Letter 72. To Vitalis.

Vitalis had asked Jerome "Is Scripture credible when it tells us that Solomon and Ahaz became fathers at the age of eleven?" The difficulty had previously occurred to Jerome himself (Letter 36. 10, whence perhaps Vitalis took it) and in this letter he suggests several ways in which it may be met. He is quite prepared, if necessary, to accept the alleged fact on the grounds that "there are many things in Scripture which sound incredible and yet are true" and that "nature cannot resist the Lord of nature" (§2). He is disposed, however, to regard the question as trivial and of no importance. The date of the letter is 398 a.d.

The below translation made by ChatGPT 3.5 from this Latin text.

1. Zenon the sailor, through whom you say letters of your sanctity were transmitted to me, delivered only a short and brief letter from the blessed Pope Amabilis, containing the usual gifts. And I am quite surprised as to what could be the reason that, although he had been faithful in conveying your blessings as well as those of the Pope, he is found to be negligent in delivering the letter. For, I do not think that you can be deceived, a disciple of truth, unless perhaps the Latin language has strayed among the Greek man’s papers. Therefore, I am replying to the second letter, which was brought to me by my holy son, Heraclius the deacon, in which, among other things, you beg me to explain to you the reasons why Solomon and Ahaz, being only eleven years old, are said to have begotten sons. For if Solomon received the empire over Israel in the twelfth year, and reigned in Jerusalem forty years; and his son Roboam, when he was in the fortieth year of his age, succeeded him in the kingdom, it is clear that Solomon was either eleven or ten years old, because his mother claims that she carried him in her womb for ten months from conception to birth. Again, when Ahaz, the son of Joathan, was twenty years old, he was made king over two tribes, that is, Judah and Benjamin (4 Kings 16), and he reigned sixteen years (2 Chronicles 28): upon his death, when Ezechias was in the twenty-fifth year of his age, he succeeded his father in the kingdom (4 Kings 18). Whence it is understood that Achaz also begot Ezechias in his eleventh or tenth year.

2. And indeed, if in the histories, the Septuagint interpreters had something different from the Hebrew truth, we could resort to the usual defenses: and to hold fast to the fortress of the vernacular tongue: but now, there is difficulty not in the Scripture, but in the sense, as the true one itself and the other interpreters agree with equal authority. For who would believe that a boy of eleven years could generate a son? Many other things are said in the Scriptures which seem incredible, and yet are true. Nor does nature prevail against the Lord of nature: nor can a vessel say to the potter: Why have you made me thus, or thus? Although what is done for a miracle, as a sign and wonder, cannot make a law of nature. Is it because in our age a two-headed, four-handed, one-bellied, and two-legged man was born at Lydda, that it is necessary for all men to be born in the same way? Let us read the old histories, especially the Greek and Latin ones, and we shall find, cleansed by expiatory offerings, according to the error of the ancients, portentous offspring in both human beings, and in cattle and beasts. I have heard, and I do not lie according to the testimony of the Lord, that a certain little woman, when she nursed the exposed infant and fed it, and performed the duties of a nursemaid, and slept with the little boy who had already reached the age of ten years, it happened that she indulged in more than chastity, and being excited by passion, she led the child to sexual intercourse with obscene movements. The first drunkenness of another night and subsequently made a habit of the rest. Not yet two months had passed, and behold the woman's uterus swelled. What more? By God's dispensation, it was done so that what was being abused against nature with the simplicity of a little child in contempt of God, should be produced by the Lord of nature, the word being fulfilled which says: nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest (Matthew 10).

3. Meanwhile we consider that the Scripture accuses both Solomon and Achaz of pleasure and impiety secretly. For both, because they were of the lineage of David, turned away from the Lord: and one so much followed after voluptuousness, that he had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and they withdrew his heart. And Solomon's wives turned away his heart. For when he was old, his heart was not right with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father. And he had idols built, through the wickedness of his wives, and he worshipped all the idols which his wives made. And Joas made an alliance with the king of the Assyrians, when he saw him to be powerful, and he went to Damascus and took captive the same as his fathers had done. He increased his contempt towards the Lord in the time of his affliction, and sacrificed to the gods of Damascus that saved him; and he set up against God the gods of the people of Damascus, and he built altars in their cities, and burnt incense to idols. And he committed a grievous crime and destroyed the vessels of the house of the Lord, which were for the service of the house of the Lord. Since it is clear that people who are devoted to lust from a young age are shown to have immaturity of offspring, and they begin to sin even at a time when nature does not allow it.

4. At the sum of it, it can be said that in the kingdom of David, Solomon obtained the throne at twelve years old, and afterwards, because the Scripture left it uncertain, David lived for a few years while his son was already reigning, which were attributed to him and not to Solomon. Moreover, after the father had died, the son reigns for forty years, which he reigned without a parent. Thus, the beginning of Solomon's reign and the time when he himself reigned alone were demonstrated by history. However, not all the fifty years of his life were contained within the circles of fifty-two years. But if you doubt that, while their sons are reigning and their fathers are still alive, the time of their rule is attributed not to the sons but to the parents, read the volume of the Kingdom itself, and you will find that after King Uzziah of Judah was struck with leprosy, he lived in a separate house, and his son Jotham ruled the empire and judged the people of the land until the day of his father's death (4 Kings 5). And yet, after his death, at the age of twenty-five, he is said to have reigned sixteen years, which he alone governed. What we have understood about Solomon should also be understood about Ahaz, who was the father of Hezekiah, Jotham's son (2 Chronicles 27:28). I have heard the story told by the Jews in this way, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, which I recently interpreted among ten visions: that when Ahaz died, the Philistines rejoiced, and the Scripture afterwards warns and states: 'Do not rejoice, all Philistia: For the rod of him who struck you is broken. For out of the serpent's root will come forth a king, and his offspring will devour the bird.'" (Isaiah 14): this means that from Ahaz would come forth King Hezekiah. From this it is understood that his son was not immediately placed in power after the death of his father, but that his kingdom was delayed by popular uprisings, certain interregna, or certainly pressing evils, and wars arising from all sides.

5. In obscure matters we hold diverse opinions, so that we seem to be speaking before you rather than writing. Otherwise, in forbidding endless genealogies and Jewish fables, the Apostle seems to me to be prohibiting such questions. For what profit is it to adhere to a letter, and either to blame the mistake of the writer, or the series of years, when it is most clearly written: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life? (2 Cor. 3) Read over all the books of both the Old and New Testaments, and you will find so great a difference among the years, and the number between Judah and Israel, that to dwell on questions of this kind seems to belong not so much to a studious as to a idle person. I have willingly received the gifts sent by you, and I pray that you may continue to persist until the end in the love which you have begun to pursue. For it is not the beginning, but the remaining which is the fruit of virtue. Receive, in turn, the gifts which we have sent through Desiderius (Put Aquitanian Presbyter).