48. Psalm 75: Omnes viri divitiarum manibus suis, and not, as you have read in the text spoiled by, God knows, whom: in manibus suis. In the same: Terribili et ei qui aufert spiritus principum. You say that “ei” is not in the Greek. That’s true, but unless we add “ei,” the Latin is not complete. For we cannot say correctly: “Terribili et qui aufert spiritus principum.”
49. Psalm 76: Et meditatus sum node cum corde meo et exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum. For this we read in the Hebrew: Recordabar Psalmorum meorum in nocte ; cum corde meo loquebar, et scopebam spiritum meum. For “exercitatione” the Septuagint translates ἀδολεσχίαν, meaning some sort of “decantationem” and “meditationem,” and for what we call “scopebam,” it puts ἔσκαλλον, which Symmachus has translated by ἀνηρεύνων, that is, “perscrutabar,” or “quærebam.” The Fifth Edition uses a similar form. Σκαλισμός, however, refers in agriculture properly to the hoeing of the soil for the purpose of destroying the weeds. And as there the weeds which are to be destroyed are loosened with a hoe, so here the Psalmist uses this figure in connection with the imperfect state of his mind. But it is to be noted that ἔσκαλον {aorist tense} refers to one, ἔσκαλλον {imperfect tense} to a repeated occurrence. In the same: A generatione in generationem. You say that this is followed in the Greek by: consummavit verbum. But that would be an error in the Latin text, and no translator has it.
50. Psalm 77: Et narrabunt filiis suis. For this the Greek has ἀναγγελοῦσιν, which means “annuntiabunt.” It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has iasaphpheru, which Aquila and Symmachus have translated by “narrabunt.” In the same: Et occidit pingues eorum. This reading also the Hebrew has, viz. bamasmnehem, which Aquila translated by ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν, Symmachus by τοὺς λιπαρωτέρους αὐτῶν, the Septuagint, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition by ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν. Some ignorant fellows, however, have supposed that πλείοσιν was written for πίοσιν. In the same: Dilexerunt eum in ore suo et lingua sua mentiti sunt ei. The Hebrew likewise has the same reading, viz. icazbulo, and all have translated similarly: ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ, that is, “mentiti sunt ei.” Who, however, should want to put for “ei,” “eum”? I shall, forsooth, not be a party to adulterating the Scriptures. In the same: Et propitius fiet peccatis eorum et non disperdet eos. You say that “eos” does not occur in the Greek, which is true. I, however, in order to avoid a loose construction, have completed the statement according to Latin usage. If anyone, however, should think that διαφθερεῖ does not mean “perditionem,” but “corruptionem,” let him remember the place which reads: εἰς τὸ τέλος μὴ διαφθείρῃς, that is, “in finem ne disperdas,” and not, as most have translated erroneously, “ne corrumpas.” In the same: Et induxit eos in montem sanctificationis suæ, montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus. For this the Septuagint has the reading: ὄρος τοῦτο, ὁ ἐκτήσατο ἡ δεξία αὐτοῦ — and not, as you write, ὃ ἐκτίσατο [= “founded” or “created”]9 —, that is, quem acquisivit dextera ejus. Thus Symmachus has translated correctly according to the Hebrew: montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus. In the same: Et averterunt se et non servaverunt pactum, quemadmodum patres eorum. I know that the word “pactum” does not occur in the Hebrew, but since all have translated in a similar way ἠσυνθέτησαν, and since the Greek form συνθήκη means “pactum,” the meaning of the whole [i.e. ἠσυνθέτησαν]9 is “non servaverunt pactum,” although the Septuagint has ἠθέτησαν. In the same: In terra quam fundavit in sæcula, for which you say you have found: In terra fundavit eam in sæcula. The Hebrew has the following version, which also Symmachus renders the same way: εἰσ τὴν γῆν ἣν ἐθεμελίωσεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. If the statement, however, does not mean that the earth has been created, but something else which is supposed to have been founded on earth, let those who think so prove from the context what the meaning is, as I do not know what which is not expressed should be founded on earth. If they think, however, that a sanctuary has been founded upon the earth, the version should be: in terra fundavit illud in sæcula. In the same: Et in intellectibus manuum suarum deduxit eos. The singular ἐν τῇ συνέσει is not used here, as you say, but ἐν ταῖς συνέσεσιν, which means “intelligentias.” This idea is contained also in the Hebrew bathabunoth, which means “intellectibus.”
51. Psalm 78: Posuerunt Hierusalem in pomorum custodiam, which in the Greek means εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον and cannot be translated differently from the way I have rendered it. The word indicates a watchtower or lookout, such as the wardens of the fields and orchards were accustomed to have, so that of the extensive city hardly a cottage was left [which was not under their watchful eye].9 This is the sense according to the Greek. Besides, in the Hebrew lichin is written, which Aquila translated by λιθαόριον, that is a pile of stones which the farmers are wont to pick from their vineyards and fields.
52. Psalm 79: Et plantasti radices ejus hinc. You say that “hinc” does not occur in the Greek. That’s all right, for it does not occur in my texts either, so that I am wondering which dunce has altered your copies.
53. Psalm 82: « Hereditate possideamus sanctuarium Dei ! », and you say that the Greek has « Κληρονομήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς ! », that is, “possideamus nobis.” This is a useless question, for when we say “possideamus,” “nobis” is likewise included.
54. Psalm 83: Cor meum et caro mea exsultavit in deum vivum. For this you say the Greek has exsultaverunt. There is no contradiction in this, for when we read “exsultavit,” the meaning is: “cor meum exsultavit et caro mea exsultavit.” If, on the other hand, the form “exsultaverunt” is used, two exult at one and the same time, viz. the heart and the flesh. Let me request you to avoid this type of nonsense and useless questions where there is no difference in the sense. In the same: Beatus vir, cujus est auxilium abs te. You say that you have found in the Greek: cui est auxilium ejus abs te, and I am criticized, as you say, for having avoided this rendering in my Latin translation. However, who does not understand that if we should say “cui est auxilium ejus,” this would be a manifest error, and that if “cui” precedes, “ejus” cannot follow, unless I am criticized for having avoided a mistake. In the same: In valle lacrimarum, for which you say the Greek has κλαυθμῶνος, that is, “plorationis.” However, it makes no difference whether we say “ploratum” or “planctum” or “fletum” or “lacrimas”; the meaning remains one and the same, so that I follow the rule that, where there is no change of sense, I write as it sounds best in Latin.
55. Psalm 84: Benedixisti, domine, terram tuam. You say that for “benedixisti” you have found in the Greek Εὐδόκησας, and you ask how that word should be expressed in Latin. If we want to quibble about words and syllables, we may say: “Bene placuit, Domine, terra tua” and, while translating words, we lose sight of the sense. At any rate, something should be added to give a proper meaning, and we might say: “Complacuit tibi, Domine, terra tua.” However, if we do this, some one might ask again why we have added “tibi,” since it is found neither in the Greek, nor in the Hebrew. However, we should always follow the rule which I have repeated so often, viz., that where there is no difference in the sense, we should translate idiomatically and use a polished language. In the same: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi. You say that “sibi” is not in the Greek. However, it is neither in the Hebrew and is given in the Septuagint under an arrow. When these signs [viz. arrow and asterisk]9 are omitted as superfluous, as it were, through the carelessness of most transcribers, the reader is badly led astray. If “sibi” were not added, it would be thought that pity and truth had not met each other, but someone else, nor that justice and peace had given a kiss to each other, but to somebody else.
56. Psalm 85: Et non proposuerunt te in conspectu suo. You say that “te” is not in your text. Add “te” and thus, while correcting the blunder of the transcriber, you will correct at the same time your own error. In the same: Et tu, Domine Deus, miserator et misericors. You say that you have found in the Greek: Et tu, Domine Deus meus. But “meus” is superfluous here, as it is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint.
57. Psalm 88: Magnus et horrendus, for which you say you have found in the Greek φοβερός, which means “terribilis,” “timendus,” “formidandus.” I think it means, in the above expression, just “horrendum” (not, however, as the common people think, “despiciendum” and “squalidum”), according to the following: Mihi frigidus horror, Membra quatit (Virgil. Æneid 3:29-30). and: Horror ubique animo, simul ipsa silentia terrent (Virgil. Æneid 2:755) and: Monstrum horrendum, ingens (Virgil. Æneid 3:658) as well as in many similar places. In the same: Tunc locutus es in visione sanctis tuis, for which you say you have found in the Greek filiis tuis. It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has here laasidach, which all have translated by τοῖς ὁσίοις σου, that is, “sanctis tuis,” except the Sixth Edition, which translates prophetis tuis, expressing the sense rather than the words. In the κοινῇ only, however, I have found “filios” for “sanctis.” In the same: Tu vero reppulisti et respexisti, for which you say you have found in the Greek ἐξουδένωσας. How big an error has resulted here from the change of one letter! — for I did not translate “respexisti,” but “despexisti et pro nihilo duxisti” — unless perchance you think that ἐξουδένωσας should not be rendered by “despexisti” but, according to the most learned translator of those times, by “annihilasti,” or “annullasti,” or “nullificasti,” or by any other word-monster which the inexpert may invent.
58. Psalm 89: A sæculo et usque in sæculum tu es, Deus, and you say that the word “Deus” is not contained in the Greek. It is clear that it is missing there, since it is in the Hebrew. Besides, all other translators and the Septuagint have the corresponding rendering: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ, ὁ Θεός, which means in the Hebrew: meolam ad olam atah el. In the same: Quoniam superuenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. You say that you have found in the Greek: Mansuetudo super nos. But “super nos” is superfluous.
59. Psalm 90: Dicet Domino, « Susceptor meus es tu », and you say that in the Greek text “es” does not occur. But let me reply to you that in the Hebrew neither “es” occurs nor ”tu,” but that the Septuagint and the Latin texts use these words idiomatically.
60. Psalm 93: Beatus homo quem tu erudieris, Domine. You say that in the Greek “tu” does not occur, which is true. The Latin texts, however, use it idiomatically. For if we say: “Beatus homo quem erudieris, Domine,” the rendering does not sound so well. And when we say “Domine,” addressing the Lord, the sense is not perverted by the addition of “tu.” In the same: Et in malitia eorum disperdet eos. You say that the preposition “in” is absent from the Greek, and that the reading is: Malitiam eorum disperdet. It is to be noted, however, that both the Hebrew and all the translators have: In malitia eorum disperdet eos. But if we should want to read “Malitiam eorum disperdet,” then the word “eos,” which follows in the Septuagint at the end of the verse, would be superfluous and wrong.
61. Psalm 97: Recordatus est misericordiæ suæ, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Misericordiæ suæ Jacob. However, the name “Jacob” is superfluous here.
62. Psalm 100: Oculi mei ad fideles terræ, ut sederent mecum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: τοῦ συγκαθῆσθαι αὐτοὺς μετ’ εμοῦ. Who, however, would not avoid such a translation that, rendering verbatim, he would say: “Ut consederent ipsi mecum ?”
63. Psalm 101: Vigilavi et factus sum sicut passer solitarius in tecto. You say you have found in the Greek ἐπὶ δώματι, which the ancient Latin texts have rendered by in ædificio. Δῶμα has in the regions of the Orient the same meaning as “tectum” in Latin; for in Palestine and Egypt, where the Divine Books were either written or translated, the roofs have no tops but δώματα, which at Rome are called either “solaria” or “Mæniana,” that is, flat roofs which are supported by transverse beams. Further, when Peter in the Acts of the Apostles ascended unto the δῶμα, he is to be believed to have ascended to the roof of the building, and when we are told to put a “coronam” on our δώματι, it means that we should place a railing around it in order to avoid falling down. Likewise in the Gospel the statement, Quæ, says he, auditis in aure, dicite super δώματα, means on the roof. The same in Isaiah: Quid vobis est, quod omnes ascendistis in tecta vana ? ; and in many other similar places. In the same: Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio, which is expressed in the same way in the Greek, and you ask what the word νυκτικόραξ means in Latin. In the Hebrew the word “bos” is written for “nycticorace.” This Aquila, the Septuagint, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition have translated by “nycticoracem,” Symmachus “upupam,” the Sixth Edition by “noctuam,” which I, too, rather follow. Further, where in the Latin and Greek the reading: Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio, occurs, the Hebrew says: Factus sum sicut noctua in ruinosis. The majority think the word “bubonem” to have an ambiguous meaning. In the same: A facie iræ et indignationis tuæ. For this you say you have found in the Greek: A facie iræ tuæ, although it is clear that both the Hebrew and the Septuagint have the following version: ἁπὸ προσώπου τῆς ὁργῆς σου καὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ σου. In the same: Quoniam placuerunt servis tuis lapides ejus, et terræ ejus miserebuntur. For “terra” the word afar is used in the Hebrew, which all have translated by χοῦν, and which may mean either “pulvis” or “humus,” that is, “terra.”
64. Psalm 102: Non in perpetuo irascetur, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Non in finem. However, the Hebrew word nese may mean either “perpetuum” or “finis” or “victoria,” depending upon the context.
65. Psalm 103: Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ, that is, Qui facit angelos suos. In this connection examine why, since God is being addressed, the prophet suddenly changes, as though talking to some one else, especially as he begins thus: Domine, Deus meus, magnificatus es vehementer. Confessionem et decorem induisti, and: Qui tegis in aquis superiora ejus — that is to say, of the sky — Qui ponis nubem ascensum tuum, qui ambulas super pennas ventorum ; and then immediately continues: Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, et ministros tuos ignem urentem. Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam; and a little further: Ab increpatione tua fugient ; a voce tonitrui tui formidabunt; and: In loco quem fundasti eis. Qui emittis fontes in convallibus; and then: Ut educas panem de terra. If, thus, all this is addressed to the Second Person — that is, to God —, why is in one verse the Third Person suddenly and without connection introduced? In the same: A voce tonitrui tui formidabunt. The Hebrew, too, has here tonitrui tui, so that I am wondering how it has been omitted in the Latin texts through an error of the transcribers. In the same: Hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus. You say that in the Greek the word “manibus” is lacking. I know it, but it has been added in the Septuagint under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion’s edition. Furthermore, the Hebrew also has this reading: ze haiam gadol uarab idaim, which Aquila has translated thus: αὐλὴ καὶ πλατεῖα χερσίν, while all translators say, according to the Hebrew text, metaphorically: αὕτη ἡ θάλασσα ἡ μεγάλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος χερσίν, as though the sea with outstretched hands were taking everything unto itself. In the same: Ut educas panem de terra, for which you say you have found: Ut educat. However, one thing cannot be addressed to God, and the other said about him. The prophet either addresses everything to God, or he says it to some one else about him. Since, however, the larger part is addressed to God, also the doubtful portions are to be addressed to his person. In the same: Herodii domus dux est eorum. For “herodio” [“heron”],9 which in the Hebrew is asida, Symmachus uses ἰκτῖνα, that is, “milvum” [“kite”].9 I, too, have translated thus into the Latin: Ibi aves nidificabunt ; milvi abies domus est, viz., because it is accustomed to build its nest always in high and inaccessible trees. Hence the Sixth Edition translates with greater clarity yet: Milvo cupressi ad nidificandum. The Hebrew, however, uses for “abietibus” and “cupressis” barusim, which means “abietes” rather than κυπαρίσσους. In the same: Petra refugium erinaciis [“hedgehogs”],9 for which the Hebrew has sphannim, and all have used the similar form τοῖς χοιρογρυλλίοις [“porcupines”],9 excepting the Septuagint, which uses “lepores” [“hares,” “rabbits”].9 It is to be noted, however, that reference is had to an animal not larger than the hedgehog, which has characteristics of both the mouse and the bear, for which reason it is called in Palestine ἀρκτόμῡς [“marmot”].9 These animals are very abundant in those regions and are wont to live in recesses of rocks or in holes in the ground.
66. Psalm 104: Dedit terra eorum ranas, for which you say you have read in the Greek ἐξῆρψεν, which may be translated thus: “Ebullivit terra eorum ranas.” However, in this there is no difference of meaning either, so that I, following the ancient version, did not want to change what was not wrong. In the same: Et contrivit lignum finium eorum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: omne lignum. But here “omne” has been added and is superfluous. In the same: Quoniam memor fuit verbi sancti sui, quod habuit ad Abraham, puerum suum, for which you say you have found in the Greek ὃν διέθετο, that is, quod disposuit. The Hebrew and the Septuagint, however, have the following reading: ἐμνήσθη τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ, τοῦ πρὸς Ἀβραὰμ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. Hence the Greek words ὃν διέθετο are wrong in this place and should be erased.
67. Psalm 105: Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Quoniam χρηστός, that is, suavis. It is to be noted, however, that χρηστός may be translated either by “bonum” or by “suave.” Furthermore, the Hebrew also has the reading: chi tob, which all have translated similarly: quia bonus, from which it is clear that also χρηστός is meant to stand for “bonus.” In the same: Non fuerunt memores multitudinis misericordiae tuæ. You say that you have found in the Greek: Et non fuerunt memores. But the conjunction “et” is superfluous. In the same: Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare Rubrum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: καὶ παραπίκραναν, and you think that the expression has to be translated literally: “et amaricaverunt.” But this rendering is similar to “annullationi” or “annihilationi.”15 Read Ezechiel and you will find that παραπικρασμός always stands for “irritationem et exacerbationem” where the expression οἶκος παραπικραίνων, that is, domus exasperans, occurs. In the same: Et vidit, quum tribularentur, et audivit orationem eorum. What you say you have found in the Greek besides this is superfluous.
68. Psalm 106: Et statuit procellam ejus in auram et siluerunt fluctus ejus. What you say you have found in the Greek for this, viz.: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν τῇ καταιγίδι αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔστη εἰς αὔραν, is wrong. In the same: Et deduxit eos in portum voluntatis eorum. For this you say you have found: In portum voluntatis suæ. However, the Hebrew does not have ephsau, which means “voluntatis suæ,” but ephsam, which stands for “voluntatis eorum.”
69. Psalm 107: Exsurge, gloria mea. What you say does not occur in the Latin is rightly not in this Psalm, because it is neither found in the Hebrew, nor in any translation, but is contained in the 56th Psalm, and it seems to me that somebody has transferred it from that place to this. In the same: Mihi alienigenæ amici facti sunt. For this you say you have found in the Greek ὑπετάγησαν, that is, “subditi sunt.” This, however, occurs in the 59th Psalm. In the present Psalm, however, we find in all translations the reading: ἐμοὶ ἀλλόφυλοι ἐφιλίασαν, which means: amici facti sunt, and is expressed in the Hebrew by ethrohe.
70. Psalm 109: Virgam virtutis tuæ emittet Dominus e Sion. You say that “virtutis tuæ” does not occur in your Greek texts. It occurs, however, evidently in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint. In the same: Dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum. You say that the Greek has: et dominare. But the conjunction “et” is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint and is superfluous.
71. Psalm 110: Confitebor tibi, Domine, in toto corde. In the Greek you say you have found: in toto corde meo. But “meo,” too, is here superfluous.
72. Psalm 113: Deus autem noster in cælo, for which you say you have read in the Greek: in cælo et in terra. But the addition “et in terra” is superfluous.