Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008
St Jerome's third Latin translation of the Sefer Tehillim or ‘Book of Psalms’ is called the iuxta Hebraeos or Hebraicum, because he based it on the original Hebrew in which it was composed in order to obtain the greatest authenticity possible. Preceded by the so-called Romanum version of c. 384, which was primarily a translation of the Greek Septuagint, and the Gallicanum of c.392 which was a revision of it based on Origen's hexaplaric Septuagint text, the Hebraicum version of c. 400 represents an attempt by Jerome to produce a Latin translation as close as possible to the Hebrew text. However, despite its greater accuracy with respect to the Hebrew original, the Hebraicum was apparently never used in the liturgy, and was preserved solely as a patristic text in bibles or psalters for scholarly use.
1 Collectio psalterii Bedae, ed. Fraipont, J., in Bedae Venerabilis Opera Rhythmica, CCSL 122 (Turnhout, 1955), 452–70.Google Scholar
2 The Codex Amiatinus text is collated by de Sainte-Marie, H., Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, Collectanea Biblica Latina 11 (Rome, 1954).Google Scholar
3 In Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1983), Weber, R. terms this the representative of consensus codicum Θ, curis Theodulphi episcopi aurelianensis scriptorium (1, xxvi).Google Scholar
4 Ed. in photographic facsimile by James, M.R. as The Canterbury Psalter (London, 1935).Google Scholar
5 While the most evident psalter version model is the Theodulfian (Θ) mentioned above (n. 3), a number of readings from an L-type psalter version (London, British Library Harley 2793 (Tours, s. ixin)) would suggest some correcting of an Alcuinian psalter by the Theodulfian school. See also Dahlhaus-Berg, E., Nova antiquitas et antiqua novitas: Typologische Exegese und isidorianisches Geschichtsbild bei Theodulf von Orleans (Cologne, 1975), p. 44Google Scholar, and Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium, ed. de Sainte-Marie, , p. xxxix.Google Scholar
6 Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in libros II Paralipomenon (PL 109, col. 281). See Blumenkrantz, B., Les auteurs chrétiens latins du moyen âge sur les Juifs et Judaisme (Paris, 1963), p. 174Google Scholar, for further discussion.
7 Radbertus, Paschasius, Expositio in Mattheum II. xxvii (PL 120, col. 957).Google Scholar
8 Newman, L. I., Jewish Influences on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), p. 43.Google Scholar
9 Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge (Paris, 1893), p. 179Google Scholar, who in turn quotes Martianay, J. and Pouget, A., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis Presbyteri Omnia Opera, 5 vols. (Paris, 1693–1706) III, 803–4.Google Scholar
10 Hablitzel, J. quotes A.E. Schönbach (Uber einige Evangelien-Kommentare des Mittelalters (Vienna, 1903))Google Scholar on the Maurus, Hrabanus reference in ‘Die pseudo-hieronymianischen “Quaestiones Hebraicae”’, Historisches Jahrbuch 41 (1921), 268–73, at 269Google Scholar, and discusses the Radbertus, Paschasius reference in ‘Der “Hebraeus quidam” bei Paschasius Radbertus’, Historisches Jahrbucb 47 (1927), 340–1.Google Scholar
11 Blumenkrantz, , Les auteurs chrétiens, p. 174, n. 1.Google Scholar
12 In PL 23, cols. 1391–1470.
13 Berger, S., Quam notitiam linguae Hebraicae habuerint Christiani medii aevi temopribus in Gallia (Paris, 1893), p. 3.Google Scholar
14 Thiel, M., Grundlagen und Gestalt der Hebräisch-Kentnisse des frühen Mittelalters (Spoleto, 1973), p. 45.Google Scholar
15 Ibid. p. 48.
16 ΘG is the siglum for Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 11937 (s. ix1, provenance Saint Germain-des-Prés), called ‘Sangermanensis’, and ΘK refers to Copenhagen, Royal Library, Ny Kgl. Saml. 1 (s. ix1, provenance Carcassone), called ‘Carcassonensis’.
17 Martianay and Pouget, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis Presbyteri Omnia Opera.
18 Vallarsi, D., S. Hieronymi Opera, 11 vols. (Verona, 1734–1742), repr. PL 9, cols. 90–102 and 1123–1240Google Scholar; see above, nn. 9 and 17.
19 de Lagarde, P., Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi e recognitione Pauli de Lagarde (Göttingen, 1874), p. vii.Google Scholar
20 Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium, ed. de Sainte-Marie, , p. xxxix.Google Scholar
21 The Latin readings in the following comparison are taken from Weber, , Biblia Sacra, pp. 830–1Google Scholar; James, , The Canterbury Psalter, 72rGoogle Scholar; and London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. vi (Canterbury, s. xmed, provenance St Augustine's, Canterbury), 71r–v: we have expanded the suspension mark on selfum. Note also that Kentish Psalm 50 is ed. ASPR 6, 88–94.Google Scholar
22 Keefer, S.L., Psalm-Poem and Psalter-Glosses: the Latin and Old English Psalter-Text Background to ‘Kentish Psalm 50’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
23 Berger, S., La Bible française au moyen âge: Étude sur les plus anciennes versions de la Bible, écrites en prose de langue d'oïl (Paris, 1884), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
24 Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium, ed. de Sainte-Marie, , p. xxxix.Google Scholar
25 Berger, , La Bible française, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
26 Ibid. p. 6.
27 They are identified as four manuscripts in Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate: ‘l'un appartenait au Mont-Saint-Michel et le deuxième aux Augustins de Bordeaux (c'étaient sans doute des Psautiers); les autres sont le Codex Farfensis (Vatican 5279, du xie au xiie siècle) et le manuscrit perdu Carcassone’ (p. 179). This manuscrit perdu has since reappeared as ΘK, and contains marginal, not contextual glosses.
28 Berger, , La Bible française, p. 6.Google Scholar
29 Ibid. p. 7.
30 The material in the following table is taken from: Biblia Sacra, ed. Weber, Google Scholar; Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium, ed. de Sainte-Marie, Google Scholar; James, , The Canterbury PsalterGoogle Scholar; and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarten-sia, ed. Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W. (Stuttgart, 1969).Google Scholar
31 Ker, N.R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (London, 1957), pp. 268–9.Google Scholar
32 Berger, , La Bible française, p. 6.Google Scholar
33 Ibid. pp. 7–8.
34 For an example concerning Fleury, Winchester and Dunstan, see Carley, J.P., ‘Two Pre-Conquest Manuscripts from Glastonbury Abbey’, ASE 16 (1987), 197–212, at 204–10.Google Scholar
35 Berger, , Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 130–1.Google Scholar
36 For a substantial discussion of Herbert of Bosham, see Smalley, B., ‘A Commentary on the Hebraica of Herbert of Bosham’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médié‘vale 18 (1947), 29–65Google Scholar, and Loewe's, R. tripartite study, ‘Herbert of Bosham's Commentary on Jerome's Hebrew Psalter’, Biblica 34 (1953), 44–77, 159–92 and 275–98.Google Scholar
37 The original Hebrew psalm creates an acrostic, with the first eight verses starting with ‘aleph’, the second eight with ‘beth’ and so on. While translation to the Latin naturally disrupted this pattern, the acrostic tradition remained, accounting for the sectional divisions identified by characters in the Hebrew alphabet. See Dahood, M., Psalms III: 101–150, The Anchor Bible 17A (New York, 1970), 172.Google Scholar
38 Among the interlinear glossed psalters, we find examples in the Junius Psalter of the early tenth century (ed. E. Brenner (Heidelberg, 1908)), the Salisbury Psalter of the late tenth century (ed. C. and K. Sisam, EETS os 242 (London, 1959)), and the Cambridge (ed. K. Wildhagen (Hamburg, 1910)), Stowe (ed. A C. Kimmens (Toronto, 1979)) and Vitellius (ed. J. Rosier (Ithaca, NY, 1962)) Psalters, all from the mid-eleventh century. Oddly enough, the ninth-century Vespasian Psalter (ed. S. Kuhn (Ann Arbor, MI, 1965)) preserves transliterations, Latin interpretations of them, and individual Greek characters added for many of the divisions in this psalm.
39 James, , The Canterbury Psalter, 196r–211v.Google Scholar
40 Most notably Ambrose, , Expositio in psalmum CXVIII (PL 15, cols. 1197–1526)Google Scholar. See also Thiel, , Grundlagen, pp. 84–118Google Scholar, and Müller, D.H., Die Deutungen der hebräischen Buchstaben bei Ambrosius (Vienna, 1911)Google Scholar for further discussion.
41 Libri Psalmorum versio antiqua gallica e Cod. ms in Bibl. Bodleiana asservato una cum versione metrica aliisque monumentis pervetustis, ed. Michel, F. (Oxford, 1860).Google Scholar
42 James, , The Canterbury Psalter, 255v.Google Scholar
43 London, BL, Royal 2. B. V (?Winchester, s. xmed), edited by Roeder, F. as Der altenglische Regius–Psalter (Halle, 1904)Google Scholar. For Regius as a learning book, see Sisam, and Sisam, , The Salisbury Psalter, p. 52.Google Scholar
44 Dahlhaus-Berg suggests that the marginal ‘h’-readings in ΘG were added by Theodulf himself, using perhaps a Hebrew–Latin gloss (Nova antiquitas et antiqua novitas, p. 44), but does not take into account the inconsistent readings in Hebh.
45 See above, p. 77, n. 36, and more generally, Hirsch, S. A., ‘Early English Hebraists: Roger Bacon and his Predecessors’, Jewish Quarterly Rev. 12 (1900), 34–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singer, C., ‘Hebrew Scholarship in the Middle Ages among Latin Christians’, in The Legacy of Israel, ed. Bevan, E. R. and Singer, C., 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1928), pp. 283–314Google Scholar; and Loewe, R., ‘The Medieval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and Earlier Scholars’, Trans. of the Jewish Hist. Soc. of England 17 (1953), 225–49.Google Scholar
