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
1.1 Aim and scope
In the age of the Reformation (1517–1580)
and post-Reformation (1580–1720) many biblical
scholars, Hebraists and Grecists alike, made new
Latin translations of the Old and New Testaments
from Hebrew and Greek by individual enterprises.
Most of the translators belonged to the Reformed
and Lutheran Churches. Some new Latin versions
enjoyed universal approval as long as Latin was the
language of scholarship. Nevertheless, the Lutheran
and Reformed churches continued to use the Vulgate,
although they revised and emendated it from the
source languages of the Bible.
The question of what Latin Bible versions were
developed and used in the age of Reformation and
post-Reformation must be considered a matter of
great significance in Neo-Latin philology as well as
church history. However, the Latin versions of the
whole Old Testament elaborated in the period 1500–
1750 have received only limited attention in modern
scholarship, which has concentrated on the Bible
versions in European vernaculars during the sixte-
enth century and, if Latin Bible versions have been
considered at all, scholarship has dealt with Lorenzo
Valla’s criticism of the Vulgate, Erasmus’ Latin ver-
sion of the New Testament or some humanist trans-
lator of an individual biblical book (e.g. the Psalter).1
Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
Modern research, too, has devoted little attention to
the Vulgate among the Protestants in the sixteenth,
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, viz. the extent
to which they used it and how they evaluated it.
This article is meant to help remedy the deficiency
in this field of research. The purpose is accordingly
twofold: to give a survey of Latin versions of the entire
or complete Old Testament from the Hebrew source
language that came into being up to the middle of the
eighteenth century, and, secondly, to present the most
important revisions of the Vulgate within the Luth-
eran Church as well as to probe the opinions of the
Vulgate among Protestants. I shall also touch upon an
adjacent area, the theory behind Bible translation.
1.2 Outline of the study
The survey is arranged as follows: First, previous
research is presented. Then the three methods are
described to which the humanist Hebraists resorted
to establish a Latin Bible for the Church’s use. This
leads to an account of the revisions of the Vulgate by
the Lutherans and the opinions of the Vulgate among
the Protestants. Next follows a survey of the Latin
versions of the Old Testament from its Hebrew origi-
nal in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies. In introductory sections there is an attempt to
describe the humanistic Latin Bible versions in their
historical context, and, further, what Hebrew source
text the translator in question set out from, and the
31
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
views on Bible interpretation as expressed by human-
ist theorists (Huet and Humphrey). The description
of each Latin version of the Old Testament is arranged
as follows: fi rst, the appearance of the different edi-
tions will be accounted for. Then, the focus will fall
on the various methods of translation, as described
by the translators in question, and, last, the recep-
tion history of the respective Bible versions will be
dealt with, how they were estimated by critics in the
sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century. The
reception history will be investigated by means of a
selection of the opinions voiced by critics. After this
survey the editions of the Vulgate and the Latin Bible
versions are placed in a chronological overview. Then
follows an exposition that tries to penetrate some key
concepts that the Bible translators in the sixteenth,
seventeenth and eighteenth century had in mind.
The qualities of proprietas, i.e. proper signification,
latinitas or puritas, i.e. linguistic correctness, and
perspicuitas, i.e. clearness, turn out to be the most
important terms in the conceptual framework. The
different concerns for these qualities have been evalu-
ated in the Latin versions under consideration. Finally,
some specimens of biblical passages are adduced in
order to elucidate different linguistic features in the
Latin Bible versions considered.
2. Earlier investigations
2.1 Seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century research
(Simon, Kortholt, Carpzov,
le Long, Masch)
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there
appeared exhaustive surveys and critical reviews of
the emendated and revised editions of the Vulgate and
the new Latin Bible translations. Those attracting
special interest and those that are of major impor-
tance will be mentioned in the following account.
Richard Simon (1638–1712), the famous French
exegete and biblical critic (Catholic) wrote Histoire
Critique du Vieux Testament (1685), where he deals
with the history of Bible translations. On the basis of
his own readings, as it appears, he makes judicious
remarks about the new Latin translations of the Bible
up to his time.2
32
Christian Kortholt (1633–1694), professor of theo-
logy at the University of Kiel (Lutheran), De variis
Scripturae Sanctae editionibus tractatus theologico-
historico-philologicus (1686), deals with the Vulgate
and presents a survey of new Latin Bible translations,
where he above all has collected a body of information
about contemporary scholars’ critical judgements on
the versions considered.3
Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679–1767), professor
of theology at the University of Leipzig (Lutheran) is
to be credited with the most extensive exposition on
the present matter among all surveys that were writ-
ten in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the
voluminous treatise on textual criticism of the Old
Testament Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti (1728) he
investigates inter alia the Vulgate, its age and origin,
its genuine author, its errors of translation, the edi-
tions of it since the Carolingian Renaissance (Alcuin,
Beda and so on), the question of its authority and its
use, as well as the new Latin translations of the Old
Testament from the original language, wherein he
accounts for the aim which the translator in question
had in view with his translation, the methods of trans-
lation, the varying estimations among the critics, the
general character of the translation and the technique
of translation, which is thoroughly exemplified, and,
fi nally, the different editions and revisions of the Bible
version at issue.4
Jacque le Long (1665–1721), a French librarian
(Catholic), wrote an extensive chronological list of
editions of the Bible in all various languages, Bib-
liotheca Sacra seu syllabus omnium ferme Sacrae
Scripturae editionum ac versionum (Paris 1709)
encompassing the period from the fi rst printed edi-
tions of the Bible in the 1450’s up to his days. In one
section he enumerates the editions of the Vulgate by
Catholics, and in another section he lists the editions
of the Vulgate as issued and annotated by the Pro-
testants. He devotes yet another entire section to the
new Latin Bible versions from the Hebrew original.
Andreas Gottlieb Masch (1724–1807), a librarian
and a divine (Lutheran), considerably enlarged and
supplemented Jacque le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra.
Masch’s revision and enlargement of Bibliotheca
sacra is marked by systematics in minute details,
apparent in the conspectus, which is to be found after
the preface of the third volume. The third volume
(1783) and the fourth volume (1785) deal with the
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
Latin versions of the Bible. The fi rst chapter is on
old Latin Bible versions. The second chapter treats
editions of the Vulgate version. The third chapter
is occupied with versions from the original langu-
ages (1785). These chapters are divided into a great
number of sections and entries. Masch not only lists
editions, but also in many cases includes the preface
by each editor, and in the case of the humanistic Latin
Bible versions he inserts a lot of critical judgements by
renowned critics.5
Two Swedish scholars also reviewed the Latin ver-
sions of the Bible in the mid eighteenth century, Pet-
rus Ekerman (1696–1783), professor of eloquence at
Uppsala University and Samuel Johansson Alnander
(1731–1772), lecturer of literary history at Uppsala
University. Neither is, however, original nor do they
convey any basic research, but base their descrip-
tions on secondary sources. Ekerman largely relied
on the above-mentioned Carpzov, but not without
acknowledging his indebtedness through frequent
references.6
It is necessary to point out that all the handbooks
mentioned above are in Latin, except for Richard
Simon and Samuel Alnander. In studying the recep-
tion history of the various Latin Bible versions I have
made ample use of the source material accounted for
above. I have also availed myself of a number of other
sixteenth-, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cri-
tics, who wrote in Latin. All English translations
from Latin, French, and Swedish sources occurring
in this paper are mine.
2.2 Modern research
(Rosenthal, Lenhart, Hall,
Lloyd Jones, Roussel, Hobbs)
In modern times primarily historians of the biblical
exegesis in the Reformation have summarily dealt
with the present matter as a part in major works, but
not in its own right. The modern scholars mentioned
below have only paid regard to the Latin Bible ver-
sions of the sixteenth century (i.e. the Bible versions
by Schmidius, Clericus and Houbigant have been left
without consideration).
Erwin Rosenthal, an English Hebraist and Arabist,
in an article on Raschi and the English Bible (1940),
summarily deals with the Latin translations by
Pagninus, Münster, Leo Jud and Tremellius & Junius
in as far as these works transmitted the rabbinic med-
33
ieval exegesis to English versions, viz. Coverdale, the
Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible
and King James Version. In another article about
Sebastian Münster’s knowledge and use of Jewish
exegesis (1943) he thoroughly illustrates Münster’s
dependence on Jewish rabbis such as Raschi, Kimchi
and Ibn Esra.7
John M. Lenhart, an American scholar specialized
on Franciscan libraries and the typography in the six-
teenth century, in the article ‘Protestant Latin Bible of
the Reformation from 1520-1570: a bibliographical
account’, surveys the revisions of the Vulgate in Luth-
eran countries and pays regard to the Old Testament
and the New Testament as well as parts of both of
them.8
Furthermore, Basil Hall, an English Church his-
torian, has written an excellent exposition ‘Biblical
scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ (1963),
which deals with the foremost revisions of the Vulgate
by Catholic and Protestants and the complete Latin
Bible versions from Hebrew in the sixteenth cen-
tury.9
G. Lloyd Jones, an English church historian, in an
introductory chapter of a book devoted to Hebrew
scholarship in sixteenth-century England, discus-
ses the Latin Bible translations of Sanctes Pagninus,
Sebastian Münster, Leo Jud and Immanuel Tremellius
and Franciscus Junius in their capacity as sources of
influences for the different humanistic English Bible
versions.10
Bernard Roussel (French church historian), as a
part in a great project on the Bible as interpreted and
dealt with in all ages, treats the Latin text of the Bible
in the age of the Reformation and very briefly discus-
ses the revisions of the Vulgate and the new Latin
versions developed during the Reformation. Roussel
considerably relies on Basil Hall, but has also his own
contributions.11
R. Gerald Hobbs, an American church historian,
mentions the main revisions of the Vulgate in the
sixteenth century and in summary terms calls atten-
tion to some new Latin Bible versions: Pagninus, the
Zurich version, Castellio, Tremellius & Junius.12
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
3. The methods to establish a
correct Latin text of the Bible
The humanists understood that the transmitted
Vulgate was full of copyist errors. Some Catholic
and most of the Protestant humanists doubted that
Jerome was the author of the modern Vulgate. Others
believed that the text transmitted was contaminated
with the ancient Latin version (Vetus Latina or Itala).
When they saw that the Vulgate version in some pas-
sages was corrupted by the copyists and in others did
not correspond to the Hebrew and Greek sources,13
they decided to reconstitute a correct Latin version
of the Bible. To re-establish such a Latin biblical text
three different methods were used:14 (1) to revise the
text of the Vulgate from ancient manuscripts, (2) to
correct the Vulgate from the Hebrew and Greek origi-
nal, and (3) to translate the text into Latin anew from
the source languages. The last alternative was con-
sistent with the humanist motto ad fontes, which in
biblical scholarship involved a return to the Hebrew
and Greek source languages. This was further accen-
tuated by the formal principle of the Reformation, viz.
sola scriptura ”the Scripture alone”. As far as com-
plete Latin Bible versions are concerned, the general
tendency is that the Catholics chose the fi rst method,
the Lutherans preferred the second option, and the
Reformed scholars dwelt on the third alternative. My
survey is meant to cover the outcomes of the second
and third methods. As was stated in the introduc-
tion (1.2), the revisions of the Vulgate by Protestants
will be treated and the new Latin versions of the Old
Testament will be surveyed.
For the sake of completeness I also have to mention
the efforts of Catholic printers and scholars in the
sixteenth century to correct the transmitted Vulgate
text from early manuscripts, which represent the fi rst
method pointed out. A great many emendations of
the Vulgate, based on an early modern method of tex-
tual criticism, were undertaken on private initiatives,
for instance by the printer-scholar Robert Estienne
(1503–1559) who published an edition in 1528 (Paris)
under the title of Biblia. In a later revision, issued
in 1532, he claimed that he has restored the Vulgate
to the form in which the translator himself wrote it.
New editions followed 1540, 1545, 1546 and 1557.
Estienne also combined his editorial activity with
Bible commentary and included annotations in the
34
margin to elucidate the biblical text. The annotations
were in many cases drawn from rabbinical medieval
exegesis (see further section 5.1.1). Isodorus Clarius
(1495–1553), bishop of Foligno in Italy, presented an
edition the Vulgate text in 1542 (in Venice), emenda-
ted in passages where he thought it to disagree with
the Hebrew text; the alterations numbered eight
thousand.15 Estienne’s and Clarius’ editions were sus-
pected of heresy and entered on Index librorum pro-
hibitorum. Louvain scholars published on the public
authority of the Roman Catholic Church a revised
edition in 1547 (Antwerp), based on a later version
of Estienne’s edition (1538–40) and on the collation
of some thirty manuscripts. The Spanish orientalist
Arias Montanus (1527–1598) improved the Louvain
edition in his edition of the Vulgate in the Antwerp
Polyglott (1569–72).16 In the corrections undertaken
by papal authority in the 1580’s and 1590’s, attempts
were done to establish the original readings of the
Vulgate through three methods, namely collation
of ancient Latin manuscripts, the expositions of the
church Fathers and ancient translators, and conside-
ration to the Hebrew and Greek text.17 The Sixto-
Clementine edition was issued in 1592 as the authen-
tic Vulgate, in order to fulfi l the decree of the council
of Trent to print as emendated an edition as possible.
Henceforward the authors, typographers, and sellers
of revised editions were threatened with punishments
and with excommunication. The Sixto-Clementine
Vulgate remained the fi nal edition for some hundreds
of years. For an elaborate account of the appearances
of editions of the Vulgate in Catholic countries, see
Masch (who deals with the matter in volume 3, chap-
ter 2, section 1).
4. The Vulgate as revised,
used and evaluated in the
Protestant world
4.1 Introduction:
Valla and Erasmus
When the humanists that were proficient in Greek and
Hebrew began to compare the Vulgate with the text
of the source languages they discovered copyist errors
as well as mistakes of translation. The fi rst human-
ist to make collations with a Greek manuscript was
Lorenzo Valla in Collatio Novi Testamenti, 1444.
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
He asserted the principle that the Greek original
should be preferred to the Vulgate. When they dif-
fered, the Greek original should be regarded as more
reliable. To many of his contemporaries this was a
heretical opinion. Lorenzo Valla and Leonardo Bruni
wished to discard the Vulgate and replace it with a
new Latin translation, but things changed with the
counter-Reformation, symbolized in the decree of
the Tridentine Council (1545–63), which declared
the Vulgate to be the authentic version (see further
section 4.3). Erasmus found a draft of Lorenzo Valla’s
work and published it under the title Annotationes in
1505. Erasmus subseqently developed the philologi-
cal method for the interpretation of the Holy Writ.
However, his Latin translation, published within the
edition of the Greek New Testament (Novum Instru-
mentum in 1516), was only meant for scholarly use;
Erasmus wished the text of the Vulgate to be read in
the schools just as before, sung in the churches and
recited at public lectures.18 Nevertheless, Erasmus’
Latin version of the New Testament came to be much
used in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.
4.2 Revisions of the Vulgate
by the Lutherans
The Lutherans did not reject the Vulgate. They did
not, however, accept it as authoritative. The Vulgate
was, as it seems, used as the standard Latin Bible
in the Lutheran schools and universities in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, but it did not
enjoy an authoritative position. The early Lutheran
theologians retained the Vulgate in their scholarly
work. I have examined a number of biblical pas-
sages, chosen at random, in the Latin versions of the
Lutheran Creeds, viz. Confessio Augustana (1530),
Apologia Confessionis (1531 originally written in
Latin by Philipp Melanchthon), Articuli Smalcaldici
(the German original was written in 1537, the Latin
version made in 1584) and Formula Concordiae (the
Latin version of which was begun by Lucas Osiander
1577, continued by Jacob Heerbrand and revised by
Nicolaus Selneccer and Martin Chemitz, completed
in 1584).19 In general, the Scriptural passages turn out
to be identical with or very close to the Vulgate text.
Thus, by virtue of its great age, the ancient Latin
version, the Vulgate, continued to be used in the
schools and universities in the Protestant countries
after the breakthrough of the Reformation. Lutheran
35
and Reformed theologians took measures, however,
to restore the integrity of the Vulgate by having it com-
pared both to ancient manuscripts and in particular
to the Hebrew and Greek sources. It was obviously
regarded as important to edit as faultless editions as
possible for the students’ use. In the case of annotated
editions of the Vulgate (Biblia glossata or annotata)
this purpose was combined with the intention of
spreading evangelical teaching and tenets among the
educated classes in Catholic Europe.20
A reading consistently corrected in the Lutheran
revisions of the Vulgate is the pronoun ipsa in Gen. 3,
15: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen
tuum et semen illius. Ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu
insidiaberis calcaneo illius. The Lutherans consis-
tently altered ipsa to ipse or ipsum, because—as was
rightly argued—the Hebrew pronoun hu’ grammati-
cally and contextually can only refer to the promised
seed, semen, of the women, viz. Christ our Saviour.
Between 1521 and 1570 Protestant, mainly Luth-
eran, editors and printers issued fi fty-eight editions
of the Vulgate.21 The most significant editions will
be accounted for. A full account of the editions of the
Vulgate by Protestants is to be found in Masch (1783
pp. 308–352).
Andreas Osiander the Elder (1496–1552), a divine
and professor of Hebrew at Nuremberg, was the fi rst
to venture a revision of the Vulgate (Biblia Sacra
1522).22 In the preface to the edition, he states that
he had no access to old manuscripts and therefore
he was compelled to discover spurious readings and
to conjecture the plausible ones by consulting the
Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Furthermore, Osi-
ander states that he removed errors that he surmised
as being typographical and grammatical. In passages
where the Vulgate did not appear to equal and cor-
respond to the Hebrew text, he gave the meaning of
the Hebrew words in marginal annotations. In the
same year (1522) Protestant typographers at Stras-
bourg23 and at Basel24 issued editions of the Vulgate.
These editions represent texts deviating from each
other, although established by collation of the best
and oldest manuscript.
Five years later, in 1527, a scholar-typographer in
Nuremberg, Johann Petreius, issued his revision of
the Vulgate.25 Petreius corrected the readings when
the manuscripts that he used did not agree with each
other. For disagreeing readings he made conjectures
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Consequently,
Petreius primarily used the Hebrew original as a
means in the text-critical establishment of original
readings of the Vulgate. Masch (1783, p. 311) sta-
tes that Petreius’ edition in many places differs from
Osiander the Elder’s.
Again, seven years after Osiander, in 1529,
Wittenberg scholars issued a corrected edition of the
Vulgate from the original languages comprising the
Pentateuch, Josua, Judges, Samuels and Kings and the
entire New Testament.26 It was prefaced by Luther,
but was probably carried out by a team of Wittenberg
Bible scholars (Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon,
Matthäus Aurogallus, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Jonas,
Georg Spalatin, all of the latter assisted Luther in
translating the Bible into German).27 In the preface
Luther says that the aim at first only was to correct
the errors of the copyists, in order to achieve a puri-
fied edition of the Vulgate for the students. During the
work they realized that the Vulgate text was so corrupt
that they had to take recourse to the authentic Hebrew
text, especially as they lacked old manuscripts. They
cancelled spurious readings and replaced them with
emendations.
In that way, Luther contends, an almost new version
arose, whose aim was that the Latin text would cor-
respond to the Hebrew one (nova propemodum trans-
latio nata est, ut per omnia responderet latina lectio
Ebraicae). Moreover, Luther lays stress upon the fact
that his edition was intended for the use of theological
students (ad utilitatem discentium sacras literas), and
not to be received in the churches and publicly read
in the place of the old one (non ut haec nostra edicio
reciperetur in templis et publice pro veteri legeretur);
Luther prefers to keep the old standard form of the
Vulgate text for public use (nam publice satius est vete-
rem et ubique similem lectionem retinere). Carpzov in
his Critica sacra (1728) shows by examples that this
edition surpasses the Vulgate and Luther’s own Ger-
man version of the Bible in the accuracy of rendering
the source text.28 In 1529 Luther also edited a correc-
ted Psalterium of the Vulgate text (Gallicanum)29.
Johann Brenz (1499–1570), a prominent Lutheran
divine, was the author of an emendated edition of the
Vulgate (Leipzig 1544).30 In the edition Brenz incorpo-
rated St. Jerome’s prolegomena to the different biblical
books. Another edition of the Vulgate was due to the
fact that the Elector of Saxony took the initiative to
36
introduce a Latin Bible consistent with Luther’s Ger-
man translation in the schools of Saxony. Paul Eber
(1511–1569), a professor of Hebrew in Wittenberg,
and George Major (1502–1574) were thus given the
task of correcting the Vulgate, in order that it would
agree with Martin Luther’s German version. They
edited a Latin Bible printed in parallel to the German
text in ten volumes (1565).31 Moreover, Victor Strigel
(1524–1569) at Leipzig in the 1560’s made a revision
of the Vulgate from the Hebrew text and supplied it
with his summaries and annotations.32
Gradually it had become evident that the Vulgate
contained a lot of errors in translation. The Lutheran
theologian Lucas Osiander the Elder (1534–1604),
Superintendent in Stuttgart and Chaplain of the
Prince of Würtemberg, carried out an extensive emen-
dation of the Vulgate. Lucas Osiander introduced a
new method of revising the Vulgate: he remoulded the
Vulgate text in all passages where he estimated that it
diverged from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
He does not, however, dismiss the Vulgate text, but
always keeps it, and immediately adds his emendations
in italics. The improvements are usually concerned
with single words, which are brought in closer con-
formity with the proper meanings of the correspon-
ding Hebrew words. The emendations occur in a great
number and extend to almost every biblical passage.
Osiander states in the preface that he chose the method
of adding his own improvements to the Vulgate text
in order that it might be possible to evaluate his cor-
rections and the readings of the Vulgate. He lays stress
on the fact that he has made the ancient Vulgate more
clear and plain, as far as he has changed obscure and
ambiguous passages. Osiander argues in the preface
that Jerome sometimes comes so close to the Hebrew
phrases that it is impossible to surmise what is actually
meant. Furthermore, Osiander supplied the biblical
text with short and clear explanations, mainly relying
on the Bible commentaries of Martin Luther and John
Brenz, with the aim of emphasizing evangelical tenets.
The annotations are embedded in the current text
after every verse. A heavily annotated edition came in
seven volumes 1574–1586,33 reprinted 1599.34 An edi-
tion without commentaries was finished in 1578–80,
reprinted in 1593.
It is significant that Abraham Calovius (1612–1686),
a Lutheran exegete and dogmatician, in his brief sur-
vey of Latin Bible versions in the introduction to Biblia
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
Testamenti veteris illustrata regards Lucas Osiander’s
revision of the Vulgate as a new translation, although
he knew that it was a revision. Furthermore, Richard
Simon states that Osiander would have undertaken
a new Latin version, if time had sufficed for such an
enterprise. He approves of Osiander’s method to trans-
late, as it were, the Bible while keeping the ancient
version accepted in the Church for so long a time. This
method, he says, is to be considered the best and the
most secure, because it does not reject a version aut-
horized long ago. Richard Simon also underlines that
both Lucas Osiander as well as Andreas Osiander (see
below) were well acquainted with the Hebrew langu-
age. If they had placed the corrections in the margin, it
is stated, he would not have anything to blame in their
editions of the Bible.
In the preface Lucas Osiander states that it is as evi-
dent that it is not necessary to prove that the Vulgate
version (vetus illa translatio) is in everyone’s hand,
especially among students of theology, and thus still
has a public authority. He says that he has decided
to correct and expound the Vulgate because it is still
retained in the schools and in the theological exercises
on account of its old age. Osiander also states the pur-
pose that he wishes his work to reach those who are
not able to read Luther’s salubrious German version
(ii, qui Germanicae linguae cognitione destituuntur,
Lutheri labore saluberrimo frui not possunt).
Andrew Osiander the Younger (1562–1617) was a
son of Lucas Osiander. He became General Superin-
tendent in Tübingen and Chancellor of the University
there. He continued the revision of the Vulgate and
Bible commentary initiated by his father. The correc-
tions in italics occur, as far as I have noticed, in the
same passages as in Lucas Osiander and they are the
same. As far as the annotations in the margin are con-
cerned, Andrew Osiander to a large extent added new
ones, and modified and supplemented those in Lucas
Osiander’s work. The page layout is also entirely dif-
ferent: the biblical text is arranged in two columns in
the middle of the page; the two surrounding columns
show references to doctrinal passages (loci communes
or sedes doctrinae) and the farthest columns contain
the annotations, taken from the writings of prominent
Lutheran teachers and the Formula of Concord (1577–
80) itself. The first edition of his annotated Latin Bible
was issued in 1600. The best-known edition, the fifth
in order, was printed at Frankfurt in 1618.35
37
Having surveyed the main revisions of the Vulgate
in the Lutheran Church, we will turn to the achieve-
ments in this area in the Reformed Church. It is to be
noticed that the only Calvinistic scholar to revise the
Vulgate from the Hebrew source text was Conrad Pel-
lican (1478–1556), a Swiss Hebraist.36 The revision
was not issued separately, however, but was integrated
and embedded in his commentary on the Bible, Zurich
1532–1539, reprinted in 1582.37 There are great dif-
ficulties in many biblical passages, Pellican admits in
the preface, but at the same time he argues that there is
never any insuperable obscurity as far as the essential
doctrines are concerned, provided that the interpreter
is pious, loves the truth, divine glory and the salvation
of humans, and that an ardent desire is present, pro-
fuse prayers alike, a wakeful mind, a sacred assiduity,
simple accuracy, energetic toil, and provided that he
has a constant purpose to discover the innate mea-
ning of the Scripture.38 As regards the revision of the
Vulgate Pellican maintains that he would have retained
the Vulgate text, if he had not been asked by his col-
leagues (fratres) to emendate it (p. 11). Pellican says
that he would himself all the better keep a translation
of venerable authority unaltered and unchanged in the
Christian congregations. In the preface he states that
in his revision he has rendered the Hebraisms more
appropriately than the Vulgate, even though not trans-
lating them exactly (p. 12). The Fathers of the Church
thought it more advisable, Pellican maintains (p. 11),
to permit a barbarism than to remove the smallest mat-
ter from the meaning of the divine prophesies. They
did not think, he continues to argue, that a legitimate
method of translation in the sphere of the Holy Writ
possibly can be extended as far as in profane literature,
i.e. to weigh, as it were, the meaning while the words
are not accounted for,39 because in the divine speeches
the separate words conceal a mystery.40 He affirms (p.
12) that as far as possible he has changed the Hebrew
modes of expression into words and terms sounding
good in Latin. He says that he diverges from Jerome’s
wordings only when the Hebrew original text appears
to hint at something more (non ... nisi ubi aliquid amp-
lius subindicare videretur). However, in passages where
the meaning of the Hebrew original is doubtful Pel-
lican preferred to rely on the authority of the Fathers
(Jerome and the Septuagint) and remain uncertain with
them, rather than to rely on the medieval Jewish exege-
tes and to pretend the problem to be settled (p. 12).
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
4.3 The Vulgate as evaluated among
the Protestants (Chemnitz, Walton,
Calovius, Carpzov)
Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586), a German theologian
(Lutheran), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini under-
lines that the Lutheran Churches do not condemn the
Vulgate version, but retain it in use with discrimi-
nation, in such a way that one has to return to the
Hebrew and Greek sources in passages that are incor-
rectly rendered, altered, mutilated or added. Thus, he
continues, it is unacceptable that the Vulgate version
according to the tenor of decree of the Tridentine
Council should be considered authentic, i.e. reliable,
in public readings, disputations, sermons and expla-
nations, and that one should not dare to criticize it
under any pretext whatever.41 In the cases where it
diverges from the source text, we would otherwise
be forced to accept the errors of the translator and
would not be allowed to reject them, even after having
explored the original wordings.42 Chemnitz states
that even Augustine was aware of the fact that a ver-
sion cannot be made authorative against the sources
themselves. In passages where there is some doubt
we have to take recourse to the Greek and Hebrew
models (De doctrina Christiana 2,12). The vindica-
tion of the Vulgate among the Catholic theologians of
the Tridentine council was, according to Chemnitz,
not without secret reasons, in so far as the Vulgate
contains erroneously translated passages supporting
papal tenets, as in the case of the above-mentioned
reading ipsa in Gen 3, 15, alleged to prove the inter-
cession of Mary, and Psalms 150,1 laudate Dominum
in sanctis ejus “praise the Lord in his saints”, alleged
to defend the invocation of the saints.43
Brian Walton (1600–1661), English Orientalist
(Anglican), in the prolegomenon to the London Poly-
glot 1655–57, shows that most of the subsequent Cat-
holic scholars rejected the Tridentine declaration con-
cerning the authority of the Vulgate. They modified
the decree to imply that the Vulgate version contained
no errors in matters of faith and in moral questions
(in rebus fi dei et morum), since one cannot possibly
maintain that it is inspired and exempted from errors
whatever. Walton himself makes reservations against
the Vulgate as acknowledged as divine, but points out
that it ought to be held in high esteem and is not to be
criticized without due reason, considering its old age
and the widespread use of it in the Western Church
38
through a thousand years and with regard to the
translator’s erudition and fidelity.
Walton enumerates some learned Protestant scho-
lars who held the Vulgate in high esteem. Among oth-
ers he mentions Paulus Fagius (1504–1549), a French
Hebraist (Lutheran), who showed that the Vulgate
follows the Septuagint, the Targum or some rabbini-
cal source in the passages where it differs from the
Hebrew. Moreover, he points out Ludewijk de Dieu
(1590–1642), a Dutch scholar, who asserts that the
translator of the Vulgate was very learned and testi-
fies that he admires his judicious choices and fidelity
even in passages where it seems barbaric. Walton
also draws attention to Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614),
a great French polyhistor, who preferred the Vulgate
to the modern Greek manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment and to Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch Bible
scholar, who used the Vulgate as the text from which
he set out in his celebrated annotations of the Old
Testament, arguing that he always has appreciated
the Vulgate not only because it does not contain any
insalubrious dogmas, but also because it has a good
deal of erudition, although sufficiently rough and
rude in style.44
In the seventeenth century the errors of translation
in the Vulgate were even more explored and presented
in a number of extensive treatises. Several Protestant
scholars thoroughly demonstrated such inaccuracies.
The criticism of the Vulgate was in particular voiced
by two prominent scholars, namely Sixtinus Amama
(1593–1629), a Dutch Hebraist, professor of Hebrew
at the University of Franeken, in Censura Vulgatae
atque a Tridentinis canonizatae versionis quinque
librorum Mosis (1620) and Anti-barbarus Biblicus
(1628), its second and third book, 45 and Abraham
Calovius, professor of theology at the University of
Wittenberg, in Criticus Sacer (1643).46
Leaving Amama aside for future research, I will
concentrate on Calovius. In the second part of the
above-mentioned work he deals with the foremost
versions of the Bible; he mainly occupies himself with
the Vulgate. He begins by describing the diverging
interpretations of the Tridentine decree concerning
the authenticity of the Vulgate by Catholic theologians
in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.47 A debate
arose among the Catholics regarding the purport of
the decree, especially of what was meant by “authen-
tic”, whether the Vulgate was to be preferred to other
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
Latin versions or if it was to be ranked equal with the
original texts. Isodorus Clarius, for instance, thought
that no version can be placed on equality with the
texts in the original languages, but that the Vulgate
was to be preferred to all others, provided that it is
corrected from the source text. The major part of
the Catholic theologians considered that the version
that since long had been read in the churches and
accepted in the schools was necessarily to be held as
divine and authenic; otherwise, the Lutherans would
be granted the victory and a door would be opened
to innumerable heresies and continuous tumults all
over Christian world. Calovius reduces the different
opinions to three categories: the fi rst opinion being
that the Vulgate is divine and inspired by the Holy
Spirit, 48 (so was asserted by Petrus Sutor, Franciscus
Titelmannus, Jacob Gretser and Johannes Morinus),
the second being that the Vulgate, although not
inspired by God, is still exempt from all errors of
translation, even smaller ones, 49 (so contended the
assembly of the Cardinals in 1576, and Luis de Tena,
Juan de Pineda,50 Gregorius de Valentia, Domingo
Bannes and Christoph a Sacrobosco), and the third
being that the Vulgate is authentic in the sense that
it is exempt from errors that concern the faith and
morals,51 (a position taken by Andreas Vega, Jacob
Payva Andradius, Joan. Stephan Menochius, Jean
Driedo, Juan de Mariana, Robert Bellarmin and
Nicolaus Serarius).
Calovius refutes each of these opinions in order.
In refuting the fi rst opinion, the main points are the
following: (1) there is a lack of proof and that which
the Catholics still allege is refuted; (2) the assistance
of the Holy Spitit has to be denied, because it was
confi ned to the Prophets and Apostles; (3) an investi-
gation of the Vulgate version shows that it does not
corresponds everywhere to the Hebrew and Greek
truth, but differs in many passages. Calovius asks:
Who can possibly believe that the Holy Spirit did not
understand himself? There are also a lot of solecisms
and barbarisms that are not to be imputed to the Holy
Spirit as the creator of the language; (4) the very emen-
dations of the Vulgate are impious, provided that the
version is inspired; (5) the matter of fact is that there
are contrary hypotheses on this point among the Cat-
holics: even Gretser concedes that there are words not
rightly rendered in the Vulgate.52 Calovius opposes
Johannes Morinus’s argument that the Vulgate dif-
39
fers from the Hebrew original because the Hebrew
text has been changed since the time of Jerome.53
In disproving the second opinion, the history of emen-
dations of the Vulgate provides with the first argument,
and passages criticized and noted as worthy of emenda-
tion by Catholic scholars such as Pagninus, Cajetanus,
Forerius and Oleastrius have not been corrected in the
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. However, the major part
of the refutation lies in classifying and exemplifying
the various inaccuracies in the Vulgate. Eight groups
of mistakes (sphalmata) are discerned: ἀντιφατικὰ i.e.
renderings being contradictory to the Hebrew sources,
ἀριθμετικὰ i.e. numerals rendered wrongly, ἐλλειπτικὰ
i.e. entire verses and single words have been left out,
πλεοναστικὰ i.e. redundant elements, namely clauses
and sentences introduced independently of the Hebrew
original, γραφικὰ i.e. mistakes made by the copyists
of the Vulgate, διαιρετικὰ i.e. mistakes that separate
that which is to be joined and join together that which
is to be separated, due to failure to observe the pun-
ctuation marks in the Hebrew original, ὀνομαστικὰ
i.e. confusions of proper names and appellations, and
παραλειπομένοι i.e. all other errors, especially rende-
rings that are too close to the Hebrew idiom or those
that are not appropriate or even careless.54
In proving the third opinion false, Calovius empha-
sizes approximately the same points as in the previous
demonstration. The Vulgate thus offends against the
faith in several respects: (1) it contradicts the Word
of God, in so far as it sometimes omits negations,
sometimes puts in the affirmative that which contains
a negative in the Hebrew. (2) It adds something that
not is divinely inspired to the word of God or it takes
away something that is inspired. (3) It diversifies words
and alters senses. Thus, the same is not said as in the
original and even different meanings may be brought
in. (4) It distorts numbers in the reckoning of years and
in other accounts of the history. (5) It varies recurrent
details in the sacred history. (6) It approves of false-
hoods. (7) It causes and promotes deceptive supposi-
tions and inept and empty disputations. (8) It distorts
divine regulations. (9) It lays false foundations of the
faith and the divine mysteries. (10) It alters the sacred
proverbs and sayings. (11) It weakens the main points
of the faith. (12) It defends heretical opinions. Calovius
explains each point exhaustively. To the last category
he refers among other passages the reading ipsa in Gen.
3,15, mentioned above.55
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
In the introduction to his commentary on the Old
Testament (1672) Calovius again underlines that the
Vulgate contains many errors and those who only use
the Vulgate or consider it authentic will be diverted
from the true sense.56 In Criticus Sacer Calovius also
deals with the question to what extent the Vulgate
it to be preferred to other Latin versions. In fact, he
gives the Vulgate some advantages over the new Latin
versions of the Bible, in respect of its great age (ratione
antiquitatis), its widespread use and renown (ratione
amplitudinis et celebritatis), and its perspicuity and
proper signification (ratione perspicuitatis et proprie-
tatis). As regards the last qualities, Calovius admits
that the Vulgate preserves the proper signification
of Latin words and that most things are explained
clearly. On that account, the Vulgate is to be preferred
to the most new Latin translations, which either suf-
fer from too a great obscurity or they do not enough
attain to the idiosyncrasy of the Latin language and
sometimes appear to neglect it intentionally.57
Carpzov discusses in his Critica Sacra Veteris
Testamenti the matters that pertain to the history
and criticism of the Vulgate,58 namely the questions
of its origin and of its author, its errors of translation,
the emendations of it in past times, the question of
its authenticity and authority,59 and the arguments
for its usefulness and value. In dealing with the last
issue, he says: Although the Vulgate is not worthy of
the praise by which the Catholics extol it, it enjoys a
dignity and a use, which is not to be regretted, among
the Protestants. As compared with other Latin ver-
sions, the Vulgate can claim four advantages: (a) It
has a glorious old age (gloria aetatis), through which
it reflects the understanding of difficult passages in
the ancient Western Church and shows the origin of
traditional biblical exposition as well as the sources
of the Catholic errors. (b) It deserves precedence
since it is generally approved and used (applausus
universalis fere receptionis et usus); for no other
Latin version has dominated so far and so wide; it
has been employed publicly in the Church and also
privately read; although the recent Latin versions are
superior to the Vulgate in accuracy and fidelity, none
has wrested the Vulgate from the hands of the learned
or entirely shaken its fi rm position, because it is still
quoted and used by scholars of the orthodox church.
(c) It provides a display of perspicuity and proper sig-
nification of the words (testimonium perspicuitatis
40
and proprietatis verborum). Here Carpzov refers to
the assessments of L. de Dieu, Hugo Grotius and Calo-
vius. (d) It possesses a great polemical value against
the Catholics (usus denique Polemicus contra Ponti-
fi cios haut proletarius) in the passages that testify to
the truth against the Catholics’ own errors.60
5. The Old Testament
translated from Hebrew
into Latin: a survey
of versions in the
period 1500-1750
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The historical context and the
purpose of the Latin versions
The development of new Latin versions of the Old
Testament as written in its original languages (Hebrew
and Aramaic) was due to the establishment of Hebrew
scholarship and by the renewal of biblical exegesis in
the sixteenth century.
The bulk of these Latin versions were attempts to
bring the Latin text into closer conformity with the
Hebrew original. This is contingent on the shift of her-
meneutical paradigm in the Reformation. The medie-
val exegesis had been directed towards unfolding four
meanings of the biblical text, viz. literal, allegorical,
moral and anagogical. The Reformers laid all effort
on identifying the literal meaning of the biblical text, a
meaning which they equated with the prophetic sense,61
which, in turn, was conceived to be Christological, as
taught in the New Testament (Luke 24,25; 24,44, John
5,39, Acts 2,31; 3,18). An accurate Latin version provi-
ded the exegetes with a good starting-point.
The Hebraists of the sixteenth century challenged
the Jews to the right of precedence of the interpreta-
tion of the Old Testament. In antiquity and during the
Middle Ages the Jews were in a position of linguistic
advantage, in so far as the knowledge of Hebrew was
almost exclusively limited to them. This state of affairs
changed when Hebrew was added to the humanistic
educational program. In the early sixteenth century
prominent Hebrew scholars appeared, among whom
were Sanctes Pagninus, Sebastian Münster and Conrad
Pellican and Paul Fagius. Münster’s Latin version of the
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
Old Testament represented a clear counterclaim to the
Jewish non-Christological understanding of the Old
Testament. This purpose is emphasized in Münster’s
preface and in his annotations.
At the same time the early Hebraists were still depen-
dent on the rabbis for a linguistic understanding of the
biblical text. The increasing knowledge of Hebrew in
the first decades of the sixteenth century had opened the
access to the medieval rabbinical commentaries on the
Old Testament, indispensable for an advanced under-
standing of the proper senses of difficult biblical words
and expressions. Münster’s, Leo Jud’s, Castellio’s and
Tremellius’ versions are full of philological annota-
tiones, annotations that transmit the medieval Jewish
exegetical efforts. The commentated Latin versions of
the Old Testament developed in the Reformation were
important for vernacular Bible translations in the six-
teenth centuries, especially many English versions of
the Bible down to King James Version.62
As indicated above, the Latin versions of the Bible
were not developed for liturgical use in the Churches,
but for scholarly work and for private reading of a
learned public. In other words they would serve as
international standard translations within the acade-
mic world. The new versions were also used as aids by
students of theology in their learning of Hebrew and
Greek and by scholars whose knowledge in the sacred
languages was insufficient.
The access to Bible translations in European verna-
culars did not lead to a decrease in the printing of Latin
Bibles. The importance of vernacular versions should
not be denied, however, in so far as they became the
daily companion of common people, but it is important
to realize that the Church and the learned world still
used Latin as the means of communication. We might
suppose that “an educated man or woman despised
vernacular books as trash in the same way as educated
people in our days despise ungrammatical speech of
the plain man and the cheap productions of scribb-
lers.”63 There was consequently a continuous need of
Latin Bibles among the educated classes in Europe. The
Latin Bible strongly dominated the market in the six-
teenth century, because they could sell over all Europe,
whereas the circulation of vernacular versions was for
obvious reasons more limited.
5.1.2 About the Hebrew source text
The authors of the Latin Bible versions under con-
41
sideration do not, at least not in their prefaces, state
which Hebrew Bible edition they used as the source
text. This question must accordingly be settled
through inferences. To begin with the two earliest
translators, Pagninus, who commenced his translato-
rial work about 1497, must have used the fi rst printed
Hebrew Bible of Socino 1488 or the Brescia edition
of 1494 (in octavo format). Luther used the Brescia
edition when he began his German translation of the
Old Testament. When Sebastian Münster began to
translate the Old Testament into Latin in the early
1520’s, he relied on the biblical text of the fi rst rab-
binical Bible, printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice
in 1516 after the effort of Felix Pratensis. Münster
edited it in parallel with his own Latin translation.
The subsequent translators in all probability star-
ted from the Masoretic text as available in Daniel
Bomberg’s second rabbinical Bible,64 printed at
Venice in 1524-25. This second rabbinical Bible was
accomplished through the scholarship of Jacob ben
Hayyim.65 It represented the Masoretic text66 of the
Old Testament in a reliable way and was for centu-
ries accepted as the standard text. Johannes Buxtorf
issued a revised edition in 1618-19, where he made a
selection of the best rabbinical commentaries in the
earlier editions of the Bomberg Bible. Concerning the
Masoretic text he did not, however, undertake any
corrections on account of textual criticism.67
As for the Zurich Latin version, the editor Con-
rad Pellican in the preface states that Leo Jud used
a correct manuscript (in transferendo usus est Leo
Hebraico exemplari eoque emendatissimo), which
he followed strictly (quod religiosissime sequutus
est). Sometimes, especially in difficult and ambigu-
ous passages, Conrad Pellican states that he has also
consulted other copies (interim consuluit etiam alia
exemplaria) and taken counsel from the Greek and
various Latin versions, even though he was aware
that they did not contain the ultimate truth.
Furthermore, Castellio says that he has translated
the whole Bible from the original languages, except
the major passages in Aramaic (some parts of Daniel
and Esra). Neither Tremellius nor Schmidius state
anything about their source text used. In his preface
Johannes Clericus states on the other hand that he has
used the Masoretic text (textum masoreticum) as his
source text, but does not say which edition.
 SÄRTRYCK

kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006

5.1.3 Advice for Bible translation (Jerome, Huet,
Schefferus, Humphrey)
The reverence of sacred texts has throughout history
caused translators to use a literal method of transla-
tion, a method meant to safeguard the faithfulness
of the translation. This is in particular true of the
ancient Greek and Latin translation of the Old and
New Testaments. As is well known, the Septuagint
and other ancient Greek versions of the Old Testament
(Aquila in particular, literal to the point that he con-
veys the etymology of the individual words, whereas
Theodotion and Symmachus were less literal) are
characterized by a close adherence to the syntax and
modes of expression in the original Hebrew. Only to
a limited extent did the Greek translators introduce
adaptations independently of the Hebrew original
text.68 The Old Latin version (Vetus Latina or Itala)
adheres almost mechanically to its Greek original,
namely the Septuagint.
Jerome’s translation is certainly marked by a fide-
lity to the linguistic features of the Hebrew original
text, but does not lack rhetorical colouring and
does not slavishly reproduce the idiosyncrasies of
the Hebrew original. Jerome consistently and deli-
berately deviated from the original in many respects
through small changes, e.g. by using synonyms when
the same words recurs in the original, by replacing
Hebrew parataxis by hypotaxis, by expansion of
brief and concise Hebrew expressions, by using alli-
terations and a clause rhythm (clausulae) to achieve
a good sound of speech.69
In the sixteenth and seventeenth century the posi-
tions in theory as well as in the Bible translators’ prac-
tice was determined by Jerome’s distinction between
translation of the Holy Scriptures and secular litera-
ture: “I do not only admit, but also freely declare that
when interpreting Greek writings70 I do not express
word for word, but sense for sense, however not so
the Holy Scriptures, where even the word-order is a
mystery.”71 In this passage Jerome seems to advocate
a strict literalism in Bible translation, but his virtual
opinion is that one ought to cling to the words as
long as this principle does not alter the sense or does
not damage the understanding and in as much as the
innate character of the Latin language allows it. This
is evident from Jerome’s own translation of the Old
Testament and such opinions are expressed in his let-
ters (e.g. Ep. 106). Jerome expressly rejects Aquila’s
minuteness in keeping Hebrew syntax (Ep. 57,11,3).
Translation theory as exercised by the humanists
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tends to
favour a literal method for translation of sacred texts.
The words of God should be transferred as closely
to the original as possible in order to secure fidelity
and prevent falsification. Pierre Daniel Huet (1630–
1721), a French humanist and bishop of Auranches,
published a treatise about the best way to translate.
It is written as a fictitious dialogue between Isaac
Casaubon (1559–1614), Jacob August Thuanus
(Jacques-Auguste de Thou, 1553–1617) and Fronto
Ducaeus (Fronto du Duc, 1558–1624). In a broad
sense he defi nes interpretatio as all speech explaining
a thing that not is easily understood (sermo omnis
quo fit ut res minime intellecta percipiatur), whether
it is applied to commentaries, expositions of glos-
sema, scholia, paraphrases or translation from one
language to another. Huet confi nes, however, the
term interpretatio to the sphere of language. Huet
favours a literal approach in translation of secular
texts. The translator (interpres) ought to keep the
integrity of the original as far as the target language
tolerates it. In translation of literary texts the auto-
nomy of the original must be defended against the
venture of any free translation. Huet conceived word-
for-word translation as the ideal. The arrangement of
the words (collocatio verborum) should consequently
be kept according to the possibility of the language
that the translator uses (pro facultate linguae, qua
interpres utitur). In the area of Bible translation one
has to be even more literal, Huet declares and makes
Isaac Casaubon say:
In the Holy Scriptures, where the word-order is a mystery
and where whatever construction that is not elaborate often
has many possible meanings which to a great extent are lost
by striving for elegance, Jerome admits that one ought to
render word by word, even though he considers that one has
to proceed in a different way in other contexts and does not
always himself obey his own rule. The translator of the Holy
Scriptures I command to render word for word. If there are
no common and accepted words and phrases to his disposal,
he should use those that are obsolete and passed out of daily
use. However, if these are lacking too, he may venture to coin
words never heard of by the old-fashioned Cethegi.72 If only
moderately and modestly used, this liberty will be praised.
Likewise, he shall not be kept from retaining the word order
on account of obscurity or a rude arrangement of the words.
If it so happens that words must be added, they ought to be
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 disfigurement of barbarisms.79
very influential 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 signification’ (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 justifies 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
were rendered differently than in the fi rst edition.83
Pagninus’ translation underwent even more chan-
ges in the revision undertaken by Arias Montanus
(1527–1598), a Spanish Hebraist and exegete. Mon-
tanus co-operated with prominent Dutch scholars
occupied with the Antwerp Polyglot, namely Franci-
scus Raphelengius (1539–1597) and the brothers Guy
le Fèvre de la Boderie (1541–1598) and Nicholas le
Fèvre de la Boderie. The revision thus appeared as a
part of Polyglot, more precisely in the sixth volume
which was printed in 1572 by Christoph Plantin.84
In the preface (p. 3) Montanus relates the back-
ground to his effort. An edition of a literal version
was expected in his days. It was desired that not only
the sense and meaning of the Hebrew, but also the
very force of the words, the figures of speech and
the peculiarities (proprietates) of Hebrew language
should be expressed as appositely as possible in Latin.
Montanus draws attention to the fact that, in the case
of the Bible, translators of his age have been guided by
a tendency to imitate the classical Latin style. When
learned and pious men had noticed, he says, that
most of the translators85 were entirely engaged in a
mutual emulation to translate the Hebrew Bible in
the most idiomatic Latin, i.e. as it is clarified, to aim
at a correct Latin style and usage, they wished to have
it not as Latin as possible, but as Hebrew as possible
in a Latin form, i.e. as Montanus explains, the Latin
version should not even diverge a nail’s breath from
the diction and distinctive character of the Hebrew
language.86 In order to carry out this task, Montanus
determined to take Pagninus’ version as his model, in
its capacity of the most faithful (veluti omnium tutis-
sima), but did not edit it unaltered and unchanged.
He declares (p. 4) that he has based his alterations on
three different earlier editions, on Pagninus’ Hebrew
dictionary and on treatises, in which Pagninus asserts
that he would have rendered a passage in another way
than in his fi rst edition. In addition to this interfe-
rence of textual criticism, Montanus reduced it to
answer literally to the Hebrew modes of expression in
all passages where Pagninus paraphrases or deviates
from the Hebrew original. Thus, Montanus and his
Dutch colleagues changed almost all words, syntac-
tical constructions and phrases that did not render
the Hebrew original as appositely and properly as
ever possible. In consequence, the Latin text could be
44
printed interlineally with the Hebrew one. Still, Mon-
tanus points out (p. 4), one cannot possibly translate
everything into Latin with the same weight, force and
proper signification that it has in the Hebrew. The
rejected expressions were placed in the margin and
his own substitutes were integrated in the text edited
and were marked with italics.
In the debate of his days and of posterity the ver-
sion made by Pagninus met opponents as well as
advocates. His version won appreciation in all religi-
ous camps. To begin with a Catholic scholar, Sisto da
Siena (1520–1569), or Sixtus Senensis as he was called
in Latin, heaps praise on Pagninus’ version saying:
When Pagninus realized that the Vulgate partly had
got lost, partly had been corrupted through the course
of time, he decided to carry out a new version of the
whole Bible. Having collated the best Hebrew manu-
scripts, he supplied the whole Hebrew Old Testament
with a Latin version using all accuracy and fidelity
he was capable of. He also restored the Hebrew pro-
per names to their right pronunciation; his version is
marked by such accuracy that the rabbis themselves
have acclaimed it, Sisto da Siena underlines.87
Wolfgang Franzius (1564–1628), a German Hebra-
ist (Lutheran), assures that Pagninus’ version is of a
great value and has proved to be more reliable than
the old version (the Vulgate) among the learned.
Franzius also contends that it in high degree agrees
with Luther’s German version. At the same time he
concedes that it is not irreproachable in every pas-
sage.88 Luther himself judged Pagninus’ version as
well as that by Münster as follows: “Ich sehe, wie
die zween feine Männer, Sanctes und Münster haben
studio incredibili et diligenti inimitabili [i.e. with an
incredible eagerness and a diligence impossible to
imitate] die Biblia verdolmetzscht, viel gutes damit
gethan. Aber die Rabbinen sind ihr etwa zu mächtig,
dass sie auch die Analogia des Glaubens gefeilet, der
Rabbinen Glosse zu viel nachgehängt haben.”89
In the preface to his Hebrew-Chaldaic dictionary
Johannes Buxtorf the Elder (1564–1629) praises
Pagninus’ version.90 Johann Leusden (1624–1699),
professor of Hebrew at the University of Utrecht
(Reformist), testifies that Catholics, Calvinists and
Lutherans generally approved this version for its
fidelity to the Hebrew original.91 Leusden investi-
gates numerous biblical passages in which Pagninus
did not render the Hebrew entirely appropriately; in
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
many cases Leusden shows that the deviation from
the Hebrew wordings are due to Pagninus’ reliance on
the Vulgate.92 Likewise, Matthew Poole (1624–1679),
an English Bible scholar and divine, testifies to the
universal approval of the version: “Almost all learned
agree that this version is as literal as could conve-
niently be done, and faithful, and put together with
an unequalled discretion and experience.”93
It is interesting that the version made by Pagninus
met with such an approval in all religious camps in
an age characterised by strict adherence to the con-
fessions.
Pierre Daniel Huet says that Pagninus, by his pay-
ing more attention to a literal rendering of the true
Hebrew sense (Hebraica veritas) than to a pure Latin
usage, gave an example of an almost perfect and
accomplished translation of the Holy Scriptures. He
translated in such a way, Huet says, that his words,
as were they measured and equal (demensa et paria),
accurately agree to the words of the original. Since
not everyone is privileged to win universal approval,
some people, however, Huet makes it clear, have
charged the version with several shortcomings: exces-
sive accuracy (nimia diligentia), a pedantic pursuit of
small matters (morosa minutarum et levium rerum
assectatio), a lack of elegance (inconcinnitas) and
incomprehensibility (obscuritas).94
In contrast to the above-mentioned critics, the
famous scholar Richard Simon (1638–1712) in His-
toire critique du vieux Testaments thinks that Pag-
ninus did not perform the task he proposed himself
faithfully, because he neglects the authority of the
Church Fathers and the ancient Latin versions, in
order to join the sentiments of the rabbis. Moreover,
it is underlined, Pagninus’ version has another fault:
it is obscure and barbaric and full of solecisms. He
wrongly imagined that one has to follow the letter
and Hebrew grammar exactly. This is in fact, Simon
emphasizes, entirely opposite to the presumed exac-
titude, simply because two languages rarely meet in
their modes of expression. For instance he has ren-
dered cadere fecit soporem where the Vulgate has
immisit soporem and undoubtedly thought that he
came closer to the original, but in fact he did not
notice that one can express the hiph’il conjugation
in Hebrew with a single verb containing a factitative
meaning. This method, the French Bible critic says, is
widespread throughout his version, which therefore
45
falls under the same fault as Aquila. He goes on to say
that the method Pagninus availed himself of has not
only caused his version to be difficult to understand
and foreign to the Latin idiom, but also altered the
sense of the source text. Richard Simon lays stress
upon the dictum that a translator ought not simply to
count the words, but he ought all the more to examine
in what manner one may join the words together to
convey a meaningful sense. Otherwise the version
will turn out to be puerile and ridiculous.95 In Disqui-
sitiones criticae Richard Simon concludes that Pagni-
nus showed himself the same foolish and contentious
translator, as once did Aquila; so barbarously he
speaks.96 The French critic also opposed Montanus.
He points out that he does not deserve the title of a
very faithful translator, fi dissimus interpres because
of his rendering the Hebrew word-for-word, but he is
more rightly to be called a very undiscerning transla-
tor, ineptissimus interpres. He summarily evaluates
his alterations in the concise statement quot correc-
tiones, tot corruptiones “as many amendments, so
many changes for the worse”, a dictum often quoted
in seventeenth and eighteenth century surveys.97 On
well-founded grounds he accused Montanus of disre-
garding the contextual meaning of words in favour of
their ordinary denotative sense.
Petrus Ekerman says that Pagninus formed the
version so closely to the Hebrew text that he cannot
fully escape the fault of barbarisms and obscurity.98
Samuel Alnander passes the following verdict on
Pagninus’ version: “The most certain thing is that he
accurately follows the source text and strictly keeps
to the words and in that way he is both unclear and
has a barbaric Latin.”99
5.3 Münster’s version
The second Latin translation of the Old Testament
in Hebrew was carried out by Sebastian Münster
(1489–1552), professor of Hebrew fi rst in Heidelberg,
then in Basel.100 Münster made his Latin version form
a column parallel to the Hebrew text of his Bible edi-
tion. The work was fi rst edited at Basel 1534–1535
in folio.101 A reprint appeared in Zurich in 1539. It
was reprinted again in 1546 in folio at Basel with the
title Biblia Hebraica Latina planeque nova Sebas-
tiani Münsteri tralatione.102 This edition is more
completely annotated than the two previous ones.
No more editions were to follow.
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
In the preface, addressed to the Christian and pious
reader, Münster maintains that in his Latin version
he has especially aimed at bringing forward the true
Hebrew sense, omitting the Latin elegance and even
disregarding it in many places. His intention is that
the translation, as far as possible, shall correspond
to the spirit and mind of the Hebrew speaking
population of ancient Israel. In this way he wants to
help particularly the students of theology and pos-
sibly other who were not familiar with the Hebrew
language.103 In cases where the sentences become
incomprehensible he affi rms that he has added clari-
fying words in brackets.104 He declares that he does
not change accepted Hebraisms since they are easily
understood.105
Moreover, he declares that in some passages he
violates the purity of the Latin language (puritas
sermonis Latini) rather than the proper sense of the
Holy Scriptures (proprietas sensus scripturae). For,
he argues, the rigidity (horror) of the Hebrew original
ought not to be entirely removed. An apposite adap-
tation to Latin language cannot be brought about
without considerable paraphrases and violation of
the sense. In the Holy Scriptures one cannot play
arbitrary with the words as in the profane literature
(cogitamus denique in Scriptura S. non pro arbitrio
ludendum, ut in aliis prophanis libris). Münster
thought that in many places the Vulgate summarizes
rather than translating. To fi nd out the proper mea-
ning of difficult Hebrew words Münster consulted
the Aramaic Targumin, the Jewish prayer books
Seder Olam and Arba Tura, and the exegetes Rashi,
Kimchi, Ibn Esra, Rabbi Menahem, Rabbi Moses
of Coucy, Moses Nachmanides, and some others.
The knowledge of this Jewish exegesis was conveyed
through the intermediary of his Jewish teacher, Elias
Levita (1469–1549), whom he always could turn
to. Münster contends that when rendering difficult
words he follows the exposition that seemed right and
fitting to him. If unsure of the meaning Münster only
quotes the rabbinical commentaries and allows the
reader to form his own opinion.
There are philological annotations after every
chapter. If some word is very obscure he declares that
he only gives the term in Hebrew, especially when
there is nothing certain to be found in the medieval
rabbinical commentators. Nonetheless, Münster
emphasizes that those who continue interpreting the
46
Old Testament without the Jewish commentators
are acting foolishly (inepte agunt) and make incor-
rect renderings. The rabbis often direct us to the true
sense of a word, even though they themselves are in
darkness and error, as they do not apprehend the true
purpose of the Scripture (namely Christ). Münster
defends his practice of using rabbinic exegeses by
appealing to the fact that Jerome took the help of a
Jewish expert who conveyed the rabbinical exposition
to him. Münster concludes that Jerome would have
consulted the commentaries of Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn
Esra, if they had been accessible. Besides the rabbinic
exegesis, Münster used other aids: Pagninus versions
of the Pentateuch, Luther’s Vulgate-revision of the
Pentateuch, Steuchius’ annotations iuxta Hebraicam
veritatem and Oecolampadius’ separate versions of
single books of the Bible (see 5.12 below).
From the very preface and the translation itself it
can be concluded that Münster’s literalism differs
from that of Pagninus. Both aim at a version literally
corresponding the Hebrew text. However, Münster
takes greater pains to create intelligible sentences, for
instance through adding words in brackets. Münster
is also more directed towards clarifying and expoun-
ding difficult Hebrew words by means of the medie-
val rabbinical scholarship. Compared to it, Pagninus
depends more on the Septuagint in such cases.
Sisto da Siena charged Münster with negligence
of polished Latin usage, marking it out as rough
(horridus), thornlike and prickly (senticosus) and
harsh (asper), as Münster followed the rudeness
of the Hebrew language (Hebraici sermonis hor-
ror) to the point that he keeps all expressions and
phrases peculiar to Hebrew, although he was able
to adapt himself to a Latin idiom (Latinis auribus),
and, moreover, does not even avoid representing the
sounds of Hebrew proper names in Latin, exempli-
fied by Jezehiel instead of Ezechiel, Coresch instead
of Cyrus, Darjavesch instead of Darius.106 Carpzov
(1728, p.724) fi nds that this statement is unfair. In
fact, Carpzov emphasizes, Münster is more polished
and purer than the Vulgate. Richard Simon (1684, p.
187) is astonished that Sisto da Siena accused Müns-
ter of barbarous usage at the same time as he is able
to praise Cajetan and Pagninus, who are even more
barbarous.
Pierre Daniel Huet estimates Münster as a lear-
ned translator (interpres doctus), because he always
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
adapts the style to the Hebrew original (in Ebraica
semper stylum collineans) at the same time as he does
not neglect a Latin colouring (nec ideo tamen Latini
coloris negligens), even though he does not yield to
elegant phrases (in ejus quamvis linguae elegantiis
parum se torserit).
Richard Simon passes the following judgment:
“Münster’s version is much better than those by
Pagninus and Montanus, who disregard the sense in
order to attach themselves to the grammar. Münster
on the other hand tries to not depart from the sense
at the same time as he also applies himself to the
grammar. He not only pays regard to the proper
meaning of the words, but also the context in which
they occur. Although he is not entirely pure in his
style, there is however nothing that is too rude or too
barbarous.”… “He would have been able to write in
a pure manner, but he feared that he would leave the
literal sense and that he would not express the force of
the Hebrew words sufficiently.” ... ”One may say that
Münster is to be held as the most exact and faithful
translator of all the Protestants.”107
Carpzov describes Münster’s translation met-
hod thoroughly. He says inter alia that his supreme
intention was to render the sense of the original text
and cling to the Hebrew words, as far as permissible
to the peculiarity and innate character of both lan-
guages.108
Ekerman (1764 p. 17) says that Münster followed
the Hebraisms in such a way that his version not is
rude if compared to ordinary Christian Latin diction
(Christianis auribus). Although his usage does not
consist of a pure Latinity, his merit is that the version
corresponds to the Hebrew original. Ekerman con-
cludes that he loved the proper signification of the
sense more than the Latin purity, for instance when
he writes herbifi care instead of herbam producere
‘produce herbs’ and reptifi care instead of reptile pro-
ducere ‘produce reptiles’.
5.4 Leo Jud’s version or
the Zurich Latin Bible version
Leo Jud (1482–1542) was a close friend and adviser
to Ulrich Zwingli. Leo Jud was not as his name might
infer of Jewish lineage, but born of Catholic parents.
Assisted by a converted Jew, Leo Jud translated most
of the Old Testament anew from the Hebrew origi-
nal, but prevented by sickness he entrusted Theodore
47
Bibliander, a divine at Zurich, to translate the
remaining parts (namely Ezechiel 40–48, Iob, Psalms
102–150, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Daniel).
Conrad Pellican edited the translation. It was enti-
tled Biblia Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi
e sacra Hebraeorum lingua et Graecorum fontibus
consultis simul orthodoxis interpretibus religiosis-
sime translata in sermonem latinum. The version
was accompanied by extensive commentaries taken
from the medieval Jewish rabbinical exegesis. The
version is also known as the Zurich Latin Bible ver-
sion (Versio Tigurina). The fi rst edition appeared in
Zurich in 1543, printed in folio. It was reprinted there
in 1544 and 1550. Robert Estienne edited it in parallel
text with the Vulgate in 1545 and in 1564. Spanish
theologians too judged it worthy to be printed in par-
allel columns with the Vulgate, and it was edited in
Salamanca in 1584. In other words, Leo Jud’s version,
unlike those by Münster, Tremellius and Castellio,
escaped the fate of being entered on the Index.
In the preface of the Zurich Latin Bible version,
probably written by Conrad Pellican, the revisions
of the Vulgate and earlier Latin versions of the Bible
from the source languages are criticized. The Vulgate
has been revised so moderately that it still does not
correspond to the Hebrew original everywhere. The
new translations cling on the other hand too much
to the Hebrew style and diction so that they are
too Hebrew in character and incomprehensible for
people not versed in this language.109 In this way it is
indicated that there was need for yet another version.
According to the preface, Leo Jud intended to make
the version as far as possible idiomatic Latin, with the
exception of some standard ecclesiastical words and
turns being so accepted that they should not be chan-
ged, for example fi des for fi ducia, gratia for favor and
evangelizare for laetum nuntium afferre. Here one
ought to take regard to the religion rather than to the
external language, it is argued. In order to achieve
an easy and natural style, free from inconveniences,
irregularities and difficulties, Leo Jud supplemented
concise sentences and paraphrased a great deal. On
the other hand he did not take too great liberties as
translator, as he was of the opinion that one has to be
more accurate and cautious in sacred books than in
the profane ones. In conclusion the preface states that
he did not strive after eloquence, but he did not either
desist from elegance, if easily reachable.110
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
In his dialogue about interpretation, Pierre Daniel
Huet makes Fronto Ducaeus ask: In what esteem
shall we hold Leo Jud’s translation? Whereupon
he introduces Isaac Casaubon answering: “The
unanimous opinion of the learned is that it surpas-
ses the earlier ones in respect of fidelity (fi des) and
learning (doctrina) as well as in respect of the clarity
(perspicuitas), although they acknowledge that the
striving for elegance and perspicuity (elegantiae ...
et perspicuitatis studium) has removed something
from the innate character (indoles) and the fidelity
(fi des) and the position of the words (situs verborum),
which, as Jerome informs us, is a mystery, and that
the venerable simplicity of the biblical style has been
taken away by an added grace in the same way as the
innate beauty of an attractive shape is removed by a
dye smeared over.”111
Matthew Poole says that Leo Jud made his version
with erudition and great discernment. Although he
does not always express the words accurately, he skil-
fully and faithfully renders the sense, especially in
difficult passages. He may compete with the foremost
translators, Poole thinks, in the appropriateness and
purity of the language and the clearness and elegance
of the style.112
Richard Simon passed a mild judgement on Leo
Jud’s version: It is agreeable and keeps the middle
ground between a literal and barbaric version on
the one hand and a tasteful and affected one on the
other. There are, nevertheless, many passages where
the translator out of fear that he would be too simple
does not sufficiently properly render the terms of the
Hebrew original.113 The French humanist further
underlines that Leo Jud rendered the words less
properly than Münster, but he accommodated his
version to the Latin idiom, which was not achieved
by Münster. In order to not be obscure for the sake
of conciseness, he now and then paraphrases rather
than performs the duties of a translator.114
5.5 Castellio’s version
Sebastian Castellio or in French Sebastien Châteil-
lon (1515-1563), a Savoyard Reformed theologian,115
devoted seven years to a Latin version of the Old as
well as the New Testament from their original lan-
guages, Biblia interprete Sebastiano Castalione una
cum ejusdem annotationibus, published in Basel in
1551 in folio format. Five years before Castellio had
48
fi nished the Pentateuch in Latin, Moses Latinus,116
the preface to which gives the clue to his entire
enterprise. Castellio had in his youth studied pro-
fane literature, especially Homer, intensively, and
neglected the study of the Bible, in high degree owing
to his being offended by its barbaric style. The unpo-
lished and obscure biblical usage should therefore be
removed and the Mosaic books should be set forth
so elegantly that they could compete with Homer.
Moses should be represented in the same ease and
elegance he would have used if he were a Latin citizen.
Castellio also thought that Moses was superior to the
plagiary Greek philosophy, whether cosmological,
moral, aesthetical or rhetorical, at the same time, as
he saw no essential difference between biblical and
pagan thought.117 Accordingly, he did not accept a
distinction between sacred and profane terminology.
This made any special Christian Latin vocabulary
superfluous.118 This view also conduced to the striv-
ing after a classicizing shape.
Heavy criticism made Castellio revise his version
of the whole Bible twice. A second edition appeared
at Basel in 1554 and a third revised edition was done
in 1556, both in folio. The third edition was reprinted
only a few times during the sixteenth and seventeenth
century: at Basel in 1573 in folio and 1656 in 8:o, at
Leipzig in 1697 in folio, in London in 1699 in folio.
In the course of the 1720’s and 1730’s there was,
however, a renaissance for Castellio’s Latin Bible ver-
sion; it was repeatedly reprinted, probably because
earlier criticism was considered irrelevant in the time
of the Enlightenment. Samuel Benjamin Walther at
Leipzig issued four editions in small formats: 1728 in
12:o, 1729 in major 8:o, 1734 in 8:o and 1738 in 8:
o. In London it was reprinted in 1726 in major 12:o.
About the same time Christoph Wolle wrote a lengthy
defence of the beautiful qualities of Castellio’s Latin
Bible version , an essay called Dissertatio critica de eo
quod pulchrum est in versione Sacri codicis Latina
Sebastiani Castellionis, where he convincingly refu-
tes depreciating criticism. This treatise was inserted
in the Bible editions of 1728, 1729 and 1738. Johann
Ludolph Büneman, the editor of the editions of 1734
and 1738, supplied the latter edition with a register
of “the selected, commonly neglected and rightly
and wrongly suspected, Latin diction in Castellio’s
Latin version”, Index latinitatis selectae, vulgo
neglectae, merito et falso suspectae, ex Castellionis
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
interpretatione. He emendated the accepted edition
(i.e. Castellio’s last revision) by collating the fi rst and
second Basel editions. The edition issued in 1738 also
contains Gotoph Vockerodt’ Dissertatio de usu et
pretio singulari Bibliorum Latinorum Castellionis.
After this period of prosperity two reprints of the
third Basel edition were issued at Leipzig, in 1750119
and in 1756, both in octavo size.
The small size editions were particularly intended
for use of the young students. Right from the begin-
ning of the Renaissance the reading of classical Latin
texts with a pagan frame of reference had been consi-
dered a pedagogical problem, especially in the lower
schools. Castellio expresses himself the idea that his
version, because worded in a pure, easy and clear
style, could be used in the schools for basic teaching,
so that the pupils learn the Latin language and piety
at the same time.120 Christoph Wolle later makes it
clear that the choice and refi ned Latin in Castellio’s
version would be an excellent pedagogical means.
The tender minds of the beginners would be safegu-
arded against the paganism in classical Latin authors
and still learn a beauty Latin.121
In the preface to the whole Bible, addressed to
Edward VI, king of England, Castellio describes his
purpose and method of translation as follows: “As far
as possible I have worked on making this translation
faithful (fi delis) and Latin (Latina), i.e. pure and cor-
rect, and plain (perspicua), in order that obscurity
(obscuritas) or a rough and an unpolished speech
(orationis horriditas) or unfaithfulness (interpreta-
tionis infi delitas) would prevent anyone from reading
the biblical books. But I have taken special regard for
perspicuity and fidelity (Sed perspicuitatis et fi deli-
tatis potissimam rationem duximus)”. He continues:
“and as far as the Latin is concerned, the speech
is nothing other than the garment of a subject (rei
quaedam quasi vestis) and we are the tailors (et nos
sartores sumus). The subject remains the same and
is not better because of the elegance of the speech
nor worse because of the simple level of the speech”.
He concludes: “The one whom unpolished speech
prevents from getting acquainted with the subject
will not like the subject (Neque rem vere amat is,
quem ab ea cognoscenda retrahit inculta oratio).” 122
Castellio’s version was not meant to be used as an
aid for the theological study of the Hebrew source
text, but rather to be read as literature. The classi-
49
cizing Italian humanists Pietro Bembo (1470–1547)
and Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) would have preferred
Castellio’s version.
How does Castellio’s intention to turn the bibli-
cal books into idiomatic and elegant classical Latin
manifest itself in the syntax and the vocabulary? On
the syntactical level, he never accepts idiosyncratic
Hebrew modes of expression, but transforms them
to plain and idiomatical Latin expressions or phrases.
He entirely disregards the syntactical characteristic
of the Hebrew source text; avoiding the paratactic
Hebrew sentence structure he tries to achieve a perio-
dic sentence structure. As regards the lexical level,
he in general disregards the established ecclesiastical
Latin vocabulary in favour of linguistically purer
equivalents, for instance angelus became genius and
idola is replaced by deaster, baptismus by lavacrum
or lotio, synagoga by collegium, ecclesia by res
publica christiana, gehenna by tartarus or orcus,
and templum by fanum. This tendency stood out as
very offensive to his contemporaries, who perceived
these words as contaminated by an idea of paganism.
Furthermore, in the translation of the Song of Songs,
Castellio, as a consequence of his literal understan-
ding of the poem, frequently used diminutives, many
of which were common in Latin love poetry. The con-
temporaries considered such words as having inde-
cent, in fact obscene, suggestive connotations, which
in their opinion did not suit a sacred song.
Theodore Beza (1519–1605), a leading Reformed
theologian, attacked Castellio fiercely in a special
treatise De haereticis a Magistratu puniendis, where
he described the translation as not learned, impious
and in many passages disagreeing with the sense of
the Holy Spirit. Beza’s accusations were to a large
extent about Castellio’s rejection of the Christian
Latin terminology. Castellio met Beza’s criticism in
his Defensio translationum suarum (1562).123
Castellio met among his contemporaries a severe
critic also in Sisto da Siena. Hesitating between
calling him paraphrast (paraphrastes) or transla-
tor (interpres) he contends that Castellio could not
endure anything even smelling of a Hebraism. Focu-
sing his criticism on the version of the Song of Songs,
he maintains that Castellio apparently thought that
no one speaks Latin without speaking effeminately.
Furthermore, Castellio is charged with setting the
majesty and authority of the Scripture aside and with
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
yielding to a wanton abundance of tender words and
diminutives. Sisto da Siena says that Castellio trans-
lated so impudently and indecently that the version
seems to be a dialogue between courtesans and pro-
curers (colloquia meretricum et lenonum).124
Likewise, Gilbert Genebrard (1537–1597), Arch-
bishop of Aix, passed a severe judgment in these
terms: “Castellio’s version is marked by affectation
and is more fi lled with display and embellishments
than with real matter and fi rmness, more fi lled with
ostentation than with substance, more with dyestuff
than with nutritive content, more with a human than
with the Spirit, more with smoke than with fi re,
more with human thoughts than with divine senses,
more with leaves than with fruits.”125 Johann Hein-
rich Hottinger (1620–1667), a Swiss Orientalist, in a
similar way says that Castellio by choosing profane
terms showed more concern for the ears than for the
heart of his readers.126
Jacques-Auguste de Thou, (1553–1617) contends
that Castellio was unskilled to set about the great
task of a new Latin Bible version. In many people’s
opinion, it is stated, he laid unclean hands to deal
with sacred things.127
Lawrence Humphrey gives prominence to the rhe-
torical value of Castellio’s version. In Humphrey’s
opinion Castellio should not be criticized on account
of his use of all resources available to the Latin
language. If he made errors of translation, the sty-
listic choiceness (elegantia) is not to be criticized. In
order to defend the rhetorical ornaments, Humphrey
advances a theological argument: The glory of God
is made more famous if his words are represented by
illustrious speech. Why should the Holy Scripture
have a rough linguistic appearance when all the
human and profane arts are shining?128
Christian Kortholt charges Castellio with having
introduced profane novelties in the Holy Scriptures.
Specifically he accused him of enlivening the old
pagan vocabulary (resuscitata ethnicismi vocabula).
In particular he disapproves of the inappropriate
linguistic form of the version of a sacred song: “Who
can with equianimity bear diminutives and soft and
tender words more worthy of an elegy by Tibull than
of the sacrosanct version of the Song of Songs.” …
“Is it not a fault to use enticing words to express
divine subjects, which demands a grand style?” …
“An abundance of soft words and loving flatterings,
50
to which the translator everywhere indulges himself
in the version, is more suitable for Catull playing with
the little sparrow of Lesbia than for a translator of the
Holy Scriptures.”129
Pierre Daniel Huet describes Castellio’s translation
as not well-tempered (intemperatissima), arguing
that it expresses clean biblical subject matters (res
purissimae) with an arrogant grace (fastidiosa venus-
tas) and diminishes all the force of the divine Word
by an excessive stylistic concern (nimis curatura) and
inaptly repudiates (ineptissime) the words used by
the Church Fathers and long since accepted by the
Christian church.
Richard Simon points out that Castellio did not
make an effort to translate exactly, but to render the
sense with the elegance he was able to.130 He dismisses
the criticism that Castellio was ignorant of Hebrew. If
we read Castellio’s annotations we are, he says, ensu-
red that Castellio was skilful in Hebrew. Castellio
did not, however, take on the usual parts of a Bible
translator. The inaccuracies are due to an absurd
striving for Ciceronian and Catullian diction (prava
imitandae Ciceronianae et Catullianae dictionis
affectatio).131
Matthew Poole (1669) says that Castellio did not
take pain to translate the Hebrew text word-for-word,
but in most cases he expresses the sense clearly, purely,
elegantly and faithfully and not infrequently he solves
great interpretative problems by his version.132
Carpzov makes it clear that Castellio, taking
warning from the previous rough and barbarous ver-
sion, entered another way than his predecessors and
laboured at making the divine oracles speak in pure
and shining Latin.133 Everyone who compares the ver-
sion of Castellio with the source text will fi nd out that
he had a good command of Hebrew, Carpzov argues.
He did not dissociate himself from the Hebrew text
by ignorance, but because of too great an interest in
Latin diction and perspicuity.134
In his extensive defence of Castellio’s version, Chris-
toph Wolle says that he admires Castellio’s choice of
words (verborum delectus), which he describes as
worthy (dignus), carefully prepared (curatus) and
judicious (cum judicio institutus). Castellio selected
proper, perspicuous, pure and meaningful words and
avoided improper, obscure, impure and old-fashio-
ned words, in order that the text should not turn out
to be a riddle.135 Wolle defends also Castellio’s lexi-
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
cal purism, his classical substitutes for ecclesiastical
words. These cannot possibly be classified as stili
ethnicismus. Words with an essential idea of ethni-
cismus ought to be distinguished from those that only
have an accidental idea of ethnicismus.136 Names of
Roman gods and formulas of oaths such as mecastor,
mehercle, edepol and medius fi dius are instances of
an essential paganism, but these are not present in
Castellio’s version, while classical Latin equivalents
such as fanum for templum and genius for angelus,
frequently encountered in Castellio’s version, are
considered examples of an accidental paganism. As
an instance of a word formerly associated with paga-
nism, but later neutralized Wolle adduces mysterium.
In pagan literature it was used to denote the Eleusi-
nian secrets in the worship of Ceres, but already in
the ecclesiastical Latin of late antiquity it had lost it
pagan association and was used in an innocent and
pure sense.137 Wolle calls attention to the fact that
there are also commonly accepted phrases such as
aequo Jove judicare ‘to pass a sentence impartially’,
pinguis Minerva ‘a dull intellect’ and invita Minerva
or repugnante Minerva ‘against one’s natural bent’
and suo Marte ‘by one’s own bravery’ which have lost
their pagan connotations.138 Moreover, Wolle praises
Castellio’s stylistic considerations of the character of
the biblical books. He has not turned the Bible into
Latin in a uniform style, Wolle stresses, but adap-
ted the style to the genre and subject of the various
biblical books. Prophetical books have demanded
a sublime and pathetic style, the Canticles brought
about a poetic style conforming to Latin love poetry,
as in Ovid and Catull, whereas the historical books
have demanded a plain, clear and symmetrical style,
as in Livy.139
Petrus Ekerman repeats Wolle’s arguments. He
states that there are only a few words taken from the
pagan sphere of religious thought that Castellio has
applied to the sacrosanct concepts of the Christian
religion. Certainly we fi nd genius, fanum, lavacrum,
tartarus, orcus or collegium and other words of the
same kind (which may be exemplified with lustratio
for sanctifi catio, cupido for charitas140 and paeana
for cantus). Ekerman exclaims: “but I ask how can
these designations be charged with paganism” (Sed
quaeso! quo jure hae adpellationes ethnicismi argu-
endae). After having put forward the distinction
between accidental and essential paganisms he says
51
that nothing prevents the profane connotation being
replaced by a Christian notion. He mentions that the
Apostle (Paul) used the words λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος for
the baptism (Eph. 5,26), an expression that in Latin
corresponds to lavacrum aquae. He fi nishes: Castellio
certainly employed words frequently used by ancient
worshipers of pagan gods and a non-essential idea
of paganism clings to the words of this kind, but
Latin vocabulary that is accidentally pagan cannot
be accused of paganism.141
Samuel Alnander praises Castellio’s version for its
pure and refi ned diction: “He wrote for the sake of
those who loved a pure Latin and were disgusted by
the Bible itself on account of the unappetizing style in
the Vulgate version, which they were compelled to use
in lack of knowledge in the original languages. Shall
we blame Castellio for a polished style when he in that
way managed to make those who before had left the
Bible aside begin to read it with pleasure.”142
5.6 Tremellius’ and
Junius’ version
The Bible translation of Immanuel Tremellius (1510–
1580) and Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), Testamenti
Veteris Biblia Sacra was published in parts at Frank-
furt am Main between 1575 and 1579 in folio size.
This Latin version of the Old Testament became the
standard version of the Reformed Church.143
Tremellius was born of Jewish parents in Ferrara in
Italy. He converted to Catholicism at Lucca, but soon
embracing the doctrines of the Reformed religion, he
had in the age of the Counter-Reformation to flee at
fi rst to Strasbourg, then to England in 1547 where he
became teacher of Hebrew at Cambridge for a couple
of years. With the Catholic restoration in England
in the reign of Queen Mary (1553–1558) he fled to
Heidelberg and got the professorship in Hebrew.
In this position he set to work on a new translation
of the Old Testament in 1571. He co-operated with
Franciscus Junius (or François du Jun), his son-in-law.
The latter was also responsible for a Latin translation
of the extracanonical books of the Old Testament, i.e.
the apocrypha.144
The fi rst publication only comprised the Old
Testament with the apocrypha. In the London edi-
tion of 1680 the New Testament translated from the
Syriac (1667) by Tremellius was added and in 1581 it
appeared in parallel text with Theodore Beza’s Latin
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
translation of the Greek New Testament (which had
been fi nished in 1564). After the death of Tremellius,
Franciscus Junius revised the version as well as the
marginal notes. The second edition was issued in 1590
in Geneva. This edition incorporated Beza’s Latin
version of the Greek New Testament (fi rst edited in
Olewig 1564) and Tremellius’ own Latin version of
the Syriac New Testament (1569).145 This second edi-
tion was reprinted in London in 1593 and 1597. In a
preface, Junius testifies that he has undertaken the
corrections according to Tremellius’ instructions.146
Junius then revised the version again and published
a third edition in 1596 in Hannau (reprinted there in
8:o 1596 and 1597, in folio 1602, 1603 and 1611, in
Frankfurt 1597, in Saint Gervais in 1607, an edition
which is used in the comparative investigation below).
The fourth edition appeared posthumously in 1617 in
Geneva. This fourth edition differed from the fi rst
edition in innumerable passages. In the seventeenth
century the fourth edition was reprinted continu-
ously: sometimes in folio at Hannau (1618, 1624 and
1699), but mostly (in nineteen editions) in minor for-
mats without the marginal notes included (major 8:o,
normal 8:o and 12:o) in Amsterdam, London, Zurich,
Basel and Hannover.147 The editions in minor size
were likely less expensive and easier to handle, and,
to be sure, much employed by the students. Johannes
Piscator (1546–1625), a Reformed theologian, made
a large-scale revision of the version of Tremellius &
Junius, and took the Hebrew into consideration and
joined the work with a comprehensive philological
and theological commentary (Herborn 1601–1618).
Piscator translated a few biblical books anew into
Latin from Hebrew.
In the preface, addressed to Friedrich III duke of
Rheinland-Pfalz, the translators among other things
account for the objects of the new version and the
translation principles. Tremellius and Junius explain
that a reason for undertaking a version is that the
teaching for the Church ought to be scooped directly
from the sources, in this case the original Hebrew
(Hebraica veritas). The version was consequently ela-
borated for the use of the Reformed Church. Further-
more, conveying the principles of translation, they
primarily contend that nothing is of greater use for a
good translator (bonus interpres) than that he com-
prehend the matter at issue and render it appositely
(apposite). For a right understanding of the subject
52
matters they declare that they have weighed the natu-
ral and proper meanings of the single words, compa-
red syntactical constructions to similar ones in other
passages, retained the Hebrew punctuation as useful
for the matter, even though it was earlier commonly
conceived as superfluous, and fi nally, investigated the
line of arguments in order to make the coherence of
the verses evident. While translating everything app-
ropriately and conveniently (in quibus omnibus apte
et accommodate reddendis), they say that they have
retained the word-order of the Hebrew language as
far as possible in the Latin language (etiam Hebraici
sermonis ordinem, ut per Latinam linguam licuit,
servavimus), furthermore carefully retained specific
and emphatic Hebraisms that cannot be altered, fol-
lowing the example of the Church Fathers, but tried
to express other Hebraisms in Latin in the text, put-
ting a word-for-word rendering in the margin, and
avoided barbarisms and fi nally strived for getting
Moses to resound in the Christian world in Latin with
a style or delivery comparable to that which he used
in his lifetime when speaking with his fellow coun-
trymen and gentiles (denique enixi sumus ut Mosche
Latinus Christianum orbem personet idque eodem
argumento, quo civium suorum et gentilium aures
dum vixit personebat).
The alterations made by Junius were in particular
called in question by Hugo Broughton (1549–1612)
in his treatise A concent of Scripture (1590) and by
Johannes Drusius the elder (1550–1616), a Dutch
Orientalist, in a work entitled Ad loca diffi ciliora
Pentateuchi (1617), and also by Johannes Laetus in
Compendium historiae universalis civilis et eccle-
siasticae (1643), who says that Junius’ corrections
rather enlarged the Bible version than improved it.
The early strictures passed on Junius were dis-
approved by Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651), a Refor-
med theologian, who states that, although one occa-
sionally encounters too much liberty, the version is
yet worthy to gain honour among all pious men and
the translators should be remembered with grati-
tude.148 However, leading scholars, such as Constan-
tine l’Empereur, Richard Simon, Jacob Alting, and
Johann Leusden, continued to speak of Tremellius’
version in unfavourable terms.
In an afterword to Franciscus Gomarus’ (1563–
1641) Lyra Davidis (1637),149 Contantine l’Empereur
(1591–1648), professor of theology at Leiden, justifies
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
his deviations from the version of Tremellius & Junius
by pointing out that it often departs from the true
sense. Kortholt (1686, p.276) quotes this judgement.
Richard Simon takes hold of l’Empereur’s censure,
but at the same time gives expression to his own sen-
timent: Tremellius has such a method of translation
that it often ends in a fault. He also maintains that
the Latin diction is marked by affectation and that
the version contains words added to express the sense
more strongly, but that such additions sometimes give
rise to mistakes.150
Jacob Alting (1618–1679), Dutch Orientalist and
professor of Oriental languages at Leiden, charged
Tremellius & Junius with their excessive freedom
in rendering the Hebrew text as well as in inserting
prolix elements (literally he says “garments”, lacinia)
in the version. Moreover, he fi nds their interest in
rabbinical exegesis, represented by the notes in the
margin, immoderate and Judaicizing.151 When com-
paring Tremellius’ version to that of Pagninus and
to the revised edition carried out by Piscator, Alting
attributes the quality of elegance to Tremellius, as
opposed to the qualities of accuracy and clearness
granted to Pagninus and Piscator respectively. He
says: Pagnini versioni proprietatis palmam deberi,
elegantiae Tremellii-Junii et perspicuitatis Piscatoris
“the prize of accuracy is indebted to the version of
Pagninus, the prize of elegance (stylistic choiceness)
to Tremellius and the price of clarity to Piscator”.152
Johann Leusden informs us that his students usu-
ally complained that it is difficult to elucidate and
explain the Hebrew text when using Tremellius’ ver-
sion as an aid, a difficulty that, Leusden declares, is a
consequence of its linguistic purity and its excessive
divergence from the Hebrew word order and Hebrew
phraseology. For this reason Leusden had made up
his mind to choose Pagninus’ version for a projec-
ted Polyglott Bible (encompassing Hebrew, Latin,
Belgian, French, English).153
Abraham Calovius (1672) disapproves of the criti-
cism expressed by Drusius, but fi nds that the trans-
lators, in order to supplement the sense, have too
boldly inserted too many words as compared with the
Hebrew original text.
There were, nevertheless, scholars who were pleased
with Tremellius’ version. One of them was Michael
Walther (1593–1662), who in his isagogic treatise
Offi cina Biblica (1637) thinks that Tremellius and
53
Junius are to be praised for their diligence, because
they have not neglected pure Latin usage, which is not
to be abstained from provided that it does not hurt the
clearness (perspicuitas), and they have arranged the
biblical books in the order they have in the Hebrew
Bible, and they have observed the Hebrew prosody
(i.e. the accents), especially where it is a matter of
punctuation that bears upon the understanding of the
sense of the passage in question.154
Likewise, Matthew Poole praises Tremellius’ ver-
sion, but admits that some versions in certain pas-
sages come closer to the Hebrew; others also render
the sense more clearly and elegantly.155
Another scholar who welcomed the version at issue
was Johann Vorstius (1623–1676), a German classi-
cal philologist. While recommending avoidance of
Hebraisms to contemporary writers of Latin, he refers
to the practice of Tremellius and Junius and Castellio.
He says: “Even recent Bible translators, Tremellius
and Junius, in their translation of the Hebrew text,
considered that Hebraisms ought not to be retained
everywhere, but often to be desisted from. Especially
Sebastian Castellio avoided Hebraisms in his versions
and contrariwise, as far as he was able, made use of a
diction peculiar to the Latin language.”156
Carpzov says that the existence of so many Latin
versions of the Bible did not prevent Tremellius and
Junius from undertaking a new one, in which they
tried to render the Hebrew text exactly and keep the
Latin phraseology as far as possible. As regards the
reception history, he refers to the most important cri-
tics, but for a survey in detail of seventeenth century
judgments, he refers to the English scholar Thomas
Crenius (1648–1728), Animadversiones historicae
et philologicae, Oxford 1699. Carpzov describes the
character of the version as follows: (1) it completely
explains Hebraisms, (2) it often leaves the sense unde-
cided, (3) it transforms parataxis into hypotaxis by
changing a fi nite verb, which in the Hebrew text is
co-ordinated with another fi nite verb, to a participle,
in order to make the speech more well-rounded, (4)
it diverges sometimes too much from the proper sig-
nification of the words, (5) it employs proper nouns
roughly, as concerns the semantics, through using the
city name Jerusalem for its inhabitants, and, as con-
cerns orthography, through representing the Hebrew
‘ayin by the letter h, e.g. Jahacob, and Bahal, (6) it
renders against what is read in the Hebrew text, (7)
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
changes proper nouns into appellatives, (8) it inserts
clauses which are not to be found in the Hebrew text,
(9) it omits that which is to be found in the Hebrew
text without indicating a lacuna.
5.7 Schmidius’ version
The Latin Bible translation of the prominent Lutheran
scholar Sebastian Schmidius or Schmidt (1617–1696)
bears the title Biblia Sacra sive Testamentum Vetus
et Novum ex linguis originalibus in linguam Lati-
nam translatum. It appeared in Strasbourg in 1696
in quarto and was reprinted in this size in 1698, 1708
and 1715. The Latin version of the Old Testament was
issued in 1740 and 1750 in parallel columns together
with the Hebrew Bible edited by Ebenhaart van der
Hooght.157 The edition of 1696 was reproduced in a
facsimile in Stockholm in 1872.
The Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg wrote
a preface to the fi rst edition. They point out that
Schmidius worked on his Bible version for forty years
and constantly improved it. His version is maintained
to be marked by a ripe judgement and to present old
vine, not unfermented must (Vinum vetus exhibetur,
non recens mustum). It is stated that he examined
the Hebrew authentic text, its words, phrases, con-
text and its entire force accurately and exactly and
uncovered the innermost parts of the text (textusque
viscera exposuerunt denudata). His purpose was to
prepare a version which could help the scholars in
their study of the source texts of the Holy Scriptures
(versio … quae eruditiores juvare possit, quando eam
cum fontibus conferunt) and which would be put into
a simple, plain and perspicuous style (et quae simpli-
ciore stylo planoque et perspicuo foret expressa).158
In the same year as Schmidius’ version appeared
it was reviewed in the periodical Acta Eruditorum
published in Leipzig. We read as follows: “We have
thus a Latin version that in exceeding degree cor-
responds to the sources, a version which possibly is a
more useful aid to the reader than any other lengthy
commentaries. The translator eagerly made up his
mind to express in Latin as simply as possible that
which is read in the source text. By means of adding
one, or sometimes, several words within brackets and
in italics he has explained very well the sentences that
could be liable to appear incomprehensible. He has
not expounded the meaning of the biblical writers
by using long-winded circumlocutions (prolixiores
54
ambages) nor he has acted as a paraphrast, but has
rendered word-for-word. Hence his version is not
alien to Hebraisms. It ought to be remarked as a piece
of criticism, the reviewer continues, that in some pas-
sages his version is incomprehensible and that the
purity of the Latin language (puritas linguae Lati-
nae) is sometimes disregarded, and that the Hebrew
accents, punctuation marks, and the divisions of sen-
tences are sometimes neglected.”159
Carpzov describes the background of Schmidius’
version: Schmidius was prompted by the lack of a
Latin translation of Bible performed by a Lutheran.
In Schmidius’ opinion the translations of the Refor-
med theologians and the Catholics were adapted to
the doctrines of their churches and in many passa-
ges they diverged from the authentic text. Therefore
he turned his mind to a new Latin version from the
primary sources without using the existing Latin ver-
sions. Carpzov further underlines that Schmidius had
a full knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, had studied
most of the Jewish and Christian interpreters, had a
good intellect and daily investigated the Holy Scrip-
tures. The translation deserves, Carpzov contends,
praise for (1) its excellent accuracy in rendering the
source text (eximia in reddendis fontibus accuratio)
and (2) its abundance of supplemental words within
brackets and the perspicuity that arises from those
additions (ab ubertate et redundante hinc perspicui-
tate). Therefore he did not strive for a beautiful Latin
diction, but rather for accuracy in rendering Hebrew
and Greek words. He did not reformulate the sense of
the sacred writers by means of the prolix periphrases
(prolixiores ambages), but rendered word-for-word
as far as possible with regard for the character and
spirit of both languages. Carpzov points also out dis-
advantages depending on this method: (1) too close
and almost slavish adherence to the original texts.
(nimia et fere servilis ad textus originales adstrictio)
and (2) a certain arbitrariness in ambiguous passages
(ἰδιογνωμοσύνη Autoris in locis ambiguis), and (3) a
disregard of the Hebrew accents, from which another
division of sentences has arisen in a few passages.160
Petrus Ekerman deals with the present version in
his treatise about Latin versions of the Holy Scrip-
ture. Ekerman only rewords the account Carpzov had
given of Schmidius’ version. He says that he rendered
the sources with a simple style as far as the spirit and
nature of the both languages permitted. He empha-
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
sizes that Schmidius strict method of translation,
namely word-for-word has the effect that he cannot
always please the taste of discriminating speakers of
Latin. Ekerman points however out that Schmidius
not only took pains for come close to the sources;
he also strived to make the translation linguistically
pure as well as clear and plain.161
In his handbook of hermeneutics Johann Jacob
Rambach says that Schmidius was the last to distin-
guish himself in the field of Latin Bible versions. His
version would have been the most accurate, Rambach
maintains, if he had had the opportunity to put the
fi nishing touches to it, if he had not paid too much
regard to the Hebrew accents, i.e. punctuation marks,
and if he had not translated so literally as to express
every Hebrew particle.162
5.8 Clericus’ version
Johannes Clericus (Jean le Clerc, 1657–1736) was pro-
fessor at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam.
His Latin Bible versions appeared in four volumes
from 1693 to 1731. The version of the Pentateuch
was completed in 1693,163 the version of the histori-
cal books of the Old Testament appeared in 1708,,164
and the versions of the Hagiographical books and
the Prophets were issued in 1731.165 Every part was
printed separately in Amsterdam. A typographer in
Tübingen printed all parts in one volume in 1732.
Clericus set forth his views on translation princip-
les in a prefatory treatise called Dissertatio de optimo
genere interpretum Sacrae Scripturae, ubi institutum
et ratio totius operis describuntur. At fi rst he formu-
lates in a well-reasoned way a theory of language and
semantics: There is no exact correspondence between
two languages in the lexical system: the semantic field
of words and figures of speech are never identical
in two languages. Therefore, a literal translation is
inconceivable.166 He passes on to propose two general
methods of translation, the literal (verbum e verbo)
and the free or licentious (nimia concessa nobis licen-
tia). Neither of them is satisfactory: A version of the
fi rst kind would be worthless to those who do not
know Hebrew, although it might be intelligible if they
read the philological notes often accompanying a Bible
translation, or a version of the second kind would
foist the translator’s interpretation on the reader,
especially in obscure passages, and the version would
smell of the mind of the translator rather than of the
55
original author (interpretis potius ingenium quam
scriptoris, p. 3). As a consequence, Clericus decides
to strike the middle, in order to be not too difficult
to understand because of Hebraisms preserved and
not too free because of the wish to write an idiomatic
Latin. Within the sphere of a restricted translation of
sacred books (in translatione adstrictiore librorum
sacrorum) one cannot, he points out, translate as an
orator (ut orator), as Cicero maintains that he did
in his Latin versions of Greek speeches (p. 4),167 but
one has, he contends, to use free paraphrases (i.e. a
sense-for-sense-method) and keep the meaning (sen-
tentia), not the words (verba), in order that those who
do not like barbarous language and those who do not
understand Hebrew will be able to read the version.
Clericus says that he has struck this way. He voices
the opinion that most of the earlier Latin translators
indulged as much as possible, or rather more than
allowable (quantum licuit, imo plusquam licuit), in
Hebrew word order (ordo verborum Hebraicorum)
and in Hebrew sentence structure (p. 6). He himself
has taken regard to the Latin language rather than to
the Hebrew idiom, and yet he has unwillingly been
forced to allow himself Hebraisms in great number
(p. 6) and to adapt the style to the Hebrew model
more than good Latin usage would permit (fatemur
multo plusquam per Latinitatem licuit ad Hebraica
stylum nos aptasse p. 4). Clericus criticizes on the
other hand Castellio for indulging an extremely clas-
sicizing tendency.
In his survey of Latin Bible versions Carpzov cons-
ciously left out Clericus’ version, as existing thitherto,
namely on the Pentateuch and the Historical Books—
the version on the poetical and prophetical books had
not yet appeared. Carpzov states that much could be
said about Clericus’ version and paraphrase (versio
et paraphrasis), but, in quoting Velleius Paterculus
vivorum, ut magna admiratio, ita censura diffi cilis
est (2,36,3) he states that it is difficult for contempo-
raries to make an assessment, because they are seized
by feelings of great admiration. He says that he passes
it over in his own justice (meo jure).168
5.9 Franciscus Houbigant’s version
Franciscus Houbigant (or François Houbigant, 1686–
1784), a French Dominican, published an edition of
the Hebrew Bible with a new Latin version in parallel.
Biblia Hebraea cum notis criticis et versione Latina
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
ad notas criticas facta “Hebrew Bible with critical
notes and a Latin version made in the critical notes”
appeared in four volumes in Paris in 1753, a work
which is to be considered the principal monument of
the textual criticism of the area of Old Testament in
eighteenth-century France.169 The title conveys the
impression that the Latin translation only encom-
passes passages being commented upon in the critical
notes, but it is actually a complete new Latin version
of all books of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Houbigant’s composition of a Latin version was
born out of his interest in textual criticism. The
Masoretic text was printed without vowel points.
The reason was that Houbigant did not approve of
the Masoretic tradition. Neither was he convinced
that the consonants had been correctly transmitted.
Houbigant’s textual alterations were not integrated
in the printed Hebrew text, but were proposed in
critical notes after each chapter. In an extensive pre-
face (190 pp.) Houbigant explains the background to
and points of departure for his textual criticism. The
corrections primarily deal with orthographical spel-
lings, where he aimed at re-establish scriptio plena
(waw and yod), or they are related to the grammar
(supposed solecisms) or vocabulary (supposed bar-
barisms).
On the basis of a study of some passages I have got
the impression that Houbigant took pains for clear,
perspicuous and meaningful Latin usage more than
for the literal wordings of the source text. Further
research has to be done on Houbigant’s preface and
on the linguistic qualities of his Latin version. Masch
states that Houbigant keeps the middle course bet-
ween literal and free versions.170
5.10 Dathe’s version
After Houbigant still another Latin version of all
books of the Old Testament in Hebrew was carried
out. Although an account of the Latin Bible versions
after the 1750’s is beyond the scope of the present
survey, the effort of Johann August Dathe will be
mentioned. To be sure, it is reasonable to suppose
that he was the last Latin translator of the Hebrew
Bible. Johann August Dathe or Dathius (1731–1791),
professor of theology and Hebrew at the University
of Leipzig undertook a new version in a six-volume
work combined with philological commentary and
textual criticism. The volumes appeared in this order:
56
the Minor Prophets in 1773, the Major Prophets in
1779, the Pentateuch in 1781, the historical books in
1784, the Psalter in 1787, the wisdom literature (Job,
Prov. Eccl. Canticles) in 1789. Dathe strived for turn-
ing the Hebrew into idiomatic Latin. In the preface to
the Minor Prophets he says that he wishes to render
the sense of the words suitably according to the innate
character of the language into which he translates.
Then he states that, if something is rendered a word
for word and if all foreign modes of expression, even
though entirely alien and hardly intelligible, are
transmitted to the target language, it is not worthy of
the name of a translation. Still he articulates that his
intention is to give a version and not a paraphrase.171
In the preface to the Pentateuch he hopes that the
reader never will experience any lack of perspicuity
and faithfulness.172
5.11 Incomplete Latin versions of
the Hebrew Old Testament
Thomas de Vio Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), an
Italian Dominican, is responsible for a Latin version
of a major part the Hebrew Old Testament, a ver-
sion embedded in his commentary on the Bible.173
The work extends from Genesis through the histori-
cal books to Nehemiah plus Psalms, Proverbs and
Isaiah 1-3, issued separately part by part in Lyon
between 1530-35. Cajetan was himself unacquainted
with Hebrew and left the translatorial task to two
Jews (one professing Judaism, the other Christian-
ity). To oblige Cajetan’s directions they carried out a
version characterized by extreme literalism. Cajetan
was convinced that it is unattainable to translate the
words of the Holy Scriptures literally enough. In the
preface to the Psalms Cajetan relates that the Jews
used to say: “The Hebrew expression sounds that
way, but the sense becomes too unclear, unless it is
changed.” Then Cajetan used to answer as follows:
“You have not to care whether the sense is appar-
ent or not, for your task is not to expound, but to
translate: Translate as it is written, and leave to the
exegetes the concern to understand.”174 This illu-
strates what purpose the version was meant to serve.
In the preface Cajetan also underlines that a faithful
version ought to reflect the source text; otherwise it
is merely explained as understood by the translator.
Furthermore, it is interesting that Cajetan articulates
a pre-Tridentine position concerning the authority of
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
the Vulgate. In the preface to the commentary on the
Pentateuch he maintains that the original Hebrew has
priority over any earlier version and exposition: “No
one should detest a new sense of the Holy Scripture on
the account that it disagrees with earlier teachers, but
he ought to keenly scrutinize the text and the context
of the biblical passages. For God has not bound the
exposition of the Bible to the senses of earlier teach-
ers, but to the undamaged Scripture itself under the
assessment of the Catholic Church. … For it is the
text written by Moses that ought to be expounded,
not that of his translator. For the authority is not in
a Greek or Latin translator, but in the very Hebrew
text itself.”175
Likewise, another Catholic, Thomas Malvenda
(1568–1628), prepared a Latin translation that formed
the basis of his commentary on the Bible, which was
edited in Lyon in 1650.176 It comprises a great part of
the Old Testament: Genesis through Nehemiah, Job,
Psalms 1–4, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah
and Ezechiel 1–14. Richard Simon contends that the
Latin version is incomprehensible to the point that
it would be useless, unless explanatory remarks
had been at hand to the reader. In his opinion the
version is impaired by the same faults as Montanus’
version, but the barbarisms occur in a much greater
number.177
The two above-mentioned versions were not widely
spread and were never reprinted. They are usually
omitted in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
surveys of recent Latin Bible versions, because they
are incomplete and the version of the biblical texts is
contained within the commentaries. Carpzov states
these reasons for his leaving out these versions in his
survey.178
5.12 Latin versions of
individual biblical books
Latin translations of parts of the Old Testament in
Hebrew are in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu-
ries encountered in large number. Below I have listed
the versions in this category up to 1750, but the list
is probably not complete. I have not paid regard to
individual biblical books detached from the versions
of Pagninus, Münster, Castellio and Tremellius and
edited separately. The survey is based on Masch
(1785).179 The year put within brackets is the date of
57
the fi rst publication. Most of the translations of single
books were combined with exegetical expositions.
The Dutch Hebraist Johannes Drusius rendered
Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus into Latin (1598). The
Swedish Hebraist Johan Elias Terserus supplied Gene-
sis and Exodus in a Latin version (1652). The Lutheran
scholar Wolfgang Franzius translated Deuteronomy
into Latin in a series of academic dissertations (1608).
The Dutch Hebraist Andreas Masius translated Josua
into Latin (1574). The German theologian Johann
Benedict Carpzov translated Ruth into Latin (1703),
as did Johannes Drusius (1577).
The Psalms were translated by a wide range of
humanist Hebrew scholars (esp. Lutherans and Refor-
mists): Felix Pratensis, or Felice da Prato, Psalterium
diligentissime ad verbum translatum (1516), Augustino
Giustiniani (1516), Conrad Pellican (1532), the Wit-
tenberg pastor Johannes Bugenhagen (1524), the Stras-
bourg theologian Martin Bucer (1532), Jan van Cam-
pen (1532) in verse (see below), Johann Draconites or
Drach (1540), Jean Calvin (1557), E. Rudinger (1564),
the Strasbourg classical and biblical scholar Jodoco
Willich (1571), Heinrich Moller (1573), the Lutheran
Theodore Beza Vezelius (1579), the Lutheran Chris-
toph Corner (1571), the Catholic Simeon de Muis
(1650), the Catholic Ambrosius Ianvier (1666) and
Moses Amyraldus (1672).180
Moreover, Job was turned into Latin by several
scholars: the Swiss Reformer Johannes Oecolampadius
(1525), Johan Brenz (1527), the Dutch Hebraist Johan-
nes Cocceius (1644), Jacob Buldueius (1624) and the
Swiss Hebraist Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1659). Phi-
lipp Melanchthon (1524) and Johann Secerius (1525)
provided the Proverbs with Latin versions. Johannes
Cocceius (1675) and Johann Franckius (1724) trans-
lated the Ecclesiast into Latin. Ulrich Zwingli (1543),
Paul von Schütten (1678) and Johannes Cocceius
(1665) rendered the Song of Songs into Latin.
Johannes Oecolampadius (1531) and Johannes
Cocceius (1675) translated all the Prophets, major as
well as minor, into Latin. Other Hebrew scholars trans-
lated single prophets: Zwingli set about with Isaiah
(1529). Johann Draconites turned Daniel (1544) and
Joel (1565) into Latin. Jean Mercier translated Hosea
and Joel (reprinted in 1583). Constantine l’Empereur
supplied Daniel (1633) with a Latin translation, and,
finally, August Pfeiffer rendered Obadja in Latin
(1666).
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
Furthermore, the fi fteenth century witnesses a
plethora of metrical Latin translations of the Psalms,
in lyric metres and in hexameter,181 and to lesser
extent of other biblical books, in the epic style.182
The most popular Psalm paraphrase was George
Buchanan’s (1506-1682) Paraphrasis Psalmorum
Davidis Poetica (1566). It was read and sung in the
schools. Next in popularity came Helius Eobanus
Hessus’ (1488-1540) Psalterium Davidis carmine
elegiaco redditum atque explicatum (1537). Hessus
was known as the Christian Ovid, a name he was
imparted by Erasmus. The humanists were convinced
that the Psalms in the Hebrew original were metrical
in nature and this feature should be represented by
verse translations in a classical Latin form of prosody
with a metre appropriate to the character and con-
tent of the individual Psalms. Most of the Psalm para-
phrases were translated from the Vulgate or from
some vernacular version, but several scholars chose
to translate directly from Hebraica veritas, e.g. Jan
van Campen (1532), Johannes Ganaeus (1547) and
Arias Montanus (1573).
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,
(Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Persian). The
various Polyglott Bibles183 contain Latin versions in
this category. It is beyond the scope of the present
investigation to account for such versions. Masch
(1785, fi fth chapter De versionibus ex versionibus)
treats this issue in detail. The Vulgate was usually
used as the parallel text to the Hebrew original in the
Polyglott Bibles.
6. Chronological overview
of Vulgate revisions and
new Latin versions
1516 Desiderius Erasmus’ Latin translation of the
New Testament (Basel)
1522 Andreas Osiander the Elder’s revision of the
Vulgate (Nuremberg)
1527 Johann Petreius’ revision of the Vulgate (Nurem-
berg)
1528 Sanctes Pagninus’ translation of Hebrew O. T.
and Greek N. T. (Lyon)
1529 The Vulgate (Pentateuch–2nd Kgs & N.T.)
revised by Wittenberg scholars
58
1532–38 Conrad Pellican’s revision of the Vulgate
(Zurich)
1534-35 Sebastian Münster’s translation of the
Hebrew O. T. (Basel)
1543 Leo Jud’s translation of the Hebrew Old
Testament (Zurich)
1551 Sebastian Castellio’s translation of Hebrew O.
T. and Greek N. T (Basel)
1575–79 Tremellius and Junius’ translation of the
Hebrew O. T. (Frankfurt)
1578–80 Lucas Osiander the Elder’s emendation of
the Vulgate (Tübingen)
1600 Andreas Osiander the Younger’s emendation of
the Vulgate (Frankfurt)
1696 Schmidius’ translation of Hebrew O. T. and
Greek N. T (Strasbourg)
1693–1731 Johannes Clericus’ translation of the
Hebrew O. T. (Amsterdam)
1753 Franciscus Houbigant’s Latin translation of the
Hebrew O. T. (Paris)
1773–1789 August Dathe’s Latin version of the
Hebrew O. T. (Leipzig)
7. Keywords for Bible
translation in
the humanist period
Pagninus, Münster, Leo Jud and Schmidius usu-
ally retain the word order of the Hebrew original.
Castellio and Clericus on the other hand often deviate
from Hebrew word order. If the word order is kept,
the technique of translation is accordingly reduced to
a question of the choice of words (electio verborum
or delectus verborum). However, the translator usu-
ally resorted to an auxiliary method in making the
sentences intelligible, when the Hebrew word order
was too opaque, namely to add explanatory words in
italics or within brackets.
The humanist translators were brought up with
a conceptual framework that served as their guide-
line and manifested itself in a common terminology
concerning translation theory. In the fi fteenth- to
seventeenth-century debate the a number of basic
terms are constantly encountered. Here belong fi de-
litas ‘fidelity’ both verbal, or formal, and semantical,
proprietas, which means either ‘proper meaning of
a word’ or ‘appropriateness and fitness in the use of
words’, accuratio ‘accuracy, exactness, carefulness’
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
(in translating a text as a whole, that is in rendering
syntactical constructions, phrases and words), per-
spicuitas ‘perspicuity, clarity, intelligibility’, puritas
‘linguistic purity, pure Latin usage’ with reference to
the vocabulary, puritas can also be labelled latinitas,
elegantia ‘tasteful diction, choiceness, refi nement’
with reference to the whole text, series Hebraica
‘Hebrew sequence (in the syntax)’ and Hebraici ser-
monis ordo ‘Hebrew word order’.
If a translator chose to reproduce Hebrew con-
structions and to render Hebrew words and modes
of expression too accurately and closely, he ran the
risk of getting into a foreign idiom (designated by
terms such as horriditas ‘clumsiness’, soloecismus
‘grammatical error’ and barbarismus ‘use of impure
words’), but accuracy did not necessarily cause incom-
prehensibility (obscuritas) or hinder the clarity and
plainness (perspicuitas). If a translator on the other
hand took too much delight in an idiomatic Latin,
he risked criticism for yielding to stylistic affectation
(affectatio elegantiae, affectata latinitas) or stylistic
paganism (ethnicismus styli). Castellio’s version was
often charged with these faults.
8. Evaluation of the varying
concern for proprietas, latinitas
and perspicuitas
Pagninus and Münster focused on the improvement
of the accuracy of their interpretations of the Holy
Pagninus Münster Leo Jud
proprietas 3 3
latinitas 1 1
perspicuitas 2 2
Clericus
proprietas 1
latinitas 2
perspicuitas 3
Scriptures. Regard to lexical purity and syntactical
correctness and plainness came second. In their view
the aim of translating was to lead students ignorant of
Hebrew and Greek to the original Hebrew text of the
Old Testament. Leo Jud tried to improve the Latin dic-
tion to avoid the Hebraicized idiom of previous Latin
Bible versions. The antiliteralist reaction and clas-
sicizing aspiration reached its peak with Castellio’s
version. He primarily concentrated on translating the
Holy Scripture into classical Latin. Tremellius chose
to balance between regard for accuracy and con-
sideration to a good Latin style. Schmidius’ version
represents a return to a literal method. Clericus’ ver-
sion represents again a shift towards the Latin idiom
and can be placed between Castellio and Tremellius.
Houbigant seems to paraphrase a great deal and to
take most regard to clearness.
I have tried to evaluate the shifting considerations
of semantic precision (proprietas), lexical purity and
tasteful diction (latinitas) and plainness (perspicui-
tas). The evaluation has been made on the translators’
statement and assertions in their prefaces, on the cri-
tical estimations in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century debate and on an exhaustive comparative
investigation of a large selection of biblical passages.
The mark 3 is used for the highest priority, 2 for the
middle priority, and 1 for the lowest priority. I have
evaluated the order of priority. Since the qualities
only are placed in an order of rank, this means that
there may be considerable differences between ver-
sions that are ranked with equal numbers.
Castellio Tremellius Schmidius
1 1 1 3
2 3 2 1
3 2 3 2
59
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
9. Comparative investigation:
Specimens of the different
versions
The examples adduced below are meant to briefly elu-
cidate the different linguistic features of the various
versions discussed above (except Dathe’s).
Example 1
Gen 49,23 “the archers hated him”
The Vulgate: Invideruntque illi habentes iacula
Pagninus: et oderunt eum sagittarii, Montanus
replaced sagittarii by domini sagittarum
Münster: inimicati sunt ei magistri sagittarum
Leo Jud: odio prosequuti sunt eum periti sagittandi
Castellio: quem ... infestis telis provocassent sagit-
tari
Tremellius and Junius: quamvis intestino odio pros-
equuti sint eum sagittarii
Schmidius: odio habebunt eum sagittarii
Clericus: odio habuerunt sagittarii
Houbigant: eumque odio habebant, qui sagittas trac-
tabant
The Vulgate appropriately renders “masters of
arrows” (in Hebrew ba’ale chitstsim) habentes iacula.
Arias Montanus and Münster chose the expressions
domini sagittarum and magistri sagittarum, which
both reproduce the Hebrew idiosyncrasy. Leo Jud has
periti sagittandi. Castellio, Tremellius, Schmidius
and Clericus chose sagittarius, the ordinary word for
‘an archer’ in classical Latin prose. Houbigant has
“those who master archery”.
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
Israel from enslavement in Egypt). In the various
humanistic Latin versions the qualitative genitive
is considerably diversified. Jerome makes the sense
clear: non sum eloquens,184 Pagninus keeps the word
order and uses the qualitative genitive: non vir ver-
borum sum. Münster has the qualitative genitive and
chooses another word (sermo) and modifies the word
order: non sum vir sermonum. Leo Jud has it roughly
as the Vulgate: ego non sum eloquens. Castellio turns
“man of words” into disertus, which is integrated
with the rest of the clause: at disertus neque antea
60
fui neque nunc sum. Tremellius has: non sum vir
facundus. Schmidius renders as Pagninus: non vir
verborum ego (sum). Clericus has: non sum homo
disertus. In the accompanying commentary he men-
tions the Hebrew expression and says vir verborum,
i.e. homo eloquens, a rendering that he corroborates
by referring to other similar expressions in Hebrew.
Houbigant attempts plain diction and turns it as fol-
lows: non is ego sum, qui loqui possim.
Example 3
Exod. 4,9 “for I am heavy-mouthed and heavy-
tongued”. The Vulgate has the qualitative genitive:
impeditioris et tardioris linguae sum. Pagninus has
adjectives followed by the ablative of respect: quia
gravis ore et gravis lingua sum. Münster chose
another solution: the nominative followed by the
possessive dative: quoniam os grave et lingua gravis
est mihi. Leo Jud has qualitative ablatives: sum enim
gravi ore et gravi lingua. Castellio paraphrases with
laboro ‘I suffer from’ with the ablative of tarditas
‘slowness’, qualified by the genitive of os ‘mouth’ and
lingua ‘tongue’: nam oris et linguae tarditate laboro.
Tremellius has qualitative ablatives: sed impedito ore
et impedita lingua sum. Schmidius chose the same
construction as Pagninus: gravis enim ore et gravis
lingua ego (sum). Clericus has: sum enim ore et lingua
gravis. In the commentary he explains the Hebrew
expression as implying that one moves the tongue
with difficulty in pronouncing sounds, i.e. balbus
‘stammering’. Houbigant has: ego sum sermone et
lingua tardior.
Summary
This article deals with Latin Bible versions in the six-
teenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century. It surveys
the use and evaluation of the Vulgate in the Protestant
camps, but mainly focuses on the development of new
Latin versions of the Old Testament from its Hebrew
source language since the beginning of Hebrew schol-
arship to the middle of the eighteenth century.
The Protestants did not reject the Vulgate, even
though they did not regard it as authorative. The
Lutherans produced several emendations of the
Vulgate by having it compared with the Hebrew
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
source text. Importantly, they did not only edit the
biblical text, but also presented it with annotations
in accordance with the Lutheran tenets. The greatest
names in this field were Lucas Osiander the Elder and
Andreas Osiander the Younger. The Protestants did
also, in separate treatises, demonstrate the errors of
translation in the Vulgate. I have surveyed the criti-
cism of the Vulgate in Abraham Calovius, who stands
out as a great name in this field. Nevertheless, the
Vulgate enjoyed a wide use among the Protestants,
even after other Latin versions that were more accu-
rate had made their entry in the learned world.
The great task of translating the Old Testament
from Hebrew began in the early sixteenth century, in
an age when the study of Hebrew was developing into
a scholarly discipline. The first to undertake such a
project was a Catholic scholar, Santes Pagninus, who
came from Lucca in Italy. Skilful Hebrew scholars fol-
lowed. In the course of fifty years, from the 1530’s to
the 1570’s, four new versions of the Old Testament in
its entirety had appeared. In chronological order the
translators were the following: Sebastian Münster, Leo
Jud, Sebastian Castellio, and Immanuel Tremellius, all
of whom belonged to the Reformed Church. The same
period witnessed rapid stream of Latin versions of
individual books of the Hebrew Old Testament, above
all of the Psalms. After Tremellius, a long time passed
before the next Latin version of the entire Old Testa-
ment in Hebrew was composed. It did not appear until
the end of the seventeenth century. The translator was
now a Lutheran dogmatician, Sebastian Schmidius. In
the eighteenth century the entire Old Testament was
translated from Hebrew three times, the authors of the
Latin versions being Johannes Clericus (a Reformed),
Franciscus Houbigant (a Catholic) and Johann August
Dathe (a Lutheran).
The historical background and context of the new
Latin Bible versions is outlined in the present paper.
The new Latin Bible versions developed served their
primary purpose within the respublica litteraria, the
international and interconfessional Latin-speaking
society or community of the scholars in Europe,
through the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. The
Latin versions mentioned above were meant to serve
as international standard versions within the Republic
of Letters.
Furthermore, the article also illuminates the exege-
tical historical background to the Latin Bible versions.
61
In its initial stage the development was due to the shift
in biblical exegesis in the age of the Reformation. The
educated world, the theologians as well as the Hebrew
scholars, appear to have requested versions as “accu-
rate”, i.e. as close to the original, as possible. Howe-
ver, to the eighteenth-century translators other aspects
were more influential, namely the interest in textual
criticism of the Old Testament and the historical-criti-
cal approach to the Bible.
I have concentrated on a description of the methods
of translation and the reception history. The study of
translation methods is based on the prefaces to each
version. In the early sixteenth century accurateness was
evidently the primary object. As the accompanying lite-
ral method gave rise to a Hebraicized idiom, scholarly
accurateness soon had to compete with concern for an
elegant style in the target language. A change thus took
place that is evident above all in the versions done by
Castellio and Tremellius. The paper also surveys the
advice for Bible translation as given by St. Jerome and
by theorists of the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
The article tries to discern the concepts and keywords
that seem to have been the most important and rele-
vant in the discourse on Bible translation.
The question how the different versions were recei-
ved has also been exhaustively studied in this article.
The reception history outlined does not, however, claim
to be complete, but confines itself to giving glimpses
of the scholarly debate that always followed a new
Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament. I have
described the opinions of a wide range of critics, for
instance such eminent scholars as Pierre Daniel Huet,
Richard Simon and Johann Gottlob Carpzov. In their
evaluation of the Latin Bible versions, the critics of the
period focused on the issues of language, viz. methods
of translation and linguistic characteristics.
A field of the reception history not entered into in
this article is the question of the use of the considered
different Latin versions in commentaries on the Old
Testament by Protestant scholars in the age of Refor-
mation and post-Reformation. This remains a subject
for future research.

Notes
1 See for instance H. J. Bentley, Humanists and the
Holy Writ: New Testament scholarship in the Renaissance,
Princeton, 1983. Alastair Hamilton “Humanists and the Bible”
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism
edited by Jill Kraye, Cambridge 1996, pp. 100–117. Hamilton
certainly mentions Pagninus, but the article is directed on Ital-
ian humanists such as Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439), Gian-
ozzo Manetti (1423–1497), Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) and the
cosmopolite Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536).
2 Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament,
Amsterdam 1685 (fi rst edition 1677). The twentieth chapter is
on new translations of the Bible by Catholics pp. 313–321, chap-
ter twenty-two covers Latin versions by the Protestants. The
fi rst edition appeared in 1677, but was declared heretical and
confi scated. Only a few copies survived. A pirate edition was
issued in Amsterdam in 1680. A revised edition of the French
original appeared in Amsterdam in 1685, and this edition has
been used in the present article. The work was also translated
into Latin (Amsterdam in 1681 and 1685) and into English
(London in 1682).
3 Christian Kortholt, De variis Scripturae Sanctae editioni-
bus tractatus theologico-historico-philologicus, Kiel 1686. In
chapter 9–12 (pp. 93–196) deals with the Vulgate: the ninth
chapter is on its author, the tenth and eleventh treat its author-
ity and the twelfth discusses the places that Martin Chemnitz
regarded as distorted and corrupted. The fi fteenth chapter
covers the new versions, pp. 252–281.
4 Johann Gottlob Carpzov, Critica Sacra Veteris Testa-
menti, Leipzig 1728, chapter VI De versione Latina Vulgata, pp.
664–698 and chapter VII De versionibus Latinis recentioribus,
pp. 699–749.
5 Andreas Gottlieb Masch, Bibliotheca sacra post Jacobi Le
Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine disposita, emen-
data, suppleta, continuata ab Andrea Gottlieb Masch, third
volume edited in Halle 1783, fourth volume in Halle 1785.
The fourth volume, pp. 437–566, covers the Latin versions
from Hebrew of the whole of the Old Testament carried out by
Lutherans, Reformists, Catholics and Remonstrants, and speci-
fies every translator in each category.
6 Petrus Ekerman (pres.) / Georg G. Frodlin (resp.), De ver-
sionibus Sacrorum Bibliorum Latinis (embracing twenty-seven
pages, pp. 8–14 on the Vulgate, pp. 14–26 on the new Latin
versions of all books of the Old Testament) Uppsala 1764; Petrus
Ekerman (pres.) / Andreas Wisell (resp.), De Latinitate Vulgatae
versionis Bibliorum (comprising twelve pages) Uppsala 1761,
Petrus Ekerman (pres.) / Laurentius Dan Quist (resp.), De Lati-
nitate versione biblica Castellionis (encompassing seventeen
pages) Uppsala 1759, Samuel Johansson Alnander, Anvisning
till et utvaldt theologiskt bibliothek (pp. 88–97 on the Vulgate,
pp. 99–106 on the other Latin Bible versions) second part,
Stockholm 1763.
7 Erwin Rosenthal, Studia semitica, vol. 1: Jewish themes
(which consists of a collection of his own articles), Cambridge
1971, “Raschi and the English Bible”, pp. 56–85, and “Sebas-
tian Münster’s knowledge and use of Jewish exegesis”, pp.
127–145.
8 John M. Lenhart, “Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reforma-
tion 1520–1570: a bibliographical account”, in The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly vol. 8 (1946), no. 4 (1946), pp. 416–432.
9 Basil Hall “Biblical scholarship: Editions and commentar-
ies”, The Cambridge History of the Bible, third volume: The
West from the Reformation to the Present Day edited by S. L.
Greenslade, Cambridge 1963, pp. 64–73.
10 G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor Eng-
land: a Third Language, Manchester 1983, pp. 39–55.
11 Bernard Roussel, “La Bible de 1530 à 1600”, in Bible de
tous les temps, fi fth volume: Le temps des Reformes et la Bible,
edited by Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, Paris 1989, pp.
133–134, pp. 145–148.
12 R. Gerald Hobbs, “Translations of the Bible” (under the
entry Bible) in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation
edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, Oxford 1996, vol. 1 pp. 163–165.
This small survey has some deficiencies: for instance he states
that Castellio used the name form Jove for the tetragrammaton.
62
The form employed by Castellio was actually Iova (inflected as
follows: in the genitive and in the dative Iovae, in the accusative
Iovam, in the ablative Iova), even though his contemporaries
accused him of using Jove—the ablative of Juppiter. The fact is
that Castellio himself took exception to use that name. There
is also a questionable statement, namely the contention that
Tremellius and Junius’ version, as compared with those by Leo
Jud and Castellio, marked a return to style that more agrees
with that of Pagninus. Hobbs is nonetheless to be credited with
his integrating historical context with the development of new
Latin versions of the Bible. He distinguishes a change in attitude
to the methods of Bible translation around 1530.
13 Concerning which Hebrew text the humanists had access
to, see section 5.1.2
14 Basil Hall (1963), p. 64 suggests this threefold division.
15 The title reads: Vulgata editio Veteris et Novi Testamenti,
quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad Graecam veritatem
emendatum est diligentissime, ut nova editio non facile desi-
deretur et Vetus tamen hic agnoscitur i.e. “The Vulgate ver-
sion of the Old and New Testament, of which the one is very
diligently emendated from the Hebrew truth, the other from
the Greek truth, so that a new version is not needed and the Old
version yet is recognized here”.
16 Basil Hall (1963), pp. 65ff.
17 See Abraham Calovius, Criticus Sacer, Wittenberg 1643,
p. 539.
18 W. Schwarz, ‘The history of Principles of Bible translation
in the western world’ in Babel: International journal of transla-
tion, vol. 9 (1963), pp. 9ff.; Jerry H. Bentley, The Humanists and
the Holy writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance,
Princeton 1983; Guy Bedouelle “Texts and textual criticism”
(under the entry Bible) in Encyclopedia of the Renaissance ed.
by Paul F. Grendler, vol 1, pp. 209–213.
19 For the question who translated the Formula of Concord
into Latin, see F. Bente, “Historical introductions to the sym-
bolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” (comprising
266 pp.) in Concordia Triglotta: the Symblical Books of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, p. 5.
20 Lenhart (1946), pp. 425ff.
21 Lenhart (1946), p. 430.
22 Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti diligenter recognita
et emendata, non paucis locis, quae corrupta erant, collatione
Hebraicorum voluminum restitutis, Wittenberg 1522 (reprinted
in Wittenberg 1523 and in Cologne 1527.
23 Biblia sanctae scripturae veteris omnia ex antiquis
authographis absoluta.
24 Bibliorum opus integrum, veteris quidem Testamenti
translatio ad vetustissimorum emendatissimorum codicum
fi dem summo cum studio recognita, Novi vero Erasmi novis-
sima editio cum nova ejusdem praefatione.
25 Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti juxta veterem trans-
lationem, qua hucusque latina utitur Ecclesia, ex antiquissimis
ac recentioribus exemplaribus diligentissime collatis et sicubi
dissentiebant, consultis fontibus, hoc est hebraeis et graecis
voluminibus adhibitis, fi delissime restituta, Nuremberg 1527,
reprinted there 1529.
26 Biblia Latina ad hebraicam veritatem emendata.
27 The Wittenberg edition had limited impact since the edi-
tion only was printed in very few copies and never reprinted.
The question of whether Luther is the sole author was much
discussed in the sixteenth century. Masch (1783), pp. 327–331,
gives a full account of the arguments pro and con for Martin
Luther as author.
28 Carpzov (1728), Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, p. 702.
On pp. 703–705 he exemplifies the differences in relation to
the Vulgate.
29 Psalterium Gallicanum is the old Latin version that St.
Jerome’s revised according to the Septuagint-text of Origines’
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
Hexapla. It became popular in France and at the time of Charles
the Great about 800 AD the commonly use Psalterium was
incorporated in the Vulgate to replace Jerome’s version of the
Psalms from Hebrew.
30 Sacrae scripturae et divinarum literarum byblia universa
diligentia, cura, studio singulari elaborata deque sententia
doctissimorum virorum inprimis linguae Hebraicae erudito-
rum plurimis in locis ultra priores editiones emendata atque
correcta et D. Erasmi Roterod. versione Novi Testamenti juxta
priorem apposita, Leipzig 1544. This edition was reprinted in
Tübingen and Frankfurt 1564.
31 P. Eber and G. Major, Biblia Latina Vulgatae editionis ...
correcta quibus adjecta est Germanica Lutheri versio, 1565.
32 Cf. Masch (1783), pp. 424–427.
33 Biblia Latina ad fontes Hebraici textus emendata cum
brevi et perspicua expositione Lucae Osiandri insertis locis
Theologicis.
34 Biblia Sacra Veteris et Novi Testamenti secundum Vul-
gatam versionem ad Ebraeam Veritatem in Veteri, ad Graecam
vero in Novo Testamento a D. Luca Osiandro perpurgata et ad
D.D. Lutheri versionem Germanicam collata.
35 Biblia Sacra. Quae praeter antiquae versionis necessar-
iam emendationem et diffi ciliorum locorum succintam expli-
cationem (ut plurimum ex beatae recordationis viri D.D. Lucae
Osiandri) multas insuper observationes utilissimas ex Patrum
orthodoxorum et praestantissimorum quorundam nostri seculi
Theologorum (quorum nomina passim in marginalibus hujus
operis annotationibus obvia sunt) lucubrationibus nec non
ex Formula Concordia excerptas et ad praesentem Ecclesiae
statum, potissimum vero ad disputationum Theologicarum
utilissimum exercitium, fi deliter accommodatas continent,
Frankfurt 1618.
36 Pellican was originally a Franciscan, who taught Hebrew
at Basel, but in 1526 after having joined the Reformation, he
moved to Zurich where he taught Hebrew to the students of the-
ology. In the preface to his Bible commentary Pellican says inter
alia that, when teaching the theological students Hebrew, he
fi rst reads the Vulgate text, then the Hebrew Bible, after that the
Septuagint and at last the German version (p. 9). This proceed-
ing of his public lectures must have been the origin to Pellican’s
biblical commentary as well as to the Latin Zurich Bible mainly
undertaken by Leo Jud, see section 5.4.
37 Commentaria Bibliorum et illa brevia quidem et cathol-
ica eruditissimi simul et piissimi viri Conradi Pellicani qui et
Vulgatam commentariis inseruit aeditionem sed ad Hebraicam
lectionem accurate emendata, 1532-1538. The work consists of
seven volumes. The biblical text is embedded in the commentar-
ies. The biblical text is larger in size than the commentaries,
which are in italics.
38 Pellican (1532), preface p. 6: sunt omnino magnae diffi -
cultates in multis scripturae locis, sed nusquam obscuritas insu-
perabilis, quum religionis caput agitur, modo adsit pius animus
veritatis, gloriae divinae salutisque humanae cupidus, modo
adsit ardens votum, effusae preces, vigiles sensus, industria
sacra, diligentia simplex, labor impiger, constans propositum
ad nativum scripturae sensum.
39 Pellican alludes to Cicero, De Optimo Genere Orato-
rum, 5,14 which reads: In quibus non verbum pro verbo necesse
habui reddere, sed genus omne verborum vimque servavi. Non
enim ea me adnumerare lectori putavi oportere, sed tamquam
appendere. “In doing so, I did not hold it necessary to render
word by word, but I preserved the general style and the force of
the language. For I did not think I ought to count them out to
the reader like coins, but - so to speak - to pay them by weight.”
In his translation of a couple of rhetorical works (two Greek
speeches of Aeschines and Demostenes respectively) Cicero
promoted a functional method of translation with the didactic
aim to convey in Latin idiom a model for how one ought to
hold successful lawcourt speeches. According to Pellican that
method only holds good for profane literature. We will return
to this issue in the account for Johannes Clericus’ version (sec-
tion 5.8).
63
40 Pellican here alludes to Jerome, Letter 57,5,1, see section
5.3.
41 The Council of Trent (the fourth session on the 8th of
April 1546) worded the decree concerning the usefulness of a
certain Bible edition (viz. version) to be held as authentic as fol-
lows: Insuper eadem sacrosanta synodus … statuit et declarat,
ut haec ipsa vetus et Vulgata editio, quae longo tot seculorum
usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, dispu-
tationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica
habeatur, ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel
praesumat.
42 Martin Chemnitz, Examen Consilii Tridentini, Frank-
furt am Main 1574, in English translation by Fred Kramer,
Examination of the Council of Trent, St. Louis 1971, part 1,
pp. 202ff.
43 Martin Chemnitz (in the English translation of 1971),
p. 203.
44 Brian Walton, In Biblia polyglotta prolegomena (chapter
11), p. 78.
45 As for the intellectual historical context and the specifi c
purpose of Anti-barbarus Biblicus, see Peter van Rooden,
Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the
Seventeenth Century, pp. 66ff.
46 Abraham Calovius, Criticus Sacer vel commentarii
apodictico-elenchtici super Augustanam confessionem, Wit-
tenberg 1643, which was reprinted in 1673 as Criticus sacer
Biblicus: de Sacrae Scripturae auctoritate, canone, lingua
originali, fontium puritate ac versionibus praecipuis, imprimis
vero Vulgata Latina et Graeca LXX interpretum, in quo ultra
octingenta Scripturae loca aut illustrantur aut vindicantur.
47 Calovius (1643), pp. 504–511.
48 Calovius (1643), p. 512: Prima itaque est Vulgatam trans-
lationem Latinam divinam ipsiusque Spiritus Sancti versionem
esse. Carpzov (1728) describes Calovius’ classification, p. 683.
49 Calovius (1643), p. 537: Altera haec esto: Vulgatam
versionem, si non θεόπνευστος sit, ab omnibus tamen prorsus
erroribus, etiam levioribus fi demque ac vitae praecepta non
concernentibus, immunem esse.
50 Pineda, De rebus Salomonis Regis, book 4, ch. 8, p. 227,
thought that it it is a crime (piaculum) to assert that the Vulgate
makes mistakes either in things concerning the faith or in the
geography or in anything else of whatever kind. See the quota-
tion in Carpzov (1728), p. 694.
51 Calovius (1643), p. 642. Tertia denique Pontifi ciorum
sententia Vulgatam sic dicunt authenticam, quae immunis sit
iis saltem erroribus, qui in fi dem et bonos mores impingant.
52 Calovius (1643), pp. 512–536.
53 Calovius (1643), pp. 522ff.
54 Calovius (1643), pp. 537–642.
55 Calovius (1643), pp. 642–691. Primo fontibus veritatis
divinae seu textui originali directe contradicendo, … secundo
additione ad Verbum Dei eorum, quae non sunt divinae inspi-
rationis et subtractione eorum, quae divinitus inspirata sunt,
… tertio immutatione verborum ac sensuum divinorum mul-
tivaria, … quarto depravatione numerorum, tum in annorum
computo, tum in aliis historiam concernentibus recensionibus,
… quinto circumstantiarum variatione in Historia Sacra, …
sexto commentorum approbatione, … septimo falsarum opi-
nationum et ineptarum ac frivolarum disputationum incrusta-
tione, … octavo divinarum constitutionum inversione, … nono
ψευδοθεμελίων fi dei et mysteriorum divinorum constitutione, …
decimo gnomarum et sententiarum sacrarum variatione, …
undecimo locorum fi dei enervatione, … duodecimo haeretia-
crum opinionum patrocinio et confi rmatione.
56 Abraham Calovius, Biblia Testamenti Veteris illustrata
(1672), p. 15: Vulgatae Latinae errores multiplices: quam solam
qui adhibuere, quod a multis factum, aut post Concilii Triden-
tini defi nitionem pro authentica habuere, non potuerunt non
divaricari a vero sensu.
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
57 Calovius (1643), p. 692.
58 Carpzov (1728), pp. 664b–698.
59 Carpzov (1728), pp. 692–696.
60 Carpzov (1728), pp. 697–698.
61 Roland H. Bainton ‘The Bible in the Reformation’ in
Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 25.
62 Erwin Rosenthal, Studia Semitica vol 1, “Raschi and the
English Bible” pp. 56-85.
63 John M. Lenhart (1946), p. 425.
64 A rabbinical Bible contains the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament accompanied by the Targums (ancient Aramaic
translations) and rabbinical commentaries (Rashi, Ibn Ezra and
David Kimchi).
65 See Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to
Jewish studies, 1996, pp. 169ff. The author refers for this infor-
mation to Moshe Goshen Gottstein, ‘Foundations of Biblical
Philology in the Seventeenth Century: Christian and Jewish
dimensions’ in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century
ed. Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, p. 83–84. See also
Encyclopedia of the Renaissance edited by Paul F. Grendler,
vol. 1, p. 217.
66 I.e. the transmitted Hebrew consonantal text along with
the vowel signs and the annotations in the margin about the read
(qere) and the written form (ketiv) added by Masoretes (Jewish
scholars between the sixth and tenth century AD).
67 Burnett (1996), pp. 173ff.; The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v.
Bible editions pp. 158 and 160.
68 Aquila not only translated word-for-word, but also tried
to transfer the etymology of the foreign words, for instance the
fi rst word in Genesis bereshit (etymologically ‘in the heads’, but
in proper sense ‘in the beginning’) was rendered ἐν κεφαλαίς i.e.
‘in the heads’, entirely incomprehensible.
69 Kevin H. Lee, ‘Translations of the Old Testament, II
Latin’ in Handbook of classical rhetoric in the hellenistic period
edited by Stanley E. Porter, Leiden, New York, Cologne 1997,
pp. 784–791.
70 Jerome translated into Latin Eusebius’ Chronicle and
Origins’ Sermons in Ezechiel.
71 Epistula 57,5,1. Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera
voce profi teor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scrip-
turis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum
e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. In this letter to Pam-
machius, Jerome defends himself against the accusation that he
had not expressed word by word in his Latin translation of a
popular and widespread Greek letter written by Pope Epipha-
nius. In defending his sense-for-sense practice he refers to and
quotes Cicero, De optimo genere oratorum 14–15 (see note 39
above) and Horace, Ars Poetica 133–134, Euagrius’ preface to
the life of St. Anthony and fi nally refers to Hilarius’ practice of
translation. He also shows that there are several passages where
there is a verbal disagreement between the Hebrew original text
and the Septuagint or the Greek text as quoted by the Evange-
lists and the Apostles. The main line of argument is that if that
liberty was conceded to the Evangelists writing Holy Scriptures,
he should be allowed to make the same in his translation of a
simple letter.
72 The Cethegi were old-fashion in so far as they were
dressed in cinctus of the Old Roman Republic, and not in the
common tunica.
73 Pierre Daniel Huet, De interpretatione libri duo: De
optimo genere interpretandi, Haag 1683 (fi rst edition Paris
1660), pp. 22ff. In Scripturis sane sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo
mysterium est et non magna arte perpolita illa constructio
plures saepe fert sententias, quarum maximam partem elegan-
tiae studium succidit, verbum verbo enuntiandum fatetur
Hieronymus, quamvis aliter in aliis censeat esse faciendum,
nec ei semper ipse praecepto paruerit. Librorum quidem sacro-
rum interpretem vocem voce referre iubeo. Si tritae et receptae
dictiones non suppeditent ad obsoletas et ab usu quotidiani ser-
monis intermissas recurrat: sin eae quoque defi cient, vocabula
64
audeat fi ngere cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis [quotation from
Horace, Ars Poetica 50] parce modo et verecunde; ea demum
laudenda erit licentia. Verborum item ordinem quin retineat,
neque obscuritate neque rudi eorum compositione absterrea-
tur. Quod si ita feret casus, ut ascititia omnino verba recipienda
sint, diverso ea charactere signentur.
74 Schefferus, De stylo exercitiisque illius, p. 15: Quam-
quam hic excipiendos aliquatenus existimem librorum sacro-
rum interpretes, quos par est cuncta textus originarii observare
cum religione nec latum quidem unguem, uti ajunt, ab eo rece-
dere ipsasque etiam ejus, etsi aliis in linguis parum notas, atten-
dere figuras, ut in quibus non parvum saepe latere mysterium
nemo non fateatur.
75 Cf. Hobbs (1996), p. 165 and cf. section 5.5 in this arti-
cle.
76 Interpretatio linguarum seu de ratione convertendi et
explicandi autores tam sacros quam profanos libri tres, Basel
1559, p. 62: Nec sane possum laudare Erasmi nunquam satis
laudatam diligentiam, dum … Novum Testamentum pristino
suo ac germano nitori restituere coeperit, ita ut Christus nobis-
cum clarius, Latinius, purius loqueretur.
77 A late ancient Latin grammarian active in Constantino-
ple. He flourished about 500 AD.
78 Jean Despautère, a humanist grammarian, Commentarii
grammatici, Paris 1537.
79 Humphrey (1559), pp. 59ff. Si enim sacra loquere debent
Latine, loquantur Latinissime, modo aptissime. ... At indig-
num clamant Evangelium subjicere Prisciani aut Despauterii
regulis, at indignissimum, rei sacratae divinitatem foeditate
Barbarismorum conspurcari.
80 Biblia Latina ex Hebraeo Xantis Pagnini iuxta ger-
manam Hebraici idiomatis proprietatem.
81 Biblia Sacra ex Santis Pagnini tralatione sed ad Hebraicae
linguae amussim novissime ita recognita et scholiis illustrata.
82 In this way Estienne intended to avoid censure from the
Catholic Church. He probably thought that Vatable was not to
be suspected of heresy. Another reason was, to be sure, that
the edition would sell better under the guise of Vatable’s name.
These tricks were common strategies among the editors and
typographers in the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, Estienne’s
edition of Pagninus’ version was known as Vatable’s Bible in the
sixteenth and seventeenth century.
83 Reprints of Estienne’s edition were published in Olewig
1557, Paris 1577, 1721 and 1727, Basel 1564, Zurich 1564 and
1579, Frankfurt 1590, 1591, 1614 and 1618 and in the Hamburg
Polyglot Bible 1596.
84 Hebraicorum Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti Latina
interpretatio opera olim Xantis Pagnini Lucensis nunc vero
Benedicti Ariae Montani Hispalensis, Francisci Raphalengii
Alnetani, Guidonis et Nicolai Fabriciorum Boderianorum
Fratrum collato studio ad Hebraicam dictionem diligentis-
sime expensa, Antwerp 1572. Montanus’ edition was reprinted
in Antwerp in 1584, 1613 and 1688, Geneva 1608 and 1619,
Leipzig 1657 in interlinear with the Hebrew text, and in Frank-
furt a. M. 1707.
85 To be sure Leo Jud and Castellio are in the fi rst place
indicated. Among translators of single biblical books Martin
Bucer and Ulrich Zwingli are possibly meant, as they assumed
an antiliteralist attitude, see Hobbs (1996), p. 165.
86 ipsi contra id solum percupiunt, ut Biblia Hebraea non
quam maxime Latina, sed quam maxime Hebraica Latine
habeant, id est, ut ab Hebraici sermonis phrasi et proprietate
ne transversum quidem digitum, quod aiunt, discedatur, see
the preface p. 3.
87 Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca sancta, Venice 1566, see the
fourth book. Kortholt (1686), p. 252, quotes in Latin the state-
ments reported.
88 Tractatus Theologicus novus et perspicuus de interpre-
tatione sacrarum scripturarum maxima legitima (1619), p. 39:
Quod attinet ad Latinam versionem a Pagnini adornatam, illa
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
a viris solide doctis et piis prae vetere millies carior habetur cer-
tiorque et purior deprehenditur et cum D. Lutheri Germanica
interpretatione quam maxime convenit. Interim tamen studio-
sissimorum collatio monstrabit neque illam ex asse in omnibus
et cunctis et singulis locis esse incontaminatam.
89 See the end of the book Schemhamphorasch, vol VIII,
Jena, Germ. Fol 135a. I have followed the quotation in Carpzov
(1728), pp. 713f. Kortholt (1686), p. 254 also quotes the state-
ment.
90 Johannes Buxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum,
Epistula dedicatoria, Basel 1645, fi rst edition 1615, p. 9: post
Hieronymus primus Biblia Hebraea integra in Latinum fi delis-
sime convertit.
91 Johannes Leuden, Philologus Hebraeus (1682), the
thirty-fi fth dissertation De versione Sanctis Pagnini, p. 410.
92 Johannes Leusden (1682), pp. 415–432. Also Carpzov
(1728), p. 714, shows several inaccuracies, for instance, when
God ordered Noah to bring the animals into the Ark (Gen 6,20),
he inter alia said ad vivendum tecum “to live with you”, but the
causative hiph’il-stem of the Hebrew verb used (chaya) should in
Carpzov’s opinion be rendered ad conservandum tecum “to be
preserved with you”. Moreover, (Gen. 21,9) Sarah saw the son
of Hagar ludens cum Isaac fi lio suo “playing with her son Isaac”
but Carpzov maintains that the Hebrew word (the participle
metsacheq) should be translated illudens or subsannans ‘derid-
ing, mocking’. Furthermore, Carpzov points out, the meaning
is hard to grasp in Gen 34,8: fi lii mei adhaesit anima cum fi lia
vestra, which renders the Hebrew word-for-word. Schmidius
made the passage more plain by rendering fi lium meum quod
attinet, discupit anima ejus fi liam vestram.
93 Matthew Poole, Synopsis criticorum aliorumque Sacrae
Scripturae interpretum et commentatorum, London 1669, in
the preface: versionem hanc maxime literalem, cum commode
fi eri potuerit, fi dam, singulari judicio atque peritia concinna-
tam, docti fere omnes consentiunt.
94 Huet (1683), De interpretatione, (book I De optimo
genere interpretandi), pp. 24ff. and De interpretatione, (book
II De claris interpretibus), pp. 144ff.
95 Simon (1685), pp. 314ff.
96 Richard Simon, Disquisitiones criticae de variis et per
diversa loca et tempora Bibliorum editionibus, (Critical inquir-
ies into the various editions of the Bible at different places and
in different times), London 1684, p. 183. I have followed the
quotation in Carpzov (1728), p. 713.
97 Simon (1685), p. 317.
98 Ekerman (1764), De versionibus S. Bibliorum Latinis,
p. 14.
99 Alnander (1763), p. 98: “Det vissaste är at han noga följer
Texten, och håller sig strängt vid orden, samt därigenom både
blir otydlig och har en barbarisk latin.”
100 I am not sure of Münster’s confessional identity. Maybe
he took an intermediary position between Lutheranism and
Calvinism.
101 In handbooks of the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
ries the year 1525 often appears as the year of fi rst publication.
This mistake was due to Münster’s stating in the preface that it
was the fi fth year in the third decade in his century.
102 The whole title reads as follows: Biblia Hebraica Latina
planeque nova Sebastiani Münsteri tralatione post omneis
omnium hactenus ubivis gentium aeditiones evulgata, quoad
fi eri potuit, Hebraicae veritati conformata, adiectis insuper e
Rabbinorum commentariis annotationibus haut poenitendis
pulchre et voces ambiguas et obscuriora quaeque loca elucit-
antibus.
103 Ibidem, see the preface p. 3: Caeterum in hac nostra
aeditione hoc unum praecipue spectavimus, ut dimissa lati-
nitatis elegantia, quae etiam in plerisque locis haud observari
potuit, simpliciter Hebraicam veritatem pro virili nostra
[parte] produceremus, et quantum fi eri potuit, interpretatio
ipsa hebraismo e regione posito, iuxta Hebraeorum mentem
65
responderet, Hebraismi studiosis potissimum hoc nostro
labore inservire cupientes, etiamsi aliis aeque usui esse possit,
qui linguam hanc negligendam ducunt.
104 Ibidem, see preface p. 12: Porro in latina versione
hoc unum spectavimus, ut quoad fi eri potuit, latina hebraicis
responderet, nisi quod aliquando quasi per parenthes adiec-
imus unam aut alteram dictionem, quae ad explicationem
obscurioris faceret sententiae, id quod summe necessarium
videbatur in prophetis.
105 Ibidem, see preface p. 12: Phrasin quoque hebraicam
et idiotismos ipsos non semper immutavimus, praesertim qui
Christianis auribus hodie non sunt horrori. Münster adduces
a lot of examples: plenus dierum for grandaevus, ecce ego for
adsum or audio, invenire gratiam in oculis for placere or impe-
trare gratiam, factum est post verba ista for his gestis factum
est, multiplicans multiplicabo for valde multiplicabo, ascen-
dere in cor for cogitare or diligenter perpendere, posui animam
meam in manibus meis for periculo vitae me exposui, accingere
lumbos tuos for strenue exsequere negotium, fecit sibi nomen
for adeptus est nomen magnifi cum, iudicando iudicet for ius
dicet, moriendo morieris for certissime morieris, ponam vos
in nomen et in laudem for reddam vos celebres et laudatos,
levantes vocem fl erunt for ploraverunt alta voce.
106 Sisto da Siena (1666), Bibliotheca sancta, book VIII,
section XIII about translations of the Holy Scriptures by her-
etics, pp. 838f. I rely on the quotation in Carpzov (1728), p.
724.
107 Richard Simon (1685), p. 321 and p. 322.
108 Carpzov (1728), p. 722: In Latina versione suprema
ipsi lex fuit, sententiam reddere textus authentici, et quantum
per utriusque linguae genium et indolem liceret verbis Hebraeis
stricte inhaerere.
109 Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi e sacra Hebrae-
orum lingua Graecorumque fontibus religiosissime translata in
sermonem Latinum, Zurich 1544, see the preface, p. 2.
110 Ibidem, p. 4.
111 Huet (1683), Interpretatio linguarum, p. 147: fatentur
… venerandam illa dictionis simplicitatem ascititio lepore, sic
tanquam nativum venustae formae decus illito fuco, fuisse
sublatum.
112 Poole (1669), the preface, as quoted in Kortholt (1686),
p. 266.
113 Simon (1685), p. 323.
114 Richard Simon (1684: Disquisitiones criticae), p. 189. Si
in qua reprehendi meretur Leo Judae, in hoc maxime quod, ne
ob brevitatem obscurus fi eret, Paraphrastem interdum potius
quam interpretem se ostendit.
115 He was born in the French village Saint-Martin-du-
Fresne (or Chattillon-des-Dombes) 35 miles from Geneva. After
education in Lyon (Hebrew, Greek and Latin) he moved abroad
to Geneva hoping to fi nd a more tolerate religious climate, but
Calvin did not like Castellio’s literal interpretation of the Song
of Songs and forbade any publisher in Geneva to print Castellio’s
Latin Bible version. Castellio conceived the Song of Songs as
King Salomon’s love poem to one of his concubines. Castellio,
then, saw himself forced to settle in Basel where he found a will-
ing typographer. Soon he became professor of Greek there.
116 Moses Latinus ex Hebraeo factus, et in eundem prae-
fatio, qua multiplex ejus doctrina ostenditur et annotationes,
in quibus translationis ratio, sicubi opus est, redditur, et
loci diffi ciliores explicantur per Sebastianum Castalionem.
Videbis, lector, Mosem nunc demum et Latine loquentem et
aperte, Basel 1546. In English: “The Latin Moses translated
from Hebrew, and a preface, in which his multiple erudition is
showed and annotations, in which the reason of the translation,
wherever necessary, is accounted for and the more difficult pas-
sages explained by Sebastian Castellio. Now, reader, you will
see Moses both speaking Latin and speaking clearly.”
 SÄRTRYCK
kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 2006
117 Castellio (1546), see the dedicatory letter, pp. 1 and 3,
see the actual preface, pp. 1–2 and pp. 12ff.
118 Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional
Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615), Leiden and
Boston 2003, pp.121–129.
119 In the comparative investigation below I have used the
edition of 1750, Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis inter-
pretatione eiusque postrema recognitione praecipue in usum
studiosae juventutis denuo evulgata.
120 Sebastian Castellio, Defensio suarum translationum,
Basel 1562, p. 9.
121 Christoph Wolle (Christophorus Wollius), Dissertatio
critica de eo quod pulchrum est in versione sacri codicis latina
Sebastiani Castellionis, Leipzig 1729, p. 21.
122 Ibidem, the preface, p. 1.
123 On this controversy between Beza and Castellio, see
further Irena Backus (2003), pp. 120ff.
124 Sisto da Siena (1666), p. 839: ita est delicatus ac mollis,
ut nihil, quod Hebraismum redoleat, olfacere patiatur nec vere
se Latine loqui putet, nisi quam effaeminatissime loquatur et
citra omnem divinae Scripturae majestatem ac divini intepre-
tatis gravitatem singulas quasque sententias meretricularum
more fuco pingat et calamistris inurat, lasciva quadam mollium
verborum affl uentia luxurians … adeo impudice (ne dicam
obscaene) transtulit, ac si meretricum et lenonum colloquia
editurus fuisset, tertio pene verbo diminutas quasdam, lubricas
ac molliter tinnulas voculas inculcans.
125 Originis Adamantii … opera, Paris 1574, the preface,
as quoted in Kortholt (1686), p. 269: Castellionis versio est
affectata, plus habens pompae et phalerarum, quam rei et fi r-
mitatis, plus ostentationis quam substantiae, plus fuci quam
succi, plus hominis quam Spiritus, plus fumi quam fl ammae,
plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum,
plus foliorum quam fructuum.
126 Bibliothecarius quadripartitus, Zurich 1664, p. 167.
127 August Thuanus, Historiarum sui temporis libri CXXV,
see book 36, year 1563.
128 Humphrey (1559), pp. 61f. qui omnes opes linguae Lati-
nae ad Dei verbum omni instrumento oratorio exornandum
deprompsit. Siquid erravit, errarunt et alii. … nec ideo erravit
quisquis erravit, quod Latine et eleganter studuerit sacros
libros traducere, errorum aliae sunt causae; eloquentiam nullo
modo accusandam censeo. … Cur ceterae artes humanae et
prophanae nitescere, sola vero Scriptura horrere debet? … hic
fi nis omnium est, Dei gloria, quae illustratur, si illustrior eius
reddatur oratio.
129 Kortholt (1686), p. 269 and 272: Quis in sacrosancti
Cantici interpretatione diminuta illa molliterque tinnula
vocabula ... elegia Tibulliana quam divina ode digniora aequo
ferat animo? ... Porro annon error est in exprimendis rebus
divinis, quas sermo decet majestaticus, tali verborum uti
lenocinio ... Cujusmodi mollium dictionum amatoriarumque
blanditiarum affl uentia, qua ubique in illius libri traductione
luxuriat auctor, magis ludentem de Lesbiae passerculo Catul-
lum refert, quam sacrarum literarum interpretem.
130 Simon (1685), pp. 324ff.
131 Simon (1684), p. 190.
132 Poole (1669). I rely on the quotation in Masch (1785),
p. 482.
133 Carpzov (1728), p. 737.
134 Carpzov (1728), p. 744: cuius versionem cum fontibus
comparanti ad oculum patebit apprime peritum fuisse Hebra-
ismi, a quo non ignorantia, sed nimio Latinae dictionis ac per-
spicuitatis studio discessit.
135 Wolle (1729), p. 13: Nihil intentatum reliquit, ut selig-
eret proprias, perspicuas, puras et signifi cantes, contra vero
adspernaretur improprias, obscuras, impuras et exoletae
antiquitatis voces, cavitque sedulus, ne in aenigma evaderet
oratio.
66
136 Wolle (1729), p. 9.
137 Wolle (1729), p. 10.
138 Wolle (1729), p. 10.
139 Wolle (1729), p. 17.
140 Charitas, as opposed to amor and cupido, is a word
that was used by the early Latin Church Fathers just because it
lacked association with sensual love and therefore suitable for
God’s love of mankind.
141 See De Latinitate in versione Biblica Castellionis,
Uppsala 1759, pp. 12f. Adhibuit itaque Castellio, ut verbo rem
complectar, voces Deorum cultioribus usitatas, quibus profana
ethicismi idea accidentalis est, quia ipsa lingua Latina horum
erat usui olim destinata, sed inde nihil habes, unde Versionem
nostram ethnicismi arguas.
142 Alnander (1763), p. 104: “Men han skref för deras skull
som älskade en ren latin och genom Vulgatas osmaklighet, til
vilken de nödgades gå i brist på kunskap i Grundspråken, fi ngo
vämjälse för själfva Bibeln. Och skall det blifva honom til last
at stilen är ovanligt putsad när han därigenom vann at de som
tilförne lagt Biblen åsido började nu läsa honom med nöje?”
143 The very fact that there are in all thirty-five editions
in different formats up to 1715 clearly shows that Tremellius’
version was commonly used. Michael Walther states that
Tremellius’ version is in most people’s hands (haeret haec hodie
in plerorumque manibus). Samuel J. Alnander states that it
is the most common and mostly used Bible, even though it in
his opinion is not the best and not the most accurate version,
Anvisning till ett utvaldt theologiskt bibliothek, andra avdel-
ningen, p. 100. Cf. Aaron Katchen, Dutch rabbis and Dutch
Hebraists, p. 64.
144 G. LJoyd Jones (1983), pp. 50ff. and Carpzov (1728),
pp. 744f.
145 The Latin version had been completed in 1569 and was
published with an edition of the Syriac New Testament, for the
understanding of which Tremellius also composed a Syriac and
Aramaic grammar the same year.
146 Carpzov (1728), p. 746.
147 Masch (1785), pp. 459-471.
148 Andreas Rivetus, Isagoge seu introductio generalis ad
Scripturam sacram Veteris et Novi Testamenti, (1627), ch. 12,
§ 15.
149 Lyra Davidis seu Nova Hebraea S. Scripturae ars
poetica is a treatise on the Biblical Hebrew poetry containing
specimens from the Psalms of Moses, Job, David, Salomon
and Jeremiah, and also parallel examples from Sophocles and
Pindarus meant to show that the Greeks derived their poeti-
cal art from the Hebrews, cf. Peter van der Rooden, Theology,
Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth
Century, pp. 221ff.
150 Simon (1685), p. 327.
151 Jacob Alting, Schilo seu de vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi
quod Gen. XLIX versus 10 exstat, (Franeken 1660), book 3,
chapter 1, section 5. This information is from Carpzov (1728),
p. 746.
152 Jacob Alting, Problemata nova, p. 137. The passage
referred to is quoted in Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Bibliothe-
carius quadripartitus, Zurich 1664, p. 166.
153 Leusden (1682), p. 410.
154 Michael Walther, Offi cina Biblica (which treats the
other versions on pp. 349–357), Leipzig 1637, p. 358.
155 Poole (1668), preface. For the passage cited I rely on
Kortholt (1686), p.276.
156 Vorstius, De Latinitate merito suspecta, Berlin 1674,
p. 180: Ipsique quoque interpretes recentiores, Tremellius and
Junius, cum Hebraea verterent, Hebraismos non ubique serv-
andos, sed ut plurimum declinandos eos putaverunt. Maxime
vero omnium Sebastianus Castellio Hebraismos in versione sua
 SÄRTRYCK
josef eskhult – latin bible versions
vitavit, et e contrario idiotismos linguae Latinae, quoad potuit,
usurpavit.
157 Masch (1785), pp. 438ff.
158 Schmidius (1708), the preface, pp. 8ff.
159 Masch (1785), pp. 438ff.
160 See for the following excerpts Critica sacra Veteris
Testamenti, Leipzig 1728, p. 706–712.
161 Ekerman (1764), pp. 24f: scilicet, ut fontes, qui idi-
otismis constant haud paucis, simplici, quantum utriusque
sermonis genius concederet, dicendi genere exprimere maxime
nitebatur. Interim ejusmodi tam stricto tranferendi genere,
verbum nempe de verbo reddendo, fi eri non potuit, quin ubi-
cunque locorum latinas aures suaves permulcere potuerit. …
Praeterea noster fontibus presse inhaerere non tantum, sed
etiam … puram perspicuamque omnino exhibere transla-
tionem studuit.
162 Johann Jacob Rambach, Institutiones hermeneuticae
sacrae, Jena 1732 (fi rst edition 1723), p. 632.
163 Pentateuchus sive Mosis Prophetae libri quinque ex
translatione Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem paraphrasi per-
petua, commentario philologico variisque dissertationibus
criticis et tabulis chronologicis.
164 Veteris Testamenti libri historici ex translatione
Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem commentario philologico.
165 Veteris Testamenti libri hagiographi ex translatione
Johannis Clerici cum eiusdem commentario philologico and
Veteris Testamenti Prophetae ex translatione Johannis Clerici
cum eiusdem commentario philologico.
166 The Latin text in this passage is worth quoting in full: Si
linguae omnes aeque copiosae et vocabulis plane et per omnia
ἰσοδυνάμοις essent instructae, verbum verbo loquutio loqu-
utione reddi possent, adeoque simplicissima tantum transla-
tione opus esset. Sed cum linguae sibi invicem ἐκ παραλλήλου
non respondeat, nulla ad verbum fi eri potest paulo longioris
orationis translatio. Plurima paucioribus aut pluribus verbis
necessario sunt explicanda, si velit interpres intelligi et effi cere
in audientium animis, quod cupit is qui utitur lingua aliena. “If
all languages were equally copious in expression and furnished
with words that are entirely and in everything equal in semantic
force, one could render word by word and a mode of expression
by the same mode of expression, and thus only a very simple
translation would be needed. However, since languages do not
correspond parallelwise to another, a word-for-word transla-
tion of a longer text cannot be done. Many things has necessarily
to be explained by fewer or more words, if the translator wishs
to be understood and achieve in the minds of his readers, that
which the original author desires.” See Clericus’ Dissertatio de
optimo genere interpretum Sacrae Scripturae, p. 1.
167 Cf. Cicero, De optimo genere oratorum 5,14: nec
converti ut interpres, sed ut orator, sententiis iisdem et earum
formis tamquam fi guris, verbis ad nostram consuetudinem
aptis. “And I did not translate them as a translator, but as an
orator, keeping the same ideas and the forms, or as one might
say, the “figures” of thought, but with a diction that conforms
to our usage.”
168 Carpzov (1728), p. 699.
169 See Mireille Hadas-Lebel, “Le P. Houbigant et la cri-
tique textuelle” in Le Siècle des Lumières et la Bible, pp. 103-
112, edited by Yvon Belaval and Dominique Bourel, the seventh
volume of La bible de tous les temps. The author examines
sources of inspirations for Houbigant’s great enterprise and also
deals with the characteristics of his work.
170 Masch (1785), pp. 491ff.
171 See Masch (1785), pp. 557ff.
172 See Masch (1785), p. 493.
173 Psalmi Davidis ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et
iuxta sensum, quem literalem dicunt, enarrati, “Psalms of
David corrected according to the Hebrew truth, i.e. original,
and commented upon according to the sense that one calls lit-
eral”, Rome 1530, Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in
quinque Mosaicos Libros, Rome 1531, Commentarii illustres
planeque insignes in Libros Iosue, Iudicum, Ruth, Regum, Par-
alipomenon, Esdram, Nehemiam et Ester, Rome 1533, Com-
mentarii illustris planeque insignis in Librum Job, Rome 1535.
174 I rely on the quotation of the statement (in Latin) in
Richard Simon (1685), p. 319.
175 Masch (1795), p. 495 quotes Cajetan’s preface to the Pen-
tateuch. The statement rendered in English reads in Latin: Nullus
itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum, ex hoc quod
dissonat e priscis doctoribus, sed scrutetur perspicacius textum
ac contextum scripturae, et, si quadrare invenerit, laudat
Deum, qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum
priscorum doctorum sensibus, sed scripturae ipsae integrae sub
catholicae ecclesiae censura … Nam ipsius Mosis textus, non
interpres ejus exponendus est. Non enim interpretis Graeci aut
Latini, sed ipsius tantum Hebraei textus authoritas est.
176 Commentaria in sacram scripturam una cum nova de
verbo ad verbum ex Hebraeo translatione.
177 Simon (1685), p. .318.
178 Carpzov (1728), p. 699.
179 This survey is based on Masch (1785), pp. 493–566.
180 R. Gerald Hobbs deals with how sixteenth-century
exegetes understood the Book of Psalms: its authorship, divi-
sion, numbering, punctuation, New Testament reading and
allegorical versus literal interpretation, see “Hebraica Veritas
and Traditio Apostolica: Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the
Psalms in the Sixteenth Century” in The Bible in the Sixteenth
century, edited by David Steinmetz, Durham and London 1990,
pp. 83-99; there is a list of sixteenth-century Latin and Euro-
pean vernacular versions of the Bible and commentaries on the
Psalms, pp. 221-225.
181 Johannes A. Gaertner “Latin verse translations of the
Psalms” in Harvard Theological Review, vol 49 (1956), pp. 271–
305; his article contains a list of authors and titles of the metrical
Latin Psalm translations appearing in the period 1500–1620,
pp. 293-300.
182 Leonard Grant, “Neo-Latin verse translations of the
Bible” in Harvard Theological Review, vol 52 (1959), pp.
205–211.
183 The Complutensian Polyglott appeared in 1522, the Ant-
werp Polyglott in 1569–1572, The Paris Polyglott in 1629–1645
and the London Polyglott in 1655–1657.
184 I have quoted the Vulgate text from the Sixto-Clemen-
tine Vulgate in the Paris edition: Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam
Clementinam by Alberto Colunga and Laurentio Turrado, 4th
ed. 1965 [the fi rst edition appeared in 1946].