337 Izvirni znanstveni članek/Article (1.01) Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 81 (2021) 2, 337—355 Besedilo prejeto/Received:09/2020; sprejeto/Accepted:02/2021 UDK: 27-36-1sv.Hieronim DOI: 10.34291/BV2021/02/Joksimovic © 2021 Joksimović, CC BY 4.0 Milena Joksimović Adulter Vs. Moechus: Jerome’s Use of Terms for Adultery in Vulgate Adulter Vs. Moechus: Hieronimova raba pojmov za prešuštvo v Vulgati Abstract: Traditional marriage morality of the modern Western civilization has been greatly influenced by the Christian teaching on marriage, which sees adultery as a significant threat to a marriage bond. Christian marriage morality was shaped primarily during the 4th century when the Church allied with imperial institutions, rose to power, and Christianity spread at an extraordinary pace. Jerome revised the existing Latin translation of the gospels and translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin. The Vulgate soon became the referential and most frequently used version of the Bible. It has for centuries influenced the content, style, and vocabulary of European literature and Romance languages. Due to its importance and the social, historical, and cultural circumstances under which it was formed, the Vulgate text is of the most significant relevance for exploring the terminology of adultery. The author investigates the terms for adultery used by Jerome in tran- slating Old Testament (members of lexical families derived from the words adulter and moechus as a translation of Hebrew forms derived from the root na’aph) and endeavours to explain his motivation for choosing different Latin terms. The author also compares the vocabulary of adultery in the New Testament books of the Vul- gate and explores Jerome’s intervention in the Latin text of the New Testament. Keywords: Jerome, Vulgate, adulterium, moechus, Latin language, adultery Povzetek: Krščansko učenje o zakonu, ki razume prešuštvo kot glavno grožnjo zakon- ski zvezi, je v veliki meri vplivalo na tradicionalno razumevanje zakonske morale sodobne zahodne civilizacije. Krščanski moralni nauk o zakonu je bil oblikovan predvsem v 4. stoletju, ko je Cerkev skupaj s cesarskimi institucijami prišla do moči in se je krščanstvo neustavljivo širilo. V tem času je Hieronim posodobil obstoje- či latinski prevod evangelijev in prevedel Staro zavezo iz hebrejščine v latinščino. Vulgata je kmalu postala osrednja in najpogosteje uporabljena različica Svetega pisma. Kot takšna je skozi stoletja vplivala na vsebino, slog in besedišče evropske književnosti in romanskih jezikov. Zaradi njenega pomena in tudi zaradi družbenih, zgodovinskih in kulturnih okoliščin, znotraj katerih je nastala, je besedilo Vulga- 338 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 te izjemno relevantno za raziskovanje besedišča prešuštva. Avtorica se posveča preučevanju izrazov za prešuštvo, ki jih je uporabil Hieronim pri prevajanju Stare zaveze (leksikalna družina okrog izrazov adulter in moechus kot prevedkov različ- nih oblik hebrejskega korena na’aph) in skuša razložiti njegove motive za različno rabo latinskih izrazov. Prispevek tudi primerja besedišče prešuštva v Novi zavezi Vulgate in pojasnjuje obseg Hieronimovih posegov v latinsko besedilo Nove zaveze. Ključne besede: Hieronim, Vulgata, adulterium, moechus, latinščina, prešuštvo 1. Introduction and Methodology In Western society, adultery is considered a serious threat to the stability of marria- ge and, consequently, family and society as a whole. In all ancient societies, a patri- archal view of adultery prevailed, based on the fact that only female sexuality was restrained. Adultery was considered extramarital sexual intercourse of a married woman; a married woman and her lover could only commit adultery. A husband who engaged in out-of-wedlock relationships was not considered an adulterer, and his actions were not subject to social or legal sanctions. A man’s sexuality was re- stricted only when, as in intercourse with a married woman, his actions threate- ned another man’s integrity. (Evans-Grubbs 1999, 94–102, 203–205; 2002, 83–87) Christianity brought a great novelty in sexual morality: equal standards for both sexes. A man was expected to confine his sexual activities to marriage, and his unfaithfulness was condemned.1 This paper shows how these cultural changes reflected on the Latin language, explore Jerome’s method of translating the Old Testament and examines the range of his interventions in the New Testament. At the instigation of Pope Damasus I (366–384), Jerome revised the existing Latin translation of certain New Testament books and, later, translated the Old Testament from Hebrew (or Aramaic). This Bible version, known as Vulgate, soon became the authoritative version of the Scripture in the Latin West. It has shaped the content, style, and vocabulary of Romance languages and European literature for centuries. Its text was formed at a crucial moment to develop Christian mari- tal and sexual morality when the Church, allied with imperial institutions, rose to power, and Christianity was spreading at an extraordinary pace. The traditional marriage morality of the Western world, which has its roots in Christian teaching on marriage, has been facing several challenges lately. Sexua- 1 The idea that both genders are equal was sporadically present among pagan thinkers of the 1st century, but Christian ethics systematically adopts this idea (Joksimović 2016, 23–47). In Ep. 77.3 Jerome speaks of Fabiola, who left her adulterous husband, so corrupt »that neither a whore nor a slave would put up with it« [non scortum quidem et vile mancipium ea sustinere posset]. In Jerome’s opinion, she acted in accordance with Jesus‘ teaching that divorce is justified in the case of adultery, for what is true of a man is true of a woman. In this, Roman laws differ from divine laws: »Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Chri- sti: aliud Papianus, aliud Paulus noster praecipit. Apud illos viris impudicitae frena laxantur: et solo stupro atque adulterio condemnato, passim per lupanaria et ancillulas libido permittitur /…/ Apud nos, quod non licet feminis, aeque non licet viris /…/« 339Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus lity is no longer confined to marriage, and the need for marital sexual exclusivity is questioned regularly. By examining the terminology of adultery at the roots of Western marital morality, we hope to understand marriage better as we still know it today and identify its place in this rapidly changing world. 2 This paper presents part of the results from the author’s doctoral dissertation Terminology of Adultery in the Vulgate and its Social, Historical and Cultural Con- text3 (Joksimović 2016) in which Latin terms for adultery, namely, lexical families based on the words adulter and moechus, have been diachronically examined in several textual corpora: Pre-Christian Latin4, Christian Latin5, the Vulgate (Stutt- gart edition), the Vetus Latina corpus, that is, Latin biblical translations other than Vulgate6, and Jerome’s other works. The first part of the paper presents Jerome’s translation of the terms for adul- tery in the Vulgate Old Testament books. In the second part, the Old Testament vocabulary is compared with the vocabulary of the corpora as mentioned earlier in those aspects in which Pre-Christian and Christian Latin differ most. This analysis comprises the works from the beginnings of Latin literature un- til Pope Gregory the Great (590–604). When the Lombard invasion of Italy (568) swept away Justinian’s reconquest achievements, and Latin began to be vulgar- ized rapidly, the time of this Roman bishop is considered to be the actual end of late antiquity by many scholars (Löfstedt 1959, 9).7 2. Pre-Christian Latin A specific Latin feature is two lexical groups for adultery: one based on the word adulter, and the other gathered around the word moechus. They are partial synonyms and differ in tone and connotations. *Adulter is originally a Latin word and vox propria for adultery. These are neu- tral technical terms, typical for high style, prose, and legal texts (Joksimović 2016, 146–147; 148–151). Moechus is the Latinized form of the Greek μοιχός ,seducer of a married woman‘. The noun μοιχός was first adapted in spoken Latin and then passed over into the language of 2 The views on this fundamental global social, cultural and religious changes have been summarised recently (Bahovec 2020). 3 In dissertation the author explores terminology of prostitution, fornication, mistresses and concubina- ge, as well. 4 Based on the Packard Humanities Institute database, containing Latin texts prior to 200 AD. Texts of unclear dating and commentaries on ancient works were not analyzed. Digests have been examined, as they contain older legal texts. Works of later pagan authors such as Ausonius were also explored. 5 Based on the Patrologia Latina Database containing works of Christian authors from Tertullian to 1216. 6 Based on the Vetus Latina Database containing Latin quotations of biblical verses other than Vulgate and references to them. 7 For the sake of brevity, an asterisk by a word marks entire lexical group, gathered around it (*adulter, *moechus ...), and Old and New Testament are abbreviated to OT and NT, respectively. 340 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 comedy. Such history determined its further destiny; thus *moechus became a mocking and offensive term, appropriate for lower style and poetry (103–108; 108–117). The differences in tone reflected in the frequency of the mentioned terms. In Pre-Christian Latin *adulter occurs 11 times more frequently than *moechus. Late Latin *adulter prevailed in the language of the educated, while *moechus disap- peared from literary use but was preserved in spoken Latin (Adams 1983, 351–353). The patriarchal view of adultery influenced the semantic content of the terms for adultery. Pre-Christian Latin has words to describe extramarital affairs of mar- ried women, that is, with them, but there is no term for an unfaithful husband and his actions. The term adultera (rarely moecha) denotes an unfaithful wife, verbs adulterare and moechari, and the noun adulterium refers to the adulterous wife and her lover (there is no corresponding noun from the *moechus group). Adul- ter and moechus do not refer to an unfaithful husband but a seducer of a married woman.8 Such linguistic disproportion reflects the dual standard of sexual ethics. 3. Vulgate – Old Testament In the OT, adultery is relatively often mentioned in the primary and figurative sense. In the basic sense, the patriarchal concept of adultery is described – the extramarital relations of a married woman and the seduction of married women. In this way, adultery is mentioned primarily in the Pentateuch as a rule within the verses which legally sanction sexual relations. A marital bond is a general symbol for a relationship between the Jewish people and God (Krašovec 2019, 880). In the prophetic books, however, adultery usually appears as a stylistic figure (alle- gory, metaphor, comparison) which describes the betrayal of an unfaithful wife (the Jewish people) and her falling away from her husband (God). In the OT *adulter and *moechus are predominantly translations of the basic Hebrew terms for adultery, derived from the root na’aph (9(ָנַאף. Jerome consisten- tly translates *na’aph by the nominals from the *adulter group (adulter, adultera, adulterium) and by the verb moechari. As will be shown, he departs from this prac- tice for the sake of clarity, for stylistic motives, and, less frequently, to preserve the vocabulary of older Latin translations. 3.1 Nouns ni’uph and na’aphuwph Two nouns meaning ‘adultery’: ni’uphim (ִנֻאִפים) (Strong 1890, 5004) and na’aphuwph (ַנֲאפּוף) (Strong 1890, 5005) are translated by the word adulterium in the plural. There is no correlation with the Septuagint, where we find μοιχεία (singular, 2) and the participle of μοιχεύω (Table 1). 8 Only once adulter (Cic., Scaur. 8.2) and adulterium (Sen., Ep. 94.26) denote unfaithful husband and his actions; in Late Latin adultera can denote a mistress of a married man (Joksimović 2016, 162–163). For semantic content of *moechus and *adulter see Joksimović 2016, 111–132, 154–170. 9 ‚To commit adultery‘; figuratively, ‚to apostatize‘. (Strong 1890, 5003). 341Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus Vulgate Greek Hebrew Os 2:2 adulteria μοιχείαν na’aphuwph Jer 13:27 adulteria μοιχεία ni’uph Eze 23:43 in adulteriis ἐν τούτοις μοιχεύουσιν Table 1: ni’uph and na’aphuwph. 3.2 Non-finite Verbs Jerome translates participles (functioning as nouns) and infinitives of *na’aph mainly by nouns adulter, adultera and adulterium, or the adjective adulter. Verb adulterare occurs only twice, in infinitive and participle form. 3.2.1 Feminine Participles The form adultera always translates feminine participles: qal participles (7) by the noun, and piel participles, always combined with the noun ’ishah (ִאָּׁשה) ,woman’ (3), by the adjective (mulier adultera). The Septuagint has noun μοιχαλίς (5) and passive participles of the verbs μοιχεύω and μοιχάομαι (Table 2). Vulgate Greek Hebrew Prov 30:20 mulieris adulterae γυναικὸς μοιχαλίδος pielOs 3:1 mulierem … adulteram γυναῖκα … μοιχαλίν Eze 16:32 mulier adultera ἡ γυνὴ ἡ μοιχωμένη Le 20:10 adultera ἡ μοιχευομένη qal Eze 16:38 adulterarum μοιχαλίδος Eze 23:45 adulterarum μοιχαλίδος adulterae sunt μοιχαλίδες Table 2: Feminine participles of na’aph. 3.2.2 Masculine Participles Masculine participles are mostly (7/9) translated by the form adulter. In Os 7:4 we find participle adulterantes, and in Le 20:10 the noun moechus (Table 3). Vulgate Greek Le 20:10 moechus μοιχεύων Job 24:15 adulteri μοιχοῦ Prov 6:32 adulter μοιχὸς Is 57:3 adulteri μοιχῶν Ps 49:18 adulteris μοιχῶν Jer 9:2 adulteri sunt μοιχῶνται Jer 23:10 adulteris - Os 7:4 adulterantes μοιχεύοντες Mal 3:5 adulteris μοιχαλίδας Table 3: Masculine participles of *na’aph. 342 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 Os 7:4 belongs to an obscure section on idolatry.10 It is quoted in the transla- tions of Origen’s works11 and referred to in the verse omnes adulterantes, quasi clibanus corda eorum, which is a compound of Os 7:4 and 7:6 in the form found in older Latin translations.12 This compiled verse became widely known in the 4th century with the struggle against numerous heresies and Origenism and often occurred in the works of Jerome13 and his contemporaries,14 containing almost exclusively participle adulterantes (cf. μοιχεύοντες in the Septuagint). Jerome pre- sumably preserves the vocabulary of existing Latin translations, established by frequent references to the mentioned verse. Le 20:10 prescribes the death sentence for adulterers: »Si moechatus quis fuerit cum uxore alterius, et adulterium perpetraverit cum conjuge proximi sui, morte moriantur et moechus et adultera.« In the original, *na’aph occurs four times.15 Jerome translates the same finite verb form (yin’ap̄) by moechari (moechatus fuerit) and by the construction adulteri- um perpetrare (adulterium perpetraverit), while masculine and feminine participles are translated by the nouns moechus and adultera. This is the only occurrence of the noun moechus in Vulgate. The use of the terms from different lexical families is a peculiarity of Jerome’s translation. In the Septuagint we find forms of the verb μοιχεύω in all four places.16 Jerome’s translation is probably motivated by style; this is indicated by his use of uxor and conjunx as a translation of the word ‚wife‘, ‚woman‘ (’ishah) in the same verse. The reason may be stylistic: parallelism is the primary stylistic tool in Hebrew literature17 but can be redundant in Latin; Jerome may have, therefore, opted for different terms: »moechatus fuerit cum uxore« – »adulterium perpetraverit cum conjuge« – »moechus« - »adultera«. 3.2.3 Infinitives Jerome translates the infinitive of na’aph by infinitive adulterare (1) and noun adulterium (2). In Septuagint we find the noun μοιχεία and infinitive and partici- ple of verbs μοιχεύω and μοιχάομαι (Table 4). 10 Hier., In Os. 2.7.5 sqq.: »Obscurus locus et attento lectoris sensu indigens ut historiam cognoscamus.« 11 Adulterantes: Orig., In Matth. 13.4 (PG 13,1103–1104); Iulian. (Ps.-Rufin.), In Os. 2.7; cf. Hier., Jer. 5.67. Moechantes: Rufin., Orig. in Lv. 5.5. 12 Hier., In Os. 2.7.4–7: LXX 7.4: »Omnes adulterantes quasi clibanus ardens ad coquendum /…/«; 7.6 »Quia succensa sunt quasi clibanus corda eorum /…/« 13 Hier., Ep. 22.17; In Eph. 3.6; In Eccl. 1071a; In Soph. 2.3-4; In Matth. 3.6.16 adulterantium corda; In Ezech. 9.28; 11.38; In Mich. 2 adulterantes a Deo..., 3 adulterantium corda; In Nah. 2.3; In Ioel. 1.19–20; In Is. 8.27.5; 16.58.13; 17.64.8sqq.; Ep. 130.10.4; In Ier. 1.24; 3.81; cf. Ps.-Hier., In Iob 26.28. 14 Caes. Arel., Serm. 43.2 (=Ps.-Aug. 289); 189.4; 43.5; Eucher., Form. 7; Hesych., In Lev. 5.18; Ps.-Hier., Brev. 104; 107. Gaudent., Serm. 13.29: fornicantes. ְוִאיׁש ֲאֶׁשר ִיְׁשַּכב ֶאת־ָזָכר ִמְׁשְּכֵבי ִאָּׁשה ּתֹוֵעָבה ָעׂשּו ְׁשֵניֶהם מֹות יּוָמתּו ְּדֵמיֶהם ָּבם 15 16 " Ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἃν μοιχεύσηται γυναῖκα ἀνδρὸς ἢ ὃς ἂν μοιχεύσηται γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ὁ μοιχεύων καὶ ἡ μοιχευομένη." 17 On foundational literary forms in the Bible, and particularly on the parallelism see Avsenik Nabergoj 2019; on parallelism and synonyms and their translation in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, see Krašo- vec 2018, 490‒495. 343Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus Vulgate Greek Hebrew Jer 7:9 adulterare18 μοιχᾶσθε qalJer 23:14 adulterium19 μοιχωμένους Os 4:2 adulterium μοιχεία Table 4: Infinitives of *na’aph. 3.3 Finite Verbs 3.3.1 Masculine Subject Jerome translates finite verbs, whose subject is a man, by the verb moechari. The exception is Le 20:10, where he uses the syntagm adulterium perpetrare for styli- stic motives (supra). Jerome avoids the verb adulterare (in Le 20:10 he uses adul- terium perpetrare, not adulterare). In Septuagint, we find finite forms of μοιχεύω and μοιχάομαι (Table 5). Vulgate Greek Ex 20:14 non moechaberis οὐ μοιχεύσεις De 5:18 neque moechaberis Le 20:10 si moechatus quis fuerit cum ἂν μοιχεύσηται γυναῖκα adulterium perpetraverit cum Jer 5:7 moechati sunt ἐμοιχῶντο Jer 29:23 moechati sunt in 36:23 ἐμοιχῶντο τὰς γυναῖκας Table 5: *Na’aph: finite verbs with masculine subject. 3.3.2 Feminine Subject The finite verbs of na’aph, whose subject is a woman, appear only in the prophe- tic books and are inconsistently translated with terms from three lexical families: *adulter, *moechus, and *fornicatio. Jerome’s translation is not correlated with the Septuagint, where we always find μοιχεύω or μοιχάομαι, or with the use of particular conjugations in the Hebrew original (Table 6). Vulgate Greek Hebrew Jer 3:8 moechata esset ἐμοιχᾶτο piel Jer 3:9 moechata est cum ἐμοίχευσεν qal Eze 23:37 adulterae sunt ἐμοιχῶντο piel fornicatae sunt cum Os 4:13 adulterae erunt μοιχεύσουσιν Os 4:14 cum adulteraverint ὅταν μοιχεύωσιν Table 6: *Na’aph: finite verbs with feminine subject. 18 Clementina: »adulterari«. 19 Clementina: »adulterantium«. 344 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 When translating Jer 3:8-9, Jerome preserves the vocabulary of older transla- tions while altering the construction of the verse: »quia pro eo quod moechata esset aversatrix Israël, dimisissem eam /…/ et /…/ praevaricatrix Juda /…/ abiit /…/« (Jer 3:8); »/…/ et moechata est cum lapide et ligno« (Jer 3:9). In the Septuagint and Origen’s translation, Jer 3:8 has the imperfect ἐν οἷς ἐμοιχᾶτο, corresponding to in quibus moechabatur in Jerome’s and Rufin’s trans- lation of Origen.20 In the Vulgate, Jerome uses the pluperfect conjunctive moe- chata esset. In Jer 3:9, aorist ἐμοίχευσεν21 was translated in old Latin translations and Jerome’s other works by perfect or imperfect, followed by the preposition in (moechata est22/moechabatur23 in+acc./abl.). In the Vulgate, we find the perfect moechata est, but with the preposition cum (moechata est cum).24 Jerome, thus, innovates with syntax and morphology but not with vocabulary. In Os 4:13-14 adulterae erunt and adulteraverint are a translation of the same verb form (3 pl. tənā’ap̄nāh): »Ideo /…/ sponsae vestrae adulterae erunt« 4:14: »non visitabo /…/ super sponsas vestras cum adulteraverint« (Os 4:13). There are two relevant older Latin translations of these verses: »Propterea /…/ sponsae vestrae moechabuntur, et non visitabo /…/ super sponsas vestras cum adulteraverint/…/« (Hier., In Os. 1.4.14 LXX);25 »Moechabuntur/…/« (Cod. Wirc. Os 4:13) and »Et non respiciam /…/ super nurus vestras cum moecat« (Cod. Wirc. Os 4:14). In Os 4:13, we find the future moechabuntur in both translations, correspond- ing to the future μοιχεύσουσιν in the Septuagint. In Os 4:14 in Cod. Wirc. we find the present moecat (active!) and in In. Os. adulteraverint as in the Vulgate (in Septuagint present conjunctive μοιχεύωσιν). The translation in Jerome’s com- mentary on Hosea is almost identical to the one in the Vulgate, but Cod. Wirc. dif- fers in: respiciam (Vulg. visitabo) and nurus (Vulg. sponsam). There are no other references to Os 4:13. When citing Os 4:14 (before and after the translation of the Book of Hosea c. 393), Jerome always uses adulteraverint, but alternates nurus and sponsa, which indicates that he was familiar with translations like Cod. Wirc., containing moechari in both verses.26 Nevertheless, Jerome uses terms from the group *adulter in both verses.27 20 Hier., Hom. Orig. in Ier. 14.1.5; Rufin., Orig. in Rom. 7.18. 21 LXX: »/…/καὶ ἐμοίχευσεν τὸ ξύλον καὶ τὸν λίθον.« 22 Cypr., Ep. 63.18; cf. Ps.-Aug., Alterc. 237 (44); Ps-Hier., Pachom. Reg. 159 (61.9) moechatus est in; Rufin., Orig. in Ios. 7.5: meretricabamur; Euseb. Emes., Serm. 26.3 fornicabatur ad. Faust. Rei., Grat. 2.10 gives up the metaphor: lignum adorat et lapidem. 23 Gaudent., Serm. 8.37; Hier., Hom. Orig. in Ier. 14.1; 14.6; moechabantur in: Hier., In Os. 1.4.10 sqq.; In Is. 16.3 sqq. 24 Ita Hier., In Ier. 1.3.6 sqq. 25 Latin version of Origen’s recension of Septuagint. 26 Sponsas: Hier., Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. 9.4; In Is. 17.63.18-19; nurus: In Is. 1.1.5; 6.13.11; 7.19.20sqq.; Ep. 140.15.3; Hom. Orig. in Ier. 2.5. 27 Cf. Hier., Hom. Orig. in Ier. 2.5: »non uisitabo /…/ super nurus vestras, quando adulterant (al. adulteran- tur).« 345Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus In Eze 23:37, the same verb form ni’êp̄ū is translated first by the construction adulterae sunt and then by fornicatae sunt: »Quia adulterae sunt28 /…/et cum idolis suis fornicatae sunt /…/.« It is unclear why Jerome chooses words from different lexical families or opts for the verb fornicari. In both places we find ἐμοιχῶντο in the Septuagint and moechabantur in Fragm. Sang.29 In the commen- tary on Ezekiel, Jerome quotes translation as in the Vulgate but uses moechari instead of fornicari in the paraphrase.30 Maybe the Hebrew text Jerome translated differed from the one known to us, which was the basis for the Septuagint. As we have seen before, the reason may be stylistic: Jerome opts for different terms to avoid the redundancy of Latin words caused by Hebrew parallelism. 3.4 Jerome’s Self-initiated Use of *adulter In the OT *moechus appears exclusively as a translation of *na’aph. Jerome, howe- ver, uses *adulter to translate *na’aph, but also Hebrew words of more general me- aning (7 occurrences, Table 7). Such use of *adulter prevails in the Pentateuch (5/7); it is not conditioned by the vocabulary of older Latin translations or the Septuagint. Ancient Bible translators generally tended to choose words with the most gen- eral meanings for translating terms with a wide semantic range unless the context required specificity (Krašovec 2018, 489); this indicates that Jerome felt the strong need to use the terms with more specific meaning. Jerome only uses nouns adulter (2), adultera (2) and adulterium (3) in such a manner. He never uses the verb adulterare, although half of the translated Hebrew forms are verbs (Num 5:13; 5:27; Is 57:8) and predicate constructions (De 22:22). 3.4.1 Adulter, adultera = ,man‘, ,woman‘ In De 22:22, the death penalty for adulterers is again prescribed: »Si dormierit vir cum uxore alterius, uterque morietur, id est, adulter et adultera /…/.« The nouns adulter and adultera are a translation of ’iysh ‚man‘ (ִאיׁש), that is, the syntagm meaning ‚the one lying down with a woman‘ and ’ishshah ‚woman‘ (ִאָּׁשה), refer- ring to an adulteress and her lover. The text of the Septuagint and older Latin translations corresponds to the Hebrew original; therefore, Jerome’s translation is excluded.31 3.4.2 3.4.2 Adulterium = ‚defiled‘, ‚sin‘, ‚betray‘ Section Num 5:12-31 describes the procedure for proving a wife’s adultery; in it adulterium appears three times, indicating wife’s infidelity as a translation of the 28 Clementina: »adulteratae sunt.« 29 »Maechabantur /…/ cogitationibus suis moechabantur.« 30 Hier., In Ezech. 7.23.36 sqq: »Adulterae sunt /…/ sunt enim moechatae in idolis.« 31 LXX: »τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν κοιμώμενον μετὰ τη̃ς γυναικὸς /…/ τὴν γυναι̃κα«; Cod. Lugd. »qui dormierit cum mulierem.«; Cod. Monac. »/…/ et illum qui cum muliere /…/ abit, et mulierem.« 346 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 words tame’, ‘avon and ma‘al. In Num 5:1332 adulterium is a translation of niṭmā’āh ,defiled‘ from ṭame’ latet adulterium, literally ,there is no evidence that she is defiled‘). In) 33(ָטֵמא) the Septuagint and older Latin translations, we find the perfect passive participle ᾖ μεμιαμμένη (μιαίνω) and coinquinata, both meaning ,defiled‘.34 Elsewhere in the Vulgate niṭmā’āh is translated by the perfect passive participle polluta est.35 In Num 5:1536 adulterium is a translation of the noun ‘avon (ָעוֹון) (Strong 1890, 5771) ,sin‘, corresponding to ἁμαρτία in the Septuagint and peccatum in older Latin translations.37 Elsewhere in the Vulgate, Jerome translates ‘ăwōn (68) mainly by iniquitas (60)38 and, less frequently, peccatum,39 peccare (Ios 22:17), malum (1Rg 28:10), scelus (3Rg 7:9) and in the paraphrase quod argueres (2Rg 3:8). In Num 5:2740 clause (sc. si uxor est) contempto viro adulterii rea translates two Hebrew forms: a) finite verb wattim‘ōl from ma‘al (41(ָמַעל ,to betray‘ and b) noun ma‘al (ַעל betrayal‘. Jerome’s translation differs from the Septuagint and, 42(ָמ֫ other Latin translations.43 The noun ma‘al, usually combined with the verb ma‘al, indicates apostasy in the OT (except Num 5:12). Jerome translates it by contemne- re (maritum, Deum, Dominum),44 praevaricari, transgressio, and related terms.45 3.4.3 Suscepisti adulterum = ‘alah In Is 57:846 suscepisti adulterum is a translation of the finite verb watta‘ălî from ‘alah (ָעָלה) ,to ascend‘, ,mount‘.47 Jerome’s motivation for such a translation is not 32 »(Sc. vir cuius uxor) dormierit cum altero viro, et hoc maritus deprehendere non quiverit, sed latet adulterium, et testibus argui non potest, quia non est inventa in stupro /…/« 33 »To be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated).« (Strong 1890, 2930) 34 »κρύψῃ αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη.«; Cod. Lugd.: »et sabsconderit hoc ipsa aut fuerit coinquinata.« 35 Eze 23.7; 23.13; cf. Nova Vulgata Num 5:14: »sed latet quod impuram se reddiderit.« 36 »/…/adducet eam ad sacerdotem, et offeret oblationem /…/ sacrificium zelotypiae est, et oblatio inve- stigans adulterium.« 37 »ἔστιν γὰρ θυσία ζηλοτυπίας θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν.«; cf. Cod. Lugd »est enim sacrificium zelationis, sacrificium memoria, commemorans peccatum.« 38 E.g. Gen 15:16; Le 10:17; Num 14:18; 18:1; De 5:9; 1Rg 3:14; Job 31:11; Ps 49.5; Is 53:6; Jer 14:20. 39 Num 14:18; 18:1; De 19:15; Ps 78:38. 40 »Quas cum biberit, si polluta est, et contempto viro adulterii rea /…/« 41 »To cover up /…/ to act covertly, i.e. treacherously.« (Strong 1890, 4603) 42 »Treachery, i.e. sin.« (Strong 1890, 4604) 43 Num 5:27 Cod. Lugd: »siquidem fuerit coinquinata et latuerit uirum suum«; LXX: »ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς.« 44 Le 6:2 »contempto Deo«; Num 5:12 »maritumque contemnens«; 2Par 28:19 »contempui /…/ Domi- num.« Cf. Jos 22:20 »praeteriit mandatum Domini.« 45 »Praevaricari et sim.«: e.g. Num 31:16; Le 5:15; Jos 7:1; Eze 14:13; »Transgressio et sim.«: Esdr 9:4; 10:6; Num 5:6; Job 21:34 »repugnare /…/ veritati.« 46 »Quia juxta me discooperuisti, et suscepisti adulterum, dilatasti cubile tuum; et pepigisti cum eis foedus; dilexisti stratum eorum manu aperta.« 47 »Used in a great variety of senses, primary and secondary, literal and figurative.« (Strong 1890, 5927) 347Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus clear.48 The possibility of impact of the Septuagint text, significantly different from Latin, is excluded.49 The commentary on Isaiah provides no answers since it con- tains a formulation similar to the one in the Vulgate.50 Maybe Jerome interprets ‘alah in Is 57:8, ,to abandon‘ (husband, God); in certain verses, he translates ‘alah by recedere ,to leave‘ (3Rg 15:19; 4Rg 12:18; 2Par 16:3; Jer. 37:4.). 3.4.4 Adultera = μοιχαλίς In Prov 18:22a, adultera is a translation of μοιχαλίς. We find this verse in the Septuagint and Clementine, but not in the Hebrew text or the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate.51 Vulgate Greek Vetus Latina Hebrew Num 5:13 latet adulterium ᾖ μεμιαμμένη fuerit coinquinata tame Num 5:15 adulterium ἁμαρτίαν peccatum ‘avon Num 5:27 si... est et contempto viro adulterii rea λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτη̃ς fuerit coinquinata et latuerit uirum suum ma’al De 22:22 adulter τον̀ ἀν́δρα τον̀ κοιμώμενον μετα ̀της̃ γυναικος̀ qui dormierit cum mulierem/ qui cum muliere... abit ’iysh adultera γυναι̃κα mulierem ’ishshah Prov 18:22 a adulteram μοιχαλίδα Is 57:8 suscepisti adulterum ᾤου ὅτι εἂν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἀποστῇς πλεῖόν τι ἕξεις ‘alah Table 7: Jerome’s self-initiated use of *adulter. 3.5 Distribution by the Books The distribution of the terms for adultery by OT books shows certain not overly significant regularities. *Moechus (almost exclusively moechari) occurs only in the Pentateuch and the Book of Jeremiah. Finite verb forms of moechari always translate the finite verb forms of *na’aph. The exception is Le 20:10 (adulterium perpetrare) for stylistic reasons; it is also the only place in the Pentateuch where *adulter appears as a translation of *na’aph; everywhere else in the Pentateuch *na’aph is translated by *moechus, while *adulter as a translation of more gene- ral terms (Table 8). Jerome translated the Torah at the very end of his translation endeavour, after most other OT books, after the much-translating experience.52 However, all the 48 Nova Vulgata: »et ascendisti«. 49 » /…/ ᾤου ὅτι ἐὰν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἀποστῇς πλεῖόν τι ἕξεις ἠγάπησας τοὺς κοιμωμένους μετὰ σοῦ.« 50 Hier., In. Is. 57.7sqq.: »eamdem nunc quasi uxorem adulteram arguit et confutat, quod dormiens cum viro, clam adulterum susceperit, et discooperuit pallium, immo, dilataverit stratum suum, et fecerit pactum, quasi dotis instrumenta conficiens cum adulteris. Hoc autem dicit, ut ostendat quod non solum in agris et domibus idola coluerint, sed in Templo quoque posuerint simulacrum Baal /…/« 51 Reflections of Prov 18:22a are found in: Hier., In Matth. 19.9 (146); Aug. Retract. 1.19.6; 94; Cod. Valv. p. 206. 52 Between 398 and 406 (Denzin-Weber and Thompson). 348 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 prophetic books were translated in the same year, 389–392 AD (Williams 2006, 281–283); still, *moechus only appears in the Book of Jeremiah. The chronologi- cal criterion, therefore, only partly explains Jerome’s lexical choice. *moechus *adulter *fornicatio Ex 1 Num 3 De 1 2 Le 2 2 Job 1 Prov 3 Is 2 Ps 1 Jer 4 5 Eze 6 1 Os 6 Mal 1 Sum 8 32 1 Table 8: Distribution by the books. 3.6 Impact of Greek Vocabulary The impact of the Greek vocabulary in choosing *moechus or *adulter is negligi- ble. In the Septuagint *na’aph is always translated by *μοιχóς (Joksimović 2016, 213–225). The expected influence would be reflected in the more frequent use of *moechus, especially in the books, which Jerome first translated from Greek into Latin (Ps, Prov, Eccl, Job, Par). In these, however, only *adulter appears. 4. Vulgate - New Testament The translation of the Vulgate NT books shows a great deal of consistency and uni- formity. The leading Greek lexical group for adultery is based on the term μοιχός. In NT, the nouns μοιχός, μοιχαλίς, and μοιχεία are always translated by the nouns adulter, adultera and adulterium.53 The verbs μοιχεύω and μοιχάομαι are mainly translated by the verb moechari (14), and less frequently by the verb adulterare (4) and constructions with the noun adulterium (2).54 5. Other Jerome’s Works In quotations and references to relevant Bible verses in his other works, Jerome predominantly uses the same forms as in the Vulgate, particularly in the OT ver- 53 Exeptions: 2Pt 2:14, Iac 4:4. 54 For group *μοιχός and its translation in the NT, see Joksimović 2016, 83–102, 215–258. 349Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus ses. Discrepancies are rare and usually conditioned by stylistic needs, the desire for precision, or under the influence of older Latin translations. As in the Vulga- te, he only uses the verb moechari and the noun moechus, and never moecha or neologisms moechia, moechatio, adulterator, adulteratio. (Joksimović 2016, 219; 221; 224; 246; 256–258). 6. Vetus Latina Vetus Latina shows the most remarkable similarities to the vocabulary of the Vul- gate NT books. The impact of the Greek language and Vulgar Latin is noticeable. The quotations of the relevant Bible verses and references in the corpus Vetus Latina mostly contain the same forms as in the Vulgate. Discrepancies from the Vulgate mainly consist in alternate use of the terms *moechus and *adulter. The terms for prostitution, fornication and sin in general (*fornicatio, *meretrix, *pe- ccatum, *stuprum) occur less frequently. In Vetus Latina we find words absent from the Vulgate: moecha, moechatio, moechia, adulterator, adulteratio. *Adul- ter is typical for the language of the educated, above all the constructions with the noun adulterium and the corresponding verb (facere, committere, admittere, concipere, perpetrare). (Joksimović 2016, 217–224) 7. Christian Latin 7.1 New Meanings – Husband’s Adultery Christian sexual ethics brings a great novelty – the view that adultery violates the marriage bond, regardless of who violates it. All extramarital sexual relations are condemned, including a husband’s infidelity. A man is expected to limit his sexu- ality to marriage. This cultural change is reflected in the language; the semantic content of the terms for adultery changes, and *adulter and *moechus begin to denote the unfaithful husband and his actions. Such use begins with the New Testament. The Synoptic Gospels testify that Je- sus forbade divorce and characterized the second marriage, concluded during a former spouse’s life, as adultery. Lk 16:18 »Omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et alteram ducit, moechatur.« Mt 19:9 »/…/ quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam /…/ et aliam duxerit moecha- tur /…/.« Mk 10:11 »/…/ quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit adulterium committit super eam.« Moechari and adulterium committere in the verses mentioned denotes the hus- band’s adultery, thus imposing a new meaning on Latin terms. Such use is marked and aims at changing the language content to adapt it to Christian teaching. The 350 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 verses mentioned were of great importance for the development of Christian sexual ethics, and such use of the terms for adultery in them paved the way for their further use with a new meaning. In the OT *adulter and *moechus denote the patriarchal concept of adultery, that is, only a wife’s infidelity, or, respectively, the seduction of married women. In the Hebrew world, as in other ancient societies, only female adultery was sanc- tioned; thus, it is the only form of infidelity mentioned. 7.2 Revival of *moechus Another change with Christian Latin is a higher frequency of the group *moechus. *Moechus occurs five times more frequently in the Christian texts than in Pre- -Christian Latin (556:99).55 This is only partly due to the larger volume of preserved texts; *adulter, by comparison, occurs only twice as often (2610:1078). *Adulter remains more frequent than *moechus (2610:556), but the proportion decreases from 11:1 to 5:1, and the share of *moechus increases from 8% to 18% (Table 9). The difference in tone and connotations between *adulter and *moechus, char- acteristic of Pre-Christian Latin, disappears with Christianity and is used inter- changeably (Joksimović 2016, 174–175). *adulter *moechus Sum *adulter:*moechus Pre-Christian 1078 99 1177 11:1 % 92 8 100 Christian 2610 556 3166 5:1 % 82 18 100 Table 9: *adulter and *moechus in Pre-Christian and Christian Latin. In the Vulgate, this ratio is even more favourable of *moechus, with 4:1 (32:8 occurrences) in the OT and 1,6:1 (22:14 occurrences) in the NT. Moreover, in the NT *moechus occurs almost twice as often (14) as in the OT (8). This does not ap- ply to *adulter, which remains more common in the OT (32) than in the NT (22) (Table 10). *adulter *moechus Pre-Christian 11 1 Christian 5 1 OT 4 (32) 1 (8) NT 1.6 (22) 1 (14) Table 10: Ratio of *adulter and *moechus in Pre-Christian Latin, Christian Latin, OT and NT. Terms for adultery occur almost as often in the OT (40) as in the NT (36), but in the OT *adulter (32:8) predominates, and in the NT *moechus (22:14); this differ- ence indicates that Jerome’s interventions on the text of the NT were not extensive. 55 Numbers in brackets are explained and compared in relevant accompanying tables, in this case, Table 9. 351Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus The high proportion of *moechus in the NT indicates that Christianity gave a key impetus for the revival of this lexical group due to Greek and spoken Latin on Christian Latin. In Late Latin *moechus, we have said, disappeared from the liter- ary language of pagan writers; it was revived in spoken Latin under the influence of the Greek and established itself in the Christian written tradition. 7.3 Higher Proportion of Verbs adulterare and moechari In Christian Latin, adulterare and moechari are more frequently used, while the proportion of the nominals from groups *moechus and *adulter diminishes. Within its lexical group, the proportion of moechari increases drastically (5: 67%). The share of the noun moecha is, on the other hand, drastically reduced (32: 2%). Moecha disappears after the age of Augustine. Vulgate follows these tendencies; moecha occurs neither in the OT nor in the NT (nor in Jerome’s other works). Moecha probably retained offensive connotations, causing its gradual disappearance (Table 11). moechus moecha moechari ἅπαξ λεγομένα moechia moechatio Sum Pre- Christian 58 32 5 4 / / 99 % 59 32 5 4 / / 100 Christian 91 13 365 / 67 11 547 % 17 2 67 / 12 2 100 Table 11: *moechus in Pre-Christian and Christian Latin (Joksimović 2016, 142). *Adulter is not subject to such drastic changes. Despite the more significant proportion of adulterare (1:8%), the nominals prevail in Christian Latin, as well (Table 12). (Joksimović 2016, 171–172) adulter adultera adulteri-um adulter (adi.) adulteri- nus adulter- are other Sum Pre-Chri- stian 405 114 525 15 1 16 2 1078 % 38 11 49 1 0 1 0 100 98 Christian 740 339 1149 99 65 217 1 2610 % 28 13 44 4 3 8 0 100 92 Table 12: *adulter in Pre-Christian and Christian Latin. In Vulgate, these tendencies are even more emphasized. The ratio of the nominals and the verb adulterare is reduced from 66:1 in Pre-Christian to 11:1 in Christian Latin and 3:1 in the OT. Moreover, in the NT, adulterare appears twice more often than the nominals from the same group. The high frequency of adulterare in the OT is striking, given that Jerome, as we have said, avoids using the verb adulterare. 352 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 In the Pre-Christian corpus, the nominals from the group *moechus appear more often than the verb moechari (16:1). In Christian Latin, moechari becomes more common (2:1). Even more striking is this ratio (in favour of moechari) in the OT (7:1) and NT (14:1). In Vulgate alone, moechari occurs more frequently (OT 7; NT 14) than in the entire Pre-Christian corpus (6). In Vulgate, we have said that the verb moechari occurs; the noun moechus appears only once in the OT. (Table 13). Moreover, in Christian Latin moechari is more common than adulterare (365:217 = 1,7:1); this proportion increases with the OT (7:3 = 2,3:1) and espe- cially the NT (14:4 = 3,5:1). (Table 13) *adulter *moechus Nominals Verb Nominals Verb Pre-Christian 66 (1062) 1 (16) 16 (93) 1 (6) Christian 11 (2393) 1 (217) 1 (182) 2 (365) OT 3 (8) 1 (3) 1 (1) 7 (7) NT 1 (2) 2 (4) 0 - 14 (14) Table 13: Ratio of the nominals and verbs from the groups *adulter and *moechus in Pre- -Christian and Christian Latin, OT and NT. There are several possible explanations for the high proportion of moechari in the Vulgate. First, adulterare has been used predominantly in non-sexual mean- ing in Pre-Christian Latin; maybe that is why Jerome avoids it. Jerome’s time, the revival of *moechus was already finished, and moechari was already established in the existing Latin translations. Thus, moechari might have been an acceptable choice to Jerome. Moechari occurs in many verses of great importance for the development of Christian sexual ethics. We find it in Jesus’ words about the un- breakability of marriage, but also God’s commandment forbidding adultery (Ex 20:14: Non moechaberis). These verses were often repeated at gatherings of be- lievers and in Christian literature, so their vocabulary became widely known. His interventions would encounter opposition if Jerome departed from the estab- lished vocabulary, replacing the moechari with adulterare. 7.4 Neologisms – Abstract Nouns moechia and moechatio There is no abstract noun from the *moechus group with the meaning of adultery in Pre-Christian Latin. With Christianity, the nouns moechia and moechatio appear as a translation of μοιχεία. Their use is sporadic compared to adulterium (moechia 67, moechatio 11, adulterium 1149, Table 11).56 Adulterium remains the primary abstract term with the meaning ,adultery‘ in both eras. The only neologism in the *adulter group is adulteratio. 56 Moechia survives in medieval literature. Moechatio is rare, found mainly in translations of Greek Chri- stian scriptures, and disappears from the 6th century (Joksimović 2016, 132–142). 353Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus No neologisms appear in the Vulgate, in the OT, or the NT. In this aspect, the Vulgate vocabulary is conservative. Maybe Jerome purified the NT Vulgate text from neologisms. Their absence is the main difference between the vocabulary of the Vulgate and older Latin translations. 8. Conclusion Jerome translates Hebrew terms for adultery formed from the root na’aph by the nouns adulter, adultera and adulterium and the verb moechari. Similarly, in the NT Greek terms for adultery, gathered around the word μοιχός, are translated predominantly by nominals from the group *adulter and the verb moechari. As Krašovec points out, »we may assume that relative uniformity of ancient transla- tions of the Bible reflects a living tradition« (2018, 488). With the NT, terms for adultery start denoting the husband’s adultery and paving the way for new use in Christian Latin. In the OT, due to the content of the Hebrew sacred texts, terms for adultery denote only a patriarchal concept of adultery. A specific feature of Christian Latin is a higher frequency of a) terms from the *moechus group, especially the verb moechari, and b) verbs adulterare and moechari in general. Their frequency increases with the OT and, particularly, the NT, indicating that Christianity has instigated said lexical changes. The fact that the vocabulary of the OT is more similar to the language of the Christian Fathers in general than to the vocabulary of the NT indicates that Jerome adopted the current language tendencies only to some extent and that he rarely intervened in the text of the NT. The vocabulary of the NT and Vetus Latina shows the most significant similari- ties. The striking difference between them is the absence of neologisms such as moechia, moechatio, adulteratio from the NT. Jerome may have cleaned the NT of them. Neologisms are absent from other Jerome’s works as well. The term moecha gradually disappears with Christian Latin; it does not appear in Vulgate or Jerome’s other works. Such consistency of vocabulary and phrasing may be the product of Jerome’s editorial interventions (Krašovec 2018, 489). Jerome’s lexical interventions in the NT are scarce. He instead innovates with syntax and morphology than with vocabulary. The biblical text is considered sac- red, which reflects in the conservative approach to its translation. Once formed, the vocabulary of biblical translations is preserved and not changed without valid reasons. Any change contradicts the established tradition and leads to a possible misinterpretation of biblical truth. This research clearly distinguished three separate lexical units. The first is Pre- -Christian Latin, which shows no resemblance to other corpora. The second is the vocabulary of Christian fathers, including Jerome (in the OT translation and his other works); they show the most remarkable similarities. The third is the vocabulary of 354 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2 the NT, which represents the radical lexical pole of Christian Latin, formed under the strong influence of spoken Latin on the one hand, and Greek on the other. New Testament translations have become the reference pivot for Christian Latin. The language of biblical texts, especially of their most significant and quoted ver- ses, became the basis for further developing Christian vocabulary. Such are the verses forbidding divorce and characterizing second marriage as adultery. In these verses, *adulter and *moechus are used in a manner inconsistent with Pre-Christian Latin, denoting the husband’s adultery. Such use was the basis for the future development of the semantic field of lexical groups gathered around the terms mentioned. Vulgate Greek Ex 20:14 non moechaberis οὐ μοιχεύσεις De 5:18 neque moechaberis Le 20:10 si moechatus quis fuerit ἂν μοιχεύσηται γυναῖκα adulterium perpetraverit ἂν μοιχεύσηται moechus μοιχεύων adultera ἡ μοιχευομένη Job 24:15 adulteri μοιχοῦ Prov 30:20 mulieris adulterae γυναικὸς μοιχαλίδος 6:32 adulter μοιχὸς Is 57:3 semen adulteri μοιχῶν Ps 49:18 adulteris μοιχῶν Jer 3:8 moechata esset ἐμοιχᾶτο 3:9 moechata est ἐμοίχευσεν 5:7 moechati sunt ἐμοιχῶντο 7:9 adulterare/ adulterari μοιχᾶσθε 9:2 adulteri sunt μοιχῶνται 13:27 adulteria μοιχεία 23.10 adulteris - 23.14 similitudinem adulterium μοιχωμένους 29:23 moechati sunt 36:23 ἐμοιχῶντο Eze 16:32 mulier adultera ἡ γυνὴ ἡ μοιχωμένη 16:38 adulterarum μοιχαλίδος 23:37 fornicatae sunt ἐμοιχῶντο 23:43 in adulteriis μοιχεύουσιν 23:45 adulterarum μοιχαλίδος adulterae sunt μοιχαλίδες Os 2:2 adulteria μοιχείαν 3:1 mulierem … adulteram γυναῖκα … μοιχαλίν 4:2 adulterium μοιχεία 4:13 adulterae erunt μοιχεύσουσιν 4:14 adulteraverint μοιχεύωσιν 7:4 adulterantes μοιχεύοντες Mal 3:5 adulteris ἐπὶ τὰς μοιχαλίδας Appendix – Table 14: Translation of *na’aph - cumulative table. 355Milena Joksimović - Adulter Vs. Moechus References Adams, James Noel. 1983. Words for ‚Prostitute‘ in Latin. Rheinisches Museum 126:320–358. Avsenik Nabergoj, Irena. 2019. Temeljne literar- ne oblike v Svetem pismu [Foundational Lite- rary Forms in the Bible]. Bogoslovni vestnik 79, no. 4:855–875. https://doi.org/10.34291/ bv2019/04/avsenik Bahovec, Igor. 2020. Civilisation, Religion and Epo- chal Changes of Cultures. Bogoslovni vestnik 80, no. 4:887–899. https://doi.org/10.34291/ bv2020/04/bahovec Denzin-Weber, Jesse, and Thompson, Glen. Je- rome. http://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome- chart (accessed February 18, 2020). Evans-Grubbs, Judith. 1999. Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine’s Marriage Legislation. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. – – –. 2002. Women and the Law in the Roman Em- pire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London; New York: Routledge. Joksimović, Milena. 2016. Terminologija preljube u Vulgati i njen društveni, istorijski i kulturni kontekst. PhD dissertation. University of Bel- grade. Krašovec, Jože. 2018. Semantic Field of God’s Righteousness in Original and Aramaic, Greek and Latin Translations of the Book of Isaiah. Bogoslovni vestnik 78, no. 2:483–495. – – –. 2019. Božja pravičnost med kaznovanjem in odpuščanjem v hebrejski Bibliji [God’s Jus- tice between Punishment and Forgiveness in the Hebrew Bible]. Bogoslovni vestnik 79, no. 4:877–890. https://doi.org/10.34291/ bv2019/04/krasovec Löfstedt, Einar. 1959. Late Latin. Oslo: H. Asche- houg & Co. W. Nygaard. Strong, James. 1890. Strong’s Expanded Exhaus- tive Concordance of the Bible. Cincinnati: Jen- nings & Graham; New York: Eaton & Mains. Williams, Megan. 2006. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholar- ship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.