De Moor II:10: Against the Authenticity of the Vulgate

After our AUTHOR positively taught that the Independent and Authentic Authority of the Sacred Scripture, not only with respect to Matter, but also with respect to Words, is found only in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek Text of the New Testament, and vindicated the assertion against those thinking otherwise:  he proceeds Negatively to teach that that Authenticity is not found, א.  In the Vulgate Latin Version, § 10; neither, ב.  In the Samaritan Pentateuch, nor, ג.  In the Greek Version of the Septuagint, § 11.

Jerome

              The Latin edition has thus been called the Vulgate[1] from antiquity, both because it had no certain author, and because it was taken, not from the Hebrew fount, but from the κοινῇ/Koine or from the Septuagint translation.  The Latin Version, which is to this day circulated under the name of Vulgate, the Papists maintain to be Authentic, according to the Tridentine Council, Session IV, Decree II, page 32b, which reads thus:  “Moreover, the same Sacred Synod, considering that no small utility might be able to accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be held as Authentic:  ordains and declares that this same Old and Vulgate Edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume, to reject it under any pretext whatever.”

              Which Canon, says our AUTHOR in his Compendio, the more learned Papists wish to mitigate, explaining it in opposition, not to the founts, but to other Versions, etc.  That in the Tridentine Council itself there was much debate back and forth, and that the Doctors were divided into various opinions, before the now mentioned Canon had come to be stamped, CARPZOV shows, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, § 6, number 1, pages 692, 693; compare PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historiam Concilii Tridentini,[2] book II, pages 174-177, 179, 182.  Then there is disputation among the Doctors of the Roman Church concerning the intention of the Canon, and whether the Vulgate Version is preferred only to the other Latin Versions, or to the Original Text itself, as you may see in Carpzov’s Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, § 6, number 2, pages 694-696.  Bellarmine, Serarius,[3] Salmeron judge here more moderately, whom NATALIS ALEXANDER[4] praises, and to whom he joins himself with several others, Selectis historiæ ecclesiasticæ capitis, Century IV, Dissertation XXXIX, article V, pages m. 441, 442, proving their opinion with arguments, when he says:  “But that the Vulgate is not in that sense authentic, as if of equal authority with the primitive Text, two arguments especially prove:  1.  That it is not in the power of the Church to make a Version authentic in this sense, just as it is not in the power of the Church to make a book Canonical; but only to declare that a Version is faithful and agreeable to the founts:  or, if errors had crept in, to correct them, and to order its use in the public offices of the Church.  2.  That, if the Vulgate alone be authentic, it would follow that the Eastern Churches, which make use of the Greek or Syriac or Æthiopic Version, have not true Scripture.”  And so he maintains that the Vulgate Version is only called Authentic, because it contains nothing repugnant to faith and good morals, and because it is a certain rule of faith as it is approved by the Church, and as far as it agrees with the original Text.  He adds, “But it is not called Authentic, as if it were to be preferred or even to be made equal to the Hebrew and Greek founts.  Consequently, the Tridentine Synod only prefers our Vulgate to the other Latin Versions, with the originating Texts left in the same state in which they were previously.”  But others pass to the opposite opinion, such as Cano, Valentia,[5] Gordonus,[6] Gretser,[7] Suarez,[8] etc., who maintain that the Vulgate Version was declared to be absolutely Authentic by the Tridentine Council, so that a better is not able to be given, and it is to be preferred to all Editions of whatever language, from which indeed the original Codices, as corrupted, are to be corrected.  Thus Lejay expressly asserts in his præfatione to his Paris Polyglott,[9] “Therefore, it ought to be held among us as certain and indubitable that the Vulgate Edition, which is circulated in the common tongue of the Catholic Church, is the true and genuine fount of Sacred Scripture; that this is to be consulted everywhere, and thence the dogmas of the faith are to be sought.  But inasmuch as we think that this is to be referred, less to the Hebrew and other texts, than to the Vulgate Version, no one in any event may convict us of error, etc.”  But Sixtus V in a Bull, which he prefixed to his own edition of the Vulgate Version,[10] averred that “the indignation of the omnipotent God and a prohibition against entering the Church, indeed even excommunication, he publicly declared against any that would presume to change, to add, or to subtract, the least particle in the Books corrected by himself.”  And that by the Canon of the Tridentine Council the Vulgate Edition is certainly preferred to the very Hebrew and Greek Text, is proven from the conclusion, that no one might dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever:  if under no pretext, then not under the pretext of the Hebrew Codex, which Hart acknowledged in the Colloquium with Rainolds.[11]  Hence also the Expurgatory Index,[12] when Mariana[13] in libro de Vulgata Versione, in the same manner as we heard concerning Natalis Alexander, pronounced that this is of no less authority than the fount, when it agrees with the founts; listed these words, when it agrees with the founts.

              Our AUTHOR adds, They adduce Similitudes unsuitable for this, for example, that of the Two Thieves crucified with Christ.  That similitude is found in the Præfatione of the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximénez,[14] the Author of which affirms that he placed the Latin Text in the middle between the Hebrew and the Greek, as between the Synagogue and the Eastern Church, like the two Thieves on this side and on that side, but Jesus in the midst, that is, the Roman or Latin Church.  Nevertheless, whether this Præfatio proceeded from Cardinal Ximénez himself, one may doubt; since, 1.  Ximénez himself was not able to bring this splendid edition of the Bible to the public, being prevented by death just before the end of the impression, November 8, 1517; and, 2.  Ximénez, in the dedication of the work to Pope Leo X, manifestly holds the contrary, desiring a return to the Hebrew founts, wherever there is a variety of Latin Codices, or suspicion of a corrupted reading.  Hence that preface to the Reader, although committed to writing under the name of Ximénez, perhaps proceeded from the hand of another.

              But, while the Roman Church busies itself to acquire Authenticity for the Vulgate Version, their πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, is that the Founts are Corrupt.  The Scope/Goal:  to help the ignorance of the Roman Clergy, to decline the force of the Original Text, to seek out of the Vulgate a defense for errors, to subject all things to the Roman Church.

              Our AUTHOR places opposite, besides the things mentioned in § 8 already:  1.  the Uncertain Origin of this Version (it is not known, says he in his Medulla Theologiæ, by whom that whole was prepared); with a great many Papists agreeing, that it is to be traced as a whole to the times of Tertullian, or to Jerome himself, but only as mixed from various, from the times of Gregory.  That is, according to the observation of HOTTINGER, Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section III, page 387, Stapleton childishly attempts to show the use of today’s Vulgate Version in the time of Tertullian.  While, that also other and completely different Versions, like the Itala or Old Vulgate, were well-worn by the hands of the Fathers, it is everywhere understood out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, and others.  Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, Controversiis, tome I, column 108, relates that Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus[15] and Giovanni Pico Mirandola,[16] in their books published on this topic, contend that today’s Vulgate in its entirety is to be attributed to JEROME; Masius,[17] Petrus Sutor,[18] and others of the Papists agree.  But most Writers of the Papists maintain that it was conflated from two, the Old Itala or Vulgate (translated from the popular Septuagint Edition) and the new Vulgate of Jerome, in the time of Gregory I, that is, just before the end of the sixth century.  Thus Baronius, Annalibus Ecclesiasticis, on AD 231, § 47, tome 2, column 394, “Now, it happened in the time of Gregory (but in what year, or by what author, remains uncertain), that, since there were at the same time two Vulgate Editions, the Old and the New, sometimes ministering occasion of dissensions and contentions, in this matter the faithful were pulled from one another into diverse parties, while some were following the Old, and others the New; and each for his own (as it is common) was arguing contentiously, provoking commotions, etc.  But, with the Deity inspiring, it was foreseen, and thoroughly considered, that for common Ecclesiastical use one should be conflated out of the two that were in use in all the Churches, which, being Common and Vulgate to all, by all might be called by one name, with that nomenclature of Old and New being exploded.  And the matter fell out according to the decision, etc.”  And it appears that it is certainly to be said, that today’s Vulgate Version,

              α.  Is not in its entirety to be attributed to JEROME:  for,

                             a.  Jerome’s version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew Text in all things, as far as possible:  but today’s Vulgate turns from thence many times and much.

                             b.  That Version in both Testaments reads much differently than the Jeromian emendations suggest.

                             c.  Today we have in the operibus Hieronymi a Version of the Psalter freshly embellished by him, from which the Vulgate far recedes.  However,

              β.  Today’s Vulgate, although it be not the same in all things with Jerome’s, yet is not altogether different and diverse from it.  And so today’s Vulgate Version has arisen,

                             a.  From the most ancient Common or Itala Version, which was made by an unknown author from the Septuagint.

                             b.  From the tireless study of Jerome, who,

                                           a.  While yet a youth, from the Greek Text of the New Testament and the Septuagint Version, partly emended the Vulgate Version, and partly made it new.

                                           b.  Then, having acquired the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, he prepared a new Version from the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.

                             c.  From that Old, and this new, and other Versions, mixed together, emended and corrected each by the other.

              Nevertheless, the Vulgate was not for this reason rendered into today’s form by a collation of Versions conducted by public authority, at one and the same time, as Baronius maintains without any proof from approved Writers:  but, since all Antiquity is silent concerning this matter, it appears to have happened gradually and by degrees, as a result of the promiscuous use and tacit consent of a number of centuries, rather than by the express agreement of all Churches.  Whatever the case may be, in any event it was prepared by human industry.

              2.  Our AUTHOR sets in opposition that this Version was never held as Authentic, not even after the Tridentine Council; as Sixtus V and Clement VIII indicate, beyond their private Glosses, by so many hundreds of changes to it.

                             α.  That before the Tridentine Council this Version was not Authentic, is proven out of a great many Papists, who acknowledge and freely refute such a great number of this Version’s errors; these Papists include Lyra,[19] Paul of Burgos,[20] Jerome de Oleastro,[21] Cajetan,[22] and others.  Sixtus Senensis, book VIII of Bibliothecæ Sanctæ on the last page, writes:  “We frankly admit that many errors were corrected by Jerome in the old translation, and that similarly in this our new edition were found some blemishes, solecisms, barbarisms, transpositions; and many things translated with little suitability, and not well-expressed in Latin, construed obscurely and ambiguously; and likewise some things superadded, other things omitted; certain things transposed, changed, and corrupted by the vice of the writers, which things Sanctes Pagninus,[23] Thomas Cajetan, Franciscus Forerius,[24] and Jerome de Oleastro, most learned men of the Dominican order, point out in their interpretations and explanations.”  Especially Isidore Clario,[25] who testifies that he noted eighty thousand errors in the Vulgate Version, according to HOTTINGER, Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section III, page 383; and TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XV, § 4:  but, according to CARPZOV, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, page 687, Isidore Clario, in the præfatione Bibliorum, published by himself in Venice in 1542, testifies that eight thousand places were corrected by himself:  which verily appears to be consistent with the words of the Præfationis of Isidore Clario himself, and with the words of Richard Simon, out of the Bibliotheca Sacra of JACQUES LE LONG,[26] tome 1, pages 598-601; add GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter II, page 152b.  Therefore, Clario boasts that he had emended eight thousand, not eighty thousand, places.

Sixtus V

              β.  Neither after the Tridentine Council is this Version able to be called Authentic; because, as we previously heard Natalis Alexander confessing, no Council is able to render any writing Authentic, which is not such of itself because of its divine origin.  The Church is able only to declare that a certain Version is faithful and like unto its source:  or, if errors have crept in, to correct them, and to order its use in the public services of the Church.  Hence we saw that the more learned of the Papists thus explain the Tridentine Canon, as if this Version were only pronounced Authentic to the extent that it agrees with the founts.  Afterward, in the year 1590, by the care of Pope Sixtus V, an Edition of the Vulgate Version finally came forth corrected as accurately as was able to be done, as Sixtus himself says; and he says that “without any doubt this is to be supposed the very Vulgate Edition that was received as Authentic by the Tridentine Council.”  But was the Council, in April of 1546, at which time the above-mentioned Decree was hammered out in favor of the Authenticity of the Vulgate Version, able to impart Authenticity to an Edition that at length came forth forty-four years afterward?  And, although Sixtus pronounced at that time the indignation of God and excommunication from the Church against any one that might presume to add, subtract, or change the last particle in his Edition:  nevertheless, Clement VIII two years afterwards undertook to recall the Sixtine Edition to the anvil and to emend it, under the amusing pretext that the Bull prefixed to the Sixtine Bible was not affixed to the doors of the Church of St. Peter, whence it is evident that Sixtus did not speak ex Cathedra there, and that therefore it was in Clement’s power to change and to determine in the Sixtine Edition whatever seemed right to him.  THOMAS JAMES, the Proto-Librarian of the Oxford Library,[27] in his Bello Papali, published at London in 1606, demonstrates through the individual books of the Sacred Codex, going in order, how much and in what things the Clementine edition departs from and corrects the Sixtine; and besides the other things which he observes, he shows that two thousand readings, which Sixtus, by Apostolic authority, had confirmed against the Hebrew and Greek verity, were reformed and remolded to the founts by Clement, exercising the same authority.  Now, in the title and preface of the Clementine Edition comes a twofold fraud, not so pious, but worthy to be noted:  1.  That in the title this Edition was treated as if it were the Sixtine and, being thus authorized according to his counsel, is inscribed:  2.  That the many errors that crept into the prior Sixtine Edition are said to be typographical, but are here corrected, which Sixtus himself had proposed to himself to arrange, except that he was prevent by death.  However, a.  these Editions differ immensely.  b.  The Bull of Sixtus, so severely forbidding all alteration, reveals him to be of a quite different mind.  c.  It will be readily apparent to anyone comparing both Editions that the errors are not only typographical, in which correction was here made.  However, that this Clementine Edition, even after so many emendations of former editions, still teems with innumerable errors, AMAMA, CALOVIUS, and others demonstrate:  but even the very Preface of this Bible acknowledges this, when this Edition is said to have been corrected with as much diligence as possible, yet it is difficult to affirm it to be pure in all its parts on account of human weakness.  Indeed, in this Edition, as even Bellarmine, who was among the Correctors, admits, many things were deliberately left unchanged for good reasons, which after all appear to require correction; see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, page 395.  But, in the final analysis, in what manner is such an Edition of the Scripture to be called Authentic?

              3.  The Barbarisms and Solecisms greatly vex, which are acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis, in the place just cited from book VIII of his Bibliothecæ, examples of which our AUTHOR reckons in words pessimandi/injuring, implanandi/misleading, alleviandi/lightening, etc.; and in phrases delivering in the hands of enemies, of kings ruling over them, etc.  Thus occurs the word pessimare, to injure, Ecclesiasticus 11:24, and what by this pessimabor, shall I be injured?[28] and Ecclesiasticus 36:9, whoever pessimant/injures thy people, let them find perdition:[29]  the word implanare, to mislead, Ecclesiasticus 15:12, say thou not, He implanavit/misled me;[30] and Ecclesiasticus 34:10, he that implanatus est, is misled, shall abound in wickedness:[31]  the word alleviare, to lighten, Isaiah 9:1, at the first time the land of Zebulun alleviate est, was lightened;[32] Acts 27:38, alleviabant, they were lightening, the ship, casting the wheat into the sea;[33] James 5:15, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord alleviabit, shall lighten, him.[34]  Similarly the phrase delivering in the hands is found, Exodus 33:31, I will deliver in your hands the inhabitants of the earth;[35] Leviticus 26:25, and ye shall be delivered in the hand of enemies.[36]  And also dominari alicujus, to rule over someone, Luke 23:25, the kings of the Gentiles dominantur eorum, rule over them;[37] Psalm 106:41, dominati sunt eorum, they ruled over those, that hated them.[38]  Add the phrase also enumerated by our AUTHOR, faciendi per ter, doing through three times, which you may read, Acts 10:16, this factum est per ter, was done through three times;[39] and again Acts 11:10, but this factum est per ter, was done through three times.[40]

              4.  But the innumerable, graver Errors of this Version are more repugnant to its Authenticity, a quite lengthy series of which CARPZOV exhibits, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, pages 675-683; for elliptical Errors see Carpzov, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, page 677, thus, for example, in Romans 11:6, after these words:  “But if by grace, then not of works; otherwise grace is no more grace;” an entire sentence, which is found in the Greek text, is missing:  “But if of works, then it is no more grace, seeing that then work is no more work.”  Thus in 1 Corinthians 6:20, after in your body, the words are wanting, and in your spirit, which are God’s.  No fewer pleonastic Errors occur here; see Carpzov, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, page 678, thus, for example, in Luke 10:1, seventy-two is read in place of seventy; in Romans 4:2, by the works of the Law is read in place of by works.  To the Proverbs of Solomon entire spurious γνῶμαι/maxims are inserted:  add the errors imposed upon the founts, in Carpzov’s Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, page 676; for example, in the place of, “he went forth, going and returning,” in Genesis 8:7, the Version has, “he was going forth and not returning;”[41] in Genesis 49:24, in the place of, “and the arms of his hands strengthened,” the Version has, “and the chains of his arms and hands were unloosed;”[42] etc.  And let me not mention the errors Chronological, Topographical, and Historical, neither is it even free from Dogmatic errors, when, for example, in Genesis 3:15, it reads, and she is going to crush the head of the Serpent, that is, the woman herself; by whom then they do not understand Eve, unto whom, nevertheless, the speech in that place is expressly directed, but Mary:  while according to the Hebrew text it is to be read, him, that is, the seed of that woman, הוּא/he, not הִוא/she; which is altogether inconsistent with the context, since a masculine verb, יְשׁוּפְךָ, he shall bruise thee, immediately follows, and then a masculine suffix on תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ, thou shalt bruise him:  see MARCKIUS’ Historiam Paradisi, book IV, chapter V, § 6, and Chapter XV, § 18, of this Compendii, together with Bellarmine’s de Verbo Dei, book II, chapter XII, Controversiis, tome I, column 122, 123.  Luke 2:14 in the Vulgate is asserted to be men of good will, as if it were read in the text, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας, and as if men were not the object, but rather the subject of this εὐδοκίας, good will; see MOSHEIM’S Observationes Sacras, book I, chapter II, § 7, pages 117-121:  instead of God’s εὐδοκία ἐν ἀνθρώποις, good will among men; by which version they are then put to it to defend the power of the free will of fallen man:  neither does this passage allow the remedial treatment of the healthier interpretation that Bellarmine tries to apply to it, de Verbo Dei, book II, chapter XI, column 121.  Thus in Hebrews 13:16, with the sacrifices of beneficence God is said promereri, to be won over, in the place of εὐαρεστεῖσθαι, to be well pleased, which he makes to establish the merits of works.  In Genesis 14:18, the Vulgate reads concerning Melchizedek, for he was a priest, instead of and he was a priest,[43] by which they try to establish the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass.  In Genesis 48:16, let my name be invoked upon them, instead of let my name be named among them,[44] by which they strive to prove the religious worship of creatures:  and more.

              Of no moment are those things which the Papists Object:

Robert Bellarmine

              1.  That it is the most ancient Version, of which the Church made use through many ages; see Bellarmine’s de Verbo Dei, chapter X, column 115.  But our AUTHOR rightly Responds:  α.  That the Original Text is even more Ancient; as are also, β.  other Versions, for example, the Greek of the Old Testament, and the Syriac; especially if you have regard to today’s Vulgate, and not to the Itala, which is no longer prominent; add, γ.  That Antiquity might be able procure Authority for a Version, but not Authenticity:  which, with respect to Substance in a Version, does not depend on its antiquity, but on its agreement with the founts; and, with respect to Words, obtains only in the original, divinely inspired Text.

              2.  They object that the Dignity of the Latin Church requires an Authentic Text in that language:  thus, indeed, argues Bellarmine, de Verbo Dei, book II, chapter X, column 116:  “The Hebrews had authentic Scripture in their language:  the Greeks also had authentic Scripture in Greek; that is, the Old Testament according to the Septuagint Version and the first founts of the New Testament:  therefore, it is fair that the Latin Church, in which is the seat of Peter, and in which the Christian faith was going to abide perpetually, should have authentic Scripture in its own language:  but it did not have any other than that for nearly a thousand years; therefore, that is to be considered authentic.”  Compare PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historiam Concilii Tridentini, book II, page 176.

              Responses:  α.  The argument for the Roman Church, taken from the Hebrews and Greeks, does not follow, for the rationale of each is not the same:  it is agreed that God through θεοπνεύστους/inspired men bestowed the Hebrew Codex of the Old Testament and the Greek Codex of the New Testament:  but who would argue that the authors of the Latin Version were θεοπνεύστους/inspired?  β.  Therefore, the Roman Church should not arrogate to itself a privilege not conceded by God:  but the grace of the Gospel, proclaimed in the languages of the Romans and other nations, should be sufficient for all them, with the ancient founts given, unto which they are able to betake themselves by industry.  γ.  That more eminent dignity of the Roman Church beyond all others is rashly supposed.  δ.  The Latin Tongue is not the vernacular of the Roman Church today, but rather the Italic:  Therefore, they ought to hold, not the Latin, but the Italian Edition of the Bible to be authentic.

              Moreover, concerning the Vulgate Version consult GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter II, where in thesis V he undertakes to prove that the Author of the Latin Vulgate Version is not Jerome, pages 130-134; in thesis VI he asserts that the Latin Vulgate Version is not authentic, pages 135-171:  TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XV, pages 144-148:  HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, pages 378-398:  BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 6, tome 2, pages 1531-1538:  CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter VI, pages 664b-698, and more whom Carpzov cites on page 664b.

[1] In Latin, vulgatus means common.

[2] Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623) was a Venetian prelate, historian, and canon lawyer.  Although a Roman Catholic, he defended the liberties of Venice against Papal intrusion, and was a proponent of the separation of church and state.  His History of the Council of Trent, published under the name Petrus Suavis Polanus, was highly critical of the Papal Curia’s involvement in the Council.

[3] Nicholas Serarius (1555-1610) was a Jesuit scholar.  He served as Professor of Theology at the University of Mentz.  He wrote commentaries on many Biblical books.

[4] Noël Alexandre (1639-1724) was a French Dominican.  He taught philosophy, theology, and canon law at the Sorbonne.

[5] Gregorius de Valentia (1549-1603) was a Jesuit scholar, originally from Spain.  He served as Professor of Theology at Dillingen (1573-1575) and at Ingolstadt (1575-1592).

[6] This may be a reference to James Gordon (1541-1620), a Scottish Jesuit.  Gordon entered the Society of Jesus at Rome in 1563, and taught philosophy, theology, and Scripture at Pont-à-Mousson, Paris, and Bordeaux.  He returned to Scotland as a missionary, and wrote of the controversies between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism.

[7] Jakob Gretser (1562-1625) was a German Jesuit theologian and controversialist.  He served as Professor of Philosophy (1589-1592) and Professor of Theology (1592-1615) at Ingolstadt.

[8] Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) was a Spanish Jesuit, esteemed by some as the greatest scholastic philosopher-theologian since Thomas Aquinas.  Suárez’s interests included international law, metaphysics, and theology.  In the field of international law, he was a forerunner of Grotius, who speaks of him with the highest respect.

[9] Biblia Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, Syriaca, Græca, Latina, et Arabica, was edited by Gui-Michel Lejay (1588-1674), a French scholar, expert in Oriental languages, and sponsored by Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle.

[10] After the Council of Trent, Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) endeavored to establish a standard text of the Vulgate.  The Sistine edition of 1590 was soon superseded by the Clementine of 1592.

[11] John Rainolds (1549-1607) was an Oxford academic and churchman.  He was Puritan in his views, and played an important role in initiating the Authorized Version.  In the early 1580s, Rainolds met Jesuit John Hart (died 1586) in disputation.

[12] Books on the Index Expurgatorius are only allowed to Roman Catholics in a censored, “expurgated,” form.

[13] John Mariana (c. 1536-1624) was a Spanish, Jesuit scholar.  He wrote annotations on the Scripture.  His magnum opus was the thirty-book history of Spain, Historiæ de Rebus Hispaniæ.

[14] The Complutensian Polyglot (taking its name from the university in Alcalá [Complutum, in Latin]; 1514) contained the first printed edition of the Septuagint, Jerome’s Vulgate, the Hebrew Text, Targum Onkelos with a Latin translation, and the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.  The labor of the scholars was superintended by Cardinal Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros (1436-1517).

[15] Eugubinus, or Agostino Steuco (1496-1549), was the bishop of Kisamos in Crete and prefect of the Vatican Library.  He was skilled in linguistics and antiquities.

[16] Giovanni Pico Mirandola (1463-1494) was an Italian Renaissance philosopher.

[17] Andrew Masius (1516-1573) was among the most learned Roman Catholic scholars of his age and in no field is that more evident than in the field of Oriental languages.  He also served as Counselor to William, Duke of Cleves.

[18] Petrus Sutor (1475-1537) was a French Carthusian theologian.  In 1525, he published his De tralatione Bibliæ, in which he argued that the reading of the Scripture by the laity, far from being a means unto salvation, was positively harmful.  For which reason, he was very much opposed to vernacular translations.

[19] Nicholas de Lyra (1270-1340) was born to Jewish parents, but he converted to Christianity.  He entered the Franciscan Order and became a teacher of some repute in Paris.  His Postilla in Vetus et Novum Testamentum demonstrate remarkable ability and a commitment to the literal sense of the Scripture.

[20] Paul of Burgos (1351-1435) was a Spanish Jewish scholar, converted to Christianity, and rising to become archbishop of Burgos.  He wrote the Additiones to Lyra’s Postilla.

[21] Jerome Olivier (or de Oleastro) was a Portuguese Dominican monk who flourished during the mid-sixteenth century.  He was widely esteemed within his order for his abilities in theology, Greek, and Hebrew.

[22] Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534) was an Italian Dominican.  He was a theologian of great repute, and a learned proponent of a modified Thomism (Neo-Thomism).  Due to his considerable talents, he was made a cardinal.  Cajetan proved to be one of the more able opponents of the Reformation.

[23] Pagnine (1466-1541) was an Italian Dominican.  He was gifted as a Hebraist, exegete, and preacher.  He was commissioned by Pope Leo X to produce a new Latin translation of the Scripture.

[24] Franciscus Forerius (1523-1581) was a Portuguese Dominican theologian.  He was a delegate to the Council of Trent, and was secretary to the committee to continue the Indicem librorum prohibitorum.  He wrote commentaries on Isaiah, the wisdom and poetic literature of the Old Testament, and the Gospels.

[25] Isidore Clario (1495-1555) was a Benedictine monk.  He served as the Prior of the Monastery of St. Peter in Modena, in northern Italy (1537), and as the Bishop of Foligno, in central Italy (1547).  He was present at the Council of Trent.  His Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum is included in the Critici Sacri.

[26] Jacques Lelong (1665-1721) was a French bibliographer.  His Bibliotheca Sacra was an index of editions of the Bible.

[27] Thomas James (1573-1629), an expert in manuscripts and forgeries, was the librarian of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

[28] Ecclesiasticus 11:24:  “Again, say not, I have enough, and possess many things, and what evil shall I have hereafter (καὶ τί ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν κακωθήσομαι; et quid ex hoc pessimabor, in the Vulgate)?”

[29] Ecclesiasticus 36:9:  “Let him that escapeth be consumed by the rage of the fire; and let them perish that oppress the people (καὶ οἱ κακοῦντες τὸν λαόν σου εὕροισαν ἀπώλειαν; et qui pessimant plebem tuam inveniant perditionem, in the Vulgate).”

[30] Ecclesiasticus 15:12:  “Say not thou, He hath caused me to err (μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν; non dicas:  ille me implanavit, in the Vulgate):  for he hath no need of the sinful man.”

[31] Ecclesiasticus 34:10:  “He that hath no experience knoweth little:  but he that hath travelled is full of prudence (ὁ δὲ πεπλανημένος πληθυνεῖ πανουργίαν; qui implanatus est abundabit nequitia, in the Vulgate).”

[32] Isaiah 9:1:  “Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali (הֵקַ֞ל אַ֤רְצָה זְבֻלוּן֙ וְאַ֣רְצָה נַפְתָּלִ֔י; primo tempore alleviata est terra Zabulon et terra Nephthali, in the Vulgate), and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.”

[33] Acts 27:38:  “And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship (ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον; alleviabant navem, in the Vulgate), and cast out the wheat into the sea.”

[34] James 5:15a:  “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up (καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος; et alleviabit eum Dominus, in the Vulgate)…”

[35] Exodus 23:31b:  “…for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand (כִּ֣י׀ אֶתֵּ֣ן בְּיֶדְכֶ֗ם אֵ֚ת יֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָאָ֔רֶץ; tradam in manibus vestris habitatores terræ, in the Vulgate); and thou shalt drive them out before thee.”

[36] Leviticus 26:25b:  “…and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy (וְנִתַּתֶּ֖ם בְּיַד־אוֹיֵֽב׃; et trademini in manibus hostium, in the Vulgate).”

[37] Luke 22:25:  “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (οἱ βασιλεῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν κυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν; reges gentium dominantur eorum, in the Vulgate); and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.”

[38] Psalm 106:41:  “And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them (וַֽיִּמְשְׁל֥וּ בָ֜הֶ֗ם שֹׂנְאֵיהֶֽם׃; et dominati sunt eorum qui oderunt eos, in the Vulgate).”

[39] Acts 10:16:  “This was done thrice (τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τρίς; hoc autem factum est per ter, in the Vulgate):  and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

[40] The same as Acts 10:16.

[41] Genesis 8:7:  “And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro (וַיֵּצֵ֤א יָצוֹא֙ וָשׁ֔וֹב; qui egrediebatur, et non revertebatur, in the Vulgate), until the waters were dried up from off the earth.”

[42] Genesis 49:24a:  “But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong (וַיָּפֹ֖זּוּ זְרֹעֵ֣י יָדָ֑יו; et dissoluta sunt vincula brachiorum et manuum illius, in the Vulgate) by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob…”

[43] Genesis 14:18:  “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:  and he was the priest (וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן; erat enim sacerdos, in the Vulgate) of the most high God.”

[44] Genesis 48:16a:  “The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them (וְיִקָּרֵ֤א בָהֶם֙ שְׁמִ֔י; et invocetur super eos nomen meum, in the Vulgate), and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac…”