Translating a line from Jerome

[Reformed Covenanter]

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"?

 

[Phil D.]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

I am reading Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (c. 386-88; Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame, 2010). Here is the full comment on 1:18a.



N. B. The CUA Press edition of the Galatians commentary says that Paul went "to pay his respects to the chief apostle and not because he wanted to be a student".

 

[Phil D.]

I found a translation by John Jewel (fairly close to mine - phew...what a relief...), along with some corroborating thoughts of other patristics, here.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I found a translation by John Jewel (fairly close to mine - phew...what a relief...), along with some corroborating thoughts of other patristics, here.

That source is great; thanks, Phil.

 

[Phil D.]

It seems Mr. Scheck may be translating through Vatican-colored lenses... I find some similar tendencies among some of the high-Anglican translators in the Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I recall Rivetus arguing that Jerome's Commentary on Galatians wasn't authored by him, in Critici Sacri libri IV, p. 374.
For what it's worth, I do think the quote is refering to a first/chief apostle, but I doubt Jerome is the author.

 

[Phil D.]

For what it's worth, I do think the quote is refering to a first/chief apostle, but I doubt Jerome is the author.

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.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

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.

 

[Phil D.]

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.

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...

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.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

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...

That's certainly possible. Strictly speaking, "prior" is the comparative, not superlative, degree of the adjective, although they are sometimes interchanged.

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.

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.

 

[Phil D.]

If the writing is quoted as being from Jerome in Augustine I would consider that weightier that Rivetus's subjective judgment.

I should probably clarify. By cite I don't mean directly quotes, but the various points made in the commentary in support of the author's view are all addressed in Augustine's refutation of Jerome. And I have read a few reviews of the historical dialogue that either expressly state or take for granted that this is the commentary Augustine was referring to.

 

[Phil D.]

Just a quick followup - in further reviewing Jerome's commentary on Galatians, he plainly refers to Peter in both of the senses that have been proposed here: as having been an apostle before Paul was (apostolo...praecessori), and as being chief among the apostles (apostolorum principem). So it seems a definitive answer may be allusive as to which sense was meant in the particular quotation in question, with both ideas having some contextual support.