kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 Särtryck

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

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 Redaktör: Anders Jarlert, professor i kyrkohistoria vid Lunds universitet. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen 106:1 isbn 91-85582-57-3, issn 0085-2619 © Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen & författaren 2006. http://www.kyrkohistoriskarsskrift.se SÄRTRYCK

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

1. Introduction Modern research, too, has devoted little attention to the Vulgate among the Protestants in the sixteenth, 1.1 Aim and scope seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, viz. the extent to which they used it and how they evaluated it. In the age of the Reformation (1517–1580) This article is meant to help remedy the defi ciency and post-Reformation (1580–1720) many biblical in this fi eld of research. The purpose is accordingly scholars, Hebraists and Grecists alike, made new twofold: to give a survey of Latin versions of the entire Latin translations of the Old and New Testaments or complete Old Testament from the Hebrew source from Hebrew and Greek by individual enterprises. language that came into being up to the middle of the Most of the translators belonged to the Reformed eighteenth century, and, secondly, to present the most and Lutheran Churches. Some new Latin versions important revisions of the Vulgate within the Luth- enjoyed universal approval as long as Latin was the eran Church as well as to probe the opinions of the language of scholarship. Nevertheless, the Lutheran Vulgate among Protestants. I shall also touch upon an and Reformed churches continued to use the Vulgate, adjacent area, the theory behind Bible translation. although they revised and emendated it from the source languages of the Bible. The question of what Latin Bible versions were 1.2 Outline of the study developed and used in the age of Reformation and The survey is arranged as follows: First, previous post-Reformation must be considered a matter of research is presented. Then the three methods are great signifi cance in Neo-Latin philology as well as described to which the humanist Hebraists resorted church history. However, the Latin versions of the to establish a Latin Bible for the Church’s use. This whole Old Testament elaborated in the period 1500 – leads to an account of the revisions of the Vulgate by 1750 have received only limited attention in modern the Lutherans and the opinions of the Vulgate among scholarship, which has concentrated on the Bible the Protestants. Next follows a survey of the Latin versions in European vernaculars during the sixte- versions of the Old Testament from its Hebrew origi- enth century and, if Latin Bible versions have been nal in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth cen- considered at all, scholarship has dealt with Lorenzo turies. In introductory sections there is an attempt to Valla’s criticism of the Vulgate, Erasmus’ Latin ver- describe the humanistic Latin Bible versions in their sion of the New Testament or some humanist trans- historical context, and, further, what Hebrew source lator of an individual biblical book (e.g. the Psalter).1 text the translator in question set out from, and the

Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 31 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 views on Bible interpretation as expressed by human- Christian Kortholt (1633–1694), professor of theo- ist theorists (Huet and Humphrey). The description logy at the University of Kiel (Lutheran), De variis of each Latin version of the Old Testament is arranged Scripturae Sanctae editionibus tractatus theologico- as follows: fi rst, the appearance of the different edi- historico-philologicus (1686), deals with the Vulgate tions will be accounted for. Then, the focus will fall and presents a survey of new Latin Bible translations, on the various methods of translation, as described where he above all has collected a body of information by the translators in question, and, last, the recep- about contemporary scholars’ critical judgements on tion history of the respective Bible versions will be the versions considered.3 dealt with, how they were estimated by critics in the Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679–1767), professor sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century. The of theology at the University of Leipzig (Lutheran) is reception history will be investigated by means of a to be credited with the most extensive exposition on selection of the opinions voiced by critics. After this the present matter among all surveys that were writ- survey the editions of the Vulgate and the Latin Bible ten in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the versions are placed in a chronological overview. Then voluminous treatise on textual criticism of the Old follows an exposition that tries to penetrate some key Testament Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti (1728) he concepts that the Bible translators in the sixteenth, investigates inter alia the Vulgate, its age and origin, seventeenth and eighteenth century had in mind. its genuine author, its errors of translation, the edi- The qualities of proprietas, i.e. proper signifi cation, tions of it since the Carolingian Renaissance (Alcuin, latinitas or puritas, i.e. linguistic correctness, and Beda and so on), the question of its authority and its perspicuitas, i.e. clearness, turn out to be the most use, as well as the new Latin translations of the Old important terms in the conceptual framework. The Testament from the original language, wherein he different concerns for these qualities have been evalu- accounts for the aim which the translator in question ated in the Latin versions under consideration. Finally, had in view with his translation, the methods of trans- some specimens of biblical passages are adduced in lation, the varying estimations among the critics, the order to elucidate different linguistic features in the general character of the translation and the technique Latin Bible versions considered. of translation, which is thoroughly exemplifi ed, and, fi nally, the different editions and revisions of the Bible version at issue.4 Jacque le Long (1665–1721), a French librarian 2. Earlier investigations (Catholic), wrote an extensive chronological list of editions of the Bible in all various languages, Bib- 2.1 Seventeenth- and liotheca Sacra seu syllabus omnium ferme Sacrae eighteenth-century research Scripturae editionum ac versionum (Paris 1709) (Simon, Kortholt, Carpzov, encompassing the period from the fi rst printed edi- le Long, Masch) tions of the Bible in the 1450’s up to his days. In one In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there section he enumerates the editions of the Vulgate by appeared exhaustive surveys and critical reviews of Catholics, and in another section he lists the editions the emendated and revised editions of the Vulgate and of the Vulgate as issued and annotated by the Pro- the new Latin Bible translations. Those attracting testants. He devotes yet another entire section to the special interest and those that are of major impor- new Latin Bible versions from the Hebrew original. tance will be mentioned in the following account. Andreas Gottlieb Masch (1724–1807), a librarian Richard Simon (1638–1712), the famous French and a divine (Lutheran), considerably enlarged and exegete and biblical critic (Catholic) wrote Histoire supplemented Jacque le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra. Critique du Vieux Testament (1685), where he deals Masch’s revision and enlargement of Bibliotheca with the history of Bible translations. On the basis of sacra is marked by systematics in minute details, his own readings, as it appears, he makes judicious apparent in the conspectus, which is to be found after remarks about the new Latin translations of the Bible the preface of the third volume. The third volume up to his time.2 (1783) and the fourth volume (1785) deal with the

32 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Latin versions of the Bible. The fi rst chapter is on ieval exegesis to English versions, viz. Coverdale, the old Latin Bible versions. The second chapter treats Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible editions of the Vulgate version. The third chapter and King James Version. In another article about is occupied with versions from the original langu- Sebastian Münster’s knowledge and use of Jewish ages (1785). These chapters are divided into a great exegesis (1943) he thoroughly illustrates Münster’s number of sections and entries. Masch not only lists dependence on Jewish rabbis such as Raschi, Kimchi editions, but also in many cases includes the preface and Ibn Esra.7 by each editor, and in the case of the humanistic Latin John M. Lenhart, an American scholar specialized Bible versions he inserts a lot of critical judgements by on Franciscan libraries and the typography in the six- renowned critics.5 teenth century, in the article ‘Protestant Latin Bible of Two Swedish scholars also reviewed the Latin ver- the Reformation from 1520-1570: a bibliographical sions of the Bible in the mid eighteenth century, Pet- account’, surveys the revisions of the Vulgate in Luth- rus Ekerman (1696–1783), professor of eloquence at eran countries and pays regard to the Old Testament Uppsala University and Samuel Johansson Alnander and the New Testament as well as parts of both of (1731–1772), lecturer of literary history at Uppsala them.8 University. Neither is, however, original nor do they Furthermore, Basil Hall, an English Church his- convey any basic research, but base their descrip- torian, has written an excellent exposition ‘Biblical tions on secondary sources. Ekerman largely relied scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ (1963), on the above-mentioned Carpzov, but not without which deals with the foremost revisions of the Vulgate acknowledging his indebtedness through frequent by Catholic and Protestants and the complete Latin references.6 Bible versions from Hebrew in the sixteenth cen- It is necessary to point out that all the handbooks tury.9 mentioned above are in Latin, except for Richard G. Lloyd Jones, an English church historian, in an Simon and Samuel Alnander. In studying the recep- introductory chapter of a book devoted to Hebrew tion history of the various Latin Bible versions I have scholarship in sixteenth-century England, discus- made ample use of the source material accounted for ses the Latin Bible translations of Sanctes Pagninus, above. I have also availed myself of a number of other Sebastian Münster, Leo Jud and Immanuel Tremellius sixteenth-, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cri- and Franciscus Junius in their capacity as sources of tics, who wrote in Latin. All English translations infl uences for the different humanistic English Bible from Latin, French, and Swedish sources occurring versions.10 in this paper are mine. Bernard Roussel (French church historian), as a part in a great project on the Bible as interpreted and 2.2 Modern research dealt with in all ages, treats the Latin text of the Bible (Rosenthal, Lenhart, Hall, in the age of the Reformation and very briefl y discus- Lloyd Jones, Roussel, Hobbs) ses the revisions of the Vulgate and the new Latin In modern times primarily historians of the biblical versions developed during the Reformation. Roussel exegesis in the Reformation have summarily dealt considerably relies on Basil Hall, but has also his own with the present matter as a part in major works, but contributions.11 not in its own right. The modern scholars mentioned R. Gerald Hobbs, an American church historian, below have only paid regard to the Latin Bible ver- mentions the main revisions of the Vulgate in the sions of the sixteenth century (i.e. the Bible versions sixteenth century and in summary terms calls atten- by Schmidius, Clericus and Houbigant have been left tion to some new Latin Bible versions: Pagninus, the without consideration). Zurich version, Castellio, Tremellius & Junius.12 Erwin Rosenthal, an English Hebraist and Arabist, in an article on Raschi and the English Bible (1940), summarily deals with the Latin translations by Pagninus, Münster, Leo Jud and Tremellius & Junius in as far as these works transmitted the rabbinic med-

33 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 3. The methods to establish a margin to elucidate the biblical text. The annotations correct Latin text of the Bible were in many cases drawn from rabbinical medieval exegesis (see further section 5.1.1). Isodorus Clarius The humanists understood that the transmitted (1495–1553), bishop of Foligno in Italy, presented an Vulgate was full of copyist errors. Some Catholic edition the Vulgate text in 1542 (in Venice), emenda- and most of the Protestant humanists doubted that ted in passages where he thought it to disagree with Jerome was the author of the modern Vulgate. Others the Hebrew text; the alterations numbered eight believed that the text transmitted was contaminated thousand.15 Estienne’s and Clarius’ editions were sus- with the ancient Latin version (Vetus Latina or Itala). pected of heresy and entered on Index librorum pro- When they saw that the Vulgate version in some pas- hibitorum. Louvain scholars published on the public sages was corrupted by the copyists and in others did authority of the Roman Catholic Church a revised not correspond to the Hebrew and Greek sources,13 edition in 1547 (Antwerp), based on a later version they decided to reconstitute a correct Latin version of Estienne’s edition (1538–40) and on the collation of the Bible. To re-establish such a Latin biblical text of some thirty manuscripts. The Spanish orientalist three different methods were used:14 (1) to revise the Arias Montanus (1527–1598) improved the Louvain text of the Vulgate from ancient manuscripts, (2) to edition in his edition of the Vulgate in the Antwerp correct the Vulgate from the Hebrew and Greek origi- Polyglott (1569–72).16 In the corrections undertaken nal, and (3) to translate the text into Latin anew from by papal authority in the 1580’s and 1590’s, attempts the source languages. The last alternative was con- were done to establish the original readings of the sistent with the humanist motto ad fontes, which in Vulgate through three methods, namely collation biblical scholarship involved a return to the Hebrew of ancient Latin manuscripts, the expositions of the and Greek source languages. This was further accen- church Fathers and ancient translators, and conside- tuated by the formal principle of the Reformation, viz. ration to the Hebrew and Greek text.17 The Sixto- sola scriptura ”the Scripture alone”. As far as com- Clementine edition was issued in 1592 as the authen- plete Latin Bible versions are concerned, the general tic Vulgate, in order to fulfi l the decree of the council tendency is that the Catholics chose the fi rst method, of Trent to print as emendated an edition as possible. the Lutherans preferred the second option, and the Henceforward the authors, typographers, and sellers Reformed scholars dwelt on the third alternative. My of revised editions were threatened with punishments survey is meant to cover the outcomes of the second and with excommunication. The Sixto-Clementine and third methods. As was stated in the introduc- Vulgate remained the fi nal edition for some hundreds tion (1.2), the revisions of the Vulgate by Protestants of years. For an elaborate account of the appearances will be treated and the new Latin versions of the Old of editions of the Vulgate in Catholic countries, see Testament will be surveyed. Masch (who deals with the matter in volume 3, chap- For the sake of completeness I also have to mention ter 2, section 1). the efforts of Catholic printers and scholars in the sixteenth century to correct the transmitted Vulgate 4. The Vulgate as revised, text from early manuscripts, which represent the fi rst method pointed out. A great many emendations of used and evaluated in the the Vulgate, based on an early modern method of tex- Protestant world tual criticism, were undertaken on private initiatives, for instance by the printer-scholar Robert Estienne 4.1 Introduction: (1503–1559) who published an edition in 1528 (Paris) Valla and Erasmus under the title of Biblia. In a later revision, issued When the humanists that were profi cient in Greek and in 1532, he claimed that he has restored the Vulgate Hebrew began to compare the Vulgate with the text to the form in which the translator himself wrote it. of the source languages they discovered copyist errors New editions followed 1540, 1545, 1546 and 1557. as well as mistakes of translation. The fi rst human- Estienne also combined his editorial activity with ist to make collations with a Greek manuscript was Bible commentary and included annotations in the Lorenzo Valla in Collatio Novi Testamenti, 1444.

34 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

He asserted the principle that the Greek original and Reformed theologians took measures, however, should be preferred to the Vulgate. When they dif- to restore the integrity of the Vulgate by having it com- fered, the Greek original should be regarded as more pared both to ancient manuscripts and in particular reliable. To many of his contemporaries this was a to the Hebrew and Greek sources. It was obviously heretical opinion. Lorenzo Valla and Leonardo Bruni regarded as important to edit as faultless editions as wished to discard the Vulgate and replace it with a possible for the students’ use. In the case of annotated new Latin translation, but things changed with the editions of the Vulgate (Biblia glossata or annotata) counter-Reformation, symbolized in the decree of this purpose was combined with the intention of the Tridentine Council (1545–63), which declared spreading evangelical teaching and tenets among the the Vulgate to be the authentic version (see further educated classes in Catholic Europe.20 section 4.3). Erasmus found a draft of Lorenzo Valla’s A reading consistently corrected in the Lutheran work and published it under the title Annotationes in revisions of the Vulgate is the pronoun ipsa in Gen. 3, 1505. Erasmus subseqently developed the philologi- 15: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen cal method for the interpretation of the Holy Writ. tuum et semen illius. Ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu However, his Latin translation, published within the insidiaberis calcaneo illius. The Lutherans consis- edition of the Greek New Testament (Novum Instru- tently altered ipsa to ipse or ipsum, because—as was mentum in 1516), was only meant for scholarly use; rightly argued—the Hebrew pronoun hu’ grammati- Erasmus wished the text of the Vulgate to be read in cally and contextually can only refer to the promised the schools just as before, sung in the churches and seed, semen, of the women, viz. Christ our Saviour. recited at public lectures.18 Nevertheless, Erasmus’ Between 1521 and 1570 Protestant, mainly Luth- Latin version of the New Testament came to be much eran, editors and printers issued fi fty-eight editions used in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. of the Vulgate.21 The most signifi cant editions will be accounted for. A full account of the editions of the 4.2 Revisions of the Vulgate Vulgate by Protestants is to be found in Masch (1783 by the Lutherans pp. 308–352). The Lutherans did not reject the Vulgate. They did Andreas Osiander the Elder (1496–1552), a divine not, however, accept it as authoritative. The Vulgate and professor of Hebrew at Nuremberg, was the fi rst was, as it seems, used as the standard Latin Bible to venture a revision of the Vulgate (Biblia Sacra in the Lutheran schools and universities in the six- 1522).22 In the preface to the edition, he states that teenth and seventeenth centuries, but it did not he had no access to old manuscripts and therefore enjoy an authoritative position. The early Lutheran he was compelled to discover spurious readings and theologians retained the Vulgate in their scholarly to conjecture the plausible ones by consulting the work. I have examined a number of biblical pas- Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Furthermore, Osi- sages, chosen at random, in the Latin versions of the ander states that he removed errors that he surmised Lutheran Creeds, viz. Confessio Augustana (1530), as being typographical and grammatical. In passages Apologia Confessionis (1531 originally written in where the Vulgate did not appear to equal and cor- Latin by Philipp Melanchthon), Articuli Smalcaldici respond to the Hebrew text, he gave the meaning of (the German original was written in 1537, the Latin the Hebrew words in marginal annotations. In the version made in 1584) and Formula Concordiae (the same year (1522) Protestant typographers at Stras- Latin version of which was begun by Lucas Osiander bourg23 and at Basel24 issued editions of the Vulgate. 1577, continued by Jacob Heerbrand and revised by These editions represent texts deviating from each Nicolaus Selneccer and Martin Chemitz, completed other, although established by collation of the best in 1584).19 I n general, the Scriptural passages turn out and oldest manuscript. to be identical with or very close to the Vulgate text. Five years later, in 1527, a scholar-typographer in Thus, by virtue of its great age, the ancient Latin Nuremberg, Johann Petreius, issued his revision of version, the Vulgate, continued to be used in the the Vulgate.25 Petreius corrected the readings when schools and universities in the Protestant countries the manuscripts that he used did not agree with each after the breakthrough of the Reformation. Lutheran other. For disagreeing readings he made conjectures

35 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Consequently, introduce a Latin Bible consistent with Luther’s Ger- Petreius primarily used the Hebrew original as a man translation in the schools of Saxony. Paul Eber means in the text-critical establishment of original (1511–1569), a professor of Hebrew in Wittenberg, readings of the Vulgate. Masch (1783, p. 311) sta- and George Major (1502–1574) were thus given the tes that Petreius’ edition in many places differs from task of correcting the Vulgate, in order that it would Osiander the Elder’s. agree with Martin Luther’s German version. They Again, seven years after Osiander, in 1529, edited a Latin Bible printed in parallel to the German Wittenberg scholars issued a corrected edition of the text in ten volumes (1565).31 Moreover, Victor Strigel Vulgate from the original languages comprising the (1524–1569) at Leipzig in the 1560’s made a revision Pentateuch, Josua, Judges, Samuels and Kings and the of the Vulgate from the Hebrew text and supplied it entire New Testament.26 It was prefaced by Luther, with his summaries and annotations.32 but was probably carried out by a team of Wittenberg Gradually it had become evident that the Vulgate Bible scholars (Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, contained a lot of errors in translation. The Lutheran Matthäus Aurogallus, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Jonas, theologian Lucas Osiander the Elder (1534–1604), Georg Spalatin, all of the latter assisted Luther in Superintendent in Stuttgart and Chaplain of the translating the Bible into German).27 In the preface Prince of Würtemberg, carried out an extensive emen- Luther says that the aim at fi rst only was to correct dation of the Vulgate. Lucas Osiander introduced a the errors of the copyists, in order to achieve a puri- new method of revising the Vulgate: he remoulded the fi ed edition of the Vulgate for the students. During the Vulgate text in all passages where he estimated that it work they realized that the Vulgate text was so corrupt diverged from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. that they had to take recourse to the authentic Hebrew He does not, however, dismiss the Vulgate text, but text, especially as they lacked old manuscripts. They always keeps it, and immediately adds his emendations cancelled spurious readings and replaced them with in italics. The improvements are usually concerned emendations. with single words, which are brought in closer con- In that way, Luther contends, an almost new version formity with the proper meanings of the correspon- arose, whose aim was that the Latin text would cor- ding Hebrew words. The emendations occur in a great respond to the Hebrew one (nova propemodum trans- number and extend to almost every biblical passage. latio nata est, ut per omnia responderet latina lectio Osiander states in the preface that he chose the method Ebraicae). Moreover, Luther lays stress upon the fact of adding his own improvements to the Vulgate text that his edition was intended for the use of theological in order that it might be possible to evaluate his cor- students (ad utilitatem discentium sacras literas), and rections and the readings of the Vulgate. He lays stress not to be received in the churches and publicly read on the fact that he has made the ancient Vulgate more in the place of the old one (non ut haec nostra edicio clear and plain, as far as he has changed obscure and reciperetur in templis et publice pro veteri legeretur); ambiguous passages. Osiander argues in the preface Luther prefers to keep the old standard form of the that Jerome sometimes comes so close to the Hebrew Vulgate text for public use (nam publice satius est vete- phrases that it is impossible to surmise what is actually rem et ubique similem lectionem retinere). Carpzov in meant. Furthermore, Osiander supplied the biblical his Critica sacra (1728) shows by examples that this text with short and clear explanations, mainly relying edition surpasses the Vulgate and Luther’s own Ger- on the Bible commentaries of Martin Luther and John man version of the Bible in the accuracy of rendering Brenz, with the aim of emphasizing evangelical tenets. the source text.28 In 1529 Luther also edited a correc- The annotations are embedded in the current text ted Psalterium of the Vulgate text (Gallicanum)29. after every verse. A heavily annotated edition came in Johann Brenz (1499–1570), a prominent Lutheran seven volumes 1574–1586,33 reprinted 1599.34 An edi- divine, was the author of an emendated edition of the tion without commentaries was fi nished in 1578–80, Vulgate (Leipzig 1544).30 In the edition Brenz incorpo- reprinted in 1593. rated St. Jerome’s prolegomena to the different biblical It is signifi cant that Abraham Calovius (1612–1686), books. Another edition of the Vulgate was due to the a Lutheran exegete and dogmatician, in his brief sur- fact that the Elector of Saxony took the initiative to vey of Latin Bible versions in the introduction to Biblia

36 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Testamenti veteris illustrata regards Lucas Osiander’s Having surveyed the main revisions of the Vulgate revision of the Vulgate as a new translation, although in the Lutheran Church, we will turn to the achieve- he knew that it was a revision. Furthermore, Richard ments in this area in the Reformed Church. It is to be Simon states that Osiander would have undertaken noticed that the only Calvinistic scholar to revise the a new Latin version, if time had suffi ced for such an Vulgate from the Hebrew source text was Conrad Pel- enterprise. He approves of Osiander’s method to trans- lican (1478–1556), a Swiss Hebraist.36 The revision late, as it were, the Bible while keeping the ancient was not issued separately, however, but was integrated version accepted in the Church for so long a time. This and embedded in his commentary on the Bible, Zurich method, he says, is to be considered the best and the 1532–1539, reprinted in 1582.37 There are great dif- most secure, because it does not reject a version aut- fi culties in many biblical passages, Pellican admits in horized long ago. Richard Simon also underlines that the preface, but at the same time he argues that there is both Lucas Osiander as well as Andreas Osiander (see never any insuperable obscurity as far as the essential below) were well acquainted with the Hebrew langu- doctrines are concerned, provided that the interpreter age. If they had placed the corrections in the margin, it is pious, loves the truth, divine glory and the salvation is stated, he would not have anything to blame in their of humans, and that an ardent desire is present, pro- editions of the Bible. fuse prayers alike, a wakeful mind, a sacred assiduity, In the preface Lucas Osiander states that it is as evi- simple accuracy, energetic toil, and provided that he dent that it is not necessary to prove that the Vulgate has a constant purpose to discover the innate mea- version (vetus illa translatio) is in everyone’s hand, ning of the Scripture.38 As regards the revision of the especially among students of theology, and thus still Vulgate Pellican maintains that he would have retained has a public authority. He says that he has decided the Vulgate text, if he had not been asked by his col- to correct and expound the Vulgate because it is still leagues (fratres) to emendate it (p. 11). Pellican says retained in the schools and in the theological exercises that he would himself all the better keep a translation on account of its old age. Osiander also states the pur- of venerable authority unaltered and unchanged in the pose that he wishes his work to reach those who are Christian congregations. In the preface he states that not able to read Luther’s salubrious German version in his revision he has rendered the Hebraisms more (ii, qui Germanicae linguae cognitione destituuntur, appropriately than the Vulgate, even though not trans- Lutheri labore saluberrimo frui not possunt). lating them exactly (p. 12). The Fathers of the Church Andrew Osiander the Younger (1562–1617) was a thought it more advisable, Pellican maintains (p. 11), son of Lucas Osiander. He became General Superin- to permit a barbarism than to remove the smallest mat- tendent in Tübingen and Chancellor of the University ter from the meaning of the divine prophesies. They there. He continued the revision of the Vulgate and did not think, he continues to argue, that a legitimate Bible commentary initiated by his father. The correc- method of translation in the sphere of the Holy Writ tions in italics occur, as far as I have noticed, in the possibly can be extended as far as in profane literature, same passages as in Lucas Osiander and they are the i.e. to weigh, as it were, the meaning while the words same. As far as the annotations in the margin are con- are not accounted for,39 because in the divine speeches cerned, Andrew Osiander to a large extent added new the separate words conceal a mystery.40 He affi rms (p. ones, and modifi ed and supplemented those in Lucas 12) that as far as possible he has changed the Hebrew Osiander’s work. The page layout is also entirely dif- modes of expression into words and terms sounding ferent: the biblical text is arranged in two columns in good in Latin. He says that he diverges from Jerome’s the middle of the page; the two surrounding columns wordings only when the Hebrew original text appears show references to doctrinal passages (loci communes to hint at something more (non ... nisi ubi aliquid amp- or sedes doctrinae) and the farthest columns contain lius subindicare videretur). However, in passages where the annotations, taken from the writings of prominent the meaning of the Hebrew original is doubtful Pel- Lutheran teachers and the Formula of Concord (1577– lican preferred to rely on the authority of the Fathers 80) itself. The fi rst edition of his annotated Latin Bible (Jerome and the Septuagint) and remain uncertain with was issued in 1600. The best-known edition, the fi fth them, rather than to rely on the medieval Jewish exege- in order, was printed at Frankfurt in 1618.35 tes and to pretend the problem to be settled (p. 12).

37 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

4.3 The Vulgate as evaluated among through a thousand years and with regard to the the Protestants (Chemnitz, Walton, translator’s erudition and fi delity. Calovius, Carpzov) Walton enumerates some learned Protestant scho- Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586), a German theologian lars who held the Vulgate in high esteem. Among oth- (Lutheran), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini under- ers he mentions Paulus Fagius (1504–1549), a French lines that the Lutheran Churches do not condemn the Hebraist (Lutheran), who showed that the Vulgate Vulgate version, but retain it in use with discrimi- follows the Septuagint, the Targum or some rabbini- nation, in such a way that one has to return to the cal source in the passages where it differs from the Hebrew and Greek sources in passages that are incor- Hebrew. Moreover, he points out Ludewijk de Dieu rectly rendered, altered, mutilated or added. Thus, he (1590–1642), a Dutch scholar, who asserts that the continues, it is unacceptable that the Vulgate version translator of the Vulgate was very learned and testi- according to the tenor of decree of the Tridentine fi es that he admires his judicious choices and fi delity Council should be considered authentic, i.e. reliable, even in passages where it seems barbaric. Walton in public readings, disputations, sermons and expla- also draws attention to Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614), nations, and that one should not dare to criticize it a great French polyhistor, who preferred the Vulgate under any pretext whatever.41 In the cases where it to the modern Greek manuscripts of the New Testa- diverges from the source text, we would otherwise ment and to Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch Bible be forced to accept the errors of the translator and scholar, who used the Vulgate as the text from which would not be allowed to reject them, even after having he set out in his celebrated annotations of the Old explored the original wordings.42 Chemnitz states Testament, arguing that he always has appreciated that even Augustine was aware of the fact that a ver- the Vulgate not only because it does not contain any sion cannot be made authorative against the sources insalubrious dogmas, but also because it has a good themselves. In passages where there is some doubt deal of erudition, although suffi ciently rough and we have to take recourse to the Greek and Hebrew rude in style.44 models (De doctrina Christiana 2,12). The vindica- In the seventeenth century the errors of translation tion of the Vulgate among the Catholic theologians of in the Vulgate were even more explored and presented the Tridentine council was, according to Chemnitz, in a number of extensive treatises. Several Protestant not without secret reasons, in so far as the Vulgate scholars thoroughly demonstrated such inaccuracies. contains erroneously translated passages supporting The criticism of the Vulgate was in particular voiced papal tenets, as in the case of the above-mentioned by two prominent scholars, namely Sixtinus Amama reading ipsa in Gen 3, 15, alleged to prove the inter- (1593–1629), a Dutch Hebraist, professor of Hebrew cession of Mary, and Psalms 150,1 laudate Dominum at the University of Franeken, in Censura Vulgatae in sanctis ejus “praise the Lord in his saints”, alleged atque a Tridentinis canonizatae versionis quinque to defend the invocation of the saints.43 librorum Mosis (1620) and Anti-barbarus Biblicus Brian Walton (1600–1661), English Orientalist (1628), its second and third book,45 and Abraham (Anglican), in the prolegomenon to the London Poly- Calovius, professor of theology at the University of glot 1655–57, shows that most of the subsequent Cat- Wittenberg, in Criticus Sacer (1643).46 holic scholars rejected the Tridentine declaration con- Leaving Amama aside for future research, I will cerning the authority of the Vulgate. They modifi ed concentrate on Calovius. In the second part of the the decree to imply that the Vulgate version contained above-mentioned work he deals with the foremost no errors in matters of faith and in moral questions versions of the Bible; he mainly occupies himself with (in rebus fi dei et morum), since one cannot possibly the Vulgate. He begins by describing the diverging maintain that it is inspired and exempted from errors interpretations of the Tridentine decree concerning whatever. Walton himself makes reservations against the authenticity of the Vulgate by Catholic theologians the Vulgate as acknowledged as divine, but points out in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.47 A debate that it ought to be held in high esteem and is not to be arose among the Catholics regarding the purport of criticized without due reason, considering its old age the decree, especially of what was meant by “authen- and the widespread use of it in the Western Church tic”, whether the Vulgate was to be preferred to other

38 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Latin versions or if it was to be ranked equal with the fers from the Hebrew original because the Hebrew original texts. Isodorus Clarius, for instance, thought text has been changed since the time of Jerome.53 that no version can be placed on equality with the In disproving the second opinion, the history of emen- texts in the original languages, but that the Vulgate dations of the Vulgate provides with the fi rst argument, was to be preferred to all others, provided that it is and passages criticized and noted as worthy of emenda- corrected from the source text. The major part of tion by Catholic scholars such as Pagninus, Cajetanus, the Catholic theologians considered that the version Forerius and Oleastrius have not been corrected in the that since long had been read in the churches and Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. However, the major part accepted in the schools was necessarily to be held as of the refutation lies in classifying and exemplifying divine and authenic; otherwise, the Lutherans would the various inaccuracies in the Vulgate. Eight groups be granted the victory and a door would be opened of mistakes (sphalmata) are discerned: ἀντιφατικὰ i.e. to innumerable heresies and continuous tumults all renderings being contradictory to the Hebrew sources, over Christian world. Calovius reduces the different ἀριθμετικὰ i.e. numerals rendered wrongly, ἐλλειπτικὰ opinions to three categories: the fi rst opinion being i.e. entire verses and single words have been left out, that the Vulgate is divine and inspired by the Holy πλεοναστικὰ i.e. redundant elements, namely clauses Spirit,48 (so was asserted by Petrus Sutor, Franciscus and sentences introduced independently of the Hebrew Titelmannus, Jacob Gretser and Johannes Morinus), original, γραφικὰ i.e. mistakes made by the copyists the second being that the Vulgate, although not of the Vulgate, διαιρετικὰ i.e. mistakes that separate inspired by God, is still exempt from all errors of that which is to be joined and join together that which translation, even smaller ones,49 (so contended the is to be separated, due to failure to observe the pun- assembly of the Cardinals in 1576, and Luis de Tena, ctuation marks in the Hebrew original, ὀνομαστικὰ Juan de Pineda,50 Gregorius de Valentia, Domingo i.e. confusions of proper names and appellations, and Bannes and Christoph a Sacrobosco), and the third παραλειπομένοι i.e. all other errors, especially rende- being that the Vulgate is authentic in the sense that rings that are too close to the Hebrew idiom or those it is exempt from errors that concern the faith and that are not appropriate or even careless.54 morals,51 (a position taken by Andreas Vega, Jacob In proving the third opinion false, Calovius empha- Payva Andradius, Joan. Stephan Menochius, Jean sizes approximately the same points as in the previous Driedo, Juan de Mariana, Robert Bellarmin and demonstration. The Vulgate thus offends against the Nicolaus Serarius). faith in several respects: (1) it contradicts the Word Calovius refutes each of these opinions in order. of God, in so far as it sometimes omits negations, In refuting the fi rst opinion, the main points are the sometimes puts in the affi rmative that which contains following: (1) there is a lack of proof and that which a negative in the Hebrew. (2) It adds something that the Catholics still allege is refuted; (2) the assistance not is divinely inspired to the word of God or it takes of the Holy Spitit has to be denied, because it was away something that is inspired. (3) It diversifi es words confi ned to the Prophets and Apostles; (3) an investi- and alters senses. Thus, the same is not said as in the gation of the Vulgate version shows that it does not original and even different meanings may be brought corresponds everywhere to the Hebrew and Greek in. (4) It distorts numbers in the reckoning of years and truth, but differs in many passages. Calovius asks: in other accounts of the history. (5) It varies recurrent Who can possibly believe that the Holy Spirit did not details in the sacred history. (6) It approves of false- understand himself? There are also a lot of solecisms hoods. (7) It causes and promotes deceptive supposi- and barbarisms that are not to be imputed to the Holy tions and inept and empty disputations. (8) It distorts Spirit as the creator of the language; (4) the very emen- divine regulations. (9) It lays false foundations of the dations of the Vulgate are impious, provided that the faith and the divine mysteries. (10) It alters the sacred version is inspired; (5) the matter of fact is that there proverbs and sayings. (11) It weakens the main points are contrary hypotheses on this point among the Cat- of the faith. (12) It defends heretical opinions. Calovius holics: even Gretser concedes that there are words not explains each point exhaustively. To the last category rightly rendered in the Vulgate.52 Calovius opposes he refers among other passages the reading ipsa in Gen. Johannes Morinus’s argument that the Vulgate dif- 3,15, mentioned above.55

39 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

In the introduction to his commentary on the Old and proprietatis verborum). Here Carpzov refers to Testament (1672) Calovius again underlines that the the assessments of L. de Dieu, Hugo Grotius and Calo- Vulgate contains many errors and those who only use vius. (d) It possesses a great polemical value against the Vulgate or consider it authentic will be diverted the Catholics (usus denique Polemicus contra Ponti- from the true sense.56 In Criticus Sacer Calovius also fi cios haut proletarius) in the passages that testify to deals with the question to what extent the Vulgate the truth against the Catholics’ own errors.60 it to be preferred to other Latin versions. In fact, he gives the Vulgate some advantages over the new Latin versions of the Bible, in respect of its great age (ratione 5. The Old Testament antiquitatis), its widespread use and renown (ratione amplitudinis et celebritatis), and its perspicuity and translated from Hebrew proper signifi cation (ratione perspicuitatis et proprie- into Latin: a survey tatis). As regards the last qualities, Calovius admits of versions in the that the Vulgate preserves the proper signifi cation period 1500-1750 of Latin words and that most things are explained clearly. On that account, the Vulgate is to be preferred 5.1 Introduction to the most new Latin translations, which either suf- fer from too a great obscurity or they do not enough 5.1.1 The historical context and the attain to the idiosyncrasy of the Latin language and purpose of the Latin versions sometimes appear to neglect it intentionally.57 The development of new Latin versions of the Old Carpzov discusses in his Critica Sacra Veteris Testament as written in its original languages (Hebrew Testamenti the matters that pertain to the history and Aramaic) was due to the establishment of Hebrew and criticism of the Vulgate,58 namely the questions scholarship and by the renewal of biblical exegesis in of its origin and of its author, its errors of translation, the sixteenth century. the emendations of it in past times, the question of The bulk of these Latin versions were attempts to its authenticity and authority,59 and the arguments bring the Latin text into closer conformity with the for its usefulness and value. In dealing with the last Hebrew original. This is contingent on the shift of her- issue, he says: Although the Vulgate is not worthy of meneutical paradigm in the Reformation. The medie- the praise by which the Catholics extol it, it enjoys a val exegesis had been directed towards unfolding four dignity and a use, which is not to be regretted, among meanings of the biblical text, viz. literal, allegorical, the Protestants. As compared with other Latin ver- moral and anagogical. The Reformers laid all effort sions, the Vulgate can claim four advantages: (a) It on identifying the literal meaning of the biblical text, a has a glorious old age (gloria aetatis), through which meaning which they equated with the prophetic sense,61 it refl ects the understanding of diffi cult passages in which, in turn, was conceived to be Christological, as the ancient Western Church and shows the origin of taught in the New Testament (Luke 24,25; 24,44, John traditional biblical exposition as well as the sources 5,39, Acts 2,31; 3,18). An accurate Latin version provi- of the Catholic errors. (b) It deserves precedence ded the exegetes with a good starting-point. since it is generally approved and used (applausus The Hebraists of the sixteenth century challenged universalis fere receptionis et usus); for no other the Jews to the right of precedence of the interpreta- Latin version has dominated so far and so wide; it tion of the Old Testament. In antiquity and during the has been employed publicly in the Church and also Middle Ages the Jews were in a position of linguistic privately read; al though the recent Latin versions are advantage, in so far as the knowledge of Hebrew was superior to the Vulgate in accuracy and fi delity, none almost exclusively limited to them. This state of affairs has wrested the Vulgate from the hands of the learned changed when Hebrew was added to the humanistic or entirely shaken its fi rm position, because it is still educational program. In the early sixteenth century quoted and used by scholars of the orthodox church. prominent Hebrew scholars appeared, among whom (c) It provides a display of perspicuity and proper sig- were Sanctes Pagninus, Sebastian Münster and Conrad nifi cation of the words (testimonium perspicuitatis Pellican and Paul Fagius. Münster’s Latin version of the

40 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Old Testament represented a clear counterclaim to the sideration do not, at least not in their prefaces, state Jewish non-Christological understanding of the Old which Hebrew Bible edition they used as the source Testament. This purpose is emphasized in Münster’s text. This question must accordingly be settled preface and in his annotations. through inferences. To begin with the two earliest At the same time the early Hebraists were still depen- translators, Pagninus, who commenced his translato- dent on the rabbis for a linguistic understanding of the rial work about 1497, must have used the fi rst printed biblical text. The increasing knowledge of Hebrew in Hebrew Bible of Socino 1488 or the Brescia edition the fi rst decades of the sixteenth century had opened the of 1494 (in octavo format). Luther used the Brescia access to the medieval rabbinical commentaries on the edition when he began his German translation of the Old Testament, indispensable for an advanced under- Old Testament. When Sebastian Münster began to standing of the proper senses of diffi cult biblical words translate the Old Testament into Latin in the early and expressions. Münster’s, Leo Jud’s, Castellio’s and 1520’s, he relied on the biblical text of the fi rst rab- Tremellius’ versions are full of philological annota- binical Bible, printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice tiones, annotations that transmit the medieval Jewish in 1516 after the effort of Felix Pratensis. Münster exegetical efforts. The commentated Latin versions of edited it in parallel with his own Latin translation. the Old Testament developed in the Reformation were The subsequent translators in all probability star- important for vernacular Bible translations in the six- ted from the Masoretic text as available in Daniel teenth centuries, especially many English versions of Bomberg’s second rabbinical Bible,64 printed at the Bible down to King James Version.62 Venice in 1524-25. This second rabbinical Bible was As indicated above, the Latin versions of the Bible accomplished through the scholarship of Jacob ben were not developed for liturgical use in the Churches, Hayyim.65 It represented the Masoretic text66 of the but for scholarly work and for private reading of a Old Testament in a reliable way and was for centu- learned public. In other words they would serve as ries accepted as the standard text. Johannes Buxtorf international standard translations within the acade- issued a revised edition in 1618-19, where he made a mic world. The new versions were also used as aids by selection of the best rabbinical commentaries in the students of theology in their learning of Hebrew and earlier editions of the Bomberg Bible. Concerning the Greek and by scholars whose knowledge in the sacred Masoretic text he did not, however, undertake any languages was insuffi cient. corrections on account of textual criticism.67 The access to Bible translations in European verna- As for the Zurich Latin version, the editor Con- culars did not lead to a decrease in the printing of Latin rad Pellican in the preface states that Leo Jud used Bibles. The importance of vernacular versions should a correct manuscript (in transferendo usus est Leo not be denied, however, in so far as they became the Hebraico exemplari eoque emendatissimo), which daily companion of common people, but it is important he followed strictly (quod religiosissime sequutus to realize that the Church and the learned world still est). Sometimes, especially in diffi cult and ambigu- used Latin as the means of communication. We might ous passages, Conrad Pellican states that he has also suppose that “an educated man or woman despised consulted other copies (interim consuluit etiam alia vernacular books as trash in the same way as educated exemplaria) and taken counsel from the Greek and people in our days despise ungrammatical speech of various Latin versions, even though he was aware the plain man and the cheap productions of scribb- that they did not contain the ultimate truth. lers.”63 There was consequently a continuous need of Furthermore, Castellio says that he has translated Latin Bibles among the educated classes in Europe. The the whole Bible from the original languages, except Latin Bible strongly dominated the market in the six- the major passages in Aramaic (some parts of Daniel teenth century, because they could sell over all Europe, and Esra). Neither Tremellius nor Schmidius state whereas the circulation of vernacular versions was for anything about their source text used. In his preface obvious reasons more limited. Joha n nes Clericus st ates on t he ot her ha nd t hat he has used the Masoretic text (textum masoreticum) as his 5.1.2 About the Hebrew source text source text, but does not say which edition. The authors of the Latin Bible versions under con-

41 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

5.1.3 Advice for Bible translation (Jerome, Huet, ters (e.g. Ep. 106). Jerome expressly rejects Aquila’s Schefferus, Humphrey) minuteness in keeping Hebrew syntax (Ep. 57,11,3). Translation theory as exercised by the humanists The reverence of sacred texts has throughout history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tends to caused translators to use a literal method of transla- favour a literal method for translation of sacred texts. tion, a method meant to safeguard the faithfulness The words of God should be transferred as closely of the translation. This is in particular true of the to the original as possible in order to secure fi delity ancient Greek and Latin translation of the Old and and prevent falsifi cation. Pierre Daniel Huet (1630– New Testaments. As is well known, the Septuagint 1721), a French humanist and bishop of Auranches, and other ancient Greek versions of the Old Testament published a treatise about the best way to translate. (Aquila in particular, literal to the point that he con- It is written as a fi ctitious dialogue between Isaac veys the etymology of the individual words, whereas Casaubon (1559–1614), Jacob August Thuanus Theodotion and Symmachus were less literal) are (Jacques-Auguste de Thou, 1553–1617) and Fronto characterized by a close adherence to the syntax and Ducaeus (Fronto du Duc, 1558–1624). In a broad modes of expression in the original Hebrew. Only to sense he defi nes interpretatio as all speech explaining a limited extent did the Greek translators introduce a thing that not is easily understood (sermo omnis adaptations independently of the Hebrew original quo fi t ut res minime intellecta percipiatur), whether text.68 The Old Latin version (Vetus Latina or Itala) it is applied to commentaries, expositions of glos- adheres almost mechanically to its Greek original, sema, scholia, paraphrases or translation from one namely the Septuagint. language to another. Huet confi nes, however, the Jerome’s translation is certainly marked by a fi de- term interpretatio to the sphere of language. Huet lity to the linguistic features of the Hebrew original favours a literal approach in translation of secular text, but does not lack rhetorical colouring and texts. The translator (interpres) ought to keep the does not slavishly reproduce the idiosyncrasies of integrity of the original as far as the target language the Hebrew original. Jerome consistently and deli- tolerates it. In translation of literary texts the auto- berately deviated from the original in many respects nomy of the original must be defended against the through small changes, e.g. by using synonyms when venture of any free translation. Huet conceived word- the same words recurs in the original, by replacing for-word translation as the ideal. The arrangement of Hebrew parataxis by hypotaxis, by expansion of the words (collocatio verborum) should consequently brief and concise Hebrew expressions, by using alli- be kept according to the possibility of the language terations and a clause rhythm (clausulae) to achieve that the translator uses (pro facultate linguae, qua a good sound of speech.69 interpres utitur). In the area of Bible translation one In the sixteenth and seventeenth century the posi- has to be even more literal, Huet declares and makes tions in theory as well as in the Bible translators’ prac- Isaac Casaubon say: tice was determined by Jerome’s distinction between In the Holy Scriptures, where the word-order is a mystery translation of the Holy Scriptures and secular litera- and where whatever construction that is not elaborate often ture: “I do not only admit, but also freely declare that has many possible meanings which to a great extent are lost by striving for elegance, Jerome admits that one ought to when interpreting Greek writings70 I do not express render word by word, even though he considers that one has word for word, but sense for sense, however not so to proceed in a different way in other contexts and does not the Holy Scriptures, where even the word-order is a always himself obey his own rule. The translator of the Holy mystery.”71 In this passage Jerome seems to advocate Scriptures I command to render word for word. If there are no common and accepted words and phrases to his disposal, a strict literalism in Bible translation, but his virtual he should use those that are obsolete and passed out of daily opinion is that one ought to cling to the words as use. However, if these are lacking too, he may venture to coin long as this principle does not alter the sense or does words never heard of by the old-fashioned Cethegi.72 If only not damage the understanding and in as much as the moderately and modestly used, this liberty will be praised. Likewise, he shall not be kept from retaining the word order innate character of the Latin language allows it. This on account of obscurity or a rude arrangement of the words. is evident from Jerome’s own translation of the Old If it so happens that words must be added, they ought to be Testament and such opinions are expressed in his let- marked with another typeface.73

42 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Such literalist advice for Bible translation is to be Gospel to the rules of Priscian77 and Despauterius78, but it is on the other hand very unworthy to contaminate the divinity found even in Johan Schefferus (1621–1679). In his of a sacred text with the disfi gurement of barbarisms.79 very infl uential work Gymnasium stili the famous A translation is appropriate (apta), Humphrey main- scholar, the Professor Skytteanus at Uppsala Univer- tains, when it observes the stylistic diversity of the sity, recommends accuracy in rendering of the Holy original. The style in the original must therefore be Scriptures and retaining the word order: “However represented aptly and appropriately (apte apposite- I am of the opinion that the translators of the Holy que) in the translation. In the case of strictly theolo- Scriptures in some degree must be excepted here [i.e. gical subject matter Humphrey does not, on the other from what has been said about the rudeness of a lite- hand, accept a far-reaching adaptation to the clas- ral translation]. They ought to observe all things of sical Latin vocabulary up to the point that Christian the original text with accuracy and not even recede Latin terms are rejected. The church should not be from it with the breadth of a nail, as the saying is, called senatum and the bishops should not be called and pay regard to the very modes of speaking – even pontifi ces or fl amines (p. 85). though not used in other languages – in which often a great mystery is concealed, as everyone admits.”74 However, the literalist method for Bible translation 5.2 Pagninus’ version was not undisputed among the translation theorists The Italian Dominican Santes Pagninus (1470–1536) and the translators of the Bible themselves.75 In this completed his Latin version of the Old Testament category belongs Lawrence Humphrey (1525–1589), about 1518, after some twenty years’ work. The an English humanist and a prominent translation apocrypha and the New Testament were fi nished in theorist in the age of humanism. In his treatise Inter- 1521. The enterprise was undertaken at the expense pretatio linguarum (Basel 1559) he discerns four of Pope Leo X, who was favourably disposed to virtues of a translation, which are the following: humanist studies. The fi rst edition appeared at Lyon plenitudo ‘completeness’ (pp. 31–40), proprietas in 1527, entitled Biblia: habes in hoc libro prudens ‘proper signifi cation’ (pp. 41–57), puritas ‘purity’ lector utriusque Testamenti novam translationem (pp. 57–80) and aptitudo ‘suitability’ (pp. 81–96). A aeditam a ... Sancte Pagnino Lucensi. In his version translation is complete (plena) when it renders the he primarily aimed at accuracy and paid less regard whole meaning, in the way that a sense answers to to clarity and the Latin idiom. Usually he follows the a sense, that one fully understands the thought of Hebrew word order. the author and that nothing is taken away or added. The version went through several revisions and edi- A proper (propria) translation is described as when tions. It was reprinted without alterations by Michael every thing is designated with its own word truly, cor- Servetus in Cologne 154180 and by another typograph rectly and faithfully. The aim of a linguistically pure in Lyon 1542.81 Pagninus’ version was accepted in (pura) translation is that it shall be clear and tasteful. Johann Keerberg’s edition in Antwerp along with the In the area of Bible translation one shall strive for a Vulgate, the Latin version of the Septuagint (from the good Latin and select the most apt and choice words Complutense polyglot) and the Latin version of the from the Latin vocabulary, Humphrey argues. As Aramaic Bible translation. will be shown below (section 5.5), this view made him Robert Estienne issued a corrected version in Paris defend Castellio’s version. He also praises Erasmus in 1557 with annotations that he pretends in the pre- for having begun to restore the New Testament to face to originate from François Vatable’s (1490–1547), its previous and genuine beauty in order that Christ professor of Hebrew in Paris, but in fact they were his might speak to us more clearly, in a more Latin way own.82 Estienne justifi es his textual alterations with and more purely.76 In the passage quoted below (in my reference to the fact that he had access to two copies English translation from Latin) a principle for Bible of the fi rst edition in which Pagninus himself had cor- translation is formulated in general terms: rected typographical errors and rendered many places If a sacred text has to speak in Latin, it ought to speak in a very Latin way, provided that it is in a very suitable way. more diligently and accurately. Estienne also claims …However, they object that it is unworthy to subject the that he has used the Hebrew dictionary composed

43 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 by Pagninus, where a great many words and phrases printed interlineally with the Hebrew one. Still, Mon- were rendered differently than in the fi rst edition.83 tanus points out (p. 4), one cannot possibly translate Pagninus’ translation underwent even more chan- everything into Latin with the same weight, force and ges in the revision undertaken by Arias Montanus proper signifi cation that it has in the Hebrew. The (1527–1598), a Spanish Hebraist and exegete. Mon- rejected expressions were placed in the margin and tanus co-operated with prominent Dutch scholars his own substitutes were integrated in the text edited occupied with the Antwerp Polyglot, namely Franci- and were marked with italics. scus Raphelengius (1539–1597) and the brothers Guy In the debate of his days and of posterity the ver- le Fèvre de la Boderie (1541–1598) and Nicholas le sion made by Pagninus met opponents as well as Fèvre de la Boderie. The revision thus appeared as a advocates. His version won appreciation in all religi- part of Polyglot, more precisely in the sixth volume ous camps. To begin with a Catholic scholar, Sisto da which was printed in 1572 by Christoph Plantin.84 Siena (1520 –1569), or Si x t us S enensis as he was called In the preface (p. 3) Montanus relates the back- in Latin, heaps praise on Pagninus’ version saying: ground to his effort. An edition of a literal version When Pagninus realized that the Vulgate partly had was expected in his days. It was desired that not only got lost, partly had been corrupted through the course the sense and meaning of the Hebrew, but also the of time, he decided to carry out a new version of the very force of the words, the fi gures of speech and whole Bible. Having collated the best Hebrew manu- the peculiarities (proprietates) of Hebrew language scripts, he supplied the whole Hebrew Old Testament should be expressed as appositely as possible in Latin. with a Latin version using all accuracy and fi delity Montanus draws attention to the fact that, in the case he was capable of. He also restored the Hebrew pro- of the Bible, translators of his age have been guided by per names to their right pronunciation; his version is a tendency to imitate the classical Latin style. When marked by such accuracy that the rabbis themselves learned and pious men had noticed, he says, that have acclaimed it, Sisto da Siena underlines.87 most of the translators85 were entirely engaged in a Wolfgang Franzius (1564–1628), a German Hebra- mutual emulation to translate the Hebrew Bible in ist (Lutheran), assures that Pagninus’ version is of a the most idiomatic Latin, i.e. as it is clarifi ed, to aim great value and has proved to be more reliable than at a correct Latin style and usage, they wished to have the old version (the Vulgate) among the learned. it not as Latin as possible, but as Hebrew as possible Franzius also contends that it in high degree agrees in a Latin form, i.e. as Montanus explains, the Latin with Luther’s German version. At the same time he version should not even diverge a nail’s breath from concedes that it is not irreproachable in every pas- the diction and distinctive character of the Hebrew sage.88 Luther himself judged Pagninus’ version as language.86 In order to carry out this task, Montanus well as that by Münster as follows: “Ich sehe, wie determined to take Pagninus’ version as his model, in die zween feine Männer, Sanctes und Münster haben its capacity of the most faithful (veluti omnium tutis- studio incredibili et diligenti inimitabili [i.e. with an sima), but did not edit it unaltered and unchanged. incredible eagerness and a diligence impossible to He declares (p. 4) that he has based his alterations on imitate] die Biblia verdolmetzscht, viel gutes damit three different earlier editions, on Pagninus’ Hebrew gethan. Aber die Rabbinen sind ihr etwa zu mächtig, dictionary and on treatises, in which Pagninus asserts dass sie auch die Analogia des Glaubens gefeilet, der that he would have rendered a passage in another way Rabbinen Glosse zu viel nachgehängt haben.”89 than in his fi rst edition. In addition to this interfe- In the preface to his Hebrew-Chaldaic dictionary rence of textual criticism, Montanus reduced it to Johannes Buxtorf the Elder (1564–1629) praises answer literally to the Hebrew modes of expression in Pagninus’ version.90 Johann Leusden (1624–1699), all passages where Pagninus paraphrases or deviates professor of Hebrew at the University of Utrecht from the Hebrew original. Thus, Montanus and his (Reformist), testifi es that Catholics, Calvinists and Dutch colleagues changed almost all words, syntac- Lutherans generally approved this version for its tical constructions and phrases that did not render fi delity to the Hebrew original.91 Leusden investi- the Hebrew original as appositely and properly as gates numerous biblical passages in which Pagninus ever possible. In consequence, the Latin text could be did not render the Hebrew entirely appropriately; in

44 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions many cases Leusden shows that the deviation from falls under the same fault as Aquila. He goes on to say the Hebrew wordings are due to Pagninus’ reliance on that the method Pagninus availed himself of has not the Vulgate.92 Likewise, Matthew Poole (1624–1679), only caused his version to be diffi cult to understand an English Bible scholar and divine, testifi es to the and foreign to the Latin idiom, but also altered the universal approval of the version: “Almost all learned sense of the source text. Richard Simon lays stress agree that this version is as literal as could conve- upon the dictum that a translator ought not simply to niently be done, and faithful, and put together with count the words, but he ought all the more to examine an unequalled discretion and experience.”93 in what manner one may join the words together to It is interesting that the version made by Pagninus convey a meaningful sense. Otherwise the version met with such an approval in all religious camps in will turn out to be puerile and ridiculous.95 In Disqui- an age characterised by strict adherence to the con- sitiones criticae Richard Simon concludes that Pagni- fessions. nus showed himself the same foolish and contentious Pierre Daniel Huet says that Pagninus, by his pay- translator, as once did Aquila; so barbarously he ing more attention to a literal rendering of the true speaks.96 The French critic also opposed Montanus. Hebrew sense (Hebraica veritas) than to a pure Latin He points out that he does not deserve the title of a usage, gave an example of an almost perfect and very faithful translator, fi dissimus interpres because accomplished translation of the Holy Scriptures. He of his rendering the Hebrew word-for-word, but he is translated in such a way, Huet says, that his words, more rightly to be called a very undiscerning transla- as were they measured and equal (demensa et paria), tor, ineptissimus interpres. He summarily evaluates accurately agree to the words of the original. Since his alterations in the concise statement quot correc- not everyone is privileged to win universal approval, tiones, tot corruptiones “as many amendments, so some people, however, Huet makes it clear, have many changes for the worse”, a dictum often quoted charged the version with several shortcomings: exces- in seventeenth and eighteenth century surveys.97 On sive accuracy (nimia diligentia), a pedantic pursuit of well-founded grounds he accused Montanus of disre- small matters (morosa minutarum et levium rerum garding the contextual meaning of words in favour of assectatio), a lack of elegance (inconcinnitas) and their ordinary denotative sense. incomprehensibility (obscuritas).94 Petrus Ekerman says that Pagninus formed the In contrast to the above-mentioned critics, the version so closely to the Hebrew text that he cannot famous scholar Richard Simon (1638–1712) in His- fully escape the fault of barbarisms and obscurity.98 toire critique du vieux Testaments thinks that Pag- Samuel Alnander passes the following verdict on ninus did not perform the task he proposed himself Pagninus’ version: “The most certain thing is that he faithfully, because he neglects the authority of the accurately follows the source text and strictly keeps Church Fathers and the ancient Latin versions, in to the words and in that way he is both unclear and order to join the sentiments of the rabbis. Moreover, has a barbaric Latin.”99 it is underlined, Pagninus’ version has another fault: it is obscure and barbaric and full of solecisms. He 5.3 Münster’s version wrongly imagined that one has to follow the letter The second Latin translation of the Old Testament and Hebrew grammar exactly. This is in fact, Simon in Hebrew was carried out by Sebastian Münster emphasizes, entirely opposite to the presumed exac- (1489–1552), professor of Hebrew fi rst in Heidelberg, titude, simply because two languages rarely meet in then in Basel.100 Münster made his Latin version form their modes of expression. For instance he has ren- a column parallel to the Hebrew text of his Bible edi- dered cadere fecit soporem where the Vulgate has tion. The work was fi rst edited at Basel 1534–1535 immisit soporem and undoubtedly thought that he in folio.101 A reprint appeared in Zurich in 1539. It came closer to the original, but in fact he did not was reprinted again in 1546 in folio at Basel with the notice that one can express the hiph’il conjugation title Biblia Hebraica Latina planeque nova Sebas- in Hebrew with a single verb containing a factitative tiani Münsteri tralatione.102 This edition is more meaning. This method, the French Bible critic says, is completely annotated than the two previous ones. widespread throughout his version, which therefore No more editions were to follow.

45 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

In the preface, addressed to the Christian and pious Old Testament without the Jewish commentators reader, Münster maintains that in his Latin version are acting foolishly (inepte agunt) and make incor- he has especially aimed at bringing forward the true rect renderings. The rabbis often direct us to the true Hebrew sense, omitting the Latin elegance and even sense of a word, even though they themselves are in disregarding it in many places. His intention is that darkness and error, as they do not apprehend the true the translation, as far as possible, shall correspond purpose of the Scripture (namely Christ). Münster to the spirit and mind of the Hebrew speaking defends his practice of using rabbinic exegeses by population of ancient Israel. In this way he wants to appealing to the fact that Jerome took the help of a help particularly the students of theology and pos- Jewish expert who conveyed the rabbinical exposition sibly other who were not familiar with the Hebrew to him. Münster concludes that Jerome would have language.103 In cases where the sentences become consulted the commentaries of Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn incomprehensible he affi rms that he has added clari- Esra, if they had been accessible. Besides the rabbinic fying words in brackets.104 He declares that he does exegesis, Münster used other aids: Pagninus versions not change accepted Hebraisms since they are easily of the Pentateuch, Luther’s Vulgate-revision of the understood.105 Pentateuch, Steuchius’ annotations iuxta Hebraicam Moreover, he declares that in some passages he veritatem and Oecolampadius’ separate versions of violates the purity of the Latin language (puritas single books of the Bible (see 5.12 below). sermonis Latini) rather than the proper sense of the From the very preface and the translation itself it Holy Scriptures (proprietas sensus scripturae). For, can be concluded that Münster’s literalism differs he argues, the rigidity (horror) of the Hebrew original from that of Pagninus. Both aim at a version literally ought not to be entirely removed. An apposite adap- corresponding the Hebrew text. However, Münster tation to Latin language cannot be brought about takes greater pains to create intelligible sentences, for without considerable paraphrases and violation of instance through adding words in brackets. Münster the sense. In the Holy Scriptures one cannot play is also more directed towards clarifying and expoun- arbitrary with the words as in the profane literature ding diffi cult Hebrew words by means of the medie- (cogitamus denique in Scriptura S. non pro arbitrio val rabbinical scholarship. Compared to it, Pagninus ludendum, ut in aliis prophanis libris). Münster depends more on the Septuagint in such cases. thought that in many places the Vulgate summa rizes Sisto da Siena charged Münster with negligence rather than translating. To fi nd out the proper mea- of polished Latin usage, marking it out as rough ning of diffi cult Hebrew words Münster consulted (horridus), thornlike and prickly (senticosus) and the Aramaic Targumin, the Jewish prayer books harsh (asper), as Münster followed the rudeness Seder Olam and Arba Tura, and the exegetes Rashi, of the Hebrew language (Hebraici sermonis hor- Kimchi, Ibn Esra, Rabbi Menahem, Rabbi Moses ror) to the point that he keeps all expressions and of Coucy, Moses Nachmanides, and some others. phrases peculiar to Hebrew, although he was able The knowledge of this Jewish exegesis was conveyed to adapt himself to a Latin idiom (Latinis auribus), through the intermediary of his Jewish teacher, Elias and, moreover, does not even avoid representing the Levita (1469–1549), whom he always could turn sounds of Hebrew proper names in Latin, exempli- to. Münster contends that when rendering diffi cult fi ed by Jezehiel instead of Ezechiel, Coresch instead words he follows the exposition that seemed right and of Cyrus, Darjavesch instead of Darius.106 Carpzov fi tting to him. If unsure of the meaning Münster only (1728, p.724) fi nds that this statement is unfair. In quotes the rabbinical commentaries and allows the fact, Carpzov emphasizes, Münster is more polished reader to form his own opinion. and purer than the Vulgate. Richard Simon (1684, p. There are philological annotations after every 187) is astonished that Sisto da Siena accused Müns- chapter. If some word is very obscure he declares that ter of barbarous usage at the same time as he is able he only gives the term in Hebrew, especially when to praise Cajetan and Pagninus, who are even more there is nothing certain to be found in the medieval barbarous. rabbinical commentators. Nonetheless, Münster Pierre Daniel Huet estimates Münster as a lear- emphasizes that those who continue interpreting the ned translator (interpres doctus), because he always

46 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions adapts the style to the Hebrew original (in Ebraica Bibliander, a divine at Zurich, to translate the semper stylum collineans) at the same time as he does remaining parts (namely Ezechiel 40–48, Iob, Psalms not neglect a Latin colouring (nec ideo tamen Latini 102–150, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Daniel). coloris negligens), even though he does not yield to Conrad Pellican edited the translation. It was enti- elegant phrases (in ejus quamvis linguae elegantiis tled Biblia Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi parum se torserit). e sacra Hebraeorum lingua et Graecorum fontibus Richard Simon passes the following judgment: consultis simul orthodoxis interpretibus religiosis- “Münster’s version is much better than those by sime translata in sermonem latinum. The version Pagninus and Montanus, who disregard the sense in was accompanied by extensive commentaries taken order to attach themselves to the grammar. Münster from the medieval Jewish rabbinical exegesis. The on the other hand tries to not depart from the sense version is also known as the Zurich Latin Bible ver- at the same time as he also applies himself to the sion (Versio Tigurina). The fi rst edition appeared in grammar. He not only pays regard to the proper Zurich in 1543, printed in folio. It was reprinted there meaning of the words, but also the context in which in 1544 and 1550. Robert Estienne edited it in parallel they occur. Although he is not entirely pure in his text with the Vulgate in 1545 and in 1564. Spanish style, there is however nothing that is too rude or too theologians too judged it worthy to be printed in par- barbarous.”… “He would have been able to write in allel columns with the Vulgate, and it was edited in a pure manner, but he feared that he would leave the Salamanca in 1584. In other words, Leo Jud’s version, literal sense and that he would not express the force of unlike those by Münster, Tremellius and Castellio, the Hebrew words suffi ciently.” ... ”One may say that escaped the fate of being entered on the Index. Münster is to be held as the most exact and faithful In the preface of the Zurich Latin Bible version, translator of all the Protestants.”107 probably written by Conrad Pellican, the revisions Carpzov describes Münster’s translation met- of the Vulgate and earlier Latin versions of the Bible hod thoroughly. He says inter alia that his supreme from the source languages are criticized. The Vulgate intention was to render the sense of the original text has been revised so moderately that it still does not and cling to the Hebrew words, as far as permissible correspond to the Hebrew original everywhere. The to the peculiarity and innate character of both lan- new translations cling on the other hand too much guages.108 to the Hebrew style and diction so that they are Ekerman (1764 p. 17) says that Münster followed too Hebrew in character and incomprehensible for the Hebraisms in such a way that his version not is people not versed in this language.109 In this way it is rude if compared to ordinary Christian Latin diction indicated that there was need for yet another version. (Christianis auribus). Although his usage does not According to the preface, Leo Jud intended to make consist of a pure Latinity, his merit is that the version the version as far as possible idiomatic Latin, with the corresponds to the Hebrew original. Ekerman con- exception of some standard ecclesiastical words and cludes that he loved the proper signifi cation of the turns being so accepted that they should not be chan- sense more than the Latin purity, for instance when ged, for example fi des for fi ducia, gratia for favor and he writes herbifi care instead of herbam producere evangelizare for laetum nuntium afferre. Here one ‘produce herbs’ and reptifi care instead of reptile pro- ought to take regard to the religion rather than to the ducere ‘produce reptiles’. external language, it is argued. In order to achieve an easy and natural style, free from inconveniences, 5.4 Leo Jud’s version or irregularities and diffi culties, Leo Jud supplemented the Zurich Latin Bible version concise sentences and paraphrased a great deal. On Leo Jud (1482–1542) was a close friend and adviser the other hand he did not take too great liberties as to Ulrich Zwingli. Leo Jud was not as his name might translator, as he was of the opinion that one has to be infer of Jewish lineage, but born of Catholic parents. more accurate and cautious in sacred books than in Assisted by a converted Jew, Leo Jud translated most the profane ones. In conclusion the preface states that of the Old Testament anew from the Hebrew origi- he did not strive after eloquence, but he did not either nal, but prevented by sickness he entrusted Theodore desist from elegance, if easily reachable.110

47 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

In his dialogue about interpretation, Pierre Daniel fi nished the Pentateuch in Latin, Moses Latinus,116 Huet makes Fronto Ducaeus ask: In what esteem the preface to which gives the clue to his entire shall we hold Leo Jud’s translation? Whereupon enterprise. Castellio had in his youth studied pro- he introduces Isaac Casaubon answering: “The fane literature, especially Homer, intensively, and unanimous opinion of the learned is that it surpas- neglected the study of the Bible, in high degree owing ses the earlier ones in respect of fi delity (fi des) and to his being offended by its barbaric style. The unpo- learning (doctrina) as well as in respect of the clarity lished and obscure biblical usage should therefore be (perspicuitas), although they acknowledge that the removed and the Mosaic books should be set forth striving for elegance and perspicuity (elegantiae ... so elegantly that they could compete with Homer. et perspicuitatis studium) has removed something Moses should be represented in the same ease and from the innate character (indoles) and the fi delity elegance he would have used if he were a Latin citizen. (fi des) and the position of the words (situs verborum), Castellio also thought that Moses was superior to the which, as Jerome informs us, is a mystery, and that plagiary Greek philosophy, whether cosmological, the venerable simplicity of the biblical style has been moral, aesthetical or rhetorical, at the same time, as taken away by an added grace in the same way as the he saw no essential difference between biblical and innate beauty of an attractive shape is removed by a pagan thought.117 Accordingly, he did not accept a dye smeared over.”111 distinction between sacred and profane terminology. Matthew Poole says that Leo Jud made his version This made any special Christian Latin vocabulary with erudition and great discernment. Although he superfl uous.118 This view also conduced to the striv- does not always express the words accurately, he skil- ing after a classicizing shape. fully and faithfully renders the sense, especially in Heavy criticism made Castellio revise his version diffi cult passages. He may compete with the foremost of the whole Bible twice. A second edition appeared translators, Poole thinks, in the appropriateness and at Basel in 1554 and a third revised edition was done purity of the language and the clearness and elegance in 1556, both in folio. The third edition was reprinted of the style.112 only a few times during the sixteenth and seventeenth Richard Simon passed a mild judgement on Leo century: at Basel in 1573 in folio and 1656 in 8:o, at Jud’s version: It is agreeable and keeps the middle Leipzig in 1697 in folio, in London in 1699 in folio. ground between a literal and barbaric version on In the course of the 1720’s and 1730’s there was, the one hand and a tasteful and affected one on the however, a renaissance for Castellio’s Latin Bible ver- other. There are, nevertheless, many passages where sion; it was repeatedly reprinted, probably because the translator out of fear that he would be too simple earlier criticism was considered irrelevant in the time does not suffi ciently properly render the terms of the of the Enlightenment. Samuel Benjamin Walther at Hebrew original.113 The French humanist further Leipzig issued four editions in small formats: 1728 in underlines that Leo Jud rendered the words less 12:o, 1729 in major 8:o, 1734 in 8:o and 1738 in 8: properly than Münster, but he accommodated his o. In London it was reprinted in 1726 in major 12:o. version to the Latin idiom, which was not achieved About the same time Christoph Wolle wrote a lengthy by Münster. In order to not be obscure for the sake defence of the beautiful qualities of Castellio’s Latin of conciseness, he now and then paraphrases rather Bible version , an essay called Dissertatio critica de eo than performs the duties of a translator.114 quod pulchrum est in versione Sacri codicis Latina Sebastiani Castellionis, where he convincingly refu- 5.5 Castellio’s version tes depreciating criticism. This treatise was inserted Sebastian Castellio or in French Sebastien Châteil- in the Bible editions of 1728, 1729 and 1738. Johann lon (1515-1563), a Savoyard Reformed theologian,115 Ludolph Büneman, the editor of the editions of 1734 devoted seven years to a Latin version of the Old as and 1738, supplied the latter edition with a register well as the New Testament from their original lan- of “the selected, commonly neglected and rightly guages, Biblia interprete Sebastiano Castalione una and wrongly suspected, Latin diction in Castellio’s cum ejusdem annotationibus, published in Basel in Latin version”, Index latinitatis selectae, vulgo 1551 in folio format. Five years before Castellio had neglectae, merito et falso suspectae, ex Castellionis

48 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions interpretatione. He emendated the accepted edition cizing Italian humanists Pietro Bembo (1470–1547) (i.e. Castellio’s last revision) by collating the fi rst and and Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) would have preferred second Basel editions. The edition issued in 1738 also Castellio’s version. contains Gotoph Vockerodt’ Dissertatio de usu et How does Castellio’s intention to turn the bibli- pretio singulari Bibliorum Latinorum Castellionis. cal books into idiomatic and elegant classical Latin After this period of prosperity two reprints of the manifest itself in the syntax and the vocabulary? On third Basel edition were issued at Leipzig, in 1750119 the syntactical level, he never accepts idiosyncratic and in 1756, both in octavo size. Hebrew modes of expression, but transforms them The small size editions were particularly intended to plain and idiomatical Latin expressions or phrases. for use of the young students. Right from the begin- He entirely disregards the syntactical characteristic ning of the Renaissance the reading of classical Latin of the Hebrew source text; avoiding the paratactic texts with a pagan frame of reference had been consi- Hebrew sentence structure he tries to achieve a perio- dered a pedagogical problem, especially in the lower dic sentence structure. As regards the lexical level, schools. Castellio expresses himself the idea that his he in general disregards the established ecclesiastical version, because worded in a pure, easy and clear Latin vocabulary in favour of linguistically purer style, could be used in the schools for basic teaching, equivalents, for instance angelus became genius and so that the pupils learn the Latin language and piety idola is replaced by deaster, baptismus by lavacrum at the same time.120 Christoph Wolle later makes it or lotio, synagoga by collegium, ecclesia by res clear that the choice and refi ned Latin in Castellio’s publica christiana, gehenna by tartarus or orcus, version would be an excellent pedagogical means. and templum by fanum. This tendency stood out as The tender minds of the beginners would be safegu- very offensive to his contemporaries, who perceived arded against the paganism in classical Latin authors these words as contaminated by an idea of paganism. and still learn a beauty Latin.121 Furthermore, in the translation of the Song of Songs, In the preface to the whole Bible, addressed to Castellio, as a consequence of his literal understan- Edward VI, king of England, Castellio describes his ding of the poem, frequently used diminutives, many purpose and method of translation as follows: “As far of which were common in Latin love poetry. The con- as possible I have worked on making this translation temporaries considered such words as having inde- faithful (fi delis) and Latin (Latina), i.e. pure and cor- cent, in fact obscene, suggestive connotations, which rect, and plain (perspicua), in order that obscurity in their opinion did not suit a sacred song. (obscuritas) or a rough and an unpolished speech Theodore Beza (1519–1605), a leading Reformed (orationis horriditas) or unfaithfulness (interpreta- theologian, attacked Castellio fi ercely in a special tionis infi delitas) would prevent anyone from reading treatise De haereticis a Magistratu puniendis, where the biblical books. But I have taken special regard for he described the translation as not learned, impious perspicuity and fi delity (Sed perspicuitatis et fi deli- and in many passages disagreeing with the sense of tatis potissimam rationem duximus)”. He continues: the Holy Spirit. Beza’s accusations were to a large “and as far as the Latin is concerned, the speech extent about Castellio’s rejection of the Christian is nothing other than the garment of a subject (rei Latin terminology. Castellio met Beza’s criticism in quaedam quasi vestis) and we are the tailors (et nos his Defensio translationum suarum (1562).123 sartores sumus). The subject remains the same and Castellio met among his contemporaries a severe is not better because of the elegance of the speech critic also in Sisto da Siena. Hesitating between nor worse because of the simple level of the speech”. calling him paraphrast (paraphrastes) or transla- He concludes: “The one whom unpolished speech tor (interpres) he contends that Castellio could not prevents from getting acquainted with the subject endure anything even smelling of a Hebraism. Focu- will not like the subject (Neque rem vere amat is, sing his criticism on the version of the Song of Songs, quem ab ea cognoscenda retrahit inculta oratio).” 122 he maintains that Castellio apparently thought that Castellio’s version was not meant to be used as an no one speaks Latin without speaking effeminately. aid for the theological study of the Hebrew source Furthermore, Castellio is charged with setting the text, but rather to be read as literature. The classi- majesty and authority of the Scripture aside and with

49 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 yielding to a wanton abundance of tender words and to which the translator everywhere indulges himself diminutives. Sisto da Siena says that Castellio trans- in the version, is more suitable for Catull playing with lated so impudently and indecently that the version the little sparrow of Lesbia than for a translator of the seems to be a dialogue between courtesans and pro- Holy Scriptures.”129 curers (colloquia meretricum et lenonum).124 Pierre Daniel Huet describes Castellio’s translation Likewise, Gilbert Genebrard (1537–1597), Arch- as not well-tempered (intemperatissima), arguing bishop of Aix, passed a severe judgment in these that it expresses clean biblical subject matters (res terms: “Castellio’s version is marked by affectation purissimae) with an arrogant grace (fastidiosa venus- and is more fi lled with display and embellishments tas) and diminishes all the force of the divine Word than with real matter and fi rmness, more fi lled with by an excessive stylistic concern (nimis curatura) and ostentation than with substance, more with dyestuff inaptly repudiates (ineptissime) the words used by than with nutritive content, more with a human than the Church Fathers and long since accepted by the with the Spirit, more with smoke than with fi re, Christian church. more with human thoughts than with divine senses, Richard Simon points out that Castellio did not more with leaves than with fruits.”125 Johann Hein- make an effort to translate exactly, but to render the rich Hottinger (1620–1667), a Swiss Orientalist, in a sense with the elegance he was able to.130 He dismisses similar way says that Castellio by choosing profane the criticism that Castellio was ignorant of Hebrew. If terms showed more concern for the ears than for the we read Castellio’s annotations we are, he says, ensu- heart of his readers.126 red that Castellio was skilful in Hebrew. Castellio Jacques-Auguste de Thou, (1553–1617) contends did not, however, take on the usual parts of a Bible that Castellio was unskilled to set about the great translator. The inaccuracies are due to an absurd task of a new Latin Bible version. In many people’s striving for Ciceronian and Catullian diction (prava opinion, it is stated, he laid unclean hands to deal imitandae Ciceronianae et Catullianae dictionis with sacred things.127 affectatio).131 Lawrence Humphrey gives prominence to the rhe- Matthew Poole (1669) says that Castellio did not torical value of Castellio’s version. In Humphrey’s t a k e p a i n t o t r a n s l a t e t h e H e b r e w t e x t w o r d - f o r - w o r d , opinion Castellio should not be criticized on account but in most cases he expresses the sense clearly, purely, of his use of all resources available to the Latin elegantly and faithfully and not infrequently he solves language. If he made errors of translation, the sty- great interpretative problems by his version.132 listic choiceness (elegantia) is not to be criticized. In Carpzov makes it clear that Castellio, taking order to defend the rhetorical ornaments, Humphrey warning from the previous rough and barbarous ver- advances a theological argument: The glory of God sion, entered another way than his predecessors and is made more famous if his words are represented by laboured at making the divine oracles speak in pure illustrious speech. Why should the Holy Scripture and shining Latin.133 Everyone who compares the ver- have a rough linguistic appearance when all the sion of Castellio with the source text will fi nd out that human and profane arts are shining?128 he had a good command of Hebrew, Carpzov argues. Christian Kortholt charges Castellio with having He did not dissociate himself from the Hebrew text introduced profane novelties in the Holy Scriptures. by ignorance, but because of too great an interest in Specifi cally he accused him of enlivening the old Latin diction and perspicuity.134 pagan vocabulary (resuscitata ethnicismi vocabula). In his extensive defence of Castellio’s version, Chris- In particular he disapproves of the inappropriate toph Wolle says that he admires Castellio’s choice of linguistic form of the version of a sacred song: “Who words (verborum delectus), which he describes as can with equianimity bear diminutives and soft and worthy (dignus), carefully prepared (curatus) and tender words more worthy of an elegy by Tibull than judicious (cum judicio institutus). Castellio selected of the sacrosanct version of the Song of Songs.” … proper, perspicuous, pure and meaningful words and “Is it not a fault to use enticing words to express avoided improper, obscure, impure and old-fashio- divine subjects, which demands a grand style?” … ned words, in order that the text should not turn out “An abundance of soft words and loving fl atterings, to be a riddle.135 Wolle defends also Castellio’s lexi-

50 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions cal purism, his classical substitutes for ecclesiastical that nothing prevents the profane connotation being words. These cannot possibly be classifi ed as stili replaced by a Christian notion. He mentions that the ethnicismus. Words with an essential idea of ethni- Apostle (Paul) used the words λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος for cismus ought to be distinguished from those that only the baptism (Eph. 5,26), an expression that in Latin have an accidental idea of ethnicismus.136 Names of corresponds to lavacrum aquae. He fi nishes: Castellio Roman gods and formulas of oaths such as mecastor, certainly employed words frequently used by ancient mehercle, edepol and medius fi dius are instances of worshipers of pagan gods and a non-essential idea an essential paganism, but these are not present in of paganism clings to the words of this kind, but Castellio’s version, while classical Latin equivalents Latin vocabulary that is accidentally pagan cannot such as fanum for templum and genius for angelus, be accused of paganism.141 frequently encountered in Castellio’s version, are Samuel Alnander praises Castellio’s version for its considered examples of an accidental paganism. As pure and refi ned diction: “He wrote for the sake of an instance of a word formerly associated with paga- those who loved a pure Latin and were disgusted by nism, but later neutralized Wolle adduces mysterium. the Bible itself on account of the unappetizing style in In pagan literature it was used to denote the Eleusi- the Vulgate version, which they were compelled to use nian secrets in the worship of Ceres, but already in in lack of knowledge in the original languages. Shall the ecclesiastical Latin of late antiquity it had lost it we blame Castellio for a polished style when he in that pagan association and was used in an innocent and way managed to make those who before had left the pure sense.137 Wolle calls attention to the fact that Bible aside begin to read it with pleasure.”142 there are also commonly accepted phrases such as aequo Jove judicare ‘to pass a sentence impartially’, 5.6 Tremellius’ and pinguis Minerva ‘a dull intellect’ and invita Minerva Junius’ version or repugnante Minerva ‘against one’s natural bent’ The Bible translation of Immanuel Tremellius (1510– and suo Marte ‘by one’s own bravery’ which have lost 1580) and Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), Testamenti their pagan connotations.138 Moreover, Wolle praises Veteris Biblia Sacra was published in parts at Frank- Castellio’s stylistic considerations of the character of furt am Main between 1575 and 1579 in folio size. the biblical books. He has not turned the Bible into This Latin version of the Old Testament became the Latin in a uniform style, Wolle stresses, but adap- standard version of the Reformed Church.143 ted the style to the genre and subject of the various Tremellius was born of Jewish parents in Ferrara in biblical books. Prophetical books have demanded Italy. He converted to Catholicism at Lucca, but soon a sublime and pathetic style, the Canticles brought embracing the doctrines of the Reformed religion, he about a poetic style conforming to Latin love poetry, had in the age of the Counter-Reformation to fl ee at as in Ovid and Catull, whereas the historical books fi rst to Strasbourg, then to England in 1547 where he have demanded a plain, clear and symmetrical style, became teacher of Hebrew at Cambridge for a couple as in Livy.139 of years. With the Catholic restoration in England Petrus Ekerman repeats Wolle’s arguments. He in the reign of Queen Mary (1553–1558) he fl ed to states that there are only a few words taken from the Heidelberg and got the professorship in Hebrew. pagan sphere of religious thought that Castellio has In this position he set to work on a new translation applied to the sacrosanct concepts of the Christian of the Old Testament in 1571. He co-operated with religion. Certainly we fi nd genius, fanum, lavacrum, Franciscus Junius (or François du Jun), his son-in-law. tartarus, orcus or collegium and other words of the The latter was also responsible for a Latin translation same kind (which may be exemplifi ed with lustratio of the extracanonical books of the Old Testament, i.e. for sanctifi catio, cupido for charitas140 and paeana the apocrypha.144 for cantus). Ekerman exclaims: “but I ask how can The fi rst publication only comprised the Old these designations be charged with paganism” (Sed Testament with the apocrypha. In the London edi- quaeso! quo jure hae adpellationes ethnicismi argu- tion of 1680 the New Testament translated from the endae). After having put forward the distinction Syriac (1667) by Tremellius was added and in 1581 it between accidental and essential paganisms he says appeared in parallel text with Theodore Beza’s Latin

51 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 translation of the Greek New Testament (which had matters they declare that they have weighed the natu- been fi nished in 1564). After the death of Tremellius, ral and proper meanings of the single words, compa- Franciscus Junius revised the version as well as the red syntactical constructions to similar ones in other marginal notes. The second edition was issued in 1590 passages, retained the Hebrew punctuation as useful in Geneva. This edition incorporated Beza’s Latin for the matter, even though it was earlier commonly version of the Greek New Testament (fi rst edited in conceived as superfl uous, and fi nally, investigated the Olewig 1564) and Tremellius’ own Latin version of line of arguments in order to make the coherence of the Syriac New Testament (1569).145 This second edi- the verses evident. While translating everything app- tion was reprinted in London in 1593 and 1597. In a ropriately and conveniently (in quibus omnibus apte preface, Junius testifi es that he has undertaken the et accommodate reddendis), they say that they have corrections according to Tremellius’ instructions.146 retained the word-order of the Hebrew language as Junius then revised the version again and published far as possible in the Latin language (etiam Hebraici a third edition in 1596 in Hannau (reprinted there in sermonis ordinem, ut per Latinam linguam licuit, 8:o 1596 and 1597, in folio 1602, 1603 and 1611, in servavimus), furthermore carefully retained specifi c Frankfurt 1597, in Saint Gervais in 1607, an edition and emphatic Hebraisms that cannot be altered, fol- which is used in the comparative investigation below). lowing the example of the Church Fathers, but tried The fourth edition appeared posthumously in 1617 in to express other Hebraisms in Latin in the text, put- Geneva. This fourth edition differed from the fi rst ting a word-for-word rendering in the margin, and edition in innumerable passages. In the seventeenth avoided barbarisms and fi nally strived for getting century the fourth edition was reprinted continu- Moses to resound in the Christian world in Latin with ously: sometimes in folio at Hannau (1618, 1624 and a style or delivery comparable to that which he used 1699), but mostly (in nineteen editions) in minor for- in his lifetime when speaking with his fellow coun- mats without the marginal notes included (major 8:o, trymen and gentiles (denique enixi sumus ut Mosche normal 8:o and 12:o) in Amsterdam, London, Zurich, Latinus Christianum orbem personet idque eodem Basel and Hannover.147 The editions in minor size argumento, quo civium suorum et gentilium aures were likely less expensive and easier to handle, and, dum vixit personebat). to be sure, much employed by the students. Johannes The alterations made by Junius were in particular Piscator (1546–1625), a Reformed theologian, made called in question by Hugo Broughton (1549–1612) a large-scale revision of the version of Tremellius & in his treatise A concent of Scripture (1590) and by Junius, and took the Hebrew into consideration and Johannes Drusius the elder (1550–1616), a Dutch joined the work with a comprehensive philological Orientalist, in a work entitled Ad loca diffi ciliora and theological commentary (Herborn 1601–1618). Pentateuchi (1617), and also by Johannes Laetus in Piscator translated a few biblical books anew into Compendium historiae universalis civilis et eccle- Latin from Hebrew. siasticae (1643), who says that Junius’ corrections In the preface, addressed to Friedrich III duke of rather enlarged the Bible version than improved it. Rheinland-Pfalz, the translators among other things The early strictures passed on Junius were dis- account for the objects of the new version and the approved by Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651), a Refor- translation principles. Tremellius and Junius explain med theologian, who states that, although one occa- that a reason for undertaking a version is that the sionally encounters too much liberty, the version is teaching for the Church ought to be scooped directly yet worthy to gain honour among all pious men and from the sources, in this case the original Hebrew the translators should be remembered with grati- (Hebraica veritas). The version was consequently ela- tude.148 However, leading scholars, such as Constan- borated for the use of the Reformed Church. Further- tine l’Empereur, Richard Simon, Jacob Alting, and more, conveying the principles of translation, they Johann Leusden, continued to speak of Tremellius’ primarily contend that nothing is of greater use for a version in unfavourable terms. good translator (bonus interpres) than that he com- In an afterword to Franciscus Gomarus’ (1563– prehend the matter at issue and render it appositely 1641) Lyra Davidis (1637),149 Contantine l’Empereur (apposite). For a right understanding of the subject (1591–1648), professor of theology at Leiden, justifi es

52 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions his deviations from the version of Tremellius & Junius Junius are to be praised for their diligence, because by pointing out that it often departs from the true they have not neglected pure Latin usage, which is not sense. Kortholt (1686, p.276) quotes this judgement. to be abstained from provided that it does not hurt the Richard Simon takes hold of l’Empereur’s censure, clearness (perspicuitas), and they have arranged the but at the same time gives expression to his own sen- biblical books in the order they have in the Hebrew timent: Tremellius has such a method of translation Bible, and they have observed the Hebrew prosody that it often ends in a fault. He also maintains that (i.e. the accents), especially where it is a matter of the Latin diction is marked by affectation and that punctuation that bears upon the understanding of the the version contains words added to express the sense sense of the passage in question.154 more strongly, but that such additions sometimes give Likewise, Matthew Poole praises Tremellius’ ver- rise to mistakes.150 sion, but admits that some versions in certain pas- Jacob Alting (1618–1679), Dutch Orientalist and sages come closer to the Hebrew; others also render professor of Oriental languages at Leiden, charged the sense more clearly and elegantly.155 Tremellius & Junius with their excessive freedom Another scholar who welcomed the version at issue in rendering the Hebrew text as well as in inserting was Johann Vorstius (1623–1676), a German classi- prolix elements (literally he says “garments”, lacinia) cal philologist. While recommending avoidance of in the version. Moreover, he fi nds their interest in H eb r a i s m s to c o nt e mp or a r y w r it e r s of L at i n , h e r e f e r s rabbinical exegesis, represented by the notes in the to the practice of Tremellius and Junius and Castellio. margin, immoderate and Judaicizing.151 When com- He says: “Even recent Bible translators, Tremellius paring Tremellius’ version to that of Pagninus and and Junius, in their translation of the Hebrew text, to the revised edition carried out by Piscator, Alting considered that Hebraisms ought not to be retained attributes the quality of elegance to Tremellius, as everywhere, but often to be desisted from. Especially opposed to the qualities of accuracy and clearness Sebastian Castellio avoided Hebraisms in his versions granted to Pagninus and Piscator respectively. He and contrariwise, as far as he was able, made use of a says: Pagnini versioni proprietatis palmam deberi, diction peculiar to the Latin language.”156 elegantiae Tremellii-Junii et perspicuitatis Piscatoris Carpzov says that the existence of so many Latin “the prize of accuracy is indebted to the version of versions of the Bible did not prevent Tremellius and Pagninus, the prize of elegance (stylistic choiceness) Junius from undertaking a new one, in which they to Tremellius and the price of clarity to Piscator”.152 tried to render the Hebrew text exactly and keep the Johann Leusden informs us that his students usu- Latin phraseology as far as possible. As regards the ally complained that it is diffi cult to elucidate and reception history, he refers to the most important cri- explain the Hebrew text when using Tremellius’ ver- tics, but for a survey in detail of seventeenth century sion as an aid, a diffi culty that, Leusden declares, is a judgments, he refers to the English scholar Thomas consequence of its linguistic purity and its excessive Crenius (1648–1728), Animadversiones historicae divergence from the Hebrew word order and Hebrew et philologicae, Oxford 1699. Carpzov describes the phraseology. For this reason Leusden had made up character of the version as follows: (1) it completely his mind to choose Pagninus’ version for a projec- explains Hebraisms, (2) it often leaves the sense unde- ted Polyglott Bible (encompassing Hebrew, Latin, cided, (3) it transforms parataxis into hypotaxis by Belgian, French, English).153 changing a fi nite verb, which in the Hebrew text is Abraham Calovius (1672) disapproves of the criti- co-ordinated with another fi nite verb, to a participle, cism expressed by Drusius, but fi nds that the trans- in order to make the speech more well-rounded, (4) lators, in order to supplement the sense, have too it diverges sometimes too much from the proper sig- boldly inserted too many words as compared with the nifi cation of the words, (5) it employs proper nouns Hebrew original text. roughly, as concerns the semantics, through using the There were, nevertheless, scholars who were pleased city name Jerusalem for its inhabitants, and, as con- with Tremellius’ version. One of them was Michael cerns orthography, through representing the Hebrew Walther (1593–1662), who in his isagogic treatise ‘ayin by the letter h, e.g. Jahacob, and Bahal, (6) it Offi cina Biblica (1637) thinks that Tremellius and renders against what is read in the Hebrew text, (7)

53 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 changes proper nouns into appellatives, (8) it inserts ambages) nor he has acted as a paraphrast, but has clauses which are not to be found in the Hebrew text, rendered word-for-word. Hence his version is not (9) it omits that which is to be found in the Hebrew alien to Hebraisms. It ought to be remarked as a piece text without indicating a lacuna. of criticism, the reviewer continues, that in some pas- sages his version is incomprehensible and that the 5.7 Schmidius’ version purity of the Latin language (puritas linguae Lati- The Latin Bible translation of the prominent Lutheran nae) is sometimes disregarded, and that the Hebrew scholar Sebastian Schmidius or Schmidt (1617–1696) accents, punctuation marks, and the divisions of sen- bears the title Biblia Sacra sive Testamentum Vetus tences are sometimes neglected.”159 et Novum ex linguis originalibus in linguam Lati- Carpzov describes the background of Schmidius’ nam translatum. It appeared in Strasbourg in 1696 version: Schmidius was prompted by the lack of a in quarto and was reprinted in this size in 1698, 1708 Latin translation of Bible performed by a Lutheran. and 1715. The Latin version of the Old Testament was In Schmidius’ opinion the translations of the Refor- issued in 1740 and 1750 in parallel columns together med theologians and the Catholics were adapted to with the Hebrew Bible edited by Ebenhaart van der the doctrines of their churches and in many passa- Hooght.157 The edition of 1696 was reproduced in a ges they diverged from the authentic text. Therefore facsimile in Stockholm in 1872. he turned his mind to a new Latin version from the The Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg wrote primary sources without using the existing Latin ver- a preface to the fi rst edition. They point out that sions. Carpzov further underlines that Schmidius had Schmidius worked on his Bible version for forty years a full knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, had studied and constantly improved it. His version is maintained most of the Jewish and Christian interpreters, had a to be marked by a ripe judgement and to present old good intellect and daily investigated the Holy Scrip- vine, not unfermented must (Vinum vetus exhibetur, tures. The translation deserves, Carpzov contends, non recens mustum). It is stated that he examined praise for (1) its excellent accuracy in rendering the the Hebrew authentic text, its words, phrases, con- source text (eximia in reddendis fontibus accuratio) text and its entire force accurately and exactly and and (2) its abundance of supplemental words within uncovered the innermost parts of the text (textusque brackets and the perspicuity that arises from those viscera exposuerunt denudata). His purpose was to additions (ab ubertate et redundante hinc perspicui- prepare a version which could help the scholars in tate). Therefore he did not strive for a beautiful Latin their study of the source texts of the Holy Scriptures diction, but rather for accuracy in rendering Hebrew (versio … quae eruditiores juvare possit, quando eam and Greek words. He did not reformulate the sense of cum fontibus conferunt) and which would be put into the sacred writers by means of the prolix periphrases a simple, plain and perspicuous style (et quae simpli- (prolixiores ambages), but rendered word-for-word ciore stylo planoque et perspicuo foret expressa).158 as far as possible with regard for the character and In the same year as Schmidius’ version appeared spirit of both languages. Carpzov points also out dis- it was reviewed in the periodical Acta Eruditorum advantages depending on this method: (1) too close published in Leipzig. We read as follows: “We have and almost slavish adherence to the original texts. thus a Latin version that in exceeding degree cor- (nimia et fere servilis ad textus originales adstrictio) responds to the sources, a version which possibly is a and (2) a certain arbitrariness in ambiguous passages more useful aid to the reader than any other lengthy (ἰδιογνωμοσύνη Autoris in locis ambiguis), and (3) a commentaries. The translator eagerly made up his disregard of the Hebrew accents, from which another mind to express in Latin as simply as possible that division of sentences has arisen in a few passages.160 which is read in the source text. By means of adding Petrus Ekerman deals with the present version in one, or sometimes, several words within brackets and his treatise about Latin versions of the Holy Scrip- in italics he has explained very well the sentences that ture. Ekerman only rewords the account Carpzov had could be liable to appear incomprehensible. He has given of Schmidius’ version. He says that he rendered not expounded the meaning of the biblical writers the sources with a simple style as far as the spirit and by using long-winded circumlocutions (prolixiores nature of the both languages permitted. He empha-

54 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions sizes that Schmidius strict method of translation, original author (interpretis potius ingenium quam namely word-for-word has the effect that he cannot scriptoris, p. 3). As a consequence, Clericus decides always please the taste of discriminating speakers of to strike the middle, in order to be not too diffi cult Latin. Ekerman points however out that Schmidius to understand because of Hebraisms preserved and not only took pains for come close to the sources; not too free because of the wish to write an idiomatic he also strived to make the translation linguistically Latin. Within the sphere of a restricted translation of pure as well as clear and plain.161 sacred books (in translatione adstrictiore librorum In his handbook of hermeneutics Johann Jacob sacrorum) one cannot, he points out, translate as an Rambach says that Schmidius was the last to distin- orator (ut orator), as Cicero maintains that he did guish himself in the fi eld of Latin Bible versions. His in his Latin versions of Greek speeches (p. 4),167 but version would have been the most accurate, Rambach one has, he contends, to use free paraphrases (i.e. a maintains, if he had had the opportunity to put the sense-for-sense-method) and keep the meaning (sen- fi nishing touches to it, if he had not paid too much tentia), not the words (verba), in order that those who regard to the Hebrew accents, i.e. punctuation marks, do not like barbarous language and those who do not and if he had not translated so literally as to express understand Hebrew will be able to read the version. every Hebrew particle.162 Clericus says that he has struck this way. He voices the opinion that most of the earlier Latin translators 5.8 Clericus’ version indulged as much as possible, or rather more than Johannes Clericus (Jean le Clerc, 1657–1736) was pro- allowable (quantum licuit, imo plusquam licuit), in fessor at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam. Hebrew word order (ordo verborum Hebraicorum) His Latin Bible versions appeared in four volumes and in Hebrew sentence structure (p. 6). He himself from 1693 to 1731. The version of the Pentateuch has taken regard to the Latin language rather than to was completed in 1693,163 the version of the histori- the Hebrew idiom, and yet he has unwillingly been cal books of the Old Testament appeared in 1708,,164 forced to allow himself Hebraisms in great number and the versions of the Hagiographical books and (p. 6) and to adapt the style to the Hebrew model the Prophets were issued in 1731.165 Every part was more than good Latin usage would permit (fatemur printed separately in Amsterdam. A typographer in multo plusquam per Latinitatem licuit ad Hebraica Tübingen printed all parts in one volume in 1732. stylum nos aptasse p. 4). Clericus criticizes on the Clericus set forth his views on translation princip- other hand Castellio for indulging an extremely clas- les in a prefatory treatise called Dissertatio de optimo sicizing tendency. genere interpretum Sacrae Scripturae, ubi institutum In his survey of Latin Bible versions Carpzov cons- et ratio totius operis describuntur. At fi rst he formu- ciously left out Clericus’ version, as existing thitherto, lates in a well-reasoned way a theory of language and namely on the Pentateuch and the Historical Books— semantics: There is no exact correspondence between the version on the poetical and prophetical books had two languages in the lexical system: the semantic fi eld not yet appeared. Carpzov states that much could be of words and fi gures of speech are never identical said about Clericus’ version and paraphrase (versio in two languages. Therefore, a literal translation is et paraphrasis), but, in quoting Velleius Paterculus inconceivable.166 He passes on to propose two general vivorum, ut magna admiratio, ita censura diffi cilis methods of translation, the literal (verbum e verbo) est (2,36,3) he states that it is diffi cult for contempo- and the free or licentious (nimia concessa nobis licen- raries to make an assessment, because they are seized tia). Neither of them is satisfactory: A version of the by feelings of great admiration. He says that he passes fi rst kind would be worthless to those who do not it over in his own justice (meo jure).168 know Hebrew, although it might be intelligible if they read the philological notes often accompanying a Bible 5.9 Franciscus Houbigant’s version translation, or a version of the second kind would Franciscus Houbigant (or François Houbigant, 1686– foist the translator’s interpretation on the reader, 1784), a French Dominican, published an edition of especially in obscure passages, and the version would the Hebrew Bible with a new Latin version in parallel. smell of the mind of the translator rather than of the Biblia Hebraea cum notis criticis et versione Latina

55 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 ad notas criticas facta “Hebrew Bible with critical the Minor Prophets in 1773, the Major Prophets in notes and a Latin version made in the critical notes” 1779, the Pentateuch in 1781, the historical books in appeared in four volumes in Paris in 1753, a work 1784, the Psalter in 1787, the wisdom literature (Job, which is to be considered the principal monument of Prov. Eccl. Canticles) in 1789. Dathe strived for turn- the textual criticism of the area of Old Testament in ing the Hebrew into idiomatic Latin. In the preface to eighteenth-century France.169 The title conveys the the Minor Prophets he says that he wishes to render impression that the Latin translation only encom- the sense of the words suitably according to the innate passes passages being commented upon in the critical character of the language into which he translates. notes, but it is actually a complete new Latin version Then he states that, if something is rendered a word of all books of the Hebrew Old Testament. for word and if all foreign modes of expression, even Houbigant’s composition of a Latin version was though entirely alien and hardly intelligible, are born out of his interest in textual criticism. The transmitted to the target language, it is not worthy of Masoretic text was printed without vowel points. the name of a translation. Still he articulates that his The reason was that Houbigant did not approve of intention is to give a version and not a paraphrase.171 the Masoretic tradition. Neither was he convinced In the preface to the Pentateuch he hopes that the that the consonants had been correctly transmitted. reader never will experience any lack of perspicuity Houbigant’s textual alterations were not integrated and faithfulness.172 in the printed Hebrew text, but were proposed in critical notes after each chapter. In an extensive pre- 5.11 Incomplete Latin versions of face (190 pp.) Houbigant explains the background to the Hebrew Old Testament and points of departure for his textual criticism. The Thomas de Vio Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), an corrections primarily deal with orthographical spel- Italian Dominican, is responsible for a Latin version lings, where he aimed at re-establish scriptio plena of a major part the Hebrew Old Testament, a ver- (waw and yod), or they are related to the grammar sion embedded in his commentary on the Bible.173 (supposed solecisms) or vocabulary (supposed bar- The work extends from Genesis through the histori- barisms). cal books to Nehemiah plus Psalms, Proverbs and On the basis of a study of some passages I have got Isaiah 1-3, issued separately part by part in Lyon the impression that Houbigant took pains for clear, between 1530-35. Cajetan was himself unacquainted perspicuous and meaningful Latin usage more than with Hebrew and left the translatorial task to two for the literal wordings of the source text. Further Jews (one professing Judaism, the other Christian- research has to be done on Houbigant’s preface and ity). To oblige Cajetan’s directions they carried out a on the linguistic qualities of his Latin version. Masch version characterized by extreme literalism. Cajetan states that Houbigant keeps the middle course bet- was convinced that it is unattainable to translate the ween literal and free versions.170 words of the Holy Scriptures literally enough. In the preface to the Psalms Cajetan relates that the Jews 5.10 Dathe’s version used to say: “The Hebrew expression sounds that After Houbigant still another Latin version of all way, but the sense becomes too unclear, unless it is books of the Old Testament in Hebrew was carried changed.” Then Cajetan used to answer as follows: out. Although an account of the Latin Bible versions “You have not to care whether the sense is appar- after the 1750’s is beyond the scope of the present ent or not, for your task is not to expound, but to survey, the effort of Johann August Dathe will be translate: Translate as it is written, and leave to the mentioned. To be sure, it is reasonable to suppose exegetes the concern to understand.”174 This illu- that he was the last Latin translator of the Hebrew strates what purpose the version was meant to serve. Bible. Johann August Dathe or Dathius (1731–1791), In the preface Cajetan also underlines that a faithful professor of theology and Hebrew at the University version ought to refl ect the source text; otherwise it of Leipzig undertook a new version in a six-volume is merely explained as understood by the translator. work combined with philological commentary and Furthermore, it is interesting that Cajetan articulates textual criticism. The volumes appeared in this order: a pre-Tridentine position concerning the authority of

56 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions the Vulgate. In the preface to the commentary on the the fi rst publication. Most of the translations of single Pentateuch he maintains that the original Hebrew has books were combined with exegetical expositions. priority over any earlier version and exposition: “No The Dutch Hebraist Johannes Drusius rendered one should detest a new sense of the Holy Scripture on Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus into Latin (1598). The the account that it disagrees with earlier teachers, but Swedish Hebraist Johan Elias Terserus supplied Gene- he ought to keenly scrutinize the text and the context sis and Exodus in a Latin version (1652). The Lutheran of the biblical passages. For God has not bound the scholar Wolfgang Franzius translated Deuteronomy exposition of the Bible to the senses of earlier teach- into Latin in a series of academic dissertations (1608). ers, but to the undamaged Scripture itself under the The Dutch Hebraist Andreas Masius translated Josua assessment of the Catholic Church. … For it is the into Latin (1574). The German theologian Johann text written by Moses that ought to be expounded, Benedict Carpzov translated Ruth into Latin (1703), not that of his translator. For the authority is not in as did Johannes Drusius (1577). a Greek or Latin translator, but in the very Hebrew The Psalms were translated by a wide range of text itself.”175 humanist Hebrew scholars (esp. Lutherans and Refor- Likewise, another Catholic, Thomas Malvenda mists): Felix Pratensis, or Felice da Prato, Psalterium (1568–1628), prepared a Latin translation that formed diligentissime ad verbum translatum (1516), Augustino the basis of his commentary on the Bible, which was Giustiniani (1516), Conrad Pellican (1532), the Wit- edited in Lyon in 1650.176 It comprises a great part of tenberg pastor Johannes Bugenhagen (1524), the Stras- the Old Testament: Genesis through Nehemiah, Job, bourg theologian Martin Bucer (1532), Jan van Cam- Psalms 1–4, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah pen (1532) in verse (see below), Johann Draconites or and Ezechiel 1–14. Richard Simon contends that the Drach (1540), Jean Calvin (1557), E. Rudinger (1564), Latin version is incomprehensible to the point that the Strasbourg classical and biblical scholar Jodoco it would be useless, unless explanatory remarks Willich (1571), Heinrich Moller (1573), the Lutheran had been at hand to the reader. In his opinion the Theodore Beza Vezelius (1579), the Lutheran Chris- version is impaired by the same faults as Montanus’ toph Corner (1571), the Catholic Simeon de Muis version, but the barbarisms occur in a much greater (1650), the Catholic Ambrosius Ianvier (1666) and number.177 Moses Amyraldus (1672).180 The two above-mentioned versions were not widely Moreover, Job was turned into Latin by several spread and were never reprinted. They are usually scholars: the Swiss Reformer Johannes Oecolampadius omitted in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century (1525), Johan Brenz (1527), the Dutch Hebraist Johan- surveys of recent Latin Bible versions, because they nes Cocceius (1644), Jacob Buldueius (1624) and the are incomplete and the version of the biblical texts is Swiss Hebraist Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1659). Phi- contained within the commentaries. Carpzov states lipp Melanchthon (1524) and Johann Secerius (1525) these reasons for his leaving out these versions in his provided the Proverbs with Latin versions. Johannes survey.178 Cocceius (1675) and Johann Franckius (1724) trans- lated the Ecclesiast into Latin. Ulrich Zwingli (1543), Paul von Schütten (1678) and Johannes Cocceius 5.12 Latin versions of (1665) rendered the Song of Songs into Latin. individual biblical books Johannes Oecolampadius (1531) and Johannes Latin translations of parts of the Old Testament in Cocceius (1675) translated all the Prophets, major as Hebrew are in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- well as minor, into Latin. Other Hebrew scholars trans- ries encountered in large number. Below I have listed lated single prophets: Zwingli set about with Isaiah the versions in this category up to 1750, but the list (1529). Johann Draconites turned Daniel (1544) and is probably not complete. I have not paid regard to Joel (1565) into Latin. Jean Mercier translated Hosea individual biblical books detached from the versions and Joel (reprinted in 1583). Constantine l’Empereur of Pagninus, Münster, Castellio and Tremellius and supplied Daniel (1633) with a Latin translation, and, edited separately. The survey is based on Masch fi nally, August Pfeiffer rendered Obadja in Latin (1785).179 The year put within brackets is the date of (1666).

57 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

Furthermore, the fi fteenth century witnesses a 1532–38 Conrad Pellican’s revision of the Vulgate plethora of metrical Latin translations of the Psalms, (Zurich) in lyric metres and in hexameter,181 and to lesser 1534-35 Sebastian Münster’s translation of the extent of other biblical books, in the epic style.182 Hebrew O. T. (Basel) The most popular Psalm paraphrase was George 1543 Leo Jud’s translation of the Hebrew Old Buchanan’s (1506-1682) Paraphrasis Psalmorum Testament (Zurich) Davidis Poetica (1566). It was read and sung in the 1551 Sebastian Castellio’s translation of Hebrew O. schools. Next in popularity came Helius Eobanus T. and Greek N. T (Basel) Hessus’ (1488-1540) Psalterium Davidis carmine 1575–79 Tremellius and Junius’ translation of the elegiaco redditum atque explicatum (1537). Hessus Hebrew O. T. (Frankfurt) was known as the Christian Ovid, a name he was 1578–80 Lucas Osiander the Elder’s emendation of impar ted by E rasmus. T he hu manists were convinced the Vulgate (Tübingen) that the Psalms in the Hebrew original were metrical 1600 Andreas Osiander the Younger’s emendation of in nature and this feature should be represented by the Vulgate (Frankfurt) verse translations in a classical Latin form of prosody 1696 Schmidius’ translation of Hebrew O. T. and with a metre appropriate to the character and con- Greek N. T (Strasbourg) tent of the individual Psalms. Most of the Psalm para- 1693–1731 Johannes Clericus’ translation of the phrases were translated from the Vulgate or from Hebrew O. T. (Amsterdam) some vernacular version, but several scholars chose 1753 Franciscus Houbigant’s Latin translation of the to translate directly from Hebraica veritas, e.g. Jan Hebrew O. T. (Paris) van Campen (1532), Johannes Ganaeus (1547) and 1773–1789 August Dathe’s Latin version of the Arias Montanus (1573). Hebrew O. T. (Leipzig) Finally, Latin versions of parts of the Old or New Testament were made from the Septuagint or the ver- sions in the Oriental, or rather Semitic, languages, 7. Keywords for Bible (Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Persian). The translation in various Polyglott Bibles183 contain Latin versions in the humanist period this category. It is beyond the scope of the present Pagninus, Münster, Leo Jud and Schmidius usu- investigation to account for such versions. Masch ally retain the word order of the Hebrew original. (1785, fi fth chapter De versionibus ex versionibus) Castellio and Clericus on the other hand often deviate treats this issue in detail. The Vulgate was usually from Hebrew word order. If the word order is kept, used as the parallel text to the Hebrew original in the the technique of translation is accordingly reduced to Polyglott Bibles. a question of the choice of words (electio verborum or delectus verborum). However, the translator usu- 6. Chronological overview ally resorted to an auxiliary method in making the of Vulgate revisions and sentences intelligible, when the Hebrew word order was too opaque, namely to add explanatory words in new Latin versions italics or within brackets. 1516 Desiderius Erasmus’ Latin translation of the The humanist translators were brought up with New Testament (Basel) a conceptual framework that served as their guide- 1522 Andreas Osiander the Elder’s revision of the line and manifested itself in a common terminology Vulgate (Nuremberg) concerning translation theory. In the fi fteenth- to 1527 Johann Petreius’ revision of the Vulgate (Nurem- seventeenth-century debate the a number of basic berg) terms are constantly encountered. Here belong fi de- 1528 Sanctes Pagninus’ translation of Hebrew O. T. litas ‘fi delity’ both verbal, or formal, and semantical, and Greek N. T. (Lyon) proprietas, which means either ‘proper meaning of 1529 The Vulgate (Pentateuch–2nd Kgs & N.T.) a word’ or ‘appropriateness and fi tness in the use of revised by Wittenberg scholars words’, accuratio ‘accuracy, exactness, carefulness’

58 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

(in translating a text as a whole, that is in rendering Scriptures. Regard to lexical purity and syntactical syntactical constructions, phrases and words), per- correctness and plainness came second. In their view spicuitas ‘perspicuity, clarity, intelligibility’, puritas the aim of translating was to lead students ignorant of ‘linguistic purity, pure Latin usage’ with reference to Hebrew and Greek to the original Hebrew text of the the vocabulary, puritas can also be labelled latinitas, Old Testament. Leo Jud tried to improve the Latin dic- elegantia ‘tasteful diction, choiceness, refi nement’ tion to avoid the Hebraicized idiom of previous Latin with reference to the whole text, series Hebraica Bible versions. The antiliteralist reaction and clas- ‘Hebrew sequence (in the syntax)’ and Hebraici ser- sicizing aspiration reached its peak with Castellio’s monis ordo ‘Hebrew word order’. version. He primarily concentrated on translating the If a translator chose to reproduce Hebrew con- Holy Scripture into classical Latin. Tremellius chose structions and to render Hebrew words and modes to balance between regard for accuracy and con- of expression too accurately and closely, he ran the sideration to a good Latin style. Schmidius’ version risk of getting into a foreign idiom (designated by represents a return to a literal method. Clericus’ ver- terms such as horriditas ‘clumsiness’, soloecismus sion represents again a shift towards the Latin idiom ‘grammatical error’ and barbarismus ‘use of impure and can be placed between Castellio and Tremellius. words’), but accuracy did not necessarily cause incom- Houbigant seems to paraphrase a great deal and to prehensibility (obscuritas) or hinder the clarity and take most regard to clearness. plainness (perspicuitas). If a translator on the other I have tried to evaluate the shifting considerations hand took too much delight in an idiomatic Latin, of semantic precision (proprietas), lexical purity and he risked criticism for yielding to stylistic affectation tasteful diction (latinitas) and plainness (perspicui- (affectatio elegantiae, affectata latinitas) or stylistic tas). The evaluation has been made on the translators’ paganism (ethnicismus styli). Castellio’s version was statement and assertions in their prefaces, on the cri- often charged with these faults. tical estimations in the sixteenth- and seventeenth- century debate and on an exhaustive comparative investigation of a large selection of biblical passages. 8. Evaluation of the varying The mark 3 is used for the highest priority, 2 for the concern for proprietas, latinitas middle priority, and 1 for the lowest priority. I have evaluated the order of priority. Since the qualities and perspicuitas only are placed in an order of rank, this means that Pagninus and Münster focused on the improvement there may be considerable differences between ver- of the accuracy of their interpretations of the Holy sions that are ranked with equal numbers.

Pagninus Münster Leo Jud Castellio Tremellius Schmidius proprietas 3311 1 3 latinitas 1123 2 1 perspicuitas 2232 3 2 Clericus proprietas 1 latinitas 2 perspicuitas 3

59 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 9. Comparative investigation: fui neque nunc sum. Tremellius has: non sum vir facundus. Schmidius renders as Pagninus: non vir Specimens of the different verborum ego (sum). Clericus has: non sum homo versions disertus. In the accompanying commentary he men- The examples adduced below are meant to briefl y elu- tions the Hebrew expression and says vir verborum, cidate the different linguistic features of the various i.e. homo eloquens, a rendering that he corroborates versions discussed above (except Dathe’s). by referring to other similar expressions in Hebrew. Houbigant attempts plain diction and turns it as fol- Example 1 lows: non is ego sum, qui loqui possim. Gen 49,23 “the archers hated him” The Vulgate: Invideruntque illi habentes iacula Example 3 Pagninus: et oderunt eum sagittarii, Montanus Exod. 4,9 “for I am heavy-mouthed and heavy- replaced sagittarii by domini sagittarum tongued”. The Vulgate has the qualitative genitive: Münster: inimicati sunt ei magistri sagittarum impeditioris et tardioris linguae sum. Pagninus has Leo Jud: odio prosequuti sunt eum periti sagittandi adjectives followed by the ablative of respect: quia Castellio: quem ... infestis telis provocassent sagit- gravis ore et gravis lingua sum. Münster chose tari another solution: the nominative followed by the Tremellius and Junius: quamvis intestino odio pros- possessive dative: quoniam os grave et lingua gravis equuti sint eum sagittarii est mihi. Leo Jud has qualitative ablatives: sum enim Schmidius: odio habebunt eum sagittarii gravi ore et gravi lingua. Castellio paraphrases with Clericus: odio habuerunt sagittarii laboro ‘I suffer from’ with the ablative of tarditas Houbigant: eumque odio habebant, qui sagittas trac- ‘slowness’, qualifi ed by the genitive of os ‘mouth’ and tabant lingua ‘tongue’: nam oris et linguae tarditate laboro. The Vulgate appropriately renders “masters of Tremellius has qualitative ablatives: sed impedito ore arrows” (in Hebrew ba’ale chitstsim) habentes iacula. et impedita lingua sum. Schmidius chose the same Arias Montanus and Münster chose the expressions construction as Pagninus: gravis enim ore et gravis domini sagittarum and magistri sagittarum, which lingua ego (su m). Cleric us has: sum enim ore et lingua both reproduce the Hebrew idiosyncrasy. Leo Jud has gravis. In the commentary he explains the Hebrew periti sagittandi. Castellio, Tremellius, Schmidius expression as implying that one moves the tongue and Clericus chose sagittarius, the ordinary word for with diffi culty in pronouncing sounds, i.e. balbus ‘an archer’ in classical Latin prose. Houbigant has ‘stammering’. Houbigant has: ego sum sermone et “those who master archery”. lingua tardior.

Example 2 Exod. 4,9 “I am not a man of words” (what Moses objected to God when he was to be sent to liberate Summary Israel from enslavement in Egypt). In the various This article deals with Latin Bible versions in the six- humanistic Latin versions the qualitative genitive teenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century. It surveys is considerably diversifi ed. Jerome makes the sense the use and evaluation of the Vulgate in the Protestant clear: non sum eloquens,184 Pagninus keeps the word camps, but mainly focuses on the development of new order and uses the qualitative genitive: non vir ver- Latin versions of the Old Testament from its Hebrew borum sum. Münster has the qualitative genitive and source language since the beginning of Hebrew schol- chooses another word (sermo) and modifi es the word arship to the middle of the eighteenth century. order: non sum vir sermonum. Leo Jud has it roughly The Protestants did not reject the Vulgate, even as the Vulgate: ego non sum eloquens. Castellio turns though they did not regard it as authorative. The “man of words” into disertus, which is integrated Lutherans produced several emendations of the with the rest of the clause: at disertus neque antea Vulgate by having it compared with the Hebrew

60 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions source text. Importantly, they did not only edit the In its initial stage the development was due to the shift biblical text, but also presented it with annotations in biblical exegesis in the age of the Reformation. The in accordance with the Lutheran tenets. The greatest educated world, the theologians as well as the Hebrew names in this fi eld were Lucas Osiander the Elder and scholars, appear to have requested versions as “accu- Andreas Osiander the Younger. The Protestants did rate”, i.e. as close to the original, as possible. Howe- also, in separate treatises, demonstrate the errors of ver, to the eighteenth-century translators other aspects translation in the Vulgate. I have surveyed the criti- were more infl uential, namely the interest in textual cism of the Vulgate in Abraham Calovius, who stands criticism of the Old Testament and the historical-criti- out as a great name in this fi eld. Nevertheless, the cal approach to the Bible. Vulgate enjoyed a wide use among the Protestants, I have concentrated on a description of the methods even after other Latin versions that were more accu- of translation and the reception history. The study of rate had made their entry in the learned world. translation methods is based on the prefaces to each The great task of translating the Old Testament version. In the early sixteenth century accurateness was from Hebrew began in the early sixteenth century, in evidently the primary object. As the accompanying lite- an age when the study of Hebrew was developing into ral method gave rise to a Hebraicized idiom, scholarly a scholarly discipline. The fi rst to undertake such a accurateness soon had to compete with concern for an project was a Catholic scholar, Santes Pagninus, who elegant style in the target language. A change thus took came from Lucca in Italy. Skilful Hebrew scholars fol- place that is evident above all in the versions done by lowed. In the course of fi fty years, from the 1530’s to Castellio and Tremellius. The paper also surveys the the 1570’s, four new versions of the Old Testament in advice for Bible translation as given by St. Jerome and its entirety had appeared. In chronological order the by theorists of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. translators were the following: Sebastian Münster, Leo The article tries to discern the concepts and keywords Jud, Sebastian Castellio, and Immanuel Tremellius, all that seem to have been the most important and rele- of whom belonged to the Reformed Church. The same vant in the discourse on Bible translation. period witnessed rapid stream of Latin versions of The question how the different versions were recei- individual books of the Hebrew Old Testament, above ved has also been exhaustively studied in this article. all of the Psalms. After Tremellius, a long time passed The reception history outlined does not, however, claim before the next Latin version of the entire Old Testa- to be complete, but confi nes itself to giving glimpses ment in Hebrew was composed. It did not appear until of the scholarly debate that always followed a new the end of the seventeenth century. The translator was Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament. I have now a Lutheran dogmatician, Sebastian Schmidius. In described the opinions of a wide range of critics, for the eighteenth century the entire Old Testament was instance such eminent scholars as Pierre Daniel Huet, translated from Hebrew three times, the authors of the Richard Simon and Johann Gottlob Carpzov. In their Latin versions being Johannes Clericus (a Reformed), evaluation of the Latin Bible versions, the critics of the Franciscus Houbigant (a Catholic) and Johann August period focused on the issues of language, viz. methods Dathe (a Lutheran). of translation and linguistic characteristics. The historical background and context of the new A fi eld of the reception history not entered into in Latin Bible versions is outlined in the present paper. this article is the question of the use of the considered The new Latin Bible versions developed served their different Latin versions in commentaries on the Old primary purpose within the respublica litteraria, the Testament by Protestant scholars in the age of Refor- international and interconfessional Latin-speaking mation and post-Reformation. This remains a subject society or community of the scholars in Europe, for future research. through the fi fteenth to the eighteenth century. The Latin versions mentioned above were meant to serve  as international standard versions within the Republic of Letters. Notes Furthermore, the article also illuminates the exege- 1 See for instance H. J. Bentley, Humanists and the Holy Writ: New Testament scholarship in the Renaissance, tical historical background to the Latin Bible versions. Princeton, 1983. Alastair Hamilton “Humanists and the Bible”

61 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006 in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism The form employed by Castellio was actually Iova (infl ected as edited by Jill Kraye, Cambridge 1996, pp. 100–117. Hamilton follows: in the genitive and in the dative Iovae, in the accusative certainly mentions Pagninus, but the article is directed on Ital- Iovam, in the ablative Iova), even though his contemporaries ian humanists such as Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439), Gian- accused him of using Jove—the ablative of Juppiter. The fact is ozzo Manetti (1423–1497), Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) and the that Castellio himself took exception to use that name. There cosmopolite Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536). is also a questionable statement, namely the contention that 2 Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, Tremellius and Junius’ version, as compared with those by Leo Amsterdam 1685 (fi rst edition 1677). The twentieth chapter is Jud and Castellio, marked a return to style that more agrees on new translations of the Bible by Catholics pp. 313–321, chap- with that of Pagninus. Hobbs is nonetheless to be credited with ter twenty-two covers Latin versions by the Protestants. The his integrating historical context with the development of new fi rst edition appeared in 1677, but was declared heretical and Latin versions of the Bible. He distinguishes a change in attitude confi scated. Only a few copies survived. A pirate edition was to the methods of Bible translation around 1530. issued in Amsterdam in 1680. A revised edition of the French 13 Concerning which Hebrew text the humanists had access original appeared in Amsterdam in 1685, and this edition has to, see section 5.1.2 been used in the present article. The work was also translated 14 Basil Hall (1963), p. 64 suggests this threefold division. into Latin (Amsterdam in 1681 and 1685) and into English (London in 1682). 15 The title reads: Vulgata editio Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 3 Christian Kortholt, De variis Scripturae Sanctae editioni- quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad Graecam veritatem bus tractatus theologico-historico-philologicus, Kiel 1686. In emendatum est diligentissime, ut nova editio non facile desi- chapter 9–12 (pp. 93–196) deals with the Vulgate: the ninth deretur et Vetus tamen hic agnoscitur i.e. “The Vulgate ver- chapter is on its author, the tenth and eleventh treat its author- sion of the Old and New Testament, of which the one is very ity and the twelfth discusses the places that Martin Chemnitz diligently emendated from the Hebrew truth, the other from regarded as distorted and corrupted. The fi fteenth chapter the Greek truth, so that a new version is not needed and the Old covers the new versions, pp. 252–281. version yet is recognized here”. 4 Johann Gottlob Carpzov, Critica Sacra Veteris Testa- 16 Basil Hall (1963), pp. 65ff. menti, Leipzig 1728, chapter VI De versione Latina Vulgata, pp. 17 See Abraham Calovius, Criticus Sacer, Wittenberg 1643, 664–698 and chapter VII De versionibus Latinis recentioribus, p. 539. pp. 699–749. 18 W. Schwarz, ‘The history of Principles of Bible translation 5 Andreas Gottlieb Masch, Bibliotheca sacra post Jacobi Le in the western world’ in Babel: International journal of transla- Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine disposita, emen- tion, vol. 9 (1963), pp. 9ff.; Jerry H. Bentley, The Humanists and data, suppleta, continuata ab Andrea Gottlieb Masch, third the Holy writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance, volume edited in Halle 1783, fourth volume in Halle 1785. Princeton 1983; Guy Bedouelle “Texts and textual criticism” The fourth volume, pp. 437–566, covers the Latin versions (under the entry Bible) in Encyclopedia of the Renaissance ed. from Hebrew of the whole of the Old Testament carried out by by Paul F. Grendler, vol 1, pp. 209–213. Lutherans, Reformists, Catholics and Remonstrants, and speci- 19 For the question who translated the Formula of Concord fi es every translator in each category. into Latin, see F. Bente, “Historical introductions to the sym- 6 Petrus Ekerman (pres.) / Georg G. Frodlin (resp.), De ver- bolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” (comprising sionibus Sacrorum Bibliorum Latinis (embracing twenty-seven 266 pp.) in Concordia Triglotta: the Symblical Books of the pages, pp. 8–14 on the Vulgate, pp. 14–26 on the new Latin Evangelical Lutheran Church, p. 5. versions of all books of the Old Testament) Uppsala 1764; Petrus Ekerman (pres.) / Andreas Wisell (resp.), De Latinitate Vulgatae 20 Lenhart (1946), pp. 425ff. versionis Bibliorum (comprising twelve pages) Uppsala 1761, 21 Lenhart (1946), p. 430. Petrus Ekerman (pres.) / Laurentius Dan Quist (resp.), De Lati- 22 Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti diligenter recognita nitate versione biblica Castellionis (encompassing seventeen et emendata, non paucis locis, quae corrupta erant, collatione pages) Uppsala 1759, Samuel Johansson Alnander, Anvisning Hebraicorum voluminum restitutis, Wittenberg 1522 (reprinted till et utvaldt theologiskt bibliothek (pp. 88–97 on the Vulgate, in Wittenberg 1523 and in Cologne 1527. pp. 99–106 on the other Latin Bible versions) second part, Stockholm 1763. 23 Biblia sanctae scripturae veteris omnia ex antiquis authographis absoluta. 7 Erwin Rosenthal, Studia semitica, vol. 1: Jewish themes (which consists of a collection of his own articles), Cambridge 24 Bibliorum opus integrum, veteris quidem Testamenti 1971, “Raschi and the English Bible”, pp. 56–85, and “Sebas- translatio ad vetustissimorum emendatissimorum codicum tian Münster’s knowledge and use of Jewish exegesis”, pp. fi dem summo cum studio recognita, Novi vero Erasmi novis- 127–145. sima editio cum nova ejusdem praefatione. 8 John M. Lenhart, “Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reforma- 25 Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti juxta veterem trans- tion 1520–1570: a bibliographical account”, in The Catholic lationem, qua hucusque latina utitur Ecclesia, ex antiquissimis Biblical Quarterly vol. 8 (1946), no. 4 (1946), pp. 416–432. ac recentioribus exemplaribus diligentissime collatis et sicubi 9 Basil Hall “Biblical scholarship: Editions and commentar- dissentiebant, consultis fontibus, hoc est hebraeis et graecis ies”, The Cambridge History of the Bible, third volume: The voluminibus adhibitis, fi delissime restituta, Nuremberg 1527, West from the Reformation to the Present Day edited by S. L. reprinted there 1529. Greenslade, Cambridge 1963, pp. 64–73. 26 Biblia Latina ad hebraicam veritatem emendata. 10 G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor Eng- 27 The Wittenberg edition had limited impact since the edi- land: a Third Language, Manchester 1983, pp. 39–55. tion only was printed in very few copies and never reprinted. 11 Bernard Roussel, “La Bible de 1530 à 1600”, in Bible de The question of whether Luther is the sole author was much tous les temps, fi fth volume: Le temps des Reformes et la Bible, discussed in the sixteenth century. Masch (1783), pp. 327–331, edited by Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, Paris 1989, pp. gives a full account of the arguments pro and con for Martin 133–134, pp. 145–148. Luther as author. 12 R. Gerald Hobbs, “Translations of the Bible” (under the 28 Carpzov (1728), Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, p. 702. entry Bible) in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation On pp. 703–705 he exemplifi es the differences in relation to edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, Oxford 1996, vol. 1 pp. 163–165. the Vulgate. This small survey has some defi ciencies: for instance he states 29 Psalterium Gallicanum is the old Latin version that St. that Castellio used the name form Jove for the tetragrammaton. Jerome’s revised according to the Septuagint-text of Origines’

62 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions

Hexapla. It became popular in France and at the time of Charles 40 Pellican here alludes to Jerome, Letter 57,5,1, see section the Great about 800 AD the commonly use Psalterium was 5.3. incorporated in the Vulgate to replace Jerome’s version of the 41 The Council of Trent (the fourth session on the 8th of Psalms from Hebrew. April 1546) worded the decree concerning the usefulness of a 30 Sacrae scripturae et divinarum literarum byblia universa certain Bible edition (viz. version) to be held as authentic as fol- diligentia, cura, studio singulari elaborata deque sententia lows: Insuper eadem sacrosanta synodus … statuit et declarat, doctissimorum virorum inprimis linguae Hebraicae erudito- ut haec ipsa vetus et Vulgata editio, quae longo tot seculorum rum plurimis in locis ultra priores editiones emendata atque usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, dispu- correcta et D. Erasmi Roterod. versione Novi Testamenti juxta tationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica priorem apposita, Leipzig 1544. This edition was reprinted in habeatur, ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel Tübingen and Frankfurt 1564. praesumat. 31 P. Eber and G. Major, Biblia Latina Vulgatae editionis ... 42 Martin Chemnitz, Examen Consilii Tridentini, Frank- correcta quibus adjecta est Germanica Lutheri versio, 1565. furt am Main 1574, in English translation by Fred Kramer, 32 Cf. Masch (1783), pp. 424–427. Examination of the Council of Trent, St. Louis 1971, part 1, pp. 202ff. 33 Biblia Latina ad fontes Hebraici textus emendata cum brevi et perspicua expositione Lucae Osiandri insertis locis 43 Martin Chemnitz (in the English translation of 1971), Theologicis. p. 203. 34 Biblia Sacra Veteris et Novi Testamenti secundum Vul- 44 Brian Walton, In Biblia polyglotta prolegomena (chapter gatam versionem ad Ebraeam Veritatem in Veteri, ad Graecam 11), p. 78. vero in Novo Testamento a D. Luca Osiandro perpurgata et ad 45 As for the intellectual historical context and the specifi c D.D. Lutheri versionem Germanicam collata. purpose of Anti-barbarus Biblicus, see Peter van Rooden, 35 Biblia Sacra. Quae praeter antiquae versionis necessar- Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the iam emendationem et diffi ciliorum locorum succintam expli- Seventeenth Century, pp. 66ff. cationem (ut plurimum ex beatae recordationis viri D.D. Lucae 46 Abraham Calovius, Criticus Sacer vel commentarii Osiandri) multas insuper observationes utilissimas ex Patrum apodictico-elenchtici super Augustanam confessionem, Wit- orthodoxorum et praestantissimorum quorundam nostri seculi tenberg 1643, which was reprinted in 1673 as Criticus sacer Theologorum (quorum nomina passim in marginalibus hujus Biblicus: de Sacrae Scripturae auctoritate, canone, lingua operis annotationibus obvia sunt) lucubrationibus nec non originali, fontium puritate ac versionibus praecipuis, imprimis ex Formula Concordia excerptas et ad praesentem Ecclesiae vero Vulgata Latina et Graeca LXX interpretum, in quo ultra statum, potissimum vero ad disputationum Theologicarum octingenta Scripturae loca aut illustrantur aut vindicantur. utilissimum exercitium, fi deliter accommodatas continent, Frankfurt 1618. 47 Calovius (1643), pp. 504–511. 36 Pellican was originally a Franciscan, who taught Hebrew 48 Calovius (1643), p. 512: Prima itaque est Vulgatam trans- at Basel, but in 1526 after having joined the Reformation, he lationem Latinam divinam ipsiusque Spiritus Sancti versionem moved to Zurich where he taught Hebrew to the students of the- esse. Carpzov (1728) describes Calovius’ classifi cation, p. 683. ology. In the preface to his Bible commentary Pellican says inter 49 Calovius (1643), p. 537: Altera haec esto: Vulgatam alia that, when teaching the theological students Hebrew, he versionem, si non θεόπνευστος sit, ab omnibus tamen prorsus fi rst reads the Vulgate text, then the Hebrew Bible, after that the erroribus, etiam levioribus fi demque ac vitae praecepta non Septuagint and at last the German version (p. 9). This proceed- concernentibus, immunem esse. ing of his public lectures must have been the origin to Pellican’s 50 Pineda, De rebus Salomonis Regis, book 4, ch. 8, p. 227, biblical commentary as well as to the Latin Zurich Bible mainly thought that it it is a crime (piaculum) to assert that the Vulgate undertaken by Leo Jud, see section 5.4. makes mistakes either in things concerning the faith or in the 37 Commentaria Bibliorum et illa brevia quidem et cathol- geography or in anything else of whatever kind. See the quota- ica eruditissimi simul et piissimi viri Conradi Pellicani qui et tion in Carpzov (1728), p. 694. Vulgatam commentariis inseruit aeditionem sed ad Hebraicam 51 Calovius (1643), p. 642. Tertia denique Pontifi ciorum lectionem accurate emendata, 1532-1538. The work consists of sententia Vulgatam sic dicunt authenticam, quae immunis sit seven volumes. The biblical text is embedded in the commentar- iis saltem erroribus, qui in fi dem et bonos mores impingant. ies. The biblical text is larger in size than the commentaries, which are in italics. 52 Calovius (1643), pp. 512–536. 38 Pellican (1532), preface p. 6: sunt omnino magnae diffi - 53 Calovius (1643), pp. 522ff. cultates in multis scripturae locis, sed nusquam obscuritas insu- 54 Calovius (1643), pp. 537–642. perabilis, quum religionis c aput agitur, modo adsit pius animus 55 Calovius (1643), pp. 642–691. Primo fontibus veritatis veritatis, gloriae divinae salutisque humanae cupidus, modo divinae seu textui originali directe contradicendo, … secundo adsit ardens votum, effusae preces, vigiles sensus, industria additione ad Verbum Dei eorum, quae non sunt divinae inspi- sacra, diligentia simplex, labor impiger, constans propositum rationis et subtractione eorum, quae divinitus inspirata sunt, ad nativum scripturae sensum. … tertio immutatione verborum ac sensuum divinorum mul- 39 Pellican alludes to Cicero, De Optimo Genere Orato- tivaria, … quarto depravatione numerorum, tum in annorum rum, 5,14 which reads: In quibus non verbum pro verbo necesse computo, tum in aliis historiam concernentibus recensionibus, habui reddere, sed genus omne verborum vimque servavi. Non … quinto circumstantiarum variatione in Historia Sacra, … enim ea me adnumerare lectori putavi oportere, sed tamquam sexto commentorum approbatione, … septimo falsarum opi- appendere. “In doing so, I did not hold it necessary to render nationum et ineptarum ac frivolarum disputationum incrusta- word by word, but I preserved the general style and the force of tione, … octavo divinarum constitutionum inversione, … nono the language. For I did not think I ought to count them out to ψευδοθεμελίων fi dei et mysteriorum divinorum constitutione, … the reader like coins, but - so to speak - to pay them by weight.” decimo gnomarum et sententiarum sacrarum variatione, … In his translation of a couple of rhetorical works (two Greek undecimo locorum fi dei enervatione, … duodecimo haeretia- speeches of Aeschines and Demostenes respectively) Cicero crum opinionum patrocinio et confi rmatione. promoted a functional method of translation with the didactic 56 Abraham Calovius, Biblia Testamenti Veteris illustrata aim to convey in Latin idiom a model for how one ought to (1672), p. 15: Vulgatae Latinae errores multiplices: quam solam hold successful lawcourt speeches. According to Pellican that qui adhibuere, quod a multis factum, aut post Concilii Triden- method only holds good for profane literature. We will return tini defi nitionem pro authentica habuere, non potuerunt non to this issue in the account for Johannes Clericus’ version (sec- divaricari a vero sensu. tion 5.8).

63 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

57 Calovius (1643), p. 692. audeat fi ngere cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis [quotation from 58 Carpzov (1728), pp. 664b–698. Horace, Ars Poetica 50] parce modo et verecunde; ea demum laudenda erit licentia. Verborum item ordinem quin retineat, 59 Carpzov (1728), pp. 692–696. neque obscuritate neque rudi eorum compositione absterrea- 60 Carpzov (1728), pp. 697–698. tur. Quod si ita feret casus, ut ascititia omnino verba recipienda 61 Roland H. Bainton ‘The Bible in the Reformation’ in sint, diverso ea charactere signentur. Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 25. 74 Schefferus, De stylo exercitiisque illius, p. 15: Quam- 62 Erwin Rosenthal, Studia Semitica vol 1, “Raschi and the quam hic excipiendos aliquatenus existimem librorum sacro- English Bible” pp. 56-85. rum interpretes, quos par est cuncta textus originarii observare cum religione nec latum quidem unguem, uti ajunt, ab eo rece- 63 John M. Lenhart (1946), p. 425. dere ipsasque etiam ejus, etsi aliis in linguis parum notas, atten- 64 A rabbinical Bible contains the Hebrew text of the Old dere fi guras, ut in quibus non parvum saepe latere mysterium Testament accompanied by the Targums (ancient Aramaic nemo non fateatur. translations) and rabbinical commentaries (Rashi, Ibn Ezra and 75 Cf. Hobbs (1996), p. 165 and cf. section 5.5 in this arti- David Kimchi). cle. 65 See Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to 76 Interpretatio linguarum seu de ratione convertendi et Jewish studies, 1996, pp. 169ff. The author refers for this infor- explicandi autores tam sacros quam profanos libri tres, Basel mation to Moshe Goshen Gottstein, ‘Foundations of Biblical 1559, p. 62: Nec sane possum laudare Erasmi nunquam satis Philology in the Seventeenth Century: Christian and Jewish laudatam diligentiam, dum … Novum Testamentum pristino dimensions’ in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century suo ac germano nitori restituere coeperit, ita ut Christus nobis- ed. Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, p. 83–84. See also cum clarius, Latinius, purius loqueretur. Encyclopedia of the Renaissance edited by Paul F. Grendler, vol. 1, p. 217. 77 A late ancient Latin grammarian active in Constantino- ple. He fl ourished about 500 AD. 66 I.e. the transmitted Hebrew consonantal text along with the vowel signs and the annotations in the margin about the read 78 Jean Despautère, a humanist grammarian, Commentarii (qere) and the written form (ketiv) added by Masoretes (Jewish grammatici, Paris 1537. scholars between the sixth and tenth century AD). 79 Humphrey (1559), pp. 59ff. Si enim sacra loquere debent 67 Burnett (1996), pp. 173ff.; The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Latine, loquantur Latinissime, modo aptissime. ... At indig- Bible editions pp. 158 and 160. num clamant Evangelium subjicere Prisciani aut Despauterii regulis, at indignissimum, rei sacratae divinitatem foeditate 68 Aquila not only translated word-for-word, but also tried Barbarismorum conspurcari. to transfer the etymology of the foreign words, for instance the fi rst word in Genesis bereshit (etymologically ‘in the heads’, but 80 Biblia Latina ex Hebraeo Xantis Pagnini iuxta ger- in proper sense ‘in the beginning’) was rendered ἐν κεφαλαίς i.e. manam Hebraici idiomatis proprietatem. ‘in the heads’, entirely incomprehensible. 81 B i b l i a S a c ra e x S a n t i s Pa g n i n i t ra l a t i o n e s e d a d H e b ra i c a e 69 Kevin H. Lee, ‘Translations of the Old Testament, II linguae amussim novissime ita recognita et scholiis illustrata. Latin’ in Handbook of classical rhetoric in the hellenistic period 82 In this way Estienne intended to avoid censure from the edited by Stanley E. Porter, Leiden, New York, Cologne 1997, Catholic Church. He probably thought that Vatable was not to pp. 784–791. be suspected of heresy. Another reason was, to be sure, that 70 Jerome translated into Latin Eusebius’ Chronicle and the edition would sell better under the guise of Vatable’s name. Origins’ Sermons in Ezechiel. These tricks were common strategies among the editors and typographers in the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, Estienne’s 71 Epistula 57,5,1. Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera edition of Pagninus’ version was known as Vatable’s Bible in the voce profi teor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scrip- sixteenth and seventeenth century. turis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. In this letter to Pam- 83 Reprints of Estienne’s edition were published in Olewig machius, Jerome defends himself against the accusation that he 1557, Paris 1577, 1721 and 1727, Basel 1564, Zurich 1564 and had not expressed word by word in his Latin translation of a 1579, Frankfurt 1590, 1591, 1614 and 1618 and in the Hamburg popular and widespread Greek letter written by Pope Epipha- Polyglot Bible 1596. nius. In defending his sense-for-sense practice he refers to and 84 Hebraicorum Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti Latina quotes Cicero, De optimo genere oratorum 14–15 (see note 39 interpretatio opera olim Xantis Pagnini Lucensis nunc vero above) and Horace, Ars Poetica 133–134, Euagrius’ preface to Benedicti Ariae Montani Hispalensis, Francisci Raphalengii the life of St. Anthony and fi nally refers to Hilarius’ practice of Alnetani, Guidonis et Nicolai Fabriciorum Boderianorum translation. He also shows that there are several passages where Fratrum collato studio ad Hebraicam dictionem diligentis- there is a verbal disagreement between the Hebrew original text sime expensa, Antwerp 1572. Montanus’ edition was reprinted and the Septuagint or the Greek text as quoted by the Evange- in Antwerp in 1584, 1613 and 1688, Geneva 1608 and 1619, lists and the Apostles. The main line of argument is that if that Leipzig 1657 in interlinear with the Hebrew text, and in Frank- liberty was conceded to the Evangelists writing Holy Scriptures, furt a. M. 1707. he should be allowed to make the same in his translation of a 85 To be sure Leo Jud and Castellio are in the fi rst place simple letter. indicated. Among translators of single biblical books Martin 72 The Cethegi were old-fashion in so far as they were Bucer and Ulrich Zwingli are possibly meant, as they assumed dressed in cinctus of the Old Roman Republic, and not in the an antiliteralist attitude, see Hobbs (1996), p. 165. common tunica. 86 ipsi contra id solum percupiunt, ut Biblia Hebraea non 73 Pierre Daniel Huet, De interpretatione libri duo: De quam maxime Latina, sed quam maxime Hebraica Latine optimo genere interpretandi, Haag 1683 (fi rst edition Paris habeant, id est, ut ab Hebraici sermonis phrasi et proprietate 1660), pp. 22ff. In Scripturis sane sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo ne transversum quidem digitum, quod aiunt, discedatur, see mysterium est et non magna arte perpolita illa constructio the preface p. 3. plures saepe fert sententias, quarum maximam partem elegan- 87 Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca sancta, Venice 1566, see the tiae studium succidit, verbum verbo enuntiandum fatetur fourth book. Kortholt (1686), p. 252, quotes in Latin the state- Hieronymus, quamvis aliter in aliis censeat esse faciendum, ments reported. nec ei semper ipse praecepto paruerit. Librorum quidem sacro- rum interpretem vocem voce referre iubeo. Si tritae et receptae 88 Tractatus Theologicus novus et perspicuus de interpre- dictiones non suppeditent ad obsoletas et ab usu quotidiani ser- tatione sacrarum scripturarum maxima legitima (1619), p. 39: monis intermissas recurrat: sin eae quoque defi cient, vocabula Quod attinet ad Latinam versionem a Pagnini adornatam, illa

64 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions a viris solide doctis et piis prae vetere millies carior habetur cer- responderet, Hebraismi studiosis potissimum hoc nostro tiorque et purior deprehenditur et cum D. Lutheri Germanica labore inservire cupientes, etiamsi aliis aeque usui esse possit, interpretatione quam maxime convenit. Interim tamen studio- qui linguam hanc negligendam ducunt. sissimorum collatio monstrabit neque illam ex asse in omnibus 104 Ibidem, see preface p. 12: Porro in latina versione et cunctis et singulis locis esse incontaminatam. hoc unum spectavimus, ut quoad fi eri potuit, latina hebraicis 89 See the end of the book Schemhamphorasch, vol VIII, responderet, nisi quod aliquando quasi per parenthes adiec- Jena, Germ. Fol 135a. I have followed the quotation in Carpzov imus unam aut alteram dictionem, quae ad explicationem (1728), pp. 713f. Kortholt (1686), p. 254 also quotes the state- obscurioris faceret sententiae, id quod summe necessarium ment. videbatur in prophetis. 90 Johannes Buxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, 105 Ibidem, see preface p. 12: Phrasin quoque hebraicam Epistula dedicatoria, Basel 1645, fi rst edition 1615, p. 9: post et idiotismos ipsos non semper immutavimus, praesertim qui Hieronymus primus Biblia Hebraea integra in Latinum fi delis- Christianis auribus hodie non sunt horrori. Münster adduces sime convertit. a lot of examples: plenus dierum for grandaevus, ecce ego for 91 Johannes Leuden, Philologus Hebraeus (1682), the adsum or audio, invenire gratiam in oculis for placere or impe- thirty-fi fth dissertation De versione Sanctis Pagnini, p. 410. trare gratiam, factum est post verba ista for his gestis factum est, multiplicans multiplicabo for valde multiplicabo, ascen- 92 Johannes Leusden (1682), pp. 415–432. Also Carpzov dere in cor for cogitare or diligenter perpendere, posui animam (1728), p. 714, shows several inaccuracies, for instance, when meam in manibus meis for periculo vitae me exposui, accingere God ordered Noah to bring the animals into the Ark (Gen 6,20), lumbos tuos for strenue exsequere negotium, fecit sibi nomen he inter alia said ad vivendum tecum “to live with you”, but the for adeptus est nomen magnifi cum, iudicando iudicet for ius causative hiph’il-stem of the Hebrew verb used (chaya) should in dicet, moriendo morieris for certissime morieris, ponam vos Carpzov’s opinion be rendered ad conservandum tecum “to be in nomen et in laudem for reddam vos celebres et laudatos, preserved with you”. Moreover, (Gen. 21,9) Sarah saw the son levantes vocem fl erunt for ploraverunt alta voce. of Hagar ludens cum Isaac fi lio suo “playing with her son Isaac” but Carpzov maintains that the Hebrew word (the participle 106 Sisto da Siena (1666), Bibliotheca sancta, book VIII, metsacheq) should be translated illudens or subsannans ‘derid- section XIII about translations of the Holy Scriptures by her- ing, mocking’. Furthermore, Carpzov points out, the meaning etics, pp. 838f. I rely on the quotation in Carpzov (1728), p. is hard to grasp in Gen 34,8: fi lii mei adhaesit anima cum fi lia 724. vestra, which renders the Hebrew word-for-word. Schmidius 107 Richard Simon (1685), p. 321 and p. 322. made the passage more plain by rendering fi lium meum quod attinet, discupit anima ejus fi liam vestram. 108 Carpzov (1728), p. 722: In Latina versione suprema ipsi lex fuit, sententiam reddere textus authentici, et quantum 93 Matthew Poole, Synopsis criticorum aliorumque Sacrae per utriusque linguae genium et indolem liceret verbis Hebraeis Scripturae interpretum et commentatorum, London 1669, in stricte inhaerere. the preface: versionem hanc maxime literalem, cum commode fi eri potuerit, fi dam, singulari judicio atque peritia concinna- 109 Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi e sacra Hebrae- tam, docti fere omnes consentiunt. orum lingua Graecorumque fontibus religiosissime translata in sermonem Latinum, Zurich 1544, see the preface, p. 2. 94 Huet (1683), De interpretatione, (book I De optimo genere interpretandi), pp. 24ff. and De interpretatione, (book 110 Ibidem, p. 4. II De claris interpretibus), pp. 144ff. 111 Huet (1683), Interpretatio linguarum, p. 147: fatentur 95 Simon (1685), pp. 314ff. … venerandam illa dictionis simplicitatem ascititio lepore, sic 96 Richard Simon, Disquisitiones criticae de variis et per tanquam nativum venustae formae decus illito fuco, fuisse diversa loca et tempora Bibliorum editionibus, (Critical inquir- sublatum. ies into the various editions of the Bible at different places and 112 Poole (1669), the preface, as quoted in Kortholt (1686), in different times), London 1684, p. 183. I have followed the p. 266. quotation in Carpzov (1728), p. 713. 113 Simon (1685), p. 323. 97 Simon (1685), p. 317. 114 Richard Simon (1684: Disquisitiones criticae), p. 189. Si 98 Ekerman (1764), De versionibus S. Bibliorum Latinis, in qua reprehendi meretur Leo Judae, in hoc maxime quod, ne p. 14. ob brevitatem obscurus fi eret, Paraphrastem interdum potius 99 Alnander (1763), p. 98: “Det vissaste är at han noga följer quam interpretem se ostendit. Texten, och håller sig strängt vid orden, samt därigenom både 115 He was born in the French village Saint-Martin-du- blir otydlig och har en barbarisk latin.” Fresne (or Chattillon-des-Dombes) 35 miles from Geneva. After 100 I am not sure of Münster’s confessional identity. Maybe education in Lyon (Hebrew, Greek and Latin) he moved abroad he took an intermediary position between Lutheranism and to Geneva hoping to fi nd a more tolerate religious climate, but Calvinism. Calvin did not like Castellio’s literal interpretation of the Song 101 In handbooks of the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- of Songs and forbade any publisher in Geneva to print Castellio’s ries the year 1525 often appears as the year of fi rst publication. Latin Bible version. Castellio conceived the Song of Songs as This mistake was due to Münster’s stating in the preface that it King Salomon’s love poem to one of his concubines. Castellio, was the fi fth year in the third decade in his century. then, saw himself forced to settle in Basel where he found a will- ing typographer. Soon he became professor of Greek there. 102 The whole title reads as follows: Biblia Hebraica Latina planeque nova Sebastiani Münsteri tralatione post omneis 116 Moses Latinus ex Hebraeo factus, et in eundem prae- omnium hactenus ubivis gentium aeditiones evulgata, quoad fatio, qua multiplex ejus doctrina ostenditur et annotationes, fi eri potuit, Hebraicae veritati conformata, adiectis insuper e in quibus translationis ratio, sicubi opus est, redditur, et Rabbinorum commentariis annotationibus haut poenitendis loci diffi ciliores explicantur per Sebastianum Castalionem. pulchre et voces ambiguas et obscuriora quaeque loca elucit- Videbis, lector, Mosem nunc demum et Latine loquentem et antibus. aperte, Basel 1546. In English: “The Latin Moses translated from Hebrew, and a preface, in which his multiple erudition is 103 Ibidem, see the preface p. 3: Caeterum in hac nostra showed and annotations, in which the reason of the translation, aeditione hoc unum praecipue spectavimus, ut dimissa lati- wherever necessary, is accounted for and the more diffi cult pas- nitatis elegantia, quae etiam in plerisque locis haud observari sages explained by Sebastian Castellio. Now, reader, you will potuit, simpliciter Hebraicam veritatem pro virili nostra see Moses both speaking Latin and speaking clearly.” [parte] produceremus, et quantum fi eri potuit, interpretatio ipsa hebraismo e regione posito, iuxta Hebraeorum mentem

65 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

117 Castellio (1546), see the dedicatory letter, pp. 1 and 3, 136 Wolle (1729), p. 9. see the actual preface, pp. 1–2 and pp. 12ff. 137 Wolle (1729), p. 10. 118 Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional 138 Wolle (1729), p. 10. Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615), Leiden and Boston 2003, pp.121–129. 139 Wolle (1729), p. 17. 119 In the comparative investigation below I have used the 140 Charitas, as opposed to amor and cupido, is a word edition of 1750, Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis inter- that was used by the early Latin Church Fathers just because it pretatione eiusque postrema recognitione praecipue in usum lacked association with sensual love and therefore suitable for studiosae juventutis denuo evulgata. God’s love of mankind. 120 Sebastian Castellio, Defensio suarum translationum, 141 See De Latinitate in versione Biblica Castellionis, Basel 1562, p. 9. Uppsala 1759, pp. 12f. Adhibuit itaque Castellio, ut verbo rem complectar, voces Deorum cultioribus usitatas, quibus profana 121 Christoph Wolle (Christophorus Wollius), Dissertatio ethicismi idea accidentalis est, quia ipsa lingua Latina horum critica de eo quod pulchrum est in versione sacri codicis latina erat usui olim destinata, sed inde nihil habes, unde Versionem Sebastiani Castellionis, Leipzig 1729, p. 21. nostram ethnicismi arguas. 122 Ibidem, the preface, p. 1. 142 Alnander (1763), p. 104: “Men han skref för deras skull 123 On this controversy between Beza and Castellio, see som älskade en ren latin och genom Vulgatas osmaklighet, til further Irena Backus (2003), pp. 120ff. vilken de nödgades gå i brist på kunskap i Grundspråken, fi ngo 124 Sisto da Siena (1666), p. 839: ita est delicatus ac mollis, vämjälse för själfva Bibeln. Och skall det blifva honom til last ut nihil, quod Hebraismum redoleat, olfacere patiatur nec vere at stilen är ovanligt putsad när han därigenom vann at de som se Latine loqui putet, nisi quam effaeminatissime loquatur et tilförne lagt Biblen åsido började nu läsa honom med nöje?” citra omnem divinae Scripturae majestatem ac divini intepre- 143 The very fact that there are in all thirty-fi ve editions tatis gravitatem singulas quasque sententias meretricularum in different formats up to 1715 clearly shows that Tremellius’ more fuco pingat et calamistris inurat, lasciva quadam mollium version was commonly used. Michael Walther states that verborum affl uentia luxurians … adeo impudice (ne dicam Tremellius’ version is in most people’s hands (haeret haec hodie obscaene) transtulit, ac si meretricum et lenonum colloquia in plerorumque manibus). Samuel J. Alnander states that it edit u r u s f u i s se t , t e r tio pe n e ve rbo di m i n ut a s qu a sd a m , l u b r i c a s is the most common and mostly used Bible, even though it in ac molliter tinnulas voculas inculcans. his opinion is not the best and not the most accurate version, 125 Originis Adamantii … opera, Paris 1574, the preface, Anvisning till ett utvaldt theologiskt bibliothek, andra avdel- as quoted in Kortholt (1686), p. 269: Castellionis versio est ningen, p. 100. Cf. Aaron Katchen, Dutch rabbis and Dutch affectata, plus habens pompae et phalerarum, quam rei et fi r- Hebraists, p. 64. mitatis, plus ostentationis quam substantiae, plus fuci quam 144 G. LJoyd Jones (1983), pp. 50ff. and Carpzov (1728), succi, plus hominis quam Spiritus, plus fumi quam fl ammae, pp. 744f. plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum, plus foliorum quam fructuum. 145 The Latin version had been completed in 1569 and was published with an edition of the Syriac New Testament, for the 126 Bibliothecarius quadripartitus, Zurich 1664, p. 167. understanding of which Tremellius also composed a Syriac and 127 August Thuanus, Historiarum sui temporis libri CXXV, Aramaic grammar the same year. see book 36, year 1563. 146 Carpzov (1728), p. 746. 128 Humphrey (1559), pp. 61f. qui omnes opes linguae Lati- 147 Masch (1785), pp. 459-471. nae ad Dei verbum omni instrumento oratorio exornandum deprompsit. Siquid erravit, errarunt et alii. … nec ideo erravit 148 Andreas Rivetus, Isagoge seu introductio generalis ad quisquis erravit, quod Latine et eleganter studuerit sacros Scripturam sacram Veteris et Novi Testamenti, (1627), ch. 12, libros traducere, errorum aliae sunt causae; eloquentiam nullo § 15. modo accusandam censeo. … Cur ceterae artes humanae et 149 Lyra Davidis seu Nova Hebraea S. Scripturae ars prophanae nitescere, sola vero Scriptura horrere debet? … hic poetica is a treatise on the Biblical Hebrew poetry containing fi nis omnium est, Dei gloria, quae illustratur, si illustrior eius specimens from the Psalms of Moses, Job, David, Salomon reddatur oratio. and Jeremiah, and also parallel examples from Sophocles and 129 Kortholt (1686), p. 269 and 272: Quis in sacrosancti Pindarus meant to show that the Greeks derived their poeti- Cantici interpretatione diminuta illa molliterque tinnula cal art from the Hebrews, cf. Peter van der Rooden, Theology, vocabula ... elegia Tibulliana quam divina ode digniora aequo Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth ferat animo? ... Porro annon error est in exprimendis rebus Century, pp. 221ff. divinis, quas sermo decet majestaticus, tali verborum uti 150 Simon (1685), p. 327. lenocinio ... Cujusmodi mollium dictionum amatoriarumque 151 Jacob Alting, Schilo seu de vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi blanditiarum affl uentia, qua ubique in illius libri traductione quod Gen. XLIX versus 10 exstat, (Franeken 1660), book 3, luxuriat auctor, magis ludentem de Lesbiae passerculo Catul- chapter 1, section 5. This information is from Carpzov (1728), lum refert, quam sacrarum literarum interpretem. p. 746. 130 Simon (1685), pp. 324ff. 152 Jacob Alting, Problemata nova, p. 137. The passage 131 Simon (1684), p. 190. referred to is quoted in Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Bibliothe- 132 Poole (1669). I rely on the quotation in Masch (1785), carius quadripartitus, Zurich 1664, p. 166. p. 482. 153 Leusden (1682), p. 410. 133 Carpzov (1728), p. 737. 154 Michael Walther, Offi cina Biblica (which treats the 134 Carpzov (1728), p. 744: cuius versionem cum fontibus other versions on pp. 349–357), Leipzig 1637, p. 358. comparanti ad oculum patebit apprime peritum fuisse Hebra- 155 Poole (1668), preface. For the passage cited I rely on ismi, a quo non ignorantia, sed nimio Latinae dictionis ac per- Kortholt (1686), p.276. spicuitatis studio discessit. 156 Vorstius, De Latinitate merito suspecta, Berlin 1674, 135 Wolle (1729), p. 13: Nihil intentatum reliquit, ut selig- p. 180: Ipsique quoque interpretes recentiores, Tremellius and eret proprias, perspicuas, puras et signifi cantes, contra vero Junius, cum Hebraea verterent, Hebraismos non ubique serv- adspernaretur improprias, obscuras, impuras et exoletae andos, sed ut plurimum declinandos eos putaverunt. Maxime antiquitatis voces, cavitque sedulus, ne in aenigma evaderet vero omnium Sebastianus Castellio Hebraismos in versione sua oratio.

66 SÄRTRYCK

josef eskhult – latin bible versions vitavit, et e contrario idiotismos linguae Latinae, quoad potuit, volume of La bible de tous les temps. The author examines usurpavit. sources of inspirations for Houbigant’s great enterprise and also 157 Masch (1785), pp. 438ff. deals with the characteristics of his work. 158 Schmidius (1708), the preface, pp. 8ff. 170 Masch (1785), pp. 491ff. 159 Masch (1785), pp. 438ff. 171 See Masch (1785), pp. 557ff. 160 See for the following excerpts Critica sacra Veteris 172 See Masch (1785), p. 493. Testamenti, Leipzig 1728, p. 706–712. 173 Psalmi Davidis ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et 161 Ekerman (1764), pp. 24f: scilicet, ut fontes, qui idi- iuxta sensum, quem literalem dicunt, enarrati, “Psalms of otismis constant haud paucis, simplici, quantum utriusque David corrected according to the Hebrew truth, i.e. original, sermonis genius concederet, dicendi genere exprimere maxime and commented upon according to the sense that one calls lit- nitebatur. Interim ejusmodi tam stricto tranferendi genere, eral”, Rome 1530, Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in verbum nempe de verbo reddendo, fi eri non potuit, quin ubi- quinque Mosaicos Libros, Rome 1531, Commentarii illustres cunque locorum latinas aures suaves permulcere potuerit. … planeque insignes in Libros Iosue, Iudicum , Ruth, Regum , Par- Praeterea noster fontibus presse inhaerere non tantum, sed alipomenon, Esdram, Nehemiam et Ester, Rome 1533, Com- etiam … puram perspicuamque omnino exhibere transla- mentarii illustris planeque insignis in Librum Job, Rome 1535. tionem studuit. 174 I rely on the quotation of the statement (in Latin) in 162 Johann Jacob Rambach, Institutiones hermeneuticae Richard Simon (1685), p. 319. sacrae, Jena 1732 (fi rst edition 1723), p. 632. 175 Masch (1795), p. 495 quotes Cajetan’s preface to the Pen- 163 Pentateuchus sive Mosis Prophetae libri quinque ex tateuch. The statement rendered in English reads in Latin: Nullus translatione Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem paraphrasi per- itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum, ex hoc quod petua, commentario philologico variisque dissertationibus dissonat e priscis doctoribus, sed scrutetur perspicacius textum criticis et tabulis chronologicis. ac contextum scripturae, et, si quadrare invenerit, laudat Deum, qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum 164 Veteris Testamenti libri historici ex translatione priscorum doctorum sensibus, sed scripturae ipsae integrae sub Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem commentario philologico. catholicae ecclesiae censura … Nam ipsius Mosis textus, non 165 Veteris Testamenti libri hagiographi ex translatione interpres ejus exponendus est. Non enim interpretis Graeci aut Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem commentario philologico and Latini, sed ipsius tantum Hebraei textus authoritas est. Veteris Testamenti Prophetae ex translatione Johannis Clerici 176 Commentaria in sacram scripturam una cum nova de cum eiusdem commentario philologico. verbo ad verbum ex Hebraeo translatione. 166 The Latin text in this passage is worth quoting in full: Si 177 Simon (1685), p. .318. linguae omnes aeque copiosae et vocabulis plane et per omnia ἰσοδυνάμοις essent instructae, verbum verbo loquutio loqu- 178 Carpzov (1728), p. 699. utione reddi possent, adeoque simplicissima tantum transla- 179 This survey is based on Masch (1785), pp. 493–566. ἐκ παραλλήλου tione opus esset. Sed cum linguae sibi invicem 180 R. Gerald Hobbs deals with how sixteenth-century non respondeat, nulla ad verbum fi eri potest paulo longioris exegetes understood the Book of Psalms: its authorship, divi- orationis translatio. Plurima paucioribus aut pluribus verbis sion, numbering, punctuation, New Testament reading and necessario sunt explicanda, si velit interpres intelligi et effi cere allegorical versus literal interpretation, see “Hebraica Veritas in audientium animis, quod cupit is qui utitur lingua aliena. “If and Traditio Apostolica: Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the all languages were equally copious in expression and furnished Psalms in the Sixteenth Century” in The Bible in the Sixteenth with words that are entirely and in everything equal in semantic century, edited by David Steinmetz, Durham and London 1990, force, one could render word by word and a mode of expression pp. 83-99; there is a list of sixteenth-century Latin and Euro- by the same mode of expression, and thus only a very simple pean vernacular versions of the Bible and commentaries on the translation would be needed. However, since languages do not Psalms, pp. 221-225. correspond parallelwise to another, a word-for-word transla- tion of a longer text cannot be done. Many things has necessarily 181 Johannes A. Gaertner “Latin verse translations of the to be explained by fewer or more words, if the translator wishs Psalms” in Harvard Theological Review, vol 49 (1956), pp. 271– to be understood and achieve in the minds of his readers, that 305; his article contains a list of authors and titles of the metrical which the original author desires.” See Clericus’ Dissertatio de Latin Psalm translations appearing in the period 1500–1620, optimo genere interpretum Sacrae Scripturae, p. 1. pp. 293-300. 167 Cf. Cicero, De optimo genere oratorum 5,14: nec 182 Leonard Grant, “Neo-Latin verse translations of the converti ut interpres, sed ut orator, sententiis iisdem et earum Bible” in Harvard Theological Review, vol 52 (1959), pp. formis tamquam fi guris, verbis ad nostram consuetudinem 205–211. aptis. “And I did not translate them as a translator, but as an 183 The Complutensian Polyglott appeared in 1522, the Ant- orator, keeping the same ideas and the forms, or as one might werp Polyglott in 1569–1572, The Paris Polyglott in 1629–1645 say, the “fi gures” of thought, but with a diction that conforms and the London Polyglott in 1655–1657. to our usage.” 184 I have quoted the Vulgate text from the Sixto-Clemen- 168 Carpzov (1728), p. 699. tine Vulgate in the Paris edition: Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam th 169 See Mireille Hadas-Lebel, “Le P. Houbigant et la cri- Clementinam by Alberto Colunga and Laurentio Turrado, 4 tique textuelle” in Le Siècle des Lumières et la Bible, pp. 103- ed. 1965 [the fi rst edition appeared in 1946]. 112, edited by Yvon Belaval and Dominique Bourel, the seventh