Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XIII: An in dinumeratione annorum Hebraeorum magis quam septuaginta interpretum sit sequenda auctoritas.

Sed cum hoc dixero, continuo referetur illud Iudaeorum esse mendacium, de quo superius satis actum est; nam septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos uiros non potuisse mentiri. ubi si quaeram, quid sit credibilius, Iudaeorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse et, dum aliis inuident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse ueritatem, an septuaginta homines, qui etiam ipsi Iudaei erant, uno in loco positos, quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciuerat, ipsam ueritatem gentibus alienigenis inuidisse et communicato istuc fecisse consilio: quis non uideat quid procliuius faciliusque credatur? sed absit ut prudens quispiam uel Iudaeos cuiuslibet peruersitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, uel septuaginta illos memorabiles uiros hoc de inuidenda gentibus ueritate unum communicasse consilium. credibilius ergo quis dixerit, cum primum de bibliotheca Ptolomaei describi ista coeperunt, tunc aliquid tale fieri potuisse in codice uno, sed primitus inde descripto, unde iam latius emanaret; ubi potuit quidem accidere etiam scriptoris error. sed hoc in illa quaestione de uita Mathusalae non absurdum est suspicari, et in illo alio, ubi superantibus uiginti quattuor annis summa non conuenit. in his autem, in quibus continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo, ita ut ante genitum filium, qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conueniat; et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione inuenitur: uidetur habere quandam, si dici potest, error ipse constantiam nec casum redolet, sed industriam. itaque illa diuersitas numerorum aliter se habentium in codicibus Graecis et Latinis, aliter in Hebraeis, ubi non est ista de centum annis prius additis et postea detractis per tot generationes continuata parilitas, nec malitiae Iudaeorum nec diligentiae uel prudentiae septuaginta interpretum, sed scriptoris tribuatur errori, qui de bibliotheca supradicti regis codicem describendum primus accepit. nam etiam nunc, ubi numeri non faciunt intentum ad aliquid, quod facile possit intellegi uel quod appareat utiliter disci, et neglegenter describuntur et neglegentius emendantur. quis enim sibi existimet esse discendum, quot milia hominum tribus Israel singillatim habere potuerunt? quoniam prodesse aliquid non putatur; et quotus quisque hominum est, cui profunditas utilitatis huius appareat? hic uero, ubi per tot contextas generationes centum anni alibi adsunt, alibi desunt, et post natum, qui commemorandus fuerat, filium desunt ubi adfuerunt, adsunt ubi defuerunt, ut summa concordet: nimirum cum uellet persuadere, qui hoc fecit, ideo numerosissimos annos uixisse antiquos, quod eos breuissimos nuncupabant, et hoc de maturitate pubertatis, qua idonea filii gignerentur, conaretur ostendere, atque ideo in illis centum annis decem nostros insinuandos putaret incredulis, ne homines tam diu uixisse recipere in fidem nollent, addidit centum, ubi gignendis filiis habilem non inuenit aetatem, eosdemque post genitos filios, ut congrueret summa, detraxit. sic quippe uoluit credibiles facere idonearum generandae proli conuenientias aetatum, ut tamen numero non fraudaret uniuersas aetates uiuentium singulorum. quod autem id in sexta generatione non fecit, hoc ipsum est quod magis mouet ideo illum fecisse, cum res, quam dicimus, postulauit, quia non fecit, ubi non postulauit. inuenit namque in eadem generatione apud Hebraeos uixisse Iared, antequam genuisset Enoch, centum sexaginta duos annos, qui secundum illam rationem breuium annorum fiunt anni sedecim et aliquid minus quam menses duo; quae iam aetas apta est ad gignendum, et ideo addere centum annos breues, ut nostri uiginti sex fierent, necesse non fuit, nec post natum Enoch eos detrahere, quos non addiderat ante natum. sic factum est ut hic nulla esset inter codices utrosque uarietas. sed rursus mouet, cur in octaua generatione, antequam de Mathusalam nasceretur Lamech, cum apud Hebraeos legantur centum octoginta duo anni, uiginti minus inueniuntur in codicibus nostris, ubi potius addi centum solent, et post genitum Lamech conplendam restituuntur ad summam, quae in codicibus utrisque non discrepat. si enim centum septuaginta annos propter pubertatis maturitatem decem et septem uolebat intellegi, sicut nihil addere, ita nihil detrahere iam debebat, quia inuenerat aetatem idoneam generationi filiorum, propter quam in aliis centum illos annos, ubi eam non inueniebat, addebat. hoc autem de uiginti annis merito putaremus casu mendositatis accidere potuisse, nisi eos, sicut prius detraxerat, restituere postea curaret, ut summae conueniret integritas. an forte astutius factum existimandum est, ut illa, qua centum anni prius solent adici et postea detrahi, occultaretur industria, cum et illic, ubi necesse non fuerat, non quidem de centum annis, uerumtamen de quantulocumque numero prius detracto, post reddito, tale aliquid fieret? sed quomodolibet istuc accipiatur, siue credatur ita esse factum siue non credatur, siue postremo ita siue non ita sit: recte fieri nullo modo dubitauerim, ut, cum diuersum aliquid in utrisque codicibus inuenitur, quandoquidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest uerum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. nam in quibusdam etiam codicibus Graecis tribus et uno Latino et uno etiam Syro inter se consentientibus inuentus est Mathusalam sex annis ante diluuium fuisse defunctus.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 13.--Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

But if I say this, I shall presently be answered, It is one of the Jews' lies. This, however, we have disposed of above, showing that it cannot be that men of so just a reputation as the seventy translators should have falsified their version. However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, through envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge the truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy's library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist's error. This is a sufficiently plausible account of the difficulty regarding Methuselah's life, and of that other case in which there is a difference in the total of twenty-four years. But in those cases in which there is a methodical resemblance in the falsification, so that uniformly the one version allots to the period before a son and successor is born 100 years more than the other, and to the period subsequent 100 years less, and vice versâ, so that the totals may agree,--and this holds true of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generations,--in these cases error seems to have, if we may say so, a certain kind of constancy, and savors not of accident, but of design.

Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended. For who will trouble himself to learn how many thousand men the several tribes of Israel contained? He sees no resulting benefit of such knowledge. Or how many men are there who are aware of the vast advantage that lies hid in this knowledge? But in this case, in which during so many consecutive generations 100 years are added in one manuscript where they are not reckoned in the other, and then, after the birth of the son and successor, the years which were wanting are added, it is obvious that the copyist who contrived this arrangement designed to insinuate that the antediluvians lived an excessive number of years only because each year was excessively brief, and that he tried to draw the attention to this fact by his statement of their age of puberty at which they became able to beget children. For, lest the incredulous might stumble at the difficulty of so long a lifetime, he insinuated that 100 of their years equalled but ten of ours; and this insinuation he conveyed by adding 100 years whenever he found the age below 160 years or thereabouts, deducting these years again from the period after the son's birth, that the total might harmonize. By this means he intended to ascribe the generation of offspring to a fit age, without diminishing the total sum of years ascribed to the lifetime of the individuals. And the very fact that in the sixth generation he departed from this uniform practice, inclines us all the rather to believe that when the circumstance we have referred to required his alterations, he made them; seeing that when this circumstance did not exist, he made no alteration. For in the same generation he found in the Hebrew ms., that Jared lived before he begat Enoch 162 years, which, according to the short year computation, is sixteen years and somewhat less than two months, an age capable of procreation; and therefore it was not necessary to add 100 short years, and so make the age twenty-six years of the usual length; and of course it was not necessary to deduct, after the son's birth, years which he had not added before it. And thus it comes to pass that in this instance there is no variation between the two manuscripts.

This is corroborated still further by the fact that in the eighth generation, while the Hebrew books assign 182 ¹ years to Methuselah before Lamech's birth, ours assign to him twenty less, though usually 100 years are added to this period; then, after Lamech's birth, the twenty years are restored, so as to equalize the total in the two books. For if his design was that these 170 years be understood as seventeen, so as to suit the age of puberty, as there was no need for him adding anything, so there was none for his subtracting anything; for in this case he found an age fit for the generation of children, for the sake of which he was in the habit of adding those 100 years in cases where he did not find the age already sufficient. This difference of twenty years we might, indeed, have supposed had happened accidentally, had he not taken care to restore them afterwards as he had deducted them from the period before, so that there might be no deficiency in the total. Or are we perhaps to suppose that there was the still more astute design of concealing the deliberate and uniform addition of 100 years to the first period and their deduction from the subsequent period--did he design to conceal this by doing something similar, that is to say, adding and deducting, not indeed a century, but some years, even in a case in which there was no need for his doing so? But whatever may be thought of this, whether it be believed that he did so or not, whether, in fine, it be so or not, I would have no manner of doubt that when any diversity is found in the books, since both cannot be true to fact, we do well to believe in preference that language out of which the translation was made into another by translators. For there are three Greek mss., one Latin, and one Syriac, which agree with one another, and in all of these Methuselah is said to have died six years before the deluge.