How Does ChatGPT Measure Up to Scholarly Translations?
Below is a comparison between ChatGPT 4 and scholarly translations of Zanchi, Augustine, and Anselm. The Latin is provided on the left in each instance, with varying English translations on the right.
Over the past seven months, I have edited over 51,000 words of Zanchi using ChatGPT to do the heavy lifting of translation work. What I create is a compound work: I use a customized ChatGPT 4 to assist in the first translation draft, but check each line to the original and make changes. You may view that as an inappropriate tool. Does it make my translation illegitimate? That’s for you to decide.
I plan to write an article arguing for the benefits of using a tool like ChatGPT. The three arguments I will make are that of access speed, division of labor, and richer resourcement. This article will allow you to weigh the accuracy of ChatGPT’s capabilities.
Comparison 1 - Zanchi on the Resurrection
Theses 17-20 from Girolamo Zanchi’s On the Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and sitting at God's right hand, 1581.
Thesis 17 (Latin): Nec valet exceptio, Christum à resurrectione, inuis clausis ingressum fuisse ad discipulos. Neque enim propterea vel inuisibile, vel incircunscriptum, vel impalpabile factum fuit: cùm Christus mox ingressus, & à discipulis conspectus, dixerit, Palpate seu contrectate & videte, quia Spiritus car nem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere: ac proinde mutatio nulla (vt patres docent) in corpore Christi facta fuerit, sicuti nec cùm deambulabat super aquas vel ipse vel Petrus; sed omnipotentia Deitatis imperium in omnia habentis, fores cesserint vero ac solido corpori Filij Dei.
Thesis 17 (English Translation 1: John Legat): Neither is that exception anything, that Christ after He was risen came in to His disciples the doors being shut. For it was not therefore either made invisible or uncircumscribed or unpalpable; seeing Christ, being come in and seen of His disciples presently said, Feel or, "handle...and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." And therefore (as the fathers teach) there was no change made of Christ's body, no more than there was when He or Peter walked upon the waters. But by the omnipotency of His deity having power over all things, the doors gave place to the true and firm body of the Son of God.
Thesis 17 (Latin): Nec valet exceptio, Christum à resurrectione, inuis clausis ingressum fuisse ad discipulos. Neque enim propterea vel inuisibile, vel incircunscriptum, vel impalpabile factum fuit: cùm Christus mox ingressus, & à discipulis conspectus, dixerit, Palpate seu contrectate & videte, quia Spiritus car nem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere: ac proinde mutatio nulla (vt patres docent) in corpore Christi facta fuerit, sicuti nec cùm deambulabat super aquas vel ipse vel Petrus; sed omnipotentia Deitatis imperium in omnia habentis, fores cesserint vero ac solido corpori Filij Dei.
Thesis 17 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): Nor is the objection valid that Christ, after the resurrection, entered where the disciples were with doors being closed. For this did not make Him invisible, unbounded, or intangible: since Christ, having just entered and been seen by the disciples, said, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”: and therefore no change (as the fathers teach) was made in the body of Christ, just as neither when He or Peter walked on water; but by the omnipotence of the Deity, which has dominion over all things, the doors yielded to the true and solid body of the Son of God.
Thesis 18 (Latin): Quare meritò à Patribus non solùm Marcion, Manichaei & alij, qui Christum non verum ac solidum humanum corpus, sed phantasmaticum sumsisse, omniaque κατά δόκησιν & φαντασίαν egisse docuerunt: verùm etiam Origen stae, Johannes Hierosolymitanus, Euticius Constantinopolitanus episcopi, & alij, qui dixerunt, Christi corpus post resurrectionem ita factum fuisse spirituale, vt esset subtilius aëre, eoque inuisibile & impalpabile, damnati fuerunt.
Thesis 18 (English Translation 1: Legat): Wherefore not without cause did the fathers condemn not only Marcion, the Maniches and others, which taught that Christ took not a true and firm human body, but a fantastical one, and did all things according to imagination and fantasy, but also the Originists, John of Jerusalem, and Euticius of Constantinople, bishops, and others, which said that Christ's body after His resurrection was made so spiritual that it was more thin than air, and therefore invisible and unpalpable.
Thesis 18. (Latin): Quare meritò à Patribus non solùm Marcion, Manichaei & alij, qui Christum non verum ac solidum humanum corpus, sed phantasmaticum sumsisse, omniaque κατά δόκησιν & φαντασίαν egisse docuerunt: verùm etiam Origen stae, Johannes Hierosolymitanus, Euticius Constantinopolitanus episcopi, & alij, qui dixerunt, Christi corpus post resurrectionem ita factum fuisse spirituale, vt esset subtilius aëre, eoque inuisibile & impalpabile, damnati fuerunt.
Thesis 18 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): Therefore, it is rightly by the Fathers that not only Marcion, Manicheans, and others, who taught that Christ did not assume a true and solid human body, but a phantasmal one, and performed everything according to appearance and fantasy, were condemned: but also Origenists, John of Jerusalem, Eutyches the Bishop of Constantinople, and others, who said that Christ's body after the resurrection became so spiritual that it was subtler than air, and therefore invisible and intangible, were condemned.
Thesis 19 (Latin): Cùm autem in Coena non aliud Christi corpus, quàm illud, quod pro nobis fractum, hoc est, verè passum & mortuum est, nobis edendum detur: efficitur, corpus Christi verum, quod in Coena edimus, verè circunscriptum, visibile & palpabile esse; Ac proinde, cùm in Coena nihil, praeter panem, videatur, tangatur, sentiatur: minimè illud sub spe ciebus panis & vini, aut in pane ipso & vino latens atque absconditum, sua substantia reapse contineri.
Thesis 19 (English Translation 1: Legat): Seeing then that in the Supper no other body of Christ is given us to be eaten but that which was broken for us, that is, truly suffered and died; it followeth that Christ's true body which we eat in the Supper is truly circumscribed, visible, and palpable. And consequently, seeing nothing is seen, touched, or perceived in the Supper besides bread, the same body cannot in its own substance really be contained under the forms of bread and wine, or lie hidden in the very bread and wine.
Thesis 19 (Latin): Cùm autem in Coena non aliud Christi corpus, quàm illud, quod pro nobis fractum, hoc est, verè passum & mortuum est, nobis edendum detur: efficitur, corpus Christi verum, quod in Coena edimus, verè circunscriptum, visibile & palpabile esse; Ac proinde, cùm in Coena nihil, praeter panem, videatur, tangatur, sentiatur: minimè illud sub spe ciebus panis & vini, aut in pane ipso & vino latens atque absconditum, sua substantia reapse contineri.
Thesis 19 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): However, since in the Lord's Supper no other body of Christ is given to us to eat than that which was broken for us, that is, truly suffered and died: it follows that the true body of Christ, which we eat in the Supper, is truly circumscribed, visible, and tangible; And therefore, since in the Supper nothing but bread is seen, touched, and felt: it is by no means the case that it is contained under the appearances of bread and wine, or hidden and concealed in the bread and wine itself, by its substance actually.
Thesis 20 (Latin): Agnoscimus verò, Resurrectionem Christi, & caussam & exemplar esse nostrae resurrectionis tum spiritualis tum corporalis: Spiritualis quidem caussam, propter illud Apostoli ad Rom. 4; Resurrexit propter iustificationem nostri, exemplar verò, propter illud, Sepulti igitur sumus vnà cum illo per Baptismum in mortem, vt quemadmodum excitatus est Christus ex mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita & nos in nouitate vitae ambulemus.
Thesis 20 (English Translation 1: Legat): Now we acknowledge the resurrection of Christ is both the cause and an example of our as well spiritual as corporal resurrection. The cause of the spiritual, because the apostle saith to the Romans in Rom. 4:1-25, He "was raised again for our justification"; and an example, because he saith, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Thesis 20 (Latin): Agnoscimus verò, Resurrectionem Christi, & caussam & exemplar esse nostrae resurrectionis tum spiritualis tum corporalis: Spiritualis quidem caussam, propter illud Apostoli ad Rom. 4; Resurrexit propter iustificationem nostri, exemplar verò, propter illud, Sepulti igitur sumus vnà cum illo per Baptismum in mortem, vt quemadmodum excitatus est Christus ex mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita & nos in nouitate vitae ambulemus.
Thesis 20 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): We recognize, however, that the Resurrection of Christ is both the cause and the example of our resurrection, both spiritual and corporeal: indeed, the cause of the spiritual, because of the Apostle's word to Romans 4, “He was raised up for our justification”; and the example, because of this, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Comparison 2 - Augustine, De Trinitate. Book Five, Chapter 2 — God the Only Unchangeable Essence
English translation 1 by Arthur West Haddan. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
English Translation 2: ChatGPT 4.
English Translation 3 by Stephen McKenna, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 45. (Catholic University Press, 1963.)
English Translation 4 by Edmund Hill, The Trinity. (New City Press, 1990.)
De Trin, 5.2 (Latin): Est tamen sine dubitatione substantia uel si melius hoc appellatur essentia, quam graeci οὐσία uocant. Sicut enim ab eo quod est sapere dicta est sapientia et ab eo quod est scire dicta est scientia, ita ab eo quod est esse dicta est essentia. Et quis magis est quam ille qui dixit famulo suo: Ego sum qui sum, et: Dices filiis Israhel: Qui est misit me ad uos? Sed aliae quae dicuntur essentiae siue substantiae capiunt accidentias quibus in eis fiat uel magna uel quantacumque mutatio; deo autem aliquid eiusmodi accidere non potest. Et ideo sola est incommutabilis substantia uel essentia quae deus est, cui profecto ipsum esse unde essentia nominata est maxime ac uerissime competit. Quod enim mutatur non seruat ipsum esse, et quod mutari potest etiamsi non mutetur potest quod fuerat non esse, ac per hoc illud solum quod non tantum non mutatur uerum etiam mutari omnino non potest sine scrupulo occurrit quod uerissime dicatur esse.
De Trin, 5.2 (English Translation 1: Haddon & Knight): He is, however, without doubt, a substance, or, if it be better so to call it, an essence, which the Greeks call οὐσία. For as wisdom is so called from the being wise, and knowledge from knowing; so from being comes that which we call essence. And who is there that is, more than He who said to His servant Moses, “I am that I am;” and, “Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, He who is has sent me unto you?” But other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs. For that which is changed does not retain its own being; and that which can be changed, although it be not actually changed, is able not to be that which it had been; and hence that which not only is not changed, but also cannot at all be changed, alone falls most truly, without difficulty or hesitation, under the category of being.
De Trin, 5.2 (Latin): Est tamen sine dubitatione substantia uel si melius hoc appellatur essentia, quam graeci οὐσία uocant. Sicut enim ab eo quod est sapere dicta est sapientia et ab eo quod est scire dicta est scientia, ita ab eo quod est esse dicta est essentia. Et quis magis est quam ille qui dixit famulo suo: Ego sum qui sum, et: Dices filiis Israhel: Qui est misit me ad uos? Sed aliae quae dicuntur essentiae siue substantiae capiunt accidentias quibus in eis fiat uel magna uel quantacumque mutatio; deo autem aliquid eiusmodi accidere non potest. Et ideo sola est incommutabilis substantia uel essentia quae deus est, cui profecto ipsum esse unde essentia nominata est maxime ac uerissime competit. Quod enim mutatur non seruat ipsum esse, et quod mutari potest etiamsi non mutetur potest quod fuerat non esse, ac per hoc illud solum quod non tantum non mutatur uerum etiam mutari omnino non potest sine scrupulo occurrit quod uerissime dicatur esse.
De Trin, 5.2 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): There is undoubtedly a substance, or if it is better called essence, which the Greeks call οὐσία. Just as wisdom is so called from the fact of being wise and science from the fact of knowing, so essence is so called from the fact of being (esse). And who exists more than He who said to His servant: ‘I am who I am’, and: ‘Tell the children of Israel: I AM has sent me to you’? But other essences or substances are subject to accidents that can bring about great or any considerable change in them; however, such a thing cannot happen to God. And therefore, the only invariable substance or essence is God, to whom the very act of existing, from which essence is named, most truly and properly belongs. For that which changes does not preserve the same state of being, and that which can change, even if it does not change, can cease to be what it was, and thus only that which not only does not change but also cannot at all change, can be said without doubt to truly exist.
De Trin, 5.2 (Latin): Est tamen sine dubitatione substantia uel si melius hoc appellatur essentia, quam graeci οὐσία uocant. Sicut enim ab eo quod est sapere dicta est sapientia et ab eo quod est scire dicta est scientia, ita ab eo quod est esse dicta est essentia. Et quis magis est quam ille qui dixit famulo suo: Ego sum qui sum, et: Dices filiis Israhel: Qui est misit me ad uos? Sed aliae quae dicuntur essentiae siue substantiae capiunt accidentias quibus in eis fiat uel magna uel quantacumque mutatio; deo autem aliquid eiusmodi accidere non potest. Et ideo sola est incommutabilis substantia uel essentia quae deus est, cui profecto ipsum esse unde essentia nominata est maxime ac uerissime competit. Quod enim mutatur non seruat ipsum esse, et quod mutari potest etiamsi non mutetur potest quod fuerat non esse, ac per hoc illud solum quod non tantum non mutatur uerum etiam mutari omnino non potest sine scrupulo occurrit quod uerissime dicatur esse.
De Trin, 5.2 (English Translation 3: McKenna): But God is without doubt a substance, or perhaps essence would be a better term, which the Greeks call ousia. For just as wisdom is so called from being wise, and knowledge is so called from knowing, so essence is so called from being [esse]. And who possesses being in a higher degree than He, who said to His servant Moses: ‘I am who am,’ and ‘He who is, has sent me to you.’ But all other things that are called essences or substances are susceptible of accidents, by which a change, whether great or small, is brought about in them. But there can be no accidents of this kind in God. Therefore, only the essence of God, or the essence which God is, is unchangeable. Being is in the highest and truest sense of the term proper to Him from whom being derives its name. For what undergoes a change does not retain its own being, and what is subject to change, even though it may not be actually changed, can still lose the being which it had. And, therefore, only that which is not only changed, but cannot undergo any change at all, can be called being in the truest sense without scruple.
De Trin, 5.2 (Latin): Est tamen sine dubitatione substantia uel si melius hoc appellatur essentia, quam graeci οὐσία uocant. Sicut enim ab eo quod est sapere dicta est sapientia et ab eo quod est scire dicta est scientia, ita ab eo quod est esse dicta est essentia. Et quis magis est quam ille qui dixit famulo suo: Ego sum qui sum, et: Dices filiis Israhel: Qui est misit me ad uos? Sed aliae quae dicuntur essentiae siue substantiae capiunt accidentias quibus in eis fiat uel magna uel quantacumque mutatio; deo autem aliquid eiusmodi accidere non potest. Et ideo sola est incommutabilis substantia uel essentia quae deus est, cui profecto ipsum esse unde essentia nominata est maxime ac uerissime competit. Quod enim mutatur non seruat ipsum esse, et quod mutari potest etiamsi non mutetur potest quod fuerat non esse, ac per hoc illud solum quod non tantum non mutatur uerum etiam mutari omnino non potest sine scrupulo occurrit quod uerissime dicatur esse.
De Trin, 5.2 (English Translation 4: Hill): There is at least no doubt that God is substance, or perhaps a better word would be being; at any rate what the Greeks call ousia. Just as we get the word “wisdom” from “wise,” and “knowledge” from “know,” so we have the word “being” from “be.” And who can more be than he that said to his servant, I am who I am, and Tell the sons of Israel, He who is sent me to you (Ex 3:14)? Now other things that we call beings or substances admit of modifications, by which they are modified and changed to a great or small extent. But God cannot be modified in any way, and therefore the substance or being which is God is alone unchangeable, and therefore it pertains to it most truly and supremely to be, from which comes the name “being.” Anything that changes does not keep its being, and anything that can change even though it does not, is able to not be what it was; and thus, only that which not only does not but also absolutely cannot change deserves without qualification to be said really and truly to be.
Comparison 3 - Anselm’s Proslogion
Below is a comparison of Chapters 3 and 24 of Anselm’s Proslogion.
English Translation 1 by Sidney Norton Deane, (The Open Court Publishing Company, 1903.)
English Translation 2: ChatGPT 4
English Translation 3 by Jasper Hopkins and Herbert Richardson. A New, Interpretive Translation of St. Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion (Banning Press, 1986.)
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (Latin): Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse; quod maius est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id quo maius nequit cogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum quo maius cogitari nequit, non est id quo maius cogitari nequit; quod convenire non potest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid quo maius cogitari non potest, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine, Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te, ascenderet creatura super creatorem et iudicaret de creatore; quod valde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud praeter te solum, potest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium et ideo maxime omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est, non sic vere, et idcirco minus habet esse. Cur itaque "dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus", cum tam in promptu sit rationali menti te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi quia stultus et insipiens?
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (English Translation 1: Deane): And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist;. and this being you are, O Lord, our God. So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God, since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (Latin): Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse; quod maius est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id quo maius nequit cogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum quo maius cogitari nequit, non est id quo maius cogitari nequit; quod convenire non potest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid quo maius cogitari non potest, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine, Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te, ascenderet creatura super creatorem et iudicaret de creatore; quod valde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud praeter te solum, potest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium et ideo maxime omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est, non sic vere, et idcirco minus habet esse. Cur itaque "dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus", cum tam in promptu sit rationali menti te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi quia stultus et insipiens?
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): Indeed, it truly exists in such a way that it cannot be conceived as non-existent. For it is possible to conceive of something that cannot be thought not to exist, which is greater than what can be thought not to exist. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived can be thought not to exist, then that very thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is not the thing than which nothing greater can be conceived; which cannot be true. Thus, there truly exists something than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it cannot be thought not to exist. And this is You, our Lord God. Thus, you truly are, my Lord God, such that you cannot be conceived as non-existent. And rightly so. For if any mind could conceive of something better than you, the creation would rise above the creator and judge the creator; which is exceedingly absurd. Indeed, whatever else exists apart from you alone can be conceived not to exist. Therefore, you alone have the truest existence of all and thus the greatest existence of all, because whatever else exists, does not exist as truly, and therefore has less existence. Why then does 'the fool say in his heart: there is no God', when it is so evident to the rational mind that you exist the most of all? Why, if not because he is foolish and senseless?
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (Latin): Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse; quod maius est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id quo maius nequit cogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum quo maius cogitari nequit, non est id quo maius cogitari nequit; quod convenire non potest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid quo maius cogitari non potest, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine, Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te, ascenderet creatura super creatorem et iudicaret de creatore; quod valde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud praeter te solum, potest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium et ideo maxime omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est, non sic vere, et idcirco minus habet esse. Cur itaque "dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus", cum tam in promptu sit rationali menti te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi quia stultus et insipiens?
Prosologium, Chapter 3 (English Translation 3: Hopkins & Richardson): Assuredly, this [being] exists so truly [i.e., really] that it cannot even be thought not to exist. For there can be thought to exist something which cannot be thought not to exist; and this thing is greater than that which can be thought not to exist. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought could be thought not to exist, then that than which a greater cannot be thought would not be that than which a greater cannot be thought—[a consequence] which is contradictory. Hence, something than which a greater cannot be thought exists so truly that it cannot even be thought not to exist. And You are this [being], O Lord our God. Therefore, O Lord my God, You exist so truly that You cannot even be thought not to exist. And this is rightly the case. For if any mind could think of something better than You, the creature would rise above the Creator and would sit in judgment over the Creator—something which is utterly absurd. Indeed, except for You alone, whatever else exists can be thought not to exist. Therefore, You alone exist most truly of all and thus most greatly of all; for whatever else exists does not exist as truly [as do You] and thus exists less greatly [than do You]. Since, then, it is so readily clear to a rational mind that You exist most greatly of all, why did the Fool say in his heart that God does not exist?—why [indeed] except because [he is] foolish and a fool!
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (Latin): Excita nunc, anima mea, et erige totum intellectum tuum, et cogita, quantum potes, quale et quantum sit illud bonum. Si enim singula bona delectabilia sunt, cogita intente quam delectabile sit illud bonum, quod continet iucunditatem omnium bonorum; et non qualem in rebus creatis sumus experti, sed tanto differentem, quanto differt creator a creatura. Si enim bona est vita creata: quam bona est vita creatrix? Sic iucunda est salus facta: quam iucunda est salus, quae facit omnem salutem? Si amabilis est sapientia in cognitione rerum conditarum: quam amabilis est sapientia, quae omnia condidit ex nihilo? Denique si multae et magnae delectatione sunt in rebus delectabilibus: qualis et quanta delectatio est in illo, qui fecit ipsa delectabilia?
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (English Translation 1: Deane): And now, my soul, arouse and lift up all your understanding, and conceive, so far as you can, of what character and how great is that good! For, if individual goods are delectable, conceive in earnestness how delectable is that good which contains the pleasantness of all goods; and not such as we have experienced in created objects, but as different as the Creator from the creature. For, if the created life is good, how good is the creative life! If the salvation given is delightful, how delightful is the salvation which has given all salvation! If wisdom in the knowledge of the created world is lovely, how lovely is the wisdom which has created all things from nothing! Finally, if there are many great delights in delectable things, what and how great is the delight in him who has made these delectable things.
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (Latin): Excita nunc, anima mea, et erige totum intellectum tuum, et cogita, quantum potes, quale et quantum sit illud bonum. Si enim singula bona delectabilia sunt, cogita intente quam delectabile sit illud bonum, quod continet iucunditatem omnium bonorum; et non qualem in rebus creatis sumus experti, sed tanto differentem, quanto differt creator a creatura. Si enim bona est vita creata: quam bona est vita creatrix? Sic iucunda est salus facta: quam iucunda est salus, quae facit omnem salutem? Si amabilis est sapientia in cognitione rerum conditarum: quam amabilis est sapientia, quae omnia condidit ex nihilo? Denique si multae et magnae delectatione sunt in rebus delectabilibus: qualis et quanta delectatio est in illo, qui fecit ipsa delectabilia?
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (English Translation 2: ChatGPT): Stir now, my soul, and raise your entire intellect, and think, as much as you can, what kind and how great that good is. For if individual goods are delightful, ponder intensely how delightful that good is, which contains the joy of all goods; and not such as we have experienced in created things, but as different as the creator is from the creation. For if created life is good: how good is the life-giving creator? So delightful is the salvation that is made: how delightful is the salvation that makes all salvation? If wisdom in the knowledge of created things is lovable: how lovable is the wisdom that created all things from nothing? Finally, if there are many and great delights in delightful things: what kind and how great is the delight in Him who made those delightful things?
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (Latin): Excita nunc, anima mea, et erige totum intellectum tuum, et cogita, quantum potes, quale et quantum sit illud bonum. Si enim singula bona delectabilia sunt, cogita intente quam delectabile sit illud bonum, quod continet iucunditatem omnium bonorum; et non qualem in rebus creatis sumus experti, sed tanto differentem, quanto differt creator a creatura. Si enim bona est vita creata: quam bona est vita creatrix? Sic iucunda est salus facta: quam iucunda est salus, quae facit omnem salutem? Si amabilis est sapientia in cognitione rerum conditarum: quam amabilis est sapientia, quae omnia condidit ex nihilo? Denique si multae et magnae delectatione sunt in rebus delectabilibus: qualis et quanta delectatio est in illo, qui fecit ipsa delectabilia?
Prosologium, Chapter 24 (English Translation 3: Hopkins & Richardson): And now, my soul, arouse and elevate your whole understanding; ponder as best you can what kind of good this is and how great it is. For if the individual good things are enjoyable, reflect attentively upon how enjoyable is that Good which contains the joyfulness of all good things. [This is] not the kind [of joyfulness] that we have experienced in created things but rather is as different [therefrom] as the Creator is different from the creature. For if created life is good, how good is that Life which creates! If created security (salus) is enjoyable, how enjoyable is the Salvation (salus) which creates all security! If wisdom in regard to the knowledge of created things is lovable, how lovable is the Wisdom which created all things from nothing! In short, if there are many great joys in enjoyable things, how rich and how great is the joy [to be found] in Him who made these enjoyable things!