Gregory the Great's reading of Job

Lew Worthington · 2024-11-26T16:15:09+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

In the mobile ed course, BI351, Gerald Bray says this:

Gregory is a good example of this. He wrote about Job. One of his biggest books is actually a study of Job. But in the beginning of the book of Job, Jerome had said that “Job was a man.” He puts for this vir—the Latin word, vir, which is “man”—and unus, “one.” Well, of course, we know—and if you know Spanish or Italian or French, you will know—that the word “one” was coming to be used as the indefinite article equivalent to English “a” or “an.” So, all it says is “Job was a man.”

But I've looked at Gregory's commentary and I've looked at the Vulgate and I can't find that. Where does Bray get that information? I'm not great at Latin.

Find more posts tagged with

Mobile Education

Comments

David Wanat

Been awhile since I’ve read Pope St. Gregory the Great’s work on Job. So, I think some context might be needed. What is the “this” Bray refers to? Or is it a debate on “a man” vs. “one man?”

Lew Worthington

Thanks for the response, David.

Below is a larger portion of what Bray says. But my question is simply trying to understand why Bray says — even if he's wrong — that Gregory understood Jerome's translation as including Latin unus in the opening. I have this: Vir erat in terra Hus in the opening. Gregory does, in fact, draw parallels between Job and Christ, but it's not based on Jerome's use of unus as far as I can see.

Bray:

Now, of course, we’re talking here about the Latin Bible. Jerome did not believe that his translation was in any way inspired or infallible. He knew that all translations are inadequate in some way or other. He was too good a scholar for that. So, you can’t blame this on him. But by the time you get to Gregory the Great, who lived about two hundred years later, people had begun to think that the translation was itself inspired, and they would take this as the Word of God without any kind of qualification and just use it in this way without thinking about the historical background, about the problems of translation and so on.

But Gregory thought, “Well, I’m not sure about this.” He said, “I think what it says is that ‘Job was one man’—not just a man, but one man—because that’s what the Latin seemed to say.” Why would Job be described like this—as one man? Well, Gregory’s interpretation was to say that Job is being described in this way because he was unique. Why was he unique? Because he was a representative of Christ, who is unique. Christ is the true one man. Therefore, when the Bible says Job was one man, what it’s really doing is telling us Job is a picture of Christ so that everything that happens to Job has happened to Christ. This is the way in which Gregory read the text.

DMB

This doesn't help any, from Vetus Latina (Old Latin):

"Homo quidam erat in regione Ausitide, nomine Job, erant homo ille verax, sine crimine, iustus, Dei cultor, abstinens se ab omni re mala."

If you're not up on your latin (I'm not), 'quidam' is 'certain' or 'someone'. In your quote, I'm not sure how close Bray assumes 'Latin Bible', Jerome, and Gregory are good match ups (since Old Latin variations stuck around a while).

Lew Worthington

Thanks, DMB! I thought about OL, and even checked it out, but Bray's point is how Gregory responded to Jerome, specifically. I'm starting to lean into the idea that Bray just scrambled his notes on it. Scholars do that after acquiring a lifetime of 3x5 notecards. 😯

NichtnurBibelleser

There are various Vulgata versions, e.g.

Vir erat in terra Hus, nomine Job: et erat vir ille simplex, et rectus, ac timens Deum, et recedens a malo

Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Ed. electronica. Bellingham, WA : Logos Bible Software, 2005

Vir erat in terra Us nomine Iob et erat vir ille simplex et rectus ac timens Deum et recedens a malo

Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio. Editio Typica Altera. Vatican City : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986

Vir erat in terra Hus nomine Iob et erat vir ille simplex et rectus ac timens Deum et recedens a malo

Biblia Sacra Vulgata: Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem. electronic edition of the 3rd edition. Stuttgart : Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969

Lew Worthington

Indeed. But I still don't see how that supports what Bray was saying. If I'm missing something (certainly a huge possibility!), please help! :)

NichtnurBibelleser

But I still don't see how that supports what Bray was saying.

I was indicating that there might be Textual Variants, which I'm unable to reveal with the resources at hand.

In my printed version of the last one, there are given some variants, but not on Job 1,1.

"Vir erat […] nomine Job: et erat vir ille" - maybe "ille" was translated with "this particular [i.e. one, unus] man"

Lew Worthington

Gotcha. I've checked variants, too. But even in Gregory's comments, I see nothing of the evidence Bray is trying to show.

Michel Pauw

This is curious. Jerome's Vulgate does not read "vir unus" and "vir ille" cannot possibly be taken for "vir unus". "Vir ille" simply means 'this man', maybe with the implied meaning of 'this (illustrious/famous) man'. In any case, it is a definite determiner, not an indefinite determiner as "unus" would be if it is meant to be an equivalent of the indefinite article (which does not exist in Latin).

Additionally, I searched my Logos library and I found several 'vir unus' instances, but none of these applied to Job.

Michel Pauw

Right after my last post, I downloaded and created Personal Books from the files @David Jonescue has provided (with many thanks, David!) and I did a search and I probably found the place that Gerald Bray is referring to.

Gerald Bray may refer to a commentary by Jerome (not his Latin version of the Bible!): Commentarii in Librum Job, chapter 1 (to be found in Patrologia Latina, vol. 26, caput 1:

After quoting the Vulgate text of Job 1:1-5a, Jerome starts explaining Job's ancestry, identifying Uz and Buz as sons of Abraham's brother Nachor and calling Job a descendant of Melcha, Sarah's sister. He then denies that Job is a descendant of Esau, and then the following passage is relevant for our discussion:

Habitavit autem Job vir magnus in terra Huz, quae interpretatur "consiliatrix". Sed et Elchana, qui interpretatur possessio Dei, pater sanctissimi Samuelis Prophetae, vir unus appellatur: non enim per diversa mobilis atque instabilis ferebatur, sed firmus atque inconcussus persistens, vir unus erat: et idcirco in monte Ephraim fructifero morabatur. In alta scilicet contemplatione virtutum, ut a nullis subjacentibus et circumlatrantibus vitiorum agitationibus, mentis ejus sublimitas dejiceretur, vel unitas scinderetur. Proinde hic vir magnus atque egregius Job, in terra Huz habitasse perhibetur, quae consiliatrix interpretatur.

In this passage, Job is said to have lived in Huz, which means 'consiliatrix' (Eng: female advisor). Then, there is a strange connection 'Sed et (???) Elchana': 'But also Elchana which means 'God's possession', the father of the most holy prophet Samuel, is called 'vir unus'.'

In other words, it is only by implication that Job is called 'vir unus' just like Elchana is called a vir unus (see 1 Sam. 1:1 Vulg). And Elchana is called a 'vir unus' because he was firm, unshaken, and persevering (rather than being an instable person). 'Accordingly, this great and distinguished man Job is said to have dwelt in the land of Huz, which means 'counsellor'.

Lew Worthington

Wow! That's really good digging. That could be where he gets his conclusion. It doesn't make a lot of sense and doesn't align strictly with what he's saying, but I think you're right! I am grateful for your effort.