Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Fourteen: The Places are Defended that the Heretics say are Corrupt in the Latin Edition of the New Testament
Further, in the New Testament there are also not a few places noted by Chemnitz and Calvin that they say have been corrupted by the translator.
The first place is Matthew ch.9, “I have not come to call the just but sinners.” Chemnitz says “this very beautiful sentence has been mutilated, for there is lacking in the Latin ‘to repentance’.” I reply that among certain Latins this phrase is added; next I say that it is very likely that the phrase is superfluous in the Greek, and it was not in the emended Greek codices. For Blessed Jerome in his commentary does not read it, and yet Jerome diligently compared the Greek with the Latin and corrected the Latin by the Greek. And that it is not necessary is clear. For to call sinners, not the just, openly signifies to exhort to repentance those who need it, not those who do not, which the Lord a little before illustrated with the example of a doctor.
The second place is John ch.14, “The Holy Spirit will suggest all things to you that I will have said to you.” This place Chemnitz maintains is distorted so as to prove that whatever is defined in Councils should be received as the oracles of the Holy Spirit, for in the Greek there is not ‘I will have said’ but ‘I said’. I reply that St. Augustine and all the ancients read it as we read it, and the sense is the same as the Greek. For we do not understand that the Lord said, ‘the Holy Spirit will suggest to you all things what I will then have said to you’ but ‘that I will now have said to you’, that is, the things you now hear from me and do not understand the Holy Spirit will recall to your memory and explain them. Nor do Catholics place on this word their foundation for the authority of Councils, but we have other supports about which we will speak hereafter.
The third is Romans ch.1, “Who is predestined the Son of God.” This place Calvin censures as badly rendered, both because in the Greek there is ‘declared’ or ‘manifested’ and because those are predestined who now exist, but Christ was always Son of God; and this argument Origen also uses in this place.
I reply that our translator has very well rendered it; for although the word in Greek signifies to delimit, and in profane authors is often taken as declare, yet in Scripture it is taken otherwise. For as Blessed Dionysius Divine Names ch.5 teaches, this word is proper to Theology, that is, it has in Scripture a special meaning; for it everywhere means to establish or decree or define and never to declare, as is plain in Acts chs.2, 4, 17, Romans ch.8, Ephesians ch.1, and elsewhere. For when it is said in Acts ch.2, “This man, handed over by the definite counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have killed,” the word for definite is this same one, and yet it is certain that it does not mean declaration but divine ordination. Likewise in Romans ch.8, “Whom he predestined them he also called,” the Greek word is again the same, which not even the adversaries maintain signifies ‘he declared’.
And since the ordination and definition of God cannot be in time but eternal, therefore our translator, seeing that the Apostle is speaking of eternal definition, preferred to translate as predestined rather than as destined. And so did all the Latins read, even the most ancient, as Irenaeus Against Valent. bk.3, Hilary On the Trinity ck.7, Ambrose, Sedulius, and others on this place, Augustine On Predestination ch.15 and on John tract.105. Tertullian Against Prisca reads ‘defined’ which is the same as ours. Add that the IX Council of Toledo ch.1, which both reads and expounds ‘predestined’. Nor does that little reason of Calvin effect anything; for we do not say the ‘predestined’ as if the Son of God began to be the Word of God, but that the Word of God became man, and therefore that he who was made for God from the seed of David, as Paul says, is the Son of God. And this is beautifully explained by Augustine and the Council of Toledo.
The fourth place is Romans ch.1 at the end of the chapter, where we have, “Who since they did not know the justice of God, did not understand that those who do such things are worthy of death, not only those who do them but those who consent with those who do them.” This place not only Chemnitz but also Valla, Erasmus, Jacob Faber and others maintain is corrupt. First because the Greek text does not have ‘did not understand’, and so these words, to begin with, were added, and then that the ‘who’ was added in ‘who do such things…and who consent’.
Second because Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact expound the text as it is in the Greek. Third, because what is contained in our text seems to be false, or certainly very unlikely. For it is said, “Who since they did not know the justice of God, did not understand that those who do such things are worthy of death, etc.” For if they did not understand how did they know the justice of God? For what is the justice of God save that those who act badly are punished?
I reply that our reading is altogether better; for according to the Greek the sense is that it is worse to consent with him who acts badly than to do bad; according to the Latin the sense is the contrary, that it is worse to act badly than to consent with those who act badly. But certainly it is absolutely worse to act badly than to consent with one who acts badly. For who denies that it is worse to kill a man than merely to consent to his being killed, that is, to permit when you could prevent? For the Apostle is not speaking of command or incitement to evil but of simple consent.
Therefore to the first point I say that we can collect nothing certain in this part from the Greek source; for the reading is various among the Greeks. For Origen reads differently from Chrysostom, as is plain from their commentaries, and Oecumenius notes that some read as we now read. Titelmann also in collat.1 on Romans asserts that he has read in an ancient Greek codex written by hand the words ‘they did not understand’.
To the second point we oppose authors to authors; for it was read and expounded as we read it by Cyprian bk.1 epist.4, Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, Anselm, and other Latins on this place, and by Hesychius bk.6 on Leviticus expounding ch.20, and by Pope Symmachus in his Apologetic against the Emperor Anastasius.
To the third point I say that what is contained in the Greek seems rather to be false. For what is said in the Latin “since they did not know the justice of God” does not conflict with that which follows “they did not understand.” For when the Latin says “they did not know” it is speaking of theoretical knowledge; when it says “they did not understand” it is speaking of practical knowledge. Therefore the sense is that since they did not know the truth but were blinded by their evil passions, they could not seriously persuade themselves to act properly. It could also be said that the “they did not understand” is not referred to the “that those who do such things etc.” but to the “but those who consent with those who do them.” For the sense is that these gentile Philosophers, since they knew there was one God and that therefore it was bad to worship Jove and Mars and other false spirits, did not understand that not only was what the crowds were doing bad, but that it was also bad to consent with them and not to admonish them and rebuke them, as the Philosophers were doing.
The fifth place is Romans ch.4 where it is said that Abraham was not justified from works. For Chemnitz complains that we have added “of the law” so as to be able to expound the place about the works of the law that prescribed the ceremonies. I reply that this is a mere calumny. For the Latin codices, either all or almost all, do not have the ‘of the law’. Nor do we understand the place of the works of the old law, but of works done by one’s own resources. Add that Ambrose both has ‘of the law’ in his text and in his commentary expounds it of the old law. The Papists then have not corrupted this place, as Chemnitz falsely says. But of this hereafter.
The sixth is Romans ch.11 where we read, “If by grace it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Chemnitz falsely accuses us of taking away the complete sentence, namely, ‘But if it is of works it is no more by grace, otherwise work is no longer work’. I reply that this sentence is indeed in the Greek codices and is explained by Theophylact, but it is not acknowledged by any others; neither Origen, nor Chrysostom, nor Ambrose, nor any other expositors of this place have made mention of it; but not Augustine either, who very frequently treats of this place and especially in bk.2 on the Good of Perseverance ch.18. Nay even Erasmus in his notes on this place rejects this addition as superfluous. Which should certainly be enough for Chemnitz, who on the same page refers us to Erasmus, so as to learn from him the errors of the Vulgate edition.
The seventh place is Ephesians ch.5, “This is a great sacrament.” For Chemnitz teaches that sacrament is a bad translation, since in the Greek it is mysterion, and he says this has been done so that we can thence prove matrimony to be a sacrament. I reply that mystery for the Greeks is the same as sacrament for the Latins; for the Greeks always say mysterion when they are dealing with sacraments. And when this place of the Apostle is being explained by the holy Fathers, Ambrose, Jerome, and the other Latins, they always use this word.
The eighth place is Ephesians ch.6, “Put on the armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand perfect in all things.” Chemnitz maintains that this place is distorted because in the Greek it is “to stand with all things made perfect,” and so is it expounded by Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom and others. I reply that the sense is the same, but that it is necessary to join ‘perfect’ with the word ‘all’ and not with the verb ‘stand’. For the sense of the Apostle is that we be armed in every part with spiritual arms, so that thus armed we may, in the battle line against the Devil, be able not to fall but to stand. He says, therefore, ‘put on the armor of God’, or in Greek all the armor, helmet, shield, sword, breastplate etc., so that being perfect in all, that is, fortified and armed in every part, that is, endowed and perfected with all virtues, you may be able to stand against the Devil; or, and it is the same, so that with all things perfect, that is, when you have got possession of and put on all the arms, then you may be able to stand etc.
The ninth place is Hebrews ch.9, “To the draining away of the sins of many.” Chemnitz complains that the Greek words are badly translated, for the word is not ‘to drain away’ but ‘to take away’. I reply that in this place the sense is the same.
Besides the interpreter seems to have translated very properly; for the Greek words is properly to take up, to carry out, to lead out. Just as when water, then, or filth are drawn out from some bilge, the filth is said to be drained away, so also the sins that Christ has taken out or drawn out from the depths of our heart are rightly said to have been drained away by him.
The tenth is Hebrews ch.13, “God is merited by such victims.” Here Chemnitz maintains that the word for merit has been put in, because it is not in the Greek. I reply that the Greek verb properly signifies that God is delighted or, as Erasmus translates, is pleased. But that in Latin it is very well said that he is merited by someone who makes a thing pleasing to him, is not unknown to anyone. So then did our translator say that God is merited by these victims, that is, by these victims a thing is made pleasing to God and he who offers them very well merits from God. For the translator takes ‘to be merited’ in a passive sense.
The eleventh is James ch.5, “And the Lord will alleviate him.” Chemnitz says that the Greek verb (‘excite’) is not well translated as ‘alleviate’, and that the place has been deliberately distorted, so that from it we may confirm the effects of the sacrament of extreme unction, although the Greek word has no such meaning. I reply that Chemnitz does not know what he is saying; for the Greek verb shows the effects of extreme unction, which Catholics recognize in that sacrament, better than the Latin verb does. For Catholics attribute three effects to this sacrament. One principle one, indeed, but common to the other sacraments, namely that it remits sins if any sins remain. A second one proper to this sacrament, that it raises up and gladdens a man who in that point of time is oppressed and numbed by sadness and grief. The third that sometimes it even heals the body.
These three effects, beginning from the least important, are expressively put by James in these words, “If anyone is sick among you, let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of a faithful man will heal the sick, and the Lord will alleviate him, and if he is in sin, the sin will be forgiven him.” The second effect therefore of this sacrament, that it gladdens, raises up, excites a man who on the point of death is depressed and numbed by sadness, grief, temptation, is very properly expressed by the Greek verb, which means to excite, to raise up, etc.
The twelfth is I John ch.5, “These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life who believe in the name of the Son of God.” Chemnitz says that this sentence is mutilated; for in the Greek it reads thus, “These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life and so that you may believe in the name of the Son of God.” I reply that the Latin codex is not mutilated but that the Greek codex is redundant, as Erasmus also suspected on this place, to whose judgment however Chemnitz is wont to attribute a great deal. For since it is said, “These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God,” why is it added, “so that you may believe in the name of the Son of God”? For what was the need to admonish them to do what they had already done? Add that St. Bede too reads as we do.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME