Reception of Vulgate Ps 39:7–9 (Heb 40:7–9) among Latin Christian Hebraists

Psalm 40:7–9 (= 40:7–9 in the Vulgate) is quoted in Hebrews 10:5–10, yet the New Testament citation diverges markedly from the Old Testament text. How did early modern scholars account for this discrepancy? This article examines the responses of three sixteenth–seventeenth-century Latin Christian scholars – Martin Bucer, Robert Bellarmine, and Solomon Glassius – each of whom possessed strong Hebrew competence and serious interest in textual criticism. None was prepared to question the authority of the New Testament wording, and none dismissed the integrity of the preserved Hebrew text. Their explanations of the differences among the textual witnesses reveal distinctive configurations of critical method and confessional commitment. Together, their treatments illustrate how early modern exegetes wrestled with the interplay of philology, theology, and emerging text-critical awareness.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Published
2025-12-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25788/vidbor.v9i1.1524
Primary Topic
Reformation and Early Modern Christianity
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reception of Vulgate Ps 39:7–9 (Heb 40:7–9) among Latin Christian Hebraists

Michael Graves
Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Reformation and Early Modern Christianity
article

Reception of Vulgate Ps 39:7–9 (Heb 40:7–9) among Latin Christian Hebraists

Michael Graves
article en

Abstract

Psalm 40:7–9 (= 40:7–9 in the Vulgate) is quoted in Hebrews 10:5–10, yet the New Testament citation diverges markedly from the Old Testament text. How did early modern scholars account for this discrepancy? This article examines the responses of three sixteenth–seventeenth-century Latin Christian scholars – Martin Bucer, Robert Bellarmine, and Solomon Glassius – each of whom possessed strong Hebrew competence and serious interest in textual criticism. None was prepared to question the authority of the New Testament wording, and none dismissed the integrity of the preserved Hebrew text. Their explanations of the differences among the textual witnesses reveal distinctive configurations of critical method and confessional commitment. Together, their treatments illustrate how early modern exegetes wrestled with the interplay of philology, theology, and emerging text-critical awareness.

Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Reformation and Early Modern Christianity
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.