---
title: "City of God · De civitate Dei"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "Marcus Dods"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 92 of 116
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/
cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 92. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/"
---

# City of God · De civitate Dei

*Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods*

“Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter.

> Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted.

> English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887).

> Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position.

## 92. That Prophetic Records are Found Which are More Ancient Than Any Fountain of the Gentile Philosophy.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 37.—That Prophetic Records are Found Which are More Ancient Than Any Fountain of the Gentile Philosophy.

> Latin: Caput XXXVII. Quod prophetica auctoritas omni origine gentilis philosophiae inueniatur antiquior.

[¶1] In the time of our prophets, then, whose writings had already come to the knowledge of almost all nations, the philosophers of the nations had not yet arisen,—at least, not those who were called by that name, which originated with Pythagoras the Samian, who was becoming famous at the time when the Jewish captivity ended. Much more, then, are the other philosophers found to be later than the prophets. For even Socrates the Athenian, the master of all who were then most famous, holding the pre-eminence in that department that is called the moral or active, is found after Esdras in the chronicles. Plato also was born not much later, who far out went the other disciples of Socrates. If, besides these, we take their predecessors, who had not yet been styled philosophers, to wit, the seven sages, and then the physicists, who succeeded Thales, and imitated his studious search into the nature of things, namely, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Anaxagoras, and some others, before Pythagoras first professed himself a philosopher, even these did not precede the whole of our prophets in antiquity of time, since Thales, whom the others succeeded, is said to have flourished in the reign of Romulus, when the stream of prophecy burst forth from the fountains of Israel in those writings which spread over the whole world. So that only those theological poets, Orpheus, Linus, and Musæus, and, it may be, some others among the Greeks, are found earlier in date than the Hebrew prophets whose writings we hold as authoritative. But not even these preceded in time our true divine, Moses, who authentically preached the one true God, and whose writings are first in the authoritative canon; and therefore the Greeks, in whose tongue the literature of this age chiefly appears, have no ground for boasting of their wisdom, in which our religion, wherein is true wisdom, is not evidently more ancient at least, if not superior. Yet it must be confessed that before Moses there had already been, not indeed among the Greeks, but among barbarous nations, as in Egypt, some doctrine which might be called their wisdom, else it would not have been written in the holy books that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as he was, when, being born there, and adopted and nursed by Pharaoh’s daughter, he was also liberally educated. Yet not even the wisdom of the Egyptians could be antecedent in time to the wisdom of our prophets, because even Abraham was a prophet. And what wisdom could there be in Egypt before Isis had given them letters, whom they thought fit to worship as a goddess after her death? Now Isis is declared to have been the daughter of Inachus, who first began to reign in Argos when the grandsons of Abraham are known to have been already born.

> Latin: Tempore igitur prophetarum nostrorum, quorum iam scripta ad notitiam fere omnium gentium peruenerunt, et multo magis post eos fuerunt philosophi gentium, qui hoc etiam nomine uocarentur, quod coepit a Samio Pythagora, qui eo tempore, quo Iudaeorum est soluta captiuitas, coepit excellere adque cognosci. Multo magis ergo ceteri philosophi post prophetas reperiuntur fuisse. Nam ipse Socrates Atheniensis, magister omnium, qui tunc maxime claruerunt, tenens in ea parte, quae moralis uel actiua dicitur, principatum, post Esdram in chronicis inuenitur. Non multo post etiam Plato natus est, qui longe ceteros Socratis discipulos anteiret. Quibus si addamus etiam superiores, qui nondum philosophi uocabantur, septem scilicet sapientes ac deinde physicos, qui Thaleti successerunt in perscrutanda natura rerum studium eius imitati, Anaximandrum scilicet et Anaximenem et Anaxagoram aliosque nonnullos, antequam Pythagoras philosophum primus profiteretur: nec illi prophetas nostros uniuersos temporis antiquitate praecedunt, quando quidem Thales, post quem ceteri fuerunt, regnante Romulo eminuisse fertur, quando de fontibus Israel in’ eis litteris, quae toto orbe manarent, prophetiae flumen erupit. Soli igitur illi theologi poetae, Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus et si quis alius aput Graecos fuit, his prophetis Hebraeis, quorum scripta in auctoritate habemus, annis reperiuntur priores. Sed nec ipsi uerum theologum nostrum Moysen, qui unum uerum Deum ueraciter praedicauit, cuius nunc scripta in auctoritatis canone prima sunt, tempore praeuenerunt; ac per hoc, quantum ad Graecos adtinet, in qua lingua litterae huius saeculi maxime ferbuerunt, nihil habent unde sapientiam suam iactent, quo religione nostra, ubi uera sapientia est, si non superior, saltem uideatur antiquior. Verum, quod fatendum est, non quidem in Graecia, sed in barbaris gentibus, sicut in Aegypto, iam fuerat ante Moysen nonnulla doctrina, quae illorum sapientia diceretur; alioquin non scriptum esset in libris sanctis, Moysen eruditum fuisse omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, tunc utique, quando ibi natus et a filia Pharaonis adoptatus adque nutritus etiam liberaliter educatus est. Sed nec sapientia Aegyptiorum sapientiam prophetarum nostrorum tempore antecedere potuit, quando quidem et Abraham propheta fuit. Quid autem sapientiae potuit esse in Aegypto, antequam eis Isis, quam mortuam tamquam magnam deam colendam putarunt, litteras traderet? Isis porro Inachi filia fuisse proditur, qui primus regnare coepit Argiuis, quando Abrahae iam nepotes reperiuntur exorti.

### That the Ecclesiastical Canon Has Not Admitted Certain Writings on Account of Their Too Great Antiquity, Lest Through Them False Things Should Be Inserted Instead of True.

[¶3] Chapter 38.—That the Ecclesiastical Canon Has Not Admitted Certain Writings on Account of Their Too Great Antiquity, Lest Through Them False Things Should Be Inserted Instead of True.

> Latin: Caput XXXVIII. Quod quaedam sanctorum scripta ecclesiasticus canon propter nimiam non receperit uetustatem, ne per occasionem eorum falsa ueris insererentur.

[¶4] If I may recall far more ancient times, our patriarch Noah was certainly even before that great deluge, and I might not undeservedly call him a prophet, forasmuch as the ark he made, in which he escaped with his family, was itself a prophecy of our times. What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. For some writings which are said be theirs are quoted by those who, according to their own humor, loosely believe what they please. But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received. Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.

> Latin: Iam uero si longe antiquiora repetam, et ante illud grande diluuium noster erat utique Noe patriarcha, quem prophetam quoque non inmerito dixerim; si quidem ipsa arca, quam fecit et in qua cum suis euasit, prophetia nostrorum temporum fuit. Quid Enoch septimus ab Adam, nonne etiam in canonica epistula apostoli Iudae prophetasse praedicatur? Quorum scripta ut aput Iudaeos et aput nos in auctoritate non essent, nimia fecit antiquitas, propter quam uidebantur habenda esse suspecta, ne proferrentur falsa pro ueris. Nam et proferuntur quaedam quae ipsorum esse dicantur ab eis, qui pro suo sensu passim quod uolunt credunt. Sed ea castitas canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum, qui Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista esse non credantur ipsorum. Nec mirum debet uideri, quod suspecta habentur, quae sub tantae antiquitatis nomine proferuntur; quando quidem in ipsa historia regum Iuda et regum Israel, quae res gestas continet, de quibus eidem scripturae canonicae credimus, commemorantur plurima, quae ibi non explicantur et in libris dicuntur aliis inueniri, quos prophetae scripserunt, et alicubi eorum quoque prophetarum nomina non tacentur; nec tamen inueniuntur in canone, quem recepit populus Dei. Cuius rei, fateor, causa me latet, nisi quod existimo etiam ipsos, quibus ea, quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent, sanctus utique Spiritus reuelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione diuina scribere potuisse, adque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut illa tamquam ipsis, ista uero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti iudicarentur esse tribuenda, ac sic illa pertinerent ad uber. tatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem, in qua auctoritate custoditur canon, praeter quem iam si qua etiam sub nomine uerorum prophetarum scripta proferuntur, nec ad ipsam copiam scientiae ualent, quoniam utrum eorum sint, quorum esse dicuntur, incertum est; et ob hoc eis non habetur fides, maxime his, in quibus etiam contra fidem librorum canonicorum quaedam leguntur, propter quod ea prorsus non esse apparet illorum.

### About the Hebrew Written Characters Which that Language Always Possessed.

[¶6] Chapter 39.—About the Hebrew Written Characters Which that Language Always Possessed.

> Latin: Caput XXXIX. De Hebraicis litteris, quae numquam in suae linguae proprietate non fuerint.

[¶7] Now we must not believe that Heber, from whose name the word Hebrew is derived, preserved and transmitted the Hebrew language to Abraham only as a spoken language, and that the Hebrew letters began with the giving of the law through Moses; but rather that this language, along with its letters, was preserved by that succession of fathers. Moses, indeed, appointed some among the people of God to teach letters, before they could know any letters of the divine law. The Scripture calls these men γραμματεισαγωγεῖς, who may be called in Latin inductores or introductores of letters, because they, as it were, introduce them into the hearts of the learners, or rather lead those whom they teach into them. Therefore no nation could vaunt itself over our patriarchs and prophets by any wicked vanity for the antiquity of its wisdom; since not even Egypt, which is wont falsely and vainly to glory in the antiquity of her doctrines, is found to have preceded in time the wisdom of our patriarchs in her own wisdom, such as it is. Neither will any one dare to say that they were most skillful in wonderful sciences before they knew letters, that is, before Isis came and taught them there. Besides, what, for the most part, was that memorable doctrine of theirs which was called wisdom but astronomy, and it may be some other sciences of that kind, which usually have more power to exercise men’s wit than to enlighten their minds with true wisdom? As regards philosophy, which professes to teach men something which shall make them happy, studies of that kind flourished in those lands about the times of Mercury, whom they called Trismegistus, long before the sages and philosophers of Greece, but yet after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and even after Moses himself. At that time, indeed, when Moses was born, Atlas is found to have lived, that great astronomer, the brother of Prometheus, and maternal grandson of the elder Mercury, of whom that Mercury Trismegistus was the grandson.

> Latin: Non itaque credendum est, quod nonnulli arbitrantur, Hebraeam tantum linguam per illum, qui uocabatur Heber, unde Hebraeorum uocabulum est, fuisse seruatam, adque inde peruenisse ad Abraham, Hebraeas autem litteras a lege coepisse, quae data est per Moysen, sed potius per illam successionem patrum memoratam linguam cum suis litteris custoditam. Denique Moyses in populo constituit qui docendis litteris praeessent, priusquam diuinae legis ullas litteras nossent. Hos appellat scriptura […] qui Latine dici possunt litterarum inductores uel introductores, eo quod eas inducant, id est introducant, quodam modo in corda discentium uel in eas potius ipsos quos docent. Nulla igitur gens de antiquitate suae sapientiae super patriarchas et prophetas nostros, quibus diuina inerat sapientia, ulla se uanitate iactauerit, quando nec Aegyptus inuenitur, quae solet falso et inaniter de suarum doctrinarum antiquitate gloriari, qualicumque sapientia sua patriarcharum nostrorum tempore praeuenisse sapientiam. Neque enim quisquam dicere audebit mirabilium disciplinarum eos peritissimos fuisse, antequam litteras nossent, id est, antequam Isis eo uenisset easque ibi docuisset. Ipsa porro eorum memorabilis doctrina, quae appellata est sapientia, quid erat nisi maxime astronomia et si quid aliud talium disciplinarum magis ad exercenda ingenia quam ad inluminandas uera sapientia mentes solet ualere? Nam quod adtinet ad philosophiam, quae se docere profitetur aliquid, unde fiant homines beati, circa tempora Mercurii, quem Trismegistum uocauerunt, in illis terris eius modi studia claruerunt, longe quidem ante sapientes uel philosophos Graeciae, sed tamen post Abraham et Isaac et Iacob et Ioseph, nimirum etiam post ipsum Moysen. Eo quippe tempore, quo Moyses natus est, fuisse reperitur Atlans ille magnus astrologus, Promethei frater, maternus auus Mercurii maioris, cuius nepos fuit Trismegistus iste Mercurius,

### About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.

[¶9] Chapter 40.—About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.

> Latin: Caput XL. De Aegyptiorum mendacissima uanitate, quae antiquitati scientiae suae centum milia adscribit annorum.

[¶10] In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily.

> Latin: Frustra itaque uanissima praesumtione garriunt quidam dicentes, ex quo Aegyptus rationem siderum conprehendit, amplius quam centum annorum milia numerari. In quibus enim libris istum numerum collegerunt, qui non multum ante annorum duo milia litteras magistra Iside didicerunt? Non enim paruus auctor est in historia Varro, qui hoc prodidit, quod a litterarum etiam diuinarum ueritate non dissonat. Cum enim ab ipso primo homine, qui est appellatus Adam, nondum sex annorum milia conpleantur, quo modo non isti ridendi potius quam refellendi sunt, qui de spatio temporum tam diuersa et huic exploratae ueritati tam contraria persuadere conantur? Cui enim melius narranti praeterita credimus, quam qui etiam futura praedixit, quae praesentia iam uidemus? Nam et ipsa historicorum inter se dissonantia copiam nobis praebet, ut ei potius credere debeamus, qui diuinae, quam tenemus, non repugnat historiae. Porro autem ciues inpiae ciuitatis diffusi usquequaque per terras cum legunt doctissimos homines, quorum nullius contemnenda uideatur auctoritas, inter se de rebus gestis ab aetatis nostrae memoria remotissimis discrepantes, cui potius credere debeant, non inueniunt. Nos uero in nostrae religionis historia fulti auctoritate diuina, quidquid ei resistit, non dubitamus esse falsissimum, quomodolibet sese habeant cetera in saecularibus litteris, quae seu uera seu falsa sint, nihil momenti adferunt, quo recte beateque uiuamus.

### About the Discord of Philosophic Opinion, and the Concord of the Scriptures that are Held as Canonical by the Church.

[¶12] Chapter 41.—About the Discord of Philosophic Opinion, and the Concord of the Scriptures that are Held as Canonical by the Church.

> Latin: Caput XLI. De philosophicarum opinionum dissensionibus et canonicarum aput ecclesiam concordia scripturarum.

[¶13] But let us omit further examination of history, and return to the philosophers from whom we digressed to these things. They seem to have labored in their studies for no other end than to find out how to live in a way proper for laying hold of blessedness. Why, then, have the disciples dissented from their masters, and the fellow-disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings? Now, although there might be among them a desire of glory, so that each wished to be thought wiser and more acute than another, and in no way addicted to the judgment of others, but the inventor of his own dogma and opinion, yet I may grant that there were some, or even very many of them, whose love of truth severed them from their teachers or fellow-disciples, that they might strive for what they thought was the truth, whether it was so or not. But what can human misery do, or how or where can it reach forth, so as to attain blessedness, if divine authority does not lead it? Finally, let our authors, among whom the canon of the sacred books is fixed and bounded, be far from disagreeing in any respect. It is not without good reason, then, that not merely a few people prating in the schools and gymnasia in captious disputations, but so many and great people, both learned and unlearned, in countries and cities, have believed that God spoke to them or by them, i.e. the canonical writers, when they wrote these books. There ought, indeed, to be but few of them, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap; and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wonderful. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their works have left behind them the monuments of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions. But to show this is too long a task for this work.

> Latin: Ut autem iam cognitionem omittamus historiae, ipsi philosophi, a quibus ad ista progressi sumus, qui non uidentur laborasse in studiis suis, nisi ut inuenirent quo modo uiuendum esset adcommodate ad beatitudinem capessendam, quur dissenserunt et a magistris discipuli, et inter se condiscipuli, nisi quia ut homines humanis sensibus et humanis ratiocinationibus ista quaesierunt? Ubi quamuis esse potuerit et studium gloriandi, quo quisque alio sapientior et acutior uideri cupit nec sententiae quodam modo addictus alienae. sed sui dogmatis et opinionis inuentor, tamen ut nonnullos uel etiam plurimos eorum fuisse concedam, quos a suis doctoribus uel discendi sociis amor ueritatis abruperit, ut pro ea certarent, quam ueritatem putarent, siue illa esset, siue non esset: quid agit aut quo uel qua, ut ad beatitudinem perueniatur, humana se porrigit infelicitas, si diuina non ducit auctoritas? Denique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. Unde non inmerito, cum illa scriberent, eis Deum uel per eos locutum, non pauci in scholis adque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris adque urbibus cum doctis adque indoctis tot tantique populi crediderunt. Ipsi sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine uilesceret, quod religione carum esse oporteret; nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio. Neque enim in multitudine philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis inuenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conueniant: quod ostendere hoc opere longum est.

[¶14] But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon-worshipping city, that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favora ble and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Anaxagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all; while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them! Were not both Aristippus and Antisthenes there, two noble philosophers and both Socratic? yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory, that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind. The one also said that the wise man should flee from the republic; the other, that he should administer its affairs. Yet did not each gather disciples to follow his own sect? Indeed, in the conspicuous and well-known porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in places public and private, they openly strove in bands each for his own opinion, some asserting there was one world, others innumerable worlds; some that this world had a beginning, others that it had not; some that it would perish, others that it would exist always; some that it was governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident; some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal,—and of those who asserted their immortality, some said they transmigrated through beasts, others that it was by no means so; while of those who asserted their mortality, some said they perished immediately after the body, others that they survived either a little while or a longer time, but not always; some fixing supreme good in the body, some in the mind, some in both; others adding to the mind and body external good things; some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always, some not always, others never. Now what people, senate, power, or public dignity of the impious city has ever taken care to judge between all these and other well-nigh innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some, and disapproving and rejecting others? Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment, and confusedly, so many controversies of men at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence; so that such a city has not amiss received the title of the mystic Babylon. For Babylon means confusion, as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety.

> Latin: Quis autem sectae cuiuslibet auctor sic est in hac daemonicola ciuitate adprobatus, ut ceteri inprobarentur, qui diuersa et aduersa senserunt? Nonne aput Athenas et Epicurei clarebant, adserentes res humanas ad deorum curam non pertinere, et Stoici, qui contraria sentientes eas regi ti adque muniri dis adiutoribus et tutoribus disputabant? Unde miror quur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique deum, cum in eadem ciuitate gloria floruerit Epicurus uixeritque securus, non solum solem uel ullum siderum deum esse non credens, sed nec Iouem nec ullum deorum omnino in mundo habitare contendens, ad quem preces hominum supplicationesque perueniant. Nonne ibi Aristippus in uoluptate corporis summum bonum ponens, ibi Antisthenes uirtute animi potius hominem fieri beatum adseuerans, duo philosophi nobiles et ambo Socratici, in tam diuersis adque inter se contrariis finibus uitae summam locantes, quorum etiam ille fugiendam, iste administrandam sapienti dicebat esse rem publicam, ad suam quisque sectam sectandam discipulos congregabat? Nempe palam in conspicua et notissima porticu, in gymnasiis, in hortulis, in locis publicis ac priuatis cateruatim pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos; ipsum autem unum alii ortum esse, alii uero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum; alii mente diuina, alii fortuito et casibus agi; alii inmortales esse animas, alii mortales; et qui inmortales, alii reuolui in bestias, alii nequaquam; qui uero mortales, alii mox interire post corpus, alii uiuere etiam postea uel paululum uel diutius, non tamen semper; alii in corpore constituentes finem boni, alii in animo, alii in utroque, alii extrinsecus posita etiam bona ad animum et corpus addentes; alii sensibus corporis semper, alii non semper, alii numquam putantes esse credendum. Has et alias paene innumerabiles dissensiones philosophorum quis umquam populus, quis senatus, quae potestas uel dignitas publica inpiae ciuitatis diiudicandas et alias probandas ac recipiendas, alias inprobandas repudiandasque curauit, ac non passim sine ullo iudicio confuseque habuit in gremio suo tot controuersias hominum dissidentium, non de agris et domibus uel quacumque pecuniaria ratione, sed de his rebus, quibus aut misere uiuitur aut beate? Ubi etsi aliqua uera dicebantur, eadem licentia dicebantur et falsa, prorsus ut non frustra talis ciuitas mysticum uocabulum Babylonis acceperit. Babylon interpretatur quippe confusio, quod nos iam dixisse meminimus. Nec interest diaboli regis eius, quam contrariis inter se rixentur erroribus, quos merito multae uariaeque inpietatis pariter possidet.

[¶15] But that nation, that people, that city, that republic, these Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, by no means confounded with similar licence false prophets with the true prophets; but, agreeing together, and differing in nothing, acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books. These were their philosophers, these were their sages, divines, prophets, and teachers of probity and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men, but according to God who hath spoken by them. If sacrilege is forbidden there, God hath forbidden it. If it is said, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” God hath commanded it. If it is said, “Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal,” and other similar commandments, not human lips but the divine oracles have enounced them. Whatever truth certain philosophers, amid their false opinions, were able to see, and strove by laborious discussions to persuade men of,—such as that God had made this world, and Himself most providently governs it, or of the nobility of the virtues, of the love of country, of fidelity in friendship, of good works and everything pertaining to virtuous manners, although they knew not to what end and what rule all these things were to be referred,—all these, by words prophetic, that is, divine, although spoken by men, were commended to the people in that city, and not inculcated by contention in arguments, so that he who should know them might be afraid of contemning, not the wit of men, but the oracle of God.

> Latin: At uero gens illa, ille populus, illa ciuitas, illa res publica, illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo pseudoprophetas cum ueris prophetis parilitate licentiae confuderunt, sed concordes inter se adque in nullo dissentientes sacrarum litterarum ueraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores. Ipsi eis erant philosophi, hoc est amatores sapientiae, ipsi sapientes, ipsi theologi, ipsi prophetae, ipsi doctores probitatis adque pietatis. Quicumque secundum illos sapuit et uixit, non secundum homines, sed secundum Deum, qui per eos locutus est, sapuit et uixit. Ibi si prohibitum est sacrilegium, Deus prohibuit. Si dictum est: Honora patrem [tuum] et matrem tuam, Deus iussit. Si dictum est: Non moechaberis, non homicidium facies, non furaberis, et cetera huius modi, non haec ora humana. sed oracula diuina fuderunt. Quidquid philosophi quidam inter falsa, quae opinati sunt, uerum uidere potuerunt et laboriosis disputationibus persuadere moliti sunt, quod mundum istum Deus fecerit eumque ipse prouidentissimus administret, de honestate uirtutum, de amore patriae; de fide amicitiae, de bonis operibus adque omnibus ad mores probos pertinentibus rebus, quamuis nescientes ad quem finem et quonam modo essent ista omnia referenda, propheticis, hoc est diuinis, uocibus, quamuis per homines, in illa ciuitate populo commendata sunt, non argumentationum concertationibus inculcata, ut non hominis ingenium, sed Dei eloquium contemnere formidaret, qui illa cognosceret.

### By What Dispensation of God’s Providence the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament Were Translated Out of Hebrew into Greek, that They Might Be Made Known to All the Nations.

[¶17] Chapter 42.—By What Dispensation of God’s Providence the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament Were Translated Out of Hebrew into Greek, that They Might Be Made Known to All the Nations.

> Latin: Caput XLII. Qua dispensatione prouidentiae Dei scripturae sacrae ueteris testamenti ex Hebraeo in Graecum eloquium translatae sint, ut gentibus innotescerent.

[¶18] One of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, desired to know and have these sacred books. For after Alexander of Macedon, who is also styled the Great, had by his most wonderful, but by no means enduring power, subdued the whole of Asia, yea, almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, and, among other kingdoms of the East, had entered and obtained Judea also, on his death his generals did not peaceably divide that most ample kingdom among them for a possession, but rather dissipated it, wasting all things by wars. Then Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as her kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captive out of Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, who succeeded him, permitted all whom he had brought under the yoke to return free; and more than that, sent kingly gifts to the temple of God, and begged Eleazar, who was the high priest, to give him the Scriptures, which he had heard by report were truly divine, and therefore greatly desired to have in that most noble library he had made. When the high priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards demanded interpreters of him, and there were given him seventy-two, out of each of the twelve tribes six men, most learned in both languages, to wit, the Hebrew and Greek and their translation is now by custom called the Septuagint. It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.

> Latin: Has sacras litteras etiam unus Ptolomaeorum regum Aegypti nosse studuit et habere. Nam post Alexandri Macedonis, qui etiam Magnus cognominatus est, mirificentissimam minimeque diuturnam potentiam, qua uniuersam Asiam, immo paene totum orbem, partim ui et annis, partim terrore subegerat, quando inter cetera Orientis etiam Iudaeam ingressus obtinuit; eo mortuo comites eius cum regnum illud amplissimum non pacifice inter se possessuri diuisissent, sed potius dissipassent bellis omnia uastaturi, Ptolomaeos reges habere coepit Aegyptus; quorum primus, Lagi filius, multos ex Iudaea captiuos in Aegyptum transtulit. Huic autem succedens alius Ptolomaeus, qui est appellatus Philadelphus, omnes, quos ille adduxerat subiugatos, liberos redire permisit; insuper et dona regia in templum Dei misit petiuitque ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice dari sibi scripturas, quas profecto audierat fama praedicante diuinas, et ideo concupiuerat habere in bibliotheca, quam nobilissimam fecerat. Has ei cum idem pontifex misisset Hebraeas, post ille etiam interpretes postulauit; et dati sunt septuaginta duo, de singulis duodecim tribubus seni homines, linguae utriusque doctissimi, Hebraeae scilicet adque Graecae, quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta uocetur, iam obtinuit consuetudo. Traditur sane tam mirabilem ac stupendum planeque diuinum in eorum uerbis fuisse consensum, ut, cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint (ita enim eorum fidem Ptolomaeo placuit explorare), in nullo uerbo, quod idem significaret et tantundem ualeret, uel in uerborum ordine alter ab altero discreparet; sed tamquam unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati sunt unum erat; quoniam re uera spiritus erat unus in omnibus. Et ideo tam mirabile Dei munus acceperant, ut illarum scripturarum non tamquam humanarum, sed, sicut erant, tamquam diuinarum etiam isto modo commendaretur auctoritas, credituris quandoque gentibus profutura, quod iam uidemus effectum.

### Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

[¶20] Chapter 43.—Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

> Latin: Caput XLIII. De auctoritate septuaginta interpretum, quae, saluo honore Hebraei stili, omnibus sit interpretibus praeferenda.

[¶21] For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.

> Latin: Nam cum fuerint et alii interpretes, qui ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam sacra illa eloquia transtulerunt, sicut Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion; sicut etiam illa est interpretatio, cuius auctor non apparet et ob hoc sine nomine interpretis quinta editio nuncupatur: hanc tamen, quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesiae Latinae tenent; quamuis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus. qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem. scripturas conuerterit. Sed eius tam litteratum laborem quamuis Iudaei fateantur esse ueracem, septuaginta uero interpretes in multis errasse contendant: tamen ecclesiae Christi tot hominum auctoritati ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice ad hoc tantum opus electorum neminem iudicant praeferendum; quia, etsi non in eis unus apparuisset spiritus sine dubitatione diuinus, sed inter se uerba interpretationis suae septuaginta docti more hominum contulissent, ut, quod placuisset omnibus, hoc maneret, nullus eis unus interpres debuit anteponi; cum uero tantum in eis signum diuinitatis apparuerit, profecto quisquis alius illarum scripturarum ex Hebraea in quamlibet aliam linguam interpres est uerax, aut congruit illis septuaginta interpretibus, aut si non congruere uidetur, altitudo ibi prophetica esse credenda est. Spiritus enim, qui in prophetis erat, quando illa dixerunt, idem ipse erat etiam in septuaginta uiris, quando illa interpretati sunt; qui profecto auctoritate diuina et aliud dicere potuit, tamquam propheta ille utrumque dixisset, quia utrumque idem Spiritus diceret, et hoc ipsum aliter, ut, si non eadem uerba, idem tamen sensus bene intellegentibus dilucesceret, et aliquid praetermittere et aliquid addere, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non humanam fuisse in illo opere seruitutem, quam uerbis debebat interpres, sed diuinam potius potestatem, quae mentem replebat et regebat interpretis. Nonnulli autem codices Graecos interpretationis Septuaginta ex Hebraeis codicibus emendandos putarunt; nec tamen ausi sunt detrahere, quod Hebraei non habebant et Septuaginta posuerunt; sed tantum modo addiderunt, quae in Hebraeis inuenta aput Septuaginta non erant, eaque signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis ad capita eorundem uersuum notauerunt, quae signa asteriscos uocant. Illa uero, quae non habent Hebraei, habent autem Septuaginta. similiter ad capita uersuum iacentibus uirgulis, sicut scribuntur unciae, signauerunt. Et multi codices has notas habentes usquequaque diffusi sunt et Latini. Quae autem non praetermissa uel addita, sed aliter dicta sunt, siue alium sensum faciant etiam ipsum non abhorrentem, siue alio modo eundem sensum explicare monstrentur, nisi utrisque codicibus inspectis nequeunt reperiri. Si ergo, ut oportet, nihil aliud intueamur in scripturis illis. nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus, quidquid est in Hebraeis codicibus et non est aput interpretes septuaginta, noluit ea per istos, sed per illos prophetas Dei Spiritus dicere. Quidquid uero est aput Septuaginta, in Hebraeis autem codicibus non est, per istos ea maluit quam per illos idem Spiritus dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas. Isto enim modo alia per Esaiam, alia per Hieremiam, alia per alium aliumque prophetam uel aliter eadem per hunc ac per illum dixit. ut uoluit. Quidquid porro aput utrosque inuenitur, per utrosque dicere uoluit unus adque idem Spiritus; sed ita ut illi praecederent prophetando, isti sequerentur prophetice illos interpretando; quia sicut in illis uera et concordantia dicentibus unus pacis Spiritus fuit, sic et in istis non secum conferentibus et tamen tamquam ore uno cuncta interpretantibus idem Spiritus unus apparuit.

### How the Threat of the Destruction of the Ninevites is to Be Understood Which in the Hebrew Extends to Forty Days, While in the Septuagint It is Contracted to Three.

[¶23] Chapter 44.—How the Threat of the Destruction of the Ninevites is to Be Understood Which in the Hebrew Extends to Forty Days, While in the Septuagint It is Contracted to Three.

> Latin: Caput XLIV. Quid intellegendum sit deNineuitarum excidio. cuius denuntiatio in Hebraeo quadraginta dierum spatio tenditur, in Septuaginta autem tridui breuitate concluditur.

[¶24] But some one may say, “How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, ‘Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,’ or forty days?” For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale’s belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the Church of the Gentiles, to wit, as brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the Church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ Himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days: by the forty, because He spent that number of days with His disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because He rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depth of the prophecy, as if they had said, In the forty days seek Him in whom thou mayest also find the three days,—the one thou wilt find in His ascension, the other in His resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers, of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same Spirit hath spoken. I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains.

> Latin: Sed ait aliquis: lQuo modo sciam quid Ionas propheta dixerit Nineuitis, utrum: Triduum, et Nineue euertetur. an: Quadraginta dies? Quis enim non uideat non potuisse utrumque tunc dici a propheta, qui missus fuerat terrere comminatione inminenti exitii ciuitatem? Cui si tertio die fuerat futurus interitus, non utique quadragensimo die; si autem quadragensimo, non utique tertio. Si ergo a me quaeritur, quid horum Ionas dixerit, hoc puto potius quod legitur in Hebraeo: Quadraginta dies, et Nineue euertetur. Septuaginta -quinque longe posterius interpretati aliud dicere potuerunt, quod tamen ad rem pertineret et in unum eundemque sensum, quamuis sub altera significatione, concurreret, admoneretque lectorem utraque auctoritate non spreta ab historia sese adtollere ad ea requirenda, propter quae significanda historia ipsa conscripta est. Gesta sunt quippe illa in, Nineue ciuitate, sed aliquid etiam significauerunt, quod modum illius ciuitatis excedat; sicut gestum est, quod ipse propheta in uentre ceti triduo fuit, et tamen alium significauit in profundo inferni triduo futurum, qui dominus est omnium prophetarum. Quapropter si per illam ciuitatem recte accipitur ecclesia gentium prophetice figurata, euersa scilicet per paenitentiam, ut qualis fuerat iam non esset, hoc quoniam per Christum factum est in ecclesia gentium, cuius illa Nineue figuram gerebat, siue per quadraginta dies sine per triduum idem ipse significatus est Christus; per quadraginta scilicet, quia tot dies peregit cum discipulis suis post resurrectionem et adscendit in caelum; per triduum uero, quia die tertio resurrexit; tamquam lectorem nihil aliud quam historiae rerum gestarum inhaerere cupientem de somno excitauerint septuaginta interpretes idemque prophetae ad perscrutandam altitudinem prophetiae et quodam modo dixerint: lIn quadraginta diebus ipsum quaere, in quo et triduum potueris inuenire; illud in adscensione, hoc in eius resurrectione reperies.’ Propter quod utroque numero significari conuenientissime potuit, quorum unum per Ionam prophetam, alterum per septuaginta interpretum prophetiam, tamen unus adque idem Spiritus dixit. Longitudinem fugio, ut non haec per multa demonstrem, in quibus ab Hebraica ueritate putantur septuaginta interpretes discrepare et bene intellecti inueniuntur esse concordes. Unde etiam ego pro meo modulo uestigia sequens apostolorum, quia et ipsi ex utriusque, id est ex Hebraeis et ex Septuaginta, testimonia prophetica posuerunt, utraque auctoritate utendum putaui, quoniam utraque una adque diuina est. Sed iam quae restant, ut possumus, exsequamur.