23. Psalm 39: Et legem tuam in medio cordis mei. For this you say you have found in the Greek: “in medio ventris mei,” which also in the Hebrew occurs in batthoch meai. This, however, has in the Latin texts euphemistically been changed to “in corde.” However, we should not change the meaning of anything. In the same: “Domine, in adjutorium meum respice.” For this you say you have found in the Greek: σπεῦσον, that is, “festina.” In the Septuagint, however, πρόσχες, that is “respice,” is written.
24. Psalm 40: Et si ingrediebatur, ut videret, and you say that “si” does not occur in the Greek, although it is very clearly written in the Hebrew and has been rendered by all translators. The Septuagint, too, renders it thus: καὶ εἰ εἰσεπορεύετο τοῦ ιδεῖν.
25. Psalm 41: Salutare vultus mei, Deus meus. For this you say you have found: “et Deus meus.” But it is to be noted that this [viz. “deus meus”]9 is found twice in that Psalm, and that in the first place “salutare vultus mei, deus meus” is written, while in the second place, viz., at the end of the Psalm, “salutare vultus mei et Deus meus” is used, but so that the conjunction “et” has been added under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion. In the same: Exprobraverunt mihi, qui tribulant me. For this you say you have found: οἱ ἐχθροί μου, that is, “inimici mei,” while the Septuagint has: οἱ θλίβοντές με, and the Hebrew sorarai, that is, “hostes mei.” In the same: Spera in deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi. You say that “adhuc” is not found in the Greek. But it has been added under an asterisk. In the Hebrew likewise we find written chi od, which means ὅτι ἔτι and is rendered in Latin by “quoniam adhuc.” The same applies to Psalm 42.
26. Psalm 43: Et non egredieris in virtutibus nostris . For this you say you have found in the Greek: “Et non egredieris, Deus.” But “Deus” is superfluous. In the same: “Posuisti nos in similitudinem gentibus,” for which you say the Greek has: ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. However, if we should say in Latin: “in similitudinem in gentibus,” it would sound badly, and on that account a proper rendering has been maintained without damage to the sense. On the other hand, I have found in the Hebrew text: “Posuisti nos proverbium in gentibus.” In the same: Exurge, adjuva nos. To this, as usually, the Lord’s name has been added in the Greek.
27. Psalm 44: Sagittae tuae acutæ. For this you say you have read in the Greek: “acutæ, potentissime.” But this is wrong, as “potentissime” has been added from a preceding verse in which we read: “Accingere gladio tuo super femur tuum, potentissime.”
28. Psalm 47: Quoniam ecce reges congregati sunt. For this you say you have found in the Greek: “quoniam ecce reges ejus congregati sunt.” The context of the reading itself shows that “ejus” is wrong. The old Latin texts had here “reges terræ,” which I omitted because it is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint. In the same: “sicut audivimus, sic vidimus.” For this you say you have found in the Greek: “sic et vidimus.” This is wrong, for the Hebrew has here chen rainu, which is translated by οὕτως ἔιδομεν, that is, “sic vidimus.” In the same: Suscepimus, Deus, misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui. For the expression which I have translated, in accordance with the Hebrew and the Septuagint, by “templi tui,” you say you have read in the Greek “populi tui,” which is wrong, for in the Hebrew echalach is written, which means τοῦ ναοῦ σου, that is, “templi tui,” and not ammach, which signifies “populum tuum.”
29. Psalm 48: Homo, quum in honore esset. For this you say you have found in the Greek: “Et homo, in honore quum esset.” But it is to be noted that the verse in question occurs twice in this Psalm, and that in the first place the conjunction “et” is added, but in the second not. In the same: “et dominabuntur eorum justi.” For “justis” you say you have read in the Greek εὐθεῖς, which means “rectos.” However, “justi” has been substituted in the Latin on account of the context. Besides, also in that place in which we find the expression: “in libro εὐθεῖς,” we understand “justorum libro.” Hence, we should not translate so literally that, while splitting hairs about syllables, we lose sight of the sense. In the same: “De manu inferni quum liberaverit me.” For this you say you have read in the Greek: “quum acceperit me.” This I also have translated that way from the Septuagint, and I am wondering who has changed it in your text.
30. Psalm 49: Sedens adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris. For this you say you have found in the Greek: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου κατελάλεις, and you think that it is not translated well because I said: “adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris,” and that I should have said: “adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas.” But even a fool realizes that that is wrong and not idiomatic in our language. Neither am I ignorant of the fact that καταλαλία means “detractio.” However, if we want to use that, we cannot say: “adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas,” but we must say: “de fratre tuo detrahebas.” However, if we do so, some hairsplitter of words will inquire again why we do not say: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, that is, “adversus fratrem tuum.” All that, however, is nonsense, and we should not embark upon a useless quibbling about words, as long as the meaning remains one and the same, because every language, as I said before, has its own idiomatic way of expressing itself. In the same: “Ne quando rapiat, et sit qui eripiat.” You say that you have found in the Greek: “Et non sit qui eripiat,” which I also have translated thus and is to be found that way in my texts. Hence I wonder why you blame the translator for the negligence of a drowsy transcriber, unless the reading is perchance: “Ne quando rapiat, nec sit qui eripiat,” so that the copyist wrote “et” for “nec.” In the same: “Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me,” for which the Greek has: δοξάσει με, that is, “glorificabit me,” which I explained already a little while ago. In the Gospel we read in the Latin “Pater, clarifica me,” in the place where the Greek has: Πάτερ, δόξασόν με τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοι πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι. Thus I did not want to change a time-honored reading because there was no difference of meaning.
31. Psalm 54: Exspectabam eum qui salvum me fecit, and you say that you have found in the Greek: “Exspectabam Deum,” but “Deum” has been added. In the same: “A pusillanimitate spiritus,” and you say you have found in the Greek: ἀπὸ ὀλιγοψυχίας, which in effect means “pusillanimitas.” It is to be noted, however, that for ὀλιγοψυχία Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition have the rendering ἀπὸ πνεύματος, that is, “a spiritu,” that the Hebrew has merucha, and that the complete sense is, in the texts referred to: Festinabo, ut salver a spiritu tempestatis et turbidinis. In the same: “Quoniam si inimicus maledixisset.” In the Greek we have ὠνείδισεν, that is, “exprobrasset.” But there is no difference in meaning between “maledicta” and “opprobria.”
32. Psalm 55: Quoniam multi bellantes adversum me, ab altitudine diei timebo. You say that you have found in the Greek: non timebo. Here “non” has been added. The sense is: “quoniam multi dimicant adversum me, idcirco ego ab altitudine diei timebo,” that is: “non bellantes adversum me, sed tuum excelsum timebo lumen.” In the same: “In ira populos confringes.” For this the Greek has: ἐν ὀργῇ λαοὺς κατάξεις [that is “dejicies,” and not κατεάξεις],12 that is, “confringes.” In Latin a bad error has crept in here, viz. “confringes,” that is κατεάξεις, for κατάξεις, which means “dejicies.” For the Hebrew has here hored, meaning καταβίβασον, which we may translate by “depone,” and which Symmachus has translated by κατάγαγε.
33. Psalm 58: Quia deus susceptor meus, for which the Greek has: Susceptor meus es tu. But it is to be noted that the Hebrew has neither “es” nor “tu,” and that these words appear only in the Septuagint. In the same: “Deus meus, voluntas ejus præveniet me.” For this the Greek has: τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, that is, “misericordia ejus,” which is more correct. The Hebrew, on the other hand, has: “Misericordia mea præveniet me.” In the same: “Deus ostendit mihi inter inimicos meos,” for which the Greek has: “Deus meus.” But “meus” has been added. In the same: “Ne occidas eos, ne quando obliviscantur populi tui,” for which the Greek has: “legis tuæ.” But in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew, “populi tui” does not occur, but populi mei, and I have translated it thus. In the same: “Et scient, quia Deus dominator Jacob finium terræ.” For this the Greek has: “Et finium terræ.” The conjunction “et” has been added, however. The sense is: “Scient quia Deus Jacob dominator finium terræ.”
34. Psalm 59: Quis deducet me usque in Idumaeam ? For this the Greek has: aut quis deducet me ?, which is wrong.
35. Psalm 60: Quoniam tu, Deus meus, exaudisti orationem meam, for which you say your Greek text has: Quia tu, Deus, exaudisti me. This reading does not occur either in the Hebrew or in the Septuagint, but only in the Latin. In the same: “Psallam nomini tuo in sæculum sæculi, for which you say your Greek text has: “in sæculum.” The Hebrew has once laed, that is, “in æternum,” and not lolam, which means “in sæculum.”
36. Psalm 61: Quia Deus adjutor noster in æternum, for which the Greek has: “Deus adjutor noster.” Hence “in æternum” is to be omitted.
37. Psalm 62: Sitivit tibi anima mea, for which you say your Greek text has: Sitivit in te anima mea. The Hebrew, however, has not attha, which means “te,” but lach, which means “tibi.” All translators have rendered accordingly. Hence it has been translated properly into the Latin.
38. Psalm 63: Sagittae parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum, for which your Greek text has: Sagitta paruulorum. But if we say: “Sagitta parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum,” the rendering is wrong from the standpoint of Latin. Instead, the Hebrew version, “Percutiet eos Deus jaculo repentino et inferentur plagæ eorum,” is better.
39. Psalm 64: Qui conturbas profundum maris, sonum fluctuum ejus. You say your Greek text has the addition: “Quis sustinebit ?” This is wrong, for the sense is: “qui conturbas profundum maris et conturbas sonum fluctuum ejus.” In the same: Parasti cibum illorum, quoniam ita est præparatio ejus, and you say that your Greek text does not have “ejus,” although in the Hebrew thechina clearly means “præparationem ejus,” viz. “ejus terræ,” of which the Psalmist had earlier said: “Visitasti terram et inebriasti eam.”
40. Psalm 65: Holocausta medullata offeram tibi cum incenso arietum, for which you say you have found: Cum incensu et arietibus. But that is wrong, for the Hebrew has: em catoroth helim, which means μετὰ θυμιάματος κριῶν, that is, “cum incenso arietum.” In the same: Propterea exaudivit Deus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Exaudivit me Deus. Here, “me” is superfluous.
41. Psalm 67: Et exsultent in conspectu ejus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Et exsultate in conspectu ejus. This I, too, have translated that way, but I cannot know who has tampered with it in your text. In the same: Etenim non credunt inhabitare Dominum, for which you say you have read in the Greek: καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι. Both of these versions are wrong, for I translated: Etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum, which is the correct meaning depending upon the preceding: “Ascendisti in altum, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus (et eos qui non credebant Dominum inhabitare posse mortalibus).” In the same: Deus benedictus Dominus die cottidie, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Dominus benedictus Deus, benedictus Dominus die cottidie. But the former reading is better and truer. In the same: Viderunt ingressus tui, Deus, for which you say your Greek has: Visi sunt ingressus tui, Deus. The Hebrew has the following: rachua alichatach, which Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Fifth and Sixth editions have translated: Viderunt itinera tua, Deus, and what follows: Itinera Dei mei regis, qui est in sancto. Hence we should read thus: Viderunt ingressus tuos, Deus, and not imitate the mistake of the transcriber who put the nominative for the accusative, although in the Septuagint and in the Hexapla I have found: ἐθεωρήσαν αἱ πορεῖαί σου, ὁ θεός, and for ἐθεωρήσαν, that is, “viderunt,” in many texts ἐθεωρήθησαν is found, which reading custom has maintained. In the same: Ingressus Dei mei, regis mei, qui est in sancto, the meaning of which is: “Viderunt ingressus Dei mei, regis mei.” But your statement that “mei” is not added in the Greek after “rege” is clearly erroneous; for both “Dei mei” and “regis mei” are used here pleonastically by way of affection to express the fervent desire that he who is God and king of all should in a special sense be the prophet’s God and king because of his condition as a servant of God. Finally, the Hebrew text has heli melchi, which means “Deum meum et regem meum.” In the same: Regna terræ, cantate Deo, psallite Domino, and you say that “Psallite Domino” does not occur in that verse because there follows immediately: Diapsalma. Psallite Deo, qui ascendit super cælum cæli ad orientem, whereas that verse should rather read according to the Hebrew: Cantate Deo, psallite Domino, and what follows at the beginning of the other verse, viz., “Psallite Deo,” does not occur in the authentic texts, but has an arrow in front of it. Thus you, too, should adhere to the true version lest, while adopting a spurious reading, you lose sight of what the prophet has written.
42. Psalm 68: Laudabo nomen Dei cum cantico. For this you say you have found in your Greek text: “Dei mei.” But “mei” is superfluous.
43. Psalm 70: Deus, ne elongeris a me. You say that your Greek text reads: Deus meus, but “meus” is superfluous. In the same: Deus, docuiste me e juventute mea. Also here “meus” after “Deus,” which you say you have found in the Greek, is superfluous. In the same: Donec annuntiem brachium tuum. You say you have found in the Greek: mirabilia tua. This, however, is from the preceding verse: Et usque nunc pronuntiabo mirabilia tua. The word “brachium” is hence correct here.
44. Psalm 71: Et adorabunt eum omnes reges. You say that you have found in your Greek text: “reges terræ, but “terræ” is superfluous. In the same: Benedictus Dominus Deus, Deus Israël. You say that in your Greek text “Deus” does not occur twice, although it is in the Hebrew, and the threefold occurrence in the Septuagint of the name of our Lord and God very clearly indicates the mystery of the Holy Trinity.14 In the same: Et benedictum nomen majestatis ejus in æternum. You say that you have found in the Greek: In æternum et in sæculum sæculi. But please remember that the additional words have redundantly been added by the Greeks, as they occur neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint.
45. Psalm 72: prodiet quasi ex adipe, and you say that you have found in the Greek: ἐξελεύσονται, that is, “prodient,” which is wrong; for also the Septuagint has this: ἐξελεύσεται ὡς ἐκ στέατος ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν. In the same: Quomodo scit Deus. You say that the Greek does not have the word “Deum,” although the Septuagint has: Πῶς ἔγνω ὁ θεός, and all translators have rendered it similarly from the Hebrew. In the same: Intellegam in novissimis eorum, for which you say have read in the Greek: Et intellegam. However, here the conjunction “et” is superfluous. In the same: Defecit caro mea et cor meum, for which some have changed the word-order in an awkward way, thus: Defecit cor meum et caro mea. In the same: Ut annuntiem omnes prædicationes tuas, for which you say you have read in the Greek: τὰς αἰνέσεις σου, that is, “laudes tuas.” It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has malochothach, which Aquila has translated by ἀγγελίας σου, that is, “nuntios tuos,” the Septuagint by τὰς ἐπαγγελίας σου, that is, “prædicationes” or “promissa,” although “laus” and “prædicatio” mean one and the same thing.
46. Psalm 73: Ut quid, Deus, reppulisti in finem ?, for which the Greek with an awkward word-order says: Ut quid reppulisti, Deus ? In the same: Quanta malignatus est inimicus in sancto ! I wonder who has corrected a mistake into your copy by substituting “sanctis” for “sancto,” since also my copy has the form “in sancto.” In the same: Incendamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra, for which the Greek has καταπαύσωμεν, and I translated thus: Quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra. I wonder why some rash fellow has thought that the note: “the correct form is not καταπαύσωμεν, as some think, but κατακαύσωμεν, that is, incendamus,” which was placed by me for the guidance of the reader into the margin, should be put into the body of the text. And since the holy presbyter Firmus, who was in charge of this work, has told me that this question has been discussed by many, I am going to explain it somewhat more in detail. The Hebrew text reads: sarphu chol moedahu hel baares, which Aquila and Symmachus have rendered: ἑνεπύρισαν πάσας τὰς συνταγὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, that is, incenderunt omnes solemnitates Dei in terra. The Fifth Edition renders: κατέκαυσαν, that is, combusserunt, the Sixth: κατακαύσωμεν, that is, comburamus, which also the Septuagint evidently translates according to the copies [by καταπαύσομεν].9 Also Theodotion renders: ἐνεπυρίσαμεν, that is, succendimus {= perfect tense}. From this it is clear that my rendering should be used, although sight should not be lost of the true Hebrew version. For the reading of the Septuagint should be used in the churches, because of its antiquity, whereas the scholars should, for the sake of the accuracy of the Scriptures, not forget the true version. Thus, whenever anything has been added in the margin for the sake of taking note of, this should not be put into the body of the text, in order not to corrupt the original translation according to the whim of the transcribers. In the same: Contribulasti capita draconum in aquis ; tu confregisti capita draconis. This is the correct form of the reading; hence “tu” should not occur in the first verse, but in the second, and “aquæ” should be in the plural, instead of in the singular, the same as Aquila has translated the Hebrew word ammaim by τῶν ὑδάτων, that is, “aquarum.” In the same: Ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum, for which you say the Greek has τῶν ἱκετῶν σου, that is, “deprecantium te.” In the Hebrew sorarach is used, which Aquila has translated by “hostium tuorum,” Symmachus by “bellantium contra te,” the Septuagint and the Sixth Edition by “inimicorum tuorum.” The meaning is clear from the preceding: Memor esto improperiorum tuorum, eorum, quæ ab insipiente sunt tota die ; ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum (that is, the voices which blaspheme you and disparage against you amongst your people). Whereupon follows: Superbia eorum, qui te oderunt, ascendit semper, that is: “while you are deferring the punishment, they increase their blasphemies.”
47. Psalm 74: Narrabimus mirabilia tua. For this the Greek has the wrong reading: Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua.