).

Job 42:14. Cornustibii (Clementina, NVg Cornu stibii (Weber/Gryson). The spelling of Weber/Gryson
indicates how this name is to be understood: as cornu stibii – horn of stibium = black powder for
the eyes or eyelashes. The female name Qeren ha-Puk, in most English translations kept as Ker­
en-happuch, has received multiple renderings: Dark Eylids (Ronald Knox), Applescent (James
Moffat; this would be Apfelduft in German), Schminkhorn (Allioli). but only Knox’s seems to
render the Latin. But what exactly is stibium? Jerome uses the word in Jeremiah 4:30: pinxeris sti­
bio oculos tuos – you have painted your eyes with stibium (Douay Version: with stibic stone, Alli­
oli: schminktest deine Augen mit Schminke).

Note. – The name of the third of Job’s daughters, Cornustibii (Job 42:14), invented by Jerome, stands
out for its imaginative quality. Strangely enough, the name was often misunderstood, but Roger Bacon
is on the right track.

c. 600. Gregory the Great: Moralia in Iob XXXV, 17, 43 (PL 76: 774; Moral Reflections on the Book of Job.
Volume 6. Translated by Brian Kerns. Collegeville, Min. 2022 [576 pp.], p. 528): “As for Cornust­
ibii, although the word is not Cornus but Cornu, followed not by Cantantium Fistula Tibium
[Pipe of Singers] but Tibia [feminine gender, not neuter], by not at all preserving the correct
gender in the Latin language, I imagine the translator preferred to express the matter simply,
but to keep the style of the language from which he was translating. Or perhaps in composing
one word out of two, Cornu and Tibia, he was at liberty to give both words, translated into one
part of speech in Latin, whatever gender he preferred.” Gregory, as it happens, was wrong be­
cause he did not understand that Jerome thought of stibium, not tibium.

c. 1290. Roger Bacon: Et est stibium genus medicamenti quo mulieres solebant suas linire facies, ut albe­
scent, quod idem est quod cerusa vel consimile, et incipit ab s libera. Et quia tale quid solebat poni
in vase, ut in cornu vel alio, idea dicitur ibi stibii, quia nec cornus aliquid significat nec tibii. “Stibi­

559
 um is the kind of medical substance with which women used to treat their faces to make it
white; it is the same as ashes or something similar, and it begins with the letter s. And because
this kind of thing was usually kept in a receptacle, such as a horn or something, this is why it is
here called cornu stabii (horn of stabium). Neither cornus nor tibii means anything in Latin.” – Fr.
Rogeri opera quaedam inedita. Edited by J.S. Brewer. Volume 1. London 1859 (c, 573 pp.), p. 518.

Psalms (Psalmi, liber Psalmorum)

Note. – Jerome created two Psalters: a first one translated from Greek (so-called Psalterium Gallican­
um) and a second one translated from Hebrew (iuxta Hebraeos). The Vulgate includes only the Psalter
translated from the Greek, the so-called Gallican Psalter. The Stuttgart Vulgate (Weber/Gryson) prints
the Latin texts of both versions. Robert Weber describes the Vulgate Psalter as “an Old-Latin text which
was corrected by Jerome to agree with the Greek of Origen’s Hexapla” (Weber/Gryson, p. xxix).

With the Vulgate Psalms, one must always pay attention to the correct numbering, because this partly
deviates from the today’s usual numbering (according to the Hebrew Bible). Here is an overview:

modern numbering Vulgate numbering

Ps 1–8 1–8

Ps 9–10 9

Ps 11–113 10–112

Ps 114–115 113

Ps 116 114–115

Ps 117–146 116–145

Ps 147 146–147

Ps 148–150 148–150

Text
1509. Psalterium Quincuplex. Printed in Paris, this edition of five versions of the book of Psalms in­
cludes the two Jeromian versions – the iuxta Hebraeos and the Gallicanum. The compiler is the
French humanist Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, 1460–1536).

1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabulary.
London. xxi, 242 pp.

1953. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem as codicum fidem. [Tomus] 10: Liber Psalmorum ex
recensione Sancti Hieronymi. Edited by Robert Weber OSB. Rome. xvi, 298 pp. – This volume is
part of the Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3. – Review: Henry S. Gehmann, Journal
of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 134–135.

1961. Robert Weber OSB (ed.): Psalterii secundum Vulgatam Bibliorum Versionem nova recensio. Ab­
baye de S. Maurice et S. Maur, Clervaux. 192 pp. – Two columns: on the left, the traditional Vul ­
gate text, on the right: alternative formulations meant to replace incomprehensible phrases with
better Latin wording.

560
1994. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB – Roger Gryson. 4th, cor­
rected edition 1994; 5th, corrected edition 2007. Stuttgart (5th edition: xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 770–
953. – This edition offers Jerome’s two versions of the Psalms – Gallican Psalter and iuxta Heb ­
raeos – synoptically on facing pages.

Glossaries
1900. François C. Ceulemans: Introductio et commentarius in Psalmos. Mecheln. 400 pp. – On pp. 26–
30, the author presents a glossary of Latin words.

1903. Jakob Ecker: Porta Sion. Lexikon zum lateinischen Psalter (Psalterium Gallicanum). Trier. viii, 234
pp., 1936 cols. – The full subtitle: “Lexikon zum lateinischen Psalter (Psalterium Gallicanum) unter
genauer Vergleichung der Septuaginta und des hebräischen Textes mit einer Einleitung über die
griechisch-lateinischen Psalmen und dem Anhang Der apokryphe Psalter Salomons.” This is a
very learned work. Its Vulgate Latin dictionary (1936 cols.) includes numerous quotations from
commentaries on the Psalms. The book uses Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic fonts – a conspicuous
display of philological learning.

1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabulary.
London. xxiii, 242 pp. – The vocabulary is very brief (pp. 231–233).

1923. Stanislaus Stephan: Psalmenschlüssel. Einführung in die sprachlichen Eigentümlichkeiten und in

den Gedankengang der Brevierpsalmen. Lauban. 308 pp. (poor printing; pages 200–306 have the
numbers 100–206 by mistake). – Includes a detailed Latin-German glossary of nearly 100 pages,
closely printed, in two columns. The Latin vocabulary, according to the author, must be seen
from the underlying Hebrew words; Latin words carry Hebrew meanings.

1928. Matthew Britt OSB: A Dictionary of the Psalter: Containing the Vocabulary of the Psalms, Hymns,
Canticles and Miscellanous Prayers of the Breviary Psalter. New York. xxxvi, 299 pp. – In addition
to the dictionary there is also an introduction devoted to “The Latinity of the Vulgate Psalter”
(pp. xix–xxxvi). The author notes the absence of the accusative with infinitive (well known to
readers of classical Latin, p. xx). Helpful, but not scholarly.

1937. Francis J. Pinkman: Knots Untied of the Latin Psalter. New and enlarged edition. London. 44 pp. –
This Latin–English glossary was first published in 1936 (39 pp.).

2021. Rodrigo H. Kahl OP: Die liturgischen Psalmen der lateinischen Kirche. Lateinisch – deutsch.
Textfassungen der Vulgata. Wörtliche Übersetzung. Kulmbach. xxxii, 528 pp. – This bilingual edi­
tion, Latin and German, has a brief glossary of Latin words on pp. xxii–xxiv.

Study aids and translations

Note. – The Psalms form the central part of the Catholic “liturgy of the hours” or breviary, daily read,
recited, or sung by monks, priests, and nuns. In the past, i.e., before the 1970s, this was done in Latin,
and the text was the Gallican Psalter of the Vulgate, in personal prayer alternatively the Psalter of P.
Pius XII (see above, Chapter 16.6). But reading the Psalms intelligently has never been an easy task;
this is especially true of the (Gallican) Vulgate Psalter: “Der Wortlaut des Vulgatapsalters ist strecken ­
weise mit bloßer humanistischer Schulbildung nicht zu bewältigen” (Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der
Vulgata. Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche Stellung. Paderborn 1940 [314 pp.], p.
8). As a remedy, specialists produced numerous study aids and translations. What follows is a selection
of English and German publications; a few titles in French are added.

561
English
Note. – The standard English translation of the Vulgate Psalms is the Douay Version or, to be more
precise, the Douay-Challoner version (see above, Chapter 18.1). Ronald Knox’s translation is irrelevant
for the study of the Vulgate Psalms, because Knox translated the Psalterium Pianum, and not the Vul ­
gate text.

1901. James McSwiney SJ: Translation of the Psalms and Canticles with Commentary. Dublin. xxxii, 659
pp. – Two English translations are synoptically presented: a literal rendering of the Vulgate
Psalms, and a literal rendering of the Hebrew text.

1911. John Henry Bernard (ed.): The Psalter in Latin and English. London. xx, 324 pp. – The English text
is the one used by the Church of England in its liturgy, i.e., the Authorised Version or King James
Version.

1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabulary.
London. xxiii, 242 pp. – The vocabulary is very brief (pp. 231–233), but there are textual notes on
some of the Psalms (pp. 213–230).

1920/24. Patrick C. Boylan: The Psalms: A Study of the Vulgate Psalter in the Light of the Hebrew Text.
Dublin. 2 vols. lxix, 299 pp.; xi, 404 pp. – The text of the Vulgate Psalms and a literal translation
are printed in synoptic columns. There are also explanatory notes that frequently refer to the
Hebrew text.

1939–1944. William H. McClellan SJ: Obscurities in the Latin Psalter. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1 (1939)
69–74, 150–153, 243–248, 353–357. – 2 (1940) 64–69, 173–178, 253–258, 341–345. – 3 (1941) 55–
60, 167–173, 259–265, 356–361. – 4 (1942) 58–62, 152–158, 252–257, 349–354. – 5 (1943) 80–84,
207–213, 345–349, 466–471. – 6 (1944) 99–103, 353–356. (The series consists of 139 notes on as
many passages; the final instalment ends with notes 137 on Ps 140:10b; 138 on Ps 143:13b, and
139 on Ps 140:10b. It seems that McClellan served as one of the translators of the English ver­
sion of the Psalterium Pianum; see Chapter 16.6.)

2005. David J. Ladouceur: The Latin Psalter. Introduction, Selected Text and Commentary. London. 126
pp. – Latin text of selected Psalms (pp. 25–49: Ps 1–15 and others), with commentary (51–126).
Used is the text of the Clementina; occasionally, the wording of the Weber/Gryson edition is in­
dicated.

2009. John G. Cunyus (translator): The Audacity of Prayer. A Fresh Translation of the Book of Psalms.
Latin–English edition. Glen Rose, TX. 400 pp. – Interlinear translation. The Latin text is that of We­
ber/Gryson, 1994.

German
1860. Valentin Thalhofer: Erklärung der Psalmen. Zweite, vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Regens­
burg. xlvi, 810 pp. – Bilingual edition, Latin and German. Page xix: “Dem Vulgata-Text der
Psalmen haben wir eine deutsche Übersetzung nebenan gestellt. Sie ist möglichst wörtlich
gehalten (…) Gar manche Stelle hätte sich schöner und wohlklingender deutsch geben lassen
(…); allein dann wäre die Übersetzung in vielen Fällen kein getreues Spiegelbild des Originales
mehr gewesen.” – The first edition was published in 1857 (viii, 740 pp.), the 9th edition in 1923
(xii, 898 pp.). The “Thalhofer” was a standard resource on the Psalms for Catholic clergy, meant
to facilitate praying the breviary. Thalhofer’s autobiography has recently been edited: Claudius
Stein et al. (eds.): Ecce homo: speculum vitae meae. Die Lebenserinnerungen des Liturgiewis­

562
 senschaftlers (…) Valentin Thalhofer (1825–1891). Jahrbuch des Vereins für Augsburger Bistums­
geschichte 44 (2010) 547–589.

1872. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg. 49 pp. – After
an introduction to the linguistic peculiarities of the Latin psalm language, Psalms 1 to 4 are lin ­
guistically explained.

1892. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata übersetzt und nach dem Literalsinn erklärt. Freiburg.
xxxi, 389 pp. – The author, a professor in Freiburg, provides a translation and a linguistic key of
the Latin text. The second, improved and enlarged edition of Hoberg’s book, published in 1906
(xxxv, 484 pp.), includes the Vulgate text of the Psalms. Hoberg’s book offers a most valuable
textual commentary on the Vulgate Psalms. – Reviews:
1893. J.K. Zenner SJ, Stimmen aus Maria Laach 45: 72–76. The reviewer misses a consideration of the Hebrew text.

1893. Paul Schanz, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 14: 99–100. ▲

1917. Franz Jetzinger: Die Psalmen und Cantica des Breviers. Regensburg. 311 pp. –The author prints
the complete Latin text of the Psalms (Psalterium Gallicanum), accompanied by explanatory
footnotes. The introduction explains linguistic peculiarities – “sprachliche Eigentümlichkeiten der
lateinischen Psalmenübersetzung” (pp. 11–18). “Im lateinischen Psalmentext findet sich eine Reihe
von Stellen, die mach dem Wortlaut des Latein einfachhin unverständlich sind. In den weitaus
meisten dieser Fälle liegt die Ursache nicht etwa in dem dunklen oder gar geheimnisvollen Sinn
des hebräischen Originals, sondern bloß in der irrigen, schiefen oder falschen Übersetzung der LXX
[Septuaginta], denen der Lateiner folgen mußte. Solche Stellen nach dem Latein erklären zu wol­
len, ist demnach ein prinzipieller Fehler; man kann dabei nichts anderes feststellen als höchstens
das, was sich die LXX-Übersetzer unter den betreffenden Worten gedacht haben mochten” (p. 11).

1923. Stanislaus Stephan: Psalmenschlüssel. Einführung in die sprachlichen Eigentümlichkeiten und in

den Gedankengang der Brevierpsalmen. Lauban. 308 pp. (poor printing; pages 200–306 have the
numbers 100–206 by mistake). – Includes a detailed Latin-German glossary of nearly 100 pages,
closely printed, in two columns. The Latin vocabulary, according to the author, must be seen
from the underlying Hebrew words; Latin words carry Hebrew meanings. The translation tends
toward paraphrase, occasionally influenced by dogmatic bias; for an example, see the rendering
of Psalm 2:7: “Du bist ein Sohn mir; ich lass’ im ew’gen Heute dich aus meinem Schoß hervorge­
h’n.” (You are a son to me. In the eternal now, I let you come forth from my womb.) In the trans­
lation section, the Psalms are printed in Latin and German, though not in the canonical se­
quence, but in the sequence in which they are printed in the Roman breviary.

2021. Rodrigo H. Kahl OP: Die liturgischen Psalmen der lateinischen Kirche. Lateinisch – deutsch.
Textfassungen der Vulgata. Wörtliche Übersetzung. Kulmbach. xxxii, 528 pp. – This bilingual edi­
tion, Latin and German, provides a literal rending, complete with some brief grammatical notes.
The introduction discusses the merits of some earlier German renderings. There is also a brief
glossary of Latin words (pp. xxii–xxiv).

French
1889. Augustin Crampon: Le Livre des Psaumes suivi des Cantiques des Laudes et de Vêpres. Traduction
nouvelle sur la Vulgate. Paris 470 pp. – Another edition: Le Livre des Psaumes suivi des Cantiques
du Bréviaire Romain en Latin–Français. Traduction sur la Vulgate. Paris 1925. 723 pp.

1893. Louis-Claude Fillion: Les Psaumes commentés d’après la Vulgate et l’Hébreu. Paris. 664, 32 pp.

563
Secondary literature
1833. (Anonymous) Über die Vulgata, ihren Werth, und Gebrauch in der lateinischen Kirche. Theologis­
ch-praktische Monatsschrift 10: 157–176. Printed in Rottenburg, Germany, the volume has a sec ­
ond title page: Quartalschrift für katholische Geistliche, vol. 1. – Page 171: “Am häufigsten, und
zugleich wohl auch mit dem meisten Rechte klagt man über den unlateinischen und unver­
ständlichen Ausdruck der in der Vulgata enthaltenen Psalmenübersetzung. Allein gerade diese
ist auch der schwächste Theil der Vulgata. Sie ist keine aus dem Grundtexte, sondern aus der
alexandrinisch-griechischen Übersetzung, und zwar wahrscheinlich aus einem sehr entstellten
Texte derselben entstanden.”

1915. John James Jepson: The Latinity of the Vulgate Psalter. Washington. xiii and 95 pp. – A thesis.

1928. Arthur Allgeier: Die altlateinischen Psalterien. Freiburg. xi, 190 pp. – Pages 137–187: Der
Wortschatz der altlateinischen Psalterien. The alphabetical index of the vocabulary of the Vul­
gate Psalms is accompanied by references to pre-Vulgate texts; for the sigla used, see p. xi of
Allgeier’s book. ▲

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: La reconstitution du psautier hexaplaire latin. Revue bénédictine 41:
294–324.

1936. Riccardo Arconada: Ecclesiae Psalmi Paenitentiales. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 76. Rom 1936.
143 pp. – The seven “penitential Psalms” (Bußpsalmen) are Ps 6; 32 (Vg 31); 38 (Vg 37); 51 (Vg
50); 102 (Vg 101); 130 (Vg 129); 143 (Vg 142). The author highlights the text-critical value of the
Vulgate Psalms. ▲

1940. Arthur Allgeier: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Ihre Eigenart, sprachliche Grundlage und geschichtliche
Stellung. Paderborn. 314 pp. – In much of this book, the author continues his studies of the Vul ­
gate Psalter’s vocabulary, begun in 1928.

1955. Giorgio Castellino: Libro dei salmi. Torino. xi, 912 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate and Psalterium Pi ­
anum texts on opposite pages. The Vulgate text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1960. Joseph Ziegler: Antike und moderne Psalmenübersetzungen. Bayerische Akademie der Wis­
senschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1960, no. 3. Munich. 68 pp. – The author offers
many observations and points out creative mistranslations (pp. 43–44) such as daemonium me­
ridianum – the noonday devil, Mittagsdämon (Ps 91:6, Vg 90:6) und unicornis – unicorn, Einhorn
(Ps 29:6, Vg 28:6).

2020. Dieter Böhler SJ: Adrian Schenker, Hieronymus und die Revision der Einheitsübersetzung. In: In­
nocent Himbaza et al. (eds.): La Bible en Face. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 95. Leuven 2020 (xxiv,
362 pp.), pp. 41–78. – On the revised German “Einheitsübersetzung” (2016), its textual basis of
Psalms 2, 22, 24, 36, 48, 51, 65, 138, and 145, and its relationship with Jerome.

2023. Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerechtigkeit im lateinischen Psalter. In: Ro­
land Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateini­
schen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357.

Textual notes
Ps 1–4. Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg 1872. 49 pp.
– Pages 21–36: philological notes on Psalms 1 to 4.

564
Ps 1. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 128–129. – Bilingual
text (Latin and German working translation), with explanatory notes on vocabulary and gram ­
mar.

Ps 1:1–2. beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum (…) et in lege eius meditabitur – blessed (is) the
man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked (…) and in his law meditates. Two notes: (1)
abire is a normal Vulgate verb for saying “to walk”; accordingly, there is no nuance of “walking
away” in the sense of leaving the path of the righteous. – (2) “Die Perfecta in V. 1 besagen, was
der Gerechte bisher gethan hat, und das Futur in 2b, was zu thun er immerfort sich bestrebt”;
Peter Hake: Sprachliche Erläuterungen zu dem lateinischen Psalmentexte. Arnsberg 1872 (47 pp.),
p. 22.

Ps 2. (1) Inverted commas: Psalm 2 gains in clarity through the use of inverted commas to indicate the
various speakers. The Clementina does not use quotation marks, but Zorell marks off verses 3, 6
and 7–9, as do the Psalterium Pianum and the NVg; see Francisco Zorell SJ: Psalterium ex He­
braeo Latinum. Rome 1928 (xxii, 311 pp.), p. 2; R.C. Fuller: Why does verse 3 of Psalm 2 appear in
inverted commas in the New Latin Psalter? Scripture 4.8 (1950) 249–250. – (2) Jutta Krispenz:
Workshop zu Psalm 2. Masoretischer Text und Vulgatatext im Vergleich. In: Andreas Beriger –
Michael Fieger el al. (eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata
Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 49–60.

Ps 2:6. ego autem constitutus sum ab eo – but I am appointed king by him (Douay Version). The speak­
er here is the king. This is a literal rendering of the Greek text. The Nova Vulgata (and, earlier,
Jerome himself in the iuxta hebraeos Psalms), makes God the speaker; accordingly, the NVg has:
ego autem constitui regem meum – but I have appointed my king.

Ps 2:7. Michael Fieger: Küsst den Sohn und nicht die Füsse. Textkritische und bibeltheologische
Beobachtungen zu Psalm 2,7.11–12a. Vulgata in dialogue 1 (2017) 7–30 (online journal).

Ps 2:12. (1) apprehendite disciplinam – embrace discipline (Douay Version). This is after the Septu­
agint; the iuxta Hebraeos has adorate pure – adore in purity; see Kraus, pp. 117–118. – (2)
pereatis de via iusta. The Douay Version has “you shall perish from the just way,” which does not
fully capture the meaning. The verb perire has two meanings: “to get lost when walking, to take
the wrong path, to deviate from the right path” and “to perish.” Both meanings are here com­
bined. Perhaps: “you shall perish when you deviate from the right path.” – Matthew A. Kraus: The
Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue IOVS 2022: 99–119, at
pp. 117–118 (online journal).

Ps 3:3. non est salus ipsi in deo eius – literally: not is salvation for him in the God of him; nicht ist Heil
für ihn in dessen Gott. Here eius is used where classical Latin would have suo. This is often the
case in the Vulgate. See textual note on Judith 12:8.

Ps 4:8. a fructu frumenti, [et] vini, et olei sui. The Weber/Gryson edition has the et, the Clementina
omits it. The “oil” is not in the Hebrew text, and therefore omitted in the Nova Vulgata. The
ternary frumentum, vinum, oleum is also present in some Latin manuscripts of Gen 27:28 (see
the apparatus in Weber/Gryson), no doubt echoing this Psalm.

Ps 4:9–10. in pace in idipsum dormiam, et requiescam; quoniam tu, Domine, singulariter in spe constitu ­
isti me. The passage is awkward because of the strange idipsum (see above, the glossary, Chap­
ter 19.2, s.v. idipsum). McClellan suggests this rendering: I will at once (both) lie down and rest;
for you, o Lord, makest me dwell in security. One could also say: I will at once fall asleep. – Acc­

565
 cording to Allgeier, one would expect in pace in eo ipso dormiam – in peace, in peace itself, I will
sleep. – Literature:

1939. William H. McClellan: Obscurities in the Latin Psalter. III. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1: 243–
248, at p. 248.

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Lateinische Psalmenübersetzung in alter und neuer Zeit. In: Wissenschaft
und Leben. Reden zur Universitätsfeier am 1. Juni 1946. Freiburger Universitätsreden. Neue
Folge Heft 2. Freiburg (28 pp.), pp. 7–20, at p. 15.

Ps 5:6. neque habitabit iuxta te (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg). A conjecture might be habitavit.

Ps 8:4–5. quoniam videbo caelos tuos (…) quid est homo, quod memor es eius? Two stylistic anlyses
have been proposed: (1) According to Kaulen, the conditional clause is constructed here without
“si with subjunctive,” as often in English and German: had I known this (…), hätte ich das gewusst
(…) = if I had known this. After the introductory quoniam a comma or a dash is to be put, be­
cause it belongs to the following sentence: Quoniam – videbo caelos tuos (…). Translation: “For –
I see your heaven (…) [so I have to ask:] What is man (…).” – (2) quid est homo, quod memor est
eius? – what is man that you pay attention to him? One must distinguish between the statement
(memor es eius) and the rhetorical question (quid est homo?); the rhetorical question serves to
highlight the statement (Regula). – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 298.

1948. Moritz Regula: Streifzüge auf dem Gebiet der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik. Glotta 31.1–
2 (1948) 72–92, esp. pp. 73–76.

Ps 9:7. periit memoria eorum cum sonitu – their memory has perished with a noise (Douay Version). Al­
lioli’s German “verschwunden ist ihr Andenken mit dem Schalle” is a literal rendering, but it does
not make sense. The Tusculum-Vulgata has “zugrunde gegangen ist die Erinnerung an sie
zusammen mit dem Klang [ihres Namens].”

Ps 12:3 (Vg 11:3). labia dolosa in corde et corde locuti sunt – two renderings have been suggested: (1)
with deceitful lips and with a double heart they have spoken (Douay Version); leurs levres sont
trompeuses; ils ont parle avec un cœur et un cœur (Glaire); mit trugerischen Lippen, mit doppel­
tem Herzen reden sie (Hoberg, p. 31). Hobert, following Kaulen, also explains that labia dolosa is
accusative in the sense of accusativus graecus. See also the rendering of the NVg: in labiis dolos­
is, in duplici corde locuti sunt. – (2) listige Lippen sind in ihrem Herzen, und mit ihrem Herzen
haben sie gesprochen (Tusculum-Vulgata); but the Tusculum-Vulgata’s rendering does not seem
to be correct. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 273 (no. 151) – accusativus graecus.

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata übersetzt und nach dem Literalsinn erklärt. 2nd
edition. Freiburg 1906, pp. 31–32.

Ps 12:6 (Vg 11:6). ponam in salutari – I will set him in safety (Douay Version). One would expect pon­
am eum in salutari. The Nova Vulgata has ponam in salutari illum (…)

Ps 12:7 (Vg 11:7). purgatum terrae. Translators have suggested various possibilities of understanding
the expression: purged from the earth (Douay Version, Tusculum-Vulgata); approved for the
earth (McClellan); bewährt bei den Menschen auf Erden (Hoberg); im irdenen Tiegel erprobt (Al­
lioli); purifié dans la terre (Glaire). – Literature:

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata übersetzt und nach dem Literalsinn erklärt. 2nd
edition. Freiburg 1906, p. 31.

566
 1939. William H. McClellan: Obscurities in the Latin Psalter. II. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1 [1939]
150–153, at p. 152.

Ps 14:1 (Vg 13:1). dixit insipiens in corde suo – the fool says in his heart, literally (as in the Douay Ver­
sion): the fool hath said in his heart. Where one would expect the present tense dicit, the text
has perfect tense dixit. This is gnomic perfect, see Gonzalo Rubio: Semitic influence in the history
of Latin Syntax. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin
Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin 2009 (xxii, 561 pp.), pp. 195–239, at p. 219.

Ps 14:3 (Vg 13:3). sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum – their throat is an open supulchre (etc.). – With
these words begins a long Christian interpolation inserted at the end of v. 3. The source of this
interpolation is Rom 3:13–18. In the Weber/Gryson edition, the interpolated passage is marked;
in the Clementina, it is simply part of the text. The Neovulgate omits the passage. – Leopoldo
Gamberale: San Gerolamo. Intellettuale e filologo. Rome 2013 (xx, 181 pp.), pp. 102–110: Un’in­
terpolazione cristiana nel Salmo 13.

Ps 16:3 (Vg 15:3). mirificavit omnes voluntates meas in eis – he hath made wonderful all my desires in
them (Douay Version). A conjectural emendation could improve the sense: suas (instead of
meas): (…) all his desires. The NVg retains the first person by saying omnis voluntas mea in eos.
The conjecture is suggested in A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. London 1913
(xxiii, 242 pp.), p. 213.

Ps 16:7 (Vg 15:7). benedicam Domino (Weber/Gryson) – benedicam Dominum (Clementina, NVg).

Ps 17:10 (Vg 16:10). adipem suum concluserunt (Clementina, NVg) – they shut his fat. The sentence
does not make immediate sense. Suggestions: they have shut up their fat (Douay Version); (sie)
verschlossen ihr gefühlloses Herz (Allioli); sie haben ihr Fett eingeschlossen (Tusculum-Vulgata);
ils ont fermé leurs entrailles (Glaire). Allioli’s is a free translation, the other translations try to be
literal.

Ps 17:11 (Vg 16:11). oculos suos statuerunt declinare in terram – they have stationed their eyes (i.e.,
diligently watched) to cast me down to the ground. One has to read (or think) declinare me. –
William H. McClellan: Obscurities in the Latin Psalter. III. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1 (1939) 243–
248, at p. 243.

Ps 17:12 (Vg 16:12). susceperunt me sicut leo paratus ad praedam – they have taken me, as a lion pre­
pared for the prey (Douay Version). This translation does not make sense. The verb suscipere
means “to focus on something or someone” in the interest of overwhelming something or
someone, as the comparison shows (and Sir 21:2). Stummer thinks that the word belongs to the
vocabulary of hunters and warriors. In translation: they go after me/lie in wait for me, act like a
lion intent on making prey; sie sehen es auf mich ab/sie lauern mir auf, (sind) wie ein Löwe bere­
it zum Beute(machen). – Friedrich Stummer: Lexikographische Bemerkungen zur Vulgata. In:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico (ed.): Miscellanea Biblica. Volume 2. Rome 1934 (406 pp.), pp. 179–202,
at pp. 199–201.

Ps 17:14 (Vg 16:14). a paucis de terra divide eos in vita eorum – divide them from the few of the earth
in their life (Douay Version); trenne sie in ihrem Leben von den Wenigen des Landes (Allioli); se­
parez-les pendant leur vie du petit nombre de ceux qui sont à vous sur la terre (Glaire). Most
likely, God is asked to cut the enemies off from the land, i.e., to kill them. The “few” must be the
righteous ones, God’s friends, as Glaire has it.

Ps 21 (Vg 20). Pierre Salmon OSB et al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens psautiers latins. Col­
lectanea biblica latina 13. Rome (267 pp.); this volume includes two papers on Psalm 21: (a) on
pp. 23–34: Barnabé Steiert OSB: La Vulgate et le texte massorétique; pages 24–26 deal specific­

567
 ally with Psalm 21; the Latin text used is that of the Benedictine Vulgate; (b) on pp. 51–105: Jean
Gribomont OSB – André Thibaut OSB: Méthode et esprit des traducteurs du psautier grec;
offered is a close reading of verses 2–8 of the Latin text with reference to the underlying Greek
version.

Ps 21:2 (Vg 20:2). et super salutare tuum exultabit vehementer – and because of the salvation coming
from you he will greatly rejoice. Note the genetivus objectivus – your salvation = the salvation
coming from you.

Ps 21:13 (Vg 20:13). quoniam pones eos deorsum, in reliquiis tuis praeparabis vultum eorum. The
wording does not make sense. (1) The closest translation is: “You will turn them backwards, but
in those remaining to you, you will establish their face; du wirst sie rücklings kehren, in den dir
Übrigbleibenden jedoch ihr Antlitz herstellen.” Jerome has improved the second part of the sen­
tence in the Psalter iuxta hebraeos: funes tuos firmabis contra facies eorum – with your bowstring
you will aim against their face, mit deiner Bogensehne wirst du wider ihr Antlitz zielen. Franz Jet­
zinger: Die Psalmen und Cantica des Breviers. Regensburg 1917 (311 pp.), pp. 11–12 und 66. –
(2) “Le latin ne signifie guère plus rien. (…) nous nous inspirons volontiers de 2 Sam 8,2 pour
comprendre le verset de la manière suivante: tu les mettras sur le dos / et tes cordes, tu les ten ­
dras au-dessus de leur visage.” Barnabé Steiert OSB: La Vulgate et le texte massorétique. In:
Pierre Salmon OSB et al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens psautiers latins. Rome (267 pp.), pp.
23–34, at p. 26. – (3) The Nova Vulgata has a completely new wording: quoniam pones eos dor­
sum, arcus tuos tendes in vultum eorum – for you shall put them back (or: to flight, you shall aim
your shafts against their face. Ponere dorsum seems to be a set expression for saying “to put
down” which, in a military context, means “to put to flight”; see Blaise: Dictionnaire, s.v. deorsum.

Ps 22 (Vg 21). (1) Pierre Salmon OSB et al.: Richesses et déficiences des anciens Psautiers latins. Col­
lectanea biblica latina 13. Rome 1959 (267 pp.); this volume includes two papers on Psalm 22:
(a) the first one is on pp. 151–187: Henri de Sainte-Marie OSB: Le psaume 22 (21) dans le Iuxta
Hebraeos; the author provides an examination of the choice of words in comparison with the
Vetus Latina version. According to P.-M- Bogaert (Revue théologique de Louvain 19 [1988] 156
note 69), this study is of exemplary importance. Older works on the language of the Vulgate suf ­
fer from the fact that they do not distinguish between the language of the Old Latin translation
and Jerome’s own vocabulary. ▲ (b) The second article is on pp. 23–34: Barnabé Steiert OSB: La
Vulgate et le texte massorétique; on pp. 27–33, the author examines the Vulgate text and the
underlying Hebrew. – (2) Joaquim Mendes de Castro: O Salmo 21 (22) nos Setenta e outras
versoes. Euphrosyne 29 (2001) 59–68; comparison of different translations, including Vetus Lat­
ina, Vulgate and Nova Vulgata.

Ps 22:2 (Vg 21:2). longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum – far from my salvation are the words
of my sins (Douay Version); das Geschrei meiner Sünden entfernet mein Heil (Allioli); weit weg
von meiner Rettung sind die Worte meiner Vergehen (Tusculum-Vulgata); les paroles de mes
peches sont loin de mon salut (Glaire). – Perhaps: (I am) far away from my salvation, (because) of
the voice of my sins (B. Lang).

Ps 22:3 (Vg 21:3). (clamabo) et nocte, et non ad insipientiam mihi – (I shall cry) by night, and it shall
not be (reputed) as folly in me (Douay Version); (ich rufe) des Nachts, ist es nicht umsonst für
mich? (Allioli); (je crierai) et pendant la nuit, et ce n’est point à moi une folie (Glaire).

Ps 23 (Vg 22). Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel
mit didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 129–130. –
Bilingual text (Latin and German working translation), with explanatory notes on vocabulary and
grammar.

568
Ps 25 (Vg 24). André Thibaut OSB: La révision héxaplaire de saint Jérôme. In: Pierre Salmon OSB et al.:
Richesses et déficiences des anciens Psautiers latins. Collectanea biblica latina 13. Rome 1959 (267
pp.), pp. 107–149. – Jerome’s “Roman Psalter” version of Ps 25 is taken as the base text for a
study of how Jerome revised it to produce the Vulgate (Gallican) version.

Ps 26:12 (Vg 25:12). pes meus stetit in directo – my foot hath stood in the direct way (Douay Version);
mein Fuß ist gestanden auf rechtem Wege (Allioli); mon pied est demeuré ferme dans la droite
voie (Glaire). These translations presuppose the equation in directo = in directo itinere. Alternat­
ives: (1) my foot stands on level ground; thus David J. Ladouceur: The Latin Psalter. Bristol 2005
(126 pp.) who explains that the expression “may be taken literally to refer to the level ground of
the temple court and figuratively in a moral sense” (p. 96); similarly Sleumer, directum = “der
gerade, ebene Weg,” Albert Sleumer: Liturgisches Lexikon. Limburg 1916 (339 pp.), p. 102. – (2)
The Tusculum-Vulgata has: “mein Fuß hat geradeaus gestanden.”

Ps 27:4 (Vg 26:4). unam petii a domino, hanc requirem. Why unam? One might think that unam rem is
in view, but the feminine (unam, hanc) echoes Greek μίαν and Hebrew ahat (Hebrew text). Thus,
a Hebraism is present. Jerome explains the matter in his Commentary on Ecclesiasts VII, 20/30
(CCSL 72: 313): Hebrew uses a feminine form instead of a neutral one; nevertheless, he keeps it
in the Vulgate Psalms, but changes it in the Psalterium iuxta hebraeos: unum petivi a domino,
hoc requiram. The Nova Vulgata has: unum petii a Domino, hoc requiram. – Daniel J. Sheerin:
Christian and Biblical Latin. In: Frank A.C. Mantello – A.G. Rigg (ed.): Medieval Latin. An Introduc­
tion and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C. 1996 (xiv, 774 pp.), pp. 137–156, at p. 146.

Ps 27:12 (Vg 26:12). et mentitia est iniquitas sibi – and a lie in its own interest (sibi, dativus commodi)
is iniquity.

Ps 29:6 (Vg 28:6). et communuet eas tamquam vitulos Libani, et dilectus quemadmodum filius uni­
cornium – and shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of uni ­
corns (Douay Version); und er zerschmettert sie (die Zedern) gleich Kälbern des Libanon, und
der Geliebte ist wie ein junges (filius) Einhorn; et les mettra en pieces comme il y mettrait un
jeune taureau du Liban: et le bienheureux sera comme un petit de licorne (Glaire). The Vulgate
text reproduces the wording of the Septuagint, but the latter misunderstood the Hebrew text;
according to Jetzinger, the Hebrew text states: “Er lässt sie tanzen wie ein Kalb, den Libanon und
Hermon gleich einem Wisentjungen.” Franz Jetzinger: Die Psalmen und Cantica des Breviers. Re­
gensburg 1917 (311 pp.), pp. 12–13 and 79–80. The same suggestion is made by McClellan: “and
he made them leap like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox.” William H. McClellan:
Obscurities in the Latin Psalter. III. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1 (1939) 243–248, at p. 247. –
Ziegler considers unicornis = unicorn, Einhorn, one of Jerome’s creative mistranslations. Joseph
Ziegler: Antike und moderne Psalmenübersetzungen. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1960, Nr. 3. Munich 1960 (68 pp.), pp. 43–44.

Ps 29:9 (Vg 28:9). vox Domini praeparantis cervos, et relevabit condensa – the voice of the Lord pre­
pareth the stags, and he will discover the thick woods (Douay Version); die Stimme des Herrn
macht gebären die Hinden, und entblößet die dichten Wälder (Allioli, echoing the Hebrew text);
la voix du Seigneur prépare des cerfs, et elle découvrira des lieux sombres et épais (Glaire).

Ps 31:2 (Vg 30:2). in te, Domine speravi, non [= ne] confundar in aeternum – in you I trust, Lord, in or­
der never to be confounded. According to Hagen (p. 94), confundar is not future tense, but sub­
junctive. In fact, the Psalterium Pianum (see Chapter 16.6) has: ad te, Domine, confugio, ne con­
fundar in aeternum; in Knox’s translation: never let me be ashamed of my trust; Guardini: Laß
mich nicht ewig zu Schanden werden.

569
Ps 31:19 (Vg 30:19). abusio – abuse, Herabsetzung. The noun abusio is used only here in the Vulgate.
Allgeier offers a thorough analysis of the semantic range of this word in Latin and concludes
that Jerome selected it because of the similarly sounding (“homophonous”) Hebrew word that
he thus translates – the word wabuz. The translation method used is called homophony. –
Arthur Allgeier: In superbia et in abusione (Ps. 30,19). Biblica 15 (1934) 185–212.

Ps 32:1 (Vg 31:1). ipsi David (Clementina) – for David. The word ipsi (dative voice of ipse) is used to
mark the case of David as dative, reflecting the underlying Greek article (τῷ Δαυιδ). The
Weber/Gryson edition has huic David (huic being the dative of hic). This is definitely a case of
ipse serving as the definite article.

Ps 32:4 (Vg 31:4). conversus sum in aerumna mea – I turned (writhed?) in my misery.

Ps 33:1 (Vg 32:1). exsultate, justi, in Domino – rejoice in the Lord, o ye just (Douay Version); jubelt, ihr
Gerechten, im Herrn (Tusculum-Vulgata). The expression in Domino, by all translations treated as
an idiom, may be rendered “because of the Lord”; this is what Hoberg suggests: “des Herrn we­
gen frohlocken = ihn preisen”; Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. Zweite Auflage. Frei­
burg (xxxv, 484 pp.), p. 108; cf. Today’s New International Version (TNIV): “Sing joyfully to the
Lord, you righteous.”

Ps 33:5 (Vg 32:5). diligit misericordiam et justitiam, misericordia plena est terra – he loveth mercy and
judgment, the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord (Douay Version). The NVg changes the first
words to diligit iustitiam et iudicium – he loves justice and judgment, which is what Jerome has
in his iuxta hebraeum translation. – Marcela Andoková – Jozef Tiňo: Gottes Gnade und Gerech­
tigkeit im lateinischen Psalter. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Ein­
führung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 331–357.

Ps 34:8 (Vg 33:8). immittet angelus Domini in circuitu timentium eum – the angel of the Lord shall en­
camp round about them that fear him (Douay Version). The problem with this translation is that
immittere does not mean “to encamp.” One would expect either (1) immittet angelum Domini in
circuitu timentium eum – he shall send the angel of the Lord (to be) around those who fear him
(Allgeier), or (2) immittet se angelus Domini – the angel of the Lord shall place himself (Hoberg).
– Literature:

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg 1906 (xxxv, 484 pp.), p.
112.

1948. Arthur Allgeier: Lateinische Psalmenübersetzung in alter und neuer Zeit. In: Wissenschaft
und Leben. Reden zur Universitätsfeier am 1. Juni 1946. Freiburger Universitätsreden. Neue
Folge Heft 2. Freiburg (28 pp.), pp. 7–20, at p. 15.

Ps 39:2 (Vg 38:2). posui ori meo custodiam – I have set a guard to my mouth (Douay Version). Here
ponere stands for imponere = to impose. Blaise takes ori meo as “datif de lieu.” – Albert Blaise:
Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 89 (§ 103).

Ps 39:13 (Vg 38:13). advena sum apud te et peregrinus sicut omnes patres mei – I am a stranger with
thee, and a sojourner as all my fathers were (Douay Version). – Jean Louis Gourdain: Jérôme et
l’étranger du Psaume 38,13. In: Benoît Gain et al. (eds.): Chartae caritatis. Études de patristique et
d’antiquité tradive. Paris 2004 (529 pp.), pp. 377–383.

Ps 41:7–8 (Vg 40:7–8). et loquebatur. in idipsum adversum me susurrabant omnes inimici mei (Clem­
entina, Weber/Gryson). As often, in idipsum (immediately, together; see the glossary, Chapter
19.2) creates difficulties for the translator. (1) The Douay Version has: “and spoke to the same
purpose. All my enemies whispered together against me,” apparently translating in idipsum

570
 twice (to the same purpose; together), as if it would belong to the end of v. 7 and also stand at
the beginning of v. 8. In this case, one could speak of in idipsum as being a double-duty modifi­
er (see Spearfico 1998). – (2) Hoberg and the Edgar/Kinney 2011 edition (and, without punctu­
ation, also the Weber/Gryson edition) would have the full stop after in idipsum, making it belong
to v. 7; he translates the end of v. 7 as “and spoke immediately.” – (3) But the Clementina text as
it stands could mean: “(…) and spoke. All my enemies whispered together”; this translation is
supported by Jerome’s Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos: simul adversum me murmirabant omnes. –
Literature:

1906. Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg 1906 (xxxv, 484 pp.), p.
142.

1998. Ambrogio Spreafico: Nahum I 10 and Isaiah I 12–13: Double-Duty Modifyer. Vetus Testa­
mentum 48.1: 104–117, at p. 104: “M.J. Dahood shows (…) in his study of Hebrew poetry
that a suffix, a participle, a word, an expression or even a phrase can have a double func ­
tion within a text: it can refer at the same time to what precedes it and to what follows it.
He calls this phenomenon double-duty modifier.” See: Mitchell Dahood SJ: A New Metri­
cal Pattern in Biblical Poetry. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967) 574–579.

2011. Swift Edgar – Angela M. Kinney (eds.): The Vulgate Bible. Douay-Rheims Translation. Vol­
ume III: The Poetical Books. Cambridge, Mass. (xxxviii, 1187 pp.), p. 258: egrediebatur foras
et loquebatur in idipsum. (8) Adersum me (…).

Ps 42:2 (Vg 41:2). Jerome’s Psalter iuxta Hebraeos differs greatly from the Ps Gallicanum, because,
following Aquila, it has sicut areola praeparata ad irrigationes aquarum (Tusculum-Vulgata: wie
ein Beet, das bereit ist für Bewässerungen). praeparata seems to be a homophonous translation
of πεπρασίαται, a Greek word not attested elesewhere. – Literature:

1924. Maternus Wolff: Aquilas und Hieronymus zu Ps 42.2. Theologische Revue 23.7: 269–270.

2018. Anne-Françoise Loiseau: Jérôme dans le sillage d’Aquila et du Targoum: Vg iuxta He­
braeos Ps 42[41],2 et Vg 1 R 22,38. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septu­
agint and Cognate Studies 51: 156–169.

Ps 42:3 (Vg 41:3). sitivit anima mea ad Deum fortem vivum – my soul thirsts for the strong living God.
This is the wording of the Clementina; the Sixtina had: (…) ad Deum fontem vivum – for God, the
living source. This is a printer’s error, though one that makes much sense; Benno Jacob calls it
“einer der schönsten Schreibfehler, die je gemacht worden sind”; Benno Jacob: Beiträge zu einer
Einleitung in die Psalmen. V. Zur Geschichte der Vulgata im 16. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20 (1900) 49–80, at p. 62.

Ps 44:15 (Vg 43:15). posuisti nos in similitudinem gentibus – you have made us into a likeness for the
nations. This does not make sense. It should be something like (…) in fabulam, you have made
us a byword (Douay Version; Allioli: Sprichwort) among the nations. Or, as Jerome has it else­
where (Deut 28:37): in proverbium ac fabulam omnibus populis. The Psalterium Pianum (see
Chapter 16.6) has fecisti nos fabulam inter gentes. Oddly, the Nova Vulgata stays close to the
Clementina: posuisti nos similitudinem in gentibus. – Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterun­
gen zur Vulgata. Freiburg 1863 (iv, 106 pp.), pp. 18–20.

Ps 45 (Vg 44). Jerome: Ad Pricipiam virginem explanation Psalmi 44 (letter 65; CSEL 54: 616–647;
Labourt III, pp. 140–167). In his letter to Principia, Jerome presents his textual analysis of Psalm
45. – Literature:

571
 2015. Aline Canellis: L’exégèse du Psaume 44 selon Jérôme (Ep. 65 à Principia). In: eadem et al.
(eds.): Caritatis scripta. Mélanges de littérature et de patristique. Turnhout (376 pp.), pp.
177–190.

2019. Giovanni Antonio Nigro: L’esegesi gerominiana del Salomo 44 LXX (Ep. 65 Hilberg). Vetera
Christianorum 56 (2019) 139–156.

2023. Konrad Kremser: MT and LXX Version of Psalm 44[45] in the light of the Vulgate iuxta He­
braicum. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue: 133–148 (online journal).

Ps 45:2 (Vg 44:2). calamus scribae velociter scribentis – pen of a scribe who writes swiftly. Alfred
Wikenhauser: Der hl. Hieronymus über Psalm 44 (45) 2. Archiv für Stenographie 59 (1908) 187–
188.

Ps 45:5 (Vg 44:5). pulchritudine tua intende. How to render this? Here are some suggestions: with thy
beauty set out (Douay Version); in deiner Schönheit beginne (Allioli); in deiner Schönheit ziehe
aus (Arndt); avancez dans votre beauté (Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 462) – but these translations do
not make sense. Glaire has this suggestion: dans votre beauté, tenez votre arc, with the last two
words being added for clarity. Odelman offers a comparison between the Hebrew text and
Jerome’s two versions of Ps 45:5 (Vg 44:5): Eva Odelman: Note sur l’emploi du verbe intendere
dans le psaume XLIV de la Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 89 (1979) 303–305.

Ps 48:7 (Vg 47:7). tremor apprehendit eos. Ibi dolores (…) (Clementina in the editions of Loch and Het­
zenauer). Colunga/Turrado has a semicolon (;) after eos. But this is also questionable. Kaulen (p.
12) suggests tremor apprehendit eos ibi, dolores (…). The NVg has tremor apprehendit eos, do­
lores.

Ps 51:16 (Vg 50:16). erue me de sanguinibus, deus (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – deliver me
from bloods, o God; or, more properly: deliver me from (the danger of) bloodshed. The plural
form “bloods” does not belong to standard Latin, as Augustine observes ( Enarrationes in Psal­
mos 50; PL 36: 597): expressit Latinus interpres verbo minus latino proprietatem tamen ex graeco –
the Latin translator has conveyed the sense from the Greek using a word not wholly Latin.

Ps 51:19 (Vg 50:19). cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet (Weber/Gryson) – a contrite and
humble heart does God not despise. Instead of spernet, the Clementina has despicies “you do
not despise”; here God is addressed. The Clementina reading, retained by NVg, reflects influence
from Jerome’s Psalter iuxta hebraeum.

Ps 54:7 (Vg 53:7). veritas here means “véracité, sincérité (des promesses),” Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 842.

Ps 59:14 (Vg 58:14). Deus dominatur Iacob finium terrae (Weber/Gryson) – the God of Jacob rules
over the ends of the earth. This is how this sentence is to be translated; Iacob stands in hyper ­
baton position (B. Lang), and dominari is followed by the genitive case (Kaulen, pp. 264–265);
one may also conjecture a noun – dominator (misread by a scribe as dominatur). The rendering
offered in the Tusculum-Vulgata (dass Gott durch Jakob über die Grenzen der Erde herrscht)
does not seem to be viable. The Clementina/NVg wording (Deus dominabitur Iacob, et finium
terrae) represents a revision, bringing the words closer to the Greek.

Ps 62 (Vg 61). B. Villegas Mathieu: Cuatro Padres ante un Salmo. El Salmo 61 comentado por Hilario,
Ambrosio, Jerónimo y Agustín. Teologia y vida [Santiago de Chile] 20 (1979) 63–76.

Ps 68:13 (Vg 67:13). rex virtutum dilecti dilecti, / et specie domus dividere spolia. Literally: the king of
the armies (virtus = army), beloved, beloved, / and the beauty of the house (i.e., the housewife);
der König der Heere (virtus = Heer), Geliebte, Geliebte, / und die Schöne des Hauses (= die
Hausfrau) kann Beute verteilen. The first half verse makes no sense because of a mistranslation.

572
 In the Psalterium iuxta hebraeos Jerome has: “The kings of the armies will ally (foederabuntur),
unite,” which however does not quite meet the Hebrew, since that speaks of the flight of the
armies.

Ps 68:14 (Vg 67:14). The back feathers of a dove are in pallore auri – in a pale green gold. – Lourdes
García Ureña et al.: The Language of Colour in the Bible. Berlin 2022 (xv, 238 pp.), pp. 199–201.

Ps 68:15 (Vg 67:15). caelestis (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – the Heavenly One, he that is in heaven
(Douay Version); der Himmlische, Gott im Himmel (Allioli); le roi du ciel (Glaire; cf. rex caeli, Dan
4:37). Although the name does not seem to be unusual (cf. Ps 2:4: qui habitat in caelis – he that
dwelleth in heaven, Douay Version), revisers generally replace this divine name with another
one: Robustissimus (Jerome: iuxta hebraeos), Omnipotens (Castellion, Psalterium Pianum, NVg).

Ps 68:19 (Vg 67:19). accepisti dona in hominibus, etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum.
According to Macauley and Brebner, two translations are possible, depending on whether cre­
dentes is understood as nominative or accusative. Nominative: (… ) for they were not believing
that the Lord God does dwell (in Sion, or among men). Accusative: thou hast received gifts in
men, (received) those not believing the Lord dwells. The accusative is supported by Jerome’s
own paraphrase in his Letter 106, 41 (CSEL 55: 266): accepisti (…) et eos qui non credebant
Dominum inhabitare posse mortalibus – you received even those (men) who did not believe that
the Lord can dwell with (or: among) mortals. – Literature:

1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. London (xxiii, 242 pp.), p. 221.

2022. Michael Graves, in: Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. At­
lanta, Ga. 2022 (xix, 363 pp.), pp. 211–213.

Ps 68:20 (Vg 67:20). Deus salutarium nostrorum – God of our salvations. The plural salutaria can be
understood as augmentative plural; Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 734 – Dieu, qui nous sauve de toutes
manières.

Ps 69:12 (Vg 68:1). factus sum illis in parabolam – I became a byword for them (Douay Version), ich
wurde ihnen zum Gespött. – Gottfried Hoberg: Die Psalmen der Vulgata. 2. Auflage. Freiburg
1906 (xxxv, 484 pp.), p. 237.

Ps 72:14 (Vg 71:14). honorabile nomen eorum coram illo – precious is his name before him. (1) The
Vulgate wording reflects that of the Septuagint. But the Septuagint’s ónoma (nomen) may be a
misreading of an original háima – blood, which would render the Hebrew (Hagen, p. 22). – (2)
The NVg has pretiosus erit sanguis eorum coram illo. In fact, honorabilis means “precious,” and
not “honourable” (the latter is used in the Douay Version, and as “ehrwürdig” in Allioli), see s.v.
-bilis in the glossary (Chapter 19.2). See also Ps 116:15 (Vg 115:15): pretiosa in conspectus
Domini mors sanctorum – precious is the death of the saints in the sight of the Lord.

Ps 73:1 (Vg 72:1). quam bonus Israel Deus – how good to Israel is God. Note that the name Israel is
never given a dative-case ending.

Ps 79:10 (Vg 78:10). (…) effusus est: The sentence should not end with a colon [:] as in the 1849 edi­
tion of Loch; it should end with a full stop as in the Colunga/Turrado edition and the NVg. –
Kaulen, p. 12.

Ps 82:7 (Vg 81:7). vos autem sicut homines moriemini – but you like men shall die (Douay Version).
The iuxta hebraeos translation has quasi Adam moriemini – you shall die like Adam. Isaka dis­
cusses the difference with reference to Jerome’s commentaries on this verse. – Tamiko Isaka:
Adam in Psalm 81.7 (= 82.7) in the Psalter according to the Hebrew Bible of the Vulgate. Hitot­
subashi Journal of Arts and Sciences 56 (2015) 43–48.

573
Ps 87:1 (Vg 86:1). fundamenta eius in montibus sanctis – the foundations thereof are in the holy
mountains (Douay Version). Meant are the foundations of Sion, which is mentioned only in the
following sentence. This is a “proleptic” construction.

Ps 87:5 (Vg 86:5). numquid Sion dicet. (1) According to Kaulen (p. 224, no. 108) and some translators
(Allioli, Hoberg, Arndt), this must be translated as follows: of Sion, will one not say?; wird man
nicht von Zion sagen?, i.e., like numquid de Sion dictetur. – (2) This interpretation is rejected by
Vincenzo Ussani: Un preteso uso della Vulgata. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 39
(1911) 550–557, at pp. 551–555; accordingly, the translation must be: Sion – will she not say…?,
which corresponds to the Douay Version’s “shall not Sion say.”

Ps 89:11 (Vg 88:11). tu humiliasti sicut vulneratum superbum – thou hast humbled the proud as one
that is slain (Douay Version). The word superbus renders the Greek ὑπερήφανος, but the Hebrew
has Rahab, adopted by NVg (tu conculcasti sicut vulneratum Rahab).

Ps 90 (Vg 89). Jerome: Ad Cyprianum presbyterum de Psalmo 89 (letter 140; CSEL 56: 269–289). In this
letter, Jerome presents his linguistic analysis of Psalm 90.

Ps 91:6 (Vg 90:6). daemonium meridianum – noonday devil, Mittagsdämon; one of Jerome’s creative
mistranslations. – Joseph Ziegler: Antike und moderne Psalmenübersetzungen Bayerische
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1960, Nr. 3. Munich 1960 (68
pp.), pp. 43–44.

Ps 94:15 (Vg 93:15). et qui iuxta illam (sc. iustitiam) [sunt, sunt] omnes qui recte sunt – and they that
are near it are all the upright in heart (Douay Version). A very elliptic sentence; Kaulen, p. 284.

Ps 95 (Vg 94). Jeremia J. M. Mayr: Nova et Vetera in den Texten der Liturgie. Anfragen an eine beson ­
dere Form der Koexistenz, in: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und
Rezeption. Stuttgart 2023 (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 39–88, at pp. 61–64: synoptic comparison of three
Latin versions in liturgical use: Psalterium Romanum, Psalterium Gallicanum (Vg), Nova Vulgata.

Ps 96:1–13 (Vg 95:1–13). Martijn Jaspers: Bis repetita placent: Jerome’s translations of Psalm citations
in 1 Chronicles 16. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 61–74 (online journal). – Detailed
comparative analysis of Jerome’s renderings of Ps 105:1–15 (Vg 104:1–15) = 1 Chr 16:8–22 and
Ps 96:1–13 (Vg 95:1–13) = 1 Chr 16:23–33.

Ps 102:7 (Vg 101:7). nycticorax – nightraven (Douay Version). Jerome transliterates the word used in
the Septuagint without translating it. One may think of an owl. Today, ornithologists use the
word as the technical term for the night heron (German: Nachtreiher).

Ps 102:8 (Vg 101:8). passer solitarius in tecto – a lonely sparrow on the roof, or, perhaps, in the nest;
the second possibility is indicated in Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 809. For tectum = a dove’s nest, see
Vergil: Aeneid V, 216. Vergil uses tectum = house as a poetic word for the bird’s abode.

Ps 102:24 (Vg 101:24). respondit ei in via virtutis suae, paucitatem dierum meorum nuntia me – liter­
ally: he has answered him in the way of his strength, declare unto me the fewness of my days (of
life); er hat ihm geantwortet auf dem Weg seiner Kraft, verkünde mir die geringe Zahl meiner
(Lebens-)Tage. This makes little sense, because here the Greek text has failed to understand the
Hebrew. Jerome suggests in the Psalterium iuxta hebraeos: adflixit in via fortitudinem meam, ad­
breviavit dies meos – he (God) broke my strength on the way, shortened my days. This is also
what the Nova Vulgata says: humiliavit in via virtutem meam, abbreviavit dies meos.

Ps 103:7 (Vg 102:7). Alberto Vaccari: Due note di S. Girolamo al Salmo 102,7. In: idem: Scritti di
erudizione e di filologia. II. Rome 1958 (xvi, 518 pp.), pp. 81–82.

574
Ps 104:17 (Vg 103:17). illic passeres nidificabunt, herodii domus dux est eorum (Clementina,
Weber/Gryson) – there the sparrows shall make their nests, the highest (literally: the leader) of
them is the house of the heron Douay Version). Jerome discusses the verse in Letter 106, 65
(CSEL 55: 281) and offers a new translation: ibi aves nidificabunt, milvi abies domus est – there
the birds build their nests; the house of the kite is the silver fir. In the NVg, the second half of
the verse reads erodii domus in vertice earum – the herone’s house (nest) is at their top. For the
passage of Letter 106 in Latin text and English translations with commentary, see:

2022. Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. (xix, 363
pp.), pp. 132–133, 271–272. “In Ep. 106, Jerome is giving a fresh translation based on
Aquila and Symmachus so as to make clear what is present in the Hebrew“ (p. 272).

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at p. 104 (online journal).

Ps 104:25 (Vg 103:25). hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus – here is the sea, great and wide
for/with hands. The noun manibus does not make sense in the Latin. It is meant to render the
Hebrew yādayim, “both hands,” no doubt an idiom for saying “very.” The Weber/Gryson edition
places an asterisc, the ancient text-critical sign before the word (*manibus), indicating its ab­
sence from the Greek. The Nova Vulgata omits it, writing hoc mare magnum et spatiosum et
latum. Interesting, though problematic, are the vernacular renderings of the Vulgate wording: so
is this great sea, which stretcheth wide its arms (Douay Version); dieses große Meer, das ausbre­
itet seine Arme (Allioli); cette mer est grande et spatieuse des deux côtés (Glaire). Sleumer sug­
gests spatiosus manibus = weit nach beiden Seiten; Albert Sleumer – Joseph Schmid: Kirchen­
lateinisches Wörterbuch. 2nd edition. Limburg 1926 (840 pp.), p. 496.

Ps 105:1–15 (Vg 104:1–15). Martijn Jaspers: Bis repetita placent: Jerome’s translations of Psalm cita­
tions in 1 Chronicles 16. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue (2023) 61–74 (online journal). – De­
tailed comparative analysis of Jerome’s renderings of Ps 105:1–15 (Vg 104:1–15) = 1 Chr 16:8–22
and Ps 96:1–13 (Vg 95:1–13) = 1 Chr 16:23–33.

Ps 105:16 (Vg 104:16). firmamentum panis (Ps 105:16, Vg 104:16) – the essential (foundational) sup­
ply of bread; suggestions include: support of bread (Douay Version), Stütze des Brotes (Allioli),
soutien de pain (Glaire), le pain qui soutient (Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 354). The Psalterium Pianum
has subsidium panis – supply of bread (Knox). – Literature:

1945/46. Guy-Dominique Sixdenier: Notes sur l’emploi par la Vulgate du mot firmamentum.
Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 19: 17–22.

Ps 105:23 (Vg 104:23). accola = adcola = colon, Greek πάροικος, as in Acts 6:14; distinct from incola
= inhabitant.

Ps 106:13 (Vg 105:13). cito fecerunt, obliti sunt operum eius – they had quickly done, they forgot his
works (Douay Version). Meant is: they soon forgot. – Plater/White, p. 22.

Ps 106:38 (Vg 105:38). et interfecta est terra – and the land is killed (Weber/Gryson); et infecta est ter­
ra – and the land is polluted (Clementina, NVg). The expression et terra interfecta est also ap­
pears in Isa 24:5 (Weber/Gryson), but here the Clementina (followed by NVg) again has infecta.
How to explain the differences? It seems that interfecta is used in the Vetus Latina, and that both
Augustine and Jerome (in the Psalterium Gallicanum) stick to it. The reading infecta does appear
in Jerome’s work, but not in the text of his translations. – Literature:

2013. Leopoldo Gamberale: Salmo 105,38. Un testa da non correggere per congettura. In: idem:
San Gerolamo. Intellettuale e filologo. Rome 2013 (xvii, 181 pp.), pp. 147–151. Gamberale

575
 (p. 150, note 12) feels that the Thesaurus linguae latinae does not deal adequately with
the interficere passages.

Ps 106:46 (Vg 105:46). dedit eos in misericordias in conspectus omnium – he made them find mercy
with all, er ließ sie Erbarmen finden bei allen. – Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen
Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg 1870 (34 pp.), p. 33.

Ps 109:6 (Vg 108:6). et diabolos (Weber/Gryson: diabulus) stet a dextris eius – and may the devil stand
at his right hand (Douay Version). The devil is in the Greek, rendering satan, which merely stands
for the human adversary; accordingly, the Nova Vulgata has adversarius (and not diabolus).

Ps 109:7 (Vg 108:7). cum iudicatur, exeat condemnatus, et oratio eius fiat in peccatum – when he is
judged, may he go out condemed, and may his prayer be turned to sin. “Nach hebräischem Ge­
brauch steht das Imperfektum auch für den Konjunktiv oder Optativ; die Vulgata hat dies nach­
geahmt und dadurch die prphetischen Aussprüche des Originals anscheinend zu Wünschen
oder Flüchen umgewandelt, die als Vorhersagungen zu übersetzen sind, z.B. Ps 108,7: (…) Wenn
er gerichtet wird, so wird er als schldig hervorgehen, und sein Gebet wird zur Sünde werden”
(Kaulen, pp. 117–228).

Ps 109:24 (Vg 108:24). caro mea immutata est propter oleum – my flesh is changed because of (the
lack of) oil. This is a case of brevitas, i.e., of abbreviation for rhetorical effect. The specific form of
brevity used is called res pro rei defectu – the thing (stands) for the thing’s absence. – Literature:

1863. Hagen, p. 22.

1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabu­
lary. London (xxiii, 242 pp.), p. 227.

Ps 110:2 (Vg 109:2). virga virtutis tuae – literally: the scepter of your power, das Zepter deiner Macht
= your powerful scepter, dein mächtiges Zepter. Hebraism. – Kaulen, p. 254.

Ps 110:3 (Vg 109:3). Verse 3 is rather unusual: tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus
sanctorum, ex utero ante luciferum genui te – with you is the dominion (principium) in the day of
your power in the splendor of the saints. I begat thee from the womb before the dawn; – bei dir
ist die Herrschaft (principium) am Tag deiner Macht im Glanz der Heiligen. Ich zeugte dich aus
dem Schoß vor der Morgenröte. The Hebrew text is difficult oR corrupt. – M.F. Băltăceanu:
Psaume 110 (109). Traduction, éléments et commentaire. In: Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et
al. (eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins Chur in
Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 73–90.

Ps 111:6 (NeoVg 110:6) virtutem operum suorum annuntiavit populo suo, ut det illis hereditatem gen­
tium. Herbert Migsch: Psalm 111,6 (Nova Vulgata). Eine unvereinbare zielsprachige Kohärenzstö­
rung. In: Herbert Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament.
Frankfurt 2010 (352 pp.), pp. 257–262. – The tenses of the two parts of the sentence do not fit
together. God cannot have announced the strength of his works to his people in the past ( an­
nuntiavit) and give them the inheritance of the peoples (= the land of Canaan) only in the
present or future (ut det illis). The sense requires simultaneity.

Ps 112:1 (Vg 111:1). in mandatis eius volet nimis – he will have the greatest pleasure in his command­
ments; an seinen Geboten wird er größte Lust haben. In this context, the verb velle does not
mean “to wish,” but “to love, to have pleasure (in something).” And nimis indicates the superlat­
ive – “very much, sehr”; Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (122 pp.), p. 99.

576
Ps 113:2 (Vg 112:2). sit nomen Domini benedictum, ex hoc nunc, et usque in saeculum – literally: the
name of the Lord be honoured, from the now, and until eternity. As Kaulen, p. 281, suggests,
nunc is here used as a noun: “the present moment.”

Ps 116:15 (Vg 115:15). pretiosa in conspectus Domini mors sanctorum – precious is the death of the
saints in the sight of the Lord, which means “precious is the life of the saints (etc.).” Hagen, p. 22,
analyses the passage as an example of res pro rei defectu (see above, Chapter 8.6, s.v.).

Ps 118:8 (Vg 117:8). bonum est confidere in Domino quam confidere in homine – it is better to have
confidence in the Lord than to have confidence in man. One would expect the comparative
melius est, but this is a typical case of the Vulgate’s use of the positive instead of the comparat­
ive. Accordingly, the Douay Version’s “it is good to trust in the Lord” is inadequate. – Hagen, p.
24; Kaulen, p. 162 (no. 54a).

Ps 118:9 (Vg 117:9). bonum est sperare (…) – it is better to hope (…), as in the previous verse.

Ps 119:51 (Vg 118:51). superbi inique agebant usquequaque a lege autem tua non declinavi – the
proud did iniquitously altogether: but I declined not from thy law (Douay Version). The NVg
brings this closer to the Hebrew (following Jerome’s iuxta Hebraeos). It also avoids the strange
juxtaposition of imperfect (agebant) and perfect (declinavi) by using the perfect consistently;
hence: superbi deriserunt me vehementer; a lege autem tua non declinavi – the proud scoffed at
me bitterly; but I did not turn away from your law.

Ps 121:1 (Vg 120:1). levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi – I have lifted up my
eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me (Douay Version); j’ai levé mes yeux
vers les montagnes, d’ou viendra mon secours (Glaire); ich hebe meine Augen zu den Bergen,
von welchen mir Hilfe kommt (Allioli); I lift up my eyes to the hills, to find deliverance (Knox, who
translates the Psalterium Pianun). As can be seen from these translations, the second part of this
sentence is traditionally understood as a dependent clause. But it must be read as a question, as
indicated by the Weber/Gryson text that assigns a new line to the interrogative clause: From
where will help come to me? This is also how the Tusculum-Vulgata and the Nova Vulgata have
it (see the NVg text’s question mark: […] in montes: unde veniet auxilium mihi?). The stylistically
correct German version must be: Ich hebe die Augen zu den Bergen – die Augen, not “meine”
Augen.

Ps 125:5 (Vg 124:5). declinantes autem in obligatione – such as turn aside in bonds (Douay Version).
Allioli and Loch presuppose: (…) in obliquationes – those who turn to deviations. Kaulen dis­
cusses the issue and decides to stay with the traditional reading which he understands as saying:
those who oppress (the inhabitants of Jerusalem). – Kaulen, p. 73.

Ps 127 (Vg 126). Michael Fieger et al.: Der Herr gibt den Seinen Schlaf. In: Andreas Beriger – Michael
Fieger et al. (eds.): Vulgata Studies. Vol. 1: Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins
Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 229–234. – The contributors are S.M. Bolli,
Adrian Muraru and Wilhelm Tauwinkl.

Ps 127:2 (Vg 126:2). cum dederit dilectis suis somnum (Clementina) – when he shall give sleep to his
beloved (Douay Version; this translation takes these words to be the beginning of a sentence
that continues in the following verse). The Nova Vulgata rephrases: verumtamen dabit ipse dilec­
tis suis duplicia – indeed, the he will give his beloved ones a double share. This translation is
based on a conjectural emendation of the Hebrew text, as explained by Planas. – Literature:

1975. Francisco Planas: Breves notas a los salmos 127, 11 y 8. Cultura bíblica 32, no. 261 (1975)
279–281. The author refers to Deut 21:17 for comparison – the firstborn son receives a
double share of the inheritance.

577
 2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: “Den Seinen gibt es der Herr im Schlaf” (Ps
127,2b). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 91–92.

Ps 132:15 (Vg 131:15). vidua – widow, Witwe (Weber/Gryson, Clementina). The vidua echoes the
Greek text; Jerome was aware of the translation error, and corrected the passage accordingly in
the iuxta hebraeos. He discusses the matter in Questiones hebraicae in Genesis (on Gen 45:21)
and in his Commentarioli in Psalmos; the relevant texts are quoted by Josef Linder SJ, Zeitschrift
für katholische Theologie 66 (1942) 153. The NVg has cibaria – provisions, Lebensmittel.

Ps 139:6 (Vg 138:6). mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me – thy knowledge is become wonderful to me
(Douay Version). Actually, it must be “too wonderful for me,” but one must be aware of the fact
that the Latin is awkward, see Kaulen, p. 259: “mangelhafte Übersetzung.”

Ps 141:10 (Vg 140:10). incident in rete eius (Weber/Gryson) – they shall fall in his net; cadent in retic­
ulo eius (Clementina) – they shall fall in his net; cadent in reticula sua (NVg) – they shall fall into
his nets (reticula – plural, accusative). Hard to tell why the original Jeromian version, as given in
the Weber/Gryson edition, should have been changed into the Clementina wording. A possible
explanation would be the preference of long words in late Latin (such as calceamentum instead
of calceus for shoe in Luke 10:4); see Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel.
Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), pp. 57–58.

Ps 147:17. ante faciem frigoris eius quis sustinebit – before his cold who can withstand?, vor seiner
Kälte wer hält stand? – Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata.
Bamberg 1870 (34 pp.), p. 32.

Ps 151. On this apocryphal psalm, see below, Chapter 23.3.

Proverbs (Proverbia Salomonis, Liber Proverbiorum)

Text
1957. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 11: Libri Salomonis, id
est Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum. Rome. xvi, 202 pp. – A volume of the Benedic­
tine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1888. Heinrich Denifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für
Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4: 263–311, 471–601. Denifle’s study culminates
in his edition of the 13th-century Latin text of the book of Proverbs, accompanied by an edition
of the relevant passages from several correctories (pp. 483–566).

1913. Hildebrand Höpfl OSB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der sixto-klementinischen Vulgata. Nach gedruck­
ten und ungedruckten Quellen. Freiburg 1913 (xv, 339 pp.), pp. 240–277: Tabelle der sixtinischen
Revision [of the book of Proverbs]; pp. 278–291: Tabelle der klementinischen Revision [of the
book o Proverbs]. Two comprehensive tables show all the material, printed and unprinted, that
was used by the commissions that prepared the Sixtine edition (1590) and the Clementine edi­
tion (1592). ▲

1930. Cyrus H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49:
384–416.

578
1954. Seraphinus M. Gozzo OFM: De opera S. Hieronymi in Librum Proverbiorum. Antonianum 29: 241–
254. – Jerome did not include the passages that the Septuagint adds to the Hebrew text, but
they were later introduced into the Latin text to make it conform to the Septuagint.

1966. Francesco Vattioni: Saggio sulla Volgata dei Proverbi. Vetera Christianorum 3: 143–160.

2017. Justin Rogers: Vulgate [text of Proverbs]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Vol­
ume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 271–275. – Vulgate Proverbs “reflects greater variation in
rendering Hebrew idioms than Jerome’s earliest translations iuxta Hebraeos (e.g., in the ‘Hebrew’
Psalter).”

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 131–137. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation) of Prov 1:1–6; 2; 16, with explanatory notes on vocabu ­
lary and grammar.

Textual notes
Prov 2. For a German working translation with notes on vocbulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 131–133.

Prov 3:7. time Deum et recede a malo (Clementina) – fear God and stay away from evil. The
Weber/Gryson edition has time Dominum (as in the inscription of the imperial crown of the Holy
Roman Empire, see above, Chapter 18.7). The Nova Vulgata has time Dominum – fear the Lord.

Prov 3:35. stultorum exaltatio ignominia. The meaning of this second half of a couplet is not entirely
clear. Kaulen suggests to understand exaltatio as “Selbstschätzung, Überhebung” which leads to
something like: “the fools’ self-promotion is a disgrace.” – Kaulen, p. 68.

Prov 4:11. viam sapientiae monstrabo tibi, ducam te per semitas aequitatis (Clementina) – I will shew
thee the way of wisdom, I will lead thee by the paths of equity (Douay Version). The
Weber/Gryson edition has monstravi and duxi – I have shown you, I have led you – in the perfect
tense, most likely to be understood as a gnomic perfect: I show you, I lead you. The
Weber/Gryson reading was already suggested as the original Jeromian wording by Heinrich De­
nifle OP: Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv für Literatur- und
Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4 (1888) 263–311, 471–601, at p. 581, note 1.

Prov 8:22. Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum (Clementina, NVg) – the Lord possessed me in
the beginning of his ways (Douay Version); Dominus possedit me initium viarum suarum
(Weber/Gryson) – the Lord possessed me, the beginning of his ways. Paul Mattei: “Le Seigneur
m’a créee, prémices de ses œuvres.” Pr 8,22s dans la patristique latine de Tertullien au VI e siècle.
In: Theresia Hainthaler et al. (eds.): The Wisdom of God – Die Weisheit Gottes. Forscher aus dem
Osten und Westn Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens. Innsbruck 2017 (412 pp.),
pp. 205–223.

Prov 8:23. ab aeterno ordinata sum (Clementina, NVg) – I was appointed (or, set up) from everlasting;
ab aeterno ordita sum (Weber/Gryson) – I began from everlasting (from ordiri – to begin). It is
not quite clear, though, how Jerome understood the deponent verb ordiri. In Psalm 2:6, there is
a similar situation: In the Vulgate version, Jerome has: ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo – but
I have been appointed king by him; in the iuxta hebraeos, Jerome has: ego autem orditus sum
regem meam – but I have appointed (or woven?) my king.

579
Prov 8:30. Cyrus H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature
49 (1930) 384–416, at pp. 389–390.

Prov 10:1–12. Jutta Krispenz: Beobachtungen zur Übersetzungsweise der Vulgata im Vergleich zum
masoretischen Text. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer (2023) 29–36, at pp. 33–34 (online jour­
nal).

Prov 10:4b. The Clementina has a verse 4b that is absent from the Weber/Gryson edition: Qui nititur
mendaciis, hic pascit ventos; idem autem ipse sequitur aves volantes – He that trusteth to lies fee­
deth the wind: and the same runneth after birds that fly away (Douay Version); wer sich auf Lü­
gen verlässt, weidet Winde und läuft fliegenden Vögeln nach (Paul Rießler in: Die Heilige Schrift
des Alten und Neuen Bundes. Übersetzt von Paul Rießler und Rupert Storr. 13th edition. Mainz
1961 [xv, 1533, 65, 39, 44, xiii], appendix AT 41).

Prov 13:23. Jerome has “Much food is in the new fields of fathers; / and others are gathered without
judgment.” The second half may have been inspired by Jewish exegesis, see Cyrus H. Gordon:
Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930) 384–416, at
p. 390. Today, the Hebrew is understood differently, hence the NVg version: Multi cibi in novali­
bus pauperum, et est qui perit, deficiente iudicio – much food is in the new fields of the poor, and
there is one who perishes for lack of judgment.

Prov 15:15. Jerome translates the second part of the saying very freely. Stummer discusses the expres­
sion secura mens in detail, see Friedrich Stummer: Secura mens quasi iuge convivium (Prov
15,15b). Ein Beitrag zur Exegese der Vulgata. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1953) 37–45.

Prov 16. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 134–137.

Prov 16:5. etiamsi manus ad manum fuerit. There is an underlying Hebrew idiom that means “I am
sure, I bet.” Translaters have suggested the following renderings: though hand should be joined
to hand (Douay Version); liegt auch Hand in Hand (Allioli); lors même qu’une main serait dans
une main (Glaire). The Nova Vulgata has manus in manu – hand in hand. The best Latin transla­
tion would be: inter manūs est – it is clear, it is evident; es liegt auf der Hand.

Prov 23:10. ne attingas parvulorum terminos – touch not the bounds of little ones (Douay Version). As
the Hebrew text is understood today, the landmark not to be touched is the “ancient” (Hebrew
ʿolām) one, but Jerome’s interpretation reflects Jewish tradition, see Rahmer. The Nova Vulgata
has ne attingas terminos viduae, reflecting an amendment of ʿolām to ʾalmānâ “widow.” – Liter­
ature:

1861. Moritz Rahmer: Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. Breslau (74
pp.), pp. 64–67.

2009. Michael V. Fox: Proverbs 10–31. The Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven (xix, pp. 477–1205), p.
980: “An example of the Vulgate witnessing to a minor variant [of the Hebrew text] is Prov
23:10.”

Prov 24:14. habebis in novissimis spem – you shall have hope in the end. Note the elegant hyperbaton
(instead of habebis spem in novissimis).

Prov 25:16. mel invenisti (…) – have you found honey; hast du Honig gefunden (…). The conditional
clause here is constructed without “si with subjunctive,” as often in English and German (had I
known this […], hätte ich das gewusst […]). The same construction appears in Sir 21:1 and Jam
5:13. – Kaulen, p. 298.

580
Prov 26:1–16. Jutta Krispenz: Beobachtungen zur Übersetzungsweise der Vulgata im Vergleich zum
masoretischen Text. Vulgata in Dialogue. Sondernummer (2023) 29–36, at pp. 34–35 (online jour­
nal).

Prov 26:8. sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii – as he that casteth a stone into the heap of
Mercury (Douay Version). A reference to the ancient custom of laying a stone at the pillars of
Mercury. – Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vul­
gata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–269, at p. 254.

Prov 28:7. qui autem comessatores pascit – but he who feeds (elevates) gluttons. In classical Latin, the
verb pascere – to feed – is generally used only of animals; here it is used of the father who elev ­
ates his children and commits the mistake of overfeeding them. In classical Latin, one would use
alere – to nourish, to support.

Prov 30:1. vir cum quo est Deus, et qui Deo secum morante confortatus – the man with whom God is,
and who is strengthened as God abides with him. – Here the Vulgate departs drastically from
the Hebrew; Jerome’s translations of the names (Ithiel, etc.) reflects rabbinic exegesis. – Literat­
ure:

1930. C.H. Gordon: Rabbinic Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs. Journal of Biblical Literature 49:
384–416, at p. 411.

2022. Alexander T. Kirk: Toward a Reading of Proverbs 30:1b. Vetus Testamentum 72.4–5: 631–
649, at pp. 636–637.

Prov 31:21. omnes enim domestici vestiti sunt duplicibus – all her domestics are clothed with double
garments (Douay Version); alle ihre Hausleute sind doppelt gekleidet (Allioli). The adjective du­
plex means twofold; since a noun duplex = double clothing is not attested, the expression is best
explained as being elliptical for vestimenta duplicia (in the sentence: vestimentis duplicibus). –
Einar Löfstedt: Coniectanea. Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiet der antiken und mittelalterlichen
Latinität. Stockholm 1950 (146 pp.), p. 65.

Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)
Note. – In his preface to the Solomonic writings (Proverbs, Song of Songs, Koheleth), Jerome charac­
terizes his translation of these three writings as a tridui opus, a work of three days (Sources chrétiennes
592: 428; PL 28: 1241). This is not to be taken literally; the idiomatic phrase seems to refer to “a work
that took but little time.”

Text
1957. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 11: Libri Salomonis, id
est Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum. Rome. xvi, 202 pp. – This volume belongs to the
Benedictine Vulgate of which it is volume 11; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1899. E. Philippe: Ecclésiaste, le livre de l’. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 2.2.
Paris (cols. 1195–2428), cols. 1533–1543. – “Quoique achevée très rapidement, puisque saint Jé­
rôme ne mit que trois jours, avec son maître d’hébreu, à traduire les écrits de Salomon, elle [la
Vulgate] rend exactement l’original; elle est élégante, recherché même; elle ajoute, elle sup­
prime, selon que la clarté l’exige, et aussi le génie du latin. Il est vrai qu’elle n’est pas absolu ­

581
 ment sans défauts; ainsi on lui reproche quelques faux sens et quelques additions discutables;
mais au total, de toutes les versions de l’hébreu, c’est encore celle qui est la plus exacte et la
plus apte à reconstituer l’hébreu primitive” (col. 1539).

1912. Emmanuel Podechard: L’Ecclésiaste. Études bibliques. Paris (xvii, 499 pp.), pp. 211–212: Jerome
translated the book in 393 or 394, “uniquement d’après l’hébreu, mais rapidement et d’une fa­
çon assez libre. Saint Jérôme s’y inspire fréquemment de Symmaque et n’est pas très littéral.
Son original hébreu s’éloigne d’ailleurs quelquefois du texte massorétique.”

1927. W.W. Cannon: Jerome and Symmachus: Some Points in the Vulgate Translation of Koheleth.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 45: 191–199.

1967. Lorenzo di Fonzo OFM Conv.: Ecclesiaste. Torino. xx, 379 pp. – This volume is part of “La Sacra
Bibbia. Volgata Latina e traduzione italiana dai testi originali, illustrate con note critiche e com­
mentate,” edited by Salvatore Garofalo. Presented are, on facing pages, a new Italian translation
(left pages) and the Vulgate text (right pages), with an apparatus of textual notes on both the
Italian and the Latin texts. Occasionally, the notes refer to Dalpane’s dictionary of Vulgate Latin
(see above, Chapter 8.3). This seems to be the only twentieth-century commentary with a com­
plete set of textual notes on the Vulgate version of Ecclesiastes. ▲

1976. Patrick Sims-Williams: Cuthswith, Seventh-Century Abbess of Inkbarrow, Near Worcester, and
the Würzburg Manuscript of Jerome on Ecclesiastes. Anglo-Saxon England 5: 1–21.

1987. Sandro Leanza: Le tre versioni geronimiani dell’Ecclesiaste. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 4: 87–108.

1992. Sandro Leanza: Il traduttore è d’umor nero. Notazioni sulla Vulgata dell’Ecclesiaste. In: Louis
Holtz et al. (eds.): De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Tome I: Antiquité tardive et christianisme ancien.
Paris (660 pp.), pp. 107–110.

2017. Vincent Skemp: Vulgate [text of the Five Scrolls]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 441–446.

2020. Stuart Weeks: Ecclesiastes 1–5. International Critical Commentary. London. lxxiv, 658 pp. – Pages
217–221: Note on the peculiarity of Jerome’s commentary on the book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes)
and the translation of the book, with tables on readings of the Hebrew text that Jerome presup­
poses. In his own commentary, Weeks also occasionally refers to the Vulgate (cf. p. 497 on Old
Latin Koh 3:3, and p. 500 on Koh 3:7).

Textual notes
Koh 1:2. vanitas vanitatum [et] omnia vanitas – vanity of vanities, all (is) vanity. (1) The Weber/Gryson
edition omits the Clementina’s et, thus it is placed here within square brackets. – (2) The tradi­
tional translations are “vanity” (Douay Version) and “Eitekleit” (Allioli), but other words have
been suggested: shadow (Knox), Nichtigkeit (Tusculum-Vulgata). On discussions of the Latin
word, see the Latin glossary above, Chapter 19.2.

Koh 1:3. quid habet amplius homo de universe labore quo (Weber/Gryson: quod) laborat sub sole? –
what more does one have (gain) from all the labour with which one labours under the sun? The
Clementina’s quo (instrumental ablative) is better Latin than Weber/Gryson’s quod; the
Weber/Gryson version is to be rendered “the labour that he labours.”

Koh 1:8. Cunctae res difficiles; / Non potest eas homo explicare sermones (Clementina) – all things are
difficult; a human being cannot explain them through language. According to Kaulen (p. 286),
the Clementina’s punctuation misinterprets the construction. This is a case of placing the object
at the beginning in the nominative case; one should translate thus: All difficult things – no hu ­

582
 man being can explain them through human language. The correct punctuation would be
cunctae res difficiles: non potest (etc.).

Koh 1:8. non saturator oculus visu, nec auris auditu impletur (Clementina) – neither is the eye filled
from seeing, nor is the ear filled from hearing. The Weber/Gryson edition has impletur auditu,
which rhymes with auditu, as is to be expected from Jeromian style.

Koh 1:18. (agnovi) eo quod in multa sapientia multa sit indignatio, et qui addit scientiam addit
[Weber/Gryson: addat] et laborem – I realized that in much wisdom is much trouble, and one
who adds knowledge adds pain. – The Weber/Gryson edition has better Latin, because the par­
allel construction requires the subjunctive addat. Lorenzo di Fonzo OFM Conv.: Ecclesiaste.
Torino 1967 (xx, 379 pp.), p. 145.

Koh 2:5. feci hortos et pomeria – I made gardens and orchards; ich ließ Gärten anlegen und Obst­
gärten. – Only the 5th, 2007 edition of the Weber/Gryson Vulgate has the correct spelling po­
meria; following the Clementina, the earlier editions have pomaria. The Nova Vulgata keeps, in­
correctly, pomaria.

Koh 2:6. silva lignorum germinantium – a forest of budding trees. The noun lignum normally means
“wood,” but in poetry, it may serve as a word for “tree.” The choice of the word may be inspired
by Vergil: Aeneid XII, 767, Lorenzo di Fonzo OFM Conv.: Ecclesiaste. Torino 1967 (xx, 379 pp.), p.
147. ▲

Koh 3:5. tempus amplexandi et tempus longe fieri ab amplexibus – a time to embrace and a time to be
far from embraces (Douay Version). See also Jerome’s paraphrase in his letter 22 to Eustochium:
tempus et amplexandi et tempus abstinendi manus a conplexu – a time for embracing and a time
from holding one’s hands back from embracing (letter 22:19; CSEL 54: 168).

Koh 3:11. et mundum tradidit disputationi eorum – and he (God) delivered the world to their (people’s)
strife; er lieferte die Welt ihrem (der Menschen) Streit aus. According to the Hebrew, God gives
something into the “heart” (belibbam) of the people; Jerome read a deviating Hebrew text – “to
their strife” (presumably: le-ribbam). – James L. Crenshaw: Ecclesiastes. A Commentary. Philadel­
phia 1987 (192 pp), p. 97.

Koh 4:3. et feliciorem utroque iudicavi – and I judged (him) happier than both. – Michael Fieger –
Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Glücklicher sein (Koh 4,3). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 73–74.

Koh 5:3. infidelis – unreliable; unzuverlässig. Kaulen, p. 130.

Koh 6:4. oblivione delebitur nomen eius – by oblivion his name will be deleted, i.e., his name will be
forgotten. On this phrase from classical Latin, see textual note on Esth 9:28.

Koh 6:10. qui futurus est iam vocatum est nomine eius – (he) who will be in the future already has a
name; wer künftig sein wird, hat schon einen Namen. Jerome understands this as an announce­
ment of the Messiah, because prophets have a name even before they are born (Jer 1:5), see
Jerome’s commentary PL 23: 1060: aperte de salvatoris praedicatur adventi – the coming of the
savious is clearly announced; klar angekündigt ist das Kommen des Erlösers. – Albert Condamin
SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3
(1912) 105–138, at p. 136.

Koh 8:14. sunt justi quibus mala proveniunt (Clementina, NVg) – there are just men to whom evil
things happen. Weber/Gryson has multa (instead of mala): many things happen to the just.

583
Koh 8:17. ratio here means “order.” For this word, Jerome may be indebted to Cicero who uses it in a
similar context; see Cicero: De natura deorum II, 46,119; In Verrem II, 2, 52; see the entry on ratio
in the glossary (above, Chapter 19.2). ▲

Koh 9:14–15. There are rabbinic parallels to what Jerome writes on this passage. – Hans Peter Rüger:
Hieronymus, die Rabbinen und Paulus (2 Kor 4,16). Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 68 (1977) 132–137.

Song of Songs (Canticles, Canticum Canticorum)

Note. – Unlike most books of the Old Testament, Jerome translated the Song of Songs not from He ­
brew but from Greek.

Text
1957. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 11: Libri Salomonis, id
est Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum. Rome. xvi, 202 pp. – This is a volume of the
Benedictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Translation
2017. Das Hohelied. Das Lied der Lieder. Erstmals ins Deutsche übersetzt aus der Nova Vulgata und ein­
geleitet von Manfred Gerwing. Fromm Verlag. London. 48 pp. – This is a new German transla­
tion, based on the text of the Nova Vulgata.

Secondary literature
1915. Franz Jetzinger: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zum Hohenlied. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift
68: 303–314. – The author supplies a glossary of Latin words and names in the Vulgate text of
the Song of Songs. Some words make little sense when understood from the Latin vocabulary;
instead, they must be understood as imperfect renderings of the underlying Hebrew.

1968. Gianfranco Nolli: Cantico dei Cantici. Torino. 144 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. ▲

2009. Sara Japhet: Did Rashbam Know the Vulgate Version of the Song of Songs? Textus 24: 263–285.

2016. Jean-Marie Auwers: Jérôme, interprète et traducteur du Cantique des cantiques. In: Thomas Jo ­
hann Bauer (ed.): Traditio et translatio. Studien zur lateinischen Bibel. Freiburg (xx, 219 pp.), pp.
31–48. – An abstract of this paper is in: Élie Ayroulet – Aline Canellis (eds.): L’exégèse de saint
Jérôme. Saint-Étienne 2018 (381 pp.), pp. 153–154.

2017. Vincent Skemp: Vulgate [text of the Five Scrolls]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 441–446.

Textual notes
Cant 1:1. ubera – breasts. A mistranslation of the underlying Hebrew. Jerome’s rendering does not
make sense because the first sentence of the Song of Songs is spoken by the bride, and the

584
 ubera would be the breasts of the man. The correct rendering would be amores = caresses. – F.
Jetzinger: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zum Hohenlied. Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 68
(1915) 303–314, at pp. 310 and 314. – The Nova Vulgata replaces meliora sunt ubera tua with
meliores sunt amores tui (and counts the verse as Cant 1:2).

Cant 1:4 (Vg 1:3). (1) introduxit me rex in celleraria sua – the king hath brought me in his storerooms
(Douay Version). One would expect cubiculum (bedroom), the word used by the Vetus Latina,
but Jerome may have associated this passage with Song 2:4 (cella vinaria – wine cellar). – (2)
memores uberum tuorum – remembering thy breasts (Douay Version). As in Cant 1:1, the ubera
are the “breasts” of the man. This is a mistranslation in the Latin, hence the Nova Vulgata: me­
mores amorum tuorum (counted as Cant 1:4). – Literature:

2019. M. Manuela Gächter OP: Cellar or Bedroom? Observations on Song 1,3 Vulg (1,4). Vulgata
in Dialogue 3: 47–58 (online journal).

2023. M. Manuela Gächter OP: Schlafzimmer oder Vorratskammer? (Hld 1,4). In: Schmid/Fieger,
pp. 79–80. The same volume includes another article by Gächter: Brüste oder Liebschaf­
ten? (Hld 1,2.4.; 4,10; 7,13), pp. 80–81.

Cant 1:7. pulchra inter mulieres – the most beautiful of women. The positive (pulchra) functions as the
superlative (pulchrissima). – See Kaulen, p. 162 (no. 54b), though this passage is not listed.

Cant 1:10. vermiculatus – in filigree; a technical term from the goldsmith’s art. – Kaulen, p. 150.

Cant 3:9. ferculum. The context requires the meaning “carriage” (Greek φορεῖον) rather than “meal” (a
meaning common in medieval Latin).

Cant 3:10. The end of the verse as printed in the Clementina is problematic: “in the midst he covered
with love the daughters of Jerusalem.” The NVg revises: medium eius stratum ebeneum – in its
middle is an inset of ebony. The “daughters of Jerusalem” belong to the following sentence.

Cant 4:8. coronaberis – you shall be crowned. Jerome may have read teʿutri – you shall be crowned.
The coronation of the bride reflects Jewish influence, see Mishnah, tractate Sotah 9:14: “In the
war against Vespasian they decreed against the wearing of wreaths by bridegrooms and against
the wedding drum,” see The Mishnah: A New Translation by Jacob Neusner. New Haven 1988
(xlv, 1162 pp.), p. 464. – Johannes B. Bauer: Die drei hebräischen Lesarten in Hld 4,8. Biblische
Zeitschrift 50.2 (2006) 260–264.

Cant 4:9. vulnerasti cor meum – you have wounded my heart (says the young man to his beloved). Al­
lusion is made to ancient mythology – the god Cupid wounds the heart with the arrow of love.

Cant 5:6. ut locutus est (Clementina) – when he spoke (Douay Version). This translation reflects the un­
derlying Hebrew text, but seems problematic. The NVg changes the expression to quia dis­
cesserat – because he had left (discedere = to leave). In Aramaic, the verb dabara means “to
leave, to flee.” – Fortunato Frezza (ed.): La Sacra Bibbia. Testo bilingue latino-italiano. Vatican
City 2015 (lvi, 4417 pp.), p. 2234, note.

Cant 5:7. pallium – veil (Douay Version). Knox has “cloak,” the Tusculum-Vulgata “Mantel,” providing
better equivalents of the typical cloak worn by men in late antiquity as a street dress. Jerome
renders the same underlying Hebrew word as theristra (plural of theristrum) in Isa 3:23’s list of
female ornaments; in this case, Jerome transcribes the Greek θέριστρον which the dictionary
glosses as “light shawl or stole” (Gary A. Chamberlain: The Greek of the Septuagint. A Supple­
mental Lexicon. Peabody, Mass. 2011 [xlii, 256 pp.], p. 82).

585
Cant 6:11 (NVg 6:12). anima mea conturbavit me propter quadrigas Aminadab (Clementina) – my soul
troubled me because of the chariots of Aminadab. The NVg has non advertit animus meus cum
posuit me in quadrigas principis populi mei – my spirit did not realise when he placed me in the
chariot of the prince of my people. In the Hebrew, read nadîb ammî – prince of my people. –
Fortunato Frezza (ed.): La Sacra Bibbia. Testo bilingue latino-italiano. Vatican City 2015 (lvi, 4417
pp.), p. 2237, note.

Cant 8:5. ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genitrix tua (Clementina) – here your mother was
corrupted, here your birth-giver was deflowered. NVg: ibi parturivit te mater tua, ibi te parturivit
genetrix tua – here your mother bore you, here your birth-giver bore you. In the Hebrew, read
yoladtek = genetrix. – Fortunato Frezza (ed.): La Sacra Bibbia. Testo bilingue latino-italiano. Vati­
can City 2015 (lvi, 4417 pp.), p. 2239, note.

Cant 8:6. lampades ignis atque flammarum (Clementina) – the lamps are fire and flames. NVg: lam­
pades ignis atque flammae divinae – the lamps are fore and divine flames. In the Hebrew, read
shalhebet yah – flames of God. – Fortunato Frezza (ed.): La Sacra Bibbia. Testo bilingue latino-ita­
liano. Vatican City 2015 (lvi, 4417 pp.), p. 2240, note.

Cant 8:11–12. pacificus – the peaceable (Douay Version). One should use a capital letter: the Peace ­
able, for this is how Jerome translates the name of Solomon. The Nova Vulgata gets rid of paci­
ficus, replacing it with Salomon.

Wisdom of Solomon (Sapientia Salomonis)

Note. – In his preface to the writings of Solomon (after the Hebrew, 398), Jerome lists the reasons why
he does not translate the book. The book breathes Greek spirit and came, according to some, from the
Jew Philo of Alexandria. The text of the Wisdom of Solomon that found its way into the Vulgate be ­
longs to the Vetus Latina.

Text
1884. Paul de Lagarde: Die weisheiten der handschrift von Amiata. In: idem: Mittheilungen. [Band 1].
Göttingen (384 pp.), pp. 241–378. – Pages 243–282: annotated Latin text of Sapientia Salomonis
from Codex Amiatinus (see above, Chapter 7.2).

1964. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 12: Sapientia Salomo­
nis – Liber Hiesu filii Sirach. Rome. xxiii, 375 pp. – This volume belongs to the Benedctine Vulgate
edition; see above, Chapter 13.3. – Reviews:
1965. Robert A. Kraft, Gnomon 37: 777–781.

1965. G.G. Willis, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 16: 154–156.

1977–1985. Sapientia Salomonis. Edited by Walter Thiele. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen
Bibel, 11.1. Freiburg. 598 pp. – Critical edition of the Latin text.

Latin text with textual notes

1989.1996.1999. Giuseppe Scarpat: Libro della Sapienza. Testo, traduzione e commento. Brescia. 3 vol­
umes: 478 pp., 546 pp., 461 pp. – Each of the three volumes of this Italian commentary ends with
a section that prints the Latin text (which is that of the Benedictine edition of 1964) followed by
extensive textual notes; in vol 1, this is on pp. 399–478 Wisd 1–6), in vol. 2 on pp. 491–546 (Wisd
7–12), in vol. 3 on pp. 331–384 (Wisd 13–19). At the end of vol. 3 is list of all significant Latin

586
 words of the book of Wisdom (vol. 3, pp. 396–398). Scarpat suggests a number of emendations
and improved readings of the Latin text; some of these are reported in the textual notes below.
Scarpat often refers to the Nova Vulgata of which he is very critical (see above, Chapter 17.3).
Scarpat does not provide a running translation of the Latin text. ▲

Secondary literature
1861. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae. Freiburg. 36 pp. – Extensive
notes on the Greek and Latin texts, presented in small print. Two densely packed columns per
page. For examples of Reusch’s textual suggestions, see below, textual note on Wisd 5:22 and
19:8.

1881. William John Deane: The Book of Wisdom. The Greek Text, the Latin Vulgate and the Authorised
English Version with (…) Commentary. Oxford. vii, 224 pp. – Page 41: “Of the versions the Latin
contained in the Vulgate is the most important for antiquity and literalness. It is really the old It ­
alic rendering of the second or third century (…) impartial criticism will detect in it many errors
arising from misunderstanding the original, and many obscurities of expression which only tend
do ‘darken knowledge.’ There are also some additions which are plainly not sanctioned by the
original. But (…) it probably represents the reading of manuscripts earlier than any that have
come down to us, and, in this respect, at any rate, is of great critical value, while its language is
interesting as presenting provincialisms and phrases which point to an African origin. These are
noted in the commentary as they occur.” For the additions to the Vulgate, see p. 224 (index).

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 235–277. – On pp. 275–276, Thielmann discusses cases of ho­
mophonic translations (Übersetzung nach dem Wortklang), i.e., cases where the Latin word
echoes the underlying Greek word; an example is Latin digne for Greek δίκαια (Wisd 14:30); see
the linguistic glossary, Chapter 8.7, s.v. homophony. A thorough linguistic analysis, still very
valuable.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn. viii, 290 pp. – Page 73: “Es gab
aber auch solche [Übersetzer], die sich mühten, nicht nur richtig, sondern auch gut zu überset ­
zen; zu ihnen gehört z.B. der Urheber des lateinischen Buches der Weisheit.” Stummer highlights
the linguistic quality of the Latin translation of the book of Wisdom.

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Étude sur le texte latin de la Sagesse. Revue bénédictine 41: 101–133.

1942. Patrick W. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly
4.3: 230–243. – These notes focus on the Latin plusses that have no basis in the underlying
Greek text, and on semantic issues, mostly in conversation with Thielmann (1893) and De Bruyne
(1929). Skehan also points out the problematic punctuation in some modern Vulgate editions,
and problematic divisions into poetic lines.

1956. Jean Doignon: Sacrum – sacramentum – sacrificium dans le texte latin de la Sagesse. Revue des
études latines 34: 240–253. – These three words are used to translate Greek μυστήριον. The ori­
ginal Latin equivalent is sacrum, as can be demonstrated on the basis of epigraphic evidence. As
can be seen in the book of Wisdom, Christians preferred sacramentum. The actual innovation of
the book of Wisdom’s Latin translator is the use of sacrificium for μυστήριον; the reason is the
Latin style: the use of sacrificium permits the creation of alliterations, clausula rhythm, and
rhyme. Doignon is critical of Thielmann (1893, pp. 268–269).

1968. Jean Gribomont: L’édition vaticane de la Vulgate et la Sagesse de Salomon dans sa recension ita­
lienne. Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 4: 472–496.

587
2019. A. Glicksman: Latin [text of Wisdom of Solomon]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 498–506.

2020. Sophie-Christin Holland: Studien zur lateinischen Sapientia Salomonis. Diss. Phil. Humboldt-Uni­
versität. Berlin. – Unpublished thesis, available on the Internet.

Textual notes
Wisd 1:7. et hoc [spiritus], quod continet omnia, scientiam habet vocis – and that which containeth all
things hath knowledge of the voice (Douay Version). Since hoc (neuter) refers back to the divine
spirit, one would expect the masculine forms hic, qui. – Alois Hudal et al.: Einleitung in das Alte
Testament. Sechste Auflage, neubearbeitet von Franz Sauer. Graz 1948 (xii, 271 pp.), pp. 79–80.

Wisd 2:2. et sermo scintilla ad commovendum cor nostrum – and the word is a spark in the being
moved of our heart (or: in the movement of our heart); und das Wort ist ein Funken beim Be­
wegtwerden unseres Herzens (oder: bei der Bewegung unseres Herzens). – Friedrich Stummer:
Beiträge zur Exegese der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 62 (1950)
152–167, at pp. 153–157.

Wisd 2:6. creatura (Clementina). The word must be emended: creaturam (Scarpat I, p. 402); the
Weber/Gryson edition also has creaturam.

Wisd 2:7. flos temporis – the flower of the time. Thielmann suggests the addition of verni: flos verni
temporis – the flower of springtime (which is also in NVg). – Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Tex­
tkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen
Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), p. 15.

Wisd 2:19. reverentia – how to translate this noun? Here are some suggestions: meekness (Douay Ver­
sion), gentleness (Knox), Unterwürfigkeit (Allioli), Ehrfurcht (Tusculum-Vulgata). Another possibil­
ity is “piety,” reflecting an underlying (though conjectural) Greek εὐσέβεια, see P.W. Skehan:
Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4.3 (1942) 230–243,
at p. 237.

Wisd 2:25. imitantur autem illum – they (people) imitate him (the devil). Thielmann suggests to emend
the verb: inritant autem illum – they challenge him. – Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik
der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studi­
enanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), pp. 15–16. Scarpat I, p. 435 discusses the difficulty.

Wisd 3:11. et inutilia opera eorum (Clementina) – and their works unprofitable (Douay Version).
Weber/Gryson has et inhabitabilia opera illorum – with the same meaning. The adjective inhab­
itabilis takes its sense from habitare, the intensive form of habere (to have), see Scarpat I, p. 440.

Wisd 4:1. generatio (Clementina). Read: enim in generatio (Scarpat I, p. 402).

Wisd 4:2. eam cum se duxerit (Weber/Gryson, Scarpat) – when it goes away. For se ducere = abire, see
Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum
Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), pp. 16–17;
Scarpat I, p. 446.

Wisd 4:12. fascinatio enim nugacionis obscurat bona– the evil eye of wikedness obscures what is good.
– John H. Elliott: Beware the Evil Eye. Volume 3. Eugene, Ore. 2016 (xxx, 348 pp.), pp. 13 and 56.

Wisd 5:3. hi sunt quos habuimus aliquando in derisum et in similitudinem improperii – das sind diejeni­
gen, welche wir einst hatten zum Gelächter (welche uns zum Gelächter dienten) und zu schimpf ­
lichen, schmähenden Erzählungen (und welche zu beschimpfenden Erzählungen uns Veranlas­

588
 sung gaben) (Hagen, p. 19); these are those whom we had then for laughter and for scandalous
stories.

Wisd 5:19. iudicium certum (Clementina, Weger/Gryson) – true judgment (Douay Version), sure judg­
ment. Possibly meant is iudicium rectum (different sequence of letters). The reading rectum is at­
tested, see Walter Thiele (ed.): Sapientia Salomonis. Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen
Bibel 11.1. Freiburg 1977 (598 pp.), p. 82. NVg has: iudicium non fictum – a judgement not made
up.

Wisd 5:22. ibunt directae emissions fulgurum, et tanquam a bene curvaton arcu nubium exterminabun­
tur, et ad certum locum insilient – aimed shafts of lightning shall go, and like from a well-bent
arc of clouds shall be directed to the aim, and leap to the target. – This is a much-discussed
verse; Reusch, Thielmann, De Bruyne, Skehan and Scarpat have all commented on it. The key
idea, suggested by Reusch, Thielmann and Scarpat, is that exterminabuntur does not mean “shall
be destroyed” (which would be the normal meaning in Latin), but has the unusual meaning
“shall be directed to a terminus.” Accordingly, exterminabuntur and ad certum locum insilient are
essentially synonymous. – Literature:

1861. Franz Heinrich Reusch: Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae. Freiburg (36 pp.), p. 19:
fortasse exterminari dixit interpres pro “in terminum mitti.”

1942. W.P. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly
4.3: 230–243, at pp. 232–233.

1989. Scarpat I, pp, 466–467. Scarpat also points out that the NVg version misunderstands the
Clementina’s directe (= the adjective directae, not an adverb).

Wisd 5:23. et scandescet (Weber/Gryson) or excandescet (Clementina)? – Scarpat (I, p. 402) suggests
exscandescet.

Wisd 6:26. multitudo autem sapientium sanitas est orbis terrarum – the multitude of the wise is the
welfare (sanitas) of the whole world (Douay Version). – Giuseppe Scarpat: “sanitas” come
traduzione Latina di σωτηρία (Sap 6,26; 18,7). In: Núria Carduch Benages – Jacques Vermeylen
(eds.): Treasures of Wisdom. Leuven 1999 (xxvii, 463, 7 pp.), pp. 241–253.

Wisd 8:20. magis bonus – periphrastic comparative in the sense of “better.” – Albert Blaise: Manuel du
Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 98.

Wisd 10:11. honestus = rich, wealthy. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Mün­
ster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 200.

Wisd 10:20. victricem (Weber/Gryson, Clementina). – Scarpat II, p. 492, suggests vinditricem.

Wisd 11:5–9. This passage has Latin expansions and may also be corrupt, and possibly a weak render ­
ing. Skehan seeks to reconstruct a text that makes sense. – P.W. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text
of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4.3 (1942) 230–243, at pp. 235–236.

Wisd 12:10. nequa est natio illorum (Weber/Gryson); nequam est natio eorum (Clementina) – worthless
is their generation. The classical nequam is an ideclinable adjective; in vulgar Latin, it takes the
declinable form nequs.– Literature:

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 9–10.

1996. Scarpat II, p. 543.

589
Wisd 12:19. oportet justum esse et humanum – the just must also be humane. – P.W. Skehan: Notes on
the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4.3 (1942) 230–243, at p. 238.

Wisd 14:11. et in muscipulum pedibus insipientium – and as a mousetrap for the feet of the unwise.
The Douay Version has “snare,” but one should keep the literal rendering here suggested.

Wisd 14:16. hic error – there’s a mistake here! This is a scribal gloss, as was seen by De Bruyne and
Skehan. – P.W. Skehan: Notes on the Latin Text of the Book of Wisdom. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 4.3 (1942) 230–243, at p. 239.

Wisd 14:26. Dei immemoratio (Clementina) – forgetfulness of God. The Weber/Gryson edition has Do­
mini inmemoratio. It must be doni immemoratio – forgetfulness of the gift, an emendation sug­
gested by Joseph Ziegler, Biblische Zeitschrift NF 5 (1961) 117 on the basis of the Greek; Scarpat
III, p. 336 has doni inmemoratio in the main text. In keeping with the Greek, NVg has gratiarum
immemoratio.

Wisd 15:18. sed et animalia miserrima colunt insensata [insensate, Weber/Gryson] enim comparata his
aliis sunt deteriora (Clementina). The Clementina’s wording does not make immediate sense.
Some solutions: (1) “they also venerate the most abject animals which, compared to those other
insensible (beings), are even more worthless; sie verehren auch die elendesten Tiere, die, mit je­
nen anderen einsichtslosen (Wesen) verglichen, noch minderwertiger sind.” Stummer, who does
not know the Weber/Gryson wording, considers insensata enim comparata as accusativus abso­
lutus (possibly the only instance in the Vulgate; another instance is 2 Macc 15:37 according to
Codex Mediolanensis Ambros. E 26 inf.). Stummer does not offer the translation his discussion
would lead to. – (2) Mohrmann (p. 29): “Si l’on garde la leçon illis et si l’on considère les mots
insensata (…) comparata comme un nominative absolu, on pourrait traduire: on adore même les
bêtes les plus odieuses; si l’on compare les idoles inanimées à ces bêtes, celles-ci (les bêtes) sont
pire que celles-là (les idoles).” – (3) The Weber/Gryson wording leads to: “but they also venerate
the most abject animals; senselessly compared with these others [the man-made idols], they are
even worse.” This corresponds to the translation given in the Tusculum-Vulgata. – Literature:

1950. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Exegese der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 62 (1950) 152–167, at pp. 157–160.

1952. Christine Mohrmann: À propos de Sap. 15,18. Vigiliae Christianae 6 (1952) 28–30 = ea­
dem: Études sur le latin des chrétiens. Tome III. Rome 1965 (458 pp.), pp. 273–275.

Wisd 18:7. suscepta est autem a populo tua sanitas quidem iustorum – thy people receives the salva­
tion (sanitas) of the just (Douay Version). – Giuseppe Scarpat: “sanitas” come traduzione Latina
di sôtêria (Sap 6,26; 18,7). In: Núria Carduch Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.): Treasures of
Wisdom. Leuven 1999 (xxvii, 463, 7 pp.), pp. 241–253.

Wisd 19:5. mirabiliter transiret (Clementina) – (thy people) might wonderfully pass through (Douay
Version). Scarpat III, p. 332 reads: mirabile iter consequeretur – might follow a miraculous way.

Wisd 19:8. videntes tua mirabilia et monstra (Clementina) – seeing your miracles and wonders. Reusch
suggests to omit the word et so that we get mirabilia monstra – wonderful miracles; this is also
the reading of the Weber/Gryson edition, Scarpat (III, p. 344) and the Nova Vulgata. – Franz
Heinrich Reusch: Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae. Freiburg 1861 (36 pp.), p. 35.

590
Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira, Liber Iesu filii Sirach, Ecclesiasticus)
Note. – In his preface to the writings of Solomon (from the Greek, 386/89), Jerome indicates the reas ­
ons why he does not translate the book – he does not count it as part of the canon of the Bible (but
see the contribution of Gilbert 1987). In the preface to the writings of Solomon (after the Hebrew) of
398, Jerome mentions that he had seen a Hebrew version of the book of Jesus Sirach. – The text in­
cluded in the Vulgate, translated from Greek, is pre-Jeromian (late 2nd or early 3rd century CE) and
therefore belongs to the Vetus Latina.

Recent commentaries on the book of Jesus Sirach are based on the Greek and on extant Hebrew frag­
ments; they rarely if ever comment on the Latin text.

Text
1884. Paul de Lagarde: Die weisheiten der handschrift von Amiata. In: idem: Mittheilungen. [Band 1].
Göttingen (384 pp.), pp. 241–378. – Pages 283–378: annotated Latin text of Sirach from Codex
Amiatinus (see above, Chapter 7.2).

1899. Heinrich Herkenne: De Veteris latinae Ecclesiastici capitibus I–XLIII. Una cum notis ex eiusdem libri
translationibus (…) Latina altera (…) depromptis. Leipzig. 268 pp. – Reviews:
1899/1900. A. Cowley, Jewish Quarterly Review 12: 168–171.

1903. Rudolf Smend, Theologische Literaturzeitung 28: 71–72.

1903. W. Kroll, Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 6.1: 129–130.

1964. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 12: Sapientia Salomo­
nis – Liber Hiesu filii Sirach. Rome (xxiii, 375 pp.) pp. 105–375. – This is a volume of the Benedic­
tine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3. According to Alexander A. Di Lella (in: Patrick W. Skehan –
AA. Di Lella: The Wisdom of Ben Sira. The Anchor Bible. New York 1987. xxiii, 620 pp., at p. 62),
“this work now makes obsolete all the earlier editions of the Vulgate.” – Review: Robert A. Kraft,
Gnomon 37 (1965) 777–781.

1987–2005. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Edited by Walter Thiele. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen
Bibel 11.2. Freiburg. 726 pp. – This critical edition based on the manuscript tradition has ap­
peared in individual fascicles; with the 9th fascicle, ending with the text of Sirach 24, the editor
ends his contribution due to high age. Thiele, born in 1923, died in 2016. Thiele was critical of
De Bruyne’s view (who thought of textual expansions as additions made exclusively within the
Latin textual tradition); at least some expansions seem to have been made within the Greek tex ­
tual tradition.

2014–2021. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Edited by Anthony J. Forte. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateini­
schen Bibel 11.2. Freiburg. – The work of Thiele is continued by Anthony Forte. Two fascicles are
available so far, published in 2014 and 2021; they lead up to Sirach 33:26.

Synopses
1968. Francesco Vattioni: Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critic e version greca, Latina e siriaca.
Naples. liv, 283 pp. – For a brief characterization, see Egger-Wenzel’s Polyglot Edition, pp. xvi–
xvii.

2022. Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.): A Polyglot Edition of the Book of Ben Sira with a Synopsis of the He­
brew Manuscripts. Leuven. lii, 927 pp. – Although the title emphasizes the Hebrew column, this

591
 polyglot edition does have a Latin column, based on the Stuttgart Vulgate (Weber/Gryson), with
notes from the Beuron Vetus Latina and the Nova Vulgata. The “Salzburg Ben Sira Polyglot” rep­
resents the ripe fruit of a project initiated by Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer (b. 1947), now an emerit­
us of the University of Salzburg, Austria. – Review: Markus Witte, Zeitschrift für die alttestament­
liche Wissenschaft 135.2 (2023) 350–351.

2024. Wolfgang Kraus – Heinz-Josef Fabry – Burkard Zapff (eds.): Das Weisheitsbuch Ben Sira/Jesus Si­
rach. Synopse der hebräischen, griechischen, lateinischen und syrischen Texttraditionen mit deut­
scher Übersetzung. Göttingen. c. 544 pp. (forthcoming). – For a project description, see Bonifatia
Gesche OSB: Projekt: Sirach-Synopse. Early Christianity 7: 249–255. The right column is for the
Latin text, complete with a text-critical apparatus and a helpful literal German translation of the
Latin. In the textual notes below, referred to as “Göttingen Synopsis 2024.” ▲

Translation
1906. Wilhelm Müller: Buch Sirach. Aus der Vulgata übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen. Regens­
burg. – A German translation of the Vulgate text.

Secondary literature on the textual history

English
1965. W. Baars: On a Latin Fragment of Sirach. Vetus Testamentum 15: 280–281.

1987. Alexander A. Di Lella OFM, in: Patrick W. Skehan – A.A. Di Lella: The Wisdom of Ben Sira. The An­
chor Bible. New York. xiii, 620 pp. – Page 57: The Latin version was made “probably in the
second century This early version lacked the grandson’s Prologue as well as the Praise of the An­
cestors (chaps. 44–50); the latter was unknown to the Latin Fathers prior to Isidore of Seville (d.
636). This Latin text did contain, however, chap. 51 and also an intrusive chap. 52, the Prayer of
Solomon (= 2 Chr 6:13–22). In the fifth or sixth century, the Old Latin of Sirach began appearing
in manuscripts of the Vulgate after it had first undergone many alterations by scribes and edit­
ors who also added the prologue and chaps. 44–50. As a result of this complicated history, the
Old Latin of Sirach has more doublets, variants, glosses, and interpolations than any other book
of the Latin Bible.”

2008. Maurice Gilbert SJ: The Vetus Latina of Ecclesiasticus, in: G. Xeravits – J. Zsengéller (eds.): Studies
in the Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (xii, 267 pp.), pp. 1–9. – Page 9: The Latin text of Sirach is based
on a lost Greek version written between 80 BC and 80 AD.

2011. Anthony J. Forte: The Old Latin Version of Sirach: editio critica and Textual Problems. In: Jean-
Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (ix, 352
pp.), pp. 199–214. – Article by the editor of Sirach in the Beuron Vetus Latina series; at the end of
the article is the critical edition of Sir 25:1–2 as a sample.

2011. Jason Gile: The Additions to Ben Sira and the Book’s Multiform Textual Witness. In: Jean-
Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (ix, 352
pp.), pp. 237–256. – One peculiarity of the Latin text (and its Greek Vorlage) is that nearly all the
additions occur in Sir 1–24. The most sensible reason relates to the genre of the first part of the
book: the proverbial nature of sentence literature would easily allow for the incorporation of
new aphorisms.

592
2013. Severino Bussino: The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. Rome. 512 pp. – This is a study of
the Greek additions that are characteristic of the longer version of the Greek text of the book of
Jesus Sirach. The Latin version reflects this version – and has some more additions.

2014. Anthony J. Forte: Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici: Apologia pro interprete latino. Journal of Sep­
tuagint and Cognate Studies 47: 69–92. – “The Latin text of Sirach is sometimes so slavishly literal
that it is at times unintelligible. There has been a tendency among scholars to impute ignorance
of Latin and Greek to the Latin translators of the Septuagint. This writer is not of this opinion.
Rather, it is my view that the numerous errors in the Latin were more often the work of bad
copyists” (p. 72). As for the many additions in the Latin text, Forte states that “the Vetus Latina
never had the authoritative stature of the Septuagint and its non-canonical status was one
factor that contributed to the freedom with which the Latin text was altered” (p. 72). Forte com ­
ments on a number of Sirach passages (Sir 25–28, from the relevant fascicle of the Beuron
Vetus-Latina edition, edited by Forte).

2019. Bradley Gregory: Latin [text of Ecclesiasticus]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible.
Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 243–255. – The Vulgate text of Sirach represents a North
African Vetus-Latina text, though it shows some signs of revision. The influence of later readings
has resulted in some doublets in the text.

German
1796. M. Bengel – Ernst Gottlieb: Über die muthmaßliche Quelle der alten lateinischen Übersetzung
des Buches Sirach. Eichhorns allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur 7: 832–864.

1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg (vi, 599 pp.),
pp. 289–290 (in small print). – “Die lateinische Übersetzung in der Vulgata stammt aus der Itala,
ohne vom hl. Hieronymus revidiert zu sein. Sie ist kritisch nicht gesichtet” (p. 289). “Unbedingt
aber ist der innere Werth der lateinischen Übersetzung viel größer als der des griechischen Tex ­
tes; Klarheit, logischer Zusammenhang, Vollständigkeit des Gedankenganges ist viel mehr als bei
ersterer als bei letzterem zu suchen. Der Vulgatatext hat daher viel mehr Anspruch darauf, ein
treues Ebenbild des verloren gegangenen Originals zu sein als die griechische Übersetzung” (p.
290). According to Kaulen, the Latin text echoes the lost Hebrew original text better than the
Greek translation, and is in itself more coherent. He also suggests a number of emendations of
the Vulgate text, some of which are listed below, in the textual notes. See also this later edition
of Kaulen’s book: Franz Kaulen – Gottfried Hoberg: Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift des Alten und
Neuen Testaments. Zweiter Teil. Freiburg 1913 (ix, 299 pp.), pp. 195–197.

1893/94. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexi­
kographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561; Die europäischen Bestandteile des lateinischen Si­
rach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 9 (1894) 247–284. – The Latin text of
Sirach is due to two translators. The bulk of the text (Sir 1–43 and 51) – like much of the Vetus
Latina – goes back to a creative North African translator at the beginning of the 3rd century; the
rest comes from a European translator who worked merely mechanically, producing a correct,
but colourless text. The prologue is a later addition. Thielmann reports how he experienced the
difference between the two translations: with the second translator “versiegte der Quell der Afri­
canismen fast gänzlich, die Plastik der afrikanischen Ausdrucksweise (…) wich einer korrekten
und glatten, aber farblosen Diktion, bisher nicht gebrauchte Wörter traten auf, dafür waren an­
dere, die bisher zu den Lieblingen des Übersetzers gehört hatten, völlig verschwunden, wieder
andere zeigten eine von der bisher üblichen abweichende Bedeutung, kurzum, es war ein voll ­
ständiger (…) Szenenwechsel” (p. 247). – Critical reviews of Thielmann’s work:

593
 1897. Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romani­
schen Philologie 5.1: 75–102, at p. 95. Geyer argues that there is no reason to distinguish between a North
African and a European translator; instead, one should speak of two translators whose level of erudition dif­
fers.

2005. Walter Thiele (ed.): Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Vetus Latina, 11.2. Freiburg (726 pp.), pp. 120–124. Thiele traces
the Latin Sirach to one single translator. ▲

2016. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Was verstehen die lateinischen Übersetzer des Buches Jesus Sirach unter Sühne? In:
Thomas Johann Bauer (ed.): Traditio et translatio. Studien zur lateinischen Bibel. Freiburg (xx, 219 pp.), pp.
49–73. – The different translations of the “atonement” vocabulary in the earlier chapters and in chap. 45
supports Thielmann’s notion of two different translators (pp. 58–59).

1906. Rudolf Smend: Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch. Berlin. xxii, 95, 81 pp. Pages
cxx–cxxi: “Der Text des lateinischen Sirach ist in den Handschriften durch zahlreiche Schreibfeh­
ler und viele willkürliche Änderungen entstellt. (…) zumeist wird der Text durch Emendationen
geheilt werden müssen.” The Latin text is frequently corrupt and in need of emendation. ▲

1996. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Jesus Sirach. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Band 17. Stuttgart
(1300 cols.), cols. 878–906.

1997. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Sirachtexte als Zeugnis der griechischen Sirachüberlieferung. In:
Jostein Ådna et al. (eds.): Evangelium – Schriftauslegung – Kirche. Göttingen (x, 460 pp.), pp. 394–
402. – From the workshop of the editor of the Vetus Latina text of Sirach.

2003. Friedrich V. Reiterer: Zählsynopse zum Buch Jesus Sirach. Berlin. xii, 247 pp. – Page 21–22: Der la­
teinische Text. “Nach allgemeiner Übereinstimmung ist die lateinische Übersetzung des Si­
rach-Buches (anders als im protokanonischen Bereich) kein eigenständiges Werk des Hierony­
mus, vielmehr hat er offensichtlich unter Verzicht auf eine eigene Übersetzung weithin die ihm
vorliegende Vetus Latina übernommen” (p. 21).

2014. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Die Vetus-Latina-Version des Buches Jesus Sirach als Zeuge für die Versi ­
on Griechisch II. In: Wolfgang Kraus – Siegfried Kreuzer (eds.): Die Septuaginta – Text – Wirkung
– Rezeption. Tübingen (xiv, 928 pp.), pp. 698–712. – The article includes a section titled “die
Überlieferung des lateinischen Sirach-Textes” (pp. 701–703).

2016. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Projekt: Sirach-Synopse. Early Christianity 7.2: 249–255. – “Von herausra­
gender Bedeutung ist auch die lateinische Übersetzung [des Buches Jesus Sirach], die auf einer
längeren griechischen Fassung (G2) oder einer ihr nahestehenden Version beruht. Sie ist wohl im
2./3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in Nordafrika entstanden und schon in den Schriften des Cyprian von
Karthago († 258) nachzuweisen. Eine leicht überarbeitete Fassung dieser altlateinischen Überset­
zung nahm Hieronymus in die Vulgata auf” (p. 251).

2017. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Der lateinische Text des Ecclesiasticus: Von Philipp Thielmann bis zu
Walter Thiele. In: Gerhard Karner et al. (eds.): Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach. Atlanta,
Ga. (viii, 333 pp.), pp. 263–282. – History of research, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, up to
the present day. “Bei der Erforschung des Sirachbuches geht es nicht darum, den ursprünglichen
oder wenigstens besten Text, den man erreichen kann, wiederzugewinnen, sondern zu verste­
hen, wie sich der Text entwickelt hat“ (pp. 281–282). ▲

French
1899. G. Touzard: Ecclésiastique, Le livre de. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome
2.2. Paris (cols. 1195–2428), cols. 1543–1557. – Columns 1548–1549: Version latine. The Latin of
this version is defective, as can be seen from barbarisms such as defunctio (1:13), reciprocitas
(1:17,18,26), compartior (1:24), inhonoratio (1:38), obduratio (2:2; 5:1.10), receptibilis (2:5). There is

594
 a large number of verses that are not in the Greek: 1:17–19.26.35b; 2:2b.3a.6c.10.16b.21;
3:1.4b.10b.16.24b.28.32, and others. According to Touzard, the Latin version is superior to the
Greek textus receptus.

1928. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Étude sur le texte latin de l’Ecclésiastique. Revue bénédictine 40: 5–48.
– Doublets were added to the Latin text of the Book of Sirach within the Latin text history. If one
deletes the doublets, one receives the oldest form of the Latin text of Sirach whose basis is
“Greek I.” “Aucun texte de la Bible n’a été plus altéré au cours d’une longue histoire par des révi­
seurs anonymes, aucun n’est semé de plus de pièges et de traquenards” (p. 47). – For a long
time, this article was the basis of research on the Latin text of Sirach; but eventually, Walter
Thiele challenged De Bruyne’s view (see Thiele’s edition of the Latin text). For a relevant com­
ment on De Bruyne’s paper, see also Anthony J. Forte: Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici: Apologia pro
interprete latino. Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 47 (2014) 69–92, at p. 85.

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le titre, le prologue et la finale de l’Ecclésiastique. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47: 257–263. – For the Latin version of Sirach three translators
were responsible: an African translator for chapters 1–43 and 51, a European one for 44–50, and
a third one for the preface.

1987. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Jérôme et l’œuvre de Ben Sira. Le Muséon 100: 109–120. – Gilbert provides a
complete list of all Sirach citations in Jerome – 78 passages, plus 5 more in his translation of Ori­
gen texts (p. 110). Jerome only rarely quotes the Old Latin text of the book of Sirach, but almost
always translates directly from the Greek (pp. 118–120). At first, Jerome rejected the canonicity
of the book of Sirach, but in 404 he tacitly changed his mind and henceforth accepted the ca ­
nonicity (p. 118).

2011. Thierry Legrand: La version latine de Ben Sira: état de la question, essai de classement théma­
tique des ‘additions.’ In: Jean-Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The Texts and Versions of the
Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (ix, 352 pp.), pp. 215–234. – Page 234: The Latin version makes additions
to give the sapiential teaching a new orientation, making it more spiritual and theological.

2017. Aline Canellis (ed.): Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources chrétiennes 592. Paris 2017.
530 pp. – Pages 484–491: The Non-Jeromian prologue to Sirach.

Italian
1967. Francesco Vattioni: S. Girolamo e l’Ecclesiastico. Vetera Christianorum 4: 131–149. – The author
provides a list of all passages where Jerome refers to Sirach texts or quotes them. The study is
not reliable, however, writes M. Gilbert in Le Muséon 100 (1987), p. 109.

1979. Tarcisio Stramare: Il libro dell’Ecclesiastico nella Neo-Volgata. In: Kirche und Bibel. Festgabe für
Bischof Eduard Schick. Herausgegeben von den Professoren der Philosophisch-theologischen
Hochschule Fulda. Paderborn (502 pp.), pp. 443–448.

Further secondary literature

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Philologus
42.2: 319–378, at pp. 323–328: on the vocabulary of Latin Sirach. Thielmann developed this arti­
cle later, see idem: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexiko­
graphie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561. Thielmann’s work is still most useful as a thorough
linguistic analysis of the language – lexicography and grammar – of Sirach. In fact, Thielmann’s
1893 article is still the most detailed account of the late-Latin features of a biblical book (B.
Lang). ▲

595
1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. Münster. lxxviii,
470 pp. – Peters often comments on the Vulgate version, frequently pointing out that the trans­
lator misunderstood and expanded the Greek text. Peters’s basis is the Hebrew and Greek text,
but on page lxviii he declares: “In der Übersetzung habe ich den Text der Sixto-Klementinischen
Kirchenbibel zugrunde gelegt. Nur an ein paar Stellen, wo es unumgänglich notwendig war,
habe ich mir Änderungen erlaubt. Öfter sah ich mich gezwungen, von der schiefen Interpunktion
der üblichen Drucke abzugehen.” This passage may be a fragment of an earlier, unpublished
commentary by Peters, a commentary that was meant to include the Latin text, accompanied by
a translation. – Norbert Peters (1863–1938) taught at the Catholic seminary of Paderborn, Ger­
many; in one of his books, he refers to his reputation as a representative of the “critical school”
within Catholic biblical scholarship; see Norbert Peters: Unsere Bibel. Paderborn 1929 (xvi, 528
pp.), p. vi. ▲

1966. Hilaire Duesberg OSB – Irénée Fransen: Ecclesiastico. Torino. ix, 353 pp. – Published in the series
“La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this com­
mentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate
text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. ▲

2006. Maria Carmela Palmisano: “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17. Ana­
lecta Biblica 163. Rome 468 pp. – On pp. 351–352, the author lists words for “the poor” such as
humilis, pauper, mediocris, egens, together with their Greek and, if available, Hebrew textual
basis.

2011. Conleth Kearns OP: The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue
to Its Origin. Berlin. vi, 333 pp. – This is the text of a 1951 dissertation, then unpublished, and
now edited with new introductory material compiled by Maurice Gilbert. According to Kearns,
the enlarged version of the Greek Ecclesiasticus, represented by MS 248 in the Vatican Library
and by the Latin Ecclesiasticus, dates from ca. 75–60 BCE, and most likely originated in Essene
circles. Kearns thinks of the enlarged book of Sirach (“Sirach II”) as due to a conscious expansion
made in the interest of adding eschatological teachings. – Reviews:
2011. Jean-Sébastien Rey: L’espérance post-mortem dans les différentes versions du Siracide. In: Jean-Sébastien
Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Leiden (ix, 352 pp.), pp. 257–279.
The opposite of what Kearns thought is true: the Greek translator actually de-eschatologised the text.

2015. Markus Witte: Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuchs. Tübingen. x, 325 pp. – Page 5: “Insofern Kearns erstmals
den Versuch unternahm, die Uberschusse, die G-II gegenuber dem älteren und ursprunglicheren Kurztext
(G-I) aufweist, inhaltlich zu klassifizieren und religionsgeschichtlich vor dem Hintergrund des judischen
Schrifttums aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (vor allem im Vergleich zu Dan 12, 1 Hen, Jub, SapSal, PsSal) zu
verorten, ist seine Untersuchung nach wie vor von großer Bedeutung fur das Verständnis des Judentums in
der Zeit von 200 v. Chr. bis um 100 n. Chr. Seine These der essenischen Herkunft von G-II als einer systema­
tischen eschatologischen Revision von G-I ist angesichts des gegenwärtigen Standes der Erforschung des
Qumranschrifttums, die zur Abfassungszeit der Untersuchung Kearns noch in den Anfängen steckte, aller­
dings nicht mehr zu halten.”

2016. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Was verstehen die lateinischen Übersetzer des Buches Jesus Sirach unter
Sühne? In: Thomas Johann Bauer (ed.): Traditio et translatio. Studien zur lateinischen Bibel. Frei­
burg (xx, 219 pp.), pp. 49–73. – The normal words for “atonement” and “to atone” are propitiatio
and propitiare (Sir 17:29 [Vg 28];18:11.20; 34:18–19 [Vg 21–23]). Exceptions are Sir 45:16.23 (Vg
20.28) where the translator uses placēre – to please, a mistake for placare – to appease. The ex­
ceptional translation in chapter 45 may be due to a different translator, as suggested by Thiel­
mann (pp. 58–59).

2016. Bradley C. Gregory: Vice and Virtue in the Moral Vision of the Latin of Sirach. Biblica 97: 41–61.

596
2019. Gualtiero Rota: Straniera, prostituta o donna libertine? Riflessioni di metodo in margine alle tra ­
duzioni Greco e Latina del Siracide. In: Michela Canepari et al. (eds.): Tradurre i Testi Sacri. Padua
(151 pp.), pp. 49–68.

2022. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Christlicher Einfluss auf die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Jesus Si ­
rach. In: Siegfried Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 161–176. –
The most obvious passages that show Christian influence are Sir 43:23 (Vg 43:25) and 47:11–12
(Vg 47:13–14), in the Weber/Gryson text. The author discusses many other passages that Christi­
an readers would no doubt have understood in a Christian sense.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Buch Ecclesiasticus (Jesus Sirach). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 77–79. – Lang lists some
of the words that the Latin version of Sirach contributes to the Vulgate vocabulary, e.g. religios­
itas.

Textual notes
Sir title. In the Latin textual tradition, Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) and Ecclesiasticus were often associated,
and both were also associated with Solomon (see Sir 52:1 – et declinavit Salomon genua in con­
spectus totius ecclesiae); accordingly, it makes sense to derive the title “Ecclesiasticus” from the
older title “Ecclesiastes.” This idea was suggested by Donatien De Bruyne. – Literature:

1929. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Le titre, le prologue et la finale de l’Ecclésiastique. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47: 257–263, at pp. 260–262.

1987. Walter Thiele: Zum Titel des Sirachbuches in der lateinischen Übersetzung. In: Roger
Gryson – Pierre-Maurice Bogaert (ed.): Recherches sur l’histoire de la Bible latine. Louvain-
la-Neuve (153 pp.), pp. 43–49.

2019. Bradley Gregory: Latin [text of Ecclesiasticus]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 243–255, at p. 243: “The Latin title Ecclesiasti­
cus, attested as early as the time of Cyprian (mid-third century CE), is frequently held to
relate to the book’s use in catechesis. However, it is also possible that the title calls atten ­
tion to the book as used uniquely by the church, unlike the book of Proverbs, which is
also canonical in Judaism.” By “use in catechesis,” the author refers to the instruction of
those who applied for baptism.

Sir 1:17.18.26. religiositas. The word, used only in this passage in the Vulgate, is translated as “reli ­
giousness” in the Douay Version. See also Sir 37:12: vir irreligiosus.

Sir 1:31–32. These two verses are in the Clementina and NVg; the Weber/Gryson edition relegates
them to the apparatus.

Sir 2:3. sustine sustentationes Dei (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) may be rendered “halte aus den Auf­
schub Gottes” (Peters) or “ertrage die Prüfungen Gottes” (Kaulen takes this to be a meaning not
attested elsewhere), but the expression more likely is a mistake for sustine tentationes Dei – en­
dure God’s temptations (Thielmann). The Göttingen Synopsis 2024 also struggles with the verse;
it suggests, as a litteral rendering, “stütze die Stützung Gottes,” which, however, does not make
sense; the main text has “harre auf die Unterstützung Gottes” (wait for God’s support), and the
note suggests “halte das Zurückhalten Gottes aus” (endure God’s holding back). – Literature:

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8: 511–561, at p. 538.

1904. Kaulen, p. 37.

597
 1913. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. Münster. (lxxviii, 470 pp.),
p. 22.

2024. Wolfgang Kraus – Heinz-Josef Fabry – Burkard Zapff (eds.): Das Weisheitsbuch Ben Sira/Je­
sus Sirach. Synopse der hebräischen, griechischen, lateinischen und syrischen Texttraditio ­
nen mit deutscher Übersetzung. Göttingen (forthcoming).

Sir 4:3. Read: angustiantis (instead of: angustianti). – Franz Kaulen – Gottfried Hoberg: Einleitung in die
Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Zweiter Teil. Freiburg 1913 (ix, 299 pp.), p. 195.

Sir 4:4. Read: in prudentia (instead of in praesenti). – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Eccle­
siasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 375.

Sir 4:29. et firmamentum in operibus justitiae (sc. dignoscitur) – and steadfastness in the works of jus­
tice (Douay Version); und seine Stütze sind Werke der Gerechtigkeit (Allioli); und deren Bekräfti­
gung an Werken der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen Synopsis 2024); et sa fermeté par les œuvres de
justice (Glaire). At first glance, the sentence seems to mean: someone’s virtue is recognized in
his righteous doings. Nevertheless, Peters seems to suggest something like: but the most relev­
ant thing (firmamentum = Hauptbeweis, Hauptpunkt, Hauptsache) is deeds of righteousness. –
Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 49.

Sir 5:3. quomodo potui – “How strong am I!” – “Wie stark bin ich!” – Translation suggested by Norbert
Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 52.

Sir 6:31. alligatura (Clementina) – a binding. The Weber/Gryson edition has netura, by Thielmann
emended to nectura – a binding: decor enim vitae est in illa, et vincula illius netura salutaris (We­
ber/Gryson) – for in her is the beauty of life, and her bands are a healthful binding (Douay Ver ­
sion); denn Schmuck des Lebens ist an ihr und ihre Fesseln sind ein heilsames Gewebe (Göttin­
gen Synopsis 2024; with alternative renderings of netura salutaris: heilsames Band, hyazintfarbe­
ne Fäden). – Literature:

1875. Rönsch, p. 40. – On alligatura.

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikogra­
phie und Grammatik 1: 68–81, at pp. 68–71.

2023. Michael Hillen: netura. Thesaurus linguae latinae. Volume IX.1, fasc. 14. Berlin (cols. 513–
648), col. 648. The noun netura is a hapax. There is also a brief note in Vol. IX.1, fasc. 3, col.
419: nectura (which would also be a hapax) is a wrong variant reading for netura.

2024. Wolfgang Kraus – Heinz-Josef Fabry – Burkard Zapff (eds.): Das Weisheitsbuch Ben Sira/Je­
sus Sirach. Synopse der hebräischen, griechischen, lateinischen und syrischen Texttraditio ­
nen mit deutscher Übersetzung. Göttingen (forthcoming).

Sir 7:37. gratia dati in conspectu omnibus hominibus (Clementina). (1) The meaning is not entirely
clear: a gift hath grace in the in the sight of all the living (Douay Version); Wohltätigkeit ist allen
Lebenden angenehm (Allioli); durch Gnade gegeben im Angesicht alles Lebenden (Tuscu­
lum-Vulgata); que la reconnaissance d’un bienfait soit à la vue de tout vivant (Glaire). – (2) dati
is genitive of datum (gift). The Weber/Gryson edition has datūs, genitive of datus (gift). datus
(gift) is also used Sir 18:18.

Sir 9:3. ne respicias mulierem multivolam – look not upon a woman that hath a mind for many (Douay
Version): sieh nicht nach einem buhlerischen Weibe (Allioli). The adjective multivolus – longing
for many, viel begehrend – means “promiscuous”; in Catullus: Carmina 68a, 128, it describes Les­
bia, Catullus’ promiscuous lover: praecipue multivola est mulier. According to Rota, the Sirach

598
 translator echoes Catullus’ poem. – Gualtiero Rota: Sir. 9.1–3 LXX/VL: hetairizoménê – multivola e
un plausibile ipotesto catullino. Sileno 36 (2010) 129–194; idem: Catullo in Ben Sira, in: Giuseppe
Gilberto Biondi (ed.): Il Liber di Catullo. Tradizione, Modelli e Fortleben. Cesena 2011 (vi, 211 pp.),
pp. 91–110. ▲

Sir 9:9 (Vg 9:13). non alterceris cum illa in vino – do not flirt with her at the wine party; schäkere nicht
mit ihr beim Wein(trinken). According to Peters, “altercari bezeichnet das neckende, schäkernde
Wortgeplänkel,” a meaning required by the context. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach
oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 83.

Sir 10:19–11:6. Kathrina Lentz: Crainte de Dieu, Sagesse et Loi. Aspects théologiques à partir de Si
10,19–11,6. Atlanta, Ga. 2020. Ix, 351 pp. – Detailed textual analysis of all ancient versions on pp.
13–104.

Sir 11:5. Read in terra (instead of: in throno). – Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite,
verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 289.

Sir 11:14. honestas = wealth, Reichtum. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus.
Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 200.

Sir 11:23. honestare = to make rich, reich machen. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Eccle­
siasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 101.

Sir 12:10. aeruginare – to rust. A rare word. – Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its
Language, Origin and Relationship with the Vetus Latina. Freiburg 2022 (xviii, 317 pp.), p. 49.

Sir 12:17–18. This verse doesn’t make sense. The repetition on 18a of verse 16a (in oculis suis
lacrimatur inimicus – an enemy has tears in his eyes) is only one of several problems. Verses 17
and 18 should be reduced to one verse. NVg has si incurrerint tibi mala, invenies eum illic pri­
orem, / et quasi adiuvans suffodiet plantas tuas – if evil things come upon you, you will find him
to be the first one there / and, as if helping, he will make a hole under your feet. Other suges­
tions are listed in Selmer’s article. – Carl Selmer: A Study of Ecclus. 12:10–19. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 8.3 (1946) 306–314, at p. 311.

Sir 13:9. humiliare Deo, et exspecta manus eius (Clementina) – humble thyself to God, and wait for his
hands (Douay Version). – Deemed a secondary addition, this verse is omitted from the
Weber/Gryson edition.

Sir 13:13. ne improbus sis ne impingaris – do not be impertinent so that you don’t annoy; sei nicht un­
verschämt (unartig), damit du nicht anstoßest. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ec­
clesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 115.

Sir 13:22. Read: pars (instead of: pax): “for what has the rich man in common with the poor?; oder was
hat der Reiche mit dem Armen gemein?” (B. Lang). – Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige
Schrift. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 289; accepted by N. Peters.

Sir 15:21. spatium peccandi (Clementina, Weber/Gryson, NVg) – licence to sin (literally: space to sin).
On the basis of an ancient quotation, Nestle suggests laxamentum peccandi as the original
Vetus-Latina reading. – Eberhard Nestle: Sirach, Book of. In: James Hastings (ed.): A Dictionary of
the Bible. Volume 4. Edinburgh 1902 (xi, 994 pp.), pp. 539–551, at p. 546.

Sir 18:6. aporiabitur (Clementina, NVg) – he will feel his distress (aporia), cf. the Douay Version: “he
shall be at a loss.” The Sixtina and Weber/Gryson have: operabitur – he will act (again); er wird
(wieder) tätig werden.

599
Sir 18:24. memento (…) tempus retributionis in conversatione faciei – be aware of the time of retribu­
tion because of the change of his face. The noun conversatio, derived from convertere (to
change), here means the same as conversio. Elsewhere in the Vulgate, conversatio means “way of
life,” see the glossary s.v. conversatio (Chapter 19.2).

Sir 18:32. assidua est enim commissio illorum – for their concertation is continual (Douay Version); they
(i.e., poor men) will be vying still one with another in wastefulness (Knox). The Weber/Gryson
edition has: ad duas est enim commissio illorum – denn zu Zweierlei führt die Verbindung mit ih­
nen (Göttingen Synpsis 2024). The problem word is commissio; Thielmann suggests “Ver­
bindung, Gesellschaft?,” while Peters suggests “Ausgabe” as a litteral rendering of the two syl­
lables of Greek συμ-βολή; another possibility is to equate commissio with commissum – crime (B.
Lang). – Literature:

1893. Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische
Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, at p. 536.

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p.
156.

2024. Wolfgang Kraus – Heinz-Josef Fabry – Burkard Zapff (eds.): Das Weisheitsbuch Ben Sira/Je­
sus Sirach. Synopse der hebräischen, griechischen, lateinischen und syrischen Texttraditio ­
nen mit deutscher Übersetzung. Göttingen (forthcoming).

Sir 19:4. insuper habere – to condemn. – Rönsch, p. 371.

Sir 20:31. mutus – mute, stumm. Peters suggests an emendation; read: mucus = saliva, Speichel, which
leads to the following translation: “And like mucus (or saliva) in their mouths they hold back
their rebukes; und wie Schleim im Munde halten sie ihre Rügen zurück.” The word mucus is not
used elsewhere in the Vulgate. – Norbert Peters: Ein neues Wort (mucus) der lateinischen Bibel?
Theologie und Glaube 1 (1909) 210.

Sir 21:1. The conditional clause here is constructed without “si with subjunctive,” as often in English
and German (had I known this […]; hätte ich das gewusst […]). The same construction appears in
Prov 26:16 and Jam 5:13. – Kaulen, p. 298.

Sir 21:5. obiurgatio et inuriae annulabunt substantiam, et domus quae nimis locuples est annulabitur
superbia – injuries and wrongs will waste riches, and the house that is very rich shall be brought
to nothing by pride (Douay Version). The verb adnullare, here used twice in the sense of “to des­
troy, to annihilate,” is rare; Graves lists fourth-century CE occurrences and discusses the word,
see Jerome: Epistle 106 (On the Psalms). Translated by Michael Graves. Atlanta, Ga. 2022 (xix, 363
pp.), pp. 253–254.

Sir 21:11. via peccatorum complanata lapidibus – the way of sinners is made plain with stones (Douay
Version); der Weg der Sünder ist mit Steinen gepflastert. The Greek has “is free of stones,” which
makes sense in the countries of the East; only Romans knew plastered streets. Accordingly, the
Latin version can be understood as reflecting the translator’s Roman milieu. (Knox’s free transla­
tion omits the stones: How smoothly paved is the path of sinners!) – Friedrich Stummer: “Via
peccatorum complanata lapidibus” (Eccli 21,11). In: Virgil Fiala – Bonifatius Fischer (eds.): Col­
ligere Fragmenta. Eine Festschrift für Alban Dold. Beuron (xx, 295 pp.), pp. 40–44.

Sir 21:26. fenestra could have the archaic meaning of “door.” – Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische
Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893)
511–561, at p. 537.

600
Sir 22:31. amicum salutare non confundar – never will I be ashamed to greet a friend of mine (Knox).
Two possibilities: (1) “To greet” may actually imply the act of paying a visit; see Bernhard Lang:
1982. Grußverbot oder Besuchsverbot? Eine sozialgeschichtliche Deutung von Lukas 10,4b. Bibli­
sche Zeitschrift 26 (1982) 75–79. – (2) Another suggestion is to consider salutare not to mean “to
greet,” but “to rescue, to defend” (= salvare); thus, Rönsch, p. 380, accepted by Francesco Dal­
pane: Nuovo lessico della Bibbia Volgata. Florence 1911 (xlii, 251 pp.), p. 204.

Sir 23:32. heredem (instead of: heriditatem). – Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite,
verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 289.

Sir 24. Maurice Gilbert SJ: Les additions greques et latines à Siracide 24. In: Jean-Marie Auwers (ed.):
Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Leuven 1999 (xlii, 482, 7 pp.), pp. 195–207.

Sir 24:6a. On the wording of the passage in the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate, see Maurice Gilbert:
L’interpretazione di Sirazide VL–Vg 24,6a. Biblica 96 (2015) 113–118.

Sir 24:23–24. honestas = wealth (v. 23). Verse 24 (ego mater pulchrae dilectionis …) is not in the Greek
but belongs to the Latin additions. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus.
Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 200.

Sir 27:5. sicut in percussura cribri remanebit pulvis, sic aporia hominis in cogitatu illius – as one sifteth
with a sieve, the dust will remain: so will the perplexity of a man in his thoughts (Douay Version);
wenn in der Durchlöcherung eines Siebes Dreck (pulvis, in the Greek: κοπρία) zurückbleiben
wird, so die Ratlosigkeit eines Menschen bei seinem Überlegen (Göttingen Synopsis 2024). The
word aporia no doubt echoes the Greek κοπρία (refuse), in the Latin rendered pulvis; but how to
translate aporia? Allioli’s Schwachheit (explained as Sündhaftigkeit in the notes) and Douay’s
perplexity seem to miss the meaning; meant is: the human mind is like a sieve, what stays in the
mind is the world’s refuse – or perhaps, closer to Greek ἀπορία – the insoluble problems. The
Göttingen Synopsis has Ratlosigkeit, a standard rendering of Greek ἀπορία.

Sir 27:15. The presence of horripilatio (hairiness) and aures (ears) in the same verse can be explained
as an echo of Apuleius: Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass) III, 24: Lucius, when miraculously meta­
morphosing into a donkey, gets long, hairy ears. The Apuleius passage uses the rare word horri­
pilare – to be full of hair. – Literature:

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikogra­
phie und Grammatik 1: 68–81, at pp. 71–73.

2016. Gualtiero Rota: Sir 27,15 VL (Apul. Met. 3,24; Herm. 3,1,5). Paideia 71: 575–594. ▲

Sir 30:24. congrega cor tuum in sanctitate eius. In literal translation, you get something like: gather up
thy heart in his holiness (Douay Version); versammle dein Herz in seiner Heiligkeit (Tuscu­
lum-Vulgata); réunis ton cœur dans la sainteté de Dieu (Glaire) – all of which does not mean
anything. One may consider this possibility: comfort your heart with his (God’s) holiness; tröste
dein Herz mit seiner (Gottes) Heiligkeit. On congregare = to comfort, trösten, see Claude
Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor Kiss –
Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (ed.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguistiques. Tübingen
2005 (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 334.

Sir 31:1. honestas = wealth, Reichtum. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus.
Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p. 200.

Sir 31:13. non dicas sic: Multa sunt super (mensam) (Clementina) – do not say so (or: do not think this):
Many things are on the eating table; ne dis pas ainsi: Il y a bien des choses qui sont sur cette
table (Glaire). Thielmann suggests a different punctuation: non dicas: Sic, multa sunt (…) – don’t

601
 say (or think): O yes, many things (…). In late Latin, sic is one of the words used for saying “yes”;
in the Sirach passage, it may serve as an exclamation. NVg omits the word sic. – Philipp Thiel­
mann: Die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, at p. 545.

Sir 31:23 (Vg 31:28). et testimonium veritatis illius fidele – and the testimony of his truth is reliable.
Peters conjectures testimonium virtutis illius – testimony of his determination (or strictness; here
virtus seems to come close to meaning “virtue”). – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder
Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913 (lxxviii, 469 pp.), p.259.

Sir 33:6. equus admissarius (Weber/Gryson) – equus emissarius (Clementina). The expression means
“stallion, Hengst,” see note on Jeremiah 5:8.

Sir 34:17. timentis Dominum beata est anima eius – the one who fears the Lord – his soul is favoured.
One would expect timens, but what we have here is a case of prolepsis or “left dislocation” from
beata est anima timentis Dominum. – Bernard Bortolussi. Topicalizations, Left Dislocations and
the Left Periphery. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16 (2017) 101–123.

Sir 36:1–19. Maria Carmela Palmisano: La prière de Ben Sira dans les manuscrit hébreux et dans les
versions anciennes. In: Jean-Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.): The Texts and Versions of the
Book of Ben Sira. Leiden 2011 (ix, 352 pp.), pp. 281–296, at pp. 288–290. The Latin adds repeti­
tions and explanatory developments.

Sir 36:2. ut cognoscant quia non est Deus nisi tu, et enarrent magnalia tua (Clementina) – so that they
come to know that there is no God besides you, and tell your wonders. The Weber/Gryson edi ­
tion has et cognoscant (…) ut enarrent magnalia tua. The Clementina wording may show the in­
fluence of v. 5 of this chapter (ut cognoscant …).

Sir 36:19. tu es Deus conspector saeculorum – you are God, the beholder of all ages (Douay Version); le
Dieu qui voit dans les siècles (Glaire); Gott, der die Ewigkeiten durchschaut (Allioli); der die Zeit­
alter überblickt (Tusculum-Vulgata); qui voit tous les siècles devant lui (Blaise: Dictionnaire, p.
207). One might consider something like “the beholder of the worlds,” a rendering that would
match the underlying Greek ὁ θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων – God of the ages/God of the world; see the
glossary s.v. saeculum (Chapter 19.2).

Sir 37:4. sodalis amico coniucundatur in oblectationibus – a companion takes pleasure in the joy of his
friend; un compagnon prend plaisir à la joie de son ami. conjucundari = to join in rejoicing, sich
mitfreuen – the word is used only in this passage, not elsewhere; oblectatio = pleasure, Freude. –
Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor
Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguistiques.
Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 329.

Sir 38:14. propter conversationem illorum – because of their way of life (?). Peters suspects and error
and suggests to change to conservationem – because of their preservation. The NVg has cur­
ationem – healing. – Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Münster 1913
(lxxviii, 469 pp.), pp. 313–314.

Sir 38:20. in abductione permanet tristitia (Clementina, NVg) – in withdrawing aside sorrow remaineth
(Douay Version). Instead of abductione, one would expect solitudine: in solitude, sorrow stays.

Sir 38:25. qua sapientia replebitur. The Tusculum-Vulgata takes these words to be the beginning of the
next verse, so that we get: “With what (kind of) wisdom will be filled the one who holds the
plough (…)?; durch welche Weisheit wird erfüllt werden, der den Pflug hält (…)?” But if you
change qua into quia, as suggested by Valentin Loch (in the preface to his 1849 edition of the

602
 Vulgate, p. viii), you will get the following: “Who engages in little work will receive wisdom, be ­
cause (quia) he will be filled with wisdom; wer wenig tätig ist, wird Weisheit empfangen, weil
(quia) er von Weisheit erfüllt wird.”

Sir 39:29 [24]. et viae illius viis [read: piis] eorum directae sunt – and his ways were made straight for
their ways [read: their pious ones]. Suggested by Joseph Ziegler, Biblische Zeitschrift NF 5 (1961)
117 on the basis of the Greek (ὅσιοι). The NVg has viae illius sanctis directae sunt.

Sir 40:22. gratiam et speciem desiderabit oculus tuus et super hoc viride sationis – your eye desires
kindness and beauty, but more than these, the green sown fields (literally: the green of sown
fields), viride is the neuter form of the adjective viridis – green. The construction is discussed in
Lourdes García Ureña et al.: The Language of Colour in the Bible. Berlin 2022 (xv, 238 pp.), p. 143.

Sir 40:30–31. vir respiciens in mensam alienam, non est vita eius in cogitatione victus; alit enim ani­
mam suam cibis alienis. Vir autem disciplinatus et eruditus custodiet se (Vg, NVg) – ein Mann, der
auf einen fremden Tisch schaut: sein Leben besteht nicht in der (eigenen) Planung des Lebens­
unterhaltes, denn er nährt seine Seele mit fremden Speisen. Ein belehrter und gebildeter Mann
aber wird sich davor hüten (Göttingen Synopsis 2024). A possible translation of v. 30: the man
who is a burden to someone else’s table, he does not spend his life in being concerned about
(his) livelihood. The verb respicere (to observe) also means “to be a burden to,” as listed in Karl
Ernst Georges: Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. 11. Auflage. Bd. 2. Hannover
1962 (iv pp., 3376 cols.), col. 2350. Also note the casus pendens or prolepsis construction of v. 30
(see above, Chapter 8.7, s.v. prolepsis).

Sir 40:32. Read: impudentis (instead of: imprudentis). The meaning of the first hemistich seems to be:
in the mouth of the shameless, begging (inopia) is sweet. – Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige
Schrift. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 289.

Sir 41. John Francis Elwolde: A Text-critical Study of the Nova Vulgata of Sirach 41. Tamid: Revista
Catalana Annual d’Estudis Hebraics 12 (2016–2017) 7–63; 13 (2018) 35–93. The NVg new text of
Sirach is closer to the text of the Septuagint than the traditional Vulgate text that was used as
the basis for revision. The author is not quite satisfied with the NVg text of Sirach and suggests
that it should be revised.

Sir 43:23 (Vg 43:25). et plantavit illum Dominus Iesus (Weber/Gryson) – and the Lord Jesus planted it.
This is an explicitly Christian version of this passage. The Clementina has a different wording: et
plantavit in illa Dominus insulas – and the Lord planted in it islands. – Bonifatia Gesche OSB:
Christlicher Einfluss auf die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Jesus Sirach. In: Siegfried
Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Bibel und Patristik. Paderborn 2022 (xiii, 460 pp.), pp. 161–176, at pp. 167–
168.

Sir 43:24. Read: hilarem (instead of: humilem). – Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite,
verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg 1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 289.

Sir 45:16 (Vg 45:20). placēre populo suo – to please his people (Weber/Gryson). This is a mistake for
placare – to atone (for his people); the Clementina actually has placare. – Bonifatia Gesche OSB:
Was verstehen die lateinischen Übersetzer des Buches Jesus Sirach unter Sühne? In: Thomas Jo­
hann Bauer (ed.): Traditio et translatio. Studien zur lateinischen Bibel. Freiburg 2016 (xx, 219 pp.),
pp. 49–73, at pp. 55–57.

Sir 45:22 (Vg 45:27). terra gentes – the land, the peoples (Weber/Gryson, Clementina). It must be
terra gentis – the land of the people. – Literature:

603
 1884. Franz Kaulen: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Freiburg (vi, 599
pp.), p. 289.

1913. Norbert Peters: Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. Münster
(lxxviii, 470 pp.), p. 391.

Sir 45:23 (Vg 45:29). placuit de Israhel (Weber/Gryson) – he pleased relating to Israel. This is a mistake
for placuit Deo pro Israel (Clementina) – he pleased God on behalf of Israel. This, however, is also
a mistake, because the proper verb would be placavit – he appeased (see above, on Sir 45:20).
Peters (p. 392, see on Sir 45:22) considers Deo as an addition necessitated by placuit (corrupted
from placavit).

Sir 47:11 (Vg 47:13). Christus purgavit peccata ipsius (Weber/Gryson) – Christ purged him of his sins.
Here the translator christianised the text. The Clementina reads differently: Dominus purgavit
peccata ipsius – the Lord purged him of his sins.

Sir 48:25. Esaias propheta magnus et fidelis in conspectu dei – the prophet Isaiah, great and faithful in
the sight of God, der Prophet Jesaja, groß und treu im Angesicht Gottes. “The Greek text says
that Isaiah was faithful ἐν ὁράσει αὐτοῦ ‘in his vision,’ but the Latin introduces the idea of divine
approval by taking the pronoun as referring to God: in conspectu Dei ‘in the sight of God.’” –
Bradley Gregory, in: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden 2019
(xxxiii, 542 pp.), p. 250.

Sir 49:11. nam commemoratus est inimicorum in imbre, benefacere illis qui ostenderunt rectas vias (Vg,
NVg) – for he made mention of the enemies under the figure of rain, and of doing good to
them that shewed right ways (Douay Version). This sentence is “parfaitement inintelligible” (Lag­
range, p. 111). On the basis of the then newly discovered Hebrew text of Sirach, Norbert Peters
suggests that the Latin should be atque etiam commemoratus est Iob, qui amplexus est vias rec­
tas – and he (Ezekiel) also referred to Job who embraced the right ways. – Marie-Joseph La­
grange OP: La révision de la Vulgate. Revue biblique nouvelle série 5.1 (1908) 102–113, at pp.
110–111.

Sir 50:1. Simon Oniae filius sacerdos magnus qui in vita sua suffulsit donum et in diebus suis corrobora ­
vit [templum] – Simon, son of Onias, the high priest who in his life propped up the domus
(temple) and in his days fortified (it). Th text is that of Weber/Gryson, the word templum is ad­
ded in the Clementina, no doubt to complete the parallelism. German translation (Göttingen
Synopsis 2024): Simeon, der Sohn des Onias, der Hohepriester, der in seinem Leben das Haus
aufrechterhielt und (es) in seinen Tagen verstärkte.

Sir 50:5. qui adeptus est gloriam in conversatione gentis. At a first reading, the words do not make
sense. Various options: (1) one could tease sense out of the words: he obtained glory in his con­
versation with the people (Douay Version), i.e., he obtained honour through his dealings with
the people; il a acquis de la gloire en vivant au milieu de la nation (Glaire); er hat Ruhm erlangt
durch den Lebenswandel des Volkes (Tusculum-Vulgata); der Herrlichkeit beim Wandel unter
dem Volk erlangte (Göttingen synopsis). – (2) one may assimilate the sense to the underlying
Greek: See in what state he comes out to meet the people (Knox); er ward geehrt bei seinem Er­
scheinen unter dem Volke (Allioli). The NVg follows the Greek with a new Latin translation.

Sir 50:29. doctrinam sapientiae et disciplinae scripsit [Weber/Gryson: scripsi] in codice isto Iesus filius
Sirach (Clementina) – [I,] Jesus, son of Sirach, wrote into this codex the teaching of wisdom and
instruction (B. Lang); diesen Unterricht zur Weisheit und Zucht hat in diesem Buch aufgezeichnet
Jesus, der Sohn Sirachs (Allioli; similarly Tusculum-Vulgata); Jésus, fils de Sirach, a écrit la doc­
trine de la sagesse et de science dans ce livre (Glaire). – (1) Note the difference between classic­

604
 al in libro scribere and Neolatin aliquid in librum scribere (to write something into a book); see
Johann Philipp Krebs – Joseph Hermann Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Sieben­
te Auflage. Zweiter Band. Basel 1907 (776 pp.), p. 547. – (2) “Codex (…) ist bekannt, aber immer­
hin ist es fur die Geschichte des antiken Bucherwesens nicht ohne Interesse, zu sehen, wie hier
der Ubersetzer sein Produkt als codex bezeichnet”; Philipp Thielmann: Die lateinische Überset­
zung des Buches Sirach. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 511–561, p.
536 – though Thielmann should have written “der Autor” (the author rather than “der Überset­
zer” (the translator).

Isaiah (Isaias)

Text
1969. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 13: Liber Isaiae. Ex in­
terpretatione Sancti Hieronymi. Rome. lxiv, 295 pp. – This volume is part of the Benedictine Vul­
gate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1097–1165. – Compared to earlier editions of the
Stuttgart Vulgate, this edition has a revised text-critical apparatus of the book of Isaiah.

Translation
1900. Jean Langer (translator): Der Prophet Isaias. In wortgetreuer Übersetzung nach der Vulgata. Re­
mich. v, 206 pp.

Secondary literature
1957. Angelo Penna: La Volgata e il manoscritto IQ Isa. Biblica 38: 381–395.

1958. Angelo Penna: Isaia. Torino, x, 632 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e
traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin
text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1964. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Divergent readings in Jerome’s Isaiah. Textus 4: 176–210.

1981. Arie van der Kooij: Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Fribourg (xi, 374 pp.), pp. 299–322. –
“Vulg Jes stellt in der Tat eine ziemlich wörtliche Ubersetzung dar. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass
sie nicht auch Fälle enthielte, aus denen die Vorliebe der Hieronymus fur die Wiedergabe einer
bestimmten Deutung eines Wortes oder eines Satzes (statt einer wortwörtlichen Ubersetzung)
hervorgeht” (p. 300). “Obwohl Hieronymus in den meisten Fällen, in denen LXX Jes vom hebräi­
schen Text dieses Buches abweicht, dem hebräischen Text den Vorzug gibt, liegen auch Wieder ­
gaben in Vulg Jes vor, die er LXX Jes entnommen hat und die nicht mit dem hebräischen Text
übereinstimmen“ (p. 301). The author discusses many passages, often in conversation with Ke­
dar-Kopfstein’s 1964 article.

1991. Roger Gryson: Saint Jérôme traducteur d’Isaïe. Le Muséon 104: 57–72.

605
2003. Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des Hiero­
nymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezepti­
on aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster (x, 620 pp.), pp. 21–34. – Becker
comments on several passages in which iustus is a messianic title that means “the Just One”: Isa
1:26; 41:2.10; 45:8; 51:5.7; 62:1.2.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2020. Anni Maria Laato: Isaiah in Latin. In: Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah.
Oxford (xviii, 736 pp.), pp. 489–503.

Textual notes
Isa 1:1–9. Ammendola Serena: Isaia 1,1–9 nella Vetus Latina et nella Vulgata. In: Riccardo Maisano et
al. (eds.): Seminario interdisciplinare sul libro del profeta Isaia. Naples 2007 (344 pp.), pp. 59–75.

Isa 1:9. Dominus exercituum – the Lord of hosts (Douay Version). The translation reflects that of Aquila
(κύριος στρατίων). – Arie van der Kooij: Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Fribourg 1981
(xi, 374 pp.), p. 301.

Isa 1:26. civitas iusti – the city of the Just One, i.e., the Messiah. Here Jerome introduces a messianism
where the Hebrew text would reqire civitas iusta or (as in NVg) Civitas iustitiae – the Righteous
City. – Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des
Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Re­
zeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster 2003 (x, 620 pp.), pp. 21–34, at
p. 21.

Isa 2:22. In his commentary on Isaiah 2:22, Jerome defends his translation by correcting a Jewish anti-
christian reading. He also tells the reader how to interpret this verse as a messianic reference.
The relevant passage of Jerome’s commentary can be found, in Latin and English, in Matthew A.
Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue IOVS 2022:
99–119, at p. 105 (online journal).

Isa 3:3. (auferet a Jerusalem) prudentem eloquii mystici – (he will take away from Jerusalem) the skilful
in eloquent speech (Douay Version), der geschickt ist in geheimnisvoller Rede (Allioli), den Ken­
ner der mystischen Rede (Tusculum-Vulgata). Jerome follows Symmachus, while modern transla­
tions of the Hebrew suggest “expert enchanter” (New Revised Standard Version, Jewish Publica ­
tion Society; see also NVg’s prudentem incantatorem), i.e., magician. – Friedrich Stegmuller: Pru­
dentem eloquii mystici. Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von Is 3, 3, in: Leo Scheffczyk et al. (eds.):
Wahrheit und Verkündigung. Band I. Paderborn 1967 (xxxix, 924 pp.), pp. 599–618.

Isa 3:23. theristra, plural of theristrum. Jerome transcribes the Greek θέριστρον which the dictionary
glosses as “light shawl or stole” (Gary A. Chamberlain: The Greek of the Septuagint. A Supple­
mental Lexicon. Peabody, Mass. 2011 [xlii, 256 pp.], p. 82). The Douay Version has “fine veils.”
Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah describes it as a cloak (pallium) worn by women in the sum­
mer to protect them against sun and heat, and indicates that it is worn in his day by women in
Arabia and Mesopotamia, but apparently not in Palestine (PL 24 [1865]: 72; CCSL 73: 57). Jerome
is followed by the Tusculum-Vulgata with “Sommerkleider,” though this word, in German, sug­
gests a light dress with much exposure of skin to the sun. What Jerome has in mind is a loose
garment that covers the body from head to feet – something like a modern muslima’s tchador.

Isa 5:10. triginta modii sementis facient modios tres – thirty bushels of seed shall yield three bushels
(Douay Version). Stummer: “Wenn es Is 15,10b heißt: triginta modii sementis faciunt modios tres,

606
 so ersparte er [the translator] damit seinen Lesern die ihnen unverständlichen Maßbezeichnun­
gen (…), gab aber das zwischen beiden bestehende Zahlenverhältnis (10:1) gut wieder. Die zeit­
geschichtliche Färbung ging zwar verloren, aber die Plastik des Ausdrucks blieb erhalten – und
das war bei einem Text, der das Versagen menschlicher Arbeit durch Gottes Strafverfugung schil­
dern will, die Hauptsache.” Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche
Theologie in der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–
269, at p. 254.

Isa 6:2. Seraphim stabant super illud – Seraphim stood above him. In his commentary on Isaiah,
Jerome explains why he departs from the Septuagint which has the Seraphim stand around the
divine throne. – Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dia­
logue. Special issue IOVS 2022: 99–119, at pp. 117–118 (online journal).

Isa 6:5. Michael Fieger – S.M. Bolli: Unreine Werke oder unreiner Mensch? (Jes 6,5bc). In: Andreas Beri­
ger – Michael Fieger et al. (eds.): Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins Chur in
Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 35–48.

Isa 6:9–10. excaeca cor populi huius – make blind the heart of this people. On the basis of the Hebrew
text, one would expect “make fat the heart of this people.” The choice of the verb excaecare is
possibly due to its presence in John 12:40. – Literature:

1984. Craig A. Evans: Jerome’s Translation of Isaiah 6:9–10. Vigiliae Christianae 38: 202–204.

2023. Hans Förster: Das Volk mit verhärtetem Herzen (Jes 6,9f.). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 112–113.

Isa 7:1–25. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen 2022
(256 pp.), pp. 102–111. “Gutes klassizistisches Latein hat Hieronymus hier nicht angestrebt” (p.
111).

Isa 7:14. virgo – virgin. It is only here and in Gen 24:43 that virgo translates Hebrew almah. Jerome’s
commentary on Isaiah has an extensive discussion of the word virgo (PL 24: 109–112) – and the
debate continues. While the Tusculum-Vulgata, departing from tradition, renders the word as
“junge Frau,” Keller (2023) joins Kamesar (1990) in defending “Jungfrau” (virgin), the traditional
translation.

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p.
100.

1947. Cuthbert Lattey: The Term “almah” in Is. 7:14. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9: 89–95, at p. 95.

1990. Adam Kamesar: The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to
the Fifth Century. Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 41: 51–75. – Pages 62–75 deal with
Jerome’s understanding of Isa 7:14. Jerome “brings a series of philological arguments in
defense of the Christian interpretation of Isa. 7: 14, all of which are based on the Hebrew
rather than the Greek text. These arguments are presented in their fullest form in three
passages: Adversus Jovinianum, 1. 32; Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim, 24: 43; Com­
mentarii in Isaiam, 3 (7: 14)” (p. 62). Jerome’s argument is essentially etymological: he
takes almah to mean abscondita, i.e., the hidden, cloistered woman. Even though the
word almah itself does not mean “virgin,” the concept implies virginity (Quaestiones he­
braicae in Genesim, on Gen 24:43).

2013. Christophe Rico: La mère de l’Enfant-Roi. Isaïe 7,14. “Almâ” et “Parthenos” dans l’univers
biblique. Paris. 190 pp.

607
 2018. Sissel Undheim: Borderline virginities: sacred and secular virgins in late antiquity. London.
xi, 224 pp.

2019. Michael Fieger: Vulgate in Use: A Lexical Approach. Why Talk about the Virgin in Isaiah
7:14? Vulgata in Dialogue 3: 29–36 (online journal).

2020. Florian Lippke: Exkurs: clm/clmh in sprachhistorischer Dimension. Vulgata in Dialogue 4: 1–

4. – A note on Fieger’s 2019 paper.

2020. Magdalena Jóźwiak: Hieronim ze Strydonu jako vir trilinguis na przykładzie komentarza do
Iz 7,10-16. Vox Patrum 76: 49–66 (Polish, English abstract).

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at pp. 112–113 (online journal).

2023. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttin­
gen 2022 (256 pp.), p. 107, note 21. Three arguments in defense of virgo = virgin: (1)
Jerome’s paraphrase abscondita (hidden) thinks of a girl that remains hidden from men;
(2) the ancient debate is not about the Virgin Mary’s virginity, but about the prophetic
character of Isa 7:14; (3) Jerome’s translation echoes a then well-established patristic dis­
course on virginity.

2023. Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentscheidungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründung. In:
Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der
lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 109–136, at pp. 120–123.

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Jungfrau, junge Frau, junges Mädchen (virgo)
(Jes 7,14). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 46–49.

Isa 7:15. butyrum et mel comedet ut sciat reprobare malum et eligere bonum. All translations give
something like “he shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to
choose the good” (Douay Version); “on butter and honey shall be his thriving, till he is of the
age to know good from harm” (Ronald Knox). According to Nicholas Wiseman, this is wrong;
from Jerome’s commentary on the passage, it is clear that ut = quamvis (although), so that
Jerome’s version says: “The Messiah should eat the common food of infants [butter and honey],
although he, in truth, possessed discretion and knowledge”; see Essays on Various Subjects. By
His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman. London 1853, vol. 1 (xv, 644 pp.), p. 99. According to Wiseman,
this understanding clearly emerges from Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah. The interpretation
which Wiseman gives is indeed Jerome’s (see his commentary, PL 24: 112), but it seems that
Jerome’s interpretation is not supported by the wording of Jerome’s translation of Isaiah 7:15.

Isa 8:2. filium Barachiae (Clementina, Weber Gryson) – the son of Barachia. Jerome most likely wrote
Iebarachiae, as in his Commentary on Isaiah (CCSL 73: 110). Roger Gryson: Barachie et la
prophétisse. Revue biblique 96.3 (1989) 321–337, at pp. 323–328.

Isa 8:3. et accessi ad prophetissam (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – and I went to the prophetess. Gryson
argues that Jerome must have had prophetin, the accusative form of prophetis; but the form did
not survive when later scribes copied the text. – Roger Gryson: Barachie et la prophétisse. Revue
biblique 96.3 (1989) 321–337, at pp. 328–334.

Isa 8:9. audite, universae procul terrae (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – and give ear, all ye lands far off
(Douay Version). According to Gryson, Jerome most likely followed Aquila in writing audite, uni­
versa procul terrae – listen, you all of the lands afar; but this wording did not survive when the

608
 sentence was copied by the scribes. – Roger Gryson: Barachie et la prophétisse. Revue biblique
96.3 (1989) 321–337, at p. 335.

Isa 8:13. Dominum exercituum ipsum sacrificate (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – the Lord of Hosts, him
you shall sacrifice. The first two words are in casus pendens; in standard Latin, this should be in
the nominative case: Dominus exercituum. – Roger Gryson: Barachie et la prophétisse. Revue
biblique 96.3 (1989) 321–337, at p. 335.

Isa 9:2. in regione umbrae mortis (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – in the land of the shadow of death.
According to Gryson, Jerome most likely wrote umbramortis (one word, reflecting the underlying
Hebrew tsalmawet), as he did in Jer 13:16 (Benedictine edition); this would have to be rendered
as “in the land Deathshadow.” – Roger Gryson: Barachie et la prophétisse. Revue biblique 96.3
(1989) 321–337, at pp. 335–336.

Isa 10:14. et non fuit qui (…) aperiet os et ganniret – and there was none (…) to open the beak and to
chirp; es gab keinen, der den Schnabel öffnete und zwitscherte. The onomatopoeic word gan­
nire denotes the speech of animals incomprehensible to man – the yapping of dogs, the chirp ­
ing of birds; cf. the chattering seagull in Apuleius: The Golden Ass (V, 28), which speaks “chatter­
ingly” to Venus – haec ille verbosa et satis curiosa avis in auribus Veneris (…) ganniebat. – Martin
Johannessohn: Zur Entstehung der Ausdrucksweise der lateinischen Vulgata aus den jüngeren
griechischen alttestamentlichen Übersetzungen. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissen­
schaft 44 (1952/53) 90–102, at p. 100.

Isa 11:1. et egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radiceeius ascendet (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) –
and there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his
root. This is a translation based on the Septuagint, and not on the Hebrew text. Jerome in his
commentary on Isaiah (PL 24: 144) understood the verse to be a messianic prophecy, with virga
indicating the virgo Mary, and the flos indicating Christ. According to Jerome, the original
Hebrew text must have spoken not of netser (flower) but of nazir, i.e., nazaraeus = holy, a name
of Jesus in Matt 2:23 (Moran). – Literature:

2005. Michael L. Moran: Nazirites and Nazarenes: The Meaning of Nazaraeus in Saint Jerome.
Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9.2 (2006) 320–366, esp. pp. 355–359.

2007. Alison Salvesen: Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations in Greek and Latin. In: Markus
Bockmuehl – J.N. Carlton Paget (eds.): Redemption and Resistance. The Messianic Hopes of
Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London (xxvii, 381 pp.), pp. 245–261, at p. 260.

Isa 11:2–3. spiritus scientiae et pietatis et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini (Weber/Gryson, Clemen­
tina) – the spirit of knowledge and piety, and will fill him with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. –
This passage follows the Septuagint; the original Jeromian reading did not include pietatis, but
must have read timoris Domini instead, as it is mentioned twice in the Hebrew text. The Nova
Vulgata omits the reference to pietas. – Literature:

1990. Roger Gryson: Les six dons du Saint-Esprit. La version hiéronymienne d’Isaïe 11,2.3. Biblica
71: 395–400.

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Von der Gottesfurcht zur Frömmigkeit (Jes
11,2). In. Schmid/Fieger, pp. 54–55.

Isa 11:10. et erit sepulchrum eius gloriosum – and his sepulchre will be glorious; und sein Grab wird
herrlich sein. The Hebrew text says: “his place of rest (i.e., his residence) will be glory; sein Ruhe­
sitz (= seine Residenz) wird Herrlichkeit sein.” Jerome makes the sentence a prophecy about Je­
sus. In his commentary, Jerome explains that he chose sepulchrum (grave) ut manifestum legenti

609
 sensum faceremus – to reveal the meaning to the reader (PL 24: 149). – Albert Condamin SJ: Les
caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912)
105–138, at p. 133–134.

Isa 12:3. haurieteis aquas de fontibus salvatoris – you shall draw waters out of the Saviour’s fountains;
ihr werdet Wasser schöpfen aus den Quellen des Erlösers. The Hebrew text merely refers to the
“fountains of salvation.” Jerome changes the sentence so as to have a messianic prophecy. – Al­
bert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de sci­
ence religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 133.

Isa 13:22. et sirenes in delubris voluptatis – and Sirens in the temples of lust. This is the only passage in
the Vulgate Bible where the Sirens are mentioned. The NVg omits the sirenes.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, at p. 252.

2016. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Giganten und Sirenen in der Vulgata. Griechischer Mythos in der
lateinischen Bibel des Hieronymus. Museum Helveticum 73: 78–96.

For more bibliography, see the glossary, s.v. sirenes (Chapter 19.2).

Isa 14:12. quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? – how art thou fallen from heaven, O
Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? (Douay Version, here clearly indebted to the King James
Version). In his commentary, Jerome explains: “For greater ease of understanding we translated
this phrase as follows: ‘How have you fallen from heaven, Lucifer, who arose in the morning.’ But
if we were to produce a literal translation from the Hebrew, it would read, ‘How you have fallen
from heaven, howling son of the dawn.’ Lucifer is also signified with other words. And he who
was formerly so glorious that he was compared to a bearer of lightning is now told that he must
weep and mourn.” Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah V, 14 (CCSL 73: 168–169). The word lucifer be­
longs to the vocabulary of classical Latin where is means “bringing light” and, personified, refers
to the planet Venus. The Vulgate version of the line almost verbatim reproduces the Vetus Lat­
ina version: quomodo cecidit de caelo lucifer which is a translation of the Septuagint where we
have heôsphóros.

Isa 14:18–21. Roger Gryson: Saint Jérôme traducteur d’Isaïe: réflexions sur le texte d’Isaïe 14,18–21
dans la Vulgate et dans In Esaiam. Le Muséon 104 (1991) 57–72. Acording to Gryson, Jerome’s
competence in Hebrew was limited.

Isa 14:31. et non est qui effugiet agmen eius (Clementina) – and there is none who shall escape his
troop. While Jerome’s translation is presumably wrong, it is on the very basis of his translation
that the original Hebrew text can be restored and translated: “none is fleeing among his
summoned troops.” Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, A Note on Isaiah xiv, 31. Textus 2 (1962) 143–
145.

Isa 15:5. (1) cor meum ad Moab clamabit (…) clamorem contritionis levabunt – my heart shall cry to
Moab (…) they shall lift up a cry of destruction (Doay Version). In his Isaiah commentary, Jerome
explains that “cor meum (…) clamabit should be understood as having a sorrowful tone while the
rendition of shever as clamorem contritionis represents the ‘cry of shared grief.’ The commentary
explains why Jerome calls attention to sympathy and empathy: either because even enemies are
God’s creatures or because the disasters even of enemies can evoke sympathy. The suffering of
those who deserve still arouses a shared sense of pain,’ Kraus, p. 106. – (2) per ascensum enim
Luith flens ascendet (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – he will go up weeping by the ascent of Luith.
While this translation seems to be straightforward, Kaulen (p. 224, echoing Allioli’s translation)
has “man steigt weinend auf die Höhe von Luith.” The explanation would be that the third per­

610
 son singular stands for an impersonal subject. But this view has been contested with the argu­
ment, that the change between a singular and a plural verb in the same sentence is not that un­
usual (in this very verse: flens ascendet […] clamorem contritionis levabunt); see Ussani, pp. 556–
557. The Douay Version has “they shall go up,” and NVG changes ascendet to present tense
plural ascendunt. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 224 (no. 108).

1911. Vincenzo Ussani: Un preteso uso della Vulgata. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 39
(1911) 550–557, at pp. 556–557.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at p. 106 (online journal).

Isa 16:1. emitte agnum dominatorem terrae de petra deserti ad montem filiae Sion – send forth the
lamb, the ruler of the earth, from the rock of the desert to the mountain of the daughter of Zion ;
sende das Lamm, den Herrscher der Erde, vom Felsen der Wüste zum Berg der Tochter Zion. The
Hebrew wording is unclear; it is about the sending of tribute of lambs to the sovereign. Jerome
makes it into a messianic prophecy. Petra deserti (rock of the desert) is according to Jerome a
designation for Ruth, who figures in the family tree of Jesus (Matt 1:5; cf. PL 24: 171, and further
Jerome: Letter 53, PL 22: 546). – Literature:

1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherch­
es de science religieuse 3: 105–138, at pp. 134–135.

1986. Dominique Barthélemy OP: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 2. Fribourg (xviii,
71, 1013 pp), pp. 118–120.

Isa 22:18. quasi pilam mittet te in terram latam et spatiosam – he will toss thee like a ball into a large
and spatious country. The passage is reminiscent of Plautus: enim vero di nos quasi pilas hom­
ines habent – truly the gods use us men as footballs (playthings) (Captivi 22). Considering the
fact that pila (ball) is not often used by Jerome, the Isaiah passage may echo the Plautus pas­
sage. Calabretta, who points out the parallel, is ambivalent about the influence. – Marianna Cal­
abretta: Echi del verso 22 dei Captivi di Plauto in Girolamo. Maia 64.1 (2012) 57–63.

Isa 24–27. Arie van der Kooij: The Cities of Isaiah 24–27 according to the Vulgate, Targum and Septu­
agint. In: Hendrik Jan Bosman et al. (eds.): Studies in Isaiah 24–27. Leiden 2000 (xii, 277 pp.), pp.
183–198.

Isa 24:5. et terra infecta est (Clementina, NVg; Douay Version: the earth is infected) – et terra interfecta
est (Weber/Gryson). For the difference, see textual note on Ps 106:38 (Vg 105:38).

Isa 26:3. vetus error abiit: servabis pacem; pacem, quia in te speravimus – the ancient error has depar­
ted: you shall preserve peace; peace because we have hoped in You. The first three words of the
Latin are far removed from the Hebrew. Jerome presents a free rendering. The “ancient error” is
that of idolatry. – C.T.R. Hayward: Jerome and the ‘Inclination’ (yetser): The Evidence of the Vul­
gate. In: James Aitken et al. (eds.): The Evil Inclination in Early Judaism and Christianity. Cam­
bridge 2021 (ix, 371 pp.), pp. 232–246, esp. pp. 242–246.

Isa 29:11. Matthew R. Crawford: Scripture as “One Book.” Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria on
Isaiah 29:11. Journal of Theological Studies ns 64 (2013) 137–153.

Isa 29:24. Paolo Serra Zanetti: Et mussitatores discent legem (Is. 29,24 Vulg.). In: Mnemosynum. Studi
in Onore di Alfredo Ghiselli. Bologna (xxxi, 562 pp.), pp. 515–519; also in: idem: Imitatores di Gesù
Cristo. Scritti classici e cristiani. Bologna 2005 (667 pp.), pp. 459–463.

611
Isa 34:4. et complicabunter sicut liber caeli – and the heavens will be rolled up like a book. – Wolfgang
Hübner: Das Auf- und Zusammenrollen des Himmelsbuches als volumen. Wiener Studien. Zeit­
schrift für klassische Philologie 136 (2023) 209–222; abstract: In antiquity the default state of a
volumen was seen as unrolled or unfurled (sc. open), books (volumina) being rolled up for stor­
age and unrolled for reading. But Jerome employs the verb replicare and Rufinus revolvere for
the act of closing a scroll. Neither is thus in conformity with the established usage of these verbs
(sc. for opening a volume). These two marked variant expressions regard the default state as
rolled-up, to be unrolled for reading and subsequently rolled up for storage. Each author com­
pares the eschatological prophecy of Isaiah (34,4), which threatens that God will roll (up) the
heaven like a volumen, to a second biblical passage: Jerome to the creation of the universe (Gen
1:1), and Rufinus to the book of Revelation (6:14). In the context of the opening of the “book
with seven seals,” Rufinus quotes Isaiah’s prophecy about rolling up the heavens and promises
another book, the “book of life” that will be opened up at the Last Judgement.

Isa 34:11. perpendiculum – plumbline [Lot], or “plummet,” as the Douay Version has it. Günther Bind­
ing: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksich­
tigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), p. 18.

Isa 34:14. onocentauri – onocentaurs, donkey centaurs, Eselcentauren; Douay Version: monsters. The
word, unknown to Greek mythology, clearly echoes hippocentauri, mythical beings that combine
a human and a horse body (mentioned in Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes I, 37). – Friedrich
Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–269, at p. 252; Karsten C. Ronnenberg: My­
thos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer Erzählungen in der Spätantike.
Stuttgart 2015 (386 pp.), pp. 94–96.

Isa 35:4. dicite pusillanimis: conformamini – say to the fainthearted: take courage! (Douay Version,
Knox). The German Allioli version has “seid getrost,” which is somewhat weak; see the Tusculum
Vulgata’s “Seid stark” (be strong), and Kaulen (p. 205): “sich ermannen.” – Note that the 1965
printing of the Colunga/Turrado edition of the Vulgate Bible (16.2) has a printing error: dicit (in­
stead of the correct dicite).

Isa 40:2. conpleta est malitia eius – completed is her (Israel’s) sin. The reading malitia (Clementina,
Weber/Gryson) must be changed to militia, as required by the underlying Hebrew text: conpleta
est militia eius – completed is her term of service; sein Kriegsdienst ist beendet. – Friedrich Kau­
len: Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments. 2nd, improved edition. Freiburg
1884 (vi, 599 pp.), p. 131. The NVg has militia.

Isa 40:20. forte lignum et imputribile elegit – he elected a strong and non-rotting wood. To avoid repe­
tition, Jerome did not write lignum forte, lignum imputribile. – Friedrich Stummer: Hamesukan
terumah (Jes 40,20) in der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 53 (1935)
283–285.

Isa 41:2. quis suscitavit ab oriente Iustum – who has raised up the Just One from the east? Jerome uses
iustus as a messianic title, and the Clementina prints it with a capital letter. The same title also
appears in Isa 41:10; 45:8; 51:5.7; 62:1.2. Modern editions are inconsistent in their use of a capital
letter for Iustus; the Colunga/Turrado edition has the spelling Iustus only in Isa 41:2.10; the Bible
of the Paris Professors (see Chapter 16.2) has it in Isa 41:2.10 and 45:8. – Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’
statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow –
Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testa­
ment und der Umwelt Israels. Münster 2003 (x, 620 pp.), pp. 21–34.

612
Isa 44:12. Three items used in idol-making are mentioned: file (lima, Feile), burning coals (prunae,
plural), and hammer (malleus, also plural). Why lima should be mentioned first, remains unclear,
but it is not possible to give the word a different meaning such as “pair of tongs.”

Isa 44:13. norma – try measure, a builder’s tool; see glossary s.v. norma (Chapter 19.2).

Isa 45:1–8. Dorothea Keller: Gattung und Stil in der Vulgata des Hieronymus. Untersuchungen zur hie­
ronymianischen Bibelübersetzung am Beispiel hebräischer Wiederholungsfiguren. Göttingen 2022
(256 pp.), pp. 111–122 and 129–132.

Isa 45:1. haec dicit Dominus Christo meo Cyro (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – this said the Lord to my
Christ Cyrus: The NVg has haec dicit Dominus de uncto suo Cyro – this said the Lord concerning
Cyrus, his anointed.

Isa 45:8. rorate caeli desuper et nubes pluant iustum, aperiatur terra et germinet salvatorem – drop
down dew, ye heavens, from above: and let the clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened and
bud forth a Saviour; sendet Tau, ihr Himmel, von oben, und ihr Wolken, regnet den Gerechten
(herab), die Erde öffne sich und sprosse den Heiland. The Hebrew text says: “Drip down, heav­
ens, from above, and let the clouds pour down righteousness; let the earth open up and salva­
tion bear fruit, and righteousness sprout with it” (New American Standard Bible). – “Träufle, du
Himmel, von oben! Und ihr Wolken, fließt (über) von Gerechtigkeit! Das Land öffne (seine Acker ­
furchen), und sie sollen fruchtbar sein mit Heil” (Elberfelder Bibel 2006). Jerome transforms the
passage into a messianic prophecy. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la
Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 133.

Isa 49:10. ad fontes aquarum potabit eos (Clementina) – at the fountain of waters he shall give them
drink. The Weber/Gryson edition reads: (…) portabit eos – to the fountain of waters he will take
them; the NVg has adducet eos, which is synonymous.

Isa 51:5. prope est iustus meus, egressus est salvator meus – my just one is near at hand, my Saviour is
gone forth (Douay Version); nahe ist mein Gerechter, ausgezogen ist mein Retter (Tuscu­
lum-Vulgata). The Hebrew text says: “My righteousness is near, my salvation has gone forth”
(New American Standard Bible). Jerome transforms the passage into a messianic prophecy. – Al­
bert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de
science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 133.

Isa 53:2–3. et non erat aspectus et desideravimus eum, / despectum et novissimum virorum – and he
has no beauty, and we desired him, a despised one, the last one of the men (B. Lang, similarly
Tusculum-Vulgata); et il n’avait pas un aspect agréable, et nous l’avons désiré; méprisé, et le der­
nier des hommes (Glaire). (1) Allioli translates as if the text included a negation (non desid­
eravimus eum – wir verlangen sein nicht), but Jerome most likely thought that people had de­
sired the coming of the Messiah. (2) While literally, novissimus virorum is “the last,” i.e., “the
most abject of men” (Douay Version; cf. Jer 50:12), this is not the whole story. In Jerome’s mind,
it must have had the connotation of the “eschatological” man of the book of Revelation where
Christ says, ego sum alpha et omega, primus et novissimus – I am Alpha and Omega, the first and
the last (Rev 22:13). There may also be an implied echo of other Isaiah passages where God pro­
claims, ego primus et ego novissimus – I am the first and the last (Isa 48:12) and ego Dominus
primus et novissimus ego sum – I, the Lord, I am the first and the last (Isa 41:4). – Literature:

2023. Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Isaiah 53:3: The “novissimum virorum” – a whole profile in just
one verse. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue: 93–97 (online journal).

2023. Michael Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Der letzte aller Männer (novissimum virorum)
(Jes 53,3). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 89–91.

613
Isa 53:7. oblatus est quia ipse voluit – he was offered because he himself wanted it. This wording is
close to the Greek of Symmachus: he was brought in and he obeyed. – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler:
Vulgate in Use: An Exegetical Approach. How Does the Subject in Isaiah 53:7 act? Vulgata in Di­
alogue 3 (2019) 37–46 (online journal).

Isa 54:7. in miserationibus magnis congregabo te – with great compassion I will comfort you; mit gro­
ßem Trost werde ich dich trösten. For congregabo = to comfort, see Claude Moussy: Nouveaux
préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin –
Giampaolo Salvi (ed.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguistiques. Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606 pp.),
pp. 327–336, at p. 334. See also the Douay Version: “with great mercies I will gather thee.”

Isa 57:9. ornasti te regi unguento (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – thou hast anointed yourself for the
king with ointment (Douay Version). In his 1862/3 edition, Loch suggests an emendation, read­
ing (with the Sixtina 1590) regio unguento – with royal (i.e., precious) ointment.

Isa 58. Isabelle Schrive: Isaïe 58: une critique textuelle. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Strasbourg
2018. 281 pp. – On pp. 73–93, the author analyses the Vetus Latina and Vulgate versions of this
passage. et sanitas tua citius orietur (v. 8) – et ta santé se lèvera rapidement; “nous retenons le
sens Classique de santé, au sens de santé physique et mentale.”

Isa 64:4 (Vg 64:5). tu iratus es et peccavimus – thou art angry, and we have sinned (Douay Version).
Jerome in his Isaiah commentary, calls this ordo praeposterus, the consequence being said be­
fore the reason (PL 24: 647), but linguistically, this is not correct, because the anger is here in ­
deed the very reason for Israel’s sinning. – Walter Groß: Jes 64,4: “Siehe, du hast gezürnt, und
dann haben wir gesündigt.” Zu 2000 Jahren problematischer Rezeption zweier brisanter Sätze.
In: Reinhard G. Kratz et al. (eds.): Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Berlin 2000 (viii, 352 pp.), pp.
163–173.

Isa 64:6 (Vg 64:6). et cecidimus quasi folium universi – we have all fallen like a leaf. When translating
the sentence, Jerome no doubt thought of Vergil: lapsa cadunt folia (dropping leaves fall), used
as an image of death (Aeneid VI, 310). ▲

Isa 66:5. et abicientes propter nomen meum / glorificetur Dominus (Weber/Gryson). Barthélemy sug­
gests a different division on the basis of the majority of ancient textual witnesses (and the Cle­
mentina): et abicientes / propter nomen meum glorificetur Dominus. The correct translation
would be: “(…) they hate you and cast you out; for the sake of my name let the Lord be glori ­
fied.” Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg 1992
(xxiv, ccxlii, 1159 pp.), p. cci–ccii; idem: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by
Stephen Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), p. 531.

Jeremiah (Hieremias)

Text
1972. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 14: Liber Hieremiae et
Lamentationes. Ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi (…) quibus additur liber Baruch secundum re­
censionem Theodulfianum. Rome. xliv, 387 pp. – This volume belongs to the Benedictine Vulgate
series; see above, Chapter 13.3.

614
Secondary literature
1952. Angelo Penna: Geremia. Torino. x, 441 pp. – Commentary on the book of Jeremiah, Lamenta ­
tions, and the Letter of Jeremiah (= Baruch 6 in the Vulgate). Published in the series “ La Sacra
Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary
presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1969. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Textual Gleanings from the Vulgate to Jeremiah. Textus 7: 36–58. – In
a number of passages such as Jer 8:17, Jerome based his translation on a Hebrew text different
from ours.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2018. David L. Everson: Jeremiah in the Latin. In: Jack R. Lundbom et al. (eds.): The Book of Jeremiah.
Composition, Reception and Interpretation. Leiden (xix, 545 pp.), pp. 394–413. – Pages. 411–412:
“In all of the analyses above, Jerome consistently follows the Masoretic Text over and against
the Septuagint, but does so with ever increasing freedom in his translation. (…) as the years went
by, having translated an ever-increasing number of Hebrew books, Jerome’s confidence and
proficiency with the Hebrew language would have allowed him greater freedom.” A similar view
about Jerome’s translations becoming less literal over the years can be found in Benjamin Ke­
dar-Kopfstein: The Vulgate as a Translation. PhD dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerus­
alem, 1968.

2023. Georg Fischer SJ: Differences in Jerome’s Translations of the Book of Jeremiah. Vulgata in Dia­
logue. Special issue: 1–6 (online journal). – Jerome translated the book of Jeremiah twice; first for
what would become the “Vulgate”, and then, twenty years later, in 414–416, for his commentary
on Jeremiah. In both cases, Jerome aimed at producing a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Sur­
prisingly, the Vulgate translation of Jeremiah is more often closer to the Hebrew text than the
rendering in the Jeremiah commentary.

2023. Georg Fischer SJ: (1) Übersetzungen des Buches Jeremia von Hieronymus im Vergleich mit dem
hebräischen Text; (2) Das Buch Jeremia in der Vulgata im Vergleich mit dem Text aus dem Kom­
mentar des Hieronymus; (3) “Früh” oder “unermüdlich”? – eine spezifisch jeremianische Rede­
weise. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 63–65; 65–67; 93–95.

Textual notes
Jer 1. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 138–141.

Jer 2:34. non in fossis inveni eos, sed in omnibus quae supra memoravi – not in ditches have I found
them, but in all places (omnibus = omnibus locis) which I mentioned before (Douay Version). The
last part of the sentence – quae supra memoravi – has no basis in the Hebrew; this is the trans­
lator’s explanatory gloss. The Nova Vulgata revises the sentence and omits the explanatory
gloss.

Jer 3:1. tu autem fornicata es cum amatoribus multis, tamen revertere ad me, dicit Dominus, et ego su­
scipiam te – thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers. Nevertheless, return to me, saith the
Lord, and I will receive thee (Douay Version). In letter a to Rusticus dated to 408, Jerome ex­
plains that the Hebrew text has something not found in the Greek and Latin texts available to
him: pro quo scriptum est iuxta hebraicam veritatem quod in graecis et latinis (codicibus) non ha­

615
 betur: et tu reliquisti me, tamen convertere, et suscipiam te, dicit Dominus (Letter 122, PL 22:
1041–1042). As a matter of fact, et suscipiam te has no equivalent in the Greek. But it has also no
equivalent in the Hebrew text. Accordingly, the Nova Vulgata omits the phrase et ego suscipiam
te. – Literature:

1944. Patrick Cummins OSB: Jerome against Jerome: A Study of Jeremias 3:1. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 61: 85–90. The words et suscipiam te were not in Jerome’s original translation;
they were inserted by a reviser on the basis of the Rusticus letter and Jerome’s Comment­
ary on Jeremiah (PL 24: 699). Cummins provides a new translation of the verse: “It is com­
monly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, can
she return to him again? Would the land not be defiled and profaned? Now thpu hast
sinned with many lovers: shalt thou then return to me, saith the Lord? [and I will receive
thee].

Jer 4:23–26. aspexi terram – vidi montes – intuitus sum – aspexi. Unlike his Hebrew Vorlage, Jerome
varies the expression to achieve linguistic elegance. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la
traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 2 (1911) 425–440, at p.
439.

Jer 5:8. equi amatores et admissarii facti sunt (Weber/Gryson) – equi amatores et emissarii facti sunt
(Clementina) – they are become as amourous horses and stallions (Douay Version). (1) Equus
amissarius/emissaries means “stallion, Hengst”; the expression presumably reflects the notion of
sending a powerful stallion to impregnate a mare. – (2) The wording of the passage alludes to
Cicero: Against Piso 69: admissarius iste (…) ad illius hanc orationem hinniebat – this profligate
fellow (…) took pleasure in this man’s speech. The verb hinnire (to take pleasure in) is also used
in Jer 5:8. – Literature:

1883. Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, insbes. Des Buches Judith. Beigabe
zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier. Speyer (64 pp.), pp. 14–
15.

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1: 23–50,
at pp. 33–35

1938. Wilhelm Süß: Der heilige Hieronymus und die Formen seiner Polemik; in: Volkskundliche
Ernte Hugo Hepding dargebracht. Gießen (273 pp.), pp. 212–238, at p. 237.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, at pp. 258–259. ▲

Jer 10:3–5. Binding suggests the following literal translation: Denn das Holz aus dem Wald hat die
Hand des Kunstfertigen (artifex) mit dem Beil (ascia) zu einem Werk zurechtgeschlagen. Mit Sil­
ber und Gold hat er jenes verziert; er hat es mit Nägeln und Hämmern zusammengefügt, damit
es sich nicht auflöst. In Ähnlichkeit mit einer Palme sind sie gefertigt, und sie reden nicht. – Be­
cause wood from the forest the hand of the craftsman (artifex) has beaten with the axe (ascia)
into a work. With silver and gold, he has decorated it; he has joined it together with nails and
hammers, so that it does not disintegrate. In likeness of a palm tree they are made, and they do
not speak. – Günter Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstel­
len, unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2000 (52 pp.), p. 8.

Jer 13:1–15. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 141–144.

616
Jer 13:16. et ponet eam in umbram mortis (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – and he will place it in the
shadow of death. – According to Gryson, Jerome wrote umbramortis as one word; in translation:
“and will place it in Deathshadow”; see the textual note above, on Isa 9:2. Roger Gryson: Bara­
chie et la prophétisse. Revue biblique 96.3 (1989) 321–337, at pp. 335–336.

Jer 17:4. ignem succendisti in furore meo (Clementina, Weber/Gryson) – you (singular) have inkindled a
fire in my wrath. According to Barthélemy, the proper reading is: succendistis – you (plural) have
inkindled. – Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg
1992 (xxiv, ccxlii, 1159 pp.), p. ccii; idem: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by
Stephen Pisano et al. Winona Lake, Ind. 2012 (xxxii, 688 pp.), p. 531.

Jer 17:6. in terra (…) inhabitabili – in a land not inhabited. (1) inhabitabilis, like other adjectives on
-(b)ilis, refers to a fact, and not a possibility; hence uninhabited. See the glossary, Chapter 19.2
s.v. -bilis. (2) In late Latin, one would expect ininhabitabilis, because inhabitare = habitare. And
in fact, ininhabitalilis is occasionally used by Jerome in his commentary on Jeremiah, see Sieg­
fried Reiter: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Hieronymus. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 39,
no. 28 (1919) 666–671, at cols. 668–670.

Jer 18:4. conversusque fecit illud vas alterum – and turning/iterating, he made another vessel, which
means: and he made again another vessel. The standard translation “and turning he made an­
other vessel” (Douay Version) is misleading, because it misreads the underlying Hebrew idiom
based on the verb šūb. – Kaulen, p. 236.

Jer 20:2. et misit eum [i.e., Ieremiam] in nervum – and he put him in the nervus. How to translate
nervus? Here is what the translators make of it: (a) and put him in the stocks (Douay Version,
Knox), legte ihn in den Stock (Allioli); (b) schickte ihn ins Gefängnis (Tusculum-Vulgata; thus also
Luther), le jeta dans la prison (Glaire, who explains that the temple prison is meant). Jerome
comments on the verse in his Commentary on Jeremiah: nos autem nervum diximus more vulga­
ri, quod tormenti genus etiam in Actibus apostolorum legimus, quando apostoli Paulus et Silas in
custodiam carceris dati sunt (PL 24 [1865]: 834) – but we follow common practice in speaking of
nervus [stocks], a kind of (instrument of) torture of which we read when the apostles Paul and
Silas were put in prison. Since Acts 16:24 explicitly refers to the stocks (et pedes eorum strinxit
ligno – and made their feet fast in the stocks, literally: in the wood), translators should not
merely refer to the prison. – The dictionaries have nervus (or nervum) = prison, but this meaning
does not apply to Jer 20:2. Lammert notes that nervus belongs to the “vulgar” vocabulary,
marked as such by Jerome (more vulgari); see Friedrich Lammert: Die Angaben des Kirchenvaters
Hieronymus über vulgäres Latein. Philologus 75: 395–413, at pp. 403–404.

Jer 20:3. pavor = terror. Jerome’s translation is here unique, because he departs from all ancient ver­
sions, but agrees with medieval Jewish and modern lexical opinion; his source must be Jewish. –
Jerome: Commentary on Jeremiah. Translated by Michael Graves. Downers Grove 2012 (li, 232
pp.), p. 121.

Jer 22:6. Galaad tu mihi caput Libani. Generally, the sentence is translated as “thou art to me Galaad,
the head of Libanus” (Douay Version); “du bist mir ein Galaad, eine Höhe des Libanon” (Allioli).
Stummer suggests understanding caput as a topographical designation meaning “Vorgelände”
(tract of land in front of …), so that we get: “Galaad, you are to me the land that leads up to
Mount Libanus.” – Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica
18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 24–29. Blaise in his Dictionnaire latin-français actually recognizes this
interpretation, listing as he does Jeremiah 22:6 in the semantic category “commencement, dé­
but.”

617
Jer 23:6. et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum: dominus iustus noster – and this is the name that they
shall call him: The Lord, Our Just One (Douay Version); und das ist der Name, mit dem sie ihn
nennen werden: der Herr, unser Gerechter. The Hebrew text says: (…) the Lord, our Righteous­
ness (or, salvation); der Herr, unsere Gerechtigkeit (oder: unser Heil). Jerome takes this to be a
messianic prophecy. – Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint
Jérôme. Recherches de science religieuse 3 (1912) 105–138, at p. 133.

Jer 23:40. quae numquam oblivione delebitur – which shall never be deleted by oblivion. On this
phrase from classical Latin, also used in Jer 50:5, see textual note on Esth 9:28. ▲

Jer 25:38. ira columbae – wrath of the dove; der Zorn der Taube (similarly Jer 46:16; 50:16; Zeph 3:1) is
now considered a translation mistake, based on Hebrew yona = dove. The “dove” interpretation
can also be found in Jewish medieval interpretation (Yefet ben Eli, David ben Abraham). Wisse­
mann suggests that the correct translation would be per iram et vim, NVg has ira violentiae, but
a simple furor would also do (B. Lang). – Literature:

1986. Michael Wissemann: Jona gleich Taube? Zu vier Vulgataproblemen. Glotta 64: 36–47.

1986. Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 2. Fribourg (xviii,
*71, 1013 pp.), p. 662.

2023. Bernhard Lang: “Taube” (columba) als Fehlübersetzung. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 96–97.

Jer 29:26. ut mittas eum in nervum et in carcerem – to put him in the stocks and in prison (Douay Ver­
sion). On nervus = stocks, see textual note on Jer 20:2.

Jer 30:10. affluet (Clementina, Weber/Gryson). This is the correct reading; the Benedictine Vulgate
(1972) misprints the word as afluet, which would mean “flow off; wegfließen” – the opposite of
what is actually meant. – Herbert Migsch: Affluet oder afluet Jer 30,0 Vulg: ein Druckfehler im
Text der römischen Vulgata. Biblische Notizen 173 (2017) 101–103. – The Nova Vulgata has a dif­
ferent wording; the phrase et cunctis affluet bonis – and abound with all good things (Douay
Version) – does not figure in the passage.

Jer 31:39. norma – try measure, a builder’s tool; see glossary s.v. norma (Chapter 19.2).

Jer 35:8–10. Herbert Migsch: Die Kohärenzstörung in Jeremia 35,8–10. Eine exegesegeschichtliche Stu­
die. Frankfurt 2011. 352 pp. – Migsch comments on vernacular translations based on the Vulgate
text of Jeremiah 35 (pp. 93–98).

Jer 35:14a. praevaluerunt sermones Ionadab (…) quos pracepit filiis suis – prevailed have the words of
Jonadab, which he commanded his sons. The relative clause introduced by quos refers to ser­
mones, not to the name Jonadab, as the Hebrew would demand. – Herbert Migsch: Jeremia 35
Vulg,14a: eine hexaplarische Lesart. Biblische Notizen 169 (2016) 141–145.

Jer 36:7. si forte cadat oratio eorum in conspectu Domini – if their supplication may come before the
Lord. – For cadere = to come (before), see Plater/White, p. 22.

Jer 46:16. gladius columbae (sword of the dove) is a translation error, see on Jer 25:38. Wissemann
suggests gladius cruentus, NVg has gladius saeviens.

Jer 50:16. gladius columbae (sword of the dove). See on Jer 46:16; 25:38.

Jer 50:5. quod nulla oblivion delebitur – what no oblivion will delete. On this phrase from classical Lat­
in, also used in Jer 23:40, see textual note on Esth 9:28. ▲

Jer 50:39. fauni ficarii (Clementina) – fig fauns, Feigenfaune. The Weber/Gryson edition has fatui ficarii
– foolish fig [demons], which looks like a polemical corruption (Stummer). The Nova Vulgata re­

618
 places fauni ficarii with thoës (plur. of thos) – “wolves, jackals.” – Friedrich Stummer: Einführung
in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 111.

Lamentations (Lamentationes, Threni)

Text
1972. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 14: Liber Hieremiae et
Lamentationes. Ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi … quibus additur liber Baruch secundum re­
censionem Theodulfianum. Rome. xliv, 387 pp. – This is a volume of the Benedictine Vulgate; see
above, Chapter 13.3.

Translation
1872. Michael Seisenberger: Die Klagelieder des Propheten Jeremias nach der Vulgata mit Berücksich­
tigung des hebräischen Textes. Regensburg. iv, 151 pp. – The Latin text is accompanied by a
German translation and a commentary.

Secondary literature
1952. Angelo Penna: Geremia. Torino. x, 441 pp. – Commentary on the book of Jeremiah, Lamenta­
tions, and the Letter of Jeremiah (= Baruch 6 in the Vulgate). Published in the series “La Sacra
Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary
presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. There is a second, re ­
vised and updated edition, included in Penna’s Geremia, Lamentazioni, Baruch. Torino 1970. x,
368 pp.

2007. Philip S. Alexander: The Targum of Lamentations. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparat­
us, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 17B. Collegeville, Min. (xvi, 224 pp.), pp. 48–49: “The Vulgate.” –
Page 48: Jerome’s “translation is readable and rather stylish (more so than either the LXX or the
Peshitta): Jerome himself draws attention in his Prologue to Jeremiah to the literary care he took
over it (et civitatis suae ruinas quadruplici planxit [Jeremias] alphabeto, quod nos mensurae metri
versibusque reddidimus [PL 28:904]), perhaps with its potential liturgical use in mind. It is not,
however, particularly accurate. The liberties Jerome was prepared to take with the text are illus­
trated at 4:20, where it has been altered to give a christological meaning.”

2017. Vincent Skemp: Vulgate [text of the Five Scrolls]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 441–446.

Textual notes
Lam title. The Vulgate edition by Weber and Gryson calls the title of the book Lamentationes. In the
Clementina and its many editions, the title is Threni, id est lamentationes Jeremiae prophetae.

Note. – In Latin, the word threni is a loan word from Greek, where θρῆνος means “lamentation,
lamentation of the dead”; otherwise, Latin says lacrima for “tear.” (Curiously, the German word
“Träne,” formerly also spelled “Thräne,” is said to be etymologically unrelated to the Greek
word.) The attribution of the book of Lamentations to Jeremiah can be found in the Septuagint’s
introductory statement; see the textual note that follows.

619
Latin introduction. As can be seen from the text-critical apparatus of the Benedictine Vulgate and
Weber/Gryson, some manuscripts prefix the actual translation with a short preface: et factum est
postquam in captivitatem redactus est Israel et ierusalem deserta est sedit ieremias propheta flens
et planxit lamentatione hac in ierusalem et amaro animo suspirans et eiulans dixit (the passage is
in the Septuagint in Greek, in Latin in the Clementina, but absent from NVg). “And it happened
that after Israel was carried into captivity and Jerusalem was deserted, the prophet Jeremiah sat
down wailing, and uttered these lamentations in Jerusalem, and with a bitter spirit sighing and
wailing he said: how does the city sit solitary, the one that was full of people! (etc.).” – Gideon
Kotzé: Short Notes on the Value of the Septuagint and Vulgate for the Interpretation of Lament­
ations 1:1. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36: 75–93, p. 80: “the textual evidence sug­
gests that the introductory paragraph in some Vulgate manuscripts did come from his
[Jerome’s] hand.” According to Seisenberger, Jerome must have found the passage in a Hebrew
manuscript: Michael Seisenberger: Die Klagelieder des Propheten Jeremias nach der Vulgata. Re­
gensburg 1872 (iv, 151 pp.), pp. 16–17.

Lam 1:1. Gideon Kotzé: Short Notes on the Value of the Septuagint and Vulgate for the Interpretation
of Lamentations 1:1. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36: 75–93. – Page 89: “By witness­
ing to the content of Lam 1:1 from different angles, the Greek and Latin translations furnish the
exegete with unique interpretations of the verse that are well worth considering.”

Lam 2:8. antemurale – bastion, bulwark; Bastei. – Kaulen, p. 154.

Lam 4:20. spiritus oris nostri christus dominus captus est in peccatis nostris – the breath of our mouth,
Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins (Douay Version), or better “captured in our sins.” For Jerome,
clearly a messianic prophecy, hence his explanatory gloss Christus dominus. To avoid the notion
of messianism and to render the Hebrew correctly, the Nova Vulgata has unctus Domini – the
anointed one of the Lord. – Literature:

2007. Alison Salvesen: Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations in Greek and Latin. In: Markus
Bockmuehl – J.N. Carlton Paget (eds.): Redemption and Resistance. The Messianic Hopes of
Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London (xxvii, 381 pp.), pp. 245–261, at p. 260.

2007. Philip S. Alexander: The Targum of Lamentations. Translated, with a Critical Introduction,
Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 17B. Collegeville, Min. (xvi, 224 pp.), pp. 48: “a
blatant example of the orthodox corruption of Scripture. It is simply inconceivable that
Jerome could have found this in any of his Hebrew exemplars, and even if he inherited it
as a traditional translation, a quick check would have established that it did not corres­
pond to the Hebraica veritas.”

Lam 5:13. adolescentibus impudice abusi sunt – abuti (with following ablative) means “abuse,” so that
we get: they have abused the young men for fornication; sie haben die jungen Männer zur Un­
zucht missbraucht. The Hebrew text has: “young men must carry millstones; die Jünglinge muss­
ten den Mühlstein schleppen”; which is also what NVg has (adulescentes moles portaverunt). Ac­
cording to Jewish understanding, there is a euphemism here, which Jerome resolves. – Friedrich
Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 107.

Baruch (Liber Baruch), with “Letter of Jeremiah”

Note. – The book begins with the words Et haec verba libri quae scripsit Baruch filius Neeri. The
Hebrew text is lost, only translations exist. Today’s commentaries are based on the Greek text. The Lat­
in translator used a Greek text. Jerome did not translate the book; accordingly, the Vulgate text of
Baruch is actually that of the Vetus Latina.

620
Chapter 6, included only in Latin Bibles (and their vernacular equivalents), is often dealt with as a sep ­
arate work, titled “Letter of Jeremiah.” Jerome calls it a pseudepigraphon, and states that he would ex­
clude it from his (unfinished) commentary on Jeremiah; see the brief reference to it in Jerome’s preface
to his Jeremiah commentary (PL 24: 706). There are three important Latin quotations from the Letter of
Jeremiah in patristic sources, all of them different from the Vulgate version:

211/12. Tertullian: De scorpiace 8 (PL 2: 160). – Tertullian quotes LetJer/Bar 6:3–5: Et nunc videbitis deos
Babyloniorum aureos et argenteos et ligneos portari super humeros, ostentantes nationibus timo­
rem, Cavete igitur ne et vos consimiles sitis allophylis, et timore capiamini, dum aspicitis turbas
adorantes retro eos et ante; sed dicite in animo vestro: Te, Domine, adorare debemus. – “And now
you shall see borne upon (men’s) shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and
wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that you also do not be altogether like the
foreigners, and be seized with fear while you behold crowds worshipping those gods before and
behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship You, O Lord.” – Most likely, Tertullian trans ­
lated directly from a Greek text.

251/52. Cyprian: De dominica oratione 5 (PL 4: 522). – Cyprian refers briefly to LetJer/Bar 6:5: Per Hiere­
miam quoque haec eadem Spiritus sanctus suggerit et docet dicens: in sensu autem tibi debet
adorari Deus. – “The Holy Spirit, moreover, suggests these same things by Jeremiah, and
teaches, saying, But in the heart ought God to be adored by you.”

346/50. Firmicus Maternus: De errore profanarum religionum XXVIII, 4–5 (PL 12: 1044–1045). – The au­
thor quotes four passages from LetJer. Here is the text of the first passage, LetJer/Bar 6: 5–10:
Dicite autem corde vestro, tibi oportet adorare, Domine. Angelus autem meus vobiscum est, legem
autem exquiram ab animabus vestris. Lingua eorum polita fabro, ipsa etiam inaurata et inargen­
tata falsa sunt, et non possunt loqui: et sicut virgini hortatu amantis accepto auro fabricati sunt
coronas supra capita deorum suorum. Est autem quando subtrahent sacerdotes a diis suis aurum
et argentum, et erogabunt illud in semetipsos. Dabunt etiam ex ipso et prostitutis meretricibus, or­
nabuntque illos ut homines vestimentis, deos argenteos et aureos et ligneos. (PL 12: 1044) “How­
ever, say in your heart, ‘it is necessary to adore you, O Lord.’ Nevertheless, my messenger is with
you; moreover, I shall search out your spirits by the law. Their tongue was smoothed by a work­
man, also they themselves coated with gold and silver are false and are not able to speak. And
by taking gold, they made crowns for the heads of their own gods just as for a young girl loving
ornaments. Moreover, sometimes the priests take the gold and silver from their own gods and
spend it on themselves. They also will give from this even to public harlots and decorate as men,
those gods of gold, silver and wood with clothes.” (Translation from Richard E. Oster: Julius Fir­
micus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum. Introduction, Translation and Commentary.
Unpublished dissertation. Rice University, Houston, Tex. 1971) – The text here differs widely from
the Vulgate version, as well as from the text of Tertullian.

Text
1902. Gottfried Hoberg (ed.): Die älteste lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Baruch. Freiburg. 2nd edi­
tion. 91 pp. – A first edition was published the same year: Vienna. 104 pp. Greek and Latin text in
parallel columns.

1972. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 14: Liber Hieremiae et
Lamentationes. Ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi (…) quibus additur liber Baruch secundum re­
censionem Theodulfianum. Rome. xliv, 387 pp. – This is one of the volumes of the Benedictine
Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

621
Secondary literature
1879. Johann Jakob Kneucker: Das Buch Baruch. Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung.
Leipzig. xii, 362 pp. – Pages 141–162: the two Latin translations; here the author comments ex­
tensively on the linguistic peculiarities of the Latin texts. Still indispensable! ▲

1895. E. Philippe: Baruch. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 1.1. Paris (lxiv pp.
1018 cols.), cols. 1475–1484. – Cols. 1480–1481: “La version latine vient du grec, c’est l’ancienne
Itala avec ses défauts et ses qualités. S. Jérôme n’a pas touché à ce livre, on le sait. On peut dire
qu’elle rend le grec servilement: on le voit à la latinisation des mots grecs, aux provincialismes
qui s’y trouvent, et à l’usage des pronoms ille, ipse, qui tiennent lieu de l’article grec. (…) On a
deux recensions de ce texte: l’une que l’on appelle Vetus Latina a, l’autre Vetus Latina b; celle-ci
differe de la première par plus d’élégance, de brièveté en général, par quelques additions et des
sens divers. La première donne le texte grec vulgaire, l’autre le textus receptus, lorsqu’elle
s’écarte de sa voisine.”

1953. Angelo Penna: Baruch. Torini. vi, 59 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e
traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), the commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin
text is accompanied by brief textual notes. There is a second, revised and updated edition, in­
cluded in Penna’s Geremia, Lamentazioni, Baruch. Torino 1970. x, 368 pp. ▲

1972. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le livre deutéronomique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine. In:
Jean-Jacques von Allmen et al.: Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R.P. Dom Bernard Botte. Leuven
(xxxii, 540 pp.), pp. 31–48.

1980. María Dolores Verdejo Sánchez: Algunas consideraciones gramaticales sobre el libro de Baruc.
Analecta Malacitana 3: 291–307. – A detailed survey of the linguistic peculiarities of the book of
Baruch, based on the text of the 1972 Benedictine edition. The paper is included in the online
edition: Analecta Malacitana electronica 24 (June 2008).

1982. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le personnage de Baruch et l’histoire du livre de Jérémie. Aux ori­
gines du livre deutérocanonique de Baruch. In: Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.): Studia Evangelica 7.
Berlin (570 pp.), pp. 73–81.

1985. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg. 545 pp., 10
Blätter. – Page 146: “Das Werk Theodulfs [bei der Herstellung eines korrekten Bibeltextes im frü­
hen Mittelalter] blieb nicht ohne Wirkung. Für Baruch ist sein schlechter, willkürlich geänderter
Text sogar zur Vulgata geworden, da dieses Buch in der Alkuinbibel fehlte.”

2005. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscripts de la Bible latine: dispari­
tion et réintégration. Revue bénédictine 115: 286–342. – With a new appendix included in: Bo­
gaert: Le livre de Jérémie en perspective. Recueil des traveaux. Leuven 2020 (lviii, 535 pp.), pp.
377–434. ▲

2019. Lutz Doering: Textual History of 1 Baruch. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Vol­
ume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 3–11. – Page 7: “Many important early Vulgate manuscripts
lack Baruch because Jerome declined to translate it. While there is evidence of earlier Latin
translations, now lost, the oldest surviving Latin manuscripts are five pandects from Theodulf’s
workshop. This version became ‘Vulgate’.”

2019. Edmon L. Gallagher: Latin [text of Baruch]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Vol­
ume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 18–23. – Manuscripts, text forms, editions.

622
Textual notes
Bar 1:18–19. non fuimus subjectibilis illi – we were not submissive/obedient to him; wir waren ihm
nicht unterwürfig (= subjecti); eramus incredibilis ad dominum deum nostrum – we were in disbe­
lief to the Lord our God; wir waren ungläubig (= non credens) (…). The ending -bilis here indic­
ates not only the possibility, but the actuality. – Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische
Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 59.

Bar 3:14. longiturnitas – long duration; lange Dauer. A word formation typical of late Latin. “Formen
wie longiturnitas (Bar 3,14) für longitudo hätten Cicero und Cäsar als Barbarismen verabscheut.”
– Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 58.

Bar 4:31. gratulari – to rejoice at, to congratulate oneself; sich freuen, sich beglückwünschen. – Kaulen,
p. 180.

Ezekiel (Hiezechiel)

Text
1978. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 15: Liber Hiezechielis.
Ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi. Rome. lxxxii, 297 pp. – This volume is part of the Benedictine
Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1948. Francesco Spadafora: Ezechiele. Torino. x, 357 pp., 3 tavole. – This commentary on Ezekiel, pub­
lished in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Ga­
rofalo), presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate
text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief textual notes. In many cases, the
commentator offers his own Latin version that would render the Hebrew more exactly. ▲

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2023. Tobias Häner: Rezeptionsgeschichte des Buches Ezechiel. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 178–179.

Textual notes
Ezek 8:14. Adonis. – Instead of Tammuz (adopted by NVg as Thammuz), a deity unknown to his Latin
readership, Jerome uses the well-known name of Adonis. – Literature:

1928. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Paderborn (viii, 290 pp.), p. 111.

1940: Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58] (1940) 251–269, at p. 254.

2015. Karsten C. Ronnenberg: Mythos bei Hieronymus. Zur christlichen Transformation paganer
Erzählungen in der Spätantike. Stuttgart (386 pp.), pp. 96–98. 2021. Michael Fieger – Bri­
gitta Schmid: The Interpretatio Romana as a Principle of Translation in Jerome. Vulgata in
Dialogue 5: 41–44.

2023. Michale Fieger – Brigitta Schmid Pfändler: Adonis als besserer Tammuz (Ez 8,14). In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 37–38.

623
Ezek 8:16. quasi viginti quinque viri dorsa habentes contra templum domini – about (quasi) twenty-five
men, with their backs to the temple of the Lord. – Jesús de la Villa: Numerals. In: Philip Baldi –
Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 3. Berlin 2010 (xxi,
529 pp.), pp. 175–238, at p. 182.

Ezek 12:4. eferre foras vasa – literally: to bring out one’s stuff; seine Sachen hervorholen; but it actually
refers to colligere sarcinas, to collect one’s luggage (Stummer). Following an established mean­
ing of vas in classical Latin, one may think of the “field pack,” the luggage carried by a soldier
(Spadafora); see Livy: Ab urbe condita XXI, 47,2. – Literature:

1937. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1: 23–50,
at pp. 31–32.

1948. Francesco Spadafora: Ezechiele. Torino (x, 357 pp.), p. 99.

Ezek 16:30. in quo mundabo cor tuum – wherein shall I cleanse thy heart (Douay Version). Jerome’s
translation is based on Symmachus. – Friedrich Stummer: ‚amula (Ez xvi 30A). Vetus Testamen­
tum 4 (1954) 34–40, at p. 35.

Ezek 16:52. iustificatae sunt enim a te – they are more justified than you (echoing Hebrew min). In
standard Latin, this would be: sunt magis iustae quam tu. – Kaulen, p. 237.

Ezek 24:16. et non planges neque plorabis – and thou shalt not lament nor weep (Douay Version). Note
the alliteration in the Latin, evidence of Jerome’s wish to produce a rhetorically powerful transla­
tion. In French, one would speak of “plaindre et pleurer.”

Ezek 24:25. tollam ab eis (…) desiderium oculorum eorun, super quo requiescunt animae eorum – I will
take away from them (…) the desire of their eyes upon which their souls rest (Douay Version).
Stummer suggests: “(…) in which their souls find pleasure (or satisfaction).” – Friedrich Stummer:
Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 43–47.

Ezek 37. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 144–149.

Ezek 39:11–16. Stefan Freund: Polyándrion (Ez 39,11–16): Eine Septuaginta-Übersetzung und ihre
Fortwirkung im Lateinischen. In: Wolfgang Kraus – Siegfried Kreuzer (eds.): Die Septuaginta. Text
– Wirkung – Rezeption. Tübingen 2014 (xiv, 928 pp.), pp. 713–727. πολυάνδριον means “burial
place.” The Vulgate does not use the word in this passage, but the Septuagint does, and Jerome
in his Ezekiel commentary discusses the matter.

Ezek 40:7,9. thalamus – chamber [Kammer], vestibulum – hall [Halle], frons – porch [Vorbau]. These
words, repeated throughout Ezek 40, are often misunderstood by modern translators . – Günther
Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berück­
sichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp. 41–42.

Ezek 43:10–11. Binding suggests the following literal translation: “Sie sollen das Bauwerk messen (me­
tiantur fabricam) und [wenn] sie sich schämen wegen allem, was sie getan haben, zeige ihnen
die Gestalt des Hauses und sein Ausführung (figuram domus et fabricae eius), [und zwar] Aus­
gang, Eingang und dessen ganze Darstellung (omnem descriptionem eius), und alle seine Vor­
schriften (universa praecepta eius) und alle seine Gesetze davon zeige ihnen, und schreibe es in
ihre Augen (scribes in oculis eorum) und sie sollen alle seine Darstellungen und Vorschriften
beachten, und sie sollen sie ausführen (custodiant omnes descriptiones eius et praecepta illius et
faciant ea).” Binding does not think that descriptio refers to a drawing; instead, it seems to be a

624
 verbal description. – Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener
Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), pp. 43–44.

Ezek 43:11. “Rarely ordo is used in the meaning ‘institutionalized regulation’. The most evident ex­
ample is found in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel: universa pracepta eius cunctumque ordinem
eius et omnes leges eius ostende eis.” – Igor Filippov: Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law,
Custom and Justice in the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di Berardino et al., Lex et religio. Studia
ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp. 105–141, at p. 124.

Daniel (Danihel)

Text
1981. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 16: Liber Danihelis. Ex
interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi. Rome. xlv, 152 pp. – This is one of the volumes of the Benedic ­
tine Vulgate known for its extensive text-critical notes; see above, Chapter 13.3. – This edition
indicates, as does the Weber/Gryson edition, the passages for which Jerome (like modern textu­
al critics) had no Hebrew text; he translated these passages – Dan 3:24–90; 13; 14 – from the
Greek, and clearly indicated his source.

Synopsis
2000. Klaus Koch – Martin Rösel: Polyglottensynopse zum Buch Daniel. Neukirchen-Vluyn. 322 pp. – The
Masoretic text, the Syriac translation, two Greek translations, and the Vulgate version are
presented in parallel columns. For the Vulgate text, the editors use the Weber/Gryson edition.

Secondary literature
1886. Godofredus [Gottfried] Hoberg: De sancti Hieronymi ratione interpretandi. Diss. Theol. Bonn. iii,
39 pp.– On pp. 17–33, the author comments on Jerome’s translation of the book of Daniel. As
Hobers points out, Jerome occasionally avoids the Hebraisms of an overly literal rendering by
using an adjective instead of a noun; here is a partial list of examples: et viris fortissimis (Dan
3:20); regnum sempiternum (Dan 7:27); cornu insigne (Dan 8:5); urbes munitissimas (Dan 11:25);
honor regius (Dan 11:21).

1952. Giovanni Rinaldi CRS: Daniele. 3rd, revised and enlarged edition. Torino. vi, 158 pp. – The first
edition of 1949 has 135 pp., the fourth edition x, 165 pp. Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on op­
posite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. ▲

1978. Jan Smeets: Traditions juives dans la Vulgate de Daniel et le commentaire de Jérôme. SIDIC (Ser ­
vice international de documentation judéo-chrétienne) 12.2: 16–26.

2007. Régis Courtay: Jérôme, traducteur du livre de Daniel. Pallas 75: 105–124.

2008. Régis Courtray: La traduction de Daniel-Vulgate face à la Néovulgate. Anabases 8: 107–126. –

The article includes an annotated list of the differences between the Daniel text of the Vulgate
and that of the Nova Vulgata.

625
2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of Daniel]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Vol­
ume 1C. Leiden (xxxiv, 770 pp.), pp. 568–571.

2019. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo: Latin [text of the Additions to Daniel]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 153–157.

2019. Kevin Zilberberg: Cultic Verbs in Vetus Latina Daniel and in Jerome’s Translation of the Greek Ad­
ditions to Daniel. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59: 445–452. – This volume of
the Acta Antiqua publishes the proceedings of the XIIIth congress of Latin vulgair – latin tardif. –
The expressions treated, each corresponding to a Greek verb, are: seruio, colo, famulor, appareo,
exomologesin facio, hymnum cano, sacrifico, timeo, benedico, adoro, laudo, confiteor, and primiti­
ae. Jerome sometimes maintains continuity with Vetus-Latina vocabulary, he also often departs
from it. Page 452: “Jerome staked out a course between continuity and innovation, which would
eventually become the Latin church’s standard.”

Textual notes
Dan 2:31. S. Prete: Declino e corrompimento morale nella escatologia occidentale. Nota alle interpre­
tazioni su Dan 2,31; 7,3 di Ippolito e Girolamo. Divus Thomas 82 (1979) 145–156.

Dan 3:23. in medio camino (Clementina) – in the midst of the furnace. Weber/Gryson and NVg have in
medio camini, in conformity with normative grammar. – Régis Courtray: La traduction de Daniel-
Vulgate face à la Néovulgate. Anabases 8 (2008) 107–126, at p. 110.

Dan 3:25 (Vg 3:92). Nebuchadnezzar sees four men walking unhurt in the midst of the fiery furnace,
and “the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (et species quarti similis filio Dei). Jerome ob­
serves that most commentators consider the fourth figure to be Christ, but he himself cannot
see how “an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God,” and he therefore con ­
siders the figure an angel, although the typological significance is Christ (Commentary on
Daniel, PL 25: 511–512; CCSL 75A: 807–808).

Dan 3:90. benedicite, omnes religiosi, Domino – Douay Version: o all ye religious, bless the Lord (Douay
Version); preiset, alle Frommen, den Herrn (Allioli). The German translation is the correct one,
because religiosus means “the pious person.” The Nova Vulgata does not seem to like the word
religiosus; it has benedicite, omnes, qui timetis Dominum, Deo – all you, who fear the Lord, bless
God.

Dan 6. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 149–154.

Dan 6:6. What is the correct vocative form of Darius? The Clementina has Dari, Weber/Gryson Darie,
which is better Latin, as suggested by Philipp Thielmann: Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, ins­
bes. Des Buches Judith. Beigabe zum Jahresbericht 1882/83 der Königlichen Studienanstalt Speier.
Speyer 1883 (64 pp.), p. 4.

Dan 6:19 (Vg 6:18). cibique non sunt inlati (Clementina: allati, NVg illati) sunt coram eo
(Weber/Gryson) – and no food is brought in before him. inlatus/illatus and allatus are the pass­
ive participles of inferre and adferre, “to bring in” and “to bring toward.”

Dan 7:3. S. Prete: Declino e corrompimento morale nella escatologia occidentale. Nota alle interpreta­
zioni su Dan 2,31; 7,3 di Ippolito e Girolamo. Divus Thomas 82 (1979) 145–156.

Dan 9:23. Bernhard Lang: Übersetzungen der Vulgata; in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 162–165. – A comparison
of several modern translations of this verse. The meaning is rendered clearly only in the Knox

626
 translation: “Even as thy prayer began, a secret was disclosed, and I am here to make it known to
thee, so well heaven loves thee. Mark well, then, the message, and read the revelation aright.”

Dan 9:26. et non erit eius [populus qui eum negaturus est] – and he will not be [the people that shall
deny him]. Jerome’s words et non erit eius do not actually make much sense, but the context re­
quires something like: he will no longer exist among the living. The Neovulgate changes the Vul­
gate version to et nihil erit ei – and he will have nothing. Placed between brackets is a Christian
gloss, presumably based on the notion that a word is missing – populus, and this word is then
further explained; all of this changes the text to mean: “and the people that deny him shall not
be his” (Douay Version). The gloss is found in the Clementina, but omitted from the
Weber/Gruyson edition and from the NVg. – The passage is often commented upon:

1891. Joseph Knabenbauer: Commentarius in Danielem prophetam. Paris (524 pp.), pp. 229–259:
the gloss is not from Jerome, but was inserted later into the Vulgate text.

1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Re­
cherches de science religieuse 3: 105–138, at pp. 136–137.

1940. Friedrich Stummer: Griechisch-römische Bildung und christliche Theologie in der Vulgata.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 [58]: 251–269, at p. 265.

2021. Kirsten Macfarlane: Biblical Scholarship in an Age of Controversy. Oxford (xi, 265 pp.), p. 32:
how the passage was discussed in the sixteenth century on the basis of the underlying
Hebrew text.

Dan 11:38–39. deum autem Moazim in loco suo venerabitur – he will worship (venerari = to worship, a
verbum deponens) the god Moazim in his sanctuary (locus = sacred place). – The problem with
this and the immediately following sentence is that the translator misunderstood a word, mis­
taking it for a name; the correct interpretation would be: he would worship the god of the
strongholds in his sanctuary. The Nova Vulgata has deum autem oppidorum in loco suo venera­
bitur.

Dan 11:45. et figet tabernaculum suum Apedno inter maria – and he will pitch his tent in Apedno
between the seas. Here the translator mistook the Aramaic word apadna for a place name; he
should have said: and he will pitch his residential tent. The mistake is not Jerome’s; he inherited
it from earlier sources, see the discussion in E.F.C. Rosenmüller: Scholia in Vetus Testamentum.
Pars decima. Leipzig 1832 (445 pp.), p. 431. See also the explanation given by Edmund Kalt: Bib­
lisches Reallexikon. 2nd edition. Erster Band. Paderborn 1938 (vii pp., 1084 cols.), col. 112 s.v.
Apadno: “Die Vulgata (Dn 11,45) hat Apadno, das dem hebr. appeden (persisch apadana =
Palast, Burg) entspricht, irrtümlich als Namen einer Stadt aufgefaßt. Der Satz heißt: Er schlug sei­
ne Palastzelte zwischen dem (Mittel)meer und (Sion), dem Berg der heiligen Pracht.” The Nova
Vulgata has: et figet tabernacula palatii sui inter maria super montem sanctum decoris.

Dan 13:1–64. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 155–164.

Dan 13:54–59. Jean Robaey: Paronomasia e graeca veritas. Teoria e prassi traduttiva di Gerolamo in
Susanna 54–55.58–59. Adamantius 10 (2004) 63–71.

Dan 14:42. Tunc rex ait: Paveant omnes habitantes in universa terra deum Danielis quia ipse est salva­
tor, faciens signa et mirabilia in terra, qui liberavit Danielem de lacu leonum (Clementina) – Then
the king said: Let all the inhabitants of the whole earth fear the God of Daniel: for he is the Sa ­
viour, working signs and wonders in the earth, who has delivered Daniel out of the lions’ den

627
 (Douay Version). – This final verse of the book of Daniel does not belong to the original text. It
first appears in the margin of MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale 11504 (9th century). Accordingly,
it is absent from the Weber/Gryson edition and the Nova Vulgata. – Alberto Vaccari, L’ultimo
versetto di Daniele. Rivista biblica 2 (1954) 248–250.

The Twelve Minor Prophets (Liber duodecim Prophetarum)

Text
1987. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 17: Liber duodecim
prophetarum. Ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi. Milano. xlvii, 290 pp. – A volume of the Bene­
dictine Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3. – Page ranges of the individual prophetic books:
Hosea, pp. 79–117; Iohel, pp. 118–130; Amos, pp. 131–156; Abdias, pp. 157–160; Ionas, pp. 161–
169; Micha, pp. 170–188; Naum, pp. 189–197; Habacus, pp. 198–207; Sofonias, pp. 208–217;
Aggeus, pp. 218–223; Zacharis, pp. 224–259; Malachias, pp. 260–271.

Secondary literature
1953. Meinrad Stenzel: Das Dodekapropheton in Übersetzungswerken lateinischer Schriftsteller des Al­
tertums. I. Theologische Zeitschrift 9: 81–92. – Where Rufinus of Aquileja departs from the Vetus
Latina wording, he generally uses the same vocabulary as does (his arch enemy) Jerome, with
whom he shares the educational background.

1953–1969. Giovanni Rinaldi CRS: I profeti minori. Torino. 3 volumes: xiii, 218 pp; xvi, 213; xix, 244 pp. –
Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore
Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the
untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological
notes. ▲

2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Girolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2020. Simone Rickerby: The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve. In: Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer – Jakob
Wöhrle (eds.): The Book of the Twelve. Leiden (xix, 623 pp.), pp. 325–351. – Rickerby is interested
in the relationship between the Old Latin version of the Minor Prophets and Jerome’s version.
She studies the following examples: Hosea 2:12; 10:1; Jonah 4:4–5; Zeph 3:1–2.4b; Mal 1:6a, and
sees a strong influence of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Hosea (Osee)

Secondary literature
1974. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: Textual Gleanings from the Vulgate to Hosea. Jewish Quarterly Re­
view 65: 73–97.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

628
Textual notes
Hos 2:21–22 [Vg 2:19–20]. et sponsabo – et sponsabo – et sponsabo = and I will espouse thee; und ich
werde mich verloben. (1) As pointed out by Condamin, Jerome repeats the verb three times, fol­
lowing the Hebrew text, and contrary to his otherwise practiced principle of variation in expres ­
sion. He comments on the rhetoric of repetition in his Hosea commentary (PL 25: 840). – (2) „Die
Auffassung des Bundesschlusses als Verlobungsvorgang (Verb sponsare) in der Prophetie Ho­
seas unterstreicht wegen ihrer feierlichen Anmutung sowohl die Analogie zum Staatsvertrag
(Hauptwort sponsio als feierlicher Akt) als auch die Analogie einer aus dem Verlöbnis im famili­
enrechtlichen Sinne (sponsare als spezielleres Verb gegenüber dem allgemeinen Verb für förmli­
ches Versprechen spondēre) hervorgehenden innigen Lebensgemeinschaft“ (Becker, pp. 95–96).
– Literature:

1911. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Re­
cherches de science religieuse 2: 425–440, at p. 440.

2022. Christoph Becker: Vertrag, Bund und Testament in der Heiligen Schrift. Diktion römischen
Rechts aus Vetus Latina und Vulgata. In: Franz Sedlmeier – Hans Ulrich Steymans (eds.):
Bundestheologie bei Hosea? Eine Spurensuche. Berlin (xii, 438 pp.), pp. 69–106.

Hos 4:14. et cum effeminatis sacrificabant – and sacrificed with the effeminate. What are the “effemin­
ate”? The context requires a word for designating a special group of (pagan) priests or temple
servants. Jerome thinks of them as the equivalents of the Roman Galli, servants of the Magna
Mater, who castrated themselves; see his Commentary on Hosea (CCSL 76: 44–45). Eberhard
Bons: The History of Israel and the Early History of Rome in the Light of Jerome’s Writings, in:
Ingo Schaaf (ed.): Hieronymus Romanus: Studies on Jerome and Rome on the Occasion of the
1600th Anniversary of His Death. Turnhout 2021 (609 pp.), pp. 137–150, at pp. 145–148.

Hos 10:10. The Vulgate version of the verse suggests that Jerome here follows a Greek rather than a
Hebrew Vorlage. – Simone Rickerby: The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve. In: Lena-Sofia
Tiemeyer – Jakob Wöhrle (eds.): The Book of the Twelve. Leiden (xix, 632 pp.), pp. 325–351, at p.
337–342.

Hos 13:8. Maria Christina Pennachio: “Quasi ursa rapis catulis.” Os 13,8 nell’esegesi di Gerolamo e Ci­
rillo di Alessandria. Vetera Christianorum 32 (1995) 143–161.

Joel (Ioel, Iohel)

Secondary literature
1981. Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein: The Hebrew Text of Joel as Reflected in the Vulgate. Textus 5: 16–35.

2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at pp.
122–124.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2023. Aline Canellis: Die Auslegung der Antiochenischen und Alexandrinischen Schulen durch Hierony­
mus am Beispiel des kleinen Propheten Joel. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 165–167.

629
Textual notes
Joel 1:4. Aline Canellis: Julien d’Éclane et l’«In Ioel» 1,4 de saint Jérôme. In: Benoît Gain et al. (eds.):
Chartae caritatis. Études de patristique et d’antiquité tardive. Paris 2004 (529 pp.), pp. 359–375.

Joel 2:13. praestabilis. The word is used only here in the Vulgate. A possible rendering: being above
malice (super malitia); erhaben über Böswilligekeit (super malitia). Or rather: easily forgetting,
conciliatory; leicht vergessend, versöhnlich. – Kaulen, p. 141.

Joel 2:22. Virtus. The word here refers to the “produce” of crop plants (German: “Ertrag” von
Nutzpflanzen). – Kaulen, p. 33.

Amos

Secondary literature
1902. W.O.E. Oesterley: Studies in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Book of Amos. Cambridge. vii, 112
pp.

1953. Giovanni Rinaldi: I profeti minori: Introduzione generale – Amos. Torino. xiii, 218 pp. – Published in
the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo ),
this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated
Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Am 5:24. Eberhard Bons: Gerechtigkeit Israels oder Gericht Gottes? (Amos 5,24). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp.
58–60. – Jerome’s version of the verse departs from that of the Septuagint.

Am 6:1–6. Writing in 426 or 427, In his later years, Augustine could not escape the charm of Jerome’s
translation. – Madeleine Moreau: Sur un commentaire d’Amos. De doctrina christiana IV, vii, 15–
21, sur Amos VI, 1–6, in: A.-M. Bonnardière (ed.): Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les
temps. Paris 1986 (462 pp.), pp. 313–322.

Am 7:1. post tonsorem regis (Weber/Gryson) – after the king’s mower; nach dem Abscherer für den Kö­
nig; post tonsionem regis (Clementina) – after the king’s mowing; nach dem Abscheren für den
König. The Clementina seems to make more sense. Cf. Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die la­
teinische Bibel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 197. – The Nova Vulgata has post fruges demes­
sas regis – after the royal crops had been mowed.

Obadiah (Abdias)

Secondary literature
2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

630
Textual note
Obad 20. David Weissert: Obadja 20. Septuagint and Vulgate. Textus 24 (2009) 85–106.

Jonah (Iona)

Secondary literature
2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at pp.
119–122. – Moro offers a detailed comparison between the Vulgate text of Jonah and the textu­
al fragments we have in the lemmata of Jerome’s commentary on Jonah (as edited by Yves-Mar­
ie Duval). The result is as follows (p. 122): of the 30 variants found, 20 can be judged in terms of
greater or lesser closeness to the Hebrew. Of these 20, in 12 cases the Vulgate text is closer to
the Hebrew, and in 8 cases the commentary lemma is closer. From these 8 one could perhaps
subtract the variant in mari of 1:4, which could be a false correction, and ad Dominum of 3:8
which has a correspondence in the Targum, so it could depend on a respectful interpretation or
on a Hebrew variant found in the text used. In the translation of Jonah, one can speak of a first
edition corresponding to the lemmas of Jerome’s commentary, and a second one (rendered
closer to the Hebrew) corresponding to the Vulgate.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

2020. Marie-France Monge-Strauss: Traduire le livre de Jonas. De Lefèvre d’Etaples à la version révisée
de Genève (1530–1588). Paris. 688 pp. – The appendix (pp. 633–660) presents in synoptic form
the Vulgate text of Jonah together with other Latin translations. Included are Jerome’s version
found in this commentary on Jonah and the text as presented in the Clementina. Review: Gilbert
Dahan, Études théologiques et religieuses 97 (2022) 109–110, who points out the occasionally in­
accurate Latin in this doctoral dissertation.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 164–172. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation), with explanatory notes on vocabulary and grammar.

2023. Bernhard Lang: Buch Jona. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 75–76.

Textual notes
Jonah 1:4. Dominus autem misit ventum magnum in mari (Weber/Gryson) – the Lord sent a mighty
wind in the sea. The Clementina has the better and no doubt more original, Jeromian reading:
(…) in mare (to the sea, accusative). – Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti mi­
nori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at p. 119.

Jonah 1:5. clamaverunt viri ad deum suum – everyone cried to his god. – This use of viri in the sense of
“everyone” is a Hebraism; in classical Latin, one would say: unusquisque clamavit. – Kaulen, p.
173

Jonah 2. Meinrad Stenzel: Zum Vulgatatext des Canticum Jonae. Biblica 33 (1952) 356–362.

Jonah 2:3. de ventre inferni (Weber/Gryson) – de ventre inferi (Clementina, NVg) – out of the belly of
the underworld (or hell); out of the belly of the dead. Against the Benedictine Vulgate, which has
inferi, the Weber/Gryson edition prefers inferni as the original Jeromian reading. The latter

631
 makes better sense. It may be that Jerome, who uses inferi in his commentary on Jonah, origin­
ally had inferi, but later corrected it to inferni.

Jonah 3:9. quis scit si convertatur et ignoscat deus – who knows whether God will turn and forgive; wer
weiß, ob sich Gott wendet und vergibt. – Peter Juhás: Beobachtungen zum biblisch-hebräischen
Satzadverb ʾulaj. Funktionen, Übersetzungslösungen des Hieronymus und Problemstellen der
antiken Bibelübersetzungen. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 97.1 (2021) 1–36, at pp. 31–
32.

Jonah 4:6. hedera – ivy. The plant’s name is qiqayon in Hebrew. According to the Vetus Latina, this is a
cucurbita, a pumpkin (German: Kürbis). But Jerome translates differently, calling the plant a
hedera, ivy (German: Efeu) – which caused opposition that is famously echoed in the corres­
pondence between Jerome and Augustine. Why an ivy? To give the scene a bucolic flavor, be­
cause hedera belongs to the bucolic vocabulary of Jerome’s favorite ancient author, Vergil. Ivy is
the first plant the earth brings forth in the announced bucolic Golden Age. “But on thee, O boy,
untilled shall earth first pour childish gifts – wandering ivy-tendrils (errantis hederas) and fox­
glove, and Colocasia with the laughing acanthus” (Vergil: Fourth Eclogue, translated by J.W.
MacKail). In the book of Jonah, Jerome paints a scene in which the corrupt city of Nineveh, ex­
pected to perish, is surrounded by a bucolic landscape. ▲

Note. – The famous case of Jonah 4:6 merits documentation. Here are the relevant passages from Au­
gustine’s and Jerome’s letters:

(1) Augustine: Epistula 71,3,5 (PL 33: 242–243; CSEL 34.2: 253; Fontes christiani 41.1: 164–165): “For,
when a certain bishop of ours began to have your translation read in the church over which he
presides, a particular passage in the prophet Jonah caused a disturbance because it was presented in
far different language than had become familiar to the senses and memory and had been chanted for
so many years.” – “Ein Bischof, einer unserer Brüder, hatte in der von ihm geleiteten Gemeinde einge­
führt, bei den Lesungen Deine Übersetzung zu benutzen. Da erregte eine Stelle beim Propheten Jona
Aufsehen, die bei Dir ganz anders lautet, als alle sie von jeher im Gedächtnis hatten und sie Generation
für Generation vorgetragen worden war.” – German translation by Alfons Fürst; English translation
from The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century. Part II, Volume 1: Letters 1–11.
Translated by Roland Teske SJ. Hyde Park, NY 2001 (470 pp.), pp. 267–268.

(2) Jerome: Epistula 112, 22 (CSEL 34.2: 322–323; CCSL 55: 32–393; Labourt VI, pp. 42–43; Fontes chris­
tiani 41.1: 228–229): “Perhaps it is the old dispute about the gourd which has been revived, after slum­
bering for many long years since the illustrious man, who in that day combined in his own person the
ancestral honours of the Cornelii and of Asinius Pollio, brought against me the charge of giving in my
translation the word ivy instead of gourd. I have already given a sufficient answer to this in my com­
mentary on Jonah. At present, I deem it enough to say that in that passage, where the Septuagint has
gourd, and Aquila and the others have rendered the word ivy (kissos), the Hebrew manuscript has
ciceion, which is in the Syriac tongue, as now spoken, ciceia. It is a kind of shrub having large leaves
like a vine, and when planted it quickly springs up to the size of a small tree, standing upright by its
own stem, without requiring any support of canes or poles, as both gourds and ivy do. If, therefore, in
translating word for word, I had put the word ciceia, no one would know what it meant (…). I therefore
put down ivy, that I might not differ from all other translators. But if your Jews said, either through
malice or ignorance, as you yourself suggest, that the word is in the Hebrew text which is found in the
Greek and Latin versions, it is evident that they were either unacquainted with Hebrew, or have been
pleased to say what was not true, in order to make sport of the gourd-planters.” – “Womöglich geht
es, wie schon vor etlichen Jahren, erneut um den Kürbis. Damals erhob ein Cornelius und ein Asinius

632
Pollio den Vorwurf, statt Kürbis hätte ich Efeu übersetzt. Im Kommentar zum Propheten Jona habe ich
dazu schon ausführlicher Stellung genommen. So beschränke ich mich jetzt auf den Hinweis, dass die
siebzig Übersetzer [der Septuaginta] ‘Kürbis’ und Aquila wie alle anderen ‘Efeu’, der griechisch kittos
heißt, übersetzen. Im hebräischen Text steht an dieser Stelle ciceion, wofür die Syrer gewöhnlich ciceia
sagen. Es handelt sich um eine Pflanze mit breiten Blättern nach Art von Weinlaub, die nach dem Ein ­
pflanzen rasch zu einem kleinen Baum emporwächst ohne Stangen und Stützen, wie sie für Kürbis-
und Efeugewächse vonnöten sind, gestützt allein vom eigenen Stamm. Hätte ich mich dafür entschie­
den, wortwörtlich zu übersetzen und ciceion zu transkribieren, würde das niemand verstehen. (…) In
Übereinstimmung mit den anderen Übersetzern habe ich also ‘Efeu’ in den Text gesetzt.” German
translation by Alfons Fürst, Fontes christiani 41.1, p. 229.

(3) Augustine: Epistula 82, 35 (CSEL 34.2: 386–387; Fontes christiani 41.2: 332–333): “Hence, if in Jonah
that plant is in Hebrew neither an ivy nor a gourd plant, but something else that supports itself by its
own trunk without any stakes, I would prefer that we read ‘gourd plant’ in all the Latin translations.” –
“Wenn jene Pflanze im Buch Jona im Hebräischen weder ein Efeu- noch ein Kürbisstrauch ist, sondern
irgendein anderes Gewächs, das, getragen vom eigenen Stamm, ohne jede Stütze in die Höhe wächst,
dann möchte ich in allen lateinischen Ausgaben lieber beim Kürbis bleiben.” The German translation is
by Alfons Fürst. For the English translation, see The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st
Century. Part II, Volume 1: Letters 1–11. Translated by Roland Teske SJ. Hyde Park, NY 2001 (470 pp.),
p. 332.

1514. Albrecht Dürer: Der heilige Hieronymus im Gehäus – Saint Jerome in His Study. Copper etching.
– This etching belongs to the most accomplished and rightly most famous works of the German
artist. Fixed to one of the heavy beams of the study’s ceiling is a huge pumpkin or rather bottle-
gourd, complete with an equally huge leaf of the plant. Rather than being a decorative element,
it is intended to remind the viewer of a famous anecdote – the dispute between Jerome and Au­
gustine on the translation of a passage in the book of Jonah. According to art historian Adolf
Weis, Dürer captures the very moment when Jerome writes a letter to Augustine to defend his
decision not to call the plant a pumpkin but an ivy. On this interpretation of the etching, it
makes sense that the saint is placed at the center of the pictorial axis that connects the books
(the Bible translation, placed on the shelf in the lower left corner) with the gourd (placed at the
upper right corner of the etching). From Jerome’s perspective, the gourd is depicted as a trophy
that hangs from the ceiling to his left, whereas the proper translation is in the books, to his right.
Interestingly – and perhaps inspired by the anecdote and Dürer’s etching), Luther in his German
translation of the Bible restored the “pumpkin” (Kürbis) that Jerome had banned from the Vul­
gate. The King James Version of 1611 opted for “gourd,” designating a group of plants that in­
clude the pumpkin. – On Dürer’s etching, see Peter W. Parshall: Albrecht Dürer’s St. Jerome in
His Study. A Philological Reference. The Art Bulletin 53 (1971) 303–305; Adolf Weis: “ … diese
lächerliche Kürbisfrage …” Christlicher Humanismus in Dürer’s Hieronymusbild. Zeitschrift für
Kunstgeschichte 49 (1982) 195–201.

1520. Erasmus: Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei; in: Collected Works of Erasmus. Edited by
William Barker et al. Volume 72. Toronto 2005 (xxxvii, 449 pp.), p. 100: “How many things did he
[Jerome] introduce in the books of the Old Testament which at that time differed from the read­
ing of the church! How he derides those pumpkin-farmers in Africa, carrying on like gods and
causing an uproar on account of one little word being changed in Jonah!”

1534. Martin Luther: Biblia. – Originally, before translating the book of Jonah, Luther followed the Vul­
gate in speaking of Jonah’s hedera, i.e., ivy (Lectures on the Minor Prophets, see the Weimarer
Ausgabe of Luther’s works, Band 13, p. 256). In his translation of the book of Jonah, Luther de­

633
 parted from the Vulgate by calling the plant a pumpkin or gourd (Kürbis, Jonah 4:7–7). This in ­
terpretation is highlighted by the insertion of an illustration that unites several episodes from
the story of Jonah in one complex drawing. In this drawing we can see Jonah’s bower, un-botan­
ically crowned with a huge gourd.

1966. Gerardus Q.A. Meershoek: Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la ren­
contre entre la Bible et le monde classique. Nijmegen (xv, 256 pp.), pp. 40–42.

1979. Nova Vulgata. – Open the Nova Vulgata at Jonah 4:6 and you will find the word hedera, ivy. The
editors have not dared to change the word. It must be pointed out, though, that modern trans ­
lations, though not adopting Jerome’s “ivy,” nevertheless hesitate. The New English Bible (1970)
has “climbing gourd” and adds, in a note, that “castor-oil plant” would be another possibility.
The German Einheitsübersetzung (revised version, 2016) has Rizinusstrauch, which is the castor
oil plant.

1988. Pierre Hamblenne: Relectures de philologue sur le scandale du lierre/ricin (Hier. In Ion. 4.6). Eu­
phrosyne 16: 183–223.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – See pp. 58–60 on the hedera controversy.

2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at pp.
120–121.

2010. Anne Fraïsse: Comment traduire la Bible? Un échange entre Augustin et Jérôme au sujet de la
“citrouille” de Jonas 4,6. Études théologiques et religieuses 85: 145–165.

2010. Giovanni B. Bazzana: Cucurbita super caput ionae. Translation and Theology in the Old Latin Tra ­
dition. Vetus Testamentum 60.3: 309–322. – In Jerome’s day, the scene of Jonah resting under
the gourd (i.e., in a luxuriant environment), often depicted in funerary art, was seen as an image
of eschatalogical peace, announcing the coming of a this-worldly kingdom of God. By removing
the gourd, Jerome sought to exclude this interpretation. (B. Lang: Bazzana’s interpretation is not
immediately convincing. He does have a point, however, in showing that the “gourd” interpreta­
tion, reflected as it is in early-Christian art, was well established and well known, so that we can
understand the opposition against Jerome’s “ivy.” On the iconography of Jonah reclining under
the gourd, see, in addition to Bazzana’s article, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer: Jonah through the Centur­
ies. Chichester [x, 294 pp.], pp. 224–225.) ▲

2011. Alfons Fürst: Kürbis oder Efeu? Zur Übersetzung von Jona 4,6 in der Septuaginta und bei Hiero­
nymus. In: idem: Von Origenes zu Hieronymus und Augustinus. Studien zur antiken Theologiege­
schichte. Berlin (viii, 535 pp.), pp. 315–322. – Originally published in: Biblische Notizen 72 (1994)
12–19.

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg (444 pp.), p. 110.

2023. Sebastian Weigert: Die Hebraica Veritas und die Septuaginta im zeitgenössischen Widerstreit:
Kürbis oder Efeu? (Jona 4,6–10). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 144–145.

634
Micah (Micha, Michaea)

Secondary literature
2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at pp.
116–118.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Micah 1:1. In the Stuttgart Vulgate (Weber/Gryson) the prophet’s name is Micha, while the Clementina
has Michaea.

Micah 1:11. et transite vobis, habitatio pulchra, confusa ignominia – and go, your beautiful home is be­
wildered with shame! Note the pleonastic vobis. – Literature:

1999. Michela Cennamo: Late Latin Pleonastic Reflexives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.
Transactions of the Philological Society 97: 103–150, at p. 124.

2000. Michela Cennamo: Patterns of ‘Active’ Syntax in Late Latin Pleonastic Reflexives. In: John
Charles Smith – Delia Bentley (eds.): Historical Linguistics 1995. Volume 1. Amsterdam
2000 (xi, 438 pp.), pp. 35–55.

Micah 2:12. congregatione congregabo – zu einer Schar zusammenscharen. The addition of the ablat­
ive of the cognate noun serves to emphasize. – Plater/White, p. 23.

Micah 3:1. non vestrum est scire iudicium. The genitive vestrum constructed with esse indicates a rela­
tionship of possession; accordingly: “Is it not your part to know the judgment (concerning you)?;
Kommt es euch nicht zu, das Urteil (über euch) zu kennen?” – Plater/White, p. 93.

Micah 5:3 (Vg 5:4). Jerome’s translation: “And he will stand and shepherd in the strength of the Lord,
in the magnanimity (in sublimitate) of the name of the Lord, and they will convert, because now
he will be magnified as far as the end of the earth.” Jerome takes this to be a messianic passage.
– Riemer Roukema: Micah in Ancient Christianity. Reception and Interpretation. Berlin 2019 (xv,
283 pp.), p. 139.

Nahum (Naum)

Secondary literature
2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13: 102–125, at pp.
112–116.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual note
Nah 2:10. nigredo – blackness; nominal form derived from niger with the affix -do. – Plater/White, p.
46.

635
Habakkuk (Abcuc, Habacuc)

Secondary literature
2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Hab 2:2. scribe visum, et explana eum super tabulas, ut percurrat qui legerit eum – write the vision, and
make it plain upon tables, that he that readeth it may run over it (Douay Version). According to
his commentary, Jerome believes that the tablets refer to the “tablets of the heart,” and so he
may be thinking of quickly grasping something intellectually. – Thomas Renz: Reading and Run­
ning: Notes on the History of Translating the Final Clause of Hab 2:2. Vetus Testamentum 69
(2019) 435–446.

Hab 3. Meinrad Stenzel: Zum Vulgatatext des Canticum Habacuc. In: Virgil Fiala OSB – Bonifatius Fi­
scher OSB (eds.): Colligere fragmenta. Festschrift für Alban Dold. Beuron 1952 (xx, 295 pp.), pp.
25–33.

Hab 3:2. in medio annorum – in the middle of the years; in der Mitte der Jahre. Jerome notes the alter­
native reading provided by the Septuagint: in medio duorum animalium cognosceris – God will
be recognized “between two animals.” – Sincero Mantelli: La visione di Isaia nella controversia
origenista: note sull’In Habacuc di Gerolamo. Adamantius 19 (2013) 185–202.

Hab 3:5. et egredietur diabolus ante pedes eius – and the devil shall go forth before his feet (Douay
Version). The Hebrew text refers to Resheph which modern commentators identify as the name
of a Canaanite deity. Jerome renders the word as diabolus, justifying this with recourse to Jewish
midrash; see Jerome’s Commentary on Habacuc (CCSL 76A: 626–627) and Alison Salvesen:
“Tradunt Hebraei.” The Problem of the Function and Reception of Jewish Midrash in Jerome. In:
Michael Fishbane – Joanna Weinberg (eds.): Midrash Unbound. Tranformations and Innovations.
Oxford 2013 (viii, 472 pp.), pp. 57–82, at p. 72.

Hab 3:13. egressus es (…) in salutem cum christo tuo – you went forth (…) for salvation with your anoin­
ted; du ziehst aus zum Heile mit deinem Gesalbten. The Hebrew text says: You went forth (…) for
saving your anointed; du bist ausgezogen zur Rettung deines Gesalbten. – Literature:

1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherch­
es de science religieuse 3: 105–138, at p. 134.

2023. Matthew A. Kraus: The Vulgate and Jerome’s Biblical Exegesis. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special
issue: 99–119, at pp. 114–115 (online journal). Kraus quotes the relevant passage of
Jerome’s Commentary on Habacuc.

Hab 3:17. Sara Margarino: Girolamo sapiente agricoltore della terra promessa: esegsi profetica del
fico, della vite e dell’ulivo. Auctores nostri 8: 231–241.

Hab 3:18. exultabo in deo Iesu meo – I will rejoice in God, my Jesus; ich werde jubeln ob meines Gottes
Jesus. The Hebrew text has: I will rejoice in the God of my salvation. The christological interpret ­
ation may be occasioned by the Magnificat (Luke 1:47, Brown) or by Matt 1:21 (Becker) as
Jerome’s relevant intertext. – Literature:

636
 1912. Albert Condamin SJ: Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible de saint Jérôme. Recherch­
es de science religieuse 3: 105–138, at p. 134.

1992. Dennis Brown: Vir trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen (229
pp.), p. 119.

2003. Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu einer messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des
Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer (eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und
ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Münster (x, 620 pp.), pp.
21–34, at pp. 32–33.

Zephaniah (Sophonias)

Secondary literature
1909. Sidney Zandstra: The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah.
New York. 52 pp. – Page 16: “The [Vulgate] Latin text of Zephaniah reveals frequent conflict
between the careful translator and the literary artist. Occasionally Jerome’s faithfulness to the
Hebrew leads him to do violence to the Latin idiom (1:2 congregans congregabo ; 2:11 adorabunt
eum vir de loco suo). More frequently he is satisfied with an ad sensum rendering from which the
reading of his exemplar could never be recovered without the help of the Massoretic Text.”

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Zeph 2:3. quaerite iustum, quaerite manusetum – seek the Just One, seek the Meek One. In this sen­
tence, iustus and manusuetus are messianic titles. – Joachim Becker: ‘Iustus’ statt ‘iustitia.’ Zu ei­
ner messianisierenden Übersetzungsweise des Hieronymus. In: Klaus Kiesow – Thomas Meurer
(eds.): Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Um ­
welt Israels. Münster 2003 (x, 620 pp.), pp. 21–34.

Zeph 2:7. et erit funiculus eius qui remanserit de domo Iuda (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – and it shall
be the portion of him that shall remain of the house of Juda (Douay Version). Barthélemy sug­
gests that the original Vulgate reading must have been: et erit funiculus eius his qui remanserint
de domo Iuda – and it will be the portion of each of those who remained of the house of Judah.
– Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg 1992 (xxiv,
ccxlii, 1159 pp.), p. ccii and p. 892.

Zeph 2:13. Jerome refers to Assyria by name (Assur), but he translates the name Assyria’s capital city
Niniveh as speciosa, i.e., the Beautiful (or, as the Douay Version has it: “the beautiful city”).
Jerome’s rendering “is perhaps based on some Midrashic interpretation” (Zandstra). There is an­
other possibility, however: speciosa could be a mistake for spatiosa – the spacious city, the big
city (B. Lang), see the book of Jonah which refers to Niniveh as the civitas grandis (Jonah 1:2), a
passage in which Jerome stays with the name Ninive without offering a translation of it. Jerome
occasionally uses the abjective spatiosus (Gen 24:25; Ex 3:8). In Zeph 2:13, NVg restores the
name of the city – Nineve, as had done Ronald Knox in his translation of Zeph 2:13. – Sidney
Zandstra: The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah. New York
1909 (52 pp.), p. 17, note 1.

637
Zeph 3:1. civitas columba – city dove. This is a translation mistake based on yona = dove, a translation
already found in the Septuagint (ἡ πόλις ἡ περιστερά) and the Vetus Latina (Lucifer of Cagliari,
De Athanasio I, 36; PL 13: 869: civitas columba). Wissemann suggests provocatrix et redempta ci­
vitas superba, NVg has civitas violenta – violent city. – Michael Wissemann: Jona gleich Taube?
Zu vier Vulgataproblemen. Glotta 64 (1986) 36–47.

Haggai (Aggeus)

Secondary literature
2007. Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Adamantius 13 (2007) 102–125, at
pp. 111–112.

2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Hag 1:1. This passage refers to a Jerusalem high priest by the name of Joshua. Jerome writes Iesus. To
avoid confusion with Jesus Christ, the NVg spells the name Iesua.

Hag 1:10. et terra prohibita est ne daret germen suum – and the earth was hindered from yielding her
fruits (Douay Version). This rendering coincides with that of the Targum, see K.J. Cathcart– R.P.
Gordon: The Targum of the Minor Prophets. Edinburgh 1989, p. 178: “and the earth has stopped
yielding fruit.” Pointed out by Caterina Moro: La traduzione di Gerolamo dei profeti minori. Ada­
mantius 13 (2007) 102–125, at pp. 111–112.

Hag 2:10. magna erit … plus quam – great will be, greater than; groß wird sein, größer als. This is an
unusual way of expressing the comparative; in classical Latin, one would use maior, “greater.” –
Plater/White, p. 67.

Zechariah (Zaccharias)

Secondary literature
2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Zech 1:16. perpendiculum – plumbline [Lot], not “building line,” as the Douay Version has it. Günther
Binding: Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berück­
sichtigung der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), p. 18.

Zech 3:3–9. This passage refers several times to a Jerusalem high priest by the name of Joshua.
Jerome writes Iesus. To avoid confusion with Jesus Christ, the NVg spells the name Iesua.

Zech 3:9. ecce ego caelabo sculpturam eius (Clementina, NVg) – behold, I will grave the graving thereof
(Douay Version); siehe, ich werde seine Schnitzereien ziselieren (Tusculum-Vulgata). Loch’s
1862/63 edition and that of Weber/Gryson prefer the spelling celabo, without implying a differ­

638
 ent meaning. According to standard dictionaries, celare means “to hide,” whereas caelare is to
be rendered as “to engrave in relief.” In his commentary, Jerome explains that the passage is
about engraving (PL 25: 1440).

Zech 4:7,9–10. educet lapidem primarium. (…) manus Zorobabel fundaverunt domum istam, et manus
eius perficient eam. … laetabuntur, et videbunt lapidem stagnetum in manu Zorobabel. Binding
suggests this translation: er (Zorobalel) wird den Grundstein aufsetzen. (…) Die Hände Zoroba­
bels haben dieses Haus fundamentiert, und seine Hände werden es auch vollenden. (…) Sie wer ­
den sich freuen und das Bleilot in der Hand Zorobabels sehen. He (Zorobabel) will lay the
foundation stone. (…) The hands of Zorobabel have made the foundation of this house, and his
hands will finish it. (…) They will rejoice and see the plump line in his hand. – Günther Binding:
Ein Beitrag zur sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksichtigung
der (…) Vulgata. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), p. 19.

Zech 6:3.7. equi varii et fortes – horses, spottet and strong (v. 3); qui autem erant robustissimi – those
(horses) that were very strong (v. 7). The superlative of robustus is attested only here. – Philip Su­
ciadi Chia: The analysis of the translation of [amutsim] in Zechariah 6:3 and 6:7. Theological Jour­
nal Kerugma 1.1. (2018) 19–25; idem: Why do the ancient texts differ in their translations of
[amutsim] in Zechariah? Verbum et ecclesia 43.1 (2022) 1–5.

Zech 6:10. sume a transmigratione (…) et venies (…) et intrabis (…) et sumes aurum: If a series of utter­
ances begins with a verb in the imperative, it is followed by verbs in the future tense with imper ­
ative meaning. – Kaulen, p. 228.

Zech 6:11. Iesus, see note on Zech 3:3–9.

Zech 9:6. separator – alien, foreigner. – Kaulen, p. 88, with reference to the derivation of the word in
Jerome.

Zech 10:2. simulacra locuta sunt inutile – the idols have spoken what was unprofitable (Douay
Version); die Götzenbilder reden Unnützes (Allioli); die Götzenbilder haben Unnützes ge­
sprochen (Tusculum-Vulgata). For inutilis, Richards (p. 67) has “useless, unprofitable.”

Zech 12:3. lapis oneris – a burdensome stone (Douay Version); Laststein (Allioli). – Ilona Opelt: Der
“Hebestein” Jerusalem und eine Hebekugel auf der Akropolis von Athen in der Deutung des Hi­
eronymus von Sach 12,1–3. In: Ernst Dassmann – Klaus Thraede (ed.): Vivarium. Festschrift für
Theodor Klauser. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 11. Münster 1984 (384
pp., 37 leaves ), pp. 287–294; also included in: Ilona Opelt: Kleine Schriften. Edited by Dietmar
Schmitz. Frankfurt 1997 (469 pp.), pp. 85–94.

Zech 12:6. sicut facem ignis in faneo (Weber/Gryson) – like a torch of fire in hay; wie eine Fackel des
Feuers im Heu. The Clementina has (by mistake): sicut faciem in faneo, which does not make
sense.

Zech 13:4. Vincent T.M. Skemp: Learning by Example. Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions
of Biblical Books. Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 257–285.

Zech 14:5. et fugietis ad vallem montium eorum (Clementina, NVg) – and you shall flee to the valley of
their mountains. The proper reading must be montium meorum (Weber/Gryson). See the discus­
sion in Dominique Barthélemy: Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3. Fribourg 1992
(xxiv, ccxlii, 1159 pp.), p. ccii and pp. 1005–1006.

639
Malachi

Secondary literature
2017. Michael Graves: Vulgate [text of the prophetic books of the Bible]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual
History of the Bible. Volume 1B. Leiden (xxxii, 730 pp.), pp. 645–652.

Textual notes
Mal 1:6. (1) filius honorat patrem (…) ubi honor meus est? – the son honours the father (…) where is the
honour due to me? Jerome discusses his use of honor as the appropriate idiomatic Latin transla­
tion, to be preferred to gloria (and glorificare) in his Commentary on Malachi (PL 25: 1547).
Meershoek, pp. 95–96. – (2) honor meus – my honour = the honour due to me; die mir
gebührende Ehre. – Plater/White, p. 72.

Mal 3:19–24 (Vg 4:1–6). Bernhard Klinger: Reading Mal 3:19-24 as Mal 4:1-6 (VUL): Jerome’s Vulgate
as Approach to a Textual Problem. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue 2023: 7–16.

1 Maccabees (Liber I Macchabeorum)

Text
1932. Donatien De Bruyne OSB – Bonaventure Sodar OSB: Les anciennes traductions latines des Macha­
bées. Anecdota Maredsolana IV. Maredsous (lxiv, 227 pp.), pp. 1–101. – This is the highly-ac­
claimed edition of several Old Latin manuscripts of 1 and 2 Macc. – Reviews:
1933. Elias Bickerman, Theologische Literaturzeitung 58: 340–341.

1933. Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 14: 477–481.

1995. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. [Tomus] 18: Libri I – II Maccha­
beorum. Edited by Jean Mallet OSB. Rome. lxv, 266 pp. – This is the last volume of the Benedict­
ine Vulgate Bible; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1827. John Jahn: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated from the Latin and German Works of
John Jahn. With additional references and notes by Samuel H. Turner and William R. Whitting­
ham. New York (xxiv, 546 pp. and indexes), p. 543: “The Vulgate version was made before the
time of Jerome, and from a Greek text.”

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Philologus
42.2: 319–378. – See esp. p. 328, where the author points out the late-Latin features of 1 Macca­
bees’ latinity.

1931. Hugo Bévenot OSB: Die beiden Makkabäerbücher. Bonn (xii, 260 pp.), p. 45: “der sog. Vulgatatext
der Makkabäerbücher stammt nicht von Hieronymus, sondern ist lediglich eine stilistische Glät­
tung der altlateinischen Übersetzung. Diese (…) soll nach Dom de Bruyne aus einem griechi­
schen Text verfertigt worden sein, der älter und besser war als jener der noch vorhandenen grie­
chischen Codices.” The Vulgate text represents a stylistically polished version of the Old Latin
text.

640
1953. Angelo Penna: Libri dei Maccabei. Torino. x, 267 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. ▲

2008. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les livres des Maccabées dans la Bible latine: contribution à l’his­
toire de la Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 118: 201–238. – How did the less sure of the available
texts of 1–2 Maccabees became the received Latin text (Vulgate)? The critical editions of D. De
Bruyne (1932) and of the Benedictine monks of San Girolamo in Rome (1995) pave the way to a
history of the diffusion of the multiple text types and allow to distinguish the factors giving an
advantage to one of them: its disposition per cola et commata in small codices by Italian (and
perhaps Roman) booksellers; its use in the scriptoria of Tours (Alcuin) and Orléans (Theodulf) ca
800. Some characteristic readings of the Vulgate are already witnessed in Africa about 400.

2019. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Latin [text of 1 Maccabees]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 125–131.

Textual notes
1 Macc 1:1.3–5. The Latin translator produced a free rendering. Verse 1 speaks of Alexander both bib­
lically (who came from the land of Kittim) and historically (qui primus regnavit in Graecia – who
was the first to rule over Graecia). In the Latin’s Greek Vorlage, the reference to Alexander’s be­
ing the first ruler seems to be a gloss based on 1 Macc 6:2. The Latin translator understood Hel­
las = Graecia not as the Hellenistic empire, but as designating the Greek motherland. – Guy Dar­
shan: Textual History of the Account of Alexander the Great in 1 Maccabees. Biblica 98.4 (2017)
600–609.

1 Macc 1:7. et vocavit pueros suos nobiles qui secum erant nutriti a iuventute – and he appointed (liter­
ally: called) his servants – those who were brought up with him (literally: fed with him) – (to be)
nobles. Kaulen p. 25 suggests pueri = civil servants, Beamte, but here it sounds like “peers.” In
English, the word “peers” has two meanings: a member of the nobility in Britain or Ireland; a per­
son of the same age or status; the word is not derived from Latin puer, but from Latin par =
equal.

1 Macc 3:20. The Clementina reads superbia; but it must be superba, as in the edition of
Weber/Gryson. The Nova Vulgata uses an altogether different word – contumelia.

1 Macc 7:8–9. et elegit rex ex amicis suis Bacchidem (…) et misit eum, [ut videret exterminium quod fe­
cit Iudas: sed] et Alcimum impium constituit in sacerdotium – and the king chose one of his
friends, Bacchides, (…) and sent him [to see the havoc that Judas has made] and the wicked
Alcimus he appointed priest. The words between bracktes are in the Clementina, but not in
Weber/Gryson and NVg.

1 Macc 5:11. extra flumen – beyond the river, jenseits des Flusses. – Kaulen, p. 239.

1 Macc 9:31. ambitio – retinue, entourage; Begleitung, Gefolge. This is a special meaning of ambitio.
Rönsch, p. 522; Kaulen, p. 13.

1 Macc 9:48. et dissiliit Ionathas, [et qui cum eo erant, in Iordanem,] et transnataverunt ad eos Iorda­
nem – and Jonathas jumped [and those who were with him, into the Jordan] and they swam
over the Jordan to them. The words set between brackets are absent from the Weber/Gryson
text, but included in the Clementina. Both versions of the text are problematic and require
emendation. The NVg has: Et dissiliit Ionathas et, qui cum eo erant, in Iordanem et transnatave­
runt in ulteriora; et non transierunt ad eos Iordanem – and Jonathas jumped together with those

641
 who were with him, into the Jordan, and swam to the other side; and they (i.e., the enemy) did
not cross the Jordan to them.

1 Macc 14:5. et fecit introitum in insulis maris – he made a passage in the isles of the sea. This does
not make sense. The in must be omitted so that the meaning is: he opened up the passage to
the isles of the sea. Hagen, p. 25. The Nova Vulgata omits the preposition in.

2 Maccabees (Liber II Maccabeorum)

Text
1932. Donatien De Bruyne OSB – Bonaventure Sodar OSB: Les anciennes traductions latines des Macha­
bées. Anecdota Maredsolana IV. Maredsous (lxiv, 227 pp.), pp. 102–227. – Highly-acclaimed edi­
tion of pre-Vulgate versions. – Reviews:
1933. Elias Bickerman, Theologische Literaturzeitung 58: 340–341.

1933. Alberto Vaccari SJ, Biblica 14: 477–481.

1995. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem. Tomus 18: Libri I – II Maccha­
beorum. Edited by Jean Mallet OSB. Rome. lxv, 266 pp. – The final volume of the Benedictine
Vulgate; see above, Chapter 13.3.

Secondary literature
1827. John Jahn: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated from the Latin and German Works of
John Jahn. With additional references and notes by Samuel H. Turner and William R. Whitting­
ham. New York (xxiv, 546 pp. and indexes), p. 546: “The Latin Vulgate version is older than
Jerome, and is a free translation from the Greek.”

1884. Philipp Thielmann: Über die Benutzung der Vulgata zu sprachlichen Untersuchungen. Philologus
42.2: 319–378. – See esp. p. 328.

1931. Hugo Bévenot OSB: Die beiden Makkabäerbücher. Bonn (xii, 260 pp.), p. 45: “der sog. Vulgatatext
der Makkabäerbücher stammt nicht von Hieronymus, sondern ist lediglich eine stilistische
Glättung der altlateinischen Übersetzung. Diese (…) soll nach Dom de Bruyne aus einem
griechischen Text verfertigt worden sein, der älter und besser war als jener der noch
vorhandenen griechischen Codices.” The Vulgate text represents a stylistically polished version
of the Old Latin text.

1953. Angelo Penna: Libri dei Maccabei. Torino. x, 267 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia
Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a
modern Italian translation of the Hebrew text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite
pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes. ▲

1961. Robert Hanhart: Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches. Probleme der Überlieferung, der Aus­
legung und der Ausgabe. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philolo­
gisch-historische Klasse 1961, Nr. 13. Göttingen. pp. 5–65 (= pp. 427–487). On pp. 21–28 (= 443–
450), the author discusses the Latin textual tradition; characteristically, the Latin text is shorter
than the Greek, but some of the abridgements can also be found in some Greek manuscripts.

642
2008. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les livres des Maccabées dans la Bible latine: contribution à l’his­
toire de la Vulgate. Revue bénédictine 118: 201–238. – For an abstract, see above, secondary lit­
erature on 1 Macc.

2017. Jenny Teichmann: Greek Brothels in Jerusalem? Vulgate Readings in the Second Book of the
Maccabees. Vulgate in Dialogue 1: 83–101 (online journal). The article offers a general character­
ization of the Vulgate text of 2 Macc (with no special emphasis on brothels – though these are
referred to in 2 Macc 4:12, on the basis of an obscure Greek wording). For a German version of
the article, see: Griechische Bordelle in Jerusalem? Übersetzerische Besonderheiten in der Vulga­
ta-Fassung des Zweiten Buchs der Makkabäer; in: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): (ed.): Lingua Vulgata.
Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413
pp.), pp. 393–410.

2019. Johannes Schnocks: Latin [text of 2 Maccabees]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 156–159.

2023. Roland Hoffmann: Einleitung: Linguistische Perspektiven in der Vulgata. In: idem (ed.): Lingua
Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg
(vi, 413 pp.), pp. 3–83, at p. 43. – 1 Macc and 2 Macc differ considerably in the use of hyperbat­
on: the 17 hyperbata of 1 Macc echo an original Hebrew text (which has no hyperbata), while
the 95 hyperbata of 2 Macc reflect a Greek text (which has many hyperbata).

Textual notes
2 Macc 1:19. contutari – to protect; schützen, sichern. – Kaulen, p. 206.

2 Macc 4:10. contribulis – fellow-tribesman, Stammesgenosse (as in Lev 25:17; 1 Thess 2:14).

2 Makk 4:12. lupanar – brothel, plural lupanares – brothel houses. The Jerusalem high priest Jason in­
troduced Greek institutions and, according to the Greek text of this passage, “led the strongest
men under the sunhat.” The New Revised Standard Version translates this as “he induced the
noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat,” while the German translation of the Sep­
tuagint has “(er) beorderte die kräftigsten Epheben dortin [i.e., to the gymnasium] und brachte
sie unter den Petasos-Hut,” explaining that wearing this hat meant commitment to participate in
Greek-style sports events. The Latin text has nothing about the Greek hat and instead refers to
brothels. – Literature:

2017. Jenny Teichmann: Greek Brothels in Jerusalem? Vulgate Readings in the Second Book of
the Maccbees. Vulgate in Dialogue 1: 83–101.

2023. Jenny Teichmann: In Bordelle bringen? (2Makk 4,12). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 147–148.

2 Macc 4:13. gentilis – pagan. The reader of the Latin text would hardly realise that the word renders
ἑλληνικός – Greek. – Jenny Teichmann: Greek Brothels in Jerusalem? Vulgate Readings in the
Second Book of the Maccabees. Vulgate in Dialogue 1 (2017) 83–101, page 83: “the
translator/redactor of the Vulgate was not overly concerned with problems of cultural identity,
and instead of giving the most faithful rendering, he simply gave a term he (and his Christian
audience) was more used to: gentilis.”

2 Macc 4:19. viros peccatores – sinners, Sünder. The expression must be emended to viros spectatores
– spectators, Zuschauer, suggests Hagen, p. 35. Another emendation, better fitting the context,
would be viros portatores – porters (B. Lang).

2 Macc 6:7. in die natalis regis – on the king’s birthday, literally: on the day of the king’s birth. One
would expect in die natali (with natalis as adjective), but the translator uses the noun natale =

643
 birth (Hagen, p. 86). In classical Latin, one would write die natalis regis, without the preposition
in.

2 Macc 9:22. non desperans memetipsum – without despairing. Note the pleonastic reflexive. – Michela
Cennamo: Patterns of ‘Active’ Syntax in Late Latin Pleonastic Reflexives. In: John Charles Smith –
Delia Bentley (eds.): Historical Linguistics 1995. Volume 1. Amsterdam 2000 (xi, 438 pp.), pp. 35–
55.

2 Macc 10:17. omnes simul non minus a viginti milibus trucidaverunt – they all conjointly killed no few­
er than (non minus a) twenty thousand. – Jesús de la Villa: Numerals. In: Numerals. In: Philip
Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 3. Berlin
2010 (xxi, 529 pp.), pp. 175–238, at p. 182.

2 Macc 10:29. ducatum praestare – to provide guidance. The expression is also used in Matt 15:14.
Hagen, p. 88.

2 Macc 11:25. secundum suorum maiorum consuetudinem (Clementina; Weber/Gryson has maiorum
suorum, which corresponds closer to classical usage) – in accordance with the custom of their
ancestors, “which vividly reminds us of the Roman formula mores maiorum.” – Igor Filippov:
Bible and Roman Law. The Notions of Law, Custom and Justice in the Vulgate. In: Angelo Di Be­
rardino et al.: Lex et religio. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 135. Rome 2013 (782 pp.), pp.
105–141, at p. 122.

644
Chapter 22
Textual notes on the New Testament

The Four Gospels

Latin synopsis
1935. Johann Perk SS: Synopsis latina quattuor evangeliorum secundum Vulgatam editionem. Pader­
born. 35*, 160 pp. – Reviews: Heinrich Vogels, Theologische Revue 35 (1937) 9–10; Urban
Holzmeister, Biblica 18.2 (1937) 221–223. According to Vogels, this is not a proper synopsis ba­
cause in many cases, the parallel text is not synoptically placed. – Salesian Father Perk (d. 1955)
also published a German synopsis.

Gospel harmonies
2023. Ulrich B. Schmid: Latin Gospel Harmonies. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the
Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 225–240. – Latin Gospel Harmonies have attracted com­
paratively little interest within broader biblical tradition. The oldest extant Latin harmony is Co ­
dex Fuldensis, and scholarship has tended to use this in conjunction with vernacular harmonies
to try to reconstruct a lost Old Latin Vorlage rather than examine the surviving later manuscripts.
After a brief account of the history of research, this chapter presents a gospel pericope (John
2:1–11) from fourteen Latin harmony manuscripts. This provides an impression of their textual
variety, especially in later manuscripts. A comparison between earlier and later commentaries on
Latin gospel harmonies show that the same traditions are utilized, which belong to the wider
stream of medieval commentary tradition manifested in the Glossa ordinaria. Finally, an outline
is given of the likely trajectory from the Fuldensis-type Vulgate harmony to vernacular harmon­
ies via the glossed Latin harmony.

Secondary literature
1907. Eberhard Nestle. Die Evangelien der lateinischen Vulgata. Philologus 66: 526–530.

1907. Eberhard Nestle: The Gospels in the Latin Vulgate. American Journal of Theology 11: 501–502. –
Each of the four Latin gospels was written by a separate translator, so that the text goes back to
a time when the four gospels were not yet united to form a collection.

1908. John Chapman OSB: Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels. Oxford. xi, 299 pp.

1928. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Vulgatastudien. Die Evangelien der Vulgata untersucht auf ihre lateini­
sche und griechische Vorlage. Münster. iv, 345 pp. – Review: Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP, Revue
biblique 38 (1929) 261–264.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 281–291.

1943. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation. The [American] Ecclesiastical Review 109:
101–115; 304–312. – Notes on Matthew and Mark.

645
1946–1947. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8 (1946)
83–86; 230–235; 433–437. – 9 (1947) 106–110; 220–225. – Notes on Luke and John.

2001. Tarcisio Stramare: I Vangeli della Vulgata. Rivista biblica 49: 155–172.

2000. Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels. A Study of Their Texts and Language. Oxford. xi, 232 pp. –
Pages 192–199: Jerome’s Translation Technique. Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin Gospel text
produced a version that is frequently closer to the Greek than the text of the Vetus Latina. As a
result, it is sometimes less comprehensible.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and
Manuscripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – Pages 31–35: Jerome and the Vulgate Gospels. “Jerome lost
momentum as his revision of the Gospels progressed. He intervened most frequently in Mat­
thew and least so in John. (…) There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the
revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament” (p. 34).

2020. Felicia Logozzo – Liana Tronci: Subordination vs. coordination: la traduction du verbe erchomai
dans les Évangiles. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Ernout (De lingua latina) 18; 35 pp. (on­
line journal).

Matthew (Evangelium secundum Matheum/Matthaeum)

Secondary literature
1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg. iv, 106 pp. – Pages 62–101:
linguistic commentary on selected passages of Matthew.

1943. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation. The [American] Ecclesiastical Review 109:
101–115. – Linguistic notes on selected passages of the Latin gospel of Matthew.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and
Manuscripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 157–160 for a survey of the Latin manuscripts.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 184–186, 189–204, 206–
208. – Bilingual text (Latin and German working translation) of Matt 2:1–12; 3:13–17; 5–7; 6:30–
44; 21:1–11, with explanatory notes on vocabulary and grammar.

Textual notes
Matt 1:19. nollet eam traducere – he did not wish to hand her over (to the sight of the people). Here
traducere is an abbreviated form of the idiom traducere per ora hominum – to hand over to pub­
lic view (as in Livy: Ab urbe condita II, 38). – Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur
Vulgata. Freiburg 1863 (iv, 106 pp.), p. 63.

Matt 1:25. donec peperit filium [suum primogenitum] (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – until she would
give birth to [her firstborn] son. The Nova Vulgata omits the two words set between brackets
because they are not in the modern standard editions of the Greek text.

Matt 2:1. cum ergo natus esset Iesus in Bethleem Iudaeae (Weber/Gryson, NVg) – when Jesus was born
in Bethlehem of Judah (Douay Version) – The Clementina has: in Bethlehem Iuda, apparently a
short form of saying in Bethlehem terra Iuda – in Bethlehem in the land of Judah (as in Matt 2:6),
where terra Iuda is ablativus loci.

646
Matt 2:1. magi ab oriente venerunt Jerosolymam – oriental magi came to Jerusalem (not: magi came
from the Orient to Jerusalem). – Hagen, p. 64.

Matt 2:20. qui quaerebant animam pueri – those who sought to kill the boy. The idiom quaerer ani­
man, to seek the soul (or life), is used in 1 Kgs 19:10 (quoted Rom 11:3) and elsewhere.

Matt 2:22. secessit in partes Galilaeae – he went away to Galilee (literally: to the region of Galilee). For
partes = region, see Einar Löfstedt: Late Latin. Oslo 1959 (vii, 210 pp.), p. 113. Translations: re­
tired into the quarters of Galilee (Douay Version); he withdrew into the region of Galilee (Knox);
begab sich in das Gebiet von Galäläa (Grundl); zog er weg in die Gegend Galiläas (Tuscu ­
lum-Vulgata); il se retira dans le pays de Galilée (Glaire).

Matt 2:23. quoniam nazaraeus vocabitur – for this reason, he is called “holy.” In the mind of Jerome,
the adjective nazaraeus (which Jerome takes to mean “holy”) is only loosely associated with the
town of Nazareth. – Michael L. Moran: Nazirites and Nazarenes: The Meaning of Nazaraeus in
Saint Jerome. Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9.2 (2006) 320–366.

Matt 3:12. cujus ventilabrum in manu sua – the fan is his hand. The word cujus is not to be translated;
it reflects Hebrew usage; see Ps 40:5 (Vg 39:5) and Hagen, pp. 67–68.

Matt 3:15. tunc dimisit eum – then he (John) gave him permission (to be baptized); dann gab er (Jo­
hannes) ihm (Jesus) die Erlaubnis (getauft zu werden). – Hagen, p. 68.

Matt 4:6. angelis suis mandabit – he will commission his angels. The Clementina prints mandavit; this
is not the verb in the perfect tense, but a special spelling – betacism: the interchange of b and v.
– Plater/White, p. 43, note 2.

Matt 4:15. Terra Zabulon, et terra Nephatalim, Via maris trans Iordanem, Galilaea gentium (Clementi­
na). There must be a comma after Via maris, so that we have four regions that are subsumed un­
der the common name “Galilee of the Gentiles.” This is how Hagen understands the passage.
There is another possibility, however; NVg has Terra Zabulon et terra Naphtali, / ad viam maris,
trans Iordanem,/ Galilaea gentium, which suggests that ad viam maris, trans Iordanem indicates
that Zabulon and Naphtali are on the other side of the Jordan. – Hagen, pp. 70–71.

Matt 4:24. et abiit opinion eius in totam Syriam – and his fame went throughout all Syria (Douay Ver­
sion). The verb abire, rather than meaning “to leave,” stands for ire, “to go”; and opinio means
“rumour” (like fama or rumor).

Matt 5–7. Sermon in the Mount. Latin text with German working translation, complete with vocabulary
and grammatical notes in: Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der
lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343
pp.), pp. 189–204.

Matt 5:1–16. M. Mees: Mt 5,1–26 in den altlateinischen Bibelübersetzungen. Emendare et traducere in

ihrem Einfluss. Vetera Christianorum 3 (1966) 85–100.

Matt 5:3. beati pauperes spiritu – blessed are the poor in spirit (Douay Version, Knox). German: selig
die Armen im Geiste (Allioli, Arndt, Grundl, Weinhart; Tusculum-Vulgata: selig die im Geist Ar­
men). According to the Plater/White grammar (p. 96), the ablative spiritu defines the place
where the poverty is located.

Matt 5:13. in quo salietur? – In classical Latin, one would use quo, not in quo. Two translations are pos­
sible: with what shall (the earth) be salted?; with what shall (the salt) be salted? If one is pre ­
pared to rely on Mark 9:49, then the second possibility is the one that the Matthean passage has

647
 in mind (Glaire’s option; see Chapter 18.3). The natural rendering, however, is the first one (Al­
lioli).

Matt 5:20. dico enim vobis, quia (…) (Clementina) – but I say to you (…). The word quia must not be
translated because echoing Greek ὅτι it merely serves as what we express by a colon [:]. The
word quia in this function is often used in Matthew, see Matt 5:22, 28,32. The Nova Vulgata con ­
sistently omits the superfluous placing of quia before quotations.

Matt 5:23. frater tuus habet aliquid adversum te – literally: your brother has something against you.
The literal translation of this idiom does not work, however; meant is: if you have wronged your
brother (so that he has a reason to be angry with you); this is clear from the parallel passage,
Mark 11:25. – Hagen, p. 72.

Matt 6:4. qui videt in abscondito – who seeth in secret (Douay Version). This translation suggests that
God watches secretly, which is most likely meant. Hagen quotes one translator’s option for “der
ins Verborgene sieht” (who sees that which is hidden), but this would require a different Latin
wording – qui abscondita videt. Hagen, p. 74.

Matt 6:9–13. The wording of the Lord’s prayer differs in the two standard editions of the printed Vul ­
gate text.

Stuttgart Vulgate (Weber/Gryson) Clementina (and Nova Vulgata)

Pater noster qui in caelis es / sanctificetur no­ Pater noster, qui es in coelis: sanctificetur no­
men tuum / veniat regnum tuum / fiat volun­ men tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat volun­
tas tua sicut in caelo et in terra / panem no­ tas tua, sicut in coelo, & in terra. Panem no­
strum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie / et strum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. Et
dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimi­ dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimit­
simus debitoribus nostris / et ne inducas nos timus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in
in temptationem / sed libera nos a malo. tentationem. Sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

The Nova Vulgata follows the Clementina, but omits the final Amen and uses a capital letter for
Malo – deliver us from the Evil One, i.e., the devil.

Note. – The bread petition of the Lord’s prayer merits a closer look. In what follows we list some an ­
cient sources as well as some modern secondary literature on the subject.

383/84. Jerome. – The Vetus Latina version of the bread petition reads: panem nostrum quotidianum
da nobis hodie (the words still used today in the liturgy). When Jerome edited the Vetus Latina
text of the Gospel of Matthew, he changed the bread petition, making it read (according to both
the Stuttgart Vulgate and the Clementina): panem nostrum supersubstantialem [as a literal ren­
dering or “loan translation” of Greek epiousios] da nobis hodie (Matt 6:11).

398. Jerome: Commentary on Matthew. – In the Commentary on Matthew I, 6 Jerome deals with the
rendering of the Lord’s Prayer. Concerning Matt 6:11 he writes: In evangelio qui appelatur secun­
dum Hebraeos pro supersubstantiali pane reperi mahar quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus: pa­
nem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie. Possumus supersubstantialem panem et

648
 aliter intelligere: qui super omnes substantias sit, et universas superet creaturas . (PL 26: 43 = CCSL
77: 37) – “In the Gospel called ‘according to the Hebrews,’ I found (…) maar, that is, ‘tomorrow’
(crastinum), so that the sense is: Our bread of tomorrow – the bread to come – give us today.
We can also understand the supersubstantial bread in another way – it is above all substances
and surpasses all creatures.” – German: “Im Evangelium, das ‘nach den Hebräern’ heißt, habe ich
(…) maar gefunden, das ‘morgen’ (crastinum) heißt, so dass der Sinn ist: Unser morgiges Brot –
das zukünftige – gib uns heute. Wir können das übersubstantielle Brot auch anders verstehen –
es steht über allen Substanzen und übertrifft alle Geschöpfe.”

425/29. John Cassian: Collationes IX, 21 (PL 49: 794) explains that the Matthean version of the Lord’s pray­
er asks for panem nostrum supersubstantialem. As a young man, John Cassian had spent some
time in a monastery in Bethlehem, where he must have become familiar with Jerome’s version of
the Lord’s prayer.

Secondary literature
1908. Gerhard Loeschcke: Die Vaterunser-Erklärung des Theophilus von Antiochien. Eine Quellenunter­
suchung zu den Vaterunser-Erklärungen des Tertulliuan, Cyprian, Chromatius und Hieronymus.
Berlin. 51 pp.

1915. W. Schmid: Epiousios. Glotta. Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache 6: 28–39.

1968. Walter Dürig: Die Deutung der Brotbitte des Vaterunsers bei den lateinischen Vätern bis Hi­
eronymus. Liturgisches Jahrbuch 18: 72–86.

1988. Siegfried Heinimann: Oratio Dominica Romanice. Das Vaterunser in den romanischen Sprachen
bis zum 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen. xii, 224 pp. – This book is an annotated reader of the Lord’s
Prayer in Latin and the various Romance vernacular languages; on pp. 73–79 the author presents
three early Latin versions: Tertullian’s Paternoster, the Vetus Latina Version, and that of the Vul­
gate. ▲

2004. Kenneth W. Stevenson: The Lord’s Prayer. A Text in Tradition. London. ix, 290 pp. – Pages 73–75:
Jerome. It seems that in Bethlehem, Jerome used his Vulgate version of the Lord’s prayer rather
than the usual Vetus Latina text.

2015. Adrian Muraru: “Pater noster” (Mt 6,9–13) în limba româna – nume si verbe între stabilitate si
fluctuatie. In: Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et al. (eds.): Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des
Vulgata Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt 2015 (234 pp.), pp. 61–72. – Romanian.

2023. Wilhelm Tauwinkl: Eucharistisches Brot? Supersubstantialis (Mt 6,11). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 99–100.

2023. Hans Förster: Führe uns nicht in Versuchung? (Mt 6,13). In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 116–117. – tenta­
tio refers to a “testing,” not a temptation.

Matt 6:16. – exterminant enim facies suas (Clementina) – they disfigure their faces. Jerome comments
on the passage, arguing that this is not the right word for this passage (Commentary on Mat­
thew I, 6; PL 26: 43–44); he prefers demoliuntur, which has been adopted by the Weber/Gryson
edition and the Nova Vulgata. – Meershoek, pp. 53–56.

Matt 6:18. ne videaris hominibus ieiunians – in order not to be seen by others when (you are) fasting.
This is a final clause with negation – with ne; it could also be ut non. – Concepción Cabrillana
Leal – Eusebia Tarriño Ruiz: Finales, consecutivas y comparativas. In: José Miguel Baños Baños
(ed.): Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid 2009 (838 pp.), pp. 633–656.

649
Matt 6:27. adiicere (adicere, Weber/Gryson, NVg) ad staturam suam cubitum unum – to add a single
cubit to one’s stature. All of this is straightforward; but the Latin translator has misunderstood
the Greek text that refers to extending one’s lifespan. Hence the Nova Vulgata: adicere ad
aetatem suam cubitum unum – to add to one’s lifespan a single cubit.

Matt 7:2. in qua mensura mensi fueritis – in the measure with which you (yourself) measured, or: with
what measure (…). In classical Latin, one would omit the in. The expression quā mensurā would
be a case of ablative of measure where the standard of measure is put in the ablative, accom­
panied by a verb of measure or judgment. See Hagen, p. 77 and B.L. Gildersleeve – Gonzalez
Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p. 259 (no. 402).

Matt 7:21. (ipse) intrabit in regnum caelorum – (only he) will enter the kingdom of heaven. The Vulgate
has this phrase twice; the Nova Vulgata simplifies the sentence by deleting it at the end (where
it has no equivalent in Greek). For ipse as an intensifying pronoun, see → ipse in the glossary,
Chapter 19.2.

Matt 8:2–3. si vis, potes me mundare (…) dicens: Volo. Mundare (punctuation of the Clementina) – if
you wish to clean me (…) he said: Yes. Be cleaned. – Note that the repetition of velle (vis – volo)
implies a yes/no question, so that volo (I will) may be rendered as “yes,” or “yes, I will.” The form
mundare is first the infinitive „to clean,” and then, in clever rhetoric, the imperative passive, “be
thou cleaned.” – Literature:

1896. B.L. Gildersleeve – Gonzales Lodge: Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar. New York (x, 550 pp.), p.
74 (on the imperative in the passive voice).

2012. Roman Müller: Sit autem sermo vester est est non non: Klassisches und nichtklassisches
“Ja.” In: Frédérique Biville et al. (eds.): Latin vulgaire – latin tardif. IX. Lyon 2012 (1085 pp.),
pp. 111–120. Müller does not discuss this passage specifically, but it fits the pattern that
he explains.

Matt 8:8. sed tantum dic verbo – only say the word (Douay Version). Why should there be verbo rather
than the expected verbum? Because the Greek text has eipe logô (logos in the dative case), which
is as enigmatic. It may be a Greek idiom that refers to the speaking of an authoritative, magic
word – dic verbo = “speak with power.” In classical Latin, uno dicere verbo means “to say (some­
thing) by words merely,” as in Catullus: Carmen 67, 15: non istuc satis est uno te dicere verbo, sed
facere ut quivis sentiat et videat – it is not enough for you to say this by words merely, but so to
act that everyone may feel it and see it.

Matt 9:14–18. Pharisaei (14) (…) princeps unus (18) – Pharisees (…) one (of their) leaders. The unus of
princeps unus does not have to be read as an indefinite article; it may indicate a partitive rela ­
tionship: the Pharisees – one of them. – Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Prop­
erties of Unity Cardinals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65 (2020) 438–470.

Matt 9:15. filii sponsi – literally: sons of the bridegroom; Glaire, the literalist (see Chapter 18.3), has
“les fils de l’époux.” Meant are: friends of the bridegroom. The Nova Vulgata replaces the awk­
ward expression, saying convivae nuptiarum – wedding guests.

Matt 9:16. tollit plenitudinem – takes away the fulness. This is a translation error; Greek plêrôma (here
rendered plenitudo) is the subject, and not the object. NVg corrects the passage. – George C.
Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xii
and p. 92.

650
Matt 10:1. et dedit illis potestatem spirituum immundorum (Clementina, NVg) – and he gave them
power over (genitivus objectivus) unclean spirits. Read, or rather misread, as genitivus subject ­
ivus, the expression would mean: he made them have the power of unclean spirits.

Matt 10:14. et quicunque non receperit vos, neque audierit sermons verstros: exeuntes foras (…) – and
whoever has not welcomed you, nor listened to your words – (you will be) those who go out (..).
This is an anacoluthon – a syntactical discontinuity; the words before and the words after the
colon [:] are not syntactically linked. The Nova Vulgata does not change the sentence.

Matt 10:16. mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum – I send you like sheep to the wolves. The Latin is all
but elegant. A literal rendering might be: I will send you (to be) like sheep among wolves. In
classical Latin, it would be mitto vos tamquam oves inter lupos (Castellion).

Matt 10:29. nonne duo passeres asse veneunt: et unus ex illis non cadet super terram sine Patre vestro?
(Clementina) – Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall on the
ground without your Father (Douay Version). The Clementina has the question mark [?] in the
wrong place, and the Douay Version places it correctly – as does the Nova Vulgata.

Matt 12:18–21. This passage quotes Isa 42:1–4, but the text differs slightly from that offered in the
Isaiah text of the Vulgate, and the version Jerome gives in his letter 121. – Michael Fieger – Wil­
helm Tauwinkl: Bemerkungen zur Hebraica Veritas in den alttestamentlichen Zitaten des
Matthäusevangeliums nach Hieronymus. Vulgata in Dialogue 6 (2022) 71–75.

Matt 13:18. vos ergo audite parabolam seminantis – and now hear the parable of the sower. With the
word ergo the speaker indicates that he is returning to his actual subject. Moreover, the expres­
sion parabola semantic sounds like an already established title of the story. – Otto Schönberger:
Von Nepos zum Neuen Testament. Bamberg 1986 (96 pp.), p. 94.

Matt 13:19.23. omnis qui audit verbum regni et non intelligit, [ad eum] venit malus et rapit quod est in
corde eius – everyone who hears the message of the kingdom and does not take it seriously –
[to him] the Evil One comes and takes away that which is sowed into his heart. One would ex­
pect the sentence to include ad eum; so what we have here is an ellipsis. The verb intelligere,
normally meaning “to understand,” here has a more practical meaning of “taking something ser­
iously.” – Hagen, p. 84.

Matt 13:44. prae gaudio ilius – for joy therof (Douay Version), rejoicing at this; vor Freude darüber. –
Hagen, p. 85.

Matt 15:9. sine causa – without profit, i.e., in vain; vergeblich. This idiom is frequently used in the Vul­
gate, see Ps 73:13 (Vg 72:13); Gal 3:4. – Hagen, pp. 87–88; Kaulen, p. 14.

Matt 15:14. ducatum praestare – to provide guidance. The expression is also used in 2 Macc 10:29. –
Hagen, p. 88.

Matt 15:20. haec sunt quae coninquinant hominem – these are the things that defile a human being. A
so-called cleft construction for emphasis. – Brigitte L.M. Bauer: Word Order. In: Philip Baldi –
Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1. Berlin 2009 (xii,
561 pp.), pp. 241–316, at p. 285.

Matt 15:27. etiam means “yes,” see the glossary s.v. etiam, above, Chapter 19.2.

Matt 16:3. facies caeli – the face of the sky = “das veränderliche Aussehen des Wolkenhimmels.” –
Adolf Lumpe – Otto Hiltbrunner: Caelum, caelus. In: Otto Hiltbrunner (ed.): Bibliographie zur
lateinischen Wortforschung. Band 3. Bern 1988 (310 pp.), pp. 187–195, at p. 195.

Matt 16:21. oportet eum ire – he must go. In classical Latin, this would be oportet se ire.

651
Matt 16:23. non sapis ea quae Dei sunt. Two meanings of sapere have been suggested: (1) to taste, to
have taste for: thou savourest not the things that are of God (Douay Version); tu ne goutes pas
ce qui est de Dieu (Glaire); du hast nicht Sinn für das, was Gottes ist (Arndt); weil du das nicht
verstehst, was von Gott ist (Tusculum-Vulgata); (2) to think, to have in mind: these thoughts of
thine are not God’s (Knox); du sinnst nicht das, was Gottes ist (Weinhart).

Matt 18:3. nisi conversi fueritis ut efficiamini sicut parvulis – unless you become like children again. On
constructions with convertere (to turn) to say “again,” see the glossary s.v. convertere, conversus
(Chapter 19.2). – Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: “Et tu aliquando conversus,” St Luke 22,32. Catholic Bib­
lical Quarterly 15 (1953) 305–310, at pp. 308–309.

Matt 18:28. redde quod debes – pay what thou owest (Douay Version). This is a formulaic request,
known from Petronius (Saturae 57,5 – cena Trimalchionis), no doubt belonging to the language
of law and business. – Friedrich Stummer: “Via peccantium complanata lapidibus” (Eccli 21,11),
in: Bonifatius Fischer – Virgil Fiala (eds.): Colligere fragmenta. Festsschrift Alban Dold. Beuron
1952 (xx, 295 pp.), pp. 42–44, at p. 42. ▲

Matt 19:24. (1) Jerome interprets the saying about the camel and the eye of a needle (camelum per
foramen acus transire) as an expression of absolute impossibility, while for Augustine, it indicates
only a difficulty that can be overcome through the intervention of God (Caruso). – (2) According
to a tradition first attested in a Latin Pelagian source from sometime between 413 and 430 CE,
camelus in this passage does not mean “camel” (the animal), but refers to a funis nauticus (rope,
cable; German: Schiffstau); the Latin word, not attested elsewhere, is spelled camellus in this text
(Denk). – Literature:

1904. Joseph Denk: Camelus: 1. Kamel, 2. Schiffstau (Matth. 19,23). Zeitschrift für die neutesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 5 (1904) 256–257. – As an aside, Denk refers to “cable” (German
“Kabel”), a word originally – before electricity cables – belonging to nautical language.
The word does not seem to be etymologically related to camelus. Cable most likely de­
rives from late Latin capulum, see Wolfgang Pfeifer: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Deutschen. Second edition. Munich (xxvii, 1665 pp.), p. 605.

1906. Eberhard Nestle: Das Kamel als Schiffstau. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 7.1: 182–183. Additions to Denk’s short note; the “rope” idea can be found in
Cyril of Alexandria (492 CE).

2020. Giuseppe Caruso: Girolamo critic di Agostino? A proposito dell’interpretazione di Mt.

19,24. Augustinianum 60: 133–164.

Matt 20:12. una hora facere – to work for one hour (ablative). One would expect laborare instead of
facere. The verb facere does not seem to have this precise meaning elsewhere; it echoes the un­
derlying Greek ποιεῖν, which in Ruth 2:19 (Septuagint) also means “to work” in an agricultural
context. The underlying Greek μίαν ὥραν ἐποίησαν actually means “they have spent one hour”
which, in Latin, would be unam horam fecerunt; compare Seneca: Letters 66,4: quamvis autem
paucissimos una fecerimus dies – while we were together only for a few days).

Matt 20:25. principes gentium dominantur eorum – the princes of the Gentiles control them. The verb
dominari, to control (verbum deponens), is followed by genitive; it should be earum (fem.) be ­
cause gens is a feminine word. Interestingly, or by oversight, NVg has kept eorum.

Matt 21:42. lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli – the stone that
the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. One would expect lapis (instead of
lapidem), but the form can be explained as attractio; see Hagen, pp. 93.

652
Matt 22:4. altilia – fatlings (Douay Version), Mastvieh (Allioli, Grundl), les animaux engraissés. Hagen
(p. 93) suggests: poultry, fish, etc. [Geflügel, Fische, etc.]. Gregory the Great understood altilia als
fat poultry, as can be seen from the feathers to which he refers (Homilies on the Gospels 38,4; PL
76: 1284).

Matt 22:6. contumeliis affectos occiderunt – killed those that were abused. Richards, p. 28: contumeliā
(ablative) afficere = “almost to scourge.” On the semantic range of contumelia, see Michèle Fruyt
et al. (eds.): Le vocabulaire intellectuel latin. Analyse linguistique. Paris 2020 (326 pp.), pp. 54–60.

Matt 22:18. neqitia eorum – their wickedness (Douay Version). According to Förster, the underlying
text does not necessarily refer to the wickeness of the interlocutors of Jesus; instead, Jesus re­
cognises their “problem.” – Hans Förster: Bosheit oder Schwierigkeit? (Mt 22,18); in:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 107–109.

Matt 22:20. superscriptio (Clementina), suprascriptio (Weber/Gryson, NVg) – inscription (on a coin). Ac­
cording to Hagen (p. 93) not attested elsewhere in ancient authors, but see Blaise: Dictionnaire,
p. 798, s.v. superscriptio.

Matt 22:30. neque nubent, neque nubentur (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – they neither marry nor
are married. This is not idiomatic Latin, explains Jerome – there is no passive voice of nubere, to
marry. A woman marries (nubit), but a man takes a wife (uxorem ducit; Commentary on Matthew
III, 22; PL 26: 164). Jerome explains the matter, but does not offer a correct Latin version; it
would be nec homines ducunt uxores, nec nubent feminae. – Meershoek, pp. 65–63.

Matt 22:36. mandatum magnum – the greatest (most important) law. One would expect maximum,
but the positive for the superlative is a well-known feature of Vulgate Latin. – Kaulen, p. 162;
Plater/White, p. 67.

Matt 23:5. Joel B. Itzkowitz: Jews, Indians, Phylacteries: Jerome on Matthew 23:5. Journal of Early
Christian Studies 17 (2007) 563–572.

Matt 23:13. vae autem vobis scribae – woe to you scribes (Douay Version). While the Vulgate’s vae is
treatening (with punishmen), the underlying Greek’s ouai indicates a lamentation or grief (and
may be rendered “alas”). – Hans Förster: Weherufe im Matthäusevangelium; in: Schmid/Fieger,
pp. 117–119.

Matt 24:36. de die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque angeli caelorum [neque filius] nisi pater solus –
about day and hour no one knows, neither the angels [nor the son], only the Father.
Weber/Gryson and the Clementina lack neque filius, but the NVg has it, in accordance with what
today’s text critics consider Matthew’s original wording. – J.K. Kitchen: Variants, Arians and the
Trace of Mark: Jerome and Ambrose on ‘neque filius’ in Matthew 24:36. In: Ineke van t’Spijker
(ed.): The Multiple Meaning of Scripture. The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and Medieval Cul ­
ture. Leiden 2009 (vi, 341 pp.), pp. 15–40.

Matt 25:21, 23. euge – well done! [trefflich!, recht so!]. Interjection. The Greek has simple eu – very
well!, but Greek euge is well attested, e.g., in the parallel passage Luke 19:17.

Matt 25:35. hospes eram et collexistis me – literally: I was a stranger, and you have picked me up – ihr
habt mich aufgelesen. Douay and King James versions: “you took me in.” In late Latin, the verb
colligere, in addition to meaning “to gather,” also acquired the meaning “to harbor, to lodge .” –
Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor
Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et langues romanes. Études linguistiques.
Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 334 (j’étais un étranger et vous m’avez recueilli).

653
Matt 26:26–28. John N. Suggit: The Perils of Bible Translation. An Examination of the Latin Versions of
the Words of Institution of the Eucharist. In: Jacobus H. Petzer (ed.): A South African Perspective
on the New Testament. Leiden 1986 (xii, 270 pp.), pp. 54–61.

Matt 26:28. effundetur – will be shed. The Neovulgate has effunditur in the present tense, which ob­
scures the dramatic announcement of Christ’s death. – Lynne C. Boughton: Transubstantiation
and the Latin Text of the Bible: A Problem in the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum. Gregorianum 83 (2002)
209–224.

Matt 26:69–71. una ancilla (…) vidit eum alia [ancilla] – a servant maid (…) another one [another
maid]. It has been claimed that unus here is a clear instance of a proto-indefinite article; but
what we have here is a contrastive use of unus – una vs. alia. – Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS
and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardinals. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65 (2020) 438–
470.

Matt 26:72. et iterum negavit cum iuramento: Quia non novi hominem (Clementina) – and again he
denied with an oath: I know not the man (Douay Version). – The word quia, which simply an­
nounces the quotation, should be placed before, and not after, the colon. The correct punctu­
ation would be (…) cum iuramento quia: Non novi hominem. Kaulen, p. 290.

Matt 27:35. ut impleretur quod dictum est per prophetam dicentem: diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et
super vestem meam miserunt sortem – that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the proph­
et, saying: they divided my garments among them, and among my vesture they cast lots (Douay
Version). This passage of the Clementina represents an addition to the original Vulgate text; the
Weber/Gryson edition and NVg omit it. It came from John 19:24.

Matt 27:43. liberet nunc, si vult eum (Clementina, NVg). The punctuation is problematic; it must be:
liberet nunc, si vult, eum – he will deliver him, if he wishes. Interestingly, the Douay Version has
“let him now deliver him if he will have him,” the italicized him representing an elucidating addi­
tion; in this case, si vult eum would mean “if he loves him” (see the glossary s.v. velle; Chapter
19:2) – which would correspond to Ps 22:9 (Vg 21:9): salvum faciat eum, quoniam vult eum – let
him save him, because he delights in him.

Matt 28:1. vespere autem sabbati, quae lutescit in prima sabbati venit Maria – after the Sabbath, when
it became light on the first day of the week, Mary came; nach dem Sabbat, als es Licht wurde
zum ersten Wochentag, kam Maria (Loch, p. 33). – The Nova Vulgata has: sero autem post sab­
batum, cum illucesceret in primam sabbati, venit Maria Magdalena videre sepulcrum – late after
the sabbath, when it became light on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to see
the tomb. Noteworthy is that sabbatum first means Sabbath, and then week. The NVg omits the
quae, a word that has no referent (“hat gar kein Wort, worauf es sich bezieht,” Hagen, p. 101). –
Literature:

1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.), p. 101.

1870. Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bamberg 1870 (34
pp.), p. 33.

Matt 28:19. euntes ergo docete omnes gentes – going then teach all peoples. The Vulgate’s docete is
the correct translation of the underlying Greek μαθητεύσατε. The idea that the Greek should be
rendered discipulos facite omnes gentes (make disciples of all peoples), first found in Heinrich
Bullinger (1538), is incorrect. The act of teaching aims at making disciples, but the making of
baptized disciples is a second act within the missionary process. Luther’s translation of the pas­
sage agrees with the Vulgate (see the wording of the 2017 German Luther version: “lehret alle

654
 Völker”). – Wolfgang Reinbold: “Gehet hin und machet zu Jüngern alle Völker”? Zur Übersetzung
und Interpretation von Mt 28,19f. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 109 (2012) 176–205.

Mark (Evangelium secundum Marcum)

Secondary literature
1892. J.H. Bernard, The Vulgate of St Mark. Hermathena 8: 122–126. – Review of the Oxford
(Wordsworth/White) text of the gospel of Mark. See above, Chapter 13.2.

1943. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation. II. The [American] Ecclesiastical Review
109: 304–312. – Linguistic notes on selected passages of the Latin gospel of Mark.

1966. Francesco M. Uriccho: Vangelo secondo Marco. Torino. xix, 730 pp. – Published in the series “La
Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this comment­
ary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1999. Jean-Claude Haelewyck: La version latine de Marc. Mélanges de science religieuse 56: 27–52.

2007. Andrew Wilson – Alistair Baron – Celia Worth: Conceptual Glossary and Index to the Gospel ac­
cording to Mark. Hildesheim. xxxiii, 425 pp. – See above, Chapter 8.3.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and
Manuscripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 160–163 for a survey of the Latin manuscripts.

2021. Peter E. Lorenz: The Latin Version and the Greek Tradition in the Gospel of Mark. In: Novum Test­
amentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior. Edited by Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung.
Volume 1:2, part 3: Studien. Stuttgart (vi, 246 pp.), pp. 133–173. – On the Vetus Latina text of
Mark.

Textual notes
Mark 1:30. Roland Hoffmann: Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung der Vulgata im Neuen Testament. In:
idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen
Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 179–218, at pp. 211–212: a detailed analysis of
the word order of this sentence.

Mark 1:31. ministrabat. The Wordsworth/White edition (see above, Chapter 13.2) has ministrabit by
mistake (lapsus), as indicated in the apparatus of Weber/Gryson. There is no manuscript support
for ministrabit.

Mark 1:39. et erat praedicans in synagogis eorum, et in omni Galilaea – and he preached in their syn­
agogues, and in all of Galilee (or: throughout Galilee). (…) et in omni Galilaea: the et (and) ob­
scures the meaning, and it lacks a basis in the Greek. The NVg omits the et.

Mark 4:19. circa reliqua concupiscentiae – the lusts after other things (Douay Version), i.e., promiscu­
ous worldly desires (Richards, p. 24). Unchanged in NVg.

Mark 6:13. ungebant multos aegrotos (Weber/Gryson, NVg) – they anointed many sick. The Clem­
entina has aegros. See below, textual note on Mark 16:18.

Mark 6:22. pete a me quod vis – ask of me what you wish, and I will give it to you. According to Tkacz,
this wording echoes Ovid: Metamorphoses 2:44, Philebus’ rash promise to Phaeton: quodvis pete

655
 munus; but Adkin does not consider the Marcan passage to constitute an actual echo of Ovid. –
Literature:

1997. Catherine Brown Tkacz: Ovid, Jerome and the Vulgate. In: Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.):
Papers Presented at the 12th International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford
1995. Studia Patristica 33. Leuven 1997 (vi, 585 pp.), pp. 378–382. Tkacz also refers to
more passages of the same kind, see the book of Esther (5:3; 5:6; 7:2, Ahasverus’ rash
promise to Esther).

2000. Neil Adkin: Biblia Pagana: Classical Echoes in the Vulgate. Augustinianum 40: 77–87, at pp.
77–78. ▲

Mark 6:30–44. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 204–206.

Mark 8:33. See textual note on Matt 16:23.

Mark 9:2–8. Jean-Louis Gourdain: Jérôme exégète de la Transfiguration. Revue des études augustini­
ennes 40 (1994) 365–373.

Mark 11:11. vespera hora – the evening hour. The nouns vesper (masc.) and vespera (fem.) refer to “the
period just before darkness“ (Richards, p. 126). The expression vespera hora can be explained in
two ways: (1) vesper is an adjective (forms: vesper, vespera, vesterum). In standard Latin, one
would say vesperalis hora, hora vespertina, or sera hora. – (2) The noun hora may be deleted be­
cause it is superfluous, see Mark 11:19. – Literature:

1904. Kaulen, p. 13 (no. 41): vesper is an adjective; the usual noun vespera must be seen as an el­
liptic expression for vespera hora.

1921. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London 1921 (xi, 125 pp.), p.
123: verspera is “perhaps an adjective.”

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 844 has vesper as an adjective, but knows only one occurrence –
this Marcan passage.

Mark 12:1. Roland Hoffmann: Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung der Vulgata im Neuen Testament. In:
idem (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen
Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 179–218, at pp. 213–214: analysis of the word
order of this sentence.

Mark 12:38–44. domos viduarum (40) … una vidua pauper (42) … vidua haec (43) – The una of una
vidua pauper is to be understood as a partitive particle, because it refers back to the widows
mentioned earlier. – Gerhard Schaden: Latin UNUS and the Discourse Properties of Unity Cardin ­
als. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65 (2020) 438–470.

Mark 14:24. effundetur – will be shed. The Neovulgate has effunditur in the present tense, which ob­
scures the dramatic announcement of Christ’s death. – Lynne C. Boughton: Transubstantiation
and the Latin Text of the Bible: A Problem in the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum. Gregorianum 83 (2002)
209–224.

Mark 14:31. me simul commori tibi – that I die together with you. Commori (to die with) does exist in
classical Latin, “but apparently it was not thought to be sufficiently clear” as can be seen from
the addition of simul. – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament.
London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. viii.

656
Mark 14:62. sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei – sitting at the right hand of the divne majesty. virtus here
is not “power” but “majesty” (as in the parallel passage Matth 26:64). Omitting Dei, the NVg has
a dextris sedentem Virtutis – at the right hand of the Power, which renders the Greek literally;
Virtus (Greek dynamis) is used as a designation for God.

Mark 15:25. erat autem hora tertia et crucifixerunt eum – it was the third hour when they crucified him.
– Kaulen, p. 296 (modificative Sätze – “statements of modification”).

Mark 15:34. ut quid dereliquisti me? – what for did you forsake me? – The usual rendering “why have
you (…)” does not do full justice to the Latin wording. – Hans Förster: Von Gott verlassen – war­
um oder zu welchem Zweck? In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 113–114.

Mark 16:9–20. surgens autem mane (…) – but rising early (…). There are three forms of the ending of
Mark: (1) the open ending, i.e., Mark 16:8 being the last sentence of the Gospel: “for they were
afraid”; – (2) the short ending, which adds just one brief sentence; – (3) the long ending, which
adds v. 9–20. The textual situation is as follows: the short, one-sentence ending (2) can be found
in Codex Bobiensis (see above, Chapter 7.1); the long ending (3, v. 9–20) is in all editions of the
Vulgate – in Weber/Gryson, the Clementina, and the NVg.

Note. – The ending of the gospel of Mark has received the attention of many commentators. Worthy
of note are the relevant statements of Jerome and Richard Simon. Camille Focant and Étienne Nodet
provide updates on the issue.

Jerome: In one of his letters, Jerome mentions the fact that in his day, very few Greek manuscripts ac ­
tually included the final verses of the Gospel of Mark: in raris fertur evangeliis omnibus Graeciae
libris paene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus – in rare gospel (manuscripts) can it be found,
though nearly all books of Greece do not have this section at the end; Jerome: Letter 120,3 to
Hedibia/ad Hedybiam de questionibus duodecim; PL 22:987 – CSEL 55: 481). It may be that
Jerome here simply echoes a statement he found in Eusebius (ad Marinum 1; Patrologia Graeca
22: 937). On Eusebius, see James A. Kelhoffer: Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early
Christianity. Tübingen 2014 (xxiii, 400 pp.), pp. 121–164; Clayton L.L. Coombs: A Dual Reception:
Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis, Min. 2016 (xv, 271 pp.), pp. 117–187.

Council of Trent: The proceedings (acta) of the Council of Trent mention that when the question of the
biblical canon was discussed in 1546, the ending of the gospel of Mark was brought up; but it
was decided not to refer to the matter in the Council’s official decree. Stephan Ehses (ed.): Con­
cilii Tridentini Acta. Volume 5.2. Freiburg 1911 (lx, 1079 pp.), p. 41.

Richard Simon: In the modern period, Richard Simon (1638–1712) was one of the first to discuss the
matter; see Richard Simon: Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament. Rotterdam 1689;
English translation: Richard Simon: Critical History of the Text of the New Testament. Translated
by Andrew Hunwick. Leiden 2013 (xxxvi, 368 pp.), pp. 99–105 and p. 362; the relevant passage in
German translation: Werner Georg Kümmel: Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der Erforschung
seiner Probleme. Munich 1958 (viii, 597 pp.), pp. 47–50.

Camille Focant: La canonicité de la finale longue (Mc 16,9–20). Vers la reconnaissance d’un double
texte canonique? In: Jean-Marie Auwers – Henk Jan de Jonge (eds.): The Biblical Canons. Leuven
2003 (lxxxviii, 718 pp.), pp. 587–597. – According to Focant, it is useful to distinguish between lit ­
erary authenticity and ecclesiastical canonicity; the latter can be maintained when scholars de­
cide about literary inauthenticity.

657
Étienne Nodet: De l’authenticité de la finale de Marc. Revue biblique 129 (2022) 589–604. – The “longer
ending” of Mark was originally meant not specifically as the conclusion of the gospel of Mark;
instead, it was written as the conclusion of the corpus of the four gospels, with Mark being
placed at the end. When the order of the four gospels was rearranged, Mark lost its final posi ­
tion, but the “longer ending” stayed attached to it.

Mark 16:18. super aegrotos manus imponent (Weber/Gryson, NVg) – they shall lay hands upon the
sick. (1) aegrotus – sick: “The term is not attested in any medical treatise written in Latin and,
even more important, in any Latin version of the Gospels previous to the Vulgate. This could be
interpreted as a direct intervention of Jerome’s revision work on older translations”; Annette
Weissenrieder – Andé Luiz Visinoni: Illness, Suffering, and Treatment in a Changing world. Old
Latin Gospels and “Medical” Vocabulary. Early Christianity 13.3 (2022) 317–341, at p. 328. – (2)
The Clementina has aegros (instead of aegrotos). See also the textual note on Mark 6:13.

Mark 16:20. amen. Some manuscripts, including Codex Amiatinus and Codex Fuldensis, add the word
amen to the end. Whereas the Oxford Vulgate of Wordsworth/White (see above, Chapter 13.2)
adopts amen as belonging to the Vulgate of Mark, the Weber/Gryson edition rejects it. It is also
absent from the Clementina and the Nova Vulgata.

Luke (Evangelium secundum Lucam)

Secondary literature
1893. J.H. Bernard: The Vulgate of St Luke. Hermathena 8: 385–389. – Notes on selected passages,
published as a review of the Luke fascicle of the Oxford edition of the Vulgate New Testament,
edited by Wordsworth and White (see above, Chapter 13.2).

1911. Alexander Souter: The Type or Types of Gospel Text used by St Jerome as the Basis of His Revi­
sion, with Special Reference to St Luke’s Gospel and Codex Vercellensis. Journal of Theological
Studies 12: 583–592.

1926. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Die Vorlage des Vulgatatextes der Evangelien. Revue bénédictine 38,
123–138. – Reconstruction of the Vulgate’s Vorlage in Luke 22:39–24:11. In 151 instances, the
Vorlage departs from the critically edited Vulgate text of Wordsworth and White (see above,
Chapter 13.2).

1946/47. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as Translation III. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8 (1946)
83–88. 230–235; 9 (1947) 106–110. – Short linguistic notes on selected passages of the gospel of
Luke (ending at p. 108; what follows, is on John).

1986. Virgilio Bejarano: Las proposiciones completivas y causales en el evangelio de san Luca de la
Vulgata Latina. In: Homenaje a Pedro Sáinz Rodríguez. Tomo II. Mardid (x, 676 pp.), pp. 81–88.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 162–164 for a survey of the manuscript tradition.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 175–183, 208–232. – Ger­
man working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar of Luke 1:46–55; 2; 22–24.

658
Textual notes
Luke 1:17. incredibiles (Gryson/Weber after Wordsworth/White; NVg); the Clementina has increduli,
the incredulous. – Kaulen (p. 147) points out that in Vetus Latina texts and texts deriving from
them, such as Wisd 10:7 and Luke 1:17, incredibilis means “not believing.”

Luke 1:27. (missus est angelus) ad virginem desponsatam viro – (the angel is sent) to a virgin married
to a man (Douay Version: espoused to a man). According to Kaulen (p. 207), the translation “ zu
einer Jungfrau, die mit einem Manne verlobt war” (to a woman, engaged to a man) is not cor­
rect. Kaulen quotes de Sacy’s French version: à une vierge qu’un homme avait épousée (so also
Glaire: à une vièrge qu’avait épousée un homme). German versions of the Vulgate have “verlobt”
(Allioli, Grundl, Arndt, Tusculum-Vulgata), and Knox has “betrothed to a man” (= engaged to a
man) – a mistake, according to Kaulen. Kaulen was contradicted in a review by one of his Cathol­
ic peers: Peter Johann Schegg: Die Vulgata. Theologisches Literaturblatt 6.1 (1871) 1–4, at col. 4.
▲

Luke 1:28. ave gratia plena – hail, full of grace. Why gratia plena for Greek kekharitôménê? (1) The
Vulgate version allows to suggest three explanations that are not mutually exclusive: Syriac in­
fluence (from the Peschitta), the translator’s inclination toward elaborate expressions, and pref ­
erence for rhythmic formulations (Stummer, pp. 161–167). – (2) Some of the Old Latin transla­
tions have the more literal rendering ave gratificata. Luther departs from gratia plena = full of
grace in his German translation by saying “gegrüsset seistu holdselige,” on the basis of the
Greek; in English, this would be, “I greet you, blessed one,” or even, as a modern Luther bio ­
grapher suggests, “lovely one” (Brecht, p. 108). Modern authors concur: gratia plena, while a fine
poetic phrase, has misled theologians into making the one who is full of grace into a heavenly
mediatrix “dispensing grace” (Foster, p. 402). – Literature:

1505. Lorenzo Valla: Opera omnia. Edited by Eugenio Garin. Turin 1962, vol. 1 (viii, 1010 pp.), p.
830a. The underlying Greek word actually means gratificata = in gratiam recepta est (re­
ceived into grace).

1519. Erasmus’ New Testament (2nd edition) departs from the Vulgate’s gratia plena; according
to Erasmus, the angel says ave gratiosa.

1523. Erasmus: Paraphrase on Luk 1–10. Translated and annotated by Jane E. Phillips. In: Collec­
ted Works of Erasmus. Volume 47. Torino 2016 (xix, 316 pp.), p. 40 (with note on pp. 40–
41): “Hail and rejoice, maiden, uniquely der and favoured.” The Latin text is ave, inquit, et
gaude, virgo gratiosa et favorabilis; see Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami. Volume
VII.2. Leiden 2018 (vii, 615 pp.), pp. 80–82, edited by J. Bloemendal.

1530. Martin Luther: On Translating: An Open Letter [Ein Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen]. In: Selec­
ted Writings of Martin Luther. Edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Volume 4: 1529–1546. Min­
neapolis, Min. 2007 (xxiii, 403 pp.), pp. 173–194, at pp. 182–185. Luther discusses the
translation of ave gratia plena at length. This text can be found in the critical edition: D.
Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 30.2. Weimar 1909 (viii, 716 pp.), pp.
632–639, at pp. 639–639.

1915. Theodore A. Foster: “Mysterium” and “Sacramentum” in the Vulgate and Old Latin Ver­
sions. The American Journal of Theology 19 (1915) 402–416, at p. 402.

1950. Friedrich Stummer: Beiträge zur Exegese der Vulgata. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 62 (1950) 152–167, at pp. 161–167.

659
 1976. Jerry H. Bentley: Erasmus’ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism
of the Gospels. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 67: 33–53, at p. 41.

1993. Martin Brecht: Martin Luther. The Preservation of the Church, 1532–1546. Translated by
James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis, Min. 1993 (xvi, 511 pp.), p. 108.

1998. Carlo Buzzetti: Kechairitôménê – “Full of Grace”? Translating Today under Three Influences:
The Greek, the Vetus Latina, the Vulgate. In: Joze Krašovec (ed.): The Interpretation of the
Bible. The International Symposium in Slovenia. Sheffield (1908 pp.), pp. 1329–1340.

2015. Gary Waller: A Cultural Study of Mary and the Annunciation. From Luke to the Enlighten­
ment. London. xi, 219 pp.

2019. Robert D. Sider in: idem (ed.): The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Toronto 2019
(xxvi, 1063 pp.), p. 72.

Luke 1:28. benedicta tu in mulieribus (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – the phrase is absent from many
Greek manuscripts and today deemed secondary (hence omitted in NVg), constructed on the
basis of Luke 1:42. The expression in mulieribus does not make sense in Latin; it reflects the
Semiticising Greek Vorlage, which in turn reflects a (lost) Hebrew text. Luke 1:42 has the more
comprehensible inter mulieres (for which compare the expression pulcherrima inter mulieres –
the most beautiful of women, Cant 1:7). Meant is the superlative: you are the most blessed of
(all) women. Interstingly, the Vetus Latina has benedicta tu inter mulieribus.

Luke 1:32. et Filius Altissimi vocabitur – and he will be called the Son of the Most High. Fulcran Vigour­
oux (in a note in Glaire, 1905) explains that vocabitur is a Hebraism for saying “he will be the Son
of the Most High.”

Luke 1:42. benedicta tu inter mulieres (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg). The preposition inter can be
“used to express a superlative in accordance with Hebrew usage”; accordingly, the meaning is:
you are the most blessed of women. – Henry P.V. Nunn: An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin.
Cambridge (xv, 162 pp.), p. 106.

Luke 1:45. beata (…) quae credidisti – blessed (are you) who has believed = blessed are you because
you have believed. The relative clause expresses a causal relationship. – Albert Blaise: Manuel du
latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 179 (§ 320).

Luke 1:46. magnificat anima mea dominum – my soul doth magnify the Lord (Douay Version); hoch
preiset meine Seele den Herrn (Allioli); mon âme exalte le Seigneur. These traditional renderings
are literal and poetic, but one must know that anima mea stands for “I,” see the glossary s.v.
anima (above, Chapter 19.2). The Common English Bible (2011), based on the Greek, has: “with
all my heart I glorify the Lord.”

Luke 1:54–55. suscepit Israel puerum suum, recordatus misericordiae suae, sicut locutus est ad patres
nostros, Abraham et semini eius in saecula. The proper translation is: he protects his son Israel
forever (in saecula), thoughtful of his mercy, as he has said (promised) to our fathers, to (dative)
Abraham and his seed. In saecula is to be associated with the protection. – Jacob Arnold Hagen:
Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg 1863 (iv, 106 pp.), pp. 33–34.

Luke 1:58. et congratulabuntur ei – and were rejoicing with her; und freuten sich mit ihr (Allioli). A syn­
onym is congaudēre (1 Cor 12:26). – Claude Moussy: Nouveaux préverbés en com- dans la Vetus
Latina et dans la Vulgate. In: Sándor Kiss – Luca Mondin – Giampaolo Salvi (eds.): Latin et
langues romanes. Études linguistiques. Tübingen 2005 (xx, 606 pp.), pp. 327–336, at p. 329. – The
Tusculum-Vulgata’s rendering is incorrect: “und sie beglückwünschten sie”; cf. the Douay Ver­
sion: “and they congratulated with her.”

660
Luke 1:68. fecit redemtionem plebis suae – he wrought the redemption of his people (Douay Version).
Lorenzo Valla did not like the expression; it should be fecit redemptionem plebi suae – he
wrought the redemption for his people (dative case), adding that populo suo would be even bet­
ter. The NVg has plebi suae. – Lorenzo Valla: Opera omnia. Edited by Eugenio Garin. Turin 1962,
vol. 1 (viii, 1010 pp.), p. 831a.

Luke 2:5. ut profiteretur – in order to present himself. Profiteri is the technical term “to present oneself
for enrolment,” exemplified by Sallust: Catilina 18,3. – Philip Burton: The Old Latin Gospels. Ox­
ford 2000 (x, 232 pp.), p. 195.

Luke 2:14. in terra pax homibus bonae voluntatis – and on earth peace to men of good will (Douay
Version); und Friede auf Erden den Menschen, die guten Willens sich (Grundl). – Literature:

1967. Franz Xaver Remberger: Ein altes Mißverständnis im Weihnachtsgesang der Engel. Theolo­
gie der Gegenwart 10.3: 174–175.

1977. Ernst Hansack: Luk 2,14: Friede den Menschen auf Erden, die guten Willens sind? Ein Bei ­
trag zur Übersetzungstechnik der Vulgata. Biblische Zeitschrift 21 (1977) 117–118. Accord­
ing to Hansack, bonae voluntatis for Greek εὐδοκία is what linguists call an analytical
translation, a separate rendering of εὖ and δοκία. The original translator understood this
as a reference to divine goodwill, not to human goodwill, as modern renderings have er­
roneously suggested.

2018. Hildegard Scherer: Bonae voluntatis. Zur Deutung von Lk 2,14 bei Augustinus, Luther und
Johannes XXIII. Vulgata in dialogue 2 (2018) 69–84 (online journal).

2023. Daniel Schmitz: Menschen guten Willens (bonae voluntatis) (Lk 2,14). In: Schmid/Fieger,
pp. 103–105.

Luke 2:38. et haec (…) confitebatur Domino – and she (…) praised the Lord. The Douay Version’s “con­
fessed to the Lord” is a survival of the Latinisms characteristic of the original Douay Version.

Luke 4:5. et duxit illum diabolus [in montem excelsum] et ostendit illi – and the devil took him [on a
high mountain] and showed him. The words between brackets are omitted in the Weber/Gryson
Vulgate and the NVg, but they are in the Clementina (no doubt imported from Matt 4:8 – in
montem excelsum valde).

Luke 4:10. scriptum est enim, quod Angelis suis mandavit de te (Clementina), to be translated as “for it
is written, that: He has given his angels charge over you” (Douay Version). Blaise in his Diction­
naire, p. 694 writes: (…) est enim: quod ‘angelis suis mandavit …’, with quotation marks to identify
the words quoted. The proper punctuation should be: (…) est enim quod: angelis suis. The
particle quod announces the quotation; see the glossary s.v. quod, Chapter 19.2.

Luke 4:34. sine (Vg, NVg) – let us alone (Douay Version), lass (Grundl). The verb is sinere – to allow, to
let alone. The underlying Greek word was misunderstood by the translator; Greek ea is an ex­
clamation. – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London
1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xiii.

Luke 6:17. et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea et Hierusalem et maritima Tyri et Sidonis (Clem­
entina, NVg) – and a great multitude of people from all of Judea and Jerusalem and the coast ­
land of Tyre and Sidon. The reading maritimae (Weber/Gryson) does not make sense. – Bengt
Löfstedt: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart 2000
(ix, 430 pp.), p. 315–316.

661
Luke 6:18–19. On the vocabulary used here – languor (illness), curare (to attend to the bodily needs),
virtus (healing power), see Annette Weissenrieder – Andé Luiz Visinoni, Illness, Suffering, and
Treatment in a Changing world. Old Latin Gospels and “Medical” Vocabulary. Early Christianity
13.3 (2022) 317–341, at pp. 322, 333, 336–337.

Luke 10:4. neminem per viam salutaveritis – and salute no man by the way (Douay Version); you are to
give no one greeting on your way (Knox). Possibly, salutare means here more than mere greet­
ing; it may actually mean “to visit,” which may be the implication of the injunction, see Bernhard
Lang: Grußverbot oder Besuchsverbot? Eine sozialgeschichtliche Deutung von Lukas 10,4b. Bibli­
sche Zeitschrift 26 (1982) 75–79.

Luke 10:34. duxit in stabulum – he brought him to an inn (Douay Version). The noun stabulum is
rendered “tavern” by Richards (p. 115). Meant is no doubt a simple place for staying over night,
because elsewhere (2 Chr 9:25), the word is used for putting up animals (like “stable” in English).
– (Joseph) Heinrich Vogels: Stabulum. Biblische Zeitschrift 11 (1913) 4.

Luke 10:36. quis videtur tibi proximus fuisse illi. In the Latin, the question about the neighbor is mis­
leading; it should be: proximum egisse (the question is: who behaved as a neighbour?). Many
modern translations – including the Bible de Jérusalem – translate correctly. The neighbor is the
poor man, not the Samaritan. – Guillaume Cardascia: Sur quelques erreurs de la Vulgate.
Nombres 5,31 – Luc 10,36. Revue biblique 111 (2004) 419–422.

Luke 11:53. os eius opprimere de multis – to oppress his mouth about many things (Douay Version).
This is a mistranslation; the Greek text says “to interrogate about many things.” NVg: et eum al­
licere in sermone de multis – and to gain him with words about many things; another problemat­
ic rendering that does not seem to capture what the Greek text is saying.

Luke 12:19. requiesce, comede, bibe, epulare – take thy rest, eat, drink, make good cheer (Douay Ver­
sion); repose-toi, mange, bois, fais grande chere (Glaire). The verb form epulari is the imperative
of the deponens epulari, which means “to eat, to dine”; the Douay Version and Glaire take it to
sum up the three imperatives; thus also Allioli: “laß dir wohl sein.” While these renderings can be
defended on stylistic grounds, one must not forget that the notion of “eating well” (German:
speisen) is the dominant note. In the Latin text, epulari seems to sum up eating and drinking in
one notion, like German “speisen.” Nevertheless, one may also consider the fact that in the
Vetus Latina, epulari can be synonymous with verbs denoting “to rejoice” – laetari and exsultare
(Rönsch, p. 362).

Luke 12:29. nolite in sublime tolli – be not lifted up on high (Douay Version). According to Philip Bur­
ton: The Old Latin Gospels. Oxford 2000 (x, 232 pp.), p. 195, the Vulgate rendering of μὴ
μετεωρίζεσθε “is practically meaningless.” Here Jerome has introduced a literal translation at the
expense of making sense. The NVg has: nolite solliciti esse – don’t worry; macht euch keine Sor­
gen.

Luke 14:14. non habent retribuere tibi – they are not able to repay you. The verb habēre followed by
infinitive is good classical Latin.

Luke 14:18–19. habe me excusatum – hold me excused (Douay Version), consider me to be excused.
The expression excusatum habēre is good classical Latin: vitiosa excusata habe (Ovid: Tristia IV,
1,1–2) excuse the faults (in my book); excusatum habeas me rogo: ceno domi (Martialis II, 79,2) –
please excuse me, I eat at home. Note that habēre here means “to consider.”

Luke 14:28. computare sumptus – to calculate the costs/expenditures. For the German translation,
Binding suggests “den Aufwand überschlagen, berechnen,” Günther Binding: Ein Beitrag zur

662
 sachgerechten Übersetzung baubezogener Bibelstellen. Unter bes. Berücksichtigung der (…) Vulga­
ta. Stuttgart 2020 (52 pp.), p. 47.

Luke 15:7. dico vobis quod ita gaudium erit (Clementina) – I say to you: Yes, there will be joy. The
particle quod (omitted by NVg) indicates direct speech (like Greek ὅτι), and ita means “yes”; one
should place a comma after it.

Luke 15:8. everrit (Clementina, Weber/Gryson, NVg) – she swept (the house), from everre = to sweep.
One must realize, however, that this is a conjecture introduced by the Clementina. The manu­
scripts have evertit = she turned out (the house, evertere). The reading evertit could mean: she
turned the house upside down to find the lost coin. The reading evertit, known in the Middle
Ages, is presupposed by the Wiciffite Bible (Pope/Bullough p. 84). – Literature:

1893. J.H. Bernard: The Vulgate of St Luke. Hermathena 8 (1893) 385–389, at p. 388.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi,
130 pp.), p. 44: “the Greek saroi makes everrit cerain.”

1952. Hugh Pope OP – Sebastian Bullough OP: English Versions of the Bible. Revised and Ampli­
fied. St. Louis – London (ix, 787 pp.), p. 84.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, does not list everre.

Luke 15:10. ita dico vobis, gaudium erit – yes, I say to you, there will be joy; or: Yes, this is what I am
telling you: there will be joy. See note on Luke 15:7. NVg has: Ita dico vobis: Gaudium fit (…).

Luke 15:11–32. Alessandro Capone: L’interpretazione di Luc. 15:11–32 nell’ep. 21 di Gerolamo. Sacris
erudiri 55 (2016) 57–78.

Luke 16:1. diffamatus est apud illum quasi dissipasset bona ipsius – he was accused (diffamatus) unto
him that he had wasted his goods (Douay Version); a report came to him that this steward had
wasted his goods (Knox). Knox’s version reflects the fact that diffamare does not per se refer to a
negative act. German versions: dieser wurde bei ihm [the owner] angegeben [= angezeigt], als
verschwende er seine Güter (Grundl, similarly Arndt); wurde bei ihm verleumdet (Tusculum-Vul­
gata). The Tusculum-Vulgata seems to suggest that the accusation was false. Blaise’s preference
is “dénoncer” (Dictionnaire, p. 270).

Luke 16:19–31. J.H. David Scourfield: A Note on Jerome’s Homily on the Rich Man and Lazarus. Journ­
al of Theological Studies 48 (1997) 536–539.

Luke 16:26. (1) et in his omnibus (all editions of the Vg, including NVg) – and besides all this (Douay
Version). The underlying Greek – ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις – seems to be an idiom; the Latin wording
echoes the phrase, though it Latin it does not normally mean what it is meant to say here. See
Plater/White, p. 101. – (2) inter nos et vos chaos magnum firmatum est (Clementina, NVg) –
between us and you a big chaos is fixed. Why chaos, a word actually used in the Douay version?
Meant is “a great abyss,” and the Greek has the relevant word, χάσμα. There is some manuscript
evidence for Latin chasma, and, as De Bruyne argues, chasma must be considered the original
Jeromian reading; it has also been adopted by Weber/Gryson; inter nos et vos chasma magnum
firmatum est. It is strange that the Nova Vulgata keeps the Clementina’s chaos. – Donatien De
Bruyne: Notes de philologie biblique. Revue biblique 30 (1921) 400–409, at pp. 400–405. See also
Collected Works of Erasmus. Volume 48: Paraphrase on Luke 11–24. Translated and annotated by
Jane E. Phillips. Toronto 2003 (xv, 318 pp.), p. 102, note 37.

Luke 17:21. ecce enim regnum dei intra vos est (Vg and Vetus Latina in Codex Bezae) –behold, the
kingdom of God is inside you. It has been claimed that the underlying Greek ( ἐντὸς ὑμῶν)

663
 should be rendered “is among you,” but the Latin rendering is to be considered correct. Unlike
the Greek ἐντός, the Latin intra unambiguously means “inside, within.” On linguistic grounds,
the modern understanding (i.e., “is among you”) is to be rejected. – Ilaria Ramelli: Luke 17:21:
‘The kingdom of God is inside you.’ The ancient Syriac versions in support of the correct transla ­
tion. Hugoye. Journal of Syrian Studies 12.2 (2009) 259–286, at p. 262. ▲

Luke 19:31. Dominus operam eius desiderat – the Lord desires its (the donkey’s) service. The Greek text
says that the Lord actually “needs” the donkey (cf. NVg: Dominus eum necessarium habet). The
semantics of the verb desiderare – to want, to miss, to feel the lack of – “may even have helped
the biblical translators get around a potential theological difficulty at Luke 19:31, where Jesus
states he ‘needs’ the Palm Sunday donkey: it has been proposed that the rendering dominus
operam eius desiderat … was devised to avoid making the Lord appear to ‘need’ anything.” – P.H.
Burton: On Revisiting the Christian Latin Sondersprache Hypothesis. In: H.A.G. Houghton et al.
(eds.): Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Piscataway N.J. 2008 (xvi, 193 pp.),
pp. 149–171, at p. 160.

Luke 19:37. virtutes – mighty works (Douay Version); Wunder (Allioli), Wunderwerke (Arndt, Beda
Grundl).

Luke 19:40. si hi tacuerint, lapides clamabunt (Clementina, NVg). In classical Latin, this would be: si hi
tacerent, lapides clamaverent; or: si hi tacuissent, lapides clamavissent. – Michael Metlen: The Vul­
gate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 106–110, at p. 106.

Luke 20:11. et addidit alterum servum mittere – and again, he sent another servant. Construction:
addere followed by accusative with infinitive. In Hebrew, repeated action is expressed by prefix ­
ing the verb “to add”; the Vulgate imitates this. – Kaulen, p. 235 (no. 120); Plater/White, pp. 23–
24 (§ 28).

Luke 20:20. insidiatores – spies. This is the meaning suggested by Richards. The Tusculum-Vulgata
thinks of “bandits” (“Leute, die ihm einen Hinterhalt legen”), accepted by Förster. – Literature:

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi,
130 pp.), p. 64.

2023. Hans Förster: Leute, die einen Hinterhalt legen (Lk 20,20); Jesus bei einer Rede fassen. Two
associated articles in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 110–112.

Luke 21:24. cadent in ore gladii (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – they will fall by the mouth of the
sword; no doubt a Hebraism for cadent acie gladii (acies = sharpness) – they will fall by the
sharpness of the sword. – Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued).
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 106–110, at p. 107.

Luke 21:26. virtutes caelorum – the powers of heaven = the military forces of heaven; die Heere des
Himmels. The word virtus is frequently used in this sense. – Kaulen, p. 34.

Luke 21:33. caelum et terram transibunt / verba mea non transient (Weber/Gryson) – heaven and earth
will perish, but my words shall not perish. The Wordsworth/White edition (see above, Chapter
13.2) has transibunt both times (like the Clementina and the NVg), explaining in a note that this
must have been what Jerome in his revision had intended, but carelessly left the second clause
untouched.

Luke 21:34. in (…) curis huius vitae – in the cares of this life. The underlying Greek mérimna is normally
rendered sollicitudo in the Vulgate, and not cura; cf. Matt 13:22 – sollicitudo saeculi istius – the
care of this world.

664
Luke 22–24. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 208–232.

Luke 22:20. fundetur – will be shed (Clementina). The Neovulgate has funditur in the present tense,
which obscures Christ’s dramatic announcement of his death. – Lynn C. Boughton: Transubstan­
tiation and the Latin Text of the Bible: A Problem in the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum. Gregorianum
83 (2002) 209–224.

Luke 22:31. Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum – Satan has desired you that he may sift you
as wheat. The object vos is placed proleptically before the ut and thus is part of the introductory
sentence. Blaise explains that the construction imitates Greek syntax. The NVg retains the word
order and places a comma between vos and ut. – Albert Blaise: Manuel du latin chrétien. Stras­
bourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 29 (§ 29).

Luke 22:32. et tu aliquando confirma fratres tuos – and thou, being once converted, confirm thy
brethren (Douay Version); wenn du einst bekehrt bist, stärke du deine Brüder (Grundl) This
standard translation is to be corrected: and you (Peter) strengthen again your brothers. This is a
Hebraism echoing Hebrew šûb; see the glossary s.v. conversus (Chapter 19.2).

1868. Gerhard Schneemann: Versuch einer Exegese von Luc. 22,32. Der Katholik 48.1 (1868) 404–
428, esp. p. 409.

1904. Kaulen, p. 236.

1953. Edmund F. Sutcliffe SJ: “Et tu aliquando conversus,” St Luke 22,32. Catholic Biblical Quar­
terly 15 (1953) 305–310.

Luke 22:49. si percutimus in gladio? (Clementina, NVg) – shall we strike in the sword? The Latin word­
ing, a literal rendering of the Greek, does not make sense. But once the reader knows that in
stands (strangely enough) for cum, then the meaning is clear.

Luke 23:16. emendare = to chastise physically; presumably echoing official terminology – Kaulen
refers to a passage in Ulpianus. – Kaulen, p. 179.

Luke 24:6,8. recordamini qualiter locutus est vobis (…) et recordatae sunt verborum eius – remember
how he spoke unto you (…) and they remembered his words. The verb recordari (to remember)
seems to have been due to Jerome’s revision, because the Vetus Latina uses rememoramini and
rememoratae sunt. – Arthur Allgeier: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch der
lateinischen Übersetzungen des Psalters und der Evangelien. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 46 (1928) 34–48, at p. 44.

Luke 25:53. amen (Clementina, Weber/Gryson). The Nova Vulgata omits the final amen.

John (Evangelium secundum Iohannem)

Concordance
2000. Andrew Wilson: Conceptual Glossary and Index to the Vulgate Translation of the Gospel according
to John. Hildesheim. xviii, 398 pp. – See above, Chapter 8.3.

665
Reading guide
2018. Virginia Grinch – Evan Hayes – Stephen Nimis: The Gospel of John in Greek and Latin. A Compar­
ative Intermediate Reader. Greek and Latin Text with Running Vocabulary and Commentary.
Faenum Publishing. Oxford, Ohio. xxxix, 337 pp. – The text of the Gospel is presented in Greek
and Latin (the Latin of NVg!) on facing pages. At the bottom of each page is an apparatus of
vocabulary and analysis of word forms and grammar. Helpful sections deal with grammatical
and stylistic features of John’s Gospel in Greek and Latin (pp. xii–xxxiii), list and comment on
proper names (pp. xvii–xviii, 319–323), and offer a Latin glossary of common words not included
in the apparatus (pp. 335–337). “The Latin translation follows the Greek word order as much as
possible and regularly translates pronouns and prepositions, resulting in an equally mannered
Latin prose compared to the terseness generally sought for by classical authors” (p. xii). Very
useful, though one must realise that the Latin text is neither that of the Clementina nor that of
Weber/Gryson, but of the Nova Vulgata. ▲

Secondary literature
1895. J.H. Bernard: The Vulgate of St John. Hermathena 9: 181–190. – Reviewing the Oxford Vulgate
edition’s fascicle on John, the author discusses selected passages, esp. passages where there is
no Greek manuscript warrant for a Latin reading.

1947. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9
(1947) 106–110. 220–225. – Starting on p. 108, Metlen offers linguistic notes on selected pas­
sages of the Latin text of John.

1991. María Cruz Olivera Reyna: Pronombres en función anafórica en el Evangelio de Juan de la
Vulgata. Analecta Malacitana 14.1: 159–166.

2005. Christophe Rico: L’art de la traduction chez saint Jérôme. La Vulgate à l’aune de la Néovulgate:
l’exemple du quatrième Évangile. Revue des études latines 83: 194–218.

2008. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Augustine’s Text of John. Oxford. ix, 407 pp. – Discusses deviations from
the Vulgate found in Augustine’s writings.

2008. Hugh A.G. Houghton: Augustine’s Adoption of the Vulgate Gospels. New Testament Studies 54:
450–465. – The author examines literal references to John’s Gospel and proposes to distinguish
between citations from memory and citations from a consulted manuscript.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 165–167 for a survey of the Latin manuscripts.

Textual notes
John 1:1. in principio erat verbum – in the beginning was the Word. The Vetus Latina has sermo for
Greek logos: in principio erat sermo. – Literature:

1964. C.A.L. Jarrot: Erasmus’ ‘in principio erat sermo’: A Controversial Translation. Studia Philolo­
gica 61.1: 35–40.

1977. Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle: Sermo: Reopening the Conversation on Translating Jn 1,1. Vigili­
ae Christianae 31: 161–168.

John 1:1–2. et Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum (Clementina’s punctuation) – and
God was the Word. It was in the beginning with God. Augustine: De doctrina christiana III, 2[3]
(PL 34:66) comments on a heretical punctuation (distinctio): et Deus erat. Verbum hoc erat in

666
 principio apud Deum – and God was. This Word was in the beginning with God. By this punctu­
ation, the heretics avoid calling the Word a divine person.

John 1:3-4. sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est in ipso erat vita. The issue is punctuation. Two
possibilities have been suggested: (1) sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. In ipso vita erat
– without him was nothing made that was made. In him was life (Clementina). Mehlmann argues
that this is what Jerome had in mind, and this understanding corresponds to that of the Clem ­
entina. (2) sine ipso factum est nihil / quod factum est in ipso vita erat – without him was nothing
made; what was made in him was life (this is what the stichos arrangement of the Weber/Gryson
edition seems to indicate). The second possibility was supported by Erasmus who pointed out
the Johannine resumptive style of beginning a clause with a word from the preceding clause
(Robert D. Sider in: idem [ed.]: The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus. Toronto 2019 [xxvi,
1063 pp.], p. 302). Some modern translations of the Greek text have understood the matter, e.g.,
the New Revised Standard Version: “without him not one thing came into being. What has come
into being in him was life.” – Discussions:

1945. G.D. Kilpatrick: John 1,3–4 and Jerome. Journal of Theological Studies 46: 191.

1955. Johannes Mehlmann OSB: De mente S. Hieronymi circa divisionem versuum Jo 1,3s.
Verbum Domini 33: 86–94.

1964. Hugolinus Langkammer: Die Zugehörigkeit des Satzteils ho gegonen in Joh. 1,3.4 bei
Hieronymus. Biblische Zeitschrift NF 8: 295–298.

1968. Kurt Aland: Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes. Eine Untersuchung zu Joh 1,3.4. Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59: 174–209.

John 1:5. et tenebrae eam (s. lucem) non comprehenderunt – and the darkness did not understand it
(the light). As soon as “darkness” was identified as referring to that part of humanity that did not
accept Christ, the verb used – comprehendere – was “to understand.” – Walter Nagel: Die Fin­
sternis hat’s nicht begriffen (Joh 1,5). Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1959)
132–137, at pp. 136–137.

John 1:9. There are two Latin Versions of this passage: (1) erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hom­
inem venientem in mundum (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – he was the true light that illuminates
every man as he (i.e., every man) enters the world; according to this wording, the Word illumin ­
ates everyone at his or her birth. This is in agreement with the Peshitta: “He was the true light
which lighted every man who came into the world” (Lamsa). According to Rico, the Vulgate ver­
sion, like other ancient versions (Vetus Syra, Peshitta), represents the ancient understanding of
the Johannine passage. – (2) The NVg changes the passage: erat lux vera, quae illuminat om­
nem hominem, veniens in mundum – he was the true light that illuminates every man, when he
(Jesus, the light) enters the world. – Literature:

1985. Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text. George M. Lamsa’s Translation from the Aramaic
of the Peshitta. San Francisco (xx, 1244 pp.), p. 1052.

2005. Christophe Rico: L’art de la traduction chez saint Jérôme. La Vulgate à l’aune de la Néovul­
gate. L’exemple du quatrième Évangile. Revue des études latines 83: 194–218, at p. 201.

John 1:13. qui non ex sanguinibus (…) sed ex Deo nati sunt (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – those
who are not born from blood(s), but from God. See the glossary s.v. sanguis (above, Chapter
19.2). “Bloods” seems to refer to the male sexual fluids. The three expressions: non ex san­
guinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri refer to the same thing – male inter­
course. The blood nature of semen is discussed in Aristotle: On the Generation of Animals 726

667
 a/b, see The Works of Aristotle II. Great Books of the Western World. Chicago 1952 (699 pp.), pp.
266–267. The identity of blood and male semen is ancient and survives in Dante: Purgatorio XXV,
37–48.

Joh 2:1–11. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank
Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer
Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 187–188.

John 2:8–9. architriclinus – head stewart, Speisemeister, a word that transliterates Greek
ἀρχιτρίκλινος. Used only here in the Vulgate, it is a rare word in Latin. Jerome, though, uses it in
his Commentary on Isaiah I on Isa 1:22 with reference to the Johannine passage (PL 24 [1863]:
39). Cf. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin
Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74 (2019) 1–25, at p. 17.

John 2:15. Mayara Nogueira Xavier: O latim da Vulgata e de outras traduções bíblicas em língua
Latina. Língua, Literatura e Ensino 5 (2010) 219–227. – This paper, in Portuguese, offers a com­
parison of the Vulgate version of this verse with two Vetus-Latina renderings.

John 4:6. Iesus ergo fatigatus ex itinere – Jesus, being wearied with his journey (Douay Version). The
word fatigatus is already in the Vetus Latina. The choice of this word obscures the correspond­
ence with John 4:38, where forms of laborare (to do tiresome work) are used for the same un­
derlying Greek word, κοπιάω (to work hard). – Christophe Rico: Figure et théorie du signe: les
solutions de Saint Jérôme. Modèles linguistiques 58 (2008) 79–98, at p. 95.

John 4:23. venit hora et nunc est – the hour comes. Classical Latin would use the future tense – veniet
hora et adest. – Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Bib­
lical Quarterly 9 (1947) 106–110, at p. 109.

John 4:52. et dixerunt ei: Quia heri hora septima reliquit eum febris – and they said to him: yesterday,
at the seventh hour, the fever left him. – The Clementina’s punctuation is here misleading: quia
does not belong to the message spoken, but to the introduction, echoing as it does the Greek
ὅτι that announces the subsequent quotation. Accordingly, the correct punctuation would be:
dixerunt ei quia: heri hora septima … Kaulen, p. 290.

John 5:2. est autem Hierosolyma super Probatica piscina (Weber/Gryson) – there is in Jerusalem near
the Probatica (Sheep Gate) a pond; the Clementina does not have the word super, which leads to
the translation: “there is in Jerusalem the Probaica pond” (making “Probatica” the name of the
pond). Meant is: ad Probaticam portam (near the Probatica) est piscina. The NVg deals with the
matter by supplying commas: est autem Hierosolymis, super Probatica, piscina. – Michael Metlen:
The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 106–110, at
p. 109.

John 5:4. This verse is missing in the Weber/Gryson edition and in NVg. The Clementina adds the folk­
loric story about the angel who moves the water.

John 6:51–69. J.N. Adams: Gospel of John (6.51–69) from the Vetus Latina (Codex Palatinus e), and the
Corresponding Passage from the Vulgate. In: idem: An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 BC – AD
900. Cambridge 2016 (xi, 719 pp.), pp. 429–444. Adams, a well-known Latinist, prints the text in
the Vetus Latina Version, the Vulgate text, and the Greek text; the detailed commentary that he
offers compares the Vetus Latina version with that of the Vulgate.

John 7:37–38. et clamabat dicens: Si quis sitit, veniat ad me et bibat. Qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scrip­
tura, flumina de ventre eius fluent (…) (Clementina) – and he cried, saying: If any man thirst, let
him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith: Out of his belly flow

668
 rivers (…) (Douay Version). The Nova Vulgata changes the punctuation, placing a full stop after
credit in me: et clamavit dicens: «Si quis sitit, veniat ad me et biba, qui credit in me. Sicut dicit
Scriptura, flumina de ventre eius fluent (…)». – Teppei Kato: Hieronymus und das alttestament­
liche Zitat (Joh 7,38); in: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 105–106.

John 7:39. nondum erat Spiritus [datus] – for the Spirit was not [had not been given]. The word datus
is in the Clementina, but not in the Weber/Gryson edition. On this, see the comment in Richard
Simon: Critical History of the Text of the New Testament. Translated by Andrew Hunwick. Leiden
2013 (xxxvi, 368 pp.), p. 301 (originally published in 1689): “It seems highly probable that datus
was added by the Latin translator, duly mindful that the context of the passage is the gifts of the
Holy Spirit.” Before Richard Simon, Erasmus had already suspected that datus was not in the ori­
ginal text; see Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami. Volume 6.6. Amsterdam 2003 (404 pp.),
p. 102.

John 7:53–8:11. This famous pericope adulterae (passage on the adulteress) is in the Vulgate, but
missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts. And, accordingly, in modern Bibles, the text is gen­
erally printed with an explanatory note, as is the case in the New Revised Standard Version that
places it between brackets.

Note. – The adulteress pericope. All editors of the New Testament, whether in Greek or in a translation,
including the Vulgate, must decide how to go about the “adultery pericope” John 7:53–8:11. In 384/5,
when Jerome revised the Old Latin text of the Gospel of John, he included the passage (see Lorenz
2019). Later, in 415, Jerome mentions the passage in Adversus Pelgianos II, 17: “In the Gospel according
to John, in many Greek and Latin manuscripts, we find (the passage) about the adulteress” – “Im Evan­
gelium nach Johannes findet sich in vielen griechischen und lateinischen Handschriften (der Abschnitt)
über die Ehebrecherin” (in evangelio secundum Iohannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus inven­
itur de adultera muliere; CCSL 80: 75–78). Contemporary textual research points out that the pericope
is actually found in only a few Greek manuscripts, including Codex D (Codex Bezae, Cambridge; early
5th century = Jerome’s time; see above, Chapter 7.1). But this bilingual Codex (Greek–Latin) could owe
the passage to a Latin textual tradition. In what follows we list recent opinion on the passage.

1535. Erasmus: Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. In: Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami. Vo­
lume 6.6. Amsterdam 2003 (404 pp.), p. 103–104: Historia de muliere non habetur in plerisque
Graecis exemplaribus. In nonnullis adiecta erat in calve. Atque adeo Chrysostomus nullam facit
huius mentionem, edisserens Evangelium Iohannis, legens hoc contextu: Scrutare et videte quia a
Galilea propheta non surgit. – In his Annotations on the New Testament, of which the final version
was published in 1535, Erasmus notes that the adultera pericope is missing from most Greek
manuscripts, and that in many it is written in the margin. John Chrysostom, moreover, when
commenting on the word “Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee” (Joh 7:52), does
not mention the passage. Although the passage is apocryphal, it may nevertheless relate an au ­
thentic event in the life of Jesus. – The Latin quotation is from the “Amsterdam critical edition”
of Erasmus’ works.

1866. Carlo Vercellone: La storia dell’ adultera nel Vangelo di s. Giovanni. Rome. 44 pp.

2004. Udo Schnelle: Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Leipzig. xxviii, 346 pp. – Page 170: This is an old
apocryphal Jesus story; understood as illustrating John 8:15, it eventually entered the canonical
tradition.

2007. Josep Rius-Camps: The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered. The Nomadic Misfortunes of a

669
 Bold Pericope. New Testament Studies 53: 379–405. – Originally the passage was in the Gospel of
Mark (placed after Mark 12:12), was taken up by Luke (Luke 20:19), then banished from both
Gospels, only to reappear later in some manuscripts in various places.

2009. Chris Keith: The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition. Novum Testa­
mentum 51: 209–231.

2009. Chris Keith: The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus. New Testament
Tools, Studies, and Documents 38. Leiden. xvi, 350 pp. – Taking a cue from a brief comment
from Edgar Goodspeed about the purpose of the Pericopae Adulterae (PA), Keith makes a two­
fold argument: (1) the PA is best understood as making a claim that Jesus was “grapho-literate”
(i.e., he could write) in the face of challenges from the Pharisees in John 7:15 (cf. 7:52) that he
was illiterate; and (2) the PA was inserted into the Johannine textual tradition in the third century
in order to respond to pagan challenges that Christians (and their founder) were illiterate and
uneducated.

2015. Philip Wesley Comfort: A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Mich. (443 pp.), p. 258: “The passage, which is clearly a later addition, came from oral
tradition. It does not belong to John’s gospel as part of the original text.”

2016. David Alan Black – Jacob N. Cerone (eds.): The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Re­
search. New York. xvii, 195 pp. – Four contributors – T. Wassermann, J. Knust, C. Keith, L. Hurtado
– think that the pericope represents a later insertion into the Fourth Gospel; two contributors –
J.D. Punch and Maurice Robinson – think of it as an original Johannine text.

2017. András Handl: Tertullianus on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). Revue d’histoire ecclési­
astique 112: 5–34. – Around the year 200, this passage was unknown in North Africa.

2017. Dennis R. MacDonald: The Sinful Woman (John 7:53–8:11). In: idem: The Dionysian Gospel. The
Fourth Gospel and Euripides. Minneapolis, Min. (xviii, 250 pp.), pp. 219–222.

2019. Jennifer Knust – Tommy Wasserman: To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story.
Princeton. xix, 440 pp. – Pages 209–249: “In Many Copies”: The Pericope Adulterae in the Latin
West. John 7:53-8:11, though not found in all the Greek and Latin manuscripts accessible to him
(Jerome: Adversus Pelagianos II:17; CCSL 80: 76), was incorporated by Jerome into the Vulgate
and thus given a permanent place the Bible. This book developed out of earlier work published
by the authors, notably this co-authored article: Earth Accuses Earth: Tracing what Jesus Wrote
on the Ground. Harvard Theological Review 103 (2010) 407–446.

2019. Peter Lorenz: Jerome, Paula, and the Story of the Adulteress: Why did Jerome overrule his Old
Greek copies? Conversations with the Biblical World 39: 155–184. – “We cannot entirely evade
the possibility that Jerome himself introduced the story into this gospel in his revision of the
four gospels, perhaps even shaping the story into its final Johannine form” (p. 160). Jerome had
personal reasons (and not scholarly ones associated with the Greek manuscripts he consulted)
for including this pericope in his revised text of the Latin Gospel of John. What reasons? The
identification of the woman’s sin as a sexual sin (v. 4) fits with the accusation of sexual offense
that Jerome and indirectly Paula were accused of (p. 168).

2020. Tommy Wassermann: The Text of the Pericope Adulterae in Early Latin Writers. In: H.A.G.
Houghton – Peter Montoro (eds.): At One Remove: The Text of the New Testament in Early Trans­
lations and Quotations. Piscataway, N.J. (xxiii, 337 pp.), pp. 263–286.

2020. Jennifer Knust – Tommy Wassermann: The Pericope of the Adulteress (John 7:53–8:11): A New
Chapter in Its Textual Transmission. Svensk exegetisk årsbok 85: 49–82.

670
2021. Matthieu Arnold et al. (eds.): Jean 8, 3–11. La femme adultère. Études d’histoire de l’exégèse 17.
Paris. 198 pp.

John 8:12. qui sequitur me non / ambulat in tenebris. This is a rhythmic hexameter verse (actually, what
the ancients call a pentameter). For another example, see Gen 3:5. Translations can reproduce
the meter: who follows me will not / walk in utter darkness; German: Wer mir folgt, geht nicht /
einher in Finsternis.

John 8:25. principium quia et loquor vobis (Weber/Gryson) – principium, qui et loquor vobis (Clem­
entina) – in principio: id quod et loquor vobis! (NVg; translated by Rico: au commencement: cela
même que je vous dis). The sentence does not seem to make sense. On a first reading, one
would suggest something like “(I am) the beginning, because I talk to you; I who talk to you am
the beginning”; which remains enigmatic. The following suggestions have been made: (1) Me­
tlen suggests as the meaning: omnino sum quod loquor – truly, I am what I am saying. Metlen
identifies tên archên (rendered principium) as an adverbial accusative that means “doubtlessly,
very much so.” Accordingly, one could offer as a literal rendering: “To begin with (or: basically):
that what I am saying to you.” – (2) According to Rico, the literal translation is “le principe, du
fait même que je vous parle” or “au commencement, du fait que je vous parle.” The meaning
would be “le Christ est (au) Principe, précisément du fait qu’il est Parole” (p. 217). – Literature:

1947. Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 9 (1947) 220–225, at p. 220

2005. Christophe Rico: L’art de la traduction chez saint Jérôme. La Vulgate à l’aune de la Néovul ­
gate. L’exemple du quatrième Évangile. Revue des études latines 83: 194–218, at pp. 204–
206, 217–218.

2023. Christophe Rico: Jn 8,25 au risque de l’herméneutique: les versions anciennes. Revue bi­
blique 130.1: 54–71. Suggests the following rendering of the Weber/Gryson version: au
principe (et au commencement), du fait même que je vous parle.

John 9:11. vade ad natatoriam Siloae – go to the Siloe bath. Thus correctly the Weber/Gryson edition,
whereas the Clementia has ad natatoria. The adjective natatorius (apt for swimming) forms the
basis for natatoria “bathing pool.” Meant is: vade ad aquam natatoriam – go to the water in
which one can swim. – K.E. Georges: Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. 6th edi­
tion. Leipzig 1868, s.v. natatorius; Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Pader­
born 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 58.

John 12:3. libram unguenti nardi pistici pretiosi – a pound of ointment of right spikenard (Douay Ver­
sion), ein Pfund echter, kostbarer Nardensalbe (Grundl). pisticus transcribes Greek πιστικός and
seems to mean “genuine” (Richards, p. 91, who adds a question mark). Rico thinks that it implies
a reference to Mary’s faith (Greek πίστις). – Literature:

2002. J. Luzarraga: El nardo y la Sulamita en la unción de Maryam (Jn 12:1–8). Gregorianum 83.4:
679–715.

2005. Christophe Rico: L’art de la traduction chez saint Jérôme. La Vulgate à l’aune de la Néovul­
gate: l’exemple du quatrième Évangile. Revue des études latines 83: 194–218, at pp. 216–
217.

John 13:10. qui lotus est, non indiget [nisi] ut [pedes] lavet – he that is washed needeth not [but] to
wash [his feet] (Douay Version). The longer version is that of the Clementina, Weber/Gryson

671
 gives the shorter text. – N.M. Haring: Historical Notes on the Interpretation of John 13:10.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1950) 355–380.

John 13:27. fac citius – do (it) quickly. The comparative form expresses the superlative: as soon as pos­
sible; möglichst rasch. Urban Holzmeister: Die katholischen deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des
Neuen Testaments seit Schluß des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 41
(1917) 303–332, at p. 323.

John 14:24. sermonem, quem audistis, non est meus – the word that you have heard is not mine (not
my word). One would expect sermo (and not sermonem); the accusative form sermonem is a case
of attractio; Hagen, p. 93. NVg has: sermo quem auditis, non est meus.

John 16:2. absque synagogis facient vos – they will separate you from the synagogues, literally: they
will make you away from the synagogues.

John 16:13. docebit vos [in] omnem veritatem – he will teach you all truth. Weber/Gryson has the in,
the Clementina omits it. One suspects that if there is to be in, the verb must be ducet (future
tense of ducere, to lead) – he will lead you to all truth. The NVg has: deducet vos in omnem veri­
tatem.

John 19:25. Maria Cleophae – Mary (wife) of Cleophas. Genitive of belonging or association, génitif
d’appartenance, Genitiv der Zugehörigkeit. – Albert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg
1955 (221 pp.), p. 81.

John 19:34. lancea latus eius aperuit – with a spear he opened his side (Weber/Gryson, Clementina,
NVg). The underlying Greek ἤνοιξεν (he opened) is considered to be a scribal error for the cor­
rect verb ἔνυξεν– he pierced or wounded (his side). – Pedro Cabello Morales: ‘Lancea latus eius
aperuit’ (Jn 19,34): ¿Error escribal o interpretación telógica? In: Antonio Rodríguez Carmona
(ed.): Como Yo os he amado. Miscelanén sobre los escritos joánicos. Estella 2011 (512 pp.), pp.
231–263.

John 20:25. nisi videro in manibus eius fixuram [figuram] clavorum – except I shall see in his hands the
mark – fixura/figura – of the nails. The Clementina and Codex Amiatinus have fixura = fixing,
Weber/Gryson figura = image (echoing the Greek typos). Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 354 (s.v. fixura)
draws attention to Origen’s homilies on Luke where Jerome’s translation uses the expression
fixura clavorum (Homily 17,5; Fontes Christiani 4.1: 198). The NVg has a new expression: signum
clavorum. There is little difference in meaning; it seems, however, that fixura is more descriptive,
indicating the fixing wound. Quite apart from the wording, one may point out a factual problem:
the actual wound would not be in the hand, but in the wrist, though tradition depicts Christ’s
transpierced hands.

John 21:12. nemo discentium – none of the learners (Weber/Gryson); nemo discumbentium – none of
those who sat there (Clementina; discumbere; cf. Douay Version: none of them that were at
meat); nemo discipulorum – none of the disciples (NVg).

John 21:15–17. H.A.G. Houghton: A Flock of Synonyms? John 21:15–17 in Greek and Latin Tradition.
In: Peter Doble – Jeffrey Kloha (eds.): Texts and Traditions. Essays in Honour of J. Keith Elliott. Lei­
den 2014 (xix, 418 pp.), pp. 220–238.

John 21:22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum volo menere donec veniam (Clementina); Dicit ei Iesus: si sic eum
volo manere donec venio (Weber/Gryson); Dicit ei Iesus: «Si eum volo manere donec veniam (…)»
(NVg). – Interestingly, the reading adopted by the Nova Vulgata was suggested by the Greek
humanist Cardinal Bessarion in the mid-fifteenth century, see Annet den Haan: Valla on Biblical
Scholarship. Renaessanceforum [Denmark] 11 (2016) 23–39, at p. 30.

672
John 21:25. si scribantur (…) scribendi sunt. “This is an unsuccessful attempt to transliterate the Greek
present subjunctive and present participle passive. The Latin should read si scriberentur (…)
scribendi essent as the idea is a contrary-to-fact action.” – Michael Metlen: The Vulgate Gospels
as a Translation (continued). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 220–225, at p. 224.

John 21:25. amen (Weber/Gryson). Neither the Clementina nor the Nova Vulgata have the final amen.

Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apostolorum, Liber Actuum Apostolorum)

Secondary literature
1914. Adolf Jülicher: Kritische Analyse der lateinischen Übersetzungen der Apostelgeschichte. Zeit­
schrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 15: 163–188. – A study of the Vulgate text of Acts
based on the six major manuscripts.

1913. Eugène Jacquier: Le Nouveau Testament dans l’Église chrétienne. Tome second: Le texte du Nou­
veau Testament. Paris (vi, 535 pp.). – “Pour les Actes des apôtres, saint Jérôme a amélioré le latin
des vielles versions; il l’a rendu plus correct et plus élégante” (p. 176). – “La révision des Actes est
donc indéniable, bien que saint Jérôme ait laisse subsister un certain nombre de mauvaises le­
çons” (p. 177).

1920. Ferdinand Cavallera SJ: Saint Jérôme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Épîtres et de l’Apocalypse. Bul­
letin de littérature ecclésiastique 21: 269–292. – Jerome has nothing to do with the Vulgate text
of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse.

1926. James Hardy Ropes: The Text of Acts. The Beginnings of Christianity I.3. London (cccxx, 464 pp.),
pp. cxxvii–cxxxv: Vulgate. – Page cxxvii: “Jerome’s skill in departing as little as possible from Old
Latin renderings, while by slight change and rearrangement of words he yet attained, even in or ­
der, extraordinary exactness of agreement with his Greek standard, and produced an excellent
translation, is worthy the greatest admiration. Wordsworth and White [see above, Chapter 13.2]
believe that a series of renderings which they collect show that his Greek text differs from any
known to us, but on close scrutiny these instances, with hardly an exception, do not seem to re­
quire this supposition.”

1928. W.P.H. Hatch: The Vulgate, Peshitto, Sahidic, and Bohairic Versions of Acts and the Greek Manu­
scripts. Harvard Theological Review 21: 69–95.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 436–441.

1937. M.L.W. Laistner: The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede. Harvard Theological
Review 30: 37–50.

1975. José O’Callaghan: Nuevo pergamino de la Vulgata latine (Act 10,23–48). Biblica 56: 410–415.

1993. Jacobus H. Petzer: The Textual Relationships of the Vulgate in Acts. New Testament Studies 39:
227–245.

1993. Jacobus H. Petzer: Texts and Text Types in the Latin Version of Acts. In: Roger Gryson (ed.):
Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien. Freiburg (674 pp. in 2 vols.), vol. 1, pp. 259–
284.

1993. Stefan Rebenich: Jerome: The “vir trilinguis” and the “Hebraica veritas.” Vigiliae Christianae 47:
50–77. – “Stylistic reasons, especially regarding the translation of Acts, finally shake his

673
 [Jerome’s] declaration made in De viris illustribus that he had translated the whole New Testa­
ment from the Greek into Latin” (p. 51).

2011. Giorgio Giurista: Atti degli Apostoli: le divisioni dei codici Vaticanus e Amiatinus. Liber Annuus
(Studium Franciscanum Biblicum) 61: 211–227.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 167–169 for a survey of the Latin manuscripts.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit
didaktischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 232–269. – Bilingual
text (Latin and German working translation) of Acts 1:1–11; 2; 9:1–25; 17:14–34; 25–28, with ex­
planatory notes on vocabulary and grammar.

Textual notes
Book title. Actus apostolorum (Clementina, NVg) – deeds of the apostles, Taten der Apostel. The noun
actus -ūs means “action, deed” (Richards, p. 2). The manuscript title reads incipit liber actuum
apostolorum (Weber/Gryson). Sometimes, the title is given as acta apostolorum, but this form of
the title does not appear in standard editions.

Acts 1:1. primum quidem sermonem – the first treatise/book. This is a rare, postclassical meaning of
sermo. Glaire has: mon premier récit.

Acts 1:15. turba hominum – a crowd of men (Clementina, NVg). Erasmus (p. 906) points out that the
correct reading must be turba nominum – a crowd of names (= persons), reflecting the underly­
ing Greek. Weber/Gryson have turba nominum on the basis of Codex Fuldensis. – The New Test­
ament Scholarship of Erasmus. Edited by Robert D. Sider. Collected Works of Erasmus 41. Toron­
to 2019 (xxvi, 1063 pp.).

Acts 2:1. cum complerentur dies Pentecostes – literally: when the days of Pentecost were fulfilled,
means: when the day of Pentecost arrived. 49 days have to pass, and the 50th day is Pentecost.
Why the plural of dies? Because dies in the plural means “time.” The idiom is fully explained by
Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg 1863 (iv, 106 pp.), p. 43–46.
– NVg simplifies the expression: cum compleretur (singular!) dies (singular!) Pentecostes.

Acts 2:9. Josef Denk: Act. 2,9 Judaeam (Vulgata) Judaei (Itala) – ein Kolumbusei. Zeitschrift für katholis­
che Theologie 34.3: 599–607.

Acts 2:13. alii autem irridentes dicebant: Quia musto pleni sunt isti – but others, mocking, said: These
men are full of new wine (Douay Version). As Kaulen (p. 290) observes, the colon should be
placed after, and not before, quia, a word that merely indicates that a quotation is to follow (re­
flecting Greek ὅτι).

Acts 2:17–28. Kobus J.H. Petzer: Variation in Citations from the Old Testament in the Latin Version of
Acts. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 19: (1993) 143–157, studies Acts 2:17–22 ( echoing
Joel 2:28–32) and Acts 2:25–28 (citing Psalm 16:8–11, Vg 15:8–10).

Acts 2:17. effundam de spiritu meo – I will pour out of my spirit (Douay Version); ich will von meinem
Geist ausgießen (Allioli); je répandrai de mon Esprit (Glaire). A better translation would be: “I will
pour out my spirit,” because the partitive particle de corresponds to the partitive particle in
modern French which has no equivalent in English and German. – Plater/White, p. 100.

Acts 2:23. adfigentes interemistis (Weber/Gryson; NVg: affigentes) – as those who fixed him (to the
cross) you have killed (him); als (ihn ans Kreuz) Heftende habt ihr (ihn) getötet. The Clementina

674
 has affligentes, from affligere (to strike), which does not make sense. – Carl Alois Kneller SJ: Zur
Geschichte der klementinischen Vulgata-Ausgaben. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 43
(1919) 391–438, at p. 405.

Acts 2:39. quoscumque advocaverit Dominus Deus noster – those whom the Lord our God calls. The
verb vocare would have sufficed; the use of advocare is no doubt due to the fact that the under­
lying Greek has προσκαλεῖν (and not just καλεῖν). – Marie Frey Rébeillé-Borgella: Vocare, uoca­
tio, leurs préverbés et préfixés: étude sémantique. Doctoral dissertation. Université de Lyon 2012
(483 pp.), pp. 365–366.

Acts 2:47. in idipsum renders the Greek epì tò autó which seems to mean “to the same place.” Accord­
ing to Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 476, the expression means “ensemble.”

Acts 4:13. comperto quod homines essent sine litteris – understanding that they were illiterate men; als
sie erfuhren, dass die Männer ohne Bildung sind. The verb comperto (comperire = to understand,
learn; erfahren) is participle perfect in ablative voice, so that we have ablativus absolutus. – Al­
bert Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 198 (ayant appris que …). – In
classical Latin, one would prefer the accusativus cum infinitivo (ACI) construction: comperti eos
homines sine litteris esse.

Acts 4:21. omnes clarificabant id quod factum fuerat – all extolled what had been done. The verb clari­
ficare is here used where one would expect laudare – to praise. The Nova Vulgata changes the
sentence to glorificabant Deum – they praised God.

Acts 6:14. audivimus enim eum dicentem: quoniam Iesus Nazarenis hic (…) – for we have heard him say
that this Jesus of Nazareth (…). Two remarks: (1) the colon should be placed before, rather than
after quoniam (see the glossary s.v. quoniam; and above, on Acts 2:13, for a similar case). – (2)
hic has derogatory force, echoing the Greek.

Acts 7:6. locutus est autem ei Deus: Quia erit semen eius accola – and God said to him that his seed
should be a sojourner (accola = adcola = colon, Greek pároikos, as in Ps 105:23, Vg 104:23; dis­
tinct from incola = inhabitant). Here quia announces indirect speech; one should not spell it with
a capital letter; placing the colon after quia, one could print as follows: (…) ei Deus quia: Erit (…).
– Kaulen, p. 290.

Acts 7:17. tempus promissionis quam confessus erat Deus Abrahae – the time of the promise which
God had promised to Abraham (Douay Version). Is “to promise” the correct translation for confi­
teri? Richards (p. 25) suggests “to agree,” but this must be a mistake. “The time drew near for
the fulfilment of the promise which God had made to Abraham” (Knox); le temps de la promesse
que Dieu avait juree à Abraham (Glaire) – free renderings. Grundl has “die Zeit der Verheißung,
die Gott dem Abraham zugesagt hatte,” which is not very elegant. Confiteri means “to declare,”
possibly “to reveal.”

Acts 7:42. convertit autem Deus et tradidit eos servire militiae caeli – but God had them serve again the
host of heaven. This is a case of convertere followed by a verb to mean “again,” see the glossary
s. v. convertere, conversus (above, Chapter 19.2).

Acts 8:27. qui erat super omnes gazas – who had charge over all her treasures (Douay Version). gaza –
treasury is a Greek word, here simply transliterated from the Greek. The word is used only here
in the Vulgate Bible, and rarely elsewhere. – Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vul­
gate New Testament and the Latin Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74 (2019) 1–25, at p. 18.

675
Acts 10:2. The characterization of Cornelius ascribes to Cornelius the virtue of Roman pietas, though
this word is not used. – Bonnie J. Flessen: An Exemplary Man. Cornelius and Characterization in
Acts 10. Eugene, Ore. 2011 (ix, 195 pp.), pp. 68–113.

Acts 10:15. communis – impure, unclean. This is a special, biblical meaning of the adjective (Meer ­
shoek, p. 117). The Nova Vulgata does not change it. See also below, on Acts 11:8.

Acts 10:16. hoc autem factum est per ter – this happened three times. For per ter, classical Latin would
have just ter. The same expression is used in Acts 11:10. It echoes Greek ἐπὶ τρίς. – Einar Löfs­
tedt: Late Latin. Oslo 1959 (vii, 210 pp.), pp. 85–87.

Acts 11:8. commune aut immundum – common or unclean (Douay Version), reflecting Greek κοινὸν ἢ
ἀκάθαρτον; hard to translate because the second word is meant to explain the first; accordingly,
it would suffice to say: unclean; alternatively, one could say: unclean or impure, defiled or im­
pure.

Acts 11:26. It is only here and in Acts 26:28 and 1 Pet 4:16 that the New Testament uses the designa ­
tion Christiani. The word merely transcribes the Greek χριστιανοί. This is a Latin word formation,
as the ending -ανοί/-anus shows. The word is also attested in Suetonius: Christiani, genus homi­
num superstitionis novae ac maleficae – the Christians, a species of people with new and evil su­
perstitions (Suetonius: De vita Caesarum VI, 16 in the vita of Nero). A related Latin word forma­
tion in Acts is the word πλοῖον Ἀλεξανδρῖνον = navis alexandrina = Alexandrian ship (Acts 27:6;
28:11).

Acts 15:2–6. In the Greek text, this passage refers to πρεσβύτεροι several times. The Latin uses two
words: presbyteri and seniores.

Acts 16:12.39. Only here does the Vulgate (and the N Vg) use the word urbs for city in the New Testa­
ment; otherwise, it is always civitas. In the two verses of Acts, the Codex Bezae (above, Chapter
7.1) has civitas. In the Old Testament books, however, urbs is often used.

Acts 17:18. (1) philosophus – philosopher. Well-known, derived from Greek φιλόσοφος, this word ap­
pears only here in the Vulgate Bible. – (2) seminiverbius – idle babbler, another hapax: “a bird
that picks up seeds, hence one who picks up scraps of information, babbler” (Richards, p. 110);
grand discoureur (Blaise: Dictionnaire 750). In Christian Latin, the word came to be used to mean
“preacher,” understood as the one who spreads the word; see Peter Stotz: Latin Bibles as Lin­
guistic Documents. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford
2023 (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 415–428, at p. 421.

Acts 17:26. The beginning of this sentence has a rhythmic form: fecitqu’ex uno omne genus.

Acts 17:27. quaerere Deum – to seek God, Gott suchen. – Giuseppe Turbessi: Quaerere Deum. Il tema
della “ricerca di Dio” nell’ambiente ellenistico e giudaico, contemporaneo al Nuovo Testamento.
Analecta Biblica 18 (1963) 383–398; idem: “Quaerere Deum”: la ricerca di Dio in antichi testi cri­
stiani. Rivista de ascetica e mistica 9 (1964) 240–255.

Acts 18:3. scenofactoria – tent-maker, a partial transliteration of Greek σκηνοποιός. The word seems
to be attested only here, and not elsewhere in Latin texts.

Acts 19:11. virtutesque non quaslibet faciebat Deus per manum Pauli – and God wrought special (liter­
ally: not just any) miracles by the hand of Paul. This is a case of semantic enrichment through
negation. – Martin Haspelmath: Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford 1997 (xvi, 364 pp.), p. 191.

Acts 19:13. exorcista – exorcist, transliteration of Greek ἐξορκιστής. Only here in the Vulgate Bible.

676
Acts 19:27. pars here means “line of business.” – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vul­
gate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. 87.

Acts 19:28. Magna Diana / Ephesiorum – great is Artemis / of Ephesians; groß die Artemis / der Stadt
Ephesus; grande est l’Artemis / de la ville d’Éphèse. A rhythmically shouted slogan with six ac­
cents. See the entry on → hexameter in Chapter 8.7.

Acts 19:35. (cultrix) magnae Dianae Iovisque prolis – (worshipper) of the Great Diana and of Jupiter’s
offspring. This is a mistranslation, because the Greek text does not refer to two items that are
worshipped, but only one, and Diana’s image is said to have fallen from the sky. Hence NVg:
(cultrix) magnae Dianae et simulacri a Iove delapsi – (worshipper) of the Great Diana and (her)
image, fallen from heaven. Iuppiter (genitive Iovis) refers here, as often in Latin, to the sky or
heaven.

Acts 21:38. sicarius – terrorist, assassin, from Latin sica – dagger, Dolch. This is a genuine Latin word.
The Greek text uses the Latin loan-word σικάριος. The word is used only here in the Vulgate
Bible. Josephus seems to be the only ancient author to refer to (Jewish) σικάριοι, see Martin
Hengel: The Zealots. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh 1989 (xxiv, 487 pp.), pp. 46–49.

Acts 22:3. Paul calls himself aemulator legis – zealot for the law. In the Greek text, he calls himself
ζηλωτὴς τοῦ θεοῦ – zealot for God. The Nova Vulgata follows the Greek by saying aemulator
Dei.

Acts 23:12,14,21. devoverunt se dicentes (v. 12) – they vowed by saying (…). Note that devotio – used
only v. 14 in the Vulgate – means “cursing, curse,” like devotatio (1 Kgs 8:38). – Literature:

1957. Jean Chatillon: Devotio. In: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome 3. Paris (1884 cols.), cols. 703–
710, esp. cols. 705–706. According to Chatillon, meant is not just a vow or promise (as a
superficial reading would suggest), but something more serious and powerful; see the
Douay version’s “they bound themselves under a curse” (to kill the apostle Paul, v. 12),
Knox’s “they bound themselves under a solemn curse,” or Allioli’s “sie verschworen sich
unter Verwünschungen.”

Acts 24:4. breviter audias nos pro tua clementia – I desire thee of thy clemency to hear us in few words
(Douay Version); what we ask of thy courtesy is no more than a brief audience (Knox); höre uns
kurz an im Einklang mit deiner Güte (Tusculum-Vulgata). clementia, used only here in the Vul­
gate New Testament, is a Roman virtue typically expected from someone in a position of au ­
thority, e.g., of an emperor. In this passage, Paul’s appeal is to the clementia of Felix, Roman
procurator of Judaea. On clementia, see the glossary s.v. (Chapter 19.2).

Acts 27:1. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi,
130 pp.), p. xii: “There is no grammar in Ac. xxvii 1.” The NVg has: tradiderunt et Paulum (instead
of Vg et tradi Paulum).

Acts 27:2. ascendentes navem Adrumetinam (Weber/Gryson: Hadrumetinam) – going on board a ship
of Adrumetum (Douay Version). As Denk points out, the Latin translator thought of the African
port city Hadrumetum; but this is a mistake – the name should be Adramytteum, a city in Mysia
(Asia Minor). The NVg has Hadramyttenam. – Joseph Denk: Zur Itala. Zeitschrift für katholische
Theologie 33.4 (1909) 804–808, at pp. 804–806.

Acts 27:11. nauclerius – ship-owner, captain. Only here used in the Vulgate Bible, the word transliter­
ates Greek ναύκληρος.

Acts 27:13. cum sustulissent de Asson – they weighed (the anchors) at Assos; sie lichteten (die Anker)
bei Assos. This is a translation error, due to the mention of the city of Assos (Acts 20:13). The

677
 Greek word asson means “nearer.” It should read: they departed and sailed closer ( asson) along
Crete. The NVg has: propius legebant Cretam – to sail closely along Crete. The verb legere, which
normally means “to read,” has here a special, nautical meaning: sailing along, to coast along;
entlang segeln (like iuxta navigare, Acts 27:8); this meaning is not listed in Blaise: Dictionnaire,
but it is indicated in John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London 1921 (xi,
125 pp.), p. 68; Richards, p. 70.

Acts 27:14. euraquilo – northeast wind. Only here used in the Vulgate Bible, and generally rare in Latin.
The word transliterates Greek εὐρακύλων. – Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vul­
gate New Testament and the Latin Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74 (2019) 1–25, at p. 16.

Acts 27:17. summisso vase – letting down the vasa (ablative absolute). It is far from clear what vasa
(translating Greek skeuos) refers to here. The word seems to mean “instrument, vessel,” but
some authors think of a special nautical meaning such as “sea anchor” or “sail yard.” The recent
treatment by Börstinghaus rejects these conjectures, arguing that the expression refers to
throwing out baggage (as in Jonah 1:5). – Jens Börstinghaus: Sturmfahrt und Schiffbruch. Zur
lukanischen Verwendung eines literarischen Topos in Apostelgeschichte 17,1–18,6. Tübingen 2010
(xviii, 554 pp.), pp. 368–381.

Acts 27:40. artemon – foresail, Besansegel (Grundl: stellten das Besansegel gegen den Wind; presum­
ably following the Textbibel of Emil Kautzsch and Karl Heinrich Weizäcker, 1899). Transliteration
of Geek artémôn. Latin word only here in the Vulgate Bible.

Acts 27:41. dithalassus, only here used in the Vulgate Bible, transliterates Greek διθάλασσος; it is a
rare word in Latin (Bergren). The Douay Version translates literally: “a place where two seas
meet,” Grundl has “Landzunge.” A modern word is reef (German: Riff), but other words are also
suggested – sandbank, cross-currents (Newman, p. 46). – Literature:

1993. Barclay M. Newman: A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart
1993. iv, 203 pp.

2019. Theodore A. Bergren: Greek Loanwords in the Vulgate New Testament and the Latin
Apostolic Fathers. Traditio 74: 1–25, at p. 16.

The Pauline Epistles

The prologue “Primum quaeritur”

Note. – In the Vulgate, the corpus of Pauline letters is generally preceeded by a Latin prologue, often
referred to as Primum quaeritur, its first words. Since this prologue is quite unlike Jerome’s prologues
to his translations and revisions, scholars have sought to determine the date and author of this pro ­
logue – without reaching unanimity. On one of the relevant debates and the text’s attribution to
Rufinus the Syrian, a contemporary of Jerome, see above, Chapter 12.1 (note). Another suggestion, still
attractive, is to see Pelagius as the author (Georges de Plinval).

Text and translation

1941. Prologus in epistulis Pauli apostoli. In: John Wordsworth – Henry J. White (eds.): Novum Testa­
mentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi. Volume 2. Ox­
ford (765 pp.), pp. 1–5.

1994. Incipit prologus in epistulis Pauli apostoli. Weber/Gryson, pp. 1748–1749.

678
1992. Prologus in epistulis Pauli apostoli. Sources chrétiennes 592: 492–501. – Bilingual edition, Latin
and French, annotated.

2018. Incipt prologus in epistulis Pauli apostoli. Tusculum-Vulgata V, pp. 698–703. – Bilingual edition,
Latin and German.

Secondary literature
1966. Georges de Plinval: Précisions sur l’authenticité d’un prologue de Pélage: “Primum quaeritur.”
Revue des études augustiniennes 12.3–4 (1966) 247–253.

1978. Nils Dahl: The Origins of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters. Semeia 12: 233–277.

2010. Eric W. Scherbenske: The Vulgate Primum Quaeritur, Codex Fuldensis and the Hermeneutical
Role of Early Christian Introductory Materials. In: Alan Cameron et al. (eds.): Studia Patristica 44:
139–144.

2018. Timothy William Dooley: Jerome’s Text of the Gospels, the Vetus Latina, and the Vulgate. Unpub­
lished PhD Thesis, King’s College, London 2018, pp. 220–244: Vulgate Paul and Pelagius.

2018. Timothy W. Dooley: Marcionite Influence in the Primum Quaeritur Preface to Vulgate Paul. In:
Markus Vinzent (ed.): Studia patristica 99: 139–156.

Secondary literature on the Vulgate text of the Pauline letters

Note. – Did Jerome revise the Old Latin version of the Pauline epistles to produce what came to be the
Vulgate text? For this debate, see above, Chapter 12, and esp. 12.2 for scholars who say yes, Jerome
did do the revision.

1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Col. 2458: “Pour les Épîtres, l’auteur a adopté peu de le­
çons grecques et il s’est contenté de polir le texte latin et de le rendre plus élégant.”

1915. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Étude sur les origines de notre texte latin de saint Paul. Revue biblique
n.s. 12: 358–392. – Jerome never uses the Vulgate text of the Pauline letters, not even in his
commentaries on some of the Pauline letters. The Vulgate text of Paul’s letters does not go back
to Jerome, but to Pelagius. On the debate, see Chapter 12.1.

1920. Ferdinand Cavallera SJ: Saint Jérôme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Épîtres et de l’Apocalypse. Bul­
letin de littérature ecclésiastique 21: 269–292. – Jerome has nothing to do with the revision of the
Latin version of the Pauline letters. The text he uses is close to the Vulgate, but pre-Vulgate, cor ­
rected in the spirit of Jerome, but after Jerome.

1921. Ernst Diehl: Zur Textgeschichte des lateinischen Paulus. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis­
senschaft 20: 97–132. – The author, a classical philologist, defends the notion that the Latin Pau­
line letters all derive from one single translation. This translation was revised some time during
the fourth century, resulting in a proto-Vulgate text.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 500–515.

1962–1963. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Pelagius und die Vulgata. New Testament Studies 9: 361–366. – Pela­
gius did not know the text of our Vulgate. His text of the Pauline letters was still one that be­
longs to the Old Latin tradition; but it was a text that stood close to the Vulgate wording. It can­

679
 not be shown that Pelagius himself had a hand in the production of a revised Latin text of the
Pauline letters.

1964. Felix Rodriguez SJ: El texto latino de la cartas de S. Pablo. Estudios bíblicos 39: 383–388.

1969. Walter Thiele: Zum lateinischen Paulustext. Textkritik und Überlieferungsgeschichte. Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 60: 264–273.

2013. Eric W. Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Ox­
ford. xii, 383 pp. – Pages 175–232 (chapter 4): Codex Fuldensis and the Vulgate Revision of the
Corpus Paulinum; pp. 183–184: “The regnant scholarly opinion attributes the authorship of the
Vulgate revision of the Corpus Paulinum to Rufinus of Syria. (…) Rufinus moved in the upper
echelons of society, among the social, intellectual, and ecclesiastical elite of later fourth-century
Rome, where he would have been ideally positioned to undertake the task of revising portions
of the Latin New Testament. (…) Rufinus the Syrian’s emergence as the likely candidate for the
Vulgate revision of Paul’s letters (and other parts of the New Testament) has much to commend
itself.” Page 209: “This text prepared by Rufinus of Syria adhered to the following principles: (1)
adherence to the Greek text, in particular to Alexandrian text-type; and (2) avoidance of ‘West­
ern’ Greek and distinctively Old Latin readings.”

2015. Ch. Kugelmeier: Übersetzungstheoretische und übersetzungspraktische Fragen am Beispiel des

Corpus Paulinum. In: Andreas Beriger – Michael Fieger et al. (eds.): Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kon­
gress des Vulgata Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). Frankfurt (234 pp.), pp. 109–120.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 169–176 for a survey of the Latin manuscripts.

Romans

Secondary literature
1916. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La Vulgate latine de l’épître aux Romains et le texte grec. Revue bi­
blique 25 [= nouvelle série 13]: 225–239. – Lagrange compares the Latin text of
Wordsworth/White (see above, Chapter 13.2) with the text of the Clementina, and supplies lists
of differences.

1952. Vincenzo Iacono: Le epistole di S. Paolo ai Romani, ai Corinti e ai Galati. Torino (xi, 581 pp.), pp.
97–251. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by
Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text,
and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief
philological notes; these frequently point out that a Latin word belongs to postclassical Latin
(and indicate the classical equivalent).

Textual notes
Rom 1:15. ita (quod in me) promptum est et vobis (…) evangelizare – so (as much as is in me) I am
ready to preach the gospel to you also (Douay Version; the brackets in the Latin are in the Cle­
mentina). Richards (p. 97) suggests a different translation: my part is eager (promptus/promtus)
to preach to you; “the translator took to kat’emé as subject (…) this may be right.” NVg has: ita­
que, quod in me est, promptus sum et vobis (…) evangelizare, which corresponds to the Douay
Version.

680
Rom 1:28. tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum: ut faciant ea, qua non convenient. How to translate
reprobus sensus and non convenire? Very literal renderings: God delivered them up to a reprob­
ate sense, to do things which are not convenient (Douay Version); überließ sie Gott dem verwer­
flichen Sinne, zu tun, was sich nicht geziemt (Allioli); Dieu les a livré à un sens reprouvé, de sorte
qu’ils ont fait les choses qui ne conviennent pas (Glaire). Other translators are somewhat more
interpretative: gab sie Gott verächtlichem Sinnen preis, das zu tun, was sich nicht geziemt
(Grundl); so God has abandoned them to a frame of mind worthy of all scorn, that prompts
them to disgraceful acts (Knox).

Rom 4:16. The grammar is not correct. The Vulgate text (Clementina) must be corrected as follows:
ideo [hereditas est] ex fide ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini, non ei [sc. semi­
ni] qui [read: quod] ex lege est solum, sed et ei [sc. semini] qui [read: quod] ex fide est Abrahae.
Twice, qui must be replaced by quod. – Rudolph Cornely SJ: Commentarius in S. Pauli apostoli
epistolas. 1: Epistola ad Romanos. Paris 1896 (806 pp.), p. 237. The corrected text can be trans­
lated as follows: therefore [the legacy is] from faith, that according to grace the promise is for all
(his) seed, not for [the seed] which is from the law alone, but also for [the seed] that is from the
faith of Abraham. Strangely enough, the Neovulgate has kept the Vulgate’s qui (rather than
changing it to quod).

Rom 5:12. et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt (Weber/Gryson,
Clementina) – and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (Douay Version). Not
all is clear in this verse. Richards (p. 64) suggests in quo = “in view of the fact that, because (…)
not in whom (Adam) as St. Augustine translated.” Codex Fuldensis omits mors. – The Nova Vul­
gata does have mors, but says: eo quod omnes peccaverunt – because all have sinned.

Note. – Romans 5:12 (Vg) and the doctrine of Original Sin merit a separate note. The modern theolo ­
gical debate about original sin – defended by conservative Christians, rejected by liberal theological
thinkers – regularly discusses this passage because the Vulgate wording figures prominently in Cathol ­
ic theology. At the beginning of the debate is this doctrine’s invention in the patristic period. Pelagius,
a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine, saw in this Vulgate text evidence that sin was transmitted
socially by example, rather than genetically by nature. Each individual is thus responsible for his own
death. Augustine did not agree and insisted on the genetical transmission of human sinfulness and its
consequence, death. An early document on which Augustine and others relied is Ambrosiaster’s Com­
mentary on Romans (ca. 370s) in Latin. The relevant passage on Romans 5:12 reads as follows:
In quo, id est, in Adam, omnes peccaverunt. Ideo dixit, in quo, cum de muliere loquatur, quia non ad speciem retulit,
sed ad genus. Manifestum itaque est in Adam omnes pecasse quasi in massa; ipsa enim per peccatum corruptus,
quos genuit, omnes nati sunt sub peccato. Ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex eo ipso sumus omnes. (PL 17: 92)

“In whom,” (in quo) that is, in Adam, “all sinned.” He [i.e., Paul] said, “in whom,” in the masculine, although speak ­
ing about the woman, because his reference was to the race, not the sex. It is therefore plain that all men sinned
in Adam as in a lump (quasi in massa). For Adam himself was corrupted by sin, and all whom he begat were born
under sin. Thus we are all sinners from him, since we all derive from him. (Translation by J.N.D. Kelly: Early Christi­
an Doctrines. 4th edition. London 1968 [xii, 501 pp.], p. 354. For another translation, see Amrosiaster: Commentar­
ies on Romans and 1–2 Corinthians. Translated by Gerald L. Bray. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill. [xxiii,
270 pp.], p. 40.)

We list a few titles about the debate:

1989. Bruce Harbert: Romans 5:12: Old Latin and Vulgate in the Pelagian Controversy. Studia Patristica
12: 261–264.

681
1990. J.B. Valero: Pecar en Adán según Ambrosiaster. Estudios eclesiásticos 65: 147–191 (Spanish).

2008. James W. Haring: Romans 5:12, Once Again: Is It a Grammatical Comparison? Journal of Biblical
Literature 137: 733–741. – This is a recent exegetical contribution to understanding the Greek
text of Paul.

2013. Eric W. Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford
2013 (xii, 383 pp.), pp. 215–221. – The word mors “was in circulation long before the Pelagian
controversy and is clearly not a Pelagian gloss.”

In the early sixteenth century, scholars began to have doubts about the Vulgate version of Romans
5:12. In Erasmus’ 1512 New Testament, the end of v. 12 reads as follows: et sic in omnes homines mors
pervasit, quatenus omnes peccavimus – and so death came upon all men, inasmuch as all have sinned.
For the ensuing controversy, see:

2021. Tomasz Karol Mantyk: Translating Romans 5:12 in the Early 16th Century: Franciscus Titelmans’
Polemic against Humanists. The Biblical Annals 11.2: 301–326. – In a 1529 publication, Titelmans
(d. 1537) claimed that Erasmus’ translation of this verse threatened the dogma of original sin
and promoted the resurgence of Pelagianism.

The traditional doctrine of original sin, strongly defended by Augustine, has been authoritatively stated
by the Council of Trent in 1546. This council published an entire decree on original sin; the most relev­
ant passage is the decree’s second anathema:
“Si quis Adae praevaricationem sibi soli et non eius propagini asserit nocuisse,” acceptam a Deo sanctitatem et
iustitiam, quam perdidit, sibi soli et non nobis etiam eum perdidisse; aut iniquitatum illum per inoboedientiae
peccatum “mortem” et poenas “corporis tantum in omne genus humanum transtulisse, non autem et peccatum,
quod mors est animae”: anathema sit, “cum contradicat Apostolo dicenti: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit
in mundum, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransit, in quo omnes peccaverunt” (Rom
5:12).

If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin harmed only him and not his descendants and that the holiness and justice re­
ceived from God which he lost was lost only for him and not for us also; or that, stained by the sin of disobedi­
ence, he transmitted to all mankind only death and the sufferings of the body but not sin as well which is the
death of the soul, anathema sit. For he contradicts the words of the apostle: “Sin came into the world through
one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men as all sinned in him” (Rom 5:12 Vg).

“Wer behauptet, die Übertretung Adams habe nur ihm und nicht seiner Nachkommenschaft geschadet,” die von
Gott empfangene Heiligkeit und Gerechtigkeit, die er verloren hat, habe er nur für sich und nicht auch für uns
verloren; oder er habe, befleckt durch die Sünde des Ungehorsams, “nur den Tod” und die Strafen “des Leibes auf
das ganze menschliche Geschlecht übertragen, nicht aber auch die Sünde, die der Tod der Seele ist”: der sei mit
dem Anathema beleg, “da er dem Apostel widerspricht, der sagt: Durch einen Menschen ist die Sünde in die Welt
gekommen, und durch die Sünde der Tod, und so ging der Tod auf alle Menschen über; in ihm haben alle gesün ­
digt” (Röm 5,12 Vg).

Latin text and translation:

1983. J. Neuner SJ – J. Dupuis SJ (eds.): The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Cathol­
ic Church. London (xxxv, 740 pp.), no. 509 (p. 138).

2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und
kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), no. 1512 (p. 499).

682
Much ink has been spilled in the modern debate about this decree that has become increasingly con ­
troversial among Catholic theologians. We list only a few contributions:

1960. Julius Gross: Geschichte des Erbsündendogmas. Band 1. Munich. 386 pp. – This splendid history of
the doctrine of original sin starts with an analysis of the Council of Trent’s relevant decree.

1960. Stanislas Lyonnet: Le péché originel en Rom. 5.12. L’exégèse des Pères grecs et les décrets du
Concile de Trente. Biblica 41: 325–355.

1964. A. Vanneste: La préhistoire du décret du Concile de Trente sur le péché originel. Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 86: 355–368, 490–510.

1965. A. Vanneste: Le décret du Concile de Trente sur le péché originel. Nouvelle Revue Théologique 87:
688–726.

1966. Herbert Haag: Biblische Schöpfungslehre und kirchliche Erbsündenlehre. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
10. Stuttgart. 75 pp. – English translation: Is Original Sin in Scripture? New York. 127 pp. Review:
Alan Smith OP, The Thomist 33 (1969) 793.

2012. John Benedict Endres: The Council of Trent and Original Sin. Proceedings of the Catholic Theolog­
ical Society of America 22: 51–91.

Rom 5:14. Like Romans 5:12, this is also a passage invoked in the Pelagian controversy, see Eric W.
Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford 2013
(xii, 383 pp.), pp. 225–228.

Rom 5:16. non sicut unum peccatum (Clementina) – not as one sin; non sicut unum peccantem
(Weber/Gryson) – not as one sinner. NVg has: non sicut per unum, qui peccavit, which para­
phrases the Weber/Gryson wording and stays close to the Greek.

Rom 6:16. Like Romans 5:12.14, this verse was also invoked in the Pelagian controversy. – Eric W.
Scherbenske: Canonizing Paul. Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford 2013
(xii, 383 pp.), pp. 221–225.

Rom 7. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 270–274.

Rom 8:20. vanitati enim creatura subjecta est – created nature has been condemned to frustration
(Knox); die Schöpfung ist nämlich der Vergänglichkeit unterworfen (Tusculum-Vulgata; similarly
Grundl; but Allioli: der Eitelkeit unterworfen).

Rom 8:32. omnia nobis donabit – he will give us all, er wird uns alles schenken. The Clementina has
donavit; this can be identified as betacism, the exchange of b and v; see also above, on Matt 4:6.
– Plater/White, p. 43, note 2.

Rom 11:20. noli altum sapere – be not high-minded (Douay Version). The late-Latin phrase means “to
be high-minded or proud” (Lewis/Short); “eine hohe Meinung von sich haben” (Krebs). Litera­
ture:

1879. Lewis/Short (Chapter 8.3), p. 1629.

1907. Johann Philipp Krebs – Joseph Hermann Schmalz: Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache.
Siebente Auflage. Zweiter Band. Basel (776 pp.), p. 535.

683
Rom 12:16. non alta sapientes. – See note on Rom 11:20.

Rom 14:5. unusquisque in suo sensu abundet. How to render sensus and abundare? Literal renderings:
let every man abound in his own sense (Doay Version); que chacun abonde dans son sense
(Glaire). Other, more interpretative renderings: let either rest fully content in his opinion (Knox);
ein jeder sei nur von seiner eigenen Meinung überzeugt (Allioli); jeder genüge seiner Überzeu­
gung (Grundl).

Rom 14:23. qui autem discernit (Vg, NVg) – but he who discerns (Douay Version). According to
Richards (p. 37), discernere is the wrong word, because diakrinesthai means “to hesitate.”

Rom 15. F.F. Bruce: The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1985. 274 pp. – Page 26: “In
Amiatinus and a few other Vulgate codices the Pauline letters are supplied with ‘chapter sum­
maries’ (Lat. breves) taken over from a pre-Vulgate Latin version. In them, Romans is divided into
fifty-one ‘chapters’ or sections. For the last two of these the summaries are as follows: 50. Con ­
cerning the danger of grieving of one’s brother with one’s food, and showing that the kingdom
of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 51. Con ­
cerning the mystery of God which was kept in silence but has been revealed after his passion. –
The summary of section 50 corresponds to 14:1–23; that of section 51 corresponds to the doxo ­
logy of 16:25–27. This suggests that a shorter edition of the letter existed in which the conclud ­
ing doxology followed immediately after 14:23.” – Philip Wesley Comfort: A Commentary on the
Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich. 2015 (443 pp.), p. 314 gives the
same information. The absence of chapter 15 could be due to Marcion who eliminated the
chapter; he did not have to eliminate chapter 16 because he did not know this text. – On the
section summaries, see Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Summaries, Divisions and Rubrics of the Latin
Bible. Turnhout 2014. xxxi, 601 pp. = Reprint of a book originally published in 1914, with a new
preface by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB and Thomas O’Loughlin.

Rom 15:19. replēre evangelium – to replenish the gospel (Douay Version). This does not make sense.
Therefore, translaters resort to paraphrase: to complete the preaching of the gospel (Knox);
répandre (Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 713), annoncer l’évangile (Glaire); das Evangelium predigen
(Gundl), verkünden (Arndt). The Vulgate text supplies a literal rendering of the Greek text
(πληρόειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), which is itself is unusual, but has a close parallel in Col 1:25 (implēre
verbum Dei – to fulfil the word of God). Possibly, Greek πληρόειν means “to do something with
total commitment.”

Rom 16:7. salutate Andronicum et Iuniam – greet Andronicus and Junia. (1) The Vulgate text. Today,
Junia is taken to be the name of a woman, not a man, and the Vulgate is taken to be a strong
witness. According to Thorley (p. 21), “any Latin reader would immediately take Iuniam to be a
woman’s name.” Some translations of the Vulgate text differ from this insight: salute Andronicus
and Junias (Douay Version); grüßet den Andronikus und Junias (Allioli, Arndt, Tusculum-Vulgata);
saluez Andronique et Junie (Glaire in a note explains that this is a short form of a man’s name).
There is one exception, however: grüßt Andronikus und Junia (Beda Grundl OSB, 1916; see
above, Chapter 18.2). Also note that the alleged Latin personal name Junias is not attested. – (2)
Jerome, a church father known for his association with ascetic women, had no doubts about Ju­
nia being a women. He refers to her either as Junia (PL 23: 895; 29: 774; 30: 715) or Julia ( Com­
mentary on Philemon, PL 26: 617–618). – Literature:

1996. John Thorley: Junia, a Woman Apostle. Novum Testamentum 38 (1996) 18–29.

2020. Yii-Jan Lin: Junia: An Apostle before Paul. Journal of Biblical Literature 139.1: 191–209.

2023. Hans Förster: Mann oder Frau; Junia(s) (Röm 16,7), In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 106–107.

684
1–2 Corinthians (Ad Corinthios I–II)

Secondary literature
1952. Vincenzo Iacono: Le epistole di S. Paolo ai Romani, ai Corinti e ai Galati. Torino (xi, 581 pp.), pp.
263–409 (1 Cor), 421–509 (2 Cor). – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e
traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text
is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1960. Heinrich Zimmermann: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Überlieferung des 2.
Korintherbriefs. Bonn. xxiv, 439 pp. – On the Vulgate, pp. 239–252. – Reviews:
1961. Bonifatius Fischer, Theologische Revue 57: 162–165-

1962. Walter Thiele, Theologische Literaturzeitung 87: 353–355. Both reviewers are closely associated with the
Vetus Latina Institut of Beuron; they are very critical of Zimmermann’s study.

Textual notes
1 Cor 2:9. sed sicut scriptum est: Quod oculus non vidit (…; Clementina) – but, as it is written: That eye
hath not seen (…; Douay Version). According to Kaulen, the Clementina’s punctuation, followed
by all editions, is faulty: quod is not used as a pronoun, but as an introductory particle, echoing
Greek ὅτι. Accordingly, the correct punctuation would be: scriptum est quod: oculus non vidit (…;
Kaulen); see also the punctuation of Blaise: sicut scriptum est: quod «oculus non vidit (…)» Inter­
estingly, the Nova Vulgata has: sed sicut scriptum est: «Quod oculus (…)»; it would have been bet­
ter to omit the superfluous quod. If one really wishes to use a pronoun at the beginning of the
quotation (“that which the eye …”), then one must say quae (and not quod); Cornely. – Literature:

1890. Rudolph Cornely SJ: Commentarius in S. Pauli priorem epistulam ad Corinthios. Paris (v,
536 pp.), p. 62.

1904. Kaulen, p. 290.

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 693.

1 Cor 2:14. The Latin wording is awkward. The ancient translator did not take into account that the
Greek neuter plural (rendered ea quae) is constructed with the verb in the singular. But this is
not possible in Latin. The correct wording would be: Animalis autem homo non percipit ea, quae
sunt spiritus dei: stultitia enim est (must be: sunt) illi, et non potest [ea] intelligere: quia spirituali­
ter examinatur (must be: examinantur) – the sensual man does not perceive the things that are
of the spirit of God, for they are stupidity to him. And he cannot understand them, because they
must be spiritually examined. – Literature:

1890. Rudolph Cornely SJ: Commentarius in S. Pauli priorem epistulam ad Corinthios. Paris (v,
536 pp.), p. 71.

1904. Kaulen, p. 308.

1 Cor 6:9. fornicarii are excluded from the kingdom of God. Translations simply transcribe the word as
“fornicators” (Douay Version) or “fornicateurs” (Glaire) or use vague terms such as “the de­
bauched” (Knox), “Unzüchtige” (Allioli) or “Hurer” (Tusculum-Vulgata). Early-modern comment­
ators thought that the word refers to pederasts; Adam L. Wirrig: Trial of Translation. An Examin­

685
 ation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Vernacular Bibles of the Early Modern Period. Eugene, Ore. 2022.
174 pp. See above, the glossary s.v. fornicarius (Chapter 19.2).

1 Cor 8:10. in idolio recumbens – one who reclines (at table) at the idol’s temple; einer, der im Götzen­
tempel isst (Grundl). The noun idolium, only here used in the Vulgate Bible, transliterates Greek
εἰδωλεῖον – idol’s temple.

1 Cor 10:25. omne quod in macello venit (Weber/Gryson, NVg) – everything (edible) that is sold on the
marketplace. Two notes: (1) macellum, Greek μάκελλον, a word apparently at home in both Lat­
in and Greek. The etymology could be Semitic, associated with the root akal, to eat. The word is
used only here in the Bible. Interestingly, the Douay Version says, “whatever is sold in the
shambles,” using an archaic word for the butcher’s slaughterhouse. Allioli has “Fleischmarkt,”
meat-market, Ronald Knox “open market.” Cf. Bauer, col. 989. – (2) The verb venit is not a form
of venire, venio “to come,” but from venire, veneo “to be sold.” To avoid the confusion, Codex
Fuldensis has venditur. Some editions of the Clementina have vaenit, another spelling of venit
that may alert the reader to think about the word (see the editions of Loch 1849 and Nestle
1906; but not Colunga/Turrado; vaenit is also in Cornely 1890). – Literature:

1890. Rudolph Cornely SJ: Commentarius in S. Pauli priorem epistulam ad Corinthios. Paris (v,
536 pp.), pp. 301 and 303 (quidquid in macello venditur).

1988. Walter Bauer: Griechisch-deusches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 6th
edition. Berlin 1988 (xxiv pp.,1796 cols.), col. 989.

1 Cor 13. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 274–276.

1 Cor 13:4. (caritas) non agit perperam – (love) dealeth not perversely (Douay Version), rendering
Greek περπερεύεται – does not vaunt itself, is not boastful. The Latin translation may be a mere
guess, based on the similarity of the Greek and the Latin words. Another possibility is that the
translator thought of perperus = boaster (though this exact meaning is not listed in the diction­
aries). – Richards, pp. xiii and 90.

1 Cor 14:34–35. In Codex Fuldensis (see above, Chapter 7.2), the scribe placed 1 Cor 14:34–35 (muli­
eres in ecclesiis taceant) in the margin to indicate a textual problem. – Literature:

1995. Philip B. Payne: Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5. New Testa­
ment Studies 41 (1995) 240–262.

2017. Philip B. Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Cor­
inthians 14.34-5. New Testament Studies 63 (2017) 604–625.

2020. Edward D. Andrews: From Spoken Words to Sacred Texts. Introduction-Intermediate New
Testament Textual Studies. Cambridge, Ohio (xxiv, 644 pp.), pp. 418–419.

1 Cor 14:39. itaque fratres [mei], aemulamini prophetare – wherefore, [my] brethren, be zealous to
prophesy. The pronoun mei is added in the Neovulgate that follows the Greek text; but no
doubt the simple fratres would be better Latin.

1 Cor 15:51. omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes inmutabimur – (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) –
we shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed; wir werden zwar alle auferstehen,
aber nicht alle verwandelt werden (Beda Grundl). This doctrinally significant passage appears in
the ancient Greek manuscripts in various forms, discussed by Jerome: Letter 119 (CSEL 55: 446–
469) and Rufinus of Aquileia: Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 43 (PL 21: 382). Modern textual

686
 criticism departs from the reading that underlies the Vulgate; accordingly, Cornely and the Nova
Vulgata have non omnes dormiemus, sed omnes mutabimur – we shall not all sleep, but we shall
all be changed; wir werden nicht alle entschlafen, aber wir werden alle verwandelt werden. – Lit­
erature:

1890. Rudolph Cornely SJ: Commentarius in S. Pauli priorem epistulam ad Corinthios. Paris (v,
536 pp.), p. 509.

1921. Cuthbert Lattey SJ: The Vulgate Reading of 1 Cor. XV.51. In: idem et Joseph Keating (eds.):
The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures. The New Testament. Volume III. London
(lxiv, 258 pp.), pp. 221–223.

1937. Georg Brandhuber CSSR: Die sekundären Lesarten bei 1 Kor. 15,51. Biblica 18: 303–333.
418–438, esp. 327–328 on Jerome’s discussion, and p. 430 on the Vulgate.

2 Cor 2:5. ut non onerem omnes vos – that I may not burden you all. The translation of the underlying
Greek is problematic: “The translator should have made contristavit govern omnes vos and given
onerosus sim instead of onerem.” G.C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testa­
ment. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. 84.

2 Cor 2:10. donavi propter vos in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10) – for your sakes I (i.e., Paul) have done it
in the person of Christ (Douay Version, similarly Knox); ich habe um euretwillen an Christi Statt
vergeben (Grundl); ich habe euretwegen durch die Person Christi vergeben (Tusculum-Vulgata);
j’en ai usé à cause de vous dans la personne du Christ (Glaire). The underlying Greek is ἐν
προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ – before the face of Christ (a Hebraism, reflecting lipnê); accordingly, this is
how one may translate the Latin, with persona meaning “face,” as in Lev 19:15. See also Mark
12:14 where the Greek πρόσωπον (face, person) is rendered as facies, but could have been
translated as persona.

2 Cor 4:16. is qui foris est (…) is qui intus est – the one who is outside (…) the one who is inside. This is
the classical passage about the “inner man” and the “outer man,” a terminology not received
into the Vulgate. The expressions that came to be used in theology – exterior homo, interior
homo – come from this very passage’s words of the Vetus Latina. – Literature:

1951. Otto Hiltbrunner: Exterior homo. Vigiliae Christianae 5: 55–60, esp. pp. 56–57.

1977. Hans Peter Rüger: Hieronymus, die Rabbinen und Paulus (2 Kor 4,16). Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68: 132–137. Rabbinic parallels to Jerome’s comments on
Koheleth 9:14–15.

2 Cor 5. For a German working translation with notes on vocabulary and grammar, see Frank Oborski:
Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didaktischer Überset­
zung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart 2022 (343 pp.), pp. 276–279.

2 Cor 10:15. spem autem habentes crescentis fidei vestrae in vobis magnificari (Weber/Gryson, Clemen­
tina) – having hope to become great among you, as your faith is growing; Hoffnung habend,
unter euch groß zu werden, wenn euer Glaube wächst. The expression crescentis fidei vestrae im­
itates the Greek genetivus absolutus, although Latin should put the ablativus absolutus instead
(Kaulen, p. 309). Accordingly in classical Latin, it would be: crescente fide (without a pronoun). In­
terestingly, the Nova Vulgata changes the traditional text in the interest to make it conform with
standard Latin grammar: spem autem habentes, crescente fide vestra, in vobis magnificari.

687
2 Cor 11:25. naufragium – shipwreck, derived from the Greek verb ναυαγέω, to be shipwrecked. Only
here attested in the Vulgate Bible.

Galatians (Ad Galatas)

Text
1885. Epistula ad Galatas. Ad fidem optimorum codicum Vulgatae. Edited by Peter Corssen. Berlin. 55
pp. – Corssen (1856–1928), German classical philologist, produced a critical edition of the origi ­
nal Vulgate text of Galatians on the basis of the relevant manuscripts.

Secondary literature
1917. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: La Vulgate latine de l’épître aux Galates et le texte grec. Revue bib­
lique 26 [= nouvelle série 14]: 424–450. – Text-critical observations, with a defense of the notion
that the Vulgate text of Galatians represents most likely the work of Jerome (and not of Pelagius,
p. 448).

1920. Ferdinand Cavallera: Saint Jérôme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Épîtres et l’Apocalypse. Bulletin de
littérature ecclésiastique 21: 269–292. – The Latin Galatians text that Jerome comments on is
close to the Vulgate, but clearly pre-Vulgate. Jerome attributes the Latin version to a latinus in­
terpres distinct from him, frequently pointing out the translator’s inexactitudes (p. 285).

1952. Vincenzo Iacono: Le epistole di S. Paolo ai Romani, ai Corinti e ai Galati. Torino (xi, 581 pp.), pp.
521–581. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited
by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text,
and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief
philological notes.

Textual notes
Gal 2:11–14. Giacomo Raspanti: San Girolamo e l’interpretazione occidentale di Gal 2,11–14. Revue des
études augustiniennes 49 (2003) 297–321.

Gal 2:19. Christo confixus sum cruci – with Christ I am nailed to the cross. Because configere in this
sense does not exist in classical Latin, Richards calls this “the most curious experiment in lan ­
guage.” – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934
(xvi, 130 pp.), p. viii.

Gal 3:1. (1) quis vos fascinavit [non obedire veritati] ante quorum oculos Jesus Christus praescriptus est
[in vobis] crucifixus? – who has bewitched you [that you should not obey the truth] before
whose eyes Jesus Christ has been set forth, crucified [among you]? The text set between brack­
ets is not in Weber/Gryson’s edition, but it is in the Clementina. In his commentary on Galatians,
Jerome comments on the matter, and omits what is here set between brackets because, as he
explains, it has no equivalent in the best Greek manuscripts (PL 26:348). The assumption of the
Weber/Gryson edition seems to be that the explanatory gloss was not in the original Vulgate,
but was reintroduced during the later transmission process. – (2) praescriptus (Clementina) or
proscriptus (Weber/Gryson)? Meant is “placed” ante oculos, before the eyes. The NVg has yet an­
other verb – descriptus. John M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London 1921
(xi, 125 pp.), p. 92: praescribere = to write in front of. – (3) quis vos fascinavit – who has be­

688
 witched you? (Douay Version). One must actually translate: who has injured you with the evil
eye? This is how Jerome uses fascinare, as he explains in his commentary on the passage (PL 26:
347) invoking Vergil (Eclogue III, 103), who uses fascinare in exactly this sense: “I do not know
which evil eye has injured (fascinavit) my tender lambs.” See the discussion in John H. Elliott: Be­
ware the Evil Eye. Volume 3. Eugene, Ore. 2016 (xxx, 348 pp.), p. 13 and pp. 219–220. Paul seems
to have fered that the Galatians were under a curse or “evil eye,” see Jeremy Wade Barrier: Witch
Hunt in Galatia. Lanham, Md. 2020. xiv, 395 pp.

Gal 3:25. iam non sumus sub paedagogo (Clementina, NVg) – we are no longer under a paedagogue.
The preposition sub is here followed by the ablative (paedagogo), as is usual in post-classical
Latin; classical Latin would use the accusative case (paedagogum).

Gal 4:23. secundum carnem – according to the flesh. “Ebenso alt wie carnalis ist das Adverbium carna­
liter, womit bereits Itala, Gal. 4, 23 das griech. κατὰ σάρκα ubersetzt wird. Die Vulgata ge­
braucht hier die Übertragung secundum carnem, scheint also gegen die adverbiale Bildung Be­
denken zu haben; auch andere Autoren vor Augustin verwenden das Wort offenbar mit einiger
Zuruckhaltung. In Augustins Zeit jedoch scheint es völliges Burgerrecht erworben zu haben,
denn bei Augustin tritt es massenhaft auf.” – Christine Mohrmann: Die altchristliche Sonderspra­
che in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Teil 1. Nijmegen (270 pp.), p. 89.

Gal 4:25. conjunctus = topographically: adjacent to, in the vicinity of; German: benachbart. The Nova
Vulgata rewrites the whole sentence and no longer uses coniunctus. – Friedrich Stummer:
Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel. Biblica 18.1 (1937) 23–50, at pp. 29–30.

Ephesians (Ad Ephesios)

Textual notes
Eph 1:17. Deus domini nostri Jesu Christi pater gloriae. There are two possibilities of how to connect
domini nostri Jesu Christi: (1) the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory; (2) the God,
the Father of glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first variant is more likely, which can be ex ­
pressed by putting a comma after Christi. Accordingly, NVg has: (…) Deus domini nostri Jesu
Christi, pater gloriae, (…).

Eph 1:23. qui omnia in omnibus adimpletur (Clementina, NVg). Translators differ in their analysis of
adimplētur: (1) deponens (= adimplet): der alles in allem vollendet/erfüllt (Allioli/Grundl). This is
also the opinion of Valentin Loch: Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata. Bam­
berg 1870 (34 pp.), p. 32 (welcher erfüllt). (2) reflexive: qui se complète entièrement dans tous
ses membres (Glaire); (3) passive voice: who is filled all in all (Douay Version), who everywhere
and in all this is complete (Knox), der in allem durch alle erfüllt wird (Arndt), der in allem in
Bezug auf alles erfüllt wird (Tusculum-Vulgata). Jerome, too, reads the verb as a passive voice
form: Commentary on Ephesians: non ait, qui omnia in omnibus adimplet, sed qui omnia in om­
nibus adimplētur. (…) sicut ergo adimplētur imperator, si quotidie eius augeatur exercitus, et fiant
novae provinciae et populorum multitudo succrescat, ita et dominus noster Iesus Christus in eo
quod sibi credunt omnia, et per dies singulos ad fidem eius veniunt, ipse adimplētur in omnibus
(PL 26: 464) – he did not say, Who fills all things in all, but ‘Who is filled in respect to all things in
all’ (…) just as the emperor is filled if his army is enlarged daily and new provinces are created
and a multitude of peoples grows up, so also our Lord Jesus Christ himself is filled in all things
to the extent that all things believe in him and each day come to his faith (translated by Ronald
E. Heine).

689
Eph 3:1–7. This is a long string of linguistic units, but not a real sentence. There is no predicate.

Eph 3:8. (1) in gentibus evangelizare (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – to preach (the gospel) among the
Gentiles. NVg has: gentibus evangelizare (without the in). The Latin preposition in reflects a
Greek ἐν, found in some Greek manuscripts but today considered a spurious reading. – (2) inve­
stigabiles divitias Christi (Clementina, Wordsworth/White, NVg) – the unsearchable riches of
Christ (Douay Version). The Weber/Gryson edition has ininvestigabiles; this is the reading of Co­
dex Fuldensis, but to adopt the reading is not justified; see above, the entry investigabilis in the
glossary (Chapter 19.2).

Eph 6:4. educate illos in disciplina et correptione Domini – bring them up in the discipline and correc­
tion of the Lord (Douay Version); erzieht sie in Zucht und Vermahnung des Herrn (Grundl);
élevez-les dans la discipline et la correction du Seigneur (Glaire). As can be seen, these transla­
tions seem to understand disciplia et correptio as a hendiadys, one notion explained with two
synonymous words. Another possibility would be to take disciplina as intellectual instruction,
and correptio as referring to chastisement: educate them in the teaching and chastisement of
the Lord.

Philippians (Ad Philippenses)

Textual notes
Phil 1:1. cum diaconibus (Clementina) or cum diaconis (Weber/Gryson, NVg)? – with the deacons. The
correct form would be cum diaconis, but forms such as diaconibus (as dative plural of diaconus)
are attested in the Vulgate, see Plater/White, p. 65; cf. the reference to similar forms in Albert
Blaise: Manuel du Latin chrétien. Strasbourg 1955 (221 pp.), p. 68. Kaulen, p. 120, suggests diaco,
genitive: diaconis; similarly, Olegario García de la Fuente: Latín bíblico y latín critiano. Madrid
1994 (588 pp.), p. 291: diacon, diaconis.

Phil 2:11. The Nova Vulgata reads: «Dominus Iesus Christus!» in gloriam dei patris, and not, as in the
Vulgate: Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est dei patris, thus identifying the confession of “every
tongue” as an acclamation consisting of three words. – Klaus Gamber: In gloria est dei patris. Zu
einer Textänderung in der Neo-Vulgata. Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1980) 262–266.

Phil 2:18. vos gaudete et congratulamini mihi – rejoice, and join me in rejoicing; freut euch und freut
euch mit mir (not: beglückwünscht mich, as the Tusculum-Vulgata has it). See above in the glos­
sary s.v. congratulari (Chapter 19.2).

Phil 3:3. qui (…) et non in carbe finduciam habentes – who (…) and not having confidence in the flesh
(Douay Version). One would expect the finite verb form habent (instead of the participle plural
habentes). – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London
1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. vi, note 1.

Phil 3:20. nostra autem conversatio in caelis est – our way of life is in heaven (Conte; cf. Chapter 18.1,
revisions of Douay Version); unser Wandel ist im Himmel (Arndt). The Douay Version has the
now obsolete “conversation” for conversatio. Grundl suggests “Bürgerrecht” which reflects the
Greek πολίτευμα, as does municipatus, the word that replaces conversatio in the Nova Vulgata.
But “citizenship” is not what the ancient would immediately have taken as the meaning of con­
versatio.

Phil 4:3. etiam rogo te, germane compar, adiuva illas quae mecum laboraverunt – and I entreat thee
also, my sincere companion (compar), help those [women, illas] who have laboured with me

690
 (Douay Version). Richards, p. 23, reads germane Compar, taking Compar to be a personal name:
“probably a proper name, with allusion to its sense of peacemaker.” Some commentators and
translators of the underlying Greek text also take Σύζυγε as a proper name; thus the Bible de
Jérusalem has: Syzyge, vrai “compagnon.”

Phil 4:22. qui de Caesaris domo sunt – that are of Caesar’s household (Douay Version), those wo be­
long to the Emperor’s household (Knox), ceux qui sont de la maison de César (Glaire), die vom
Hause des Kaisers (Grundl). domus Caesaris – the emperor’s household – is a genuinely Latin ex­
pression; meant is Nero’s household; see the glossary, s.v domus (Chapter 19.2). But the Latin
wording has been contested. Erasmus in his New Testament has maxime vero qui sunt ex Cae­
saris familia, and so has Luther’s 1529 Wittenberg edition of the Vulgate (which comprised Pen­
tateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, New Testament). Recent criticism has also decided that
Paul was not thinking of the domus Caesaris, but of the familia Caesaris, which is an altogether
different concept, recently given conflicting interpretations by Flexenhar and Stadhartinger. An
additional problem is the place from which Paul sends the letter – from somewhere in Asia
minor (presumably Ephesus: Flexsenhar, Stadhartinger) or from Rome (O’Brian). – Literature:

1991. Peter T. O’Brian: The Epistle to the Philippians. The New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich. (xli, 597 pp.), p. 554. The expression “those of the im ­
perial household” refers not to the members of the Emperor’s family or relations, “but to
the great number of slaves and freedmen from whose ranks the imperial civil service was
staffed. These were scattered throughout the provinces of the Empire, although the
largest concentration was obviously in Rome,” from where Paul sends his greetings. The
Christian freedmen” may have had special links with the citizens of Philippi as a Roman
colony.”

2019. Michael Flexsenhar: Christians in Caesar’s Household: The Emperor’s Slaves in the Making
of Christianity. University Park, Penn.: xvi, 191 pp. – Page 28: “The familia Caesaris of Phil­
ippians 4:22 was a particular, local group of imperial slaves. It was a familia of Caesar in
Roman Asia, not a reference to a group in Rome or even an empire-wide organization of
slaves and freedmen.” To the familia belonged an army of low-level functionaries em­
ployed in Asia Minor.

2021. Angela Standhartinger: Greetings from Prison and Greetings from Caesar’s House (Philip ­
pians 4.22): A Reconsideration of an Enigmatic Greek Expression in the Light of the Con­
text and Setting of Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43.4: 468–484.
– There is no technical Latin term familia Caesaris in antiquity, οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας
cannot mean imperial slaves and freedpersons. Instead, the expression is a spontaneously
coined code, a creative metaphor reflecting the conditions of a prisoner in an imperial
prison in Ephesus. The saints from the house of Caesar are most likely Paul’s believing co-
prisoners.

Colossians (Ad Colossenses)

Textual notes
Col 2:13. convivificare = to revive together with someone; mitlebendig machen. – Kaulen, p. 218.

Col 3:5. mortificare = to mortify, abtöten (as an act of asceticism). The word has strongly influenced
the history of Christian asceticism. Already used by Augustine (De doctrina christiana 1,25; PL 34:
28), it came to dominate spiritual language in Thomas a Kempis’s De imitatione Christi.

691
Col 3:11. sed omnia et in omnibus Christus. Thus correctly in the 7th edition of the Weber/Gryson Vul­
gate. Instead of et, the earlier editions had er (a printing error not found in other editions of the
Vulgate New Testament).

Col 4:6. sermo vester semper in gratia sale sit conditus, ut sciatis quomodo oporteat vos unicuique re ­
spondere – let your speech always be with grace seasoned with salt, so that you may know you
ought to answer each one (Cabrillana). The particle ut introduces a clause that indicates result or
purpose, without clear distinction between the two; in the antecedent clause, the correlative ita
is omitted. The Colossians passage is quoted and translated, but not analyzed, in Concepción
Cabrillana: Purpose and result clauses. In: Philip Baldi – Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.): New Perspectives
on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 4. Berlin 2011 (xxiii, 925 pp.), pp.19–92, at pp.63–64.

1–2 Thessalonians (Ad Thessalonicenses I–II)

Secondary literature
1965. Ernst Nellesen: Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Überlieferung des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes.
Bonn. 307 pp. – The Old Latin text originated in Africa. The Latin text used by Pelagius in his
commentary represents an advanced form of the pre-Vulgate text.

1965. Pietro Rossano: Lettere ai Tessalonicesi. Torino. ix, 159 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bib­
bia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary
presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on op­
posite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 280–292. – Bilingual text
of 1 Thess (Latin and German working translation), with explanatory notes on vocabulary and
grammar.

Textual notes
1 Thess 1:7. forma – model (to be emulated); nachzuahmendes Vorbild, as in 2 Thess 3:9.

1 Thess 2:14. contribulis – fellow-tribesman, Stammesgenosse, qui est de la même tribu/compatriote

(as in Lev 25:17; 2 Macc 4:10).

1 Thess 3:1. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi,
130 pp.), p. xii: “There is no grammar in (…) 1 Th. iii.1.” The NVg has soli (dative case of solus; the
Vg has the non-existing dative plural solis).

1 Thess 4:4. suum vas possidēre in sanctificatione (Weber/Gryson, Clementina, NVg) – to own one’s vas
in saintliness; sein vas in Heiligkeit besitzen. What is vas? Normally, it would mean “vessel,
Gefäß,” but here it is a euphemism for one’s wife, seen as a sexual partner. Meant may be the
vagina (Blaise). – Literature:

1955. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 837: “organe sexuel masc. ou fém.”

1982. Jean Doignon: L’exégèse latine ancienne de I. Thessaloniciens 4:4–5 sur la possession de
votre vas. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 83: 163–177-

2000. Gian Biagio Conte et al.: Il Dizionario della lingua Latina. Florence 2000 (xlviii, 2058 pp.), p.
1303.

692
2 Thess 3:9. forma – model (model to be emulated); nachzuahmendes Vorbild, as in 1 Thess 1:7.

1–2 Timothy (Ad Timotheum I–II)

Secondary literature
1953. Pietro de Ambroggi: Le epistole pastorali di S. Paolo a Timoteo e Tito. Torino. xvi, 258 pp. – Pub­
lished in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore
Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text, and the un ­
translated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological
notes.

Textual notes
1 Tim 1:19. naufragare – to be shipwrecked, echoing Greek ναυαγέω. Used only here in the Vulgate
Bible.

1 Tim 2:11. mulier in silentio discat – let the woman learn in silence (Douay Version). The noun silen­
tium here “is not silence, but privacy. St. Paul did not wish women to be ignorant; he ordered (…)
that they should be instructed privately,” George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate
New Testament. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. 112.

1 Tim 3:6. in iudicium incidat diaboli – literally: he falls into (subjunctive) the judgement of the devil;
meant is: he is destined fort he condemnation suffered by the devil (diaboli = objective
genitive). Richards, p. 67.

1 Tim 3:8.12. In the Weber/Gryson text, we read in the same chapter first diaconos (accusative plural
of diaconus) and then diacones (nominative plural of diaco or diacon, -onis) for “deacons,” echo­
ing Greek διάκονοι. In v. 12, the Clementina, followed by the NVg, has diaconi (plural of diaco­
nus). On these forms, see the note on Philippians 1:1.

1 Tim 3:15. firmamentum – the meaning seems to be “basis”; one senses that the translator refers to
what is elsewhere called fundamentum (Job 38:4; Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26). Suggestions include:
ground (Douay Version), foundation (Knox), Grundfeste (Allioli), Grundlage (Tusculum-Vulgata),
fondement (Glaire). – Guy-Dominique Sixdenier: Notes sur l’emploi par la Vulgate du mot firma­
mentum. Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 19 (1945/46) 17–22.

1 Tim 5:11. cum enim luxuriatae sunt in Christo – when they (i.e., young widows) have grown wanton
in Christ. This does not make sense; it must be in Christum (= adversus Christum, in iniuriam
Christi) in the sense of “against Christ.” – Hagen, p. 43. The NVg has adversus Christum.

1 Tim 5:15. quaedam (viduae) conversae sunt retro Satanam (Clementina, NVg) – some (widows) have
turned away toward [literally: behind] Satan. The adverb retro is here used as a preposition; this
is not idiomatic Latin. Instead, it reflects the Greek text (ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ).

2 Tim 1:9. ante tempora saecularia – a long time ago; vor sehr langer Zeit. – Kaulen, p. 131.

2 Tim 2:4. negotia saecularia – secular business; weltliche Geschäfte. – Kaulen, p. 131.

693
2 Tim 2:22. sectare vero iustitiam fidem [spem] caritatem pacem (Weber/Gryson, NVg). The Clementina
inserts spem to have the famous ternary “faith – hope – love.” Erasmus pointed out that, on the
basis of the Greek, spem should not be there (Erasmus, p. 925). – The New Testament Scholar­
ship of Erasmus. Edited by Robert D. Sider. Collected Works of Erasmus 41. Toronto 2019 (xxvi,
1063 pp.).

2 Tim 2:24. docibilis – docile, teachable; gelehrig. The humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) objected to
the word that it does not occur in good Latin. He is right. Also, the sense is unusual, because
word formations of this kind express an activity (rather than a passive state), cf. terrribilis est iste
locus = terrible/awful is this place, schrecklich ist dieser Ort (Gen 28:17). – Kaulen, p. 140; Cor­
nelia Linde: How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible between the
Twelfth and Fifteenth Century. Oxford 2012 (ix, 309 pp.), p. 227.

2 Tim 3:6. captivas ducunt mulierculas oneratas peccatis – they lead captive silly women laden with sins
(Douay Version). Richards (p. 78) affirms the meaning “silly woman” for muliercula, whereas
Harden decides for the neutral “little woman,” see J.M. Harden: Dictionary of the Vulgate New
Testament. London 1921 (xi, 125 pp.), p. 76.

2 Tim 3:8. Iannes et Mambres (Clementina). Weber/Gryson and NVg have Iannes et Iambres. The name
Mambres can be traced to rabbinic sources. – H.F.D. Sparks: On the Form of Mambres in the Lat ­
in Version of II Tim 3:8. Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1938) 257–258.

2 Tim 3:16. omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata – all divinely inspired Scripture. divinitus is an adverb.
There is a special class of adverbs ending on -itus. This ending, derived from ire (to go), indicates
a “coming from,” as in caelitus – coming from heaven. Accordingly, divinitus means “coming
from God.” A parallel passage is Cicero: De domo sua /On his House I, 1: multa divinitus (…) a
maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt – many things have been devised and established
by our ancestors under divine guidance; viele Dinge wurden von unseren Vorfahren durch göt­
tliche Fügung gefunden und eingerichtet. – M. Meiring: Lateinische Grammatik. 5th edition.
Bonn 1874 (viii, 488, 6 pp.), p. 148.

2 Tim 4:13. (1) penulam (…) veniens affer tecum – when you come, bring the penula (paenula) with
you. What exactly is a paenula? Translators generally think of it as a Roman piece of garment, a
hooded cloak. Luttenberger, who studies the Greek text of the passage, defends the (contextu­
ally well-fitting) notion that meant is some sort of book-case. He also indicates that a kind of
cover (Hülle, for books) would be within the semantic range of paenula (p. 335). – (2) et libros,
maxime autem membranas – and the books (scrolls), especially the parchments. Interestingly,
the Greek text speaks of μεμβράνα, using the Latin word for parchment. This passage seems to
be the earliest attestation of this Latin loanword in a Greek text (Reiser). – Literature:

1670. Bartholus Bartholinus [Bertel Bartholin]: Commentarius de paenula. Editio altera. Copen­
hagen. xxvi, 120 pp., 3 plates. – Includes a chapter on 2 Tim 4:13, arguing that the penula
is a case for transporting books. The first edition of the book was published in 1655.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London (xvi, 130
pp.), p. 86: paenula = cloak, overcoat; Richards adds “not book-case.” Richards also sug­
gests that membrana in this sentence means “parchment (…) for notes, not at this time for
books” (p. 75).

1938. Lilian M. Wilson: The Clothing of the Ancient Romans. Baltimore. xiii, 178 pp., 95 plates. –
The authoritative book on Roman clothing, including the paenula (which normally had a
hood).

694
 2001. Marius Reiser: Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments. Paderborn (xiv, 257
pp.), p. 9.

2012. Joram Luttenberger: Prophetenmantel oder Bücherfutteral? Die persönlichen Notizen in den
Pastoralbriefen. Leipzig (430 pp.), pp. 335–343.

Titus (Ad Titum)

Secondary literature
1953. Pietro de Ambroggi: Le epistole pastorali di S. Paolo a Timoteo e Tito. Torino. xvi, 258 pp. – Pub­
lished in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore
Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text, and the un ­
translated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological
notes.

Textual note
Tit 1:16. sunt abominati et incredibiles – they are abominable and unbelieving; sie sind abscheulich
und ungläubig. In classical Latin, incredibilis would mean “unbelievable”; but here, as often in the
Vulgate, it has the meaning “unbelieving.” – Friedrich Stummer: Einführung in die lateinische Bi­
bel. Paderborn 1928 (viii, 290 pp.), p. 59.

Tit 3:4. benignitas et humanitas apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei – the goodness and kindness of God our
Saviour appeared (Douay Version). Renderings of humanitas include Freundlichkeit (Tuscu­
lum-Vulgata), Menschenfreundlichkeit (Allioli, Arndt), Menschenliebe (Grundl). Knox has “love
for man,” echoing Greek φιλανθρωπία. Pétré notes that in non-Christian Latin, humanitas was
never said of a deity, and that the word, as applied to God in the Titus passage, did not make
much of an impression on the early-Christian writers. Jerome, for instance, uses the synonymous
clementia in his Commentary on Titus (PL 26: 592). In fact, “ce passage scripturaire ne paraît
avoir eu aucune influence sur le développement du vocabulaire latin chrétien,” writes Hélène
Pétré: Caritas. Étude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne. Louvain 1948 (iii, 412 pp.), p.
212. The church fathers were more interested in Christian acts of humanitas (kindness) such as
caring for widows and orphans; see Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 396 (s.v. humanitas).

Philemon (Ad Philemonem)

Secondary Literature
2023. Hans Förster: Onesimus – Eigentum verpflichtet? In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 109–110.

Textual notes
Phlm 1:2. et Appiae sorori charissimae – and to Appia, our dearest sister (Douay Version; King James
Version: to our beloved Apphia; Luther: und Appia der lieben). This is the wording of the Clem­
entina. The Weber/Gryson edition suppresses the charissimae, as does the Nova Vulgata. An in­
termediate position is taken by Wilhelm Reischl in his 1866 German translation of the New Test­
ament (based on the Vulgate) – he puts the word in brackets: “und an Appia, die [geliebteste]

695
 Schwester.” As for the underlying Greek text, we can report that although modern critical edi­
tions also suppress Paul’s love for Appia (or Apphia), the traditional Byzantine Greek text does
include the word ἀγαπητῇ. Recent critical editions of the Greek text tend to consign this word
to the apparatus, thus in the literal sense marginalizing it. But it does figure in one recent edi ­
tion: The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform. Compiled and Arranged by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. Southborough, Mass. 2005. xxiv, 587 pp. It can
also be found in any edition of the Greek Bible used in the Greek Orthodox Church. With or
without charissimae, Appia is the only woman who is addressed by name in the prescript of a
biblical letter.

Phlm 1:8. quod ad rem pertinet – that which is to the purpose (Douay Version). Förster suggests (in
German) “was zur Sache gehört,” see Hans Förster: Onesimus – Eigentum verpflichtet?, in:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 109–110.

Phlm 1:14. According to the exhaustive Dutripon concordance, uti, the variant form of the conjunction
ut (“that”), is used only here in the Vulgate Bible. The NVg keeps uti. But note that sicuti (for si­
cut) is used several times in the Bible: Isa 25:10; Eph 3:5; 1 John 3:2, etc.

Hebrews (Ad Hebraeos)

Secondary literature
1906. Eberhard Nestle (ed.): Novum Testamentum Latine. Textum Vaticanum cum apparatu critico.
Stuttgart. xx, 675 pp. – On the first page of his Latin preface, the editor refers to the large num­
ber of translators of the New Testament writings. Regarding the Letter to the Hebrews, he re­
marks: Similiter epistulam ad Hebraeos non eadem manus vertisse videtur, cui Paulinarum epistu ­
larum versionem debemus (likewise, it is clear that we do not owe the translation of the Letter to
the Hebrews to the same hand as the Pauline letters).

1906. Johannes Evangelist Belser: Die Vulgata und der griechische Text im Hebräerbrief. Theologische
Quartalschrift 88: 337–369.

1920. Adolf von Harnack: Studien zur Vulgata des Hebräerbriefs. In: idem: Kleine Schriften zur Alten
Kirche. Band 2. Leipzig 1980 (vi, 908 pp.), pp. 577–599. – The article was first published in 1920
(in: Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische
Klasse 1920, pp. 179–201), and again, with additions, in 1931 (Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen
Testaments und der alten Kirche I. Berlin 1931 [ix, 256 pp.], pp. 193–234). According to Harnack,
the Letter to the Hebrews was translated twice before Jerome; the Vulgate shows traces of both
versions.

1929. Karl Theodor Schäfer: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Übersetzung des Hebräer­
briefes. Freiburg. 46 pp. – Schäfer disagrees with Harnack’s thesis: although two versions of the
Latin letter to the Hebrews can be traced, only one entered the Vulgate.

1952. Teodorico Ballarini OFM Cap.: L’Epistola agli Ebrei. Torino. vi, 236 pp. – Published in the series “La
Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this comment­
ary presents a modern Italian translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on
opposite pages. The Latin text is accompanied by brief philological notes.

696
Textual notes
Hebr 1:2. in filio (…) per quem fecit et saecula – by his son (…) by whom he made the world (Douay
Version); durch seinen Sohn (…) durch den er auch die Welten erschuf (Grundl). While these
translations (and Kaulen, Blaise) decide for saecula (plur.) = world, the Tusculum-Vulgata thinks
of the temporal semantics of the word: durch seinen Sohn (…) durch den er auch die Zeiten
geschaffen hat (the times, i.e., the cycles of times). According to Allioli, who opts for saecula =
world, the notion of time is implied: “Tiefsinnig wird in der Sprache der Schrift das Wort Welt mit
einem Worte bezeichnet, das zugleich die Zeiten bedeutet, weil das Räumliche ohne die Zeit
nicht denkbar ist.” – Literature:

1838. Die Heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes. Aus der Vulgata (…) von Dr. Joseph
Franz Allioli. 3. Auflage. 6. Band. Landshut 1838 (494, 15 pp.), p. 321, n. 6.

1904. Kaulen, p. 27.

1954. Blaise: Dictionnaire, p. 732.

2018. Tusculum-Vulgata V, p. 993.

Hebr 1:4. tanto melior (…) quanto differentius – as much better (…) so much more exalted (or outstand­
ing). On differens “outstanding,” see Hermann Rönsch: Semasiologische Beiträge zum lateinis­
chen Wörterbuch. II. Heft. Leipzig 1888 (87 pp.), p. 8.

Hebr 6:14. The expressions benedicens benedicam (blessing I shall bless) and multiplicans multiplicabo
(multiplying I shall multiply) – stylistically to be explained as figura etymologica (see above,
Chapter 8.7) – are “strange in Latin.” – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate
New Testament. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xii.

Hebr 8:1. capitulum = summary (Richards, p. 17).

Hebr 9:4. aureum habens turibulum. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: La construction de la Tente (Ex 36–
40) dans le Monacensis de la plus ancienne version latine: l’autel d’or Hébreux 9,4. In: Adrien
Schenker et al. (eds.): L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque. Geneva 2005 (318 pp.), pp. 62–76.

Hebr 9:28. Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata – Christ was offered once (in
sacrifice) to empty out (?) the sins of many (people). To the Latinist, exhaurire (to empty out)
sounds odd. The translator probably meant to say “to take away, to remove.” Richards (p. 45)
refers to Cicero: Ad familiares IX, 14,4: libentius omnes meas (…) laudes ad te transfuderim, quam
aliquam partem exhauseris ex tuis – I would more gladly transfer to you all my renown (…) rather
than draw from you any portion of yours (transl. W. Glynn Williams, Loeb Classical Library).

Hebr 13:8. Iesus Christus heri, et hodie: ipse et in saecula (Clementina) – Jesus Christ, yesterday, and
today; and the same for ever (Douay Version). The Clementine’s punctuation is incorrect; there
should be no colon; it should be: Iesus Christus heri, et hodie ipse, et in saecula – Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday and today, and for ever (Kaulen, p. 169). The Nova Vulgata has: Iesus Chris­
tus heri et hodie idem, et in saecula!, adjusting the punctuation, and replacing ipse with idem, in
conformity with classical usage.

Hebr 13:16. communio. How to translate the word? The Tusculum-Vulgata has “Gemeinschaft,” but
more likely is “distribution (of alms)” as suggested by Richards, p. 23.

697
The Catholic Epistles: James – 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude
1916. Adolf von Harnack: Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. VII. Zur Revision der neutesta­
mentlichen Textkritik. Die Bedeutung der Vulgata für den Text der katholischen Briefe und der An­
teil des Hieronymus an dem Übersetzungswerk. Leipzig. iii, 130 pp. – Reviews:
1916. Hans Lietzmann, Theologische Literaturzeitung 41: 341–342.

1923. John Chapman OSB, Journal of Theological Studies 24: 283–284, note 1.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp.551–568.

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and
Manuscripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 176–181 for a survey of the manuscript tradition of
the so-called Catholic epistles, i.e., James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp. – This is “the first complete study of the lexicon, mor­
phology and syntax of the Old Latin and Vulgate Catholic Epistles” (p. 25). The differing linguistic
character of the individual epistles and the varying degrees of agreement between the Vulgate
and the Vetus Latina reveal that the Vulgate Catholic Epistles do not form a unitary corpus: 1
Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Jude appear to be more conservative and accomplished than James, 2
Peter and 3 John. This variation may be due to their gradual inclusion in the western canon,
which could explain their separate origins and different processes of revision. On the other
hand, the close relationship between the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina in all the letters indicates
that the Latin versions known today derive from a common archetype. ▲

2023. Anna Persig: Die Übersetzung griechischer Partizipien in den Katholischen Briefen der Vetus Lati­
na und der Vulgata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in
das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 359–392. – Page 359:
“Die Übersetzung der griechischen Partizipien war eine der schwierigsten Aufgaben der Überset­
zung der Bibel ins Lateinische. Die Übersetzer mussten zwischen wörtlicher Wiedergabe wählen,
die zu den griechischen Partizipialkonstruktionen passten (…) und freien Übersetzungen (…).”

James (Epistula Jacobi)

Secondary literature
1908. Johannes Evangelist Belser: Die Vulgata und der griechische Text im Jakobusbrief. Theologische
Quartalschrift 90.3: 329–339. – “Gerade auch im Jakobusbrief enthält die Vulgata ganz erhebli­
che Versehen, Unvollkommenheiten und Unebenheiten.”

1909. Max Meinertz: Die Vulgata und der griechische Text im Jakobusbriefe. Der Katholik. 4. Folge
Band 40: 466–473. – Meinertz shares Belser’s view that the Vulgate text of James is inadequate;
he supplements Belser’s 1908 paper and gives more examples.

1913. Eugène Jacquier: Le Nouveau Testament dans l’Église chrétienne. Tome second: Le texte du Nou­
veau Testament. Paris (vi, 535 pp.), p. 178: “La révision de l’épître de saint Jacques a été très pro­
fond si nous en jugeons par la comparaison de la Vulgate et du seul manuscrit vieux latin que
nous en avons, le Corbeiensis.”

698
1949. Pietro de Ambroggi: Le epistole cattoliche di Giacomo, Giovanni e Giuda. 2. edizione. Torino. 315
pp. – First edition, Torino 1947. 288 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina
e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text
is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1955. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Der Vulgata-Text des Neuen Testaments. Zeitschrift für die neutestament­
liche Wissenschaft 46: 178–196. – Page 195: “In Jac haben wir keinen afrikanischen Vetus-Latina-
Text überliefert; Augustinus zitiert schon in seinen Frühschriften, den ältesten überhaupt erhalte­
nen Zitaten, die zu einer Untersuchung ausreichen, praktisch die Vulgata.”

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp. – On James, pp. 30–84. Page 80: “The Vulgate [of James]
attests several loan-words connected with Christianity (blasphemare, moechari, zelare, the­
saurizare, psallere, daemon, diabolus, zelus, propheta and ecclesia) but three times translates
Greek terms with the equivalent Latin words (pupillus, conventus and simulatio against orphanus,
synagoga and hypocrisis in the Vetus Latina).”

Textual notes
Jas 1:5. qui dat omnibus affluenter (Vg, NVg) – (God) who gives to all (men) abundantly. The Greek tex­
t’s equivalent of affluenter is ἁπλῶς = generously, which amounts to the same. It has been con­
jectured that the translator may have read ἀφθόνως = liberally; see George C. Richards: A Con­
cise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London 1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xiii.

Jas 1:13. intentator (Clementina), intemptator (Weber/Gryson). This “is a bad word and a mistranslation
of ἀπείραστός κακῶν – untempted to evil” (Richards, p. xii). The word is a “form coined by a for­
eigner or a less educated Italian to render ἀπείραστός κακῶν, which he took as active, not
tempting to evil, instead of passive, not tempted to evil” (Richards, p. 65). The NVg does not use
the word, writing Deus enim non tentatur malis.

Jas 3:7. etiam ceterorum (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – “and of the rest” (Douay Version). Loch in his
1849 edition (p. ix) suggests the reading cetorum, from cetus = sea beast, so that we would
have: “and even (huge) sea beasts,” which corresponds to what the underlying Greek text says.
The Nova Vulgata accepts this suggestion and has: et etiam cetorum.

Jas 3:10. ex ipso ore procedit benedictio et maledictio – out of the same mouth come(s) blessing and
cursing. In classical Latin, it would not be ipse, but idem. – Kaulen, p. 169.

Jas 3:17. There are two problematic expressions in this verse: (1) bonis consentiens (Clementina) – con­
senting to the good (Douay Version). This seems to be an addition; Codex Amiatinus does not
have it; accordingly, the Weber/Gryson edition and the NVg omit it.It makes sense that the ori ­
ginal text should have 7 (rather than 8) items to describe wisdom. (2) non iudicans – without
judging (Douay Version). Editors and authors seem to be unsure about the exact meaning of the
expression. Codex Fuldensis and the Sixtina omit non, so that iudicans is taken to mean “having
a (good) judgment.” For non iudicans, translators suggest “uncensorious” (Knox), “nicht partei­
isch” (Arndt), “ohne Parteilichkeit” (Grundl), “ohne Richtspruch” (Tusculum-Vulgata). – An altern­
ative would be “ohne zu zweifeln” (Max Meinertz in Der Katholik 40 [1909] 470), a meaning lis­
ted by for the underlying Greek ἀδιάκριτος in Hans Windisch: Die katholischen Briefe. Handbuch
zum Neuen Testament. Dritte, stark umgearbeitete Auflage von Herbert Preisker. Tübingen 1951
(vi, 172 pp.), p. 26 (“frei von Zweifel,” free of doubts). But this rendering would echo the underly­
ing Greek rather than the Latin word actually used.

699
Jas 5:13. The conditional clause here is constructed without resorting to “si with subjunctive,” as often
in German (Hätte ich das gewusst […]) and English (Had you obeyed orders […]). See also Prov
26:16 and Sir 21:1. – Kaulen, p. 298.

Jas 5:17. passibilis = able to suffer, leidensfähig. – Kaulen, p. 140.

1–2 Peter (Epistula Petri I–II)

Secondary literature
1913. Eugène Jacquier: Le Nouveau Testament dans l’Église chrétienne. Tome second: Le texte du Nou­
veau Testament. Paris (vi, 535 pp.), p. 179: Jerome’s revision was superficial: “sa révision a été lé­
gère, surtout pour la IIe épître de Pierre, car plus que dans les autres écrits il a laissé subsister
des inexactitudes ou des traductions littérales qu’elles en deviennent inintélligibles.”

1965. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrusbriefes. Freiburg. 245 pp. ▲

2006. Andrew Wilson: Conceptual Glossary of the Vulgate Translation of the Petrine Epistles. Hildesheim.
xxxi, 339 pp. – See above, Chapter 8.3.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp. – On 1 Peter, see pp. 85–131, on 2 Peter, pp. 132–166.
Page 129: In 1 Peter, “the Vulgate attests several loan-words connected with Christianity (blas­
phemare, moechari, zelare, thesaurizare, psallere, daemon, diabolus, zelus, propheta and ecclesia)
but three times translates Greek terms with the equivalent Latin words (pupillus, conventus and
simulatio against orphanus, synagoga and hypocrisis in the Vetus Latina).”

Textual notes
1 Pet 2:9. gens sancta – holy nation; heiliges Volk. Walter Thiele: Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrus­
briefes. Freiburg 1965 (245 pp.), pp. 185–189.

1 Pet 2:18. sed etiam dyscolis – (be not only submissive to the gentle masters) but also to the froward
(Douay Version). – J.M. Harden (Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament. London. 1921 [xi, 125
pp.], p. 37) and Richards (p. 40) translate dyscolus/discolus as “peevish, irritable.” See above, s.v.
in the glossary (Chapter 19.2).

1 Pet 3:7. Jonathan P. Yates: Weaker Vessels and Hindered Prayers. 1 Peter 3:7 in Jerome and Augus­
tine. Augustiniana [Leuven] 54 (2004) 243–259.

1 Pet 3:8. compatientes fraternitatis amatores. Two ways of reading this passage: (1) a comma – real
(Loch, Nestle, Paris Professors’ edition, NVg) or imagined (Douay Version) – is placed after com­
patientes; accordingly, one must translate: having compassion one of another, being lovers of
the brotherhood (Douay Version; similarly Allioli, Grundl, Tusculum-Vulgata). – (2) without the
comma, as in the Colunga/Turrado edition, the translation would be: compassionate lovers of
the brethren. – Also note that “Liebhaber der Brüderlichkeit” (Tusculum-Vulgata) for fraternitatis
amatores is not a correct rendition, because fraternitas never refers to the abstract notion of fra­
ternité, but merely stands for “brothers”; see the glossary s.v. frater, fraternitas (Chapter 19.2).

1 Pet 3:21. similis formae – in a similar way (genitive). Listed in Plater/White (p. 93, § 113) as genitive
of quality. The NVg has a different wording.

700
1 Pet 3:22. qui est in dextera dei [deglutiens mortem ut vitae aeternae heredes efficiemur] profectus in
caelum subjectis sibi angelis et potestatibus et virtutibus – who is on the right hand of God [swal­
lowing death, so that we be heirs of life everlasting] who asceded to heaven, subjecting angels
and powers and virtues; der zur Rechten Gottes ist [den Tod verschlingend, damit wir des
ewigen Lebens Erben seien], aufgefahren in den Himmel, sich Engel und Kräfte und Mächte un ­
terwerfend. – The words set between brackets are in the Clementina, but not in the edition of
Weber/Gryson, and not in NVg. – Houghton, pp. 179–180.

1 Pet 4:12. nolite peregrinari in fervore – think not strange the burning heat (Douay Version); euch be­
fremde nicht die Feuerprobe (Grundl). Actually, peregrinari means “to travel, to sojourn abroad.”
What we have here is a mistranslation of the Greek ξενίζειν which means “to surprise, astonish”
(and “there seems to be no instance of peregrinari in = to be surprised at”, Richards); accord­
ingly, the Greek text says “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal,” and the NVg has nolite mirari
in fervore. – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London
1934 (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xiii.

1 Pet 4:16. On the name Christiani, see the textual note on Acts 11:26.

1 Pet 5:5. omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate – do you all insinuate humility one to another
(Douay Version). Richards, p. 64: “Did the translator find egkolpôsasthe put in the folds of a
robe?”

2 Pet 1:12. incipiam vos semper commonēre – I will always remind you (2 Pet 1:12). The literal but
clumsy Douay Version – I will begin to put you always in remembrance – fails to understand that
incipere + infinitive is a way of referring to the future. See the glossary s.v. incipere, Chapter
19.2.

2 Pet 2:4. in tartarum – down to lower hell (Douay Version); in den Abgrund (Allioli). This is the only
passage where the Vulgate uses tartarus for the netherworld. The Greek has ταρταρόω = to
send down to Tartaros. – A linguistic analysis of this sentence is offered by Anna Persig: Die
Übersetzung griechischer Partizipien in den Katholischen Briefen der Vetus Latina und der Vul­
gata. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine linguistische Einführung in das Studium der
lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413 pp.), pp. 359–392, at p. 380.

2 Pet 2:7. et justum Lot oppressum a nefandorum iniuria, [ac luxuriosa] conversatione eripuit – and he
(God) delivered the just (man) Lot, oppressed by the impious men’s unjustice, [and lewd] way of
life; il a délivré le juste Lot opprimé de l’outrage des infâmes et de leur vie dissolue (Glaire). This
is the Clementina’s wording and meaning; what is set between brackets is omitted in the
Weber/Gryson Vulgate. It is easy to see why the text was expanded – the rare adjective iniurius
(unjust, illegal) was, because of its being put in the feminine form iniuria, mistaken as the noun
iniuria, injustice; hence the comma placed after iniuria. The wording of the Weber/Gryson edi­
tion is to be rendered as follows: he delivered the just man Lot, oppressed by impious men’s un ­
just way of life. The Nova Vulgata restores luxuriosa, indirectly, by saying oppressum a nefan­
dorum luxuria – oppressed by the lewdness of the impious (and by not using iniurius).

701
1–3 John (Epistula Iohannis I–III)

Secondary literature
1949. Pietro de Ambroggi: Le epistole cattoliche di Giacomo, Giovanni e Giuda. 2. edizione. Torino. 315
pp. – First edition, Torino 1947. 288 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina
e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text
is accompanied by brief philological notes.

1955. Bonifatius Fischer OSB: Der Vulgata-Text des Neuen Testaments. Zeitschrift für die neutestament­
liche Wissenschaft 46: 178–196. – Page 195: “In 1 Joh ist der Pelagianer Caelestius (…) der frühes­
te sichere Vulgata-Zeuge.”

1958. Walter Thiele: Wortschatzuntersuchungen zu den lateinischen Texten der Johannesbriefe. Freiburg.
48 pp. – Review: B.M. Metzger, Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960) 95–96. ▲

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg. xviii, 317 pp. – On 1 John, see pp. 167–2190; on 2 John, pp. 211–222;
on 3 John, pp. 223–236. Page 207: “All the loan-words of 1 John express Christian and religious
concepts: those attested in the Vulgate (scandalum, antichristus, diabolus and pseudopropheta)
are of common use and also present in the other Catholic Epistles. In four cases in which some
of the Old Latin versions have the loan-words paracletus, chrisma, agape and idolum, the Vul­
gate features the Latin equivalent renderings advocatus, unctio, caritas and simulacrum.” The
Vulgate reviser of 3 John adopts an approach that differs from that of the other Johannine
epistles (p. 236).

Textual notes
1 John 1:4. haec scribimus vobis ut gaudeatis, et gaudium vestrum sit plenum (Clementina) – these
things we write to you that you may rejoice, and your joy may be full. According the
Weber/Gryson edition, the author does not write to promote the joy of the addressees, but to
enhance his own joy: haec scribimus vobis ut gaudium nostrum sit plenum – these things we
write to you so that our joy be full. Similarly NVg: haec scribimus nos, ut gaudium nostrum sit
plenum.

1 John 2:20–21. nostis (= novistis, from noscere) omnia – ignorantibus veritatem – scientibus eam: you
know everything, to those who ignore truth, to those who know it. The translator on purpose
uses three different Latin words for the Greek οἴδατε, thrice repeated.

1 John 2:25. et hanc est repromissio (quam ipse pollicitus est nobis) vitam aeternam – And this is the
pomise which he hath promised us: life everlasting (Douay Version). In the Latin we have added
the brackets for structural clarity. One would expect vita aeterna (instead of vitam aeternam).
This is a case of “inverse attraction” (Kaulen, p. 288, no. 180). The NVg keeps vitam aeternam.

1 John 4:16. nos cognovimus et credidimus caritati quam habet Deus in nobis – we have known and
have believed in the love that God has for us. The NVg changes to nos, qui credidimus, novimus
caritatem (…) – we who have believed, know the love (…).

1 John 4:20. si quis dixerit quoniam diligo deum – if any man say: I love God (Douay Version). The
word quoniam is not to be translated, for it simply serves as the particle that announces a quo­
tation, reflecting the Greek ὅτι. – Kaulen, p. 290.

702
1 John 5:7–8. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi
tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres
unum sunt. – The edition of Weber/Gryson omits the words placed within brackets, as does the
Nova Vulgata, whereas the Clementina has these words. Traditional translations of the Vulgate
such as the Douay Version, Allioli and Glaire follow the Clementina. On the authenticity debate,
see the Note immediately below.

Note. – The text 1 John 5:7–8 is the famous “Johannine comma” (comma Johanneum), the “Johannine
passage.” This passage is not in the ancient Greek manuscripts. It is also lacking in the best Vulgate
manuscripts such as Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus. Erasmus and Luther were aware of the
problem, and since their time, the issue has been much debated. Three schools formed: the critics, the
apologists, and the compromisers. (a) The critics rejected the comma as an interpolation that sought to
support the doctrine of the Trinity; (b) the apologists sought to defend the passage as authentic; (c) the
Catholic compromisers thought up a compromise between the two camps.

The story of the debate involved luminaries such as Erasmus and Isaac Newton, and is told in piece ­
meal fashion in German articles published by Augustinus Bludau (1862–1930) in the early 1900s, and,
more recently, by Grantley McDonald in a 2016 monograph in English.

The critics. The first to attack the presence of the comma in the Vulgate was Erasmus. In the first edi­
tion of his Greek New Testament (1516), he did not have it, neither in his Greek text, nor in his at ­
tached Latin translation. When Luther worked on his Vulgate edition of 1529, he presumably had a
copy of the first or second edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament in hand, so he omitted the
comma both from this Latin edition (see above, Chapter 15.5) and his German translation of the Bible.

Unfortunately, neither Erasmus’ New Testament nor Luther’s Bible stayed free from the comma. In
Luther’s case, it was the printers of his Bible who introduced it into the text toward the end of the 16th
century; it was not until the 1912 revision of the German Luther Bible that the comma Johanneum was
removed. In the case of Erasmus, the story is more complex. He was attacked by Edward Lee who be­
lieved in the authenticity of the passage (1520; see above, Chapter 15.3). Erasmus was quick to answer:
“If I had come across one manuscript that had the reading found in our [Vulgate] text, I would have
added the phrase missing in the others on the strength of that one. Since that did not happen, I did
the only thing possible and indicated what was lacking in the Greek texts.” (Responsio ad annotationes
Eduardi Lei. In: Collected Works of Erasmus. Edited by William Barker et al. Volume 72. Toronto 2005
[xxxvii, 449 pp.], pp. 403–419, p. 404.) But within the next years, Erasmus did come across such a manu­
script, a “codex Britannicus,” as he reports, and he restored the passage in the 3rd (1522) and sub ­
sequent editions of his Greek New Testament.

Frequently, the Erasmus episode was told as follows: Erasmus supposedly had promised his critic Ed­
ward Lee that he would restore the comma (which he had omitted in his 1517 edition of the Greek
New Testament) if it existed in one Greek manuscript. In 1980, in an article published in Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses, Henk Jan de Jonge exposed and exploded the myth whose origin he could
trace only to 1818. Later, in 2016, Grantley McDonald could show that the myth goes back to the way
in which Richard Simon told the Erasmus story (1689). The first fully developed myth is from 1721,
when David Martin told the story in the form in which it was later repeated many times.

Today, we know that Erasmus was ill advised to restore the passage to his edition. In the 19th century,
Orlando Dobbin found the Greek manuscript where Erasmus had found the comma: a codex written
around 1500, now housed in the library of Trinity College in Dublin. The passage is clearly translated

703
from the Vulgate, and so this codex is worthless as a witness to the original Greek text ( Orlando T.
Dobbin: The Codex Montefortianus. A Collation. London 1854. xx, 194 pp.). But by the time Dobbin
published his book, the critical view was already well established. Textual critics such as Richard Simon
(Critical History of the Text of the New Testament. Translated by Andrew Hunwick. Leiden 2013 [xxxvi,
368 pp.], pp. 173–185), Johann Jacob Wettstein and John Scott Porter had settled that matter. In his
Principles of Textual Criticism, with Their Application to the Old and New Testaments (London. xviii, 515,
xiii [plates]) Porter devoted an entire chapter to the Johannine comma (pp. 494–512), and made much
of the fact that the interpolation is not in the most ancient Latin manuscripts.

Final critical insight came from two German manuscript scholars: Ernst Ranke and Georg Schepps.
Ranke edited the oldest extant Vulgate manuscript, the Codex Fuldensis of the 6th century. In it he dis­
covered a pseudo-Jeromian prologue to the Catholic epistles; this prologue chides careless scribes
who had omitted a passage that would serve to support belief in the Trinity (in quo maxime et fides ca­
tholica roboratur et patris et filii et spiritus sancti una divinitatis substantia conprobatur; Ernst Ranke
[ed.]: Codex Fuldensis. Novum Testamentum Latine Interprete Hieronymo ex manuscripto Victoris Ca­
puani. Marburg 1868 [xxxii, 572 pp.], p. 399). Schepps found the ultimate source of this statement in
the work of a fourth-century Christian theologian of Spain by the name of Priscillian; in this author’s
Liber apologeticus, which Schepps edited, he found the complete text of the comma Johanneum (CSEL
18:6, published in 1889).

The consensus critical view, as stated by Hugh Houghton in 2016 is this: In 1 John 5, “The additional
mention of ‘the Father, the Word and the Spirit’ (pater uerbum et spiritus) appears to have originated in
Latin tradition, possibly as a gloss at the end of the fourth century” (Houghton, p. 178).

The apologists. Apologists defended the authenticity of the Johannine passage, feeling that it was a
valid scripture to be cited in support of the trinitarian notion of God as Father, Son, and Spirit. We have
already referred to Edward Lee who in his 1520 attacked Erasmus’ Greek New Testament for his omis­
sion of the Johannine passage (Annotationes Edouardi Lei in Annotationes novi testamenti Desiderii
Erasmi; see above, Chapter 15.4). English Bible readers found the passage in the King James Version,
first published in 1611 and still read today. Catholics found it in their Latin Vulgate Bible and its ver ­
nacular derivatives such as the English Douay Version an the German Allioli Bible. Among the foremost
apologists was the Nicholas Wiseman, Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He sought to answer the ques­
tion why Augustine, who would have had numerous occasions to refer to the passage, never actually
quoted it. The answer: the passage had, by oversight of some scribe, been lost from the (Italian) Latin
Bible that Augustine used (Nicholas Wiseman: Two letters on I John v. 7, commonly called the Three
Witnesses. In: idem: Essays on Various Subjects. By His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman. Volume 1. London
1853 (xv, 644 pp.), pp. 1–70, at p. 34).

The most authoritative voice to defend the Johannine passage was that of the Sanctum Officium In ­
quisitionis, the institution that supervises all theological teachers and authors in the Catholic Church.
One cannot safely reject or even doubt the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, the Sanctum Offici­
um declared in 1897, with approval of Pope Leo XIII (Acta Sanctae Sedis 29 [1896/97] 637). While there
was no further censorship about the matter, the message was clear enough. Later, in 1927, the same
institution made a similar declaration in the interest of sounding less harshly:

“This decree [of 1897] was issued in order that the audacity of private teachers might be restrained
who arrogate to themselves the right either to reject completely the authenticity of the Comma Jo­
hanneum or at least to cast doubt on it by final judgment on their part. By no means, however, did
it intend to prevent Catholic authors from investigating the facts more fully (…) and tending to a

704
 view contrary to authenticity.” – German: “Dieses Dekret wurde erlassen, damit die Dreistigkeit pri­
vater Lehrer gezügelt werde, die sich das Recht anmaßen, die Authentizität des Comma Johanneum
entweder völlig zu verwerfen oder durch letztgültiges Urteil ihrerseits wenigstens in Zweifel zu zie ­
hen. Keineswegs aber wollte sie verhindern, dass katholische Schriftsteller den Sachverhalt umfas­
sender erforschen (…) und zu einer Auffassung neigen, die der Echtheit entgegengesetzt ist.”

1928. Theologische Revue 27.6: 229–230: the declaration in Latin.

2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und
kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg 2005 (xxxviii, 1811 pp.), nos. 3681–3682.

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and De­
clarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco 2012 (xxxvii, 1399 pp.), nos. 3681–3682.

One senses the underlying message: the battle of the apologists is actually lost, but one did not have
the courage to revoke the earlier statement.

The compromisers. The problem for Catholic theologians was aggravated by the authority the Vul­
gate enjoyed. The Council of Trent had, in the sixteenth century, declared that the Vulgate would be
the firm basis for teaching and preaching. Is a possibly inauthentic passage also authoritative in the
sense of the Council? Catholic theologians were quick to invoke the two pillars upon which Catholic
theology rests: Scripture and Tradition. When the Johannine comma would its place in Scripture, it
would still be an authoritative and remarkable piece of Tradition, hallowed by its old age. This is how
Alfred Loisy felt about the matter in 1901 (Études bibliques. Paris 1901 [160 pp.], p. 15), and we hear the
very same message from the German exegete Edmund Kalt. In Kalt’s own words: “Kann das Comma Jo­
hanneum auch nicht als unzweifelhaftes Bibelzitat für die Trinität verwendet werden, so bleibt seine
Bedeutung als ein ehrwürdiges Traditionszeugnis bestehen.” (Edmund Kalt: Biblisches Reallexikon. 2nd,
revised edition. Paderborn. Volume 1 [vii pp., 1084 cols.], col. 350) If the Comma Johanneum cannot be
used as an unquestionable biblical quotation for the Trinity, its significance remains as a venerable
testimony to tradition. In this way, one could follow the critics’ deletion of the Johannine comma from
the biblical text, and yet hold on to it as supporting the dogma of the Trinity.

It is this way of thinking that came to be dominant in Catholic theology. Accordingly, when the
Neovulgate was published in 1979 – the authoritative revised edition of the Vulgate –, the Johannine
comma had disappeared from its pages, and no protest was heard. So, in the end, the critics won the
debate, but the apologists did not lose face.

Contributions to the debate and secondary literature

1516–1535. Erasmus. This humanist’s annotations on 1 John 5:7–8 can be found, in English translation
in: Grantley McDonald: Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma,
and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge 2016 (xvii, 384 pp.), pp. 315–322.

1689. Richard Simon: Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament. Seconde édition revue et cor­
rigée par l’auteur. Rotterdam. 16, 298 pp. – Pages 142–153 deal with the Johannine comma,
demonstrating that it does not belong to the biblical text.

1690. Isaac Newton: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. – This essay, sent to
John Locke, points out that the Johannine comma is absent in some ancient manuscripts. New­
ton’s essay was not published during his lifetime; it was first printed in 1754. Cf. Grantley Mc­

705
 Donald: Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitari ­
an Debate. Cambridge 2016 (xvii, 384 pp.), pp. 159–180.

1887. J.-J.-P. Martin: Le verset des trois témoins célestes. I Jean, v. 7, et la critique biblique contempo­
raine. Amiens. 63 pp.– The comma johanneum is an interpolation that originated in Spain. Re­
view: Paul Schanz, Theologische Quartalschrift 71 (1889) 175–176.

1889. Matthias Flunk SJ: Die drei himmlischen Zeugen. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 13: 212–216.
– The author defends the authenticity of the comma Johanneum against the arguments of re­
cent critics, especially against Ignaz Döllinger.

1900. Michael Hetzenauer OC: Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Innsbruck
(xiii, 212 pp.), pp. 187–206. – The author defends the originality and authenticity of the passage.

1902. Augustinus Bludau: Der Beginn der Controverse über die Aechtheit des Comma Johanneun (1
Joh. 5,7.8.) im 16 Jahrhundert. Der Katholik 26: 25–51, 151–175.

1903. Augustinus Bludau: Das comma Iohanneum (1 Ioh 5,7) im 16. Jahrhundert. Biblische Zeitschrift 1:
280–302. 378–407.

1904. Augustinus Bludau: Richard Simon und das Comma Iohanneum (1 Joh 5,7). Der Katholik 84: 29–
42.114–122.

1905. Karl Künstle: Das Comma Iohanneum auf seine Herkunft untersucht. Freiburg. 64 pp.

1906. Augustinus Bludau, review of: Karl Künstle, Das Comma Johanneum (1905). Biblische Zeitschrift 3:
440. – The comma Johanneum, although declared authentic by the Sanctum Officium in 1897,
owes its existence to Priscillian, a heretic. – Bludau published many papers on the comma, con­
sistently arguing that it is inauthentic. His articles are listed in Grantley McDonald: Biblical Criti­
cism in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge 2016 (xvii, 384 pp), pp. 328–329.

1906. Josef Denk: Ein neuer Textzeuge zum Comma Johanneum. Theologische Revue 5.2: 59–60.
Jerome excluded the comma from his revision of the New Testament, but his Tractatus on Ps 91
seems to presuppose its existence in the Latin tradition. Accordingly, Jerome was aware of this
debated passage.

1915. Adolf von Harnack: Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften des Johannes. Sitzungsberichte
der königlich preußsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 37:
534–737. – Pages 572–573 are an appendix on the Johannine comma and its Latin forms.

1921. Augustinus Bludau: Der Prolog des Pseudo-Hieronymus zu den katholischen Briefen. Biblische
Zeitschrift 15 (1921) 15–34, 125–138.

1928. Eduard Riggenbach: Das Comma Johanneum. Gütersloh. 43 pp.

1959. Walter Thiele: Beobachtungen zum Comma Iohanneum (I Joh 5,7f.). Zeitschrift für die neutesta­
mentliche Wissenschaft 50: 61–73.

1980. Henk Jan de Jonge: Erasmus and the comma Johanneum. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
56: 381–389. – On Erasmus’ reception of the comma into the third edition of his New Testament.

1985. Franz Posset: John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum. Concordia Theological Quarterly 49:
245–251. – Both Luther and Bugenhagen were convinced of the inauthenticity of the passage.

1999. Joseph M. Levine: Philology and History: Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma. In:
idem: The Autonomy of History. Truth and Method from Erasmus to Gibbon. Chicago (xviii, 249
pp.), pp. 25–52.

706
2006. Rob Iliffe: Friendly Criticism: Richard Simon, John Locke, Isaac Newton and the Johannine
Comma. In: Ariel Hessayon – Nicholas Keene (eds.): Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern
England. Aldershot, Hampshire (ix, 255 pp.), pp. 137–157.

2013. Andrew J. Brown: Codex 61 (Montfortianus) and 1 John 5,7–8. In: idem (ed.): Novum Testamen­
tum ab Erasmo recognitum. Tomus 4.2. Leiden (698 pp.), pp. 30–111. – In this volume of the Am­
sterdam/Leiden critical edition of Erasmus’ Opera omnia, the editor devotes a long chapter to
the study of the source of Erasmus’ reception of the Johannine comma. He affirms that many
readings found in this Greek manuscript, including the comma, have a Vulgate origin.

2014. Margalit Finkelberg: The Original versus the Received Text. With Special Emphasis on the Case of
the “comma Johanneum.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 21: 183–197.

2015. David M. Whitford: Yielding to the Prejudices of His Times: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum.
Church History and Religious Culture 95: 19–40. – The author tells the story of Erasmus’ omission
of the Comma Johanneum in the first edition of his New Testament, but added it in the third
edition.

2016. Grantley McDonald: Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma,
and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge. xvii, 384 pp. – The book is in two parts, with the first being
devoted to Erasmus, and the second to theological debates about the Trinity. Anti-trinitarians
such as John Milton rejected the comma as valid scriptural evidence for the Trinity. This is the
standard scholarly resource on the debates about the comma Johanneum. See also: idem:
Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7–8). The Bible Translator 67 (2016) 42–55. – Re­
views:
2017. Dirk van Miert, Renaissance Quarterly 70: 1165–1167.

2018. Hilmar M. Pabel, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 69.2: 399–401. ▲

2020. Juan Hernández: The Comma Johanneum. A Relic in the Textual Tradition. Early Christianity 11
(2020) 60–70.

2023. Hans Förster: Das sogenannte Comma Johanneum. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 114–115.

3 John 6. quos, benefaciens, deducens digne Deo (Clementina) – whom you, doing a good thing, bring
forward in a way worthy of God; quos bene facies deducens digne Deo (Weber/Gryson) – whom
you do a good thing by bringing them forward in a way pleasing to God. NVg has bene facies
subveniens illis in via digne Deo.

Jude (Epistula Iudae)

Secondary literature
1949. Pietro de Ambroggi: Le epistole cattoliche di Giacomo, Giovanni e Giuda. 2. edizione. Torino. 315
pp. – First edition, Torino 1947. 288 pp. – Published in the series “La Sacra Bibbia Volgata latina
e traduzione Italiana” (edited by Salvatore Garofalo), this commentary presents a modern Italian
translation of the Greek text, and the untranslated Vulgate text on opposite pages. The Latin text
is accompanied by brief philological notes.

707
2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 293–295. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation) of Jude, with explanatory notes on vocabulary and
grammar.

2022. Anna Persig: The Vulgate Text of the Catholic Epistles. Its Language, Origin and Relationship with
the Vetus Latina. Freiburg (xviii, 317 pp.), pp. 237–260. – Page 257: “The Epistle features numer­
ous abstract and derived nouns: some are postclassical formations, such as exultatio and habit­
aculum, others are words attested in classical Latin but subject to semantic extensions in the
Christian era, for instance contradictio, seductio and dominator, and nouns first attested in Chris­
tian literature, such as murmurator, inlusor and delusor, the latter with only two attestations. Fur­
ther peculiarities of the lexicon of Jude are the rare derivational adjective querellosus at 16 and
the verb eradicare at 12, which, following a few attestations in comedy and Varro, reappears as a
revival in Christian literature.”

Textual notes
Jude 3. supercertari – to contend earnestly (Douay Version). “There is no evidence of a deponent cer­
tor ever having been in use” – George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Tes­
tament. London (xvi, 130 pp.), p. xii.

Jude 13. despumantes suas confusiones – they who spit out their shame; die ihre Schande ausspeien.
despumare – to spit out, ausspeien; confusio – shame, Schande (as in Hebr 12:2); cf. Plater/White,
p. 54. Glaire has “jetant l’écume de leurs infamies.”

Revelation (Apocalypsis Iohannis Apostoli)

Text
2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1882–1906. – Compared to earlier editions of the
Stuttgart Vulgate, this edition contains a revised text-critical apparatus for the book of Revela­
tion.

Secondary literature
1912. Eugène Mangenot: Vulgate. In: Fulcran Vigouroux (ed.): Dictionnaire de la Bible. Tome 5.2. Paris
(cols. 1383–2550), cols. 2546–2500. – Col. 2458: “Quant à l’Apocalypse, le texte de l’Itala est de­
meuré dans la Vulgate, et saint Jérôme a fait peu d’emprunts aux manuscrits grecs.”

1920. Ferdinand Cavallera SJ: Saint Jérôme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Épîtres et de l’Apocalypse. Bul­
letin de littérature ecclésiastique 21: 269–292. – Jerome was not involved in the production of the
Vulgate text of the book of Revelation.

1920. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Apokalypse-Übersetzung.
Düsseldorf. iv, 247 pp.

1935. Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament. Deuxième partie: Cri­
tique textuelle II: La critique rationelle. Paris (xiv, 685. Pp.), pp. 612–616.

708
1955. Francesco Lo Bue: Old Latin Readings of the Apocalypse in the ‘Wordsworth-White’ Edition of
the Vulgate. Vigiliae Christianae 9: 21–24. – The author suggests improvements of the apparatus
of the Worsworth-White text of the book of Revelation.

1955. Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn 1955
(viii, 236 pp.), pp. 103–104. – The Latin Text of the Apocalypse has several errors (for examples,
see the textual notes below).

1992. Bruce M. Metzger: The Text of the New Testament. Third, enlarged edition. Oxford. ix, xvi, 310 pp.
– Page 253: Metzger criticizes the book by H.J. Vogels (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der latei­
nischen Apokalypse-Übersetzung, 1920); Vogels does not draw the right conclusions from the
realization that the Vulgate text of the Apocalypse is based on a Greek text of the type found in
Codex Sinaiticus. “The Vulgate therefore possesses so little importance in the textual criticism of
the book of Revelation.”

2016. Hugh A.G. Houghton: The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Text, and Manu­
scripts. Oxford. xix, 366 pp. – See pp. 181–183 for a survey of the relevant manuscript tradition.

2017. Matthias Geigenfeind: Die Patmos-Worte lateinisch gelesen. Vergleich des Textes der Johannesa­
pokalypse in der Vulgata Sixtina (V-Sixt) von 1590 und der Sixto-Clementina (SC) von 1592. In:
Marcus Sigismund – Darius Müller (eds.): Studien zum Text der Apokalypse II. Berlin (viii, 546 pp.),
pp. 231–282.

2022. Frank Oborski: Vulgata-Lesebuch. Clavis Vulgatae. Lesestücke aus der lateinischen Bibel mit didak­
tischer Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Stuttgart (343 pp.), pp. 298–309. – Bilingual text
(Latin and German working translation) of Rev 6; 11:1–14; 16; and 22:13.16.17, with explanatory
notes on vocabulary and grammar.

2023. Matthias Geigenfeind: Wirkung durch Übersetzung. Die Vetus Latina Apocalypsis Johannis in
Nordafrika am Beispiel von Offb 11–12. Göttingen. 352 pp.

Textual notes
Rev 1–3. Álvaro Salazar Valenzuela: Mensaje a las siete iglesias en el Apocalipsis de la Vulgata: análisis
de traducción funcionalista del griego al latín. Revista historias del orbis terrarum 18 (2017) 111–
141. – A discussion of translation issues from Greek to Latin in Rev 1:1–6; 1:15; 3:3.

Rev 1:13. podēre. This is the ablative case of podéres (-is), the word for priestly garment (transliterating
Greek ποδήρης). The ē is long. Some modern Vulgate editions indicate the proper pronunci­
ation by writing podére (Nestle Latin New Testament, 1912).

Rev 1:20. sacramentum. “In one place at least (Rev 1:20) any Latinist would approve of the choice of
sacramentum ‘the sacred symbol’ of the seven stars – and would be equally disappointed not to
find it in Rev 17:5.” Theodore B. Foster: “Mysterium” and “Sacramentum” in the Vulgate and Old
Latin Versions. The American Journal of Theology 19 (1915) 402–416, at pp. 403–404.

Rev 3:4. habes pauca nomina in Sardis – you have only a few individuals (who have not defiled their
garments). Though normally meaning “name,” nomen here is the word for “person.” A similar
use can be found in Rev 11:13. According to Blaise (Dictionnaire, p. 556), this usage is compat­
ible with classical Latin poetry.

Rev 3:11. nemo – no one else, kein anderer. In classical Latin, one would say nemo alter.

Rev 5:8. aperuisset (has opened). Mistake for accepisset (has received). – Heinrich Joseph Vogels:
Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn 1955 (viii, 236 pp.), p. 104. –

709
 In the same verse: odoramenta (plur.) – odours (Douay version), incense (Ronald Knox), for
classical odores.

Rev 5:12. divinitatem (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – deity, Gottheit. Mistake for divitias – wealth, Re­
ichtum. – Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition.
Bonn 1955 (viii, 236 pp.), pp. 103–104. The Nova Vulgata, in fact, has divitias.

Rev 6:8. et ecce equus pallidus – and behold, a pale horse (Douay Version). While all translations of the
Vulgate translate the adjective as “pale” (cf. Tusculum-Vulgate: ein fahles Pferd), a recent study
suggests “a death-green horse,” see Lourdes García Ureña et al.: The Language of Colour in the
Bible. Berlin 2022 (xv, 238 pp.), pp. 185–192.

Rev 6:8. quattuor partes terrae (Weber/Gryson, Clementina) – (power over) the four quarters of the
earth; (Macht über) die vier Teile der Erde. Mistake for quartam partem – (power over) one
quarter of the earth, (Macht über) den vierten Teil der Erde. – Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch
der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn 1955 (viii, 236 pp.), p. 104. The Nova Vul­
gata, in fact, has quartam partem.

Rev 9:11. et Latine habens nomen Exterminans – and in Latin has the name Exterminans (the Terminat­
or, Destroyer). The Greek text translates the Hebrew name into Greek, and the Latin translator
adds what the name means in Latin. In German, the name would be “der Verderber.” In order to
stay with the Greek, the Nova Vulgata omits the Latin translation of the name.

Rev 11:13. nomina hominum septem milia – 7000 people. For nomen = person, see above on Rev 3:4.

Rev 11:19. arca testamenti – arc of the testimony. “Es erscheint vollkommen natürlich, allgegenwärti­
gem Umgang mit Aufzeichnungen rechtlich belangreicher Geschäfte abgeschaut, wenn sich im
öffnenden Himmelstempel die Bundeslade, ein Dokumentenkasten, ein Urkundenschrein (arca)
sichtbar wird, worin Gottes Zeugnis (testamentum) lagert.” – Christoph Becker: Vertrag, Bund
und Testament in der Heiligen Schrift. Diktion römischen Rechts aus Vetus Latina und Vulgata.
In: Franz Sedlmeier – Hans Ulrich Steymans (eds.): Bundestheologie bei Hosea? Eine Spurensuche.
Berlin 2022 (xii, 438 pp.), pp. 69–106, at p. 94.

Rev 13:16. et faciet omnes pusillos et magnos (…) habere characterem in dextera manu sua – and he
shall make all, little and great (…) to have a character in their right hand (Douay Version). On
character = brand [Mal], see Richards, p. 17: “being literally in use for recruits to the army from
about A.D. 350, applied by St Augustina to the indelible ‘character’ of baptism and orders.”

Rev 14:3. dicere (to say). Mistake for discere (to learn). – Heinrich Joseph Vogels: Handbuch der Textkri­
tik des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Bonn 1955 (viii, 236 pp.), p. 104.

Rev 14:4. virgines enim sunt – they are virgins. While the Clementina’s punctuation associates this
phrase with what precedes, the Tusculum-Vulgata considers it the beginning of a new sentence.
More likely, the Clementina has the correct version. – Dorothea Keller: Übersetzungsentschei­
dungen bei Hieronymus und ihre Begründung. In: Roland Hoffmann (ed.): Lingua Vulgata. Eine
linguistische Einführung in das Studium der lateinischen Bibelübersetzung. Hamburg 2023 (vi, 413
pp.), pp. 109–136, at p. 121, n. 39.

Rev 14:6–17. vidi alterum angelum (…) dicens magna voce – I saw another angel (…) who said with a
mighty voice (Rev 16:6–7). One would expect dicentem; but dicens is here treated as indeclin­
able. NVg has kept the dicens. – Plater/White, p. 19 (§ 19).

Rev 15:4. quia solus pius es (Clementina). How to render pius? Translators often opt for the meaning of
“holy” (the Greek has ὅσιος): thou alone art holy (Douay Version); du allein bist heilig (Allioli); ac­

710
 cordingly, the Nova Vulgata has quia solus Sancus. But the Latin, as it stands, may mean: car
vous seul êtes miséricordieux (Glaire).

Rev 21:19. carcedonius (Weber/Gryson) or calcedonius (Clementina, Nova Vulgata)? There is confusion
about the name of one of the precious stones mentioned in this passage. The spelling carce­
donius would imply a reference to the city of Carthage, in Greek Καρχηδών, leading to the ren­
dering as “stone of Carthage.” But the Greek text of Revelation supports the reading of the
Clementina. It is not easy to identify this stone. There are at least two suggestions about what
modern translations call chalcedony: (1) “Chalkedon was a green stone according to Pliny, from
the copper mines near Chalcedon,” explains W.M. Flinders Petrie in James Hastings (ed.): Dic­
tionary of the Bible. Volume 4. Edinburgh 1902 (xi, 994 pp.), p. 621; the reference is to Pliny: His­
toria naturalis 37, 115 where this author refers to a cloudy variety of green iaspis. (2) Others
think of an essentially white stone in antiquity often used for cutting stamp seals, see Wolfgang
Zwickel (ed.): Edelsteine in der Bibel. Mainz 2002 (viii, 99 pp.), pp. 67–68.

Rev 22:19. auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitae (Codex Fuldensis, Clementina) – Gods hall take away
his part out of the book of life (Douay Version). Weber/Gryson and NVg have: de ligno vitae –
out of the tree of life.

Rev 22:20. etiam venio cito: Amen (Clementina) – surely, I come quickly. Amen (Douay Version). NVg
places a comma after etiam, here used as a word of affirmation, as in Matt 11:9.

Rev 22:21. amen (Clementina). There is no final amen in the Weber/Gryson edition and the Nova Vul­
gata. Some modern translations of the New Testament have the final Amen – the New Revised
Standard Version (1989), the English Standard Version (2001); but it is lacking in most recent
translations such as the Common English Bible (2011), the Bible de Jérusalem (French, 2000), the
Danish Bible (1992), and the three most widely used German Bibles: the Zürcher Bibel (2007), the
Einheitsübersetzung (2016) and the Lutherbibel (2017). All editions of the Clementina and all
modern vernacular translations of the Clementina, including the Douay Version, Allioli and
Gundl, however, have the Amen in Rev 22:20. Knox, who has the “Amen,” notes in the margin:
“Many of the Greek manuscripts omit the word ‘Amen’” [a more correct wording would be: “lack
the word ‘Amen’”; B. Lang].

711
Chapter 23
Textual notes on the appendix to the Vulgate
Note. – Medieval Bible manuscripts regularly included books that we today find neither in Catholic nor
in Protestant Bibles. They were generally considered part of the Bible, though there was no official
theological or ecclesiastical decision on the matter. A recent source-critical study of the Imitation of
Christ, spiritual classic dating from the early fifteenth century, identifies quotations and allusions to
some of these books: the Prayer of Manasseh, the Third Book of Ezra, and the Fourth Book of Ezra
(Becker, p. 763). The Gutenberg Bible of 1454 contained the Latin text of three books that were not
distinguished from the rest – the Prayer of Manasseh (vol. 1, fol. 226 recto), 3 Ezra (vol. 1, fols. 239
recto – 246 verso), 4 Ezra (vol. 1, fols. 247 recto – 260 verso).

In its Fourth Session, 1546, the Council of Trent decided about which a books rightfully belonged to
the Bible; the full list is included in the council’s decree of 8th April 1546; in this list, neither the Prayer
of Manasseh nor 3 and 4 Ezra figure (Denzinger/Hünermann, nos. 1502–1503). Henceforth, they were
excluded from Catholic editions of the Bible. With certain exceptions, though. The editio princeps of the
so-called Clementina edition of the Vulgate, published in 1592, included the Prayer of Manasseh and 3
and 4 Ezra, placed in an appendix at the end of the Bible. This appendix was included upon the initiat ­
ive of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine SJ. Some subsequent editions of the Vulgate placed this appendix
after the books of the Old Testament, while others simply omitted it. The appendix no longer figures in
the Nova Vulgata of 1979.

Interestingly, four of the Vulgate “apocryphal” books are included in the 2010 revised edition of the
French Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, commonly known as TOB: 3 and 4 Ezra, Prayer of Manas­
seh, and Psalm 151 (L’aventure de la TOB).

2002. Kenneth Michael Becker: From the Treasure-House of Scripture. An Analysis of Scriptural Sources
in De Imitatione Christi. Turnhout 2002. 767 pp.

2005. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirch­
lichen Lehrentscheidungen. 40th edition. Freiburg. xxxviii, 1811 pp.

2010. L’aventure de la TOB. 50 ans de traduction œcuménique de la Bible. Paris. 155 pp.

2012. Heinrich Denzinger – Peter Hünermann (eds.): Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declara­
tions on Matters of Faith and Morals. San Francisco. xxxvii, 1399 pp.

23.1 Reference editions

23.2 The appendix to the Clementina

23.3 Psalm 51 – Laodiceans (Weber/Gryson Vulgate)

712
23.1 Reference editions
1946. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam clementinam nova edition. Edited by Alberto Colunga OP and Lauren­
tio Turrado. Madrid. xxiv, 1592, 122* pp. This illustrated edition and its several reprints, have the
Vulgate appendix in a 122 pp. section placed at the end of the book; in this appendix the Latin
text of Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra and 4 Ezra are on pp. 3*–44*. Important to know: most edi­
tions of the Colunga-Turrado Vulgate do not include this appendix; it is found only in the early,
illustrated editions. ▲

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, im­
proved edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1907–1976. – This “Stuttgart Vulgate” has an ap­
pendix with the complete set of the writings listed below: Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra,
Psalm 151, Letter to the Laodiceans, complete with text-critical apparatus. ▲

Note. – Since the pre-critical, Clementina text of the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Ezra are absent
from most editions of the Colunga/Turrado edition of the Vulgate Bible, one may consult the Vulgate
editions such as the editio minor of Michael Hetzenauer (which places the text at the end of the Old
Testament), the edition of Valentin Loch (which places them at the end of the Bible), or the Paris Pro ­
fessors’ Bible. Here are the bibliographical details:

1849. Biblia Sacrae vulgatae editionis. Edited by Valentin Loch. Regensburg. Vol. 4 (404 pp.), pp. 293–
343, section entitled “Libri apocryphi.”

1922. Biblia Sacra secundum vulgatam Clementinam. Edited by Michael Hetzenauer. Regensburg. Vol. 4
(437 pp.), pp. 355–436.

1956. Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Ediderunt complures scripturae sacrae professores
Facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis et Seminarii Sancti Sulpitii. Paris – Tournai (xli, 1280, [288], 152*,
16 pp.), pp. 121*–152. – This edition has the traditional text of Oratio Manassae, 3 Ezra and 4
Ezra in the appendix, pp. 121*–152*.

Translation
2018. Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata.
Lateinisch–deutsch. Band 5. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1179–1397. – Bilingual
edition, Latin and German, of the complete Vulgate appendix. Translated is the text of the
Weber/Gryson Vulgate of 2007. Rainer Knab translated 3 Ezra, the other texts have been trans ­
lated by Clemens Müller.

Secondary literature
2020. Edmon L. Gallagher: Latin Texts [of deuterocanonical books, including Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Macca­
bees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151;
with reference to the “Paris Bible”]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume 2A.
Leiden (xxxix, 497 pp.), pp. 398–405.

2023. Edmon L. Gallagher: Deuterocanonical Books in Latin Tradition. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The
Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 91–105. – A set of biblical books
not considered canonical by all Christians has often found a place in Latin biblical manuscripts

713
 and in some cases has received canonical sanction. This article considers not only the so-called
Roman Catholic deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, etc.) but also other writings important in
the Latin biblical tradition: 3–4 Ezra, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, Canticles, Laodiceans,
3 Corinthians, and the Gospel of Nicodemus. The bulk of the article surveys each of these books
in terms of its origins in Latin, the manuscript sources, and the relevant editions. The canonical
history of these works is also discussed.

23.2 The appendix to the Clementina

Prayer of Manasseh (Oratio Manasse)

3 Ezra (Liber Ezrae tertius)

4 Ezra (Liber Ezrae quartus)

Prayer of Manasseh (Oratio Manasse)

Note. – The short text, to be accommodated on a single printed page, exists in two Latin versions – an
ancient and medieval one on the one hand, and a modern one on the other. The critical Vulgate edi­
tion by Weber and Gryson contains the ancient text, while the modern editions, dependent on the Vul ­
gata Clementina, offer a text used by Robert Estienne for his Vulgate print edition of 1540. Estienne
edited the text to bring it closer to the Greek original. In 1960, the matter was elucidated by the Old
Testament scholar Heinrich Schneider (Mainz). Today’s commentaries on the Oratio Manasseh are
based on the Greek text, see Pieter W. van der Horst – Judith H. Newman: Early Jewish Prayers in Greek.
Berlin 2008 (xvi, 298 pp.), pp. 145–180 (introduction, translation, commentary, bibliography).

Text and translation

1850. Oratio Manasse. PL 86: 856–858.

1946. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam clementinam nova editio. Edited by Alberto Colunga OP and Lauren­
tio Turrado. Madrid. xxiv, 1592, 122* pp. – The Prayer of Manasseh is on p. 3*.

1974. Eva Oßwald: Das Gebet Manasses. In: Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Band
IV.1. Gütersloh (47 pp.), pp. 15–27.

1985. James H. Charlesworth: Prayer of Manasseh. In: idem (ed.): The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
Volume 2. London (l, 1006 pp.), pp. 625–637.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), p. 1909.

2018. Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata.
Lateinisch–deutsch. Band 5. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1180–1183. – Bilingual
edition, Latin and German. The translator is Clemens Müller.

Bibliography
1999. Andreas Lehnhardt: Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Gü­
tersloh (xvi, 502 pp.), pp. 343–347.

714
Secondary literature
1960. Heinrich Schneider: Der Vulgata-Text der Oratio Manasse. Eine Rezension des Robertus Stepha­
nus. Biblische Zeitschrift NF 4: 277–282.

2019. Vasile Babota: Latin [text of the Prayer of Manasseh]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 250–254.

3 Ezra (Liber Ezrae tertius)

Note. – The book begins with the words Et egit Iosias pascha in Hierosolymis. There may have been an
original Hebrew or Aramaic version of the book, but it is lost. Today’s commentators refer to the Greek
text. Martin Luther did not like the book; he considered it a “Jewish invention” (tertium Esrae puto esse
figmentum iudaicum; Weimarer Ausgabe. Tischreden Band 1, p. 112, no. 268). His word that he would
throw the book into the Elbe River is famous; see D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimarer Ausgabe. Tischre­
den. Band 1. Weimar 1967 (xli, 656 pp.), p. 208, no. 475.

Text and translation

1751. Pierre Sabatier (ed.): Bibliorum sacrorum versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica. Volume 3. Paris
(xxxvi, 1115 pp.), pp. 1040–1075. – Reprint: Turnhout 1976.

1946. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam clementinam nova edition. Edited by Alberto Colunga OP and Lauren­
tio Turrado. Madrid. xxiv, 1592, 122* pp. – The Latin text of 3 Ezra is on pp. 5*–19*.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1910–1930. – Latin text with text-critical apparatus.

2018. Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata.
Lateinisch–deutsch. Band 5. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1184–1151. – Bilingual
edition, Latin and German. The translator is Rainer Knab.

Secondary literature
1907. Hugh Pope OP: The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Canon. Journal of Theological Stud­
ies 8, no. 30: 218–232.

1910. Harry Clinton York: The Latin Versions of First Esdras. American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures 26: 253–302. – Pages 274–286: On the Vulgate of 1 Esdras (= 3 Ezra). The Vulgate text
is a new translation of a Greek text, not a revision of the Old Latin version. Already attested by
Cyprian around 250 (Cyprian, Letter 74,9), it must have been written in the first half of the 3rd
century CE.

1969. Guy-Dominique Sixdenier: Le IIIe livre d’Esdras et la Vulgate de Stuttgart. Revue des Études anci­
ennes 71: 390–401. – Starting at p. 395: Le troisième livre d’Esdras: sa première édition critique. –
The Stuttgart Vulgate contains for the first time a critical edition of the Latin text of 3 Ezra, draw ­
ing on manuscripts and noting variant readings. Sixdenier notes further variants and encourages
further research into this text.

2014. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Die älteste lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Esdras A – eine neue Ent­
deckung. Vetus Testamentum 64: 401–415. – The author reports on her discovery of a pre-Vul­
gate Latin version of 3 Ezra in a Spanish manuscript.

2016. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Von Nordafrika über Paris nach Stuttgart: Wie kommt die verderbte Fas­
sung der Übersetzung von Esdras A’ in die Vulgata? In: Siegfried Kreuzer et al. (eds.): Die Septu­

715
 aginta – Orte und Intentionen. Tübingen (xvi, 923 pp.), pp. 117–131. – The text of 1 Esdras = 3
Ezra in the Clementina is based on two corrupt manuscripts from the 12th century.

2019. Bonifatia Gesche OSB: Latin [text of 3 Ezra]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible.
Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 447–453.

Textual notes
3 Ezra 1:12. beneolentia – pleasing odor, Wohlgeruch. A rare word. – Philipp Thielmann: Lexiko­
graphisches aus dem Bibellatein. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 1 (1884)
68–81, at p. 73.

3 Ezra 4:41. The often-quoted saying about victorious truth goes back to an ancient Egyptian model,
to be found in the Saying of Ptahhotep. – Paul Humbert: Magna est veritas et praevalet (3 Esra
4,35). Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 31: 148–150. – In the Clementina and the Weber/Gryson
edition, this verse is numbered v. 41 (instead of 35).

4 Ezra (Liber Ezrae quartus)

Note. – The book begins with the words Liber Ezrae prophetae, filii Sarei. The original text, presumably
in Hebrew, is lost; only translations exist, including the Vulgate recension which is based upon a lost
Greek translation (which often shines through). Today’s commentaries are based on the Latin textual
tradition. An important textual witness is the Codex Sangermanensis primus (Bibliothèque Nationale
ms. Lat. 11553; ca. 810). Modern commentaries often refer to the book as “2 Esdras” (leading to much
confusion). Names such as “Ezra-Apocalypse” are also used. Some parts are occasionally given their
own titles:

4 Ezra 1–2 = 5 Ezra

4 Ezra 3–14 = 4 Esra (in the narrower sense; also called Ezra Apocalypse)

4 Ezra 15–16 = 6 Esra

“Since the first printed Bible (Gutenberg 1452–1455) and probably some time before, 5 Ezra, 4 Ezra and
6 Ezra are grouped together in one book on the Latin Bibles, under the title IV Ezrae.” Pierre-Maurice
Bogaert OSB, in: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), p.
541.

Bibliographical survey
2001. Lorenzo DiTommaso: A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999. Sheffield. 1067 pp.
– Pages 470–472: 4 Ezra in Latin. This bibliography also provides a list of the Latin manuscripts
that include the complete text of chapter 7 (p. 470).

Latin text of 4 Ezra

1895. Robert L. Bensly (ed.): The Fourth Book of Ezra. The Latin Version Edited from the MSS. Cambridge.
xc, 107 pp. – Review: Paul Geyer: Bibel- und Kirchenlatein, 1891–1896. Kritischer Jahresbericht
über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 5.1 (1897) 75–102, at pp. 98–99.

716
1910. Bruno Violet: Die Ezra-Apokalypse (IV. Ezra). 1. Teil: Die Überlieferung. Die griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller. Leipzig. lxvi, 446 pp. – Edition of the Latin text. Violet (1871–1945) was
a German Protestant minister whose interest in research culminated in the publication of this
edition.

1946. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam clementinam nova edition. Edited by Alberto Colunga OP and Lauren­
tio Turrado. Madrid. xxiv, 1592, 122* pp. – The Latin text of 4 Ezra is at the end of the book, on
pp. 21*–44*.

1983. A.F.J. Klijn: Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra. Berlin. – Edition of the Latin text. There is
also an index grammaticus by Gerard Mussies.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1931–1974. – Latin text with text-critical apparatus.
In the preface to the 4th edition 1969, Gryson explains that “for 4 Esdras, the editions of Klijn
and Bergren contribute nothing really new” (4th ed., p. xxxv). Which is to say: Bruno Violet’s edi ­
tion of 1910 still forms the text-critical basis.

Concordance of 4 Ezra
1990. Wilfried Lechner-Schmidt: Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testa­
ment. Tübingen. xi, 241 pp. – In this Latin concordance, 4 Ezra is included in the corpus of texts
analysed. The references are given as 4 Esr (= 4 Ezra 3–14), 5 Esr (= 4 Ezra 1–2), and 6 Esr (= 4
Ezra 15–16). The five-volume concordance of Bonifatius Fischer (see Chapter 8.2) also gives ref­
erences to the text of 4 Ezra.

Translations of 4 Ezra – English

Note. – Those editions of the Bible in English that include a section with the Old Testament apocrypha
generally have a translation of 4 Ezra (called “the Second Book of Esdras”).

1970. The Second Book of Esdras. In: The New English Bible with the Apocrypha. Oxford (xxi, 1166; viii,
275; ix, 337 pp.), part II, pp. 19–53.

1974. Jacob M. Myers: II Esdras. In: idem: I and II Esdras. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. The
Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY (xxiv, 384 pp.), pp. 105–354. – All 16 chapters are translated and
explained.

1983. Bruce M. Metzger: The Fourth Book of Ezra. With the Four Additional Chapters. In: James H.
Charlesworth (ed.): The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1. London (I, 995 pp.), pp. 517–
559.

1989. 2 Esdras [= 4 Ezra]. In: The Holy Bible (…) with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New Re­
vised Standard Version. Oxford, xxi, 996, 298, 284 pp. – In the Apocrypha section, the translation
of 4 Ezra is on pp. 248–281; there are also a few textual notes.

1989. The Second Book of Esdras. In: The Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. Oxford –Cambridge
(xvii, 828; iv, 205; iv, 236 pp.), part II, pp. 15–41.

1990. Michael Edward Stone: Fourth Ezra. A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia – A
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis. xxii, 496 pp. – In the introduction,
the author reports on modern research into the Latin text (pp. 3-4). Stone’s commentary does

717
 not include two major textual additions that he classifies as secondary and not part of the ori ­
ginal text: Chapters 1–2 and Chapters 15–16.

2020. Lisbeth S. Fried: 4 Ezra. In: Jonathan Klawans – Lawrence M. Wills (eds.): The Jewish Annotated
Apocrypha. Oxford (xxxiv, 796 pp.), pp. 345–389. – The translation of 4 Ezra 3–14 (i.e., the Jewish
nucleus of 4 Ezra) is that of the New Revised Standard Version (1989); introduction and com ­
mentary are by L.S. Fried.

Translations of 4 Ezra – German

1900. Hermann Gunkel: Das vierte Buch Esra. In: Emil Kautzsch (ed.): Die Apokryphen und Pseude­
pigraphen des Alten Testaments. Band 2. Tübingen (vii, 540 pp.), pp. 331–402.

1928. Paul Rießler: Esdras viertes Buch [Kapitel 3–14, pp. 255–309]; Esdras fünftes Buch [Kapitel 1–2, pp.
310–317]; Esdras sechstes Buch [Kapitel 15–16, pp. 318–327]. In: idem: Altjüdisches Schrifttum
außerhalb der Bibel. Heidelberg. 1342 pp. – The notes on the Esra books are on pp. 1282–1287.

1981. Josef Schreiner: Das 4. Buch Esra. In: Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Band 5.4.
Gütersloh, pp. 291–412. – Volume 5 was published 1974–2003 in 9 fascicles, 1246 pp. Schreiner’s
translation is in fasc. 4.

2015. Bonifatia Gesche: Die Esra-Apokalypse. Kleine Bibliothek der antiken jüdischen und christlichen
Literatur. Göttingen. 72 pp. – This translation is accompanied by a scholarly introduction and
textual notes.

2018. Clemens Müller, in: Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra
Vulgata. Lateinisch–deutsch. Band 5. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1252–1391. –
Bilingual edition, Latin and German.

Translations of 4 Ezra – French

1987. Pierre Geoltrain: Quatrième livre d’Esdras. In: La Bible. Écrits intertestamentaires. Edited by André
Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko. Paris (cxlix, 1903 pp.), pp. 1393–1470. Translation with
valuable textual notes. ▲

2010. La Bible. Traduction œcuménique. 11th edition. Paris (2763 pp.), pp. 2017–2057. – This and later
editions of the well-known TOB Bible include a translation of 4 Ezra.

Secondary literature on 4 Ezra

1907. Donatien De Bruyne OSB: Un manuscript complet du IV livre d’Esdras. Revue bénédictine 24: 254–
257.

1910. Bruno Violet: Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV Esra). Band 1: Die Überlieferung. Die griechischen christli­
chen Schriftsteller. Leipzig (lxvi, 446 pp.), pp. 433–438. – The author prints the text of all patristic
Latin references to 4 Ezra, which makes his book an indispensable resource.

1957. Bruce M. Metzger: The “Lost” Section of II Esdras (= IV Ezra). Journal of Biblical Literature 76: 153–
157.

1958. Joshua Bloch: Some Christological Interpolations in the Ezra-Apocalypse. Harvard Theological
Review 51: 87–94. – In six passages, the messiah is referred to as God’s “son” (4 Ezra 7:28.29;
13:32.37.52; 14:9) – a Christian interpolation.

718
2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Les livres d’Esdras et leur numérotation dans l’histoire du canon de
la Bible latine. Revue bénédictine 110: 5–26.

2013. Karina Martin Hogan: The Preservation of 4 Ezra in the Vulgate: thanks to Ambrose, not Jerome.
In: Matthias Henze – Gabriele Boccacini (eds.): Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch. Leiden (xvi, 456
pp.), pp. 381–402.

2013. Florentino García Martínez: The Authority of 4 Ezra and the Discovery of America. In: idem: Be­
tween Philology and Theology. Leiden (xvii, 194 pp.), pp. 147–171.

2015. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: IV Esdras (2 Esdras, 4–5–6 Ezra) dans les bibles latines. Revue béné­
dictine 125: 266–304. – The article recalls the function of IV Esdras in the history of the canon of
the Old Testament (it is absent from the Amiatinus, see above, Chapter 7.2). On the basis of a
provisional inventory of 133 Latin Bibles containing IV Esdras (listed in Appendix 3), it examines
the various configurations attested in the diffusion of Ezra-Nehemiah followed by III Esdras and
the three components of IV Esdras in its “French” tradition (φ, with chapter 7 curtailed, depend­
ing from Ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 11505 mutilated). Its diffusion begins in the thir­
teenth century, especially in England, rarely in the Biblia Parisiensia, according to two sequences:
5–3–4–6 Ezra, which is not exceptional, and 3–5–4–6 Ezra, which becomes prevalent (synthesis in
Appendix 2). From the Bible of Gutenberg onwards, 5–4–6 Ezra are grouped in one book, IV Es ­
dras which becomes omnipresent. Appendix 1 proposes a stemma. The article finally recalls the
need to distinguish clearly the systems of numbering the books proposed in the manuscripts
and those ones used today.

2019. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin [text of 4 Ezra]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 488–499. – The author deals in particular with the
following individual texts (pp. 495–497): 4 Ezra 4:24; 6:7–10; 7:29 und 13:40.

2021. Shayna Sheinfeld: 2 Esdras. In: Gerbern S, Oegema (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Apocrypha.
New York (xix, 598 pp.), pp. 253–269.

Text and translation of 5 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 1–2)

1990. Theodore A. Bergren: Fifth Ezra. The Text, Origin, and Early History. Atlanta, Ga. xvii, 479 pp. –
Text of 4 Esra 1–2 on the basis of several manuscripts.

2001. Michael Wolter: 5 Esra. In: idem: 5. und 6. Esra-Buch. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-jüdisch­
er Zeit. Band 3, fascicle 7. Gütersloh (pp. 767–880), pp. 781–820. – German translation with intro­
duction and notes.

2018. Veronika Hirschberger: Ringen um Israel. Intertextuelle Perspektiven auf das 5. Esrabuch. Leuven.
viii, 332 pp. – In the appendix (pp. 277–293) the author provides two German translations – one
of the Vulgate edition of Weber/Gryson and one of the Bergren text.

Secondary literature on 5 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 1–2)

1986. Robert A. Kraft: Towards Assessing the Latin Text of “5 Ezra”: The Christian Connection. Harvard
Theological Review 79: 158–169. – 5 Ezra (= 4 Esra 1–2) is a Jewish text, revised by a Christian.

1995. Bruce W. Longenecker: 2 Esdras. Sheffield. 128 pp. – A textbook on 4 Ezra. The author also dis­
cusses 4 Ezra 1–2 (pp. 114–121). According to some scholars, this text was presumably written
after the Bar Kochba revolt (132–135), that is, in 135 or shortly thereafter; as a Christian text, it is
“indicative of a conscious need to define the Christian church in relation to its Jewish parentage

719
 and contemporaries in ways which resemble earlier rather than later patterns. If these sugges­
tions are correct, they support a mid-second century date for 5 Ezra” (p. 115).

2019. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin [text of 5 Ezra]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 531–533.

Text and translation of 6 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 15–16)

1992. A. Frederik J. Klijn: Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra). Nach dem lateinischen Text unter Benutzung der
anderen Versionen. Berlin. xxxv, 129 pp. – Latin text with German translation.

1998. Theodore A Bergren: Sixth Ezra. The Text and Origin. Oxford. xiii, 282 pp. – Reprinted in 2009.

2001. Michael Wolter: 6 Esra. In: idem: 5. und 6. Esra-Buch. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-jüdi­
scher Zeit. Band 3, fascicle 7. Gütersloh (pp. 767–880), pp. 821–868. – German translation with
introduction and notes.

Secondary literature on 6 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 15–16)

2019. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin [text of 6 Ezra]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the
Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 541–542.

Textual notes
4 Ezra 1:5–25. M.D. Brocke: On the Jewish Origin of the “Improperia” (V Ezra 1,5–25). Immanuel 7
(1977) 44–51.

4 Ezra 1:38. Theodore A. Bergren: The People “coming from the East” in 5 Ezra 1:38. Journal of Biblical
Literature 108 (1989) 675–683.

4 Ezra 2:1–32. Theodore A. Berggren: “Two Mothers” in 5 Ezra 2:1–32. Vigiliae Christianae 73 (2019)
440–462. – The author takes 5 Ezra (= 4 Esra 1–2) to be “a post-250 Latin composition of North
African origin,” a Christian text of the third century.

4 Ezra 4:8. In the Latin text, the last line lacks a parallelism; Geoltrain (1987) restores it on the basis of
the Ethiopic text: “et je ne suis pas entré au paradis.”

4 Ezra 4:41. The Latin has in inferno promptuaria animarum; Geoltrain translates this on the basis of
the Ethiopic text as if the Latin had infernum et promptuaria animarum.

4 Ezra 5:36. numera mihi [dies] qui necdum venerunt, Geoltrain’s addition after the Ethiopic text.

4 Ezra 7:13. maioris saeculi – of the greater world; meant is the future world; Geoltrain (1987).

4 Ezra 7:28–29. filius meus Iesus (28), filius meus Christus (29) – my son Jesus, my son, the Messiah. In
v. 28, “Jesus” is a Christian interpolation. Present in all the Latin manuscripts, it is old, but cer ­
tainly not original in the Jewish apocalypse. In v. 29, “Christus” refers to the Messiah; some ma­
nuscripts have “Iesus,” a patent Christianization. – Literature:

1940. L. Gry: La “mort du Messie” en IV Esdras, VII, 29 (III, V,4). In: H.P. Vincent OP (ed.): Mémorial
Lagrange. Paris (v, 384 pp.), pp. 133–139.

1958. Joshua Bloch: Some Christological Interpolations in the Ezra-Apocalypse. Harvard Theo­
logical Review 51: 87–94, esp. pp. 88–93.

2019. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Latin [text of 4 Ezra]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of
the Bible. Volume 2B. Leiden (xxxiii, 542 pp.), pp. 488–499, at p. 497.

720
4 Ezra 7:35. justitiae vigilabunt et injustitiae non dominabuntur (Clementina) – the good deeds will
wake up, and the evil deeds will no longer rule/prevail. – The Weber/Gryson edition has: iustitiae
vigilabunt et iniustitiae non dormibunt – the good deeds will wake up, and the evil deeds will
not/no longer sleep, i.e., because it is judgement day.

4 Ezra 7:36–106. Concerning the text of 4 Ezra, nineteenth-century research has provided a pleasant
surprise. In the traditional printed editions of the Vulgate, there is a gap in the 7th chapter. This
is due to the fact that a leaf is missing from a Codex Sangermanensis (Paris, Bibliothèqque na­
tionale, ms. lat. 11505, fol. 821/22). However, the missing text was discovered in other manu ­
scripts and could be reinserted into the Vulgate text (as chapter 7:36–106). Accordingly, older
printed editions of the Vulgate, including the Clementina, have a short chapter 7, but newer
ones have a long one. The short form of the chapter can be found in older Vulgate editions, e.g.,
in Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis. Edited by Valentin Loch. Tomus IV. Regensburg 1849 (494 pp.),
pp. 322–324. The long, complete form of the chapter is in Biblia Sacra Vulgata, ed. by Robert
Weber – Roger Gryson. 5th edition. Stuttgart 2007 (xlix, 1980 pp.), pp. 1943–1950. – Literature:

1875. Robert L. Bensley: The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book
of Ezra. Cambridge. 95 pp.

1957. B.M. Metzger: The ‘Lost’ Section of II Esdras (= IV Ezra). Journal of Biblical Literature 76:
264–278.

1990. Michael Edward Stone: Fourth Ezra. A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Min­
neapolis 1990 (xxii, 496 pp.), pp. 3–4. – Stone tells the story of the discovery of the miss­
ing section.

1995. Bruce W. Longenecker: 2 Esdras. Sheffield (128 pp.), pp. 111–112: “It has been suggested
that4 Ezra 7.36–140, a section of the book which appears to have been lost’ in the trans­
mission of the text, is missing in almost all the extant manuscripts of 4 Ezra since it in ­
cludes material which is problematic for the church’s teaching about prayers for the dead
and the possibility of second repentance after death (7.102–115). It may, then, not have
been accidentally lost, bit purposefully removed.”

2001. Lorenzo DiTommaso: A Bibliography of Pseudepographa Research 1850–1999. Sheffield

2001 (1067 pp.), p. 470. – The author presents a list of seven manuscripts that include the
missing passage.

4 Ezra 7:60. repromissa creatura – the promised creation. This must be: the promised judgment (repro­
missa iudicium); the Latin has misread the Greek κρίσις (judgment) as κτίσις (creation). – Geoltrain.

4 Ezra 7:78. inspiratio = soul, as in Gen 2:7 which has spiraculum.

4 Ezra 7:87. inhonoribus (Weber/Gryson), read: in inhonoribus.

4 Ezra 8:6. locum hominis. The expression does not make sense; it must be: forma hominis (most likely
was the underlying Greek τύπος misread as τόπος). Geoltrain.

4 Ezra 8:31. nos et patres nostri talibus morbis languemus (Clementina) – we and our fathers suffered
from such illnesses. The Weber/Gryson edition has mortalibus moribus egimus (have acted ac­
cording to mortal customs, i.e., have committed mortal sins) and relegates morbis to the ap­
paratus.

4 Ezra 9:21. plantationem de tribu multa – a plant out of a big tribe. This expression does not make
sense; it must be: a plant coming from a big forest (de silva multa).

4 Esra 14:26. absconse = heimlich. – Kaulen, p. 232.

721
23.3 Psalm 151 – Laodiceans (Weber/Gryson Vulgate)

Psalm 151
Note. – Psalm 151 is not actually a psalm, but a short first-person narrative of David, culminating in
David’s victory over Goliath. It was appended to the book of Psalms because the Psalms were believed
to be essentially a book of King David’s poetry.

Text and translation

1953. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem as codicum fidem. 10: Liber Psalmorum ex recen­
sione Sancti Hieronymi. Rome (xvi, 299 pp.), p. 299. – This 10th volume of the text-critical Bene­
dictine Vulgate (see above, Chapter 13.3) was edited by Robert Weber OSB. The critical edition
of Ps 151 is on the book’s last page.

2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, cor­
rected edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), p. 1975. – Latin text with text-critical apparatus.

2018. Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata.
Lateinisch–deutsch. Sammlung Tusculum. Band 5. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1392–1393. – Bilingual
edition, Latin and German. The translator is Clemens Müller.

Secondary literature
2000. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Le psautier latin des origines au XII e siècle. Essai d’histoire. In: A.
Aejmelaus – U. Quast (eds.): Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Abhand­
lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philosophisch-historische Klasse III.230.
Göttingen (415 pp.), pp. 51–81, at pp. 7–58.

2003. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert OSB: Aux origines de la fixation du canon. Scriptoria, listes et titres. In:
Jean-Marie Auwers et al. (eds.): The Biblical Canons. Leuven, pp. 153–176. – Page 166: “(…) la
présence du Ps 151 est très répandu dans les psautiers latins.” ▲

2019. Felix Albrecht: Latin [text of Psalm 151]. In: Armin Lange (ed.): Textual History of the Bible. Volume
2C. Leiden (xxxii, 572 pp.), pp. 302–305.

Letter to the Laodiceans (Epistula ad Laodicenses)

Note. – The Letter to the Laodiceans is a short pseudepigraphical epistle from Paul to the church in
Laodicea, preserved only in Latin, included in the Codex Fuldensis (see above, Chapter 7.2). The original
Greek text is lost. The letter begins with the words: Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus. In a letter written
in 392/93, Jerome reports that “some are also reading (the letter) to the Laodiceans, but all reject it”
(Jerome: De viris illustribus 5: legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur; PL 23: 650).

Text and translation

1899. Wilhelm Schulz: Beiträge zu dem Texte der Vulgata aus spanischen Handschriften. Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftliche Theologie 42: 36–58, at pp. 36–39. – Latin text with apparatus that lists variant
readings found in Spanish manuscripts.

1905. Adolf Harnack: Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther. Bonn. 23 pp. –
Latin text, accompanied by a commentary. A second, reprint edition was published in Berlin,
1931. We quote from the Berlin edition: “Es ist übrigens nach Inhalt und Form die wertloseste
Urkunde, die aus dem kirchlichen Altertum auf uns gekommen ist” (p. 3; It is with regard to con­
tent and form the most worthless document that has come down to us from Christian antiquity).

722
 Harnack considers the letter a Marcionite forgery, i.e., one that favours the (allegedly) problem ­
atic views of Marcion – but Schneemelcher is not convinced; see below, Schneemelcher 1997.
1906. Eberhard Nestle (ed.): Novum Testamentum Latine. Textum Vaticanum cum apparatu critico.
Stuttgart. xx, 657 pp. – Page. xix: Ad Laodicenses. – Latin text with critical apparatus. In later edi­
tions of Nestle’s Latin New Testament, the text is printed on p. xii.
1997. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed.): Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. 6th edi­
tion. Band 2. Tübingen (viii, 703 pp.), pp. 41–44. – Translation with a long introduction. Page 43:
“Man tut dem Autor dieses dürftigen und zusammengestoppelten Machwerks zu viel Ehre an,
wenn man ihn mit der Elle antiker literarischer Gewohnheiten mißt.” – There is an English edi­
tion: Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed.): New Testament Apocrypha. Revised Edition. English transla­
tion edited by R. McL. Wilson. Volume 2. Cambridge 1992 (viii, 771 pp.), pp. 42–46; see p. 44: the
letter “does not purpose to be a rhetorical performance, and the author had obviously no liter ­
ary ambitions. Too much honour is done the author of this paltry and carelessly compiled con­
coction when we judge him by the yardstick of ancient literary practices.”
1999. Das Neue Testament und frühchristliche Schriften. Übersetzt von Klaus Berger und Christiane
Nord. Frankfurt. 1373 pp. – Pages 1190–1191: Der Brief an die Laodizener – German translation.
Berger asserts that this document is “mehr als eine sinnlose Kompilation” (p. 1190), more than a
mere stupid compilation.
2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Edited by Robert Weber OSB and Roger Gryson. 5th, im­
proved edition. Stuttgart (xlix, 1980 pp.), p. 1976. – Latin text with text-critical apparatus.
2018. Andreas Beriger – Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers – Michael Fieger (eds.): Biblia Sacra Vulgata.
Lateinisch–deutsch. Band 5. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin (1401 pp.), pp. 1394–1397.

Secondary literature
1914. Rudolf Knopf: Laodicenerbrief. In: Edgar Hennecke (ed.): Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen
Apokryphen. Tübingen (xvi, 604 p.), p. 204.

2002. Régis Burnet: Pourquoi avoir écrit l’insipide épître aux Laodicéens? New Testament Studies 48:
132–141.

2013. Bart D. Ehrmann: Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian
Polemics. New York. x, 628 pp. – Pages 439–445: “The Letter to the Laodiceans.” Ehrmann offers
a good summery of the debate initiated by Harnack in 1905.

Textual notes
Laod 5. Et nunc faciet deus ut quae sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii (…) deservientes et fa­
cientes benignitatem operum quae [?] salutis vitae aeternae (Nestle’s edition). – This passage
does not lend itself to translation. It is deemed corrupt, which is why editors and translators feel
at a loss. Nestle has introduced the three dots to indicate where he feels that words are missing.
Here is Schneemelcher’s translation: “And now may God grant that those who come from me for
the furtherance of the truth of the gospel (…) may be able to serve and to do good works for the
well-being of eternal life.”

Laod 17. Salutate omnes fratres in osculo sancto – greet all brothers with a holy kiss. Knopf (1904) con­
siders it a spurious passage, and both Nestle and the Weber/Gryson Vulgate exclude it from the
main text; the Weber/Gryson edition places it in the apparatus, while Nestle does not even men ­
tion it.

723
724
RECEPTION

725
Chapter 24
The Vulgate Bible in art, life, and literature

24.1 Introduction

24.2 The Latin Bible and Jerome in legend, literature, and fiction

24.3 Liturgy and spirituality: the layman and the Vulgate

24.4 Latin loanwords and Latin sayings from the Vulgate

24.5 Latin Vulgate quotations in world literature – from Dante to Eco

24.6 The Vulgate in literary criticism

24.7 The Vulgate Bible in art: illustrations, inscriptions, echoes

24.1 Introduction
1988. Germain Marc’hadour: Influence de la Vulgate sur la culture de l’Occident. In: Yves-Marie Duval
(ed.): Jérôme entre l’occident et l’orient. Paris (508 pp.), pp. 465–481. – This somewhat rambling
essay by a Catholic priest (1921–2022, ordained in 1944) refers to words that French and Breton
owes to the Vulgate (cilice, holocauste, talent, grabat, jubilé), to echoes of the Vulgate in Chris ­
topher Marlowe and Paul Claudel, and to the literary criticism of Valery Larbaud. Page 470:
“Nous prêtres qui avons vécu le séminaire avant 1945 sommes les derniers représentants d’une
espèce qui remonte au Concile de Trente, et que l’on trouvait aussi bien à Vancouver ou à Syd­
ney qu’à Santiago ou à Quimper. La Vulgate, notre livre de chevet, relayée en outre par tous nos
manuels de théologie, eux aussi en latin, fournissait la matière, sérieuse ou comique, d’un ‘style
camail’, équivalent catholique de ce que les Huguenots appellent ‘le patois de Canaan’.”

2007. André Paul: La Bible et l’Occident. De la bibliothèque d’Alexandrie à la culture européenne. Paris.
411 pp. – Italian translation: La Bibbia et l’Occidente. Dalla biblioteca di Alessandria alla cultura
europea. Brescia 2009. 387 pp. – The author refers to the Vulgate Bible as a founding document
of Western culture. It should not be monopolized by the church, but be considered a monument
of Western culture.

24.2 The Latin Bible and Jerome in legend, literature, and fiction
c. 400. Postumianus. This wealthy traveler visited Jerome in Bethlehem, where he stayed for six months
at Jerome’s monastery. Postumianus’ friend Sulpicius Severus includes Postumius’ portrait of
Jerome in his Dialogues (compiled c. 403/404). The report culminates in this sentence: “He is al­
ways occupied in reading, always at his books with his whole heart: he takes no rest day or
night; he is perpetually either reading or writing” (totus semper in lectione, totus in libris est: non

726
 die, non nocte requiescit; aut legit aliquid semper, aut scribit: Dialogi I, 9; CSEL 1: 161). A longer
passage from Postumianus’ report, in German translation, can be found in Alfons Fürst: Hierony­
mus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg 2016 (444 pp.), p. 234.

1263/66. Jacobus de Voragine: Legenda aurea. – The famous Golden Legend’s substantial chapter on
saint Jerome is a compilation of all then known materials on Jerome’s life. Mention is made of
Jerome’s knowledge of languages, the success of his biblical translations, and of course of the
legendary lion whom the saint acquired as a companion after having removed a thorn from his
paw. Editions and translations:
2012. Jacobus de Voragine: The Golden Legend. Readings on the Saints. Translated by William Granger Ryan. With
an Introduction by Eamon Duffy. Princeton (xxi, 789 pp.), pp. 597–602.

2022. Jacobus de Voragine: Legenda aurea – Goldene Legende. Einleitung, Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar
von Bruno W. Häuptli. Dritter Teilband. Freiburg (xi, 1629–2447), pp. 1906–1921. – This bilingual edition was
originally published in 2014; for the 2022 edition, the text has been reviewed.

1300. Dante: Divina Commedia. Dante not only knew and quoted the Vulgate Bible (see below,
Chapter 24.5, Italian literature). In his work, one also finds echoes of some of Jerome’s other
writings – his letters, the Prologus galeatus, and the commentary on Titus. In the Divine Comedy,
he invokes the authority of Jerome to argue that the angels were created before the world: Para­
diso XXIX, 22–45; the implied reference is to Jerome’s commentary on Titus (PL 26 [1845]: 559–
560). – Ilona Opelt: Hieronymus bei Dante. Deutsches Dante-Jahrbuch 51/52 (1976/77) 65–83.

1764. Voltaire: Les contes de Guillaume Vadé. In the preface, Voltaire tells the fictional story of one
Jérôme Carré who was given the names of seven saints at birth. To decide which one to use, he
later in life studied the life of each of them – and was disappointed because he failed to find
anything of worth in them. Eventually, he came to investigate the life of saint Jerome: “Je me
suis vu ainsi réduit au seul nom de Jérôme; mais ce Jérôme, le seul patron qui me restait, ne m’a
pas été plus utile que les autres. Est-ce que Jérôme n’aurait pas de crédit en paradis ? J’ai
consulté sur cette affaire un très-savant homme: il m’a dit que Jérôme était le plus colère de
tous les hommes; qu’il avait dit de grosses injures au saint évêque de Jérusalem, Jean, et au saint
prêtre Rufin ; que même il appela celui-ci hydre et scorpion, et qu’il l’insulta après sa mort: il m’a
montré les passages. Je me vois obligé de renoncer enfin à Jérôme, et de m’appeler Carré tout
court; ce qui est bien désagréable.” – English: I was thus reduced to the name of Jerome; but this
Jerome, the only patron saint I had left, was no more useful to me than the others. Would
Jerome have credit in heaven? I have consulted a very wise man on the matter: and was told
that Jerome was the most choleric of all men; that he had spoken great insults to the holy bish ­
op of Jerusalem, John, and to the holy priest Rufinus; that he even called the latter a hydra and a
scorpion, and that he insulted him after his death: I was shown the passages. So I saw myself ob­
liged to renounce Jerome also, and to call myself Carré tout court; which is most unpleasant. –
Œuvres complètes de Voltaire. Texte établi par Louis Moland. Tome 10. Paris 1877 (636 pp.), p. 7.

1924. H.G. Wells: The Dream. A Novel. New York (318 pp.), pp.153–154 (chapter 4, § 9). – The English­
man Harry Mortimer Smith tells the story of his life. As a boy, he worked at a chemist’s shop in
London in the early 1900s. “My first reaction to this chemist’s shop was a violent appetite for
Latin. I succumbed to its suggestion that Latin was the key to all knowledge. (…) and soon I
could even construe whole phrases. I dug out Latin books from the second-hand booksellers’
boxes, and some I could read and some I could not. There was a war history of that first Caesar
(…) and there was a Latin New Testament; I got along fairly well with both.”

1981. Colette Estin: Saint Jérôme, de la traduction inspirée à la traduction relativiste. Revue biblique 88:
199–215. – Imaginary, partly satirical dialogue between Jerome and a critical reader of his trans ­
lation. Jerome rejects the idea that the Greek translation of the Bible (Septuagint) owes itself to

727
 divine inspiration (as, for example, is argued by the legend in the Letter of Aristeas and by Au­
gustine). According to Jerome, only the Hebrew text is divinely “inspired.” Jerome wavers in his
evaluation of the Septuagint; see above, Chapter 14.1. It may well be that Estin was inspired by
the Dominican Marie Joseph Lagrange who in a 1932 article included a satirical dialogue
between Jerome and his modern critic Donatien De Bruyne; see Marie-Joseph Lagrange OP: De
quelques opinions sur l’ancien psautier latin. Revue biblique 41: 161–186, at pp. 171–172.

Jerome novels
1990. Jean Marcel: Jérôme ou de la traduction. Roman. Montréal. – Jean Marcel, born in 1941, is a Cana­
dian novelist and literary scholar writing in French.

2008. Michael Wood: The Jerome Conspiracy. Second edition. Bloomington, Ind. 160 pp. – Set in a
modern fictional frame, the book argues that, looked at from the vantage point of the New
Testament, the Septuagint must be seen as the Christian Old Testament, and not, as Jerome
claimed, the Hebrew Bible. Jerome got is all wrong, and therefore the Vulgate Bible with its em ­
phasis on “Hebrew truth” must be rejected. One of the new, and problematic, teachings of
Jerome is the doctrine of eternal damnation in hell.

2009. Alain Le Ninèze: La controverse de Bethléem. De l’évangile à la Vulgate. Roman historique. Paris.
110 pp. – Historical novel in French. The author, a classical philologist born in 1948, is the author
of several novels about early Christianity. He claims to be an agnostic.

2015. Joan B. O’Hagan: Jerome and His Women. Sydney. x, 276 pp. – With a historical postscript by
Richard Johnson, emeritus professor of classics, this is a serious historical novel. It includes a
glossary of names and a bibliography. The novel is set in Rome where O’Hagan spent most of
her life. The Australian author (1924–2014) did not live to see this novel published.

24.3 Liturgy and spirituality: the layman and the Vulgate

Latin stock prayers

Latin and the lay person

“Tobias nights”: the Vulgate and deferred marital intercourse

Latin and church music

Latin stock prayers

Note. – Before the reform of the Catholic liturgy subsequent to the Second Vatican Council of the
1960s, the intelligent lay person was expected to know a number of Latin phrases used at Mass as well
as a small number of Latin prayers: the Paternoster (Lord’s Prayer), the Ave Maria (Hail Mary) and the
Salve Regina.

4th century. The Lord’s Prayer (Paternoster, Matt 6:9–13). The liturgical standard wording is as follows:
Pater noster, qui es in coelis: sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in coelo, & in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Et dimitte nobis debita no­

728
 stra, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Sed libera nos a
malo. Amen. – This text represents the Vetus Latina version of the Lord’s prayer. Jerome for what
became the Vulgate text changed only one expression, to bring it closer to the underlying
Greek: instead of panem nostrum quotidianum, he wrote panem nostrum supersubstantialem.
See above, Chapter 22, entry on Matt 6.

c. 1000. The Angelic Salutation (Luke 1:28.42): Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in
mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesus (etc.) – Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus (etc.);
Gegrüßet seist Du, Maria, voll der Gnade, der Herr ist mit Dir, du bist gebenedeit unter den
Frauen, und gebenedeit ist die Frucht deines Leibes, Jesus. Frequently recited both in the liturgy
and in private prayer, the Angelic Salutation, constructed from two verses from the gospel of
Luke, had the form given here by 1000; later, another sentence was added, asking the Virgin to
be one’s advocate with the heavenly judge. The Latin of the prayer version differs only slightly
from the Vulgate text that reads, at the beginning: Ave: gratia plena, Dominus tectum, etc. The
prayer version also adds the names Mary and Jesus to the biblical text.

1140. Bernhard of Clairvaux: Salve Regina (hail, holy queen – gegrüßest seist du, Königin). – This Mari ­
an antiphon contains the phrase ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle
(to you we sigh, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears – zu dir seufzen wir, trauernd und
weinend in diesem Tale der Tränen). The phrase in lacrimarum valle – in the valley of tears – is
from Psalm 84:7 (Vg 83:7).

Latin and the lay person

Note. – In the Catholic past, even beyond the Middle Ages and well into the twentieth century, preach­
ers would occasionally throw in a Latin word or a verse from the Latin Bible, and at least the better
educated among their audience would understand.

c. 1350. Henry Suso: Little Book of Letters 7. – Suso exhorts to spiritual discipline in monasteries and
then concludes by saying: “Weh denen, die solches hingehen lassen und ihres Herzens Frieden
hierin suchen! Von ihnen spricht Jesajas: pax, pax, et non est pax; das ist so viel gesprochen als:
Sie sagen: Friede, Friede, und es ist doch nicht Friede.” – “Alas for those who let it all pass and
thereby seek peace for their heart. Isaiah says about them: Pax, pax, et non est pax. This means:
They say peace, peace, but there is no peace.” Des Mystikers Heinrich Seuse O.Pr. Deutsche
Schriften. Übersetzt von Nikolaus Keller. Regensburg 1926 (lxiii, 478 pp.), pp. 348–348; Henry
Suso: The Exemplar. With Two German Sermons. Translated by Frank Tobin. The Classics of West­
ern Spirituality. New York 1989 (xvi, 416 pp.), p. 353. The verse quoted in Latin is Jeremiah 6:14
(not Isaiah).

c. 1350. Johannes Tauler. In his German sermons, Tauler occasionally quotes from the Latin Bible. Two
examples: (a) Sermon 11 (German, p. 82; English, p. 60): “Das ist gerade das, was die Braut im
Hohenlied spricht: Introduxit me rex in cellarium [Cant 1:3] – der Herr hat mich geführt und
geleitet in seinen Weinkeller, und da hat er seine Liebe geordnet.” – “Thus the Beloved in the
Song of Songs says: Introduxit me rex in cellarium [Cant 1:3] – to his own cellar the King has
brought me and there he has truly ordred that love.” – (b) Sermon 23 (German, p. 154; English,
p. 79–80): “Nun kommt Sankt Peter und unterweist uns ganz klar und deutlich, welche die Vor ­
bereitungen hierzu [zum Empfangen des Heiligen Geistes] sind, und spricht: Estote prudentes [1
Peter 4:7]. Das bedeutet nicht eigentlich: ‘Seid weise’ in unserer Sprache, sondern eher soviel
wie: ‘Seid klug, seid besonnen,’ das heißt, wenn ein Mensch etwas gut und oft geübt hat, so ist

729
 er dessen kundig; er hat es durchschaut und ist wohlbewandert darin.” – “Now along comes
Saint Peter to instruct us clearly and beyond a doubt what we have to do to prepare for [the re­
ception of] the Holy Spirit. Estote prudentes, he says [1 Peter 4:7]. This does not exactly mean be
wise. A better reading would be: act with discernment, the discernment one acquires when one
has practiced a thing often and well and now knows it thoroughly.” Johannes Tauler: Predigten.
Translated by Georg Hofmann. Volume 1. 3rd edition. Einsiedeln 1987 (xx, 306 pp.); Johannes
Tauler: Sermons. Translated by Maria Shrady. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York 1985
(xvi, 183 pp.).

1609. François de Sales [Franz von Sales]: Introduction à la vie dévote. – Part II, chapter 1: “If you follow
my advice, Philothea, you will say your Pater, Ave Maria and Credo in Latin, but you should also
learn to understand well the words in your own language so that while saying them in the com­
mon language of the Church you can also appreciate the wonderful and beautiful meaning of
those holy prayers.” Francis de Sales: Introduction to the Devout Life. Translated by John K. Ryan.
Garden City, N.Y. 1972 (315 pp.), p. 82.

1654. Blaise Pascal: Mémorial. – The famous note about a nocturnal religious epiphany contains (de­
pending on the tradition) two or three Latin Vulgate quotations: Deum meum et Deum vestrum
– my God and your God (John 20:17); derelinquerunt me fontem aquae vivae – they have forsaken
me, the fountain of living water (Jer 2:13); non obliviscar sermones tuos – I will not forget thy
words (Ps 119:16, Vg 118:16). An English translation of the memorial can be found in Pascal:
Pensées. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth 1966 (359 pp.), pp.
309–310.

19th century. Kierkegaard. – Niels W. Bruun – Finn G. Jensen: Kierkegaard’s Latin translations of the
New Testament: a constant dialogue with the Vulgate. In: Lee C. Barrett – Jon Stewart (eds.):
Kierkegaard and the Bible. Vol. 2: The New Testament. Farnham 2010 (xiii, 338 pp.), pp. 209–220.

“Tobias nights”: the Vulgate and deferred marital intercourse

Note. – The angel told Tobias and his wife to abstain from having marital intercourse during the first
three nights after their wedding (Tobit 6:16–22; 8:4 in the Vulgate version). This passage inspired the
practice of spending the first three nights without sex (sine copula carnalis). In 1234, King Louis IX of
France, called Louis the Pious, is reported to have followed the custom of keeping triduum castitatis,
the three nights of chastity.

1523. Martin Luther: Das siebte Kapitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern. – In a 1523 sermon, Luther reports
that in some places, people follow the example of Tobias. While this is a laudable custom of
moderation, one must not make it a law. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimarer Ausgabe. Band 12.
Weimar 1891 (xvi, 706 pp.), pp. 101–102. For more on Luther and the Tobias nights, see Gam­
beroni’s 1969 book, as listed below.

1862. Anton Birlinger: Volksthümliches aus Schwaben. Zweiter Band: Sitten und Gebräuche. Freiburg
(xxxvi, 482 pp.), p. 334: “Eine wunderschöne, auf der Bibel beruhende Sitte im Allgäu (z.B. Chris­
tatzhofen, Egloffs) war, ob’s jezt noch so ist, weiß ich nicht, die Sitte, die ‘Tobiasnächte’ zu hal­
ten.”

1969. Johann Gamberoni: Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias in der griechischen und lateinischen Kirche
der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis um 1600. Munich. 355 pp. – Gamberoni com­
ments on medieval and early-modern commentaries on Tobit 6:18–22 (pp. 185–190); he also
notes Luther’s references to the custom (PP. 233–234).

730
1995. Alain Boureau: Le droit de cuissage: la fabrication d’un mythe (XIIIe–XXe siècle). Paris (325 pp.), pp.
192–208. – A large part of this book’s chapter 6 deals with the Tobias nights. Translations: The
Lord’s First Night: The Myth of the Droit de Cuissage. Chicago 1998 viii, 300 pp.; Das Recht der
Ersten Nacht. Zur Geschichte einer Fiktion. Düsseldorf 1996 (381 pp.), pp. 246–264.

2011. Jane Merrill – Chris Filstrup: The Wedding Night: A Popular History. Santa Barbara (xii, 256pp.), pp.
66–75: “Tobias Nights.”

2023. Lucas Brum Teixeira: Accipies virginem cum timore Domini (Tob 6:22 Vg). Jerome’s Translation
Technique and Ascetic Ideals in the Vulgate of Tobit. Vulgata in Dialogue. Special issue: 85–92
(online journal).

Latin and church music

2023. Bernhard Schrammek: Die Vulgata und die Musica Sacra. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 128–129.

2023. Michael Maul: Johann Sebastian Bach: ein guter Lateiner? In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 129–131.

24.4 Latin loanwords and Latin sayings from the Vulgate

Note. – While there is some truth in the notion that the religious and specifically theological termino ­
logy of modern languages frequently, and typically, is based on the Vulgate Bible (see below, Metzger,
1962), this is not the whole story. In fact, theological terminology in Latin derives largely from pre-Vul ­
gate Latin authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine. Tertullian has no doubt trans­
lated directly from the Greek (without using existing translations), while Cyprian and the others used
Latin biblical texts today called Vetus Latina.

Some Vulgate words in European languages

Secondary literature

Latin sayings from the Vulgate

Books of sayings

Some Vulgate words in European languages

abominabilis – In English, abominable means “detestable, causing moral revulsion,” and the same word
has entered romance languages: abominable (French), abominabile (Italian). As a foreign word,
“abominabel” is listed in German dictionaries, but it is rarely used. In the Bible, this word, like the
noun abomination, is typical of the book of Proverbs (Prov 3:32; 11:20, and often). The book
Purity and Danger (1966) by the anthropologist Mary Douglas includes a chapter entitled “The
abominations of Leviticus.”

angelus – The Greek word ἅγγελος (pronounced ángelos) means “messenger.” When it refers to a su­
pernatural messenger sent by God, the Vulgate Bible, rather than translating the word, merely
transliterates it. As “angel” it has entered the English language; other European languages have

731
 it in the form “der Engel” (German), “l’ange” (French), and “angelo” (Italian). “And in the sixth
month the angel Gabriel was sent from God (missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo) into a city of Ga­
lilee cammed Nazareth …” (Luke 1:26).

antichristus – The Antichrist (1 John 2:18), a figure opposing the rule of Christ, is not a well-defined
character, but the word is in the vocabulary of all western languages.

altare – Unchanged in Italian (altare), slightly changed in English (altar), German (der Altar) and Danish
(alter), this is a rather common word. The words “if therefore you offer your gift at the altar
(munus tuum ad altare), and there you remember that your brother has anything against you
(…)” constitute a well-known passage from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:23).

baptizare – This loanword from the Greek (Matt 3:11) has been adopted into French (baptizer) and
English (to baptize), but not into German which has its own word: taufen.

caper emissarius – The scapegoat (the goat that escapes, or rather is sent away; Lev 16:8) is capro
emissario in Italian, Sündenbock in German, but in French, “bouc émissaire” has conserved much
of the Latin expression.

christianus – With “Christian,” the English language has the full word, complete with the typically Latin
ending -anus. Germans say der Christ, the corresponding French word is chrétien. The relevant
biblical passage is Acts 11:26: it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called christiani.

crux – The Roman instrument of deadly torture (Matt 27:32) has entered all western languages, though
altered to suit preferred pronunciations: cross in English, Kreuz in German, and la croix in French;
the corresponding verb crucifigere (Matt 27:23) has been adopted as to crucify, in German
kreuzigen, and in French crucifier. But crux has also entered the western vocabulary for use in
certain idiomatic expressions. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) gives two examples: one
for the meaning crux = the decisive point at issue (the crux of the matter is that attitudes have
changed); and another one for a particular point of difficulty, where the plural can also be used:
both cruces can be resolved by a consideration of the manuscripts.

diabolus – This loanword from Greek διάβολος (Rev 12:9, and many times in the gospels) is most
clearly echoed in the English adjective diabolical, but the word devil (and its German equivalent,
der Teufel) are also derived from it.

diaconus – The deacon derives his name from the Latin diaconus (1 Tim 3:8), a loanword based on the
Greek διάκονος. The Germans say Diakon, the French diacre.

discipulus – Those most closely associated with Jesus are called his disciples (Matt 5:1), in French les
disciples. Germans have their own word: die Jünger.

ecclesia – In French, the church is called église, derived from ecclesia (Matt 16:18; Acts 20:28). Iglesia,
the Spanish word for church, stays even closer to its Latin parent word. The Italian equivalent is
chiesa.

episcopus – The book of Acts refers to episcopi who govern the church (Acts 20:28). The word meta­
morphosed into bishop, Bischof (German), évêque (French) vescovo (Italian) and bispo (Spanish).
The adjective “episcopal” has conserved more of the original sound.

evangelium – Das Evangelium is the German word for gospel, reflecting the title of the gospels (e.g.,
evangelium secundum Matthaeum). French has l’évangile, while the English “evangel” is said to
be archaic, but it survives in American English. The adjectives “evangelical” and “evangelisch” de­
rive from evangelicus, early attested in Tertullian and Cyprian.

732
fides – Jesus said, habete fidem Dei (Mark 11:22) – have faith in God. French calls faith “la foi,” but Ger ­
man has its own word: der Glaube.

firmamentum – The firmament, created by God in the beginning (Gen 1:6–8), has made its way into all
western languages.

in Domino – in the Lord, im Herrn, dans le Seigneur. This formulaic expression is an idiom used espe ­
cially by those Christians whose language echoes that of the Bible. The meaning is generally un ­
specific, though one may detect meanings such as “with the help of Christ” or “because of God,
because of Christ.” “Rejoice in the Lord” (exsultate in Domino, Ps 33:1, Vg 32:1) and “children,
obey your parents in the Lord” (Eph 6:1) are just two examples out of many.

iustificatio – Justification, one of the watchwords of Pauline theology (Rom 8:10), has entered theolo ­
gical jargon in English and French, but not in German which has Rechtfertigung.

Lucifer – one of the names given to Satan, derived from the Vulgate version (and ultimately, from the
Vetus Latina) of Isa 14:12, though one must note that this passage does not use lucifer as a
name of Satan. In rendering this passage, traditional biblical translations such as the Douay Ver ­
sion and the King James Bible have kept the Vulgate’s Lucifer. Luther, by contrast, has Morgen ­
stern.

mammona – This Aramaic word has found its way into the Greek and Latin New Testament. “You can ­
not serve God and mammon” (Matt 6:24) has become proverbial in several languages. Mammon
is money. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) spells the word with a capital letter, suggesting
that Mammon would be one of the devil’s names.

paenitentia – paenitentiam agite (Matt 3:2) – do penance! In English, the nouns penance and penitence
derive from paenitentia.

paradisus – This word from the early chapters of the book of Genesis (Gen 2:8, 10, etc.) and used in a
promise Jesus made to a man crucified with him (Luke 23:43) has entered all western languages:
paradise, le paradis, das Paradies.

praedicare – praedica verbum! – preach the word! (2 Tim 4:2). The verb and its derivatives – to preach,
preaching, preacher – has entered many languages, including German (predigen) and French
(prêcher). The English word derives from the French prêcher.

presbyter – The word echoes Greek πρεσβύτερος and means “an old man.” From passages such as
James 5:14 it has entered English as presbyter. It is also shortened to priest, prêtre (French) and
il prete (Italian). The German equivalent is Priester.

propheta – This Greek word found its way from the Greek Bible into the Latin one, and became a for ­
eign word in all western languages. The Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition, 2010) explains:
“a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God: the Old Testament
prophet, Jeremiah” and quotes the proverb: “a prophet is not without honour save in his own
country” (Matt 13:57).

proselytus – Technically, this Greek word, adopted into the Latin Bible (Matt 23:15; Acts 2:11) means a
Gentile converted to Judaism. In some European languages such as English, a proselyte is, more
generally, someone who has changed his opinion or political allegiance.

psalmus – The liber Psalmorum – the book of Psalms – is consistently called thus in English. Other
European languages have the same word as der Psalm (German) or le psaume (French). One
also refers to the book of Psalms as the Psalter, although, in the Vulgate, psalterium is the name

733
 of a musical instrument (Ps 57:9 [Vg 56:9], rendered “psaltry” in the Douay Version), and never of
a book of sacred songs.

reptile – Reptiles are a class of cold-blooded animals such as snakes, crocodiles and lizards. People are
not generally aware that this is not a Latin word in general use. The word reptile was invented to
translate Genesis 1:20,24. In Italian, it has become rettile.

salus – Nostra salus, our salvation, is close at hand, writes Saint Paul (Rom 13:11); the word has entered
French as le salut.

salvator – Christ is salvator (2 Pet 2:20). This word has entered the English religious vocabulary as sa­
viour, the French vocabulary as sauveur.

sanctus – In the New Testament, believers are also called sancti, the saints (Acts 9:13). In English and
French, the saints and les saints, respectively, are believed to be those of the dead who already
now enjoy special closeness to God and Christ in heaven. In Italian, santo, plural santi. As often,
the German language has its own word, die Heiligen; but contemporary Germans understand
when they are confronted with the archaic Sankt Petrus.

scandalum – vae homini illi, per quem scandalum venit – woe to that man by whom the scandal
cometh (Matt 18:7, Douay Version). Originally a Greek word meaning a kind of trap, as in 1 Cor
1:23 – “we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block (σκάνδαλον).” The
word has come to mean “annoyance, nuisance,” and was adopted into English as scandal, into
French as le scandale, into German das der Skandal. – Olivier Got: Histoire du mot ‘scandale.’
Sigila no. 33 (2014.1) 13–21.

scriptura – omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est (2 Tim 3:16) – all scripture, divinely inspired, is
useful. In English, Scripture has become a word for the Bible, as has the German “die Schrift,”
usually “die Heilige Schrift.” While Die Heilige Schrift used to be printed on the title page of
Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish German Bibles, this has gone out of fashion; recent editions are
entitled Die Bibel. But note that biblia is not a word found in the Vulgate Bible.

spiritus sanctus – Believers are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the spritus sanctus
(Matt 28:19), i.e., the Holy Spirit. The French stays closer to the Latin by saying l’Esprit-Saint or le
Saint-Esprit. The Italian equivalent is lo Spirito Santo.

visitatio, visitare – “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the
third and fourth generation” (Exod 20:5, King James Version). The Oxford Dictionary of English
(2010) defines “visitation” as “a disaster or difficulty regarded as a divine punishment.”

Secondary literature
1913. A.B. Macaulay – James Brebner: The Vulgate Psalter. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabulary.
London. xxiii, 242 pp. – The book includes an appendix entitled “Examples of Mottoes and
Phrases Derived from the Vulgate Psalter” (pp. 235–242). Two examples: Asperges me hyssopo, et
mundabor (Ps 50:7) – “hence the name asperges for the ceremonial use of holy water.” Calicem
salutaris accipiam (Ps 115:4). A common motto on Communion chalices.

1934. George C. Richards: A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament. London: Samuel Bagster.
xvi, 130 pp. – Pages xiv–xv: a list of Latin Vulgate words in Romance languages.

1962. Bruce M. Metzger: The Early Versions of the New Testament. In: Matthew Black – H.H. Rowley
(eds.): Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Edinburgh 1962 (xv, 1126, 16 pp.), pp. 671–675. – Pages
671–672: “The influence of the Latin Vulgate has been simply enormous. (…) The religious ter­
minology of the languages of western Europe [i.e., French and English] has been in great part

734
 derived from or influenced by the Vulgate (e.g., words like justification, sanctification, salvation,
regeneration, election, reconciliation, satisfaction, sacrament, communion, congregation, orders,
penance, and priest).”

1970. Paul Zürcher: Der Einfluß der lateinischen Bibel auf den Wortschatz der italienischen Literatur­
sprache vor 1300. Bern 315 pp. – This is essentially a dictionary. Each entry begins with the
meaning of a lexical item in the Vulgate, which is then followed into the Italian literary language.
– Review: Peter Wunderli, Vox Romana 31 (1972) 128–131.

1985. Richard Braun: L’influence de la Bible sur la langue latine. In: Jacques Fontaine – Charles Pietri
(eds.): Le monde latin antique et la Bible. Paris (672 pp.), pp. 129–140.

1992. Olegario García de la Fuente: La Biblia en el diccionario de la lengua española a través de la

Vulgata. Fortunatae. Revista canaria de Filología, Cultura y Humanidades Clásicas 4: 213–228. –
The author considers several Spanish words that are derived from the Vulgate; an example is
cizaña in the sense of discord, based on Matt 13:25–30.

2008. Guido Cifoletti: Ebraismi passata attraverso il latino della Vulgata nelle lingue europee. In:
Francesco Apesi (ed.): Il mio cuore è a oriente. Milan (816 pp.), pp. 175–190.

2020. Hans Förster: Translating from Greek as Source Language? The Lasting Influence of Latin on New
Testament Translation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43: 85–107. – There is a subtle
influence of the Latin Bible on how even today’s philologists read the Greek New Testament. As
Förster demonstrates, standard dictionaries of biblical Greek frequently echo how Greek words
were translated into the Latin of the Vetus Latina or Vulgate.

Latin sayings from the Vulgate

Note. – The following sayings are collected from books of sayings such as the ones by Büchmann and
Kudla, and checked against the explanations found in standard English dictionaries. The problem with
many collections of Latin quotations (here not listed) is that they neither give the exact source refer ­
ence nor an explanation of the meaning – which makes such collections worthless for serious study. In
the past, the use of Latin quotations in oral and written discourse was a sign of erudition; today, this in
no longer the case because the knowledge of Latin has dramatically declined.

abyssus abyssum invocat – deep calleth on deep [ein Abgrund ruft den andern]. Used as a saying in
the sense: one mistake gives rise to another one (Ps 42:8, Vg 41:8).

Amen – This word is placed at the end of prayers, as in the Lord’s prayer (Matt 6:13 Clementina) and
other biblical prayers (Neh 13:31; Tobit 13:23).

anathema sit – be it cursed [das sei ausgeschlossen] (1 Cor 16:22). More generally used is the word
anathema in English in sentences such as “Racial hatred was anathema to her” (this sentence is
from the Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010).

compelle intrare – compel them to come in! [nötige sie hereinzukommen!] This sentence is said to
have been the scriptural basis for forced baptism and similar measures of violent missionary
activity (Luke 14:23).

dei gratia – according to the grace of God [von Gottes Gnaden] (1 Cor 3:10). The word gratiā is here in
the ablative case. The expression used to be attached to names of royalty and nobility to ex ­
press their legitimacy: Sigismundus Augustus Dei gratia rex Poloniae (Sigismundus Augustus, by
the grace of God king of Poland).

735
Deus absconditus – the hidden God [der verborgene Gott] (Isa 45:15).

Deus vult – God wants it [Gott will es]. Sometimes used as a Christian motto, this expression echoes 2
Samuel 14:14: nec vult Deus perire animam – God does not want any soul to perish.

dies irae – the day of wrath [Tag des Zorns] (Rom 2:5; Rev 6:17). English dictionaries generally list this
expression, explaining that it refers to a Latin hymn on the Day of Judgment, sung in requiem
masses.

dixi et salvavi animam meam – I have spoken and saved my soul [ich habe gesprochen und meine
Seele gerettet] (after Ezek 3:18–19; 33:8–9). The expression was famously used by Karl Marx in
his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) to express his relief at denouncing someone he per­
ceived as a charlatan. Many used the same words both before and after Marx.

ecce homo! – behold the man! [welch ein Mensch!] (Joh 19:5). Some English dictionaries list the ex­
pression, explaining that these were the words used by Pilate in presenting Christ, wearing the
crown of thorns, to the people. “Ecce homo” has become the standard title of paintings that
show Christ wearing the crown of thorns. It is also the title of an autobiographical book by
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900); it was published after the author’s death, first in 1908, and in its
original form only in the 1970s.

eritis sicut deus scientes bonum et malum – you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil [ihr werdet
sein wie die Götter, Gutes und Böses erkennend]. This is Jerome’s famous Hexameter rendering
of the words that the Serpent spoke to Eve in paradise (Gen 3:5; Jerome actually wrote dii, not
deus). When quoted, people generally refer to the first three words only.

habeat sibi – let him have his will [meinethalben]. After Genesis 38:23, where the phrase means some ­
thing different (“let her take it to herself”).

homo proponit, sed deus disponit – Man proposes, God disposes [Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt]. This
proverb seems to echo Proverbs 16:9: cor hominis disponit viam suam, sed domini est dirigere
gressus eius – the heart of man disposeth his way, but the Lord must direct his steps (Douay Ver ­
sion).

imago Dei – image of God [Gottes Ebenbild], According to the book of Genesis, God created man ad
imaginem suam, ad imaginem Dei creavit illum – he created man in his own image, in the image
of God he created him (Gen 1:27).

in illo tempore – in that time [in jener Zeit]. In the gospel of Matthew, the phrase serves as an unspecif­
ic introduction to episodes told: in illo tempore abiit Iesus per stata sabbato – in that time, Jesus
went through a cornfield on Sabbath (Matt 12:1). Mircea Eliade, the Romanian theorist of reli­
gion, uses the expression as a technical phrase to refer to the “time outside recorded history,
mythical time” during which founding events take place; see Eliade: Patterns in Comparative Re­
ligion. Translated by Rosemary Sheed. London 1958 (xv, 484 pp.), pp. 395–397.

iota – This is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that not
even a iota of the (Jewish) law would pass from the law (iota unum … non praeteribit – Matt
5:18). Accordingly, iota is a proverbial expression for saying “something small”; the Oxford Dic­
tionary of English (2010) gives an example: “Nothing she said seemed to make an iota of differ ­
ence” (which should be: a iota …, B. Lang).

ira columbae – the wrath of the dove [der Zorn der Taube] (Jer 25:38). This mistranslation of Jerome
led to a fine poetic and paradoxical expression. It appears to have given rise to the French say ­
ing craignez la colère de la colombe.

736
mulier taceat in ecclesia – the woman is to be silent in church [die Frau schweige in der Kirche/Ge­
meinde]. Based on a passage in one of the letters of Paul (1 Cor 14:34: mulieres in ecclesia ta­
ceant), this passage is often invoked by both conservative and feminist members of the church,
as the slogan of the old, patriarchal order, or for accusing Saint Paul of a deeply-rooted patri ­
archal bias.

nihil novi sub sole – nothing new under the sun [nichts Neues unter der Sonne]. The saying echoes the
Vulgate’s nihil sub sole novum (Koh 1:10). The common form is presumably better Latin, but
Jerome’s version has a better rhythm (with stress on the three vowels i, o, and u).

noli me tangere – touch me not! [rühre mich nicht an!] This is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene as
she approached him on Easter morning (John 20:17). Listed in English dictionaries as “a warning
against touching or interference” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1951).

non possumus – we cannot [wir können nicht] (Acts 4:20). The Oxford Dictionary of English 2010
defines it as a noun “used as a statement expressing inability to act in a matter.”

nunc dimittis– now let (your servant) depart (Luke 2:29). Used in French: “Dire son nunc dimittis: ex­
pression employée – avec plus ou moins d’humour – pour signifier que l’on accepte de partir, de
céder la place, voire, dans un registre plus grave, de mourir, parce qu’on a eu la joie de voir l’ac ­
complissement de son œuvre ou de son désir le plus cher”; Danielle Fouilloux et al.: Dictionnaire
culturel de la Bible. Paris 1990 (304 pp.), p. 178.

omnis homo mendax – every man is a liar [jeder Mensch ist ein Lügner] (Ps 116:11, Vg 114/115: 11;
Rom 3,4). This statement has become proverbial.

pater peccavi – father, I have sinned [Vater, ich habe gesündigt]: the first words spoken by the prodigal
son upon his return (Luke 15:18). The phrase is used to indicate that one admits and regrets
something that one has done.

Paternoster, pater noster – Our Father [Vater unser] (Matt 6,9) are the first two words of the Lord’s
prayer. The word paternoster has come to be used for many things, including, in German and
English, an elevator (British: lift) that never stops. In French, one generally abbreviates the ex ­
pression to pater, and to say of someone il ne sait pas son pater is to indicate that he is stupid. In
France, as elsewhere, the Lord’s prayer was the first text young children were taught to learn by
heart.

peccata clamantia – screaming sins, sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance [himmelschreiende
Sünden]. In Genesis, it is the blood of Abel, murdered by his brother Cain, that cries to heaven
(Gen 4:10; cf. 18:20). Christian tradition identifies four such sins: murder, sodomy (i.e., perverse
sexual activity), oppression of the poor, and defrauding workers of their wages.

quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri non feceris – what you do not wish to be done to you, do not do to anoth ­
er [Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu, das füg auch keinem andern zu.]. This is a reformulation
of Tobit 4:16: quod ab alio odis fieri tibi vide ne alteri tu aliquando facias, commonly known as
the Golden Rule [die Goldene Regel].

seminare zizania – to sow weed [Unkraut säen] (Matt 13:25). In Italian, “seminare zizania” is a popular
saying. Based on the parable of the weeds, it refers to the act of driving a wedge, of sowing dis­
cord. The same idiom exists in Spanisch as sembrar cizaña. In English (to sow discord) and Ger ­
man (Zwietracht säen), the saying echoes the parable without using the Vulgate word.

talent – talent [Talent]. This word, used in a parable of Jesus (Matt 25:15: talenta, plur.), has entered
many languages, though as a natural, intellectual or physical, gift. Both Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary of 1951 and the Oxford Dictionary of English 2010 have a reference to Matthew 25.

737
ubi sunt …? – where are …? [wo sind …?] This nostalgic rhetorical question is famous through its use in
the student song Gaudeamus igitur which includes the line ubi sunt qui ante nos in mundo fuere
(where are those who have been in the world before us?). It is much older than this song. It ap ­
pears in the Vulgate at Zechariah 1:5 (patres vestri ubi sunt?, here with a polemical bent) and
Baruch 3:16–19. See also Job 14:10.

vae mihi – woe unto me (Isa 6:5; see Latin Glossary, Chapter 19.2). In the Douay Version – and sub­
sequently in the King James Bible – translated as “woe is me,” this became an English saying,
today used as an ironic expression of self-pity.

vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas – vanity of vanities, all is vanity [Eitelkeit der Eitelkeiten, alles ist
eitel] (Koh 1:2). The Oxford Dictionary of English 2010 has an entry on vanitas, defining it as “a
still-life painting of a 17th-century Dutch genre containing symbols of death or change as a re ­
minder of their inevitability,” without referring to the biblical source of the term. Vanitas! Vanit­
atum vanitas! is the title of a German baroque poem by Andreas Gryphius (1643).

ventum seminare – to sow wind [Wind säen]. The phrase is from Hosea 8:7: ventum seminabunt et tur­
binem metent – they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind [Wind säen und Sturm ernten). The
complete sentence has become a Latin proverb, and equivalents exist in many languages; e.g., in
Italian (chi semina vento raccoglie tempesta).

vox clamantis in deserto – the voice of one crying out in the desert [Stimme des Rufers in der Wüste]
(Isa 40:3). Also quoted as vox clamans in deserto – a shouting voice in the desert. Used in the
sense of “he speaks, and nobody listens.”

vox populi vox Dei – the voice of the people is the voice of God. This saying is first attested in Alcuin (c.
800), and seems to echo Isa 66:6: vox populi (…) vox Domini.

zizania → seminare zizania

Books of sayings
1864. Georg Büchmann: Geflügelte Worte. Der Citatenschatz des deutschen Volkes. Berlin. 220 pp. –
Büchmann (1822–1884), born in Berlin, worked in Berlin as a school teacher of languages, appar­
ently mainly French and English. His collection of “winged words” includes Latin, Greek, French
and English quotations that appear in German written and oral discourse. Büchmann’s book oc­
casionally indicates who is quoting where, but his concern is to identify the original literary
source of a saying. As is to be expected, in his collection biblical sayings figure prominently –
mostly from Luther’s German Bible, but also Latin expressions from the Vulgate. Subsequent en­
larged and revised editions are still being edited and printed, and have up to twenty-five quota ­
tions from the Vulgate. Some of these are listed above.

1956. Heinrich G. Reichert: Urban und human. Unvergängliche lateinische Spruchweisheit. 4th edition.
Hamburg. 376 pp. – Reprinted 1980, St. Ottilien. This delightful book provides essays on quota­
tions such as panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie (Matt 6:11; pp. 119–123) and eritis si­
cut deus scientes bonum et malum (Gen 3:5; 114–118).

1999. Hubertus Kudla: Lexikon der lateinischen Zitate. Munich. 603 pp. – This collection of quotations
does not indicate who is quoting, but the user learns what are known quotations and their ori­
ginal sources. The biblical quotations are easy to find in the book because they are marked by a
graphic sign – an open book.

2002. Ernst Lautenbach: Latein–Deutsch: Zitaten-Lexikon. Quellennachweise. Münster. 932 pp. – This
collection of brief passages and sayings excerpted from ancient and some later authors places

738
 each entry under a Latin lemma. Each excerpt is accompanied by a source reference (which may
be biblical). The excerpts seem to reflect the compiler’s personal preferences; there is no effort
to collect passages that are frequently quoted by others. There is also a section on common Lat­
in expressions such as a priori, ius civile, and eo ipso (pp. 810–923).

2016. Klaus Bartels: Veni, vidi, vici. Geflügelte Worte aus dem Griechischen und Lateinischen. 16th edi­
tion. Darmstadt. 216 pp. The text of this book corresponds to that of the enlarged 11th edition,
Mainz 2006. 216 pp. To the scholar’s delight, the author of this anthology includes nineteen Lat­
in words and phrases from the Vulgate Bible; the compiler gives exact sources, explanations, and
sometimes bibliographical references. – Review (of the 11th edition): Jürgen Werner, Gymnasi­
um 114 (2007) 398–402.

24.5 Vulgate quotations in literature – from Dante to Eco

Italian literature

English literature

German literature

French literature

Polish literature

A secondary source

Italian literature
1294. Dante: La vita nuova. – One of Dante’s reflections on his poems has a Latin motto from the book
of Lamentations: quomodo sedet sola civitas plena populo! Facta est quasi vidua domina gentium
(Lam 1:1; La vita nuova, chapter 28). The words “How does the city sit solitary, that was full of
people! How is she become as a widow!” The city referred to by Dante is Florence, and the lam ­
entation is about the death of Beatrice; with her death, Florence has lost its most precious cit ­
izen.

1320. Dante: La divina comedia. – The Divine Comedy is written in Tuscan vernacular; interspersed Latin
quotations, often taken from the Vulgate, stand out concisely and contribute to the linguistic re­
lief. The Inferno contains no biblical quotations, the Purgatorio many, the Paradiso few. Ex­
amples: In exitu Israel de Aegypto (Purg. 2,46; Ps 114:1, Vg 113:1); miserere (Purg. 5,24 as a refer­
ence to the repentance psalm, Ps 51, Vg 50); beati pauperes spiritu (Purg. 12,110; Matt 5:3); ad­
haesit pavimento anima mea (Purg. 19,73; Ps 119:25, Vg 118:25); neque nubent (Purg. 19,137;
Matt 22:30); virum non cognosco (Purg. 25,129; Luke 1:34); veni sponsa de Libano (Purg. 30,11;
Cant 4:8); diligite justitiam qui iudicatis terram (Parad. 18,91.93; Wisd 1:1). – Literature:
1925. L. Negri: Dante e il testo della Vulgata. Giornale storico della letterature italiana 85: 288–307;

2011. V. Stanley Benfell: The Biblical Dante. Toronto. xii, 299 pp. – Pages 107–142: Una nuova legge: The Beati­
tudes in the Purgatorio.

739
 2012. Carolyn Lund-Mead – Amilcare Ianucci: Dante and the Vulgate Bible. Rome. 725 pp. – A list of all biblical
passages quoted or alluded to by Dante.

2013. Nicola di Nino: Le beatitudini nel “Purgatorio” dantesco. In: La Bibbia nella letterature italiana. Vol. V, Bres­
cia (712 pp.), pp. 259–270. – The editor of the Bibbia nella letteratura italiana series is Pietro Gibellini.

1350. Petrarch: Ascent of Mount Ventoux (Familiarum rerum libri IV, 1). In this letter, Petrarch reports
about an expedition in which he and his brother, accompanied by to servants ascended Mount
Ventoux in the Provence (in 1336). The text is Latin, and includes several quotations from the
Vulgate Bible. One expression is from the book of Job: tenebrae et umbra mortis – darkness and
the shadow of death (Job 3:5; see IV, 1,14). – Edoardo Fumagalli: Petrarca e la Bibbia. In: Grazia
Melli – Marialuigia Sipione (eds.): La Bibbia nella letteratura italiana. Vol. V: Del Medioevo al
Rinascimento. Brescia 2013 (712 pp.), pp. 271–304.

1980. Umberto Eco: Il nome della rosa. Milan. 503 pp. – This successful medieval novel is peppered
with untranslated Latin quotations; many are taken from the Vulgate. Already on the first page
of the prologue we read vidimus nunc per speculum in aenigmate (1 Cor 13:12). In the chapter
“First Day. Tertia” the protagonist Brother William murmurs: Eris sacerdos in aeternum (you will
be priest in eternity; after Ps 110:4, Vg 109:4). If these are still familiar quotations, the author also
resorts to remote passages such as Jeremiah 13:26: nudavi femora contra faciem tuam (I have
exposed your thighs opposite your face), with Latin commentary by Jerome (PL 24 [1865]: 798):
sive nudabo et relevabo femora et posteriora tua (that is, I will expose and bare your thighs and
your buttocks; chapter “Second Day. Tertia”). And so it goes on. Latin Bible quotations are indis­
pensable for the milieu color. – Literature:
1982. Umberto Eco: Der Name der Rose. Translated by Burkhart Kroeber. Munich. 655 pp. – Many quotations are
explained in the appendix of the German translation of the novel (pp. 639–645).

1999. Adele J. Haft – Jane G. White – Robert J. White: The Key to “The Name of the Rose.” Ann Arbor. 194 pp. –
This book provides on pp. 94–176 the translation of the Latin quotations in Eco’s novel. However, some quota­
tions are missing, e.g., the Vulgate quotation vidimus nunc per speculum from the prologue and nudavi femora
(…) from “Second day. Tertia.”

2006. Andrés Lema Hincapié: Versión en español de los pasajes en latín de El Nombre de la Rosa, de Umberto
Eco. Praxis filosofica 23: 125–146. – This is the most complete list of the Latin passages; they are translated into
Spanish.

English literature
1370/90. William Langland: Piers Plowman. – The Middle English poem contains Latin quotations from
almost all the books of the Bible. Examples: Date, et dabitur vobis (1, 201; Luke 6:38); Quod­
cumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in celis (7,177; Matt 16:19). – Literature:

1927. M. Ray Adams: The Use of the Vulgate in “Piers Plowman.” Studies in Philology 24: 556–566.

2003. Mary Clemente OP: Piers Plowman as Biblical Commentary. Essays in Medieval Studies 20:
85–94.

1588. Christopher Marlowe: The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. – Marlowe (1564–1593) begins his
Faustus drama with a scene in which the protagonist bends over the Bible and reads: “Jerome’s
Bible, Faustus! View it well! Stipendium peccati mors est. Ha! Stipendium, etc. The reward of sin is
death: that’s hard. Si pecasse negamus, fallimur, & et nulla est in nobis veritas: If we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there’s no truth in us.” Faustus reads Romans 6:23 and 1
John 1:8. The Latin quotations do not actually reproduce the Vulgate text verbatim; this is how
one would refer to the two passages from memory. – This is from Doctor Faustus I, 1, 36–42 the

740
 “B text,” printed 1616). Richard M. Cornelius: Christopher Marlowe’s Use of the Bible. New York
1964. 321 pp.

1599. William Shakespeare: Henry V. – After the victory in the battle of Agincourt, the king gives the
order: “Let there be sung Non nobis and Te Deum.” (IV 8,123) The “Non nobis” is Psalm 115, Vg
113. Cf. Naseeb Shaheen: Shakespeare, the Psalter, and the Vulgate in Henry V., Shakespeare
Quarterly 43 (1992) 71–72.

1708. Jonathan Swift: An Argument against Abolishing Christianity. – The satirical essay contains (to­
wards the end) the following paragraph: “The Freethinkers consider it as a sort of edifice,
wherein all the parts have such a mutual dependence on each other, that if you happen to pull
out one single nail, the whole fabric must fall to the ground. This was happily expressed by him
who had heard of a text brought for proof of the Trinity, which in an ancient manuscript was dif ­
ferently read; he thereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long
Sorites, most logically concluded: why, if it be as you say, I may safely drink on, and defy the
parson.” – German: “Deshalb sehen die Freidenker das Christentum auch als ein Gebäude an, in
dem alle Teile so aufeinander ruhen, dass der ganze Bau zusammenstürzen muss, wenn man
auch nur einen einzigen Nagel herauszieht. Dem hat kürzlich ein Mann glücklich Ausdruck gege­
ben, als er hörte, dass ein Text, den man gemeinhin zum Beweis der Dreieinigkeit anführte, in ei ­
nem alten Manuskript ganz anders lautete. Er begriff den Wink sofort und kam durch eine Kette
von Folgerungen rasch zu dem logischen Schluss: Wenn dem so ist, wie sie sagen, so kann ich in
aller Ruhe weiterhuren, saufen und dem Pastor Trotz bieten.” Swift, Einwände gegen die Ab­
schaffung des Christentums, in: Swift: Die menschliche Komödie. Schriften, Fragmente, Aphoris­
men. Edited by M. Freund. Stuttgart 1957 (li, 343 pp.), pp. 136–150, at p. 149. Reference is made
to the debate about the comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8, see above, Chapter 22, textual notes
on 1 John).

1916. James Joyce: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Edited by Chester G. Anderson. New York
1968 (vi, 570 pp.), pp. 104–105 and 244. In this famous novel, two passages from the Vulgate er
quoted in Latin, and left untranslated: Sirach 24:17–20 and Matt 26:69, the latter being et tu cum
Jesu Galilaeo eras – thou also wast with Jesus the Galelean (Douay Version). Alex Mueller: “The
Soft Beauty of the Latin Word”: Experiencing Latin in James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a
Young Man. Classical and Modern Literature 26.2 (2006) 179–196, esp. pp. 187–189.

1922. Thomas Hardy: “After Reading Psalms xxxix, xl, etc.” This autobiographical poem of a well-known
and celebrated English novelist attaches a brief quotation from the Vulgate Psalms to each of
the stanzas, so that we get an additional poem in Latin. Here are the Latin lines : quoniam tu fe­
cisti – because you have done it (Ps 39:10, Vg 38:10); me deduxisti – you have guided me (Ps
73:24, Vg 72:24); me sucepisti – you have upheld me (Ps 41:13, Vg 40:13); dies meos posuisti –
you have placed my days (Ps 39:6, Vg 38:6); Domine, tu scisti – Lord, you have known (Ps 40:10;
Vg 39:10); quem eligisti – whom you have chosen (Ps 65:5; Vg 64:5). The poem was first pub­
lished in Hardy’s Late Lyrics and Earlier (1922). Hardy also used quotations from the Bible as epi­
graphs; an example is the poem In tenebris II (1869): Considerabam at dexeram, et videbam; et
non erat qui cognoscered ne … non est qui requirat animam meam (Ps 142:5, Vg 141:5); the trans­
lation, not given by Hardy, would be: “I looked on my right hand, and beheld: and there was no
one who would know me (…) there is no one that hath regard to my soul” (Douay Version). – Lit­
erature:
2007–2008. John Leonard: Hardy’s After Reading Psalms xxxix, xl, etc. The Explicator 66: 15–18.

2015. Maxwell J. Fabiszewiski: A Glossary of Greek and Latin in Thomas Hardy’s Poetry. The Hardy Society Journal
11: 92–95.

741
1934. James Joyce: Ulysses. The Modern Library. New York. xvii, 767 pp. – Page 43 (chapter 3): “You
were going to do wonders, what? Missionary to Europe after fiery Columbanus. Fiacre and
Scotus on their creepstools in heaven split from their pintpots, laudlatinlaughing Euge! Euge !” –
Ulysses. Roman. Übersetzt von Hans Wollschläger. Herausgegeben und kommentiert von Dirk
Vanderbeke u.a. Frankfurt 2004 (xii, 1122 pp.), p. 61: “Du wolltest gern Wunder tun, was? Europa
missionieren nach dem feurigen Columbanus. Fiacrius und Scotus auf ihren Schemeln im Him­
mel haben glatt ihr Bier verschüttet vor lautlallateinischem Lachen: Euge! Euge!” As Stephen
Dedalus the idea of becoming a missionary who would bring Christianity to Europe, following
the example of the Irish saint Columbanus. But the saints in heaven would respond to the idea
with Homeric laughter, represented by the interjection euge, euge, known from the Vulgate
Psalms (Ps 35:21, 25, Vg 34:21, 25, and other passages). – The famous novel includes further
quotations and echoes of the Vulgate Bible.

1978. Geoffrey Hill: Veni coronaberis. – This title of one of the many poems by Geoffrey Hill means
“come and you shall be crowned” (Cant 4:8). The poem can be found in Geoffrey Hill: Tenebrae.
London 1978 (48 pp.), p. 39. G. Hill (1932–2016) has a reputation as a writer of difficult, erudite,
cryptic poetry, and among the difficulties are his snippets of untranslated Latin and other lan­
guages. One of the author’s more recent poems, The Triumph of Love (1999), uses Neh 6:3 as an
epigraph in Hebrew, Latin, Luther’s German, and the King James Version.

German literature
1798. Friedrich Schiller: Wallensteins Lager. – Drama, first staged in 1798, first published 1800. Set in
Bohemia in 1633, the historical drama introduces the famous commander-in-chief of the imperi­
al army during the Thirty-Year’s War; it sets the stage for two more dramas that complete the
Wallenstein trilogy. In his sermon addressed to the soldiers, a Capuchin friar quotes in Latin
from the Vulgate the advice John the Baptist gives: contenti estote stipendiis vestris – be content
with your pay (Luke 3:14; first act, 8th scene). The English title is The Camp of Wallenstein.

1806. Johann Wolfgang Goethe: Faust. Der Tragödie erster Teil. – In Faust I, Genesis 3:5 is quoted from
the Vulgate: eritis sicut deus, scientes bonum et malum (line 2048; a conspicuous hexameter
verse). The verse – the word of the serpent in paradise – is written by Mephisto, disguised as
Faust, in the album of a student. A few lines earlier, reference is made to the tree in Paradise,
that tree whose fruit promises the gaining of knowledge and thus godlikeness (lines 2038–
20399: “Grau, Freund, ist alle Theorie, und grün des Lebens goldner Baum” – listen, my friend:
the golden tree of life is green, all theory is grey. In the Vulgate, however, we read: eritis sicut dii
– you will be like gods. Apparently, Goethe has adapted the wording of the Vulgate to Martin
Luther’s translation, which reads: “und werdet sein wie Gott” – and will be like God. – Literature:

1994. Markus Ciupke: Des Geklimpers vielverworrner Töne Rausch. Die metrische Gestaltung von
Goethes “Faust.” Göttingen (307 pp.), pp. 56–57. “Vers 2048 erinnert, wenn man ihn nach
den modernen Betonungsregeln akzentuierende und nicht quantitierend betrachtet, stark
an einen Hexameter” (p. 56). The author suggests the following (standard) accentuation:
éritis sícut déus sciéntes bónum et málum. (Alternatively, one might read deús. B. Lang.)

1999. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust. The First Part of the Tragedy. Translated by John R.
Williams. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature. Ware, Herefordshire. xvii, 226 pp. –
This is the English translation used above.

1859. Arthur Schopenhauer: Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Zweiter Band. 3. Auflage. Leipzig (vi,
740 pp.), p. 303: Magna est vis veritatis et praevalebit – strong is the power of truth, ant it will
prevail. – While this is not an exact quotation of 3 Ezra 4:41 (Clementina: magna est veritas et

742
 praevalet), it certainly echoes it. The German philosopher (1788–1860) quotes it first in 1841, and
later several times, including in The World as Will and Representation, one of the major German
contributions to philosophy. Arthur Hübscher: Groß ist die Wahrheit … Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch
59 (1978) 182–183.

1901. Karl May: Et in terra pax. Reise-Erzählung. In: Joseph Kürschner (ed.): China. Schilderungen aus
Leben und Geschichte, Krieg und Sieg. Ein Denkmal den Streitern und der Weltpolitik. Leipzig. xl
pp; 548, 444, 462 pp. The novel “Et in terra pax” is at the beginning of part III, with new pagina ­
tion, filling cols. 1–284. – For this anthology which celebrates the German victory over Chinese
rebels against their colony, May wrote a pacifist China novel. The title is from Luke 2:14. May did
not know Latin, but the quotation from the Christmas story was familiar. May’s novel was fre­
quently published as a separate book (first edition: Freiburg 1904. 660 pp.), and is still available.

1924. Thomas Mann: Der Zauberberg. Roman. Frankfurt 1991. 1002 pp.). – The Jesuit Leo Naphta
quotes biblical dicta: (1) assument pennas ut (Vg sicut) aquilae – they will take wings like eagles
(Isa 40:31, left untranslated by the author, p. 542). A few pages later, Naphta alludes to the quo ­
tation: “Und wo bleiben die Adlerschwingen?” (And where are the wings of eagles?, p. 527). (2)
Quis me liberabit de corpore morti hujus? Wer wird mich befreien aus dem Körper dieses Todes?
(p. 621, Rom 7:24, this time with a translation).

1945. Ernst Jünger. His his wartime diary, Jünger discusses the notion of love, arguing that love, in
earthly life, involves particularity and exclusivity; this will be different in life everlasting. And then
he quotes, in Latin, without giving the translation: Cum enim a mortuis resurrexerint, neque nu­
bent, neque nubentur, sed sunt sicut angeli in caelis. This is Mark 12:25. – Ernst Jünger: Tagebü­
cher III. Stuttgart [no date] (686 pp.), p. 403 (entry dated March 24, 1945).

French literature
1588. Michel de Montaigne: Essais. – The Essais are in French, but spiced with Latin quotations, mostly
from classical Roman authors such as Seneca, Cicero, and Vergil. But there are also some biblical
quotations, generally one-sentence passages. Book II, essay 12, titled “Apology for Raimond de
Sebonde,” has Latin quotations from Gen 3:5; Col 2:8; Ps 94:11 (Vg 93:11); Wisd 9:14; 1 Cor 1:25;
1 Cor 1:19 – in this sequence. – The Essays of Michel de Montaigne. Translated by Charles Cotton.
Chicago 1952 (viii, 543 pp.), pp. 233, 233, 242, 244, 251, and 267. See M. S. Meijer, Montaigne et
la Bible.” Bulletin de la Société des Amis de Montaigne 20 (1976) 23–57.

1759. Voltaire: Candide, ou L’optimisme (299 pp.), p. 292. Here is a passage from one of the last pages
of Voltaire’s satirical novel: “I know also,” said Candide, “that we must cultivate our garden.”
“You are right,” said Pangloss, “for when man was first placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put
there ut operaretur eum, that he might cultivate it; which shows that man was not born to be
idle.” – Candide’s teacher Pangloss quotes the Bible in Latin, and adds a translation of the words
quoted (Gen 2:15).

1830. Stendhal: Le Rouge et le Noir. – Julien Sorel already as a child knows the Latin New Testament by
heart. Only later does his knowledge of Latin grow beyond biblical Latin. He is given a Latin edi ­
tion of Tacitus by his friendly bishop, dedicated with the following sentence: Erit tibi, fili mi, suc­
cessor meus tanquam leo quaerens quem devoret. Stendhal does not trust his readers’ know­
ledge of Latin and translates: Car pour toi, mon fils, mon successeur sera un lion furieux, et qui
cherche à dévorer (after 1 Pet 5:8).

1831. Victor Hugo: Notre-Dame de Paris, 1482. – It is not surprising to find Latin quotations in this nov­
el set in medieval Paris. One reads, Qui non laborat, non manducet – he who does not work, shall
not eat. The corresponding Vulgate phrase is si quis non vult operari nec manducet (2 Thess

743
 3:10). The quotation appears in book 7, chapter 4. The following editions have been consulted:
Victor Hugo: Œuvres complètes: Roman I. Edited by Jacques Seebacher. Éditions Robert Laffont.
Paris 1985 (vii, 970 pp.), p. 690; German: Der Glöckner von Notre-Dame. Translated by Else von
Schorn. Frankfurt 1957 (521 pp.), p. 272. The English title of the book is The Hunchback of Notre
Dame.

1848. Honoré de Balzac: L’envers de l’histoire contemporaine. – The novel is about a secret society. In a
time of moral decline, it wants to bear Christian witness – and win a new member (more must
not be revealed here). The motto of the society is: Transire benefaciendo (go about giving bene­
fits; after Acts 10:38). According to Balzac, Paris is ruled by a web of invisible secret societies,
some beneficial, and some evil. – The English title is: The Wrong Side of Paris, the German title:
Die Rückseite der Zeitgeschichte. The book is part of Balzac’s Scènes de la vie Parisienne.

1862. Victor Hugo: Les Misérables. – The first part of the novel, which consists of many individual stor­
ies, is about the saintly bishop of the small town of Digne. The bishop never locked his house so
that anyone could enter at any time. When one of his parish priests thinks that this is careless,
the bishop taps him on the shoulder and says: Nisi Dominus costodierit domum, in vanum vigil­
ant qui custodiunt eam (French, p. 23; German, p. 34). The quotation, left untranslated by the au­
thor, says: “Unless the Lord keep the house, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it; Wenn nicht der
Herr das Haus bewacht, halten umsonst Wache, die es bewachen” (after Psalm 127:1–2; Vg
126:1–2). Another biblical quotation, also left untranslated by the author, reads: quia multum
amavit – “because he has loved much; weil er viel liebte” (Luke 7:47; French, p. 44; German, p.
66). – The page numbers are from the following editions: Victor Hugo: Les Misérables. Presented
by Annette Roas, with notes by Guy Roas and Annette Roa. Éditions Robert Laffont. Paris 1985.
xv, 1271 pp.; Die Elenden. Translated by Paul Wiegler et al. 5th edition. Volume 1. Berlin 1995.
620 pp.

1905. Joris-Karl Huysmans: Les foules de Lourdes. Geneva 1972. ix, 346 pp. – This journalistic essay on
the Catholic pilgrimage place where pilgrims hope to be miraculously cured from all sorts of ail­
ments has an untranslated epigraph (p. v): Et secutae sunt eum turbae multae, et curavit eos ibi –
and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there (Matt 19:2). In the text, the author
invokes Col 1:24: adimpleo ea quae desunt passionum Christi – I fill up those things that are
wanting of the sufferings of Christ (p. 154).

1909. Léon Bloy: Le Sang du pauvre. Paris. – The book is peppered with Latin quotes from the Vulgate
Bible, some translated, some left untranslated. Examples, with page numbers of the 1932 Paris
edition (231 pp.): vae vobis divitibus quia habetis consolationem vestram – malheur à vous, riches,
qui avez votre consolation! (Luke 6:24 with French translation; p. 68); Sinite pueros venire ad me.
Talium est enim enim regnum Dei – let the children come to me; of such is the kingdom of God
(Luke 18:16, without translation; p. 179).

1915. Paul Claudel: Corona Benignitatis Anni Dei. Paris. 240 pp. – The title of this collection of religious
poems translates as “Wreath of the Year of God’s Goodness” (German: Kranz des Jahres der
Güte Gottes). It is taken from Psalm 65:12 (Vg 64:12).

1936. Georges Bernanos: Journal d’un curé de campagne. – Twice, at the very beginning and at the very
end of the diary, the diarist quotes from the Vulgate: sinite parvulos [venire ad me] – let the chil­
dren [come to me] (Mark 10:14); non sciunt quod facient (must be: faciunt) – they know not what
they do (Luke 23:34). Why, in the second reference, the departure from the Vulgate? I suspect
that Bernanos sought to improve the Latin by changing the indicative to the subjunctive which,
however, would be faciant. At any rate, such quotations are to be expected from a priest whose
training was based on the Vulgate and who reads the daily breviary prayers in Latin. In English,

744
 the novel is called Diary of a Country Priest, in German Tagebuch eines Landpfarrers. – The relev­
ant passages in selected editions:
2015. Bernanos: Œuvres romanesques complètes. Edited by Jacques Chabot et al. 2 vols. Bibliothèque de la
Pléiade. Paris, vol. II (xxxvi, 1251 pp.), pp. 232, 420.

2019. Georges Bernanos: Journal d’un curé de campagne. Éditions Albin Michel. Paris (345 pp.), pp. 78, 338.

2019. Bernanos: Diary of a Country Priest. Translated by Howard Curtis. Penguin Classics. London (243 pp.), pp.
46, 238.

Polish literature
1895/96. Henryk Sienkiewicz: Quo vadis? – The historical novel by the Polish author is about the love of
the Roman Vinicius for the Christian Lygia in the time of Emperor Nero who persecuted Christi ­
ans. The title of the book is taken from the legend of Saint Peter, which in turn borrows the
word from John 13:36: Domine, quo vadis? – Lord, where are you going? This phrasing, which is
more complete than the book title, is found at the end of the novel (chapter 57 and epilogue).
The English translation consulted is: H.A. Sienkiewicz: Quo Vadis. Translated from the Polish by
Jeremiah Curtin. Summit Classic Press. Akron, Ohio 2013. ix, 324 pp.

A secondary source
2021. Henryk Hoffmann. Latin in Modern Fiction. Who Says It’s a Dead Language? Wilmington, Del. xx,
285 pp. – The author lists and translates Latin words and phrases – all Latin words and phrases,
not just biblical ones – he finds in selected works of twentieth-century literature in English, fea­
turing such authors as John Scott Fitzgerald, Aldous Huxley and John Updike; there is also a
short chapter on Umberto Eco. The author rarely indicates the Latin sources. In one case, when
referencing the source, he is mistaken: sero sapiunt Phryges (too late the Phrygians become
wise) is definitely not from the biblical book of Zechariah (p. 5). The author has no doubt found
the saying in an Internet search that led to an old commentary on Zechariah where the saying is
quoted; see Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody, Mass. 1991 (xxi, 2485
pp.), p. 1569. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable book.

24.6 Literary criticism

French
1821. Joseph de Maistre: Les soirées de Saint-Petersbourg. Tome second. Paris (475 pp.), pp. 59–62: “Li­
sez donc sans cesse les psaumes, non, si vous m’en croyez, dans nos traductions modernes, qui
sont trop loin de la source, mais dans da version latine adoptée dans notre église. (…) vous ver­
rez comment une syllable, un mot, et je ne sais quelle aide légère donne à la phrase, feront jaillir
sous vos yeux des beautés de premier ordre (…) et les expressions les plus magnifiques se pré­
sentent en foule … quelle abondance d’images! Quelle richesse d’expressions!” – Read the
psalms over and over again, not, if you believe me, in our modern translations, which are too far
from the source, but in the Latin version adopted by our church. (…) you will see how a syllable,
a word, and I do not know what slight help is given to the sentence, will bring forth before your
eyes beauties of the first order (…) and the most magnificent expressions appear in abundance
(…) what an abundance of images! What a wealth of expressions!

745
1857. Gustave Flaubert: Letter to Ernest Feydeau: “Je viens de lire d’un bout à l’autre le livre de Cahen
[Samuel Cahen’s French translation of the Hebrew Bible]. Je sais bien que c’est très fidèle, très
bon, très savant, n’importe! Je préfère cette vieille Vulgate, à cause du latin! Comme ça ronfle, à
côté de ce petit français malingre et pulmoniaque! Je te montrerai deux ou trois contresens (ou
enjolivements) de ladite Vulgate qui sont beaucoup plus beaux que le sens vrai.” – I have just
read Cahen’s book [Samuel Cahen’s French translation of the Hebrew Bible] from cover to cover.
I know that it is very faithful, very good, very learned, whatever! I prefer this old Vulgate, be ­
cause of the Latin! How it snores, next to this little puny and pulmonary French! I will show you
two or three misinterpretations (or embellishments) in the said Vulgate which are much more
beautiful than the true meaning. – Gustave Flaubert: Correspondance 1857–1864. Préface de
Maurice Nadeau. Les œuvres, tome 9. Lausanne 1965 (551 pp.), p. 101.

1946. Valery Larbaud: Sous l’invocation de Saint Jérôme. Paris. 341 pp. – This fundamental work of
translation studies includes a chapter entitled “Jérôme, patron des traducteurs”; it declares
Jerome to be the genius and patron of translators. The church father is said to have devised a
language that gave the Bible its cultural radiance; his language, at once popular and noble, is
characterized by majestic simplicity of style. – Literature:
1953. Œuvres complètes de Valéry Larbaud. Tome huitième: Sous l’invocation de Saint Jérôme. Paris (405 pp.), pp.
13–68: Le patron des traducteurs. – This is the French standard edition of the text.

1956. V. Larbaud: Sankt Hieronymus, Schutzpatron der Übersetzer. Translated by Annette Kolb. Munich. 62 pp. –
An abridged German translation.

1961. Jean Steinmann: Hieronymus. Ausleger der Bibel. Translated from the French by Auguste Schorn. Cologne
1961 (364 pp.), pp. 195–196. – A long quotation from Larbaud’s book.

1984. V. Larbaud: An Homage to Jerome: Patron Saint of Translators. Translated by Jean-Paul de Chezet. Marlboro,
Vermont 1984. x, 44 pp. – English translation of the relevant chapter.

1995. Anne Chevalier: Le Saint Jérôme de Larbaud; in: Auguste Dezalay – Françoise Lioure (eds.): Valery Larbaud.
Espaces et temps de l’humanisme. Clermont-Ferrand 1995 (x, 194 pp.), pp. 105–116.

1997. Sous l’invocation de Saint Jérôme. Paris. 353 pp. The French text has frequently been reprinted; this is the
“édition augmentée de textes annexes.”

1949. Paul Claudel: Il faut rendre l’Ancien Testament au peuple chrétien. In: idem: J’aime la Bible. Paris
1955 (155 pp.), pp. 41–44. – Pages 41–42: “Il faut rendre l’Ancien Testament au peuple chrétien.
(…) De ce texte sacré nous avons le bonheur de posséder une transcription incomparable, sanc­
tionnée depuis des siècles par l’autorité et par la pratique de l’Église, en qui je vois le chef-
d’œuvre, le sommet, la gloire de la langue latine: je veux parler de la Vulgate. S’il ne tenait qu’à
moi, elle formerait la base de l’éducation des enfants, comme les poèmes d’Homère, qu’elle do­
mine d’une telle hauteur, l’étaient autrefois de celle des jeunes Grecs.” – English: “We must give
the Old Testament back to the Christian people. (…) Of this sacred text we have the good for­
tune to possess an incomparable transcription, sanctioned for centuries by the authority and
practice of the Church, in which I see the masterpiece, the summit, the glory of the Latin lan ­
guage – I mean the Vulgate. If it were up to me, it would form the basis of the education of chil­
dren, as the poems of Homer, which it dominates with such a height, were formerly the basis of
the education of young Greeks.” – German: “Es gilt, das Alte Testament dem christlichen Volk
zurückzugeben. (…) Zum Glück besitzen wir eine unvergleichliche Übertragung dieses heiligen
Textes, die seit Jahrhunderten von der Autorität und der Praxis der Kirche gutgeheißen wird, in
der ich das Meisterwerk, den Höhepunkt, den Ruhm der lateinischen Sprache sehe: ich meine
die Vulgata. Könnte ich allein bestimmen, so würde sie die Grundlage für die Erziehung der Kin­
der bilden, so wie einst die Dichtung Homers, die sie turmhoch überragt, die Grundlage der Er­
ziehung der griechischen Jugend waren.” – The comparison of the Old Testament with the po­

746
 etry of Homer and the assertion of the Bible’s superiority echoes François-René de Chateaubri­
and: Génie du Christianisme (1802; part II, book 5: The Bible and Homer). Claudel’s essay was ori­
ginally included as the preface in: Jean de Monléon OSB: Histoire sainte. Tome 1. Paris 1953, 491
pp., and dated November 15, 1949. An English translation can be found in: Paul Claudel: The Es­
sence of the Bible. New 1957 (120 pp.), pp. 29–31; for a German version, see Claudel : Briefe über
die Bibel. Kaldenkirchen 1956 (61 pp.), pp. 13–16. – Literature:
1981. Michio Kurimura: La Vulgate dans L’Histoire de Tobie et de Sara, moralité en trois actes de Paul Claudel.
Études de langue et de littérature française (Tokio) 38: (1981) 49–71.

2000. Maryze Bazaud: Bible de Paul Claudel. Centre Jacques Petit 92. Besançon 2000, vii, 904 pp. 2 vols. – Bazaud
lists all of the poet’s biblical references, arranged according to the canonical order of the biblical scriptures,
in the words of the Vulgate.

2012. Marie-Ève Benoteau-Alexandre: Les Psaumes selon Paul Claudel. Paris. 908 pp.

German
1863. Jacob Arnold Hagen: Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata. Freiburg (iv, 106 pp.), pp. 7–8: “Abge­
sehen von der Treue, die allgemein anerkannt ist, hier jedoch nicht in Betracht kommt, ist die
Sprache der Vulgata im Ganzen klar und fließend, kräftig und würdevoll, wie es dem Gegenstand
der Darstellung geziemt. Am schönsten ist unstreitig der Pentateuch und überhaupt die von Hi­
eronymus selbständig übersetzten Bücher; aber auch in den Evangelien, die von Hieronymus nur
hie und da gebessert wurden, ist eine Kraft und Würde der Sprache, die bei dem Leser einen
nachhaltigen Eindruck zurückläßt.” – English: Apart from the fidelity, which is generally acknow­
ledged, but not considered here, the language of the Vulgate is on the whole clear and fluent,
vigorous and dignified, as befits the subject matter. The most beautiful is undoubtedly the
Pentateuch and, in general, the books translated independently by Jerome; but even in the Gos­
pels, which Jerome improved only here and there, there is a strength and dignity of language
that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

1932. Wilhelm Süß: Das Problem der lateinischen Bibelsprache. Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27: 1–39. –
Pages 14–15: “Soweit meine Kenntnis reicht, ist auffallenderweise nirgends bei den Vätern etwas
von einem Gefühl für die spezifische Schönheit des Bibellateins zu spüren, während in neuerer
Zeit trotz des Verdikts der Schulpedanten doch eigentlich immer die wohlerwogene Verwen­
dung von lateinischen Bibelzitaten bei Poeten und Romanschriftstellern besonders romanischer
Zungen Zeugnis dafür ablegte, daß man stimmungsgemäß sich dem Zauber dieser Sprache
nicht entzog.”

2016. Alfons Fürst: Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. 2nd edition. Freiburg. 444
pp. – Hieronymus hat “mit seiner lateinischen Bibel ein stilistisch einheitliches und literaturästhe­
tisch anspruchsvolles Kunstwerk geschaffen” (p. 89). Jerome “created with his Latin Bible a styl­
istically uniform and literary-aesthetically sophisticated work of art.”

English
c. 1907. Francis Thompson in a critical essay: “No tongue can say so much in so little. And literary dif­
fuseness is tamed in our Vulgate not only by the terser influence of of rustic Latin, but by the
needs begotten of Hebrew brevity. Nor to any unprejudiced ear can this Vulgate Latin be un­
musical. For such an ear [no authority is] needed to certify its fine variety of new movement.
Surge, propera, amica mea, columba mea, formosa mea, et veni [Cant 2:10]; that and the whole
passage which follows, or that preceding strain closing it – fulcite me floribus, stipate me malis,
quia amore langueo [Cant 2:5]: could prose have more loveliness of melody? Compare it even

747
 with the beautiful corresponding English of the Authorised (Protestant) Version; the advantage
in music is not to the English, but to the soft and wooing fall of these deliciously lapsing syl­
lables.” Francis Thompson (1858–1907) was an English Catholic poet. Everard Meynell: The Life
of Francis Thompson, New York 1913 (ix, 361 pp.), p. 171.

1941. Julien Green: Translation and the ‘Fields of Scripture’ – La traduction et le “Champ des Écritures.”
In: idem: Le langage et son double – The Language and Its Shadow. Paris 1987 (401 pp.), pp. 177–
203. – This essay was originally written in English and published in 1941; the French translation is
the author’s own. Page 182/84: “Like a great many American children I was brought upon the
king James Version. (…) But when I was about sixteen, I discovered two other versions which I
read with unequal pleasure. One was a French version, the other was the Vulgate. (…) [Green did
not like the French Bible.] From the Vulgate I received a very different impression. To begin with,
owing to my ignorance and ingenuousness, I thought that, Latin being older than either English
or French, the Vulgate must of necessity be nearer to the original. Quite apart from that, I was
awed by the magnificence of the language as well as by the venerable age of the translation.
This, I said to myself, is the Bible the Christian Church was reading when England was still
peopled with illiterate half-savages who could barely express anything like a thought. Each sen ­
tence seemed bathed in incense. The most familiar and simplest phrases of the English Bible ap­
peared here clothed in a majesty the like of which I had never dreamed. It was a real joy to read
the Prophets in this superb language which, as it were, had ‘caught their shrieks in cups of
gold.’” The poetic expression quoted at the end is from William Blake’s poem “The Mental Trav­
eller.”

1974. Northrop Frye: “Vulgate Bible the most sustained mistranslation in history.” This incomplete sen­
tence is part of the notes, the Canadian literary critic (1912–1991) wrote for a lecture. In the
notes, the context is the theme of literary translation. What claims to be the translation of a liter­
ary work may in fact be a new, altogether different work. Frye, who was an ordained minister of
the United Church of Canada, most likely meant to refer to Jerome’s making the Old Testament
a book about Christ, thereby giving it an artificial coherence – hence the aphorism. We must be ­
ware of misunderstanding the aphorism because it is not meant to be critical of the Vulgate.
Collected Works of Northrop Frye. Edited by Robert D. Denham and Michael Dolzani. Volume 25.
Toronto (lviii, 519 pp.), p. 334.

1975. J.N.D. Kelly: Jerome. His Life, Writings and Controversies. London. xi, 353 pp. – Page 163: Jerome
“raised the vulgar latinity of the Christians to the hights of great literature.”

24.7 The Vulgate Bible in art: illustrations, inscriptions, echoes

Note. – From late antiquity until the Renaissance, Western artists relied on the Vulgate when it came
to depict biblical figures or scenes. In the sixteenth century, artists began to draw upon vernacular
Bibles. There are at least three traditional iconographic motifs directly deriving from the Latin Bible: the
horns of Moses, INRI, and the veiled Synagogue.

Iconography

Individual works of art

Secondary literature

748
Iconography
Moses cornutus – the horned Moses [der gehörnte Mose]. – Artists often portray Moses with horns
protruding from his upper forehead. The most famous example is Michelangelo’s Moses sculp­
ture mentioned below. This iconography is based on Jerome’s rendering of Exodus 34:29, a pas­
sage that describes how Moses’s face was changed after he had encountered God: cornuta esset
facies sua – his face was horned. This passage has also echoed in literature; see the example
from Thomas Mann quoted below.

1944. Thomas Mann: Das Gesetz. As Moses worked on the two tablets on which he inscribed the
Ten Commandments, “it seemed to him as if rays like two horns stood out from the locks
of his forehead.” The original German text has: “Und immer war ihm dabei, als stünden
ihm Strahlen gleich einem Paar Hörner aus dem Stirnhaar hervor.” – Thomas Mann: The
Tables of the Law. London 1947 (124 pp.), p. 109 (chapter 18); Das Gesetz, in: idem:
Sämtliche Erzählungen. Frankfurt 1963 (766 pp.), pp. 641–694, at p. 688.

1963. E.G. Suhr: The Horned Moses. Folklore [London] 74: 387–395.

1970. Ruth Melinkoff: The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought. Berkeley, Cal. xix, 210 pp.

2019. Eric X. Jarrard: Double Entendre in Exodus 34: Revisiting the QRN of Moses. Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 388–406. – A biblical scholar seeks to under­
stand the Hebrew text of the Exodus passage.

Insipiens – the fool [der Tor]. Dixit insipiens in corde suo: deus non est – the fool said in his heart: there
is no God (Psalm 53:2, Vg 52:2). Illustrated Psalters frequently include a portrayal of the fool. The
illustrations of the 13th century conceive the insipiens as a moral personification. Nudity and
baldness are the visual expression of the shameful state of an insipiens, while the stick and the
bread appear as symbols of the rebellion against the faith, as it suggests the fifth verse of the
Psalm. From the 14th century a new image of the insipiens appears in terms of natural fool or
court jester. – Angelika Gross: L’exégèse iconographique du terme insipiens du Psaume 52. His­
torical Reflections/Reflexions hintoriques 16 (1989) 265–285.

INRI – the title of the cross [der Kreuzestitel]. Whenever artists depart from depicting a merely abstract
cross by creating a crucifix, i.e., a cross with the dead, loin-clothed, tortured, and pierced body of
Christ, they regularly fix to it a titulus – an inscription that reads INRI, for Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudaeorum (John 19:19) – Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. The complete passage: Scripsit
autem et titulum Pilatus. Et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum; Iesus Nazarenus, Rex
Iudaeorum – And Pilate wrote a title also; and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: Je ­
sus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. Famous examples include the imperial crown of the Holy
Roman Empire (which abbreviates only the name of Jesus) and Grünewald’s Isenheim altarpiece
(which has inri), see below. – E. Lucchesi Palli: Kreuztitulus. In: Engelbert Kirschbaum SJ (ed.):
Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie. Band 2. Freiburg 1970), 36* pp., 716 cols), cols. 648–649.

Synagoga velata – the veiled Synagogue [die Synagoge mit Augenbinde]. Until this day, writes saint
Paul, whenever the text of the Old Testament is read, there is a veil upon the heart of the Jews
(velamen positum est super cor eorum), so that they do not understand that the sacred text is ac­

749
 tually about Christ (1 Cor 3:14–15). Inspired by this passage, medieval artists have often given
the Synagogue the form of a woman whose eyes are veiled, so that she cannot see (the truth,
i.e., Christ). Typically, the blindfolded Synagogue is portrayed in tandem with Ecclesia, church
personified, who freely looks around.

1946. Wolfgang Seiferth: Synagoge und Kirche im Mittelalter. Munich. 246 pp. – English transla­
tion: Synagogue and Church in the Middle Ages. Two Symbols in Art and Literature . New
York 1970. ix, 213 pp.

2011. Nina Rowe: The Jew, the Cathedral, and the Medieval City. Synagoga and Ecclesia in the
Thirteenth Century. Cambridge. xvii, 326 pp.

Individual works of art

Maskell Ivory Crucifixion

420/30. Carved ivory relief showing dead Judas hanging from a tree and Christ cruxified, portrayed as a
man with a youthful, vigorous, muscular body. Above the nimbed head of Christ is the abbrevi ­
ated titulus inscription REX IVD for rex Iudaeorum – King of the Jews. This is most likely the earli­
est example of the titulus inscription in Christian art. The ivory object, which may have been
made in Rome, is in the British Museum (MME 1856, 06–23.5). – Jeffrey Spier: Picturing the Bible.
The Earliest Christian Art. New Haven (xvi, 309 pp.), pp. 229–232.

Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire

962 or c. 1000. Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire; Reichskrone des Heiligen Römischen
Reiches, kept at the Imperial Treasury at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna (Kaiserliche Schatzkam ­
mer in der Hofburg, Wien). This unique work of art has five quotations from the Vulgate Bible:
(1,2) associated with two portrayals of Christ are two inscriptions – IHC nazarenus rex iudeorum
(Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, John 19:19); p(er) me reges regnant (by me kings reign, Prov
8:15); (3) associated with King Solomon: time Dominum et recede a malo (fear the Lord and stay
away from evil, Prov 3:7); (4) associated with King David: honor regis iudicium diligit (the king’s
honour loves judgment, Ps 99:4, Vg 98:4); (5) associated with the prophet Isaiah who promises
King Hezekiah: ecce adiciam super dies tuos xv annos (and I [God] will add to your days fifteen
years, Isa 38:5). Jan Keupp et al.: Die Reichskleinodien – Herrschaftszeichen des Heiligen Römis­
chen Reiches. Regensburg 2009 (108 pp.9, pp. 29, 35.

Jan van Eyck: Last Judgment

1430s. This Last Judgment painting originated in Bruges (Brugge, in Belgium; it is now in the Metropol ­
itan Museum of Art, New York. The lower part of the painting shows hell, and if you carefully
study it, you will find several Latin inscriptions – ite vos maledicti in ignem eternam – you, the
damned, go into the eternal fire (Matt 25:41); chaos magnum – the great abyss (Luke 16:27);
umbra mortis – shadow of death (Ps 23:3, Vg 22:4).

Michelangelo: Moses
1513–1515. The sculpture of the horned and bearded Moses as seated figure with two tablets of the
law is now in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome. The sculpture echoes Exodus 34:29
(cornuta esset facies sua), a Vulgate passage that shaped the iconography of Moses. Literature:

1970. Ruth Melinkoff: The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought. Berkeley, Cal. xix, 210 pp.

750
 2008. Benjamin Blech – Roy Doliner: The Sistine Secrets. Michelangelo’s Forbidden Messages in
the Heart of the Vatican. New York 2008. xvi, 320 pp. Blech, an American rabbi, teams up
with a Jewish art historian to reassess Michelangelo’s attitude towards the Jews. A contro ­
versial book.

2020. On Michelangelo and the Vulgate Bible, see Gerd Blum: “In foramine petrae.” Michelange­
los wörtliche Auslegung der Vulgata und die Hörner seines Moses in San Pietro in Vincoli.
Vulgata in Dialogue 4: 45–78 (online journal).

2023. Gerd Blum: Die Hörner von Michelangelos Moses zwischen Affirmation und Abwertung. In:
Schmid/Fieger, pp. 133–134.

Grünewald: The Isenheim altarpiece

1513–1515. In Mathias Grünewald’s altarpiece, now housed in the Musée Unterlinden in Comar, Alsace,
the central figure is the crucified Christ. On the cross, above Christ’s thorn-crowned head is a
rectangular wooden board onto which a sheet of paper is fixed, inscribed i.n.r.i., the traditional
abbreviation of Iesus Nazarenus rex iudaeorum – Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, as reported
in the Gospel of John (John 19:19).

Albrecht Dürer: Saint Jerome

1514. Der heilige Hieronymus im Gehäus – Saint Jerome in His Study. Copper etching. – This etching
belongs to the most accomplished and rightly most famous works of the German artist. It shows
Jerome as he sits at his desk, absorbed by writing. Fixed to one of the heavy beams of the
study’s ceiling is a huge pumpkin or rather bottle-gourd, complete with an equally huge leaf of
the plant. Rather than being a decorative element, it is intended to remind the viewer of a fam­
ous episode – the dispute between Jerome and Augustine on the translation of a passage in the
book of Jonah. According to art historian Adolf Weis, Dürer captures the very moment when
Jerome writes a letter to Augustine to defend his decision not to call the plant a pumpkin but an
ivy. On this interpretation of the etching, it makes sense that the saint is placed at the center of
the pictorial axis that connects the books (the Bible translation, placed on the shelf in the lower
left corner) with the gourd (placed at the upper right corner of the etching). From Jerome’s per ­
spective, the gourd is depicted as a trophy that hangs from the ceiling to his left, whereas the
proper translation is in the books, to his right. Interestingly – and perhaps inspired by the epis ­
ode and Dürer’s etching – Luther in his German translation of the Bible restored the “pumpkin”
(Kürbis) that Jerome had banned from the Vulgate. The King James Version of 1611 opted for
“gourd,” designating a group of plants that include the pumpkin. – Literature:

1971. Peter W. Parshall: Albrecht Dürer’s St. Jerome in His Study. A Philological Reference. The
Art Bulletin 53 (1971) 303–305.

1982. Adolf Weis: “ … diese lächerliche Kürbisfrage …”. Christlicher Humanismus in Dürer’s Hi­
eronymusbild. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 49: 195–201.

2013. Ulrich Kuder: Dürers “Hieronymus im Gehäus.” Der Heilige im Licht. Hamburg 307 pp. –
Kuder, a medieval art historian, asks why Jerome is not surrounded by books; he suggests
that Dürer knew of Jerome’s promise, given in a dream (Jerome: Letter 22; see above,
Chapter 10.3), no longer to read pagan authors. (This aspect of Kuder’s interpretation of
Dürer’s etching will no doubt remain controversial. B. Lang).

2023. Bernhard Lang – Gia Toussaint: Dürer “Hieronymus im Gehäus.” In: Schmid/Fieger, pp.
135–136.

751
 Some other examples of medieval and early-modern Jerome iconography are discussed in these
sources:

1974. Renate Miehe: Hieronymus. In: Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie. Edited by Wolfgang
Braunfels. 6. Band. Freiburg (26* pp., 587 cols.), cols. 519–529.

2003. Rosa Giorgi: Saints in Art. Translated by Thomas Michael Hartmann. Los Angeles (384 pp.),
pp. 179–184.

2011. Ronald V. Huggins: The Repentance of Jerome. Midwestern Journal of Theology 10: 190–
200, at pp. 197–200.

2023. Anneliese Felber – Christoph Gottmann-Binder: Hieronymus als Gelehrter in der Ikonogra­
phie. In: Anneliese Felber (ed.), Hieronymus und die Vulgata. Quellen und Rezeption. Stutt­
gart (ix, 212 pp.), pp. 123–157. – The article shows the development from the late antique
author’s picture to “Jerome in his study” by Tommaso da Modena, Jan van Eyck and Al ­
brecht Dürer, who finally, with the introduction of the skull into the interior space estab ­
lishes the connection with the (popular) type of the penitent. A new conception of space,
the vanitas theme, as well as a changed attitude towards death characterize the repres­
entations at their peak and make Jerome a contemplative thinker.

2023. Andreas Mertin: Der heilige Hieronymus im Bild. In: Schmid/Fieger, pp. 131–133.

Tympanon of the cathedral of Saint-Denis, France

1830s. The original, 12th-century Last Judgment tympanon of the main portal of this famous gothic
church is no longer extant. In the 19th century, it was replaced by a Christ enthroned who acts
as the judge of the Last Judgement. He holds two banderoles inscribed with his words: VENITE
BENEDICTI PATRIS MEI (come, blessed ones of my father, Matt 25:34 ) and DISCEDITE A ME
MALEDICTI (depart from me, you cursed ones, Matt 25:41)

Henri Matisse: illustrations of the Song of Songs (early 1950s)

1962. [Henri Matisse, 1869–1954] Cantique des Cantiques de Salomon selon la Vulgate. Translated by
Claude Grégory. Le Club français du livre. Paris. 82 pp. – This is a bilingual, Latin and French, edi­
tion of the Song of Songs, accompanied by fifteen lithograph drawings by Matisse, in black and
white. The translator of the Vulgate text is Claude Grégory. – The drawings are from the early
1950s, and the model was Denise Rebecca Arokas, later a fashion model in Paris.

2006. Michel Butor: Cantique de Matisse. Paris. 57 pp.

Secondary literature

English
1898. David Kaufmann: Errors in the Septuagint and Vulgate from which Illustrations and Sculptures
Dervied Their Origin. Jewish Quarterly Review 11.1: 163–166. – The author considers two cases:
Ps 24:7 (Vg 23:7): attolite portas principes vestras; and Ps 28:7 (Vg 27:7): refloruit caro mea.

1965. Peter Brieger: Bible Illustration and the Gregorian Reform. Studies in Church History 2: 154–164.

1999. John Williams (ed.): Imaging the Early Medieval Bible. University Park, Penn. 229 pp.

752
2003. C. Michael Kauffmann: Biblical Imagery in Medieval England 700–1550. London. xxxii, 365 pp.

2004. Frank O. Büttner: The Illuminated Psalter. Studies in the Content, Purpose and Placement of Its Im­
ages. Turnhout. viii, 616 pp.

2006. Christopher G. Hughes: Art and Exegesis. In: Conrad Rudolph (ed.): A Companion to Medieval Art:
Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe. Malden, Mass. (xxii, 676 pp.), pp. 173–192. – “This
chapter sets out to describe the relationship between art and biblical exegesis as it is expressed
in the Romanesque and Gothic periods, as well as in the modern art historical literature on the
subject” (p. 173).

2012. John Lowden: Illustration in Biblical Manuscripts. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter (eds.): The
New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp.
446–820.

2012. John Mitchell: The Bible in Public Art, 600–1050. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter (eds.): The
New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii, 1045 pp.), pp.
755–784.

2012. C. Michael Kauffmann: The Bible in Public Art, 1050–1450. In: Richard Marsden – E. Ann Matter
(eds.): The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 2: From 600 to 1450. Cambridge (xxii,
1045 pp.), pp. 785–820.

2018. Richard K. Emmerson: Apocalypse Illuminated. The Visual Exegesis of Revelation in Medieval Illus­
trated Manuscripts. University Park, Penn. 288 pp.

2023. Guy Lobrichon: The Production of Medieval Bibles. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford Hand­
book of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 187–207. – The author presents the develop­
ment of the Latin Bible in the West from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. Overall, five
types of bibles are found in this period: liturgical bibles, glossed bibles, portable bibles, luxury
bibles, and picture bibles. The rise of illustrated bibles is seen in the two Bibles of Pamplona and
the Bible moralisée, as well as certain ‘parabiblical’ books such as the Speculum humanae salva­
tionis and the Biblia pauperum. Consideration is given to the role played by patrons as well as
producers and users in developing new styles and formats, and the contexts in which they were
used, such as the requirements of the different religious orders and schools.

2023. Michelle P. Brown: Latin Bibles: Materiality and Art History. In: H.A.G. Houghton (ed.): The Oxford
Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford (xxxviii, 522 pp.), pp. 459–490. – M.P. Brown deals with the
materiality and art history of illuminated manuscript books of the Bible and its component parts
in Latin, with some reference to their western vernacular language derivatives. It covers the late
Roman and Early Christian period to the Reformation. The arrangement is broadly chronological,
addressing themes such as the codicological format, scripts, artistic style, iconography, devo­
tional intent, performative liturgical use, patronage, and context of production and use. The so­
cio-historical contextualization of Bibles is also discussed. The chapter also considers the role of
illumination as a form of visual biblical exegesis and its value and functions in the complex liter­
acy of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

2023. Robin M. Jensen: The Bible in the Pictorial Art of Late Antique North Africa. In: Jonathan P. Yates
– Anthony Dupont (eds.): The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part II. Berlin (in press).

French
1940. Victor Leroquais: Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publics de France. Tome I. Ma­
con. cxxxvi, 293 pp. – The author’s long introduction includes much material on the iconography

753
 of illuminated medieval Latin Psalters. There is also a second volume (519 pp.) and a volume of
plates (cxl planches). – Review: R. Maere, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 40 (1944) 201–204.

1985. Françoise Monfrin: La Bible dans l’iconographie chrétienne d’Occident. In: Jacques Fontaine –
Charles Pietri (eds.): Le monde antique et la Bible. La Bible de tous les temps 2. Paris (672 pp.),
pp. 207–239.

2009. Roselyne de Ayala (ed.): La Bible et les peintres de la Renaissance. Paris. 463 pp. – Preface by Jean
Delumeau.

2017. Guy Lobrichon: Naissance des Bibles en images. In: Laurence Mellerin (ed.): Lectures de la Bible.
Ier – XVe siècle. Paris (652 pp.), pp. 485–514.

754
Index of persons

The references are to chapters (not pages) in this con-, com- 19.2 (glossary)
book. Dictionnaire latin–français 1; 8.3 (Latin-French)
Manuel du latin chrétien 1; 8.1 (French)
Adkin, Neil 10.3 (special section: studies by Adkin) Bogaert OSB, Pierre-Maurice 6
Alcuin 14.4 Büchmann, Georg 5 (theory); 24.4
Allgeier, Arthur
on the word Vulgata 2.1 Caesar 21 (textual note on Deut 19:3)
on homophony 8.7 Calvin, John 16.2
on Old Latin Psalters 9.7 (Lefèvre d’Etaples) Carafa, Antonio 7.4; 16.1 (French, 1890)
on Psalterium Gallicanum 11.4 Cassiodorus 7.2 (Codex Amiatinus); 14.4
Allioli, Joseph Franz 18.2 Castellano, Alberto 15.2
Aptowitzer, Victor 10.4 (German 1909) Castellio, Sébastien 15.6; 21 (textual note on Lev 18:6)
Apuleius 19.2 (horripilare); 21 (textual notes on Sir Catullus 19.2 (glossary s.v. multivolus); 21 (textual
27:15 and Isa 10:14) note on Sir 9:3); 22 (textual note on Matt 8:8)
Arndt SJ, Augustin 18.2 Challoner, Richard 18.1
Arnold, Matthew 5 (theory) Chemnitz, Martin 16.2
Arx, Ildefons von, OSB 7.2 (Codex Sangallensis) Cicero 8.3; 10.3; 19.2 (conscientia; ratio); 21 (textual
Augustine notes on Gen 2:1 [ornatus]; 6:5; Deut 31:21; Judg
correspondence with Jerome 14.1 20:25; Jer 5:8 and Koh 8:17)

on Jerome’s Amos translation 22 (textual note on Claudel, Paul 24.5–6

Am 6:1–6) Clement VIII (Pope) 16.5
on Jonah 4:6 21 (textual note) Condamin SJ, Albert 10.7 (secondary lit. on Jerome as
on mulier 19.1 (glossary s.v. mulier) a translator); 18.4 (French)

and the Psalms 9.7 (Lefèvre d’Etaples); 11.4 (Psal­ Crampon, Augustin 18.3
terium Romanum: de Bruyne 1930)
and the Itala 9.6 Dalpane, Francesco 8.3 (Latin-Italian dictionaries)
Damasus (Pope)
Bacon, Roger 2.2 (English 1948); 14.4 biblical canon 11.6 (sources)
Barthélemy OP, Dominique 10.5 (English 2009); 13.3 and Jerome’s revision of the Latin gospels 11.3
(assessments 1992); 15.1 (English 2012, French Dante 20.3 (commentary on Titus); 24.5
1992); 15.2 (Stephanus 1986)
De Bruyne, Donatien OSB
Baumgarten, Paul Maria 16.4
on Psalterium Romanum 11.4
Bea SJ, Augustin 16.1 (official declarations, 1943);
16.6; 17 (note) on letter to Sunnia et Fretela 11.4

Bellarmine SJ, Robert 16.1–3 on the Song of Songs 11.5

Benedict of Nursia 14.5 (German 1930) on Pauline letters 12.1

Berger, Samuel 14.3 (French) Denk, Joseph 9.6 (1908); 9.7 (Beuron Vetus Latina)

Bianchini, Giuseppe 9.7 Döllinger, Ignaz 16.4; 22 (textual note on 1 John 5:7–
8, 1889)
Blaise, Albert 1; 8.1; 8.3

755
Dürer, Albrecht 21 (textual note on Jonah 4:6); 24.7 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 24.5
Dutripon, François Pascal 8.2 (concordance, 1838) Green, Julian 24.6
Duval, Yves-Marie Gregory the Great (Pope) 14.4; 21 (Job 42:14)
Jerome’s biblical canon 11.6 (French) Grundl OSB, Beda 18.2
Jerome’s biblical commentaries 20.1 (German) Gryson, Roger 1; 7.1 (introductory note); 9.7 (Beuron
Jerome chronology 11.8 Vetus Latina: introductory note); 13.4; 20 (Isaiah);
21 (textual note on Isa 8:2)
book of Jonah 20.2 (Jonah)
Guardini, Romano 16.6 (German translation of Psal­
Jerome’s letter 22 10.3 terium Pianum)
reference works 3 (French); 10.1 (articles)

Haelewyck, Jean-Claude 6 (current bibliographies);

Eco, Umberto 24.5 9.2 (surveys: French); 9.7 (Beuron Vetus Latina)
Erasmus 15.4 Hagen, Jacob Arnold 2.2; 8.6 (German)
and Jerome 20.2 (Habakkuk, secondary literature Hagendahl, Harald 10.3
2010) Harden, John M. 8.3 (Vulgate dictionaries, New Testa­
textual notes Old Testament 21 (Jonah 4:6) ment)
textual notes New Testament 22 (Luke 16:26; John Harding, Stephen 14.4
1:3–4; 7:39; 7:53–8:11; Acts 1:15; Rom 5:12; 2 Henten, John 16.3 (Louvain Bible); 16.1 (English)
Tim 2:22)
Herbert of Bosham 14.8
and the comma Johanneum 22 (1 John 5:7–8)
Hieronymus → Jerome
and the term Vulgata 2.2 (German 1948)
Horace 10.3 (introductory note); 19.2 (glossary s.v.
Ess [Eß], Leander van 9.6; 14.3(German 1824); 16.1 scruta)
(German)
Houghton, Hugh 3 (English 2016, 2023)
Étienne, Robert 15.2
Hugh of St. Cher 8.2
Eusebius of Caesarea 10.4 (French); 11.9 (canon
tables)
Eustochium (Jerome’s letter 22 to) 10.3 Isidore of Seville 14.4

Faber Stapulensis → Lefèvre d’Étaples Jahn, Martin Johann (John) 10.6 (Jerome and Greek
biblical translations)
Fieger, Michael 2.2 (introductory note); 18.4 (Tuscu­
lum Vulgate) James, Thomas 16.5

Fischer OSB, Bonifatius Jerome

computer pioneer 7.5 (introductory note) biography 10.1

Vetus Latina 9 (introductory note) chronology 11.8

Vetus Latina-Institute (Beuron) 9.7 (introductory letter 22 10.3 (Jerome’s dream); 21 (Koh 3:5); 24
note) (individual works of art: Dürer)

Vulgate concordance 8.2 letter 53 (Bible survey) 10.3 (English 2007); 11.6
(canon); 20.4; 21 (Leviticus)
Latin gospels 7.5
letter 57 (to Pammachius on translating) 10.7
and Rufinus the Syrian 12.1
letter 65 22 (textual note on Ps 45 [Vg 44])
Franciscus Lucas Brugensis 8.2 (history of concord­
ances, 1979); 15.2 (Louvain Bible) letter 104 (by Augustine) 14.1 (Jerome-Augustine
correspondence)
Fürst, Alfons 6 (completed bibliographies, 2016); 10.1;
10.2; 21 (textual note on Jonah 4:6) letter 106 (to Sunnia and Fretela) 10.5 (sources);
11.4
letter 134 (to Augustine) 11.5 (introductory note)
García de la Fuente, Olegario 5 (theory: Spanish); 8.1
(Spanish) letter 140 21 (textual note on Ps 90 [Vg 89])

Glaire, Jean-Baptiste 18.3 literary merits 24.6

756
 prefaces to his biblical translations 11.7 Lucretius 10.3 (Opelt, 1972)
and Augustine 14.1 Luther, Martin 15.5;
and the Bible 11.1–9 attitude to the Vulgate 15.5
and the canon 11.6 textual notes 22 (Luke 1:28; 1 John 5:7–8); 23.2 (in­
and Pope Damasus 11.3 troductory note on 2 Ezra)

and the gospels 11.3; 22 (introductory section

“The Four Gospels”) Marbeck, John 8.2
and Hebrew language 10.4 Martianay OSB, Jean 9.7 (Vetus Latina); 13.1 (Vulgata)
and Jewish learning 10.4; 20.2 (Jonah, secondary Mentelin, Johannes 18.2
literature 2020) Michelangelo 24.7
and Latin 8.9 Milton, John 10.3 (Jerome’s letter 22)
and Latin literature 10.3 Mohrmann, Christine
and the New Testament 12 on Christian Latin 4; 8.8 (North African Latin,
and the Psalms 11.4 1949); 8.9
and the Septuagint 10.6 on Psalterium Pianum 16.6 (English)
and Symmachus 10.6
and Vergil 10.3 Nautin, Pierre 10.4 (introductory note)
in modern fiction 24.2 Nestle, Eberhard
John Paul II (Pope) 17.1–2 on theology and philology 2.2 (introductory note)
Jonas, Justus 15.5; 21 (Tobit) edition of Vulgate New Testament 16.2 (scholarly
Joyce, James 24.5 editions)

Jünger, Ernst 24.5 Vulgate history 3 (German)

on Sirach 21 (Sir 15:21)

Kaulen, Franz 1; 3 (German) Newman, John Henry 18.1

history of the Vulgate 3 (German 1868) Newton, Isaac 22 (textual note on 1 John 5:7–8)

grammar of Vulgate Latin 1; 8.1 (German 1904) Nicolaus Maniacutius 14.8 (2017)

on Vetus Latina 9.4 (introductory note)

Knox, Ronald Oborski, Frank 5 (German textbooks)

English translation of the Vulgate 18.1 O’Hagan, Joan 24.2

translation of the Psalterium Pianum 16.6 Origen

and meaning of words 8.4 (French 1966)

Langton, Stephen 14.4 (Latin Bible in England, 2008; and Hebrew 10.4 (French 1934, 1977); 10.5
Paris Bible); 14.7 (sources; English 2017; German 2016)

Larbaud, Valery 24.6 and Septuagint 10.6 (sources 392; Greek transla­
tions 2007)
Lee, Edward 15.4
and Jerome’s commentaries 20.1 (English 1993;
Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques 2.1 (word studies); 9.7 German 1912)
(Psalms)
and Jerome’s Old Testament commentaries 20.2
Livy/Livius 19.1 (congratulari; vae); 21 (Lev 20:2–27; (Psalms; Isaiah: De Seraphim; Daniel; Jonah;
Ezek 12:4); 22 (Matt 1:19) Habakkuk; Malachi)
Loch, Valentin and Jerome’s New Testament commentaries 20.2
editions of the Vulgate 2.2; 16.2 (other editions) (Matthew; Epistles of St. Paul)
Vulgate grammar 2.2; 8.4 (German 1870) Ovid 10.3; 21 (textual note on Esth 5:3); 22 (textual
note on Mark 6:22)
Locke, John 5 (theory)
Lucas Brugensis 8.2 (history of concordances, 1979);
16.3 (Louvain Bible) Pammachius 10.7; 14.2 (note)

757
Paul VI (Pope) 17.1 Stummer, Friedrich 2.3; 10.4 (German); 21 (Judith:
Pelagius 12.1; 14.4 German)

Peters, Norbert 21 (Sirach: further literature, 1913) Stummer’s handbook 3 (German 1928); 16.4

Petronius 22 (textual note on Matt 18:28) Stummer and Allgeier 11.4 (Allgeier)

Pius XII (Pope) 16.6 Suetonius 8.8 (introductory note); 22 (textual note on
Acts 11:26)
Plautus 21 (textual note on Isa 22:18)
Sunnia and Fretela 10.5 (sources); 11.4
Pope, Hugh OP 12 (introductory note)

Theodulf 14.4
Quentin OSB, Henri 13.3
Thielmann, Philipp 8.4 (German); 21 (Judith, Weish,
Sir, 1–2 Macc)
Rahmer, Moritz 10.4 (German 1861); 20 (minor Thomas a Kempis 14.4 (Windesheim)
prophets, Amos); 21 (Prov 23:10)
Titelmans, Frans 15.4; 22 (note on Rom 5:12)
Rahner SJ, Karl 4
Tweedale, Michael 16.2 (Clementina: other editions,
Richards, George C. 8.3 (Vulgate dictionaries, New 2005)
Testament)
Rönsch, Hermann 8.1 (German); 9.2 (Vetus-Latin
philology) Valla, Lorenzo 15.3; 22 (notes on Luke 1:28; 1:68; 2
Tim 2:24)
Rottmanner, Odilo OSB 2.1
Vallarsi, Domenico 13.1
Rufinus of Aquileia 10.3 (introductory note); 12.1
(Scherbenske 2013); 14.1 Venuti, Lawrence 10.7 (Pammachius letter)

Rufinus the Syrian 12 Vercellone, Carlo Giuseppe 2.2; 7.4; 16.2

Vergil/Virgil 10.3; 21 (textual notes on Deut 11:10; Isa
64:6 and Jonah 4:6); 22 (textual note on Gal 3:1)
Sabatier OSB, Pierre 9.7
Scarpat, Giuseppe 17.3 (Nova Vulgata, Italian); 21
(Wisd) Weber, Robert 9.7 (Roman Psalter); 13.4

Schiller, Friedrich 24.5 White, Henry J. 1; 2; 3 (English); 13.2

Schopenhauer, Arthur 24.5 Wiseman, Nicholas (Cardinal)

Schrijnen, Josef 8.9 on Africa 9.4

Scillitan martyrs 9.1 (sources) on Challoner Bible 18.1

Seneca 10.3 (Opelt, 1963) on Isaiah 7:15 21 (textual note)

Shakespeare, William 24.5 on 1 John 5:7–8 22 (textual note)

Sixtus V (Pope) 16.4 Wordsworth, John 7.1 (Matt in Cod. Sangermanensis

I); 13.2
Sleumer, Albert 8.3 (Latin_German)
Wyclif, John 18.1
Stephanus, Robertus → Étienne, Robert
Stramare, Tarcisio 17 (introductory note); 17.3
Ziegler, Leo 2.2; 9.1; 9.3; 9.6

758
Index of subjects

Abbazia di San Girolamo (Rome) 13.3 Clementina 1; 16.5

Africa 9.4 text on the internet 16.5 (Tweedale, 2005)
African Latin 8.8 Codex Amiatinus 7.2
Allioli Bible (German) 18.2 Codex Fuldensis 7.2
Amiatinus → Codex Amiatinus Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis 7.1
angelic salutation 22 (Luke 1:28) Codex biblicus Legionensis 14.4
Année philologique 6 Codex Sangermanensis primus 7.1 (Vetus Latina); 7.2
Antibarbarus 8.3 (Latin-German) (Vg); 9.7 (Martianay); 14.2 (colophons)

apocryphal writings 11.6; 16.2 (Calvin); 23 cola → per cola et commata

appendix to the Vulgate Bible 23 Collectanea Biblica Latina (book series) 13.3

Atlantic Bibles 14.4 (Bible in Italy) comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) 22

“authenticity” of the Vulgate Bible 16.1; 16.4 commentaries on biblical books 7.1 (Pauline Letters
of Budapest); 9.8; 10.3; 20
Complutensian Polyglot Bible 15.2
Benedictine Vulgate Old Testament 13.3
concordance 8.2
betacism 8.7
correctories
Beuron, abbey → Vetus Latina Institute
medieval 14.4 (Stephen Harding); 14.6
biography of Jerome 10.1
of the Clementina 16.2 (note on editio princeps)
bibliographies 6; 10.2 (Jerome)
Council of Trent 16.1; 22 (textual note on Rom 5:12)
breviary 16.6; 21 (Psalms – study aids)

Decretum Damasi (382) 11.6

canon
Decretum Gelasianum 11.6
of the Old Testament 11.6
deuterocanonical writings 11.6; 16.1 (German, 1988)
of the New Testament 11.6
dictionaries of (biblical) Latin 8.3; 19.1
canon tables, Eusebian 11.9
digital research 7.5 (introductory note); → Internet
Carolingian Bibles 14.4
Douay Version 18.1
Catholic Church
dream of Jerome 10.3
and Latin 4; 11.3 (Damasus)
and Psalms 16.6
Eadwine Psalter 14.5 (introductory note)
and Vulgate Bible 16
and Neovulgate Bible 17.1
fiction 24.2
chapters and verses 14.7
figura etymologica 8.7
Christian interpretations of Old Testament texts →
messianic interpretations
Christian Latin 8.9 glossary

chronology of grammatical and stylistic terms 8.7

of Jerome’s life 10 (introductory note) Latin-English glossary 19.2

of Jerome’s biblical translations 11.8 gospels 11.3; 22

Graecisms 8.7

759
grammar of Vulgate Latin 8.1; 8.7 Judaism
grammatical glossary 8.7 Jerome and Judaism 10.4
Greek Jewish Latin 9.5
Greek Bible and Jerome 10.6 Theodulf and Jews 11.4 (Alcuin and Theodulf,
Greek influence on the Latin translation 8.7 2014)

Greek words in the Latin Bible 8.7

Latin in the Greek New Testament 8.5 Knox Bible 18.1

Guardini psalter (German) 16.6

Gutenberg Bible 15.1; 20.4 Laodiceans (letter) 23.3
Latin 8.1–8

hapax legomena 8.7 for beginners 5

hebraica veritas 10.5 dictionaries 8.3; 19.1

Hebraism, Christian 14.8 glossary 19.2

Hebraisms grammar of Vulgate Latin 8.1

in the Latin Bible 8.7 history of the Latin language 8.8; 8.9

in vernacular translations of the Vulgate 8.1 (Ger­ as Jerome’s native language 10 (introductory
man: Franz Kaulen) note)

Hebrew as language of the church 4; 8.9

Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew 10.4 late/vulgar/biblical Latin 8.8

Hebrew knowledge in the Middle Ages 14.8 Christian Latin 8.9

hexameter 8.7; 24.5 (Goethe: Faust) Latin words/names in the Greek New Testament
8.5
Hexapla 10.6
lexicography 8.3–4; 19.1–2
history of Vulgate research 2.2
Latin literature
homophony 8.7
Jerome’s knowledge of 10.3
echoes in the Vulgate text of the Old Testament
inspiration 8.7 (translation issues, 1931); 14.1 21 (on Gen 6:5 – Cicero; Deut 11.10 – Vergil;
instrumentum (in “Vetus/Novum Instrumentum”) 15.4 Judg 14:8 – Vergil; 20:25 – Cicero; 1 Kgs 10:15 –
Horace; Esth 5:3 – Ovid; Sir 9:3 – Catullus; 27:15
Internet resources
– Apuleius; Isa 22:18 – Plautus; Isa 64:6 – Vergil;
general: preface Jer 5:9 – Cicero; Jonah 4:6 – Vergil)
reference works: 3 (English: Houghton 2016; Ger­ echoes in the Vulgate text of the New Testament
man: Nestle, 1897) 22 (on Mark 6:22 – Ovid)
bibliographies: 5 (introductory note; current biblio­ Latin vulgaire – latin tardif (congress proceedings) 8.8
graphies: Année philologique):
Latinisms
concordance of the Vulgate 8.2 (Dutripon, 1838)
in the Greek New Testament 8.5
text of the Vulgate (Clementina): 16.2 (other edi­
in the Douay translation 18.1 (Douay Version, sec­
tions: Colunga/Turrado 1965; Tweedale 2005)
ondary literature, 1902 and 2018)
concordance of the Vulgate 8.2 (introductory
Legenda aurea 24.2
note)
Liturgy of the Hours 14.5 (introductory note), 16.6 (in­
Vetus Latina Database of Beuron 9.7 (Beuron
troductory note)
Vetus Latina: introductory note)
Louvain Bible 14.7 (note); 16.3
interpolations, Christian → messianic interpretations
Itala 9.6
Manuscripts; see also → Codex …
ivy (Jonah 4:6) 21 (textual note)
manuscript discoveries 7.1 (Pauline Letters of
Budapest: Frede); 7.2 (Codex Sangallensis:
Johannine comma → comma Johanneum

760
 Ildefons von Arx, Alban Dold); 9.8 (L. Dorfbauer); Prologus galeatus 10.5 (sources); 10.7 (Jerome texts
23.2 (textual note on 4 Ezra 7:36–106) on translating); 11.6 (sources); 11.7
manuscripts of the Vetus Latina 7.1 Protestant Latin Bibles 15.6
manuscripts of the Vulgate 7.2 Protestant polemics against the Vulgate 16.2
Menzerath rule 8.7 Psalm 151 23.3
messianic interpretations 10.7; 19.2 (Iesus, iustus); Psalms
23.2 (4 Ezra) Amen in the Psalms 19.2 (glossary s.v. Amen)
Moses, horns of 21 (textual note on Exod 34:29); 24.7 and Augustine 9.7 (Lefèvre d’Etaples); 11.4 (Psal­
(art) terium Romanum: de Bruyne 1930)
Jerome and the Psalms 11.4
names Jerome’s commentaries on the Psalms 20.2
Latin proper names 8.5 numbering of the Vulgate Psalms 21 (section on
transliteration of names 8.7 the Psalms)
Neovulgate → Nova Vulgata the popes and the Psalms 16.6
Nova Vulgata 17.1–3 the Psalms of the Nova Vulgata 16.6
Psalms of the Nova Vulgata 16.6 textual notes on the Psalms 21 (section on the
Novum Instrumentum 15.4 (introductory note) Psalms)
Psalms of imprecation 16.6 (psychologically problem­
atic psalms, 1968)
Oratio Manassae 23.2
Psalterium Gallicanum 11.4; 14.5 (note)
Oxford Vulgate 13.2
Psalterium iuxta hebraeos 7.2 (Codex Amiatinus);
11.4; 14.4 (Alcuin Bible, 1930)
pandect 7.2 (introductory note); 11.4 (Cassiodorus); Psalterium Pianum 16.6
14.2 (introductory note); 14.3 (English: 2023
Lobrichon); 14.4 (Alcuin & Theodulf: English 2023; Psalterium Romanum
Paris Bible) a Vetus Latina text 9.7
Paris not by Jerome 11.4
Paris Bible (thirteenth century) 14.4 reception in late antiquity and the Middle Ages
Bible of Paris professors (modern) 16.2 (other edi­ 14.5
tions, 1927) manuscript → Vespasian Psalter
per cola et commata 7.2 (Codex Sangallensis 193); pumpkin 21 (textual note on Jonah 4:6); 24.7 (Dürer)
13.3; 13.4; 14.7, 21 (secondary literature on 1 Macc, punctuation 5 (German textbooks: Oborski); 13.4 (in­
2008) troductory note); 14.7 (introductory note); 16.2
pericope adulterae 22 (textual note on John 7:53– (editio princeps, introductory notes); 17.2 (intro­
8:11) ductory note)
Plater/White grammar 1; 8.1 (English)
polemics against the Vulgate quod, quia, quoniam 8.7; 19.2 (glossary)
Catholic 14.3 (German 1824) quotation marks (Oborski, Psalterium Pianum, Nova
Protestant 16.2 Vulgata) 5 (German textbooks: Oborski); 17.2 (in­
troductory note); 21 (Ps 2)
polyglot Bibles 15.2
quotations from the Vulgate in literature 24.5
Pontifical Biblical Institute 2.3 (Peter Nober); 6 (Elen­
chus); 16.1 (official declarations, 1943); 16.5 (Psal­
terium Pianum) reception of the Vulgate
Primum quaeritur 7.2 (Codex Fuldensis); 12.1 (note); in Late Antiquity 14.1–2; 14.4
22 (Pauline Epistles) in the Middle Ages 14.3–9
prologues to biblical books 11.7; 12.1 (note); → Prim­ in early-modern times 15; 16
um quaeritur
in language, culture, literature, art 24
in teaching Latin 5

761
rejection of the Vulgate Bible 16.2 Vespasian Psalter 7.1
Roman Psalter 9.7; 11.4; 14.5. See also → Vespasian Vetus Latina 9.1–8
Psalter (7.1) definition 9.1
Roman Vulgate 13.3 manuscripts 7.1
editions 9.7
Sacy translation 18.3 in the Vulgate 8.4 (German: Thielmann 1884); 9
San Girolamo (Abbey in Rome) 2.2 (introductory (introductory note)
note); 13.3 (introductory note) Vetus Latina and Jerome
Septuagint revisions of the Vetus Latina 11.3; 12.2; 22 (Cath­
Jerome’s translations of Septuagint texts 11.3; olic Epistles: Persig 2022)
11.4; 11.5 translations on the basis of the Vetus Latina 21
Jerome’s reliance on the Septuagint 10.6 (Tobit; Judith)
Sixtina 16.4 influence of Vetus Latina on his translations 9.9;
Sixto-Clementina 16.5 21 (Twelve Minor Prophets: 2020)

Stuttgart Vulgate 13.4 Vetus Latina-Institut (Beuron) 9.7 (Beuron Vetus Lat­
ina, introductory note)
subjunctive 8.7
Vulgar Latin 8.7; 8.8
Vulgate/Vulgata
tenses in Vulgate Latin 8.7
definition/the term Vulgata 2.2
textual criticism
invention of the Vulgate 14.2
editions with text-critical apparatus 7.3 (English,
2020); 13.2–4 manuscripts 7.2

see also → correctories polemics against the Vulgate 16.2

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 8.3 (Latin only dictionaries) reception in Western languages and culture 24.1–
7
Tobias nights/Tobiasnächte 24.3
reference editions 1
Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (TOB) 23 (intro­
ductory note) vernacular translations 18.1–4

transcription of Hebrew with Latin letters 8.7 “Vulgate Abbey” in Rome 13.3

translation Vulgate Institute (Chur) 2.2

editio = translation 10.7 (introductory note)

translation methods and issues 8.7 (translation is­ Wackernagel’s law 8.7
sues; translation errors); 10.7 Weber/Gryson edition of the Vulgate 13.4
Jerome as translator 10.5; 10.7 Wenceslas Bible 18.2
vernacular translations of the Vulgate Bible 18 Windesheim Bibles 14.4
Trent, Council of 16.1; 22 (textual note on Rom 5:12) word order 8.7
Tusculum-Vulgata 18.4 Wordsworth/White edition of the New Testament
typographical devices and conventions; see also → 13.2
punctuation
of the Clementina 16.2 Zurich Latin Bible 15.6
of the Nova Vulgata 17.2 Zwolle Bible → Windesheim Bibles

* *

762
Detailed Table of contents

Brief table of contents............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Preface............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
A neglected subject....................................................................................................................................................... 5
The aim and scope of the present book................................................................................................................ 5
Things digital................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Vorwort........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Ein vernachlässigtes Thema........................................................................................................................................ 7
Das Ziel des vorliegendes Buches............................................................................................................................ 7
Digitales............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
General............................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Biblical books................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 1
The scholar’s minimal shelf............................................................................................................................................. 14
The two reference editions of the Vulgate......................................................................................................... 14
Four linguistic reference works .............................................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 2
Getting in touch with Vulgate research..................................................................................................................... 16
2.1 The Vulgate: an anthology of definitions and explanations, 1868–2020........................................16
Word studies: editio vulgata, Vulgata............................................................................................................ 16
Definitions: not simply by Jerome................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 The first twenty years of Vulgate research, 1860–1879.........................................................................19
Teaching ecclesiastical (and Vulgate) Latin................................................................................................. 20
Manuscript studies and editions .................................................................................................................... 20
Editions of the Vulgate Bible and Vulgate texts.........................................................................................21
Vernacular translation of the Vulgate Bible................................................................................................. 21
A Latin dictionary.................................................................................................................................................. 21
The Vulgate Bible’s Latinity................................................................................................................................ 21
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Jerome studies........................................................................................................................................................ 22
History of the Vulgate Bible.............................................................................................................................. 22
2.3 An anthology of research desiderata, 1933–2022...................................................................................22
Biblical Latin............................................................................................................................................................ 23
The translator’s implied dictionaries.............................................................................................................. 24
Vetus-Latina vocabulary and Jerome’s own vocabulary.........................................................................24
Documentation of word studies...................................................................................................................... 24

763
 Jerome studies........................................................................................................................................................ 24
Allusions to classical authors?.......................................................................................................................... 25
A new English translation of the Vulgate Bible..........................................................................................25

Chapter 3
Surveys and reference works......................................................................................................................................... 26
Before 1900.................................................................................................................................................................... 26
English – complete Vulgate..................................................................................................................................... 27
English – Old Testament or New Testament..................................................................................................... 28
German – complete Vulgate.................................................................................................................................... 28
German: Old Testament or New Testament...................................................................................................... 29
Dutch................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
French.............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Italian................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
Spanish............................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Latin.................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

Chapter 4
Latin today? Latin in the church?.................................................................................................................................. 32
4.1 The history of Latin in Christianity................................................................................................................. 32
Some sources, 1526–1902.................................................................................................................................. 32
Secondary literature............................................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Official statements of the Catholic Church, 1922–1983........................................................................35
The documents....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Responses to “Veterum Sapientia” (1962).................................................................................................... 35
4.3 The decline of Latin in the twentieth century...........................................................................................36

Chapter 5
Biblical Latin for beginners............................................................................................................................................. 38
Theory: English.............................................................................................................................................................. 38
German............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
French.............................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Spanish............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
English textbooks......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Elementary courses..................................................................................................................................................... 40
Reading material.......................................................................................................................................................... 41
German textbooks....................................................................................................................................................... 42
Elementary courses............................................................................................................................................... 42
Reading material.................................................................................................................................................... 43
French textbooks......................................................................................................................................................... 44

Chapter 6
Bibliographical Resources............................................................................................................................................... 45
Current bibliographies............................................................................................................................................... 45
Discontinued current bibliographies.................................................................................................................... 46
Completed bibliographies........................................................................................................................................ 47

Manuscripts –
Language –
History.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 7
Manuscripts.......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

764
 7.1 Some major Vetus Latina manuscripts,
mainly of the New Testament................................................................................................................................. 51
Codex Bobiensis (Bobbiensis)........................................................................................................................... 51
Codex Vercellensis................................................................................................................................................ 52
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis............................................................................................................................ 53
Codex Sangallenssis 1394.................................................................................................................................. 55
Palimpsestus Wirciburgensis 64a.................................................................................................................... 55
Vespasian Psalter .................................................................................................................................................. 56
Pauline Letters of Budapest............................................................................................................................... 56
Gospel of Matthew in Codex Sangermanensis primus............................................................................57
7.2 Some major Vulgate manuscripts................................................................................................................. 57
Codex Sangallensis 1395.................................................................................................................................... 58
Codex Sangallensis 193....................................................................................................................................... 59
Codex Fuldensis..................................................................................................................................................... 59
Codex Lindisfarnensis.......................................................................................................................................... 61
Codex Amiatinus.................................................................................................................................................... 61
Codex Amiatinus and Cassiodorus................................................................................................................. 64
St. Cuthbert Gospel.............................................................................................................................................. 65
Codex Petropolitanus.......................................................................................................................................... 65
Codex Sangermanensis primus........................................................................................................................ 65
Codex Sangallensis (interlinearis) 48.............................................................................................................. 66
Codex biblicus Legionensis (Spain)................................................................................................................. 66
The Paris Bible........................................................................................................................................................ 66
7.3 Reference works and introductions.............................................................................................................. 66
English....................................................................................................................................................................... 66
German...................................................................................................................................................................... 68
French........................................................................................................................................................................ 68
Italian......................................................................................................................................................................... 68
7.4 Collections of Variant Readings..................................................................................................................... 69
The variants collected by the Carafa Commission.................................................................................... 69
The “Vercellone”: Old Testament variant readings...................................................................................69
7.5 Fischer’s “Varianten”: New Testament manuscripts
statistically compared................................................................................................................................................. 70
Assessments............................................................................................................................................................ 70

Chapter 8
Biblical Latin......................................................................................................................................................................... 72
8.1 Manuals and surveys of biblical Latin.......................................................................................................... 72
English....................................................................................................................................................................... 72
German...................................................................................................................................................................... 74
French........................................................................................................................................................................ 75
Spanish...................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Italian......................................................................................................................................................................... 76
8.2 Vulgate concordances....................................................................................................................................... 76
Concordances of the entire Bible.................................................................................................................... 76
Concordances of individual books of the New Testament....................................................................77
Concordances of the apocrypha: 4 Ezra, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh.......................................77
The history of biblical concordances.............................................................................................................. 78
8.3 Dictionaries of biblical Latin............................................................................................................................ 78
Dictionaries of Vulgate Latin............................................................................................................................. 79
Dictionaries of ecclesiastical Latin................................................................................................................... 81
Thesaurus linguae latinae................................................................................................................................... 81
Other lexical resources........................................................................................................................................ 82

765
 Latin Vulgate dictionaries of historical interest.......................................................................................... 83
8.4 Studies of biblical lexicography..................................................................................................................... 83
English....................................................................................................................................................................... 83
German...................................................................................................................................................................... 83
French........................................................................................................................................................................ 85
Italian – Spanish..................................................................................................................................................... 85
Latin............................................................................................................................................................................ 85
8.5 Latin names, words, and Latinisms in the Greek New Testament.....................................................86
English....................................................................................................................................................................... 86
German...................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Italian......................................................................................................................................................................... 87
8.6 Grammatical and linguistic studies of biblical Latin...............................................................................87
German...................................................................................................................................................................... 87
French........................................................................................................................................................................ 89
Italian......................................................................................................................................................................... 89
8.7 Bibliographical glossary of grammatical and stylistic terms................................................................89
8.8 Biblical Latin: Vulgar Latin – Late Latin...................................................................................................... 127
Is biblical Latin = vulgar/late Latin? ............................................................................................................ 127
Is biblical Latin = North African Latin?........................................................................................................ 129
Vulgar/late Latin features in biblical Latin................................................................................................. 131
Introductions to vulgar/late Latin................................................................................................................. 134
Grammars and surveys of vulgar/late Latin.............................................................................................. 135
Anthologies of vulgar/late Latin texts......................................................................................................... 135
Congress proceedings “Latin vulgaire – latin tardif”..............................................................................136
8.9 Christian Latin..................................................................................................................................................... 137
Christian Latin: major contributions – recent assessments..................................................................137
Jerome’s Latin ..................................................................................................................................................... 140

Chapter 9
Vetus Latina....................................................................................................................................................................... 142
9.1 What is the Vetus Latina and why has it disappeared?.......................................................................143
Ancient sources................................................................................................................................................... 143
Analysis of the ancient sources...................................................................................................................... 144
Some modern statements............................................................................................................................... 144
9.2 Surveys and introductions – Vetus-Latina philology...........................................................................144
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 144
German................................................................................................................................................................... 146
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 147
Spanish................................................................................................................................................................... 147
Italian....................................................................................................................................................................... 148
Latin......................................................................................................................................................................... 148
Vetus-Latina philology...................................................................................................................................... 148
9.3 One Vetus-Latina Bible or many Latin translations?.............................................................................151
9.4 African origins of the Latin Bible?............................................................................................................... 153
African origins affirmed.................................................................................................................................... 153
African origins doubted or denied............................................................................................................... 155
9.5 Jewish origins of the Latin Bible?................................................................................................................ 156
Jewish origins suggested................................................................................................................................. 156
Evidence is lacking.............................................................................................................................................. 157
9.6 Augustine’s Itala................................................................................................................................................ 158
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 159
9.7 Editions of the Vetus-Latina Bible............................................................................................................... 161
A precursor: Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples....................................................................................................... 161

766
 Jean Martianay OSB........................................................................................................................................... 162
Pierre Sabatier OSB............................................................................................................................................ 162
Giuseppe Bianchini’s Gospels......................................................................................................................... 163
Jülicher’s Itala....................................................................................................................................................... 163
The Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum) ............................................................................................. 163
The Beuron Vetus Latina.................................................................................................................................. 164
Birmingham Vetus Latina (electronic) – Birmingham Pauline Epistles (printed)..........................165
Vetus Latina Hispana......................................................................................................................................... 165
9.8 The Fortunatianus commentary on the Gospels (2017).....................................................................166
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 166
9.9 Jerome and the Vetus Latina ........................................................................................................................ 166

Chapter 10
Jerome/Hieronymus: his life and learning.............................................................................................................. 168
10.1 Jerome biographies and portrayals......................................................................................................... 169
Biographies: before 1900................................................................................................................................. 169
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 169
German................................................................................................................................................................... 170
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 170
Italian....................................................................................................................................................................... 171
Articles in reference works.............................................................................................................................. 171
Jerome sources in translation (selections)................................................................................................. 171
10.2 Jerome bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 172
10.3 Jerome and classical culture....................................................................................................................... 172
General studies.................................................................................................................................................... 173
Special studies...................................................................................................................................................... 175
Studies by Neil Adkin........................................................................................................................................ 176
Jerome and Vergil............................................................................................................................................... 177
Jerome’s letter 22 to Eustochium: Jerome’s dream................................................................................179
10.4 Jerome’s familiarity with Hebrew and with things rabbinic ...........................................................181
Sources................................................................................................................................................................... 182
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 183
10.5 Hebraica veritas............................................................................................................................................... 189
Sources................................................................................................................................................................... 189
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 190
10.6 Jerome and Greek Bible translations....................................................................................................... 192
Sources................................................................................................................................................................... 193
Jerome and the Septuagint (and Origen’s Hexapla)..............................................................................194
Jerome and Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion..........................................................................................196
10.7 Theory and practice of translation........................................................................................................... 198
Jerome texts on translating............................................................................................................................. 199
Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (letter 57)................................................................................................. 201
Messianic translations....................................................................................................................................... 202
Secondary literature on Jerome as a translator....................................................................................... 203

Chapter 11
Jerome’s Bible................................................................................................................................................................... 207
11.1 Surveys and introductions........................................................................................................................... 207
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 207
German................................................................................................................................................................... 208
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 208
11.2 Reference works.............................................................................................................................................. 209
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 209

767
 German................................................................................................................................................................... 209
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 209
11.3 Jerome and the Gospels.............................................................................................................................. 209
Pope Damasus and Jerome............................................................................................................................. 209
Secondary literature on the Vulgate Gospels........................................................................................... 211
11.4 Jerome and the Psalms................................................................................................................................. 213
Introductions – surveys..................................................................................................................................... 213
Jerome’s Gallican Psalter (= Hexaplaric Psalter = the Vulgate book of Psalms).........................216
Jerome: Epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam (Letter 106) ........................................................................216
Liber Psalmorum iuxta Hebraeos.................................................................................................................. 218
Jerome’s first book of Psalms – the Psalterium Romanum?...............................................................220
Arthur Allgeier...................................................................................................................................................... 222
11.5 Books Jerome translated more than once
(non-Vulgate versions)............................................................................................................................................ 224
Job............................................................................................................................................................................ 224
Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)...................................................................................................................................... 225
Song of Songs (Canticum canticorum)....................................................................................................... 225
11.6 The biblical canon.......................................................................................................................................... 226
Sources................................................................................................................................................................... 226
Secondary literature: Decretum Damasi..................................................................................................... 228
Secondary literature: Old Testament and apocrypha............................................................................229
Secondary literature: New Testament......................................................................................................... 230
Further secondary literature............................................................................................................................ 231
11.7 Jerome’s Prefaces........................................................................................................................................... 232
Latin text only....................................................................................................................................................... 232
Complete translations, bilingual editions, and selections....................................................................233
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 234
11.8 Chronology of Jerome’s biblical translations.......................................................................................234
Frede’s chronology of Jerome’s translations............................................................................................235
11.9 The Eusebian canon tables.......................................................................................................................... 236
Editions................................................................................................................................................................... 237
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 237

Chapter 12
In Jerome’s Shadow: Rufinus the Syrian?................................................................................................................ 239
12.1 Three detectives:
Donatien De Bruyne, Céléstin Charlier, and Bonifatius Fischer................................................................240
Three detectives.................................................................................................................................................. 240
Some followers of Fischer’s Rufinus-the-Syrian hypothesis................................................................241
12.2 Jeromian apologists....................................................................................................................................... 242
12.3 The critics: neither Jerome nor Rufinus................................................................................................... 243

Chapter 13
Modern editions of the Jerome-Rufinus Bible...................................................................................................... 246
13.1 The Vulgate of Martinay and Vallarsi...................................................................................................... 246
13.2 The New Testament of Wordsworth and White
(Oxford Vulgate)........................................................................................................................................................ 247
Reports and assessments................................................................................................................................. 247
13.3 The Old Testament of the Benedictines of Rome
(Roman Vulgate)........................................................................................................................................................ 248
The Roman Vulgate of the Benedictines: the edition............................................................................249
The pre-history of the Roman Vulgate: Henri Quentin OSB...............................................................249
Critical statements and reviews after the publication of the first volumes...................................250

768
 More on Quentin................................................................................................................................................ 251
Assessments.......................................................................................................................................................... 252
Appendix: Collectanea Biblica Latina, 1912–1988...................................................................................252
13.4 The Stuttgart Vulgate of Weber and Gryson........................................................................................253
Editions................................................................................................................................................................... 254
Reviews of the Stuttgart Vulgate.................................................................................................................. 254

Chapter 14
After Jerome: The Vulgate’s
First Millennium, 400–1450.......................................................................................................................................... 255
14.1 From dispute to reception:
Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine (a prologue)................................................................................................. 255
Rufinus’ critique of Jerome’s translation.................................................................................................... 255
The Jerome–Augustine correspondence.................................................................................................... 257
The inspiration of Scripture: Jerome’s view............................................................................................... 261
Augustine’s knowledge and use of Jerome’s translation.....................................................................262
Miscellanea on Augustine................................................................................................................................ 263
14.2 The invention of the Vulgate...................................................................................................................... 264
14.3 Reference works on the Bible in the Middle Ages.............................................................................266
Before 1900........................................................................................................................................................... 266
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 267
German................................................................................................................................................................... 269
French .................................................................................................................................................................... 269
Italian....................................................................................................................................................................... 269
14.4 From Pelagius to the Paris Bible and Windesheim............................................................................270
Pelagius (c. 360–420)......................................................................................................................................... 270
Cassiodorus (c. 485–588).................................................................................................................................. 271
Gregory the Great (540–604).......................................................................................................................... 272
Isidore of Seville (560–636)............................................................................................................................. 272
Alcuin and Theodulf: the Carolingian Bibles............................................................................................. 273
The Latin Bible in Ireland.................................................................................................................................. 276
The Latin Bible in England............................................................................................................................... 277
The Latin Bible in Italy – Atlantic Bibles...................................................................................................... 278
The Latin Bible in Spain.................................................................................................................................... 279
The Cistercian Old Testament of Stephen Harding (1109)..................................................................281
The “Paris Bible” (exemplar Parisiense, 13th century)...........................................................................282
Roger Bacon (1220–1292)................................................................................................................................ 285
Heinrich von Langenstein (d. Vienna 1397)............................................................................................... 285
The Netherlands: Windesheim (1420s)....................................................................................................... 285
14.5 The Psalms in the Middle Ages................................................................................................................. 286
Sources................................................................................................................................................................... 287
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 288
14.6 Bible correctories............................................................................................................................................ 290
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 291
14.7 Chapters and Verses
(Antiquity – Middle Ages – Early Modern Times).......................................................................................... 292
Chapters and verses........................................................................................................................................... 294
14.8 The knowledge of Hebrew in the Middle Ages...................................................................................295
Before 1900........................................................................................................................................................... 296
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 296
German................................................................................................................................................................... 297
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 297
14.9 Miscellaneous.................................................................................................................................................. 298

769
Chapter 15
Printers, Humanists, and Reformers.......................................................................................................................... 299
15.1 The Gutenberg Bible, 1454......................................................................................................................... 300
The Gutenberg Bible.......................................................................................................................................... 300
15.2 Castellano – Complutensia – Stephanus................................................................................................. 302
Alberto Castellano.............................................................................................................................................. 302
Complutensian Polyglot edition.................................................................................................................... 302
Stephanus’ Bible(s)............................................................................................................................................. 304
15.3 Lorenzo Valla (Erasmus’ precursor)........................................................................................................... 305
Editions................................................................................................................................................................... 305
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 305
15.4 Erasmus.............................................................................................................................................................. 306
Erasmus’ edition of the New Testament..................................................................................................... 306
Secondary literature on Erasmus’ New Testament and related writings........................................308
Erasmus and Edward Lee................................................................................................................................. 311
Erasmus and Frans Titelmans......................................................................................................................... 311
15.5 Martin Luther................................................................................................................................................... 312
Luther’s Latin Bible texts – Luther and the Vulgate................................................................................312
15.6 Protestant Latin Bibles.................................................................................................................................. 314
General.................................................................................................................................................................... 315
The Zurich Latin Bible........................................................................................................................................ 316
Sébastien Castellio’s Latin Bible.................................................................................................................... 316

Chapter 16
The Vulgate in Modern Catholicism, 1546–1979................................................................................................. 319
16.1 The Council of Trent (1546) and the authority of the Vulgate .....................................................319
The council............................................................................................................................................................ 319
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 320
Official declarations, 1941 and 1943............................................................................................................ 325
16.2 Protestant critics of the Council of Trent and of the Vulgate........................................................326
John Calvin............................................................................................................................................................ 327
Martin Chemnitz.................................................................................................................................................. 328
Bellarmine, counter-critic................................................................................................................................. 328
Stuart, Henslow, and others............................................................................................................................ 328
16.3 Louvain Bible.................................................................................................................................................... 329
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 329
Another Catholic Bible...................................................................................................................................... 330
16.4 The Bible of Pope Sixtus V, 1590.............................................................................................................. 330
Editio Sixtina......................................................................................................................................................... 331
The papal bull Aeternus ille celestium........................................................................................................ 332
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 333
The Baumgarten debate, 1907–1935........................................................................................................... 335
16.5 The “editio Clementina,” 1592................................................................................................................... 337
Editio princeps: the Clementina..................................................................................................................... 338
Modern editions of the Clementina............................................................................................................. 340
Secondary literature: the Clementina.......................................................................................................... 342
Thomas James, Protestant polemicist......................................................................................................... 344
16.6 The Popes and the Latin Psalms, 1568–1969.......................................................................................345
Pope Pius V and the Breviary Psalter, 1568............................................................................................... 346
Pope Pius X and the Breviary Psalter, 1911/13........................................................................................ 346
Psalterium Pianum – the Latin Psalms of P. Pius XII, 1945...................................................................346
Psychologically problematic Psalms, 1968................................................................................................ 352
The Neovulgate Psalter of P. Paul VI, 1969............................................................................................... 354

770
 Chapter 17
Nova Vulgata, 1979......................................................................................................................................................... 355
17.1 Official documents......................................................................................................................................... 356
17.2 Editions............................................................................................................................................................... 357
A preliminary edition......................................................................................................................................... 357
Editio princeps..................................................................................................................................................... 357
Further editions................................................................................................................................................... 358
Psalterium monasticum.................................................................................................................................... 358
17.3 Secondary literature...................................................................................................................................... 358
The papal constitution Scripturarum thesaurus (22nd April 1979)...................................................358
The authority of the Neovulgate................................................................................................................... 359
Reviews of the text of the Neovulgate........................................................................................................ 360

Chapter 18
The Vulgate Bible in vernacular translations......................................................................................................... 364
18.1 English translations........................................................................................................................................ 365
The Wyclifite Bible.............................................................................................................................................. 365
Douay Version (also known as Douay-Rheims Version).......................................................................366
The Knox Bible..................................................................................................................................................... 370
18.2 German translations...................................................................................................................................... 371
The Wenceslas Bible (Wenzelsbibel): a historic German translation................................................371
The Mentelin Bible.............................................................................................................................................. 372
The Allioli Bible.................................................................................................................................................... 373
Further German translations........................................................................................................................... 374
18.3 French translations......................................................................................................................................... 375
The Sacy translation........................................................................................................................................... 375
Other French translations................................................................................................................................ 376
18.4 Scholarly translations: English, German, and Romanian..................................................................377
The Cunyus translation (partly Latin and English)...................................................................................377
The bilingual Tusculum Vulgate (Latin and German).............................................................................378
The Romanian bilingual edition ................................................................................................................... 378

Quick Reference...................................................................................................................................................................... 380

Chapter 19
A glossary of biblical Latin............................................................................................................................................ 381
19.1 Essential lexical resources............................................................................................................................ 381
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 381
German................................................................................................................................................................... 381
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 382
Italian....................................................................................................................................................................... 382
19.2 Glossary.............................................................................................................................................................. 382
A................................................................................................................................................................................ 382
B................................................................................................................................................................................ 390
C................................................................................................................................................................................ 390
D................................................................................................................................................................................ 403
E................................................................................................................................................................................. 408
F................................................................................................................................................................................. 412
G................................................................................................................................................................................ 417
H................................................................................................................................................................................ 420
I.................................................................................................................................................................................. 422
K................................................................................................................................................................................ 430
L................................................................................................................................................................................. 431

771
 M............................................................................................................................................................................... 433
N................................................................................................................................................................................ 437
O................................................................................................................................................................................ 439
P................................................................................................................................................................................ 442
Q................................................................................................................................................................................ 449
R................................................................................................................................................................................ 451
S................................................................................................................................................................................. 453
T................................................................................................................................................................................. 463
U................................................................................................................................................................................ 465
V................................................................................................................................................................................ 467
Z................................................................................................................................................................................ 472

Chapter 20
Jerome’s Bible commentaries...................................................................................................................................... 473
20.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 474
Bibliographies ..................................................................................................................................................... 474
Introductions and thematic studies............................................................................................................. 475
A statement on the quality of available editions....................................................................................479
20.2 Jerome’s Old Testament commentaries................................................................................................. 479
Genesis.................................................................................................................................................................... 479
Psalms..................................................................................................................................................................... 481
Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)...................................................................................................................................... 484
Isaiah........................................................................................................................................................................ 485
Jeremiah (Hieremias)......................................................................................................................................... 488
Ezekiel (Hiezechiel)............................................................................................................................................. 490
Daniel (Danihel)................................................................................................................................................... 491
The twelve Minor Prophets............................................................................................................................. 492
Hosea (Osee)........................................................................................................................................................ 494
Joel (Ioel, Iohel).................................................................................................................................................... 495
Amos........................................................................................................................................................................ 495
Obadiah (Abdias)................................................................................................................................................ 496
Jonah (Ionas)......................................................................................................................................................... 496
Micha (Michaea).................................................................................................................................................. 497
Nahum (Naum).................................................................................................................................................... 497
Habakkuk (Abacuc, Habacuc)......................................................................................................................... 498
Zephaniah (Sofonias)......................................................................................................................................... 499
Haggai (Aggeus).................................................................................................................................................. 499
Zechariah (Zaccharias)....................................................................................................................................... 500
Malachi (Malachias)............................................................................................................................................ 500
20.3 Jerome’s New Testament commentaries............................................................................................... 501
Matthew (Evangelium secundum Matheum/Matthaeum)...................................................................501
Mark......................................................................................................................................................................... 503
The epistles of St. Paul...................................................................................................................................... 504
Galatians................................................................................................................................................................. 505
Ephesians............................................................................................................................................................... 506
Titus......................................................................................................................................................................... 508
Philemon ............................................................................................................................................................... 508
20.4 Jerome: Letter 53............................................................................................................................................ 509
Editions: Latin and bilingual............................................................................................................................ 509
Translations........................................................................................................................................................... 509
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 510

772
Chapter 21
Textual notes on the Old Testament........................................................................................................................ 511
Genesis.......................................................................................................................................................................... 511
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 511
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 511
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 512
Exodus........................................................................................................................................................................... 518
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 518
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 519
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 519
Leviticus........................................................................................................................................................................ 522
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 522
Jerome on Leviticus............................................................................................................................................ 522
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 523
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 523
Numbers (Numeri).................................................................................................................................................... 524
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 524
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 524
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 525
Deuteronomy (Deuteronomium)......................................................................................................................... 527
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 527
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 527
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 527
Joshua (Iosue)............................................................................................................................................................. 531
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 531
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 531
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 531
Judges (Liber Iudicum)............................................................................................................................................ 532
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 532
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 532
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 532
Ruth................................................................................................................................................................................ 534
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 534
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 534
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 534
1–2 Samuel (Liber I–II Samuhelis, Liber I–II Regum).....................................................................................535
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 535
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 536
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 536
1–2 Kings (Liber II–III Regum)............................................................................................................................... 540
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 540
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 540
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 541
1–2 Chronicles (I–II Paralipomenon)................................................................................................................... 542
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 542
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 542
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 543
Ezra – Nehemiah (Liber I–II Ezrae)....................................................................................................................... 543
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 543
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 544
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 544
Tobit (Liber Tobiae).................................................................................................................................................. 544
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 545

773
 Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 545
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 545
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 547
Judith............................................................................................................................................................................. 549
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 549
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 549
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 553
Esther (Hester)............................................................................................................................................................ 554
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 555
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 555
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 555
Job (Iob)........................................................................................................................................................................ 556
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 556
Translations........................................................................................................................................................... 556
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 557
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 557
Psalms (Psalmi, liber Psalmorum)........................................................................................................................ 560
Text ......................................................................................................................................................................... 560
Glossaries............................................................................................................................................................... 561
Study aids and translations............................................................................................................................. 561
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 564
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 564
Proverbs (Proverbia Salomonis, Liber Proverbiorum)..................................................................................578
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 578
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 578
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 579
Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)............................................................................................................................................ 581
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 581
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 581
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 582
Song of Songs (Canticles, Canticum Canticorum)......................................................................................... 584
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 584
Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 584
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 584
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 584
Wisdom of Solomon (Sapientia Salomonis).................................................................................................... 586
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 586
Latin text with textual notes............................................................................................................................ 586
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 587
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 588
Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira, Liber Iesu filii Sirach, Ecclesiasticus).......................................................................591
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 591
Synopses................................................................................................................................................................ 591
Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 592
Secondary literature on the textual history............................................................................................... 592
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 597
Isaiah (Isaias)............................................................................................................................................................... 605
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 605
Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 605
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 605
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 606
Jeremiah (Hieremias)................................................................................................................................................ 614
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 614

774
 Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 615
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 615
Lamentations (Lamentationes, Threni).............................................................................................................. 619
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 619
Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 619
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 619
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 619
Baruch (Liber Baruch), with “Letter of Jeremiah”........................................................................................... 620
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 621
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 622
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 623
Ezekiel (Hiezechiel)................................................................................................................................................... 623
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 623
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 623
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 623
Daniel (Danihel).......................................................................................................................................................... 625
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 625
Synopsis.................................................................................................................................................................. 625
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 625
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 626
The Twelve Minor Prophets (Liber duodecim Prophetarum)....................................................................628
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 628
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 628
Hosea (Osee)............................................................................................................................................................... 628
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 628
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 629
Joel (Ioel, Iohel).......................................................................................................................................................... 629
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 629
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 630
Amos.............................................................................................................................................................................. 630
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 630
Textual notes ....................................................................................................................................................... 630
Obadiah (Abdias)....................................................................................................................................................... 630
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 630
Textual note.......................................................................................................................................................... 631
Jonah (Iona)................................................................................................................................................................. 631
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 631
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 631
Micah (Micha, Michaea).......................................................................................................................................... 635
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 635
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 635
Nahum (Naum).......................................................................................................................................................... 635
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 635
Textual note.......................................................................................................................................................... 635
Habakkuk (Abcuc, Habacuc).................................................................................................................................. 636
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 636
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 636
Zephaniah (Sophonias)........................................................................................................................................... 637
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 637
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 637
Haggai (Aggeus)........................................................................................................................................................ 638
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 638
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 638

775
 Zechariah (Zaccharias)............................................................................................................................................. 638
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 638
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 638
Malachi.......................................................................................................................................................................... 640
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 640
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 640
1 Maccabees (Liber I Macchabeorum)............................................................................................................... 640
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 640
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 640
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 641
2 Maccabees (Liber II Maccabeorum)................................................................................................................ 642
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 642
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 642
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 643

Chapter 22
Textual notes on the New Testament...................................................................................................................... 645
The Four Gospels....................................................................................................................................................... 645
Latin synopsis....................................................................................................................................................... 645
Gospel harmonies............................................................................................................................................... 645
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 645
Matthew (Evangelium secundum Matheum/Matthaeum).........................................................................646
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 646
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 646
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 649
Mark (Evangelium secundum Marcum)............................................................................................................ 655
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 655
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 655
Luke (Evangelium secundum Lucam)................................................................................................................. 658
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 658
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 659
John (Evangelium secundum Iohannem)......................................................................................................... 665
Concordance......................................................................................................................................................... 665
Reading guide...................................................................................................................................................... 666
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 666
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 666
Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apostolorum, Liber Actuum Apostolorum).................................................673
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 673
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 674
The Pauline Epistles.................................................................................................................................................. 678
The prologue “Primum quaeritur”................................................................................................................ 678
Text and translation........................................................................................................................................... 678
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 679
Secondary literature on the Vulgate text of the Pauline letters........................................................679
Romans ........................................................................................................................................................................ 680
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 680
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 680
1–2 Corinthians (Ad Corinthios I–II).................................................................................................................... 685
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 685
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 685
Galatians (Ad Galatas).............................................................................................................................................. 688
Text........................................................................................................................................................................... 688
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 688

776
 Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 688
Ephesians (Ad Ephesios)......................................................................................................................................... 689
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 689
Philippians (Ad Philippenses)................................................................................................................................ 690
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 690
Colossians (Ad Colossenses)................................................................................................................................. 691
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 691
1–2 Thessalonians (Ad Thessalonicenses I–II)................................................................................................. 692
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 692
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 692
1–2 Timothy (Ad Timotheum I–II)........................................................................................................................ 693
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 693
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 693
Titus (Ad Titum).......................................................................................................................................................... 695
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 695
Textual note.......................................................................................................................................................... 695
Philemon (Ad Philemonem)................................................................................................................................... 695
Secondary Literature.......................................................................................................................................... 695
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 695
Hebrews (Ad Hebraeos).......................................................................................................................................... 696
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 696
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 697
The Catholic Epistles: James – 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude...........................................................................698
James (Epistula Jacobi)............................................................................................................................................ 698
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 698
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 699
1–2 Peter (Epistula Petri I–II).................................................................................................................................. 700
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 700
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 700
1–3 John (Epistula Iohannis I–III).......................................................................................................................... 702
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 702
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 702
Contributions to the debate and secondary literature.........................................................................705
Jude (Epistula Iudae)................................................................................................................................................ 707
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 707
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 708
Revelation (Apocalypsis Iohannis Apostoli)..................................................................................................... 708
Text ......................................................................................................................................................................... 708
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 708
Textual notes........................................................................................................................................................ 709

Chapter 23
Textual notes on the appendix to the Vulgate..................................................................................................... 712
23.1 Reference editions......................................................................................................................................... 713
Translation............................................................................................................................................................. 713
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 713
23.2 The appendix to the Clementina.............................................................................................................. 714
Prayer of Manasseh (Oratio Manasse)........................................................................................................ 714
3 Ezra (Liber Ezrae tertius)............................................................................................................................... 715
4 Ezra (Liber Ezrae quartus)............................................................................................................................. 716
23.3 Psalm 151 – Laodiceans (Weber/Gryson Vulgate).............................................................................722
Psalm 151............................................................................................................................................................... 722
Letter to the Laodiceans (Epistula ad Laodicenses)................................................................................722

777
Reception.................................................................................................................................................................................. 725

Chapter 24
The Vulgate Bible in art, life, and literature............................................................................................................ 726
24.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 726
24.2 The Latin Bible and Jerome in legend, literature, and fiction.........................................................726
Jerome novels...................................................................................................................................................... 728
24.3 Liturgy and spirituality: the layman and the Vulgate........................................................................728
Latin stock prayers.............................................................................................................................................. 728
Latin and the lay person................................................................................................................................... 729
“Tobias nights”: the Vulgate and deferred marital intercourse ........................................................730
Latin and church music..................................................................................................................................... 731
24.4 Latin loanwords and Latin sayings from the Vulgate........................................................................731
Some Vulgate words in European languages...........................................................................................731
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 734
Latin sayings from the Vulgate...................................................................................................................... 735
Books of sayings.................................................................................................................................................. 738
24.5 Vulgate quotations in literature – from Dante to Eco.......................................................................739
Italian literature................................................................................................................................................... 739
English literature................................................................................................................................................. 740
German literature................................................................................................................................................ 742
French literature.................................................................................................................................................. 743
Polish literature.................................................................................................................................................... 745
A secondary source............................................................................................................................................ 745
24.6 Literary criticism.............................................................................................................................................. 745
French...................................................................................................................................................................... 745
German................................................................................................................................................................... 747
English..................................................................................................................................................................... 747
24.7 The Vulgate Bible in art: illustrations, inscriptions, echoes.............................................................748
Iconography.......................................................................................................................................................... 749
Individual works of art....................................................................................................................................... 750
Secondary literature........................................................................................................................................... 752

Index of persons..................................................................................................................................................................... 755

Index of subjects..................................................................................................................................................................... 759

Detailed Table of contents.................................................................................................................................................. 763

778