For the Latinists among you, how would you translate the following line from Jerome's Commentary on Galatians (1:18), "sed honoris priori apostolo deferendi"?
Not a real Latinist, but most simply, "...but to show honor [to one] who was beforehand [or, 'before' the subject] an apostle." More context would help clarify the idea.
For what it's worth, I do think the quote is refering to a first/chief apostle, but I doubt Jerome is the author.
So just to clarify, I think Jewel's translation is plausible, and "priori" can be translated as "first."Always trying to learn... Wouldn't that be a secondary or figurative meaning of priori - and if so, what is the best way to tell that is how it is being used here? Conceptually, Jewel's interpretation seems to align with the preceding verse, Gal. 1:17 and the sense of 1 Cor. 15:7-9.
So just to clarify, I think Jewel's translation is plausible, and "priori" can be translated as "first."
However, as the DMLBS notes, one sense in which it is used is for one "first in importance or authority" (entry 5).
And that something like that might be in mind fits the context of the writer saying that he went up for the sake of "honoris deferendi" (showing honor). Not only does one tend to show honor to one who is greater, but the word deferendi can have the idea of deference or submission.
That's certainly possible. Strictly speaking, "prior" is the comparative, not superlative, degree of the adjective, although they are sometimes interchanged.Sure, that makes sense. Maybe another possibility is that it's used in the sense of "an apostle greater than himself" (again, 1 Cor. 15:7-9) rather than "THE chief" of all the apostles. And of course where different meanings are plausible, both Protestant and Catholic writers will often advocate for the one that suits their position better...
Rivetus's argument is basically that the writing doesn't sound like Jerome. He's doing higher criticism, more or less. If the writing is quoted as being from Jerome in Augustine I would consider that weightier that Rivetus's subjective judgment.As for non-Jeromian authorship, I don't quite understand Rivetus' argument. I can't find any modern textual scholars that take that position. It is a major commentary on Galatians, of which no other writers from that era are known or said to have composed. Also, the author certainly takes the aberrant position of Jerome on Gal. 2:11-14, that Augustine so ardently opposed, with the later having cited parts of Jerome's commentary that match this one during the prolonged correspondence between the two over that matter.
If the writing is quoted as being from Jerome in Augustine I would consider that weightier that Rivetus's subjective judgment.