Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| In proof of this, I bring forward the prefaces to my Translation of the Books from Genesis to Isaiah.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
25. All my prefaces to the
books of the Old Testament, some specimens of which I subjoin, are
witnesses for me on this point; and it is needless to state the matter
otherwise than it is stated in them. I will begin therefore with
Genesis. The Prologue is as follows:
I have received letters so long
and eagerly desired from my dear Desiderius3137
| 3137 In the original there is a play upon words—Desiderit
desideratas. | who, as if the future had been
foreseen, shares his name with Daniel,3138
entreating me to put our friends in
possession of a translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Latin.
The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the3139
attacks of my calumniators, who
maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to
work to forge a new version to take the place of the old. They thus
test ability as they do wine; whereas I have again and again declared
that I dutifully offer, in the Tabernacle of God what I can, and have
pointed out that the great gifts which one man brings are not marred by
the inferior gifts of another. But I was stimulated to undertake the
task by the zeal of Origen, who blended with the old edition
Theodotion’s translation and used throughout the work as
distinguishing marks the asterisk * and the obelus
†, that is the star and the spit, the first of which makes what
had previously been defective to beam with light, while the other
transfixes and slaughters all that was superfluous. But I was
encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the
Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old
Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example,
‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. ii. 15): ‘For he
shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They
shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John xix. 37): and
‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’
(John
vii. 38): and ‘Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor
have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them
that love him’ (1 Cor. ii. 9), and many other
passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then
where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let
us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea,
(xi. 1), the second in Isaiah
(xi. 1), the third in
Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in
Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in
Isaiah (lxiv. 4). Being ignorant of all
this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the
inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain.3140
| 3140 The
passage is explained by Jerome’s own words in the commentary on
Is. lxiv. “Certain silly women in Spain, and especially in
Lusitania, have been deceived into accepting as truth the marvels of
Basilides and Balsaneus’ treasury, and even of Barbelo and
Leusiboras.” Jerome goes on to add that Irenæus in
explaining the origin of many heresies pointed out that the Gnostics
deceived many noble women of the parts of Gaul about the Rhone, and
afterwards those of Spain, framing a system partly of myths partly of
immorality, and calling their folly by the name of philosophy. See
also, Ep. Jer. Letter 120 to Hedibia, and Com. on Amos cf.
III. | It is not for me to explain the causes of
the error. The Jews say it was deliberately and wisely done to
prevent3141
| 3141 That is Ptolemy commonly known as the son of Lagus, but the
reputed son of Philip of Macedon by Arsinoë Philip’s
concubine. He reigned over Egypt from b.c.
323–285. He was a great patron of learning, and, according to
traditions current among the fathers, wishing to adorn his Alexandrian
library with the writings of all nations, he requested the Jews of
Jerusalem to furnish him with a Greek version of their Scriptures, and
thus originated the Septuagint. | Ptolemy who was a monotheist from
thinking the Hebrews acknowledged two deities. And that which chiefly
influenced them in thus acting was the fact that the king appeared to
be falling into Platonism. In a word, wherever Scripture evidenced some
sacred truth respecting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they either
translated the passage differently, or passed it over altogether in
silence, so that they might both satisfy the king, and not divulge the
secrets of the faith. I do not know whose false imagination led him to
invent the story of the3142
| 3142 Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, and Augustine among the
Latins, adhere to the inspiration of the translators which Jerome here
rejects. | seventy cells
at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the
translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas,3143
| 3143 Aristeas was an officer of Ptolemy Philadelphus, son and successor
of Ptolemy Lagus. The so-called letter of Aristeas to his brother
Philocrates is still extant in Hody’s De Bibliorum Textibus
Originalbus, etc. (Oxon. 1705), and separately in a small volume
published at Oxford 1692. | the champion of that same Ptolemy, and
Josephus, long after, relate nothing of the kind; their account is that
the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not
prophesy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a
translator. The former through the Spirit, foretells things to come;
the latter must use his learning and facility in speech to translate
what he understands. It can hardly be that we must suppose Tully was
inspired with oratorical spirit when he translated Xenophon’s
Œconomics, Plato’s Protagoras, and the oration of
Demosthenes in defence of Ctesiphon. Otherwise the Holy Spirit must
have quoted the same books in one sense through the Seventy
Translators, in another through the Apostles, so that, whereas they
said nothing of a given matter, these falsely affirm that it was so
written. What then? Are we condemning our predecessors? By no means;
but following the zealous labours of those who have preceded us we
contribute such work as lies in our power in the name of the Lord. They
translated before the Advent of Christ, and expressed in ambiguous
terms that which they knew not. We after His Passion and Resurrection
write not prophecy so much as history. For one style is suitable to
what we hear, another to what we see. The better we understand a
subject, the better we describe it. Hearken then, my rival: listen, my
calumniator; I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am
bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle
through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the
classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets
(1
Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11), while interpreters
occupy almost the lowest place. Why are you tormented with jealousy?
Why do you inflame the minds of the ignorant against me? Wherever in
translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews, consult their
teachers in different towns. The words which exist in their Scriptures
concerning Christ your copies do not contain. The case is different if
they have3144
| 3144 Reading reprobaverunt. | rejected passages which were
afterward used against them by the Apostles, and the Latin texts are
more correct than the Greek, the Greek than the Hebrew.
[Chapters 26 to 32 are taken up
with the quotation, almost in full, of the Preface to the Vulgate
translation of the books of the Old Testament. It is unnecessary to
give them here. They have all the same design as the Preface to Genesis
already given, namely to meet the objections of those who represented
the work as a reproach to the LXX which was then supposed to have
almost the authority of inspiration. The same arguments, illustrations,
and even words, are reiterated. Readers who may desire to go more fully
into Jerome’s statements will find these Prefaces translated at
length in his works, Vol. VI of this Series.] E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
