Jerome

Steven Avery

Administrator
"deus manifestatus est in carne"

Cornwall
https://books.google.com/books?id=av7NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA633
1634643229243.png


Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA449
1634643332775.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
To my knowledge, Jerome never translated the Pauline Epistles into Latin. My understanding is that the text utilized in the Vulgate is supplemented with the Old Latin.

Jerome did say multiple times that he translated the full New Testament.
This is discussed in a section on his Vulgate Prologue.

Pure Bible Forum
Jerome, who writes accurately, affirms he revised the entire New Testament
 
Jerome did say multiple times that he translated the full New Testament.
This is discussed in a section on his Vulgate Prologue.

Pure Bible Forum
Jerome, who writes accurately, affirms he revised the entire New Testament
Thanks. I was going to look into it more and had deleted the post just before you replied. I'll check it out.

FYI I added the list of Greek writers to this topic at https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/greek-writers-Θεὸς-god-list-and-references.2248/ which will make it easier to track updates. I noticed in my notes I have more writers listed, but I have not checked the Greek yet. I will add them to the list as well.
 

Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah​

When commenting upon the text of Isaiah 53, Jerome refers to our Lord as one, “who served many well: for He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, on Peter’s feet, washing away the sins of the filth of the Apostle; who appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit”[1] However, the nature of the construction and the absence of the preceding part of the verse makes any firm textual conclusion problematic.

Burgon, contra Bishop Ellicott, refers to this place as a “casual reference (in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah) to our LORD, as One ‘qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,’—which Bp. Pearson might have written.” (Revision Revised, p. 103). Bishop Ellicott responded evasively, saying, “We will concede to the Reviewer,” Burgon, “that the occurrence of the words Qui apparuit in carne justificatus est in spiritu in Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah liii. 11 as inconclusive as to the gender of the relative pronoun in the Greek which he had before him.”[2] This obscured the point of which Burgon was contending, that no such inference can be drawn from the text as perhaps Jerome read no relative at all.[3]

The Vulgate​

The reading of the Vulgate is not qui, but quod. Ascertaining what Jerome actually translated is more difficult. The Vulgate initially encountered stiff resistance, and almost immediately the Vulgate and the Old Latins collided, so that various readings found in the Old Latins became assimilated to the Vulgate and the Vulgate to the Old Latin.


[1] Qui bene multis servierit; non enim venit ut ministraretur ei, sed ut ministraret, in Petri pedibus, conctorum Apostolorum peccata abluens. Qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.
[2] Charles John Ellicott and Edwin Palmer, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, p. 68.
[3] Ellicott was evidently unaware of Pearson’s work, for whereas he defended the reading “God was manifest in the flesh,” he made references not unlike those presented here for Jerome.
 
Top