HEBRAISMS IN THE OLD LATIN VERSION

OF THE BIBLE*

by

MATTHEW KRAUS
Williamstown, Massachusetts

Any attempt to analyze the Vetus Latina (VL) confronts innumerable

diYculties. Even before initiating an inquiry into the subject, one must
choose from the many potential titles of the work—vetus editio, antiqua
translatio, vulgata editio, communis.1 The evidence for the Latin translation
of the Greek Bible prior to Jerome further complicates matters. We do
not know if one translation spawned derivative versions or distinct ver-
sions were revised to conform to a single standard.2 It is unclear whether
the text was collated in Rome or North Africa.3 While the Greek origin
of the Old Latin has been conclusively demonstrated by the Greek loan
words, neologisms, Septuagintal syntax, and Latin renditions of Greek
blunders, the precise Greek Vorlage remains to be established.4 The com-
plexity increases exponentially with the realization that the translation
history may vary for particular biblical books. Therefore, all the ques-
tions raised for the Old Latin when taken as a whole must be addressed
individually for each biblical book.5 Nevertheless, undaunted scholars

* I am grateful to Eugene Ulrich and Phyllis Bird for their insightful critiques of
the original draft of this article. I also wish to thank my research assistant, JeVrey
Garland. All errors which may remain in the text are my responsibility.
1
B. Kedar, “The Latin Translations”, in Compendia Rerum Iudiacarum ad Novum
Testamentum II.1: Mikra (ed. M.J. Mulder; Minneapolis, 1988), p. 300, n. 5. The ter-
minology for the Septuagint can be equally confusing. Since my argument concentrates
on the Old Latin, it complicates matters too much to distinguish between the various
stages of the Greek Bible. Therefore, “Greek Bible”, “Septuagint”, and “Greek tradi-
tion” are used synonymously. The reader should keep in mind that we conventionally
call the Greek Bible the Septuagint, although individual books and groups of books
have distinct textual histories.
2
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 300.
3
Ibid., p. 302.
4
Ibid., pp. 302-308. Despite the many examples of direct dependence on the LXX,
the VL has its own unique characteristics dependent on its Vorlage or its Latin style.
5
Consider the Preliminary Observations by E. Ulrich in “Characteristics and
Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint”, in La Septuaginta en la inves-
tigación contemporánea (ed. N. Fernández Marcos, Madrid, 1985), pp. 68-69.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Vetus Testamentum LIII, 4

Also available online – www.brill.nl
488 matthew kraus

have continued to study this Ž eld and have made signiŽ cant discoveries
providing a road map to navigate this labyrinthine subject.
As a result of this research, especially by Spanish scholars on the Book
of Kings,6 one question has received closer scrutiny: what are the Jewish
in uences on the Vetus Latina? This question emerges from the presence
of Hebraisms, words and phrases in the Old Latin that both diVer
from the Septuagint (LXX) and re ect Hebrew morphology, semantics,
syntax or interpretation. ‘Hebraism’ must be distinguished from Hebraiza-
tion which refers to a conscious attempt at making the Latin or Greek
text conform to the Hebrew. Three explanations have been oVered to
account for Hebraisms: a Latin-speaking Jewish community directly
translated the Old Latin from the Hebrew,7 a Jewish scholar revised
the Old Latin according to Hebrew language and tradition, 8 or the
Old Latin was based on an already Hebraized Greek Vorlage.9 This
Greek Vorlage may have received editorial reworking towards the Hebrew
or may re ect a Hebrew Vorlage at variance with the Masoretic Text
(MT). If we attribute the Hebraisms in the VL to a Jewish recension
or edition of the VL, the utilization of the VL as a textual witness in
order to reconstruct the LXX becomes problematic in some instances.
If the Hebraisms in the VL derive from the Greek tradition, the VL
may enable us to recover the Lucianic/Antiochene recension of the
LXX or a non-Masoretic Hebrew text. 10 Thus, as has often been noted,
analysis of the Jewish origins of the Old Latin has a signiŽ cant impact

6
Natalio Fernández Marcos and Julio Trebolle Barrera. See below.
7
D.S. Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine et la Vetus Latina. Étude sur la rapport entre les
traductions bibliques en langue romaine des Juifs au Moyen Age et les anciennes versions (Paris,
1925), pp. xxxiv-lxix; H.F.D. Sparks, “The Latin Bible”, in The Bible in its Ancient and
English Versions (ed. H.W. Robinson; Oxford, 1940), pp. 100-27, and U. Cassuto, “The
Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin and its Importance for the Study of the
Greek and Aramaic Versions”, in Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. I. Abrahams;
Jerusalem, 1973-1975), pp. 285-98.
8
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, pp. 308-10.
9
N. Fernández Marcos, “The Vetus Latina of 1-2 Kings and the Hebrew”, in VIII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta, 1995), pp.
154-55.
10
See J. Trebolle Barrera, “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the
‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:23-25)”, Textus 11 (1984), pp. 17-36, and N. Fernández
Marcos, “The Vetus Latina”, p. 153. N. Fernández Marcos (Scribes and Translators: Septuagint
and Old Latin in the Books of Kings [Leiden, 1994], pp. 9-37), proves that the Antiochene
text can be recovered for Kings and Chronicles. He also carefully distinguishes between
the Lucianic and Antiochene text. The VL is a problematic witness to the Antiochene
text because it follows this text most, not all of the time. Therefore, we cannot be cer-
tain if a VL reading unattested in any Greek tradition is based on a lost Antiochene
version (see the tabulations of Fernández Marcos [1994], pp. 51-52).
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 489

on the textual history of the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible.11
In addition, the issue sheds light on the culture of the Jewish and
Christian communities of Late Antiquity. A pre-Christian Jewish “tar-
gum” into Latin implies a developed Latin-speaking Jewish commu-
nity in parts of the Roman Empire by the second century C.E.12 A
revision according to the Hebrew by a Jewish scholar could indicate
rabbinic in uence in the diaspora. Hebraisms from the Greek textual
tradition re ect a diVerent scenario: Christian circles interested in the
original Hebrew produced a Latin translation of the Greek Bible with
occasional reference to a Hebraized Greek version. 13
Most recently, B. Kedar has argued for direct Jewish in uence on the
Old Latin in an article on the Latin Translations appearing in Mikra.14
Relying primarily on evidence and arguments presented by D. Blondheim,
U. Cassuto, and H. Sparks,15 Kedar adopts a more cautious stance
than earlier studies that asserted a Hebrew original for the Old Latin.
Kedar contends that a “half-learned person” incorporated Jewish read-
ings into the Old Latin text. 16 The evidence, however, fails to conŽ rm
even this cautious assertion because it is applied with a  awed method.
Kedar and his predecessors essentially make an argumentum ex silentio.
After comparing all versions of the Old Latin with available editions
of the LXX, Kedar contends that any Old Latin text that has a
Hebraism not found in the so-called LXX must be a Hebraization.
Such an explanation assumes that the existence of a Jewish Hebraizer
is more plausible than undiscovered variants in the Greek tradition.
Given the fragmented nature of the Old Latin, its heavy dependence
on the Greek and the variegated textual history of the LXX, the posited
Hebraizer is no more likely than a Greek variant.

11
See, for example, E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, 1992),
p. 139.
12
See E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (ed. F. Millar
and G. Vermes; Edinburgh, 1973-1986), II, p. 80, III, pp. 62-63, 73-84. The inscrip-
tions from North Africa, dating to the 2nd century C.E., are almost entirely in Latin
while in Rome and Italy the inscriptions are predominantly Greek. Therefore, only in
North Africa can we be certain of the existence of a Latin-speaking Jewish community.
13
For example, Jerome did not work in a vacuum, but within a community express-
ing deep interest in the Hebrew text of the Bible. See H. Hagendahl and J.H. Waszink,
“Hieronymus”, RAC (Stuttgart, 1989), 15:124.
14
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, pp. 308-310.
15
See above, n. 7.
16
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 310. Kedar carefully avoids identifying the hack as
Jewish. However, he does not completely reject the existence of an “old Jewish Latin
version.”
490 matthew kraus

In addition to this methodological concern, three recent developments

in Septuagintal and Old Latin Studies prompt a reconsideration of the
evidence for a direct Jewish in uence on the Hebraisms in the Old
Latin. First, the more recent editions of the Göttingen LXX have made
available a dramatically increased number of variants which can be
compared to the Old Latin.17 Second, the texts of the Greek Bible dis-
covered in the Judean desert have demonstrated that well before any
Latin translation of the Bible there was a tradition of Hebraizing the
Greek Bible and that the Hebrew text was still in a state of  ux, albeit
controlled.18 Third, recent scholarship on the Old Latin, especially in
Spain, has shown that, in addition to the Lucianic recension, the VL
relied on a variety of Greek Vorlagen which exhibit Hebraisms not pre-
sent in the LXX.19 Thus, the possibility of a Hebraized Greek Vorlage
for the Old Latin has become increasingly more likely in recent years.
Furthermore, some of these Hebraisms can be attributed to developments
internal to the textual history of the VL.20 In fact, N. Fernández Marcos
has speciŽ cally identiŽ ed the implication of his work on Kings for the
contention that Jews directly in uenced the Latin Bible. Namely, the
textual evidence demonstrates that Hebraized Greek Vorlagen account
for Hebraisms in the Old Latin.21
Although Fernández Marcos cites Kedar’s article, he does not address
the speciŽ c evidence presented by Kedar.22 He contends that it is vir-
tually impossible to determine a direct in uence on the Old Latin from
the Hebrew until critical editions of each biblical book have been com-
pleted.23 Since this has been done in the case of Kings, he can reject
direct Hebrew in uence for this particular book, but the varying tex-

17
In particular, see the biblical books edited by J. Wevers and J. Ziegler (Göttingen
Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate societatis litterarum gottingensis editum [Göttingen,
1931V.]).
18
See Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, pp. 8, 22; Tov, Textual Criticism, pp.
117, 143-45, and Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations”, p. 71.
19
N. Fernández Marcos, “On the Present State of Septuagint Research in Spain”, in
La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid, 1985), pp.
271-85; J. Trebolle Barrera, “Re ejos de Paralelismo Hebreo en la Vetus Latina”, Sefarad
46, 1-2 (1986), pp. 463-71; J. Trebolle Barrera, “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de
Reyes (2 Re 10,25-28)”, RB 89 (1982), pp. 198-209; Fernández Marcos, “The Vetus
Latina”, pp. 153-63; J. Trebolle Barrera “Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in
the Books of Kings (1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20:11)”, Textus (1986), pp. 85-94.
20
Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, pp. 53-87.
21
Ibid., p. 86.
22
Ibid., pp. 45, 86.
23
Ibid., pp. 45, 87.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 491

tual histories of each biblical book preclude extrapolating conclusions

from his work on Kings. While without a doubt the completion of the
critical edition of the Vetus Latina will facilitate the consideration of
this evidence, nevertheless, the well-documented conclusion of Fernández
Marcos for Kings demands a reexamination of the far less conclusive
evidence cited by Kedar from other biblical books. Kedar’s argument
rests on three forms of evidence: 1) external evidence, i.e., factors exter-
nal to the Old Latin version which demonstrate the plausibility and
existence of direct Hebrew-to-Latin translations of the Bible; 2) inter-
nal evidence, namely, textual examples in which the Latin text re ects
a Hebrew reading or rabbinic interpretation not found in the Septuagint;
and 3) internal evidence considered as a whole, i.e., the frequency of
Hebraisms relative to manifestly Septuagintal renderings.
Let us consider these points in reverse order. Regarding the textual
examples considered as whole, Kedar adopts a moderate position: Since
the Hebraisms are frequent, they cannot be explained by a “lost” man-
uscript of the Septuagint. To the extent, however, that these Hebraisms
are interspersed through wide stretches of close adherence to the LXX,
they represent not an Old Jewish Latin version, but rather “later cor-
rections and insertions at the hands of ” semi-skilled hacks.24 A Hebraized
recension of the LXX as a Vorlage provides an equally plausible hypothesis
accounting for the frequencies of Hebraisms. Since the particular exam-
ples cited by Kedar can in fact be traced to Greek texts, a Hebraized
Greek Vorlage more convincingly accounts for Hebraisms in the VL
than the notion of a Latin Hebraizer of any ability. This conclusion
in turn will require a reexamination of the external evidence. Such a
reconsideration reveals a Jewish community utilizing a Hebraized Greek,
rather than one that could make the Latin conform to the Hebrew.
The crucial methodological implication of Fernández Marcos’ work
should be clear. His rejection of the theory of Kedar in the case of
Kings relies on extensive research in the text history of the Old Latin
of Kings. Thus, we know the source of the Old Latin citations, which
facilitates the relative dating of textual material and identiŽ es the prove-
nance of the text cited. The Old Latin is determined by comparing
quotations in patristic literature with the manuscript tradition.25 Without

24
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, pp. 310-11.
25
P.-M. Bogaert, “Versions, Ancient (Latin)”, ABD 6:800. As Bogaert indicates, the
manuscript tradition includes manuscripts of the Old Latin, Carolingian and medieval
Bibles, glosses to Jerome’s translation, and liturgical works. These manuscripts postdate
most of the patristic citations.
492 matthew kraus

veriŽ cation from a patristic source, the Old Latin could re ect the in u-
ence of Jerome’s Vulgate or a Hebraizing tendency of its later medieval
source. A particular example of Hebrew in uence becomes virtually
meaningless if we do not know where and when it occurred. It could
postdate Origen and Jerome or be in a manuscript relying on a Lucianic
or a Hebraizing tradition of the Greek text. It could belong to a man-
uscript including the New Testament that also has Hebraizations.26
Kedar, however, not only cites the Old Latin as a uniŽ ed text, he
(and his predecessors) do not consider the exact manuscript or patristic
citation (when available) for the Old Latin verse under consideration.
RectiŽ cation of this omission requires the identiŽ cation of the source
of Kedar’s passages and a discussion of the source when relevant to
the Hebraism in question. Therefore, by taking in consideration the
biblical book and manuscript tradition of the examples utilized by
Kedar and others, we can draw more deŽ nitive conclusions about
Jewish in uence on the Old Latin.27
According to Kedar, textual evidence for Hebraisms in the Old
Latin falls into four categories—blunders, Hebrew erudition, insertions,
and transcribed Hebrew terms. To facilitate the close textual analysis
of these phrases, examples will be considered seriatim. Unless other-
wise noted, the Hebrew has been cited from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
and the Greek is cited according to the text of the Göttingen edition
of the LXX with relevant variants drawn from the apparatus.28 The
term “Septuagint” is loosely used to describe the Greek biblical text,
primarily represented by Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus, to
be distinguished from known Hebraizing versions such as Aquila or
the Hexaplaric and Lucianic recensions. Such an over-simpliŽ cation of
the Greek text is necessary because the discussion concentrates on the
Old Latin, and it would be too confusing to become involved in the
numerous textual issues associated with the LXX tradition. Therefore,
the citations and analyses of the Septuagint and versions are limited
to cases that demonstrate a Greek tradition behind a Latin Hebraism.
The length of all excerpts depends on the relevance of the immediate

26
Sparks, “Latin Bible”, pp. 102-03.
27
The point here is not that Kedar and Blondheim fail to indicate the versions of
the Old Latin from which they cull their examples. Rather, the sources of the exam-
ples play no role in their discussions.
28
I use Rahlfs’ manual edition, Septuaginta (Stuttgart, 1979), and Brooke-McLean-
Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1906-1940) for biblical books lack-
ing a Göttingen edition.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 493

context for interpreting the source of the Hebraism. In addition, the

Hebrew, Latin, and Greek word or words under consideration have
been italicized for the sake of clarity. Whenever possible, patristic
authors are cited in order to identify the date and provenance of the
particular Old Latin text more securely.

Blunders
1. Hos. xiv 329
MT
VL adsumite vobiscum multos et convertimini ad dominum vestrum
Fragments from Prophets, Konstanz (5th century) 30
LXX l‹bete meyƒ ¥autÇn lñgouw kaÜ ¤pistr‹fhte pròw kærion tòn yeòn
êmÇn
Lucianic/Achmimic lñgouw] + polloæw
Although multos could be the direct misreading for , the
Achmimic31 and Lucianic versions provide textual witnesses for the
VL’s multos. The absence of a substantive modiŽ ed by multos repre-
sents a case of haplography (both polloæw and lñgouw end in -ouw).
Such an explanation is particularly likely when we consider multos in
context. Multos by itself in the masculine suggests that a word has been
omitted. If the Hebrew were misread by confusing resh and dalet, we
would expect the neuter plural multa. Moreover, Jerome’s rendition of
the LXX in his commentary on Hosea (a.l.) provides further support
for a misreading of the Greek: he records the LXX reading as sumite
vobiscum sermones. Not only is this reading close to the VL, but the mas-
culine sermones would have been the rendition if the Old Latin trans-
lator had not skipped lñgouw.

2. 2 Chron. xx 1132
MT
VL et ecce ipsi et cameli eorum super nos ut adprehendant nos et
expellant nos de hereditate tua quam dedisti nobis

29
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
30
A. Dold, Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelienbruchstücke mit Glossen nebst
zugehörigen Prophetentext aus Zürich und St. Gallen, Texte und Arbeiten 1/7-9 (Leipzig, 1923),
p. 36.
31
Cf. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), pp. 256-57. The
Achmimic version is based on the Sahidic. This version re ects a continuous accom-
modation to the Hebrew deriving from Aquila and Symmachus or another translation.
32
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
494 matthew kraus

First Bible of Alcala, 10th century33

LXX kaÜ nèn Þdoç aétoÜ ¤pixeiroèsin ¤fƒ ²mw ¤jelyeÝn ¤kbaleÝn ²mw
Žpò t°w klhronomÛaw ²mÇn
Cameli could render , but this produces an unintelligible read-
ing. Since cameli, although not unusual in Latin, is actually a translit-
eration of a Greek word (k‹mhlow), a Greek Vorlage is a plausible source
for the blunder. R. Weber himself traces this blunder to the Greek
tradition. 34 Furthermore, as the Bible of Alcala is a polyglot edition
with numerous Hebrew notes in the margin, the reading also could
have emerged from the manuscript tradition. 35

3. Ps. lxxxiv (lxxxiii) 1136

MT
VL elegi congregari in domum dei mei a generatione quam inhabi-
tantium impietatis
Codex Cassinensis 557 12th century (Vorlage 5th-10th century) 37
LXX ¤jelej‹mhn pararripteÝsyai ¤n tÒ oàkÄ toè yeoè mllon µ oÞkeÝn
¤n skhnÅmasin martvlÇn
We have no evidence for a LXX reading agreeing with the VL.
Nevertheless, rarely means “dwell” and this is the only instance
in which the LXX renders with oÞkeÝn. Since the rendition Žpò
g¡neaw is far more common in Psalms, it is equally likely that a Greek

33
R. Weber, Les anciennes versions latines du deuxième livre des Paralipomènes, Collectanea
Biblica Latina 8 (Rome, 1945). The Bible of Alcala, also known as the Complutensian
Polyglot, appeared in 1513-1517. The 10th century refers to the date of the text used
by this edition.
34
Weber, Les anciennes versions latines, p. xxxvii.
35
On the Bible of Alcala, see S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premier siècles
du Moyen Age (Paris, 1895), pp. 15, 392.
36
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
37
A. Amelli, Liber psalmorum juxta antiquissimam latinam versionem, Collectanea Biblica
Latina, I (Rome, 1912). The Vorlage is extremely diYcult to date (See F. Stummer,
Einführung in die lateinische Bibel. Ein Handbuch für Vorlesungen und Selbstunterricht [Paderborn,
1928], pp. 129-30). Stummer, however, makes two observations particularly relevant
to our question. Citing A. Allgeier, “Das Psalterium Cassinense und die abendländli-
sche Psalmenüberlieferung”, Römische Quartalschrift 24 (1926), pp. 28-45, Stummer notes
that this Psalter (Ms. 557) of Monte Casino presupposes Jerome’s Psalter iuxta Hebraeos,
and Stummer himself contends that Ms. 557 must have preceded the late 10th or early
11th century Ms. 434 of Monte Casino, a revision of Jerome’s Psalter iuxta Hebraeos
according to Ms. 557. Not only do we have a relative dating of the text, but also a
relative dating of a Christian interest in Hebraization. Produced after Jerome, but
before the 11th century, this Old Latin psalter could have been Hebraized through the
in uence of the Vulgate. Thus, the blunder cited by Kedar could re ect the impact
of the Vulgate on the textual tradition of the Old Latin.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 495

version had Žpò g¡neaw. Moreover, it is not surprising that the Codex
Cassinensis includes a literal rendition of the Hebrew. Besides the Old
and New Testament, the codex includes a Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
alphabet and Jerome’s Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum. Thus,
we would expect a display of Hebrew erudition in this edition of the
biblical text, however misguided.

4. 2 Chron. xx 238
MT
Ms
VL Venit super te turba multa de trans mare [de] Edom et ecce
sunt in Sason Thamar
First Bible of Alcala (10th century) de trans mare de Edom; Second
Bible of Leon (10th century) 39 de trans mare Edom
LXX †Hkei ¤pÜ s¢ pl°yow polç ¤k p¡ran t°w yal‹sshw Žpò SurÛaw, kaÜ
Þdoæ eÞsin ¤n Asasanyamar
Peshitta ym’ swmq’ “the Red Sea”
In 2 Chron. xx 2, the Old Latin apparently confuses resh with dalet.
When and why were these letters confused? While there is no LXX
variant for this particular verse that reads ¤dÅm, the confusion between
resh and dalet is such a common error that it often appears in the
Hebrew text tradition in addition to the Septuagint tradition. In fact,
a variant of the MT for this verse, , has become the accepted
reading. 40 Aquila on Ezek. xxvii 16 reads ¤dÅm for . Since the
Peshitta has “Red Sea”, its Hebrew Vorlage must have had which
the Peshitta rendered as an adjective modifying “sea”.41 Edom in the
VL could derive from the same Hebrew Vorlage as that of the Peshitta
through a Greek version that has not been preserved.42 Alternatively,
the VL may have relied on a Lucianic recension since Lucian could

38
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
39
Weber, Les anciennes versions latines, ad. loc.
40
Cf. the RSV and J.M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; Garden City, 1965), p. 110.
The VL may have relied on a Greek text that relied on a diVerent Hebrew Vorlage
for Chronicles. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz’s work on Theodoret’s Quaestiones
on Kings and Chronicles (Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena: Editio
Critica [Madrid, 1984]) demonstrates a textual tradition diVerent from the LXX and
more Hebraized. See Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, pp. 275-76.
41
See M. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge,
1999), p. 66. Weitzman cites 2 Chron. xx 2 as an instance of consonantal confusion
in contrast to the general replacement of Aram with Edom throughout the Peshitta.
42
See Weber, Les anciennes versions latines, p. xxxvii.
496 matthew kraus

have consulted the Peshitta.43 Moreover, some Septuagintal manuscripts

(al.) render 1 Kings xxii 48, , as SurÛa.44 This rendering has more
than phonetic signiŽ cance, for it belongs to the section in Kings cor-
responding to 2 Chronicles xx, thereby pointing to an exegetical rea-
son for the interchange of Syria and Edom. In both Kings and
Chronicles, Jehosaphat’s last battle is being described. According to
Chronicles, Judah is being attacked by Moabites, Ammonites, and
Meunites from beyond the Dead Sea, from Aram. Such a version is
problematic because Aram is not beyond the Dead Sea, and in verses
10 and 23 one group of the attackers is described as the men of Seir
(Edom). “Edom” makes more geographical sense. Therefore, both the
textual history and internal logic, not a simple blunder by a Jewish
Latinist, best account for the VL.45

5. Ps. lxxxvii (lxxxvi) 446

MT
VL ipsi facti sunt nomen
Codex Cassinensis of Monte Casino (5th-10th century) 47
LXX oìtoi ¤gen®yhsan ¤keÝ 48
Since facti sunt and the plural ipsi agree with the Greek against the
Hebrew, clearly the VL is following a Greek tradition. Therefore, it
is more likely that a Greek translator misread . It hardly makes sense
for an Old Latin translator to Hebraize only part of the Greek so as
to produce an unintelligible reading. If a Hebraization occurred dur-
ing the transmission of the Latin, it is more likely to have occurred
when the Codex Cassinensis was produced, since, as noted above, its
editor demonstrates an interest in understanding the Hebrew original.

Hebrew erudition
6. 1 Sam. iii 13-14 49
MT :

43
Weitzman, Syriac Version, p. 83.
44
E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions
of the OT (Oxford, 1897-1906; repr., Graz, 1954), Supplement, pp. 54, 148.
45
Weber, Les anciennes versions latines, p. xxxvii, without explanation, also claims that
the context demands the reading edom which emerged from the Greek tradition.
46
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
47
A. Amelli, Liber psalmorum.
48
All three words are omitted in Codex Sinaiticus.
49
Kedar, p. 309.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 497

VL et non corripiebat eos. (14) Et ideo sic iuravi domui eli50

Lucifer of Calaris (d. 371), De sancto Athanasio 1.11 (357/8 C.E.) neque
castigavit et nunc sic iuravit domui Heli
LXX kaÜ oék ¤nouy¡tei aétoçw kaÜ oédƒ oìtvw. 14 v…mosa tÒ oàkÄ Hli
Hexapla (in margin) …Allow: diŒ toèto oïn
The VL seems to correct the LXX misreading of as .
Lucifer’s similar reading re ects the same sort of Hebrew knowledge
and conŽ rms the pre-jeromian date of the text. In the case of 1 Sam.
iii 14, the variant in the margin of the Hexapla, while similar to the
Old Latin, does not share an exact correspondence. Rather, it points
to the signiŽ cance of the context of this verse. A. Rahlfs places the
phrase at the end of iii 13 while the MT begins iii 14 with . At
stake of course is not the division of verses but the phraseology. The
LXX, in taking kaÜ oédƒ oìtvw with the previous phrase describing Eli’s
failure to rebuke his sons, “even under the circumstances,”51 produces
an awkward sense as well as the stylistically unusual conclusion of a
sentence with an adverb. The marginal reading of the Hexapla resolves
this problem by taking the phrase with the subsequent section, a much
easier reading that follows the Hebrew. Thus, the diYculty of the LXX
rendering no doubt stimulated the Hexaplaric response which in turn
prompted the Old Latin to follow the Hebraizing solution. As far as
the example cited by Kedar is concerned, we have a problem. On the
one hand, the Old Latin follows the phraseology of the Hexaplaric
tradition. On the other hand, the Old Latin quite closely follows the
vocabulary of the LXX. While a Hebraization may explain the ideo
instead of oédƒ, it does not account for the similarity between kaÜ . . .
oìtvw and et . . . sic. Let me suggest a possible solution. If the editor of
the Old Latin had both the Hexaplaric and Septuagintal versions as
Vorlagen, then the editor would have had to decide between the two
possible ways of phrasing the text. According to this scenario, ideo rep-
resents a correction of an error in the Greek tradition! That is, the
editor adopted the phraseology of the Hexaplaric tradition and rendered
diŒ toèto or oïn as ideo on the grounds that oéd’ was a misreading of
oïn. Such a stylistic change enabled the editor of the VL to preserve

50
J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: Translationis Latinae Fragmenta (Christiania,
1885), p. 8.
51
I am grateful to Ludwig Koenen for this translation. Koenen has also pointed
out to me that oìtvw can appear at the end of a sentence, but the whole phrase, kaÜ
oéd’ oìtvw, is unattested.
498 matthew kraus

the vocabulary of the LXX.52 This example may represent a Hebraization

of the Old Latin, but it is a Hebraization relying on the evidence of
the Hexapla, not direct use of the Hebrew.

7. 1 Sam. x 353
MT
VL ad arborem Thabor electae 54
Margin of Codex Gothicus (960) 55 ad arborem glandis electae
LXX Yabvr
Lucianic t°w ¤klekt°w
The identical semantics, case, and gender of electae and t°w ¤klekt°w
clearly demonstrate the Old Latin’s dependence on the Lucianic ren-
dition. Thus, while a gloss demonstrates Hebrew erudition, it may
occur at the Septuagintal stage, or by the Old Latin itself since all the
necessary information was available in the Septuagintal tradition. The
textual history of these glosses in the Codex Gothicus provides an even
more plausible explanation. Fernández Marcos explains it nicely:

According to the linguistic phenomena re ected in the Latin of the glosses,
these proceed from a version made between the late 2nd and the late
3rd century A.D. Their text was transformed into glosses to a Vulgate
Bible ca. VIII-IX Century A.D. And the manuscripts that preserve the
glosses come from a date between the Xth and XVIth Century.56

Since the Vulgate has Thabor, it is more likely that Thabor electae
postdates Jerome.57 The editor would add Thabor to the margin from
the text in order to indicate the term which electae glosses.

52
Stylistic rewriting of the Greek is characteristic of the VL. See Fernández Marcos,
Scribes and Translators, p. 75.
53
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
54
Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindobonensis, p. 15.
55
I use C. Vercellone, Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae bibliorum editionis, I (Rome, 1860);
II (Rome, 1864) because C. Morano Rodríquez, Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las
Biblias Vulgatas españolas. 1-2 Samuel (Madrid, 1989), and A. Moreno Hernández, Las
Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas españolas. 1-2 Reyes (Madrid, 1992)
were unavailable to me. Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, p. 44, notes that
these editions “have rescued a good deal of readings missing in Vercellone’s”. Therefore,
Vercellone’s edition attests to the existence, not the absence of a particular reading.
56
Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, p. 44.
57
Fernández Marcos (Scribes and Translators, pp. 53-55) notes that such double read-
ings which juxtapose transliteration and translation regularly occur and may be attrib-
uted to the Greek textual tradition via the Hexapla.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 499

8. Hos. xiv 358

MT
VL59 dicite illi potens es dimittere peccata ita ut non accipiatis iniquitatem
sed ut accipiatis bona
Victor of Tunnunna (566 C.E.) potens es remittere peccata nostra
non ut accipiatis iniquitatem, sed ut accipiatis bona
LXX ( untranslated) eàpate aétÒ ÷pvw m¯ l‹bhte ŽdikÛan kaÜ l‹b-
hte Žgay‹
Minuscules/Achmimic/Armenian dænasai Žfi¡nai martÛaw
Ms. Barb. dænasai psan ŽraireÝn ŽdikÛan
Theodoret (as quoted in Fields): Utramque enarrat Theodoret.:
Eàpate g‹r, fhsÛ: dænasai psan ŽfaireÝn martÛan: taæthn gŒr aétÒ
t¯n ßketerÛan prosf¡rontew, oé l®cesye m¢n t°w ŽdikÛaw tŒ ¤pÛxeira, ¤n
Žpolaæsei d¢ gen®sesye pantodapÇn ŽgayÇn.
Unlike the LXX, the VL has a double rendition of
based on the learned recognition that the reading of derives from
the root . This reading, however, not only appears in the Old
Latin, but also in the minuscules, Achmimic and Armenian versions.
Therefore, one must consider whether a semi-learned Hebraist cor-
rected the Latin, or the producer of this text of the VL juxtaposed
two Greek readings. A Greek origin is more compelling. Attention to
the text surrounding the phrase indicates that the Latin corresponds
more closely to the Greek minuscules than the Hebrew: both use the
complementary inŽ nitive construction, dimittere is cognate with Žfi¡nai
and both peccata and martÛaw are plural unlike the singular Hebrew.
Finally, the Old Latin and the Septuagintal variants share the same
peculiar rendering of , for in addition to reading as derived
from , both transfer the 2nd person singular subject from to
the rendering of ( potens es/dænasai). That Theodoret con ates both
readings testiŽ es to the provenance of the Septuagintal variants and
the plausibility of con ation by the VL or its Greek Vorlage.

9. 2 Chron. xxxv 2660

MT
VL? misericordia
LXX kaÜ ·san oß lñgoi Ivsia kaÜ ² ¤lpÜw aétoè
Other mss. kaÜ tŒ ¤l¡h

58
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
59
Dold, Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten, p. 36.
60
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
500 matthew kraus

This example is complicated by the fact that misericordia, identiŽ ed

as a Hebraism because of its meaning, does not realize the plural of
the Hebrew. I was unable to locate the Old Latin version that reads
misericordia in order to verify the singular form. Weber’s edition has
iustitiae. The Vulgate reads misericordiarum. Regardless, the semantics,
not the number, identify misericordia as a Hebraism. Leaving aside the
issue of number for a moment, the semantically more accurate ren-
dering of as misericordia does appear in some mss. of the LXX
as tŒ ¤l¡h. Semantically, the VL derives from the Greek tradition. We
reach the same conclusion when we return to the issue of number.
In the Vulgate, misericordiae is classiŽ ed as a Hebraism because using
an abstract noun in the plural is “un-Latin”.61 Yet such a Hebraism
has textual witnesses in the Greek tradition. Furthermore, abstract
nouns in the plural are not unusual in Greek.62 Since ¦leow is the typ-
ical rendition of , the VL renders the Greek plural preserved in
the manuscripts into a more idiomatic Latin singular.

10. Amos viii 1363

MT
VL in illo die deŽ cient virgines bonae et iuvenes electi in sitim
Fragments from Prophets, Konstanz (5th century) 64
LXX ¤n t» ²m¡r& ¤keÛnú ¤kleÛcousin aß pary¡noi aß kalaÜ kaÜ oß
neanÛskoi ¤n dÛcei
LXX ( Judges xx 15) neanÛskoi ¤klektoÛ
Jerome (Comm. in Am. ad loc.) In illo tempore defecerunt virgines
pulchrae et adolescentes, sive electi, atque doctores—hoc enim signiŽ cat
baurim—defecerunt in siti.
Although electi realizes the etymology of the Hebrew root, one must
explain the redundancy of iuvenes electi. Electi seems to be a gloss that
could have easily worked its way into a Septuagintal manuscript.
Indeed, we have an example of such a phenomenon in Judges xx 15
(A not B). Trebolle Barrera’s work suggests another explanation: the
Old Latin captures the parallelism of Hebrew poetry. 65 Thus, iuvenes

61
W.E. Plater, A Grammar of the Vulgate (Oxford, 1926), §17.
62
H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised by G. Messing (Cambridge, Mass., 1954),
§1000.
63
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
64
Dold, Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten, p. 41.
65
Trebolle Barrera, “Re ejos de Paralelismo Hebreo”, pp. 463-71. According to
Trebolle Barrera, this parallelism re ects a non-masoretic Hebrew text underlying the
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 501

electi parallels virgines bonae. Therefore, since the Konstanz fragments

postdate Jerome, these fragments may have incorporated electi from
Jerome’s commentary either as a gloss or poetic interpolation.

11. Judges x 466

MT
VL Aoth Iair-Lyon Manuscript (6th century)67
LXX ƒEpaæleiw Iaór
LXX (Deut. iii 14) Auvy Iaór (Lyon Ms. Aoth Iar)
Vulgate Avothiair id est oppida Iair
There are two possible pathways by which Aoth could have entered
the Old Latin through the LXX. Either the editor of the Vorlage of
the Old Latin (or of the Old Latin itself ) made the rendition of Judges
x 4 conform to Deut. iii 14, or s/he utilized the Second (or First) col-
umn of the Hexapla. Alternatively, the “Hebraism” could have arisen
easily within the transmission history of the VL. The Old Latin could
have read Jerome’s Avoth Iair, id est oppida Iair and interpolated the
proper name by itself as the more correct rendition. One need not
have knowledge of Hebrew to determine whether a proper noun should
be translated or transliterated when Jerome has provided the pertinent
information. The 6th century date of the Lyon Ms. makes such in uence
from Jerome possible.
12. 1 Kings xviii 3268
MT

VL restituit altare domini, quod dissipatum fuerat, et fecit foveam

quae capereret duas metretas sem<in>is in gyro altaris
Margin of Codex Gothicus (960); 69 Lucifer of Calaris, De sancto
Athanasio 1. 17 (357/8 C.E.)
LXX kaÜ Þ‹sato tò yusiast®rion tò kateskamm¡non kaÜ ¤poÛhsen
y‹lassan xvroèsan dæo metrhtŒw sp¡rmatow kuklñyen toè
yusiasthrÛou
Lucianic yaala

Greek Vorlage. Trebolle Barrera does not claim that the VL incorporates parallelism
without a textual basis.
66
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
67
U. Robert, Pentateuchi versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi (Paris, 1881).
68
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 309.
69
C. Vercellone, Variae lectiones.
502 matthew kraus

If the LXX’s y‹lassan represents an example of a nonsensical ren-

dering of the transliterated Hebrew word yaala, then the VL demon-
strates Hebrew knowledge by translating it as fovea. In the Ž rst place,
however, y‹latta is not necessarily unusual. According to Herodotus
(8.55) and Apollodorus (3.14.1), y‹latta refers to a well of sea water
on the acropolis produced by Poseidon’s trident. The striking parallel
between the Poseidon/Athena contest and the Elijah/Prophets of Baal
competition makes y‹latta an excellent rendition from a Greek point
of view. In the second place, the context clearly indicates that Elijah
dug a ditch. Thus, the translator of the VL would have faced the fol-
lowing phrase “and he (Elijah) put together stones in the name of the
Lord and constructed the altar which had been destroyed and made
a thaala of two measures of seed going around the altar.” Confronted
with a Hebrew word that refers to something hollow and encircling
an altar, what else could the translator of the VL read but fovea? The
correct meaning of the Greek as well as the context, not Hebrew eru-
dition, explain the VL’s version of this verse.

13. Lev. xi 3670

MT
VL exceptis fontibus aquarum et lacu collectionis aquae erit mundum
Munich Codex (end of 5th century) 71
LXX pl¯n phgÇn êd‹tvn kaÜ l‹kkou kaÜ sunagvg°w ìdatow , ¦stai
kayarñn:
Kedar claims that the interpretation of as lacu collec-
tionis aquae re ects both the Hebrew text and Hebrew tradition in con-
trast to the LXX in which and are translated as two distinct
entities separated by a kaÛ. This passage, however, is complicated by
the ambiguity of the Greek, since the genitives of l‹kkou and sunagvg°w
could syntactically depend on the noun phgÇn or on the preposition
pl®n.72 Given this ambiguity internal to the Greek, it is legitimate to
claim that the Greek tradition coupled with the transmission of the
VL provides a more likely explanation for the apparent “Hebraization”.
The close adherence to the LXX is undeniable because lacu and col-
lectio clearly derive from the Greek.73 If we assume Kedar’s explana-

70
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, pp. 309-10.
71
L. Ziegler, Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des Pentateuch (Munich, 1883).
72
A syntactic dependence on phgÇn, however, is highly unlikely.
73
In his discussion of this verse, Kedar (“Latin Translations”, pp. 309-10) quotes
collectionis for the VL in the text and congregationis in the note.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 503

tion, the Hebraizing editor of the VL confronted the following Latin

rendition of the LXX: *exceptis fontibus aquarum et lacu et collectione aquae
erit mundum. The alleged editor then eliminated the et after lacu and
changed collectione to a genitive in order to conform to the Hebrew.
However, we can also account for the missing et from the Greek tra-
dition because the second kaÛ is omitted in some manuscripts of the
LXX. In fact, L. Ziegler suggests that the text of the Munich frag-
ment be corrected to et lacus et collectionis aquae thereby “restoring” the
rendition of the kaÛ. Consideration of the context conŽ rms this sug-
gestion. The complete text originally would have read *exceptis fontibus
aquarum et lacus et collectionis aquae erit mundum. The ablative absolute
immediately points to Latinization of the Greek prepositional phrase.
Then, lacu (an ablative agreeing with exceptis) could have resulted from
a transcription of the Greek homophone l‹kkou (genitive). Alternatively,
a later copyist omitted the s of lacus (whose genitive would be a long
us). The resulting text would have been *exceptis fontibus aquarum et lacu
et collectionis aquae erit mundum, leaving the awkward collectionis, a geni-
tive independent of any noun.74 This could easily be rectiŽ ed by the
omission of the second et thereby producing the current version of the
VL. Consequently the received text of the VL ultimately derives from
a mistranslation of the Greek.

Additions

14. Hosea ix 175

MT
VL neque aepulari sicut populi terra(e)
Fragments from Prophets, Konstanz (5th century) 76
LXX mhd¢ eéfraÛnou kayÆw oß laoÛ:
other mss/Achmimic/Armenian + t°w g°w
According to Kedar, terra represents a theologically motivated addi-
tion based on the technical rabbinic term for gentiles, .
The more likely Hebrew phrase behind populi terra(e), however, would
be the technical rabbinic term for ( jewish) ignoramuses, ,

74
The same unintelligible translation would result if the Latin translator rendered
phgÇn and l‹kkou as ablatives and sunagvg°w as a genitive while realizing the sec-
ond kaÛ.
75
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 310.
76
Dold, Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten, p. 33.
504 matthew kraus

hardly beŽ tting the biblical context. Rather, the Greek tradition pro-
vides a more convincing explanation for the VL. Other manuscripts
of the LXX, the Achmimic translation, and the Armenian translation,
all add t°w g°w to laoÛ where the Hebrew has simply . The addi-
tion of t°w g°w in the Greek tradition makes theological sense because
in the New Testament laoÛ refers to Jews or Christians as opposed
to gentiles.77 Thus, the gloss in the Greek tradition clariŽ es that laoÛ
indicates gentiles in this case.

15. Jer. xvii 1178

MT
VL clamavit perdix congregavit quos non peperit multos pariat sibi
Žlios adquirens divitias suas
Fragments of St. Gallen (5th century);79 Augustine, contra Faustum
LXX ¤fÅnhsen p¡rdij, sun®gagen “ oék ¦teken: poiÇn ploèton aétoè
Kedar argues that multos pariat sibi Žlios adquirens divitias suas repre-
sents an interpolation for the peshat of the Hebrew, “he that getteth
riches,” and this interpolation re ects rabbinic readings of the verse.
However, a textual argument provides a more plausible explanation
for the Old Latin. First of all, the diYcult rendition of the LXX
demands clariŽ cation. In the second place, the VL corresponds to the
LXX in a number of instances—adquirens/poiÇn, suas/aétoè, pariat/¦teken.
Despite the obvious diVerences between the LXX and VL, the simi-
larity particularly of pariat/¦teken indicates that multos pariat sibi Žlios is
not an interpolation, but rather a rendering of . Therefore, mul-
tos pariat sibi Žlios is an alternative reading for quos non peperit rather
than an explanation of adquirens divitias suas. Note too that both the
LXX and VL ignore the conjunctive waw, further conŽ rming the pres-
ence of a double reading. If the Greek Vorlage to the VL read instead
of , we would have a Greek text quite similar to the VL. Indeed,
although Fernández Marcos’ work is based on Samuel and Kings, he
has demonstrated both the regularity of such double readings in the
Greek tradition as well as their indirect dependence on the Hebrew tex-
tual and midrashic tradition. 80

77
LSJ, l.c.
78
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 310.
79
F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge, 1896).
80
Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, pp. 63-70. In addition, these changes
can be part of the Latin tradition, either at the level of translation or transmission of
the VL.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 505

16. Jer. xvii 1381

MT (Q )

VL domine omnes qui te derelinquerunt confundantur qui discesserunt a

terra scribuntur in libro mortis quia derelinquerunt fontem vitae domini
Fragments of St. Gallen (5th century);82 Ps. Augustine, Adversus Ful-
gentium Donatistam (430/450)
LXX kærie, p‹ntew oß katalipñntew se kataisxuny®tvsan, Žfesthkñtew
¤pÜ t°w g°w graf®tvsan , ÷ti ¤gkat¡lipon phg¯n zv°w tòn kærion
Jerome In Hieremiam III.76.2-3:

E contrario, qui derelinquunt dominum, confundentur confusione perpetua

et recedentes sive declinantes ab eo scribentur in terra deleti de libro
viventium. Sicut enim, qui potest cum apostolo dicere: noster autem
municipatus in caelo est in caelestibus scribitur (Phil. iii 20), sic, qui relin-
quit dominum vel declinat ab eo, scribetur in terra cum his, qui terrena
sapiunt.

Rev. xx 12 (Vulgate): et libri aperti sunt et alius liber apertus est

qui est vitae et iudicati sunt mortui ex his quae scripta erant in lib-
ris secundum opera ipsorum
Rashi
The fact that the Donatist in Adversus Fulgentium cites this verse
conŽ rms the African origin of the text. Moreover, since the catholicus
does not question the Donatist’s source as in other cases,83 it must
re ect an accepted text. Nevertheless, a Greek Vorlage for the Latin
need not be ruled out. Although argumenta ex silentio are not conclu-
sive, nevertheless, it would be reasonable to expect a reference by the
catholicus to the Greek text if it lacked the “book of death.” It could
be countered that the Donatist cites Jer. xvii 13 in order to contrast
the book of death with the fountain of life.84 Since the LXX of course
does not contrast life and death, the source for this contrast must be
sought elsewhere. According to Kedar, qui discesserunt a terra scribuntur in

81
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 310.
82
Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala.
83
For example, catholicus respondit: ( John vii 38) Non habet: sicut dixit Esaias, sed: sicut
dicit scriptura (§2). See Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, p. 91. According to Burkitt,
the Donatist primarily uses the Old Latin while the Catholic uses the Vulgate. Since
the Catholic does not question the Donatist’s text, he must accept scribuntur in libro mor-
tis as a legitimate interpretation of Jerome’s in terra scribentur.
84
In accordance with Donatist teaching, the prooftext is used to demonstrate that
catholic baptisms are not only invalid, but are in fact sinful. The Catholic argues that
baptisms are only invalid and sinful if the baptized fails to accept Christ.
506 matthew kraus

libro mortis parallels rabbinic interpretation of this verse. Kedar claims that
Rashi and the Targum interpret the phrase as referring to the punish-
ment of the wicked, while Metsudat David mentions a book in which the
fates of the wicked are written. Both Rashi and the Targum, however,
are not concerned with the question of “in what book is it written,”
but rather explicate what it means to be written in the earth. Metsudat
David goes on to explain that the book goes down into Sheol. Jerome
indeed follows the Hebrew tradition for he reads scribentur in terra.
In order to understand the source of the “book of death,” we must
identify the main problem associated with the translation of the verse.
The crux lies in how “they will be written” is read. It could be taken
with “earth” which raises the question of what “written in the earth”
means. If “earth” is taken with “departed,” then the problem is exac-
erbated by the fact that we do not know where “those who depart
from the earth” are “inscribed” (although a book of death would be
a reasonable place to inscribe people who have abandoned God and
then died). A broader consideration indicates that the Old Latin par-
allels the Greek tradition even though the VL takes a terra with qui
discesserunt. Not only is qui discesserunt an exact rendering of Žfesthkñtew,
but also some codices read apo instead of epi. Liber mortis may very
well be derived from the concept of a book of the living/book of life.
But the avenue may not be through Psalm lxix 29 as suggested by
Kedar, but rather through Philippians. For Jerome provides evidence
of associating this passage with Phil. iii 20 where shortly afterwards in
Phil. iv 3 Paul refers to the book of death. Thus, just as nostra autem
municipatus in caelo est means that one is inscribed in the book of the
living, those who are written in the earth must be inscribed in the
book of death. Similarly, the reference to two books in Revelation may
provide an avenue for this interpretation since it describes one book
as the liber vitae thereby implying that the second one would be the
book of death. Here Christian, rather than Jewish exegesis explains
the rendition of the Old Latin.

17. Esther ix 2285

MT ...
VL in bonam diem86
LXX kaÜ tòn m°na, ¤n Ú ¤str‹fh aétoÝw . . . eÞw Žgay¯n ²m¡ran

85
Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. lxi.
86
P. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae (Rheims, 1739-1743). I am
unable to provide the complete lemma because this text is no longer available to me.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 507

Although Kedar does not cite this example, it highlights the poten-
tial pitfalls of his methodology. Initially, this slavish rendition of the
technical Hebrew term for holy day appears to be a direct Hebraization
of the Latin. Since the same rendering, however, is found in the LXX,
we have a clear case of a Hebraism in the Old Latin mediated through
the Greek tradition.

Transliterated Hebrew terminology

Before examining the evidence, a general objection can be raised
against the use of transliterated Hebrew as evidence for Hebraization.
The existence of transliterated Hebrew words does not provide con-
clusive evidence for direct Hebrew in uence because the Hexapla and
the existence of onomastica all point to other sources for transliterations
besides Hebrew erudition. Moreover, the transliteration of a term can
re ect ignorance of Hebrew as much as knowledge of the language.

18. Gen. xiv 287

MT
VL Malassadom
Caena Cypriani (400 C.E.)
LXX one manuscript has malak
One manuscript does have malak for Gen. xiv 2. Moreover, Caena
Cypriani postdates Origen’s Hexapla and therefore transliteration would
have been available from Greek sources.

19. 2 Kings xviii 1688

MT
VL entanoth 89
Margin of Codex Gothicus (960): concidit Ezechias ostia templi
Domini, et emanoth
LXX sun¡kocen Ezekiaw tŒw yæraw naoè kurÛou kaÜ tŒ ¤sthrigm¡na
Theodoret Quest. LII in 4 Reg.: kaÜ toçw staymoçw tÇn yurÇn: toætouw
gŒr ¤sthrigm¡na oämai klhy°nai
In the Greek tradition, the sense of 2 Kings xviii 16 was not fully
understood, as indicated by Theodoret’s uncertain explanation of the

87
Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. li.
88
Ibid.
89
Since I could not verify this reading (see discussion below), I am unable to pro-
vide the complete lemma.
508 matthew kraus

LXX’s rendition for . Transliteration is often a solution for such

confusion. Blondheim cites the Margo codex Gothicus (which he calls the
de Léon manuscript) for the reading entanoth, but according to Vercellone’s
edition, the reading is in fact emanoth.90 In any case, the transliteration
could derive from the Hexapla.
Let me summarize the argument so far: Hebraisms do appear in
the Old Latin, but their source is from the Greek tradition. Here the
distinction between Hebraism and Hebraization becomes crucial—a
Hebraism, contrary to what one might expect, may re ect an eVort
to make the Latin conform to the LXX, not the Hebrew. It has become
commonly accepted that the Hebraization of the LXX began well
before Origen.91 A. Kamesar has demonstrated that Origen himself
turned to the Hebrew as part of an eVort to recover the LXX.92
Therefore, Hebraization in the Greek tradition at times arose from a
desire to recover the LXX. This Hebraized recension, reckoned as a
superior version of the LXX, may be posited as a Vorlage of the Old
Latin. Moreover, the evidence of the Church Fathers’ attitude toward
the Old Latin should not be ignored. They clearly associated the Old
Latin with the Septuagint. Therefore, any reworking of the Old Latin
must be viewed as an attempt to recover the Greek, not the Hebrew.
What appear as Hebraizations to the modern scholar, would be viewed
as “Septuagintalizations” to the ancient editor(s) of the Old Latin. The
goal of these changes was not to make the Old Latin closer to the
Hebrew, but restore the Septuagint. Such a goal precludes a Jewish
Latin translation and a Hebraizing editor. Jerome provides an illumi-
nating parallel. Even though Jerome concentrates on rendering the
Hebrew, he relies on the Greek tradition. With all of Jerome’s Hebrew
erudition, he could also utilize Greek sources such as Aquila in order
to derive the Hebrew understanding of a text. 93 Indeed he even ini-
tially intended to revise the Old Latin in accordance with the Hebrew.94
This re ects a context in which there was an interest in “Hebraizing”
the Old Latin to recover the Septuagint and one possible approach
would be the use of Greek “reference works” like the Hexapla that
provided access to Hebrew erudition.

90
See C. Vercellone, Variae lectiones, and Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. li.
91
Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 144-47.
92
See the discussion in A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible: A
Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford, 1993), pp. 4-28.
93
Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 323.
94
Hagendahl and Waszink, RAC, 15:123.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 509

External evidence
Here the inscriptions with biblical phrases in Latin cited by Kedar
as Hebraisms become particularly signiŽ cant. At Ž rst glance, these
inscriptions of demonstrably Jewish provenance seem to derive from a
Jewish translation of Scriptures directly from Hebrew to Latin. Therefore,
making the Old Latin conform to the Hebrew would have originally
been a project of the Jewish diaspora. A closer analysis of these inscrip-
tions, however, demonstrates the provenance of a Hebraized Greek
Bible translated into Latin, not a Latin version directly translated from
the Hebrew. According to Blondheim and Kedar, among others, the
Hebraic nature of these inscriptions demonstrates a bilingual Jewish
community that may have had an oral translation of the Bible from
the Hebrew into Latin.95 Without delving into the problem of the reli-
ability of inscriptions for determining the language of a particular
group, it is suYcient to note that the inscriptional evidence actually
can be traced to Hebraized Septuagintal readings.

20. Eccles. xii 5

MT
domus aeterna96
Uncertain provenance
LXX oäkon aÞÇnow aétoè
Replacing the LXX’s genitive aÞÇnow with the adjective aeterna explains
the Greek basis of domus aeterna found in a tomb inscription probably
based on Ecclesiastes xii 5. Indeed, a post-Diocletianic inscription from
the Via Portuensis in Rome (Frey 337) has oäkow aÞÅniow.

21. 1 Sam. xxv 29

MT
ligatus in ligatorium vitae97
Merida (Spain) 8th century
LXX ¤ndedem¡nh ¤n desmÒ t°w zv°w
Not only do both the Old Latin and the LXX render the repeated
root in , but the Old Latin clearly follows the
LXX in rendering the “plural” with the singular vitae.

95
Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xxxvii; Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 308.
96
See 523 in J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (Vatican City, 1936; revised
by B. Lifshitz, New York, 1976).
97
Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xxxviii citing Ascoli, Atti del IV Congresso inter-
nazionale degli Orientalisti, I (Florence, 1880), and Kedar, “Latin Translations”, p. 308.
510 matthew kraus

22. Prov. x 7
MT
memoria justorum ad benedictionem 98
Tarentum (Italy) 7th-8th century
LXX mn®mh dikaÛvn metƒ ¤gkvmÛvn
Aquila mn®mh dikaÛou eÞw eélogÛan
The context of the inscription conŽ rms the Greek source of the
Latin. The epitaph is inscribed on two sides of a stone in Latin and
Hebrew, although the Latin and Hebrew text hardly correspond. In
the case where the Latin seems to translate the Hebrew, the Hebrew
text reads . Rather than render the Hebrew of
the inscription which has been adapted from the biblical verse, the
Latin portion of the inscription reproduces the biblical verse itself.
Therefore, the immediate source of the Latin is not the Hebrew as
inscribed on the epitaph. When one compares the rendition of the
phrase in the inscription and LXX, the Latin seems to follow
the semantics of the Hebrew. While the LXX may lie behind the
plural iustorum, Aquila provides a better explanation for the Latin: bene-
dictio exactly renders eélogÛa and the unusual use of the preposition
ad here can be traced to its Greek equivalent eÞw.
Thus, although these inscriptions seem to derive from a Hebrew source,
in fact, they depend upon the Greek biblical tradition. We should not
be surprised then that Blondheim also cites inscriptions including bib-
lical phrases that depend on the Greek.99 In addition, inscriptions also
contain expressions that appear frequently in the Bible and re ect a
manifestly Hebrew character: in nomine Domini,100 ancilla tua,101 in saeculum,102
aperiti porta(s).103 And again the inscriptions can be used to prove the in u-
ence of Hebraized Greek on the Latin as opposed to direct Hebraization
of the Latin. For example, in nomine Domini appears in an epitaph con-
taining Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, but it translates the Greek ([¤n t]Ò
[ôn]Å[ma]th K(urÛo)u) not the Hebrew ( [ ] ).104 Moreover,

98
Frey, CII, 629.
99
Dormitio tua in pace combines the Greek of Ps. iv 9 and Isa. lvii 2 (Blondheim,
Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xlv), and dormitio tua in bonis rests on the LXX’s rendition of
Ps. xxv 13 (Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xxxvii).
100
Tortosa, 5th-6th century (183 in D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe,
Volume 1: Italy [excluding the City of Rome, Spain and Gaul] [Cambridge, 1993]).
101
Hammam-Lif, Roman period (Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xxxvii). See
Schürer, III.62-63.
102
Sardinia, date uncertain (Noy 174).
103
Merida, 8th-9th century (Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, p. xxxviii).
104
It should be noted, however, that the Greek appears after the Latin and its style
clearly identiŽ es it as a translation of the Latin.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 511

in Deut. xviii 7 the Vulgate reads in nomine Domini while the VL (from
Aug. Quaest. 28 on Deuteronomy) reads nomini Domini. Thus, the inscrip-
tion could also re ect the provenance of Jerome’s version not the Old
Latin. Similarly, the Vulgate uses ancilla tua105 and aperite portas.106 While
in saeculum is clearly a Hebraism derived from , the LXX often
uses the phrase eÞw aÞÅna. Since saeculum has closer semantic ties to
aàvn than to , again we have a Hebraism mediated through the
Greek.107 Thus, these biblical inscriptions further conŽ rm the contention
that Hebraized Latin renderings of Scripture derive from the Greek
or depend upon Jerome, not on Jewish reworkings of the text.

Evidence for the Jewish use of the Vetus Latina

Not only does the inscriptional evidence fail to be conclusive, it also

suggests that Hebraisms in the Old Latin appear after Origen, that is,
after the Hebraizing work on the Septuagint. In fact, all the textual
evidence and inscriptions date to the 4th century and later, namely
during and after Jerome. This date corresponds with the external evi-
dence for the use of a Latin Bible by Jewish communities. The attes-
tations of Jews praying in Latin from Severus date to 418 well after
Jerome began his program of Hebraizing the Septuagint:
Pergere igitur ad synagogam coepimus, et hymnum Christo per plateum
ex multitudine laetitiae canebamus: psalmus autem, qui mira iucunditate
etiam a Iudaeorum populis decantabatur, hic fuit: periit memoria eorum
cum strepitu et Dominus in aeternum permanet (Psalm ix 7).108

Even more signiŽ cantly, the text of Psalm ix 7 recited by Jews cor-
responds to Jerome’s version of Psalms, iuxta LXX. The Jewish com-
munity relied on Jerome’s work! The fact that Jerome abandoned his
revision of the Old Latin in favor of a new translation according to
the Hebrew does not eliminate the possibility that other Christians
continued his program. Indeed, Augustine, of North Africa, preferred
Jerome’s original project, to revise the Old Latin/LXX in accordance
with the Hebrew.109 Justinian’s Novella 146 of 553 C.E., while providing

105
E.g., Gen. xxi 12, Exod. xxiii 12, Ps. cxvi (cxv) 16.
106
E.g., Isa. xxvi 2.
107
See above, no. 20.
108
Severus Maioricensis, Epistula de Iudaeis.
109
Ep. 2.82 (Ad Hieronymum): ideo autem desidero interpretationem tuam de LXX
ut . . . tanta Latinorum interpretum qui qualescumque hoc ausi sunt quantum possumus
imperitia careamus.
512 matthew kraus

solid evidence of Jewish communities reading the Bible in Latin, at

the same time suggests that this happened rarely.110 On the one hand,
the same novella identiŽ es Aquila as the preferred translation of Jewish
communities. On the other hand, in the actual reference to Jewish use
of a Latin Bible, fvn°w . . . t°w patrÛou tuxñn, the novella explains that
the “ancestral tongue” refers to “Latin”. The need for a gloss suggests
that the notion of Jews reading Scripture in Latin would not be read-
ily understood. Without discussing here the debate over Jerome’s Hebrew
sources, let it suYce to note, for example, that in the passage from
Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim xxxviii 5, Jerome utilizes Aquila to derive
the meaning of the transliterated Hebrew word.111 The inscription based
on Proverbs x 7 indicates a similar case since it too is based on Aquila’s
rendition of the phrase.112 Thus, the continued popularity of Aquila in
the time of Justinian both provides an explanation of a possible source
for Hebraisms and indicates a continued interest in Hebraized Greek
versions in order to understand the LXX properly.
In addition to Aquila, the Lucianic recension has appeared as the
source of many Hebraisms in the Old Latin. The Achmimic version
derives from Aquila, Symmachus and an unknown translator. The
Armenian similarly derives from the Hexaplaric recension. Thus, these
Hebraisms can be traced to the Hebraizing traditions in the trans-
mission of the Greek text.
Moreover, the assumption of a Hebrew-speaking community in the
Latin world is further countered by evidence for the Greek origin of
these Jewish communities. Thus, in the Latin inscriptions in the cata-
combs we Ž nd Greek terms like apostolus, cancelli, cathedra, colens, dies
magnos, entol.113 Christine Mohrmann has demonstrated that the Latin
Church similarly had Greek beginnings.114 Therefore, the Greek origins
of these communities support the textual evidence of a Greek source
for these Hebraisms.

110
A. Linder, The Jews in Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987), No. 66.
111
Verbum Hebraeum hic [¤n XasbÛ] pro loci vocabulo positum est, quod Aquila
pro re transtulit dicens: ‘et vocavit nomen eius Selom. et factum est ut mentirentur in
partu, postquam genuit eum’. Postquam enim genuit selom, stetit partus eius. Chazbi
ergo non nomen loci sed mendacium dicitur.
112
See above, no. 22.
113
Blondheim, Les parles judéo-romaine, pp. lviii-lxvii.
114
Ch. Mohrmann, “Linguistic Problems in the Early Christian Church”, VC 11
(1957), pp. 22-29.
 hebraisms in the old latin version of the bible 513

To be sure, Augustine testiŽ es to multiple renditions of the LXX into

Latin, any one of which may have been made by a Latin-speaking
Jew. Nevertheless, Augustine understands the Old Latin not as a trans-
lation of the Hebrew, but as a translation of the LXX. Indeed, among
the Latin Fathers, the LXX and VL are often treated as synonymous.
The implication here is that even if the VL were Hebraized from a
Jewish source, it was never conceived as such. That is, the Hebraisms in
the VL simply would produce the correct LXX, not the corrected LXX.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates the following:
1. There is no evidence of a translation of the Bible directly from the
Hebrew into Latin prior to Jerome.
2. There is no evidence of a recension or editorial reworking of the
Old Latin directly from the Hebrew.
3. Hebraisms in the Old Latin must be attributed to the Greek tra-
dition or Jerome and his in uence. This Greek tradition may have
had a non-masoretic Hebrew Vorlage or been edited in accordance
with the MT or Hebrew exegetical traditions.
4. Since Jerome’s time there is evidence of interest in the Hebrew text
behind the Latin. This also accounts for the Hebraisms found in
inscriptions and the text of the VL.
5. Jewish communities utilized a Latin Bible borrowed from Christians
after Jerome.

Abstract
Recent work on the Old Latin version of the Bible attributes Hebraisms to a hebraized
Greek Vorlage. The results of this work question previous claims that the Hebraisms of
the Old Latin derive from Jewish attempts to revise the Old Latin towards the Hebrew
directly through Hebrew texts and Jewish exegetical traditions. This study reconsiders
the evidence in favor of Hebraizations of the Old Latin from a Hebrew source and
concludes that:
1. There was no translation of the Bible directly from the Hebrew into Latin prior to
Jerome.
2. There was no editorial reworking of the Old Latin directly from the Hebrew.
3. Hebraisms in the Old Latin must be attributed to the Greek tradition or Jerome
and his in uence.
4. Since Jerome’s time, interest in the Hebrew text behind the Latin also accounts for
the Hebraisms found in the Old Latin.
5. Jewish communities utilized a Latin Bible borrowed from Christians after Jerome.