Did Jerome Designate Tobit and Judith 'Apocrypha' or 'Agiographa'?

This week I received the newly published Sources chrétiennes (no. 592) volume containing the Préfaces aux livres de la Bible by Jerome, edited under the directorship of Aline Canellis. Along with all of the Jerome's biblical prefaces—in both Latin and French—this volume contains a 200-page introduction surveying the context of Jerome's translation work. To give you an idea of the types of things she treats, here is a list of the major headings in the introduction.

Le contexte de l'entreprise hiéronymienne (pp. 53–76)
L'entreprise de Jérôme (pp. 77–201)
--Révisions et retour à l'Hebraica veritas (pp. 77–156)
--La méthode de traduction de Jérôme (pp. 157–64)
--Le genre des préfaces et les lecteurs visés (pp. 165–201)
Du travail de Jérôme à la Vulgate (pp. 201–25)
La présente édition (pp. 226–47)

The last major part of the section titled "Révisions et retour à l'Hebraica veritas" deals with Jerome's views on the biblical canon, a subject of interest for me. Most of Canellis' treatment of Jerome's views on the canon are standard and unobjectionable, and she provides a helpful overview with good French bibliography.

But this post concerns a fairly minor point upon which I want to register disagreement: whether Jerome's Prefaces to Tobit and Judith refer to these books as apocrypha or as agiographa.

Canellis argues first that Jerome has two definitions for the term apocrypha (pp. 134–39). Sometimes he uses the word in a negative sense to refer to heretical books, and sometimes he uses it in a neutral sense to refer to useful books that are not in the canon. This latter sense appears—according to Canellis—in the Prologus Galeatus and in the Prefaces to Tobit and Judith.

I don't think so. I fully agree that Jerome often uses the term apocrypha in a negative sense to refer to heretical books. I would also argue (and have argued) that this meaning for the term apocrypha was very common in Jerome's day, the normal meaning. In fact, it is this usual definition of the term apocrypha that colors the way I interpret its appearance in the Prologus Galeatus. It seems to me that in that preface, Jerome could not be relying on some obscure neutral definition of the word, but rather he assumed the nearly universal negative definition, and that was the point: the books that were sometimes added to the Christian Old Testament beyond the Jewish canon were apocrypha, in the negative sense. It's a strong statement, polemical, pejorative, basically rhetorical, because Jerome didn't really regard these books—Tobit and Judith and Maccabees and Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon—as dangerous or heretical, but he was offering an exaggerated negative view of these books in order to make the point that they do not belong in the canon. I've developed these ideas further here and here.

As for the examples from Jerome's Prefaces to Tobit and Judith, I do not believe these examples are valid because the manuscript evidence strongly supports the reading agiographa in both prefaces over against apocrypha. I've posted on this issue before, and I've published an article on it. Both of the major editions of the Vulgate—the Roman edition and the Stuttgart edition—print the word 'agiographa' in the text, though Migne's edition from the mid-nineteenth century printed the word apcrypha. You can read about Migne in that post I mentioned.

Canellis prefers the reading apcrypha in these prefaces for two main reasons (pp. 139–41). (1) Jerome elsewhere uses the term agiographa only in reference to the third section of the Jewish canon, i.e., as the Latin equivalent for the Ketuvim or Writings (see, e.g., the Prologus Galeatus). Why would he use the same word in a different sense in the same sort of context (= discussions of scriptural canon)? (2) One can easily imagine a scribe confusing the Greek letters ΓΙ and Π, and thereby writing ΑΓΙΟΓΡΑΦΑ instead of ΑΠΟΚΡΥΦΑ. I'm not sure I really understand this argument. Is Canellis assuming that the Vorlage that created confusion for the Latin scribe had the Greek word in Greek characters in Jerome's Latin preface? I don't know. The preface to Tobit as it appears in Codex Amiatinus (ca. 700) does not use Greek characters (see here), nor does it in the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate. On the other hand, the Stuttgart Vulgate does use Greek letters for this word in the Prologus Galeatus, as does Amiatinus (here), though neither of them use Greek letters for apocrypha in the Prologus Galeatus.

But she's right that if the word Agiographa appears in the prefaces to Tobit and Judith—as attested in nearly all manuscripts—then Jerome must have been using the word in a sense different from the one he used in the Prologus Galeatus, since we cannot think that Jerome meant that Tobit and Judith featured in the Jewish Ketuvim. But she seems to not remember that she has already proposed that Jerome uses the term apocrypha in two different senses. As far as I can see, either Jerome uses the term apocrypha in two different sense or he uses the term agiographa in two different senses, so we can't score points either way on Jerome's consistent terminology. But I think it more likely that Jerome varied in his meaning for the term agiographa simply because this word was much less common, without an established definition. Canellis points out that Jerome doesn't use the word outside his biblical prefaces, and I have pointed out before that Jerome is the first one to use the term in Latin, and it is slow to catch on.

Moreover, I would think that a scribe would be more likely to change the rare word agiographa to the much more common apocrypha, whether in Greek or in Latin.

So I still think it makes more sense to agree with the manuscripts and major editions of the Vulgate and retain the reading Agiographa rather than Apocrypha in Jerome's Prefaces to Tobit and Judith.

Jerome on Tobit and Judith among the Hagiographa: A Wrong Avenue

More than a year ago I mentioned that I was working on a paper dealing with Jerome's translations of Tobit and Judith (see also here). I'm glad to be able to say that that paper will be published by Harvard Theological Review probably sometime in 2014.

But I still haven't quite come to terms with a particularly odd feature of Jerome's prefaces to Tobit and Judith (mentioned before here). Why does Jerome say in his prefaces to Tobit and Judith that the Jews read these books as part of the Hagiographa? Elsewhere he uses this same term (Hagiographa) for the third section of the Jewish canon, the Ketuvim, and he knows that the Ketuvim does not include Tobit and Judith. The term Hagiographa appears in all his works only seven times, and five of these are in reference to the Ketuvim. Why then does he use this same rare term in his prefaces to Tobit and Judith in a way that contradicts his other uses of the term?

It occurred to me sometime ago that maybe Jerome, in his prefaces to Tobit and Judith, was thinking about the Hagiographa in terms of what is now called Hagiography, or lives of the saints. Since this is a known use of the term, and quite common nowadays, it could provide a plausible definition for Jerome's term 'Hagiographa' in reference to Tobit and Judith and their position in Jewish reading culture. Perhaps Jerome is saying that the Jews still do read Tobit and Judith as edifying literature, as accounts of the heroes of the faith from long ago.

Unfortunately, the history of the term precludes this explanation. According to the OED, the first attestation in English for the term Hagiography is in 1821. The OED does not trace the prior history of the word before its occurrence in English (except for giving the etymology), not a good sign for my hypothesis. And after sorting through all the uses of the Latin term in patristic and medieval sources (there are not very many), I can't find anything that would lend credence to this definition of the term as early as Jerome. Indeed, Jerome is the first one to use the term in Latin, and the later authors rely on Jerome for their own definitions.

It seemed like a promising idea, but it lacks supporting evidence. I'll continue to ponder why Jerome chose this particular word for his prefaces to Tobit and Judith.

Jerome's Preface to Tobit, Again

I've commented on Jerome's Preface to Tobit before, and I've mentioned that I'm working on something dealing with his translations of Tobit and Judith (see also here).

I've still got some unresolved issues with some parts of Jerome's preface.

Here's the text:

Cromatio et Heliodoro episcopis Hieronymus in Domino salutem. Mirari non desino exactionis uestrae instantiam. Exigitis enim, ut librum chaldeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum stilum traham, librum utique Tobiae, quem Hebraei de catalogo diuinarum Scripturarum secantes, his quae Agiografa memorant manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio uestro, non tamen meo studio. Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia et inputant nobis, contra suum canonem latinis auribus ista transferre. Sed melius esse iudicans Pharisaeorum displicere iudicio et episcoporum iussionibus deseruire, institi ut potui, et quia uicina est Chaldeorum lingua sermoni hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem repperiens, unius diei laborem arripui et quicquid ille mihi hebraicis uerbis expressit, haec ego accito notario, sermonibus latinis exposui. Orationibus uestris mercedem huius operis conpensabo, cum gratum uobis didicero me quod iubere estis dignati conplesse. explicit prologus

The most interesting sentence here is this one: Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia et inputant nobis, contra suum canonem latinis auribus ista transferre. Or, at least, it's the most complicated sentence, both in terms of syntax and meaning.

What is the subject of the sentence? I know of three translations of this preface that are widely available. One by Leslie Cahoon appears in the commentary on Tobit by Carey Moore in the Anchor (Yale) Bible series (1996), p. 62. There the sentence is translated: 

For they [i.e., the Hebrews] insist and accuse us of translating those studies of the Hebrews for Latin ears against their own canon.

Here, the subject seems to be assumed from previous discussion, not the previous sentence, but the one before that, where the "Hebrews" cut Tobit out of the catalogue of divine scriptures. So studia Hebraeorum is then the object of transferre, and ista would have the function of an adjective rather than a pronoun: "those studies of the Hebrews".

Another translation is offered by Vincent T. M. Skemp in his published dissertation, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBL, 2000), 15-16.

For the works of the Jews argue against us, and they accuse us of translating them [= studia, "works"] for Latin ears contrary to their canon.

Skemp takes studia Hebraeorum as the subject of the verbs and ista as the object of transferre. 

The third translation that I know of is the one by Kevin P. Edgecomb available online at multiple places (e.g., here). 

For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon.

This translation is more-or-less on par with Skemp's.

One further interpretation of this sentence worth noting is the one by Johann Gamberoni, Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias (1969), who does not present a full-fledged translation but does imply that the subject of our sentence is "learned Jews" (gelehrten Juden), which I assume is his interpretation of studia Hebraeorum (p. 75). It doesn't seem to me that that will work.

Against Cahoon and Gamberoni's interpretation, it seems to me that Skemp and Edgecomb are correct to take studia Hebraeorum as the subject of the two main verbs, arguunt and inputant. But what does it mean that "studies" or "works" or perhaps "zeal" accuses Jerome?

Let me offer an interpretation. Maybe Jerome is saying that the study that he himself has put in to learning Hebrew and rabbinic interpretation is now being put to bad use in translating the Book of Tobit, a non-canonical document. He labored for years to learn the Hebrew language and related matters in order to understand better the Bible, but all of this study also allows him to translate documents that really do not deserve the honor. And so the study that he has made of Hebrew now accuses him. In this case, studia Hebraeorum could be translated "studies of Hebrew things" or "zeal for Hebrew matters" or some such.

Of what does it accuse him? Of translating them =  "studies of Hebrew things". What does this mean? Jerome is making available to Latin ears all the knowledge that it took him so long to acquire, again, in this case improperly (because Tobit is not in the catalogue of divine scriptures). He is transferring his study of Hebrew things for Latin ears.

The reason this is bad is because it is against their own canon (contra suum canonem). Whose canon? The reflexive adjective suum should refer to the subject of the sentence. But in this case the subject is impersonal, studia (unless Cahoon's translation above is correct, or that of Gamberoni, which seems unlikely to me). I haven't research Jerome's use of this adjective, but I wonder if it would conform to classical standards. In any case, I just want to put out a suggestion that what Jerome means is that his translation is against the canon of the Latins. After all, in Jerome's mind, the canon of the Latins should be equivalent to the Jewish canon. 

Back from NAPS

I am recovering from the 2012 NAPS conference in Chicago. I should clarify: that's the North American Patristics Society conference. On Thursday evening, Nathan Howard and I went to a very good Thai restaurant a few blocks from our hotel, and we told a lady sitting at a nearby table that we were attending a NAPS conference, and she gave us a funny look and asked "What's that?" I suppose she imagined sessions devoted to the pros and cons of spending a few minutes sleeping every afternoon, and theorizing on where the best place is to get catch a snooze.

This year I roomed with the aforementioned Nathan Howard, and also Everett Ferguson. I enjoyed getting to know both of these men, and it was an honor especially to share a room with Prof. Ferguson, internationally acclaimed patristics scholar and past president of NAPS itself.

Of course, I attended some sessions, learned some about areas of patristics I don't research as well as about areas directly relevant to my own scholarship. The banquet on Friday evening was fund, though expensive. And, I saw my book on display for the first time at a conference--Brill did come to this one. 

I did present a paper. It was titled, "Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith?" It was generally well-received; nobody threw anything, and several people afterwards mentioned that it was helpful. I plan to work it up into an article for submission to a journal, so I'll probably post some more about this later. For now, I'll just copy below the conclusion as I presented it at the conference. 

Why did Jerome translate Tobit and Judith? Our study has isolated several possible factors. First, he seems to have viewed these two books as authentic ancient Israelite literature, albeit written in Chaldean rather than Hebrew. He did not view the books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, or Sirach as ancient Israelite literature. Second, his classification of these books as Agiografa increases their prestige, even though he uses the term to mean something different from his earlier use of it in the Preface to Daniel  and the Prologus Galeatus. Third, the peculiar translation process he describes in the Preface to Tobit allows these Chaldean books to share—however tenuously—in the hebraica veritas, so that his translation will be truer and more correct than the Vetus Latina. Though a first or second reading of these prefaces, especially the Tobit preface, may leave the impression that Jerome would rather not have translated these books at all—an impression created, I think, by Jerome’s desire to stress the noncanonicity of these books—nevertheless, the translations themselves and certain elements of the prefaces reveal that Jerome does want these translations to find an audience that will profit from reading Tobit and Judith.

Are Tobit and Judith among the Apocrypha or Hagiographa?

The only two deuterocanonical books translated by Jerome were Tobit and Judith, though he did also include the deuterocanonical additions to Esther and Daniel in his translation of those books. As he did for his other biblical translations, Jerome provided a distinct preface for both Tobit and Judith.

One of the curious features of his prefaces to these books is that he says that they are included by the Jews in a collection of books which they call the Hagiographa. Furthermore--and this is combining information gleaned from both prefaces separately--this collection called the Hagiographa is not a part of the biblical canon and it is held to be of less authority in doctrinal matters.

This is so curious because elsewhere Jerome tells us (accurately) that Hagiographa is the Jewish name for the third section of the biblical canon, following the Law and the Prophets. He says this both in the Prologus Galeatus (i.e., the Preface to Samuel and Kings) and in his Preface to Daniel. On the other hand, in the Prologus Galeatus he classifies Tobit and Judith among the apocrypha.

There is some confusion here about terms. Just what is the Hagiographa? Does Jerome use that term in two different ways? Why would he do that? Does Jerome think that Jews classify Tobit and Judith as Hagiographa or as apocrypha?

To ease these tensions (so it seems to me), an alternative reading was introduced into the text of Jerome's prologue to Tobit and Judith, so that instead of locating them among the Hagiographa, he instead locates them among the apocrypha. This alternative reading actually makes quite a bit more sense when compared with Jerome's other statements on these books. Not only that, but it has also become quite popular in the reception of Jerome's prefaces, because it was the reading printed in the Migne text.

It will not work, however, as there is simply too little manuscript support. The standard critical edition of the Vulgate--the Roman edition produced by the Benedictines (Tobit and Judith published 1950)--lists only a few manuscripts giving this reading for Judith, and none for Tobit. The handy Stuttgart edition does not include the reading apocrypha in the apparatus for either prologue. Thus, it would seem that Hagiographa is the correct reading, and this is amply confirmed by modern editions. (This has not prevented some scholars from continuing to cite apocrypha as the true reading; see here on pp. 28, 43-44.)

As I mentioned, the popularity of the reading apocrypha in these prologues really took hold with its inclusion in the text printed by Migne. At PL 29.23-26, Migne offered a long note--partly taken from Jean Martianay, whose edition of the Vulgate was the first to print apocrypha in these passages--justifying his inclusion of this reading over the reading Hagiographa, which is more widely-attested in the manuscripts. Here I translate this note from the Latin. I have attempted to provide links where I could where more information can be found about the various people or subjects mentioned by Migne. I have not always been able to do this, however; especially if I could not figure out who Migne was talking about (e.g., Driedon, Simonius).

The following note is linked to the word apocrypha in the Preface to Tobit. 

So reads the great manuscript codex of the Bible of Cartusian Villanova near Avignon, and so learned men agree that it should be read, such as Leander of St. Martin [a.k.a. John Jones, 1575-1636, Welsh Benedictine monk, from 1599 a member of the monastery San Martín Pinario at Santiago de Compostela, Spain] and many others, by whom it was investigated that the Jews acknowledge no other books as Hagiographa beyond those which constitute the third section of the Hebrew canon. Corrupt editions read with the vast majority of manuscripts Hagiographa, for the Book of Tobit cannot be cut off from the canon or catalog of the divine Scriptures, to use the words of the holy doctor [i.e., Jerome], without at the same time it being cut off from the order of the Hagiographa and put into the apocrypha among the Hebrews. But lest any hateful spite, or contrary man, should resound against us here, let it be remembered that each and every book of the Hagiographa of the Hebrews was mentioned and enumerated by Jerome in his Preface to the Books of Kings, among which in no way he wished to count either Tobit or Judith. He said:

The third order possesses the ἀγιόγραφα, and the first book begins from Job, the second from David...third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs...Ecclesiastes...Song of Songs. Sixth is Daniel. Seventh Dabreajamin...which book among us is inscribed 1&2 Παραλειπομένων [i.e., Chronicles]. Eighth is Ezra, which also itself both among Greeks and Latins is divided into two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]. Ninth is Esther. And so altogether the books of the Old Law are twenty-two, i.e., five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. But some put Ruth and Cinoth [= Lamentations] among the ἀγιόγραφα, and reckon these books in the calculation of its number, and thus there would be twenty-four books of the ancient Law. ... This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a helmeted beginning for all the books which we are converted from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may know that whatever is outside these, should be put among the άπόκρυφα. Therefore Wisdom [of Solomon]...and the book of Jesus son of Sirach [= Ecclesiasticus], and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd [of Hermas] are not in the canon.

Thus, Jerome would not at all agree with himself if the Book of Tobit, which in this place he declared should be put among the apocrypha, later in the preface to the same book of Tobit he said that among the Hebrews it was transferred to the Hagiographa. Therefore, lest the holy doctor be believed to have thought things contrary and repugnant to hismelf, the error of the ancient scribes should be corrected toward the fidelity of the manuscript copy praised earlier; for, written down at the first with the greatest diligence, it was also emended with fortunate care, and of better character. But concerning these things again in the Preface to Judith, where for the confirmation of our reading, apocrypha, there is additionally another manuscript codex of the Bible of the Avignon library, collated by the Society of Jesus. [Jean Martianay]

--Many other books both old and more recent read Hagiographa, and there are critics, having learned other things, who prefer this reading especially for this reason: that the book, even if it is not received into the Hebrew canon, being prior, which encompasses books written only in Hebrew, nevertheless it continuously obtains divine authority both among them and among the Fathers of the Church, as is learned from the testimonies of both parts, and from the arguments of Grotius and Sixtus of Siena. Nevertheless, the printed reading, apocrypha, which previously Martianay restored from the manuscripts and defended with good arguments, is especially true, and also is confirmed by both the thing itself and by the context in Jerome both of this passage [i.e., the Preface to Tobit] but also much more clearly in the Prologus Galeatus [= Preface to the Books of Kings], and finally in the Prologue to the Books of Solomon, and in another to Jonah. Also a greater number of manuscript codices stands apart from it, as well as the authority of those who have formerly found written thus in their copies, such as the author of the Glossa Ordinaria, Comestor,Cardinal Hugo, the Marmotrectus, Abulensis, the author of the Preface to the Bible edited together with the Glossa Ordinaria and the work of Lyranus, while the following authorities also support this reading: Driedon, Ambrosius Catharinus, Petrus Garzia Galarza, and recenty Simonius and others. But even from these manuscripts which prefer Hagiographa, either here or below in the prologue of Judith, which passage is the twin to this one, some record at the margin of the book, apocrypha. Thus the interlinear gloss has at this passage, and thus Humphrey Hody attests is contained in a certain Lambeth manuscript at the prologue of Judith, where is noted in the margin in an ancient hand more than 200 years old: "apocrypha is the better reading." The same person says: In another manuscript in the Bodleian (NE. A. 2 1) it is recorded at the prologue of Tobit in an ancient hand, "rather, better--inter apocrypha." Thus apocrypha is read in the prologue of Judith in another Lambeth book of highest quality in two large volumes and in a Bodleian book (NE. F. 3 25) apocrypha is read in both prologues. Among the older writers, whoever believed the reading Hagiographa to be correct established that it was to be taken in a broader sense. So Dionysius the Carthusian and in a third book (Bodleian manuscript F. 107) at the word Hagiographa in the prologue of Tobit it is noted: "that is, apocrypha: certainly Hagiographa is said broadly." And in the prologue of Judith at the same word is placed an interlinear note, "broadly."

Tobit and the Restoration of Israel

I've been re-familiarizing myself with Tobit lately, and on a read-through I found the northern Israelite diaspora context of the story intriguing and noticed some passages that predict the return of those northern Israelites from captivity (esp. Tob. 13:5). And so I was excited to read Richard Bauckham's essay "Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel" in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. Mark Bredin (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 140-64.

Bauckham has done good work in this essay comparing the misfortunes of Tobit and Sarah to those of northern Israel, so that the Book of Tobit is in some sense a "parable" of Israel. He also is able to establish the book's strong anticipation of the return from exile of the northern tribes. This is all in the first half of the essay (pp. 140-54).

However, Bauckham then shifts his focus to the intended audience of the the book, and argues at length that the audience is these exiled northern tribes. Actually, the problem I see is that he does not argue this precisely, he merely assumes it, but rather he argues for the existence of the northern tribes as a distinct people in exile so that they can then serve as the audience for Tobit.

I suppose he has done an adequate job at the task he set for himself. Whereas almost all scholars assume that the ten northern tribes, not long after their exile by the Assyrians, assimilated into the cultures of those among whom they now lived, thus ceasing to be a distinct people, Bauckham argues that this was not necessarily the case. He can cite some evidence:

1. The Israelite exile involved numbers of exiles large enough to maintain distinctiveness in a foreign culture.
2. A hope for returned Israel is expressed in some of the biblical prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, later parts of Isaiah, Zechariah, deutero-Zechariah). 
3. There are some theophoric names referring to YHWH in Assyrian texts continuing until around 600 BCE. 
4. Josephus and others locate the northern Israelites still in Media and thereabouts (Ant. 11.131-33). 
5. In Rabbinic times there were still Jews in this area, and they were probably actually descendants of the northern tribes. 

Okay, obviously I haven't done justice to Bauckham's argument or the evidence he cites (of which there is a couple more pieces in his essay). But that's because I have a problem with the prior assumption. Why should it be the case that a document expressing hope in the return of the northern Israelites should be written specifically for those northern Israelites?

The only texts that Bauckham is able to cite that do express hope for the return of the northern tribes are Judean texts (the aforementioned prophets), as Bauckham recognizes (pp. 156-57). Doesn't this prove that (some) Judeans harbored the hope for the return of those northern tribes as fellow-worshipers once again of their shared God in a shared Temple in Jerusalem? After all, the Judean prophets predicted precisely this, and the disappearance or, at least, non-return of the northern tribes would surely have presented to the Second Temple Jews--who had experienced their own exile and return--a grave theological problem regarding the justice and faithfulness of their God.

It seems to me that Tobit would work well as a text composed for Second Temple Jews in Judah who wondered about the faithfulness of their God because their own return from exile had not been nearly so glorious as the prophets had advertised, partially because the northern tribes had not returned at all. In this perspective, Tobit would have been written to assure Judeans (not exiled northern Israelites) that God would be faithful to his promises to restore the Israelite exiles and thus re-unite all the tribes, presumably under one leader and in one kingdom.