Jerome to Sunja and Friþila

Epistola 106

(alias 135 ;  scripta circa annum 403)

Ad Sunniam et Fretelam

LETTER OF ST. JEROME TO THE GOTHIC CLERGYMEN
SUNJA AND FRIÞILA CONCERNING
PLACES IN THEIR COPY OF THE PSALTER
WHICH HAD BEEN CORRUPTED FROM
THE SEPTUAGINT1

English translation:
Letter of St. Jerome
to the Gothic Clergymen Sunja and Friþila
concerning Places in Their Copy of the Psalter
Which Had Been Corrupted from the Septuagint
by Michael Metlen,
The Journal of English and Germanic Philology,
Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1937), pp. 515-542.

PARAGRAPHI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
{ 1 }
Capitulum I
Postquam gratulatus est Sunniæ ac Fretelæ viris, e Getarum licet genere, studiis Divinarum Scripturarum præclaris :  respondet ad sibi propositas e Psalmis quæstiones, eorumque difficultates omnes diluit, ostendens quænam sit inter variantes lectiones Græcas atque Latinas, ceteris præferenda, quæque propius ad Hebraicum fontem accedat.
106:0Dilectissimis fratribus SUNNIÆ et FRETELÆ, et ceteris qui vobiscum Domino serviunt, HIERONYMUS. To My Beloved Brethren Sunja and Friþila and All Those Who with You are Serving the Lord, Hieronymus.
106:1Vere in vobis Apostolicus et Propheticus sermo completus est :  In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terræ verba eorum (Ps. 18:5; et Rom. 10:18).  Quis hoc crederet, ut barbara Getarum lingua Hebraicam quæreret Veritatem ;  et dormitantibus, immo contendentibus Græcis, ipsa Germania Spiritus Sancti eloquia scrutaretur ?  In veritate cognovi, quod non est personarum acceptor Deus ;  sed in omni gente qui timet Deum, et operatur justitiam, acceptus est illi (Act. 10:34 et 35).  Dudum callosa tenendo capulum manus, et digiti tractandis sagittis aptiores, ad stilum calamumque mollescunt ;  et bellicosa pectora vertuntur in mansuetudinem Christianam.  Nunc et Isaiæ vaticinium cernimus opere completum :  Concident gladios suos in aratra, et lanceas suas in falces ;  et non sumet gens contra gentem gladium, et non discent ultra pugnare (Isai. 2:4).  Rursum in eodem :  Pascetur lupus cum agno ;  et pardus requiescet cum hædo ;  et vitulus et leo et taurus pascentur simul ;  et puer parvulus ducet eos, et bos et ursus in commune pascentur :  parvulique eorum erunt pariter ;  et leo et bos comedent paleas (Isai. 11:6f., 65:25) ;  non ut simplicitas in feritatem transeat, sed ut feritas discat simplicitatem.
 Certainly these apostolic and prophetic words have been fulfilled in you:  Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world?2  Who would believe that the barbarous language of the Goths would try to compete with the Hebrew in establishing the true text of the Scriptures, and that, while the Greeks are indolent and contentious, even Germany3 would scrutinize the words of the Holy Spirit?  Truly I have found out that God is no respecter of persons, but that among every nation he who feareth him and cloth what is right will be acceptable to him.4 Already the hands callous from wielding the sword, and the fingers fitter to handle the bow are getting accustomed to using the pen, and the men hardened in warfare are learning Christian gentleness.  Now we see the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled indeed:  They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks;  nation will not lift up the sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more.5 And again in the same:  The wolf will eat with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the bull will feed together, and a little child will lead them; and the cow and the bear will eat together, and their young ones will be friends, and the lion and the ox will eat straw,6 not in order that meekness shall become ferocious, but that ferocity shall learn meekness.
1. The following translation into English has been made from the critical Latin edition by I. Hilberg in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna and Leipzig, 1922), Lv, letter 106.
2. Rom. 10:18.
3. Jerome seems to have considered the Goths Germans. To the Romans, of course, all Teutons were “Germans” in the sense of having common characteristics which distinguished them from other races, such as the Romans themselves, the Greeks, etc. See also Tacitus’ Germania, 44.
4. Acts 10:34,35.
5. Is. 2:4.
6. Is. 11:6,7.
106:2Quæritis a me rem magni operis, et majoris invidiæ ;  in qua scribentis non ingenium, sed eruditio comprobetur ;  ut dum ipse cupio de ceteris judicare, judicandum me omnibus præbeam :  et in opere Psalterii juxta digestionem schedulæ vestræ, ubicumque inter Latinos Græcosque contentio est, quid magis Hebræis conveniat, significem.  In quo illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Cæsariensis Eusebius, omnesque Græciæ tractatores κοινήν, id est, “communem” appellant, atque Vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανὸς dicitur ;  aliam Septuaginta Interpretum, quæ in Ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymæ atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur.  Super qua re et sanctus filius meus Avitus sæpe quæsierat.  Et quia se occasio fratris nostri Firmi Presbyteri dedit, qui mihi vestram epistolam reddidit ;  duobus scribens in commune respondeo, et me magno amicitiæ libero fenore, quod, quanto magis solvimus, plus debemus.  Sicut autem in Novo Testamento, si quando apud Latinos quæstio exoritur, et est inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad fontem Græci sermonis, quo novum scriptum est Instrumentum :  ita in Veteri Testamento, si quando inter Græcos Latinosque diversitas est, ad Hebraicam confugimus [al. recurrimus] veritatem ut, quicquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc quæramus in rivulis.  Κοινὴ autem ista, hoc est Communis editio, ipsa est quæ et Septuaginta.  Sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod κοινὴ pro locis et temporibus, et pro voluntate scriptorum, vetus corrupta editio est.  Ea autem quæ habetur in Ἑξαπλοῖς, et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quæ in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuaginta Interpretum translatio reservatur.  Quicquid ergo ab hac discrepat, nulli dubium est, quin ita et ab Hebræorum auctoritate discordet.
 You are requesting of me a difficult thing and one beset with trouble, a matter which does not require so much of ingenuity as rather learning, exposing me, as it does, while trying to judge about others, to public criticism. You wish namely, according to your letter, that I indicate to you, wherever there is in the Psalter a discrepancy between the Latin and Greek texts, which of the readings in question expresses the corresponding Hebrew text more faithfully. In connection with this let me advise you at the outset briefly that there is one edition which Origines and Eusebius of Caesarea and all Greek writers call the κοινή,7 that is, the common or vulgar text, and which now goes mostly by the name of Lukian, the other is the Septuagint, which is also to be found in the Hexapla8 and has been translated by me faithfully into Latin, and is used at Jerusalem and in the oriental churches. About this matter also my holy son Avitus has inquired often, and since our brother, the presbyter Firmus, who brought me your letter, affords me a chance, I am going to answer it jointly, thus acquitting myself of a duty of friendship which cannot be exaggerated. And as, in dealing with the New Testament, whenever among the Latin writers a doubt arises, and there occurs a discrepancy between individual copies, we have recourse to the original Greek, in which the New Testament was written, so also in the Old Testament, if there are discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts, we go back to the Hebrew, in order that we may trace to their origins the individual variant readings. The κοινή that is the common edition, however, is the same as the Septuagint, but with the difference that the κοινή is the old edition, which became corrupted through the whims of the individual writers and the accidents of the times and of the places [where the copies were made],9 whereas the one which is contained in the Hexapla and which I have translated is the pure and unadulterated version of the Septuagint, as it is found in the texts of learned scholars. There is no doubt that whatever differs from this differs also from the Hebrew text.10
7. In explaining Greek or Latin words Jerome has the habit of not stating them in their basic forms, but subjects them to the syntax of the sentence that he is just using.  Since ancient Greek has no ablative case, where Latin requires an ablative form, Jerome uses for it the dative case of the Greek word.
8. In order to save the original Bible text from the increeping corruptions, Origenes collated numerous manuscripts of the Septuagint, publishing the results in the Hexapla, which contains in six columns the Hebrew text, that of the Septuagint (with diacritical marks indicating what was to be added or omitted), the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, as well as fragments of a Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh edition.  See Brockhaus.
9. Brackets by the translator.
10. This refers to the Septuagint as contained in the Hexapla.  The original text was in many places rather free, at times defective and even wrong.  See Brockhaus.
106:3Prima de quinto Psalmo quæstio fuit :  Neque habitabit juxta te malignus (Ps. 5:6).  Pro quo habetur in Græco, οὔτε παροικήσει σοι πονηρὸς sive πονηρευόμενος, ut Vulgata editio continet.  Et miramini, cur παροικίαν, id est, “incolatum,” Latinus interpres non verterit, sed pro hoc posuerit “habitationem,” quæ Græce dicitur κατοικία.  Quod quidem in alio loco fecisse convincitur :  Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est (Ps. 119:5).  Et in decimo quarto Psalmo rursum pro “incolatu” “habitationem” posuit :  Domine quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo ? (Ps. 14:1).  Et sciendum quod, si voluerimus dicere “Domine quis incolet tabernaculum tuum ?”, vel illud de quinto (Ps. 5:6) :  “Neque incolet juxta te malignus,” perdet εὐφωνίαν ;  et dum interpretationis κακοζηλίαν sequimur, omnem decorem translationis amittimus ;  et hanc esse regulam boni interpretis, ut ἰδιώματα linguæ alterius, suæ linguæ exprimat proprietate.  Quod et Tullium in Protagora Platonis, et in Οἰκονομικῷ Xenophontis, et in Demosthenis contra Æschinen oratione fecisse convincimus ;  et Plautum, Terentium, Cæciliumque, eruditissimos viros, in Græcis comœdiis transferendis.  Nec ex eo quis Latinam linguam angustissimam putet, quod non possit verbum de verbo transferre — quum etiam Græci pleraque nostra circuitu [al. per circumitus] transferant, et verba Hebraica, non interpretationis fide, sed linguæ suæ proprietatibus nitantur exprimere.
 Your first question concerns the place in the 5th Psalm:  Neque habitabit juxta te malignus which reads in the Greek:  οὔτε παροικήσει σοι πονηρὸς, which reading the vulgar11 edition contains;  and you are wondering why the Latin translator has not rendered the word παροικίαν by “incolatum,” and why he has used instead the word “habitationem,” which is in the Greek κατοικία.  He has done the same in another place, viz. in:  Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est.  And in the 14th Psalm he uses again “habitationem” for “incolatu”:  Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo ?  It is to be noted that if we want to say:  “Domine, quis incolet tabernaculum tuum ?”,” or in the 5th Psalm, “Neque incolet juxta te malignus,” it won’t sound right and, while translating literally, the rendering will not be correct.  It should, therefore, be the rule of a good translator to express the idioms of a foreign language by the corresponding idioms of his own tongue.  This also Tullius has done in Plato’s Protagora and in the Οἰκονομικῷ of Xenophon and in the Oration of Demosthenes against Aeschines, as well as the very learned men Plautus, Terence, and Caelius in their translations of Greek comedies.  Nobody should, however, on that account consider the Latin language not flexible enough because it cannot translate literally [and idiomatically at one and the same time],9 since the Greeks, too, mostly translate our works idiomatically and take care also not to render the Hebrew literally, but idiomatically.
11. The Κοινή;  see ¶ 2
106:4De eodem Psalmo :  Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam (Psal. 5:9).  Pro quo habetur in Græco κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιον σου τὴν ὁδόν μου, hoc est, “dirige in conspectu tuo viam meam.”  Quod nec Septuaginta habent, nec Aquila, nec Symmachus, nec Theodotion, sed sola Κοινὴ editio.  Denique et in Hebræo ita scriptum repperi OSER LAPHANAI DARCHACH.  Quod omnes voce simili transtulerunt ;  “Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam” secundum illud, quod in Oratione Dominica dicitur :  Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum (Matth. 6:10).  Non quo, nobis orantibus, sanctificetur quod per se sanctum est, sed quo petamus ut, quod per naturam sui sanctum est, sanctificetur in nobis.  Ergo et nunc Propheta postulat ut via Domini, quæ per se recta est, etiam sibi recta fiat.
 In the same Psalm:  Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam.  For this the Greek has:  κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιον σου τὴν ὁδόν μου, that is:  “Dirige in conspectu tuo viam meam”;  the former version neither the Septuagint has, nor Aquila, nor Symmachus, nor Theodotion, but only the κοινή edition.  Finally, I have found also in the Hebrew this reading:  oser laphanoi darchach, which all [not mentioned]9 have translated the same way:  “Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam,” according to what is said also in the Lord’s Prayer:  Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum.  This does not mean that by our prayers should be hallowed what is holy in itself, but it means that we are praying that that which is sacred in virtue of its own nature be also hallowed in us.  In the same way the prophet is now also asking that the way of the Lord, which is right in itself, be made likewise right for him.
106:5De sexto Psalmo :  Erubescant et conturbentur vehementer omnes inimici mei (Psal. 6:1).  Et dicitis in Græco “vehementer” non haberi.  Scio :  sed hoc in editione Vulgata.  Ceterum in Hebræo habet MOD, id est, “vehementer” ;  et omnes σφόδρα similiter transtulerunt.
 In Psalm 6:  Erubescant et conturbentur vehementer omnes inimici mei.  You say that “vehementer” is not found in the Greek.  I know it, but the Vulgate11 has it.  Besides, there is in the Hebrew the word mod, which means “vehementer,” and all have translated σφόδρα similarly.
106:6De septimo Psalmo :  Judica me Domine secundum justitiam meam (Psal. 7:9).  Pro quo habetur in Græco, κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, id est, “juxta justitiam tuam.”  Sed et in hoc male ;  in Hebræo enim SEDECI habet, quod interpretatur “justitia mea,” et non SEDECACH, quod “justitiam tuam” sonat.  Sed et omnes Interpretes “justitiam meam” voce simili transtulerunt.  Nec cuiquam videatur temerarium, quod judicari secundum justitiam suam postulet, quum et sequens versiculus hoc ipsum significet :  Et secundum innocentiam meam super me (Ibid.).  Et sexti decimi Psalmi hoc exordium sit :  Exaudi, Domine, justitiam meam (Psal. 16:1).  Et in septimo decimo quoque dicatur :  Retribuet mihi Dominus secundum justitiam meam, et secundum puritatem manuum mearum reddet mihi (Psal. 17:25.).  In vigesimo quoque quinto Psalmo scriptum sit :  Proba me, Domine, et tenta me :  ure renes meos, et cor meum (Psal. 25:2).  Et in quarto dicatur :  Quum invocarem, exaudivit me Deus justitiæ meæ (Psal. 4:1).  Et in octogesimo quinto :  Custodi animam meam, quoniam sanctus sum (Psal. 85:2).  Jacob quoque loquatur in Genesi :  Exaudiet me cras justitia mea (Gen. 30:33).
 In Psalm 7:  Judica me, domine, secundum justitiam meam, for which the Greek has κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, that is, “juxta justitiam tuam.”  But that is wrong, for the Hebrew has sedechi, which is “justitia mea,” and not “sedecach,” which means “justitiam tuam.”  But all translators have likewise rendered “justitiam meam.”  And nobody should think it foolish that the Psalmist asks to be judged according to his own justice, since the following verse means the same thing:  Et secundum innocentiam meam super me, while also the 16th Psalm starts this way:  Exaudi, domine, justitiam meam, and the 17th has this:  Retribuet mihi dominus secundum justitiam meam et secundum puritatem manuum mearum reddet mihi.  Furthermore, we find also in the 25th Psalm this reading:  Proba me, domine, et tempta me;  ure renes meos et cor meum, and in the 4th:  Quum invocarem, exaudivit me Deus justitiæ meæ, and in the 85th:  Custodi animam meam, quoniam sanctus sum.  Jacob also says in Genesis:  Exaudiet me cras justitia mea.
106:7De octavo Psalmo :  Quoniam videbo cælos tuos (Ps. 8:4).  Et dicitis quod, “tuos,” in Græco non habeat.  Verum est, sed in Hebræo legitur SAMACHA, quod interpretatur “cælos tuos,” et de editione Theodotionis in Septuaginta interpretibus additum est sub asterisco :  cujus rei vobis sensum breviter aperiam.  Ubi quid minus habetur in Græco ab Hebraica Veritate, Origenes de translatione Theodotionis addidit, et signum posuit asterisci, id est, stellam quæ, quod prius absconditum videbatur, illuminet et in medium proferat :  ubi autem quod in Hebræo non est, in Græcis codicibus invenitur obelon, id est, jacentem præposuit virgulam quam nos Latine veru possumus dicere ;  quo ostenditur jugulandum esse et confodiendum, quod in Authenticis libris non invenitur.  Quæ signa et in Græcorum Latinorumque poëmatibus inveniuntur.
 In Psalm 8:  Quoniam videbo cælos tuos.  You say that the Greek does not have “tuos.”  That is true, but in the Hebrew we find samacha, which means “cælos tuos,” and which has been added in the Septuagint from Theodotion’s text under an asterisk.  Here I shall briefly explain this matter.  Whenever there occurs in the Greek an omission, which the Hebrew has, Origenes added such omission from Theodotion’s translation, putting an asterisk — that is a star — in order that it should light up and make clear that which was previously obscure.  On the other hand, whenever something is found in the Greek texts which is not in the Hebrew, he placed an obelus in front of it, that is, a horizontal line, which we may call in Latin a dart [in English a dagger {↠}]9 to indicate that that which is not found in the authentic texts should be extirpated.  These signs are also found in Greek and Latin poems.
106:8Decimo sexto :  Oculi tui videant æquitates (Psal. 16:2).  Pro quo in Græco vos legisse dixistis :  οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου, id est, “oculi mei ”;  sed rectius, “oculi tui,” quia et supra dixerat :  De vultu tuo judicium meum prodeat (Ps. 16, 2) ;  et oculi Dei in Propheta recta operante, non prava, sed recta conspiciant.  In ipso :  Custodi me ut pupillam oculi (Ibid. 8).  Dicitisque in Græco legi :  “Custodi me Domine” ;  quod nec in Hebræo, nec in ullo [al. illo] habetur interprete.  In eodem :  Exsurge, Domine, præveni eum, et supplanta eum (Ibid. 13).  Pro quo in Græco sit, πρόφθασον αὐτούς, id est, “præveni eos, et supplanta eos” :  sed melius si legatur numero singulari :  siquidem de impio dictum est, de quo statim sequitur, Præveni eum et supplanta eum :  eripe animam meam ab impio.  Nullique dubium, quin diabolum significet.
 Psalm 14:  Oculi tui videant æquitates. [You say that in the Greek]12 you have read:  οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου, that is, “oculi mei.”  But it is more correct to say “oculi tui” because the prophet had said before:  De vultu tuo judicium meum prodeat, in order that God’s eyes should not see in the work of the prophet the wrong but the right things.  In the same:  Custodi me ut pupillam oculi.  You say that your Greek version is:  Custodi me, Domine.  This is found, however, neither in the Hebrew, nor in any translator.  In the same:  Exurge, Domine, præveni eum et supplanta eum.  For this you say the Greek has πρόφθασον αὐτούς, that is, “Præveni eos et supplanta eos.”  The singular number is here better, however, if the statement is made concerning the evil one, to whom applies also what immediately follows:  Præveni eum et supplanta eum ;  eripe animam meam ab impio.  There is no doubt that this refers to the devil.
12. Brackets by Hilberg.
106:9Decimo septimo Psalmo :  Grando et carbones ignis (Ps. 17:13).  Et quæritis cur Græcus istum versiculum secundo non habeat, interpositis duobus versibus.  Sed sciendum, quia de Hebraico, et de Theodotionis editione in Septuaginta Interpretibus sub asterisco additum sit.  In eodem :  Qui perfecit pedes meos tanquam cervorum (Ibid. 34).  Pro quo scribitis in Græco inveniri ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου, id est, “tanquam cervi” — singularem numerum pro plurali.  Sed in Hebræo pluralis numerus positus est CHAJALOTH, et omnes Interpretes pluralem numerum transtulerunt.  In eodem :  Et dedisti mihi protectionem salutis tuæ (Ibid. 36).  Pro quo in Græco vos legisse dixistis, τῆς σωτηρίας μου, id est, “salutis meæ.”  Sed in Hebræo JESACHA “salutis tuæ” significat, non “meæ” ;  quod et omnes Interpretes transtulerunt.  In ipso :  Supplantasti insurgentes in me subtus me (Ibid. 40).  Pro quo in Græco plus invenisse vos dicitis :  “Omnes insurgentes” ;  sed “omnes” additum est.  In eodem :  Vivit Dominus, et benedictus Deus meus (Ibid. 47).  Et dicitis in Græco non haberi “meus.”  Quod non sub asterisco, sed ab ipsis Septuaginta de Hebraica Veritate translatum est ;  et cuncti Interpretes in hac parte consentiunt.  In eodem :  Liberator meus de gentibus iracundis (Ibid. 48).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  “Ab inimicis meis fortibus,” sive “potentibus.”  Et quia semel veritati studemus, si quid, vel transferentis festinatione vel scribentium vitio, depravatum est, simpliciter confiteri et emendare debemus.  In Hebræo nihil aliud habet nisi hoc :  Liberator meus ab inimicis meis.  Septuaginta autem “iracundis” addiderunt.  Et pro “gentibus,” tam in Hebræo quam in cunctis Interpretibus, “inimici” positi sunt :  et miror quomodo pro “inimicis,” “gentes” mutatæ sint.
 Psalm 17:  Grando et carbones ignis, and you ask why in the Greek text not two other verses are inserted before the repetition of this one.  It is to be noted, however, that this one has been added, in the Septuagint, under an asterisk from the Hebrew and the text of Theodotion.  In the same:  Qui perfecit pedes meos tamquam cervorum.  For this you say the Greek has:  ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου, that is, “tamquam cervi,” using the singular number for the plural.  But in the Hebrew the plural “chaialoth” is used, and all translators have used the plural here.  In the same:  Et dedisti mihi protectionem salutis tuæ.  For this you say you have read in the Greek:  τῆς σωτηρίας μου, that is, “salutis meæ.”  But in the Hebrew “iesacha” means “salutis tuæ” and not “meæ.”  And all translators have this reading.  In the same:  Supplantasti insurgentes in me subtus me.  For this you say you have found in the Greek:  Omnes insurgentes . However, “omnes” has been added.  In the same:  Vivit Dominus et benedictus Deus meus.  You say that in the Greek “meus” is lacking.  This has not been added under an asterisk, but has been translated from the Hebrew by the very translators of the Septuagint, and all translators agree in this particular.  In the same:  Liberator meus de gentibus iracundis.  For this you say you have found in the Greek:  “Ab inimicis meis fortibus,” or “potentibus.”  But since we are interested in the truth, let me say that if anything has been changed owing to the hurry of the translator or the fault of the transcriber, we simply have to admit it and correct the wrong form.  The Hebrew has nothing else but:  “Liberator meus ab inimicis meis.”  The translators of the Septuagint, however, have added “iracundis.”  And for “gentibus” the Greek text and all translators have “inimici.”  I wonder how the form “gentes” has slipped in for “inimicis.”
106:10Decimo octavo :  Exsultavit ut gigas ad currendam viam suam (Ps. 18:6).  Et dicitis quod in Græco, “suam,” non habeat :  sed hoc nos sub veru additum reperimus, et in Hebræo non esse manifestum est.
 Psalm 18:  Exultavit ut gigas ad currendam viam suam.  You say that in the Greek “suam” does not occur.  But we find this word added here under a dagger, and it is apparent that it does not occur in the Hebrew.
106:11Decimo nono :  Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum (Ps. 19:5).  Et dicitis in Græco vos hoc versiculo additum nomen Domini repperisse, quod superfluum est :  quia ex superioribus, Ἐπακούσαι σου Κύριος, subauditur, unde cœpit et Psalmus ;  “Exaudiat te Dominus in die tribulationis” (Ibid. 11) ;  ut et hic sub eodem sensu dicatur :  Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum, id est, ipse Dominus, de quo supra dictum est.  In eodem :  Et exaudi nos in die, qua invocaverimus te (Ibid. 10).  Pro quo legisse vos dicitis :  “in quocumque die” ;  sed superius cum Hebraica veritate concordat, ubi scriptum est BIOM, id est, “in die.”
 Psalm 19:  Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum.  You say that you have found that in the Greek the name of the Lord is added in this verse.  This is superfluous because it is understood from the context of the preceding words {Ἐπακούσαι σου Κύριος} with which the Psalm begins:  “Exaudiat te Dominus in die tribulationis,” so that the Psalmist continues here in the same vein:  Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum, which statement refers to the Lord himself who has been mentioned before.  In the same:  Et exaudi nos in die, qua invocaverimus te.  For this you say you have read:  “in quocumque die.”  But the former reading agrees with the Hebrew, where we find biom, which means “in die.”
106:12Vigesimo primo :  Tu autem Domine ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me (Ps. 21:20).  Et dicitis invenisse vos “meum” ;  quod et verum est, et ita corrigendum.  Brevi enim, si quid scriptorum errore mutatum est, stulta credimus contentione defendere.  In eodem ;  Universum semen Jacob magnificate eum (Ibid. 24).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum sit, δοξάσατε αὐτόν, id est, “glorificate eum.”  Sed sciendum quod ubicumque in Græco scriptum est, “glorificate,” Latinus Interpres, “magnificate,” transtulerit ;  secundum illud quod in Exodo dicitur :  Cantemus Domino, gloriose enim magnificatus est (Exod. 15:1) ;  pro quo in Græco scribitur, “glorificatus est” :  sed in Latino sermone si transferatur, fit indecora translatio ;  et nos emendantes olim Psalterium, ubicumque sensus idem est, veterum Interpretum consuetudinem mutare noluimus, ne nimia novitate lectoris studium terreremus.
 Psalm 21:  Tu autem, Domine, ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me.  For this you say you have found “meum.”  This is true and should be corrected accordingly.  In short:  If anything has been changed through an error of the transcribers, it would be foolish to defend such error.  In the same:  Universum semen Jacob, magnificate eum.  For this you say the Greek has: δοξάσατε αὐτόν, that is:  “glorificate eum.”  But it is to be noted that wherever the Greek has “glorificate,” the Latin translator has rendered this by “magnificate,” on the basis of what is said in Exodus:  Cantemus Domino; gloriose enim magnificatus est, for which in the Greek “glorificatus est” is written.  This, however, sounds awkward in the Latin translation, so that I, when revising the Psalter, did not want to deviate from the practice of the old translators, provided no change of sense was involved, in order not to disturb the reader by too many innovations.
106:13Vigesimo secundo :  Calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est (Ps. 22:5).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis “calix tuus” :  sed hoc in κοινῇ errore obtinuit.  Ceterum et Septuaginta, et Hebraicum, et omnes Interpretes, “calix meus” habent, quod Hebraice dicitur CHOSI:  alioquin si “calix tuus” esset, diceretur CHOSACH.
 Psalm 22:  Calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est.  For this you say you have read in the Greek:  “calix tuus.”  But in the κοινή version this reading is a mistake.  Besides, the Septuagint, the Hebrew and all translators have calix meus, which means in the Hebrew chosi;  for calix tuus would be chosach.
106:14Vigesimo quarto :  Confundantur omnes iniqua agentes (Ps. 24:4).  Et dicitis quod “omnes” in Græco non habeat, et bene ;  nam nec in Hebræo habet, sed in Septuaginta sub veru additum est.  In eodem :  Innocentes et recti adhæserunt mihi, quia sustinui te (Ibid. 21).  Et dicitis in Græco vos repperisse “Domine” ;  quod superfluum est.
 Psalm 24:  Confundantur omnes iniqua agentes.  You say that “omnes” does not occur in the Greek.  That’s right, for it does not occur in the Hebrew either, and it is added in the Septuagint under a dagger.  In the same:  Innocentes et recti adhæserunt mihi, quia sustinui te, and you say that you have found “Domine” in the Greek.  This, however, is superfluous.
106:15Vigesimo sexto :  Et nunc ecce exaltavit caput meum (Ps. 26:5).  Sed “ecce” superfluum est.  In eodem :  Exquisivit facies mea (Ibid. 8).  Pro quo in Græco sit positum :  quæsivit te facies mea.  Sed melius superius.
 Psalm 26:  Et nunc ecce exaltavit caput meum.  But “ecce” is superfluous.  In the same:  Exquisivit facies mea, for which you say the Greek has:  Quaesivit te facies mea.  The former reading is the better one, however.
106:16Vigesimo septimo :  Exaudi vocem deprecationis meæ (Ps. 27:2).  Pro quo invenisse dixistis :  Exaudi, Domine ;  sed et hoc additum est.
 Psalm 27:  Exaudi vocem deprecationis meæ, for which you say you have found:  Exaudi, Domine. But “Domine” also has been added.
106:17Vigesimo octavo :  Et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam (Ps. 28:9).  Pro quo in Græco sit, πᾶς τίς.  Quod si transferre voluerimus ad verbum “omnis quis,” in κακοζηλίαν interpretationis incurrimus, et fit absurda translatio.  In eodem :  Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit (Ibid. 10).  Pro quo legisse vos dicitis :  Dominus diluvium inhabitat ;  quorum prius ad gratiam pertinet in credentibus, secundum ad ejus, in quo credunt, habitaculum.  Sed quia JASAB verbum ambiguum est, et potest utrumque sonare, nam et “sessio” et “habitatio” dicitur ;  et in ipso Psalmo de gratia baptismatis dicebatur :  Vox Domini super aquas :  Dominus super aquas multas ;  et Vox præparantis cervos, et revelabit condensa, et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam (Ibid. 3. et seqq.), de ipsis sentire volumus, qui glorificant Dominum ;  et interpretati sumus :  Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit (Ps. 30:5).
 Psalm 28:  Et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam. For this you say the Greek contains πᾶς τίς.  But if we should want to translate verbatim “omnis quis,” the result would be a mere transliteration and an absurd rendering. In the same:  Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit, for which you say you have read:  Dominus diluvium inhabitat.  The former rendering refers to the blessings of the faithful, the latter to the dwelling place of him in whom they believe.  However, since iasaph is an ambiguous word which may mean either of two things — for it signifies both “sessio” and “habitatio” and refers in the Psalm in question to the grace of Baptism:  Vox Domini super aquas ;  Dominus super aquas multas;  and Vox Domini præparantis cervos et revelabit condensa, et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam —, I prefer to understand it of those who glorify the Lord, and have thus translated it, Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit.
106:18Trigesimo :  Quoniam tu es protector meus (Ps. 30:5).  Rursum in hoc loco nomen Domini additum est ;  et ne eadem semper inculcem, observare debetis nomen Domini et Dei sæpissime additum ;  et id vos debere sequi quod de Hebraico et de Septuaginta Interpretibus emendavimus.  In eodem :  Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis meæ (Ps. 30:23).  Pro quo in Latinis codicibus legebatur, in pavore meo, et nos juxta Græcum transtulimus, ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου, id est, “in excessu mentis meæ” ;  aliter enim Latinus sermo ἔκστασιν exprimere non potest, nisi “mentis excessum.”  Aliter me in Hebraico legisse noveram, “in stupore et admiratione mea.”
 Psalm 30:  Quoniam tu es protector meus.  Again in this place the Lord’s name has been added.  Let me say once for all that you should not forget that the name of our Lord and God is often added, and that you should observe the corrections I have made on the basis of the Hebrew and the Septuagint.  In the same:  Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis meæ.  For this the Latin texts had:  in pavore meo, and I translated according to the Greek:  ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου, that is, “in excessu mentis meæ.”  For the Latin cannot express ἔκστασιν except by “mentis excessum.”  I know that I have read in the Hebrew the differing version:  “in stupore et in admiratione mea.”
106:19Trigesimo primo :  Nec est in spiritu ejus dolus (Ps. 31:2).  Pro quo in Græco vos legisse dicitis, ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, id est, in ore ejus ;  quod solus Symmachus posuit.  Alioquin et Septuaginta Interpretes, et Theodotion, et Quinta, et Sexta Editio, et Aquila, et ipsum Hebraicum, in spiritu ejus habet, quod Hebraice dicitur BRUCHO.  Sin autem esset “in ore ejus,” scriberetur BAFFIO.  In eodem, Conversus sum in ærumna mea (Ibid. 4) :  in Græco, “mea” non esse suggeritis.  Quod ex Hebraico, et de translatione Theodotionis sub asterisco additum est, et in Hebræo legitur LASADDI.
 Psalm 31:  Nec est in spiritu ejus dolus.  For this you say you have read in the Greek:  ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, that is, “in ore ejus,” which Symmachus alone has.  On the other hand, the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Fifth and Sixth editions,13 Aquila, and the Hebrew itself have “in spiritu ejus,” which is in the Hebrew brucho.  If the meaning were, however, “in ore ejus,” baffio would be written in the Hebrew.  In the same:  Conversus sum in ærumna mea.  You say that the Hebrew does not have “mea,” which has been added under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion's translation, and which in the Hebrew reads lasaddi;  lasaddi . . . [there is a gap here].9
13. See Note 8.
106:20Trigesimo quarto :  Omnia ossa mea dicent, « Domine… » (Ps. 34:10).  Pro quo in Græco bis “Domine” invenisse vos dicitis.  Sed sciendum quod multa sunt exemplaria apud Hebræos, quæ ne semel quidem “Dominum” habeant.
 Psalm 34:  Omnia ossa mea dicent:  « Domine… ».  Here, you say, you have found in the Greek the word “Domine” twice.  It is to be noted, however, that there are many Hebrew copies which have the word “Dominum” not even once.
106:21Trigesimo sexto :  Et viam ejus volet (Ps. 36:23).  In Græco, “volet nimis” vos legisse dicitis.  Quod additum est, nec apud quemquam habetur Interpretum.
 Psalm 36:  Et viam ejus volet.  You say that you have read in the Greek “volet nimis.”  But “nimis” has been added and is not found in any one of the translators.
106:22Trigesimo octavo :  Verumtamen vane conturbatur omnis homo (Ps. 38:6).  Et dicitis vos in Græco non invenisse “conturbatur.”  Sed et hoc in LXX. sub veru additum est.  Et hinc apud vos, et apud plerosque error exoritur, quod scriptorum neglegentia, virgulis et asteriscis subtractis, distinctio universa confunditur.
 Psalm 38:  Verumtamen vane conturbatur omnis homo. You say that you have not found in the Greek the word “conturbatur.”  But this also has been added in the Septuagint under a dagger, and from this you and most of the rest have incurred an error because everything is mixed up through the negligence of the scribes in omitting the daggers and asterisks.
106:23Trigesimo nono :  Et legem tuam in medio cordis mei (Ps. 39:9).  Pro quo in Græco repperisse vos dicitis “in medio ventris mei,” quod et in Hebræo sic scriptum est BATTHOCH MEAI.  Sed propter euphoniam apud Latinos, “in corde” translatum est ;  et tamen non debemus subtrahere quod verum est.  In eodem :  Domine, in adjutorium meum respice (Ibid. 14).  Pro quo in Græco repperisse vos dicitis, σπεῦσον, id est, “festina.”  Sed apud Septuaginta πρόσχες, id est, “respice,” scriptum est.
 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.
106:24Quadragesimo :  Et si ingrediebatur, ut videret (Ps. 40:7).  Et dicitis quod “si” in Græco non sit positum.  Quum manifestissime et in Hebræo, et in cunctis Interpretibus scriptum sit ;  et Septuaginta transtulerint “καὶ εἰ εἰσεπορεύετο τοῦ ιδεῖν.”
 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.
106:25Quadragesimo primo :  Salutare vultus mei, Deus meus (Ps. 41:7).  Pro quo invenisse vos dicitis “et Deus meus.”  Sed sciendum ;  hoc in isto Psalmo bis inveniri, et in primo positum esse :  salutare vultus mei, Deus meus ;  in secundo autem, id est, in fine ipsius Psalmi :  Salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus ;  ita dumtaxat ut “et” conjunctio de Hebræo, et Theodotione sub asterisco addita sit.  In eodem :  Exprobraverunt mihi qui tribulant me (Ibid. 11).  Pro quo vos invenisse dixistis, “οἱ ἐχθροί μου,” id est, “inimici mei” ;  quum “et” apud Septuaginta scriptum sit, οἱ θλίβοντές με, et apud Hebræos SORARAI, id est, “hostes mei.”  In eodem :  Spera in Deum, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi (Ibid. 12).  Et dicitis “adhuc” in Græco non inveniri.  Quod sub asterisco additum est.  Ita enim et in Hebræo scriptum reperimus CHI OD, quod significatur ὅτι ἔτι, Latineque dicitur “quoniam adhuc.”  Hoc ipsum etiam in quadragesimo secundo intellegendum est.
 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.
106:26Quadragesimo tertio :  Et non egredieris in virtutibus nostris (Ps. 43:10).  Pro quo in Græco repperisse vos dicitis :  “Et non egredieris, Deus” (Ibid. 15) ;  sed superfluum est.  In ipso :  “Posuisti nos in similitudinem gentibus” (Ibid. 15).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum sit ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, sed si dictum fuisset in Latino, “in similitudinem in gentibus,” κακόφωνον esset, et propterea absque damno sensus, interpretationis elegantia conservata est.  Alioquin in Hebraico ita scriptum repperi :  “Posuisti nos proverbium in gentibus.”  In eodem :  Exsurge, adjuva nos (Ibid. 26).  Pro quo, more solito, in Græco nomen “Domini” additum est.
 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.
106:27Quadragesimo quarto :  Sagittæ tuæ acutæ (Ps. 44:6) :  pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  acutæ, potentissime ;  sed hoc male, et de superiori versiculo additum est, in quo legitur :  “Accingere gladio tuo super femur tuum, potentissime” (Ibid. 4).
 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.”
106:28Quadragesimo septimo :  Quoniam ecce reges congregati sunt (Ps. 47:5).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  “Quoniam ecce reges ejus congregati sunt.”  Quod superfluum esse, ipse lectionis textus ostendit ;  et in veteribus codicibus Latinorum scriptum erat “reges terræ,” quod nos tulimus [f. sustulimus], quia nec in Hebræo nec in Septuaginta reperitur.  In ipso :  “Sicut audivimus, sic vidimus” (Ibid. 9).  Pro quo in Græco repperisse vos dicitis :  “sic et vidimus,” quod superfluum est ;  legitur enim in Hebræo CHEN RAINU, quod interpretatur οὕτως ἔιδομεν, hoc est, “sic vidimus.”  In eodem :  Suscepimus, Deus, misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui (Ibid. 10).  Pro eo quod nos de Hebraico et de Septuaginta Interpretibus vertimus, “templi tui,” in Græco vos legisse dicitis “populi tui,” quod superfluum est.  In Hebraico scriptum est ECHALACH, id est, τοῦ ναοῦ σου, hoc est, “templi tui,” et non AMMACH, quod “populum tuum” significat.
 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.”
106:29Quadragesimo octavo :  Homo, quum in honore esset (Ps. 48:13).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  “Et homo, in honore quum esset.”  Sed sciendum quod iste versiculus bis in hoc Psalmo sit, et in priori additam habeat “et” conjunctionem, in fine non habeat.  In eodem :  “Et dominabuntur eorum justi” (Ibid. 15).  Pro “justis,” εὐθεῖς, id est, “rectos,” in Græco legisse vos dicitis.  Sed hoc propter εὐφωνίαν ita in Latinum versum est.  Alioquin et in eo loco ubi scriptum legimus :  “In libro εὐθεῖς” (Jos. 10:13), “justorum libro” intellegimus, et non debemus sic verbum de verbo exprimere ut, dum syllabam sequimur, perdamus intellegentiam.  In eodem :  “De manu inferni, quum liberaverit me” (Ps. 48:16.  “liberaverit” probably intruded from the Roman Psalter).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  “quum acceperit me” — quod quidem et nos ita de LXX. vertimus ;  et miror a quo in vestro codice depravatum sit.
 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.
106:30Quadragesimo nono :  Sedens adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris (Ps. 49:20).  Pro quo in Græco repperisse vos dicitis, κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου κατελάλεις, et putatis non bene versum, quia diximus, “adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris,” et debuisse nos dicere, “adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas” ;  quod vitiosum esse et in nostra lingua non stare, etiam stultis patet.  Nec ignoramus quod καταλαλία dicitur “detractio” ;  quam si voluerimus ponere, non possumus dicere, “adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas” ;  sed “de fratre tuo detrahebas.”  Quod si fecerimus, rursus contentiosus verborum calumniator inquiret quare non dixerimus, κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, hoc est, “adversus fratrem tuum.”  Hæc superflua sunt, et non debemus in putida nos verborum interpretatione torquere, quum damnum non sit in sensibus, quia unaquæque lingua, ut ante jam dixi, suis proprietatibus loquitur.  In ipso :  “Ne quando rapiat, et sit qui eripiat” (Ibid. 22).  Et in Græco repperisse vos dicitis :  “Et non sit qui eripiat,” quod et a nobis versum est, et in nostris codicibus sic habetur.  Et miror quomodo vitium librarii dormitantis, ad culpam referatis interpretis, nisi forte fuerit hoc :  “Ne quando rapiat, nec sit qui eripiat,” et ille pro “nec,” “et” scripserit.  In eodem :  “Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me (Ibid. 23).”  Pro quo in Græco scribitur, δοξάσει με, id est, “glorificabit me,” de quo et supra diximus.  In Evangelio in eo loco ubi in Græco legimus, Πάτερ, δόξασόν με τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοι πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι, in Latino legitur :  “Pater, clarifica me” (Joan. 17:5.  The order of the Greek is slightly different from the standard.) :  noluimus ergo immutare quod ab antiquis legebatur, quia idem sensus erat.
 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.
106:31Quinquagesimo quarto :  Exspectabam eum qui salvum me fecit (Ps. 54:9).  Et dicitis vos invenisse in Græco :  “Exspectabam Deum,” quod additum est.  In eodem :  “A pusillanimitate spiritus” (Ibid.).  Et in Græco invenisse vos dicitis, ἀπὸ ὀλιγοψυχίας, quod proprie “pusillanimitas” dicitur.  Sed sciendum quod pro ὀλιγοψυχία, Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotion et Quinta Editio interpretati sunt ἀπὸ πνεύματος, id est, “a spiritu” ;  et in Hebræo scriptum sit MERUA:  omnisque sensus ita apud eos legatur :  “Festinabo, ut salver a spiritu tempestatis et turbinis” (Ps. 55:9, juxta Hebræos).  In eodem :  “Quoniam si inimicus maledixisset” (Ibid. 13).  In Græco ὠνείδισεν, hoc est, “exprobrasset,” positum est.  Sed inter “maledicta” et “opprobria” sensum non discrepare perspicuum est.
 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.”
106:32Quinquagesimo quinto :  Quoniam multi bellantes adversum me, ab altitudine diei timebo (Ps. 55:3f.).  Et dicitis in Græco vos invenisse, “non timebo — quod additum est.  Et est ordo :  “quoniam multi dimicant adversum me, idcirco ego ab altitudine diei timebo” :  hoc est, “non bellantes adversum me, sed tuum excelsum timebo lumen.”  In ipso :  “In ira populos confringes” (Ibid. 8).  Pro quo in Græco legitur ἐν ὀργῇ λαοὺς κατάξεις (id est “dejicies”, non κατεάξεις), id est “confringes.”  Et apud Latinos pro eo quod est “dejicies,” id est κατάξεις, male error obtinuit κατεάξεις, id est “confringes” ;  nam et in Hebræo HORED habet, id est, καταβίβασον, quod nos possumus dicere “depone” ;  et Symmachus interpretatus est, κατάγαγε.
 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.
106:33Quinquagesimo octavo :  Quia Deus susceptor meus (Ps. 58:10).  Pro quo in Græco positum est :  “Susceptor meus es tu.”  Sed sciendum in Hebræo nec “es” scriptum, nec “tu” ;  et apud Septuaginta solos inveniri.  In ipso :  “Deus meus, voluntas ejus præveniet me” (Ibid. 11).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum est, τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, id est, “misericordia ejus,” quod et verius est.  Sed in Hebreo scriptum est :  “Misericordia mea præveniet me.”  In eodem :  “Deus ostendet mihi inter inimicos meos” (Ibid. 11).  Pro quo in Græco positum est “Deus meus” ;  sed “meus” additum est.  In eodem :  “Ne occidas eos, ne quando obliviscantur populi tui” (Ibid. 11).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum est :  “legis tuæ” ;  sed in Septuaginta et in Hebræo non habet “populi tui,” sed populi mei ;  et a nobis ita versum est.  In eodem :  “Et scient quia Deus dominabitur Jacob finium terræ” (Ibid. 14).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum est :  “Et finium terræ,” sed “et” conjunctio addita est, et ordo est :  “Scient quia Deus Jacob dominabitur finium terræ.”
 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.”
106:34Quinquagesimo nono :  Quis deducet me usque in Idumæam ? (Ps. 49:11).  Pro quo in Græco habet “aut quis deducet me.”  Sed superfluum est.
 Psalm 59:  Quis deducet me usque in Idumaeam ?  For this the Greek has:  aut quis deducet me ?, which is wrong.
106:35Sexagesimo :  Quoniam tu, Deus meus, exaudisti orationem meam (Ps. 60:6), pro quo legitur in Græco :  Quia tu, Deus, exaudisti me.  Quod non habet in Hebræo nec in LXX. Interpretibus, et in Latino additum est.  In eodem :  “Psallam nomini tuo in sæculum sæculi” (Ibid. 9).  Pro quo in Græco sit “in sæculum” ;  et in Hebræo semel habet LAED, id est, “in æternum” ;  et non LOLAM, quod est “in sæculum.”
 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.”
106:36Sexagesimo primo :  Quia Deus adjutor noster in æternum (Ps. 61:9).  Pro quo in Græco est :  Deus adjutor noster.  Ergo “in æternum” obelus est.
 Psalm 61:  Quia Deus adjutor noster in æternum, for which the Greek has:  “Deus adjutor noster.”  Hence “in æternum” is to be omitted.
106:37Sexagesimo secundo :  Sitivit tibi anima mea (Ps. 62:2).  Pro quo in Græco sit :  Sitivit in te anima mea.  Sed in Hebræo non habet ATTHA, quod significat “te,” sed LACH, quod ostenditur “tibi” :  quod et omnes interpretes transtulerunt.  Ergo secundum linguæ proprietatem versum est in Latinum.
 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.
106:38Sexagesimo tertio :  Sagittæ parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum (Ps. 63:8).  Pro quo in Græco :  Sagitta parvulorum ;  sed, si sic dicamus, non resonat in Latino :  “Sagitta parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum.”  Pro quo melius habet in Hebræo :  Percutiet eos Deus jaculo repentino, et inferentur plagæ eorum.
 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.
106:39Sexagesimo quarto :  Qui conturbas profundum maris, sonum fluctuum ejus (Ps. 64:8).  In Græco additum scribitis :  Quis sustinebit ? — quod superfluum est ;  subauditur enim, “qui conturbas profundum maris, et conturbas sonum fluctuum ejus.”  In eodem :  Parasti cibum illorum, quoniam ita est præparatio ejus (Ibid. 10).  Et dicitis quod in Græco non sit “ejus,” quum in Hebræo THECHINA manifeste præparationem ejus significet :  “ejus” autem, id est “terræ,” de qua supra dixerat :  Visitasti terram et inebriasti eam (Ibid. 10).
 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.”
106:40Sexagesimo quinto :  Holocausta medullata offeram tibi cum incenso arietum (Ps. 65:15).  Pro quo dicitis invenisse vos :  Cum incenso et arietibus ;  sed male :  in Hebræo enim scriptum est, EM CATOROTH ELIM, quod interpretatur, μετὰ θυμιάματος κριῶν, id est, “cum incenso arietum.”  In eodem :  Propterea exaudivit Deus (Ibid. 19).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis “Exaudivit me Deus,” sed superfluum est.
 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.
106:41Sexagesimo septimo :  Et exsultent in conspectu ejus (Ps. 67:5).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Et exsultate in conspectu ejus.  Quod ita versum est a nobis, sed a quo in codice vestro corruptum sit, scire non possum.  In eodem :  Etenim non credunt inhabitare Dominum (Ibid. 19).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι :  quod utrumque falsum est.  Nos enim transtulimus :  Etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum ;  ut sit sensus, et pendeat ex superioribus :  “Ascendisti in altum, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus (et eos qui non credebant Dominum inhabitare posse mortalibus)” (Ibid. 19).  In eodem :  Deus benedictus Dominus die cottidie (Ibid. 20).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Dominus benedictus Deus, benedictus Dominus die cottidie ;  sed melius et verius quod supra.  In eodem :  Viderunt ingressus tui, Deus (Ibid. 25), pro quo in Græco scriptum sit :  Visi sunt ingressus tui, Deus.  In Hebræo ita habet RAU ALICHOTHACH, quod Aquila, et Symmachus, et Theodotion interpretati sunt :  Viderunt itinera tua, Deus (Ps. 67:25, juxta Hebræos), et quod sequitur :  Itinera Dei mei regis, qui est in sancto (Ibid.).  Ergo a nobis ita legendum est :  Viderunt gressus tuos, Deus ;  et scriptoris vitium relinquendum, qui nominativum posuit pro accusativo :  licet et in Septuaginta, et in Ἑξαπλοῖς ita reppererim :  ἐθεωρήσαν αἱ πορεῖαί σου, ὁ θεός :  et pro eo quod est ἐθεωρήσαν, hoc est, “viderunt,” in multis codicibus habet, ἐθεωρήθησαν :  quod et obtinuit consuetudo.  In eodem :  Ingressus Dei mei, regis mei, qui est in sancto (Ibid.) ;  subauditur, “Viderunt ingressus Dei mei, regis mei.”  Quod autem dicitis “mei” in “rege” non appositum, apertissimi mendacii est ;  secundo enim ponitur et “Dei mei” et “regis mei”, blandientis affectu ut, qui omnium Deus et rex est, suus specialiter Deus fiat, et rex merito servitutis.  Denique in Hebræo scriptum habet, HELI MELCHI, quod “Deum meum et regem meum” significat.  In eodem :  Regna terræ, cantate Deo, psallite Domino (Ibid. 33).  Et dicitis, hoc in isto versiculo non esse scriptum, “Psallite Domino,” quoniam statim sequatur :  Diapsalma.  Psallite Deo, qui ascendit super cælum cæli ad orientem (Ibid. 33f.) ;  quum iste versiculus magis habere debeat juxta Hebraicam Veritatem :  Cantate Deo, psallite Domino ;  et illud quod sequitur in principio versus alterius, “Psallite Deo,” non sit in libris authenticis, sed obelo prænotatum.  Ergo et vos legite magis quæ vera sunt ;  ne, dum additum suscipitis, quod a Propheta scriptum est relinquatis.
 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 a dagger 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.
106:42Sexagesimo octavo :  Laudabo nomen Dei cum Cantico (Ps. 68:31).  Pro quo dicitis vos repperisse in Græco :  Dei mei, sed “mei” superfluum est.
 Psalm 68:  Laudabo nomen Dei cum cantico.  For this you say you have found in your Greek text:  “Dei mei.”  But “mei” is superfluous.
106:43Septuagesimo :  Deus, ne elongeris a me (Ps. 70:12).  Quod dicitis in Græco positum, “Deus meus,” superfluum est.  In eodem :  Deus, docuisti me e juventute mea (Ibid. 17).  Et in hoc, quod apud Græcos invenisse vos dicitis, Deus meus, superfluum est “meus.”  In eodem :  Donec annuntiem brachium tuum (Ibid. 18).  Et dicitis in Græco vos repperisse, mirabilia tua, quod de superiori versiculo est, “Et usque nunc pronuntiabo miracula tua” (Ibid. 17).  Bene ergo hic habet “brachium.”
 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.
106:44Septuagesimo primo :  Et adorabunt eum omnes reges (Ps. 71:11).  Illud quod in Græco invenisse vos dicitis, “reges terræ,” superfluum est.  In eodem :  Benedictus Dominus Deus, Deus Israël (Ibid. 18).  Dicitis in Græco bis “Deus” non haberi ;  quum in Hebræo sit et apud Septuaginta, manifestissime triplex Domini Deique nuncupatio mysterium Trinitatis sit.  In eodem :  Et benedictum nomen majestatis ejus in æternum (Ibid. 19).  Hoc ergo, quod in Græco vos invenisse dicitis, “In æternum et in sæculum sæculi,” superflue a Græcis sciatis appositum, quod nec Hebræus habet, nec Septuaginta Interpretes.
 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.
14. Jerome considered it probably opportune here to make a point in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity because the Goths, following the creed of Arius, did not accept it.
106:45Septuagesimo secundo :  Prodiit quasi ex adipe (Ps. 72:7).  Et dicitis vos apud Græcos invenisse, ἐξελεύσονται, id est, “prodient,” quod falsum est.  Nam et apud Septuaginta Interpretes ita scriptum est :  ἐξελεύσεται ὡς ἐκ στέατος ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν.  In eodem :  Quomodo scit Deus (Ibid. 11).  In Græco dicitis non esse “Deum,” quum et apud Septuaginta scriptum sit, Πῶς ἔγνω ὁ θεός, et omnes Interpretes similiter de Hebræo transtulerint.  In eodem :  Intellegam in novissimis eorum (Ibid. 17).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  Et intellegam ;  sed hic “et” conjunctio superflua est.  In eodem :  Defecit caro mea et cor meum (Ibid. 26).  Pro quo male perversum ordinem quidam tenent :  Defecit cor meum et caro mea.  In eodem :  Ut annuntiem omnes prædicationes tuas (Ibid. 28).  Pro quo vos in Græco legisse dixistis, τὰς αἰνέσεις σου, id est, laudes tuas.  Et sciendum quod in Hebræo MALOCHOTHACH scriptum habet, quod Aquila ἀγγελίας σου, id est, “nuntios tuos” ;  Septuaginta, τὰς ἐπαγγελίας σου, id est, “prædicationes” vel “promissa” interpretati sunt :  licet et “laus” et “prædicatio” unum utrumque significet.
 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.
106:46Septuagesimo tertio :  Ut quid, Deus, reppulisti in finem ? (Ps. 73:1).  Pro quo male apud Græcos legitur, ordine commutato :  Ut quid reppulisti, Deus ?  In eodem :  Quanta malignatus est inimicus in Sancto ! (Ibid. 3).  Miror quis in codice vestro emendando perverterit, ut pro “Sancto,” “Sanctis” posuerit, quum et in nostro codice “in Sancto” inveniatur.  In eodem :  Incendamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra (Ibid. 8).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum est καταπαύσωμεν, et nos ita transtulimus :  Quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra.  Et miror quomodo e latere Annotationem nostram nescio quis temerarius scribendam in corpore putaverit, quam nos pro eruditione legentis scripsimus hoc modo, “Non habet καταπαύσωμεν, ut quidam putant, sed κατακαύσωμεν, id est, incendamus.”  Et quia rettulit mihi sanctus Presbyter Firmus, qui hujus operis exactor fuit, inter plurimos hinc habitam quæstionem, plenius de hoc disputandum videtur.  In Hebræo scriptum est SARPHU CHOL MOEDAHU HEL BAARES, quod Aquila et Symmachus verterunt, ἑνεπύρισαν πάσας τὰς συνταγὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, id est, incenderunt omnes solemnitates Dei in terra.  Quinta, κατέκαυσαν id est, combusserunt, Sexta κατακαύσωμεν, id est, comburamus ;  quod et Septuaginta juxta exemplorum veritatem transtulisse perspicuum est.  Theodotion quoque ἐνεπυρίσαμεν vertit, id est, succendimus {= tempus perfectum}.  E quo perspicuum est, sic psallendum ut nos interpretati sumus — et tamen sciendum, quid Hebraica Veritas habeat.  Hoc enim quod Septuaginta transtulerunt, propter vetustatem in Ecclesiis decantandum est, et illud ab eruditis sciendum propter notitiam Scripturarum.  Unde, si quid pro studio e latere additum est, non debet poni in corpore, ne priorem translationem pro scribentium voluntate conturbet.  In eodem :  Contribulasti capita draconum in aquis ;  tu confregisti capita draconis (Ps. 13f.).  Sic lectionis ordo sequitur, ut in priori versu “tu” non habeat, sed in secundo, et “aquæ” plurali numero scribantur, non singulari, sicut et Aquila verbum Hebraicum AMMAIM, τῶν ὑδάτων, id est, “aquarum,” interpretatus est.  In eodem :  Ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum (Ibid. 23).  Pro quo in Græco τῶν ἱκετῶν σου, id est, “deprecantium te,” scriptum dicitis.  In Hebræo autem, SORARACH legitur, quod Aquila “hostium tuorum,” Symmachus “bellantium contra te,” Septuaginta et Sexta Editio “inimicorum tuorum” interpretati sunt.  Et est sensus pendens ex superioribus :  Memor esto improperiorum tuorum, eorum quæ ab insipiente sunt tota die ;  ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum (Ibid. 23f.) (id est, voces quæ te blasphemant tibique in populo tuo detrahunt).  Unde sequitur :  Superbia eorum qui te oderunt, ascendit semper (Ibid. 23) — id est, “dum tu differs pœnas, illi proficiunt in blasphemiis.”
 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.”
106:47Septuagesimo quarto :  Narrabimus mirabilia tua (Ps. 74:3).  Pro quo male apud Græcos legitur “Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua.”
 Psalm 74:  Narrabimus mirabilia tua.  For this the Greek has the wrong reading:  Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua.
106:48Septuagesimo quinto :  Omnes viri divitiarum manibus suis (Ps. 75:6).  Et non, ut vos a nescio quo depravatum legitis, “in manibus suis.”  In eodem :  Terribili et ei qui aufert spiritum Principum (Ibid. 12f.).  Dicitis quod “ei” non sit scriptum in Græco.  Verum est, sed nisi apposuerimus “ei,” Latinus sermo non resonat.  Neque enim possumus recte dicere :  “Terribili et qui aufert spiritum Principum.”
 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.”
106:49Septuagesimo sexto :  Et meditatus sum nocte cum corde meo, et exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum (Ps. 76:7).  Pro quo in Hebræo legimus :  Recordabar Psalmorum meorum in nocte ;  cum corde meo loquebar, et scopebam spiritum meum.  Pro “exercitatione” ἀδολεσχίαν, id est, “decantationem” quandam et “meditationem” Septuaginta transtulerunt.  Et pro eo quod nos diximus “scopebam,” illi posuerunt ἔσκαλλον, quod Symmachus transtulit ἀνηρεύνων, id est, “perscrutabam,” sive “quærebam” ;  et Quinta similiter.  Proprie autem σκαλισμός in agricultura dicitur in sarriendo, id est, sarculando.  Et quomodo ibi quæruntur herbæ sarculo, quæ secentur, sic et iste retractatum [al. retractationem] cogitationum suarum μεταφορικῶς a sarculo demonstravit.  Et sciendum quod ἔσκαλον {aoristos, vel tempus indefinitum} semel, ἔσκαλλον {tempus imperfectum} frequenter significat.  In eodem :  A generatione in generationem (Ibid. 9).  Hoc, quod in Græco sequens invenisse vos dicitis, “consummavit verbum” {< Symmachus, συνετέλεσε ῥῆμα}, recte non habet in Latino, quia et in nullo habetur Interpretum.
 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.
106:50Septuagesimo septimo :  Et narrabunt filiis suis (Ps. 77:6).  Pro quo in Græco habet, ἀναγγελοῦσιν, quod est, “annuntiabunt.”  Sed sciendum quod in Hebræo IASAPHPHERU scriptum est, quod Aquila et Symmachus “narrabunt” transtulerunt.  In eodem :  Et occidit pingues eorum (Ibid. 31).  Sic habet et in Hebræo, hoc est BAMASMNEHEM, quod Aquila interpretatus est ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν, Symmachus τοὺς λιπαρωτέρους αὐτῶν :  Septuaginta et Theodotion et Quinta, ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν.  Quod quidam non intellegentes, pro πίοσιν, putaverunt scriptum πλείοσιν.  In eodem :  Dilexerunt eum in ore suo, et lingua sua mentiti sunt ei (Ibid. 36).  Et in Hebræo ita scriptum est :  ICAZBULO ;  et omnes voce simili transtulerunt :  ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ, id est, “mentiti sunt ei.”  Quis autem voluerit pro “ei” ponere “eum,” et vitiare exemplaria, non est mei judicii.  In eodem :  Et propitius fiet peccatis eorum et non disperdet eos (Ps. 77:38).  Dicitis quod “eos” in Græco non habeat, quod et verum est ;  sed nos, ne sententia pendeat, Latinum sermonem sua proprietate complevimus.  Si quis autem putat διαφθερεῖ non “perditionem” sonare, sed “corruptionem,” recordetur illius tituli in quo scribitur εἰς τὸ τέλος μὴ διαφθείρῃς, hoc est, “in finem ne disperdas” et non, ut plerique κακοζήλως interpretantur, “ne corrumpas.”  In eodem :  Et induxit eos in montem sanctificationis suæ, montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus (Ibid. 54).  Pro quo apud Septuaginta legitur ὄρος τοῦτο, ὁ ἐκτήσατο ἡ δεξία αὐτοῦ — et non ut vos putatis, ὃ ἐκτίσατο [= “condidit” aut “creavit”] —, hoc est, quem acquisivit dextera ejus.  Ergo secundum Hebraicam proprietatem interpretatus est Symmachus :  montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus.  In eodem :  Et averterunt se et non servaverunt pactum, quemadmodum patres eorum (Ibid. 57).  Scio quod “pactum” non habeat in Hebræo ;  sed quando omnes voce simili transtulerunt ἠσυνθέτησαν et apud Græcos συνθήκη “pactum” dicitur, ex uno verbo significatur “non servaverunt pactum,” licet Septuaginta ἠθέτησαν posuerint.  In eodem :  In terra quam fundavit in sæcula (Ibid. 69).  Pro quo scriptum invenisse vos dicitis :  In terra fundavit eam in sæcula.  In Hebræo ita scriptum est ut vertit et Symmachus, εἰσ τὴν γῆν ἣν ἐθεμελίωσεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.  Si autem non de terra dicitur, quod fundata sit, sed de alia quæ fundata videatur in terra, probent e prioribus et sequentibus, quis sensus sit, ut [al. “et”] nescio quid, quod non dicitur, fundatum videatur in terra.  Sin autem Sanctificium in terra fundatum putant, debuit scribi :  in terra fundavit illud in sæcula.  In eodem :  Et in intellectibus manuum suarum deduxit eos (Ibid. 72).  Non habet, ἐν τῇ συνέσει, ut scribitis, numero singulari, sed ἐν ταῖς συνέσεσιν, quod “intellegentias” sonat, sicut habetur et in Hebræo BATHABUNOTH, quod est “intellectibus.”
 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.”
106:51Septuagesimo octavo :  Posuerunt Hierusalem in pomorum custodiam (Ps. 78:1).  Quod Græce εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον dicitur, nec aliter potest verti quam a nobis translatum est.  Significat autem speculam quam custodes agrorum [al. satorum] et pomorum habere consueverunt, ut de amplissima urbe parvum tuguriolum vix remanserit.  Hoc secundum Græcos.  Ceterum in Hebræo LICHIN scriptum habet, quod Aquila vertit λιθαόριον, id est, “acervum et cumulum [al. tumulum] lapidum,” quibus vineæ et agri purgari solent.
 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.
106:52Septuagesimo nono :  Et plantasti radices ejus hinc (Ps. 79:10).  Et dicitis quod in Græco “hinc” non habeat.  Et bene, nam et in nostris codicibus non habetur ;  et miror quis imperitorum vestros libros falsaverit.
 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.
106:53Octogesimo secundo :  « Hereditate possideamus sanctuarium Dei ! » (Ps. 82:12).  Et dicitis quod in Græco sit scriptum, « Κληρονομήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς ! », id est, “possideamus nobis.”  Quæ superflua quæstio est ;  quando enim dicitur, “possideamus,” intellegitur et “nobis.”
 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.
106:54Octogesimo tertio :  Cor meum et caro mea exsultavit in Deum vivum (Ps. 83:3).  Pro quo in Græco scriptum dicitis exsultaverunt.  In hoc nulla contentio est ;  si enim legimus “exsultavit,” intellegitur et “cor meum exsultavit, et caro mea exsultavit.”  Sin autem “exsultaverunt,” duo pariter exsultaverunt, id est cor et caro.  Et quæso vos ut hujusmodi ineptias et superfluas contentiones, ubi nulla est sensus immutatio, declinetis.  In eodem :  Beatus vir cujus est auxilium abs te (Ibid. 6).  In Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  cui est auxilium ejus abs te ;  quod quia nos in Latina interpretatione vitavimus, ut dicitis, reprehendimur.  Cui enim non pateat, quod si dicere voluerimus “cui est auxilium ejus,” apertissimum vitium sit et, quando præcesserit “cui,” sequi non debeat “ejus” ?  Nisi forte vitii arguimur quod vitaverimus vitium.  In eodem :  In valle lacrimarum (Ibid. 7).  Pro quo dicitis in Græco scriptum esse, κλαυθμῶνος, id est, “plorationis.”  Sed sive “ploratum” sive “planctum” sive “fletum” sive “lacrimas” dixerimus, unus est sensus.  Et nos hoc sequimur ut, ubi nulla de sensu est immutatio, Latini sermonis elegantiam conservemus.
 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.
106:55Octogesimo quarto :  Benedixisti, Domine, terram tuam (Ps. 84:1).  Pro eo quod est “benedixisti,” in Græco scriptum dicitis Εὐδόκησας.  Et quæritis quomodo hoc verbum exprimi debeat in Latinum.  Si contentiose verba scrutamur et syllabas, possumus dicere :  “Bene placuit, Domine, terra tua” et, dum verba sequimur, sensus ordinem perdimus.  Aut certe addendum est aliquid ut eloquii ordo servetur, et dicendum :  “Complacuit tibi, Domine, terra tua.”  Quod si fecerimus, rursum a nobis quæritur quare addiderimus “tibi,” quum nec in Græco sit nec in Hebræo.  Eadem igitur interpretandi sequenda est regula quam sæpe diximus ut, ubi non fit damnum in sensu linguæ in quam transferimus, εὐφωνία et proprietas conservetur.  In eodem :  Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi (Ibid. 11).  Et dicitis quod in Græco “sibi” non habeat.  Nec in Hebræo habet et apud Septuaginta obelo prænotatum est, quæ signa dum per scriptorum neglegentiam a plerisque quasi superflua relinquuntur, magnus in legendo error exoritur.  Sin autem non fuerit additum “sibi,” misericordia et veritas non sibi, sed alii occurrisse credentur, nec justitia et pax sibi dedisse osculum, sed alteri.
 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 a dagger.  When these signs [viz. dagger 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.
106:56Octogesimo quinto :  Et non proposuerunt te in conspectu suo (Ps. 85:14) ;  et dicitis quod in vestro codice “te” non habeat.  Addite “te” et, emendato errore librarii, vestrum quoque errorem emendabitis.  In eodem :  Et tu, Domine Deus, miserator et misericors (Ibid. 15).  In Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Et tu, Domine Deus meus.  Quod superfluum est :  “meus” enim nec in Hebræo habetur nec in Septuaginta.
 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.
106:57Octogesimo octavo :  Magnus et horrendus (Ps. 88:8).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis φοβερός, quod significat, “terribilis,” “timendus,” “formidandus.”  Ego puto id ipsum significare et “horrendum” (non, ut vulgus existimat, despiciendum et squalidum), secundum illud :

Mihi frigidus horror
Membra quatit
      (Vergil. Æneis 3:29-30).

et :

Horror ubique animo, simul ipsa silentia terrent
      (Vergil. Æneis 2:755)

et :

Monstrum horrendum, ingens
      (Vergil. Æneis 3:658)

et multa his similia.  In eodem :  Tunc locutus est in visione sanctis tuis (Ps. 88:20).  Pro quo in Græco filiis tuis invenisse vos dicitis.  Sed sciendum quod in Hebræo LAASIDACH habet, quod omnes τοῖς ὁσίοις σου, id est, “sanctis tuis,” transtulerunt, et sola Sexta editio Prophetis tuis interpretata est, sensum magis quam verbum exprimens.  Et in κοινῇ tantum, pro “sanctis,” “filios” repperi.  In eodem :  Tu vero reppulisti et respexisti (Ibid. 39).  Pro quo in Græco ἐξουδένωσας invenisse vos dicitis.  Unius litteræ mutatio quantum vobis fecit errorem !  Non enim “respexisti,” sed “despexisti et pro nihilo duxisti” interpretati sumus.  Nisi forte ἐξοῦδένωσας non putatis transferendum “despexisti,” sed secundum disertissimum istius temporis interpretem, “annihilasti” vel “annullasti” vel “nullificasti” et si qua alia possunt inveniri apud imperitos portenta verborum.

 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.

106:58Octogesimo nono :  A sæculo et usque in sæculum tu es, Deus (Ps. 89:2).  Et dicitis quod in Græco non sit “Deus.”  Quod apud eos deesse manifestum est.  Nam est in Hebraico, et omnes alii interpretes et Septuaginta similiter transtulerunt :  ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ, ὁ Θεός, quod Hebraice dicitur MEOLAM AD-OLAM ATAH EL.  In eodem :  Quoniam supervenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur (Ibid. 10).  In Græco vos dicitis invenisse :  Mansuetudo super nos.  Sed et hoc superfluum est.
 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.
106:59Nonagesimo :  Dicet Domino, « Susceptor meus es tu » (Ps. 90:2).  Et dicitis quod in Græco “es” non habeat.  Ego vobis amplius dicam, quod apud Hebræos nec “es” habeat nec “tu,” sed apud Septuaginta et apud Latinos pro εὐφωνίᾳ et verborum consequentia positum sit.
 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.
106:60Nonagesimo tertio, Beatus homo quem tu erudieris, Domine (Ps. 93:12).  Dicitis in Græco non esse “tu.”  Et verum est, sed apud Latinos propter εὐφωνίαν positum.  Si enim dicamus, “Beatus homo quem erudieris, Domine,” compositionis elegantiam non habebit.  Et [al. “Sed”] quando dicitur “Domine” et apostropha fit ad Dominum, nihil nocet sensui si ponatur et “tu.”  In eodem :  Et in malitia eorum disperdet eos (Ibid. 23).  In Græco dicitis non esse præpositionem “in,” sed legi “Malitiam eorum disperdet.”  Sciendum autem, quod in Hebræo et in cunctis interpretibus positum sit :  In malitia eorum disperdet eos.  Si autem voluerimus legere “Malitiam eorum disperdet,” id quod in Septuaginta sequitur in fine versiculi, “eos,” et superfluum erit et vitiosum.
 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.
106:61Nonagesimo septimo :  Recordatus est misericordiæ suæ (Ps. 97:3).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Misericordiæ suæ Jacob.  Sed hic “Jacob” nomen superfluum est.
 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.
106:62Centesimo :  Oculi mei ad fideles terræ, ut sederent mecum (Ps. 100:6).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis, τοῦ συγκαθῆσθαι αὐτοὺς μετ’ εμοῦ.  Quis non talem fugiat interpretationem ut, verbum ad verbum exprimens, dicat :  “Ut consederent ipsi mecum ?”
 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 ?”
106:63Centesimo primo :  Vigilavi et factus sum sicut passer solitarius in tecto (Ps. 101:8).  Et dicitis vos in Græco invenisse ἐπὶ δώματι, quod antiqui codices Latinorum interpretati sunt in ædificio.  Δῶμα in orientalibus provinciis ipsum dicitur, quod apud nos “tectum” ;  in Palæstina enim et Ægypto, ubi vel scripti sunt divini libri vel interpretati, non habent in tectis culmina, sed δώματα, quæ Romæ vel solaria vel Mæniana vocant, id est, plana tecta quæ transversis trabibus sustentatur.  Denique et Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum (Cap. 10:9), quando ascendit in δῶμα, in tectum ædificii ascendisse credendus est et, quando præcipitur nobis ut faciamus δώματι nostro coronam, hoc præcipitur, ut in tecto faciamus per circuitum quasdam eminentias, ne facilis in præceps lapsus sit (Deut. 22:8).  Et in Evangelio, Quæ, inquit, auditis in aure, dicite super δώματα, id est, super tecta (Matth. 10:27).  Et in Esaia, Quid vobis est, quod omnes ascendistis in tecta vana ? (Isai. 22:1, juxta LXX).  Et multa istiusmodi.  In eodem :  Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio (Ibid. 7).  Quod similiter habetur in Græco :  et quæritis quid significat νυκτικόραξ apud Latinos.  In Hebræo pro “nycticorace” verbum “bos” scriptum est, quod Aquila et Septuaginta et Theodotio et Quinta Editio “nycticoracem” interpretati sunt, Symmachus “upupam,” Sexta editio “noctuam,” quod et nos magis sequimur.  Denique ubi apud nostros et Græcos legitur Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio, apud Hebræos dicitur “Factus sum sicut noctua in ruinosis.”  Plerique “bubonem” contentiose significari putant.  In eodem :  A facie iræ et indignationis tuæ (Ibid. 11).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis, A facie iræ tuæ, quum manifestum sit quod apud Hebræos et apud Septuaginta Interpretes sic habet :  ἁπὸ προσώπου τῆς ὁργῆς σου καὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ σου.  In eodem :  Quoniam placuerunt servis tuis lapides ejus, et terræ ejus miserebuntur (Ibid. 15).  Pro “terra” in Hebræo AFAR positum est, quod omnes χοῦν transtulerunt, et potest tam “pulvis” quam “humus,” id est “terra,” interpretari.
 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.”
106:64Centesimo secundo :  Non in perpetuo irascetur (Ps. 102:9).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Non in finem.  Sed verbum Hebraicum NESE, et “perpetuum” et “finis” et “victoria” pro locorum intellegitur qualitate.
 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.
106:65Centesimo tertio :  Qui facis Angelos tuos spiritus (Ps. 103:4).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis, ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ, id est, qui facit Angelos suos.  A quibus, breviter quærite quomodo, quum ad Deum sermo sit, quasi ad alium loquens, Propheta repente mutetur, maxime quum sic incipiat :  Domine, Deus meus, magnificatus es vehementer.  Confessionem et decorem induisti (Ibid. 1), et:  Qui tegis in aquis superiora ejus (id est, cæli), qui ponis nubem ascensum tuum, qui ambulas super pennas ventorum (Ibid. 3).  Et statim sequitur :  Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, et ministros tuos ignem urentem.  Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam (Ibid. 4f.).  Et post paulum :  Ab increpatione tua fugient ;  a voce tonitrui tui formidabunt (Ibid. 7).  Et: In loco quem fundasti eis (Ibid. 8).  Qui emittis fontes in convallibus (Ibid. 10).  Et illud :  Ut educas panem de terra (Ibid. 14).  Si ergo omnia ad Secundam Personam sunt — id est, ad Deum —, quomodo in uno versiculo Tertia Persona subito, et extra ordinem, inducitur ?  In eodem :  A voce tonitrui tui formidabunt (Ibid. 7).  Habet et in Hebræo tonitrui tui ;  et miror quomodo, apud Latinos, scriptorum errore subtractum sit.  In eodem :  Hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus (Ibid. 25; “manibus” de codice Alexandrino archæo).  Dicitis in Græco “manibus” non haberi.  Et ego novi, sed ex Hebraico et Theodotionis editione in Septuaginta sub asterisco additum est.  Denique, et in Hebræo ita scriptum est :  ZE HAIAM GADOL UARAB IDAIM, quod Aquila sic interpretatus est :  αὐλὴ καὶ πλατεῖα χερσίν, et omnes interpretes, αὕτη ἡ θάλασσα ἡ μεγάλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος χερσίν.  Et hoc secundum Hebraicam dicitur proprietatem μεταφορικῶς, quod quasi expansas manus habeat et in se cuncta suscipiat.  In eodem :  Ut educas panem de terra (Ibid. 14).  Pro quo invenisse vos dicitis :  ut educat ;  sed non potest aliud ad ipsum, aliud de ipso dici.  Aut omnia quasi ad Deum loquebatur Propheta, aut omnia ad alium de eo referebat.  Quum autem pleraque ad ipsum dirigantur, et ea quæ ambigua sunt ad ipsius personam dirigenda sunt.  In eodem :  Herodii domus dux est eorum (Ibid. 17).  Pro herodio, quod in Hebræo dicitur ASIDA, Symmachus ἰκτῖνα [al. ἰκτῖνον], id est, “milvum,” interpretatus est.  Denique et nos ita vertimus in Latinum :  Ibi aves nidificabunt ;  milvi abies domus est, quod scilicet semper in excelsis et arduis arboribus nidos facere consueverit.  Unde et Sexta editio manifestius interpretata est, Milvo cupressi ad nidificandum.  Pro abietibus autem et cupressis, in Hebræo ponitur BARUSIM, quod magis abietes quam κυπαρίσσους significat.  In eodem :  Petra refugium erinaciis (Ibid. 18).  Pro quo in Hebræo positum est SPHANNIM, et omnes τοῖς χοιρογρυλλίοις voces simili transtulerunt, exceptis Septuaginta, qui “lepores” interpretati sunt.  Sciendum autem animal esse non majus ericio, habens similitudinem muris et ursi, unde in Palæstina ἀρκτόμῡς dicitur, et magna est in istis regionibus hujus generis abundantia, semperque in cavernis petrarum et terræ foveis habitare consueverunt.
 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.
106:66Centesimo quarto :  Dedit terra eorum ranas (Ps. 104:30).  Pro quo in Græco ἐξῆρψεν vos legisse dicitis.  Quod potest ita interpretari :  “Ebullivit terra eorum ranas” ;  sed et in hoc nulla est in sensu mutatio ;  et nos, antiquam interpretationem sequentes, quod non nocebat, mutare noluimus.  In eodem :  Et contrivit lignum finium eorum (Ibid. 33).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis “omne lignum.”  Sed et hoc additum est, et superfluum.  In eodem :  Quoniam memor fuit verbi sancti sui, quod habuit ad Abraham, puerum suum (Ibid. 42).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis, ὃν διέθετο (Ibid. 9), id est, “quod disposuit.”  Ita enim et in Hebræo et apud Septuaginta habetur Interpretes :  ἐμνήσθη τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ, τοῦ πρὸς Ἀβραὰμ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ.  Ergo quod in Græco dicitur ὃν διέθετο, in hoc loco et superfluum est, et radendum.
 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.
106:67Centesimo quinto :  Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus (Ps. 105:1).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  quoniam χρηστός, id est, suavis.  Sed sciendum quod χρηστός et in “bonum” et in “suave” [al. “suavem”] verti potest.  Denique et in Hebræo ita scriptum est:  CHI TOB, quod omnes voce simili transtulerunt :  quia bonus.  E quo perspicuum est quod χρηστός “bonus” intellegatur.  In eodem :  Non fuerunt memores multitudinis misericordiæ tuæ [Ibid. 7].  Dicitis quod in Græco inveneritis :  Et non fuerunt memores.  “Et” conjunctio superflua est.  In eodem :  Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare Rubrum [Ibid. 7].  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  καὶ παραπίκραναν, et putatis verbum e verbo debere transferri :  “et amaricaverunt.”  Sed hæc interpretatio “annullationi” consimilis est, sive “annihilationi.”  Legite Ezechiel, et invenietis παραπικρασμός “irritationem et exacerbationem” (cf. etiam Ezech. 20:21 :  παραπίκρανάν) semper expressum, ubi dicitur οἶκος παραπικραίνων, id est, domus exasperans (Ezech. 2:5f.,8 ;  3:9,26f. ;  12:2f.,9,25).  In eodem :  Et vidit quum tribularentur, et audivit orationem eorum (Ps. 105:44).  Quicquid extra hoc in Græco invenisse vos dixistis, superfluum est.
 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.
15.  See ¶ 57, end
106:68Centesimo sexto :  Et statuit procellam ejus in auram, et siluerunt fluctus ejus (Ps. 106:29).  Hoc ergo quod pro isto in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  καὶ ἐπετίμησεν τῇ καταιγίδι αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔστη εἰς αὔραν [lectio paululum varians], superfluum est.  In eodem :  Et deduxit eos in portum voluntatis eorum (Ibid. 30).  Pro quo invenisse vos dicitis :  In portum voluntatis suæ.  Sed in Hebræo non habet EPHSAU, quod “voluntatis suæ” significat, sed EPHSAM, quod “voluntatis eorum” sonat.
 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.”
106:69Centesimo septimo :  Exsurge, gloria mea (Ps. 107:3).  Quod dicitis in Latino non esse, recte in isto Psalmo non habet, quia nec apud Hebræos nec apud ullum Interpretum reperitur, sed habetur in quinquagesimo sexto Psalmo (Ps. 56:9), de quo mihi videtur a quodam in istum locum esse translatum.  In eodem :  Mihi alienigenæ amici facti sunt (Ps. 107:10).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis ὑπετάγησαν, hoc est, “subditi sunt.”  Sed hoc in quinquagesimo nono Psalmo (Ps. 59:10) scriptum est ;  in præsenti (Ps. 107:10) autem ita apud omnes invenimus Translatores, ἐμοὶ ἀλλόφυλοι ἐφιλίασαν (Ps. 107:10 [ἐφιλίασαν {aoristos verbi φιλιάζω} = varia lectio pro ὑπετάγησαν]9), id est, amici facti sunt, quod Hebraice dicitur ETHROHE.
 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.
106:70Centesimo nono :  Virgam virtutis tuæ emittet Dominus e Sion (Ps. 109:2).  Dicitis vos in Græcis codicibus non legisse “virtutis tuæ,” quod manifeste et in Hebræo et in Septuaginta Interpretibus habet.  In eodem :  Dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum (Ibid. 2).  Dicitis in Græco legi :  et dominare.  Sed hoc nec in Hebræo habetur nec apud Septuaginta, et superfluum est.
 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.
106:71Centesimo decimo :  Confitebor tibi, Domine, in toto corde (Ps. 110:1).  In Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  in toto corde meo.  Sed et hoc hic superfluum est.
 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.
106:72Centesimo tertio decimo :  Deus autem noster in cælo (Ps. 113:11).  Pro quo Græco legisse vos dicitis :  in cælo et in terra.  Sed et hoc superfluum est.
 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.
106:73Centesimo quarto decimo :  Et in diebus meis invocabo te (Ps. 114:2).  Dicitis quod in Græco non sit “te,” et bene ;  e vestris quoque codicibus eradendum est.  In ipso :  Placebo Domino in regione vivorum (Ibid. 9).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  Placebo in conspectu Domini.  Sed hoc superfluum est.
 Psalm 114:  Et in diebus meis invocabo te.  You say that “te” is not in the Greek, and that’s all right.  Hence it should be erased from your copies.  In the same:  Placebo Domino in regione vivorum, for which you say you have read in the Greek:  Placebo in conspectu Domini.  But this is wrong.
106:74Centesimo septimo decimo :  Et in nomine Domini, quia ultus sum in eos (Ps. 117:10).  Dicitis “quia” in Græcis codicibus non inveniri ;  sed in Latinis sub asterisco legendum est.
 Psalm 117:  Et in nomine Domini, quia ultus sum in eos.  You say that “quia” is not found in the Greek texts.  It should be added, however, in the Latin copies under an asterisk.
106:75Centesimo octavo decimo :  Et meditabar in mandatis tuis quæ dilexi (Ps. 118:47).  In Græco, “vehementer” additum legisse vos dicitis ;  sed hoc superfluum est.  In eodem :  Levavi manus meas ad mandata tua, quæ dilexi (Ibid. 48).  In Græco legisse vos dicitis :  “ad mandata tua quæ dilexi [vehementer],” sed et hoc superfluum est.  In eodem :  Cogitavi vias meas (Ibid. 59).  In Græco, “[juxta] vias tuas” legisse vos dicitis, sed hoc superfluum est, et rectius “meas” legitur.  In eodem :  Et verti pedes meos in testimonia tua (Ibidem).  In Græco legisse vos dicitis, “et averti.”  Sed et hoc superfluum est.  In eodem :  Ego autem in toto corde scrutabor mandata tua (Ibid. 69).  In Græco, “in toto corde meo” legisse vos dicitis :  sed hic “meo” superfluum est.  In eodem :  Anima mea in manibus meis semper ;  et legem tuam non sum oblitus (Ibid. 109).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis, “Anima mea in manibus tuis semper.”  Sed sciendum et apud Hebræos et apud Septuaginta et omnes alios Interpretes scriptum esse “in manibus meis,” et non “in manibus tuis,” quod Hebraice dicitur BACHAFFI ;  et omnes apud Græcos Ecclesiastici Interpretes istum locum sic edisserunt, et est, breviter, hic sensus :  “Cottidie periclitor, et quasi in manibus meis sanguinem meum porto, et tamen legem tuam non obliviscor.”  In eodem :  Exitus aquarum deduxerunt oculi mei, quia non custodierunt legem tuam (Ps. 118:136).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis, “quia non custodivi legem tuam.”  Sed hoc superfluum est, quia et in Hebræo legitur :  Rivi aquarum fluebant de oculis meis, quia non custodierunt legem tuam.  In eodem :  Pronuntiabit lingua mea eloquium tuum (Ibid. 172).  Pro pronuntiabit, in Græco φθέγξεται [= varia lectio pro LXX φθέγξαιτο]9 vos legisse dixistis ;  quod verbum, sive dicas “pronuntiabit” sive “effabitur” sive “loquetur,” id ipsum significat.  Denique et nos de Hebræo ita vertimus :  Loquetur lingua mea sermonem tuum (Ps. 118:172, juxta Hebræos).
 Psalm 118:  Et meditabar in mandatis tuis quæ dilexi.  You say that in the Greek the word vehementer is added.  But this is superfluous.  In the same:  Levavi manus meas ad mandata tua quæ dilexi.  You say that you have read in the Greek, “ad mandata tua quæ dilexi [vehementer]”12;  but “vehementer” is superfluous.  In the same:  Cogitavi vias meas.  You say that you have read in the Greek, “[juxta]12 vias tuas,” but “juxta” is superfluous and “meas” is more correct.  In the same:  Et verti pedes meos in testimonia tua.  You say you have read in the Greek, “et averti”;  but the prefix is superfluous.  In the same:  Ego autem in toto corde scrutabor mandata tua. You say that you have read in the Greek, “in toto corde meo”;  but “meo” is superfluous here.  In the same:  anima mea in manibus meis semper ;  et legem tuam non sum oblitus.  For this you say you have read in the Greek, “Anima mea in manibus tuis semper.”  It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew the Septuagint and all other translators have here “in manibus meis,” and not “in manibus tuis,” which is in the Hebrew bachaffi.  All ecclesiastical writers among the Greeks interpret this place that way, and its sense is briefly the following:  “I am daily in danger and hold my life, as it were, in my very hands, and yet I do not forget your law.”  In the same:  Exitus aquarum deduxerunt oculi mei, quia non custodierunt legem tuam.  For this you say you have read in the Greek, “quia non custodivi legem tuam.”  But this is wrong because also the Hebrew text has:  Rivi aquarum fluebant de oculis meis, quia non custodierunt legem tuam.  In the same:  Pronuntiabit lingua mea eloquium tuum. You say that you have read in the Greek for “pronuntiabit” φθέγξεται, which word means either “pronuntiabit,” “effabitur,” or “loquetur,” as these are synonymous.  Finally, from the Hebrew I have also translated thus:  Loquetur lingua mea sermonem tuum.
106:76Centesimo nono decimo :  Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis, a lingua dolosa (Ps. 119:2).  In Græco legisse vos dicitis :  “et a lingua dolosa.”  “Et” superfluum est.
 Psalm 119:  Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis, a lingua dolosa.  You say you have read in the Greek, “et a lingua dolosa”;  but “et” is superfluous.
106:77Centesimo vigesimo sexto :  Beatus vir qui implebit desiderium suum ex ipsis (Ps. 126:5).  In Græco dicitis “vir” non haberi, quod manifestissime et in Hebræo et in Septuaginta Interpretibus continetur.
 Psalm 126:  Beatus vir qui implebit desiderium suum ex ipsis.  You say that in your Greek text the word “vir” does not occur.  It is, however, clearly expressed in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint.
106:78Centesimo vigesimo nono, Propter legem tuam sustinui te, Domine (Ps. 129:4).  Dicitis vos in Græco invenisse, “Propter nomen tuum” ;  et nos confitemur plura exemplaria sic reperiri.  Sed quia veritati studemus, quid in Hebræo sit, simpliciter debemus dicere :  pro “nomine” sive “lege,” apud eos legitur THIRA, quod Aquila interpretatus est φόβον, hoc est “timorem,” Symmachus et Theodotion νόμον, id est, “legem,” putantes THORA propter litterarum similitudinem Jod { י } et Waw { ו }, quæ tantum magnitudine distinguuntur.  Quinta Editio “terrorem” interpretata est ;  Sexta, “verbum.”
 Psalm 129:  Propter legem tuam sustinui te, Domine.  You say that you have found in the Greek:  Propter nomen tuum.  I confess that a number of texts have that reading.  But since we are investigating the truth, we simply must adhere to what we find in the Hebrew.  And there we find for “nomine” or “lege” the word thira, which Aquila translates by φόβον, that is, “timorem,” Symmachus and Theodotion by νόμον, that is “legem,” thinking, as they did, that the Hebrew had the word thora on account of the similarity between jod { י } and waw { ו }, which differ only in size.  The Fifth Edition has “terrorem,” the Sixth “verbum.”
106:79Centesimo trigesimo primo :  Sicut juravit Domino, votum vovit Deo Jacob (Ps. 131:2).  Pro eo quod nos interpretati sumus “votum vovit,” in Græco ηὔξατο legisse vos dicitis et putatis interpretari debuisse “oravit.”  Sed hoc male :  εὐχή enim, pro locorum qualitate, et “orationem” et “votum” significat, secundum illud :  Redde Deo vota tua (Ps. 49:14 ;  sed ibi “Deo” = LXX “τῷ Ὑψίστῳ,” non “τῷ Θεῷ” !), id est, τὰς εὐχάς σου.
 Psalm 131:  Sicut juravit Domino, votum vovit Deo Jacob.  You say that you have found in the Greek, for my rendering “votum vovit,” the form ηὔξατο, and you think that I should have translated “oravit”!  This, however, is wrong, for εὐχή means either “orationem” or “votum,” according to the context, as in:  Redde Deo vota tua, that is:  τὰς εὐχάς σου.
106:80Centesimo trigesimo quinto :  Qui fecit luminaria magna (Ps. 135:7).  Dicitis quia in Græco inveneritis :  magna solus.  Sed hoc de superiori versiculo est, ubi legimus :  Qui fecit mirabilia magna solus (Ibid. 4).  Ibi ergo legendum est, et hic, quasi superfluum, non scribendum.
 Psalm 135:  Qui fecit luminaria magna.  You say that you have found in the Greek:  magna solus.  But “solus” has been added from a preceding verse, where we read:  Qui fecit mirabilia magna solus.  Hence you should insert it there and omit it here as superfluous.
106:81Centesimo trigesimo septimo :  Quoniam magnificasti super omne, nomen sanctum tuum (Ps. 137:2).  In Græco repperisse vos dicitis :  super omnes.  Sed in Septuaginta ita legitur :  ὅτι ἐμεγάλυνας ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιόν σου [ἅγιόν = varia lectio pro λόγιόν],9 sicuti et nos in Latinum vertimus.  Ceterum, apud Hebræos ita esse cognoscite :  Quia magnificasti super omne nomen tuum, Verbum tuum.  Juxta editionem autem Latinam, hic sensus est :  “Quoniam magnificasti super omne nomen” — hoc est, quod in cælo et in terra dici potest sanctum — “filium tuum.”
 Psalm 137:  Quoniam magnificasti super omne, nomen sanctum tuum.  You say that you have found in the Greek:  super omnes.  The Septuagint, however, has:  ὅτι ἐμεγάλυνας ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιόν σου, as I, too, have translated into the Latin.  Besides, remember that the Hebrew has this reading:  Quia magnificasti super omne nomen tuum, Verbum tuum.  According to the Latin version, however, the meaning is:  “Quoniam magnificasti super omne nomen” — that is, above everything that may be called holy in Heaven and on earth — “filium tuum.”
106:82Centesimo trigesimo octavo :  Quia non est sermo in lingua mea (Ps. 138:4).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis, “Quia non est dolus in lingua mea,” quod solum Sexta editio interpretata est.  Ceterum, et apud Septuaginta et apud omnes Interpretes et ipsum Hebraicum, vel λαλιὰν vel λόγον, id est “eloquium” et “verbum,” scriptum habet.  Denique Hebraice MALA dicitur.
 Psalm 138:  Quia non est sermo in lingua mea.  For this you say you have read in the Greek:  Quia non est dolus in lingua mea.  But only the Sixth Edition has this reading.  Besides, both the Septuagint and all translators and the very Hebrew text have either λαλιὰν or λόγον, that is, “eloquium” and “verbum.”  The Hebrew word in question is mala.
106:83Centesimo trigesimo nono :  Funes extenderunt in laqueum (Ps. 139:6).  Pro quo in Græco invenisse vos dicitis :  Funes extenderunt laqueum pedibus meis.  Sed hoc in loco superfluum est.  In eodem pro eo quod est “Habitabunt recti cum vultu tuo” (Ibid. 14), in Græco repperisse vos dicitis :  Et habitabunt.  Sed hic “et” conjunctio superflua est.
 Psalm 139:  Funes extenderunt in laqueum.  For this you say the Greek has:  Funes extenderunt laqueum pedibus meis.  But that is wrong in this place.  In the same:  You say that you have found in the Greek, for “Habitabunt recti cum vultu tuo,” the reading:  Et habitabunt.  But the conjunction “et” is superfluous here.
106:84Centesimo quadragesimo :  Dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum (Ps. 140:7).  Pro quo in Græco legisse vos dicitis :  ossa eorum.  Sed et hoc superfluum est.
 Psalm 140:  Dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum, for which you say you have read in the Greek:  ossa eorum.  That reading, however, is wrong, too.
106:85Centesimo quadragesimo sexto :  Nec in tibiis viri beneplacitum erit ei (Ps. 146:10).  Pro “ei,” “Domino” legisse vos dicitis ;  quod non habetur.
 Psalm 146:  Nec in tibiis viri beneplacitum erit ei.  You say that for “ei” you have read “Domino,” which does not occur.
106:86Ideo autem, quod et vos in fine schedulæ quæritis, et sanctus filius meus Avitus frequenter efflagitat, quomodo Græca interpretanda sint verba, breviter annotavi.  Νεομηνία mensis exordium est, quod nos secundum Latinæ linguæ proprietatem “kalendas” possumus dicere.  Verum quia apud Hebræos mensis secundum lunæ cursum supputatur, et apud Græcos μήνη “luna” dicitur, νεομηνία quasi “nova luna” appellatur.  Ἐρῆμος autem “desertum” vel “solitudinem” significat, θρόνος “sedem” vel ”solium,” νυκτικόραξ, ut diximus, noctuam.  Κυνόμυϊα non, ut Latini interpretati sunt, “musca canina” dicitur, per υ Græcam litteram, sed juxta Hebraicam intellegentiam per δίφθογγον debet scribi οι, ut sit κοινόμυϊα, id est, “omne muscarum genus,” quod Aquila πάνμικτον, id est, “omnimodam muscam” interpretatus est.  Λαξευτήριον autem, pro quo Latinus “asciam” vertit, nos genus ferramenti interpretamur, quo lapides dolantur.  Denique ex Hebræo vertentes ita diximus :  Et nunc scalpturas ejus pariter, bipenne et dolatoriis deraserunt (Ps. 73:6, juxta Hebræos).  Λαξευτήριον ergo “dolatorium” dici potest.
 And since you are asking at the end of your missive, and my holy son Avitus likewise has requested me often, how certain Greek words should be translated, I shall note these briefly.  Νεομηνία is the beginning of the month, which in Latin we may properly call “kalendas.”  However, since the Hebrews calculate the month on the basis of the revolution of the moon around the earth, and since the Greeks call the moon μήνη, νεομηνία means, as it were, “new moon”;  ἐρῆμος means “desertum” or “solitudinem”;  θρόνος signifies “sedem” or “solium,” νυκτικόραξ, as I have said already,16 “noctuam”;  κυνόμυϊα is wrongly written with the Greek letter υ and consequently translated by the Latins as “musca canina,” whereas it should be written, according to the Hebrew, with the diphthong οι, so that the form becomes κοινόμυϊα, which means “omne muscarum genus”;  this Aquila translated by πάνμικτον, that is, “omnimodam muscam.”  Finally, the word λαξευτήριον, which has been rendered into the Latin by “asciam,” I consider a type of tool with which stone is worked.  Thus, translating from the Hebrew, I said:  Et nunc sculpturas ejus pariter bipenne et dolatoriis deraserunt. Hence λαξευτήριον may be rendered by “dolatorium.”
16.  See ¶ 63
Remarks by Michael Metlen
1 1. The Gothic clergymen’s attitude, as shown by this correspondence, is that of word sticklers who believe in the verbatim method of Bible translation at the expense not only of idiomatic usage but even of grammar.  It does not appear farfetched to suppose that this attitude of theirs was probably due to the fact that they found their Bible to be a transverbalizing sort of translation, for which reason they took exception to Jerome’s method which was concerned primarily with the sense of the text, according to the slogan, Nec verbum verbo curabit reddere fidus interpres.
2 This correspondence also suggests that the Gothic Bible text was quite likely constantly being changed by revisers on the basis of Greek texts they just happened to have in their possession and which may have been considerably different from the text from which the original translation was made, which fact may afford us an inkling of the heterogeneous pattern of the emendations made by successive revisers, in case there were others besides Sunja and Friþila, in particular if we bear in mind Jerome’s statement that there were almost as many Bible versions as copies extant.17
17.  Tot sunt pæne [Latina exemplaria] quot codices.  Ep. ad Dam.  This may apply as well to the Greek.
3 The correspondence further shows that the Goths did not neglect either comparing their Bible with the Latin texts and probably correcting it, too, on the basis of the latter,18 particularly so because the Goths born in Italy quite likely knew Latin better than Greek and may have understood the former even better than their Graecizing Bible, for which reason the revisers, being anxious that their flock should understand their Bible, were probably under a great temptation to change, in places difficult to understand and where the Greek and Latin texts exhibited discrepant readings, their own text on the basis of the Latin, especially if the latter’s version appeared to be more understandable to their people.  This is very rational to assume and finds an analogy in our own foreign population.  Thus, for instance, the children of German parents as a rule know very little, if indeed any, German, and the rank and file of them would find it difficult to understand Luther’s Bible, particularly in its archaic portions, although there can be no comparison between his German and the Gothic Bible, as far as idiomatic speech is concerned.
18.  See G. W. S. Friedrichsen, The Gothic Version of the Gospels, London.
4 Although Sunja and Friþila’s correspondence with Jerome has bearing only on the Gothic Psalter, yet by implication it applies to the whole Gothic Bible.

M. METLEN
    Loyola University, Rogers Park Campus,
    Chicago, Ill.

->> >> >>⇈⇑⇈<< << <<-

Deus vult ! — Þeedrich ( Inscriptio electronica :   )
Dies immutationis recentissimæ :  die Mercurii, 2015 Oct 21