translate

To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.

Since the law which we wish not only to transcribe but also to translate belongs to the whole Jewish race, what justification shall we be able to find for our embassy while such vast numbers of them remain in a state of slavery in your kingdom?

Being such as this, let him receive ordination on the first day of the week, all consenting to his appointment, and bearing witness to him, with all the neighbouring presbyters and bishops. Let those bishops lay hands on him, having first washed their hands, but let the presbyters stand beside them, not speaking, in fear, lifting up their hearts in silence. After [that], let the bishops lay hands on him, saying: We lay hands on the servant of God, who hath been chosen in the Spirit, for the true and pious disposing of the Church, which alone hath the principality, and which is not dissolved, of the invisible [and] living God, and for the delivering of true judgment and divine and holy revelations, and of divine gifts and faithful doctrines of the Trinity, by the cross, by the resurrection, by the incorruptibility, in the holy Church of God. After this, one bishop, commanded by the other bishops, shall lay hands on him, saying his calling of appointment, thus: O God, who hast done all things in power, and hast established them, and hast founded the inhabited world in reason, and hast adorned the crown of all these things which were made by Thee; who hast given to them to keep Thy commandments in fear; who hast bestowed upon us the understanding of the truth, and hast made known unto us that good Spirit of Thine; who didst send Thy beloved Son, the only Saviour, without spot, for our salvation; O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort who in the pure heights dost dwell eternally, who art high and adorable, dreadful and great; who seest all things, who knowest all things before they are, with whom all things were before they were [made]; who gavest illumination to the Church by the grace of Thy Only-begotten Son, having foreordained from the beginning those who delight in just things, and do those things that are holy, to dwell in Thy habitations; who didst choose Abraham, who pleased Thee by his faith, and didst translate holy Enoch to the treasure-house of life; who hast ordered princes and priests in Thine upper sanctuary; O Lord, who didst call [them] to praise and glorify the Name of Thee and of Thy Only-begotten in the place of Thy glory; O Lord God, who before the foundation of the world didst not leave Thine upper sanctuary without a ministry, and also, since the foundation of the world, hast adorned and glorified Thy sanctuaries [on earth] with faithful princes and priests, after the pattern of Thine [own] heaven; Thou, Lord, even now also art well pleased to be praised, and hast vouchsafed that there should be princes for Thy people: Cause to shine forth and pour out understanding, and the grace which cometh from Thy princely Spirit, which Thou didst deliver to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ; give wisdom, O God, [give] reasoning, strength, power, unity of spirit to do all things by Thy co-operation. Give the Spirit which is Thine, O holy God; send to Thy holy and pure Church, and to every place which singeth to Thee “Holy,” Him who was given to Thy Holy One; and grant, O Lord, that this Thy servant may please Thee for doxology, and for laud without ceasing, O God, for fitting hymns of praise, and for suitable times, for acceptable prayers, for faithful asking, for an upright mind, for a meek heart, for the working of life and of meekness and of truth, for the knowledge of uprightness. O Father, who knowest the hearts, [grant] to this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate, to feed Thy holy flock, and to stand at the head of the priesthood without fault, ministering to Thee day and night; grant that Thy face may be seen by him; vouchsafe, O Lord, that he may offer to Thee the offerings of Thy holy Church carefully [and] with all fear; bestow upon him that he may have Thy powerful? Spirit to loose all bands, as Thou didst bestow [Him] on Thy apostles, to please Thee in meekness; fill him full of love, knowledge, understanding, discipline, perfectness, strength, and a pure heart, when he prayeth for the people, and when he mourneth for those who commit folly and draweth them to [receive] help; when he offereth to Thee praises and thanksgivings and prayers for a sweet-smelling savour through Thy beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are given] to Thee praise and honour and might, with the Holy Ghost, both before the worlds, and also now, and at all times, and for ever and ever without end. Amen. And let the people say: Amen. And then let them cry out: He is worthy, He is worthy, He is worthy. After he is [ordained], let the people keep the feast three days, according to the mystery that in three days [our Lord] rose from the dead. And let every one give him the Peace.

And when I had pondered this--Why did not `Abal'ez and Abalfarog who edited (or, copied) the book translate it?

I said this: It went out in the days of Zagua, and they did not translate it because this book says: Those who reign not being Israelites are transgressors of the Law.

Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were,—what fortunes they had been subject to,—and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues,—what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigor of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man's persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully. Besides the foregoing motives, I had others which I greatly reflected on; and these were, that our forefathers were willing to communicate such things to others; and that some of the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of our nation.

A little after this the king saw in his sleep again another vision; how he should fall from his dominion, and feed among the wild beasts, and that when he halt lived in this manner in the desert for seven years, he should recover his dominion again. When he had seen this dream, he called the magicians together again, and inquired of them about it, and desired them to tell him what it signified; but when none of them could find out the meaning of the dream, nor discover it to the king, Daniel was the only person that explained it; and as he foretold, so it came to pass; for after he had continued in the wilderness the forementioned interval of time, while no one durst attempt to seize his kingdom during those seven years, he prayed to God that he might recover his kingdom, and he returned to it. But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than translate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there.

Accordingly the king sent to Judas, and to those that were besieged with them, and promised to give them peace, and to permit them to make use of, and live according to, the laws of their fathers; and they gladly received his proposals; and when they had gained security upon oath for their performance, they went out of the temple. But when Antiochus came into it, and saw how strong the place was, he broke his oaths, and ordered his army that was there to pluck down the walls to the ground; and when he had so done, he returned to Antioch. He also carried with him Onias the high priest, who was also called Menelaus; for Lysias advised the king to slay Menelaus, if he would have the Jews be quiet, and cause him no further disturbance, for that this man was the origin of all the mischief the Jews had done them, by persuading his father to compel the Jews to leave the religion of their fathers. So the king sent Menelaus to Berea, a city of Syria, and there had him put to death, when he had been high priest ten years. He had been a wicked and an impious man; and, in order to get the government to himself, had compelled his nation to transgress their own laws. After the death of Menelaus, Alcimus, who was also called Jacimus, was made high priest. But when king Antiochus found that Philip had already possessed himself of the government, he made war against him, and subdued him, and took him, and slew him. Now as to Onias, the son of the high priest, who, as we before informed you, was left a child when his father died, when he saw that the king had slain his uncle Menelaus, and given the high priesthood to Alcimus, who was not of the high priest stock, but was induced by Lysias to translate that dignity from his family to another house, he fled to Ptolemy, king of Egypt; and when he found he was in great esteem with him, and with his wife Cleopatra, he desired and obtained a place in the Nomus of Heliopolis, wherein he built a temple like to that at Jerusalem; of which therefore we shall hereafter give an account, in a place more proper for it.

Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but no where the accurate truth of the facts; I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].

I know that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and colleague had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that the expression, “The King hath brought me into his chamber,” was appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a style of elegance xiiequal to that of a man of such distinguished eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles, should, through the poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what he is. And this consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies, and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e. the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers, xiiiafter spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.

Reader, remember me in your prayers, that we too may deserve to be made emulators of the spirit. The two former books on The Principles I translated not only at your instance, but even under pressure from you during the days of Lent; but as you, my devout brother Macarius, were not only living near me during that time, but had more leisure at your command than now, so I also worked the harder; whereas I have been longer in explaining these two latter books, seeing you came less frequently from a distant extremity of the city to urge on my labour. Now if you remember what I warned you of in my former preface,—that certain persons would be indignant, if they did not hear that we spoke some evil of Origen,—that, I imagine, you have forthwith experienced, has come to pass. But if those demons who excite the tongues of men to slander were so infuriated by that work, in which he had not as yet fully unveiled their secret proceedings, what, think you, will be the case in this, in which he will expose all those dark and hidden ways, by which they creep into the hearts of men, and deceive weak and unstable souls? You will immediately see all things thrown into confusion, seditions stirred up, clamours raised throughout the whole city, and that individual summoned to receive sentence of condemnation who endeavoured to dispel the diabolical darkness of ignorance by means of the light of the gospel lamp. Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith. I think it necessary, however, to remind you that the principle observed in the former books has been observed also in these, viz. not to translate what appeared contrary to Origen’s other opinions, and to our own belief, but to pass by such passages as being interpolated and forged by others. But if he has appeared to give expression to any novelties regarding rational creatures (on which subject the essence of our faith does not depend), for the sake of discussion and of adding to our knowledge, when perhaps it was necessary for us to answer in such an order some heretical opinions, I have not omitted to mention these either in the present or preceding books, unless when he wished to repeat in the following books what he had already stated in the previous ones, when I have thought it convenient, for the sake of brevity, to curtail some of these repetitions. Should any one, however, peruse these passages from a desire to enlarge his knowledge, and not to raise captious objections, he will do better to have them expounded by persons of skill. For it is an absurdity to have the fictions of poetry and the ridiculous plays of comedy interpreted by grammarians, and to suppose that without a master and an interpreter any one is able to learn those things which are spoken either of God or of the heavenly virtues, and of the whole universe of things, in which some deplorable error either of pagan philosophers or of heretics is confuted; and the result of which is, that men would rather rashly and ignorantly condemn things that are difficult and obscure, than ascertain their meaning by diligence and study.

Let us now look at the things you find fault with in the story itself. And here let us begin with what would probably make any one averse to receiving the history: I mean the play of words between prinos and prisis, schinos and schisis. You say that you can see how this can be in Greek, but that in Hebrew the words are altogether distinct. On this point, however, I am still in doubt; because, when I was considering this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty), I consulted not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for prinos and prisein, and how they would translate schinos the tree, and how schisis. And they said that they did not know these Greek words prinos and schinos, and asked me to show them the trees, that they might see what they called them. And I at once (for the truth’s dear sake) put before them pieces of the different trees. One of them then said, that he could not with any certainty give the Hebrew name of anything not mentioned in Scripture, since, if one was at a loss, he was prone to use the Syriac word instead of the Hebrew one; and he went on to say, that some words the very wisest could not translate. “If, then,” said he, “you can adduce a passage in any Scripture where the schinos is mentioned, or the prinos, you will find there the words you seek, together with the words which have the same sound; but if it is nowhere mentioned, we also do not know it.” This, then, being what the Hebrews said to whom I had recourse, and who were acquainted with the history, I am cautious of affirming whether or not there is any correspondence to this play of words in the Hebrew. Your reason for affirming that there is not, you yourself probably know.

Let us now look at the things you find fault with in the story itself. And here let us begin with what would probably make any one averse to receiving the history: I mean the play of words between prinos and prisis, schinos and schisis. You say that you can see how this can be in Greek, but that in Hebrew the words are altogether distinct. On this point, however, I am still in doubt; because, when I was considering this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty), I consulted not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for prinos and prisein, and how they would translate schinos the tree, and how schisis. And they said that they did not know these Greek words prinos and schinos, and asked me to show them the trees, that they might see what they called them. And I at once (for the truth’s dear sake) put before them pieces of the different trees. One of them then said, that he could not with any certainty give the Hebrew name of anything not mentioned in Scripture, since, if one was at a loss, he was prone to use the Syriac word instead of the Hebrew one; and he went on to say, that some words the very wisest could not translate. “If, then,” said he, “you can adduce a passage in any Scripture where the schinos is mentioned, or the prinos, you will find there the words you seek, together with the words which have the same sound; but if it is nowhere mentioned, we also do not know it.” This, then, being what the Hebrews said to whom I had recourse, and who were acquainted with the history, I am cautious of affirming whether or not there is any correspondence to this play of words in the Hebrew. Your reason for affirming that there is not, you yourself probably know.

As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as the Scythians entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them. For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these statements are true when spoken of the names of men, what are we to think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred from the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, “the God of Abraham,” and “the God of Isaac,” and “the God of Jacob,” he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished and become submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, “the god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the heel,” the mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word “Israel” into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the same also of the pronunciation of “Sabaoth,” a word which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into “Lord of hosts,” or “Lord of armies,” or “Almighty” (different acceptations of it having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither “Sabaoth” nor “Adonai,” when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as the Scythians entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them. For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these statements are true when spoken of the names of men, what are we to think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred from the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, “the God of Abraham,” and “the God of Isaac,” and “the God of Jacob,” he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished and become submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, “the god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the heel,” the mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word “Israel” into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the same also of the pronunciation of “Sabaoth,” a word which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into “Lord of hosts,” or “Lord of armies,” or “Almighty” (different acceptations of it having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither “Sabaoth” nor “Adonai,” when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as the Scythians entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them. For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these statements are true when spoken of the names of men, what are we to think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred from the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, “the God of Abraham,” and “the God of Isaac,” and “the God of Jacob,” he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished and become submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, “the god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the heel,” the mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word “Israel” into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the same also of the pronunciation of “Sabaoth,” a word which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into “Lord of hosts,” or “Lord of armies,” or “Almighty” (different acceptations of it having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither “Sabaoth” nor “Adonai,” when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

Again, not understanding the meaning of the words, “And God ended on the sixth day His works which He had made, and ceased on the seventh day from all His works which He had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because on it He had ceased from all His works which He had begun to make;” and imagining the expression, “He ceased on the seventh day,” to be the same as this, “He rested on the seventh day,” he makes the remark: “After this, indeed, he is weary, like a very bad workman, who stands in need of rest to refresh himself!” For he knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties, will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings. In the next place, as if either the Scriptures made such a statement, or as if we ourselves so spoke of God as having rested from fatigue, he continues: “It is not in keeping with the fitness of things that the first God should feel fatigue, or work with His hands, or give forth commands.” Celsus says, that “it is not in keeping with the fitness of things that the first God should feel fatigue.” Now we would say that neither does God the Word feel fatigue, nor any of those beings who belong to a better and diviner order of things, because the sensation of fatigue is peculiar to those who are in the body. You can examine whether this is true of those who possess a body of any kind, or of those who have an earthly body, or one a little better than this. But “neither is it consistent with the fitness of things that the first God should work with His own hands.” If you understand the words “work with His own hands” literally, then neither are they applicable to the second God, nor to any other being partaking of divinity. But suppose that they are spoken in an improper and figurative sense, so that we may translate the following expressions, “And the firmament showeth forth His handywork,” and “the heavens are the work of Thy hands,” and any other similar phrases, in a figurative manner, so far as respects the “hands” and “limbs” of Deity, where is the absurdity in the words, “God thus working with His own hands?” And as there is no absurdity in God thus working, so neither is there in His issuing “commands;” so that what is done at His bidding should be beautiful and praiseworthy, because it was God who commanded it to be performed.

A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

It has been stated: Two should not read the Torah and one translate. Rebbi Zeïra said, because of the benedictions. But has it not been stated: Two should not translate and one read; could you say that is because of the benedictions? But it is because two voices do not enter into one ear.

It has been stated: Two should not read the Torah and one translate. Rebbi Zeïra said, because of the benedictions. But has it not been stated: Two should not translate and one read; could you say that is because of the benedictions? But it is because two voices do not enter into one ear.

“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not kilaim, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is kilaim. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. A man stood up to translate while leaning on a pillar. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given in trembling and fear so we have to treat it in trembling and fear. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw Huna standing up translating without putting up another person in his stead. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given by an agent, so we have to treat it by an agent. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi went and turned it into a question, I was standing between the Eternal and you at that time to tell you the Eternal’s word. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw a teacher delivering the translation from a book. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; matters which were said orally orally, matters which were said in writing in writing.

It was stated: Two should not read in the Torah and one translate. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because of the benediction. But was it not stated, not two shall translate and one read. Could you say, because of the benediction? But because [not] two voices enter one ear. It was stated: Two read in the Torah, but not two read in Prophets. Rebbi Ulla said, there are readers for the Torah, there are no readers in Prophets.

It was stated: Two should not read in the Torah and one translate. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because of the benediction. But was it not stated, not two shall translate and one read. Could you say, because of the benediction? But because [not] two voices enter one ear. It was stated: Two read in the Torah, but not two read in Prophets. Rebbi Ulla said, there are readers for the Torah, there are no readers in Prophets.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

as it has been taught: It happened that King Ptolemy brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master. God then gave each one of them wisdom and they all conceived the same idea.

“Instead of the thorn”: instead of the wicked Haman who put himself up as an object of worship, as it is written, “And upon all thorns and upon all brambles” (Isaiah 7:19) “shall come up the cypress”: this is Mordecai who was called the chief of all spices, as it is said, “And you shall take for yourself the chief spices, flowing myrrh (mor)” (Exodus 30:23), which we translate [in Aramaic],

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands.

A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands.

A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

The following are read but not translated (Mnemonic: R’E’B’D’N’). The incident of Reuben is read but not translated. On one occasion R. Hanina b. Gamaliel went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read, “And it came to pass when Israel dwelled” (Genesis 35:22), and he said to the translator: Translate only the latter part of the verse, and the sages praised him.