Papers by Teppei Kato
Vulgata in Dialogue, 2024
Adamantius, 2022
Origen adopted two critical signs from the philological tradition in Alexandria: the obelos, whic... more Origen adopted two critical signs from the philological tradition in Alexandria: the obelos, which denotes the elements found in the Septuagint (LXX) but not in the Hebrew Bible, and the asteriskos, which designates the elements found in the Hebrew text but not in the LXX. By examining how Origen and other Church Fathers (including Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine) understood the critical signs, this study raises the question of what their attitude toward the Bible was. Therefore, I analyze whether they regarded the obelized elements as an excess in the LXX or a lack in the Hebrew text, or whether they regarded the asterisked elements as an omission in the LXX or an addition in the Hebrew text. This form of analysis leads to the conclusion that Origen and Epiphanius are LXX-centered, Jerome is Hebrew-centered, and Augustine is both LXX-centered and Hebrew-centered.
Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions, 2020
This paper takes up two topics concerning the so-called Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah (4QMMT): a gener... more This paper takes up two topics concerning the so-called Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah (4QMMT): a general overview of the related research history and the ongoing discussion over its sectarian nature. The text has usually been considered a sectarian document sent by the leaders of the Qumran sect to the leaders of the priestly establishment in Jerusalem, as seen, for example, in the discussion between Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. However, this assumption should be reconsidered. According to the research trends of recent years, for example the works by Steven D. Fraade, Adele Reinhartz, and Maxine L. Grossman, almost all of the commonly accepted theories about 4QMMT, including the definition of the genre, the date of the document, and the identification of the personal pronouns’ antecedents, have come into question.
Augustinus, 2019
Translated into Spanish by Enrique A. Eguiarte Bendímez from the original English version, "Greek... more Translated into Spanish by Enrique A. Eguiarte Bendímez from the original English version, "Greek or Hebrew? Augustine and Jerome on Biblical Translation," Studia Patristica 98, ed. Markus Vinzent (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 109-20.
Vigiliae Christianae, 2019
Against many defenders of the LXX, such as Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine, Jerome tries to prov... more Against many defenders of the LXX, such as Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine, Jerome tries to prove the superiority of the Hebrew text as a source text of translation. To do so, in his Preface to the Chronicles (iuxta Hebraeos), Jerome relies on three authorities: the Hebrews, the Apostles, and Christ. The Hebrews philologically endorse Jerome’s translation, by judging whether it literally agrees with the Hebrew text. The Apostles support Jerome’s position both philologically and theologically: sometimes their Old Testament quotations literally agree with the Hebrew text; at other times they spiritually agree with the Hebrew text, even though they do not literally. Christ functions as the highest authority. Relying on these three, Jerome’s real purpose concerning Hebraica veritas is not only the philological discussion between the Hebrew text and the LXX, but also the theological discussion between these two texts and the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament.
Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2019
This paper examines how the chronological contradiction in Abraham’s departure from Haran (Gen 11... more This paper examines how the chronological contradiction in Abraham’s departure from Haran (Gen 11:26, 32; 12:4) has been explained in the history of biblical interpretation, especially in Rewritten Scripture from Qumran (4Q252 and Jubilees), Josephus, and rabbinic literature (Genesis Rabbah), including the lost Jewish tradition preserved by Jerome. According to Ben Zion Wacholder, who dealt with a different case of chronology in Genesis, the rabbinic and the Qumranic views are too different to be reconcilable, whereas the Graeco-Jewish writers and Qumran literature present similar views. This study, however, demonstrates that rabbinic interpretation on Abraham’s departure share some important ideas both with Qumran literature and Josephus.
Studia Patristica, 2017
This paper elucidates the main topic in the discussion between Augustine and Jerome about biblica... more This paper elucidates the main topic in the discussion between Augustine and Jerome about biblical translation, by focusing on their views about the language of the source text of translation. According to the historical study of translation, translators at the time of Cicero were allowed to show their creativity, since they presupposed the reader’s ability to compare the Greek text with the Latin translation. Cicero, accordingly, chose free translation as his own principle. Augustine expected the readers of the Bible to compare the source text with the translation, claiming that the source text should be the Greek Bible, namely, the LXX. However, Augustine preferred literal translation, for he estimated the reader’s comprehension of the source text to be low. Jerome, on the other hand, anticipated the readers at a high level, so that he basically adopted free translation as a translation method of any kind of literary work, including the Bible. Moreover, since Jerome accepted the Hebrew text as the original text, rejecting the authority of the LXX, he recommended the non-Hebrew readers ask the Hebrews to examine the accuracy of his translation. In addition, as Augustine and Jerome have different attitudes towards translation, they also have different views on the ideological state of the LXX: Augustine allowed the LXX to be a free translation, while Jerome strictly demanded it to be a literal translation, even though their own translation theories are opposite, respectively.
Vigiliae Christianae, Jun 5, 2013
Jerome compares Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the Hebrew text and LXX in sev... more Jerome compares Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the Hebrew text and LXX in seven texts, for example in Ep. 57, written c.395. He adopts different opinions when the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew text and when the quotations disagree with the Hebrew text. In the first case, he demands a strict rendering of words, whereas in the second, he considers the quotations and the Hebrew text to have the same meaning even if their wordings differ. In other words, Jerome attributes more authority to the Evangelists and Paul than to the LXX translators. In this paper, I will explain two reasons—one negative and the other positive—for this dichotomy in Jerome’s approach.
Introduction
I. The Quotations and Jerome's "Conversion" to Hebrew
II. Seven Texts on the Quotations
III. Analysis of Ep. 57
1. The Quot. agrees with the Hebrew Text but disagrees with the LXX
2. The Quot., Hebrew Text and LXX all disagrees with one another
3. The Hebrew Text agrees with the LXX, but the Quot. disagrees with both of them
IV. Reasons behind Jerome's Preferences
V. Other Cases: Acts 28:26 and John 7:38
Conclusion
Book Reviews by Teppei Kato
Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2022
Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2021
Conference Presentations by Teppei Kato
This paper elucidates the difference between Epiphanius’ and Jerome’s positions on the biblical t... more This paper elucidates the difference between Epiphanius’ and Jerome’s positions on the biblical texts, by focusing on their views on the two critical signs, known as the obelus and asterisk. According to Origen’s Hexapla, the former sign indicates that the words occur in the LXX but not in the Hebrew text, whereas the latter calls attention to the words that appear in the Hebrew text, but are wanting in the LXX. To explain these signs, Jerome states that the superfluous words are marked with the obelus and that the missing words with the asterisk (Praef. in Para. [iuxta Hebraeos]). Epiphanius, on the other hand, gives the exact opposite explanation, saying that the asterisk illustrates the extra (De mens. et pond. 2.3). In other words, both Epiphanius and Jerome are biased: Epiphanius’ argument concerning “plus” and “minus” is based on the LXX, while Jerome’s argument is on the Hebrew text.
This paper elucidates how the Jewish writers in the Greco-Roman period, especially the author of ... more This paper elucidates how the Jewish writers in the Greco-Roman period, especially the author of 4 Maccabees and Josephus, exploited the image of the Jews as philosophers. This image was not originally created by the Jews themselves, but by the Greek ethnographers in the Hellenistic period, such as Theophrastus (De pietate, apud Porphyry, De abstinentia 2.26), Clearchus of Soli (De somno, apud Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.176-83), and Megasthenes (Indica, apud Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1.15.72.5). These three writers are not familiar with the reality of the Jews; on the contrary, they have no intention to deliver the correct information about the Jews from the beginning, because they share the then-tendency of idealization of the eastern world, which was typical in Greek ethnography and historiography at that time. On that basis, the Greek writers regard the Jews not as an independent ethnic group, but as a priest group in Syria, comparing them with the gymnosophists in India and Magi in Persia, both of whom are identified with philosophers according to the Greek perspective. Moreover, these writers connect the Jewish aniconism to the Greek philosophical understanding of divinity. The Jews, on the other hand, inherit this image of the Jews as philosophers from the Greeks and deliberately convert it into their self-image. Jewish usage of the image can be found in some works of Judeo-Hellenistic literature, such as the Letter of Aristeas (31), the works of Philo of Alexandria (Prob. 88), the Book of 4 Maccabees (7:7), and the works of Josephus. These Jewish writers dare to exploit the Greek standards to demonstrate the superiority of the Jews. Among them, Josephus is extremely important, because, first, he clarifies the fact that the image derived from Greek literature, by citing Clearchus of Soli’s De Somno, in which Aristotle indicated the Jews were descendants of philosophers (Contra Apionem 1.175-182). Second, while knowing the image, Josephus does not slavishly follow the tradition of his predecessors, but rather abstractly develops it into a more conceptual image of Judaism as a philosophy. For example, Josephus explains about the sects among the Jews, such as the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, and the so-called “Fourth Philosophy,” by using the terms related to philosophy. Clearly influenced by Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea also uses the traditional image of the Jews as philosophers (Praeparatio Evangelica 8.11), whereas Tatian modifies the image of Judaism as a philosophy, applying it to Christianity (Oratio ad Graecos 31.1).
Uploads
Papers by Teppei Kato
Introduction
I. The Quotations and Jerome's "Conversion" to Hebrew
II. Seven Texts on the Quotations
III. Analysis of Ep. 57
1. The Quot. agrees with the Hebrew Text but disagrees with the LXX
2. The Quot., Hebrew Text and LXX all disagrees with one another
3. The Hebrew Text agrees with the LXX, but the Quot. disagrees with both of them
IV. Reasons behind Jerome's Preferences
V. Other Cases: Acts 28:26 and John 7:38
Conclusion
Book Reviews by Teppei Kato
Conference Presentations by Teppei Kato
Introduction
I. The Quotations and Jerome's "Conversion" to Hebrew
II. Seven Texts on the Quotations
III. Analysis of Ep. 57
1. The Quot. agrees with the Hebrew Text but disagrees with the LXX
2. The Quot., Hebrew Text and LXX all disagrees with one another
3. The Hebrew Text agrees with the LXX, but the Quot. disagrees with both of them
IV. Reasons behind Jerome's Preferences
V. Other Cases: Acts 28:26 and John 7:38
Conclusion