Issues of translation and interpretation of Holy Scripture in the correspondence of St. Augustine with St. Jerome

St. Augustine (354–430) and St. Jerome (c. 347–420) never met each other, although they repeatedly expressed an ardent desire to talk in person. Their communication was limited to correspondence, which was not an easy matter at that time, as evidenced by several missing letters and misunderstandings with some of them being delayed for several years. The letters of these two holy men remain for us a precious source of their judgments on various topics, but mainly on the issues of translation and interpretation of certain passages of Holy Scripture. 18 letters have survived from their undoubtedly more extensive correspondence, which took place with a break between 395 and 419/420. 1 In the research literature, it is divided, in accordance with the time frame and the topics discussed, into two sections. The first section deals mainly with the interpretation of the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians and about different interpretations of the dispute that arose in Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul (Gal. 2:11-14), as well as about the sources of the new translation of the Bible into Latin undertaken by Blessed Jerome. These letters date from 395–405. – 28 2, 39, 40, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74 (to a third party, accompanying), 75, 81, 82. The second section deals mainly with problems connected with the question of the origin of souls and the dispute with the Pelagians. These include: a) Augustine’s large letters to Jerome 166, 167, which are characterized as books by Augustine in Retractationes, and b) letters 172, 195, 123, 202, 19*. The correspondence begins with a letter from 28 Augustine to Jerome. It was written in 394 or 395, but reached the recipient only 8 years later 3. However, according to the conditions of that time, it turned out that it circulated in Rome regardless of the will of Augustine, which is why a quarrel later occurred between the two holy men, since Jerome was informed that Augustine had allegedly published some kind of book in Rome criticizing his translations. In this letter, Augustine states the spiritual unity that connects him with Jerome, as evidenced, firstly, by communication in the same Spirit, and secondly, by the words of Alypius, a friend of Augustine, who visited Jerome in Palestine and conveyed impressions of their meeting and that Jerome loves Augustine (ep. 28.1). Augustine then goes to the heart of the matter and says that the entire learned community (studiosa societas) of the African churches would like Jerome to undertake the translation of the interpretations of the Scriptures of the Greek Fathers. The following outlines the fundamental provisions for that period concerning the translation of the Holy Scriptures. First of all, Augustine wants to direct Jerome's translational energy away from the new translation of Scripture in general. In particular, he warns Jerome against this plan, unless it is carried out in the same way as he previously translated the book of Job (from Greek), that is, so that the notes would show the difference between his translation and the text of the Septuagint, which, as Augustine notes, enjoys the highest authority in the Church 4. Augustine believes that it is hardly possible to find anything in the Hebrew text of Scripture that would escape the attention and evaluation of such competent language experts as, first of all, the Seventy translators, who showed rare unanimity. However, Augustine says, he was confused by the subsequent translators from Hebrew after the Seventy, who, as they say, although they had competence and knowledge in the Hebrew language, nevertheless often disagreed with each other, so that there was a need after them to discover and explain something else. If their disagreement stemmed from some darkness in the Hebrew text, then where is the guarantee that Jerome will not stumble in these places, but if everything is clear there, then they were not mistaken, and what then is the meaning of the work? (ep. 28.2). It is quite obvious that for Augustine it is primarily the Septuagint that is important, and not the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures. The standard of translators for him is the Seventy Interpreters. Augustine then turns to commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul and, in particular, on the Epistle to the Galatians, especially Gal 2.11–14. Although Augustine speaks about the author of these commentaries only presumably (quae tua dicerentur) (ep. 28.3), but, as is clear from the entire course of the argument, he means Jerome in it. Augustine's position on this issue is well known: the Apostle Paul, reproaching the ap. Peter in hypocrisy, when he, embarrassed by Jewish Christians, began to avoid meals with pagans, which he had previously shared, did so consistently and unfeignedly. Whereas in those Commentaries that reached Augustine and which he considers to belong to Jerome, the behavior of St. Paul is interpreted as feigned and insincere, i.e. as if the Apostle Paul actually supported and justified the pretense of the Apostle Peter, and expressed his condemnation so that conflict and rebellion would not arise among the believers. Augustine completely rejects this logic of “white lies.” He says: “It seems to me completely disastrous to think that there is anything false in the Holy Books, that is, that those people through whom this Scripture was given to us and written down, invented something in their books” 5 . Otherwise, he continues, all Scripture collapses, because everything inconvenient in it can be declared false, and then arbitrariness will come. Then we will not be able to find the truth in it. Then we will not be able to refute the evil people predicted by the Apostle, who will reject marriage 6 on the grounds that the Apostle allegedly spoke in defense of marriage feignedly 7 so as not to upset those who love their wives and extinguish their hostility (ep. 28:4). Then it will be possible to use lies to inflame the lazy to praise God. “But then nowhere in the Holy Books will the authority of pious truth be unshakable” 8. Isn’t it the same Apostle who speaks with great concern about the truth being entrusted: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain. Moreover, we would also turn out to be false witnesses about God, because we would testify about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise (1 Cor. 15:14-15)” (ep. 28.4). God wants only the truth, Augustine believes, and therefore he cannot accept any justification for insincerity or outright lies in Scripture, no matter what the motivation. The authority of Holy Scripture could not be questioned in any way, because faith in salvation is based on this; and experiments, Augustine believes, in this area are dangerous. He himself, in his interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, proceeded from its unconditional truth as the word of God. “It must be so,” he writes to Jerome, “that a person should begin to study the divine Scriptures who would consider the Holy Books so holy and true that he would not want to delight in obliging lies in any part of them, but would rather omit what he does not understand rather than prefer his feelings to this truth” 9 . One cannot help but see in this a call for caution addressed to Jerome. Bearing in mind the context of Scripture, Augustine says: “...Perhaps you will give us some rules that will show us where we can lie and where we cannot.” 10 Augustine's position here is expressed clearly and unambiguously. But he says that he has the right to a critical and sincere judgment, because he himself expects the same for some of his works, which he sends to the addressee along with this letter (ep. 28.6). Jerome's first surviving letter to Augustine is letter 39 (in Jerome's correspondence 103), written c. 397 11 It is recommendatory in nature and expresses the good feelings that Jerome has for Augustine. We do not find anything here regarding the translation of the Holy Scriptures, since Bl. Jerome has not yet received the letter on the 28th. Letter 40 of Augustine to Jerome, written c. 397, is a response to a short letter from Jerome that has not survived. Unfortunately, this letter also did not immediately reach Jerome, and he learned about its contents from a copy made of it, and the letter itself became publicly available, which gave rise to misunderstanding and resentment between the two holy men. It is clear from the letter that Augustine knows that Jerome did not receive the 28th letter (ep. 40:8), so here he again offers his previous argument regarding Galatians 2.14–15. But his argument here is greatly enhanced by subtle exegetical analysis. In particular, he cites the words of the apostle from this Epistle - “But in what I write to you I do not lie before God” (Gal. 1:20) - as an indication that, in the event of his feigned condemnation of the apostles Peter and Barnabas in Gal. 2.14, these words may also not be accepted as true (ep. 40.3). Or, asks Augustine, can one assume that the apostle speaks the truth when the reader likes it, but when he doesn’t like it, then one can admit a useful lie here (ep. 40.3)? Turning to the words of the Apostle Paul, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews” (1 Cor 9.20), Augustine says that the apostle shows by this merciful compassion, as a carer for a sick person would do, and not crafty pretense. “Because he, being a Jew, having become a Christian, did not abandon the Jewish sacraments, which that people conveniently and at the appropriate time received. So, having become an Apostle, he supported their observance, but to teach that there is no danger in them for those who, even believing in Christ, want to observe them, since according to the law they received them from their parents; but so that they should not place in them the hope of salvation, for the very hope of salvation, which these sacraments signified, was realized through the Lord Jesus” 12. For this reason, the apostle was against Jewish customs being imposed on the pagans, because this could turn them away from the faith (ep. 40:4). And the Apostle Paul corrected the Apostle Peter, not because he observed the customs of the fathers (paternas traditiones), although now unnecessary, but harmless, but because he forced the pagans to live like Jews (Gal. 2:14), as if the institutions of the Jews after the coming of the Lord were necessary for salvation. And the Apostle Peter knew about this, but he did it, “fearing those of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12). So he was correctly instructed by the Apostle Paul (ep. 40.5). Further, Augustine continues to deepen the theme of the relationship between the institutions of the Old and New Testaments, as it is revealed in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. He writes that “the Apostle Paul rejected all the errors of the Jews and, above all, that, “not understanding the righteousness of God and trying to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10.3).” Further, that after the passion and resurrection of Christ, when the sacrament of grace was given and revealed according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20), they still believed that the old sacraments should be observed not according to custom, but because of their necessity for salvation; but, on the other hand, if they had never been needed, then the martyrdom of the Maccabees for them would have been fruitless and in vain. And finally, that the preachers of grace, Christians, were persecuted by the Jews as enemies of the law. He says that he “counts these and similar errors as loss and rubbish, that he may gain Christ (Phil. 3:8)” 13. Thus, the Apostle Paul observed Jewish customs based on the fact of his birth, but not feignedly, like the Apostle Peter, since he reproached him for this. If the Apostle Paul had done this feignedly, then “... why,” asks Augustine, “didn’t he offer sacrifices with the pagans, since for those who were without the law, he became without the law, so that he could win them also [to Christ]?” 14 And this behavior on the part of the Apostle Paul was not a trick or a trick, but an act of mercy and compassionate love for the Jews whom he wanted to help. “In the same place,” Augustine continues, “he said in general: “To the weak he was as weak, that he might win the weak (1 Cor. 9:22),” and so the conclusion that follows should be understood: “To all he became all things, that he might win all (1 Cor. 9:22)” 15. After all, when the apostle says, “Whoever faints, with whom would I not faint?” (2 Cor. 11.29), he does not mean that we should understand these words as an indication of his depiction of the exhaustion of another, but rather as an expression of compassion for the exhausted (ep. 40.6). Augustine asks Jerome to abandon his erroneous approach and make the necessary corrections in his work for the sake of Christian truth (ep. 40.7). In letter 67, probably written in 402, Bl. Augustine, in very respectful terms, asks the Blessed. Jerome about the answer, with which he hesitates, because, as Augustine thinks, he was offended that Augustine allegedly compiled a book against him and sent it to Rome. He further continues: “If it is possible to find anything anywhere in my writings in which it would be revealed that I think differently than you, then I believe you should know, and if you cannot know, believe that this was not said against you, but as I thought” 16. Letter 68 of Jerome to Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 102), written in 402, actually refuses to respond in substance to Augustine's 40th letter, which has only now been received, since he is not sure that it is genuine, since only a copy of it was delivered. Jerome invites Augustine to send an authentic expression of his opinions. Nevertheless, some positions in this letter are stated quite definitely. In particular, he is willing to discuss exegetical questions “so that we either correct our errors, or learn that we have reproached another without reason” (ep. 68.1). However, this readiness does not at all imply that Jerome himself would suddenly be wrong. He does not take Augustine's remarks seriously, regarding them as stemming from the habit of young people to attack authorities, which Jerome rightfully considers himself to be (ep. 68.2). Letter 71 of Augustine to Jerome, written around 403, is extremely important for understanding the essence of the controversy between the two fathers on this issue. Augustine writes this letter without having yet received 68 Jerome's letter and takes advantage of the opportunity to convey it to Jerome and receive a quick response 17. Here Augustine asks Jerome to send copies of previous letters or to dictate and recall what they contained, since they did not reach him. He himself sends copies of his letters 18, in particular the 28th letter, to which he makes important additions. He is concerned and alarmed by Jerome's new translation of the book of Job from the Hebrew language. The previous translation of the same book from Greek was made by Jerome with amazing care, which was manifested in the fact that there were marked with special signs places and even particles that are present in the Greek and absent in the Hebrew text, and vice versa. Why wasn't the same care applied now, Augustine asks? (ep. 71.3) In fact, Blessed Jerome was not to blame here, because the first translation of the book of Job (c. 390) was carried out by him from the Septuagint into Origen's Hexaplah, from where all the signs that were there and indicating the addition of places missing in the Septuagint, in comparison with the Hebrew text, were transferred from the later translation of the Holy Scriptures by Theodotion into Greek language. The second translation of the same book (c. 393), made from the Hebrew language, naturally did not contain such signs 19 . In any case, Augustine is confused by the fact that from the new translation it will be difficult to judge the difference between the Holy Scriptures preserved in Greek and in Hebrew. But Augustine makes more serious claims: he believes that in general it is necessary to translate the Scriptures only from Greek, namely the Septuagint, and this for several reasons. First, if Jerome's translation were widely read in many churches, it would alienate the Latin churches from the Greek, and the contradiction between the two translations would immediately become apparent as soon as the text was published in the Greek language, which is widely used (ep. 71:4). Further, “if it suddenly turns out that someone discovers something unusual in the Hebrew translation and makes an accusation of falsification, then it will hardly be possible to get to the Jewish evidence in order to defend what is being disputed” 20 . And even if this is achieved, who will tolerate the condemnation of so many Latin and Greek authorities? Moreover, even when asked, the Jews can answer something opposite to what Jerome thinks, so his presence will always be absolutely necessary, but on the other hand, who can be the judge between them? (ep. 71.4). As an illustration, Augustine cites an incident that occurred in one meeting of believers, at which the bishop read the story of the prophet Jonah as interpreted by Jerome, which caused a strong reaction from those who had been accustomed for centuries to the usual reading and singing (especially the Greeks). When the Jews were consulted, they answered (“out of ignorance or malice”) that both options can be found in Jewish books; the bishop was forced to return to his usual reading, so as not to lose his flock (ep. 71.5). Augustine draws the following conclusion from this story: “... It is obvious to us that in some things you could be mistaken; just look how difficult the situation can be when the Scriptures cannot be corrected by the correlative evidence of the languages ​​in use." 21 Here we are talking about a very important problem of that time: the focus on the Hebrew text during translation presupposed a sufficient number of people who knew this language, and Christians at that. Meanwhile, Jerome remained alone in this area and was forced to resort to the help of outside assistants in order to get out of difficult situations. Let us note that the criterion of collegiality in translation is not unimportant for Augustine, in which the Septuagint showed a different quality than a new translation by an individual. He concludes this letter with praise for Blessed Jerome's new translation of the Gospel from Greek, which in almost all cases presents no problem when compared with the “Greek Scripture” (scripturam Graecam) (ep. 71.6). In this regard, Augustine again touches on the question of the sources of Holy Scripture and asks Jerome to explain why the meaning and meaning of the Jewish and Greek codes (Septuagint) differ in many places? (ep. 71.6). In his opinion, the fact that the Septuagint received such wide circulation and was used by the apostles is also of no small importance; and Jerome also testified to her dignity (ep. 71.6). Therefore, there is an urgent need to translate the Septuagint into the correct Latin language, because the existing versions of the Latin translation are so faulty that they are afraid to even quote it as a theological argument for fear that it might be different in the Greek codex (ep.71,6). So, Augustine in this letter maintains his clear position of the superiority of the Septuagint and the need for a new Latin translation, which only Jerome can carry out. In this way he would have rendered a great service to the Church. Jerome's response to this letter from Augustine has not survived 22. Letter 72 of Jerome to Augustine (in the reprint of Jerome 105), written c. 403, similar in content to letter 68. Here Jerome reiterates his demand for a certified copy of Augustine's 40th letter, which has been in wide circulation in Italy for several years. He considers some points of the 40th letter, without specifying, to be heretical (ep. 72.2) and refuses to satisfy Augustine’s requests, contained in the same letter, to correct the absurdities and embarrassing moments in his writings, since he is not sure whether the letter is genuine (ep. 72.4). Letter 73 of Augustine to Jerome (404) is a response to Jerome's 68th letter, composed before Blessed Jerome responded to the 71st letter. Augustine here shows extreme respect for the learning of Jerome and, in particular, says that he does not and cannot have the same knowledge of the Divine Scriptures that his elder brother possesses (ep. 73.5). Moreover, he is ready to discuss controversial issues with Jerome only on the condition that this does not shake their friendship, since it is possible to follow what puffs up (knowledge) until what edifies (love) suffers (1 Cor 8:1) (ep. 73:9). Letter 75 of Jerome to Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 112), written after 06/09/404 23, finally contains a fundamental answer to Augustine’s letters 28, 40 and 71. Blessed Jerome says that when they fight, truth must win, because neither he nor Augustine seeks their own glory, but the glory of Christ (ep. 75.2). Jerome, retelling Augustine’s opinion, according to which the pagan faithful were free from the law, and the Jewish converts had to keep the law, says, not without irony: “...You, as the most famous bishop in the whole world, must make your opinion public and bring your fellow bishops into agreement with you. I, in a small cell with the monks, that is, my fellow sinners, do not dare to define important issues, but I honestly admit that I read the writings of the fathers and, according to the custom of everyone, gave various explanations in the commentaries, so that everyone follows what he wants from many things” 25. As his supporter, in addition to Origen, who introduced the understanding of deliberate reproach of the ap. Pavel ap. Peter, in order to defend the holy Apostle Peter from the attacks of Porphyry, Jerome cites John of Constantinople, who in his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians followed the position of Origen and other ancient fathers. If I am mistaken, says Jerome, then it is better to be mistaken with such people; in my error I am accompanied by many, let Augustine present at least one who supports his truth (ep. 75.6). Jerome also cites an even more characteristic case from the Acts, where St. Paul, having arrived in Jerusalem, was forced to perform all the ceremonies of the Law, so as not to confuse the people (Acts 21:17–26) (ep. 75.10). So up. Paul could not denounce the apostle. Peter what he did himself. Why did he do this then? I and others before me, says Jerome, in explaining this, spoke not of a useful lie, as Augustine understands, but of an “honest form of diplomacy” (honestam dispensationem), in order to show the wisdom of the apostles and to refute the wicked Porphyry, who accused Peter and Paul of boyishly fighting each other (ep. 75:11). Jerome then proceeds to the main point of Augustine's polemic, in which he argued that it was permissible and even necessary for Jewish Christians to observe the provisions of the Law. Here Jerome shows all the power of his eloquence. He says that it was precisely these views that were held by the heretics condemned by the fathers - Cerinthus and Ebion, who so “confessed the new faith so as not to let go of the old one” (ep. 75.13). “If the obligation is imposed on us,” he continues, “to accept the Jews with their institutions and they are allowed to observe in the Church of Christ what they practiced in the synagogues of Satan - I will say what I think - then they will not become Christians, but they will make us Jews” 26. Jerome completely disagrees with Augustine’s statement in letter 40, which spoke of the admissibility and harmlessness of Jewish institutions. Jerome is ready to assert before the whole world that Jewish rituals are mortally dangerous to any Christian, both Jew and non-Jew, since they drag him into the abyss of the devil (ep. 75:14). In doing so, he refers to the Epistle to the Romans: “For the end of the law is Christ for the righteousness of everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4), which could not have happened if the Jews were excluded from this definition (ep. 75.14). He cites to support his position a long series of evidence from the Holy Scriptures, both New and Old Testaments, which speak of the abolition of the Old Testament law by the grace of Christ (Luke 16:16; Matt. 11:13; John 5:18; John 1:16-17; Jer. 31:31-32; Gal. 5:2; Gal. 5:18). “From which it becomes clear that anyone who is under the law, not as a manager of it, as our predecessors prescribed, but in fact, as you think, does not have the Holy Spirit” 27. Moreover, Jerome continues, we say this not in order to destroy the law, like Mani and Marcion, because the law is holy and spiritual, but because when faith came “and the fulness of time, God sent His Son, born of a woman, subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5), so that we would not live under a schoolmaster, but under an adult man, who is Lord and heir.” (ep. 75.14). Further, Jerome examines in detail the passage from Augustine’s 40th letter, where he lists those harmful institutions of the Jews that the Apostle Paul abandoned. Jerome asks: what are the useful ones? “You say,” he turns to Augustine, “that these are the rites that they observed according to the paternal institution, just as the Apostle Paul himself observed them, but they are not necessary for salvation.” I don’t understand enough what you want to say with the words “they are not necessary for salvation.” If they do not contribute to salvation, then why are they observed? If they must be observed, then they contribute to salvation, especially if their observance gave birth to martyrs” 28. The observance of these rites cannot be a neutral matter, Jerome argues. “You say that this is good, I say that this is bad, and bad not only for the Gentile believers, but also for the Jewish people” 29. Turning again to the episode of the dispute between the apostles, Jerome writes that, according to Augustine, it turns out that the Apostle Peter is guilty of pretending to keep the law, and the Apostle Paul, who reproached him, is right, although he himself openly observed Jewish errors. That is, it turns out that the Apostle Peter is wrong, although he only pretended to be a Jew and shared their errors, and Paul is right, remaining a Jew without any pretense, for the sake of mercy towards the Jews. However, at the end of his discussion on this topic, Blessed Jerome softens the tone of his polemic and concludes with a conciliatory passage, which indicates that he does not want to quarrel with Augustine. We, in essence, he writes, are saying similar things: Jerome claims that the apostles acted this way out of fear of the Jews, forced to pretend to fulfill the Old Testament institutions, and Augustine says that the motive for their behavior was compassion (ep. 75.17). After all, in fact, the Apostle Paul was not a Jew, just as he did not become a pagan in order to win the pagans (ep. 75:17). At the end of the letter, Jerome addresses the issue of his new translation of the Holy Scriptures from the Hebrew language. He shows that Augustine does not quite understand the matter when he points out that it is a merit that the first translation from the Greek was more carefully studied than the translation from the Hebrew, since in that case it was a question of signs indicating what is in the Septuagint and what is missing in the Hebrew text, as well as what was added by Origen from Theodotion's translation. “In the present case, we expressed what we understood from the Hebrew language itself, at times preserving the essence of the meaning rather than the order of words” 30. He also reproaches Augustine for the fact that he reads the Septuagint in the edition of Origen, already spoiled by the additions of the Jew and blasphemer Theodotion, who lived after the passion of Christ, while he neglects the translation of the humble Christian (Jerome's). Augustine would have to erase all the additions under asterisks in the Greek texts of the Holy Scriptures in order to show himself a true connoisseur of the ancient version, but then he would have to condemn all church libraries, because “one or two books can hardly be found that do not contain them” 31. That is, Jerome wants to say that the Greek text itself is very unsatisfactory. He also rejects Augustine’s argument that the translation of the Seventy, whether it is clear or unclear in some places, should not be supplemented by a new translation, since this is unnecessary in any case (either one can make a mistake, or everything is already clear). But then, says Jerome, one should not make any effort after the ancient commentators; it is enough to be content with what the fathers did. In particular, there are multi-volume interpretations of the psalms of the Greek and Latin fathers, while Augustine himself undertakes his own work of commentary. Why if everything has already been done? “According to this rule, no one dares to speak after their predecessors, and if one wrote on some topic, then the other will no longer have the freedom to write about the same” 32. Blessed Jerome also sets limits to his undertaking, saying that with this translation he does not abolish former works, since he himself translated Scripture from Greek into Latin, correcting it, but gives evidence that the Jews either missed or distorted, evidence “so that ours would know what the Jewish truth contains” 33 . An important point of the controversy is the qualification of the new translation contained here by the translator himself. Jerome does not claim that his new translation will replace the existing one, but considers it as a tool for explaining previous translations, which everyone is free to use at their own discretion (ep. 75.20). He points to the prefaces to translated books as commentaries that will help to understand the Holy Scriptures. He tells Augustine that he appreciates Jerome's corrections to the New Testament. Therefore,” he continues, “you should treat the translation of the Old with the same trust, because we did not compose our own, but translated what was inspired by the Jews. If in doubt, ask the Jews!” 34 As for Augustine’s objection that no one will be able to check the new translation, Jerome asks: will all the Jews really not say anything about my translation, will we really not find anyone who knows the language, or will they all become like those about whom Augustine says that they said about one text with opposite meanings in Latin and Greek, that both meanings are in the Hebrew text? Unlikely. Jerome rejects this argument (ep. 75.21). At the end of the letter, he touches on a specific controversial case of translation from the prophet Jonah (which caused outrage in one community and which Augustine talks about in his letter (71.3). Jerome says that Augustine, for fear of being refuted, did not cite the word that caused the dispute. Jerome shows Augustine the logic of his version of the translation and proves his case before the Septuagint with philological research (hedera - ivy, translation option Jerome; cucurbita – pumpkin, variant translation of the Seventy) (ep. 75.22). Letter 81 of Jerome to Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 115) (405) is written in a very peaceful tone and serves as an apology for some of the harshness of the 75th letter. Jerome invites Augustine to leave disputes in correspondence and show brotherly love to each other. He asks attention to his commentary on the prophet Jonah, which discusses the question of which option to prefer (hedera or cucurbita). Letter 82 of Augustine to Jerome (405) is a response to Jerome's letters 72, 75, 81. This letter ends the correspondence of the first period. Augustine says here that the writers of the biblical canonical books were not mistaken in anything. No other writer can compare with them. Other writers and books cannot have such direct privilege: they must either refer to canonical authors or prove (ep. 82.3). That is, the quality of truth belongs only to Holy Scripture. Jerome does not expect his books to be read like the books of the prophets and apostles. (ep. 82.3). Let us note this characteristic remark, which will be repeated later in the final assessment of Jerome’s undertaking. Augustine returns again to the controversial passage from the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians (2.14). If I, says Augustine, believe in the good disposition of Jerome, expressed in the letter, then why should I doubt that the Apostle Paul spoke the truth when he denounced Peter and Barnabas? “Who can I trust to speak the truth if the apostle deceives his children?” 35, asks Augustine. In addition, the apostle himself said earlier: “But in what I write to you, I do not lie to God” (Gal. 1:20). And now it turns out that this was a diplomatic ploy? The argument that it is better that the Apostle Paul wrote something wrong than to believe that the Apostle Peter did something wrong is also unconvincing (ep. 82:5). Based on this logic, we can say this: it would be better if Peter told a lie about the Gospel than for Peter to deny Christ. This is how one can suspect any word of God (ep. 82.5). Augustine accepts the challenge of Jerome, who accused him of Ebionism. For his part, he turns to the example of the Manichaeans, who also claim something similar: that Scripture is untrue in some of its parts, but they still attribute this untruth to the errors of copyists, poor preservation of manuscripts, etc., although they have never been able to prove their assumptions. What kind of weapon will we give them if we say that the untruth of Scripture is rooted not in anyone, but in the apostles themselves (ep. 82.6). It turns out that Jerome agrees with the Manichaeans? Augustine rejects the logic of Jerome, who argued that the Apostle Paul could not condemn in the Apostle Peter what he himself did. This is not about what the Apostle Paul did, but about what he wrote. The truth of the Divine Scriptures must remain unchanged and immutable, as handed down by the apostles themselves, which constitutes “the pinnacle of canonical authority (in canonicum auctoritatis culmen recepta), on which our faith is established,” says Augustine (ep. 82:7). Augustine responds to the accusations of Jerome, who pointed out some of the actions of the Apostle Paul as feigned (circumcision of Timothy - Acts 16.3; shave of the head according to the vow in Cenchrea - Acts 18.18; ritual cleansing in Jerusalem at the insistence of the Apostle James - Acts 21.26). In fact, says Augustine, he, of course, did not show by this that these rituals provide Christians with salvation, but it cannot be said that these rituals were the same as pagan idolatry, since they contained a shadow of the future. After all, Christ himself said: “For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, because he wrote about Me” (John 5:46). Augustine once again analyzes in detail the request of the Apostle James to the Apostle Paul to perform cleansing rites (Acts 21.20–25) and says that, of course, this request was dictated by the desire of the Apostle James to show Jewish Christians that the Apostle Paul, as a preacher of grace, does not at all believe that the new faith considers the laws of Moses sacrilegious, based not on commands of God (ep. 82.9). Although Augustine repeats here the previously stated argument regarding the harmlessness of fulfilling the Old Testament institutions (ep. 40.4), however, taking into account the objections of Jerome, he still makes an important addition, indicating their temporary nature for Jewish Christians. The Apostle Paul, by observing these rituals, “showed that neither the Jews were to be turned away from them as ungodly, nor were the Gentiles to be forced to observe them as necessary” 36 . Augustine recalls that the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem forbade forcing pagans to observe Jewish institutions, but then left the Jews freedom in this, which, of course, did not imply the endowment of these rites with some kind of saving power; Both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul knew about this (ep. 82:10). The freedom of the Apostle Paul in this matter is clearly visible in the example of Timothy and Titus. Thus, Timothy’s circumcision should be understood not as a concession or pretense of the Apostle Paul, as Jerome believed, but as an instruction to the pagans, so that they do not consider circumcision idolatry, because it was given by God (ep. 82:12). On the other hand, Paul did not circumcise Titus, so that the Jews would not consider this necessary for salvation and would not lead the pagans into the temptation of obligatory observance of Old Testament rituals and, thus, would not deprive Christians of freedom (Gal. 2: 3–5) (ep. 82,12). St. Augustine wants to move away from Jerome’s categorical assessment of Jewish rituals, who regarded them as a purely evil act. Augustine shows greater dialectics in this matter. He says that if we recognize them as good, then we will be forced to observe them, and if they are vicious, then we will be forced to recognize the apostles who observed them as pretenders (ep. 82, 13.14). If we admit the permissibility of pretending to observe the institutions of the Old Testament, then we must allow today's Jewish Christians to act in the same way, but this will be a worse heresy than the heresy of the Ebionites (ep. 82,16). In fact, God, through the rituals of the Old Testament, like prophecies, designated and predicted the future. They could not be abolished immediately, or despised, but, as the grace of Christ spread, believers learned that they were saved by it alone, and not by symbols of a future reality (ep. 82:15). Now, says Augustine, I do not allow a Jew who comes to Christianity to observe ancient customs (ep. 82:15.17). He clearly draws the limit of the admissibility of observing the Old Testament institutions during the apostolic age (ep. 82,16), admitting that in his letter he should have added the phrase: “at least at the time when grace was first revealed 37,” although, he says, this thought was expressed by him earlier in his Reply to Faustus the Manichaean (ep. 82,17). Augustine again returns to the proof that the Lord Himself and the apostles did not perform the ancient rites feignedly, pointing, in particular, to the words of the Lord to the leper: “Go... and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mark 1:44) (ep. 82.18). Augustine rejects the admissibility of “useful” lies in any form, using the words from Matthew 5:37 (“... Let your word be: yes, yes; no, no”) and Psalm 5.7 (“You will destroy those who tell lies”) (ep. 82,21) to prove this point of view. As for the authoritative men to whom Jerome resorts to defend his views, then, says Augustine, some of them either left the Church or were heretics, and in the teachings of Origen and Didymus, Jerome himself found errors on important issues. Eusebius, Theodore of Heraclea and John of Constantinople remain (ep. 82.23). However, Ambrose and Cyprian said something similar to Augustine, “so you will probably find that there are those on our side whom we follow in what we defend” 38 . However, the main thing, says Augustine, is that he has the canonical Scriptures on his side. One could look for other supporters, but the main supporter is the Apostle Paul, who himself testified before God that he does not lie (ep. 82.24). If we think (as Jerome believed) that the Apostle Paul feignedly performed the Old Testament rites, and the fact that he became like a pagan to the pagans was that he admitted them uncircumcised to the faith and allowed them to eat indiscriminately everything that the Jews condemn, then why not assume that he also did this feignedly; but this is absurd, therefore Augustine’s statement about the wisdom of the Apostle Paul in free service is true (ep. 82.26). Why, Augustine repeats, did the Apostle Paul not pretend to perform pagan rites, since he became a pagan for the pagans? And for the Jews, having become a Jew, he pretended to perform their rites? No, the motive for the apostle’s behavior is one – love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and unfeigned faith (1 Tim. 1:5) (ep. 82.27). This love and compassion are also manifested in the command of the Apostle in the same epistle: “If a person falls into any sin, you who are spiritual correct him in a spirit of meekness, watching each one of you so as not to be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). And the one who helps in this case should not imitate sin, but sympathize. It is in this way that Paul became all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22) (ep. 82:29). Compassion does not tolerate any deception. At the end of the letter, Augustine touches on the previously discussed topic of new translations of Jerome (ep. 40, ep. 75) and makes important remarks in connection with this. He is ready to recognize the relative importance of a new translation of the Scriptures from the Hebrew language, especially since it will show what the Jews had omitted or corrupted. However, he is occupied by the question: which Jews? By those who translated before the Coming of the Lord, then which of them? Or was it only after this that they partly removed and partly spoiled in the Greek codes that which could have weakened their testimony against the Christian faith? (ep. 82.34). “But I do not see why the early translators would have wanted to do this,” says Augustine 39 . Here Augustine gropes at an important question about the sources (editions) of the Hebrew text. He asks Jerome to send his translation of the Septuagint, because he is concerned about the dependence on the ignorance of the Latin translators, and he insists that the translation of the authoritative Septuagint, to which the people of God were accustomed and which the apostles approved, should be read in the churches (ep. 82,35). Regarding the specific example from the prophet Jonah, given by Jerome, which proved the Septuagint wrong and Jerome right, Augustine utters significant words in this regard, rejecting Jerome's claims to philological and historical accuracy as the final criterion: “I would prefer that the word “pumpkin” be read in all Latin texts; I think that the Seventy would not have put this word if they did not know anything similar to this plant” 40. We see that Augustine retains confidence in the Septuagint as an ecclesiastical Holy Scripture, on the side of which is the authority of the apostles. Augustine is distrustful of the Hebrew text from which Jerome translates, and Hebraea veritas does not convince him at all. He, of course, does not have such a comprehensive education as Jerome (he himself says this more than once), but his greater rootedness in church tradition makes him wary of anything that belittles the importance of the Septuagint. Correspondence between the two husbands resumed after several years, but it took place in a warmer atmosphere of friendship and mutual love. Augustine's large letter 166 to Jerome, also called the book “On the Origin of the Soul” (De origine animae), was written in 415 and is devoted to elucidating the method of origin of the human soul and the question of suffering and the need for the redemption of infants by Christ, in connection with the heresy of Pelagianism. Here Augustine turns to Jerome as an authoritative scholar, hoping to receive a strengthening answer. In particular, he notes that Jerome adheres to church teaching on the issue of the need for infant baptism, agreeing with his quotation in the work “Against Jovinian” Job 14.4–5, which is quoted from LXX: “No one is clean before You, not even a child whose life on earth is one day” 41 . Letter 167 of Augustine to Jerome (415) in the Revisions has the title “On the Expression of the Apostle James” (De sententia Iacobi) and is devoted to the understanding and interpretation of a verse from the Council Epistle of St. ap. James: “If anyone keeps the whole law and yet sins in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2.10). However, in terms of presentation, this is a respectful monologue in tone, which does not contain Jerome’s opinions or supposed judgments on this matter. Augustine only asks not to hesitate and write if anything in the proposed reasoning “offends the learning” of Jerome (ep. 167.21). The letter ends with praise for Jerome, which notes that “ecclesiastical education in the Latin language, in the name and with the help of the Lord, was so supported by his scientific activity as never before” 42. Jerome, at the beginning of 416, having received Augustine's extensive messages (166th and 167th letters), writes him letter 172 (in the correspondence of Jerome 134), in which, however, he does not answer the questions raised, due to the unrest that arose in Palestine related to the Pelagian disputes. He says that due to these disturbances his studies stopped. Perhaps the answer was contained in three lost letters from Jerome written after this letter 43 . In any case, the topics raised by Augustine were no longer touched upon in their surviving correspondence. Blessed Jerome praises Augustine's learning and eloquence in these letters, and his excellent acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures. At the same time, he fears that the enemies of the Church, seeing some of their differences of opinion, would slander them. “Therefore,” he says, “I have decided to love you, support you, honor you, admire you, and protect everything you say as my own.”44 In response to Augustine's request to send a translation of the Septuagint (meaning editing from the Greek text, before translating from the Hebrew), Jerome writes that due to the scarcity of Latin copyists, he cannot send a translation of the Septuagint with signs, because most of the early work has been lost (ep. 172.2). Letter 123 of Jerome to Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 142), written between 416 and 419. 45, does not contain anything on the topic of our research. Jerome's letter 195 to Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 141) (418) expresses gratitude to Augustine for his victory over the Pelagian heretics and says that church people reverence him as the second founder of the faith, and despise him heretics (ep. 195). Letter 202 of Jerome to Alipius and Augustine (in the correspondence of Jerome 143) (late 419) is also devoted to issues of countering the Pelagian heresy. The newly discovered Letter 19* of Augustine to Jerome (summer 416) is devoted to the issues of combating Pelagianism. From its contents it is clear that several letters from their correspondence were lost (ep. 19*,1) 46. Important indications that Augustine himself was making translation efforts are contained in his letter 261 to a certain young man Auudaius (written during his bishopric, after 395). In particular, here he says that he does not have the Psalter translated by Jerome from the Hebrew language, and says the following: “We ourselves did not translate it either, but we corrected several errors in the Latin codes from Greek manuscripts. So we may have made it better than it was, but not what it should have been. Because even now, what has escaped us, if it annoys the readers, we correct it by comparing the codes. So in this we, like you, are looking for the perfect” 47. Concluding the review of the correspondence of Bl. Augustine with St. Jerome, let us note the following points. First, their different temperaments and positions in the Church: Jerome is a learned hermit, immersed in the linguistic subtleties of the text, Augustine is a bishop for whom reading Scripture aloud and interpreting it is a daily habitat with the people he leads, since even for his educated contemporaries contact with Scripture was often made through hearing rather than through reading 48 . The new Jerome translation brought with it an unusual sound design, and St. Augustine was extremely concerned about the question of whether the common people understood what was read and explained in the church 49 . Unlike Jerome, Augustine never saw the Bible as a whole; he dealt either with individual manuscripts or with groups of manuscripts (scripturae) 50 . He used an imperfect Old Latin version of Scripture, which existed in various translations and various editions, but it corresponded to the church canon of the Septuagint, which was decisive. Jerome could have convinced him with the richness of his philological argumentation, the unique experience of acquaintance with the state of the Bible in three languages, if Augustine was only a scientist, but he was, first of all, a bishop... Nevertheless, Augustine used Jerome's new translation from the Hebrew as an aid for exegetical purposes, although how often he did so is a matter of scholarly debate. O'Donnell argues that Augustine's work supports the view that he was increasingly willing to accept the merits of Jerome's work, but was reluctant to openly admit that his early opposition was incorrect. However, we have quite definite statements in the 18th book “On the City of God,” which was written after the death of Jerome 53 and which summarizes some of the discussion of this issue. And first of all, the unity of the Greek and Latin Churches is affirmed here in that they adhere to the Septuagint. Further we read the following: “In our time there lived Presbyter Jerome, a most learned man, versed in all three languages, who translated the Holy Scriptures into Latin not from Greek, but from Hebrew. But, despite the fact that the Jews recognize his learned translation as correct, and the translation of the Seventy in many places as erroneous, the churches of Christ believe that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many people... But as soon as we see in them such a clear sign of inspiration, then no matter how faithful any other translator of the Scriptures from the Hebrew language into any other language is, whether he agrees with the Seventy or turns out to disagree, we must recognize the Seventy prophetic excellence. For the same Spirit that was in the prophets when they spoke the Scripture, the same spirit was also in the Seventy when they translated it” (ciu. 18:43) 54 . Here, in fact, contains the most important postulates that Augustine, in fact, bequeathed and from which the Western Church, having canonized the Vulgate, subsequently moved away. That is, they equate the Seventy with the holy prophets in the sense that they were led by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the apostles. Augustine, we see, highly appreciates the learning of Blessed Jerome, but he does not endow him with the same quality that the ancient translators possessed. For him, learning does not equal holiness. The formal accuracy of the text is not the highest criterion. Thus, Jerome's translation may have auxiliary significance. With regard to the Jewish text, Augustine points out that the Jewish codes, like the Greek ones, are also divine, and he uses, following the example of the apostles, both (ciu. 18.44). Recognizing the usefulness of comparing the Greek and Jewish codes, he writes: “...Everything that the Jewish codes have, but the Seventy do not, all that the Spirit of God deigned to say not through them, but through the prophets. However, everything that the Seventy have and what is not in the Jewish codes, the same Spirit chose to express through them, and not through the prophets, thus showing that both were prophets” (ciu. 18,43) 55. Let us compare this position with the position of Blessed Jerome, expressed by him in letter 57 to Pammachius (“On the best method of translation”), dating from the end of 395 or the beginning of 396, that is, while working on the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew language. In it blzh. Jerome, among other things, speaks at length about the irregularities of the Septuagint: “It will now take a long time to retell how much the Seventy interpreters have added from themselves, how much they have omitted, what differences there are in the church lists, notes and notes... But what should we do with the original books in which these additions and others like them are missing (and if we start listing them, endless books will be needed)? And how much they missed there is evidence of this, as I have already said, both the notes and our translation, if the zealous reader compares it with the old one. However, the translation of the Seventy is rightfully accepted in the Churches - either as the first translation made before the coming of Christ, or because it was used by the Apostles (although they do not deviate from the Hebrew text)" 56 . A very characteristic remark about “authentic books”, i.e. Hebrew text of the Bible. It is also characteristic that here, although the Hebrew text is recognized as the main and authentic one, the Septuagint is not forgotten either. Neither Jerome nor Augustine, of course, could have known about the editions of the Holy Scriptures that arose in the depths of the Jewish people in line with messianic aspirations 57 . However, Augustine demonstrates admiration for the church Septuagint, sanctified by the authority of the apostles, and in Jerome we do not find this in consistent expression; he greatly values ​​the accuracy of the Hebrew text and is concerned about the disorder of the Greek and Latin texts of Scripture. P.J. notes that Jerome had a deep sense that the truth of Scripture was rooted in the contemporary Hebrew text. This was evidenced by all his preliminary research and development 58 . His predisposition towards Hebraea veritas is also emphasized by the fact that most of his commentaries are devoted to the Old Testament 59 . In this regard, a certain disdainful attitude towards the traditional Latin version is noted, which he hardly mentions or criticizes 60. He gradually developed a special interest in the Hebrew text of that time and, without completing the revision of the Latin text based on the Hexaples, began to directly translate from the Hebrew, believing that he was thereby providing an accurate text of Scripture. This “bold initiative,” Jay notes, “whether he wanted it or not, shook the authority of the traditional version” 61. Concluding a review of the correspondence of the two holy men, we must characterize the position of Blessed Augustine on the problem of translation as more balanced in comparison with that of Blessed Jerome. The position of St. Augustine, if implemented in the Western Church, would undoubtedly make it possible to avoid the opposition of the Septuagint and the Vulgate in the future, while simultaneously fully taking into account the Jewish text. We should also note that the approach of Blessed Augustine has always been shared by the Orthodox Church and has found a successor and defender on our Russian soil in the person of Saint Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), which should also be taken into account when solving the difficult problems of transmitting the text of the Holy Scriptures in modern conditions. CCL – Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina CSEL – Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Epistulae/Red. Divjak J. // Augustinus-Lexicon. V. 2, fasc. 5/6. Basel, 2001. Col. 930. Numbering of letters according to the order in the corpus of letters from the blzh. Augustine (the numbering in the corpus of letters of St. Jerome for his letters is indicated in brackets). The translation, except where otherwise noted, is ours throughout. Epistulae/Red. Divjak J. Col. 930. “De uertendis autem in linguam Latinam sanctis litteris canonicis laborare te nollem, nisi eo modo, quo Iob interpretatus es, ut signis adhibitis, quid inter hanc tuam et LXX, quorum est grauissima auctoritas, interpretationem distet, appareat” (ep. 28.2 // S. Aureli Augustini Hipponensis episcopi et com. crit. A. Vindobonae. Epp. 1–30. “Mihi enim uidetur exitiosissime credi aliquod in libris sanctis esse mendacium, id est eos homines, per quos nobis illa scriptura ministrata est atque conscripta, aliquid in libris suis fuisse mentitos” (ep. 28.3 // CSEL 34.1). “Atque ita nusquam certa erit in sanctis libris castae ueritatis auctoritas” (ep. 28.4 // CSEL 34.1). "Ägendum est igitur, ut ad cognitionem diuinarum scripturarum talis homo accedat, qui de sanctis libris tam sancte et ueraciter existimet, ut nolit aliqua eorum parte delectari per officiosa mendacia, potiusque id, quod non intellegit, transeat, quam cor suum praeferat illi ueritati" (ep. 28.4 // CSEL 34.1). “...Forte regulas quasdam daturus es, quibus nouerimus, ubi oporteat mentiri et ubi non oporteat” (ep. 28.5 // CSEL 34.1). There is a dating of this letter to the year 402 on the basis that in the manuscripts this letter follows the 68th letter. (see: D. de Bryune. La correspondence echangee entre Augustin et Jerome // Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. 1932. No. 31. S. 233–248; Hennings R. The Correspondence between Augustine and Jerome // Studia Patristica. 1993. No. 27. pp. 303–310. Jerome's response, delivered in 396 (ep. 39.1), to Augustine's greeting, appended to a letter from an unknown person to Jerome, has not survived, nor has the letter itself (Epistulae / Red. Divjak J. Col. 930). “Nam utique Iudaeus erat, christianus autem factus non Iudaeorum sacramenta reliquerat, quae conuenienter ille populus et legitime tempore, quo oportebat, acceperat. ideoque suscepit ea celebranda, cum iam Christi esset apostolus, sed ut doceret non esse perniciosa his, qui ea uellent, sicut a parentibus per legem acceperant, custodire, etiam cum in Christum credidissent, non tamen in eis iam constituerent spem salutis, quoniam per dominum Iesum salus ipsa, quae illis sacramentis significabatur, aduenerat" (ep. 40.4 // S. Aureli Augustini Hipponensis episcopi Epistulae / Rec. et com. crit. instr. A. Goldbacher. Vindobonae. 1898. Epp. 31–123. CSEL 34.2). “Hoc ergo Iudaeorum Paulus dimiserat, quod malum habebant, et in primis illud, quod ignorantes dei iustitiam et suam iustitiam uolentes constituere iustitiae dei non sunt subiecti (Rm 10.3); deinde quod post passionem et resurrectionem Christi dato ac manifestato sacramento gratiae secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Hbr 6,20) adhuc putabant uetera sacramenta non ex consuetudine sollemnitatis sed ex necessitate salutis esse celebranda, quae tamen si numquam fuissent necessaria, infructuose atque inaniter pro eis Machabaei martyres fierent; postremo illud, quod praedicatores gratiae christianos Iudaei tamquam hostes legis persequebantur. Hos atque huius modi errores et uitia dicit se damna et stercora arbitratum, ut Christum lucrifaceret (Phil 3.8)." (ep. 40.6 // CSEL 34.2). “... Our non etiam sacrificauit cum gentibus, quia et his, qui sine lege erant, tamquam sine lege factus est, ut eos quoque lucrifaceret.” (er. 40.6 // CSEL 34.2). “Sicut eo ipso loco generaliter intulit: factus sum infirmis infirmus, ut infirmos lucrifacerem (1Cor 9.22), ut sequens conclusio: omnibus omnia factus sum, ut omnes lucrifacerem (1Cor 9.22), ad hoc referenda intellegatur...” (ep. 40.6 // CSEL 34.2). In the Synodal Version, the second part of this verse reads: “I have become all things to all, that I might save at least some” (1 Cor. 9:22). The Slavic translation gives the following reading: “... I will save everything for everyone, but I will save everyone.” “Sed si forte aliqua in aliquibus scriptis meis reperiuntur, in quibus aliter aliquid quam tu sensisse reperiar, non contra te dictum, sed quod mihi uidebatur, a me scriptum esse puto te debere cognoscere aut, si cognosci non potest, credere” (ep. 67.2 // CSEL 34.2). Epistulae/Red. Divjak J. Col. 932. Fürst A. Hieronymus // Augustinus-Lexicon. V. 3, fasc. 3/4. Basel, 2006. Col. 324–325. “Quisquis autem in eo, quod ex Hebraeo translatum est, aliquo insolito permotus fuerit et falsi crimen intenderit, uix aut numquam ad Hebraea testimonia peruenitur, quibus defendatur obiectum” (ep.71.4 // CSEL 34.2). “Uunde etiam nobis uidetur aliquando te quoque in nonnullis falli potuisse et uide, hoc quale sit in eis litteris, quae non possunt conlatis usitatarum linguarum testimoniis emendari” (ep. 71.5 // CSEL 34.2). Epistulae/Red. Divjak J. Col. 937. "Si cui iste non placet sensus, quo nec Petrus peccasse nec Paulus procaciter ostenditur arguisse maiorem, debet exponere qua consequentia Paulus in altero reprehendat quod ipse commisit." Ex quo ostendi me non ex definito id defendere quod in Graecis legeram, sed ea expressisse quae legeram, ut lectoris arbitrio derelinquerem, utrum probanda essent an improbanda" (ep. 75.4 // Sancti Aurelii Augustini Epistulae LVI-C / Curo et studio Kl. D. Daur. Tournhout, 2005. CCL 31 A. Aurelii Augustini Opera. Pars III, 1). “...Tu ut episcopus in toto orbe notissimus debes hanc promulgare sententiam et in assensum tuum omnes coepiscopos trahere. Ego in paruo tuguriunculo cum monachis, id est compeccatoribus meis de magnis statuere non audeo, nisi hoc ingenue confiteri, me maiorum scripta legere et in commentariis secundum omnium consuetudinem uarias ponere explanationes, ut e multis sequatur unusquisque quod velit" (ep. 75.5 // CCL 31 A). “Sin autem haec nobis incumbit necessitas, ut iudaeos cum legitimis suis suscipiamus, et licebit eis obseruare in ecclesiis christi, quod exercuerunt in synagogis satanae, – dicam, quod sentio – non illi christiani fient, sed nos iudaeos facient” (ep. 75.13 // CCL 31 A). x quo apparet, qui sub lege est non dispensatiue, ut nostri uoluere maiores, sed uere, ut tu intellegis, eum spiritum sanctum non habere” (ep. 75.14 // CCL 31 A). “Obseruationes, inquies, legis, quas more patrio celebrabant, sicut ab ipso Paulo celebratae sunt sine ulla salutis necessitate. Quid uelis dicere ‘sine ulla salutis necessitate’, non satis intellego. Si enim salutem non adferunt, cur obseruantur? Si autem obseruanda sunt, utique salutem adferunt, maxime quae seruata martyres faciunt” (ep. 75.16 // CCL 31 A). “Tu dicis bonum, ego adsero malum et malum non solum his, qui ex gentibus, sed et his, qui ex Iudaico populo crediderunt” (ep. 75.16 // CCL 31 A). “...Hic de ipso hebraico, quod intellegebamus, expressimus sensuum potius ueritatem quam uerborum interdum ordinem conseruantes” (ep. 75.19 // CCL 31 A). “Uix enim aut alter inuenietur liber, qui ista non habeat” (ep. 75.19 // CCL 31 A). “Et hac lege post priores nullus loqui audebit et, quodcumque alius occupauerit, alius de eo scribendi licentiam non habebit” (ep. 75.20 // CCL 31 A). “...Ut scirent nostri, quid Hebraea ueritas contineret” (ep. 75.20 // CCL 31 A). “...Eandem integritatem debueras etiam in ueteri credere testamento, quod non nostra confinximus, sed, ut apud hebraeos inuenimus, diuina transtulimus. Sicubi dubitas, Hebraeos interrogas!” (ep. 75.20 // CCL 31 A). “De quo enim certus sim, quod me scribendo uel loquendo non fallat, si fallebat apostolus filios suos” (ep. 82.4 // CSEL 34.2). “Atque ita ostenderet nec Iudaeos tunc ab eis tamquam a nefariis prohibendos nec gentiles ad ea tamquam ad necessaria compellendos” (ep. 82.9 // CSEL 34.2). Highlighted by us. – A.S. “Illo dum taxat tempore, quo primum fidei gratia reuelata est” (ep. 82.17 // CSEL 34.2). “...Inuenies fortasse nec nobis defuisse, quos in eo, quod adserimus, sequeremur” (ep. 82.24 // CSEL 34.2).. “Illi autem anteriores cur hoc facere uoluerint, non inuenio” (ep. 82.34 // CSEL 34.2). “.Mallem iam in omnibus Latinis cucurbitam legi; non enim frustra hoc puto septuaginta posuisse, nisi quia et huic simile sciebant" (ep. 82.35 // CSEL 34.2) “Nemo mundus in conspectu tuo nec infans, cuius est diei unius uita super terram” (ep. 166.6 // S. Aureli Augustini Hipponensis episcopi Epistulae / Rec. et com. crit. instr. A. Goldbacher. Vindobonae. 1904. Epp. 124–184A. CSEL 44). In the Church Slavonic translation: “Whoever will be clean from filth; no one else lived even one day on earth.” The Synodal translation reads as follows: “Who will be born clean from an unclean thing? None. If the days are determined for him.” “.Cuius doctrina in nomine et adiutorio domini tantum in Latina lingua ecclesiasticae litterae adiutae sunt, quantum numquam antea potuerunt” (ep. 167.21 // CSEL 44). Divjak J. Prolegomena // Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera. Epistulae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae / Recensuit J. Divjak. Vindobonae, 1981. CSEL 88. P. 61. “Mihi autem decretum est te amare, suscipere, colere, mirari tua que dicta quasi mea defendere” (ep. 134.1 // Hieronimus. Epistulae 121–154 / I. Hilberg, cd. Wien, 1910/1918. CSEL 56.1). Dating according to Epistulae/Red. Divjak J. Col. 935. “Nos autem non interpretati sumus, sed codicum Latinorum nonnullas mendositates ex Graecis exemplaribus emendauimus.unde fortassis fecerimus aliquid commodius, quam erat, non tamen tale, quale esse debebat. nam etiam nunc, quae forte nos tunc praeterierunt, si legentes mouerint, conlatis codicibus emendamus. ita illud, quod perfectum est, tecum nos quoque requirimus" (ep. 261.5 // S. Aureli Augustini Hipponensis episcopi Epistulae / Rec. et com. crit. instr. A. Goldbacher. Vindobonae. 1911. Epp. 185–270. CSEL 57). O’Donnel J. J. Bible // Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia / A. D. Fitzgerald, ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K., 1999. P. 100. Simonetti M. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Edinburgh, 1994. P. 105. O'Donnell J. J. Bible. P. 100. Fürst A. Hieronymus // Augustinus-Lexicon. V. 3, fasc. 3/4. Basel, 2006. Col. 332–333. O'Donnell J. J. Bible. P. 101. O’Daly G. J. P. Ciuitate dei (De) // Augustinus-Lexicon. Basel, 1994. V. 1, fasc. 7/8. Col. 978. Blessed Augustine. About the city of God. Part 6. Kiev, 1910. pp. 70–71. Blessed Jerome of Stridon. Letter LVII to Pammachius on the best method of translation / Trans. N. Kholmogorova, ed. M. Kasyan and T. Miller // Alpha and Omega. No. 4(7). M., 1995. P. 184. In coordinates of N. N. Glubokovsky. Jay P Jerome // Kannengiesser Ch. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity. With Special Contributions by Various Scholars. Leiden; Boston, 2006. P. 1097.