"Magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum" (Hier. In Prol.Jud.) Jerome's Translation Art in the Vulgate of Tobit 
"Magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum" (Hier. In Prol.Jud.) A Arte da Tradução de Jerônimo na Vulgata de Tobit

Jose Lucas Brum Teixeira
Doutor em Sagrada Escritura pelo Pontifício Instituto Bíblico de Roma, Itália. Atualmente colaborador num projeto de pesquisa no Antigo Testamento pela Ruhr Universität Bochum, Alemanha.Contato: brumtjl@pm.me

Voltar ao Sumário

Resumo: O presente artigo considera a Vulgata de Tobit do ponto de vista do trabalho de São Jerônimo como tradutor da Bíblia. Ainda que a versão Vulgata do livro de Tobit permaneça sob vários aspectos um crux interpretum, nela encontramos exemplificados os principais princípios e técnicas usadas por Jerônimo em seus trabalhos de tradução. Na primeira seção considera-se o prefácio de Jerônimo às suas traduções de Tobit e Judith. Intimamente relacionados, estes oferecem importantes informações metodológicas sobre as mesmas. Na seção que segue apresentamos uma visão geral da tradução jerominiana de Tobit dentro do panorama da variada tradição textual do livro. Para se compreender melhor a peculiar colocação da Vulgata de Tobit nele, faz-se necessário considerar mais de perto os princípios de trabalho de Jerônimo como tradutor, argumento da seguinte seção. A parte final do estudo oferece uma análise sintética de uma das principais amplificações da Vulgata (Tob 2: 12-18), na qual se vêm exemplificados os principais princípios-guia de Jerônimo como tradutor, entre outros o de “sentido por sentido mais do que palavra por palavra”. Em termos gerais, o Tobit de Jerônimo também pode ser visto como resultado desses princípios e testemunha o interessante processo de recepção cristã de antigas histórias judaicas na antiguidade tardia. 

Palavras-chave: Tobit; tradução; vulgata; apócrifos; deuterocanônicos; Judite; exemplo; exegese teológica.   

Abstract: The present article considers the Vulgate of Tobit from the point of view of Jerome’s very work as Bible translator. Although Jerome’s version of the book remains regarding several aspects a crux interpretum, in it we find exemplified Jerome’s main translative principles and technique. In the first section we consider Jerome’s prefaces to Tobit and Judith (composed to be read in relationship to one another), as sources of valuable information of his translation principles. The following section offers in overview Jerome’s Tobit upon the background of the book’s varied textual tradition. To better appreciate its peculiar collocation within it, it is key a closer consideration of Jerome’s translative principles, object of the next section. The study’s final part offers a synthetic analysis of one of the Vulgate’s main amplifications (Tob 2:12-18) which exemplifies Jerome’s main translation principles, among others that of “sense for sense more than word for word.” In general terms Jerome’s Tobit may be seen also as a result of those principles, also witnessing to the Christian reception process of old Jewish stories in late antiquity. 

Key words: Tobit; Translation; Vulgate; Apocrypha; Deuterocanonical; Judith; example; theological exegesis.

Introduction

Jerome’s opus magnum was no doubt his revision/new translation into Latin of (almost) the whole Bible.[1] Commissioned by Pope Damasus I (366-384) as a revision of the variegated Old Latin text form of the Four Gospels in circulation at the time,[2] Jerome’s literary enterprise becomes finally the Vulgata Latina or Latin Vulgate,[3] a “new” Latin version of the whole Bible. From the sixth century onwards, Jerome’s Vulgate becomes gradually accepted as the standard Latin text of the Bible,[4] the liturgical text of the Western Church, gaining renewed vigor with its “officialization” at the Council of Trent.[5] Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament, concluded in late 404 or more probably 405, included also a new Latin translation of the deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Judith, considered by him as Apocryphal. Jerome’s version of those books is a case in point of several related issues concerning the Old Testament’s reception in late antiquity: the very argument of its translation, canon formation, its Christian interpretation. In this study we consider Jerome’s translation of Tobit from the point of view of his work as Bible translator. Although Jerome’s version of the book remains regarding several aspects a crux interpretum, in it we find exemplified Jerome’s main translative principles and technique.   

Jerome’s Accounts of His Translations of Tobit and Judith

As it is known, Jerome’s translations and/or revisions of the Bible were preceded by a preface.[6] In longer or shorter form, such literary units are precious sources of historical, autobiographical, methodological information regarding each of Jerome’s works.[7] In his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings,[8] the first books he translated anew from the Hebrew, Jerome enumerates the Old Testament books that in his opinion belonged to the canon (we may remember that the Stridon became loyally attached to the Hebrew canon).[9] In that regard he was categorical: “whatever [book] is beyond these must be relegated among the Apocrypha.[10] (…) Judith and Tobias (…) are not in the canon” (Prol. gal. 356,53-55).[11] Attached to his principle of the hebraica veritas, it would not be surprising that Jerome would not deign himself to touch the “Apocrypha” during his translation work of the Old Testament (KELLY, 1975, p. 284). He had even alerted to the dangers of such literary corpus, as when advising Laeta on the education of young Paula, he stated: “Let her avoid all apocryphal writings (…), and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand (…) that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt” (Letter 107, 12).[12] In his preface to Solomon’s books, Jerome recognizes that the Church reads some of the Apocrypha, but adds that they are solely used “for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines” (see Prol. in Lib. Salomonis 957, 20-21).[13] Considering the Stridon’s views on the “Apocrypha”, why then did he translate anew Tobit and Judith?[14] 

An answer to that question is found in Jerome’s (short) prefaces to those books.[15] Although translated separately, the books’ prefaces are neatly connected.[16] For that and other reasons, Jerome’s translations of Tobit and Judith might have been close to one another in time (if not immediately consecutive).[17] According to the prefaces, they were commissioned by Jerome’s friends and benefactors of long date, the bishops Chromatius of Aquileia and Heliodorus of Altinum.[18] Jerome begins his preface to Tobit expressing marvel for his friends’ insistence for a new translation of a book excised by the Hebrews from the catalogue of Scriptures; he translates Tobit to satisfy the desire of his patrons rather than by his own enthusiasm. From the preface we also learn of Jerome’s work with stenographers, procedure that turned his intense literary activity faster through dictation, and that he justified elsewhere for the weakness of his eyes and body.[19] Therefore, Jerome’s acceptance to translate Tobit (and Judith) seems to have been motivated greatly by his “debt” of gratitude with his friends-patrons (to have secretaries was rather expensive in those times). In that light (and in light also of the many controversies Jerome faced with his works), his resistance-statement can be understood as a “manifesto of coherence” with his views and principles. Jerome then continues recounting that his Tobit translation came into being in the course of a single day, as the result of dictation into Latin of what his bilingual coworker read in Aramaic and expressed out loud to him in Hebrew.[20] Not surprising, then, that Jerome’s rather exotic translation of Tobit would leave to posterity not few questions. Skemp in his dissertation demonstrated that Jerome’s Tobias is certainly also a revision of some Old Latin version(s) of the book.[21]             

Judith’s preface shares some content with Tobit’s (canonical status, patron’s insistence for its translation, “Chaldean” Vorlage, similar translation procedure and duration[22]) but also contains substantial differences (as his report of Judith’s positive reception in the Church and his appraisal of Judith’s example). Particularly interesting for our argument are the methodological principles Jerome mentions to have followed in translating it which presumably were the same for Tobit. Besides saying to have revised the “terrible variety of the so many codices” (Prol. in Iud. p. 691, 7), Jerome states a principle, restated and defended repeatedly elsewhere in his works: “magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum” (“more sense for sense than word for word”; Prol. in Iud. p. 7-8). Jerome concludes his preface to Judith exhorting “to take the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and with perpetual proclamation acclaim her in triumphal praise”, example not only for women but also for men. Underlying such statement is another of Jerome’s methodological principles, for both his translations and commentaries: exemplum. Bible stories are to be read in close relationship with the lives of the faithful, serving to inspire a living ever more in conformity to the Biblical values.[23] 

The Vulgate Version of the Book of Tobit

In comparison to the other (primary) extant versions of the story (Greek and Old Latin text forms), Jerome’s translation of the book of Tobit presents several peculiar features. Tobit story is handed down to us in varied forms in length and content. Basically, two related but not coincident versions occur: a long form of the story, found in the Greek MS of the Sinaiticus plus few others and in the manuscripts of the Vetus Latina; a shorter or abridged form, in the two main uncials, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus plus a significant number of Greek  minuscules. There exist also a third Greek tradition, which appears to be roughly a mixture of the main two. Most ancient translations (Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic) transmit a short form of the story. Among Qumran material, fragments of four different Aramaic manuscripts of Tobit and of a Hebrew one, were found. To them, it may also be added the medieval Aramaic and Hebrew versions of Tobit.[24] Surprisingly, the Vulgate of Tobit bears only partial and indirect resemblance to the oldest Semitic material. In such varied textual panorama, where then does the Vulgate of Tobit fit in? 

In general terms, the Vulgate of Tobit corresponds more or less to the short textual tradition (it is certainly shorter than the Old Latin) although its relation to the short Greek text remains problematic for various reasons.[25] Jerome’s version, finally, constitutes a tradition on its own right.[26] In effect, the Vulgate of Tobit, if we accept at face value Jerome’s information about his Aramaic Vorlage mentioned in the preface, would be the result of a (free) recasting in Latin of such Vorlage plus a revision of some Old Latin text(s). Jerome in fact, often retained exact words and phrases form the Vetus Latina; but he also paraphrased sentences and clauses. The Vulgate of Tobit also presents some stylistic particularities and some neologisms.[27] Two other unique features of his translation are the spelling of the both father and son’s names as Tobias (sometimes turning the text a bit confusing) and the retelling of the story entirely in third person (thus omitting the initial “I” section of the book). In the oral interventions of the various characters, there occur some amplifications with a clear purpose of instruction and clarification to the reader.[28] Since those amplifications are not found in any other of the extant available witnesses, they seem to constitute the feature of Jerome’s Tobit that makes it so singular. 

Some Remarks on Jerome’s Translation Technique

Jerome’s highly qualified preparation as an “academic” is completely out of question. Kelly calls him the Christian Cicero, reporting that, “at the renaissance the elegance of his style, his seemingly encyclopedic learning, and his success at putting classical culture to the service of Christianity, were to captivate humanist scholars” (1975, p. 333). In his Apology Against Rufinus, Jerome speaks of himself thus: “Ego philosophus, rhetor, gammaticus, dialecticus, Hebraeus, Graecus, Latinus, trilinguis” (III,6).[29] Linguistic skills, encyclopedic knowledge, not to speak of his profound ascetic life, made Jerome especially suited for the task of translating the Bible (BROWN, 1992, p. 87). Jerome, in fact, put all his acquired skills at the service of the Sacred Scriptures’ both translation and interpretation.   

Considering the restatement in varied formulations throughout his writings, it is possible to sustain that Jerome’s main translative principle also encountered in his preface to Judith (“sense for sense for than word for word”) guided him in a special manner in his work as translator.[30] In effect, although defending that Scripture ought to be translated word for word, for even the word order was involved in mystery (as in Letter 57,5 to his friend Pammachius of 395), in practice, Jerome remains attached to the idea that a good translation should express the meaning, not the actual words, of the original. “A literal translation from one language into another obscures the sense” (Letter 57,6). Jerome goes on to say that even the Apostles and Evangelists “in translating the Old Testament scriptures have sought to give the meaning rather than the words (…)” (Letter 57,9); in the same letter, while defending some imprecisions found in the Luke’s Acts he once more sustains that “(…) in dealing with the Scriptures it is the sense we have to look and not the words” (Letter 57,10); and in his commentary to Galatians he is conclusive: “we do not think that the Gospel is in the words of the Scripture, but in its sense; not at the surface but in the inside; not on the leaves’ discourse but in the roots of the thought.”[31] Jerome’s positive principle, however, has had some particular consequences in some of Jerome’s translation, as in his version of Judges from 404/5, which appears more as a paraphrasis rather than a translation in strict sense.[32]  

At the bottom, Jerome’s guiding principle is of literary order: the idioms of one language cannot be reproduced simpliciter in another. In that sense, Jerome would put an effort to keep the elegance of the Latin without altering the sense of the text (even if speaking of a translation to be expressed in the simple language that most appreciated).[33] Moreover, Jerome’s guiding principle seems to have a profound theological motivation. In fact, Jerome’s translation of Tobit, as for other books of the Vulgate (and the LXX), appears to be akin to Jewish theological exegesis found in the Midrashim. Tov’s definition of such translation procedure is enlightening: “theological exegesis may be expressed through theological motivated choices of translation equivalents, in changes in words and verses (either small or great) or in expansions or omissions of ideas considered offensive” (1992, p. 127-128.)[34] In some of Jerome’s renderings it is noticed a pointedly Messianic or otherwise Christian implication, in some cases more than his Vorlage permitted. Such renderings emerge clearly as the result of sharpening the moral and religious value of the text with a Christian sense, such so that Rufinus (Apol. c. Hier. 2,27) would charge him of introducing countless doctrinal corrections.[35] In any case, imbued as he was by his main translative principle, it is not surprising that we should encounter it guiding Jerome also in his translation of the “Apocrypha” Judith and Tobit. 

Exemplum from Tobit

After our journey, even if in overview, through the fascinating panorama of Jerome’s work as translator, we may better appreciate the theory in practice in his Tobit translation. In this final section of our paper, we gloss on one of Jerome’s major expansions,[36] unique to the Vulgate of Tobit (2:11-19) as a case in point of Jerome’s work in the book. Such expansion, as Auwers rightly noticed, is the sole with the particularity of relating neither to the plot nor to one of the character’s discourse.[37] The table below presents in translation Tob 2,10-19 (Vg) compared with the main witnesses (Short Greek, Long Greek and Vetus Latina):[38]

In Jerome’s text, father Tobit (Vg “Tobias”) is presented first of all as an example of patience (v.12). The text speaks for itself as an illustration of Jerome’s principle found also in his Judith’s preface, of providing exempla for his readers. In the course of its hermeneutic history, Tobit-character has been repeatedly interpreted in relationship with Job.[39] The “narrator” then goes on explaining and justifying Tobit’s conduct (vv.13-14) as rooted in his deep piety towards God from childhood. With clear biblical resonances (see Deut 5:29; 1 Kgs 18:12) such ideas fit well the author’s presentation of Tobit-character in the initial section (Tob 1:3 – 2:8). The narrator’s remarks emerge as an interpretive guide to the reader of (Jerome’s?) moral understanding of the story. In that regard, Driussi stated that, in this amplificatio, Jerome offered to the reader almost an interpretation of the whole book.[40] Interestingly next, Hannah’s rebuke to Tobit in most versions (2:14), becomes in Jerome’s text (vv.15-16) Tobit’s kinsfolk and relatives’ (perhaps to sharpen the presentation also of Hannah as a model of virtue, thinking of his women followers, with whose spiritual growth Jerome was constantly occupied). Finally, Tobit’s reply to them (vv.17-18) adds to the text an eschatological perspective, not clearly graspable in other versions of the story. It is common opinion among Tobit scholars that Tobit’s words in 3:6 (regarding the “everlasting home”) do not state a clear belief in an after-life.[41] In any case, we are before a theological interpretation even with New Testament resonances (see Jas 5:10-11; 1 Cor 10:13).   

Conclusion

Jerome’s translation specifically of the Book of Tobit opens us a fascinating window to his work as a translator per se. Translation, particularly of the Bible, is in fact an art. A good produce of that art requires several elements, beginning with linguistic skills beyond the average, of both source and target languages. It is demonstrated that Jerome excelled in both as few in late antiquity. That, however, is only one of the elements. In Jerome’s case, as his writings reveal, his previous education in the great conquests of classical culture, helped him in a special manner to dig deeper into ancient texts and from those depths encounter senses that would suit the needs of and appeal to contemporary readers. Betterment of the text, interpretive guiding glosses with a Christian orientation, stress in characters’ examples, rearrangement of contents: such elements appear to us, at least in general, to exemplify Jerome’s main translation principle (sense for sense more than simply word for word) also in the case of Tobit, independently of the problems of his Vorlage(n) and the legitimacy of his Christian reception of ancient Jewish stories, with its pluses and minuses, perhaps some of Jerome’s pen. In view of Tobit’s canonical status for the Stridon, his creative work in it perhaps may be justified. Translation finally is not merely a question of rendering; it is also a question of receiving: new contexts are the humus for new meanings, the occasion for the text’s seeds to yield new produce, finally, innate in them. Jerome’s work as translator, also in the case of Tobit, it seems, is still instructive to us, modern translators and interpreters.       

Bibliography

AUWERS, Jean-Marie. De la Septante à la Vulgate. Les traducteurs face au texte biblique. Recherches de Science Religieuse, Paris, vol. 106, n. 1, pp. 35-51, 2018.  

AUWERS, Jean-Marie. Tobie 2,12-18 (vulgate) et la tradition latine d’interpretation du livre de Tobie. L'esegesi dei Padri latini dalle origini a Gregorio Magno: XXVIII Incontro di Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana (6-8 maggio 1999), SEA 68, Roma, pp. 77-82, 2000.   

BEYERLE, Stefan. ‘Release Me to Go to My Everlasting Home...’ (Tob 3:6): A Belief in an Afterlife in Late Wisdom Literature? in The Book of Tobit - Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20-21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér), Ed. Leiden: Brill, 2005, 71-88.      

BROWN, Dennis. Vir Trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Ed. Den Haag: Pharos, 1992.

CANDIDO, Dionisio. Giuditta. Ed. Milano: Paoline, 2020.

CANELLIS, Aline (ed.), Jêrome. Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Sources Chrétiennes 592. Ed. Paris: Du Cerf, 2017. 

DRIUSSI, Giovanni Maria. Il Libro di Tobia nella Letterature Cristiana Antica (1-V Secolo). Ed. Roma: Nonsolocopie, 2003.

FITZMYER, Joseph A. Tobit. Ed. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 2003.

FÜRST, Alfons. Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016.

GALLAGHER, E. L. Why did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith? Harvard Theological Review, vol. 108, n. 3, p. 357-375, July, 2015.

GALLAGHER, E. L., The Old Testament “Apocrypha” in Jerome’s Canonical Theory. Journal of Early Christian Studies, Baltimore, vol. 20, n. 2, pp. 213-233, Summer, 2012.  

KELLY, John Norman Davidson. Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies. Ed. London: Duckworth, 1975.

KERBER, Daniel. The Canon in the Vulgate Translation of the Bible. The Biblical Translator, London, vol. 67, n. 2, pp. 168-183, 2016. 

PRIERO, Giuseppe. Tobia. La Sacra Bibbia Garofalo. Ed. Torino – Roma: Marietti, 1963.

REBENICH, Stefan. Jerome. Ed. London - New York: Routledge, 2002.

SCHAFF, Philip – WALLACE, Henry. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, vol. 6. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, Ed. New York NY: Cosimo, 2007.

SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Heinrich.  Hieronymus. Eine historische Biografie. Ed. Darmstadt: Zabern, 2018.

SKEMP, Vincent T. M. Learning by Example: Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions of Biblical Books, Vigiliae Christianae, Leiden, vol. 65, pp. 257-284, 2011.

SKEMP, Vincent T. M. The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses. Ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

SKEMP, Vincent T. M. Jerome’s Tobit: A Reluctant Contribution to the Genre Rewritten Bible, Revue Bénédictine vol. 112/2 (2002) 5-35.  

SUTCLIFFE, E. T. The Name “Vulgate”, Biblica 29 (1948) pp. 345-352.  

TOLONI, Giancarlo, La sofferenza del giusto: Giobbe e Tobia a confronto, Studi Biblici Paideia 159, Ed. Brescia: Paideia, 2009.

TOV, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. 

ZILVERBERG, Kevin J. The Neo-Vulgata as Official Liturgical Translation in Verbum Domini: Liturgy and Scripture. Proceedings of the Ninth Fota International Liturgical Conference 2016 (ed. Joseph Briody), Ed. Wells: Smenos 2017, pp. 93-125.

--------------------