De locis theologicis

ON THE USEFULNESS OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK LANGUAGES

In the first place, languages are extremely useful when disputing with unbelievers, or when unbelievers of another language are being instructed in the faith. This is itself the reason given in Clementine 1, de magistris, for which languages are to be studied thoroughly in the Academies. Otherwise, why was the Arabic language prescribed for teaching there? Erasmus seems to have been slightly stirred by this point, and used this Clementine's argument to assert that Hebrew and Greek are necessary for understanding Sacred Scripture. Another advantage of languages is in explaining words that carry great emphasis or some inherent property in Hebrew and Greek, which

the Latin language cannot express. Jerome noted many words of this kind both in his Hebrew Questions and in his Commentaries. We shall give one or two examples. In Marc. 6 the translator rendered the phrase, “And when he had dismissed them,” although the Greek verb άποτάσσεσθαι does not mean simply to dismiss, but to dismiss kindly and graciously, as when after a banquet we bid our friends a warm farewell. In this passage the Evangelist, writing in Greek, commended the great kindness and graciousness of Jesus Christ even toward common people. This can scarcely be expressed in Latin. And in epist. ad Ephes., where our edition has “from the foundation of the world,” the Greek has καταβολή. Wishing to explain the force of this word in his commentaries, Jerome says: “καταβολή does not mean the same as ‘foundation’; hence, because of the poverty of our language and the novelty of the matter, and—as someone says—because Greek is a broader speech and a more fortunate language, we shall try not so much to translate word for word, which is impossible, as to explain by a kind of circumlocution the force of the word. καταβολή properly means when something is cast down or when something takes its beginning. Hence those who lay the foundations of future buildings are said to have καταβεβληκέναι. Paul therefore wished to show that God had fashioned all things from nothing, and referred this not to a condition, creation, or workmanship, but to καταβολήν—that is, to the beginning of a foundation.” So far Jerome. In lib. Adversus Iovinian. treating the passage in 1 Corinth. 7, “Not that I might cast a snare upon you,” he also says that Latin does not express the Greek idiom. “In what words could anyone say this?” and so on. Hence, because translation is difficult, this point is entirely absent from the Latin manuscripts. There are many other examples of this kind, which we omit for the sake of brevity. Let anyone who wishes read many passages in Hilary's exposition of the Psalms, where he repeatedly asserts that Latin does not convey the full meaning of the Greek text. Ambrose too says in his exposition of Psalm. 118: “The Latins cannot express in every case the force of the Greek language, since Greek often has greater force and splendor of expression.” In this matter, Erasmus's annotations on the New Testament could have greatly helped theologians, if he had not sprinkled them with so many errors. There is also another advantage: from the same Scripture one can obtain several Catholic senses, especially when a word is ambiguous in Greek and Hebrew. Our dialecticians call such words polysemous and ambiguous. For a translator can render only one meaning of a word. Thus at Ecclesiast. 2, where our edition has “I thought to draw my flesh away from wine,” some translate, “To draw my flesh into wine,” others, “To draw my flesh through wine.” The wholly contrary translations were caused by the contrary meanings of the Hebrew verb, as Jerome himself points out in his commentaries. And in book 1 of his Apologiae adversus Rufinum, treating the verse in Psalm. 2, “Take hold of instruction,” which he himself translated as “Worship the Son,” or even “Worship purely,” he says: “If it were not so lengthy and might not smell of vainglory, I would now show you the benefit of wearing out the thresholds of teachers and learning the art from its practitioners. You would see what a forest of ambiguous nouns and words there is among the Hebrews, which provided material for differing interpretations, as each person translated what seemed to him more fitting amid the uncertainties.” So far Jerome. See Ambrose too on the word Beresith in Psalm. 2. Ambiguity in a foreign language sometimes also provides a lively use and play on words that not only cannot be preserved in our language, but whose true meaning cannot even be conveyed without great

freedom can be allowed. For example, in Ierem. 1, where we have “watching,” the Hebrew word is Soced, which is ambiguous and means both an almond tree and watching, as Jerome discusses in that passage and in Ecclesiast., final chapter. When an almond or hazel branch had been shown to the prophet in a vision, and the Lord asked what he saw, Jeremiah answered in Hebrew that he saw a Soced branch. Then the Lord, playing on the word, said, “You have seen well, for I will watch,” and so on. Although Jeremiah understood the word in one sense, the Lord, turning it to the other sense, made from the ambiguity of the word a most elegant harmony of meaning, as if someone seeing a certain constellation in the sky said that he saw a dog, and was cleverly told, “You have seen well, for a dog will tear you apart,” and so on. If the Latin translator had rendered Soced as “almond tree,” as the Seventy had done, he would have absurdly added, “You have seen well, for I will watch,” and so on. He was therefore forced, by a certain new and unusual liberty of interpretation, to render it into Latin ears as “watching branch.” I would not dare to assert this if the most authoritative Jerome had not supported it. The fourth benefit of linguistic learning is for understanding the idioms, phrases, and proverbs of a foreign language, such as “Do not look behind you,” and “You shall greet no one on the way,” by which great speed on a journey is signified proverbially and figuratively. The following is also said by a proverbial figure among both Hebrews and Spaniards: “To everyone who has, more will be given; but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” Ecclesiasticus similarly speaks of an unfaithful and treacherous counselor: “Guard your life from a counselor, lest he drive a stake into the ground and say to you, ‘Your way is good.’” Thus, according to Hebrew idiom, “sons of the shaken” means strong and nimble men. Read Jerome's letter to Marcella on this point, which begins “Blessed Pamphilus.” So, in Ecclesiast. 12, “daughters of song” means the ears. Saul is called “a son of one year” when he began to reign, that is, innocent—unless you understand it, as Eucherius thought, to mean that Saul, after being chosen by Samuel, remained silent at home for one year and began to reign when the year had ended. But we shall discuss this example elsewhere. Perhaps through the copyists' error, “one year” appears where it should read “twenty-one years.” Thus Nimrod is “a mighty hunter before the Lord,” that is, under heaven—as if he were the mightiest of all people under heaven. I know some interpret “hunter before the Lord” as “hunter of God,” signifying that civil power under a single monarch was approved by God as an instrument of his administration. But what I said earlier is preferred by the most learned Hebrews. Or “hunter before God” may mean “in the open air.” For he gathered people, who wandered about the fields like wild animals, into civil society. Some think that “the Lord rained from the Lord” is a Hebraism meaning “from above”; but Eusebius, book 1 of Ecclesiastical History, ch. 1; Jerome on Hosea 1; Irenaeus, book 3, ch. 6; Basil, book 5 Contra Eunom.; Marcellinus to Bishop Solomon; and the Council of Sirmium, canon 15, understand it as the Son from the Father. Certainly, to pass over the other books of the Old Testament, Solomon's Proverbs can scarcely be explained in any way without taking account of Hebrew custom and language. What is said proverbially among the Hebrews is sometimes not a proverb at all among the Latins. Many people, ignorant of this, either resort to allegories in explaining proverbs or invent various absurdities; it would have been much better simply to confess ignorance than to make others heirs to one's incompetence. I would readily mention the errors of these Latin writers, were the needs of the present work not otherwise pressing; and, out of respect or goodwill, we do not wish to attack anyone here by name. This

is clear: parables promise one thing in their inner meaning and another on the surface, and do not signify what is written. From this, as Jerome says in Ecclesiast., final chapter, it is clear that the book of Proverbs does not, as simple people think, contain obvious precepts. Rather, its divine meaning must be searched out more deeply, just as one searches for gold in the earth, a kernel in a nut, or fruit hidden beneath the prickly husks of chestnuts. We shall do this with difficulty, to say nothing more, without knowledge of the Hebrew language. Jerome would have greatly helped the Latin understanding if he had published commentaries on the books of Proverbs. For the commentaries that circulate under his name, though they are attributed to Jerome in the Decretal, title “De constit.,” are clearly found not to be his. The fifth benefit is for correcting errors that have crept in through the carelessness of printers or the incompetence of copyists. Thus in Iosue 11: “There was no city that did not surrender,” where the second negative is superfluous, as can be clearly inferred from what follows. But perhaps because the Seventy had that negative in their manuscript, they were compelled to refer the verb “surrendered” to another subject and either delete or omit the pronoun “itself.” Likewise, in Psalm. 26, “that I may see the will of the Lord” should read “the delight,” Greek τερπνότητα; and in the heading of Psalm. 62, “of Idumea” should read “of Judea,” as all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts show. In Psalm. 65, “and I rejoiced under my tongue” should read “I exalted,” as is clear from both the Greek and Hebrew. Some think there is also a mistake in Psalm. 19, “They are bound and have fallen,” instead of “they are bent down”; Jerome translated it “They are bowed down,” and the other interpreters agree. Again, in Psalm. 124, “those who turn aside to bonds” should read “to crooked ways”; Jerome rendered it “iniquities,” Felix “perversities,” and others “wrongdoings.” Titelmann agrees here. In fact, however, these two passages are uncorrupted. In the first, the Greek has συνεποδίσθησαν; Συμποδίζω means “I bind,” “I hinder by tying,” and “I entangle.” In the second, the Greek reads στραγγαλιας, a word that in Latin means a bond, knot, and entangled tie, as Nazianzen also used it in an oration. Jerome too reads “bonds” with us in Isaiae, cap. 58. Hence the knot of the throat and the place of strangling are called στραγγάλη in Greek, and στραγγαλόω means “I strangle” or “I suffocate.” This passage is indeed corrupt in Psalmo 106: “Contempt was poured out upon the princes,” where it should read “derision”; the Greek is έξουδένωσις. In Psal. 122 the translator renders the same word “contempt.” Rufinus, however, in book 8 of Hist. eccl., ch. 1, translated it, “Insult was poured out upon the princes.” And in Iob 19, “or with a chisel they are carved in flint” should read “certainly”; and in Luc. 10 “looking up” should read “taking up,” Greek ύπολαβών, although the author of De vera et falsa poenitentia, which circulates under Augustine's name, followed the common error. In Luc. 15, “he overturned” should read “he swept out,” Greek σαροϊ; and in 1 Corinth. 2, “is judged spiritually” should read “they are judged,” Greek άνακρίνεται; and in chapter 10, “all who are of one bread” should read “all indeed”; and in chapter 15, “I die daily for your glory” should read “by your glory.” For there the Apostle swears, and the particle νή is an adverb used in Greek by one who swears. And in Hebr. 5, “the word is interpretable” should read “uninterpretable,” that is, ineffable and very difficult to explain, as is clear from Jerome's letter to Evagrius. Jerome also says in Hebrew Questions on Gen. 3 that one should read “He himself will crush your head,” not “she herself.” Since among the Hebrews it refers in the neuter gender to “offspring,” the translator considered the thing signified and rendered it in the masculine, “he himself.” The unlearned, not understanding this and thinking it a copyist's error, substituted “she herself.”

To pass over the points mentioned by Augustine of Eugubio: “as a deer longs for the shade” instead of “as a servant”; “by the heat of the sun” instead of “by the heat of salt”; “my soul thirsted for God the fountain” instead of “the strong God”; and “the land was killed by blood” instead of “infected by blood.” In Psalm. 10, where we have “He who loves iniquity hates his own soul,” St. Jerome thinks one should read “his soul,” meaning God's soul; for “his soul” refers to God, not the sinner. The sense fits remarkably well: God is understood to question both the just and the wicked, but to reject the wicked, since God's hatred is rejection. We, however, can follow the Greek manuscripts of the Seventy that now exist. For they do not have τής ψυχής (“of the soul”), but τήν ψυχήν (“the soul”). Perhaps this is where the saying in Tobit came from: “Those who do iniquity are enemies of their own soul.” Similarly, in his epistola ad Suniam et Fretellam, Jerome insists that, where Psalm. 5 reads “Direct my way in your sight,” one should read “Direct your way in my sight.” For he himself translated it, “Direct your way before my face.” Here too we follow the Greek manuscripts and approve the common reading whenever we reasonably can. A similar case occurs in Philipp. 3: “who serve God in spirit,” where Ambrose, in book 2 of De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 6, thinks one should read “in the Spirit.” Such errors do not occur only in Latin; we find them also in Hebrew and Greek. Cajetan rightly, in my judgment, detected that in 2 Reg. 21 the Hebrews had wrongly substituted the word Michal for Merob, as is clear from 1 Sam. 12. Jerome also detected in Psalm. 131 that the Seventy translated not χήραν, “a widow,” but θήραν, “a hunt”; because the words were similar, θήρα, “a hunt,” had been substituted for χήραν, “a widow,” especially since the poor followed in the next verse. Unless, perhaps, the Latin translator rendered it as “food” or “a hunt,” and the error prevailed so that “widow” came to be read. For the Hebrew word in no way means a widow, but rather a hunt, food, and provisions for a journey. Errors of this kind can be corrected by careful reasoning and prudent judgment. For who can tolerate those who, as Quintilian says, expose their own ignorance while attacking the ignorance of copyists? While they try to purge the Holy Books of errors, as they say, they contaminate them. I admit that it was easy and natural for an unlearned and careless copyist, especially where words or things were somewhat similar, to reject what was correct and substitute what was corrupt. I also admit that in former times there was such reverence for Sacred Scripture that once an error, however obvious, had crept in, it was considered a religious duty not to touch it. But I also see the shameless recklessness of our age, which dares everything in correcting the sacred codices, so that the Manichaeans of old seem to have been scarcely immoderate in this matter. Augustine writes to Jerome that they were accustomed to contend that many passages of the divine Scriptures had been corrupted, not by the apostles who wrote them but by certain—who knows which?—corruptors of manuscripts. But enough of this. We must nevertheless not pass over what St. Jerome writes in Ezech., ch. 40: nearly all the Hebrew words and names that appear in the Latin translation have been corrupted by great age and the faults of copyists. Knowledge of Hebrew is therefore necessary to correct them. For even if all the names remained intact and uncorrupted, the interpretations of those names, through which many mysteries of Sacred Scripture are revealed, would still be unavailable without knowledge of this language, as Augustine attests in lib. 2 De docirin. christ., cap. 16. In that same passage he acknowledges that those who separately interpreted Hebrew names conferred no small benefit on Latin readers. The sixth benefit is for understanding certain passages, namely, those which could either have been rendered more clearly by the translator or cannot be explained without knowledge of languages, as in John:

“There was a certain royal official,” for the Greek is βασιλικός, that is, a man of the royal court or a courtier, as Jerome noted in Isaiah. It seems that the translator read βασιλισκός in Greek. But all the Greek manuscripts have βασιλικός, meaning “royal” or “regal.” From this one may conjecture that the translator rendered it as “royal,” but some half-learned person substituted “petty king.” And in Ioan. 1, “He who is coming after me has been made before me” would be translated more clearly as “has been set before me” or “is ahead of me,” as Augustine noted in Questions in Numeros, q. 51, and Homily 3 in Ioan.. And in Act. 27, “since sailing was no longer safe because the fast had already passed” should be “because they had fasted beyond the proper time”; and in Rom. 12, “not defending yourselves” should be “not avenging yourselves.” For we can scarcely—or certainly cannot—explain the number of the beast written in Apoc. 13 without understanding the Greek alphabet according to its numerical order. We shall discuss this more fully in Book Thirteen. The seventh benefit is avoiding error caused by ambiguity in Latin. Thus Christ is called “the Son of Man” in the Gospel. While the genitive is of common gender in Latin, in Greek it is defined by the masculine article, so that he is understood not as the son of a virgin but as the son of Adam. For according to Hebrew idiom “son of man” means, like “son of the earth,” a obscure and contemptible man; and the Son of God repeatedly boasts of this title in the Gospel. Such was the modesty of the incarnate Word. Although, as Augustine says, Christ often commends to us what in his mercy he deigned to be for us. Another example of this is in the final chapter of Romans: “Gaius, my host and of the whole Church, greets you.” “Of the whole Church” is in the genitive case, not the nominative, so that Gaius is understood to host not only Paul but the whole Church as well. And in Luc. 11, “Give alms from what remains” is ambiguous in Latin. It can mean either “what remains” in the sense of what is left for you, or “what remains,” that is, what is superfluous. Latin allows both interpretations, but Greek excludes them. For it has τά ένόντα, that is, “the things within,” or “what you have,” as Theophylact, Cyril in book 2 in Leviticum, Augustine on Psalm. 125, and Chrysostom in Homily 33 to the People and Homily 9 on the Epistle to the Hebrews explain. The Greek reading has the latter sense; it does not seem to have the first or second, although the second pleased St. Thomas, who in this matter follows both Bede on Luke and Gregory in his epistola ad Augustinum, bishop of the English; this is cited in 12, q. 1, ch. “Quia tua.” Finally, another benefit is understanding certain Hebrew or Greek words that remain in the Latin edition, either to preserve the more sacred authority of antiquity or because they could not conveniently be translated into another language, as Augustine teaches in lib. 18 De civitate Dei, cap. 11. Thus Matth. 11: “The poor are evangelized,” that is, they receive good news. For while in a human kingdom the secret affairs of kings are conveyed to the poor through the rich, in Christ's kingdom heavenly messages have instead been brought to the rich through the poor. And in 1 Corinth., final chapter: “Anathema, Marana atha.” The first of these is Greek; the latter is not so much Hebrew as Syriac. Jerome discusses this in a certain epistola ad Marcellam beginning “Nuper,” and in his epist. ad Damasum about the word “Hosanna,” where he notes that Hilary wrongly interpreted that word because of his ignorance of Hebrew. There may also be other benefits of knowing languages. I could not enumerate them all; I have given enough to keep the envy of this subject from weakening my argument. These matters will be better and more fully presented by others who may have taken up the defense of languages,

and on this subject they will be able to say whatever they wish; we shall gladly hear them, provided they keep within the prescribed bounds of religious modesty and do not, through deceptive vanity, either misrepresent the true benefits of languages or replace the old Latin translator's edition with newer ones as supposedly more elegant and better. For there are some who, because the ancient version of the New Testament is not elegant and polished enough, would very much like it removed and replaced by another, more Latinized version. They want to paint God's wisdom in the colors of art and adorn it, as it were, like a girl with rhetorical ornaments. But since it is modest, it does not seek embellishment; since it is grave, it knows no cosmetics; since it is manly, it is not captivated by women's finery. “Whatever affection dictates is without ornament,” someone says. Love, therefore, knows no ornaments. “The ornaments of learning,” another says, “are not the business of labor but of leisure; painted words are not for warfare but for peace.” Thus that which sings of war, raises its voice like a trumpet, and thunders immediate death at the attacking enemies sounds somewhat rough and barbarous; it does not sing a musical song with the pleasant, sweet sound of a lyre or cithara. What happened to Theopompus when he played at Sacred Scripture in the manner of rhetoricians has been handed down to memory. But let us leave the outsiders and turn to our own writers. “Not in persuasive words of human wisdom,” he says, “but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” And again, “O Timothy, avoid profane novelties of words,” he says. If even novelty of words must be avoided, then antiquity must be retained; if novelty is profane, then what is old is sacred, as Vincent of Lérins said. Likewise: “The words of the Lord are chaste words, silver tested by fire.” From a pure and simple Spirit, a pure and simple discourse was to be expected. A grave, honorable, elder woman should have no adornment except a chaste one; see Augustine, De doct., book 4, ch. 6. For this reason, I shall say frankly that I have never been able to approve even those who have published paraphrases of Sacred Scripture, however Latin and elegant they may be. For when they assume the person of Christ or Paul speaking, the more elegantly and polishedly they speak, the less they preserve their spirit and majesty; they even become, in a way, guilty of injuring that spirit and majesty. Certainly, as I once said as a boy, to the great approval of wise men: “If Christ or Paul spoke to me in their language, they would be neither Christ nor Paul to me.” Believe me, Christ is not all polished and adorned, nor elaborately ornamented; and Paul, though not lacking in knowledge, is nevertheless unskilled in speech. So let Christ keep his own language, and let Paul keep his own language; for each is the pen of a swift-writing scribe, not one laboring over every word and stroke. The old edition of the New Testament, which was our subject, is therefore not to be considered inferior on this account, even though it is plain and unpolished. Enough, then, has been said about the third question.