To Pammachius on the best method of translation

Blzh. Jerome of Stridon and Rufinus of Aquileia were friends for a long time. One of the reasons for the gap between them was the blzh. Jerome's translation into Latin of the Epistle of St. Epiphany of Cyprus, in which Rufinus was openly ranked among the heretics. Blzh. Jerome explained later that he did not intend to publish this work. However, after 1.5 years, the translation was stolen from his cell and distributed. The Latin version came to St. John of Jerusalem and Rufinus. St. John counted the bl. Jerome was responsible for the dissemination of this translation, and also saw in it a deliberate distortion of the original. He writes a letter to Rome condemning the actions of the blessed one. Jerome, who later had to justify himself in a letter “To Pammachius on the best method of translation” (13 chapters, 395-396). “I not only admit, but openly declare that in translations from Greek (except for the Holy Scriptures, where the very order of words is a mystery) I convey not a word with a word, but a thought with a thought,” writes the blessed one. Jerome. With a literal translation, it is difficult to convey the features and beauty of a foreign language, and sometimes even impossible: “If anyone thinks that the beauty of a language is not lost in translation, let him translate Homer literally into Latin” (chapter 5). Translation accuracy blzh. Jerome calls it “pictiness,” which only obscures the meaning of the work: “No matter how good the Greek phrase is, if translated into Latin word for word, it will not sound; and vice versa, what is good for us, when translated word by word into Greek, the Greeks will not like it.” The author, proving his thoughts, compares translations of the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts) and comes to the conclusion that “The Apostles and Evangelists in the translation of the Old Testament were looking for thoughts, not words, and did not care too much about the order and structure of speeches, as long as the essence of the thoughts was clear” (chapter 11). Thus, the translator, in the opinion of the blessed one. Jerome, must be able to correctly convey the thought (meaning) of the work, and not just the words and their etymology. *The title of the essay in Latin is De optimo genere interpretandi. In modern discussions about the principles of biblical translation, the voice of the Church Fathers has remained virtually unheard. Meanwhile, the problems facing them were truly important: the absence of a single and generally accepted text of the Holy Scriptures 1 in both Greek and Latin, the variety of methods and paths of translation offered by the highly developed ancient philological science, the extraordinary doctrinal importance of an adequate translation. All this forces us to listen carefully to the opinion of the fathers, and, I think, the reader will be interested in familiarizing himself with the view on this issue of one of them who is unanimously recognized as the most talented and prolific of the translators of the ancient Church - Blessed Jerome of Stridon. His views were most clearly reflected in the “Letter to Pammachius on the best method of translation.” “Letter to Pammachius” plunges us into the turbulent and contradictory atmosphere of Palestine in the 1980s. IV century, during the era of “Origenist disputes” 2, in which Jerome took an active part. St. Epiphanius, famous as an erudite and fighter against heresies, the author of the anti-heretical treatise Panarion, considered Origen a dangerous heretic responsible for the emergence of Arianism. Being the former abbot of one of the Palestinian monasteries, he decided to start his “anti-Origenist crusade” from there. In the spring of 394, he arrived in Palestine and began to seek from Bishop John of Jerusalem to anathematize Origen. He did not express such a desire, and after a series of misunderstandings there was a complete break between the bishops. Despite the efforts made by Jerome attempts at reconciliation, St. Epiphanius retired from Jerusalem to his old monastery and began to send anti-Origenist messages throughout Palestine, accusing the Bishop of Jerusalem of heresies as well. Blessed Jerome, who had hitherto been a fan of Origen, joined St. Epiphanius and became a zealous Origen persecutor. Soon St. Epiphany and Bl. Jerome caused sharp discontent with the bishop. John, and Epiphanius returned to Cyprus, writing a farewell letter in which he justified his behavior and again condemned John for Origenism. This letter circulated in lists among Palestinian monasteries and was translated by Jerome into Latin; It is this translation that is discussed in the “Letter to Pammachius.” 3 After the departure of St. Epiphany of Bishop John condemned Blessed Jerome as a false translator and demanded that the prefect expel the “rebel” from the Holy Land. “Letter to Pammachius,” according to the instructions of Blessed himself. Jerome, was written approximately two years after the letter of Epiphanius, that is, at the end of 395 or the beginning of 396. The translation of the letter was carried out according to the edition of Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 22. Eusebius Hieronymus. Epistola LVII. Ad Pammachium. De Optimo genere interpretandi 4. 1. The Apostle Paul, when he had to give an answer to his crimes before King Agrippa (whoever heard, will understand what it is about), without doubting the successful outcome of the matter, first of all congratulated himself, saying: “King Agrippa! I consider myself happy that today I can defend myself before you in everything that the Jews accuse me of, especially since you know all the customs and controversial opinions of the Jews” (Acts 26.2-3). After all, he read the saying of Jesus [the son of Sirach]: “Blessed is he who speaks in the ears of those who hear him” (Sir 25.12) 5., and knew that the words of the speaker reach the more, the further the knowledge of the judge extends. So I feel happy, at least in the fact that in front of knowledgeable ears I am defending myself from an ignorant language that accuses me of either ineptitude or lies: as if I could not or did not want to translate correctly from a foreign language; one is a mistake, the other is a crime. And so that my accuser does not manage, with the ease with which he talks about everything, and shamelessness (he thinks that everything is allowed to him), to denigrate me before you, as he has already denigrated Pope Epiphanius, I am sending you this letter so that you, and through you, everyone who honors us with their love, will know how it was. 2. About two years ago, the above-mentioned Pope Epiphanius sent Bishop John a letter in which he exposed some of his dogmatic errors and meekly called on him to repent. Copies of the letter were immediately snapped up throughout Palestine, both because of the merits of the author and the elegance of the composition. There was a man in our monastery, well known among his own, named Eusebius of Cremona. And so, since this message was on everyone’s lips, and everyone, learned and unlearned, equally admired his learning and purity of style, he began to persistently ask me to translate the letter into Latin for him and explain it as accurately as possible, so that it would be easier to understand; after all, he didn’t know Greek at all. I complied with his request: I called the scribe and quickly dictated the translation, providing him with brief notes in the margins explaining the meaning of each chapter. Since he very much insisted that I do this only for him alone, I, for my part, demanded that the list be kept in the house - no matter how accidentally it became widely known. A year and a half passed, and the aforementioned translation from his casket mysteriously moved to Jerusalem. For some false monk, either having received money (as most likely can be understood), or disinterestedly out of malice, as the deceiver is vainly trying to convince me, took the papyrus out of the casket and appropriated it, and so became Judas the traitor: he gave my opponents a reason to revile me, so that among the ignorant I am declared a liar because I did not translate word for word: instead of “venerable” I put “dearest”, and in its villainous translation - it’s scary to say! – the most respected dad did not want to translate. The charges against me consist of such nonsense. 3. But before we talk about translation, I want to ask those who call meanness prudence: where did you get the list of messages? Who gave it to you? With what person do you admit that you obtained it through criminal means? What will remain safe for people if it is impossible to hide a secret either behind the walls of the house or in the caskets? If I had reported your crime to the court, I would have legally brought you to trial, and the law establishes punishment for a convicted informer in favor of the treasury. Although he allows betrayal, he punishes the traitor, apparently approving of his own benefit, but not approving of the intention. Recently, the princeps of Theodosius condemned to death the consular Hesychius, who was in great enmity with Patriarch Gamaliel, because he, by bribing a scribe, took possession of the papers of the Patriarch 6. We read from ancient historians how a teacher who betrayed the children of the Falisci was bound, given to the boys and sent back to those whom he betrayed: the Roman people did not want to take advantage of the dishonorable victory 7 . When Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was recovering from a wound in the camp, his own doctor set out to treacherously kill him; Fabricius considered this a crime and, moreover, sent the bound traitor to his master, not wanting to encourage a crime, even one directed against an enemy 8 . What the laws of society protect, what enemies observe, what is sacred among wars and swords is neglected by the monks and clergy of Christ. And some of them still dare, with frowning eyebrows and snapping fingers, burping, to make such speeches: “So what if he bribed, if he seduced? He did what benefited him." An amazing justification for a crime: you might think that robbers, thieves and pirates do not do what benefits them. Yes, both Annas and Caiaphas, seducing the unfortunate Judas, did what they considered useful for themselves. 4. I am free to write any absurdities in my notes, interpret Scripture, snap at insults, vent frustration, practice in generalities and, as it were, store arrows sharpened for battle. As long as I do not divulge my thoughts, they remain an insult and not a crime; not even swearing if other people's ears don't hear them. Should you bribe servants, seduce clients and, as we read in fairy tales, get to Danae 9 in the form of gold and, without looking at what you yourself have done, call me a deceiver, when you yourself, accused, could confess to a much more serious sin than what you accuse me of? One calls you a heretic, the other a distorter of dogmas. You are silent and do not dare to answer; but you denigrate the translator, find fault with the syllables: in a word, you hit a man lying down and consider this to be sufficient protection. Let's say that I made a mistake or missed something in the translation. All your thoughts revolve around this axis - this is your protection. In your opinion, if I am a bad translator, then you are not a heretic? I say this not because I consider you a heretic: let the one who accused you think so, and let the one who wrote the letter be convinced of it. What could be more stupid - having heard a reproach from one, blame the other and, when you yourself are beaten on all sides, seek solace in kicking the sleeping person. 5. Until now, I have spoken as if I had really changed something in the message, and my artless translation contained an error, although not a crime. But now, when the letter itself shows that its meaning has not been changed at all, no details have been added, no new dogmas have been invented, then “do they not prove by their understanding that they do not understand anything” 10 and, wanting to expose the ignorance of others, expose their own? I not only admit, but openly declare that in translations from Greek (except for the Holy Scriptures, where the very order of words is a mystery) I convey not a word with a word, but a thought with a thought. My teacher in this is Tullius, who set Plato’s “Protagoras” and Xenophon’s “Domostroy” and two magnificent speeches of Aeschines and Demosthenes against each other. How much he missed, how much he added, how much he changed in order to convey the features of someone else’s language with the features of his own - now is not the time to talk about this. For me, the authority of the translator himself is sufficient, who in the preface to these speeches says this: “I considered it my duty to take on this work, which is useful for students, but for myself not so necessary. I translated from the Attic dialect the most famous speeches of two eloquent rhetoricians, addressed against each other, Aeschines and Demosthenes - I translated not as an interpreter, but as an Orator, adapting the thoughts themselves and their expression, both figures and words, to our usual speech. I did not consider it necessary to convey them word for word, but retained all the meaning and power of the words. For I believed that the reader needs words not by count, but, as it were, by weight.” And again, at the end of the preface: “Their speeches,” he says, “I hope to rearrange so that all the merits of thoughts, methods of expression and arrangement of material are revealed; and I will follow the words as long as they do not contradict our tastes. Although not everything from the Greek text will be translated, I have tried to preserve its meaning." 11 And Horace, an intelligent and learned man, in “The Poetic Art” warns the erudite poet about the same thing: ...Don’t try to get word for word like a zealous interpreter-translator 12 . Terence translated Menander, Plautus and Caecilius - the ancient comedians. Are they stuck in words? And didn’t they preserve more beauty and grace in the translation? What you call accuracy of translation, educated people call κακοζηλίαν 13 . Therefore, having such teachers, when twenty years ago I translated the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea into Latin, I fell into the same mistake and, without foreseeing, of course, your accusations, among other things I wrote in the preface: “It is difficult, following other people’s lines, not to miss anything, and it is not easy to ensure that what is well said in another language retains its beauty in translation. Here is something expressed in one special word, and I have nothing to replace it with; and when I try to express a thought in a long turn, I only waste time 14. Added to this are intricate permutations of words, differences in cases, a variety of figures, and finally, I would say, the natural originality of the language! If I translate word for word, it sounds ridiculous; If, out of necessity, I change something in my speech or in the order of words, it will seem that I am shirking the duties of a translator.” And after much else, which is unnecessary to cite now, he even added: “If anyone thinks that the beauty of a language is not lost in translation, let him translate Homer verbatim into Latin. I’ll say more: let him retell it in his native language in prose, and you will see a ridiculous set of words, and a most eloquent poet who can barely speak.” 6. So that the authority of my writings does not seem small (although I only wanted to prove that from a young age I translated not words, but thoughts), read and consider what is said about this in the short preface to the book where the life of Blessed Anthony is described. “Literal translation from one language to another obscures the meaning, just as an overgrown weed drowns out a seed. While speech serves cases and figures, it hardly expresses in a complex turn what it could say in one word. Avoiding this, at your request, I rearranged the life of Blessed Anthony in such a way that nothing was lost from the meaning, although some of the words were missing. Let others chase syllables and letters, but you look for thoughts.” A day would not be enough for me if I cited the testimonies of everyone who translated according to the meaning. Now it is enough to name Hilary the Confessor, who translated homilies on the Book of Job and many interpretations on the Psalms from Greek into Latin, and did not pore over a dead letter, and did not torture himself with a tedious translation, like ignoramuses, but, as if by right of a conqueror, transferred captive thoughts into his own language. 7. It is not surprising that in other centuries the men of the Church who translated the Septuagint, and the Evangelists and Apostles in the sacred scrolls, did the same. We read in Mark how the Lord said: “Talitha cumi,” and it is immediately said: “What does it mean: maiden, I say to you, stand up” (Mk 5.41). Why not accuse the Evangelist of lying: why did he add “I tell you” when in Hebrew it only says “maiden, arise”? He ἐμφατικώτερον 15 added “I tell you” to convey the appeal and command. Also in Matthew, when it is told how Judas the traitor returned thirty pieces of silver and with them the potter’s field was purchased, it is written like this: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, who says: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the sons of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s land, as the Lord said to me” (Matthew 27.9-10). But this is not at all in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah one can find it said in different words and in a completely different order. Here's how it is in the Vulgate 16: “And I will say to them: if it pleases you, then give Me My wages, but if not, do not give; and they weighed out thirty pieces of silver as payment to Me. And the Lord said to Me: Throw them into the furnace - see if they are worth what they valued Me at. And I took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the furnace into the house of the Lord” (Zechariah 11.12–13) 17.. It can be seen how different the translation of the Seventy and the Gospel testimony are. And in the Hebrew text, although the meaning is the same, the words are arranged differently and are slightly different: “And I said to them: If it is good in your eyes, bring My wages; if not, leave alone. And they weighed out My payment, thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to Me: Throw them to the potter; good is the price at which I am priced from them. And I took thirty pieces of silver and threw them in the house of the Lord to the potter.” One can convict the Apostle of deception, for his words do not agree either with the translation of the Seventy or with the Hebrew text; Moreover, he made a mistake in the name: after all, instead of Zechariah, he named Jeremiah. But it is not appropriate to talk about Christ’s companion in this way: for him it was important not to keep track of all the words and syllables, but to state the meaning of the teaching. Let's move on to another testimony of the same Zechariah, which the Evangelist John cites from the Jewish original: “They will look at Him whom they have pierced” (John 19.37). In the Septuagint we read instead: καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ῾ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, which is translated in Latin: “And they will look at Me, as something that was ridiculed,” or “that was mocked at.” (Zec 12.10) 18. Both the Septuagint and our translation differ from the text of the Evangelist, but the difference in words is reconciled by the unity of the spirit. And in Matthew we read how the Lord predicts the flight of the Apostles, bringing Zechariah as a witness: “For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (Matthew 26.31). But both in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew original this is not at all the case: these words are spoken not on behalf of God, as in the Evangelist, but by the prophet asking God the Father: “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (Zechariah 13.7). I think in this place, due to the arrogance of some, the Evangelist can be accused of a terrible sin: he dared to attribute the words of the prophet to God!.. The same Evangelist talks about the Angel’s command to Joseph to take the Child and His Mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until the death of Herod, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2.15). This is not in our lists, but in the Hebrew original in the book of Hosea it is said: “For the child Israel, and I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my Son” (Hosea 11.1) 19.. Instead, in the same place, the Seventy interpreters translated this: “For Israel is little, and I loved him, and out of Egypt I called his sons.” Should they be completely rejected because this place, the most hidden secrets of Christ, they conveyed differently? Or will we be merciful, remembering that they are people, according to the word of James: “We all sin in many ways. He who sins not in word is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body” (James 3.2). and that He will be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2.23). Let λογοδαιδαλοι 20 and the picky evaluators of all interpreters answer, where did they read this? Let them know what Isaiah has. For in the place where we read and translated: “And a branch will arise from the root of Jesse, and a flower will rise from its root,” in the Hebrew text, according to ιδίωμα 21 of this language, it is written: “A branch will come from the root of Jesse, and a Nazarite will grow from its root” (Is 11.1) 22. Why did the Seventy leave this unattended, if not because it is impossible to translate word by word? After all, this is blasphemy - either not to notice, or to hide the secret. 8. Let's go further: the brevity of the letter does not allow us to linger long on individual places. The same Matthew says: “And all this happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, who said: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel” (Matthew 1.22–23), which the Seventy translated as follows: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and ye shall call His name Immanuel.” If you find fault with the words, then this is not the same thing: “will receive” or “conceive”, “will be named” or “you will name.” And in the Jewish text we read this: “Behold, the Virgin... will conceive and give birth to a Son, and will call His name: Immanuel” (Isaiah 7.14) 23.. Not Ahaz, accused of wickedness, not the Jews, who will still deny the Lord, but She herself, the Virgin, who conceived and gave birth, will call His name. In the same Evangelist we read how Herod was alarmed by the arrival of the Magi and, having gathered priests and scribes, began to inquire from them where Christ was born. They answered: “In Bethlehem of Judah, for thus it is written through the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means the least of the provinces of Judah; for from you will come a Prince who will reign over My people Israel" (Matthew 2.6) 24 .. In the Vulgate this prophecy is given as follows: “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, are not great to be among the thousands of Judah; from you will come to Me one who will be a Ruler in Israel." What is the difference in words and word order between Matthew and the Septuagint, you are with an even greater You will be surprised to see if you look into the Hebrew text: “And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the thousands of Judah; from you will come to me He who will be the Ruler of Israel” (Micah 5.2) 25 .. Let’s look at it in order. The Evangelist says: “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah”; in the Hebrew text it says instead of “land of Judah” - “Ephratha”; in the Septuagint - “house of Ephrath.” Instead of “You are no less than the rulers of Judah,” the Septuagint says: “You are small to be among the thousands of Judah,” in the Hebrew text, “You are small among the thousands of Judah”: the meaning is completely opposite. The Jewish original agrees, at least in these words, with the Septuagint, but the Evangelist said that he is not small among the thousands of Judah, although both there and there it is said that “you are small and insignificant”; but from you,” it is said, “small and insignificant will come to me a Leader in Israel, according to the word of the Apostle: “God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong things” (1 Cor 1.27). And the following: “Who will rule”, or “Who will shepherd My people Israel” - it is obvious that the prophet is different. 9. I tell this not to accuse the Evangelists of deceit (let us leave this to the wicked - Celsus, Porphyry, Julian), but to convict my critics of ignorance, and I ask them as a favor to forgive me in a simple letter for what, willy-nilly, they will have to forgive the Apostles in the Holy Scriptures. Mark, Peter’s disciple, begins his Gospel this way: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ... as the prophet Isaiah wrote: Behold, I am sending My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” (Mk 1.1-3) 26. This prophecy is composed of two prophets, Malachi and Isaiah. What was said first: “Behold, I send My angel... before You, who will prepare Your way before You” (Malachi 3.1) 27 is found in Malachi. And the following: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Isaiah 40.3), etc. can be read in Isaiah. How did Mark, at the very beginning of his writing, attribute to Isaiah the prophecy “Behold, I send my angel,” which Isaiah does not have, but it belongs, as we said, to Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets? Let ignorant prejudice answer this question, but I will humbly pray for forgiveness for my mistake. The same Mark tells how the Savior said to the Pharisees: “Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How did he enter the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest and eat the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests?” (Mk 2.25–26; Lk 6.34). Let's read Samuel, or the book of Kings, as it is usually called, and we will find that the high priest's name was not Abiathar, but Ahimelech - the same Ahimelech who was later killed along with other priests by Doik on the orders of Saul (1 Samuel 21.2-6, 22.9-20). Let's move on to the Apostle Paul. He writes to the Corinthians: “If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor 2.8-9). At this point many, following the nonsense of the apocrypha, say that this testimony is contained in the Revelation of Elijah; whereas in the Hebrew text in Isaiah one can read: “For since the ages no one has heard, nor has any ear listened, nor has any eye seen any other god besides You, who has done so much for those who hope in Him” (Isaiah 64.4). Seventy interpreters translate it completely differently: “For since the ages we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen, a god but You, and Your works are righteous, and You show mercy to those who trust in You.” We see where this prophecy came from, and we see that the Apostle translated not word for word, but περιφραστικός 28, expressing the same meaning in other words. In the Epistle to the Romans, the same apostle Paul, citing a passage from Isaiah: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (Rom. 9.33) 29., diverges from the old translation 30, but agrees with the Hebrew original (Is. 8.14) 31.. And in the Septuagint the meaning is the opposite: “Let you not stumble upon a stumbling block and a rock of destruction,” although the Apostle Peter, in agreement with the Hebrew text and with Paul, writes like this: “But for those who do not believe, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Pet 2.7) 32 .. From all this it is clear that the Apostles and Evangelists were looking for in the translation of the Old Testament thoughts, not words, and did not care too much about the order and structure of speeches, as long as the essence of the thought was clear. 10. Luke, an apostolic man and Evangelist, writes that the first martyr of Christ Stephen told in the assembly of Jews: “[With seventy-five souls] “Jacob passed over to Egypt, and he and our fathers died; and they were carried to Shechem and laid in a tomb, which Abraham bought for the price of silver from the sons of Hamor Shechem" (Acts 7.15-16). In the book of Genesis, this place looks completely different: Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite, son of Seor, for four hundred drachmas of silver a double cave near Hebron and the field around it and buried Sarah his wife there (Gen. 23.1) 33. And in the same book we read how Jacob with his wives and children, after returning from Mesopotamia, pitched a tent in front of Salem, a city of the Shechemites in the land of Canaan, and settled there, and bought that part of the field from Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred sheep, where he had tents, and made an altar, and called on the God of Israel there (Gen. 33.18-20) 34. Abraham did not buy the cave from Hamor of Shechem - he bought it from Ephron, the son of Seor, and was needed not in Shechem, but in Hebron, which is distortedly called Arbokh. The twelve patriarchs are buried not in Arboch, but in Shechem, where the field was purchased not by Abraham, but by Jacob (Joshua 24.32). I explain this small example in such detail so that my ill-wishers will understand and understand that in Scripture it is not necessary to reason about words, but about thoughts. The Twenty-first Psalm, according to the Hebrew text, begins with the same words that the Lord said on the cross: “Eli, Eli! Lama sabachthani? (Matthew 27.46), which means: “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me? Let them explain to me why the Seventy Interpreters inserted: “Listen to me”? They translated: “Oh my God! My God! [listen to me] why have you... forsaken me? (see Ps 21.2). And they will answer me: there is nothing reprehensible for the meaning even if we add two words. So let them believe that because of me the foundations of the Churches will not be shaken, if, dictating in a hurry, I omitted other words. 11. It will now take a long time to retell how much the Seventy interpreters added from themselves, how much they missed, what differences there are in the church lists, notes and notes. We read in Isaiah: “Blessed is he who has seed in Zion and household in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 31.9, according to the Septuagint), and the Jews would laugh at this if they heard it. And Amos, after describing luxury, has no words: “And they consider all this to be eternal, and not transitory” (Amos 6.6, according to the Septuagint). (Rhetorical style and truly Tullian eloquence). But what should we do with genuine books that lack these additions and others like them (and if we start listing them, endless books will be required)? 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). And Aquila 35, a proselyte and zealous translator, who tried to convey not only the words, but also the etymology of the words, is rejected by us, and deservedly so. For who, instead of the words “bread,... wine... and oil” (Deut. 7.13) could read or understand - χεῦμα, ὀπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα, which can be translated as “outpouring, fruiting and shining”? And since in the Hebrew language there is not only ἄρθρα, but also πρόαρθρα 36, then he κακοζήλως 37 translates syllables and letters, and writes σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν 38 (Greek) – Ed., which is completely unacceptable in either Greek or Latin. The same example can be given from our speech. No matter how good a Greek phrase may be, if translated word for word into Latin, it will not resonate; and vice versa, what is good for us, when translated word by word into Greek, the Greeks will not like it. 12. But let's leave this limitless topic. I want to show you, O most noble man among Christians and most Christian among nobles, what kind of lies are accused of me in translating the letter, and for this I will give the beginning of the letter in Latin and Greek, so that from the example of one accusation the others will become clear. I remember that I translated it like this: “It was fitting for us, beloved, do not turn the honor of the priesthood into a matter of pride.” “Now,” they say, “what a lie in one line! Firstly, ἀγαπητος is not “beloved,” but “beloved.” Then, οἴησις is “opinion” and not “pride”, since οἰήματι is not said here, but οἰήσει one means “opinion”, the second means “arrogance”. And everything further: “Do not turn the honor of priestly service into a matter of pride” belongs to you.” What are you saying, O fighter for the letter, O Aristarchus 39 of our time, [severely] judging all writers indiscriminately? Apparently, we spent so much time studying in vain and “often pulled our hand away from the rod” 40 - moving away from the shore, we immediately sank to the bottom. Of course, since it is human nature to make mistakes, then a smart person should admit his mistakes: no matter what critic you may be, do me a favor - I beg you, teacher, correct me and translate word for word! He replies: “You should have translated: it was necessary for us, beloved, not to rush around with the opinion of the clergy.” Here it is, Plautian eloquence! Here is Attic grace, comparable, as they say, to the speech of the muses! The current popular proverb is justified for me: “Sending a bull to the palaestra means wasting money on oil.” But it's not his fault; the tragedy is played out by others under his mask; Rufinus and Melania 41, his teachers, who taught him to know nothing for a lot of money. I do not condemn any Christian for ignorance of speech; Socrates also said; “I know that I know nothing,” and another wise man (Chilo, as is believed); "Know thyself." But I have always respected holy simplicity, not verbal poverty. Whoever imitates my speeches, says the Apostle, should better imitate the virtues of those whose simplicity in speech was redeemed by the greatness of holiness. Both the syllogisms of Aristotle and the sophisticated witticisms of Chrysippus were put to shame by the Risen One from the Dead. It would be funny, however, if any of us, amidst the riches of Croesus and the pleasures of Sardanapalus, would boast only of our ignorance - that the robbers and other criminals are all eloquent and hide bloody swords not in the hollows of trees, but in the scrolls of philosophers. 13. I have reached the end of the letter, but have not reached the limit of my sadness. For they call me a liar and talk about my name in the women’s chambers at the loom, but I am content with the fact that I do not see my guilt and do not make excuses. Therefore, I hand over everything to you for judgment; read the letter itself in Greek and Latin, and you will immediately understand what the cries and vile complaints of my accusers are worth. And all I have to do is tell everything to my dear friend and, hiding in my cell, await the verdict. And I want, if I succeed and if my enemies allow it, to write you better interpretations of Scripture than Demosthenes and Tully’s philippics. The Septuagint circulated in several different editions, and in the West there were two competing Latin translations: the Itala and Jerome's Vulgate. The Vulgate became a generally accepted text only in the 6th century. – Here and below are the translator’s notes, except where specifically stated. For more information about the Origenist disputes, see Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. M., 1994, pp. 159–170; Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. IV. M., 1994, se. 156–160. Translation of bl. Jerome's letter is placed in the Patrology of Min (Patrologiae cuisus completus. Series graeca. T. 43). Russian translation of letters from Bl. Jerome was published in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy (1893) and in small fragments in the book. “Medieval Latin Literature of the IV-IX Centuries” (Moscow, 1970). To the synod. translation: “Blessed is he who has acquired wisdom and imparts it into the ears of those who listen”: Nothing is known for certain about the circumstances of this case. Flor. 1; Plutarch. Pyrrhus. 21. Cicero. About the best kind of speakers. 13–14; 23. Horace. The Science of Poetry. Art. 133–4. Pickiness; literalism (Greek). The location is unclear; var.: I’m moving forward only one step. – Ed. For greater expressiveness (Greek). Hereinafter, what is meant is not Jerome’s Vulgate, but the ancient Latin translation of the Bible, now called Itala. The Itala, unlike Jerome's Vulgate, is translated entirely from the Septuagint. In the synod translation (Zechariah 11.13): “... the high price at which they valued Me! And I took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter": In the synod, translation: “...they will look at Him whom they have pierced”: In the synod, translation: “When Israel was young, I loved him and called My son out of Egypt”: Experts, masters of words (Greek). In the synod, translation: “...a branch will come from the root of Jesse, and a branch will grow from his root”: In the synod, translation: “Behold, the Virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel”: In the synod, translation: “...Who will shepherd My people Israel”: In the synod, translation: “...Who should be Ruler in Israel”: In the synod, translation: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets: Behold, I am sending an Angel...”: In the synod, translation: “Behold, I am sending My angel, and he will prepare the way before Me...”: Paraphrastically, retelling (Greek). In the synod, translation: “...and the stone of temptation”: In the synod, translation: “And He will be a sanctification and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”: In the synod translation: “... a stone of stumbling and a stone of temptation”: According to the synod translation, Abraham bought a cave and a field from Ephron the Hethite, son of Zohar, for four hundred shekels of silver. In the synod, translation: Jacob bought the land from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred coins. Aquila (lat. Aquila) or Aquila - II century. according to R. X.; from Jewish proselytes; translated the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek; known for pedantry and unimaginable literalism in translation, as well as clearly anti-Christian orientation. – Ed. Articles and “pre-articles” (Greek); in Hebrew: the definite article and the special particle, placed together in the objective accusative case. Aquila tried to reproduce both in his translation. – Ed. Pedantic, corrosive (Greek). The end of the verse (Genesis 1.1) is “...heaven and earth”: Aristarchus from Samothrace (2nd century BC); lived in Alexandria, founded his own philological school. He was engaged in criticism and interpretation of the most famous Greek poets, in particular Homer. The name of Aristarchus subsequently became a household name - as a kind of symbol of learning and pedantry. – Ed. Rufinus of Aquileia is an old friend of Bl. Jerome, Melania - Roman aristocrat, founded a monastery on the Mount of Olives. The controversy about Origen turned their former friendship with Bl. Jerome into a long-term feud. – Ed. All quotations from the Holy Scriptures are translated from Latin. In case of discrepancy with the Synodal Translation, the Synodal version is given in the reference.