← All books · Latin Fathers › Letters (CSEL)

Jerome

Letters (CSEL) 1 part 49/85

Latin original · 36 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 1:1851–1:1886 (3306 verses in all)

ch. 2 →

← prev partnext part →

1:1851

dominus diluuium inhabitare facit, pro quo legisse uos dicitis: dominus diluuium inhabitat; quorum prius ad gratiam pertinet credentibus, secundum ad eius, in quo credunt, habitaculum. sed quia iasaph uerbum ambiguum est et potest utrumque sonare — nam et \'sessio\' et \'habitatio\' dicitur et in ipso psalmo de gratia baptismatis dicebatur: uox domini super aquas; dominus super aquas multas et: uox domini praeparantis ceruos et reuelabit condensa et in templo eius omnis dicet gloriam —, de ipsis sentire uolu- mus, qui glorificant dominum, et interpretati sumus: dominus . diluuium inhabitare facit. Tricesimo: quoniam tues protec tormeus. rursum et in hoc loco additum nomen domini est;

'The Lord makes the flood to dwell,' for which you say you read: 'The Lord dwells in the flood'; of these the former pertains to the grace given to believers, the latter to the dwelling-place of him in whom they believe. But because iasaph is an ambiguous word and can sound either way — for it means both 'sitting' and 'dwelling'; and in this very Psalm it was said of the grace of baptism: 'The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the Lord is upon many waters,' and: 'The voice of the Lord preparing the harts; and he will reveal the thickets; and in his temple everyone shall tell his glory' — we wish to understand it of those who glorify the Lord, and we have translated: 'The Lord makes the flood to dwell.' On the thirtieth: 'For you are my protector.' Here again in this place the name of the Lord has been added;

『主使洪水安居』，你們說讀作『主住在洪水之中』；這二者中，前者關乎賜給信徒的恩典，後者關乎他們所信之主的居所。但因 iasaph 是個含混的詞，兩義皆通——它既作『坐』，也作『住』；並且在這同一篇詩中，論及洗禮的恩典時說：『主的聲音在眾水之上；主在大水之上』，又說：『主的聲音催生母鹿；他必顯露密林；在他的殿中，凡有氣息的都要述說他的榮耀』——我們願把它理解為指那些榮耀主的人，故譯作：『主使洪水安居。』論第三十篇：『因你是我的保護者。』這裡又一次加上了『主』這名；

1:1852

et ne eadem semper inculcem, obseruare debetis nomen domini et dei\' saepissime additum et id uos debere sequi, quod de Hebraico et de septuaginta interpretibus emendauimus. m eodem: ego autem dixi ln excessu mentis meae. pro quo in Latinis codicibus legebatur: in pauore meo, et nos iuxta Graecum transtulimus: iv tfj ἐ x στάει μου , id est \'in excessu mentis meae\'; aliter enim ἔ x στασι v Latinus sermo exprimere non potest nisi \'mentis excessum\'. aliter me in Hebraico legisse noueram: in stupore et in admiratione mea. Tricesimo primo: nec est in spiritu eius dolus. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos dicitis: sv τω̨̃ στόματι avtov , id est in ore eius dolus, quod solus Symmachus posuit.

And, lest I keep inculcating the same thing, you ought to observe that the name of the Lord and of God is very frequently added, and that you ought to follow that which we have corrected from the Hebrew and from the Seventy translators. In the same: 'But I said in the ecstasy of my mind.' For which in the Latin manuscripts was read: 'in my fear,' and we, following the Greek, translated: en te ekstasei mou, that is, 'in the ecstasy of my mind'; for otherwise the Latin tongue cannot express ekstasis except as 'ecstasy of mind.' Otherwise I had known that I read in the Hebrew: 'in my stupor and in my astonishment.' On the thirty-first: 'nor is there guile in his spirit.' For which you say you read in the Greek: en to stomati autou, that is, 'guile in his mouth,' which Symmachus alone set down.

為免我總是重複同一件事，你們應當留意：『主』和『神』這名極常被加上，而你們應當遵從我們照希伯來文和七十士譯者所更正的。同篇：『我在我心神恍惚中曾說。』拉丁文抄本中讀作『在我的驚恐中』，而我們依希臘文譯作 en tē ekstasei mou，即『在我心神恍惚中』；因為拉丁文表達 ekstasis 別無他法，只能作『心神之恍惚』。另外我知道我在希伯來文中讀到的是：『在我的驚駭與我的詫異中』。論第三十一篇：『他的靈裡也沒有詭詐。』你們說希臘文中讀作 en tō stomati autou，即『他口中有詭詐』，這是惟獨敘馬庫斯所寫的。

1:1853

alioquin et septuaginta interpretes et Theodotion et Quinta et Sexta et Aquila et ipsum Hebraicum in spiritu eius habet, quod Hebraice dicitur\'brucho\'. sin autem esset in ore eius, scriberetur \'baffio\'. in eodem: conuersus sum in aerumna mea. in Graeco mea non esse suggeritis, quod ex Hebraico et de translatione Theodotionis sub asterisco additum est, et in Hebraeo legitur \'lasaddi\'. \'lasaddi\' * * * . Tricesimo quarto: omnia ossa mea dicent: domine. pro quo in Graeco bis \'domine\' inuenisse uos dicitis. sed sciendum, quod multa sint exemplaria apud Hebraeos, quae ne semel quidem \'dominum\' habeant. Tricesimo sexto: et uiam eius uolet. in Graeco uolet nimis uos legisse dixistis.

For the rest, the Seventy translators, and Theodotion, and the Fifth and Sixth editions, and Aquila, and the Hebrew itself have 'in his spirit,' which in Hebrew is said 'brucho.' But if it were 'in his mouth,' it would be written 'baffio.' In the same: 'I was turned in my distress.' You suggest that in the Greek 'my' is not present, which was added from the Hebrew and from the translation of Theodotion under an asterisk; and in the Hebrew is read 'lasaddi.' On the thirty-fourth: 'All my bones shall say, Lord.' For which you say you found 'Lord' twice in the Greek. But it must be known that there are many Hebrew copies which do not have 'Lord' even once. On the thirty-sixth: 'and he shall will his way.' You said you read in the Greek 'he shall greatly will.'

此外，七十士譯者、狄奧多提翁、第五版、第六版、亞居拉，以及希伯來文本身，都作『在他的靈裡』，希伯來文叫 brucho。若是『在他口中』，就該寫作 baffio。同篇：『我在我的困苦中轉回。』你們指出希臘文中沒有『我的』，這是照希伯來文和狄奧多提翁的譯本，標以星號加入的；希伯來文讀作 lasaddi。論第三十四篇：『我全身的骨頭都要說：主啊。』你們說希臘文中發現『主』字出現兩次。但當知道，希伯來文有許多抄本，連一次『主』字都沒有。論第三十六篇：『他必喜悅他的道路。』你們說希臘文中讀作『他必極其喜悅』。

1:1854

quod additum est nec apud quemquam habetur interpretum. Tricesimo octauo: uerumtamen uane conturba turom nis homo. et dicitis uos in Graeco non inuenisse \'conturbatur\'. sed et hoc sub ueru in Septuaginta additum est . et hinc apud uos et apud plerosque error exoritur, quod scriptorum neglegentia uirgulis et asteriscis subtractis distinctio uniuersa confunditur. Tricesimo nono: et legem tuam in medio cordis m e i. pro quo in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: in medio uentris m e i, quod et in Hebraeo scriptum est \'batthoch meai\'. sed propter euphoniam apud Latinos \'in corde\' translatum est; et tamen non debemus subtrahere, quod uerum est. in eodem: domine, in adiutorium meum respice.

which was added and is found in no translator. On the thirty-eighth: 'Yet in vain is every man troubled.' And you say that in the Greek you did not find 'is troubled.' But this too was added in the Seventy under a 'spit' (obelus). And from this arises error among you and among very many, because through the negligence of copyists, the little strokes and asterisks being removed, the whole distinction is confused. On the thirty-ninth: 'and your law in the midst of my heart.' For which you say you found in the Greek: 'in the midst of my belly,' which is also written in the Hebrew 'batthoch meai.' But for the sake of euphony among the Latins it was translated 'in the heart'; and yet we ought not to withdraw what is true. In the same: 'Lord, look to my help.'

這是後加的，任何譯者中都沒有。論第三十八篇：『然而每個人枉然自擾。』你們說希臘文中沒有『自擾』一詞。但這也是在七十士本中標以劍號（obelus）加入的。你們和許多人的錯誤便由此而生，因為抄寫者的疏忽把小記號和星號都略去了，以致整個標識全然混淆。論第三十九篇：『你的律法在我心中。』你們說希臘文中發現作『在我腹中』，希伯來文也寫作 batthoch meai。但為著拉丁文的悅耳，才譯成『在心中』；然而我們不當隱去那真實的讀法。同篇：『主啊，求你眷顧、幫助我。』

1:1855

pro quo in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: σπευ̃σο v , id est \'festina\'. sed apud Septuaginta πϱόσσχες , id est \'respice\', scriptum est. Quadragesimo: et si ingredie batur, ut uideret. et dicitis, quod \'si\' in Graeco non sit positum, cum manifestissime et in Hebraeo et in cunctis interpretibus scriptum sit et Septua- ginta transtulerint: xai ei εἰζεποϱεύετο tov ἰδει̃ v . Quadragesimo primo: salutare uultus mei, deus meus. pro quo inuenisse uos dicitis: et deus meus. sed sciendum hoc in isto psalmo bis inueniri et in primo positum esse: salutare uultus mei, deus meus, in secundo autem, id est in fine ipsius psalmi:

for which you say you found in the Greek: speuson, that is, 'make haste.' But in the Seventy is written prossches, that is, 'look.' On the fortieth: 'and if he came in to see.' And you say that 'if' is not set down in the Greek, though most manifestly it is written both in the Hebrew and in all the translators, and the Seventy rendered: kai ei eiseporeueto tou idein. On the forty-first: 'the salvation of my countenance, my God.' For which you say you found: 'and my God.' But it must be known that this occurs twice in that Psalm, and in the first place it is set: 'the salvation of my countenance, my God,' but in the second, that is, at the end of the Psalm itself:

你們說希臘文中發現作 speuson，即『速來』。但七十士本中寫的是 prossches，即『眷顧』。論第四十篇：『他若進來要看。』你們說希臘文中沒有『若』字，然而希伯來文和眾譯者中都明明寫著，七十士也譯作 kai ei eiseporeueto tou idein。論第四十一篇：『我臉上的救恩，我的神。』你們說發現作『和我的神』。但當知道，這句在那篇詩中出現兩次，第一次作：『我臉上的救恩，我的神』，第二次，即在該篇詩的末了：

1:1856

salutare uultus mei et deusmeus, ita dumtaxat, ut \'et\' coniunctio de Hebraeo et de Theodotione sub asterisco addita sit. in eodem: exprobrauerunt mihi, qui tribulant me. pro quo uos inuenisse dixistis: οἱ ἐχθροί μου , id est \'inimici mei\', cum et apud Septuaginta scriptum sit: οἱ θλίβοντες et apud Hebraeos \'sorarai\', id est \'hostes mei. in eodem: spera in deum, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi. et dicitis \'adhuc\' in Graeco non inueniri. quod sub asterisco additum est; ita enim et in Hebraeo scriptum repperimus \'chi od\', quod significatur ὅτι ἔτι Latineque dicitur \'quoniam adhuc\'. hoc ipsum etiam in quadragesimo secundo intellegendum. Quadragesimo tertio:

'the salvation of my countenance and my God,' with this proviso only, that the conjunction 'and' was added from the Hebrew and from Theodotion under an asterisk. In the same: 'They reproached me, those who trouble me.' For which you said you found: hoi echthroi mou, that is, 'my enemies,' although in the Seventy is written hoi thlibontes, and among the Hebrews 'sorarai,' that is, 'my foes.' In the same: 'Hope in God, for I shall still confess to him.' And you say that 'still' is not found in the Greek; which was added under an asterisk, for so we also found written in the Hebrew 'chi od,' which is signified by hoti eti, and in Latin is said 'for still.' This same thing is to be understood also in the forty-second. On the forty-third:

『我臉上的救恩和我的神』，只是連詞『和』是照希伯來文和狄奧多提翁，標以星號加入的。同篇：『那擾害我的人辱罵我。』你們說發現作 hoi echthroi mou，即『我的仇敵』，然而七十士本中寫的是 hoi thlibontes，希伯來文作 sorarai，即『我的敵人』。同篇：『你當仰望神，因我還要稱謝他。』你們說『還』字希臘文中沒有；這是標以星號加入的，因為我們在希伯來文中也發現如此寫著 chi od，其意即 hoti eti，拉丁文作『因還要』。這同一件事在第四十二篇中也當如此理解。論第四十三篇：

1:1857

et non egredieris uirtutibus nostris. pro quo in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: et non egredieris, deus. sed superfluum est. in ipso: posuisti nos ln similitudinem gentibus, pro quo in Graeco scriptum sit ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν sed, si dictum fuisset in Latino \'in similitudinem in gentibus\', κακόφωνον esset, et propterea absque damno sensus interpretationis elegantia conseruata est. alioquin in Hebraico ita scriptum repperi: p osuisti nos prouerbium in gentibus. in eodem: exurge, adiuua nos. pro quo more solito in Graeco nomen domini additum est. Quadragesimo quarto: sagittae tuae acutae. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos dicitis: acutae, potentissime.

'and you will not go forth with our hosts.' For which you say you found in the Greek: 'and you will not go forth, O God.' But it is superfluous. In the same: 'You have set us as a byword among the nations,' for which in the Greek is written en tois ethnesin. But if it had been said in Latin 'as a byword among among the nations,' it would be ill-sounding; and therefore, without damage to the sense, the elegance of the rendering has been preserved. Otherwise in the Hebrew I found it thus written: 'You have set us a proverb among the nations.' In the same: 'Arise, help us.' For which, according to custom, the name of the Lord has been added in the Greek. On the forty-fourth: 'Your arrows are sharp.' For which you say you read in the Greek: 'sharp, O most mighty.'

『你也不與我們的軍隊同出。』你們說希臘文中發現作『神啊，你也不出去』。但這是多餘的。同篇：『你使我們成為列國中的笑柄』，希臘文寫作 en tois ethnesin。但拉丁文若說『成為列國中在列國中的笑柄』，就會拗口刺耳（kakophōnon）；所以在不損害原意的前提下，保全了譯文的雅致。此外我在希伯來文中發現如此寫著：『你使我們成為列國中的話柄。』同篇：『求你起來幫助我們。』希臘文照慣例加上了『主』這名。論第四十四篇：『你的箭鋒利。』你們說希臘文中讀作『鋒利，至大能者啊』。

1:1858

sed hoc male et de superiore uersiculo additum est, in quo legitur: accingere gladio tuo super femur tuum, potentissime. Quadragesimo septimo: quoniam ecce reges congregati sunt. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos dicitis: quoniam ecce reges eius congregati sunt. quod superfluum esse ipse lectionis textus ostendit; et in ueteribus codicibus Latinorum scriptum erat reges terrae, quod nos tulimus, quia nec in Hebraeo nec in Septuaginta repperitur. in ipso: sicut audiuimus, sic uidimus. pro quo in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: sic et uidimus, quod superfluum est; legitur enim in Hebraeo \'chen rainu\', quod interpretatur οὕτως εἴδομεν , hoc est sic uidimus. in eodem:

But this too has been wrongly added from the earlier verse, in which we read: 'Gird your sword upon your thigh, O most mighty.' On Psalm 47: 'For behold, the kings were gathered together.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'For behold, his kings were gathered together.' That this is superfluous the very text of the reading shows; and in the old codices of the Latins it was written 'the kings of the earth,' which we removed, because it is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint. In the same psalm: 'As we have heard, so have we seen.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'so also we have seen,' which is superfluous; for in the Hebrew is read 'chen rainu,' which is rendered οὕτως εἴδομεν, that is, 'so we have seen.' In the same:

但這一點也是從前一節錯誤地添加進來的，那節寫著：『大能者啊，願你腰間佩刀。』第四十七篇：『看哪，君王聚集。』你們說在希臘文中讀作：『看哪，他的君王聚集。』然而經文本身就顯示這是多餘的；在拉丁文的舊抄本中寫作『地上的君王』，這是我們刪去的，因為在希伯來文和七十士譯本中都找不到。在同一篇中：『我們所聽見的，也照樣看見了。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『我們也照樣看見了』，這是多餘的；因為希伯來文讀作 chen rainu，譯作 οὕτως εἴδομεν，即『我們照樣看見了』。在同一篇中：

1:1859

suscepimus, deus, misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui. pro eo, quod nos de Hebraico et de septuaginta 1 interpretibus uertimus templi tui, in Graeco legisse uos dicitis\' populi tui, quod superfluum est. in Hebraico scriptum est \'echalach\', id est τοῦ ναοῦ σου , hoc est \'templi tui\', et non \'ammach\', quod \'populum tuum\' significat. Quadragesimo octauo: homo, cum in honore esset. pro quo in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: et homo, in honore cum esset.. sed sciendum, quod iste uersiculus bis in hoc psalmo sit et in priori additam habeat \'et\' coniunctionem, in fine non 2.habeat. in eodem: et dominabuntur eorum iusti.

'We have received, O God, your mercy in the midst of your temple.' For that which we translated from the Hebrew and from the Seventy translators as 'your temple,' you say that you read in the Greek 'your people,' which is superfluous. In the Hebrew is written 'echalach,' that is τοῦ ναοῦ σου, that is 'of your temple,' and not 'ammach,' which means 'your people.' On Psalm 48: 'Man, when he was in honour.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'and man, when he was in honour.' But it should be known that this verse occurs twice in this psalm, and in the earlier place it has the conjunction 'and' added, but at the end it does not have it. In the same: 'and the righteous shall have dominion over them.'

『神啊，我們在你的殿中領受了你的慈愛。』我們根據希伯來文和七十位譯者譯作『你的殿』，而你們說在希臘文中讀作『你的百姓』，這是多餘的。希伯來文寫作 echalach，即 τοῦ ναοῦ σου，就是『你的殿』，而非 ammach，那意思是『你的百姓』。第四十八篇：『人在尊貴中。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『而人在尊貴中。』但須知這一節在本篇中出現兩次，前一處加了連接詞『而』，末尾則沒有。在同一篇中：『義人要管轄他們。』

1:1860

pro \'iustis\' εὐθεῖς , id est \'rectos\', in Graeco legisse uos dicitis; sed hoc propter εὐφωνίαν ita in Latinum uersum est. alioquin et in eo loco, ubi scriptum legimus: in libro εὐϑεῖς , \'iustorum libro\' intellegimus, et non debemus sic uerbum de uerbo exprimere, ut, dum syllabam sequimur, perdamus intellegentiam. in eodem: de manu inferni cum liberauerit me. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos dicitis: cum acceperit me. quod quidem et nos ita de Septuaginta uertimus et miror, a quo in uestro codice deprauatum sit. Quadragesimo nono: sedens aduersus fratrem tuum loquebaris. pro quo in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κατελάλεις , et putatis non bene uersum, quia diximus:

In place of 'the righteous' you say that you read in the Greek εὐθεῖς, that is 'the upright'; but this was so rendered into Latin for the sake of euphony (εὐφωνία). Otherwise, in that passage too where we read written 'in the book of εὐθεῖς,' we understand 'the book of the righteous,' and we ought not so to express word for word that, while we follow the syllable, we lose the sense. In the same: 'when he shall have delivered me from the hand of hell.' In place of which you say that you read in the Greek: 'when he shall have received me,' which indeed we too translated thus from the Septuagint, and I wonder by whom it was corrupted in your codex. On Psalm 49: 'Sitting, you spoke against your brother.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κατελάλεις, and you think it not well translated, because we said:

你們說在希臘文中讀作 εὐθεῖς，即『正直人』，來取代『義人』；但這是為了語音優美（εὐφωνία）而如此譯成拉丁文的。此外，在我們讀到寫作『在 εὐθεῖς 之書中』的那處，我們也理解為『義人之書』，我們不應如此逐字直譯，以致在追隨音節時反而失去了意義。在同一篇中：『當他救我脫離陰間之手時。』你們說在希臘文中讀作：『當他接納我時』，這其實我們也是照七十士譯本如此翻譯的，我很驚訝在你們的抄本中是被誰竄改了。第四十九篇：『你坐著毀謗你的弟兄。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是 κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κατελάλεις，並認為譯得不好，因為我們說：

1:1861

aduersus fratrem tuum loquebaris, et debuisse nos dicere: \'aduersus fratrem tuum detrahebas\'; quod uitiosum esse et in nostra lingua non stare etiam stultis patet. nec ignoramus, quod καταλαλιὰ dicatur \'detractio\'; quam si uoluerimus ponere, non possumus dicere: \'aduersus fratrem tuum detrahebas\', sed: \'de fratre tuo detrahebas\'. quod si fecerimus, rursum contentiosus uerborum calumniator inquiret, quare non dixerimus: κατὰ τοῦ ᾶδελφοῦ , hoc est \'aduersus fratrem tuum\'. haec superflua sunt et non debemus in putida nos uerborum interpretatione torquere, cum damnum non sit in sensibus, quia unaquaeque lingua, ut ante iam dixi, suis proprietatibus loquitur. in ipso:

'you spoke against your brother,' and that we ought to have said: 'you disparaged your brother'; that this is faulty and does not stand in our language is plain even to fools. Nor are we ignorant that καταλαλιά means 'disparagement'; but if we wished to put it, we could not say 'you disparaged against your brother,' but 'you disparaged concerning your brother.' And if we should do this, again the contentious slanderer of words would inquire why we did not say κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, that is 'against your brother.' These things are superfluous, and we ought not to torture ourselves in a rotten interpretation of words, since there is no loss in the meaning, because each language, as I have already said before, speaks according to its own properties. In the same:

『你毀謗你的弟兄』，並認為我們本應說：『你詆毀你的弟兄』；然而這是有毛病的、在我們的語言中站不住腳，這連愚人也看得出來。我們並非不知道 καταλαλιά 意思是『詆毀』；但若我們要用它，就不能說『對著你的弟兄詆毀』，而要說『論到你的弟兄詆毀』。若我們這樣做，好爭辯的挑字眼者又會質問，我們為何不說 κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ，即『對著你的弟兄』。這些都是多餘的，我們不應在字詞的迂腐翻譯上折磨自己，因為意義上並無損失，因為正如我先前所說，每種語言都按其固有特性說話。在同一篇中：

1:1862

ne quando rapiat et sit, qui eripiat. et in Graeco repperisse uos dicitis: et non sit, qui eripiat, quod et a nobis uersum est et in nostris codicibus sic habetur. et miror, quomodo uitium librarii dormitantis ad culpam referatis interpretis, nisi forte fuerit hoc: ne quando rapiat nec sit, qui eripiat, et ille pro \'nec\' \'et\' scripserit. in eodem: sacrificium laudis honorificabit me. pro quo in Graeco scribitur: δόξάσει με , id est glorificabit me, de quo et supra diximus. in euangelio in eo loco, ubi in Graeco legimus: πάτεϱ, δόξασον με τῇ δόξῃ, ἧ εἶχον παρὰ σοὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι , in Latino legitur: pater, clarifica me.

'lest at any time he seize, and there be none to rescue.' And you say that you found in the Greek: 'and there be none to rescue,' which was translated by us too and is so found in our codices. And I wonder how you attribute to the fault of the translator the error of a drowsy copyist, unless perhaps it was this: 'lest at any time he seize, nor there be one to rescue,' and he wrote 'and' for 'nor.' In the same: 'a sacrifice of praise shall honour me.' In place of which is written in the Greek: δοξάσει με, that is 'shall glorify me,' about which we have also spoken above. In the Gospel, in that passage where in the Greek we read: πάτερ, δόξασόν με τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι, in the Latin is read: 'Father, glorify me.'

『免得他隨時擄掠，無人搭救。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『且無人搭救』，這也是我們所翻譯的，並且在我們的抄本中就是如此。我很驚訝，你們竟把打瞌睡的抄寫員之疏漏歸咎於譯者，除非或許是這樣：『免得他隨時擄掠，也無人搭救』，而那人把『也（nec）』寫成了『且（et）』。在同一篇中：『感謝的祭要榮耀我。』希臘文中寫作 δοξάσει με，即『必榮耀我』，關於這一點我們在上面也說過。在福音書中，我們在希臘文讀到 πάτερ, δόξασόν με τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι 的那處，拉丁文讀作：『父啊，願你榮耀我。』

1:1863

noluimus ergo inmutare, quod ab antiquis legebatur, quia idem sensus erat. Quinquagesimo quarto: expectabam eum, qui saluum me fecit. et dicitis uos inuenisse in Graeco: e x pectabam deum, quod additum est. in eodem: a pusi 1 lanimitate spiritus. et in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: ὀλιγοψυχίας , quod proprie \'pusillanimitas\' dicitur. sed sciendum, quod pro ὀλιγοψυχία Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotio et quinta editio interpretati sunt: ἀπὸ πνεύματος , id est \'a spiritu\', et in Hebraeo scriptum sit \'merucha\' omnisque sensus ita apud eos legatur: festinabo, ut saluer a spiritu tempestatis et turbinis. in eodem: quoniam, si inimicus maledixisset.

We were therefore unwilling to change what was read by the ancients, because the meaning was the same. On Psalm 54: 'I waited for him who saved me.' And you say that you found in the Greek: 'I waited for God,' which is an addition. In the same: 'from the faint-heartedness of spirit.' And you say that you found in the Greek: ὀλιγοψυχίας, which properly means 'faint-heartedness.' But it should be known that for ὀλιγοψυχία, Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion and the fifth edition translated: ἀπὸ πνεύματος, that is 'from the spirit'; and in the Hebrew is written 'merucha,' and the whole sense is thus read among them: 'I will hasten that I may be saved from the spirit of tempest and whirlwind.' In the same: 'For if an enemy had reviled me.'

因此我們不願改動古人所讀的，因為意義相同。第五十四篇：『我等候那救我的。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『我等候神』，這是添加的。在同一篇中：『脫離心靈的膽怯。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是 ὀλιγοψυχίας，正確意思是『膽怯』。但須知，阿奎拉、辛瑪庫斯、狄奧多田和第五版本，對 ὀλιγοψυχία 都譯作 ἀπὸ πνεύματος，即『脫離風』，希伯來文寫作 merucha，全句在他們那裡讀作：『我要急速逃脫，脫離暴風旋風之氣。』在同一篇中：『倘若仇敵辱罵。』

1:1864

in Graeco ὠνείδισεν , hoc est \'exprobrasset\', positum est. sed inter maledicta et obprobria sensum non discrepare perspicuum est. Quinquagesimo quinto: quoniam multi bellantes aduersum me, ab altitudine diei timebo. et dicitis in Graeco uos inuenisse: non timebo, quod \'additum est. et est ordo: \'quoniam multi dimicant aduersum me, idcirco ego ab altitudine diei timebo\', hoc est: \'non bellantes aduersum me, sed tuum excelsum timebo lumen\'. in ipso: in ira populos confringes. pro quo m Graeco legitur: sv ogyy laovg x ατάξις , (id est \'deicies\', non x ατεα\'εις ,) id est \'confringes\'.

In the Greek is placed ὠνείδισεν, that is 'had reproached.' But it is clear that between curses and reproaches the sense does not differ. On Psalm 55: 'For many are they that war against me; from the height of the day I will fear.' And you say that you found in the Greek: 'I will not fear,' which is an addition. And the order is: 'because many fight against me, therefore I from the height of the day will fear,' that is: 'not fearing those who war against me, but I will fear your lofty light.' In the same: 'in wrath you shall break the peoples in pieces.' In place of which is read in the Greek: ἐν ὀργῇ λαοὺς κατάξεις (that is 'you shall cast down,' not κατεάξεις), that is 'you shall shatter.'

希臘文中用的是 ὠνείδισεν，即『責備了』。但顯然咒罵與責備之間意義並無分別。第五十五篇：『因為許多人攻擊我；在白晝的高處我要懼怕。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『我必不懼怕』，這是添加的。其語序是：『因為許多人與我爭戰，所以我在白晝的高處要懼怕』，意即：『不是懼怕那些攻擊我的人，而是懼怕你崇高的光。』在同一篇中：『你要在怒中打碎眾民。』希臘文中讀作 ἐν ὀργῇ λαοὺς κατάξεις（即『你要拋下』，而非 κατεάξεις），即『你要打碎』。

1:1865

et apud Latinos pro eo, quod est \'deicies\', id est x ατάξεις , male 10 error obtinuit x ατεάξειζ , id est \'confringes\'; nam et in Hebraeo \'hored\' habet, id est x αταβι̇βασο v , quod nos possumus dicere \'depone\' et Symmachus interpretatus est zarayays . Quinquagesimo octauo: quia deus susceptor meus. pro quo in Graeco positum est: susceptor meuses tu. sed sciendum in Hebraeo nec \'es\' scriptum nec \'tu\' et apud Septuaginta solos inueniri. in ipso: deusmeus, uoluntas eius praeueniet me. pro quo in Graeco scriptum est: vo ἔλεοζ avrov , idest misericordia eius, quod et uerius est. sed in Hebraeo scriptum est: misericordia mea praeueniet m e. in eodem:

And among the Latins, in place of what is 'you shall cast down,' that is κατάξεις, the error κατεάξεις wrongly prevailed, that is 'you shall shatter'; for in the Hebrew too it has 'hored,' that is καταβιβάσων, which we may render 'bring down,' and Symmachus translated it likewise. On Psalm 58: 'For God is my protector.' In place of which is placed in the Greek: 'you are my protector.' But it should be known that in the Hebrew neither 'are' is written nor 'you,' and that they are found only in the Septuagint. In the same: 'My God, his mercy shall go before me.' In place of which is written in the Greek: τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, that is 'his mercy,' which is also truer. But in the Hebrew is written: 'my mercy shall go before me.' In the same:

在拉丁人當中，本應是『你要拋下』，即 κατάξεις，卻錯誤地流行了 κατεάξεις，即『你要打碎』；因為希伯來文也有 hored，即 καταβιβάσων，我們可譯作『降下』，辛瑪庫斯也如此翻譯。第五十八篇：『因為神是我的護衛者。』希臘文中用的是：『你是我的護衛者。』但須知希伯來文既沒寫『是』也沒寫『你』，這些只見於七十士譯本。在同一篇中：『我的神，他的慈愛必迎接我。』希臘文中寫作 τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ，即『他的慈愛』，這也更為確切。但希伯來文寫作：『我的慈愛必迎接我。』在同一篇中：

1:1866

deus ostendit mihi inter inimicos meos. pro quo m Graeco positum est: deus meus; sed \'meus\' additum est. in eodem: neoccidaseos, ne quando obliuiscantur populi tui. pro quo in Graeco scriptum est: legis tuae; sed in Septuaginta et in Hebraeo non habet \'populi tui\', sed populi mei; et a nobis ita uersum est. m eodem: et scient, quia deus dominator Iacob finium terrae. pro quo in Graeco scriptum est: et finium terrae, sed \'et\' coniunctio addita est; et ordo est: ,\'scient, quia deus Iacob dominator finium terrae\'. Quinquagesimo nono: quis deducet me usque in Idumaeam? pro quo in Graeco habet: aut quis deducet in e? sed superfluum est. Sexagesimo:

'God has shown me among my enemies.' In place of which is placed in the Greek: 'my God'; but 'my' is an addition. In the same: 'slay them not, lest at any time your people forget.' In place of which is written in the Greek: 'of your law'; but in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew it has not 'your people' but 'my people,' and it was so translated by us. In the same: 'and they shall know that God is the ruler of Jacob unto the ends of the earth.' In place of which is written in the Greek: 'and of the ends of the earth,' but the conjunction 'and' is an addition; and the order is: 'they shall know that the God of Jacob is ruler of the ends of the earth.' On Psalm 59: 'Who will lead me into Idumaea?' In place of which the Greek has: 'or who will lead me into it?' but it is superfluous. On Psalm 60:

『神使我看見我仇敵遭報。』希臘文中用的是：『我的神』；但『我的』是添加的。在同一篇中：『不要殺他們，免得你的百姓忘記。』希臘文中寫作：『你的律法』；但在七十士譯本和希伯來文中並非『你的百姓』，而是『我的百姓』；我們也是如此翻譯的。在同一篇中：『他們就知道神是雅各的統治者，直到地極。』希臘文中寫作：『以及地極』，但連接詞『以及』是添加的；其語序是：『他們就知道雅各的神是地極的統治者。』第五十九篇：『誰能領我進以東地？』希臘文中作：『或誰能領我進其中？』但這是多餘的。第六十篇：

1:1867

quo niam tu, deusmeus, exaudisti orationem meam, pro quo legatur in Graeco: quia tu, deus, exaudisti me. quod non habet in Hebraeo nec in septuaginta interpretibus et in Latino additum est. m eodem : psallam nomini tuo in saeculum saeculi, pro quo in Graeco sit: in saeculum. et in Hebraeo semel habet laed\', id ^ est \'in aeternum\', et non \'lolam\', quod est \'in saeculum\'. Sexagesimo primo: quia deus adiutor noster in aeternum. pro quo in Graeco est: deus adiutor noster. ergo \'in aeternum\' obelus est. Sexagesimo secundo: sitiuit tibi anima mea, pro quo in Graeco sit: sitiuit in te anima mea.

'For you, my God, have heard my prayer,' in place of which is read in the Greek: 'because you, God, have heard me.' This has it neither in the Hebrew nor in the Seventy translators, and in the Latin it is an addition. In the same: 'I will sing to your name unto the age of the age (for ever and ever),' in place of which the Greek has: 'unto the age (for ever).' And in the Hebrew it has once 'laed,' that is 'unto eternity,' and not 'lolam,' which is 'unto the age.' On Psalm 61: 'For God is our helper for ever.' In place of which the Greek has: 'God is our helper.' Therefore 'for ever' is marked with an obelus. On Psalm 62: 'My soul has thirsted for you,' in place of which the Greek has: 'my soul has thirsted in you.'

『因為你，我的神，聽了我的禱告』，希臘文中讀作：『因為你，神，聽了我。』這在希伯來文和七十位譯者中都沒有，是拉丁文中添加的。在同一篇中：『我要歌頌你的名，直到永永遠遠』，希臘文中作：『直到永遠。』希伯來文中只有一次 laed，即『到永恆』，而非 lolam，那是『到世代』。第六十一篇：『因為神永遠是我們的幫助。』希臘文中作：『神是我們的幫助。』所以『永遠』是加了廢除符號（obelus）的。第六十二篇：『我的心渴想你』，希臘文中作：『我的心在你裡面渴想。』

1:1868

sed in Hebraeo non habet \'attha\', quod significat \'te\', sed \'lach\', quod ostenditur \'tibi\', quod et omnes interpretes transtulerunt. ergo secundum linguae proprietatem uersum est in Latinum. 25 Sexagesimo tertio: sagittae paruulorum ulorum factae sunt plagae eorum. pro quo in Graeco: sagitta paruulorum; sed, si sic dicamus, non resonat in Latino: \'sagitta paruulorum factae sunt plagae eorum\'. pro quo melius habet\' in Hebraeo: percutiet eos deus iaculo repentina et inferentur plagae eorum eorum. Sexagesimo quarto: qui conturbas profundum maris, sonum fluctuum eius. in Graeco additum scribitis: quis sustinebit ? quod superfluum est; subauditur enim:

But in the Hebrew it has not 'attha,' which means 'you (te),' but 'lach,' which is shown to be 'for you (tibi),' which all the translators also rendered. Therefore it was translated into Latin according to the property of the language. On Psalm 63: 'The arrows of little ones have become their wounds.' In place of which the Greek has: 'the arrow of little ones'; but if we say thus, it does not sound well in Latin: 'the arrow of little ones have become their wounds.' In place of which the Hebrew has better: 'God shall strike them with a sudden dart, and their wounds shall be inflicted.' On Psalm 64: 'You who trouble the depth of the sea, the sound of its waves.' In the Greek you write that there is added: 'who shall endure?' which is superfluous; for it is understood:

但希伯來文中沒有 attha（意思是『你 te』），而是 lach，顯示為『對你 tibi』，所有譯者也都如此翻譯。因此這是按語言的特性譯成拉丁文的。第六十三篇：『孩童的箭成了他們的傷。』希臘文中作：『孩童的箭（單數）』；但若我們這樣說，在拉丁文中並不通順：『孩童的箭成了他們的傷。』希伯來文中有更好的說法：『神必用突然的標槍擊打他們，他們必受傷。』第六十四篇：『你平靜海的深處和其波濤的響聲。』你們寫道希臘文中添加了：『誰能站立得住？』這是多餘的；因為此處省略而可意會為：

1:1869

\'qui conturbas profundum maris et conturbas sonum fluctuum eius\'. in eodem: parasti cibumillorum, quoliiam ita est praeparatio eius. et dicitis, quod in Graeco non sit \'eius\', cum in Hebraeo \'thechina\' manifeste \'praeparationem eius\' significet; \'eius\' autem, id est \'terrae\', de qua supra dixerat: uisitasti terram et inebriasti eam. Sexagesimo quinto: holocausta medullata offeram tibi cum incensu arietum. pro quo dicitis inuenisse uos: I cum incensu et arietibus, sed male; in Hebraeo enim scriptum est: \'em catoroth helim\', quod interpretatur: μετὰ ϑυμιάματος κϱιῶν , id est: \'cum incensu arietum\'. in eodem: propterea. exaudiuit deus. pro quo in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis:

'you who trouble the depth of the sea and trouble the sound of its waves.' In the same: 'you have prepared their food, since such is its preparation.' And you say that in the Greek there is no 'its,' whereas in the Hebrew 'thechina' clearly means 'its preparation'; 'its,' that is 'of the earth,' concerning which he had said above: 'you have visited the earth and made it drunk.' On Psalm 65: 'I will offer you fatlings for burnt offerings, with the incense of rams.' In place of which you say that you found: 'with incense and with rams,' but wrongly; for in the Hebrew is written: 'em catoroth helim,' which is rendered: μετὰ θυμιάματος κριῶν, that is: 'with the incense of rams.' In the same: 'therefore God heard.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek:

『你平靜海的深處，也平靜其波濤的響聲。』在同一篇中：『你為他們預備了食物，因為它的預備就是如此。』你們說希臘文中沒有『它的』，然而希伯來文的 thechina 明明意指『它的預備』；『它的』即『地的』，就是他上面所說的：『你眷顧地，使地沾足水分。』第六十五篇：『我要把肥牛獻給你作燔祭，連同公羊的香。』你們說找到的是：『連同香與公羊』，但這是錯的；因為希伯來文寫作 em catoroth helim，譯作 μετὰ θυμιάματος κριῶν，即『連同公羊的香』。在同一篇中：『所以神垂聽了。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：

1:1870

exaudiuit me deus, quod superfluum est. Sexagesimo septimo: et exultent in conspectu eius. pro quo in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: et exultate in conspectu eius. quod ita uersum est et a nobis, sed a quo m codice uestro corruptum sit, scire non possum. in eodem: ete nim non credunt inhabitare dominum. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos dicitis: r.ai yag ἀπειϑου̃ v ταζ του̃ x ατασ x η v ω̃ - ( jal . quod utrumque falsum est. nos enim transtulimus: et enim non credentes in habitare dominum, ut sit sensus et pendeat ex superioribus: \'ascen disti in altum, cepisti captiuitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus et eos, qui non credebant dominum inhabitare posse mortalibus. in eodem:

'God heard me,' which is superfluous. On Psalm 67: 'and let them rejoice in his sight.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'and rejoice you in his sight.' This too was so translated by us, but by whom it was corrupted in your codex I cannot know. In the same: 'for indeed they do not believe that the Lord dwells.' In place of which you say that you read in the Greek: καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντας τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι. Both of these are false. For we translated: 'and indeed those not believing that the Lord dwells,' so that there be a sense hanging from what precedes: 'you have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive, you have received gifts among men, even those who did not believe that the Lord could dwell among mortals.' In the same:

『神垂聽了我』，這是多餘的。第六十七篇：『願他們在他面前歡欣。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『你們要在他面前歡欣。』這也是我們如此翻譯的，但在你們的抄本中是被誰竄改的，我無從得知。在同一篇中：『因為他們不信主會居住。』你們說在希臘文中讀作 καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντας τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι。這兩者都是錯的。因為我們翻譯作：『甚至那些不信主居住的人』，好使句意承接前文：『你已升上高天，擄掠了仇敵，在人間受了供獻，就是那些不信主能住在世人中間的人。』在同一篇中：

1:1871

deus benedictus dominus die cottidie. pro quo in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: dominus benedictus deus, benedictus dominus die cottidie; sed melius et uenus, quod supra. m eodem: uiderunt ingressus tui, deus, pro quo in Graeco scriptum sit: nisi sunt ingressus tui, deus. in Hebraeo ita habet: \'rachua alichatach\', quod Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotio et quinta sextaque editio interpretati sunt: uiderunt itinera tua, deus, et, quod sequitur: itinera dei mei regis, qui est in sancto. ergo a nobis ita legendum est: uiderunt ingressus tuos, deus, et scriptoris uitium relinquendum, qui nominatiuum posuit pro accusatiuo, licet in Septuaginta et in \' Εξαπλοι̃ς ita reppererim:

'blessed be the Lord God day by day.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'the Lord blessed God, blessed be the Lord day by day'; but better and truer is what is above. In the same: 'they have seen your entrances, O God,' in place of which it is written in the Greek: 'your entrances were seen, O God.' In the Hebrew it has thus: 'rachua alichatach,' which Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion and the fifth and sixth editions translated: 'they have seen your ways, O God,' and that which follows: 'the ways of my God, the king, who is in the sanctuary.' Therefore it must be read by us thus: 'they have seen your entrances, O God,' and the copyist's fault must be abandoned, who put a nominative for an accusative, although in the Septuagint and in the Hexapla I found it thus:

『主神是應當稱頌的，日日如此。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『主蒙福的神，主是應當稱頌的，日日如此』；但上面的說法更好、更確切。在同一篇中：『神啊，人已看見你的行進』，希臘文中寫作：『神啊，你的行進被看見。』希伯來文中作 rachua alichatach，阿奎拉、辛瑪庫斯、狄奧多田以及第五、第六版本都譯作：『神啊，人已看見你的道路』，接下來是：『我神我王的道路，就是在聖所中的那位。』因此我們應如此讀：『神啊，人已看見你的行進』，並應摒棄抄寫者的錯誤，他把主格用作了受格，儘管我在七十士譯本和六欄對照本（Hexapla）中發現的是這樣：

1:1872

ἐϑεώϱησα v at ποϱει̃αι̇ GOV, Ó ϑεόζ , et pro eo, quod est ἐϑεώϱησα v , hoc est \'uiderunt\', in multis codicibus habet ἐϑεωϱήϑησα v , quod et obtinuit consuetudo. in eodem: ingressus dei mei, regis mei, qui est in sancto; subauditur: \'uiderunt ingressus dei mei, regis mei\'. quod autem dicitis \'mei\' in Graeco in \'rege\' non adpositum, apertissimi mendacii est; secundo enim ponitur et \'dei mei\' et \'regis mei\' blandientis affectu, ut, qui omnium deus et rex est, suus specialiter deus fiat et rex merito seruitutis. denique in Hebraeo scriptum habet: \'heli melchi\', quod \'deum meum et regem meum\' significat. in eodem: regnaterrae, cantate deo, psallite domino.

ἐθεώρησαν αἱ πορεῖαί σου, ὁ θεός, and in place of what is ἐθεώρησαν, that is 'they saw,' in many codices it has ἐθεωρήθησαν, which usage has also prevailed. In the same: 'the entrances of my God, my king, who is in the sanctuary'; it is understood: 'they saw the entrances of my God, my king.' But as to your saying that 'my' in the Greek is not attached to 'king,' it is a most manifest falsehood; for both 'my God' and 'my king' are placed a second time with an affection of endearment, so that he who is the God and king of all may specially become his own God and king by the merit of his service. Finally, in the Hebrew it has written: 'heli melchi,' which means 'my God and my king.' In the same: 'kingdoms of the earth, sing to God, sing praises to the Lord.'

ἐθεώρησαν αἱ πορεῖαί σου, ὁ θεός，而 ἐθεώρησαν（即『他們看見了』）在許多抄本中作 ἐθεωρήθησαν，這也成了慣例。在同一篇中：『我神我王的行進，就是在聖所中的那位』；此處省略而可意會為：『人已看見我神我王的行進。』至於你們說希臘文中『我的』沒有加在『王』上，這是極其明顯的謊言；因為『我的神』和『我的王』都第二次以親暱之情提出，好使那位萬有的神和王，因著事奉的功勞，特別成為他自己的神和王。最後，希伯來文中寫作 heli melchi，意思是『我的神和我的王』。在同一篇中：『地上的列國啊，你們要向神歌唱，向主歌頌。』

1:1873

et dicitis hoc in isto uersiculo non esse scriptum: psallite domino, quoniam statim sequatur: diapsalma. psallite deo, qui ascendit super caelum caeli ad orientem, cum iste uersiculus magis habere debeat iuxta Hebraicam ueritatem: cantate deo, psallite e domino, et illud, quod sequitur in principio uersus alterius, psallite deo non sit in libris authenticis, sed obelo praenotatum. ergo et uos legite magis ea, quae uera sunt, ne, dum additum suscipitis, quod a propheta scriptum est, relinquatis. Sexagesimo octauo: laudabo nomen dei cum cantico. pro quo dicitis uos repperisse in Graeco: dei mei, sed \'mei\' superfluum est. Septuagesimo: deus, ne elongeris a me. quod dicitis in Graeco positum:

And you say that in this verse there is not written: 'sing praises to the Lord,' because there immediately follows: 'Selah (diapsalma). Sing praises to God, who ascends above the heaven of heaven to the east,' whereas this verse ought rather to have, according to the Hebrew truth: 'sing to God, sing praises to the Lord,' and that which follows at the beginning of the other verse, 'sing praises to God,' is not in the authentic books, but is marked with an obelus. Therefore you also should read rather those things that are true, lest, while you accept the addition, you abandon what was written by the prophet. On Psalm 68: 'I will praise the name of God with a song.' In place of which you say that you found in the Greek: 'of my God,' but 'my' is superfluous. On Psalm 70: 'O God, be not far from me.' Which you say is placed in the Greek:

你們說在這一節中沒有寫著：『向主歌頌』，因為緊接著是：『細拉（diapsalma）。你們要向神歌頌，就是那位升到諸天之天、向東而行的』，然而這一節按希伯來原文本應是：『你們要向神歌唱，向主歌頌』，而接在另一節開頭的『向神歌頌』並不在真本中，乃是加了廢除符號（obelus）的。因此你們也應寧可讀那些真確的，免得你們接受了添加的，反而丟棄了先知所寫的。第六十八篇：『我要用詩歌讚美神的名。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『我的神』，但『我的』是多餘的。第七十篇：『神啊，求你不要遠離我。』你們說希臘文中作：

1:1874

deusmeus, superfluum est. m eodem: deus, docuisti me ex iuuentute mea. et in hoc, quod apud Graecos inuenisse uos dicitis, deus meus superfluum est. in eodem: donec adnuntiem brachium tuum. et dicitis in Graeco uos repperisse: mirabilia tua, quod de superiori uersiculo est: et usque nunc pronuntiabo mirabilia tua. bene ergo hic habet \'brachium\'. Septuagesimo primo: et adorabunt eum omnes reges. illud, quod in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: reges terr a e, superfluum est. in eodem: benedictus dominus deus, deus Israhel. dicitis in Graeco bis \'deus\' non haberi, cum in Hebraico sit et apud Septuaginta manifestissime triplex domini deique nuncupatio mysterium trinitatis sit. in eodem:

'my God,' it is superfluous. In the same: 'O God, you have taught me from my youth.' And in this too which you say that you found among the Greeks, 'my God' is superfluous. In the same: 'until I announce your arm.' And you say that you found in the Greek: 'your wonders,' which belongs to the earlier verse: 'and until now I will proclaim your wonders.' Well then, here it has 'arm.' On Psalm 71: 'and all kings shall adore him.' That which you say you found in the Greek: 'the kings of the earth,' is superfluous. In the same: 'blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel.' You say that in the Greek 'God' is not had twice, whereas in the Hebrew it is, and among the Septuagint most manifestly the threefold naming of the Lord and God is the mystery of the Trinity. In the same:

『我的神』，這是多餘的。在同一篇中：『神啊，你從我幼年就教訓我。』你們說在希臘人那裡找到的『我的神』在此也是多餘的。在同一篇中：『直到我傳揚你的膀臂。』你們說在希臘文中找到的是：『你的奇事』，然而這屬於前一節：『直到如今我還要傳揚你的奇事。』因此這裡用『膀臂』是恰當的。第七十一篇：『萬王都要敬拜他。』你們說在希臘文中找到的『地上的列王』是多餘的。在同一篇中：『主神，以色列的神，是應當稱頌的。』你們說希臘文中沒有兩次『神』，然而希伯來文中有，而在七十士譯本中極其明顯地，主與神三重的稱謂正是三位一體的奧祕。在同一篇中：

1:1875

et benedictum nomen maiestatis e.ius in aetern u m. hoc ergo, quod in Graeco inuenisse uos dicitis: in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi, superflue a Graecis sciatis adpositum, quod nec Hebraeus habet nec septuaginta interpretes. Septuagesimo secundo: prodiet quasi ex adipe. et dicitis uos apud Graecos inuenisse ἐξελεύσο v τ a ι , id est \'pro- J dient\', quod falsum est. nam et apud septuaginta interpretes ita I scriptum est: ἐξελεύσετ a ι cbg ex στέ a τος rj ddiyua avvcov . in eodem: I quomodo scit deus. in Graeco dicitis non esse \'deum\', cum et apud Septuaginta scriptum sit: arcoc ἔγ v ω 6 ϑεός , et omnes I interpretes similiter de Hebraeo transtulerint. in eodem:

'and blessed be the name of his majesty for ever.' Therefore know that this which you say that you found in the Greek: 'for ever and unto the age of the age,' was superfluously added by the Greeks, which neither the Hebrew has nor the Seventy translators. On Psalm 72: 'it will come forth as from fatness.' And you say that among the Greeks you found ἐξελεύσονται, that is 'they will come forth,' which is false. For among the Seventy translators too it is written thus: ἐξελεύσεται ὡς ἐκ στέατος ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν ('their iniquity will come forth as from fatness'). In the same: 'how does God know.' You say that in the Greek there is no 'God,' whereas among the Septuagint too it is written: πῶς ἔγνω ὁ θεός, and all the translators translated similarly from the Hebrew. In the same:

『他威嚴的名是應當永遠稱頌的。』因此要知道，你們說在希臘文中找到的『直到永遠，直到永永遠遠』，是希臘人多餘添加的，希伯來文和七十位譯者都沒有這說法。第七十二篇：『必如脂油般發出。』你們說在希臘人那裡找到的是 ἐξελεύσονται，即『他們必發出』，這是錯的。因為在七十位譯者那裡也是這樣寫的：ἐξελεύσεται ὡς ἐκ στέατος ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν（『他們的罪孽必如脂油般發出』）。在同一篇中：『神豈能曉得。』你們說希臘文中沒有『神』，然而在七十士譯本中也寫作 πῶς ἔγνω ὁ θεός，所有譯者也都同樣照希伯來文翻譯。在同一篇中：

1:1876

inte11egam in nouissimis eorum. pro quo in Graeco legisse uos \' dicitis: et intellegam; sed hic \'et\' coniunctio superflua est. in eodem: defecit caro mea et cor meum. pro quo male peruersum ordinem quidam tenent: defecit cor meum et caro m e a. in eodem: ut adnuntiem omnes praecationestuas. pro quo uos in Graeco legisse dixistis: tag alveoeig cov , id est \'laudes tuas\'. et sciendum, quod in Hebraeo \'malochothach\' scriptum habet, quod Aquila dyys?Jag cov , id est 25 \'nuntios tuos\', Septuaginta tag ̓̕επαγγελι̇ας cov , id est- \'praedicationes\' uel \'promissa\' interpretati sunt, licet et laus et praedicatio unum utrumque significet. Septuagesimo tertio:

'I shall understand in their last end.' In place of which you say that you read in the Greek: 'and I shall understand'; but here the conjunction 'and' is superfluous. In the same: 'my flesh and my heart have failed.' In place of which some hold a wrongly inverted order: 'my heart and my flesh have failed.' In the same: 'that I may announce all your prayers.' In place of which you said that you read in the Greek: τὰς αἰνέσεις σου, that is 'your praises.' And it should be known that in the Hebrew is written 'malochothach,' which Aquila translated ἀγγελίας σου, that is 'your messages,' the Septuagint τὰς ἐπαγγελίας σου, that is 'your proclamations' or 'promises,' although both praise and proclamation each signify one thing. On Psalm 73:

『我便思想他們的結局。』你們說在希臘文中讀作：『我便思想』；但這裡連接詞『而』是多餘的。在同一篇中：『我的肉體和我的心腸衰殘。』有些人持一種錯誤顛倒的語序：『我的心腸和我的肉體衰殘。』在同一篇中：『好叫我傳揚你一切的禱告。』你們說在希臘文中讀作：τὰς αἰνέσεις σου，即『你的讚美』。須知希伯來文寫作 malochothach，阿奎拉譯作 ἀγγελίας σου，即『你的信息』，七十士譯本譯作 τὰς ἐπαγγελίας σου，即『你的宣告』或『應許』，儘管讚美與宣告二者各表一義。第七十三篇：

1:1877

ut quid, deus, reppulisti in finem? pro quo male apud Graecos legitur ordine commutato: ut quid reppulisti, deus? in eodem: quanta malignatus est inimicus in sancto! miror, quis codice uestro emendando peruerterit, ut pro \'sancto\' \'sanctis\' posuerit, cum et in nostro codice in sancto inueniatur. in eodem: incendamus omnes dies festos dei a terra. pro quo in Graeco scriptum est x αταπαύσωμε v et nos ita transtulimus: quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos dei a terra. et miror, quomodo e latere adnotationem nostram nescio quis temerarius scribendam in corpore putauerit, quam nos pro eruditione legentis scripsimus hoc modo:

'Why, O God, have you cast off unto the end?' In place of which it is badly read among the Greeks with the order changed: 'Why have you cast off, O God?' In the same: 'how greatly has the enemy done malice in the sanctuary!' I wonder who, in emending your codex, perverted it so as to put 'in the holy ones (sanctis)' for 'in the sanctuary (sancto),' whereas in our codex too it is found 'in the sanctuary.' In the same: 'let us burn all the feast-days of God from the earth.' In place of which is written in the Greek κατάπαυσωμεν, and we translated thus: 'let us make to cease all the feast-days of God from the earth.' And I wonder how some rash person thought that our marginal annotation should be written into the body of the text — an annotation which we wrote for the instruction of the reader in this manner:

『神啊，你為何永遠丟棄我們？』希臘人那裡卻錯誤地把語序調換讀作：『神啊，你為何丟棄？』在同一篇中：『仇敵在聖所中行了何等的惡！』我很驚訝，是誰在校訂你們的抄本時竟加以竄改，把『在聖所（sancto）』改成了『在聖徒中（sanctis）』，然而在我們的抄本中也是作『在聖所』。在同一篇中：『讓我們把神一切的節期從地上焚燒。』希臘文中寫作 κατάπαυσωμεν，我們如此翻譯：『讓我們使神一切的節期從地上止息。』我很驚訝，不知哪個冒失之人竟認為應把我們的旁註寫進正文，那旁註是我們為讀者的教益如此寫的：

1:1878

\'non habet x αταπαύσωμε v , ut quidam putant, sed x ατα x αύσωμε v , id est incendamus\'. etquia retulit mihi sanctus presbyter Firmus, qui huius operis exactor fuit,. inter plurimos hinc habitam quaestionem, plenius de hoc disputandum uidetur. in Hebraeo scriptum est: \'sarphu chol moedahu hel baares\', quod Aquila et Symmachus uerterunt: ἐ v επύϱισα v πάσας vag ovwayag tov tfsov , id est: incenderunt omnes s o llemnitates dei in terra, Quinta: xa τέ x α v σα v , id est \'conbusserunt\', Sexta: x ατα x αύσωμε v , id est \'conburamus\', quod et Septuaginta iuxta exemplorum ueritatem transtulisse perspicuum est. Theodotion quoque ἐ v επυϱι̇σαμε v uertit, id est \'succendimus\'.

'It does not have κατάπαυσωμεν, as some think, but κατακαύσωμεν, that is "let us burn."' And because the holy presbyter Firmus, who was the promoter of this work, reported to me that a question had been raised on this point among very many, it seems that we must dispute more fully about it. In the Hebrew is written: 'sarphu chol moedahu hel baares,' which Aquila and Symmachus rendered: ἐνεπύρισαν πάσας τὰς συναγωγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ, that is: 'they burned all the assemblies of God in the land'; the Fifth: κατέκαυσαν, that is 'they burned up'; the Sixth: κατακαύσωμεν, that is 'let us burn up,' which it is clear that the Septuagint too translated according to the truth of the copies. Theodotion also rendered ἐνεπυρίσαμεν, that is 'we set on fire.'

『它不作 κατάπαυσωμεν（如某些人所想），而是 κατακαύσωμεν，即「讓我們焚燒」。』因為推動此工作的聖長老菲爾穆斯（Firmus）向我報告，許多人對此點有過爭議，看來應更充分地討論這一點。希伯來文寫作 sarphu chol moedahu hel baares，阿奎拉和辛瑪庫斯譯作 ἐνεπύρισαν πάσας τὰς συναγωγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ，即『他們在地上焚燒了神一切的聚會』；第五版本作 κατέκαυσαν，即『他們燒盡了』；第六版本作 κατακαύσωμεν，即『讓我們燒盡』，顯然七十士譯本也是照抄本的真確如此翻譯的。狄奧多田也譯作 ἐνεπυρίσαμεν，即『我們點火焚燒』。

1:1879

ex quo perspicuum est sic psallendum, ut nos interpretati sumus, et tamen sciendum, quid Hebraica ueritas habeat. hoc enim, quod Septuaginta transtulerunt, propter uetustatem in ecclesiis decantandum est et illud ab eruditis sciendum propter notitiam scripturarum. unde, si quid pro studio e latere additum est, non debet poni in corpore, ne priorem translationem pro scribentium uoluntate conturbet. in eodem: contribulasti capita draconum in aquis; tu confregisti capita draconis.

From which it is clear that it must be sung as we translated it, and yet it must be known what the Hebrew truth has. For this which the Septuagint translated must be chanted in the churches on account of its antiquity, and the other must be known by the learned on account of the knowledge of the Scriptures. Hence, if anything has been added in the margin for the sake of study, it ought not to be put into the body of the text, lest it disturb the earlier translation according to the will of the copyists. In the same: 'you have crushed the heads of the dragons in the waters; you have broken the heads of the dragon.'

由此可見，應照我們所翻譯的來歌唱，然而也須知道希伯來原文的內容。因為七十士譯本所翻譯的，因其古老，當在教會中詠唱，而另一種則當為有學問者所知，以增進對聖經的認識。因此，若有為研究之故在旁註中添加的，就不應放進正文，免得按抄寫者的意願攪亂了先前的譯本。在同一篇中：『你在水中打碎了諸龍的頭；你打碎了那龍的頭。』

1:1880

sic lectionis ordo sequitur, ut in priori uersu \'tu\' non habeat, sed in secundo, et \'aquae\' plurali numero scribantur, non singulari, sicut et Aquila uerbum Hebraicum \'ammaim TOJV ύδάτω v , id est aquarum, interpretatus est. in eodem: ne obliuiscaris uoces inimicorum tuorum. pro quo in Graeco tcbv ι x ετω̃ v cov , id est \'deprecantium te\\ scriptum dicitis. in Hebraeo \'sorarach\' legitur, quod Aquila \'hostium\' tuorum\', Symmachus \'bellantium contra te, Septuaginta et sexta editio inimicorum tuorum interpretati sunt. et esti sensus pendens ex superioribus: \'memor esto inproperiorum tuorum, eorum, quae ab insipiente sunt tota die;

Thus the order of the reading follows, so that in the earlier verse it does not have 'you,' but in the second, and 'waters' is written in the plural number, not the singular, just as Aquila too translated the Hebrew word 'ammaim' as τῶν ὑδάτων, that is 'of the waters.' In the same: 'do not forget the voices of your enemies.' In place of which you say that in the Greek is written τῶν ἱκετῶν σου, that is 'of those who supplicate you.' In the Hebrew is read 'sorarach,' which Aquila translated 'of your foes,' Symmachus 'of those warring against you,' the Septuagint and the sixth edition 'of your enemies.' And the sense hangs from what precedes: 'be mindful of your reproaches, of those which are from the foolish one all the day long;

這樣，經文的次序是：前一節沒有『你』，而第二節有，且『水』應寫成複數，而非單數，正如阿奎拉也把希伯來詞 ammaim 譯作 τῶν ὑδάτων，即『眾水的』。在同一篇中：『不要忘記你仇敵的聲音。』你們說希臘文中寫作 τῶν ἱκετῶν σου，即『向你懇求者的』。希伯來文讀作 sorarach，阿奎拉譯作『你敵人的』，辛瑪庫斯譯作『與你爭戰者的』，七十士譯本和第六版本譯作『你仇敵的』。其意承接前文：『求你記念你所受的辱罵，就是愚頑人終日所加的；

1:1881

ne obliuiscaris uoces inimicorum tuorum, id est uoces, quae te blasphemant tibique in populo tuo detrahunt\'. unde sequitur: superbia eorum, qui teoderunt, ascendit semper, id est: \'dum tu differs poenas, illi proficiunt in blasphemiis\'. Septuagesimo quarto: narrabimus mirabilia tua. pro quo male apud Graecos legitur: narrabo omnia mirabilia tua. Septuagesimo quinto: omnes uiri diuitiarum manibus suis. et non, ut uos a nescio quo deprauatum legitis: in manibus suis. in eodem: terribili et ei, qui aufert spiritus principum. dicitis, quod \'ei\' non sit scriptum in Graeco; uerum est, sed, nisi apposuerimus \'ei\', Latinus sermo non resonat. neque enim possumus recte dicere:

do not forget the voices of your enemies, that is, the voices which blaspheme you and disparage you among your people.' Hence follows: 'the pride of those who hate you rises ever higher,' that is: 'while you defer punishments, they advance in blasphemies.' On Psalm 74: 'we will tell of your wonders.' In place of which it is badly read among the Greeks: 'I will tell of all your wonders.' On Psalm 75: 'all the men of riches by their own hands.' And not, as you read it corrupted by I know not whom: 'in their hands.' In the same: 'terrible, even to him who takes away the spirit of princes.' You say that 'to him' is not written in the Greek; it is true, but unless we add 'to him,' the Latin speech does not sound well. For we cannot rightly say:

不要忘記你仇敵的聲音，就是那些褻瀆你、在你百姓中詆毀你的聲音。』因此接著說：『恨你之人的驕傲越發高漲』，意即：『當你延緩刑罰時，他們在褻瀆上越發放肆。』第七十四篇：『我們要傳述你的奇事。』希臘人那裡卻錯誤地讀作：『我要傳述你一切的奇事。』第七十五篇：『一切富有的人都親手（manibus suis）。』而非你們所讀那被不知何人竄改的：『在他們手中。』在同一篇中：『可畏的，就是那位除去君王氣息的。』你們說希臘文中沒有寫『那位（ei）』；這是真的，但若不加上『那位』，拉丁文就不通順。因為我們不能正確地說：

1:1882

\'terribili et qui aufert spiritus principum\'. Septuagesimo sexto: et meditatus sum nocte cum corde meo et exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum. pro quo in Hebraeo legimus: recordabar psalmorum meorum in nocte, cum corde meo loquebar etscopebam spiritum meum. pro \'exercitatione\' ἀδολεσχι̇α v , id est \'decantationem\' quandam et \'meditationem\' Septuaginta transtulerunt et pro eo, quod nos diximus \'scopebam\', illi posuerunt ἔο x αλλο v , quod Symmachus transtulit ἀ v ηϱεύ v ω v , id est \'perscrutabar\' siue \'quaerebam\' et Quinta similiter. proprie autem σ x αλισμὸς m agri cultura in sariendo dicitur, id est sarculando;

'terrible and who takes away the spirit of princes.' On Psalm 76: 'and I meditated in the night with my heart, and I exercised myself, and I searched my spirit.' In place of which in the Hebrew we read: 'I remembered my psalms in the night, I spoke with my heart, and I searched my spirit.' For 'exercise' the Septuagint translated ἀδολεσχίαν, that is a certain 'chanting' and 'meditation,' and for what we said 'I searched' they put ἔσκαλλον, which Symmachus translated ἀνηρεύνων, that is 'I examined thoroughly' or 'I sought,' and the Fifth similarly. But properly σκαλισμός is said in agriculture of weeding, that is, of hoeing;

『可畏的，並且是除去君王氣息的。』第七十六篇：『我夜間用心思想，我操練自己，並省察我的靈。』希伯來文中我們讀作：『我夜間記念我的詩歌，用心默想，並省察我的靈。』七十士譯本把『操練』譯作 ἀδολεσχίαν，即某種『詠唱』和『默想』，而我們所說的『省察』，他們用 ἔσκαλλον，辛瑪庫斯譯作 ἀνηρεύνων，即『我細察』或『我尋求』，第五版本也相似。但 σκαλισμός 正確地說是農耕中除草，即用鋤頭鋤地；

1:1883

et, quomodo ibi quaeruntur herbae sarculo, quae secentur, sic et iste retractatum cogitationum suarum μεταϕοϱι x ω̃ς a sarculo demonstrauit. et sciendum, quod eoxalov semel, ἔσ x αλλο v frequenter significat. m eodem: a gene- ratione in generationem. hoc, quod in Graeco sequens inuenisse uos dicitis: consummauit uerbum, recte non habet in Latino, quia et in nullo habetur interpretum. Septuagesimo septimo: et narrabunt filiis suis. pro quo in Graeco habet ἀναγγελοῦσι , quod est \'adnuntiabunt\'. sed sciendum, quod in Hebraeo \'iasaphpheru\' scriptum est, quod Aquila et Symmachus narrabunt transtulerunt. in eodem: et occidit pingues eorum.

and just as there weeds are sought out with the hoe, to be cut off, so this man too metaphorically (μεταφορικῶς) indicated the re-examination of his thoughts from the hoe. And it should be known that ἔσκαλον signifies once (a single act), ἔσκαλλον frequently (a repeated act). In the same: 'from generation to generation.' This which you say that you found following in the Greek: 'he completed the word,' rightly is not in the Latin, because it is found in none of the translators. On Psalm 77: 'and they shall tell their children.' In place of which the Greek has ἀναγγελοῦσι, which is 'they shall announce.' But it should be known that in the Hebrew is written 'iasaphpheru,' which Aquila and Symmachus translated 'they shall tell.' In the same: 'and he slew their fat ones.'

正如那裡用鋤頭尋找要除掉的雜草，這人也以隱喻（μεταφορικῶς）方式，藉鋤頭表明對自己思念的重新省察。須知 ἔσκαλον 表一次（單一動作），ἔσκαλλον 表反覆（重複動作）。在同一篇中：『從世世代代。』你們說在希臘文中隨後找到的：『他成全了那話』，在拉丁文中正確地沒有，因為在任何譯者那裡都沒有。第七十七篇：『他們要告訴他們的子孫。』希臘文中作 ἀναγγελοῦσι，即『他們要宣告』。但須知希伯來文寫作 iasaphpheru，阿奎拉和辛瑪庫斯譯作『他們要述說』。在同一篇中：『他殺了他們中肥壯的。』

1:1884

sic habet et in Hebraeo, hoc est \'bamasmnehem\', quod Aquila interpretatus est ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν , Symmachus τοὺς λιπαρωτάτους αὐτῶν , Septuaginta et Theodotion et Quinta ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν . quod quidam non intellegentes pro πίοσιν putauerunt scriptum πλείοσιν . in eodem: dilexerunt eum in ore suo et lingua sua mentiti sunt ei. et in Hebraeo ita scriptum est: \'icazbulo\', et omnes uoce simili transtulerunt: ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ , id est \'mentiti sunt ei\'. quis autem uoluerit pro \'ei\' ponere \'eum\' et uitiare exemplaria, non est mei iudicii. in eodem: et propitius fiet peccatis eorum et non disperdet eos. dicitis, quod \'eos\' in Graeco non habeat, quod et uerum est;

So it has also in the Hebrew, that is 'bamasmnehem,' which Aquila translated ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν, Symmachus τοὺς λιπαρωτάτους αὐτῶν, the Septuagint and Theodotion and the Fifth ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν ('among their fat ones'). Which some, not understanding, thought was written πλείοσιν ('more numerous') instead of πίοσιν ('fat'). In the same: 'they loved him with their mouth, and with their tongue they lied to him.' And in the Hebrew it is written thus: 'icazbulo,' and all with like voice translated: ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ, that is 'they lied to him.' But whoever should wish to put 'him (eum)' for 'to him (ei)' and to corrupt the copies, that is not for my judgment. In the same: 'and he will be merciful to their sins, and will not destroy them.' You say that 'them' is not in the Greek, which is also true;

希伯來文中也是如此，即 bamasmnehem，阿奎拉譯作 ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν，辛瑪庫斯譯作 τοὺς λιπαρωτάτους αὐτῶν，七十士譯本、狄奧多田和第五版本作 ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν（『在他們肥壯的人中』）。有些人不明白，以為寫的是 πλείοσιν（『更多的』）而非 πίοσιν（『肥壯的』）。在同一篇中：『他們用口愛他，用舌向他說謊。』希伯來文中寫作 icazbulo，眾人都用相似的說法譯作 ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ，即『他們向他說謊』。至於有人想把『向他（ei）』改成『他（eum）』並敗壞抄本，那不在我評判之列。在同一篇中：『他要赦免他們的罪，不滅絕他們。』你們說希臘文中沒有『他們』，這也是真的；

1:1885

sed nos, ne sententia pendeat, Latinum sermonem sua proprietate conpleuimus. si quis autem putat διαϕϑεϱεῖ non \'perditionem\' sonare, sed \'corruptionem\', recordetur illius tituli, in quo scribitur: τέλος μὴ διαϕϑείϱης , hoc est: in finem ne disperdas et non, ut plerique κακοζήλως interpretantur, ne corrumpas. in eodem: et induxit eos in montem sanctificationis suae, montem, quem adquisiuit dextera eius. pro quo apud Septuaginta legitur: ogog rovro , o ἐ x τήσατο fj dsfya avvov — et non, ut uos ponitis, o ἐ x τι̇σατο —, hoc est: quem adquisiuit dex.tera eius. ergo secundum Hebraicam proprietatem interpretatus est Symmachus: montem, quem adquisiuit dextera eius. in eodem:

but we, lest the sentence be left hanging, completed the Latin speech with its own property. But if anyone thinks that διαφθερεῖ does not sound 'destruction' but 'corruption,' let him recall that title in which is written: τέλος μὴ διαφθείρῃς, that is: 'unto the end, destroy not,' and not, as most translate with bad zeal (κακοζήλως), 'corrupt not.' In the same: 'and he brought them into the mountain of his sanctification, the mountain which his right hand acquired.' In place of which among the Septuagint is read: ὄρος τοῦτο, ὃ ἐκτήσατο ἡ δεξιὰ αὐτοῦ — and not, as you put it, ὃ ἔκτισατο ('which it created') — that is: 'which his right hand acquired.' Therefore according to the Hebrew property Symmachus translated: 'the mountain which his right hand acquired.' In the same:

但我們為免句意懸空，就按拉丁文的特性把話補全。若有人認為 διαφθερεῖ 意思不是『毀滅』而是『敗壞』，讓他回想那標題，其上寫著：τέλος μὴ διαφθείρῃς，即『交與伶長，不要毀壞』，而非如多數人以拙劣熱心（κακοζήλως）所譯的『不要敗壞』。在同一篇中：『他帶領他們到他成聖的山，就是他右手所得的山。』七十士譯本中讀作：ὄρος τοῦτο, ὃ ἐκτήσατο ἡ δεξιὰ αὐτοῦ——而非你們所寫的 ὃ ἔκτισατο（『所創造的』）——即『他右手所得的』。因此辛瑪庫斯按希伯來文特性譯作：『他右手所得的山。』在同一篇中：

1:1886

et auerterunt se et non seruauerunt pactum, quemadmodum patres eorum. scio, quod \'pactum\' non habeat in-Hebraeo, sed, quando omnes uoce simili transtulerunt ἠσυ v ϑέτησα v et apud Graecos συ v ϑή x η \'pactum\' dicitur, ex uno uerbo significatur: non seruauerunt pactum, licet Septuaginta ἠϑέτησα v posuerint. in eodem: in terra, quam fundauit in saecula. pro quo scriptum inuenisse uos dicitis: in terra fundauit eam in saecula. in Hebraeo ita scriptum est, ut uertit et Symmachus: sig trjv rijv, η̒̀̀ v ἐϑεμελι̇ωσε v sigtov alÕJva .

'and they turned away and did not keep the covenant, as their fathers.' I know that 'covenant' is not in the Hebrew, but since all with like voice translated ἠσυνθέτησαν, and among the Greeks συνθήκη means 'covenant,' by a single word is signified: 'they did not keep the covenant,' although the Septuagint put ἠθέτησαν ('they set at naught'). In the same: 'in the land which he founded for ever.' In place of which you say that you found written: 'in the land he founded it for ever.' In the Hebrew it is written thus, as Symmachus too rendered: εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐθεμελίωσεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ('into the land which he founded for the age').

『他們轉離，不守約，像他們的列祖一樣。』我知道『約』在希伯來文中沒有，但既然眾人都用相似的說法譯作 ἠσυνθέτησαν，而在希臘人中 συνθήκη 意思是『約』，所以用一個詞就表達了：『他們不守約』，儘管七十士譯本用的是 ἠθέτησαν（『他們廢棄了』）。在同一篇中：『在他永遠奠定的地上。』你們說找到的是：『在地上，他永遠奠定了它。』希伯來文中如此寫著，辛瑪庫斯也如此翻譯：εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐθεμελίωσεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα（『進入他永遠奠定的地』）。

← prev partnext part →

ch. 2 →

1 2