Letter 106. To Sunnias and Fretela.
A long letter in which Jerome answers a number of questions put to him by two sojourners in Getica, Sunnias and Fretela. Diligent students of scripture, these men were at a loss to understand the frequent differences between Jerome's Latin psalter of 383 a.d. (the so-called Roman psalter) and the LXX, and accordingly sent him a long list of passages with a request for explanation. Jerome in his reply deals fully with all these and points out to his correspondents that they have been misled by their edition of the LXX. (the "common" edition) which differs widely from the critical text of Origen as given in the Hexapla and used by himself. He also expresses his joy to find that even among the Getae the scriptures are now diligently studied. The date of the letter is about 403 a.d. Translated by Michael Metlen . With parallel Latin .
To My Beloved Brethren Sunja and Frithila and All Those Who with You are Serving the Lord, Hieronymus.
1. Certainly these apostolic and prophetic words have been fulfilled in you: Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world?2 Who would believe that the barbarous language of the Goths would try to compete with the Hebrew in establishing the true text of the Scriptures, and that, while the Greeks are indolent and contentious, even Germany3 would scrutinize the words of the Holy Spirit? Truly I have found out that God is no respecter of persons, but that among every nation he who feareth him and cloth what is right will be acceptable to him.4 Already the hands callous from wielding the sword, and the fingers fitter to handle the bow are getting accustomed to using the pen, and the men hardened in warfare are learning Christian gentleness. Now we see the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled indeed: They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation will not lift up the sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more.5 And again in the same: The wolf will eat with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the bull will feed together, and a little child will lead them; and the cow and the bear will eat together, and their young ones will be friends, and the lion and the ox will eat straw,6 not in order that meekness shall become ferocious, but that ferocity shall learn meekness.
2. You are requesting of me a difficult thing and one beset with trouble, a matter which does not require so much of ingenuity as rather learning, exposing me, as it does, while trying to judge about others, to public criticism. You wish namely, according to your letter, that I indicate to you, wherever there is in the Psalter a discrepancy between the Latin and Greek texts, which of the readings in question expresses the corresponding Hebrew text more faithfully. In connection with this let me advise you at the outset briefly that there is one edition which Origines and Eusebius of Caesarea and all Greek writers call the κοινή,7 that is, the common or vulgar text, and which now goes mostly by the name of Lukian, the other is the Septuagint, which is also to be found in the Hexapla8 and has been translated by me faithfully into Latin, and is used at Jerusalem and in the oriental churches. About this matter also my holy son Avitus has inquired often, and since our brother, the presbyter Firmus, who brought me your letter, affords me a chance, I am going to answer it jointly, thus acquitting myself of a duty of friendship which cannot be exaggerated. And as, in dealing with the New Testament, whenever among the Latin writers a doubt arises, and there occurs a discrepancy between individual copies, we have recourse to the original Greek, in which the New Testament was written, so also in the Old Testament, if there are discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts, we go back to the Hebrew, in order that we may trace to their origins the individual variant readings. The κοινή that is the common edition, however, is the same as the Septuagint, but with the difference that the κοινή is the old edition, which became corrupted through the whims of the individual writers and the accidents of the times and of the places [where the copies were made],9 whereas the one which is contained in the Hexapla and which I have translated is the pure and unadulterated version of the Septuagint, as it is found in the texts of learned scholars. There is no doubt that whatever differs from this differs also from the Hebrew text.10
3. Your first question concerns the place in the 5th Psalm: Neque habitabit juxta te malignus which reads in the Greek: οὔτε παροικήσει σοι πονηρὸς, which reading the vulgar11 edition contains; and you are wondering why the Latin translator has not rendered the word παροικίαν by "incolatum," and why he has used instead the word "habitationem," which is in the Greek κατοικία. He has done the same in another place, viz. in: Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est. And in the 14th Psalm he uses again "habitationem" for "incolatu": Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo ? It is to be noted that if we want to say: "Domine, quis incolet tabernaculum tuum ?"," or in the 5th Psalm, "Neque incolet juxta te malignus," it won't sound right and, while translating literally, the rendering will not be correct. It should, therefore, be the rule of a good translator to express the idioms of a foreign language by the corresponding idioms of his own tongue. This also Tullius has done in Plato's Protagora and in the Οἰκονομικῷ of Xenophon and in the Oration of Demosthenes against Aeschines, as well as the very learned men Plautus, Terence, and Caelius in their translations of Greek comedies. Nobody should, however, on that account consider the Latin language not flexible enough because it cannot translate literally [and idiomatically at one and the same time],9 since the Greeks, too, mostly translate our works idiomatically and take care also not to render the Hebrew literally, but idiomatically.
4. In the same Psalm: Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam. For this the Greek has: κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιον σου τὴν ὁδόν μου, that is: “Dirige in conspectu tuo viam meam”; the former version neither the Septuagint has, nor Aquila, nor Symmachus, nor Theodotion, but only the κοινή edition. Finally, I have found also in the Hebrew this reading: oser laphanoi darchach, which all [not mentioned]9 have translated the same way: “Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam,” according to what is said also in the Lord’s Prayer: Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. This does not mean that by our prayers should be hallowed what is holy in itself, but it means that we are praying that that which is sacred in virtue of its own nature be also hallowed in us. In the same way the prophet is now also asking that the way of the Lord, which is right in itself, be made likewise right for him.
5. In Psalm 6: Erubescant et conturbentur vehementer omnes inimici mei. You say that “vehementer” is not found in the Greek. I know it, but the Vulgate11 has it. Besides, there is in the Hebrew the word mod, which means “vehementer,” and all have translated σφόδρα similarly.
6. In Psalm 7: Judica me, domine, secundum justitiam meam, for which the Greek has κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, that is, “juxta justitiam tuam.” But that is wrong, for the Hebrew has sedechi, which is “justitia mea,” and not “sedecach,” which means “justitiam tuam.” But all translators have likewise rendered “justitiam meam.” And nobody should think it foolish that the Psalmist asks to be judged according to his own justice, since the following verse means the same thing: Et secundum innocentiam meam super me, while also the 16th Psalm starts this way: Exaudi, domine, justitiam meam, and the 17th has this: Retribuet mihi dominus secundum justitiam meam et secundum puritatem manuum mearum reddet mihi. Furthermore, we find also in the 25th Psalm this reading: Proba me, domine, et tempta me; ure renes meos et cor meum, and in the 4th: Quum invocarem, exaudivit me Deus justitiæ meæ, and in the 85th: Custodi animam meam, quoniam sanctus sum. Jacob also says in Genesis: Exaudiet me cras justitia mea.
7. In Psalm 8: Quoniam videbo cælos tuos. You say that the Greek does not have “tuos.” That is true, but in the Hebrew we find samacha, which means “cælos tuos,” and which has been added in the Septuagint from Theodotion’s text under an asterisk. Here I shall briefly explain this matter. Whenever there occurs in the Greek an omission, which the Hebrew has, Origenes added such omission from Theodotion’s translation, putting an asterisk — that is a star — in order that it should light up and make clear that which was previously obscure. On the other hand, whenever something is found in the Greek texts which is not in the Hebrew, he placed an obelus in front of it, that is, a horizontal line, which we may call in Latin a dart [in English an arrow]9 to indicate that that which is not found in the authentic texts should be extirpated. These signs are also found in Greek and Latin poems.
8. Psalm 14: Oculi tui videant æquitates. [You say that in the Greek]12 you have read: οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου, that is, “oculi mei.” But it is more correct to say “oculi tui” because the prophet had said before: De vultu tuo judicium meum prodeat, in order that God’s eyes should not see in the work of the prophet the wrong but the right things. In the same: Custodi me ut pupillam oculi. You say that your Greek version is: Custodi me, Domine. This is found, however, neither in the Hebrew, nor in any translator. In the same: Exurge, Domine, præveni eum et supplanta eum. For this you say the Greek has πρόφθασον αὐτούς, that is, “Præveni eos et supplanta eos.” The singular number is here better, however, if the statement is made concerning the evil one, to whom applies also what immediately follows: Præveni eum et supplanta eum ; eripe animam meam ab impio. There is no doubt that this refers to the devil.
9. Psalm 17: Grando et carbones ignis, and you ask why in the Greek text not two other verses are inserted before the repetition of this one. It is to be noted, however, that this one has been added, in the Septuagint, under an asterisk from the Hebrew and the text of Theodotion. In the same: Qui perfecit pedes meos tamquam cervorum. For this you say the Greek has: ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου, that is, “tamquam cervi,” using the singular number for the plural. But in the Hebrew the plural “chaialoth” is used, and all translators have used the plural here. In the same: Et dedisti mihi protectionem salutis tuæ. For this you say you have read in the Greek: τῆς σωτηρίας μου, that is, “salutis meæ.” But in the Hebrew “iesacha” means “salutis tuæ” and not “meæ.” And all translators have this reading. In the same: Supplantasti insurgentes in me subtus me. For this you say you have found in the Greek: Omnes insurgentes . However, “omnes” has been added. In the same: Vivit Dominus et benedictus Deus meus. You say that in the Greek “meus” is lacking. This has not been added under an asterisk, but has been translated from the Hebrew by the very translators of the Septuagint, and all translators agree in this particular. In the same: Liberator meus de gentibus iracundis. For this you say you have found in the Greek: “Ab inimicis meis fortibus,” or “potentibus.” But since we are interested in the truth, let me say that if anything has been changed owing to the hurry of the translator or the fault of the transcriber, we simply have to admit it and correct the wrong form. The Hebrew has nothing else but: “Liberator meus ab inimicis meis.” The translators of the Septuagint, however, have added “iracundis.” And for “gentibus” the Greek text and all translators have “inimici.” I wonder how the form “gentes” has slipped in for “inimicis.”
10. Psalm 18: Exultavit ut gigas ad currendam viam suam. You say that in the Greek “suam” does not occur. But we find this word added here under an arrow, and it is apparent that it does not occur in the Hebrew.
11. Psalm 19: Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum. You say that you have found that in the Greek the name of the Lord is added in this verse. This is superfluous because it is understood from the context of the preceding words {Ἐπακούσαι σου Κύριος} with which the Psalm begins: “Exaudiat te Dominus in die tribulationis,” so that the Psalmist continues here in the same vein: Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum, which statement refers to the Lord himself who has been mentioned before. In the same: Et exaudi nos in die, qua invocaverimus te. For this you say you have read: “in quocumque die.” But the former reading agrees with the Hebrew, where we find biom, which means “in die.”
12. Psalm 21: Tu autem, Domine, ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me. For this you say you have found “meum.” This is true and should be corrected accordingly. In short: If anything has been changed through an error of the transcribers, it would be foolish to defend such error. In the same: Universum semen Jacob, magnificate eum. For this you say the Greek has: δοξάσατε αὐτόν, that is: “glorificate eum.” But it is to be noted that wherever the Greek has “glorificate,” the Latin translator has rendered this by “magnificate,” on the basis of what is said in Exodus: Cantemus Domino; gloriose enim magnificatus est, for which in the Greek “glorificatus est” is written. This, however, sounds awkward in the Latin translation, so that I, when revising the Psalter, did not want to deviate from the practice of the old translators, provided no change of sense was involved, in order not to disturb the reader by too many innovations.
13. Psalm 22: Calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est. For this you say you have read in the Greek: “calix tuus.” But in the κοινή version this reading is a mistake. Besides, the Septuagint, the Hebrew and all translators have calix meus, which means in the Hebrew chosi; for calix tuus would be chosach.
14. Psalm 24: Confundantur omnes iniqua agentes. You say that “omnes” does not occur in the Greek. That’s right, for it does not occur in the Hebrew either, and it is added in the Septuagint under an arrow. In the same: Innocentes et recti adhæserunt mihi, quia sustinui te, and you say that you have found “Domine” in the Greek. This, however, is superfluous.
15. Psalm 26: Et nunc ecce exaltavit caput meum. But “ecce” is superfluous. In the same: Exquisivit facies mea, for which you say the Greek has: Quaesivit te facies mea. The former reading is the better one, however.
16. Psalm 27: Exaudi vocem deprecationis meæ, for which you say you have found: Exaudi, Domine. But “Domine” also has been added.
17. Psalm 28: Et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam. For this you say the Greek contains πᾶς τίς. But if we should want to translate verbatim “omnis quis,” the result would be a mere transliteration and an absurd rendering. In the same: Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit, for which you say you have read: Dominus diluvium inhabitat. The former rendering refers to the blessings of the faithful, the latter to the dwelling place of him in whom they believe. However, since iasaph is an ambiguous word which may mean either of two things — for it signifies both “sessio” and “habitatio” and refers in the Psalm in question to the grace of Baptism: Vox Domini super aquas ; Dominus super aquas multas; and Vox Domini præparantis cervos et revelabit condensa, et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam —, I prefer to understand it of those who glorify the Lord, and have thus translated it, Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit.
18. Psalm 30: Quoniam tu es protector meus. Again in this place the Lord’s name has been added. Let me say once for all that you should not forget that the name of our Lord and God is often added, and that you should observe the corrections I have made on the basis of the Hebrew and the Septuagint. In the same: Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis meæ. For this the Latin texts had: in pavore meo, and I translated according to the Greek: ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου, that is, “in excessu mentis meæ.” For the Latin cannot express ἔκστασιν except by “mentis excessum.” I know that I have read in the Hebrew the differing version: “in stupore et in admiratione mea.”
19. Psalm 31: Nec est in spiritu ejus dolus. For this you say you have read in the Greek: ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, that is, “in ore ejus,” which Symmachus alone has. On the other hand, the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Fifth and Sixth editions,13 Aquila, and the Hebrew itself have “in spiritu ejus,” which is in the Hebrew brucho. If the meaning were, however, “in ore ejus,” baffio would be written in the Hebrew. In the same: Conversus sum in ærumna mea. You say that the Hebrew does not have “mea,” which has been added under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion's translation, and which in the Hebrew reads lasaddi; lasaddi . . . [there is a gap here].9
20. Psalm 34: Omnia ossa mea dicent: « Domine… ». Here, you say, you have found in the Greek the word “Domine” twice. It is to be noted, however, that there are many Hebrew copies which have the word “Dominum” not even once.
21. Psalm 36: Et viam ejus volet. You say that you have read in the Greek “volet nimis.” But “nimis” has been added and is not found in any one of the translators.
22. Psalm 38: Verumtamen vane conturbatur omnis homo. You say that you have not found in the Greek the word “conturbatur.” But this also has been added in the Septuagint under an arrow, and from this you and most of the rest have incurred an error because everything is mixed up through the negligence of the scribes in omitting the arrows and asterisks.