However, others received it favorably. Jerome, in his defence against Rufin, says, "I thought I had deserved well of my Latin friends...... when even the Greeks, notwithstanding they have so many interpreters of their own, did not take offence at a version from the Latin." "How much more ought the Latins to be grateful, when they see Greece rejoicing that something has been borrowed from them!" "Sophronius.

translated my minor works into elegant Greek; and likewise the Psalter and the Prophets, which I had translated from Hebrew into Latin." "

Even Augustine both tolerated and used it. About 403 A. C., he writes, "One of our brother bishops, when he commanded that your translation should be read in the church over which he presided, knew there was something which you had put in the prophet Jonah very different from what had been inured in the senses and memory of all, and repeated through the course of so many years."

Jerome himself bears witness to the reception of his version, in a letter to Lucinius, a bishop of Spain: “I gave the canon of Hebrew truth-excepting the Oc

proferentes, magno scandalo perturbemus plebes Christi, quarum aures et corda illam interpretationem audire consueverunt, quæ etiam ab Apostolis approbata est. See, also, De Civit. Dei, xviii. 43. [See more on this theme in Hody, 1. c. pt. ii. ch. iv.]

Apolog. adv. Rufin. lib. ii.: Putabam bene mereri de Latinis meis ...quod etiam Græci versum de Latino post tantos interpretes non fastidiunt. Præf. in Esram: Quanto magis Latini grati esse deberent, quod exsultantem cernerent Græciam a se aliquid mutuari. Catal. Scriptt. eccles. ch. 134: Sophronius . . . . . . opuscula mea in Græcum eleganti sermone transtulit, Psalterium quoque et Prophetas, quos nos de Hebræo in Latinum transtulimus. [See the testimonies of other ancient writers in Hody, 1. c. ch. v.]

......

tateuch, which I have still in my hands—to your servants and notaries to be copied."

395 A. C.

This was about

Augustine speaks of it in a letter to Audax: "I have not the Psalter translated from the Hebrew by St. Jerome, so that, in common with you, we still lack that which is perfect." Again: "But not according to the Seventy...... in whom some things are obscure, because they are figurative, but as they have been translated from the Hebrew into Latin, by Jerome, the presbyter, who is skilled in both languages."

About two hundred years after Jerome's death, his translation had acquired an importance at Rome, along with the ancient Vulgate. Thus Gregory the Great, who died 604, speaks of it as follows: "I shall discourse, indeed, upon the new translation; but, as the case at issue requires, I shall make use of both the old and the new for evidence; and, since the apostolical chair — over which, by God's authority, I preside·

Augustinus, Ep. 88, Opp. iv. pt. ii. p. 610: Quidam frater noster Episcopus, quum lectitari instituisset in ecclesia, cui præest, interpretationem tuam, novit quiddam longe aliter abs te positum apud Jonam prophetam, quam erat omnium sensibus memoriæque inveteratum et tot ætatum successionibus decantatum, etc. Jerome ad Lucinium, (Episcop. Hispan.) Ep. 28, ib. p. 579: Canonem Hebraicæ veritatis, excepto Octateucho, quem nunc in manibus habeo, pueris tuis et notariis dedi describendum. See the favorable judgment of Jo. Cassianus, Eucherius Lugdunensis, Vincentius Lirinensis, Salvianus Massiliensis, and others, in Hody, l. c. p. 397, sqq.

Augustinus, Ep. 261, ad Audacem: Psalterium a sancto Hieronymo translatum ex Hebræo non habeo. . . . . . ita illud, quod perfectum est, tecum nos quoque requirimus. De Doctr. Christ. iv. 7: Non autem secundum LXX. interpretes...... obscuriora nonnulla, quia magis tropica eorum: sed sicut ex Hebræo in Latinum eloquium Presbytero Hieronymo utriusque linguæ perito interpretante translata sunt. Comp. Quæst. 20, 54, in Deuteron.; 7, 15, 19, 24, 25, in librum Jos.; and 16, 37, 47, 56, in Jud.

makes use of both, the work of my zeal will also be sustained by both.""

The other churches followed the example of Rome: Isidore of Seville, who died 636, says, "But Jerome, the presbyter, translated the sacred Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin; and, in general, all the churches, every where, use his version, because it is most true in giving the meaning of the original, and the clearest in its language." Thus, gradually, it became the church version universally used. The apocryphal books, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, the two books of Maccabees, were taken from the Itala."

But then it experienced a fate similar to that of the old Latin and Alexandrian versions. It was corrupted by the design or the carelessness of the transcribers. [Eichhorn says, "Now, since this version was authorized in so many churches, many copies became necessary, and multiplication of them must also multiply errors in the text. But the uncritical carelessness of half-learned monks was still more injurious.

"1. The old Latin version was used in connection with the new, which had proceeded from the Hebrew. The latter was often corrected from the former, with

Gregorius Magnus, Præf. Moral. in Job.: Novam vero translationem edissero, sed ut comprobationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo: ut quia sedes Apostolica (cui auctore Deo præsideo) utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur. Compare his Moral. xx. 23. Martianay, Proleg. ii. § 4. Hody, p. 401.

Isidorus Hispalensis, De Offic. eccles. i. 12: De Hebræo autem in Latinum eloquium tantummodo Hieronymus presbyter sacras Scripturas convertit: cujus editione generaliter omnes ecclesiæ usquequaque utuntur, pro eo quod veracior sit in sententiis, et clarior in verbis.

For the reception of the Psalterium Gallicanum, see Hody, p. 385. Martianay, Proleg. ii. § 5.

* See Hody, p. 354, sqq. Jahn, vol. i. p. 239, sqq.

good intentions, but without critical skill. Martianay has found many passages of this kind in the books of Proverbs and the Kings, and marked them in the margin of his edition of the Bibliotheca divina.“

"2. Sometimes scholars, with this uncritical diligence, compared passages where the same thing was related, or the same phrase used, and altered or interpolated one from the other, a misfortune which the books of Chronicles and the Kings have experienced.

"3. A well-read transcriber enriched his copy, or a learned reader his codex, with glosses from such writers as had made a literary use of the Old Testament, or had revised it from Josephus or Jerome. Others interpolated it from liturgical writings; they mostly adhered to the scriptural expressions, but took some liberties with them which were not to be censured. Sometimes they blended several passages together; sometimes inserted words; here, for the sake of explanation; there, to render the passage more rhythmical, or fit for singing. The monks, intentionally or otherwise, might easily make use of a liturgical text in transcribing, either because they wrote from memory, or because they thought it improper that the church should read in one way, and sing in another. Finally, many pillars of the orthodox church allowed themselves to make orthodox additions, in order to render some passages more convincing in dogmatic theology."]"

Roger Bacon, as quoted by Hody, says, "When the saints quote the words of Scripture, according to that

a

[See Martianay, ad Lib. Sam. I., in his edition of Jerome, vol. i. p. 333, sq. Mutuata sunt e LXX. interpretibus, sive ab illis Latinorum translationibus, quarum viguit usus ante Hieronymum. Innumera prope ejusmodi additamenta in libris præcioue Regum.]

[Eichhorn, § 335.]

....

translation, (the Septuagint,) they think that that, which they cite, is the same that is now in the Bible of the Latins... They corrupt the first translation of Jerome, which alone is in the Bibles, by the second, which alone is in the Originals, (that is, in Jerome's Commentaries.) Again, they (the editors) take what they wish from a similar translation, that was made up not only from the versions quoted in the original works of the saints, but from the Antiquities of Josephus, who explains the text. From this source the moderns correct many passages, and change them to conform to him."

Even Baronius mentions this corruption: "It happened after the time of Gregory, as there were two translations in common use at the same time, namely, the old and the new, that they sometimes furnished occasion for disagreement and contention. . . . . . . But it was provided, and most wisely decreed by divine Providence, that one version should be made out of the two, for common use in all the churches; and this one might be said to be common to all, and acknowledged under

See Hody, p. 427, sq.: Cum sancti recitant verba Scripturæ secunduin illam translationem, (LXX.,) putant quod una et eadem est, quam allegant sancti, et quæ dicitur esse nunc in Biblia Latinorum. ...... Corrumpunt primam translationem Jeronymi, quæ sola est in Bibliis, per secundam, quæ sola est in Originalibus. Iterum accipiunt quæ volunt, a simili translatione et composita non solum ab illis translationibus recitatis in Originalibus sanctorum, sed a Josepho in antiquitatum libris, qui exponit textum. ...... Unde moderni corrigunt multa et mutant per eum. Hugo, in Correctorium, ad 1 Kings, xiv. d., says, Hoc [namely, this passage] Hebræi, Beda et antiqui non habent, sed sumtum est de Josepho. See Döderlein, in Literar. Museum, vol. i. p. 35. Roger Bacon, again, says, Ab officio ecclesiæ multa accipiunt et ponunt in textu. Ib. p. 37, sqq. Hugo, ad Job. xix.: Hoc enim (salvatorem meum) quidam scioli apponunt in textu, quod videtur facere ad fidem, et quia cantatur in ecclesia. However, the judgment of Pfeiffer (Crit. sac. c. xii. p. 790) and of Carpzov (Crit. sac. p. 672) is exaggerated, as is also even that of Baronius.