De locis theologicis

WHERE THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO WISH TO PERSUADE US TO RETURN TO THE HEBREW AND GREEK SOURCES IN UNDERSTANDING SACRED SCRIPTURE ARE SET OUT

In the third question there is great disagreement, and unless it is settled we must remain in the gravest error and ignorance of the most important matters: whether, in understanding Sacred Scripture, we must return to the Hebrew and Greek sources, or rather

whether the Latin edition itself has such great authority and weight that it does not depend on the original text, nor need it be corrected or refined by that text. The first argument. The first part of this controversy is supported above all by the testimony of St. Jerome, who is believed to have first upheld this assertion in his book adversus Helvidium, especially for the reason that the water flowing from a spring is to be considered much purer than that of a stream. He says the same in his Epistola ad Marcellam, beginning “After the previous letter.” There, admitting that he had corrected some things in the Latin Gospels of the Vulgate and brought them back to their Greek source, he scorns his critics: “If the water of the purest spring displeases you,” he says, “let them drink muddy streams, and apply to reading Scripture the diligence with which they know the haunts of birds and the depths of shellfish.” He confirms the same point in his Letter to Damasus about the word “Hosanna,” beginning “Many,” and in his commentaries on Zechariah, saying: “We are compelled to return to the Hebrews and to seek the truth of knowledge at the spring rather than in its streams.” Cicero says the same in de Oratore: “It is the mark of a dull mind to follow streams and fail to see the sources of things.” In his letter to Vitalis, Jerome teaches that he was accustomed to flee to the Hebrew truth as to a refuge and stronghold. The second argument. Add to this Augustine's testimony from book 2 of De doct. Christi, chapter 15, and book 18 of De civit. Dei, where he agrees with Jerome's view. Further, Damasus compelled Jerome to bring the New Testament back to the Greek truth, as Jerome himself testifies in the preface to his commentary on the Four Gospels. Damasus would not have ordered this unless he had understood that the truth of the New Testament was to be sought from the Greek source. The third argument. Jerome himself also often criticizes the old translator in his commentaries, as one who frequently erred in translating. We are therefore not obliged to trust the old Latin edition, unless we wish to accuse Jerome either of malice, if he criticized what was well translated deliberately, or of incompetence, if he did so unknowingly. The firm understanding of Sacred Scripture must therefore be sought from somewhere other than the Latin edition. What is more, it seems that Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, Augustine of Eugubio, and some other recent writers have good reasons to accuse the old translator sometimes of carelessness, sometimes of negligence, sometimes of incompetence, and sometimes of superstition. Yet I do not intend to report all the arguments of those who commonly criticize the Latin edition used by the Church. Refuting these arguments would require another occasion and labor. We shall bring forward only those criticisms that accuse the old edition of falsehood. First, at the very end of Numbers, they say that the Latin translator gave a sense that contradicts not only the Hebrew truth but also Sacred Scripture altogether. For his edition contains the clear command that no man should marry a woman unless she is from his own tribe and family, and that no woman should marry a man from another tribe and family. Yet this is so far from the truth of Scripture that nothing could be more contrary to it. Moses himself was the first to disregard this, and he did not take a wife from his own tribe. Aaron took Elisheba as his wife, from the tribe of Judah (Exodus 6). The sister of the king of Judah married Jehoiada the high priest (2 Chronicles 22 and 2 Kings 2). Elizabeth, being among the daughters of Aaron, was related to the Blessed Mary, who was undoubtedly of the tribe of Judah. David married Michal, the daughter of Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin. The eleven tribes pleaded not a law but an oath as the reason they could not give their daughters

to the tribe of Benjamin, while at the same time it is entirely clear that no law forbade those who had not sworn to do so (Judges 21). Therefore, what the translator alone has supplied is spurious, adulterous, and false. Next, the old Latin edition has this reading at Micah 5: “And you, Bethlehem Ephrata, are little among the thousands of Judah; from you there will come forth for me,” and so forth. Matthew, however, cited the same words with an entirely opposite sense, saying, “And you, Bethlehem, are by no means least.” Further, at Psalm 7, verse 12, our edition reads, “Does he grow angry every day?” whereas the Hebrew truth has the opposite sense, with which Jerome entirely agrees. Calvin also contends that the passage in Ecclesiastes 9, “No one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or love,” was rendered incorrectly by the translator and that the translator's statement is false, since most people know they deserve hatred, and some have known themselves to be worthy of love. Some also believe that the translator gave a false reading at Matthew 24 when he rendered “lightning” instead of “brightness”: lightning certainly does not reach from east to west, but the sun's brightness does. They also press the fact that at Jonah 4 the translator rendered that the Lord prepared an ivy plant to provide shade over Jonah's head, and so forth, although Jerome himself says that kikayon is neither ivy nor gourd, but a certain kind of shrub unknown to Latins and Greeks and familiar to Syrians. The Lord did not prepare ivy, then, nor did Jonah rest in the shade of ivy, as the translator falsely rendered it. The fourth argument. Moreover, if we must adhere to the old Latin translator's edition, we will be compelled to accept the story of Susanna and also the account of Bel and the dragon, which Jerome calls a fable because the Hebrew truth does not contain it; he would not have added it to Sacred Scripture, he says, had it not seemed to the unlearned that he had cut off a large part of the book. We will likewise be compelled to accept the final chapter of Mark, which Jerome in Question 3 to Hedibia does not consider necessary, since it is found in few Gospels and is absent from nearly all the Greek books. We will also have to revere the story of the adulterous woman now found in John 8, although Eusebius does not know it except in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Jerome does not acknowledge it at all, and even Chrysostom did not deem it worthy of interpretation, although he mentioned it elsewhere. Euthymius, though he narrates the same story, says a little earlier that it is not found in the more exact copies, because it seems inauthentic. The fifth argument. Again, if the Latin translator's edition must be followed, we would have to admit that all will rise again and therefore all will die, according to what is said in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: “We shall all rise again, but we shall not all be changed.” Yet we are not compelled to accept this opinion, as St. Thomas also asserts in his commentary on the same passage. Rather, the most probable opinion is that the people found alive on the Day of Judgment will be judged alive, without death intervening—a point that the Apostle certainly seems to assert in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Add that the translator was not a prophet or sacred author but translated Scripture from a foreign language into his own through human spirit and understanding. He could therefore err and be mistaken in translation. We are consequently not bound to embrace the translator's meaning but the very text, as it was handed down by its sacred author in Hebrew or Greek. For, as Jerome says, it is one thing to be a prophet and another to be a translator: in the former, the Spirit foretells the future; in the latter, learning and command of words convey what the translator understands.

The sixth argument. Moreover, if we are not permitted to depart from the Latin translator's version, we condemn the diligence and linguistic skill of all recent translators of Sacred Scripture as useless for understanding it. That is, even if the Hebrew or Greek words have another meaning, that meaning is to be despised, while the one favored by the old Latin text is to be maintained in every way. Nor can these arguments be answered by saying that Jerome, the author of this edition, was much more skilled in languages than anyone else, and that therefore his authority, talent, and learning surpass those of any recent translator. I say that this reply is not sufficient. First, it is better to see with one's own eyes than with another's; it is therefore better for each person to know the languages themselves and to see for oneself rather than trust a translator. Second, since the Septuagint translators, men of great learning and highly skilled in Hebrew and Greek, sometimes erred in translation, there is no reason to think that Jerome alone never erred when translating. To pass over the question whether this old edition is Jerome's or someone else's—a matter on which highly learned men disagree greatly—even the New Testament, to say nothing of the Old, was either not translated by Jerome, or, if he translated it, his version does not survive. If it did survive, our argument would still stand: Jerome's sense, since he was not a sacred author, should not always be embraced. The seventh argument. Further, in the first Clementine decree, title De magistris, the Council of Vienne ordered that teachers of the three languages be appointed at the universities of Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca, to pass their knowledge on to others through diligent instruction. The Council would not have ordered this unless such knowledge were highly necessary for understanding Sacred Scripture. Moreover, we should not deny to divine Scripture what must be granted to all human writings: when there is doubt about a writing, one must return to the original from which it was translated. By these arguments—which are not slight but, as most judge, quite strong—those devoted to innovation first persuaded themselves that knowledge of the two languages, Greek and Hebrew, is necessary to know the truth of the New and Old Testaments. From there they descended to the opinion that they do not consider themselves to be expounding Sacred Scripture if they follow the common Latin translation; for, they say, that is to explain not the author of Sacred Scripture but its translator. Finally, they have gone so far as to assert that we ought not to embrace the authority of the Latin translator, but rather the Hebrew text in the Old Testament and the Greek in the New. The result, they say, is that our Latin edition must be thoroughly refined and corrected by Hebrew and Greek copies. But, good reader, if you have perhaps adopted this conviction, I ask you to set it aside for a little while, until we present what is truer and more certain. We shall try to refute this view, which most people have accepted, with the help, I hope, of the one whose cause we wish to defend against the attackers of truth. For if I had applied myself to this disputation either out of vanity or a desire to contend, I would consider not only my foolishness but also my character and disposition worthy of condemnation. If obstinacy is condemned and slander restrained even in minor matters, should I contend aggressively with others or deceive others and myself about the greatest matters, those so important for preserving the unity of the Church

Would I wish to? Since we desire to dispute for the sake of finding the truth, we shall define this controversy very briefly in four conclusions.