OF BESSARION, BISHOP OF TUSCULUM, CARDINAL OF NICAEA, ON THAT PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WHERE IT IS WRITTEN: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" A LEARNED AND VERY USEFUL DISPUTATION.
To the reverend and learned Father Ulric Faber, most worthy provost of the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre at Denkendorf and a patron to whom he is much indebted, Johannes Alexander Brassicanus, jurist, sends his greetings.
I perceive, most distinguished Prelate, that some—and those of a remarkably perverse opinion—have been led to blame the Greek language for the most unfortunate crop of sects and doctrines, which agree among themselves less than clocks do, and this they do not merely in corners, as is the custom of those who lurk in shadows, but openly and publicly from the pulpit. Who among those who are even moderately learned does not understand how unworthy it is to think this, or how inept to say it? By this logic, we might as well accuse the bounties of mother earth, if heaven sees fit; we might as well condemn the elements; we might as well, as someone once said, drag the "divinely-given gifts" into court—all of which are faultless and serve our needs everywhere, yet we ourselves, who abuse them, make them worse and deserving of reproach.
However, most excellent Ulric, since I was at your monastery a few days ago and we were debating this very subject, in which your outstanding erudition is joined with the greatest modesty, exquisite sweetness of speech, and keenest judgment, I thought it would be no ordinary service if, for the sake of both earning your favor and refuting that preposterous opinion, I were to send to you the most learned little commentary on this topic by the most learned Cardinal Bessarion. For from it—which I know for certain you have approved before—you will clearly understand what is the use of Greek letters, especially in the holy books, what is their necessity, what their dignity, and finally what account should be taken of them. For those who lack this protection cannot avoid blundering childishly, stumbling gravely, and being blinded by the greatest of all evils.
You will also grasp what the duty of a more successful translator is, what care and what diligence he ought to have, and how one should not judge translations rashly. This is a peculiar vice of our age: namely, to condemn a translator in a version of this language when one has barely progressed beyond the alphabet. Of this, that one sedentary cobbler gave a most beautiful example when he was writing against Erasmus. There are, moreover, other things in this little book most worthy of being read and as if born for this present age, which I ask you to receive with the same spirit with which we have dedicated it to you, as has been your constant habit. By this means, I certainly wished to give some sign, so that I, who owe you everything, might seem to have paid at least a moderate portion, until I can be solvent in every respect. Farewell, best of provosts and dearest of friends.
Vienna, Austria, in the year of our Lord 1552, the 3rd day of the month of January.
OF THE MOST WISE BESSARION, CARDINAL OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, On that passage in the Gospel according to John: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"
When recently the holy Gospel of the evangelist John was being read in Latin on his feast day, and it came to that part where Peter, inquiring of the Savior about John, says, "And what of this man?" and the Lord replied, according to the truth of the Greek letter: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what
ad te? Some asked me whether the interpreter had correctly rendered that particle into Latin. To him I replied: I believe it was correctly translated from the beginning, and if it was not so, it came about that it was written differently by the interpreter; but later (as often happens) due to a mistake by a sleepy copyist, the conjunction *si* was converted into the adverb *sic* by the addition of a single letter. It is easy to fall into error whenever a word signifying one thing can be changed into a word signifying another by the mere addition or subtraction of a single letter. Then some others who were present contradicted me, asserting that it should not be read *si*, but *sic*, and saying that the Latin phrasing was sound and either more correct than the Greek, or no less correct than it, since whether *si* or *sic* is said, the meaning of both remains the same. But they did not dare to pursue how the Latin phrasing might be more correct, knowing foolishly that they had said it just for the sake of contention rather than for truth. B Since John the Evangelist composed his own Gospel in the Greek tongue, not the Latin, and used the conjunction *ἐὰν*, which, when turned into Latin, signifies *si* [if] without any ambiguity. But the interpreter, whoever he may have been, neither had to be thought of as having been enlightened by the grace of the Spirit as much as John, and he used a word prone to error, for when the letter *c* was added to the conjunction *si* through the ignorance or carelessness of copyists, the entire meaning was subverted, and instead of the conjunction, which is doubtful, an adverb of affirmation is produced.
Whether the Latin phrasing is equally good, they tried to show with certain arguments, which we have decided to recount briefly here, and to respond to them as much as divine grace grants. First, they confirm it by the authority of Jerome and Augustine and other Latin doctors, asserting that it is established that in that place they wrote *sic*, not *si*, and set forth that part in that way. For it is not likely that the truth escaped them, who were both wiser than us and more learned not only in the Latin but also the Greek tongue, especially when it is noted that before their age, too, it was written among the Latins as *sic*, not *si*. After these things, they assert that nothing may be innovated in the Holy Scriptures, especially in the Gospel, where it is a sin to change even one apex or one iota. For by this way, a license would be given to those wishing to corrupt Holy Scripture, which is in no way to be permitted. If, therefore, the Gospel has it as *sic* among the Latins, they assert that it can neither be changed nor asserted otherwise without fault. Furthermore, they say that if the conjunction is sometimes taken affirmatively, but other times dubiously, and when it is joined with a present or past indicative—which are more certain tenses and signify a determined and known thing—it is taken affirmatively; but when it is connected with the subjunctive, it is taken dubiously. But if it is joined to the future, then on account C of its incertitude, it is neither with the indicative altogether to be affirmed, nor is it entirely doubtful with the subjunctive; but when also attached to the present subjunctive, it signifies certainty. They rely on certain examples of Virgil and Cicero to try to affirm this opinion of theirs. Since, therefore, it is written in the Greek as *ἐὰν θέλω*, which is to say "if I wish," they assert that certainty is signified in both places without a doubt. And therefore, whether we say *si velim* [if I wish], as the Greeks, or *sic volo* [so I wish], as the Latins, they maintain it is one and the same meaning entirely. Finally, they say, where negation or ambiguity has no place, the indicative must be used with the conjunction *if*. But in this place of the Gospel about which we speak, ambiguity has no place. Therefore, that conjunction must be joined to the indicative, and we must say *si volo* [if I wish], which is the same as if it were said *sic volo* [so I wish]; therefore, *sic volo* is to be read in the Gospel.
The fact that these two signify the same thing is confirmed by the following example. For if someone, they say, sitting with someone eating meat on Friday said, "Do you eat meat on Friday?" and he replied, "If I eat, what is that to you?" Surely "If I eat" is the same as if it were said, "I do eat" or "I am eating like this, what is that to you?" As, therefore, "if I eat" and "I do eat" are one, so they expect it to be admitted that "if I wish" and "so I wish" are the same thing. But if anyone demands the reason why the Evangelist said [that], and Jesus did not say that he does not die, but, *If I wish him to remain*, they assert that he is saying nothing: for firstly, they do not consider the power and meaning of the words, but the words themselves [as they] are [not] by the Evangelist D, then also that *sic volo* signifies that he wishes him to remain in that way, but that Christ wanted to rebuke Peter, as one seeking into things that were of no concern to him at all. They conclude, therefore, that injury is done to the Gospel if anyone changes this place, and that it is better to die than to attempt any such thing; nor should anyone be thought a Catholic who deems this authority of the Gospel to be changed, and that one who has dared to do so is to be judged as even likely to do worse things, given the authority and power [he has].
These, indeed, are their views. But we respond to them in this manner. For it is necessary that he who translates anything from one language into another must both know the language itself into which he is translating, and express not only the truth of the meaning of words by words, but the words themselves—and that especially in the holy letters, where not only the words themselves ought to be guarded, but the order of the words, as far as it can be done, ought to be preserved. For in Holy Scripture even the order of the words itself, as Jerome says writing to Pammachius, is a mystery; it is dangerous to change something in it unless the propriety of the language into which the translation is made does not permit such observance in the meantime; for then one may faithfully represent the same meaning through the compass of different words. But this has no place in the present case. Since these things are so, it is also fitting to observe that although it has been the opinion of some that the blessed John the Evangelist did not
die the death of this life, but awaited the coming of Christ while living, nevertheless the true opinion of the holy doctors is that he did die, yet not by martyrdom, nor was he wasted away by primary infirmity or overcome by the pain and anguish of death, but of his own free will, while he was in sound health, he descended into the sepulcher which had been dug by his disciples at his command, lay down, rendered his spirit to the Creator, and was gathered to his fathers. Let those who wish read Jerome in his Prologues, both that of the Gospel of John, of which we are speaking, and that of the Book of Apocalypse, the words of which we have just cited. Let them read Augustine on John where this question is treated. Let them read Chrysostom in many places, and countless others; and let them think the same thing with so many and such great doctors (as is right). For even if some of the more recent ones have thought otherwise, nevertheless some among them, and those indeed held to be the more learned among them, openly contradict them, approving the opinion of the doctors whom we have named, and, as much as in them lies, corroborating it with newly devised reasons, so much so that this opinion of the saints concerning the death of John is either necessary and lacking in all doubt, or, if it be doubtful, it is doubtful among very few, which it is not pious to hesitate over. However, if for the sake of argument one were to concede it for the present, yet this is certainly manifest: that his death has more of certainty than ambiguity; but as for his living, there is nothing of certainty, but very much of ambiguity, since none of the ancient Fathers and holy doctors affirms it. Furthermore, it should escape no one that the holy books of the Old and New Testaments, from the very beginnings of the nascent Church among the Latins, were edited—both from the Hebrew, as the ancient ones, and from the Greek, as both the new and the old—by the Septuagint Interpreters long before the time of Jerome, namely three hundred years and more, which edition the holy Latin Church used at that time, and which the most holy ancient doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Augustine, and Jerome (a contemporary, or rather, while he was an old man, he himself was a young one) expounded. Moreover, that there were many interpreters of the sacred writings from Greek into Latin, Augustine testifies in the third book of *De Doctrina Christiana*, saying: "For those who translated the Scripture from the Hebrew into the Latin language can be counted, but those who translated from the Greek cannot be in any way." Jerome, that outstanding doctor, coming much later, translated this Scripture alone anew from the Hebrew and from the Greek source; in which matter, although he gave many people cause to bark against him, he nonetheless dictated many things differently than they had been edited by his predecessors, and, as he himself says, he amended and corrected them, not only the other parts of Scripture, but even the Gospels themselves. For these are his words against his detractors, which we just cited. Yet his translation was so approved by all, that [it is as if] the ancient [editions], or, to speak more truly, so many ancient translations having been obliterated, the Hieronymian alone A B is what the Church uses. Let him who wishes read his [prologue] to Pammachius on the best method of translating epistles, [his work] to Marcellus against his detractors, and his very many defenses to the blessed Augustine, and he will understand that this is the case. But if requested, let us see what he writes to Pope Damasus in his preface to Matthew. "You compel me," he says, "to make a new work out of an old one, and, as it were, to sit as an arbiter after the copies of the Scriptures have been spread throughout the whole world, and, because they vary among themselves, to distinguish by the truth which ones are those that agree with the Greek." From all of which it is clearer than light whether it is permitted, and whether it is pious or wicked, to reduce the holy Scripture, translated from another language, to the truth of the original language from which it was translated. After these things, the things which the holy doctors have pronounced concerning the profound and manifold understanding of the holy Scriptures must be repeated: how much they not only know that there is a variety in the exposition of the same utterance, but even manifest it, setting them forth in multiple and varied meanings. Hence it is that they compare holy Scripture to a most profound sea, from which, however much water you draw, there is always more that remains. Therefore, they assert that it accepts many diverse expositions, all of them, however, true. And most of the doctors of the Church affirm this to such a degree that it is superfluous to bring in witnesses to prove it, especially for those studying brevity. Finally, it must be known that copies are accustomed to be depraved in three ways: by addition, or by commutation, or by subtraction. By addition, indeed, when we wish to supply at our own discretion in the Scriptures that which we judge to be imperfect and lacking, as is the case in the Book of Kings, where it is treated of the second spreading of the Philistines in the valley of Raphaim, it is inserted: *David asked the Lord,* and in some faulty codices there is found added: *If I shall go up to the Philistine, and you will give them into my hand*, which is not found in the Hebrew source, according to the opinion of those who are thoroughly skilled in that language. But because it is read in the first Philistine spreading, some had to think that it should be repeated here too. But in Genesis, in that place where it is said: *Was it not for Rachel that I served you? Why have you deceived me?* some add *Lia* superfluously. By commutation, indeed, when, deceived by the similarity or ambiguity of syllables or parts, we vary parts for parts, now by removing something, now by adding, sometimes by changing [it] at the conjecture of our own judgment, as in Exodus: *But all the people saw the voices*, for *saw* most have written *heard*, because a voice is accustomed to be heard rather than seen. And in Genesis: *When Joseph was twelve years old*, for *seventeen*. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: for *vastation and contrition*, *prediction and contrition*. And in the prophet Amos: *a shearer of the flock*, for *the shearing of the king*. By subtraction, however, when we presume to subtract something from Scripture, without...
it does not in any way detract from the meaning, as it is in that passage in Ezekiel: *And he said to the man who was clothed in linen*—that which is placed at the end, namely, *and he said*, if one were to presume to diminish it, it would not at all detract from the intellect. And in Zechariah: *He shall build the temple to the Lord and shall build the temple of the Lord*—that which is placed last, *and shall build the temple of the Lord*, has been subtracted from many copies. But if anyone desires more testimonies concerning these matters and wishes to know this affair more broadly, let him read Nicholas, deacon of the title of Damasus and assistant librarian—a man, as far as one can understand, most learned in the Hebrew tongue, who, in the time of Pope Lucius II, writing to Peter, canon of the Basilica of St. Peter, discoursed at length on the emendation of Holy Scripture. For we, seeking to avoid prolixity, suffice it to prove what we wish to establish with one or two testimonies, referring the diligent reader to those from whom we have taken these things. For the same Nicholas says many things: "Searching the libraries, I could not attain this, namely, to find truthful copies, because even those which were said by the most learned men to be corrected, each abounding in its own sense, so greatly differed that, for almost as many codices as I found, there were just as many copies; and to such an extent, even almost a thousand years after the translation of Jerome, were the codices of Holy Scripture faulty and corrupt, and so discrepant among themselves in many places, that what Jerome had written to Damasus, the same Nicholas, after the circulation B of so many years, writes to Peter, namely, that there were as many copies as there were codices." He adds, moreover, that he found some things to be missing from the Hebrew which are nevertheless found uniformly in all Latin codices. For example, what is in Genesis, *Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go forth*, although it is read thus in all Latin codices, in the Hebrew only that phrase *Let us go forth* is not written; and he says the same of certain others. He asserts he does not know the cause of this thing—whether it be that Jerome connected in his own translation things he had found in others, or whether they were connected later by someone else, with the previous usage prevailing. And he adds that this had been the object of his own study: to cut away what was superfluous as much as he could, to reform what had been transformed, and to add back those things which had been cut away by presumptuous men as if they were superfluous. That learned man, even at a very long time after Jerome’s edition, thought many things—nay, he held as certain—that they had been either added, or exchanged, or subtracted, just as they had been before Jerome's times, and therefore needed to be subtracted, re-added, emended, and corrected. These things, therefore, being thus known, let us now come to the business itself which is in question.
Since the holy Gospel of John was written in the Greek tongue by John himself, the Apostle and Evangelist, full of the grace of the Holy Spirit, there should be no doubt for anyone that any translation whatsoever that does not correspond to the original letter is not correct, but C faulty and mendacious; and that there is a need for the person who transfers anything from one language to another to follow the one from which the translation is made, in all things, as much as possible, if he desires to be and to be seen as an interpreter of the truth. But if one notices an error in the work of an interpreter, if some doubt arises, verily one must recur to that source from whence the translation was made. For hear what the blessed Jerome writes in his preface to Matthew: "If," he says, "truth is to be sought from the many, why, by recurring to the Greek origin, do we not correct those things which have been either wrongly stated by faulty interpreters, or more perversely emended by ignorant presumers, or added or changed by sleeping scribes?" Augustine also in the second book of *De Doctrina Christiana* says thus: "Men of the Latin tongue, whom we now undertake to instruct, need two other things for the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, namely, Hebrew and Greek, so that one may recur to the preceding copies, if the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters has brought any doubt." Again: "The diligence of those who desire to know the divine Scriptures must first keep watch in emending codices, so that those which are not emended may yield to those which are. And again: It is not in doubt that the books of the New Testament, if there is any hesitation in the Latin varieties, must yield to the Greek." Are we not instructed by these words of the most holy doctors that, since many things have been and are defiled, either by the variety of interpreters, or by the vice of those who emend ignorantly, or by the carelessness of sleeping scribes, then it is allowed and necessary that they be corrected? For by that regulation we are warned, in the search and investigation of truth, to recur to the original language and the preceding copies, and that the variety of Latin books must yield to the Greeks. One must see, therefore, first, how this authority of the Gospel in question stands in the Greek and original language, and whether the Latin wording consents to the Greek; and if it disagrees, whether that could easily have happened by the error of sleeping scribes, and whether in other cases also something similar could have happened or been done without the fault or reproach of the holy doctor and most expert interpreter Jerome. Then the Greek letter is to be approved and confirmed by some arguments. Finally, the arguments brought forward by the adversary are to be solved.
Among the Greeks, the sense of the Gospel is manifest, and is not involved in any ambiguity of words; for it is openly written among them thus: 'Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ; which, unless it is interpreted so as to say, "If I will him, or, If I wish him to remain until I come, what is that to thee?" it cannot be rightly interpreted; for that Greek conjunction *ἐάν* signifies nothing other than a conditional or causal conjunction, and there is as much difference between *ἐάν*, that is, *if*, and *οὕτως*, that is, *so*, among the Greeks, as there is almost between two contraries.
There is not a single letter in one of these two words that is in the other; there is no similarity between them at all, for *ἐάν* is composed of three letters, what in Latin signifies *if*, but *οὕτως*, which is translated by the Latins as *so*, has five letters; such is the difference between these two expressions among the Greeks. How, therefore, it stands among the Greeks regarding this place of the Gospel of which we are speaking, and how the Latin language differs from the Greek in this, is sufficiently apparent from what we have said. But that such an error could easily occur in the Latin language is obvious to anyone observing how great the similarity and proximity is between these two expressions, *si* and *sic*. For a single letter *c*, added by the fault of a drowsy reader, could change that *si* into *sic*, just as we have demonstrated above—by the opinion not of ourselves, but of ancient doctors—that the shearing of the king was changed into the shearer of the flock, and devastation into divination. The same can be proven to have happened in many other places as well. Shortly after, at the very beginning of the same Gospel of John, where he says: *Οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός*, "Nor of the will of the flesh," some unskilled persons write *nec ex voluptate carnis*, "nor of the pleasure of the flesh," changing *n* into *p*, implying that the pleasure itself pertains to the flesh. And after the words of Christ with which he addressed his Mother and commended her to John, whom he loved, follow the words of the Apostle himself speaking of himself: *Ἔλαβεν ὁ μαθητὴς αὐτὴν εἰς τὰ ἴδια*, "that is, The disciple took her into his own," that is, he led her into his house. Commonly, however, all Latin codices have *accepit eam in suam*, "he took her into his," C an *m* letter being added, as if to say "into his mother," because of the words of Christ, who said: "Woman, behold thy son," and to the disciple: "Behold thy mother." This cannot happen in the Greek language, where there is no doubt or ambiguity; for *εἰς τὰ ἴδια*, that is, *into his own*, is a noun of the neuter gender, accusative case, plural number; but *εἰς ἑαυτόν*, that is, *into his own*, is a reciprocal pronoun, singular number, genitive case; therefore, no Greek scribe is to be believed to have committed an error in that part. But the slip from *sua* to *suam* is easy, with simply one letter added. Furthermore, this error is proven more manifestly by the fact that in some more corrected Latin codices we observe it written not *in suam*, but *in sua*. Again, it is written in John: *Ἄγουσιν οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον*, "that is, They lead Jesus from Caiphas into the praetorium." Unskilled men, however, write *ad Caipham in praetorium*, "to Caiphas into the praetorium," a place where among the Greeks no occasion for error is given, since the preposition *ἀπό*, which is translated as *ab*, and *πρός*, which is translated as *ad*, have absolutely no similarity between them; among the Latins, however, the slip into error is easy, D with the *d* letter added to the preposition. Thus in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Greeks write: *Οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν*, "that is, For we all partake of the one bread," the Latins add, *et de uno calice*, "and of the one chalice." And in Matthew, chapter xxv: *Ἐξῆλθον εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου*, "that is, They went out to meet the bridegroom," the Latins have *et sponsae*, "and the bride," which, in truth, one may guess were at one time placed in the margins of books as glosses, and were then, by ignorant scribes, woven into the text. Likewise in II Corinthians, where the Greeks have: *Εἰς πρόσωπον τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν*, "that is, In the face of the churches," the Latins write *In faciem ecclesiarum Dei*, adding *Dei*. And in I Timothy: *Ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα*, "that is, They fall into temptation and a snare," the Latins add *diaboli*, "of the devil," as if wishing to supply what seemed imperfect and less inclusive. A diligent investigator will find many things of this kind added throughout all the books of the Sacred Scriptures, which we, studying brevity, have for the present omitted. We have also, if I am not mistaken, sufficiently shown that such errors can occur through taking away or adding to, so that we need not occupy ourselves with them further, wishing to comprehend many things in few words, unless the authority of the most blessed doctor Augustine compels us to add one final summary. Hence, in the book *De doctrina Christiana*, he says thus: "An interpreter is often deceived by the ambiguity of a preceding language, when the intent is not well known, and he transfers it into a meaning that is entirely foreign to the mind of the writer, just as some codices have: *Acuti pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem*," for *ὀξείς* signifies both acute and swift among the Greeks; but he who translated it, "their feet are swift to shed blood," saw the correct meaning. And others are not indeed obscure, but false, and their condition is different. Hence it is that because *moschos* is called a calf in Greek, some, not understanding, interpreted it as *plantations* (shoots of a vine), an error which has occupied so many codices that it is hard to find it written otherwise. But enough of these. Now let our speech turn to proving and corroborating the Greek letter. We have proven by the authority of the holy doctors, and sufficiently so, I think, that John the Evangelist has departed from this life. This, before all else, most manifestly contradicts the Latin letter in which it is said: "I want him to remain thus"; for he did not want it so, since it was not so; for if he had so wanted, it would surely have been so; therefore the words proceeding from the mouth of Him who wanted the contrary of what He was saying would be the words either of a liar or someone contending in a childish manner. But it is wicked to think such things about the Savior. Truly, therefore, He would not have said what He did not want; and since He did not want him to await His coming in this present life, He would not have said, "I want him to remain thus." What of the fact that the following and almost continuous
reasoning demonstrates this very fact? Shortly thereafter, the most holy Evangelist John refutes the opinion of his fellow disciples, which they had conceived from the Savior's discourse — saying that that disciple would not die — by these words, saying: "And Jesus did not say, 'He does not die,' but, 'If I want him to remain until I come.'" This is just as if he were saying that they had erred in having accepted the words of Christ in that sense. But if Christ had said, "I want him A to remain thus," why would the disciples' opinion not have been true? And John's words would not have stood against the disciples' false opinion, but they would have opposed and contradicted one another; for if Christ had said, "I want him to remain thus," and had not said that he would not die, there would be an open contradiction, provided the Evangelist—who is both the most beloved among the others and, speaking as if of himself, more openly understood the mind and will of the Savior—is speaking truly regarding himself. Undoubtedly, then, one must read, "If I want him to remain," not, "I want him to remain thus," and trust must be placed in the testimony of the true Evangelist, who soon asserts that it is he who is writing and giving true testimony about these things, not only asserting this regarding the actions of Christ, but regarding all things written by him in the Gospel. The words of Chrysostom also most manifestly confirm this very thing, who, as if crying out regarding these words, says: "Marvel, he says, at the humility of the Evangelist, how he corrects the erroneous opinion of others regarding him, who did not understand what the Lord had said about him, but thought that he would not die." Furthermore, since it is not to be doubted by anyone that this codex was translated from the Greek language into Latin, and it is established that among the Greeks it is read without any ambiguity, that is, "If," it is absolutely necessary that the Latins also, if they read it, should understand it so. For Jerome says, "Those things which agree with the Greek truth are corrected." And Augustine says that one must recur to the prior copies if the infinite variety of Latin interpreters has brought any doubt; and again he judges that if anything in the Latin varieties totters, the books of the New Testament ought to yield to the Greek. I pass over the fact that the Greek doctors—Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and all the rest—explain this passage in the way that we said the text itself exists; whom, truly, as the highest men and, in their own language, eminently learned, and as those explaining things written in that same language, one cannot deny must be believed rather than any others. But neither have these things escaped the more recent Latin doctors, especially Thomas Aquinas, a man as holy as he was learned. He, in the exposition which he composed upon the Gospels from the sayings of the ancient doctors, says, "If it is written in Greek." But if it is written in Greek, as Thomas asserts, in translations that are not faulty—by the witness of Jerome—not only the words, but even the order of the words themselves must be preserved, it is clearly established that the Latin codices are depraved by the fault of copyists, and do not hold the truth. And let these things be sufficient for now to have said for proving the sincerity of the Greek text.
A From which the arguments of the adversaries can also be easily solved and refuted. For whereas they bring forward the authority of the Latin teachers at the beginning, we for our part set against them the authority of the Greeks, whom, since they speak about those things that were written in their own language, and are otherwise considered inferior neither in sanctity of life nor in doctrine, one must confess should be believed rather. To these things we say that the testimony of some doctors having explained this passage in such a way is not sufficient proof of the truth, seeing that one finds many other things in such translations, either corrupted by copyists or not correctly translated by interpreters, which nonetheless the holy doctors, having followed the text they found, endeavored to explain according to that same text, and thus explained it B so that, at times, although they had not attained the truth of the letter, they nonetheless extracted the true meaning with the greatest wisdom, and sometimes, even if they issued a meaning other than that which belonged to the author, they nevertheless set it forth so acute, grave, and brilliant that it seems that it ought to be that and no other. I truly confess that Augustine, a man of sublime intellect, explained this passage thus, and indeed with the most grave and acute arguments; but that this is not enough to convince one that it ought to be so written, I shall most manifestly prove from the same doctor. For he, explaining that passage of the first Epistle to Timothy, where it is written among the Greeks, Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, that is, "A faithful word and worthy of all acceptance," for thus Jerome also translated this passage, says, "A human word." Why so? Because he had found it so written at that time and it had been so translated by the interpreter, and that most wise and most holy man so illuminates and adorns that passage, explaining it with such acuteness and elegance and gravity of thoughts, that no one would believe it ought to have been written otherwise, especially if one is ignorant of what is written among the Greeks. For there is no ambiguity of this word among them. Since πιστός means "faithful" without doubt, just as πίστις is called "faith"; nor is there any similarity of this word *pistos* with that Greek term which signifies "human." And yet the apostle repeats this word so often in that place that I vehemently admire by what means the one who first changed this into the Latin language departed so far from the meaning of the Greek word. For what does human have in common with faithful? Jerome afterwards corrected this, as he did many other things, and representing the Greek word, wrote "faithful word," not "human"; from which it happens that it ought not to be a doubt to any Latin that he erred who wrote "human" instead of "faithful" before, contrary to the judgment of Jerome, who was most learned in the Greek language. Yet this error, whether of an unskilled interpreter or of a sleepy copyist, the most acute intellect of that highest Augustine explains so skillfully, gravely, and wisely that, as we said above, it is difficult to imagine that it ought to have been said otherwise, unless one were to say it was spoken by the author.
A That this may be more easily understood, it is pleasing to insert the very words of Augustine, which he wrote in his sermon *On the Words of the Apostle*. "We hear," he says, "the blessed Apostle Paul saying: 'A human saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.' Therefore, a human saying and worthy of all acceptance. Why human and not divine? Without doubt, if this saying were not both human and divine, it would not be worthy of all acceptance. But this saying is human and divine in the same way that Christ is both man and God. If we rightly understand this saying to be not only human, but also divine, why did the Apostle prefer to call it 'human' rather than 'divine'? B For without doubt, he who would not lie, if he were to call it divine, had a reason for preferring to call it human. This, therefore, he chose: that through which Christ came into the world. He came as that which he was as man, not as that which he was as God. He was always here. For where is God not, who said: 'Do I not fill heaven and earth?' Christ certainly is the wisdom and power of God, of whom it is said: 'It reaches from end to end mightily, and disposes all things sweetly.' Therefore, he was in this world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. And he was here, and he came: C he was here by his divine majesty, he came by human infirmity. Because, therefore, he came by human infirmity, he said 'human saying' while preaching his advent. The human race would not be liberated unless the Word of God deigned to be human. For that man is also called 'human' who shows himself to humanity, and especially one who receives man with hospitality. If, therefore, he is called 'human' who receives man into his house, how much more 'human' is he who receives humanity into himself? Therefore, 'a human saying, and worthy of all acceptance.' Do you see how the most holy doctor D explains this passage gravely and clearly, where, however, by Jerome's testimony, it is confirmed that it should be said not 'human' but 'faithful'? It is not, therefore, a sufficient argument for the truth to assert that it should be written thus because Augustine and some other doctors have explained the passage in that way. We do not remember, however, to have read Jerome explaining it thus. This is evident from the words of that person whom we mentioned above, the suffragan of the library of Nicholas, who, after many things he recalled to be falsely translated or written by scribes, finally adds: 'Some of these falsehoods, I remember, have even been explained.' From which words it appears that some things could be explained by doctors who, being ignorant of the language from which they were translated, necessarily followed the letter which they found, and yet, nevertheless, it was erroneous. To this is added that, since the sacred scriptures, as was said above, are of such depth that they support various senses and many and diverse expositions, it is not to be thought a miracle if, beyond the true meaning of some authority, another, less correct [meaning], is defended by diverse reasons in such a way that it appears to stand correctly on all sides. For although in all other disciplines words are only such as to signify things, this is the proper and peculiar character of Holy Scripture: that not only do words signify things in it, but the things themselves, signified by such words, signify other things. Hence it is that they expound Holy Scripture not only according to the letter, but allegorically, morally, and anagogically, so that any particle of it can be reduced to one of these senses. But where a historical or literal exposition is to be pursued, if the letter is not true, the sense also must necessarily limp.
But as to what they assert in the second place, that nothing at all is to be changed in Holy Scripture and that it is impious to diminish or alter anything from it—let Jerome himself answer, who, as we have reported above, does not only admit to having changed, but to having emended and corrected things which he found poorly stated by preceding interpreters, or perversely emended by the presumptuous, or added or changed by drowsy scribes. And he declares that he has emended not only the Old, but also the New Testament and the very Gospel itself, as though it were previously corrupted—just as we have demonstrated above that the Scripture suffered the same loss after Jerome as it did before him. If, therefore, it was not impious, but pious—nay, rather most pious—for Jerome to emend such things by adding, subtracting, and changing; if it was permitted to those who came after, as it certainly was, to correct errors arising from any cause—from which have grown the books of so many learned men, to which the name 'Correctorium of the Bible' has been given—why is it not permitted to the men of our own age? Let them therefore first dare to call Jerome, and the others who followed him, doctors of the Church who were impious, and then let them charge us also with the same crime. But these are certainly the words either of ignorant men or of the malevolent and those who speak evil.
Now we shall respond to that which they have placed as a third point, if we affirm that a conjunction is called 'conditional' because it is never true unless the condition is completed; we assert that this rule which they pass on is a new one, invented rashly, and not at all true. For it is not the case that a conditional is always true when joined to the indicative, whether present or past, but it is sometimes even false; nor, when placed with the subjunctive, is it always false, but sometimes true, according to whether falsehood or truth is gathered from the condition of things. And that this may be more clearly understood, we shall say what the grammarians think, and then we shall add some things from dialectics. All grammarians, both Greek and Latin, and primarily Priscian, who not only follows the Greeks but prides himself in doing so in many places, say that a conjunction is continuative; for when a...
A Greek signifies this, and along with the other continuatives is enumerated by Apollonius, the father of Herodian, as a causal, it signifies the order of a preceding thing to a following one, with some doubt as to the essence of the things, or, as the Greeks say, without a signification of essence—as, "If he snores, he sleeps"; and, "If he is sick, he is pale"; and, "If he is vexed by a fever, he is hot"; for the discourse does not keep the consequence of the statement in a reversed order. For he who sleeps does not at all snore, and so on for the rest. They do not irrationally say that these are causal. And it is shown that through these, the cause of the continuation, just like that of the adjunction and the effect, is rendered. Of continuation: "If he walks, he is moved"; for the cause as to why he is moved is the walking itself. They mention that causal conjunctions of this kind are sometimes used in place of approbative ones, because, to be sure, even that which we say is so certain and manifest that it is impossible to opine otherwise, and only then is it joined with the indicative; as in Virgil: "If there is any justice anywhere"; and elsewhere: "O gods, if there is any piety in heaven." For it is indubitable both that there is piety in heaven and that there is some justice in the world. Hence my adversaries have fallen into an easy error, thinking that since a causal, when placed for an approbative, is joined with the indicative, therefore conversely, as often as it is joined with the indicative, it is approbative—which is far from the truth; for it cannot be that as often as it is joined with the indicative it is approbative, although as often as it is approbative it is joined with the indicative. There are infinite examples of this C matter, but these suffice for us for now. "If I have spoken evil," says the Lord in John, "bear witness to the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?" If anyone were to assert in this place that the 'if' conjunction is therefore approbative because it is joined to the present indicative, he would certainly be forced to assert that the Lord spoke evil. But if the Lord did speak evil (which it is wicked to think), why does He soon add, "But if well"? And when the Savior was saying of Himself, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebub," those who want [it to be the case that] everything joined with the indicative must be approbative are obliged to confess that He casts out demons by Beelzebub. But we wish these blasphemies to be imputed not to us, but to those who compel us to say such things. Similarly, it is said in Virgil: "If it is granted to reach Italy, with allies and king received, and we happily seek Italy and Latium. But if safety is snatched away, and the sea, best father of the Teucrians, holds you in Libya," and the rest, where, although the 'if' conjunction is joined to the indicative, it is not approbative but causal or conditional; for it does not signify a certain thing; whence it is added immediately, "But if safety is snatched away." Let these things about grammatical precepts be enough; now let us turn to dialectic. Although the dialecticians also D admit that an 'if' conjunction is conditional, they maintain that it affirms nothing at all, nor does it assert any of its parts, but only infers the consequent from a granted antecedent. For no part of a proposition, whether the conditional conjunction is joined with an indicative or a subjunctive, is posited absolutely or categorically, but only infers the consequent of the proposition, provided the antecedent is posited conditionally, and not otherwise; hence the truth of neither part can be inferred from the truth of the whole. For who of sound mind would dare to say that because these propositions are true: "If the sun is above the earth, it is day," and, "If a man runs, an animal runs," therefore the antecedents are also true—namely, that the sun is above the earth and the man is running? Therefore, between those propositions in which 'if' is joined to an indicative and those in which it is joined to a subjunctive, the difference is not that the former have certainty and the latter ambiguity, but that the principal parts of the former, taken separately, are complete and affirm or deny something, like categorical propositions which signify something true or false. Indeed, from this proposition, "If Socrates is vexed by a fever," if the conjunction 'if' is removed, the remaining part, which is "Socrates is vexed by a fever," becomes a categorical proposition and signifies something true or false. But this is not the case with the parts of the others. For if you remove the conjunction from this proposition, "If Socrates runs," the remaining part, which is "Socrates runs," is neither a categorical proposition nor does it affirm anything negatively, but to signify something false or true, and to complete the sense, it depends on other parts. From these things, therefore, the answer to the third argument of the adversaries is manifest. Since this proposition, "If I want him to remain until I come," does not signify a certainty because it is joined to an indicative, for the reasons we have stated. The conclusion of the adversaries is therefore false, that that particle signifies as if one were saying, "He is to remain," since it is a fallacy of the consequent. For it does not convert, as was said above, nor can we truly say that because it is approbative when joined to an indicative, it is [always] approbative. But to proceed to the fourth argument of the adversaries, we say that the minor premise is false. For it has been sufficiently shown by us above that the continued life of John the Evangelist has indeed much that is doubtful, but nothing that is certain, whereas his death has more that is certain than doubtful. But the adversaries base their argument chiefly on this: that there is no doubt about the death of John. But as for the example they bring forward for the confirmation of their opinion, that of a person eating meat on Friday, what else is to be said than what we have just reported, that the truth or falsity of a matter makes a proposition of this kind either certain or ambiguous? Indeed, if someone who eats meat on such a day wishes to hide the truth, and should answer as follows to one chiding him, "If I eat, what is that to you? To eat is in fact a statement..."
A he affirms. What if the same thing is said to someone who is not eating? Will he not also respond in this way, "If I eat, what is that to you?" Not indeed to confess that he is eating meat, but to mock the false accuser and to irritate and despise an unjust one. What if, eating meat on that day, and provoked by his accuser, he replies in this way: "If I eat or do not eat, what is that to you?" Surely it will be a correct mode of speaking; and shall we therefore say that, because a conditional is conjoined with an indicative, it is assertive, and that it is true both that he eats the meat and that he does not eat it? Even the insane would not admit this. Or shall we say that one part is true and the other false? It would therefore be false that, as often as 'if' is conjoined with an indicative, it is assertive.
But as for the fact that, responding as if to a silent objection, our adversaries say that the Lord did not understand the force and sense of the words, but that they deny the Evangelist spoke words of this kind: it would indeed be an inept and childish opinion of the Evangelist if, while knowing that the Lord wished him to remain in this life until He came, he were to rebuke his fellow disciples as if they were holding a false opinion, and that solely through the utterance of words—in which they would indeed be wonderfully worthy of praise, eliciting with excessive sharpness of wit the true meaning from an ambiguous statement. Against these, Chrysostom relates that they were rebuked by the Evangelist for a false opinion concerning him, which the others too, who think he has departed this life, would without doubt say.
Furthermore, to say that by those words, "If I will have him remain," Christ meant for John to remain thus, but was rebuking Peter for asking about matters that did not pertain to him, is far more suited to childish contention or the fallacies of a quibbling sophist than to the gravity and wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. But be it certainly as is said; does this not conflict with the foregoing statements? For if the Evangelist denies only the words, as has been said, he therefore concedes the sense; Christ spoke, therefore, as if he would not die. But if this is so, how will these two things be consistent: that Christ said he would not die, and that He did not say this because He so wished, but to rebuke Peter for asking hidden things?
Finally, who does not see that the fourth argument of the adversaries is contrary to this solution? For there they say that John doubtlessly remains even now, but here, that the Lord did not speak because He so wished, but that He might rebuke Peter. For as to what they add at the end—that one ought to die rather than change anything in Sacred Scripture, and that one who would presume to change this passage of the Gospel cannot be a Catholic, and they add that he who would have dared this would do even worse things if authority and strength were available to him—although such things are such as should move us to laughter rather than to the labor of responding, B yet, lest we seem to have passed over even that part untouched, we oppose to them Jerome, Augustine, and other doctors, both ancient and new, who, since they were and are considered not only Catholic but even most holy, yet, instructed by many things in the Old Testament from the Hebrew and in the New Testament from the Greek source, did not blush to change, remove, add, correct, amend, excise, reform, and, to use their words, render anew, just as we think we have shown sufficiently and more than enough in what has gone before.
Truly, that we may finally reach the end of our discussion, having now dissolved and cut away the arguments of the adversaries, we state and frankly testify that it is permitted to anyone, relying both upon the truth of the matter and the concord of the Greek and original language, without any fear or any danger of unjust calumny, to read and bring forward with the holy Evangelist and the Greek doctors: "If I will have him remain until I come," having scorned and held for nothing the womanish threats and the quarrels of vain men.
It is lawful, however, at the end of the oration, to imprint upon the discourse a sign, as they say, and to receive ourselves as if in an asylum against all who attack us. Come, therefore: let that outstanding interpreter of sacred letters, the most upright man Jerome, come forward into the midst, and, as if a defender of truth and justice, show how he himself translated this passage. Here, in that most elegant oration which he wrote to Jovinianus concerning virginity, again, he says, speaking of Peter, after the sentence was heard—that he would be girded by another and led where he did not wish, and the passion of the cross had been prophesied to him, and he had said, "Lord, what of this man?"—not wishing to abandon John, with whom he had always been conjoined, the Lord says to him: "What is that to thee, if I will have him so to be?" Who cites other witnesses any further? Who desires other testimony, when we hear Jerome saying thus: "For if I will have him so to remain." For what else is "to be so" than to remain? For no one would dare to say, "If I will him, so to be," unless he were a barbarian.
It is manifest, therefore, that even interpreters older than Jerome, who wrote "so" (sic) instead of "if" (si)—unless it was a mistake of the copyists, for Jerome himself said "if I will"—have erred, and those who followed Jerome, with the ancient usage of a corrupt C language prevailing, or through the presumption of the unlearned, or through the negligence of copyists, have written it so throughout the passage of continuous time. But we, indeed, thinking with Jerome, with the sincerity of the Greek scripture, and with the Greek doctors, as is right, let us read: "If I will have him remain," to the glory of Him who, through the most sacred mouth of the Evangelist John writing in the Greek tongue, says these things without any ambiguity of words whatsoever: "If I will have him remain until I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." D