St. Jerome and the Impossibility of Translation Devoid of Theology

Presented to Sr. Marie Morgan’s Great Catholic Thinkers class

February 21, 2011

Marian High School, Mishawaka, IN

Pre-reading: Prolegomena to the NPNF edition; Schaff

------

  • Premise:Jerome’s disinterest in contributing to Theology is understandable, in that a translator must be faithful to the text and not promulgate his own agenda. However, disinterest can be as dangerous as an outright bias in that Biblical writers employed various grammatical, linguistic, and stylistic constructs to, in several instances, specifically introduce, highlight, or clarify a theological concept (e.g. ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel). To ignore, or at least de-emphasize this characteristic of Scripture in any translation or transliteration is faulty, academically irresponsible, and potentially wrought with peril for those who read, evaluate, and interpret these texts. Therefore, St. Jerome knew that he was making a theological contribution in his work.

------

  • Biographical Information on Jerome
  • Eusebius Hieronymous Sophronius
  • b.342, d.420
  • wrote against Helvidius, maintaining the perpetual virginity of the BVM
  • The Vulgate
  • Undertook a revision of the current Latin text of the NT, based of the original GNT, at Pope Damasus’ request. The extant version of the LNT was, at that time, disfigured by “wrong copying, clumsy correction, and careless interpolations.”
  • Learned Hebrew, initially as a means of avoiding temptation, and later in earnest, albeit secretly from Bar Ananias (ala Nicodemus). Intended to translate the OT from the Hebraica Veritas, not the LXX. He went so far as to claim that the LXX did not represent inspired text.
  • Council of Trent, 16th century, Jerom’s Vulgate was pronounced the “authentic and authoritative Latin text of the Catholic Church
  • Douay-Rheims version was the corrected (as much as possible) version of Jerome’s original text, produced at the end of the sixteenth century by the Benedictine Order to whom the task of reproducing the most accurate version had been entrusted.
  • Reaction to the Prolegomena
  • condescending:
  • Alleging that Jerome read more in texts than what was actually there, specifically, for example, in regard to Biblical support for the practice of asceticism: “Jerome had not the elevation of mind which might have enabled him to exercise a judgment upon the current which was bearing him away, or the higher critical power which would distinguish between what was in the Scriptures and what he brought to them”
  • arrogant:
  • Schaff contends that, due to Jerome’s historical position “at the close of the old Greco-Roman civilization”, and the “general enfeeblement of the human mind [which] had set in”, [Jerome’s] influence would but increase the deep ignorance of literature which now settled upon mankind till the times of the Renaissance.” (NPNF, Prolegomena)
  • on Jerome’s theology:
  • In regard to Jerome’s self-proclaimed difficulty in translating the Eastern understanding of the Trinity into Western phraseology, he asserts that Jerome “makes no attempt to grasp the reality lying behind these expressions [concerning Trinitarian Doctrine]”.
  • …yet, Jerome himself says that his call was not to “the pastorate, but to the study”. Jerome does not proclaim himself a theologian, yet he is aware that he can not separate his task from theology, whereas Schaff seems to have imagined a scenario where such a thing is not only possible but probable.
  • Schraff laments that Jerome did not leave behind a “fuller scope to his literary power in the translation of Scripture”, but this is precisely what Jerome knew he should not do:
  • “In other [secular] books my effort is not to express word by word, but meaning by meaning; but in the Holy Scriptures even the order of the words has a secret meaning”.
  • N.B.: “secret” here is mysterium, the Latin transliteration of the Greek mustērion, which becomes our word Sacrament.
  • Schraff assertion that Jerome’s faithfulness of order “deprives a passage of its proper elegance, and the pleasure which it should give to the reader”, is incredibly irresponsible in the academic arena of Biblical Studies and belongs, instead, to the realm of Victorian literature.
  • as evidence for Jerome’s “lack of deep theological conviction”, Schraff offers the following from Adversus Pelagianus:

“Till the end we are subject to sinl not through the fault of our nature and constitution, but through frailty and the mutability of the human will, which varies from moment to moment.”

  • Jerome is neither wrong nor unimaginative here, as Schraff believes. Our continual state of being subject to sin (or, “subjects of”, i.e. “under the rule of sin”) is a result of our own actions which indeed are bred from our sinful nature, but can be combated through grace and holiness. Our “nature and constitution” is involuntary, however the “frailty and mutability of the human will” impacts voluntary acts and those things which we can and should control.
  • Languages in general
  • Languages as Crayola Crayons:
  • English:16 colors; capable of creating great beauty in the right hands.
  • Latin:64 colors; that variety of the palate alone allows for my vibrancy and a greater depth of meaning.
  • Greek:64 colors, with sharpener; the colors remain but the subtleties are enhanced (i.e. finer points).
  • Example of Jerome’s linguistic theology:
  • The Horns of Moses, Ex. 34:29:
  • Hebrew: qeren (or qaran), meaning “rays of light” or “horns”
  • Greek: dedoxastai, meaning “it shone”
  • Latin: cornuta, meaning “horned”
  • An error? Probably not. Jerome’s asceticism gave him a special insight into encountering God in the wilderness, as Moses had, and his linguistic ability would have never “nodded” in so startling a manner. Even though Jerome used the Hebrew originals for his Latin translation, he would have had easy access and presumed knowledge of the LXX, which promulgates the Hebrew reading and would have, in no way, supported any translation relating to “horns”.
  • Those who are willing to accept that this is not a mistranslation usually adhere to the tradition which says that Jerome believed that no one’s face should “shine with God’s glory” and therefore used cornuta as a clever way of avoiding such a scenario.
  • Example of Latin’s limitations:
  • The problem: can grammar influence theology? Is the example which follows a purposeful construction or insertion of Jerome meant to express a theological point or is it a grammatical necessity related to the rules of syntax which govern the Latin language in general and specifically the Latin of Jerome’s time?
  • “Full of Grace”…Luke 1:28
  • Latin: gratia plena: plena, modifying Maria, simple adjective; gratia, ablative with “special word” (Incidentally, this was not the most common construction at the time. Most would have used the genitive case.)
  • Greek: kecharitōmenē: the perfect, passive, participle of the verb charitoō. There are many possible meanings, yet, because it is in the predicate position without an article, we can translate it as a relative clause: “you [who] have been filled with grace”.
  • Note the potential for a deeper reading or meaning in the Greek. It is dangerous to base a theological point on this example alone, however, the example clearly points out that there is significance to translation and/or transliteration