Jerome’s Twenty Two Books: The Alphabet of the Doctrine of God

    Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus (347-420), referred to as Jerome in English, is one of the most significant figures in the history of the reception of the Bible. In an age not known for polyglots, Jerome was a vir trilinguis who translated from Greek to Latin and, his crowning achievement, from Hebrew to Latin. The Christian movement of the first centuries was gifted with no greater scholar of Hebrew. 

    His supporter, Pope Damasus, bishop of Rome from 366 to his death in 384, is thought to have asked Jerome in 383 to take on a grand project: a critical revision of the text of the Latin Bible in light of the received Greek texts. The Hebrew from which various Greek translations had been made was not yet under consideration. The Latin Old Testament in use at the time was a translation of a translation, the authoritative Septuagint, sometimes corrected toward a Hebrew Vorlage close to the now dominant proto-Masoretic text, more often, not so corrected; the Old Latin New Testament was not as adherent to the received Greek text as one might have wished.

    After revising the Gospels and after more than one attempt at revising parts of the existing Latin translation of the Greek Old Testament on the basis of Origen’s Hexapla, Jerome changed course and decided to make a fresh translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. The result earned him the eternal gratitude of posterity and the hostility of his contemporaries. Jerome made enemies easily – he had a sharp tongue and was not afraid to use it – and ploughed ahead regardless. For that very reason he was suited to do something virtually no one in his age looked on with favor.

    In 393, Jerome finished a translation of the Hebrew of the Psalms and “Kings” (1 Sam-2 Kgs). He worked on the “Prophets” (Isa, Jer, Ezek, XII, and Dan) at the same time, then “Ezra” (Ezra-Neh) and what Jerome referred to, by a way of a calque of the Hebrew title, as verba dierum “Days’ Reports” (1-2 Chr). He then translated the “books of knowledge” (Job, Prov, Eccl, Song). The Octateuch (the Pentateuch + Josh, Judg, and Ruth) was completed in 404, Esther a year later.

    It took Jerome 22 years to satisfy the putative request of Damasus according to a formula Jerome at first did not imagine: he would translate from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Jerome’s proficiency in Hebrew has been doubted, without just cause, as the Israeli scholar Benjamin Kedar has taken pains to demonstrate (go here for an introductory discussion).

    The need for a translation from what Jerome referred to as the “Hebrew truth” was felt by few. Most were cool to project and product (cf., e.g., Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 18, 43). Nonetheless, after the headwinds Jerome ran into subsided, his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, along with his revision of the Old Latin of the Gospels and revisions of the rest of the NT by anonymous continuators, gradually replaced the Old Latin to become the new “common”(ly used) Bible, or editio vulgata, of the Latin-literate world. Jerome’s translation was deemed equal in status to the Old Latin, and preferred, by Pope_Leo in the 6^th century. It had won the day by the 12^th.¹

    By virtue of the felt truths expressed on its pages, no book has had a deeper impact on Western European intellectual history than the Vulgate – the Septuagint had a similar impact in the East. Unsurprisingly, Jerome’s Bible was the first major book to be printed, in the 15^th century, upon the invention of movable type (the Gutenberg_Bible).

    The controversy in Jerome’s day was fierce. In the “helmeted” prologue of 394 to his translation of “Regnorum” [(the book) of Kingdoms] addressed and dedicated to Paula and Eustochium, a widow and daughter among Jerome’s circle of wealthy patrons – his opponents liked to make fun of him for dedicating his biblical labors to women of his acquaintance – Jerome defends his project and lists “the twenty two” books of the Hebrew Bible; the “elements” of the corpus he dubs the exordia or alphabet of the doctrine of God. There are in fact twenty two letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Five have two forms, non-final and final; correspondingly, Jerome avers, five books of the Bible are composed of non-final and final elements: 1-2 Sam; 1-2 Kgs; 1-2 Chr; Ezra-Neh; and Jer-Lam; the same might have been said (but isn’t) about Judg-Ruth. Jerome notes that there are twenty four books in the Hebrew Bible if Ruth and Lamentations are counted separately; these correspond to the twenty four elders who adore the Lamb in the apocalypse of John (Rev 4:4-10).

    From said books, and no others, according to Jerome, unimpeachable doctrine might be deduced. Though the Latin church went on to treat other books as canonical, at least in the sense of providing classical examples of piety and instruction fit for catechetical instruction and lectionary use in worship, it would also prove to be true, as a general rule, that not only Jews but Christians have taken precisely said “twenty two” books, and no others, as the alphabet of the doctrine of God.

    There are other ways of reading said books: as a witness to a bygone age, as a corpus whose thrust needs correction in light of a modern project of liberation. But a religiously competent reading in the Jewish and in the Christian tradition, in combination or not with other styles of reading, treats said books as the fundamental resource of theological and moral knowledge, within an optic furnished by the Talmud and Midrashim in the first case, and by the New Testament and a regula fidei (the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, or something fuller like the Heidelberg Catechism) in the second case.

    What books did Jerome have in mind? What were the names of the books known to Jerome? How do they compare to the names in use today? What is their order according to Jerome? How does that compare with the order in use among Jews and Christians today? Here is the information in tabular form:

 

5+8+9=22. 

Comment

    The names of biblical books Jerome gives as current among Jews are remarkable, though none are cause for surprise; the exception is משלות mashaloth as opposed to משלי [שלמה mashlei [shalomoh] the proverbs of [Solomon]; one is reminded of the received title of the Psalter, תהלים tehillim, which contrasts with the biblical תהלות tehilloth praises. The titles of the books of Moses are based on the first word or one or two of the first words of the work in question, the capacity of the incipit to evoke content or contrast to a sufficient degree with titles of the other books in the series are not evident concerns. The titles of the five parts of the Pentateuch in Greek are on the contrary content-based and utilitarian, as are the titles of the remaining books, in Hebrew (once in Aramaic), Greek, and Latin.

    The traditional Latin names of the books of the Bible are calques (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomion, Paralipomenon, Zaccharias), adjustments (Leviticus), or translations (Numeri, Regnorum) of the received Greek names. This is not surprising: the Bible in Greek had tremendous prestige in Roman antiquity. Even so, over time, thanks to Jerome, some of the received Latin names were replaced by calques or translations of the Hebrew (Threni [>Qinot, a traditional Jewish title] >Lamentationes; Paralipomenon >Verba dierum; Regnorum>Regum; Paraoimiai>Proverbia; Asma>Canticum canticorum) or transliterations from the Hebrew (Ambacoum>Abacuc; Michaeas>Micha; Malachias>Malachi; Iesous>Iesu>Iosue). The trend is further developed, but never consistently carried out, in English names of books of the Bible.

    Jerome’s order of books and division into three classes may well correspond in full to a Jewish tradition of Jerome’s day. It is identical to that of both earlier and later Jewish tradition with respect to the tripartite sequence: law, prophets, and writings; the internal sequences involving the intercalation of Ruth after Judges and Lamentations after Jeremiah; the collocation of three works attributed to Solomon (libri Salomonis); and, correspondingly, the lack of a collection of “five scrolls” among the writings as found in later sources (Ruth, Canticles, Qoheleth, Lamentations, and Esther), did not win the day in later Jewish tradition, but are nonetheless reflected, in whole or in part, in earlier and later native tradition. The reason why Daniel is put at the head of Chr-Ezr-Est is not clear, but Daniel was a late addition to “the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our ancestors,” the national religious literature Ben Sira’s grandson refers to in his prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s wisdom (ca. 117 BCE); Daniel is *not* among the prophets praised in Sir 48, though Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve, in that order, are all noted; Daniel *cannot* be considered to have been part of the corpus on which ben Sira depended. Nonetheless, Daniel quickly became an essential reference point following its publication in the 2^ndcent. BCE. It was classed with the "Prophets" in some strands of Judaism - for example in the tradition reported by Josephus in ca. 90 CE, who also has Chronicles and Ezra+Nehemiah in that division [5+13+4 are the counts in the divisions per Josephus] - but among the "writings" in other traditions (the uniform Jewish understanding at present). 

    A 22 book aggregate count, with the exclusion however of the book of Esther, the assignment of a number to Ruth, and a different threefold division of the whole is known from sources slightly earlier than Jerome (347-420): the 39^th Festal Letter (367) of Athanasius (296-373), and Carmen XII of the Carmina Dogmatica of Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) composed near the end of his life. The “historical books” form a first division: the Octateuch (the Pentateuch + Josh, Judg, and Ruth), then Kingdoms and Supplements thereto, plus Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah); a total of 12. The “poetic” books form a second division: the Psalms of David, and three books attributed to Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song, with Proverbs either the head or the coda of the trilogy, and Job either the head or the conclusion of the series; 5 books in all. 5 “prophetic” books form a third division: the Twelve, Esaias, Ieremias (with Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle counted with it as one book, according to Athanasius), Iezekiel, and Daniel. The total again is 22. Despite Jerome’s observations, the habit of putting the “writing” prophets in final position, with the Twelve or Isaiah as head and Daniel or the Twelve in coda, as opposed to the original third division in final position, with David or Job as head and ?, Ezra-Nehemiah or Esther in coda, became universal Christian practice.

    The 22 book limit (already reported by Josephus, ca. 90 CE) was also set aside. In later Catholic Bibles, Tobit and Judith are superadded before an expanded Esther, and 1-2 Maccabees conclude, the first division. In Orthodox Bibles, 1 Esdras (a work not translated into Latin, and not to be confused with 1 Esdras = Ezra of the Latin tradition), 2 Esdras (=1 and 2 Esdras of the Latin tradition), an expanded Esther, Judith, Tobit, and 1-3 or 1-4 Maccabees conclude the first division. Wisdom and Ben Sira are superadded in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles to the second division; moreover Psalm 151 and a collection of Odes, including the otherwise unattested Prayer of Manasseh, follow the 150 Psalms in Orthodox Bibles. In Catholic and in Protestant Bibles, in accordance with Jewish practice and Jerome, the Twelve conclude rather than head the division to which they belong; an amplified Jeremianic corpus and an amplified Daniel are common to Orthodox and Catholic Bibles.

    Even so, there it is: the point of departure of both Jewish and Christian tradition, the alphabet of true doctrine, is “the 22-book” collection described by Jerome in his letter to Paula and Eustochium, a collection identical to the “Old Testament” of Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus before him, with the addition of Esther and the exclusion of additions (Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah) to the Jeremianic corpus, Daniel, and Esther. For a bilingual edition of Jerome’s letter, go here.

¹ Apart from the Psalms. Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin translation based on the Hexaplaric Septuagint (the “Gallican” Psalter) became part of the Vulgate. His translation from the Hebrew was put to one side – though not in the Codex Amiatinus, an early pandect, in which it appears in place of competitors, the “Roman” and “Gallican” Psalters. The “Roman” Psalter is also attributed to Jerome, but the ascription is uncertain.

² Jerome does not give the traditional Latin names of the Twelve, or of Lamentations, in his “Prologue to Kings.” The Latin names of the Twelve and Lamentations current in Latin before Jerome go back in every case to the names thereof in Greek, and are supplied above. In his translation, Jerome substituted Micha for Micheas, Abacuc for Ambacoum, Malachi for Malachias, and Lamentationes for Threni (the latter is a Greek loanword; both reflect a traditional Jewish title, קינות qinot).

Comments

[Benjamin Smith]

As someone who has just started to learn Biblical Hebrew, this is fascinating. What did Jerome mean by 'non-final' and 'final' elements, though?

[JohnFH]

Hi Benjamin,

You almost have to know Hebrew to catch Jerome's drift. The five Hebrew letters he refers to are written one way in non-final position, another in final position. Compare sigma in Greek if you know Greek.

[Doug Chaplin]

it would also prove to be true, as a general rule, that not only Jews but Christians have taken precisely said “twenty two” books, and no others, as the alphabet of the doctrine of God.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, John. Clearly your meaning isn't entirely straightforward for the way your "no others" excludes the NT corpus, but it is a Protestant solipsism (and you know it) to claim an (Old Testament) canon of 22 books is also a "general rule" for Christians. Neither historically nor numerically is this true, only dogmatically within the Protestant tradition.

[JohnFH]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the pushback.

I am doing my best to honor the sense in which Jerome speaks of these 22 books, and no others, as the alphabet of the doctrine of God.

Jerome thinks of these books as exordia, not as the final word. Like all Christians, he works within a prophecy-fulfillment framework; he also thinks in terms of the Old Law and the New Law, the lex Christi on his understanding.

This is not that different from the point of view of the Sages, for whom the Oral Torah is a renewal/ revision of the written Torah.

For Jerome's views in context, go here:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/09/jerome-to-paula-and-eustochium-394-text-and-translation.html

I remain convinced that the content of the church's teaching and preaching has for the most part been forged on the anvil of precisely the 22 books Jerome lists - only Esther might be called into question, or could have been, before the events of the Shoah.

The situation becomes clear once one examines which books in antiquity were commented on, what patterns of citation are discoverable, and the combined witness of Jerome, Rufinus, and before them, Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus.

I am very much in favor of seeing the deuterocanonical writings read and understood. But even those who claim to want them treated on a par with the protocanonical writings rarely if ever produce commentaries on them, or integrate them into the heart of their preaching and teaching.

The difference between Protestants and non-Protestants on this score is, so far as I can seem, rather overblown.

Let me reword things slightly. With the possible exception of the book of Esther, it has been the general rule that the 22 books listed by Jerome have functioned canonically across a full range of contexts in a way the deuteros have not. I hope that helps.

On the other hand, if you know of evidence that suggests otherwise, please tell.

[MokumAlef]

Hi John,

Thanks for this - interesting stuff. I am wondering, however, if there could not be a link somewhere with the notion that the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are also considered the means by which God created the world. See e.g. Sefer Yetzirah. Since I don't have the info off hand as to its purported age (but some think it dates from around the time of the codification of the Mishna - which would predate Jerome), I am not sure whether such traditions were circulating in his time. But it would be an interesting thought.

[Doug Chaplin]

I note that Melito includes Wisdom, and Athanasius Baruch. I also think it fairly likely that the non-Hebrew speaking / reading Christian, which afaik includes Athansius among many other early Christians, would have meant Greek Daniel by their references, and so included additions like the Song of the Three.

I continue to maintain the picture is more complex than the one you suggest. Jerome was effectively the only father the reformers could appeal to without one or another problem. I personally tend to the view that Christian use of Sirach (at least) may have been one reason it became excluded from the Hebrew Bible.

At least in your revised contention that "it has been the general rule that the 22 books listed by Jerome have functioned canonically across a full range of contexts in a way the deuteros have not" you are not far from the 39 articles! :-)

[JohnFH]

Hi MokumAlef,

It it clear from the witness of Josephus that the number 22 and therefore the alphabet was associated with the extent of the canon in the first century of the current era at the latest. That said, the alphabet is not endowed in this trope with powers; rather, the books of a canon are thought to cover all the elements of a system just as the elements of the alphabet do.

[JohnFH]

Doug,

I maintain that there is far more continuity and unity in diversity in the set of texts that have normed discourse and practice in the church down through the ages than debates about whether Esther, Baruch, or Song of Solomon are in the canon would suggest.

The texts and tropes of biblical literature which have normed discourse and practice over the centuries trace, I submit, a bell curve.

The bulk of the bell consists of texts and tropes derived from the center as opposed to the periphery of the two Testaments however defined on the outer margins.

The effective core of the Old and New Testaments is *less* than the Athanasian canon - your example, Baruch, is in effect peripheral.

A simple way of arriving at the effective core: identify the canonical books in common among the Greek, Syriac, and Latin Fathers of the second to fourth centuries.

Even if my supposition that the bulk of the bell curve of the norming texts and tropes can be determined by the above procedure were to prove incorrect, the procedure remains in accord with Augustine's dictum: “among the canonical scriptures [the skillful interpreter of the sacred writings] will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive” (De Doct. Chr. 2, 8, 12).

But Augustine was not in a position to apply his dictum in a historically responsible manner. We are.

On the other hand, whereas the catholic canon in Augustine's sense, with catholic understood as embracing Greek, Syriac, and Latin Christianity through the end of the 400s, would exclude Esther, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation at a minimum, this is no longer the case.

The effective catholic canon is now broader, inclusive of everything in, precisely, Jerome's canon.

Still, I think it is of great interest that an early catechetical work, Testimonia ad Quirinum, norms its discourse according to three different effective canons, depending on whether the subject was self-definition over against Jewish tradition, Christology, or the correct comportment of believers. Go here:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/06/thinking_about__7.html

Another route to the same conclusion is a reappropriation of the three-way distinction noted in that post. Cardinal Cajetan, before things got hot and heavy, went down this path. I don't have a link handy but can find it if the reference is obscure.

[Doug Chaplin]

I don't have any problems with the idea of core and periphery, John, as expressed in your bell curve idea. In fact I rather like it, and think the earlier post you reference one of your best on the topic. Here it seemed to me that you were being more definite about the 22 than the situation warranted, which was why I pushed back! And shall no doubt continue to do so from time to time.

[JohnFH]

Doug,

As I understand things then, this is how matters stand. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What you have trouble with is the (1) three-way distinction (which is paradoxical, since Jerome, whose views you oppose, also put it aside) and (2) Augustine's directive on which books to prefer, understood "col senno in poi," on the basis of sound data.

A commitment to (1) and (2) makes room for a solution in large continuity with effective practice down through the ages, including our own.

In the context of that commitment, a description of the 22 book canon of Jerome as the effective alphabet of the doctrine of God, not only by Jerome's lights, but by those of Athanasius and an updated Augustine, is both fitting and meaningful.

Outside of the twofold commitment noted, one is left with an exclusive emphasis on the fuzziness of it all, an emphasis however that I consider to be the opposite of illuminating and constructive.

The "committed" solution I offer interprets even as it comprehends the nearly universal practice of the church. It will not please those who think of the deuteros as, first and foremost, a quarry of prooftexts for unsavory doctrines. On the other hand, it takes away a club anti-evangelicals like to hit evangelicals over the head with.

Given how hard it is to call to mind a cogent modern use of Wisdom of Solomon for the good of church faith and practice - just an example - I can't help noting how aridly theoretical the call for a broader effective canon is.

Here's a prediction: in the future it will be evangelicals and Catholics who appropriate the relevant passages in Baruch, ben Sira, and Wisdom for the purposes of Christology, without granting those passages canonicity (normativity) on a par with Proverbs 8.

It will be evangelicals and Catholics (and orthodox Jews I would hope) who appropriate the exempla of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabean literature for the purposes of renewing piety, but again, without putting those exempla on a par with the ones we have in the alphabet, from Abraham to Jacob to Joseph to David, Elijah, and Elisha, and beyond.

I don't see liberal Anglicans and Protestants with enough kick in them to pull that off. The Bible however defined has relatively little claim on their thought, piety, and practice. That's the real problem, the elephant in the room, which I don't see you addressing in a serious manner.

[web development USA, web development Florida]

I think it is of great interest that an early catechetical work, Testimonia ad Quirinum, norms its discourse according to three different effective canons, depending on whether the subject was self-definition over against Jewish tradition, Christology, or the correct comportment of believers.