Category Archives: Patristica

Here St Jerome gives us not only more information about his work habits (he translated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs in three days), but also a bit more on his understanding of the apocrypha. He implicitly defines the canon of Scriptures as those books used “for confirming the authority of eccelsiastical dogmas,” and excludes the apocrypha from that category. Granted, the majority of the apocrypha are not useful for this, but then neither, admittedly, are a number of canonical works. It’s an argument or position against the apocrypha that we have yet to find the origins of. And although St Jerome here states that the apocrypha that he names are not “canonical Scriptures,” we know that he recognized the authority of the Council of Nicea in advancing Judith as canonical. So, St Jerome’s equivocation on the matter reveals a more subtle understanding, in which he considers the apocrypha good “for the strengthening of the people.” Anyhow, perhaps St Jerome will have more to say on the subject in some of the upcoming prologues. We’ll see. One fun thing he mentions in this prologue is the marginal tradition that Philo Judaeus of Alexandria was the author of Wisdom of Solomon, something also found in the Canon Muratorianus, and various other places, though not often. Enjoy!

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOKS OF SOLOMON

Jerome to Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus.

May the letter join those joined in priesthood. Indeed, a sheet may not divide those who the love of Christ has connected. You request commentaries on Hosea, Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi. I wrote, even if it cost through ill-health. You have sent the solace of expenses, by our scribes and copyist having been sustained, so that our genius exerts itself most strongly for you. And behold, from every side a diverse crowd of those demanding, as though it is equal for me either to work for you with others hungering, or I might be subject to anyone besides you in matters of giving and receiving. And so, with a long sickness broken, I have not kept inwardly silent this year and been mute with you. I have dedicated to your names the work of three days, namely the translation of the three scrolls of Solomon: Masloth, which are Parables in Hebrew, called in the common edition Proverbs; Coeleth, which in Greek is Ecclesiastes, in Latin we could say Preacher; (and) Sirassirim, which is translated into our language Song of Songs.

Also included is the book of the model of virtue (παναρετος) Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work (ψευδεπιγραφος) which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

If anyone is truly more pleased by the edition of the Seventy interpreters, he has it already corrected by us. For it is not as though we build the new so that we destroy the old. And yes, when one will have read most carefully, he will know our things to be more understood, which haven’t soured by having been poured into a third vessel, but have rather preserved their flavor by having been entrusted to a new container immediately from the press.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

This is the preface St Jerome wrote to accompany his translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew. He apparently wasn’t too entirely sure of his success in this, as seems to be implied at a couple of points in this letter, which shows St Jerome to have had both a humble and a humorous streak which hasn’t been entirely evident in the other prefaces. I think it helps to put those into a better light, as well. Most interesting is what he says about this translation’s origins, as specifically designed to reflect the Hebrew for the sake of apologetics, while other translations have their place in being read in the churches. Of course, it’s the other version of the Psalms, based on the LXX, which were so popular and so ubiquitous before the modern craze of translating from Hebrew came along. St Jerome is explicit in that he wouldn’t have had a problem with that. Enjoy!

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF ANOTHER PREFACE OF THE SAME

Eusebius Hieronymus to his Sophronius, health!

I know some to think the Psalter to be divided into five books, as though wherever among the (version of the) Seventy interpreters is written γενοιτο γενοιτο, that is, “may it be, may it be,” for which in Hebrew is said “amen amen,” is the end of the books. And we, the authority of the Hebrews being followed, and especially of the Apostles, who always in the New Testament name the Book of Psalms, have asserted one volume. We also testify of all the authors who are set down in the titles of their psalms, namely of David, and of Asaph, and of Jeduthun, of the Sons of Korah, of Heman the Ezraite, of Moses, and of Solomon, and of the rest, which Ezra compiled into one volume. For if amen, for which Aquila translated “trustworthy” (πεπιστωμενος), is only placed at the end of books and not sometimes wither at the beginning or at the end of either words or sentences, then both the Savior never said in the Gospel, “Amen, amen, I say to you,” and the letters of Paul (never) contained it in the middle work, also Moses, and Jeremiah, and others in this way had many books, who in the middle of their books frequently interposed amen, as also the number of twenty-two Hebrew books and the mystery of the same number will be changed. For also its Hebrew title, Sephar Thallim, which is interpreted “Scroll of Hymns,” agreeing with the Apostolic authority, shows not many books, but one volume.

Continue reading “Jerome’s Prologue to Psalms (Hebrew)”

St Jerome did two separate translations of the Psalms. One was simply a revision of the popular Old Latin psalms (which are still used in some older rites, most notably the Ambrosian, I recall), with reference to the Greek Psalms version in the Hexapla. This is the prologue to that edition of the Psalms. The other version, based directly on the Hebrew Psalms, will follow separately.

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE OF EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS TO THE BOOK OF PSALMS

Not long ago while located in Rome, I emended the Psalter, and had corrected it, though cursorily, for the most part according to the (version of the) Seventy interpreters. Because you see it again, O Paula and Eustochium, corrupted by the error of the scribes, and the more ancient error to prevail rather than the new emendation, you urge that I work the land like some kind of field already ploughed, and uproot with sideways furrows the thorns being reborn, saying it is proper that what so frequently sprouts badly is just as frequently cut down. For this reason I remind by my usual preface, both you for whom this mighty work exerts itself, and those who would have copies of such, that those things to have been diligently emended might be transcribed with care and diligence. Each may himself note either a horizontal line or a radiant sign, that is, either an obelus or an asterisk, and wherever he sees a preceding virgule, from there to the two points which we have marked in, he knows more is to be found in the (version of the) Seventy interpreters; and where he has looked at the image of a star, he will have recognized an addition from the Hebrew scrolls, likewise up to the two points, only according to the edition of Theodotion who did not differ from the Seventy interpreters in simplicity of speech. I, knowing me to have done this for you and for each studious person, do not doubt there will be many who, either envious or arrogant, “prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn,” and to drink from a turbulent river much rather than from an entirely pure spring.

END OF THE PREFACE

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF JOB

I am forced, through each of the books of Divine Scripture, to respond to the slander of adversaries who accuse my translation of rebuking the Seventy translators, not as though among the Greeks Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion had also translated either word for word, or meaning for meaning, or by mixing both together, also a kind of translation of equal proportion, and also Origen had divided all the scrolls of the Old Instrument with obeli and asterisks which, either added by him or taken from Theodotion, he added to the ancient translation, proving what was added to have been lacking. Therefore my detractors should learn to accept in full what they have accepted in part, or to erase my translation along with their asterisks. For it should not be, that those who they accepted to have omitted many things may not be acknowledged to have certainly erred in some things, especially in Job, in which if you will have removed those things which are added under the asterisks, the greater part will be cut off. And this is only among the Greeks. Otherwise, among the Latins, before their translation which we recently edited under asterisks and obeli, almost seven hundred or eight hundred verses are (missing), so that the book, shortened and cut up and eaten away, shows its deformity publicly to readers.

Continue reading “Jerome’s Prologue to Job”

I mentioned the Additions to the Book of Esther in the post Jerome’s Prologue to Esther, above (well, below, actually). [See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page.] These additions are usually found in translations of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals, and are designated as follows, with citations for the the Hebrew text of Esther interspersed where it occurs in italics:
Addition A: Vulgate 11.2-12.6
Hebrew 1.1-2.18
Addition B: Vulgate 13.1-7
Hebrew 3.14-4.17
Addition C: Vulgate 13.8-18; 14.1-19
Addition D: Vulgate 15.4-19 (often renumbered in other versions as 15.1-16; Vulgate 15.1-3 is not generally translated in such collections)
Hebrew 5.3-8.12
Addition E: Vulgate 16.1-24
Hebrew 8.13-10.3
Addition F: Vulgate 10.4-13; 11.1

In the Septuagint, the text is essentially as described above, with the additions interspersed with the rest of the book (see the NRSV Apocrypha Esther for this in translation). But St Jerome, in his new Latin edition of Esther, moved all the additions to the end of the book. And since it was the Vulgate Bible which was the first one to have both chapter and verse numbers, we’re stuck with the peculiar numbering due to that dislocation. One of the interesting things I noticed in looking at these is that there are a few notes that St Jerome had written in these Addition chapters. I’m translating them and posting them here just for fun. I use the Addition A-F convention noted above to show the placement of the notes.

Before Addition A: This was also the beginning in the common edition, which is found neither in the Hebrew nor among any other translations.
After Addition A: Up to here is the proem.
Before Addition B: These which follow are set in the place where it is written in the scroll “and they plundered their goods” or “their substance,” which we find only in the common edition.
After Addition B: Up to here is the text of the letter.
Before C: These which follow I have found written after the place where it is read “and hurrying, Mordechai did everything which Esther had commanded him,” yet they are not found in the Hebrew and are not found inside any other translations.
Before 15.1: These also I found added to the common edition.
Before D: And also these too, which are below.
Before E: The text of the letter of King Artaxerxes, which he sent on behalf of the Jews to all the provinces of his kingdom, which also is not itself found in the Hebrew scroll.
Before F: Those things which are found in the Hebrew I have expressed with complete accuracy. And these things which follow I have found written in the common edition in which are contained the language and letters of the Greeks, and sometimes after the end of the book this chapter is found, which, according to our custom, we annotate with an obelus, that is, a spit.

Something that might not be immediately obvious is that the section “Before F” just above is actually a tripartite note. First, it comprises a conclusion to St Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Book of Esther: “Those things which are found in the Hebrew I have expressed with complete accuracy.” Second is an introduction to all the additions, which by his arrangement follow just after this point: “And these things which follow I have found written in the common edition in which are contained the language and letters of the Greeks.” And third comes the introduction to the immediately following chapter, which is the conclusion of the book in the Septuagint: “and sometimes after the end of the book this chapter is found, which, according to our custom, we annotate with an obelus, that is, a spit.”

That was fun!

St Jerome has little to say in this prologue about his actual work, except that the “common edition,” presumably the or an Old Latin version, of the Book of Esther was a mess, and he resorted to the Hebrew text of his day. In this respect, his translation is a valuable version representing a literal translation of a Hebrew text found in Palestine in the late fourth century. He unfortunately doesn’t describe in this letter the messy situation of the additions to Esther found in the Septuagint version, which he included en masse at the end of his version, with short notes indicating where they belonged in his translation. These additions can be found in various editions of the apocrypha, but they’re best read in the version in the NRSV, which is a full translation of the Septuagint text, not just of the additions, and includes them all in their places, not in a bunch at the end. Anyhow, enjoy!

UPDATE: Thanks once again to the very much appreciated help of Michael Gilleland of Laudator Temporis Acti, I’ve fixed a sentence (now the second one in the first paragraph) that gave me trouble.

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO ESTHER

The Book of Esther stands corrupted by various translators. Which (book) I, lifting up from the archives of the Hebrews, have translated more accurately word for word. The common edition drags the book by knotted ropes of words hither and yon, adding to it things which may have been said or heard at any time. This is as is usual with instruction by schools, when a subject has been taken up, to figure out from the words which someone could have used, which one either suffered injury, or which one caused injury (to the text).

And you, O Paula and Eustochium, since you have both studied to enter the libraries of the Hebrews and also have approved of the battles of the interpreters, holding the Hebrew Book of Esther, look through each word of our translation, so you may be able to understand me also to have augmented nothing by adding, but rather with faithful witness to have translated, just as it is found in the Hebrew, the Hebrew history into the Latin language. We are not affected by the praises of men, nor are we afraid of (their) slanders. For to be pleasing to God we do not inwardly fear those caring for the minas of men, “for God has scattered the bones of those desiring to be pleasing to men” (Ps 52.6), and according to the Apostle, those like this are “not able to be servants of Christ” (Gal 1.10).

END OF THE PROLOGUE

In this preface, too, St Jerome makes mention of the authority of the Church, in this case literally the famous First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, as declaring Judith among the books of Holy Scripture. In fact, he also mentions that “among the Hebrews” the book was considered as among the “Hagiographa,” some would say a somewhat flexible term, which in the previous prologue (to Tobias), he certainly seems to have equated with the Scriptures. If this is the case, then at one point in history, in the late 4th century, Judith was considered by at least some Jews in Palestine to have been Scripture. He does, however, in that very first sentence note that even though it is considered an “accepted” book, this is considered to have no bearing on the status of other books. Interesting. Enjoy!

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one, imitable not only for women, but also for men, has the Rewarder of her chastity given, Who has granted such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

[This is the first of St Jerome’s Vulgate prologues for one of the apocrypha that I’ve done. It’s very interesting, if one pays attention to his reasoning in this prologue, it being actually a letter which accompanied his translation of Tobias to the Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus. St Jerome is often considered or claimed to be vehemently opposed to the apocrypha, especially in antapocryphal Protestant circles. But we find in this letter that this is only half of the picture. While the apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, and St Jerome respects the Hebrew studies on this matter, he explcitly states here that the decisions of Christian bishops are more important. Something like this has been the response to critics of the “apocrypha,” “deuterocanonicals,” or whatever you want to call them, throughout the ages: they are included in the canon because that has been, is, and always will be the practice of the Church. It’s good to see this from St Jerome, and we’ll see a similar thing in his Prologue to Judith, coming up next. Enjoy!

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS TO THE BOOK OF EZRA

Whether it may be more difficult to do or not to do what you have requested, I have not yet established. For it is also not my desire to refuse your commands, and the greatness of weight imposed thus press upon the neck, so that before a falling under the bundle, there might rather be a lightening (of the load). The efforts of the envious agree with this, who consider all that I write reproof, with conscience occasionally fighting against them, publicly tearing apart what they read secretly, to such a degree that I am compelled to cry out and to say: “O Lord, free my soul from crooked lips and a false tongue” (Ps 119.2). It is the third year that you always write and write again, that I might translate the book of Ezra for you from Hebrew, as though you do not have the Greek and Latin scrolls, or whatever it is which is translated by us might not be something immediately spat upon by all. As a certain person says, “For to strive without effort, and not to seek anything by wearying except hatred, is extreme insanity” (Sallust, Jugurtha 3). Therefore, I implore you, my dearest Domnius and Rogatian, that, keeping the reading private, you will not bring the book forth into the public, nor throw food to the fastidious, and you will avoid the pride of them who know only (how) to judge others, and themselves (know how) to do nothing. And if there are any of the brothers whom we do not displease, give the text to them, admonishing that they transcribe the Hebrew names, of which there is a great abundance in this book, separately and with intermediate spaces. For it will profit nothing to correct the book, without diligence being preserved in the correction of the copiers.

Continue reading “Jerome’s Prologue to Ezra”

This prologue gives us an interesting view into the history of St Jerome’s translation work, and some very important information about the Septuagint in the world of his day. It appears that in addition to Origen’s Hexaplaric text, and the other well-known Septuagintal texts, he had done a corrected Latin version of the Septuagint, which unfortunately is entirely lost to us. One of the interesting things in this prologue is the mention of Jerome separating “lines into members” (per versuum cola). That is, he has separated the members, the individual words, with spaces, which was then rarely done, but so common now that we don’t even notice it.

The name “Paralipomenon” means, “things left over.” The book was called this because it included things not mentioned in Kings. I can remember being fascinated as a child by the exotic mystery of that name, Paralipomenon, like incense, silk, and the Faith itself, being something from the ancient world, in contrast to the much more prosaic Chronicles, a boring, uninteresting name to be found at the top of the local paper, and more redolent of the supermarket and gas station. But enough about me! Enjoy the continuing saga of the feisty St Jerome!

[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF PARALIPOMENON

If the version of the Seventy translators is pure and has remained as it was rendered by them into Greek, you have urged me on superfluously, my Cromatius, most holy and most learned of bishops, that I translated the Hebrew scrolls into Latin words. For what has formerly won the ears of men and strengthened the faith of those being born to the Church was indeed proper to be approved by our silence. Now, in fact, when different versions are held by a variety of regions, and this genuine and ancient translation is corrupted and violated, you have considered our opinion, either to judge which of the many is the true one, or to put together new work with old work, and shutting off to the Jews, as it is said, “a horn to pierce the eyes.” The region of Alexandria and Egypt praises in their Seventy the authority of Hesychius; the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the version of Lucian the Martyr; in the middle, between these provinces, the people of Palestine read the books which, having been labored over by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilius published. And all the world contends among them with this threefold variety. And Origen certainly not only put together the texts of four editions, writing the words in a single row so that one regularly differing may be compared to others agreeing among themselves, but what is more audacious, into the edition of the Seventy he mixed the edition of Theodotion, marking with asterisks those things which were missing, and placing virgules by those things which are seen to be superfulous. If, therefore, it was allowed to others not to hold what they once accepted, and after the seventy chambers, which are considered without a single author, individual chambers were opened, and thus is read in the churches what the Seventy did not know, why do my (fellow) Latins not accept me, who thus put together the new with the inviolate old edition so that I might make my work acceptable to the Hebrews and, what is greater than these, to the authors, the Apostles? I have recently written a book, “On the best kind of translating,” showing these things in the Gospel, and others similar to these, to be found in the books of the Hebrews: “Out of Egypt I called my son,” and “For he will be called a Nazarene,” and “They will look on him whom they have pierced,” and that of the Apostle, “Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and had not arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those loving Him.” The Apostles and Evangelists were certainly acquainted with (the version of) the Seventy interpreters, but from where (were) they (supposed) to say these things which are not in the Seventy? Christ our God, author of both Testaments, says in the Gospel according to John, “He who believes in me, as Scripture has said, Rivers of living water will flow from his belly.” Certainly, whatever is witnessed by the Savior to be written, is written. Where is it written? The Seventy don’t have it; the Church ignores the apocrypha; thus the turning back to the Hebrew (books), from which the Lord spoke and and the disciples took forth texts. In peace I will say these things of the ancients, and I respond only to my detractors, who bite me with dogs’ teeth, slandering me in public, speaking at corners, the same (being) both accusers and defenders, when approving for others what they reprove me for, as though virtue and error were not in conflict, but change with the author. I have recalled another edition of the Seventy translators corrected from the Greek to have been distributed by us, and me not to need to be considered their enemy, which things I always explain in the gatherings of the brothers. And what is now Dabreiamin, that is, Words of the Days, I have translated. I have therefore made the foreignness of the meanings clearer, and have separated lines into members, so that the inextribcable spaces and forest of names, which are confused through the error of the scribes, are, as Hismenius says, “themselves singing to me and mine,” even if the ears of others are deaf.

END OF THE PROLOGUE