Joshua, Judges, and Ruth are numbered with Esther as books he was just publishing, 'post fflmcta Paulas dormitionem ' in the I'ra'/atio in Jobue.
For Tohit and Jttdith see the prefaces to those books ; Jerome was not himself acquainted with Chaldee, but he obtained the help of a scholar who translated the Chaldee into Hebrew, which Jerome in turn translated into Latin.
For his refusal to translate afresh Wisdom and Ecclesiastims see the Pro/, in libr. Sal. iuxta LXX : ' Porro in eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur, et in Eoclesiastico, quem esse Jesu filii Sirach nullus ignorat, calamo teniperavi, tantummodo Canonicas Scripturas vobis emendaredesiderans ' ; though this was written before he be^ian the translation of the OT f"rom the Hebrew, he does not seem to have changed his mind afterwards. With regard to the Maccabees, however, the evidence is conflicting. He nowhere mentions translating the books himself, and his languaM quoted above certainly suggests that he had no intention of doing so in 3S7 ; in the Prologtis tialeatxts (390-91) he passes them by with a short notice : ■ MachabEorum primuiu librum Hebraicum reperi ; secundus Grajcus est quod ex ipsa quoque phrasi pr.ibari potest.' Yet, as M, Berger pointed out to the present writer, there are fairly numerous remains of an Old Latin version of the Mace, other than that which appears in the Vulgate Bible ; and these differ so much that the latter must be regarded as a new recension if not an independent translation ; see the parallel versions in Sabaticr(Ci(</. Sacr. Lat. versiones, vol. ii.). Sabatier himself (pp. 1013, 1014) allows that Jerome may have corrected the older version, though he hardly thinks he actually retranslated it.
Forhistreatmentof CanicA seethe Pro;/', in Jerem.. : 'Librum Baruch . . . qui apud Hebrasos nee legitur nee habetur prwter- misimus.' , . , , t- r,-i.i I
It may be worth while to arrange the books of the Bible In the chronological order of their revision and retraDslation, as given us in the above investigation.
New Testament. 3S3*.D. The four Gospels. 334-385. Rest of the New Testament.
Firit revision o/ Psalter.
S83-384. Psaltcrium Romanum.
Revision of Old Testament from the Septuagint.
3S7 (probably). Psalterium Gallicanum.
887 or somewhat later. Job, followed by Proverbf, Eocleel-
astes, Song of Songs, Chronicles. 388-.391. Rest of the Canonical books (probably).
Retranslation of Old Testament /ram the Hebreu.
390 or 391. Books of Samuel and Kings.
392 -393. Psalms, Prophets, Job.
394. Esdras.
399. Chronicles.
398. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Son^
401? Genesis, followed by Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy. 405. Joshua, J udges, Ruth, Esther.
Tohit. Judith, and apocryphal parts of Daniel and
Esther.
We have said that it was at the wish of friends that most of the translations were undertaken ; *
• e.(j. the Pentateuch was translated at the wish of Desiderius : Chronicles for Chromatins, the books of Esdras for Domnio and itogatianus, fcjither for I*aula and Eustochium.
yet Jerome's friends, who could realize present needs and foresee future advantages, were a small circle ; the vast bodj of clergy and laity were satis- fied with the existing versions ; and the mutter ings of suspicion which were aroused by the emended version of the NT were as nothing com- pared with the storm of indignation and opposition which the translation of the OT from the Hebrew brought on Jerome's head.* No doubt several causes had to do with tliis result; Jerome's own hot temper, and the terribly ready and powerful tongue he could use whenever duty seemed to urge him to speak, had gained him many enemies ; the fame of his learning may have made other scholars jealous and critical ; but the great stumbling- block was that he should have gone behind the Septuagint version, and made a translation which took no account of it, and even set itself up as an independent rival. The popular legends as to the miraculous agreement of the seventy translators had no doubt surrounded the Greek version with a halo of sanctity, and its frequent use by the NT writers in quotation would help to place it, as regards inspiration, on a level with the original Hebrew ; and no charge seems to have been more constantly hurled at Jerome than that of presump- tion, unlawful innovation, sacrilege, in daring to put aside the LXX version. Even Augustine held the LXX to he equally inspired with the original Hebrew, t and deprecated any new translation, though mainly from fear of the ofl'ence it would cause to the weaker brethren, t A i(tory became current that a certain African bishop had adopted the new version for public use in his Church ; in the book of Jonah, Jerome had employed tlie word hedera for the gourd under which the prophet rested, instead of the cucurbita of the earlier Latin versions ; the introduction of this new translation in a familiar passage of Scripture caused such e.xcitement and tumult in the Church that the bishop was nearly left without a flock. § This incident, whether real or fictitious, would serve as a very fair specimen of the hostility which a new translation of Scripture was sure to encounter; and it would take several generations for such opposition to die out; and certainly Jeromes method of meeting it, as exemplified in his letters to Augustine, was the reverse of conciliatory. In the prefaces to the various books of the OT Jerome defended himself with great warmth from the charges brought against him. Over and over again he nuiintained that he did not intend to cast a slur upon the LXX translation, II and that he was only endeavouring to render the Hebrew as faithfully as possible, and to make passages clear which in the LXX and the Old Latin were obscure. The objection that the LXX must be inspired and perfect because the apostles and NT writers quoted the OT in that version, he met by bringing forward five quotations (Mt 2">-^, Jn 19", 1 Co 2» Jn 7^, which could not have been taken from the LXX,