Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

Steven Avery

Well-known member
cjab said:
According to Walter Dunphy, Rufinus the Syrian is the same person as Rufinus of Aqueleia, who was the NT translator after Jerome died or gave up due to infirmity. I don't think anyone is suggesting Pelagius himself as the translator: such is a red herring. I think you've got a lot of work to do to show Jerome as finishing the Vg NT himself.

No red herring.
Pelagius has been one of the many pegged by those who do not accept Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate.

And hose defending Jerome's authorship of the full NT always made the most sense. :)

Metzger mentions from recent times: Buonaiuti, Mangenot, Chapman, and Souter. A larger scholarship review would be welcome, but I have not seen much yet.

Bruce M. Metrger gave a scholarship review.

=================================

The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977, reprint 2001)
Bruce M. Metzger

(c) At this point in the discussion of the Greek text underlying the Vulgate it will be appropriate to consider the question how much of the New Testament Vulgate is really Jerome’s work. The commonly accepted opinion has been that, having finished his revision of the Gospels in 384, Jerome performed his work on the rest of the New Testament in a much more cursory manner, leaving much of the Old Latin as he found it.5 During the twentieth century, however, this view was



1655863469754.png


vigorously opposed by several Roman Catholic scholars. The Benedictine Donatien De Bruyne proposed the astonishing thesis that what is commonly taken to be Jerome’s Vulgate text of the Pauline Epistles is none other than the work of Pelagius.1 The arguments advanced in support of this opinion are chiefly two: (a) in his commentaries, Jerome very frequently quotes with approval a form of the text of the Pauline Epistles which he himself rejected in the Vulgate; and (b) Pelagius not only cites the text of the Vulgate but knew Greek well enough to produce such a version. Next, the Dominican M.-J. Lagrange, while not accepting the role of Pelagius in the production of the Vulgate, argued in such a way as to lead readers to conclude that he denied that Jerome had any part in producing the Vulgate text of Romans and Galatians.2 A few years later, the Jesuit Ferdinand Cavallera went beyond De Bruyne and denied that Jerome had any part in making the Vulgate text of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse.3

As would be expected, these views did not lack opponents who just as vigorously upheld the traditional view; notable among them were Buonaiuti,4 Mangenot,5 Chapman,6 and Souter.7 In opposition to De Bruyne, Chapman


1655863362964.png



maintained that, at the time Pelagius wrote his commentaries on Paul, he knew no Greek and proposed no Greek variant readings. Furthermore, Souter found reason to believe that the scribe of MS. Augiensis cxix (see below) of Pelagius’ Expositions had replaced the original lemmata with the text of Jerome’s Vulgate. The chief proof that Jerome was then reviser of the entire New Testament, according to Chapman, is the uniformity of the principles according to which the Vulgate text as a whole differs from the Old Latin. In refutation of the argument based on the circumstance that Jerome approves in his commentaries what he rejects in his translation, Chapman argued that: (a) Jerome found reason to change his opinion on certain textual details during the interval between writing his commentaries and the time that Chapman thought he completed his final revision of the Vulgate (a.d. 391); and (b) in other cases Jerome was simply inconsistent in his literary work.

(snip detail on Pelagius theories)

In any case, it appears that the most that can be said with certainty is that the Vulgate text of St. Paul’s Epistles came into being in the closing years of the fourth century at the latest. Its author is unknown, although he is to be identified with the man who gave to the Vulgate at least the Catholic Epistles and per- haps the whole of the New Testament apart from the Gospels. If it be asked why Jerome, having begun with the Gospels, did not continue with the rest of the New Testament, it may well be that Jerome’s zeal for the Hebraica veritas led him to abandon, after the Gospels, his project to revise the entire New Testament.1


1655864131876.png
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
In terms of prodigiousness of output of Greek->Latin translation, Rufinus of Aquileia (died 411) was scarcely equalled amongst men. He died before the Pelagian controversies really got going: Pelaganism wasn't condemned until years after his death. His translations are commonly accepted as the basis for the Pelagian writings.

Translations from Greek to Latin​

Rufinus translated the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea and continued the work from the reign of Constantine I to the death of Theodosius I (395). It was published in 402 or 403.

Origen's commentary on the New Testament Epistle to the Romans, along with many of his sermons on the Old Testament, survive only in versions by Rufinus. The full text of Origen's De principiis (On first principals) also survives only in Rufinus' translation. Jerome, earlier a friend of Rufinus, fell out with him and wrote at least three works opposing his opinions and condemning his translations as flawed. For instance, Jerome prepared a (now lost) translation of Origen's De principiis to replace Rufinus' translation, which Jerome said was too free.

The other translations of Rufinus are
  1. the Instituta Monachorum and some of the Homilies of Basil of Caesarea
  2. the Apology of Pamphilus, referred to above
  3. Origen's Principia
  4. Origen's Homilies (Gen. Lev. Num. Josh. Kings, also Cant, and Rom.)
  5. De recta in Deum fide by Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius)
  6. Opuscula of Gregory of Nazianzus
  7. the Sententiae of Sixtus, an unknown Greek philosopher
  8. the Sententiae of Evagrius
  9. the Clementine Recognitions (the only form in which that work is now extant)
  10. the Canon Paschalis of Anatolius Alexandrinus.[1]
  11. Josephus' Antiquities and The Jewish War (Josephus de antiquitatibus ac de bello judaico.)
 

cjab

Well-known member
I never put forward Pelagius as a translator. That's your straw man.

Even Walter Dunphy looks very skeptical, although at the moment we only have the front page.

Walter Dunphy
PS-RUFINUS (THE “SYRIAN”) AND THE VULGATE: EVIDENCE WANTING!
https://www.pdcnet.org/agstm/content/agstm_2012_0052_0001_0219_0256
Yeah, if you'd checked out the previous article I cited by Dunphy, you would have discovered he doesn't believe such a person as (Pseudo) RUFINUS (THE “SYRIAN”) existed.

One of the problems you have with relying on Jerome as the author of the Vulgate is that there a lot of people disputing Jerome as the author right now, but you don't have access to any of their articles because you're not an academic.

Hugh Houghton in his comprehensive account of the Latin translations – The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts, Oxford, Univ. Press (2016) 41 – has dropped the candidacy of the Syrian, and opted for the solution that the translator remains unknown.

You may have a friend in a blogger called Peter Lorenz (his WWW blog site is currently unavailable). Inter alia he said "But one unexpected revelation of the Apology is Rufinus’s apparent belief that the Vulgate, at least as conceived by Jerome, was entirely Jerome’s idea". However it suggests you may be a little optimistic in relying only on your preferred authors. You'll need to produce more evidence for your contentions.

________________________________________________
This is a part of a cache from his blog:

"Much of what we believe we know about the origins of Jerome’s revision of the Latin Bible, Jerome himself is our only source.1 To read Jerome’s version of events, we come away with the picture of a persecuted scholar obediently fulfilling a commission from Rome to restore the variant-ridden texts of the Latin church, while virtually directing the course of the Latin version from a cell in Bethlehem. From his self-portrait as innocent victim of unwarranted attacks to his complaints about the ignorant masses incapable of appreciating his vision of the authority of the Greek and Hebrew versions, Jerome’s rhetoric shines when polishing his own literary image.

To judge the effectiveness of Jerome’s rhetoric, we might consider B. M. Metzer’s account of the Vulgate’s origins:
.
“… various people, at various times and in various places, with varying degrees of success, had translated various parts of the Bible into Latin. The result was chaos. The different versions had become so mixed and corrupt that no two manuscripts agreed. Accordingly Pope Damasus (366–84) undertook to remedy this intolerable situation, and the scholar to whom he entrusted the arduous task was the great biblical scholar of the ancient Latin Church, Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus, known to us today as St. Jerome.”2
.
.
But given Jerome’s pattern of self-promotion and exaggeration in reporting events concerning his own personal narrative, such an approach is not without risk in attempting to acquire an accurate assessment of Jerome’s place in textual history."


The Importance of Rufinus’s Account of Jerome​

So we are relieved to find in Rufinus’s Apology against Jerome a voice that for once challenges Jerome’s own carefully-crafted and closely-controlled literary self-portrayal. Rufinus’s characterization of Jerome is nearly the opposite of his own. We hear of Jerome’s meanness, pettiness, fickleness, conniving, perjury, deception, self-delusion, and willingness to preserve his literary reputation at virtually any cost.
We cannot forget of course that Rufinus was himself in conflict with Jerome at this time. Moreover, Jerome is able to defend himself on certain points in his own counter Apology against Rufinus. Yet we get the sense that Rufinus restrains himself from revealing all that he could:

“for God is my witness how truly I can say that I have kept silence on many more points than I have brought forward.” (Against Jerome 2.44; NPNF 2.3, 481)

According to Rufinus, he has spared Jerome a humiliating exposure, just has David spared Saul:
“Let us not follow his example [Jerome’s], but rather that of the patriarch David, who, when he had surprised his enemy Saul in the cave and might have slain him, refused to do so, but spared him. This man [Jerome] knows well how often I have done the same by him, both in word and deed; and if he does not choose to confess it, he has it fixed at least in his mind and conscience.” (Against Jerome 1.31; NPNF 2.3, 452)

Rufinus refers to incriminating letters in his possession:

“he [Jerome] knows that I possess a letter of his in which, while he discharges others, he makes his strictures fall upon Ambrose. But, since that letter contains certain more secret matters, I do not wish to see it published before the right time; and therefore I will corroborate what I say by other proofs similar to it.” (Against Jerome 2.23; NPNF 2.3, 470)

Of course, this evidence of restraint only serves to enhance Rufinus’s credibility.

Rufinus on Jerome’s Commission … or Lack Thereof​

But one unexpected revelation of the Apology is Rufinus’s apparent belief that the Vulgate, at least as conceived by Jerome, was entirely Jerome’s idea. Rufinus (like Augustine) is especially concerned with Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew scriptures over the LXX:
“But this emendation of the Seventy, what are we to think of it? … This has been the present which you have made us with your excess of wisdom, that we are all judged even by the heathen as lacking in wisdom [for changing the basis of the text].” (Against Jerome 2.35; NPNF 2.3, 476)
Rufinus echoes the sentiments of other writers (such as Augustine) with facetious disbelief, referring to Jerome as a self-appointed “legislator” of the text, acting on his own initiative:

“When the world has grown old and all things are hastening to their end, let us change the inscriptions upon the tombs of the ancients, so that it may be known by those who had read the story otherwise, that it was not a gourd but an ivy plant under whose shade Jonah rested; and that, when our legislator [Jerome] pleases, it will no longer be the shade of ivy but of some other plant.” (Against Jerome 2.35; NPNF 2.3, 476.) 4

Significantly, Rufinus sees Jerome as challenging the authority on which the text stands from that of the apostles to that of his own critical judgment:

“And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles?” (Against Jerome 2.32; NPNF 2.3, 475, italics mine)

“he [Jerome] has altered the sacred books which the Apostles had committed to the churches as the trustworthy deposit of the Holy Spirit” (Against Jerome 2.43; NPNF 2.3, 480, italics mine)
“… to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation?” (Against Jerome 2.32; NPNF 2.3, 475, italics mine)

“Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?” (Against Jerome 2.32; NPNF 2.3, 475, italics mine)

This is no abstract charge. Of course, the apostles were no longer present in person. But the Roman see evidently understood itself to be exercising the same authority. At the Roman synod of 378, during Damasus’s reign, we encounter the first reference to Rome as an apostolic see.5 From a vantage point in Rome, Ambrosiaster notes that

“the succession is preserved beginning with the apostle Peter and handed down to the present time by the succession of bishops” (Quaest. 110.7)6
.
.
.
(cont.)
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
(cont.)

So Rufinus’s charge that Jerome has undermined the authority of the apostolic text comes close to a denial that he is presently acting on behalf of a pope who claimed to possess apostolic authority.

While Rufinus focuses on the Hebrew translation as in his view the most egregious example of Jerome’s pretension to authority, he also cites Jerome’s Preface to the Four Gospels, suggesting that his criticisms are not limited to the Old Testament translation, but to a certain extent apply to the entire revision:

“To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: ‘Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work?’ [citing the Preface]” (Against Jerome 2.32; NPNF 2.3, 475)

According to Rufinus, it is Jerome’s “style” to make unilateral judgments according to his “own arrogant authority” on which texts are suitable for the larger church:

“with that ‘censor’s rod’ of yours, and by your own arrogant authority, you make your decrees in this style: ‘Let this book be cast out of the libraries, let that book be retained; … Let this one be counted as Catholic …” (Against Jerome 2.30; NPNF 2.3, 474, italics mine)

Rufinus then states explicitly what he has previously only suggested, namely, that Jerome has no support from any authority in Rome:

“This action [translating the OT] is yours, my brother, yours alone. It is clear that no one in the church has been your companion or confederate in it …” (Against Jerome 2.37; NPNF 2.3, 477)

So Rufinus is apparently convinced that the Vulgate — at least in the Old Testament and apparently in the gospels as well — is solely Jerome’s idea. Rufinus mentions nothing of the commission by the pope that Jerome mentions in the Preface, of which he presumably must have known had it existed. It is clear then that, in Rufinus’s view, Jerome never had the support of any ecclesiastical authority.

How then did the Vulgate prevail? In a fascinating picture, Rufinus depicts Jerome as essentially the director of a scriptorium of his own works, who floods the churches with unsolicited copies of his revision:

“But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? are they to be treated as human or divine?” (Against Jerome 2.32; NPNF 2.3, 475)

So according to Rufinus, Jerome is acting entirely on his own initiative with no commission from Rome, while propagating the results by effectively “spamming” the churches and monasteries, cities and walled towns with unsolicited copies of his work.
.
.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I never put forward Pelagius as a translator. That's your straw man.

This is a reference to the scholars who have been looking for an alternative to Jerome.

Note: I even made that clear earlier.

No red herring.
Pelagius has been one of the many pegged by those who do not accept Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate.

First they tried Pelagius, later they tried Rufinus.

No straw man involved.
You should pay attention so as not to throw out false fallacies.

Or they call it a mystery.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
First they tried Pelagius, later they tried Rufinus.
Given that you've yet to address the authors deferred to by the Wiki article I cited earlier ,
  • Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville: Éditions du Cerf. pp. 89–90, 217. ISBN 978-2-204-12618-2.
  • Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press.
  • Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013). Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 183.
I think we can say, work in progress to affirm Jerome as author from your POV. The consensus is currently against you. Here is what Houghton has to say (NB: his work is currently downloadable - see link below);

"The whole of the latter part of the Vulgate New Testament has a common
origin. There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the
Gospels and the other writings: while Jerome introduces various forms for
which no basis can be discerned in Greek, almost all of the innovations in the
Vulgate of the other books represent Greek readings. What is more, the alterations
made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles appear to reflect a Greek text similar to
that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by
Jerome in the Gospels.69 There are, however, some similarities between August-
ine and Jerome’s quotations of the Catholic Epistles and the Vulgate, suggesting
that they drew on a similar Latin source to that used by the reviser. Like Jerome’s
reordering of the four evangelists, the sequence of books was changed by the
reviser on the basis of a Greek tradition: in the Pauline Epistles, Colossians was
made to follow Ephesians and Philippians (as in the Primum quaeritur pro-
logue), while James was placed first among the Catholic Epistles."

p. 41 Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press.

 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hugh Houghton in his comprehensive account of the Latin translations – The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts, Oxford, Univ. Press (2016) 41 – has dropped the candidacy of the Syrian, and opted for the solution that the translator remains unknown.

Right, I covered that here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...illian-isaac-the-jew.6515/page-12#post-770437

Once the scholars move away from the traditional acceptance of Jerome they tend to spin around and around. Pelagius, a friend of Pelagius, Rufinus, a mystery person.

The book from Alice Canellis is still accepting
"the traditional opinion (Rufin the Syrian, Rufinus Syrius)"
(correspondence)

However that is a modern opinion, not traditional, and rather short-lived.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
.
You may have a friend in a blogger called Peter Lorenz (his WWW blog site is currently unavailable). Inter alia he said "But one unexpected revelation of the Apology is Rufinus’s apparent belief that the Vulgate, at least as conceived by Jerome, was entirely Jerome’s idea". However it suggests you may be a little optimistic in relying only on your preferred authors. You'll need to produce more evidence for your contentions.

________________________________________________
This is a part of a cache from his blog:

Available at Archive.org

The Vulgate — Jerome’s idea?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210418152959/https://peterlorenz.me/2017/03/05/jeromes-idea/
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Given that you've yet to address the authors deferred to by the Wiki article I cited earlier ,
  • Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press.

Hugh Houghton is very tentative and equivocal in searching for an alternative away from Jerome. And, as you pointed out, he ends in a mystery. Which is not much of a solution. :) .

John Chapman defended Jerome authorship in 1922-23, and his response remains very solid.

Rick Norris tried to use quotes from Hugh Houghton, the most detailed one included two verses from the Pauline Epistles. However, they had already been nicely answered by John Chapman.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...illian-isaac-the-jew.6515/page-10#post-768591

Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013). Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 183

Also for Rufinus the Syrian, an idea essentially discarded by Hugh Houghton and Walter Dunphy.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Don't forget Jerome's own Catholicizing (corrupting) of Origen's works which Rufinus said set the precedent for his orthodox revamping.

The Rufinus translations of Origen to Latin have often been subject to criticism.
Dale Tuggy documented Rufinus mistranslating Origen to add a Nicean, Trinitarian spin that was not in Origen.

Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 1 (2015)
Dale Tuggy
https://trinities.org/blog/rufinuss-corruption-of-origens-on-first-principles-part-1/

One such passage jumped out at me just now, in On First Principles IV.2.7.
Here’s the Greek as related by Basil and Gregory:

And when we speak of the needs of souls, who cannot otherwise reach perfection except through the rich and wise truth about God, we attach of necessity pre-eminent importance to the doctrines concerning God and His only begotten Son; of what nature the Son is, and in what manner he can be the Son of God

Note that Origen uses “God” three times here, each time obviously meaning the Father only.

Here is Rufinus’ Latin rendering, or rather, re-write.

For in no other way can the soul reach the perfection of knowledge except by being inspired with the truth of the divine wisdom. Therefore, it is chiefly the doctrine about God, that is, about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is indicated by those men who were filled with the divine Spirit. Then too the mysteries relating to the Son of God… (Origen, On First Principles, trans. Butterworth, p. 283, emphases added)

==============================

Now, to be fair, I am not usually a fan of the Dale Tuggy scholarship, but in this case he seems to have made a solid find, that helps to demonstrate the unreliability of Rufinus.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Note that Origen uses “God” three times here, each time obviously meaning the Father only.
It's ironic given the tendency of the ECFs towards trinitarianism, which you now have proof of, that you can't see that the Comma was also fabricated in the biblical text by some Latin Trinitarian bigot.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It's ironic given the tendency of the ECFs towards trinitarianism, which you now have proof of, that you can't see that the Comma was also fabricated in the biblical text by some Latin Trinitarian bigot.

The early church writers took the heavenly witnesses verse as a base for their Trinitarian forumlations. Much as they also took Matthew 28:19. That does not mean their formulations were accurate.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The early church writers took the heavenly witnesses verse as a base for their Trinitarian forumlations. Much as they also took Matthew 28:19. That does not mean their formulations were accurate.
I don't think so, as if you look into it, the addition of the Holy Spirit to the 'Trinity' was very late, by the Latin Tertullian; and it didn't come from the bible but was defined in terms of a common essence, according to the Greek philosophical principle of Gods begetting Gods.

The first recorded use of the Greek word "trinity" in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in about 170AD. He did not speak about the Holy Spirit as part of a triad:

…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

Triads of three closely associated deities were commonly found throughout the ancient world, and in particular in the religious traditions of Ancient Greece.

 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
the addition of the Holy Spirit to the 'Trinity' was very late, by the Latin Tertullian; and it didn't come from the bible but was defined in terms of a common essence, according to the Greek philosophical principle of Gods begetting Gods.

Tertullian wrote the “three are one”. Straight from 1 John.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Do you have a reference for the above? Rufinus wrote quite a lot of stuff.

So, Avery knows about this. He's never going to change his opinion, that's his choice.

Here's Rufinus first.

RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (circa. 340-410 C.E.): “...That in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors,{*} and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occuring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e., the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers, after spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, ADDED WHAT WE had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings...” - (Preface to the Translations of Origen’s Books Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν Addressed to Macarius, at Pinetum, a.d. 397. Translated by The Hon. and Rev. William Henry Fremantle, M.A. Canon of Canterbury, Fellow and Tutor of Baliol College, Oxford. Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York, and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London Published in 1892 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.)
[FOOTNOTE *]:
Referring to Jerome Epistle 61, To Vigilantius.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.vii.html

RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (circa. 340-410 C.E.): “...[7.] Now as to another matter. I am told that objections have been raised against me because, forsooth, at the request of some of my brethren, I translated certain works of Origen from Greek into Latin. I suppose that every one sees that it is only through ill will that this is made a matter of blame. For, if there is any offensive statement in the author, why is this to be twisted into a fault of the translator? I was asked to exhibit in Latin what stands written in the Greek text; and I did nothing more than fit the Latin words to the Greek ideas. If, therefore, there is anything to praise in these ideas, the praise does not belong to me; and similarly as to anything to which blame may attach. I admit that i put something of my own into the work; as I stated in my preface, I used my own discretion in cutting out not a few passages; but only those as to which I had come to suspect that the thing had not been so stated by Origen himself; and the statement appeared to me in these cases to have been inserted by others, because in other places I had found the author state the matter in a Catholic sense. I entreat you therefore, holy, venerable and saintly father, not to permit a storm of ill will to be raised against me because of this, nor to sanction the employment of partisanship and of calumny--weapons which ought never to be used in the Church of God. Where can simple faith and innocence be safe if they are not protected in the Church? I am not a defender or a champion of Origen; nor am I the first who has translated his works. Other(s) before me had done the very same thing, and I did it, the last of many, at the request of my brethren. If an order is to be given that such translations are not to be made, such an order holds good for the future, not the past; but if those are to be blamed who have made these translations before any such order was given, the blame must begin with those who took the first step. [8.] As for me, I declare in Christ's name that I never held, nor ever will hold, any other faith but that which I have set forth above, that is, the faith which is held by the Church of Rome, by that of Alexandria, and by my own church of Aquileia; and which is also preached at Jerusalem; and if there is any one who believes otherwise, whoever he may be, let him be Anathema. But those who through mere ill will and malice engender dissensions and offences among their brethren, and cause them to stumble, shall give account of it in the day of judgment...” - (Section 7-8; “Rufinus' Apology in defense of himself - sent to Anastasius, Bishop of the city of Rome” Translated by The Hon. and Rev. William Henry Fremantle, M.A. Canon of Canterbury, Fellow and Tutor of Baliol College, Oxford. Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London Published in 1892 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.ix.html

Jerome set the precedent.

Rufinus followed his example.

There were "many" others as well before the time of writing the above.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Admission of the above from Jerome himself.

EUSEBIUS SOPHRONIUS HIERONYMUS/JEROME (circa. 347-420 C.E.): “...Origen is a heretic, true; but what does that take from me who do not deny that on very many points he is heretical? He has erred concerning the resurrection of the body, he has erred concerning the condition of souls, he has erred by supposing it possible that the Devil may repent, and—an error more important than these— he has declared in his Commentary Upon Isaiah that the Seraphim mentioned by the prophet are the divine Son and the Holy Ghost. If I did not allow that he has erred or if I did not daily anathematize his errors I should be partaker of his fault. For while we receive what is good in his writings we must on no account bind ourselves to accept also what is evil. Still in many passages he has interpreted the scriptures well, has explained obscure places in the Prophets, and has brought to light very great mysteries, both in the Old and in the New Testament. [Latin: “Si igitur quae bona sunt, transtuli ; et mala, vel amputavi, vel correxi, vel tacui“] If then I have taken over what is good in him and have either cut away - or altered - or ignored [Or: “If, therefore, I have translated the good, and have either cut off or corrected the bad, or kept silence about it”] what is evil, am I to be regarded as guilty on the score that through my agency those who read Latin receive the good in his writings without knowing anything of the bad? If this be a crime the confessor Hilary must be convicted; for he has rendered from Greek into Latin Origen's Explanation of the Psalms and his Homilies On Job. Eusebius of Vercellæ; who witnessed a like confession, must also be held in fault; for he has translated into our tongue the Commentaries upon all the Psalms of his heretical namesake, omitting however the unsound portions and rendering only those parts which are profitable. I say nothing of Victorinus of Petavium - and others - who have merely followed and expanded Origen in their explanation of the Scriptures. Were I to do so, I might seem less anxious to defend myself than to find for myself companions in guilt. I will come to your own case: Why do you keep copies of his Treatises on Job? In these, while arguing against the Devil and concerning the stars and heavens, he has said certain things which the Church does not receive. Is it for you alone, with that very wise head of yours, to pass sentence upon all writers Greek and Latin, with a wave of your censor's wand to eject some from our libraries and to admit others, and as the whim takes you to pronounce me either a Catholic or a heretic? And am I to be forbidden to reject things which are wrong and to condemn what I have often condemned already? Read what I have written upon the epistle to the Ephesians, read my other works, particularly my commentary upon Ecclesiastes, and you will clearly see that from my youth up I have never been terrified by any man's influence into acquiescence in heretical pravity...” - (Paragraph 2, Epistle 61, “To Vigilantius,” Letters of St. Jerome. Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001061.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LXI.html


Jeromes method was to:
  • Latin “amputavi” “cut away”
  • Latin “correxi” “alter”
  • Latin “tacui” “ignore” or “pass over in silence”
 
Top