A letter from Jerome (391-404)

Translated letter:

Why the churches of our lord saviour do not read the prophet Daniel in the Septuagint translation but use Theodotion I do not know. Whether because it is Chaldean and differs from our speech in certain ways the Septuagint translators did not wish to preserve the lines of that language in translation or whether the book was produced under their name by another who did not know enough Chaldean, I do not know, or whether there was a reason I do not know, this alone I can affirm, that it differs much from truth and is rejected by right judgment. Daniel, mostly, and Ezra are to be known in Hebrew letters, but they were composed in Chaldean speech and one “perikopen”[Grk. "section"] of Jeremiah and Job have much in common with Arabic. When I was a youth, after reading Quintilian and Tully [Cicero] and the flowers of rhetoric, when I let myself loose in the mill of this language and with much sweat and much time scarcely began to sound panting and strident words and as if I were walking in a cave rarely seeing the light above, I came newly on Daniel and was overcome with such distress that in sudden desperation I wanted to scorn all the old labor. Truly with a certain Hebrew urging me and applying myself assiduously to that in the language, huge labor conquers all and I who seemed to myself to be a dilettante among them, began to be a Chaldean scholar. And I admit truly that to the present day I can read and understand Chaldean better than I speak it. All this to show you the difficulty of Daniel, which among Hebrews does not include the story of Susanna or the song of the three boys, or the fables of Bel and the dragon. But since they are dispersed through the whole world, not wanting to seem to the inexperienced to have mutilated a great part of the book, we annexed them, but silenced them by putting a sign before them. I have heard that a certain teacher of the Jews, when he mocks the story of Susanna and says it was made up by some Greek, argues what Africanus also objected to Origen that these etymologies, "in the mastic-tree god will seize you, and in the holm-oak god will sever you" [Dan.13:54-59], come from Greek.(1) For which we can give this explanation: that, from the word, the holm-oak we would say you will perish in the holm-oak and from the mastic tree, the angel will crumble you in the mastic tree, or you will perish not slowly, or else slow, that is bent over, you will be led to death, or something else which suits the name of the tree. Then if there was time, he ridiculed the three boys as they play in the path of the burning fire in meter and stimulate all the elements in order to the praise of God. Or what miracle sign and inspirations of the divine, are either the dragon killed by a ball of pitch, or the revealing of the schemes of the priests of Bel, what more than the prudence of a clever man performed with prophetic spirit? When he came to Habakkuk and read about the dishbearer of Judah seized in Chaldea, he sought in all the old testament an example that we might have read that anyone flew with the heavy body of the saints and crossed over such space in an hour. To which when one of ours, very ready to speak, brought up Ezechiel and said he was transferred from Chaldea to Judah, he mocked the man and showed from the same book that Ezechiel saw himself transposed in spirit. Finally, our apostle, obviously a learned man who learned the law from Hebrews, did not dare to affirm that he was seized in the body but said "whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows" [2Cor.12:2]. With these and other such arguments, he attempted to show apocryphal fables in the book of the church. Leaving the decision on this to the judgment of the reader, I suggest that Daniel should not be among the Hebrew prophets, but among those who wrote “hagiography” [Grk]. Indeed all scripture is divided into three parts: the law, the prophets, and hagiography in 5, 8, and 12 books, but this is not the place to discuss that. What however Porphyrius objects to this prophet, or rather against this book, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris testify, answering his madness with many thousands of verses — I do not know if they would satisfy the curious reader. Therefore I beseech you, o Paula and Eustochium, pour out your prayers to the lord for me, that as long as I am in this little body, I may write something pleasing to you, useful to the church, and worthy to posterity. I am not moved by the judgments of contemporaries, who fall one way or the other either from love or hatred.

Original letter:

Danielem prophetam juxta Septuaginta Interpretes Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt utentes Theodotionis editione, et hoc cur acciderit, nescio. Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt Septuaginta Interpretes easdem linguae lineas in translatione servare: sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis Chaldaeam linguam sciente, editus liber est: sive aliud quid causae exstiterit ignorans: hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiatus sit. Sciendum quippe, Danielem maxime et Ezram, Hebraicis quidem litteris; sed Chaldaico sermone conscriptos, et unam Jeremiae , Job quoque cum Arabica lingua habere plurimam societatem. Denique et ego adolescentulus, post Quintiliani et Tullii lectionem ac flores rhetoricos, cum me in linguae hujus pistrinum reclusissem, et multo sudore, multoque tempore vix coepissem anhelantia stridentiaque verba resonare, et quasi per cryptam ambulans, rarum desuper lumen aspicerem, impegi novissime in Danielem, et tanto taedio affectus sum, ut desperatione subita omnem veterem laborem voluerim contemnere. Verum adhortante me quodam Hebraeo, et illud mihi crebrius in sua lingua ingerente, Labor omnia vincit improbus, qui [Al. et qui] mihi videbar sciolus inter eos, coepi rursum discipulus esse Chaldaicus. Et ut verum fatear, usque ad praesentem diem magis possum sermonem Chaldaicum legere et intelligere, quam sonare. Haec idcirco, ut difficultatem vobis Danielis ostenderem, qui apud Hebraeos nec Susannae habet historiam, nec hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis, draconisque fabulas: quas nos, quia in toto orbe dispersae sunt, veru anteposito, easque jugulante, subjecimus: ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. Audivi ego quemdam de praeceptoribus Judaeorum, cum Susannae derideret historiam, et a Graeco nescio quo diceret esse confictam, illud opponere, quod Origeni quoque [b 1Kb] Africanus opposuit, etymologias has [...] de Graeco sermone descendere. Cujus rei nos intelligentiam nostris hanc possumus dare: Ut, verbi gratia, dicamus ab arbore ilice dixisse eum, Illico pereas: et a lentisco, In lentem te comminuat angelus, vel non lente pereas, aut lentus, id est flexibilis ducaris ad mortem: sive aliud quid ad arboris nomen conveniens. Deinde tantum fuisse otii tribus pueris cavillabatur, ut in camino aestuantis incendii metro luderent, et per ordinem ad laudem Dei omnia elementa provocarent: aut quod miraculum, divinaeque aspirationis indicium, vel draconem interfectum offa picis, vel sacerdotum Belis machinas deprehensas: quae magis prudentia solertis viri, quam prophetali essent [Al. esse] spiritu perpetrata? Cum vero ad Abacuc veniret, et de Judaea in Chaldaeam raptum discophorum [Al. discumferentem] lectitaret: quaerebat exemplum, ubi legissemus in toto veteri Testamento, quemquam sanctorum gravi volasse corpore, et in puncto horae tanta terrarum spatia transisse. Cui cum quidam e nostris satis ad loquendum promptulus, Ezechielem adduxisset in medium, et diceret eum de Chaldaea in Judaeam fuisse translatum: derisit hominem, et ex ipso volumine demonstravit Ezechielem in spiritu se vidisse transpositum. Denique et Apostolum nostrum, videlicet ut eruditum virum, et qui legem ab Hebraeis didicisset, non fuisse ausum affirmare se raptum in corpore, sed dixisse: Sive in corpore, sive extra corpus, nescio. Deus scit (II Cor. XII, 2). His et talibus argumentis apocryphas in libro Ecclesiae fabulas arguebat. Super qua re lectoris arbitrio judicium derelinquens, illud admoneo, non haberi Danielem apud Hebraeos inter prophetas, sed inter eos qui conscripserunt. In tres siquidem partes omnis ab eis Scriptura dividitur: in Legem, in Prophetas in , id est, in quinque, et octo, et in undecim libros: de quo non est hujus temporis disserere. Quae autem ex hoc propheta, immo contra hunc librum, Porphyrius objiciat, testes sunt Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris: qui multis versuum millibus ejus vesaniae respondentes, nescio an curioso lectori satisfecerint. Unde obsecro vos, o Paula et Eustochium, fundatis pro me ad Dominum preces: ut quamdiu in hoc corpusculo sum, scribam aliquid gratum vobis, utile Ecclesiae, dignum posteris. Praesentium quippe judiciis non satis moveor: qui in utramque partem, aut amore labuntur, aut odio.

Historical context:

Asserting that he writes for Paula and Eustochium, the church, and posterity, not for other contemporary readers, Jerome discusses scholarly problems with the language of the book of Daniel and its apocryphal passages.

Scholarly notes:

(1) Jerome gives the passage in Greek in which the nouns for the trees are related to the verbs that describe God's actions: schinou/schisei, prinou/prisei. Here Jerome seems to make his own play on words in Latin. The same passage is cited in Greek in the preface to Jerome's commentary on Daniel, addressed to Pammachius and Marcella. In the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, the passage is found in Susanna, 54-59.

Printed source:

Praefatio Hieronymi in Danielem prophetam, PL28 c.1291-1294.

Date:

391-404