OF THE TRANSLATIONS OF SACRED SCRIPTURE — Heresy XIII (De Translationibus Sacrae Scripturae. Haeresis XIII)
That, all the editions of holy scripture which the Church has hitherto used being rejected, new editions are to be used, as more certain and more faithful.
ASSERTORES HVIVS HAERESEOS [The Assertors of this Heresy]
This is not (Non) a new heresy, or lately invented by the heretics of our time — who rashly boast that the Church of Christ, before this our age, had no sincere and faithful translation of the divine books — but of old too, above eleven hundred years [ago], this same heresy flourished in the Church. Of which Philastrius also, in his catalogue, made mention diffusely enough, enumerating around it five orders of heretics, who — the interpretation of the holy Seventy-two interpreters (which the Catholic Church then used) being cast off — followed the versions of diverse heretics. Of whom the first received only the translation of Aquila of Pontus; the second, another edition of certain thirty men, who had imitated Aquila in many things; the third, another translation of certain six men, full of depraved dogmas; the fourth, the interpretation of Symmachus and of Theodotion, the Ebionites; but the fifth chose a certain version, taken not from the authentic exemplars of the Hebrews, but from certain Hebrew codices, which they said had been found inside a cask [jar] after the Babylonian captivity. To whom, as in a sixth order, can be subjoined certain insolent heretics of our times — namely, the Sacramentarians, the Anabaptists, the Servetans, and the Lutherans — who, the interpretation of the sacred volumes being repudiated (which the Catholic Church has venerated for so many ages), follow the suspect editions of diverse heretics: as, in the Old Testament, [those] of Conrad Pellican, John Oecolampadius, Ulric Zwingli, Martin Luther, Sebastian Münster, and Sebastian Castalio [Castellio]; in the New Instrument [Testament] likewise, translations — or rather “recognitions” [revisions], or certain “castigations” [corrections] — of the same Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Luther, Castalio, and Michael Servetus, the Arian and Manichaean. These editions, therefore, each one embracing according to his own lust, they so prefer to our Vulgate edition, that [they assert] their interpreters alone attained the mind and words 1
(printed p. 663)
they so prefer [these editions] to our Vulgate edition, that they boast that their interpreters alone understood the mind and words of the prophets and apostles, and truly and faithfully expressed [them].
IMPVGNATIO [The Refutation]
But this is nothing else than to excite new tumults daily in the Church of God. For if, the old editions being rejected, we strive to introduce newer translations into the Church daily, what will be either the end or the measure of interpreting the sacred books — of restoring, of recognizing [revising], of castigating [correcting], of observing? — while each one daily, according to the opinion of his own mind and the affection of his own dogma, sends forth new subversions [euersiones], castigations, [and] recognitions — now to the Greek, now to the Hebrew verity — pernicious scholia, annotations, and glosses (pertaining to their own dogmas) being everywhere interjected; and while the interpreters, contending among themselves with the highest dissension, each rejects, confutes, and damns the other — so that Luther reprehends Oecolampadius and Zwingli as incautious; Münster in turn accuses Luther, that he dissimulated many errors of the old interpreter; Pellican vituperates Münster, that by his foul barbarity he befouled all the divine scripture; but Castalio [Castellio] explodes all the interpreters before him as ignorant of the Latin speech, and esteems that he alone interpreted the sacred books in the Latin tongue. Which, therefore, of these interpreters will the heretics follow? or whose edition will they bring forth into the midst, if they be compelled — against their own adversaries — either to confirm their own dogmas out of the sacred codices, or to repel diverse [ones]? Assuredly, if the Anabaptists adduce testimonies of the scriptures out of the edition of their [own] Servetus, straightway the Sacramentarians will cry out, and will say that these were derived from the depraved version of the Anabaptists, and are not so read in the emended and true codices of Oecolampadius and Zwingli. And likewise the Anabaptists will answer the Sacramentarians, when they feel themselves pressed by them with testimonies of the scriptures. But if any one, coming upon them, should say that neither edition is to be stood by, but that recourse must be had to the Greek or Hebrew fountains, that by their reading the proposed controversy may be ended — straightway a far sharper contention will arise, while each, pertinacious in his own error, will contend that the Greek or Hebrew word is to be turned otherwise and otherwise — but especially if the word be ambiguous, as almost innumerable [words] are among the Hebrews; and in this manner, altercating, they will never be able to agree among themselves, unless — contention being cast off, and their own judgment renounced — they submit themselves, by unanimous consent, to the judgment of the Catholic Church: that she, as a true arbiter and judge, may pronounce in which interpreter’s opinion one ought to acquiesce. For there are, in the sacred codices of the Hebrews, certain words and sentences so uncertain, ambiguous, and so variously explained — even by the highest and most illustrious interpreters — that, however erudite you be, and skilled in tongues, you would nevertheless not know to which side to turn, and would always be compelled to be doubtful, unless the authority of the Catholic Church admonished you to embrace the interpretation of this [one], but to dismiss that of that [one].
And that the matter may become more illustrious by an example applied, there is a place in the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis, famous by the contention of all interpreters, namely: “It (Ipse) is Ana [Anah] who found הימים (haiiemim) in the desert, while he was pasturing the asses of Zebeon his father.” 2 Of whose interpretation (as Jerome reports in the book of Hebrew Questions) there are as many opinions as [there are] interpreters. Some think ימם (iemim) [means] “seas” [maria] — because “seas” are written with the same letters as this particle of the present sentence; and they hold that Anah, while he was pasturing his father’s asses in the desert, found “congregations of waters” — which, according to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, ימם (iemim) — that is, “seas” — is called; namely, because he found a pool, the finding of which is difficult in the desert, and [which] Diodorus denies [any] to be found in that solitude. Some — among whom [is] the author of the Vulgate edition — held that “hot waters” [aquae calidae] are signified by this word, according to the nearness of the Punic tongue, which is conterminous with the Hebrew, and that it is so to be turned. Others are [those] who judge that “wild asses” [onagri] were admitted by this Anah to the she-asses, and that he found this kind of coupling, so that the swiftest asses might be born from these; and that the word ought now to be turned “swiftest asses.” Very many think that he first made the herds of mares to be mounted by asses in the desert, so that from thence new animals against nature — mules — might be born; and, according to this understanding, they esteem [the word] is to be interpreted “mules.” But Aquila turned this place thus: “It (Ipse) is Ana, who found σὺν τῷ σιμὲν (syn to simen)”; and Symmachus, “τοὺς σιμὲν (tous simen)” — which interpretation signifies the plural number. But the Seventy and Theodotion — only the Hebrew characters being changed into Greek letters — turned [it] “τὸ ιαμὲν (to iamen),” which indicates the singular number. Concerning which word there has been no less doubt among these recent interpreters. Some — among whom Pellican, [following] the Seventy — now think [it] is to be left [untranslated], as a word not yet understood; Münster and Castalio turn [it] “mules”; Sanctes [Pagninus], “congregations of waters”; Galatinus, “wild asses”; others, according to Symmachus, “Symin” [σιμίν]; but some say that “hot mares” — that is, [mares] warm with the ardor of coitus — was formerly written in the emended codices, [and] afterward, by the fault of the scribes, “mares” [equas] was changed into “waters” [aquas]. Since, therefore, in this place, and in like [places] of this kind, there is so great a variety of translators, how will the wavering mind explain itself, unless it consult upon this the judgment of the Church? or how will the contentions and altercations be settled, if each one goes on to defend the interpreter of his own sect and faction, and each contends to read according to his own edition — unless the definition of the Church supervene, which by its authority may dissolve strifes of this kind?
Nor let any one say that these [things] are so light and minute that from them — howsoever they be interpreted and read — no peril of sedition, or endangering of salvation, could arise. For that name too, קיקין (Kikaion [Kikayon]), which was turned “gourd” [cucurbita] in Jonah by the old interpreter, was of small moment; and yet (as Augustine writes in the epistle to Jerome) so small a matter excited a huge tumult in Africa. For when a certain bishop, in the church over which he presided — making words [a sermon] to the people — had read, for “gourd,” “ivy” [hedera], according to the new translation of Jerome, so great a tumult suddenly arose among the people (especially the Greeks arguing, and clamoring the calumny of falsity), that 3
(printed p. 664)
so that the bishop was compelled first to implore the aid of the Jews, that they might bring forth for him testimony from their codices; then, they answering variously, he was compelled to recant his error before the people. But what is lighter or more minute than points [vowel-points]? And yet such very small things, if they be placed otherwise than in the editions and exemplars received by the Catholic Church, very often provide great fuel [foments] to heresies. Which Augustine also, in the third book On Christian Doctrine, showed by an example, in those words of John: “IN the beginning (In principio) was the Word.” Which sentence the heretics — who denied the Word of God to be God — read with the points changed: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and [there] was God”; and here, a point being interposed, there followed: “This WORD (Verbum) was in the beginning with God.” By a like example, in our times, the impious Servetus, in the second of the three books which, with a blasphemous title, he inscribed On the error of the Trinity, perverted that sentence of the divine Paul to the Romans, namely: “Whose (Quorum) [are] the fathers, of whom [is] Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God blessed unto the ages, Amen.” Which, when he — who denied Christ to be God — saw manifestly to gainsay him, [the point being transposed] he wished it to be read thus: “Whose (Quorum) [are] the fathers, of whom [is] Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things.” Then, a point being affixed [inserted], it is to be added: “GOD (Deus) [be] blessed unto the ages. Amen” — as [if] a certain eucharistic [thanksgiving] epiphonema, by which the Hebrews frequently are wont to close the end of a prayer with thanksgiving and the praise of God: as, at the end of the eighty-eighth psalm, for this cause is placed: “BLESSED (Benedictus) [be] God unto the ages, Amen, Amen.” 4 Therefore, that all altercations, doubts, and heresies (which could arise from the diversity of many editions) may be taken away out of the midst, there must be some one interpretation, approved by the common consent of the whole [body] of the faithful, and by the determination of the Church — by whose authority all controversies of this kind may be removed.
Accordingly, the sacrosanct Tridentine Synod, observing this, rightly, in the fourth session, second decree, sanctioned that, out of all the Latin editions which are circulated, the old and Vulgate edition alone — which by the long use of so many ages has been approved — be held as authentic, and in the divine offices, and sacred mysteries, and in sermons, and public readings, and disputations, be alone read and cited; and let no one dare to reject it under any pretext. And deservedly indeed: since — besides that it has now been received by the Church with so great a multitude of years [/consecrated by so great a reverence of years] — there is not even, among these editions of the more recent interpreters, [any] which is more certain, safer, and more faithful than this our Vulgate edition. For — to be silent about the other translations of our age (of Pellican, namely, of Zwingli, of Oecolampadius, of Luther, and of other heretics, which the heretics themselves confess to be “recognitions” rather than new translations) — I will name only two editions of the two Sebastians, namely of Münster and of Castalio [Castellio], which the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists hold in price above all [others]. Whereas, nevertheless, they are pernicious, and to be fled by the pious reader like a lethal poison — because everywhere they are full of nefarious annotations, scholia, observations, glosses, little prefaces, arguments [summaries], and like traps and snares set for the destruction of the reader. Of which, because it would be too long to relate all, let it suffice to have indicated only two places: of which the one Münster annotated on the first [chapter] of Malachi, against the true and corporeal presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar; the other Castalio annotated on the third [chapter] of Exodus, against the consubstantiality and equality of the Father and the Son — following in it the sentence of Arius, so often already condemned.
But if to these [things] the heretics respond that they speak not of their scholia and annotations, but of the kind [manner] of interpretation, and of the best manner of turning [translating] employed by them; and that for this cause they wish the editions of their [own] interpreters to be preferred to our edition, as more polished and more eloquent, and accommodated, by a more diligent industry, to the Latin custom of speaking — we shall not much resist. For we know that the office of a faithful interpreter is not to affect elegance of speech, that he may seem eloquent, but above all the certainty and truth of the sentence [sense]. And in this we affirm that our Vulgate edition is to be preferred to the rest in fidelity, integrity, and authority — discussing nothing at present about the style, and the choice of words, and the candor [purity] of the discourse: all which, because they are alien to the purpose of the present work, we leave to be judged by the professors of tongues.
Yet we cannot be wholly silent about what very many most learned men — even as regards the kind [manner] of interpreting — vehemently condemn in these two authors: namely, that each is, without measure, extreme. The one, in affecting the Jewish idioms, is hard, rustic, barbarous, and plainly a Jew; the other, on the contrary, in ineptly affecting the individual locutions of the gentiles, shows himself gentile and profane rather than Latin: so that, of their translations, the one may deservedly be called [that] of the Jews, the other of the Pagans. For Münster — everywhere horrid, thorny [senticosus], and rough — so far followed the horror of the Hebrew speech that, although he could have accommodated many things softly to Latin ears, he nevertheless so studied to preserve all the properties and phrases of the Hebrew speech that he was unwilling to omit even the very harsh sounds [stridores] of the Hebrew names: thrusting into Latin ears everywhere — for Ozias, “Vzijhau”; for Ezechias [Hezekiah], “Iehizkiahu”; for Ezechiel, “Iehezechel”; for Cyrus, “Choresch”; for Darius, “Dariauesch”; for Nabuchodonosor, “Nabuchednezzar”; for Baltasar [Belshazzar], “Beltzezzer” — and many other words of this kind, which no Latin can pronounce without a huge straining of breath and of tongue. But Castalio — whom I know not whether I should call a paraphrast rather than an interpreter — is, on the contrary, so delicate and soft that he suffers nothing that smells [olfacere] of a Hebraism; nor does he think that he truly speaks Latin, unless he speak most effeminately, and — without all the majesty of divine scripture, and the gravity of a divine interpreter — paints, in the manner of little harlots, and sears with a curling-iron [calamistrum], each single sentence, luxuriating in a certain wanton affluence of soft words: as he did in the Canticles of Solomon, in which, whatsoever the old interpreter turned chastely and gravely concerning the divine loves of Christ and of the Church, that man [turned] with every allurement [lenocinium] of words, and with all the voices of little women, and [their] affec-[tions]
(printed p. 665)
[and using all the voices and affections of little women,] he translated so impudently (not to say obscenely), as if he had been about to publish the colloquies of harlots and panders — in almost every third word inculcating certain diminished, lubricious, and softly-jingling little words [voculae]: such as these are: “COME hither (Huc ades), O my little sister, my little friend, my dove, my little heart, in the little holes of the rock, in the hiding-places of the snail.” And that: “HOW pretty (Quam bella) thou art, O little dainty one! Show me thy little face, make [me] hear thy little voice; for thou hast both a charming little voice, and a pleasant little face.” And that: “CATCH (Capite) for us the little foxes, the little ravagers of the vineyards.” 5 And again: “AH, thee (Ah te), pretty one! ah, thee, comely one! Thou hast a little neck very like an ivory little tower. Thou hast a little head very like Carmel, and little curls like royal purple; and thou hast little dove-like little eyes, interspersed with little curls. Thou hast little cheeks like the rinds of a pomegranate, set among little curls, and little breasts more shapely than a fawn.” And that: “OPEN (Aperi) to me, my little sister; I will bring thee into the house of my little mother, of my little parent.” Nor is it wonderful if Castalio so impudently [sported] in a divine matter — even as, with Catullus, he sported about the little sparrow of Lesbia, and the swelling little eyes of the girl, and the golden apple: because (as he himself indicated in the little glosses added at the margin) he never believed that, in that divine Canticle, the mystical loves of Christ and of the Church are described, but that an amatory colloquy was woven of the venereal and profane [loves] of Solomon, and of his lover [amica] the Sulamite, and of the loves of the [other] women of the same [Solomon].
And just as he contaminated this book of Solomon with dishonest allurements, so he profaned all the divine scripture with profane, gentile, and impious words, locutions, and sentences — this half-pagan and half-gentile interpreter: who, as if it shamed him to use the words which the Holy Spirit used through the mouths of the saints, changed the name of God, and of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, into “Jove” [Iupiter], “Diuus,” “Armipotens” [the Mighty-in-arms], “Gradivus” [Mars], and “Coelicola” [Heaven-dweller]; calling his divine charity “Cupid,” and his Angels “the genii of Jove,” and the temple of God “the shrine and fane of Jove,” and the seat of God “the Augustale [palace] of Jove”; putting everywhere — for holy men, “Heroes”; for holy Israel, “the Augustan Israelite”; for the holy prophets, “seers [vates] and soothsayers [fatidici]”; for the prophetic spirit, “the fatidic spirit”; and for “to prophesy,” “to rave [bacchari]”; for the giants likewise, “the offspring of the Titans”; for the Sun, “Phoebus and Apollo”; for lightnings, “the Jovian fire”; for hell, “Orcus and Tartarus”; for the inhabitants of hell, “the Manes”; and for the perdition of hell, “Pluto”; for sanctification, “lustration”; and for the sacred chant, “the Paean” — and innumerable other [things] like these, drawn from the very midst of the impiety of the gentiles, which no one truly pious would hear with equal [patient] ears. I omit, consulting brevity, the violent and ambiguous locutions which prepare matter for heresies: as when, for that which the Church reads in the Gospel of John — “And the Word was made flesh” — I know not whether he turned [it] Latin rather than Sarmatian [barbarous]: “AND the DISCOURSE (Et sermo) WAS EMBODIED (corporatus est).” As if the blessed Jerome had erred, when he turned that καὶ ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο (kai ho logos sarx egeneto): “And the Word was made flesh”; and that which Peter, in the Acts, said of Christ — ὃν προσπήξαντες ἀνείλετε (hon prospexantes aneilete), that is, “WHOM (Quem), affixing [to the cross], ye slew” — this half-gentile interpreter, the [self-styled] pillar of the Roman tongue, translated: “WHOM YOU (Quem vos), FASTENED TO A STAKE [ad palum deligatum], LIFTED UP [sustulistis].” 6 Which words, in recent years — among certain Jews received to the faith [converted] by the Anabaptists of the city of Florence, not without huge peril to the Anabaptists — excited a great rumor in their conventicles, those Jews doubting whether Christ, according to the old custom of the Romans and Hebrews, had been affixed to a cross, or rather fixed to a stake [palus] (according to the present custom of the Turks), as the edition of Castalio seemed to signify. And such egregious fruits do these Ciceronian editions of the recent interpreters produce — celebrated with such great praises by the heretics. But perhaps I have been more [prolix] in this matter than the reader would have wished.
But since the heretics boast that the Church of God, before these new interpretations, had no faithful and sincere translation of the divine scripture — that we may repress this boasting of theirs, it is worth the while, having begun somewhat higher, to see briefly: first, how many and what kind of translations both the Greek and the Latin Church had; then indeed, of what authority each one of them was in the Catholic Church.
The FIRST (Prima) Greek edition of the Old Testament, therefore — which the Church first used — was the version of the seventy-two interpreters. The SECOND, of Aquila of Pontus, published nearly 120 years after Christ. The THIRD, of Symmachus the Samaritan, composed in the year 190 of human salvation. The FOURTH, of Theodotion of Ephesus, elaborated in the year 200 from the birth of Christ. Concerning which four Greek translations — since, in the fourth book of this Work, under the proper titles of the same authors, we have spoken copiously — we judge it superfluous to repeat the same in this place. The FIFTH Greek edition, together with very many other Hebrew and Greek volumes, was found at Jericho, in jars [dolia], by Origen Adamantius; who also, not much after, found another certain translation on the Actiac shore, at Nicopolis, hidden in the same manner in jars, and called it the SIXTH edition. And, joining these to the other four translations, he constructed, with wonderful artifice, the Hexapla and Octapla of the Greek editions, in that order which I have already commemorated in the book [already] cited, when I reviewed the writings of Origen. A SEVENTH — after all these — a certain Greek edition was found; and it was never placed either in the Hexapla or in the Octapla. This Isidore, in the sixth book of the Etymologies, thinks was found by Origen himself; which was called by the Greeks κοινή (koine) — that is, “common and vulgate” — but by some was called λευκιανός (leukianos [Lucianic]), or “λευκιαντα”: because it was believed to have been published by Lucian the Martyr. Concerning which Jerome, in the epistle to Sunias and Fretela, thus writes: “BRIEFLY (Breviter) I admonish this — that you may know there is one edition, which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea call κοινήν (koinen), that is, ‘common,’ and which is now by very many called λευκιανός (leukianos); [and] another, of the Seventy interpreters, which is found in the Hexapla codices, and has been turned by us into the Latin tongue, and is chanted at Jerusalem and in the churches of the East. But that κοινή (koine) is, according to the places and times, a corrupt edition, by the will of the old copyists; whereas that [other], which is had in the Hexapla, and which we have turned, is the very one which, in the books of the learned, is preserved [as] the incorrupt and immaculate translation of the Seventy interpreters.” These [things Jerome]
(printed p. 666)
These [things], therefore, concerning all the famous editions of the Greeks, we have taken from Aristeas, Josephus, Eusebius, Justin, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome.
After which, two other Latin editions of the Old Testament were in the Latin Church — namely, a new and an old: the old indeed received the name of the “Vulgate and common” edition — both because it had no certain author, and because it was taken, not from the Hebrew fountain, but from the κοινή (koine), or from the Septuagint interpretation, as Augustine, in the eighteenth [book] On the City of God, and Jerome, in the preface to the Gospels, testify; whose reading the Church used long before the times of Jerome, and also long after, down to the times of Gregory the Pope. But the new was turned by Jerome — not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew verity — into Latin speech: which the Church, from the very times of Gregory, used together with the old edition. For Gregory mentions each in the preface to the Morals, saying: “The NEW (Novam) translation I defer; but when the cause of proof demands [it] of me, I take now the old, now the new, for testimony: so that — since the Apostolic See, over which, God being author, I preside, uses both — my labor of study also may be supported by each.” And let these [things] be said concerning the translations of the Old Testament, both Greek and Latin. 7
But concerning the TRANSLATIONS (Traductionibus) of the New Testament — which it is agreed was written in Greek, but sometimes with Hebrew phrases — we cannot know their certain number. Yet that they were many, Jerome indicates in the Preface to the four Gospels; but among others he intimates that there was a certain old edition, vulgate in the Church long before himself, which — when, by dozing copyists, in the progress of times, it had become corrupt — Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus (a collation of many Greek exemplars being made), corrected, emended, and restored to the Greek verity. Which castigation of Jerome — or rather edition — the Roman Church, from the times of the blessed Jerome down to this day, has perpetually used. So many, then, down to this age, have been the editions in the Church, both of the Old and of the New Testament.
Of whose number the Latin and Greek churches — all other editions being omitted — have hitherto received only five into authority: namely, in the New Testament two, the old and the new; and in the Old Testament three, namely, one only Greek, of the Seventy interpreters, and two Latin, that is, the Old and the New. Of the Septuagint edition alone being received by the Church, Eusebius (book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History) is witness; and Augustine, On the City of God, book 18, writes on the same matter in this manner: “For (Nam) although there were also other interpreters, who translated those sacred oracles from the Hebrew tongue into Greek — as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion; as also is that interpretation whose author does not appear, and for this [reason is] without the name of an interpreter, [and] is called the Fifth edition — nevertheless the Church so receives this [one], which is [that] of the Seventy, as though it were the only one; and the Greek Christian peoples use [it], most of whom are ignorant whether there be another.” These [things] Augustine. But of the Latin translations, it is agreed that only two were received by the Church: 8 first, that Vulgate edition, published in Latin not from the Hebrew origin, but from the translation of the Septuagint — which alone the Latin Church used down to the times of Augustine and Jerome (as Augustine himself testifies in the place already cited), and which (as we already said) Gregory writes, in the preface to the Morals, was in use in the Roman Church down to his own times. After which old and Vulgate edition, the Church began to have (as was said above) the new translation of Jerome, taken from the Hebrew verity; and received also the new castigation of the same [Jerome] into the New Testament, as appears from the third epistle of Augustine to Jerome. And with only these editions, down to the present day, has the Catholic Church publicly used — as authentic, true, and worthy of the highest faith — in the divine mysteries, and sacred sermons, and readings, in confirming the dogmas of our faith, and in refuting the heretics. But the rest the fathers used, not publicly, nor as authentic, but as extraneous, for their particular uses: namely, that from their collation they might understand the Septuagint interpretation more clearly, and that from the comparison of the Septuagint with the other editions they might refute the falsity of those. 9 And for this cause (as Philastrius and Epiphanius hand down) editions of this kind were never placed in the Hexapla in the middle column, but were assigned to the right and the left, so that — placed on this side and on that, as contrary, and not of full truth — they might be shown [to differ] from the true edition of the Seventy Interpreters, which was placed in the middle. All these translations, therefore, being passed over — which the Church either rejects as heretical, or, as suspect and corrupt, does not accept — let us see only how much authority and faith the aforesaid five translations had in the Church, and what the catholic fathers thought of each of them; that, from the gravity of their judgment, we may cast down the arrogance of those who boast that no entire and certain translation of the divine scripture has hitherto been in the Church.
Concerning the integrity, then, and faith of the Septuagint edition, there are so many and so great testimonies of the fathers, that time would fail me if I should wish to review them. Yet all agree in this: that it is to be preferred to the rest chiefly for three causes. First, because it is the most ancient of all editions. Then, because it was published by divine light, and not by human genius, by the seventy-two men full of the Holy Spirit: 10 since (as Justin Martyr writes, in the Admonition to the Gentiles, and Irenaeus in the third book) King Ptolemy — fearing lest the Seventy interpreters should not interpret fully and ingenuously the truth inserted in the divine volumes, but should of set purpose conceal some [things] — separated them each from the other, and commanded [them], placed apart, to interpret the same [texts]. But it was done by divine will that all wrote with the same words, the same names, and sentences, from the beginning even to the end — so that the king, and the gentiles themselves, manifestly recognized that those divine scriptures had been interpreted, not by human, but by divine nod and counsel. But Epiphanius, in the little book On Weights and Measures, more fully describing the number, situation, and form of the cells of the twenty-two [so printed; the seventy-two] interpreters, 11
(printed p. 667)
but it was done by divine will that all wrote with the same words, the same names and sentences, from the beginning even to the end — so that the king, and the gentiles themselves, manifestly recognized that those divine scriptures had been interpreted, not by human, but by divine nod and counsel. But Epiphanius, in the little book On Weights and Measures, more fully describing the number, situation, and form of the cells, recounts that the twenty-two [so printed; the seventy-two] volumes of the Old Testament were translated by them, and that in diverse, separate cells — the traces of which the martyr Justin left written that he saw on the island of Pharos, in the Admonition. With whose opinion Philastrius in the catalogue, Rufinus against Jerome, and Augustine agree. The third cause why this edition is preferred to the others is, that the Apostles and Evangelists took testimonies from it, as from a true and faithful interpretation. And after them the whole Church, down to Pope Damasus, always held it in the highest veneration — as the most frequent testimonies of the most ancient fathers testify. Origen, in the epistle to Julius Africanus, attributed so much to this one alone, that he said that only that is to be held for true in the sacred scriptures which the Seventy interpreters translated. 12 And Augustine, in the eighteenth book On the City of God: “The CHURCH (Ecclesia) of Christ,” he says, “judges that no one is to be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen by Eleazar (the then pontiff) for this so great work: for — even if there had not appeared in them one, without doubt, divine Spirit, but the Seventy, learned [men], had, after the manner of men, conferred among themselves the words of their interpretation, that what had pleased all might remain — no old interpreter ought to be preferred to them.” Jerome too, in many places, and especially in the preface to Paralipomenon, asserts that the Seventy interpreters were men full of the Holy Spirit, and wrote by the authority of the Holy Spirit. I pass over other innumerable testimonies of the fathers, lest I inflict tedium on the readers.
But concerning the Latin edition of the Old Testament — which was formerly called the “old and vulgate” — Augustine, in the book already cited, testifies that it was, among the Latin churches, in such authority and reverence, that it was preferred to all other editions. And Gregory, in the preface to the Morals (as we mentioned above), testified that even in his own times it was, in the Roman Church, in the highest veneration — writing these words in the twentieth book of the Morals: “But nevertheless (Sed tamen), because this new translation is reported to have transfused for us all things more truly from the Hebrew, whatsoever is said in it is to be believed; and it behooves that our exposition search out its words more subtly.” 13
But concerning the Latin edition of the Old Testament made by Jerome — how faithful, certain, true, lucid, and exact it was — Jerome himself indicates. To whom, since he adduces the reason of his opinion as a pledge, it is fitting that we believe. For thus he speaks of himself in the preface to the Psalter, to Sophronius: “CERTAINLY (Certe) I will say confidently, and I will cite many witnesses of this work, that I have changed nothing at all of the sentence [sense] from the Hebrew verity. If, therefore, anywhere my edition shall discrepate from the old ones, ask any of the Hebrews, and you will clearly foresee that I am torn in vain by rivals — who prefer to seem to contemn illustrious things rather than to learn [them].” And in the Helmeted Prologue he similarly says: “To myself (Mihi) I am not at all conscious of having changed anything of the Hebrew verity. Certainly, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin codices, and compare [them] with these little works which we lately emended; and wherever you see [them] to discrepate among themselves, ask any of the Hebrews to whom you ought rather to accommodate faith; and if he confirm ours, I think that you will not esteem him a conjecturer — as [though] to have divined, in the same place, equally with me.” 14 But if the heretics will not believe the divine Jerome, bearing testimony as of himself, let them hear Augustine, who, in the 18th [book] On the City of God, thus says of Jerome’s version: “There was not lacking (Non defuit) in our times the presbyter Jerome, a most learned man, and most skilled in the three tongues, who translated the divine scriptures into Latin, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew; whose so great labor of letters the Hebrews confess to be truthful.” Isidore, agreeing with Augustine: “The presbyter (Presbyter) Jerome,” he says, “most skilled in the three tongues, translated the divine scriptures eloquently from the Hebrew into the Latin speech, which he transfused: whose interpretation is deservedly preferred to the rest, for it is more tenacious of the words, and clearer in perspicuity of sentence, and — as being a Christian interpretation — truer.” To which testimonies of the fathers the Greeks too gave [their] consent — [Greeks] who, while Jerome was yet living, turned his edition from Latin into Greek, as the same Jerome writes in his first Apology against Rufinus.
As to the two Latin editions of the New Testament: the common assent of the ancient fathers, from the beginning of the nascent Church down to Pope Damasus, approved [the old one] by long use. But that the new edition, or castigation, of Jerome was received by the Church with the greatest favor — even while he yet lived — Augustine indicates, in the third epistle to Jerome, in these words: “ACCORDINGLY (Proinde), we give no small thanks to God for thy work, that thou hast interpreted the Gospel from Greek into Latin; because in almost all [things] there is no offense, when we have collated the Greek scripture. Whence, if any one shall be contentious of the old falsity, the codices being brought forth and collated, he is either most easily taught, or refuted. And if certain very rare [things] deservedly move [him], who is so hard that he would not easily pardon a labor so useful, to which it does not suffice to render a reward of praise [in turn]?” From these [things], therefore, it is concluded: either that these translations — received by the Church with such veneration, and celebrated by all the fathers — were true and faithful; or, if they were not such, that the Church of God (which believed them to be such as, in reality, they were not) was gravely deceived through so many centuries of years, and basely deluded. Which no one will ever be able even to conceive in mind, unless [he be] utterly destitute of the ecclesiastical spirit, and wholly addicted to the Lutherans, Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, Servetans, and the rest of the pests of this kind. But now let us pass to their contentions [objections].
OBIECTIONES HAERETICORVM [The Objections of the Heretics]
1. The purpose (Pro-[positum])
(printed p. 668)
1. The purpose (Propositum) of our disputation is to show that the churches of the Latins and Greeks, before the editions of the more recent interpreters were put forth, had no interpretation of the divine scriptures which was not deformed by almost infinite faults and errors. Beginning, therefore, according to the series of times, from that first version of the whole Old Instrument [Testament] — falsely called by the name of “the Seventy interpreters” — we shall detect all its faults, if first we admonish our adversaries that this edition was falsely ascribed to the Seventy interpreters, and [that] it was wrongly believed that it was composed by them by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Aristeas, the satellite [attendant] of Ptolemy, in the book On the Seventy Interpreters, and Philo the Jew in his Chronography, and Josephus in the preface to the Hebrew Antiquities and in the twelfth book of the same work, and the author of the book Seder Olam the Lesser, and all the Rabbis of the Hebrews who have made any mention of the Seventy — all these report that the Seventy interpreters, at Ptolemy’s exhortation, translated only the five books of Moses, no enumeration being made of the other books of divine scripture. With whom Jerome too agrees in almost innumerable places, but especially in the commentaries on Micah, ch. 2, where he thus says: “The INTERPRETATION (Interpretatio) of the Seventy — if, however, it be [that] of the Seventy: for Josephus writes, and the Hebrews hand down, that only the five books of the law of Moses were translated by them, and delivered to King Ptolemy.” And in the preface to the Hebrew Questions, the same thus writes: “There accedes to this also, that Josephus — who sets forth the history of the Seventy interpreters — relates that only the five books of Moses were translated; which we too confess to consonate [agree] with the Hebrew more than the rest.” All which [things] show that this edition, which is had for the whole Old Testament, is not [that] of the Seventy interpreters, but of some other translator of uncertain name and authority. But of whatsoever [translator] it be — even if it were of the Seventy interpreters — Jerome abundantly testifies that the translation which is believed [to be that] of the Seventy was not published through the [Holy] Spirit; and that the Seventy wrote, not as [men] inspired by the divine Spirit, but as men, who in many things could err, and [did] err. And thus Jerome speaks of them, in the preface to the Pentateuch: “I know NOT (Nescio) who first, by his own lie, built the seventy cells of Alexandria, divided into which they wrote the same [texts] — whereas Aristeas, the ὑπαρασπιστής (hyparaspistes — shield-bearer, bodyguard*)* of the same Ptolemy, and, long after in time, Josephus, related nothing such, but write that, gathered together in a basilica, they conferred [compared], [and did] not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a seer [vates], another to be an interpreter: there the [Holy] Spirit predicts future things; here erudition, and copiousness of words, transfers those [things] which it understands. Unless, perhaps, Tully [Cicero] is to be thought to have translated the Economics of Xenophon, and the Protagoras of Plato, and the [oration] of Demosthenes For Ctesiphon, inspired by a rhetorical spirit.” 15
2. But that this edition is stuffed with many errors, not only the Jews themselves affirm (as Augustine noted in the eighteenth [book] On the City of God), but many illustrious [men] of the Christians confirm — and the edition itself most manifestly betrays its own errors. For, since the office of the best interpreter is to take nothing away from the author’s meaning, to super-add nothing of his own, to change nothing either into an ambiguous or a contrary sense — in all these [respects] the Seventy are found to have failed. And first, how many places from the Hebrew codices they passed over, Jerome indicates in almost all the prefaces of the sacred books, but especially in the preface to the Pentateuch, in which, enumerating some of those [things] which the Seventy omitted, he says: “We read MANY (Multa) [things] of the Old Testament which are not had in ours — that is, in the codices of the Seventy interpreters. As that: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’; and, ‘Because (Quoniam) he shall be called a Nazarene’; and, ‘They shall SEE (Videbunt) [him] into whom they have transfixed [pierced]’; and, ‘Rivers (Flumina) of living water shall flow from his belly’; and, ‘Which (Quae) neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it ascended into the heart of man, [the things] which God hath prepared for them that love him’; and many others, which require [their] proper composition [σύνταγμα (syntagma)] — of which the first is placed in Osee [Hosea], the second in Isaiah, the third in Zechariah, the fourth in Proverbs, the fifth likewise in Isaiah — of whose error it is not mine to expound the causes.” 16 And a little after, accusing them that of set purpose they passed over all [the things] which they had found, in the sacred letters, concerning the holy mysteries of the Trinity, he thus adds: “FINALLY (Denique), wherever the scripture testifies anything sacred concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, either they interpreted [it] otherwise, or were altogether silent.”
3. But how many [things] they super-added of their own, which are not had in the Hebrew codices, the same Jerome — in the book of Hebrew Questions, and in the epistle to Sunias and Fretela, and in the book On the Best Kind of Interpreting — plucking a few from almost infinite places, noted. As that in the third [chapter] of Genesis, where in the Hebrew it is written, “Upon thy breast shalt thou go,” they added, “AND [thy] BELLY (Et ventrem),” which the Hebrew codex has not; and [in] Genesis ch. 13, for that which the Hebrews read, “that (Ut) the men of Sodom were evil, and sinners exceedingly,” they apposed, “IN the sight (In conspectu) of God” — which, as superfluously added, Jerome damns: because the Sodomites were not only evil in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men. And whereas at the beginning of the twenty-first psalm [Ps 22] there is written only אלי אלי למה עזבתני (Eli, eli, lama azavtani — printed “hazabathani”), which is interpreted, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — they interposed two other words, namely, “LOOK UPON ME (Respice in me).” And for that which is read in Deuteronomy 21, “Cursed (Maledictus) by God [is he] who hangeth on a tree,” they — as Jerome notes in the third [chapter] to the Galatians — added, “EVERYONE (Omnis) who hangeth on a tree.” [And] in Deuteronomy 27, where it is written, “CURSED (Maledictus) [is he] who shall not have remained in the words which are written in the book of the law,” three particles being added, they turned [it]: “CURSED (Maledictus) [is] EVERY MAN who shall not have remained in ALL the words which are written in the book of the law.” And lest any one should esteem additions of this kind to be of light moment, let him know that from these additions — however small — very often the gravest heresies have arisen: as can be shown by the example of the Manichaeans, who, from this last universal particle “EVERY (Omnis)” — which the Seventy added to the testimony of Moses
(printed p. 669)
3. [from this last universal particle “Every,” which the Seventy added to the testimony of Moses, saying, “CURSED (Maledictus) [is] EVERYONE who hangeth on a tree,”] took occasion of calumniating and rejecting Moses, calling him (as Augustine writes in the sixteenth book against Faustus) now sacrilegious, now a blasphemer: because he had shut up [included] Christ, the Apostles, and the martyrs hanging on a tree, all under one and the same universal curse.
4. But of those [things] which the Seventy translated in a contrary sense (contrario sensu), Jerome too enumerates not a few in the places above mentioned. As in Genesis 26, for that which, according to the Hebrew verity, is read: “THERE CAME (Venerunt), in that very day, the servants of Isaac, announcing concerning the well which they had digged, and saying: We have found water: whence its name was called Saturity [Satiety]” — the Seventy turned [it] utterly from the opposite: “AND (Et) the boys of Isaac came, and announced to him concerning the well which they had digged, and said to him: We have not found water; whence its name was called Oath [iuramentum].” Which to be falsely translated, Jerome shows from the very etymology of the name: “FOR what (Quae enim) etymology is [there],” saith he, “that it should for this cause be called ‘Oath,’ because they had not found water? — whereas the contrary also is done [stated] in the Hebrew, and Aquila and Symmachus in translating have agreed, that they found water, and that for this cause the well was named: [namely,] ‘Saturity,’ or ‘Abundance.’” And in the eighteenth Psalm, for that which is read in the Hebrew, “For the sun (Soli) he set a tabernacle in them” — that is, that God gave to the Sun in heaven a dwelling and a bridal-chamber, out of which, as a bridegroom, it should proceed in the early morning — the Seventy turned [it] in a contrary sense: [namely,] not that the sun was placed in a tabernacle, but that a tabernacle was placed in the sun, saying, ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔθετο τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ (en to helio etheto to skenoma autou), that is, “IN (In) the sun he set his tabernacle.” Which bred an occasion to the Manichaeans, that they should adore the sun; because from these words they had esteemed that Christ, after he ascended into heaven, had constituted for himself a dwelling in the sun, and thenceforth had dwelt in it as in [his] own tabernacle: for thus Augustine writes of the Manichaeans, in the twentieth book against Faustus.
5. There are MANY (Multa) [things] also which, from ignorance of the proper speech [idiom], seem to have been translated by the Seventy wrongly, and into an alien and diverse sense. Some examples of which Jerome adduced in the places already said. As in Genesis 30, where concerning the flocks of Jacob and Laban it is had in the Hebrew, “MADE (Facta) were those [things] which were of the late season Laban’s, and those of the first time Jacob’s” — the Seventy, the Hebrew words not being understood, turned [it], Ἐγένετο δὲ τὰ ἄσημα τοῦ Λαβάν, τὰ δὲ ἐπίσημα τοῦ Ἰακώβ (Egeneto de ta asema tou Laban, ta de episema tou Iakob), that is, “MADE (Facta) were, however, the un-notable [unmarked] Laban’s, but the notable [marked] Jacob’s”: which Jerome, in the book of Hebrew Questions, says pertains nothing to the sense [makes no difference to the meaning]. Likewise in Genesis 31, for that which is in the Hebrew, “HE CHANGED (Mutavit) my wage ten times [decem vicibus]” — the Seventy, deceived by unskillfulness of the proper word, turned [it] τῷ δέκα ἀρνῶν (… deka arnon), that is, “[with] ten lambs [decem agnis]”: whence Jerome, refuting them in the Hebrew Questions: “I know NOT (Nescio),” saith he, “by what opinion the Seventy, led [astray], put the Hebrew word מנים (monim) [as] ‘ten lambs’ — whereas it signifies rather a number than lambs: and finally, from the consequents [context] too the sense of number is the more proved. But Aquila also translated δέκα ἀριθμοὺς (deka arithmous — ten in number*); Symmachus indeed translated δεκάκις ἀριθμῷ (dekakis arithmo — tenfold, in number)* — each of them consenting with Jerome concerning the number.” Likewise in Genesis 35, for that which is read, “GOING FORTH (Egressus) thence, however, he came [a] כברת (chibratha)” — that is, according to Jerome, “in the vernal time [springtime],” or (as others expound) “as it were a stadium [furlong]” — the Seventy, not holding the propriety of the word, turned [it], “IN (In) the hippodrome”; which Jerome, in the aforesaid book, marvelling at: “I know NOT (Nescio),” saith he, “meaning what, the Seventy translated ‘hippodrome,’ since ‘chibrath’ cannot be a hippodrome.” These [things], out of the innumerable errors of this edition, let them be [a] few collected for example’s sake.
6. Although for all these [purposes] one single argument might suffice to show the utmost imperfection of this translation — namely, that unless grave and frequent lapses had been in it, in vain would Jerome have expended so much of labor and of vigils [wakeful nights], to publish a new translation from the Hebrew fount, and to furnish it to the Church to be read. Neither would the Church have received the edition of Jerome, so diverse from the interpretation of the Seventy, unless both Jerome and the Church had perceived that the translation of the Seventy departed much from the Hebrew verity, and in very many [places] erred not lightly. Let these [things be said] concerning the first version, of the Seventy interpreters.
7. But concerning the Latin (Latina) edition of the Old Testament — which they call the Old [Vetus] — it cannot be denied but that it was contaminated with all faults. For if the Greek edition of the Seventy interpreters abounded in so many depravations — whence [as its source] the Old Latin edition, as an impure rivulet from an impure fount, flowed forth — it is necessary that the Latin version too was deformed with much graver blemishes and errors: as also Jerome almost everywhere testifies, now cutting it back as superfluous and redundant, now supplying it as curtailed and amputated, now correcting and emending it as depraved, and in almost all the prefaces of the divine books always indicating its diverse faults. As in the preface of the book of Joshua, concerning the exemplars [copies] of the Old Latin edition, he complains in these words: “AMONG (Apud) the Latins,” saith he, “there are as many exemplars as codices, and each one has added, or subtracted, at his own pleasure, what seemed [good] to him; and assuredly that cannot be true which is dissonant.” And in the prefaces of the book of Job he complains that in the Vulgate edition the whole book of Job is torn and truncated, and that there are lacking in it above eight hundred verses; and that truly, among the Latins, that book, gnawed by the worms of errors, lies in the dung. But on the contrary, in the preface of the books of Esther and of Daniel, he damns the Old Vulgate edition, because it handles the sacred histories with ragged [tattered] endings of words, adding those [things] which can be said and heard extempore — as is wont to be done in the schools by those who, with feigned arguments, exercise themselves in writing history, excogitating what could have been said according to place, time, and persons: as was done in the book of Esther, in which six chapters are apposed [added] beyond the Hebrew verity; and in the book of Daniel, in which the judgment of Susanna, and the fables of Bel and of the Dragon, are added, outside the sum of the Hebrew narration.
(printed p. 670)
8. Concerning the edition (editione) of the Old Testament which is believed to be Jerome’s, this one [thing] first of all is certainly agreed: that it is not Jerome’s — Jerome himself being witness; who, in the preface of the book of Kings, speaking of his own edition, says that he changed nothing of the Hebrew verity. Which, assuredly, in the Vulgate edition of the Old Testament — which the Church now uses — we do not see to have been observed: since in it there are so many [things] which dissent from the Hebrew verity. To which this also accedes: that, out of so innumerable places which Jerome commemorates that he either emended, or turned otherwise, or judged ought to be read otherwise than they are now read, there is found in this our edition no place at all which corresponds either to Jerome’s castigation or at least to his judgment. Which will clearly appear, if we compare some places of our edition with those concerning which Jerome, in the book of Hebrew Questions, indicated his opinion. And first, in Genesis 3 [4], where our edition has: “HE HAD REGARD (Respexit), God, to Abel and to his gifts; but to Cain and to his gifts he had not regard” — Jerome, according to the interpretation of Theodotion, thought it ought to be read: “AND (Et) the Lord kindled [fire] upon Abel and upon his sacrifice, but upon Cain and upon his sacrifice he did not kindle [it]”; adding that this interpretation is most true, because Cain could not otherwise have known that God had accepted his brother’s gifts and repudiated his own, unless he had kindled his brother’s sacrifice according to Theodotion — fire being wont to come from heaven for devouring the sacrifice, as is read in the dedication of the temple under Solomon, and when Elijah built an altar on Mount Carmel. Likewise concerning that which our edition has in Genesis 3 [4]: “LET US GO FORTH (Egrediamur) abroad,” or “into the field” — Jerome thus writes: “And Cain said to Abel his brother” — [there] is understood, “those [things] which the Lord had spoken.” It is superfluous, therefore, that in the volume of the Samaritans, and in ours, there is read: “LET US GO FORTH (Egrediamur) abroad,” etc. Likewise in the second Psalm, for that which we now read, “LAY HOLD OF (Apprehendite) discipline” — Jerome, in the Apology against Rufinus, testifies that he turned [it]: “ADORE (Adorate) purely.” And in the exposition of Psalm 126, to Marcella, for that which we now read in that psalm, “THE SONS (Filii) of the shakers-out [excussorum]” — he says that he translated: “THE SONS (Filios) of youth [iuventutis],” as Theodotion had done: because in the Hebrew it is had, כן בני הנעורים (chen bene hannehurim — “so [are] the sons of youth”). From which places, and from many others of this kind, it is manifest that this edition is not Jerome’s. Which both Paul, bishop of Fossombrone [Forosemproniensis] (not to adduce meanwhile Münster and Luther), and very many others skilled in Hebrew letters affirm — esteeming that this our edition is either Theodotion’s, or Aquila’s, or Symmachus’s, which an interpreter of uncertain name turned into Latin, and — Jerome’s prefaces being appended [to it] — hawked [venditarit] it for Jerome’s edition. And yet neither was Jerome’s own edition (whatsoever it may have been) so perfect in every part that it could avoid just reprehension. For — to pass over Palladius the Galatian, who first of all reprehended it in so many places — Augustine, in the first epistle to Jerome, not only does not approve Jerome’s edition, but damns Jerome’s zeal in translating the Old Testament as superfluous, and exhorts him to desist from translating the Hebrew scriptures as from a rash undertaking. Rufinus too, in the second book against Jerome, thinks Jerome’s edition much worse than the Seventy’s, and accuses it of many crimes. Nicholas of Lyra likewise shows Jerome reprehensible in his translation — both elsewhere in many places, and especially in the forty-seventh Psalm, where at the close of it he thus says: “JEROME (Hieronimus), nevertheless, seems to say less well [rightly], because in all the Hebrew bibles which I have seen, עלמות (halmuth) here is one word [una dictio] — but why [dwell] on more [instances]?” Jerome himself, in his translation, confesses that he himself erred — in the commentaries upon Isaiah, chapter nineteen, where he thus says: “I think it BETTER (Melius) to reprehend my own error, than, while I blush to confess unskillfulness, to persist in error — [namely] in that which I translated, ‘AND the land of Judah shall be to Egypt for a festivity.’” And in Jeremiah, chapter six, he did not deny that he was ignorant of the signification of certain words.
9. But of whatsoever [authorship] this Vulgate edition be, it is manifest that it stands far from the Hebrew verity, and everywhere teems with innumerable blemishes — the names of places, cities, men, animals, and plants being frequently varied [altered]. As in Genesis 2, for that which is had, הבדלח (habbedolach), our edition has “bdellium” — whereas that signifies to the Hebrews, not bdellium, but a precious stone, on the testimony of Jerome, and also of Lyra. And for that which is put in our edition, “UNTO (Ad) the place [of] Shechem, even to the illustrious valley,” the Hebrew has אלון מורה (elon moreh) — that is, “the plain [planitiem] of Moreh”; for according to the Gerundensian [Nachmanides of Gerona] it is a man’s name. And [in] Genesis 27, for that which in the Hebrew is במרמה (bemirmah) — which according to Lyra signifies “PRUDENTLY (Prudenter)” — our edition has “FRAUDULENTLY (Fraudulenter).” And [in] Genesis 33, for קשיטה במאה (bemeah kesitah) — that is, “for a hundred coins [nummis], or oboli” — our [edition] has “for a hundred LAMBS (agnis).” Sometimes also it transmutes places into times, and times into places: as in Genesis 35, where these words are written to the letter [literally]: ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד כברת הארץ לבוא אפרתה (va isehu mibeth el, ve iehi hod chibrata ha arez labo ephratha — with printer’s slips for* vayyis’u mibbeth-el vay’hi ‘od kibrath ha-arets lavo ephratha*)*, that is, “And they set forth from Bethel, and there was yet as it were a stadium [furlong] of land to come to Ephratha” — for which our edition thus reads: “GOING FORTH (Egressus), however, thence, he came, in the vernal time, to the land which leads to Ephratha.” Sometimes it puts other deeds to have been done for others: as when, in Genesis 36, the scripture says that Anah found הימים (ha iemim) — that is, a new generation of mules — in the desert, our translation puts “hot waters,” which are nowhere found in that desert. Sometimes it puts senses altogether contrary to those which are had in the Hebrew, and ill-sounding in the faith: as in Genesis 6, for that which is read, לא ינון רוחי באדם לעלם (lo iadon ruchi baadam leolam), that is, “MY SPIRIT shall NOT (Non) judge in man for ever” — our edition has: “MY SPIRIT shall NOT (Non) remain [permanebit] [in man for ever].” Which interpretation Jero-
(printed p. 671)
9. [Which interpretation (“My spirit shall not remain”)] Jerome, in the book of Hebrew Questions, damns as cruel, because it makes God bloodthirsty and truculent: whereas rather that sentence, as it is had in the Hebrew, sounds the clemency of God. For he saith: “MY SPIRIT shall NOT (Non) judge in man for ever, because he is flesh” — that is, “because the condition in man is fragile, I will not keep them for eternal torments, but will here restore to them those [things] which they merit.” Therefore [it sounds] not severity, as it is read in our codices (saith Jerome), but the clemency of God — while the sinner is here visited for his own wickedness, lest in another age he be damned for ever. From these, therefore, and from similar places contained in our edition, we gather that the Church, before our times, never had a whole edition of the Old Testament.
10. But what is to be thought concerning the editions of the New (novi) Testament — and especially concerning that which, in Jerome’s time and before, was read in the Church — Jerome indicates in the preface to Damasus, esteeming it altogether unworthy that faith should be given to it: because there were as many exemplars of it as codices, and those [were] either badly edited by faulty interpreters, or perversely emended by unskilled presumers, or, by dozing copyists, either added to or changed — in which very many [things] discrepated from the Greek verity, and even from their own selves. But the new edition, which we now use, and which not only Erasmus alone, but also many other learned men, deny to be Jerome’s — it would require a proper work [of its own], if we should wish to comprehend its every error. But let those seven indices which the most diligent Erasmus prefixed to his edition suffice for explaining all its errors. In the first of which he digested the inexcusable solecisms admitted through [by] the interpreter. In the second he collected nearly all the obscure places, in which interpreters of great name have lapsed. In the third he set in order the manifestly depraved places. In the fourth, the places redundant in our edition. In the fifth he apposed the places deficient in our edition. In the sixth and seventh he subjoined the places changed by the interpreter, and wrongly inverted. From which anyone will easily recognize with how many blemishes, solecisms, barbarisms, amphibologies, hyperbata, and a thousand other errors our edition of the New Testament is stuffed. It remains, therefore, [to conclude] that the Church of the Christians has hitherto had no whole, faithful, true, and sincere translation of sacred scripture — which indeed we assumed from the beginning [as the thing] to be demonstrated.
DISSOLVTIO OBIECTORVM [The Dissolution of the Objections]
1. Although we know it to be the opinion of almost all the Hebrews that the Seventy interpreters published in Greek only the five books of Moses, we prefer nevertheless to follow the certain and undoubted opinion of all the Christian fathers in this matter, rather than, with the Judaizing heretics, to follow the uncertain opinions of the Jews. But among the fathers, chiefly the divine Jerome affirms that the Seventy translated not only the five books of Moses, but also all the books of the prophets. Which Eusebius had testified long before, in the eighth book of the Evangelical Preparation — in which he also rendered the cause why the books of the prophets ought to have been turned by the Seventy interpreters, thus writing: “WHEN (Cum) now the times of our Saviour seemed to draw more nearly nigh, and it was most conducive to the salvation of all nations to understand whatsoever had been written by the prophets, He set forth the Judaic scripture to all through the Greek tongue — which almost all nations understood. For either we should not have had it after the times of our Saviour, the Jews from envy concealing [it]; or they would have given us more corrupt [copies]; or, if they could rightly be had, the translators would easily be called into suspicion. Our Saviour, therefore, who as God provided all things, instilled the best disposition into Ptolemy king of the Egyptians, that through the Seventy Hebrew interpreters he might translate the books of the prophets.” But Epiphanius, in the little book On Weights and Measures, reports that not only the law and the Prophets, but also the rest of the books of the Old Testament — which he even names by name — were translated by them; and Origen before him thought the same, and, long before both, Philo the Jew: with whom the whole chorus of the Greek and Latin fathers consents. 17 Nor does Jerome discrepate anything from their consent — although (as the heretics object to us) he sometimes seemed to dissent; but rather he doubted out of others’ mind than out of his own, whether the Seventy had translated the whole Old Testament. For always, in all his commentaries, he confessed that the Seventy interpreters translated the whole Old Testament. Nay, in the commentaries on the Twelve Prophets, as he testifies of himself against Rufinus, he always, together with his own edition, also discussed the Septuagint interpretation under their name. And at last, what he thought of this matter, he opened in the same commentaries in these words: “ALTHOUGH (Quanquam) the learned approve that only the five books of Moses were translated by the Seventy — as Josephus, and the Hebrews [do] — yet we, having followed the authority of the ancients, of Irenaeus, Tertullian, [and] Origen, say that the whole Old Testament was translated by the Seventy.” But if, for the most part, Jerome contemns those Septuagint cells as published by an uncertain author, and wrote that the Seventy interpreters were not prophets and seers, but only interpreters — not for that reason does he yet deny that they translated with the Holy Spirit illuminating [them]: nay rather, that they, full of the Holy Spirit, and moved by the authority of the Holy Spirit, translated most truly, he constantly affirms in very many places, and especially in the preface of the book of Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. And although he asserted that they neither prophesied in interpreting, nor had the prophetic Spirit, nowhere nevertheless does he deny that they, imbued with the Holy Spirit, approached the translation of scripture. He denied indeed that they had the Spirit by which, foreseeing future things, they might divine and write [them]; but he did not deny that they had, within, the divine Spirit of understanding, and the afflatus of the interpretation of divine scripture — by the auspice of whose internal light they might convert, from one tongue into another, those [things] which had been written by the prophets. For the spirits of prophecy and of interpretation differ among themselves: this one interprets speeches [words], but that one prophesies things to come.
2. But as for those errors of which the Seventy are accused by the heretics — namely, that they [passed over] many testimonies of the prophets concerning Christ especially (praesertim)
(printed p. 672)
2. [that they passed over many testimonies of the prophets concerning Christ, and] especially (praesertim) [those] concerning the holy Trinity, in silence — Jerome defends them egregiously in many places, demonstrating that they omitted much concerning the sacraments [mysteries] of Christ, and the mysteries of the holy Trinity, neither negligently nor maliciously, but by a prudent and pious counsel. First, because, since they interpreted before the advent of Christ, they could not know many sacraments of the Christ to come, not yet in those ages fully perceived — God so disposing, that all the mysteries of his divinity should be reserved to be unfolded at the rising of the splendor of the evangelical light of Christ. And so, what they were ignorant of, or did not fully know, they either translated in doubtful and ambiguous sentences, or were altogether silent — willing rather to be well silent about the unknown, than, by speaking, to pronounce ill of those [things] which they knew not. Secondly, lest they should scandalize Ptolemy king of Alexandria, they concealed much concerning the Son of God and concerning his advent; lest perhaps the king, hearing that God had a Son, should have thought that the Jews, according to the dogma of Plato, held a double divine power [numen], and had two Gods — whom he therefore [would have] made much of [reckoned great], because they were said to worship one God. Thirdly, they were silent about many other sacraments also besides these, lest they should betray all the mysteries of their faith to the heathen — esteeming it unworthy, according to the sentence of Christ, to give the holy to dogs, and to cast pearls before swine. For these most just causes, therefore, Jerome hands down that so many [things] were omitted by the Seventy interpreters. 18
3. But concerning those [things] which were added by the same [interpreters], the divine Jerome, in the book On the Best Kind of Interpreting, shows that in those [places] the words are not to be considered, but the sense — to which the Seventy themselves added nothing of their own, although they adjoined certain words which were not in the Hebrew. But since they noticed that certain Hebrew senses could not so significantly pass into the Greek tongue with an equal number of words preserved, for that cause they sometimes added some diction[s], so that what they could not fully express with an equal number of words, they might — other words being added — express more significantly and more efficaciously. Which the apostles and evangelists also sometimes did: as we read in Mark, who, when he had introduced the Lord saying to the dead girl, “TALITHA CUMI” (printed “THABITHA CVMI”; Mark 5:41), immediately subjoined: “WHICH (Quod) is interpreted, Damsel (I say to thee) arise” — in the interpretation of whose sentence, two words, namely, I SAY TO THEE (Tibi dico), which are not in the Hebrew saying of Christ, he added of his own; and, that he might make the command of the commanding Christ ἐμφατικώτερον (emphatikoteron) — that is, more significant — and might more strongly express the sense of the one calling and commanding. 19 So too the Seventy, for the sake of emphasis, often added many words of their own: as when, among those words of the twenty-first psalm [Ps 22], “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?”, they interposed πρόσχες μοι (prosches moi — printed corruptly “πρόσχευσομοι”) — that is, “LOOK UPON ME (Respice in me)” — that they might more powerfully and vividly explain the affection of one supplicating and expostulating. And this is the one cause why the Seventy added some [things] of their own. But the other is the equivocation and multiple signification of words, which is wont to happen among the Hebrews more than in the other tongues of other nations — [namely] that one and the same word often signifies many [things]. Whence the Seventy, wishing for the most part to show the multiple signification of some Hebrew word, and seeing that it could not be done by a single word, by apposing several words, interpret several significations of the same word: as they did in Genesis 3, in the place remembered by the heretics — where, since in the Hebrew is written על גחון (al gachon), which signifies as well “upon the belly” as “upon the breast,” the Seventy, desiring to express both significations of the word, translated: ἐπὶ τῷ στήθει σου, καὶ τῇ κοιλίᾳ πορεύσῃ (epi to stethei sou, kai te koilia poreuse), that is, “UPON (Super) thy breast, and belly, shalt thou go.” Sometimes also it can happen that some [things] in the Hebrew codices — whether by malice, or negligence, or unskillfulness of the scribes — are omitted; which, since afterward they were found in the edition of the Septuagint interpreters (who translated from codices as yet whole), seem to have been apposed by the Seventy above [beyond] the Hebrew verity. As in those two places of Deuteronomy produced by the heretics, Jerome thinks it happened — who speaks thus of these in the commentaries on the Galatians, chapter three: “We hold it UNCERTAIN (Incertum), whether the Seventy added ‘EVERY MAN (Omnis homo)’ and ‘IN ALL (In omnibus)’; or whether it was so in the old Hebrew, and afterward was deleted by the Jews. But into this suspicion that thing goads me: that the word ‘EVERY,’ and ‘IN ALL,’ as if necessary to his sense for proving that [statement], that whosoever are of the works of the law are under a curse — the apostle Paul, a man of Hebrew skill, and most learned in the law, would never have produced, unless it were had in the Hebrew volumes. For which cause, re-reading the Hebrew volumes of the Samaritans, I found כל (cal) — which is interpreted ‘every,’ or ‘in all’ — to be written, and to concord with the Seventy interpreters. In vain, therefore, did the Jews take it away, lest they should seem to be under a curse if they could not fulfill all [things] which are written: since more ancient letters of another nation also testify that it was there placed.” Thus Jerome. But if the Manichaeans were scandalized by that word — esteeming that Moses blasphemed Christ, because he placed him under the universal curse of those who hang on a tree — this scandal was the heretics’ [own], taken not from the occasion of the scripture, but from their own malice: as if the apostle Paul also (whom the Manichaeans venerate) had not said that Christ was not only under a curse, but was even made by God sin, and a curse, for us — made, I say, a curse of his own will, not born as [the] sin which man had committed through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, [and] which he himself, hung [appended] on the tree, might blot out, as Augustine says against Faustus. And let these [things be said] concerning the places super-added by the Septuagint. 20
4. But concerning the places which among the Septuagint seem to fight with the Hebrew verity, Augustine rightly said, in the eighteenth book On the City of God, chapter forty-four, that there are many [things] among the Septuagint interpreters which — though they be thought to discrepate from the Hebrew verity — if they be well understood, will be found not to be contrary to it; and the divine Jerome [likewise], in the book On the Best Kind of Interpreting: “They DISCREPATE (Discrepant),” he says, “the [translation] of the Septuagint interpreters, and ours; and yet the variety of the speeches [words] concords in the unity of the spirit. Whence it is not (non) to be believed”
(printed p. 673)
4. [Whence it is not to be believed] that the Seventy ever turned anything into a contrary sense. But if they translated that place of Genesis 26 in another sense than the later interpreters did, the cause was that in the codices of their own time they had a diction [reading] contrary to that which Aquila and Symmachus had in their codices. Whereby it came to pass that their interpretation differed from the Septuagint interpretation. For that which the Seventy had in their exemplars — לא (lo), terminating in aleph, which signifies, namely, the negative particle NOT (Non) — the later interpreters, in their codices, perhaps by the carelessness of the scribes, the aleph being omitted, had לו (lo), which signifies the pronoun “to him,” or “to it.” Whence both the Seventy and the later [interpreters] most aptly translated what they had in their codices: those [the Seventy], according to the negating particle: “THE SERVANTS CAME, AND ANNOUNCED TO HIM; AND SAID: WE HAVE NOT FOUND WATER” (Venerunt servi, et nuntiaverunt ei; et dixerunt: Non invenimus aquam); but these [the later], according to the demonstrative particle: “THE SERVANTS CAME, AND ANNOUNCED TO HIM, AND SAID TO HIM: WE HAVE FOUND WATER” (Venerunt servi, et nuntiaverunt ei, et dixerunt ei: Invenimus aquam). But which of these is the true and genuine sense of that scripture, is not to be very anxiously inquired by us — since neither of them is adverse to the dogmas of our faith, and each can equally be fitted to the history. To me, nevertheless, the Septuagint interpretation seems more fitting, lest the pronoun “to him” be superfluously repeated once and again, without any necessity, when it is said, “the servants came, and announced to him, and said to him” — whereas it would have sufficed to have said once, “they announced to him, and said.” Nor does anything hinder [the objection] which they oppose concerning the etymology of the well — namely, that the denomination of “oath” cannot be deduced from waters not found: since neither the Seventy, nor Moses himself, said that the surname “oath” was derived from waters not found, but from the oath which, beside that same well, Isaac struck [swore] together with Abimelech and his friends banqueting with him — as appears a little above from the words of the history itself. Similarly, the place of the eighteenth psalm, if it be rightly weighed as to the mystical understanding, does not fight with the Hebrew verity. For that which, according to the dead letter, is read among the Hebrews: לשמש שם אהל בהם (la scemes sam ohel bahem), that is, “FOR THE SUN (Soli) he set a tabernacle in them” — the Seventy, transferring [it] according to the vivifying spirit, said: ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔθετο τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ (en to helio etheto to skenoma autou), that is, “IN (In) the sun he set his tabernacle” — thus, the divine Spirit dictating to them, that by those words might be designated the perpetual sacrament of Christ and of the Church, in which, as in a Sun, that divine Bridegroom, the Son of God (as Augustine, in the exposition of that psalm, says), placed his tabernacle and his perpetual habitation. Which spiritual and mystical sense, if the impious Manichaeans had followed [it], they would by no means have fallen into so great impiety as to exhibit that unique worship — which is owed to the immortal God alone — to a mortal and corruptible star [the sun].
5. But concerning the places which they charge to have been badly translated by the Seventy out of ignorance of the proper tongue, we respond that the Seventy are easily vindicated from that calumny out of the almost infinite places of their edition which — since they are far more obscure and more difficult than these which the detractors have indicated — make it perspicuous that the Seventy, being no less skilled in the Hebrew than in the Greek tongue, could not have erred in turning words so open [plain] as are מנים (monim) and כברת (chibrath). Therefore it is rather to be believed that errors of this kind happened by the fault of the copyists, than by the unskillfulness of the most learned interpreters. To assert which, two causes vehemently induce us. One, that Jerome — who detected all the defects of the Septuagint interpreters — nowhere noted them for unskillfulness [ignorance]. Nor do I know how John Reuchlin, in the third book of the Hebrew Institutions, dared to impute [impinge] upon Jerome that he sometimes damned the Septuagint interpreters for unskillfulness — since this is found in none of Jerome’s writings; but only this is found, that the Septuagint edition, corrupted by the fault of the scribes, did not remain in its purity. But the other cause is, that many of those [things] which Jerome adduces out of the Septuagint edition — which he read as vitiated — are now had emended in the Septuagint edition which the Greek Church reads. As [in] that [place] where Jerome marvels that the word “hippodrome” was placed by the Septuagint for the word כברת (chibrath): the Greek edition of the Septuagint themselves, of our time, does not so have [it], but, according to the Hebrew verity, thus: ἐγένετο δὲ ἡνίκα ἤγγισεν εἰς χιφραθά (egeneto de henika engisen eis chiphratha), that is, “IT CAME TO PASS (Factum est) after he had drawn near in Chiphratha.” Whence it clearly appears that the Greek codex of Jerome was in many [places] corrupt, and that he himself pronounced [judged] according to that which he had in his codex — not reprehending the Septuagint, but convicting those depravations which had crept into the Septuagint edition by the fault of the corrupters.
6. But that [thing] which they say — that the new labor [version] of Jerome most evidently convicts the Septuagint edition — is an old calumny, formerly also inflicted upon the divine Jerome by his own rivals; which he himself very often refuted throughout the several prefaces of the sacred books, showing that he undertook that labor not against the authority of the Septuagint interpreters, but for many other causes. Whence, against Rufinus (who had objected this same thing to him), he thus says: “I have (Ego) neither spoken anything against the Septuagint interpreters: whom, very many years ago, I gave, most diligently emended, to the studious of my tongue; whom daily I expound in the assembly of the brethren; whose psalms I chant by continual meditation. I should be a fool, to wish, as an old man, to forget what I learned in boyhood. All my treatises are woven with the testimonies of these [the Seventy]; my commentaries on the Twelve Prophets expound both my edition and the Septuagint edition,” etc. But the causes which impelled Jerome to this edition [his own] are these. First, that those [things] which in the Septuagint edition had been depraved by the fault of the scribes might be emended out of his interpretation. Which cause he himself indicates, in the preface of Paralipomenon, in these words: “IF (Si) the edition of the Septuagint interpreters had remained pure, and as it was turned by them into Greek, you would, in vain, O Chromatius — most holy and most learned of bishops — impel me to translate the Hebrew volumes into the Latin speech. For that which had once occupied the ears of men, and had strengthened the faith of the nascent Church, it was just to approve by our silence. But now, since, according to the variety of regions, diverse ex-[emplars are carried about]”
(printed p. 644)
6. [since, according to the variety of regions, diverse] exemplars [are carried about], and that ancient and genuine translation is corrupted and violated, you think it [pertains] to our judgment either to indicate, out of many, what is true, or to fashion a new work upon the old work.” Secondly, that he might restore, supply, and illustrate the many [things] which had been omitted by the Seventy, or obscurely translated for the causes already said: as he himself, writing in the preface to Job: “LET my dogs HEAR (Audiant),” he says, “that I labored in this volume, not to reprehend the ancient interpretation, but that those [things] which in it are obscure, or omitted, or certainly depraved by the fault of the scribes, I might make more manifest by our interpretation.” Thirdly, lest the Jews should any longer insult the Church of Christ, reproaching [it] that in the Hebrew it is not so had as the Church of Christ and the Septuagint interpreters read [it]; and lest the Jews should any longer have byways of subterfuge, if ever they should be pressed by the Christians in disputation, and be laid low by their own arms; nor would the Christians any longer have need to consult the Rabbis of the Jews, and implore their help, if ever a suit concerning the Hebrew verity should arise. Fourthly, that he might restrain exulting Greece (as he himself says in the preface to Ezra), and repress the proud haughtiness of the Greeks — who so extolled themselves over the Latins as to say that the Latins had nothing of the divine scriptures which they had not received on loan from the Greeks. Fifthly, to avoid the huge expenses of those who — wishing to find the truth from the collation of many exemplars — were compelled, at intolerable cost, to buy the exemplars of the Septuagint interpreters, of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Origen, Lucian, [and] Hesychius the presbyter, [and] of the fifth, sixth, and seventh edition, and many others, which could not be procured without great expenditure of money, and by the rich alone. Sixthly, that he might take away the occasion of confusion and error from those who handled the diverse exemplars without skill in Hebrew letters — who, since, out of ignorance of the Hebrew speech, they knew not how to discern which among so many interpreters had spoken more truly, erred the more gravely. Which [thing] Jerome, in the preface to Ezra, testifies happened even to a certain most wise man among the Greeks in his times, who, since he knew not Hebrew, often — leaving the sense of scripture — followed the error of each interpreter. Seventhly, that he might take away the dissension of both the Greek and the Latin churches concerning the edition of the Septuagint interpreters: which [churches], although they publicly handled the same Septuagint interpretation, yet did not (as Jerome writes in the preface to Paralipomenon) have the same exemplars of the same edition, but plainly diverse and mutually fighting [ones]. For Alexandria and Egypt used the edition of the Septuagint interpreters emended by Hesychius, presbyter of the Church of Jerusalem; but Constantinople, even to Antioch, read the same Septuagint edition, yet in other exemplars emended by Lucian the martyr, once presbyter of the Church of Antioch, and afterward bishop of Nicomedia; but the provinces midway between these read the Palestinian codices, which — elaborated by Origen — Eusebius and Pamphilus published. To take away, therefore, so great a [variety] of exemplars, Jerome undertook a new translation from the Hebrew. Eighthly, that he might aid the studies of the Latins in the tongues (as he himself, against Rufinus, is witness), and kindle the minds of his [countrymen] to the love of the holy tongue, and to the handling of the Hebrew exemplars, lest thenceforth we should have need of the help of the unbelieving Hebrews. These causes, therefore, impelled Jerome to the new edition; and the same moved the Latin Church, that, after the old Septuagint edition, they should receive the new interpretation of the divine Jerome. So much hitherto concerning the Septuagint interpreters.
7. From which the argument of those is entirely overturned, who inferred the old translation of the Old Testament among the Latins to be vitiated for this reason, that it had flowed from the vitiated edition of the Septuagint interpreters, as from a vitiated fount. Which [edition], since we have now shown to lack all fault, it cannot be that any fault was derived from it into the old Latin edition. If Jerome detected many errors in it, and corrected [them], not for that reason does it follow that the Latin Church before Jerome had no true and sincere edition of the Old Testament. For although some exemplars were once corrupt, which afterward Jerome corrected, it does not therefore follow that all the codices, however many the Church had, were universally and wholly corrupt. And be it [granted] that all were even corrupt in some [places], yet it cannot come to pass that all at once were depraved in the same places — so that that should remain whole and inviolate in no exemplar which was vitiated in many exemplars. It follows, therefore, that out of several corrupt codices — a collation of them being made with one another, or with the Greek codices — a true and whole translation of any place whatsoever could easily be had by the learned, who conferred exemplars of this kind into one; and really [indeed] was always had by these. We gather, therefore, against the opinion of the heretics, that, although the Church, in the several separate codices, did not have a sincere and whole translation of the Old Testament, nevertheless it never — in all [the codices] at once, and in the exemplars gathered from everywhere — lacked an exact and absolute translation of the Old Testament; but always, in that general universality of the codices, what was corrupt in one and another codex, that same [thing] remained whole and incorrupt in this or in another codex — God so protecting the codices of the scriptures, lest his Church should for any time be defrauded of the truth of the divine reading, but that it might have it [the truth] at least in the whole simultaneous compass of all the codices [together], which it could not have in the several separate codices. Nor does that which Jerome said weaken this our opinion — [namely] that the old Vulgate edition is deficient in many places (as in the book of Job, in which nearly eight hundred verses were lacking), and in very many other places superfluously redundant (as in the book of Esther, and in the book of Daniel). Because, as much as pertains to those [things] which are lacking, it is possible that in the codices which Jerome had seen — and which certain particular churches then used — those eight hundred verses, and also many other [things], were lacking, which nevertheless in the rest of the [codices] of the other church-
(printed p. 645)
7. [which nevertheless, in the rest of the codices of the other] churches, remained in the exemplars. For both the ancient edition of the book of Job, which Gregory discussed in the Morals, and the Greek edition of the Septuagint interpreters which now is extant, are found to have nothing less than the Hebrew exemplars and Jerome’s translation have. But as much as regards those [things] which are superfluous [redundant] in the Vulgate edition, it is manifest that the truth of the translation was never corrupted by these — because they were not put into that common edition as genuine and proper, but were added extrinsically as exoteric and apocryphal, for the supplement of the histories; and — with obeli and spits [veru] slaying [them] — were transfixed [marked], both in the Greek and in the Latin codices. Which [things], afterward, because they seemed piously and holily written and added, merited authority by the succession of time, and were received by the Church into the sacred canon.
8. Concerning the new edition of the Old Testament, which they deny to be Jerome’s, we respond that, just as it does not seem to be Jerome’s (for the causes adduced by the adversaries), so, for the same causes, it does not seem altogether other than [different from] Jerome’s interpretation. For just as they, from many places which in our edition are had otherwise than Jerome emended [them], argue that this edition is not that which Jerome translated from the Hebrew verity, so we too, by the same argument, can show that it is not entirely diverse from that interpretation of the divine Jerome — because in it many places are had just as Jerome testified that he had emended [them]. As [in] that [place] which in the Septuagint interpreters was read: “THE MEN (Viri) of Sodom were evil, and sinners in the sight of God.” He himself wished it to be read, as it is now read in our edition, without those two words, “in the sight of God.” And [in] Genesis 36 21, for that which the Seventy had, “GOING FORTH (Egressus) thence, he came into a hippodrome,” he says that he set “into the place of a hippodrome” [as] “in the vernal time,” as is read in our edition. And lest I wear away time in reviewing similar places of our edition corrected by Jerome, let whosoever will, inspect the Commentaries of Jerome on the prophets, in which he discusses two editions — namely the Septuagint’s, and his own translated from the Hebrew verity; and he will see that Jerome’s edition discrepates almost nothing from our Vulgate edition. Accordingly it is credible that this our Vulgate edition consists of two editions of Jerome: namely, of that which Jerome published according to the Hebrew verity, and of that which he himself translated from the Greek edition of the Septuagint interpreters. For the divine Jerome testifies that he did both — both in the Apology against Rufinus, and in almost all the Prefaces of the Old Testament. Which the Psalter of our edition also indicates: for that very [Psalter] is not the same which he translated for Sophronius according to the Hebrew verity, but another, which he writes (in the epistle to Sunias and Fretela) that he turned from the Septuagint edition. But howsoever it be, this is certainly most true: that Jerome’s edition was never damned [condemned] — either for unskillfulness in the tongues, or for falsity, as these [heretics] feign — but was, in a wonderful manner, praised by Augustine, Gregory, Isidore, and other most illustrious men. But if at some time Palladius the Galatian — envious of Jerome’s rival glory (whom Epiphanius, writing to John bishop of Jerusalem, admonished was to be shunned as a heretic) — and likewise Augustine, and Rufinus, and certain others, seemed to accuse this translation of Jerome, it is to be known that they disapproved not the form [manner] of interpreting, and the fidelity, but the occasion, the opportuneness, and the counsel of the translator — because they deemed it unlawful [nefas] to depart from the now-inveterate authority of the Septuagint interpreters, and esteemed that this new edition of Jerome could not be divulged without the greatest perturbation of the churches, and scandal of the faithful. And that he spoke to this sense, Augustine himself declares, when he wrote to Jerome concerning this matter, in these words: “I indeed (Ego sane) would rather that you interpret for us the Greek canonical Scriptures, which are reported [to be established] by the authority of the Septuagint interpreters. For it will be very hard, if your interpretation shall have begun to be read more frequently throughout many churches, that the Latin churches should be dissonant from the Greek — chiefly because the gainsayer is easily convicted, the Greek book being produced, that is, [the book] of a most-known tongue. But if anyone, in that which is translated from the Hebrew, shall be moved by anything unusual, and shall charge the crime of falsity — either scarcely, or never, does one come to the Hebrew testimonies by which the objection may be defended. And if even it be come to them, who would bear that so many Latin and Greek authorities be damned?” By which words it appears that Augustine disapproved in Jerome not the form of interpretation, but the untimely office of translating. But as for that [fact], that Jerome sometimes confesses himself to have lapsed, and even not to have understood certain Hebrew words — this derogates nothing from the authority of his edition, since he himself diligently emended those [things] in which he had recognized that he had erred. As he did in the place adduced by the heretics from Isaiah: in which, when he had badly translated “FESTIVITY (Festivitatem),” afterward, emending the place, he put, for “festivity,” “FEAR (Pavorem).” But concerning those words the significations of which he ingenuously confessed himself to be ignorant, this is not to be turned to his fault, as [though] to an unskilled [man], but is to be imputed to the words [themselves], now obsolete by too great age and antiquity. Just as no one will give it for a fault to the most illustrious orator Marcus Tullius [Cicero], that he confessed himself ignorant of many words antiquated by age, which were read in Varro and Cato: such as “nasciterna,” “scutriscum,” “urpex,” “to make lessum,” and other dictions of this kind — to which all those words are nothing dissimilar, whose signification Jerome did not deny that he knew not.
9. But to that [charge] in which they accuse [it], saying that our Vulgate edition — of whatsoever [authorship] it be — discrepates utterly from the Hebrew verity, we say that, although in the words it sometimes discords from the Hebrew, yet everywhere it concords in the truth of the sense, and in the unity of the sentence [meaning]. Nor is it a marvel if in the words it sometimes dissents from the Hebrew, since it (as has been said) was not purely and simply deduced from the Hebrew fount, but mixedly and confusedly taken from the two editions of Jerome — of which he himself translated the one from the Hebrew fount, the other from the Greek verity. Although neither in the words themselves would our edition, if it be diligently considered, [discrepate] from the He-
(printed p. 646)
9. [our edition, if diligently considered, would not] dissent from the Hebrew verity, except in certain dictions, in which the interpreters are necessarily compelled to vary from the exemplars, and to dissent somewhat among themselves — namely, when there occur to them certain ambiguous and uncertain words. But the Hebrew dictions are rendered uncertain to the interpreters for many causes. For sometimes the codices which the interpreters use in translating are destitute of vowel points: such as was the codex which Jerome used, and such as is now the volume of the law which the Jews commonly use in the synagogues. Since, therefore, the letters are not distinguished by their little marks [points], and there occur some dictions written with the same letters, then those [dictions] can be read and translated in many ways. As the word שם (Sem [shem]), written without the apices, the points being added, can be read שם (Scem) — and then it signifies “name”; or שם (Sciam [sham]) — and then it denotes “there,” or “in that place”; or שם (sam) — which signifies “he set”; or שם (Scam) — which sounds [means] “desolate.” But sometimes, as we have said, there occur certain very ancient names of places, animals, plants, and stones, the significations of which — even among the Hebrews themselves — have perished by the antiquity of the word and the long duration of time. Sometimes there occur dictions written with the same letters, and distinguished by almost similar points: as happens in these two words, שם (Sciam) and שם (Scem). In which, if those two points “Zere” (..), which are placed under one of those dictions, should — either by a slip of the pen, or by the carelessness of the writer — become a little nearer to one another, they will make the form of the point “Patach” (_), which was placed under the other diction; and thus a transition from one signification to another will come about. Sometimes also it happens that dictions are varied by the writers on account of the too great similitude of the letters among themselves: as if anyone, for כל (cal — “all”), which signifies “every [all],” should write בל (bal), which in the sixth chapter of Daniel signifies “heart.” Since, therefore, by these and other such causes it often happens that the interpreters are impeded, they are not to be damned if sometimes, in a few places, they fall short of the truth of the Hebrew reading. Such certainly are those [places] which these sharp-nosed [captious] heretics object to our interpreter: as הבדלח (habbedolach), which — on the testimony of Josephus, Jerome, and R. Kimchi — signifies both “bdellium” and a stone of sufferings [a gem], a union [pearl], onyx, crystal, and carbuncle; and אלון (alon), which can be translated not only for “valley” and “plain,” but also for “oak,” as Augustine, bishop of Chisamus, noted; and במרמה (bemirma), which signifies “WITH GUILE (Cum dolo)” and “with prudence”; and for “Chibrath,” which, according to the Septuagint, signifies “a place,” and, according to Jerome, “the vernal time [spring],” and, according to David Kimchi, “a certain measure of a journey”; and that [word] likewise which is read in Genesis 6: לא ידון (Lo Iadon), which signifies both “to judge,” and “to remain,” and, as it were, “to sit as a judge.” Whence also the Seventy — whom our interpreter followed — rightly translated οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ (ou me katameine), “IT SHALL NOT REMAIN (Non permanebit)”: so that the sense is, “My spirit shall not remain, or sit as judge, in man” — which is the same as if you should say, “My spirit shall not judge in man.” From which it clearly appears that our edition rarely discrepates from the Hebrew verity in the words, and never in the sentence [meaning].
10. But concerning both Latin editions of the New Testament — and first concerning the new one — we do not much care whether it be of the divine Jerome or not, since that cannot be known clearly enough from his writings; and it rather appears that he emended that old edition of the New Testament, than that he published a new edition into a wholly new Testament. Because he himself, in the catalogue of Illustrious Men, writes that he restored [gave back] the New Testament to the Greek fidelity [verity], but translated the Old according to the Hebrew verity. Which words indeed indicate that he himself set a distinction between “translating according to the Hebrew fidelity,” and “rendering to the Greek fidelity”; and that by these [words] he signified that he did not translate the New Testament from the Greek, but only corrected [it]. Which he also intimates in the preface of the Gospels to Damasus, saying: “THEREFORE (Igitur), this present little preface promises the four Gospels — a collation of Greek codices, but of old ones, being emended; nor, in those [places] which did not much discrepate from the custom of the Latin reading, have we so tempered the pen [as to change all]; but, those only being corrected which seemed to change the sense, we have suffered the rest to remain as they were.” And in the preface of the seven canonical [epistles], to Eustochium: “THE EVANGELISTS (Evangelistas),” he says, “we lately corrected to the line of the Greek verity.” From which it appears that Jerome rather emended the New Testament, previously turned by others, than that he again turned it from the Greek into Latin. And it is likely that this our edition is that which Jerome emended. But concerning the errors which Jerome noted in the old translation, and which more recent [scholars] have likewise noted in this new edition, we too ingenuously confess that many errors were emended by Jerome in the old translation; and that likewise, in this our new edition, there are found some blemishes, solecisms, barbarisms, hyperbata, and many [things] turned little aptly, and less Latinly expressed, obscurely and ambiguously interpreted; and likewise some [things] super-added, some omitted, certain [things] transposed, changed, and depraved by the fault of the scribes — which Sanctes Pagninus, Thomas Cajetan, Franciscus Forerius, and Jerome Oleaster (men most learned, of the Dominican Order) have indicated in their interpretations and explanations. Nevertheless, it does not follow from these [things] that the Church, even to this day, has not had a true, sincere, whole, and faithful edition of the New Testament: because, although errors of this kind are found in it, it is nevertheless certain that neither in the old, nor in the new, edition was anything ever found which
(printed p. 647)
10. [It does not follow that the Church has had no true New-Testament edition — nor is it] because so many most learned and most holy [doctors of the] Church either did not recognize those errors, or approved them, but because they saw themselves impelled, by just causes, to dissimulate [overlook] them. First, because they had noticed that no peril in faith and morals threatened from these so light errors. Then, lest the faithful should be offended by the importunate and too-exact novelty of correction — [the faithful] whose ears, even from infancy, that old edition had occupied [filled]. Lastly, that they might venerate that ancient edition, which had educated [nourished] the faith of the nascent Church, and had strengthened and exalted [the faith] of the growing [Church]; and that they might honor, by their own approbation, that holy and venerable simplicity of the ancient interpreter — who sought not the ornament of speech, but the truth of the history; and might follow the footsteps of their elders [ancestors], who, led by a certain sacred piety, tolerated those same errors, by the example of the holy apostles — who, although they knew that the edition of the Septuagint interpreters was redundant in many [places], and deficient in many, nevertheless did not contemn it, but everywhere preached it, and from it laid the first foundations of our faith. It is therefore rash — nay, plainly heretical — on account of certain light defects which are found in our Vulgate edition (without any detriment of faith and morals), to spurn it and cast it away, and to introduce in its place new and profane translations of the heretics: especially after the decree of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, whose words, approving the Vulgate edition, thus stand: “The Most Holy Synod (Sacrosancta Synodus), considering that no little utility can accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which — out of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in circulation — is to be held for authentic: establishes and declares, that this very old and Vulgate edition, which by the long use of so many ages has been approved in the Church itself, be held for authentic in public readings, disputations, and expositions; and that no one dare, or presume, to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.” And let these [things] concerning the translations of the divine scripture have been said — more prolixly, perhaps, than was fitting.
The End of the Eighth and last book of this [work]. (Octavi & ultimi huius libri Finis.)
Footnotes
-
ch. 13 (of Philastrius) (cap. 13). ↩
-
Genesis 36 (Gen. — printed “37”). ↩
-
Jonah 4 (Iona 4). ↩
-
John 1 (Ioan. 1); Romans 9 (Rom. 9); Psalm 88 (Psal. 88). ↩
-
Canticle 2 (Cant. 2); Canticle 7 (Cant. 7); Canticle 5 (printed unclear). ↩
-
John 1 (Ioan. 1); Acts 2 (printed unclear). ↩
-
[Augustine, City of God 18] ch. 43 (cap. 43). ↩
-
ch. 1 (cap. 1); ch. 43 (cap. 43). ↩
-
Isidore, book 6 of the Etymologies, ch. 5 (Isi. lib. 6. et[ym.] cap. 5). ↩
-
Jerome in the preface to Isaiah (Hie. in praef. Esaiae). ↩
-
ch. 24 (of Irenaeus, book 3) (cap. 24). ↩
-
[Augustine,] book 18 of the City of God, ch. 43 (Li. 18. de Ci[vit.] Dei, cap. 43); Eusebius, book 6 of the [Ecclesiastical] History, ch. 33 (Euseb. lib. 6. hist. cap. 33). ↩
-
ch. 43 (cap. 43); ch. 13 (cap. 13). ↩
-
ch. 43 (cap. 43); [Isidore,] book 6 of the Etymologies, ch. 5 (Lib. 6. etym. Cap. 5). ↩
-
ch. 43 (cap. 43). ↩
-
Hosea 11 and Matthew 2 (Ose. 11 & Mat. 2); Isaiah 2 and Matthew 2 (Esa. 2 & Mat. 2); Zechariah 13 (Zach. 13); John 19 (Ioan. 19); Proverbs 18 (Prou. 18); John 7 (Ioan. 7); Isaiah 64 (Esa. 64); 1 Corinthians 2 (1. Cor. 2). ↩
-
ch. 1 (cap. 1). ↩
-
Jerome in the preface to the Pentateuch (Hier. in praefat. Pentateuchi). ↩
-
Mark 9 (Mar. 9) — the phrase “Talitha cumi” stands at Mark 5:41. ↩
-
Galatians 3 (Gal. 3. b). ↩
-
recte 35 ↩