“Hebrews, Apostles, and Christ: Three Authorities of Jerome’s Hebraica Veritas,” Vigiliae Christianae 73 (2019): 420-39. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Vigiliae Christianae, 2013
Jerome compares Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the Hebrew text and LXX in seven texts, for example in Ep. 57, written c.395. He adopts different opinions when the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew text and when the quotations disagree with the Hebrew text. In the first case, he demands a strict rendering of words, whereas in the second, he considers the quotations and the Hebrew text to have the same meaning even if their wordings differ. In other words, Jerome attributes more authority to the Evangelists and Paul than to the LXX translators. In this paper, I will explain two reasons—one negative and the other positive—for this dichotomy in Jerome’s approach. Introduction I. The Quotations and Jerome's "Conversion" to Hebrew II. Seven Texts on the Quotations III. Analysis of Ep. 57 1. The Quot. agrees with the Hebrew Text but disagrees with the LXX 2. The Quot., Hebrew Text and LXX all disagrees with one another 3. The Hebrew Text agrees with the LXX, but the Quot. disagrees with both of them IV. Reasons behind Jerome's Preferences V. Other Cases: Acts 28:26 and John 7:38 Conclusion
Jerome of Stridon (ca. 347-420 CE) was, after Origen, one of few Christian scholars of antiquity who engaged in profound studies of the biblical languages Greek and Hebrew. His stylistically accomplished Latin translation was received as the standard Bible of Western Christianity for a millennium-the Vulgate. Besides his intense studies of literature and languages, Jerome's monumental achievement as a biblical scholar was grounded in monastic enthusiasm, the teaching of a wide range of exegetes of Christian and Jewish provenance, a knowledge of biblical geography, and an academic network that spanned the Mediterranean basin.
It is not a myth that Christians in present days frequently take the Biblical Scripture and its content as being something that does not require their total attention, and thus diminishing its value and prestigiousness. Christians rush to judge their convictions as "scriptural", judge the bible itself, and it’s ironic; due to the fact that, a big percentage of these human beings simply have an absence of actual knowledge and apprehension of the authentic origins of the bible that is present nowadays. With a specific end goal to effectively comprehend the Bible and the effect it has on the Christian life, a research on St. Jerome and his interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek sacred writing into the Latin dialect ought to be extremely helpful.
The Question of St. Jerome’s Translation ex Hebraica veritate: the Example of Deut. 8:15
Philologia Classica, 2021
This article offers yet another opinion concerning the 18th-century controversy surrounding St. Jerome’s level of knowledge of Hebrew and his Old Testament translation from the Hebrew truth (ex Hebraica veritate). Assurances that Jerome’s Latin rendition is based directly on the Hebrew biblical books made by the monk himself and by his contemporaries are widely challenged. Jerome’s testimony is not entirely credible as he tended to confabulate and prevaricate. Having retraced this dispute about the Stridon-born scholar, the authors of this article subject verse 8:15 of the Book of Deuteronomy to a thorough analysis. It is a peculiar and important fragment for the ongoing discussion due to the appearance of the Hebrew word צִמָּאוֹן . In the Greek version (LXX), it had been translated as δίψα (“dry land”). What is crucial here is the fact that a similar form, διψάς, exists in the Greek language. It is a term used for a venomous snake. Potentially mistaking “dry land” for a “snake” in the Hebrew language is not possible. That is why in Jerome’s translation of the Bible from the Hebrew truth such an error should not have occurred. Meanwhile, we can find exactly that mistake in the scholar’s rendition. In his Latin translation Jerome introduced the dipsas snake in lieu of the Hebrew צִמָּאוֹן (“dry land”). This article aims to explain why, in this very spot, the translator departed from the Hebrew original.
Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2012
In his Preface to Samuel and Kings (the Prologus Galeatus), Jerome sets forth a theory of the Old Testament canon that allows for no room between the canonical books and the apocrypha. However, Jerome elsewhere maintained a more neutral or even positive view of some of the non-canonical books, even accepting their use within the ecclesiastical liturgy. Jerome’s seemingly inconsistent attitude toward some books he classifies as “apocrypha” has led scholars to posit a development in Jerome’s canonical theory, such that his earlier position was accepting of books that he later excluded, and to suppose that Jerome’s use of the word “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus relied on a neutral definition of the term. This paper examines the evidence for these claims and finds them wanting. While Jerome consistently regarded the books labeled “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus as outside the canon, he chose to propagate an especially harsh judgment against these books especially in this preface. The confusion arising from Jerome’s comments may be explained as a consequence of a multi-faceted plan to realign the church’s Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible, a plan that Jerome articulates only partially on any given occasion.
Studia Patristica, 2017
This paper elucidates the main topic in the discussion between Augustine and Jerome about biblical translation, by focusing on their views about the language of the source text of translation. According to the historical study of translation, translators at the time of Cicero were allowed to show their creativity, since they presupposed the reader’s ability to compare the Greek text with the Latin translation. Cicero, accordingly, chose free translation as his own principle. Augustine expected the readers of the Bible to compare the source text with the translation, claiming that the source text should be the Greek Bible, namely, the LXX. However, Augustine preferred literal translation, for he estimated the reader’s comprehension of the source text to be low. Jerome, on the other hand, anticipated the readers at a high level, so that he basically adopted free translation as a translation method of any kind of literary work, including the Bible. Moreover, since Jerome accepted the Hebrew text as the original text, rejecting the authority of the LXX, he recommended the non-Hebrew readers ask the Hebrews to examine the accuracy of his translation. In addition, as Augustine and Jerome have different attitudes towards translation, they also have different views on the ideological state of the LXX: Augustine allowed the LXX to be a free translation, while Jerome strictly demanded it to be a literal translation, even though their own translation theories are opposite, respectively.
"Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith?" Harvard Theological Review 108 (2015): 356–75.
The reception of Tobit and Judith in early Christianity poses complex problems, which can be illustrated by Jerome’s attitude toward them. His translations of the two books fit somewhat uncomfortably within his literary corpus, and Jerome knew it. He classified both books, along with four others, as outside the biblical canon but worthy of study for the purposes of edification. Out of these six books, he translated only Tobit and Judith. This paper explores possible motivations for Jerome’s selecting these two books and how he characterized them in his prefaces to his translations. As for the first issue, we will see that Jerome, along with other Fathers, considered Tobit and Judith to be authentic ancient Israelite literature and that this may have distinguished them from the other deuterocanonical books in his mind. As for how he characterizes them, his prefaces can be interpreted in two opposite directions. They are often read—and for good reason—as disparaging Tobit and Judith and perhaps even discouraging readers from making use of his translations. However, we will find that Jerome likely intended certain statements in the prefaces to be taken in the opposite sense. Especially his labeling Tobit and Judith as agiografa and his description of the translation procedure for Tobit suggest that Jerome wanted to endorse these books and his translations of them as valuable Christian reading material.
Renaissance Studies, 2022
The fifteenth-century Italian humanists applied their ideas on translation and textual scholarship not only to classical texts, but also to Scripture. One problem they encountered was the rendering of biblical passages in their patristic translations. The Church Fathers had occasionally based their exegesis on variant readings or interpretations that clashed with ‘Jerome’s translation’, the Latin translation in common use in the fifteenth century and traditionally ascribed to Jerome. When the patristic source text demanded it, changing Jerome’s translation was therefore surely justified – but perhaps it was justified in other cases too. This article analyses how humanist translators treated biblical quotations in patristic texts, focusing on the Latin translations of Basil’s Hexaemeron by Lampugnino Birago (1390–1472) and Cyril’s Commentary on John by George of Trebizond (1396–1472/3), and explores what their practice can tell us about humanist approaches to translation and the biblical text.