539
Izvirni znanstveni članek/Article (1.01)
Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 81 (2021) 2, 539—552
Besedilo prejeto/Received:09/2020; sprejeto/Accepted:01/2021
UDK: 27-36-1sv.Hieronim
DOI: 10.34291/BV2021/02/Davila
© 2021 Dávila Pérez, CC BY 4.0
Antonio Dávila Pérez
St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception 
and Inquisitorial Process of the Polyglot Bible of 
Antwerp (1568–1577)1
Sv. Hieronim vs. Sanctes Pagnino v recepciji in inkvi-
zitorskem procesu Biblia Polyglotta iz Antwerpna 
(1568–1577)
Abstract: The controversial reception of the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp (1569–1573) 
was a result of the religious conflict of Post-Tridentine Europe between the ri-
gorist defenders of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, who fiercely attacked this new 
Bible, and the Hebraists, who claimed the value of the sources even to correct 
the mistakes of the Vulgate. The Polyglot of Antwerp, edited by the most pro-
minent Hebraists of the moment, was printed with the Latin column of St. Jero-
me. However, the editors also published the translation of the Hebraist Sanctes 
Pagnino, after revising it, within the Apparatus Sacer, the last three volumes 
of the Bible that included all sorts of instruments for studying the Sacred Text. 
This was one of the main reasons why the immediate reception of the most 
critical Bible of the 16th century stirred up so much controversy that it became 
subject to an inquisitorial process in 1577. In the present contribution, this 
polemic reception is studied mainly in light of what new texts recently publi-
shed on that process tell about the philological and theological confrontation 
of different translations of the same biblical passages made by St. Jerome, on 
the one hand, and by Sanctes Pagnino, on the other one. 
Keywords: Biblical Scholarship, Humanism, Benito Arias Montano, León de Castro, 
Juan de Mariana
1 This work is part of the Research Project of the National R&D Plan PGC2018-094604-B-C31 (MCIU/IEA/
ERDF, EU), and has been done in the context of the Network of Excellence „Europa Renascens: Biblio-
teca Digital de Humanismo y Tradición Clásica (II): España y Portugal“ (FFI2017-90831-REDT), funded 
by the Government of Spain. With this article we want to contribute to a philological line of research 
on the Hebrew Bible that has already produced valuable fruits in recent numbers of this scientific jour-
nal (see, for instance, Krašovec 2019 and Petrović 2019). 
540 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
Povzetek: Kontroverzna recepcija Večjezične biblije iz Antwerpna (1569–1573) je bila 
sad verskih nasprotij v Evropi po tridentinskem koncilu med zagovorniki Hiero-
nimove Vulgate, ki so to novo Sveto pismo ostro napadali, in pa ,hebraisti‘, ki so 
cenili hebrejski izvirnik in so želeli popraviti napake v Vulgati. Večjezična biblija 
iz Antwerpna, ki so jo pripravili najboljši tedanji strokovnjaki za hebrejščino, je 
vsebovala tudi stolpec Hieronimovega latinskega besedila, poleg tega pa je bil 
znotraj oddelka Apparatus Sacer, ki je obsegal zadnje tri knjige in je vključeval 
različna orodja za preučevanje svetega besedila, natisnjen tudi izboljšani prevod 
hebraista Sanctesa Pagnina. To je bil eden glavnih razlogov, da je recepcija naj-
pomembnejše izdaje Svetega pisma 16. stoletja vzbudila toliko kontroverz in po-
stala celo predmet inkvizitorskega procesa leta 1577. Članek opisano obravnava 
z vidika nedavno objavljenih besedil glede procesa v zvezi z njihovimi filološkimi 
in teološkimi argumenti glede razlikovanja v prevodu sv. Hieronima in S. Pagnina.
Ključne besede: biblicistika, humanizem, Benito Arias Montano, León de Castro, 
Juan de Mariana
1. Introduction
In the history of Biblical Scholarship, one of the episodes that best exemplify the 
tensions between Theology and Philology is the controversial reception of the 
Polyglot of Antwerp, the essential edition of the Bible in the 16th century (Biblia 
Sacra 1569–1573). Around this Polyglot, two opposing groups of scholars clashed 
again: on the one hand, the strict defenders of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, who 
attacked this new Bible fiercely; on the other, the Hebraists, who claimed the va-
lue of the sources even to correct the Vulgate in those passages needing revision.
The project of the Polyglot of Antwerp (1569–1573) was born as a re-edition of 
the Complutensian Polyglot of the beginning of the century (Vetus Testamentum 
1514–1517). However, during the time elapsed from the first Polyglot to the second, 
the conflict between the defenders of the Vulgate and the Hebraists was gradually 
deteriorating. The turning point in this controversy was marked by the fourth session 
of the Council of Trent, April 8, 1546, which promulgated the well-known Decretum 
de editione et usu sacrorum librorum. This decree placed the Vulgate –by consider-
ing it as the ,authentic‘ version– above all the Latin translations of the Sacred Books. 
The primary purpose of this decree was to put control on the new Latin translations 
based on the originals. However, a radical interpretation of the decree led some 
biblical scholars even to defend Vulgate’s superiority over the original biblical texts. 
Since the beginning of the new Polyglot editorial project, the main reason for 
discussion was which Latin translation should be printed in the column next to the 
Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The first proofs sent by the printer Christopher 
Plantin from Antwerp to Madrid dared to replace the text of the Vulgate, which was 
the one printed in the Complutensian, by the more literal Latin translation of the 
Hebraist Sanctes Pagnino, published for the first time in 1527 (Habes in hoc libro 
1527). The Spanish authorities rejected the proposal. Finally, the Polyglot of Antwerp 
541Antonio Dávila Pérez - St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception...
was printed with the Latin column of Saint Jerome – as it was in the Complutensian 
Polyglot – but the editorial team of the Bible would not allow the new Polyglot to 
lack a literal Latin translation and, although they had no official instruction in this re-
gard, they published Pagnino’s translation, revised and amended. It was not located 
in the columns of the first five volumes dedicated to the biblical text, but within the 
so-called Apparatus Sacer, the final three volumes that included all kinds of instru-
ments for studying the Bible. The simple coexistence of Pagnino’s translation with 
that of St. Jerome in the new Bible was reason enough for the attacks against this 
edition to arrive even before the first sheet was printed. In Spain, the main enemy 
of the Polyglot was the professor of Greek at the University of Salamanca León de 
Castro, who had also managed to imprison in 1572 his colleagues of the same uni-
versity fray Luis de León, Martín Martínez Cantalapiedra and Gaspar de Grajal on 
the very same grounds, a fact that shook the European Theology2.
The volume of the entire preceding bibliography on the reception of the Poly-
glot is enormous. It allows following the conflicting parties’ movements very well 
since the printing of the last volume of the Biblia Regia in 1573 until the begin-
ning of the inquisitorial lawsuit against this work in 1577. Nevertheless, the re-
cent edition of new texts related to the three actors of the process (prosecution, 
defence and censorship) has allowed us to connect these writings with other 
texts already published, reconstruct some unpreserved texts, and achieve a better 
comprehensive knowledge of that relevant inquisitorial lawsuit. To put it simply, 
the centrepiece of the lawsuit was a cluster of twenty-four passages of the new 
Latin translation of the Old Testament published in the Polyglot, based on Santes 
Pagnino’s version, that distanced themselves from the corresponding translations 
of St. Jerome and that, according to the complainant, obscured the prophetic 
sense that the Catholic Church had traditionally seen in those same passages of 
the Vulgate. This article analyzes the connection between all the texts of the in-
quisitorial process collected to date with the primary objective of shedding light 
on the three passages of the new Latin translation of the Old Testament published 
in the Polyglot of Antwerp that were denounced and finally condemned due to its 
deviation from the translations offered by the Vulgate of St. Jerome.
2. The Immediate Reception of the Polyglot Bible in the 
Light of a New Document (HSA B 1351)
Scholars working on Humanism are fortunate that, from time to time, one may 
come across still unpublished and valuable documents. This is the case of an apo-
logy of the Biblia Regia written in Spanish by its director Benito Arias Montano, 
of which the Spanish bibliographer Nicolás Antonio gave vague news in the 17th 
century: in particular, Antonio referred to a manuscript of this apology or defen-
ce that was sacked by the English army in the Spanish city of Cádiz and taken to 
2 On the process of Luis de León see the recent edition of Alcalá Galve 2009. The documentation on the 
two other inquisitorial processes can be found in Pinta Llorente 1935; 1946.
542 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
the University of Oxford at the end of the 16th century (Antonio 1783, I, 210). This 
manuscript promised to be a key piece to rebuild the reception of the Royal Bible, 
and, for this reason, a long series of researchers has unsuccessfully tried to locate 
this document in the libraries of Oxford since the 17th century (Dávila Pérez 2016). 
Some scholars have even considered it a non-existent work (Morocho Gayo 1998, 
260–261). However, fortunately, such is not the case.
In 2019 I published a book with the first critical and annotated edition of this text, 
which is titled Defensión y respuesta de la traslación latina ad u[er]bum del hebreo 
que está en el segundo tomo del Sacro Apparato de la Biblia Real. The only copy I 
have come across is not the one supposedly preserved in Oxford (a testimony that, 
if it still exists, I have not been able to locate yet), but in the Hispanic Society of New 
York.3 The description of this manuscript already appeared in the catalogue Iter Itali-
cum of Paul Kristeller with the abbreviated title –and with a typographical error– of 
Defensión y respuesta de la traslación latina ad abum (sic)4 del hebreo. After reading 
this manuscript, the sound conclusion can be drawn that this is the same document 
called „Apology“ by previous scholarship because its content fits perfectly with the 
little that was known to us about the content of that ,lost‘ apology, namely, a com-
plete account (according to Arias Montano’s version) of the reception of the Poly-
glot Bible; as well as the answers to each of the objections of the enemies of the 
Polyglot, in particular of León de Castro.5 Nevertheless, the most critical reachable 
conclusion is that this Defensión y respuesta was the exact text presented by Arias 
Montano as self-defence for the lawsuit initiated by the Spanish Inquisition in 1577; 
that is, it is the same defensive writing that Juan de Mariana had before his eyes 
to elaborate his inquisitorial report. Moreover, the primary evidence is that Juan 
de Mariana, in his handwritten censorship document, which is still unpublished,6 
responds to Arias Montano’s allegations following the same order and structure in 
which they can be read in the manuscript of the Hispanic Society.
3. The Genetic Circle of Accusatory Writings: The 
Accusation on Job 19,25-26 
The Defensión y respuesta of Arias Montano provides us with new information on 
the movements of León de Castro during the reception of the Polyglot. It should 
be highlighted here that, during the entire period after the publication of the Poly-
glot, its director showed eagerness, as it is natural, to know the exact content of 
the accusatory writings of León de Castro. These writings have not been located 
yet, in case they are preserved. Nevertheless, the Defensión y respuesta provides 
3 With the reference HSA Ms. B 1351.
4 Instead of the abbreviation ad u[er]bum; see Kristeller 1963–1992, V, 319.
5 This fully coincides with what the first librarian of the Bodleian wrote on the content of the manuscript of 
the Apology taken by the English army to Oxford at the end of the 16th century; see James 1612, III, 43.
6 Io[hannis] Marianae censura in Biblia Regia quae nuper diligentia et industria D. Benedicti Ariae Mon-
tani in lucem edita sunt (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Barb. Lat. 674, ff. 14r-66r).
543Antonio Dávila Pérez - St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception...
essential information in this regard since it allows us to reconstruct how many 
accusatory writings there were, their title, and their main content.
According to one crucial passage of this new text,7 there were, in total, three writ-
ings of accusation. The first two contained general questions, and, as Arias Montano 
criticizes, they came to repeat ideas from the commentaries on the prophet Isaiah 
published by Castro in 1570 (Castro 1570). Castro’s thesis could be summed up in the 
idea that the Jews had intentionally corrupted the Hebrew original text of the Bible in 
the passages of the Old Testament that could be understood as a prophecy of Jesus 
Christ. The accuser’s final claim was that the literal translators of the Hebrew Bible 
had to correct the Hebrew original text, allegedly corrupt, so that their translations 
coincided with the Hebrew text that St. Jerome seemed to have followed in the Vul-
gate. The point that Arias Montano makes linking Castro’s accusation with a work 
already published seems to me of great interest. The reality is that, as we will see, all 
the writings that formed part of the Inquisitorial dossier of the Biblia Regia (those of 
the defender, of the prosecutor and the censor) were finally reused by their authors 
in later printed publications. Moreover, that happened even though, in principle, the 
whole inquisitorial process and its materials should be kept secret.
In his third and final accusatory writing, now in Latin, León de Castro compiled a 
list of twenty-four passages of the new Latin literal translation of the Old Testament 
included in the Polyglot that demonstrated, in his opinion, the Judaizing character of 
the new Bible. In this text, the primary evidence of the accusation can be found, and, 
therefore, this is the writing to which Arias Montano responds most directly in his De-
fensión y respuesta. The content of Castro’s specific accusations can be reconstructed 
based on the responses of Arias Montano and the censorship of Juan de Mariana. 
For example, let us examine one of the denounced passages, perhaps the most 
important: Job 19,25-26.8 The Vulgate reads as follows:9 »Scio enim quod redemp-
tor meus uiuit, et in nouissimo die de terra surrecturus sum: et rursum circunda-
bor pelle mea, et in carne mea uidebo Deum meum.« (Biblia Sacra, VII, f. [Cc 6r], 
p. 35.)10 (»For I know that my redeemer lives, and in the last day I shall rise out of 
the earth: and I shall be covered again with my skin, and in my flesh, I shall see 
my God.«) According to the Catholic Church, this passage was one of the most 
evident testimonies of the resurrection of the flesh. Let us now check the new 
Latin translation of the Biblia Regia, based on Pagnino’s version: »Et ego noui re-
demptorem meum uiuum et nouissimo super puluerem staturum. Et postquam 
7 In Defensión y respuesta (HSA Ms. B 1351, ff. 3v-4r); see edition in Dávila 2019, 33.
8 In the Defensión y respuesta… this passage is discussed in the accusations number 5 (HSA B 1351, f. 5v, 
edited in Dávila 2019, 53–55) and number 19 (HSA B 1351, f. 7r, edited in Dávila 2019, 77–78).
9 When quoting the Vulgate, I follow the edition of Colunga Cueto and Turrado Turrado 1983. The reason 
for this choice is the fact that in the texts of the process of the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp, the passages 
quoted from the Vulgate are closer to the state of the text that was consolidated in the Sixto-Clemen-
tine edition of 1592 than to the text of St. Jerome that appeared in the Polyglot of Antwerp, heir of 
which was published in the Complutensian Polyglot. All the translations of the Latin texts in this article 
are mine. 
10 My references to the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp correspond to the copy kept in the Library of the Uni-
versity of Granada with the signature BHR/Caja IMP3-022. 
544 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
pellem meam contriuerint hanc, et de carne mea uidebo Deum.« (»But I know 
that my redeemer is alive, and at the end, he will stand on the dust. Even after 
my skin has been destroyed, yet I shall see God in my flesh.«) Leon denounced 
that this new translation completely confused the idea of the resurrection and 
followed the interpretation of the Jews. His main arguments were the following: 
first, on the assumption that the Jews had corrupted the Hebrew original text of 
the Bible, Castro proposes to change a letter in the Hebrew text in order to read 
iakim (surgam or surrecturus sum, »I shall rise«, as translated in the Vulgate) in-
stead of iakum (resurget, »he will stand«, the meaning accepted in the new Latin 
literal translation of the Polyglot Bible); second, the Hebrew word naquaf does 
not only mean ,to cut‘ or ,to destroy‘ (contriuerint, in the literal Latin translation 
of the Polyglot Bible) but also ,to cover‘ or ,to enclose‘ (circundabor, as St. Jerome 
translated). The censor Juan de Mariana declared that the proposal of changing 
the original Hebrew text of the Bible could not be admitted without the consen-
sus of the Catholic Church; despite that, he finally agreed with León de Castro 
that the new Latin translation of this passage published in the Polyglot had to be 
corrected since it completely deformed the mystery of the resurrection of Christ.11
We have already said that Castro’s accusatory writings have not been located 
yet. However, I have been able to verify that the majority of the passages de-
nounced by Castro in the process of the Polyglot Bible were collected, explained, 
and developed in a later publication of 1585 with the title Apologeticus12 where, 
by the way, there is no reference to the inquisitorial lawsuit (Castro 1585).13 This 
closes, therefore, the genetic transit of texts that have been pointed out here. In 
the case of the accusation, Castro’s postulates started from their commentaries 
on Isaiah published in 1570; they materialized in the form of the specific denun-
ciations in the three accusatory writings of the process of 1577, and, finally, many 
of those accusations of the process came to light in the Apologeticus of 1585.
11 Io[hannis] Marianae censura in Biblia Regia (ff. 30v-31v; 42r-43r).
12 León de Castro, Apologeticus pro lectione apostolica et euangelica pro Vulgata diui Hieronymi, pro transla-
tione LXX uirorum, proque omni ecclesiastica lectione contra earum obtrectatores (Salmanticae, Matthiae 
Gastii, 1585).
13 The specific pages of the Apologeticus where many of the passages already denounced in the process 
of 1577 are analyzed are the following: Ps. 9,1 (p. 547); Iob 19,26 (pp. 353‒354); Iob 19,27 (pp. 355‒256); 
Is. 16,1 (pp. 279‒281); Dan. 9,26 (pp. 334‒338); Dan. 9,27 (pp. 336 and 666‒667); Hab. 2,3 (pp. 
554‒555); Hab. 2,4 (pp. 555‒556); Is. 1, 9 (pp. 162‒164); Is. 9,1 (pp. 638‒642); Os. 11,1 (pp. 621‒622); 
Iob 19,25 (pp. 352‒353); Ps. 8,1 (pp. 331‒332); Is. 11,1 (pp. 626‒629); Ps. 79(80),1 (p. 74); Ps. 21(22),17 
(pp. 343‒344); Ps. 15(16),10 (pp. 486‒488); Ps. 8,3 (pp. 664‒666 and 674‒675); and Ps. 15(16),9 (pp. 
483‒484). Some of the preceding biblical passages and others not included in the Apologeticus had 
already been discussed by Castro in his Commentaria in Isaiam Prophetam of 1570: that is the case of 
Is. 16,1 (pp. 334‒335); Is. 1,9 (pp. 22‒24); Is. 9,1 (pp. 212‒215); Is. 10,22 (pp. 263‒266, not studied in 
Apologeticus); Is. 28,10-11 (pp. 476‒482, not studied in Apologeticus); and Is. 11,1 (pp. 273‒283).
545Antonio Dávila Pérez - St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception...
4. From the Defence of the Polyglot Bible to the Apology 
of the Hebrew Studies: The Omission of the Accusation 
on Ps. 21(22),17
Let us now turn again to the defence. The new manuscript titled Defensión y re-
spuesta located in the Hispanic Society of America has already been considered 
in the previous lines, focusing on its transmission and primary content. Here I will 
approach two later texts that seem to be genetically dependent on the Defensión 
y respuesta. The first one is a manuscript from the Spanish National Library enti-
tled De Hebraicorum Bibliorum uaria scriptione et lectione atque de uario inter-
pretum instituto animaduersio.14 I did not know any previously printed witness of 
this manuscript before my recent edition (Dávila 2019, 88–105); this document 
is a working draft, and intermediate textual material between the Defensión y re-
spuesta and a later text of Arias Montano titled Benedicti Ariae Montani de uaria 
Hebraicorum Librorum scriptione et lectione commentatio. This Commentatio is 
a prologue of eleven pages published in the re-editions of the successful seventh 
volume of the Polyglot of 1584 and subsequent years (Biblia Hebraica 1584).15 The 
text was printed only seven years after Mariana’s censorship. It included the same 
contents of the Animaduersio (mainly dealing with the philological peculiarities 
of the Holy Tongue) followed by a wide selection of León de Castro’s objections 
to Pagnino’s translation and Arias Montano’s responses, which, as has been said 
before, came from the Defensión y respuesta of the inquisitorial process. By the 
way, Arias Montano, like León de Castro in his Apologeticus, does not reference 
the inquisitorial process in his publication, nor does he quote Castro by name. 
Unlike the Defensión y respuesta, the printed Commentatio is written in Latin, 
the answers to Castro’s accusations are much more elaborated, and one can per-
ceive in this publication the filter that was the censorship of Juan de Mariana. 
Thus, in Ps. 21(22),17, the Vulgate presents Saint Jerome’s translation: »quoniam 
circumcederunt me canes multi; concilium malignantium obsedit me. Foderunt 
manus meas et pedes meos« (»for many dogs surrounded me: the council of the 
malignant has besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet«). According to 
the Catholic Church, this text was a prophecy of the death of Christ on the cross. 
The new literal Latin translation of the Biblia Regia reads as follows: »Quoniam 
circuncederunt me canes, coetus malignantium circuncederunt me: quasi leo ma-
nus meas et pedes meos« (Biblia Sacra, VII, f. [Ee 2v], p. 52) (»for many dogs su-
rrounded me, a gang of evil men crowded around me; like a lion, my hands and 
feet«). The phrase ,like a lion‘ came from a bizarre variant of the original Hebrew 
text (caari or sicut leo instead of caru or foderunt). Furthermore, that was differ-
ent from that of the Hebrew text of the Complutensian and the one accepted by 
Saint Jerome and the foremost Hebraist scholars of the moment. In his censorship 
of the Polyglot, Mariana proved that Castro was right and strongly recommended 
14 Reference Ms. 149, ff. 120r-123r. 
15 The Commentatio appears on ff. ††r-[†† 6]r.
546 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
to correct this translation,16 and I think that was why Arias Montano directly re-
moved this accusation in his printed text of 1584.17
5. The Manuscript Inquisitorial Report and Its Later 
Printed Reuse: The Third Condemned Passage (Ps. 
15[16],10) 
Mariana’s censorship of 1577 also has an engaging genetic-textual transmission. 
The first testimony, in chronological order, is a letter in Spanish from Juan de Mari-
ana to the General Inquisitor in Spain written in August 1577, in which he informs 
the reader that he has concluded the censorship and makes a valuable summary 
of it.18 The entire censorship is in Latin, it is a document still unpublished, signed in 
September 1577, and the only testimony I know is the copy, with some mistakes, 
preserved in the Vatican Library. Nevertheless, just as the two parts of the lawsuit 
did, Mariana also wanted to take advantage of the papers he wrote for this im-
portant occasion. In 1609 the Jesuit published a brief treatise entitled Pro editione 
Vulgata (Mariana 1609, 34–126). Suppose that the still-unpublished censorship do-
cument is compared with this printed publication. In that case, it becomes evident 
that what Mariana did was to reproduce and adapt most of his inquisitorial report 
on the Biblia Regia by adding new materials and modifying some formal aspects.
Nevertheless, Mariana confesses that his writing comes directly from his activity 
as an informant of the lawsuit between Arias Montano and León de Castro in any 
place of this printed treatise. Mariana instead refers to the general controversy on 
the authority of the Vulgate, and his words also perfectly apply to the inquisitorial 
processes of the famous Hebraists of Salamanca. Moreover, Mariana even quotes 
in his printed treatise the names of Castro and Arias Montano in the places where 
he also cited them in the censorship document, but he also manages to avoid 
all those passages of the handwritten censorship document where he speaks of 
himself as the censor. One may ask how it is possible that Mariana cites the argu-
ments of the two parts of a secret inquisitorial lawsuit and, at the same time, can 
hide his role as censor. He could safely do it because Castro’s complaints and Arias 
Montano’s responses were already of public knowledge after the impression of the 
Apologeticus of the first and the Commentatio of the second.
Mariana admits that he had more inclination to defend than to condemn as far 
as the censorship content is concerned. Despite this, the Jesuit severely assesses 
both Leon de Castro and Arias Montano. As to the first one, the censor condemns 
his excess of rage, the contradictions and lies of some of his anti-Hebrew argu-
16 Io[hannis] Marianae censura in Biblia Regia, ff. 44v-45r. 
17 In contrast to the other two passages studied in this article, that, despite Mariana’s negative report, 
were also included in the printed Commentatio. See, on Job 19,24-25, Dávila 2019, 154–157 and 188–
191; as to Ps. 15(16),10, see Dávila 2019, 196–199. 
18 A complete copy of the letter is preserved in the Royal Library of Sweden in Stockholm Ms. A 902, ff. 
91r-94r and has been edited by Macías Rosendo 1998, 464–468. 
547Antonio Dávila Pérez - St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception...
ments, and he even refuses Castro’s core claim: no one can correct the original 
Hebrew text of the Bible without the consensus of the Catholic Church.19 As to 
Arias Montano, Mariana criticizes the little appreciation he gave to the Vulgate and 
urges him to correct three passages of his new Latin translation of the Bible: two 
of them have already been examined here, namely, Job 19,24 and Ps. 21(22),17. 
The third is Ps. 15(16),10.20 Here the Vulgate translated: »Quoniam non dere-
linques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum uidere corruptionem« 
(»Because you will not leave my soul in hell, nor will you give this holy one to see 
corruption«); the Catholic Church interpreted the passage as an announcement 
of the resurrection of Christ, whose body did not experience corruption. The new 
literal translation of the Polyglot of Antwerp reads as follows: »Quoniam non re-
linques animam meam in sepulchro: non dabis misericordem tuum uidere foueam« 
(Biblia Sacra, VII, f. [Eer], p. 49.) (»Because you will not leave my soul in the grave: 
nor will you allow your merciful one to see the pit«). The main arguments of the 
censor against this new translation were the following. The primary meaning of 
the Hebrew word seol, according to the censor, was ,hell‘, as in the Vulgate, and 
not ,grave‘ or sepulchre, translation with which the new Bible fell on the side of 
the heretics, who deny that Jesus descended into hell. On the other hand, when 
translating the Hebrew word sahhath as foueam (,pit‘) instead of the generally 
admitted (by the Catholic Church) meaning of corruptionem (,corruption‘), Arias 
Montano followed Judaizing interpretations and made it difficult to understand 
the passage as a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ, since the Messiah was 
buried, that is, he saw the pit or the grave.21
6. Conclusions
This paper intends to show that the reception and inquisitorial process of the 
Polyglot Bible of Antwerp consisted in a philological and theological confrontati-
on over the centuries between St. Jerome and the defenders of the Vulgate, on 
the one hand, and Sanctes Pagnino and his Hebraist followers, on the other hand. 
During the inquisitorial lawsuit against the Biblia Regia in 1577, the close prec-
edent of the processes and imprisonment of the Hebraists professors at the Uni-
versity of Salamanca in 1572 was always alive. First, Leon de Castro himself also 
operated in the denunciations against his colleagues in Salamanca. Second, the 
principles of the accusations against them were similar to those that Castro pre-
sented years later against the Polyglot Bible: the contempt for the Vulgate of Saint 
Jerome and the preference for the rabbinic interpretations of Pagnino, Vatable, 
and others in passages of the Old Testament that announced the arrival of Jesus 
19 See, especially, the first chapter of Mariana’s censorship document titled „Nemini licere priuata aucto-
ritate Hebraico Diuinae Scripturae castigare“; in Io[hannis] Marianae censura in Biblia Regia, ff. 21v-23r. 
20 Mariana also discussed the three condemned passages studied in this article within the chapter titled 
“De nouis uersionibus” of his treatise Pro editione Vulgata (1608, 114–119).
21 Mariana’s censorship on this passage can be read in Io[hannis] Marianae censura in Biblia Regia, ff. 
30v-31v and ff. 60v-62v.
548 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
Christ. This point becomes more plausible if it is taken into account that even sev-
eral specific passages of the Vulgate alleged by Castro in the process of the Poly-
glot Bible had already been used by himself against the professors of Hebrew at 
Salamanca. That is the case, for instance, of two important passages studied in 
the present article: Job 19,2422 and Ps. 15(16),10.23
The three parties involved in the inquisitorial lawsuit of 1577 (prosecution, de-
fence and censorship) produced, in different phases, a series of writings in Latin 
and Spanish genetically linked to each other. The edition and in-depth examina-
tion of the genetic thread from the manuscripts of the process until its printed 
reuse is the purpose of my research projects underway.
References
22 Which also appeared in the process of Luis de León; see Alcalá Galve 2009, 324, 330, 332.
23 Which had been also cited in the process of Martín Martínez Cantalapiedra; see Pinta 1946, 24, 74, 104, 170, 247.
Primary sources
Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et Latine 
Philippi II Regis Catholici pietate et studio ad 
Sacrosanctae Ecclesiae usum. 1569–1573. 8 
vols. Antwerp: Christophorus Plantinus.
Castro, León de. 1585. Apologeticus pro lectione 
apostolica et euangelica pro Vulgata diui Hi-
eronymi, pro translatione LXX uirorum, proque 
omni ecclesiastica lectione contra earum ob-
trectatores. Salamanca: Matthiae Gastii.
– – –. 1570. Commentaria in Esaiam Prophetam ex 
sacris scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis aduersus 
aliquot commentaria et interpretationes quas-
dam ex rabbinorum scriniis compilatas. Sal-
amaca: Mathias Gastius.
Colunga Cueto, Alberto, and Laurentio Turrado 
Turrado, eds. 1983. Biblia Vulgata: Biblia Sacra 
iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Madrid: BAC.
Habes in hoc libro prudens lector utriusque Ins-
trumenti nouam tranlationem aeditam. 1527. 
Lugdunum: per Antonium du Ry, impensis 
Francisci Turchi et Dominici Berticinium et Ia-
cobi de Giuntis bibliopolae.
James, Thomas. 1612. A Treatise of the Corruption 
of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prel-
ats, Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome, 
for Maintenance of Popery: Together with a Suf-
ficient Answer unto James Gretser and Antho-
ny Possevine, Jesuits and the Unknown Author 
[May, a Priest] of the Grounds of the Old Reli-
gion & the New; Divided into Five Parts. Lon-
don: Mathew Lownes.
Vetus Testamentum multiplici lingua nunc primo 
impressum /…/ Nouum Testamentum Graece et 
Latine in Academia Complutensi nouiter im-
pressum /…/. 1514–1517. 6 vols. Academia Com-
plutensi: Industria Arnaldi Guilielmi de Brocario, 
sumptibus F. Francisci Ximenez de Cisneros.
Secondary sources
Alcalá Galve, Ángel. 2009. Proceso inquisitorial de 
fray Luis de León. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla 
y León.
Antonio, Nicolás. 1783. Bibliotheca Hispana noua 
siue Hispanorum scriptorum qui ab anno 1500 
ad 1584 floruere notitia. 2 vols. Madrid: Jo-
aquín de Ibarra.
Dávila Pérez, Antonio. 2016. La apología de la Bi-
blia Regia escrita por Benito Arias Montano: un 
documento en paradero desconocido. Euphro-
syne 44, no. 1:279–290.
– – –. 2019. Benito Arias Montano: Apología de la 
Biblia Regia. Alcañiz-Lisboa: CEC.
Krašovec, Jože. 2019. God’s Justice between Puni-
shment and Forgiveness in the Hebrew Bible. 
Bogoslovni vestnik 79, no. 4:877–890.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1963–1992. Iter Italicum: A 
Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely 
Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Re-
naissance in Italian and Other Libraries. 6 vols. 
London: The Warburg Institute; Leiden: Brill.
Macías Rosendo, Baldomero. 1998. La Biblia 
Políglota de Amberes en la correspondencia de 
549
Benito Arias Montano: MS. Estoc. A 902. Huel-
va: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad 
de Huelva.
Mariana, Juan de. 1609. Tractatus VII, nunc pri-
mum in lucem editi. Coloniae Agripinae: sump-
tibus Antonii Hierati, sub Monocerote.
Morocho Gayo, Gaspar. 1998. Avance de datos 
para un inventario de las obras y escritos de 
Arias Montano. Ciudad de Dios 211, no. 1:179–
275.
Petrović, Predrag. 2019. The Christological Aspec-
ts of Hebrew Ideograms. Bogoslovni vestnik 79, 
no. 4:1027–1038.
Pinta Llorente, Miguel de la. 1935. Procesos con-
tra los catedráticos hebraístas de Salamanca: 
Gaspar de Grajal. Madrid: Monasterio de El 
Escorial.
– – –. 1946. Proceso criminal contra el hebraísta 
salmantino Martín Martínez Cantalapiedra. 
Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano.
Antonio Dávila Pérez - St. Jerome versus Sanctes Pagnino in the Reception...