Letters (CSEL) 1 part 5/85

Daily a seraph is sent to us; daily, from those who groan and say, 'O wretched I, for I am pricked in conscience,' mouths are cleansed, and when they have been freed from sins they prepare themselves for the ministry of God. But in that the other interpreters said 'flew' instead of 'was sent,' understand the swift coming of the divine word upon those who are judged worthy of its fellowship. In gender too there is diversity. The Seventy, Aquila, and Theodotion rendered 'seraphim' in the neuter gender, Symmachus in the masculine. Nor is it to be thought that there is sex in the powers of God, since even the Holy Spirit itself, according to the properties of the Hebrew tongue, is expressed in the feminine gender, 'ruach,' in Greek in the neuter, 'to pneuma,' in Latin in the masculine, 'spiritus.'

From which it must be understood that, when there is disputation about higher things and something masculine or feminine is set down, not so much is a sex signified as the idiom of the tongue is made to sound; since indeed God himself, invisible and incorruptible, is expressed in almost all tongues in the masculine gender, even though sex does not apply to him. Their error too—pious though it be—must nevertheless be censured, who in their prayers and offerings dare to say, 'you who sit above the cherubim and seraphim.' For it is written that God sits above the cherubim, as there: 'you who sit above the cherubim'—to show this; but that God sits above the seraphim no scripture records, nor do we even find the seraphim themselves standing around God, except in the present passage, in all the scriptures.

(18.) The Seventy: and in his hand he had a coal, which he had taken with tongs from the altar, and he touched my mouth; Aquila: and in his hand a pebble in the tongs, which he had taken from the altar, and he touched my mouth; Theodotion: and in his hand a pebble in the tongs, which he had taken from the altar, and he touched my mouth; Symmachus: and in his hand a pebble in the tongs, which he had taken from the altar, and he brought it to my mouth. As far as the literal history is concerned, God seems to sit in the temple of Jerusalem, and before him, according to the Seventy, a coal is brought to Isaiah from the altar—that is, from the altar of incense or of whole burnt-offerings.

But as far as the mystical meanings are concerned, that fire is sent to them which Jeremiah could not bear, which, when it has penetrated the secret places of our soul, so dissolves us and so refines us from the old man into the new that we can burst forth into that cry: 'I live, yet now not I, but the grace of God which is in me.' The tongs too, according to the other interpreters—although they were always part of the priestly furnishings—we ought to receive as diverse graces, by which 'in many parts and in many ways God spoke of old to our fathers in the prophets.' And because in the Hebrew 'pebble' is read instead of 'coal,' the others too agreeing on this, it seems to me that the divine word is signified by the appellation of 'pebble.'

For just as the pebble is a kind of stone, exceedingly hard and round and, in all its purity, exceedingly smooth, so the word of God, which can yield neither to the contradictions of heretics nor of any adversaries, is called a pebble. With this pebble Zipporah circumcised her son, and Joshua purges the people from their vices; and in the Apocalypse the Lord promises to those who conquer that they shall receive a pebble and that upon it a new name shall be written. But it seems to me that the Seventy too, in that they translated 'anthraka,' meant the same as the others; for 'anthrax,' which we interpret as 'carbuncle,' is a kind of gleaming and shining stone, which we also find among the twelve stones.

Whether therefore we take the stone to be a pebble or a carbuncle, in the pebble the truth and firmness of the divine word is shown, in the carbuncle the shining doctrine and its manifest [radiance]; for 'the words of the Lord are chaste words, silver tried by the fire of the earth, purged sevenfold,' and elsewhere: 'the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes.' But in that he says, 'in his hand he had a coal,' let us understand the hand as operation, as there: 'in the hand of the tongue are death and life,' and in the psalm: 'they shall fall into the hand of the sword.' Or else truly a hand appeared, so that through the likeness of a human form, while the hand of the one reaching out is seen, the prophet might not be afraid; even as we have seen both God himself and the angels change into human forms, that fear might be taken from those who saw. (19.) The Seventy: and he said:

'Behold, this has touched your lips, and it shall take away your iniquities and shall purge away your sins'; Aquila: 'Behold, this has touched your lips, and your iniquity shall depart and your sin shall be propitiated'; the other interpreters agree with Aquila's words. First it is necessary that our lips be touched; then, when they have been touched, that iniquity be put to flight; and, when iniquity has been put to flight, that the Lord be propitiated—for with him is propitiation, and, according to the apostle, he himself is the propitiation for our sins. And our sins being purged, we shall hear the voice of the Lord saying: whom shall I send? and we shall answer: Behold, I; send me. (20.) The Seventy: and I heard the voice of the Lord saying: whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?

Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus: and I heard the voice of the Lord saying: whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Concerning the comparison of Isaiah and Moses—how the one refused the ministry, the other, offering himself unbidden, endured hard things—we have disputed in another place. But lest we should seem to have passed over anything of those things which the Jews call 'deuteroseis,' and in which they place their whole knowledge, we now briefly touch on this: why in the Hebrew it is set down, 'and who will go for us?' For just as in Genesis it is said, 'let us make man to our image and likeness,' so also here I think it is said, 'who will go for us?' But by 'us' who else is to be reckoned than the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, for whom goes whoever obeys their will?

And indeed, in that the person of a single speaker is set forth, there is the unity of the Godhead; but in that it is said 'for us,' the diversity of the persons is indicated. We read in the Song of Songs the voice of the bridegroom saying to the bride: 'Rise, come, my near one, my bride, my dove, for behold, the winter has passed, the rain has gone its way.' For when the soul has settled in the tranquillity of its thoughts, when it has been founded upon the rock and its faith fixed with a deep root, all the waves of temptations pass it by and do not pass through to him who is tempted. But it must be noted how, to that which the Lord had said—'whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'—the prophet answered only in part:

'Behold, I; send me,' and was silent as to what followed, understanding that no man was worthy who might go for God and make his whole journey to be that of him who sent. Which humility the Lord, perceiving that he reckoned himself unworthy of secondary things, commanded what followed, saying: Go. (21.) The Seventy: and I said, behold, I am; send me; Aquila and Theodotion: behold, I am present; send me; Symmachus: behold; send me. God, who called those things which are not as though they are, and who said, 'I am who I am,' and elsewhere, 'he who is has sent me,' immediately makes to subsist whomever he has called, since all things which are apart from him are not. Whence the prophet, purged from his vices, dared to say:

'Behold, I am,' although in the Latin codices, on account of the variety of the interpreters, 'am' is not added. Some think it must be observed to which prophets the word of 'the one sending' or of 'the one sent'—which in Greek is 'apostolos'—is spoken; and they wish this to be the distinction, that whoever are sent are alike both prophets and apostles, but those to whom the word of the one sending is not applied are only prophets—which I think superfluous. And since we have once come to the treatment of this term, it must be known that 'Silas,' the colleague of Paul, is in the Hebrew tongue called 'apostle,' who writes certain epistles together with him; and 'Silvanus' is read faultily for 'Silas,' since we do not read of 'Silvanus' in the Acts of the Apostles. XIX. LETTER OF DAMASUS TO JEROME.

To his most beloved son Jerome, Damasus the bishop, greeting in the Lord. When I was reading the commentaries, written in Greek and Latin on the interpretation of the gospels by our men—that is, the orthodox—both of old and recently, concerning that which is read, 'Hosanna to the son of David,' they set forth things not only diverse but even mutually contrary. With that ardent quickness of your keen ability, cutting away opinions and stamping down ambiguities, write with living discernment what it means among the Hebrews, so that in this, as in many things, they may render thanks to our concern in Christ Jesus. XX. TO DAMASUS. Many have invented diverse things about this word, among whom our Hilary, in his commentaries on Matthew, put it thus:

'Hosanna, in the Hebrew speech, signifies the redemption of the house of David.' First, 'redemption' in the Hebrew tongue is rendered 'pheduth'; then 'house' is 'beth'; but 'David' in this place is plainly not a name inserted, as is clear to all. Others have supposed that 'Hosanna' means 'glory'—furthermore, 'glory' is called 'chabod'—some, 'grace,' since 'grace' is named 'thoda' or 'anna.' It remains therefore that, the little streams of opinions being left aside, we run back to the very fountain from which it was taken by the evangelists. For just as we cannot find in either the Greek or the Latin codices that saying, 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, for he shall be called a Nazarene,' and that other,

'Out of Egypt I have called my son,' so also now the truth must be expressed from the Hebrew codices, from which the common crowd, and especially the harmonious throng of little children, together burst forth into this cry, Matthew saying: 'And the crowds that went before and that followed were crying out, saying: Hosanna to the son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.' But Mark put it thus: 'they were crying out, saying: Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; blessed is the kingdom that comes in the name of the Lord, the kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest.' John too agrees with equal voice: 'and they were crying out: Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel.'

Luke alone did not set down the word 'Hosanna,' though agreeing in the remaining part of the rendering: 'blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven and glory in the highest.' Therefore, as we have said, the Hebrew words themselves must be set down, and the opinion of all the interpreters arranged, so that the reader may the more easily find for himself, from a review of them all, what is to be thought about this. In the hundred and seventeenth psalm, where we read, 'O Lord, save me; O Lord, prosper well; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,' in the Hebrew is read: 'anna adonai, hosianna, anna adonai, hasianna; baruch abba beshem adonai.' Which Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth edition—that we may not seem to change anything in the Latin—express thus:

'O, I pray, Lord, save, I pray; O, I pray, Lord, prosper, I pray; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' The sixth edition alone agrees with the interpreters of the Seventy, in that, where the others had put 'O, I pray,' it wrote 'O.' And because 'hosianna'—which we corruptly, through ignorance, say 'hosanna'—is rendered 'save' or 'make safe,' it is marked by the interpretation of all; now this is our concern: what, without the addition of saving, the word 'anna' alone signifies. And it must be known that in this place 'anna' is said three times; and the first and the second are indeed written with the same letters, aleph, nun, he, but the third with heth, nun, he.

Symmachus, therefore, who in the hundred and seventeenth psalm had agreed with the interpretation of them all, so that he might grant us a clearer understanding, in the hundred and fifteenth psalm—where it is said, 'O Lord, deliver my soul'—interpreted it thus: 'I beseech you, Lord, deliver my soul.' But where the Seventy and he himself translated 'O' as 'I beseech,' while Aquila and the other editions interpreted 'O, I pray,' in the Hebrew you write 'anna,' but so that at the beginning it has aleph, not heth.

From which we observe that, if 'anna' is written with aleph, it signifies 'I beseech,' but if with heth, it is a conjunction or interjection, which among the Greeks is put as 'de' and is [found] in 'ason de,' whose meaning the Latin speech does not express. But since these minutiae and the arcane matter of this kind of disputation give the reader trouble, on account of the barbarity of the tongue as well as of the letters, I come to a compendium of my explanation, so that I may say concerning the hundred and seventeenth psalm—which manifestly prophesies of Christ and was most famously read in the synagogues of the Jews, whence also it was better known to the peoples—that these verses were taken up because he who was promised from the seed of David had come to save Israel, David saying:

'The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner. By the Lord this was done, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us exult and rejoice in it. O Lord, save; O Lord, prosper well; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. We have blessed you from the house of the Lord; God is the Lord, and he has shone upon us.' Whence also the scripture of the evangelists records that the pharisees and scribes were indignant at these things, because they saw the people understand the prophecy of the psalm fulfilled concerning Christ, and the little children crying out, 'Hosanna to the son of David,' and said to him: do you hear what these are saying? and that Jesus answered: have you never read, 'out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise'?

thus confirming the hundred and seventeenth psalm by the testimony of the eighth psalm. And concerning that which could easily be rendered—'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'—the scripture of all the evangelists agrees; but concerning the word 'hosianna,' because they could not translate it into the Greek tongue, as we see was done also with 'alleluia' and 'amen' and very many words, they set down the Hebrew itself, saying 'hosianna.' Luke, therefore, who among all the evangelists was the most learned in the Greek tongue—inasmuch as he was a physician and one who wrote his gospel in Greek—because he saw that he could not translate the peculiarity of the word, judged it better to be silent than to set down something that would raise a question for the reader.

In sum, just as we in the Latin tongue also have certain interjections—as in exulting we say 'evax,' and in wondering 'papae,' and in grieving 'heu,' and, when we wish to impose silence, with clenched teeth we constrain the breath and force it into the sound 'st'—so also the Hebrews, among the other peculiarities of their tongue, have an interjection, so that, when they wish to entreat the Lord, they set down a word with the affect of one asking, and say 'anna, Lord,' which the Seventy rendered 'O Lord.' 'Osi,' therefore, is interpreted 'save'; 'anna' is the interjection of one entreating.

If from these two you wish to make a compound word, you will say 'hosianna,' or, as we speak it, 'hosanna,' the middle vowel letter being elided—just as we are wont to do in verses, when we scan 'men incepto desistere victam' as 'men incepto.' For aleph, the first letter of the following word, finding the last letter of the preceding word, excluded it. Wherefore, to return to the origin of the question, where we read in the Latin, 'O Lord, save; O Lord, prosper well; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,' according to the Hebrew sense we may read: 'I beseech you, Lord, save, I beseech; I beseech you, Lord, prosper, I beseech; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

But 'save' is said so that we may understand [the object] 'your people Israel,' or, generally, 'the world.' Finally Matthew, who wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, put it thus: 'hosianna barrama,' that is, 'Hosanna in the highest,' because, when the Saviour was born, salvation reached all the way to heaven—that is, even to the highest places—peace having been made not only on earth but also in heaven, so that at last it might cease to be said: 'my sword has been made drunk in heaven.' These things, in the meantime, I have dictated briefly and concisely, according to the mediocrity of my understanding.

For the rest, let your beatitude know that in disputations of this kind, weariness in reading ought not to steal in; for we too could easily have feigned something that would solve the question from a single word, just as we have shown that others also did. But it is more fitting to labour a little for the sake of truth and to lend an ear to a foreign speech, than to bear a fabricated opinion from an alien tongue. XXI. TO DAMASUS. Your beatitude's question was [itself] a disputation, and thus to have asked was to have given a road to the things sought. For to one who asks wisely, wisdom shall be reckoned. You say: 'Who is that father in the gospel who divides his substance to his two sons? Who are the two sons? Which is the greater and which the lesser?

How does the younger, having received his substance, squander it with harlots, and, when a famine has arisen, is set over the swine by the prince of the region, eats husks, returns to his father, receives a ring and a robe, and a fatted calf is slain for him? Who is the greater brother, and how, coming from the field, does he envy the reception of his brother?' and the rest, which are more fully set out in the gospel. You add moreover: 'I know that many have said diverse things in this reading, and have reckoned the greater brother to be the Jew, the lesser the Gentile. But I ask how it can be applied to the Jewish people: behold, so many years I serve you and I have never transgressed your commandment, and you have never given me a kid that I might feast with my friends—and that other saying: son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.'

'But if,' you say, 'we should wish it to be a parable about the just man and the sinner, it cannot suit the just man that he be grieved over another's salvation—and especially a brother's. For if by the envy of the devil death entered into the world, and those who are of his party imitate him, never can so monstrous an envy be fitted to the person of a just man—that he should stand outside and rigidly resist the most clement father, and, alone tormented by malice, be unwilling to take part in the joy of the house.' And so, just as in the other parables which have not been expounded by the Saviour as to the cause for which they were spoken, we are wont to inquire, so also in this one we ought to do, [asking] why the Lord broke forth into words of this kind, and on account of what question the likeness of the response was brought forth.

The scribes and pharisees were murmuring, saying: why does this man receive sinners and eat with them? For the preceding discourse had premised: 'now there were drawing near to him all the publicans and sinners, to hear him.' And so hence arose all the envy—why the Lord did not shun the converse and the banquet of those whom the precepts of the law condemned. And this is Luke; but Matthew speaks thus: 'now when they were reclining at table in the house, behold, many sinners and publicans came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. Seeing this, the pharisees said to his disciples: why does your master eat with publicans and sinners? Hearing this, he said: those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are ill.'

'But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.' Mark also agrees in the same words. Therefore, as we have said, every question arose from the Law. For the Law, holding fast to what is just, had no clemency; but whoever was an adulterer, a murderer, a defrauder, and, to speak briefly, was held guilty of a deadly crime, was granted no pardon of repentance from his crime, but was commanded to pay eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. 'They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.'

But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, and God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, who, having broken down the middle wall of partition, made both one, and tempered the severity of the Law with the grace of the Gospel. Hence Paul also, writing to the churches, says: 'Grace be to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' — grace, which is bestowed not as a reward for merit, but conceded by the Giver; and peace, whereby we are reconciled to God, having as our propitiation the Lord Jesus, who forgave us our offences and blotted out the handwriting of death that was against us, nailing it to the cross, and made a show of the principalities and powers, triumphing over them in the wood.

But what greater clemency can there be than that the Son of God should be born the son of man, should endure the tedium of ten months, should await the coming of birth, should be wrapped in swaddling clothes, be made subject to his parents, grow up through the several ages of life, and after the insults of reproachful words, the slaps and the scourges, should even become a curse for us upon the cross, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law, being made obedient to the Father even unto death, and might accomplish in deed what before he had entreated in the person of the Mediator, saying: 'Father, I will that, as thou and I are one, so these also may be one in us'?

Therefore, because he had come for this, that he might by ineffable mercy overcome what was impossible for the Law — since by it no one was justified — he called publicans and sinners to repentance, even seeking out their banquets, that they might be taught also amid their feasting; as will be plain to anyone who reads the Gospels with attentive mind, how his food and his drink and his walking about and all that he did procured the salvation of men. Seeing this, the scribes and Pharisees said that he acted against the Law: 'Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.' For they had before found fault, why the Lord healed on the Sabbaths.

Therefore, that he might overcome this accusation of theirs by the plea of clemency, he set forth three parables. Of these one is of the ninety and nine sheep left on the mountains and the one lost, which was carried back on the shepherd's shoulders; another of the drachma, which the woman, lighting a lamp, sought diligently, and having found it called together her neighbours to rejoice, saying: 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma which I had lost'; but the third is of the two sons, concerning which you have bidden me to argue a little. And of the sheep indeed and the drachma, though they pertain to one meaning, this is not the time for discussion;

let it suffice to have said only this: that these parables were set forth for this reason, that as there, in the finding of the sheep and the drachma, there is joy of the angels and of the neighbours standing round about, so in the repentance of publicans and sinners there ought to be joy of all to whom repentance is not necessary. Hence I greatly marvel at Tertullian, who in that book which he wrote On Modesty against repentance, and who dissolved the old opinion with a novel notion, wished to hold this view: that the publicans and sinners who ate with the Lord were heathen — Scripture saying: 'There shall be no tribute paid out of Israel';

as if indeed Matthew were not a publican out of the circumcision, and that man who, praying in the temple with the Pharisee, dared not lift up his eyes to heaven, were not a publican out of Israel; and as if Luke did not record: 'And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John'; or as if it could seem credible to anyone that a heathen entered the temple, or that the Lord had a banquet with heathen, when he took the greatest care not to seem to loosen the Law, and came first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to the Canaanite woman entreating for her daughter's health answered: 'It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs,' and elsewhere charged his disciples:

'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.' From all which we are taught that in the publicans there can be understood the persons not so much of Gentiles as generally of all sinners — that is, those who were both of the Gentiles and of the Jews. But that man, because according to his crazed women he was defending this dogma, whereby he would not have Christians received as penitents, argued in vain that the publicans were not Jews, so that in their person only a Gentile people could be understood. And so, that I make it not long, I will set forth the very words of the Gospel and, after the manner of a commentator, will append to each several point what seems to me. 'A certain man had two sons.'

That a man is called God is proved by many testimonies, as there: 'The testimony of two men is true; I bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me.' In one parable he is called a shepherd, in another the master of the house, in another he lets out a vineyard, in another he invites to a wedding, and by diverse similitudes he signifies the same thing, that he may reprove the pride of the Jews and approve the repentance in common of all sinners, whether of the Gentiles or of Israel. But as to his saying 'two sons,' almost all the Scriptures are full of mysteries concerning the calling of the two peoples. 'And the younger said to him: Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me.' The substance of God is all that we live, know, think, and burst forth into words.

This God has bestowed equally and in common upon all, as the Evangelist says: 'There was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' This is the right eye, which is to be guarded against offences; this the candle of the body; this the talent, which is not to be bound up in a napkin — that is, treated daintily and idly — nor buried in the earth, that is, darkened by earthly cares. 'Who divided unto them the substance.'

More significantly it is read in the Greek 'dieilen autois ton bion,' that is, 'he gave free choice,' he gave the will proper to the mind, that each might live not by the command of God, but by his own compliance — that is, not of necessity, but of will — so that virtue might have place, that we might differ from the other living creatures, since after the pattern of God it is permitted us to do what we will. Hence both upon sinners a just judgement, and upon the holy or upon the righteous a reward, will be rendered. 'And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together and took his journey into a far country.' If God holds heaven in his palm and the earth in his fist, and Jeremiah says: