¹ A fundamental study is Kamesar, Adam, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the “Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim” (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993Google Scholar).

² Prol. gal. 52–57. The line numbers of Vulgate, Jerome's prefaces are cited according to Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (ed. Weber, Robert and Gryson, Roger; 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007)Google Scholar. On this passage in the Prol. gal., see Gallagher, Edmon L., “The Old Testament ‘Apocrypha’ in Jerome's Canonical Theory,” JECS 20 (2012) 213–33Google Scholar.

³ On the collection of these six books, see Gallagher, Edmon L., “Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa,” in Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2011 (ed. Vinzent, Markus; StPatr 69; Louvain: Peeters, 2013) 99–106Google Scholar.

⁴ Praef. Dan. 20–43; see also Jerome's colophon to the protocanonical portion of Esther, where he says that he has not found the additions in Hebrew, so he will provide them each with a prefixed obelus (Biblia Sacra [ed. Weber and Gryson], 724). And see Graves, Michael, Jerome's Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on his “Commentary on Jeremiah” (VCSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 69–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gallagher, Edmon L., Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text (VCSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the term “death-warrant” in relation to the obelus, see Skehan, Patrick W., “St. Jerome and the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” in A Monument to St. Jerome: Essays on Some Aspects of His Life, Works, and Influence (ed. Murphy, Francis X.; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1952) 257–87Google Scholar, at 281.

⁵ See the collection of citations in Schade, Ludwig, Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus. Eine biblisch-geschichtliche Studie (Biblische Studien 15.4–5; Freiburg: Herder, 1910) 182–205Google Scholar. He lists, if I have counted correctly, eighty-four citations of Wisdom of Solomon, seventy of Sirach, four of Tobit (one is dubious: Tob 4:16 in Comm. Matt. 21:28–32), eight of Judith, sixteen of 1 Maccabees, three of 2 Maccabees, and an additional three of the Maccabean books in general.

⁶ Migne (PL 29:40 note g) mentions some authors who thought that Judith was translated for Paula and Eustochium and thus did not accompany the translation of Tobit.

⁷ See Moore, Carey A., Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996) 53Google Scholar; and Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, Judith (VL 7.2; Freiburg: Herder, 2001) 30, 32Google Scholar, who believes the one was translated immediately after the other. Hasselhoff, Görge K. places the Judith translation some years after the Tobit translation but fails to argue for this position (“Revising the Vulgate: Jerome and his Jewish Interlocutors,” ZRGG 64 [2012] 209–21Google Scholar, at 217).

⁸ Other Vulgate prefaces without a dedication include Praef. Jer., Praef. Ezek., and Praef. Job. For a helpful chart of Jerome's translations (including non-scriptural translations) and the persons to whom they are dedicated, see Fürst, Alfons, Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike (Freiburg: Herder, 2003) 86–87Google Scholar.

⁹ Fürst, Hieronymus, 87 n. 139.

¹⁰ Auwers, Jean-Marie, “Chromace d’Aquilée et le texte biblique,” in Chromatius of Aquileia and His Age: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Aquileia, 22–24 May 2008 (ed. Beatrice, Pier Franco and Peršič, Alessio; Instrumenta patristica et mediaevalia 57; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011) 343–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 344 n. 8. See Migne's note at PL 29:40 note g.

¹¹ For more on the similarities between the prefaces, see Bogaert, Judith, 30–32; Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975) 284Google Scholar n. 9; and Wagner, Christian J., Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Griechisch, Lateinisch, Syrisch, Hebräisch, Aramäisch, mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer (MSU 28; Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 3/258; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003)Google Scholar xxviii n. 73.

¹² On Jerome's patrons generally, see Williams, Megan Hale, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006) 233–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though Chromatius and Heliodorus, as minor patrons, receive no attention in the chapter.

¹³ Janson, Tore, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Studia latina Stockholmiensia 13; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) 117–20Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Ibid., 120–41.

¹⁵ On the text of Tobit, see Hanhart, Robert, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17; Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 3/139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)Google Scholar; Hallermayer, Michaela, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008)Google Scholar. Two synopses are available: Weeks, Stuart D., Gathercole, Simon, and Stuckenbruck, Loren T., The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (Fontes et subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. On the VL of Tobit, see Auwers, Jean-Marie, “La tradition vieille latine du livre de Tobie. Un état de la question,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology; Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. Xeravits, Géza G. and Zsengellér, József; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 1–21Google Scholar. According to Auwers, despite the present textual confusion of the VL, “il y a lieu de poser une traduction unique, antérieure à Cyprien, qui la cite sous une forme déjà corrompue. Rien ne permet de mettre en doute l’origine africaine et chrétienne de cette traduction” (12); see also Gathercole, Simon, “Tobit in Spain: Some Preliminary Comments on the Relations between the Old Latin Witnesses,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. Bredin, Mark; Library of Second Temple Studies 55; New York: T&T Clark, 2006) 5–11Google Scholar. On the six Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Tobit dating to medieval times, see Stuckenbruck, Loren T. and Weeks, Stuart D., “The Medieval Hebrew and Aramaic Texts of Tobit,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. Corley, Jeremy and Skemp, Vincent; CBQMS 38; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005) 71–86Google Scholar.

¹⁶ On the textual history of Judith, see Hanhart, Robert, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith (MSU 14; Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 3/109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979)Google Scholar. It has usually been assumed that Judith was composed in Hebrew; see Moore, Carey A., Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40B; New York: Doubleday, 1985) 66–67Google Scholar. For arguments that Greek may have been the original language of Judith, see Joosten, Jan, “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith,” Meghillot 5–6 (2008) *159–*176Google Scholar; Corley, Jeremy, “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith,” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J. (ed. Corley, Jeremy and Skemp, Vincent; CBQMS 44; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008) 65–96Google Scholar; and the literature cited by Gera, Deborah Levine, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” in The Sword of Judith: Judith Studies across Disciplines (ed. Brine, Kevin R., Ciletti, Elena, and Henrike Lähnemann; Cambridge, U.K.: OpenBook, 2010) 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 25 n. 6.

¹⁷ On these accounts, see Gera, “Jewish Textual Traditions,” 29–36, who says that extant Jewish literature knows of Judith only from the tenth century, and this via the Vulgate.

¹⁸ See Skemp, Vincent T. M., “Learning by Example: Exempla in Jerome's Translations and Revisions of Biblical Books,” VC 65 (2011) 257–84Google Scholar, at 267–71 (Judith) and 272–74 (Tobit). On Tob 8:4, see idem, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180; Atlanta: SBL, 2000) 267.

¹⁹ On the Tobit expansions, see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 463–66, who will only say that the additions are likely due to a Christian. Gamberoni, Johann says that Jerome gave his translation “eine persönliche theologische, hauptsächlich moralische Ausrichtung” (Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias. In der griechisch-lateinischen Kirche der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis um 1600 [SANT 21; Munich: Kösel, 1969] 97)Google Scholar. On the other hand, Kelly warns that attributing “these expansions and re-writings” to Jerome “would be hazardous” (Jerome, 285). For a history of research on the Vulgate text of Tobit, see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 6–14. Moore doubts that Jerome added to Judith because he did not add to other books of the Bible when translating (Judith, 99). At the same reference, see Moore's list of “more extended homiletical additions” in Jerome's Judith.

²⁰ On Tobit, see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 15–16.

²¹ See Bogaert, Judith, 32. Skemp notes that the Vulgate Tobit often reproduces the VL (Vulgate of Tobit, 455–57), as do some of Jerome's other translations (ibid., 24–25).

²² Skehan, “Jerome and the Canon,” 287 n. 26; Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 20–21. Nevertheless, Ball, C. J. says that Jerome may have meant that he produced only the first draft in the specified amount of time (“Judith,” in The Holy Bible, according to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation: Apocrypha [ed. Henry Wace; 2 vols.; Speaker's Commentary; London: Murray, 1888] 1:243)Google Scholar. Skehan points out that Jerome would not have been unfamiliar with the text of Tobit or Judith (“Jerome and the Canon,” 287 n. 26).

²³ The fact that he translated only Tobit and Judith is enough to discredit the statement of Skemp: “Jerome was required to translate these books because his Church read them” (Vulgate of Tobit, 17 n. 82)—they also read the other four deuterocanonical books.

²⁴ Did Chromatius and Heliodorus request translations of Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach? These featured—along with Tobit and Judith and the books of Maccabees—in the liturgy, at least at Aquileia (the episcopal see of Chromatius), as attested by Rufinus (Symb. 36); see Kelly, J. N. D., Rufinus: A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (ACW 20; New York: Newman, 1954)Google Scholar 21: Rufinus's views on the biblical canon likely “reflect the dogmatic position of the Aquileian church.” The liturgical use of these books perhaps explains why Chromatius and Heliodorus requested versions of Tobit and Judith.

²⁵ On Jerome's use of the term “Chaldean” for biblical Aramaic, see Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture, 126 n. 72. According to Skemp: “It is clear from the letter to Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus that Jerome considered Aramaic the original language of Tobit” (Vulgate of Tobit, 24).

²⁶ Wermelinger, Contra Otto, “Le canon des Latins au temps de Jérôme et d’Augustin,” in Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire (ed. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel and Wermelinger, Otto; Le Monde de la Bible 10; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984) 152–96Google Scholar, who says that Jerome translated Tobit and Judith (and the additions to Daniel!) because they partook of the chaldaica veritas (191 and n. 157). On the relationship in Jerome's mind between Tobit and Judith's language of composition and their canonicity, see Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture, 138–41.

²⁷ Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 466–67: “Jerome's Aramaic Vorlage differed considerably from the extant Qumran Aramaic fragments.”

²⁸ One thinks especially of the category “rewritten scripture,” on which see recently Zahn, Molly M., “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment,” JBL 131 (2012) 271–88Google Scholar. On ancient Jewish revisions of literature, see also, e. g., Carr, David M., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Troyer, Kristin, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Greek Bible (Text-Critical Studies 4; Atlanta: SBL, 2003)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Jerome was able to recognize the original Greek composition of Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees based on the style. If Judith was written in Greek, the style conformed so well with Semitic style that it fooled Jerome, just as it has then fooled the majority of modern scholars, who have typically posited a Semitic original.

³⁰ Joosten, “Original Language,” *167; Bogaert, Judith, 32, who reports that the Syriac closely resembles the VL; see also Hasselhoff, “Revising the Vulgate,” 217. However, Edwin Edgar Voigt denies that Jerome's Vorlage was related to the Syriac (The Latin Versions of Judith [Leipzig: Drugulin, 1925] 8).

³¹ Auwers is very skeptical in regard to Tobit (“Chromace d’Aquilée,” 355). Skemp is more open to the possibility (Vulgate of Tobit, 20), as is Moore (Tobit, 62).

³² For brief surveys on these two bishops, see Edmund Venables, “Chromatius,” DCB 1:503–4; Fremantle, William Henry, “Heliodorus,” DCB 2:887–88Google Scholar; Fürst, Hieronymus, 164–65, 182–83; and the sources cited in Bogaert, Judith, 31 n. 1.

³³ This line of reasoning is implicit in Braverman, Jay, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (CBQMS 7; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978) 44–45Google Scholar. On the other hand, some scholars do not believe that Jerome ever truly adhered to the narrow canon; see Schild, Maurice E., Abendländische Bibelvorreden bis zur Lutherbibel (Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 39; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1970) 29–30Google Scholar; Lössl, Josef, “A Shift in Patristic Exegesis: Hebrew Clarity and Historical Verity in Augustine, Jerome, Julian of Aeclanum and Theodore of Mopsuestia,” AugStud 32 (2001) 157–75, at 163–66Google Scholar.

³⁴ Kamesar, Jerome, 49–58; Fürst, Hieronymus, 102–6; Williams, Monk and the Book, 60–62; and Cain, Andrew, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 53–67, 78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Cottineau, L. H., “Chronologie des versions bibliques de Saint Jérôme,” in Miscellanea Geronimiana. Scritti varii pubblicati nel XV centenario dalla morte di San Girolamo (Rome: Tipografia poliglotta vaticana, 1920) 43–68Google Scholar, at 62; Hasselhoff, “Revising the Vulgate,” 216–17 (in regard to Tobit only).

³⁶ On Jerome's knowledge of Aramaic, see Fürst, Hieronymus, 76–77; King, Daniel, “Vir Quadrilinguis? Syriac in Jerome and Jerome in Syriac,” in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy (ed. Cain, Andrew and Lössl, Josef; Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, 2009) 209–23Google Scholar. Jerome's description of himself as “vir trilinguis”—focusing on Latin, Greek, and Hebrew—neglects to embrace Aramaic as one of the languages he has mastered. This is probably because Jerome did not see the advantage in advertising himself as skilled in Aramaic. On the other hand, knowledge of Hebrew was central to his authority; see Williams, Monk and the Book, 123–31. Jerome perhaps thought that his authoritative knowledge of Hebrew was highlighted better by a reference to three languages than four.

³⁷ See Stummer, Friedrich, Einführung in die lateinische Bibel (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1928) 94Google Scholar; Gamberoni Auslegung des Buches Tobias, 74: “Jedoch können auch Bequemlichkeit, Eile, geringes Interesse an dieser aus Rücksicht auf Freunde unternommenen Arbeit sowie die oft beklagten Krankheiten und der Zustand seiner Augen ihn zu diesem Weg bewogen haben.”

³⁸ Sometimes this view comes unaccompanied by argumentation; see, e.g., Ball, “Judith,” 243; Moore, Judith, 96, both of whom give the date of 398. For some proposed dates (and reasons), see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 16 n. 80.

³⁹ Skemp, Vincent T. M., “Jerome's Tobit: A Reluctant Contribution to the Genre Rewritten Bible,” RBén 112 (2002) 5–35 at 8Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Vulgate as a Translation: Some Semantic and Syntactical Aspects of Jerome's Version of the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1968) 284–85.

⁴¹ Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 27–28.

⁴² See again Kedar-Kopfstein, “Vulgate as a Translation,” 284, and compare the chronology of the translations as listed on p. 55. See also Fürst, Hieronymus, 88–90. On Jerome's statements regarding translation of scripture in Ep. 57.5, see esp. Bartelink, G. J. M., Hieronymus. Liber de optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula 57). Ein Kommentar (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 44–47Google Scholar.

⁴³ For a partial exception, see Praef. Job 16, where Jerome says that his translation “nunc verba, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque resonabit.”

⁴⁴ Gamberoni, Auslegung des Buches Tobias, 74.

⁴⁵ Kelly, Jerome, 284; also Cavallera, Ferdinand, Saint Jérôme. Sa vie et son œuvre, première partie (2 vols.; Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense 1–2; Paris: Champion, 1922) 1:291Google Scholar; Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse, xxviii n. 71.

⁴⁶ Comm. Eccl. 8:2 (388/389 c.e.); Prol. gal. 52–57 (393 c.e.); Praef. libr. Sal. 19–21 (396 c.e.); Comm. Jon., prol. (396 c.e.); and Comm. Dan. 8:16–17 (407 c.e.). Aside from these references, Schade also includes a quotation of Tob 4:16 in Jerome's Comm. Matt. 21:28–32 (398 c.e.) (Inspirationslehre, 193 [no. 157]). However, the alleged quotation is the negative of the Golden Rule (“quod tibi non vis fieri alteri non feceris”), which Jerome does not claim to be deriving from any particular source. Moreover, the correspondence with the Latin of Tob 4:16, whether of the VL or the Vulgate, is not very close.

⁴⁷ Ep. 22.21 (384 c.e.); Comm. Soph., prol. (393 c.e.); Comm. Agg. 1:5 (393 c.e.); Prol. gal. 52–57 (393 c.e.); Ep. 54.16 (394–95 c.e.); Praef. libr. Sal. 19–21 (396 c.e.); Ep. 65.1 (397 c.e.); and Ep. 79.11 (400 c.e.). I omit Ruf. 1.18, in which Jerome explicitly quotes Origen's Miscellanies (Stromata) in reference to Judith's example of telling lies.

⁴⁸ Other fathers also exalted Judith's example: see, e.g., Ambrose, Virg. 2.2.4; Vid. 7; and Paulinus of Nola, Carmen 26.159–165. On the Latin reception of Judith, especially by Prudentius, see Mastrangelo, Marc, “Typology and Agency in Prudentius’ Treatment of the Judith Story,” in Sword of Judith (ed. Brine, , Ciletti, , and Lähnemann, ), 153–68Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Oddly, Skemp interprets Jerome's phrase “si cui tamen placet uolumen recipere” (Ep. 54.16) as “an appeal for receiving the book [of Judith] as canonical” (“Learning by Example,” 267). At Comm. Agg. 1:5, Jerome words the qualification this way: “si quis tamen uult librum recipere mulieris.”

⁵⁰ Brown, W. P., “Judith, Book of,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. Hayes, John H.; 2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 1:647–50Google Scholar: “Indeed, Jerome's opinion was that the work was written by Judith herself” (647); see also Schade, Inspirationslehre, 182.

⁵¹ See Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture, 31.

⁵² On the assumed historical character of Judith, see also Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.12.1; 2.14; Augustine, Civ. 16.13; 18.26. Augustine places the events of Judith during the reign of Darius the Persian (Civ. 18.26), though he does not discuss the problem of the appearance of Nebuchadnezzar. Sulpicius thinks the king nicknamed Nebuchadnezzar was really Ochus, that is, Artaxerxes III (358–338 b.c.e.) (Chron. 2.14). See in general Biolek, Anton, “Die Ansicht des christlichen Altertums über den literarischen Charakter des Buches Judith,” Weidenauer Studien 4 (1911) 335–68Google Scholar.

⁵³ On the ancient conception of the age of prophecy, see, e.g., van der Toorn, Karel, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) 252–64Google Scholar; Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture, 14–19.

⁵⁴ A few Greek minuscules lack this prologue; see Ziegler, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (2nd ed.; Septuaginta 12.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 123Google Scholar. Possibly the original Latin translation also lacked the prologue; see ibid., 14, 18–19; de Bruyne, Donatien, “Le prologue, le titre et la finale de l’Ecclésiastique,” ZAW 47 (1929) 257–63Google Scholar, esp. 259–60; cf., however, the cautions expressed by Thiele, Walter, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) (VL 11.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1987) 123Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ A fact long noted; see Ball, “Judith,” 243; Schade, Inspirationslehre, 172–73; and Hennings, Ralph, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2,11–14 (VCSup 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 195 n. 269Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ For the first suggestion, see Ball, “Judith,” 243; for the second, see Bogaert, Judith, 31 and n. 2. On the textual variety of the Apostolic Canons at this point, see Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture, 26 and n. 47. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila also includes Judith in the canon and Tobit in the apocrypha.

⁵⁷ Pointed out by Braverman, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, 45 n. 55.

⁵⁸ It appears that the use of the term in the Praef. Tob. and Praef. Jdt. had no effect on its later use, but rather it always subsequently referred to the third section of the Jewish canon, exclusive of Tobit and Judith.

⁵⁹ Skemp points out that Jerome distinguishes the agiografa from the divinae scripturae (Vulgate of Tobit, 17).

⁶⁰ Praef. libr. Sal. 19–21; Rufinus, Symb. 36. Skemp (Vulgate of Tobit, 17) and Moore (Tobit, 62) think that agiografa here means “noncanonical”; see also Beckwith, Roger T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985)Google Scholar 392 and 428 n. 223 (“religious literature”). For a recent analysis of the function of this “third category” of religious literature (neither canonical nor apocryphal) in ancient Christianity, see Bovon, François, “Beyond the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books, the Presence of a Third Category: The Books Useful for the Soul,” HTR 105 (2012) 125–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ The reading is accepted in Cottineau, “Chronologie,” 62; Gera, “Jewish Textual Traditions,” 29 n. 20; and Elena Ciletti and Henrike Lähnemann, “Judith in the Christian Tradition,” in Sword of Judith (ed. Brine, Ciletti, and Lähnemann) 41–65, at 43 and 44, who continue to rely on Migne's text. See Gallagher, “Old Testament ‘Apocrypha,’ ” 226–27 n. 50.

⁶² Libri Ezrae Tobiae Iudith (vol. 8 of Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem; Rome: Tipografia poliglotta vaticana, 1950) 155 (Tob) and 213 (Jdt).

⁶³ See Migne's note at PL 29:23c–24a (quoting Jean Martianay) and 24b.

⁶⁴ See Gallagher, “Old Testament ‘Apocrypha,’ ” 223–33. The paragraph numbers of Athanasius's Ep. fest. 39 follow those used in David Brakke, “A New Fragment of Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon,” HTR 103 (2010) 47–66. On Augustine, see Finian D. Taylor, “Augustine of Hippo's Notion and Use of the Apocrypha” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1978).

⁶⁵ If our dating of Jerome's Tobit and Judith translations is correct, these two uses are separated by about a decade.

⁶⁶ On the use of such literature among Jews, see Dorival, Gilles, “Has the Category of ‘Deuterocanonical Books’ a Jewish Origin?,” in The Books of Maccabees: History, Ideology, Theology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005 (ed. Xeravits, Géza G. and Zsengellér, József; JSJSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 1–10Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 19: “he was not proficient in Aramaic”; see also Moore, Tobit, 61.

⁶⁸ Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 19: “He did not exert a great deal of effort in translating Tobit.”

⁶⁹ Pieter W. van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Epigraphy, Jewish,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. Collins, John J. and Sterling, Gregory E.; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) 154–74Google Scholar; Smelik, Willem, “The Languages of Roman Palestine,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine (ed. Hezser, Catherine; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 122–41Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Jerome does not mention this process of translation in the Judith preface. Reading it by itself would leave the impression that Jerome personally worked from the Chaldean with no intermediate step. The suggestion made here would require that the Tobit and Judith translations appeared at the same time and that one preface may be read in light of the other, as argued earlier in this paper.

⁷¹ Of course, this method of translation also displays Jerome's remarkable facility in the Hebrew language, always something Jerome enjoyed broadcasting.

⁷² Praef. libr. Sal. 24–25; and see Kamesar, Jerome, 45–46.

⁷³ See Graves, Jerome's Hebrew Philology; Hillel I. Newman, “How Should We Measure Jerome's Hebrew Competence?,” in Jerome of Stridon (ed. Cain and Lössl), 131–40.

⁷⁴ See Fürst, Hieronymus, 102–16.

⁷⁵ Cromatio et Heliodoro episcopis Hieronymus in Domino salutem.

Mirari non desino exactionis vestrae instantiam. Exigitis enim, ut librum chaldeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum stilum traham, librum utique Tobiae, quem Hebraei de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes, his quae Agiografa memorant manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro, 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 deservire, institi ut potui, et quia vicina est Chaldeorum lingua sermoni hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem repperiens, unius diei laborem arripui et quicquid ille mihi hebraicis verbis expressit, haec ego accito notario, sermonibus latinis exposui.

Orationibus vestris mercedem huius operis conpensabo, cum gratum vobis didicero me quod iubere estis dignati conplesse.

⁷⁶ Apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter Agiografa legitur; cuius auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentione veniunt, minus idonea iudicatur. Chaldeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias conputatur. Sed quia hunc librum sinodus nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur conputasse, adquievi postulationi vestrae, immo exactioni, et sepositis occupationibus quibus vehementer artabar, huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi, magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi; sola ea quae intellegentia integra in verbis chaldeis invenire potui, latinis expressi.

Accipite Iudith viduam, castitatis exemplum, et triumphali laude perpetuis eam praeconiis declarate. Hanc enim non solum feminis, sed et viris imitabilem dedit, qui, castitatis eius remunerator, virtutem talem tribuit, ut invictum omnibus hominibus vinceret, insuperabilem superaret.