Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
Hereticall translation, by ADDING TO THE TEXT.
Martin.
BEcause in the last corruption I spake of adding1. to the texte, thoughe i… bee their common and vniuersal fault in euerie controuersie, as is to bee seene in euerie chapiter of this booke: yet here I wil adde certaine places, not yet mentioned. As, The reste of the actes of Iehoakim,2. Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562. and his abhominations whych he did, and CARVED IMAGES THAT VVERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLDE THEY ARE VVRITTEN, Against Images.&c, these words, carued images laid to his charge, are more than is either in the Greeke, or the Hebrewe.
Fulke.
YOu forget your self in the first place, wherof1. made mention, Chap. 3. sect. 9. where I hauehave aunsweared, that our firste translators added that which is the common interpretation, and supply of them that write vponupon this place, but, because that hadde beene better in the note, than in the texte, it is corrected in twoo later translations
MART. 2. Againe, Saule confounded the Iewes, proouing (by conferring one Scripture with an other)Act. 9. v. 22. Bib …577. For conference of Scriptures, against fathers, Councels, &c. that this is very Christe. These wordes, by conferring one Scripture with another, are added more than is in the greeke texte: in fauour of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of scriptures is ynough for any man to vnderstand them, and so to reiecte bothe the commentaries of the Doctours, and exposition of holy Councels, and Catholike Churche, it is so muche more, I saye, than is in the Greeke text, and a notorious corruption in their Bible, read daily in their churches, as most authenticall. See the rest of their Bibles, and thou shalte finde no more, for al those wordes, but, affirming, or, confirming. and theforeign. c. 2. v. 16. foreign. selfe same Bible, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, translateth the same Greeke worde thus, Who shal instruct? And indeede, that is the true and vsuall signification of the word, both in the olde Testament, and in the newe▪ as Deut. 4. Thou shaltforeign teach them thy children. And Esay 40. Who shal instruct our Lord? The Hebrewe worde also in both places, signifying no more, but instructing and teaching. And so doth the Apostle cite i… to the Corinthians out of Esay, and he vseth i… to the Coloss. (c. 2. v. 2. in the same signification, as the Churche readeth and expoundeth it, and so consequently, S. Luke in the place whereof we nowe treate, saith nothing else, but that S. Paule earnestly taught or instructed them, that Iesus is Christe. And yet our newe translators without respect of Hebrewe, or Greeke, hauehave coined a new signification, of conferring one scripture with an other. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greke wordes, or rather, so wilfully malitious.
FVLK. 2. Either you make aloude lie, or else some one print, whych you hauehave of the Bishops Bible, whiche you cal, Bib. 1577. hath put that into the line that should be the note in the margent. For, of four translations that I hauehave, neuer a one hath that addition. The Bishoppes Bible hathe that 22. verse Chap. 9. this. But Saule increased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes, which dwelt at Damascus, affirming, that this was very Christe. The Geneua Bible thus. But Saule increased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes that dwelt at Damascus, confirming, that this was the Christ▪ where the note in the margent vppon the word, confirming, is this: proouing by the conference of the scriptures. Thomas Mathews Bible translateth that verse thus. But Saule increased in strength, and confounded the Iewes, which dwelt at Damascus, affirming, that this was verie Christe. Maister Couerdales Bible 1562. hatla it thus. But Saule increased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes whiche dwelte at Damascus, affirming, that this was verie Christ. Thus are al our translations without that addition, which, although it is not to be borne in the text, yet is no hereticall addition, excepte you counte it heresie, to prooue a thing by conference of Scriptures.
MART. 3. Againe, in the firste epistle of Saint Peter…. Pet. …. v. 35. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against traditions. they translate thus: The worde of the Lorde indureth euer: and this is the word which by the gospel was preached vntounto you. where these wordes, by the Gospel, are added deceitfully, and of il intent, to make the reader thinke, that there is no other word of God, but the written word, for the common reader hearing this word Gospel, conceiueth nothing else. But indeede al is the gospell, whatsoeuer the Apostles taught, either by writing, or by tradition and word of mouth, a… S. Paul speaketh, 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith nothing else in the place alleadged, but, This is the word which is preached amongforeign. you, as the Geneua Bibles translate, or more significātly, which is Euangelized amōg you, as we translate, for, though there be greater significancie in the Greeke worde, than is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as hauing a goodly relation, & allusion to the word, Euangeliū ▪ Gospel, yet neither do theyEuangelizo. in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the gospel, but simply, to preach, to tel, to shewe. as, preaching peace by Iesus Christe, Act. 10. vers 39. so themselues translate it.foreign. & Psalm. 95 (or 96. v. 2.) Be telling of his saluation from daye to daye. Whiche in other places is spoken by other Greeke wordes, that hauehave no signification at all of Gospell,foreign. as immediately in the said Psalme, 95 (or 96. v. 3) and Psalme 104. (or 105. v. 1.) and Act. 13. v. 5. and c. 17. v. 23. and Io. 1. v. 3.
FVLK. 3. The other before is not a more lewde slaunder, than this is a foolishe cauill. The Greeke word signifieth not simply to preach the gospel, or good tydings, whych, both may, and ought to bee expressed, where the phrase of our tongue wyll abide it. And therfore the Geneua translation is imperfect in this place, rather than the other. When you say Euangelized, you do not translate, but faine a newe worde, which is not vnderstoode of meere Englishe eares, as you do in an hundreth places beside, to make the scripture darke and vnprofitable to the ignorant readers. And if the word signifieth no more but, to preach, to tell, to shewe, as you would seeme to proue by a nūber of quotations, why do you vse that newe word, Euangelize? which, if it were vnderstoode and in vse, is more, than simply, to preache, to tell, to shewe. But of all other your madde surmises, this is the most monstrous, that this is added, to make the reader thinke, that there is no other worde of God, but the written worde. Doth Gospel, I praye you, signifie the written worde? The common hearer, you saye, hearing this worde Gospell, conceiueth nothing else. I am persuaded there is no such reader in England, except it bee some of your viperous broode, that thinketh the Gospell, to bee nothing but the storie written by the foure Euangelistes: whereas all true Christians knowe the Gospel to be contained, not onelyonly in those stories, but also in other writings of the Apostles, and that the Gospel is preached, whensoeuer a good sermon teaching the way vntounto saluation is preached. Howsoeuer the Septuaginta vsed the worde Euangelizo in the olde Testament, we are not to learne the signification thereof, out of their translation, but out of the Scribes of the holie ghost, in the newe Testament.
MART. 4. All which wordes signifie only to tell, to shew, to declare, and are vsed indifferently for and with the other worde which they here only translate, to preach by the Gospel. Whereas in all others places when they will translate itLuc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3. 8. Dominus dabit verbum euangelizantibus. Qui Euangelizas Hierusalem. Ps. 67. Isa. 40. most significantly, they expresse it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places where it should be expressed most significantly in respect of euangelizing or preaching the Gospel, there they translate it barely, preachers, and preaching. Only S. Peters place aforesaid, must be stretched to signifie, The word preached by the Gospel, to insinuate and vphold their heresie of the written Gospel only, or only written worde, against Apostolicall traditions not written. If this be not their meaning, let them giuegive vsus a good reason why they translate it so in this one place only.
FVLK. 4. When we varie about the signification of the worde foreign, or in deede when we varie not in substāce, though you must brabble about it for a countenance, what meane you to teach vsus the significatiō of other words, except you would make folke beleeue, that we know nothing, but what we learn of you? I say again, if in the new Testament we hauehave not fully expressed the significatiō of the Greeke word, foreign, either it is because our English phrase could not expresse it, or else it is a fault of negligēce. But in the old Testamēt, where we hauehave not that worde, because we translate out of Hebrue, what reason is there, that you should exact the significancie of that word, when we do not translate it? The insenslesse insinuation that you dreame of, I am sure was farre from the translators mindes, seeing we hauehave manifest and ineuitable Scriptures to confound your hereticall blasphemie of the imperfection and insufficiencie of the word & Gospel of God written vntounto eternall saluation. And if the worde Gospell, when it is added to the text out of the verbe of Euangelizing▪ do insinuate the heresie of the written Gospell only, why do you Math. 11. v. 5. translate, Pauperes Euangelizantur, to the poore the Gospell is preached? Would you thinke it were an honest surmise of me, to say you auoyde the name of the Gospell, so often as you expresse it not in translating that worde, for hatred you beare the Gospell? And yet it hath more likelihood, than many that you hauehave inuented, and prosecuted against vsus.
MART. 5. It is written of Luther that he for the selfe…ind. Dubit. pag. 88. same heresie, in his first translation into the Germane tongue, left out these wordes of S. Peter altogither, This is the worde which is euangelized or preached to you. Why so? because S. Peter doth here define what is the word of God: saying, that which is preached to you, and not that only which is written▪ which false dealing of Luther is no small presumptiō against the like hereticall meaning of our English Protestants, who (I am sure) in this point of controuersie of the worde written and vnwritten, will not denie that they agree with the Lutherans.
FVLK. 5. That any such sentence was vpō any purpose leste out by Luther in his translation, for my part I beleeue it not, neither vponupon your report, nor vponupon your author Lindanus credite. If the Printer did omit a line, yet what reason were it to thinke that Luther did it, vponupon such a cause? which were to no purpose for him except he should hauehave left out all those textes of Scripture, where preaching of the Gospel, or word of God is mentioned. What you hauehave left out, I hauehave noted before, and yet I hauehave not pronounced the cause why, so confidently as you do of that omission, which you know not whether it be so or no.
MART. 6. Againe in the epistle of S. Iames, they addeIa 4. v. 6. the word, Scripture, into the text, saying, But the Scripture offereth more grace. Where the Apostle may say as wel, and indifferently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giueth more grace, and it is much more probable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the circumstance of the place, and abhorre their saucinesse in the text of holy Scripture.
FVL. 6. The nominatiue case in the Greeke is wanting, which is expressed in the verse before, and in this verse is supplied by the translators: yet printing it so in another letter, that the reader may know it is not in the Greeke, as they do in 500. places beside, where a verbe or a nowne, or a pronowne, or any other worde, must of necessity be vnderstood, to fil vp the sense: which you in your precise trāslatiō obserue not, whē you adde any such thing beside many imperfect sentēces that you make, because you will not seeme to adde, that which in translation is no addition, but a true trāslation. But here you say, the Apostle may as well vnderstande the holy Ghost, as the Scripture. When there is a nominatiue case before, that agreeth with the verbe, & the sense, it is farre fetcht to vnderstād a nominatiue case of him, that is not spoken of. I will set downe the whole text, that the reader may iudge, what perilous addition is here cōmitted, by our translators. Doe you thinke that the Scripture saith in vaine, the spirite that dwelleth in vsus, lusteth after enuie. But (the Scripture) or, it giueth more grace, and therefore saith: God resisteth the prowde, and giueth grace to the humble. In Grāmar schooles they vse to examine it thus, who, or what giueth, who, or what saith? doth not the Scripture mētioned immediatly before, answere to these questiōs most aptly? yet mē must abhorre our saucinesse, or rather your spitefull malitiousnesse.
MART. 7. One addition of theirs I would not speake of, but onelyonly to knowe the reason why they doe it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should meane by it. This I am sure, if they doe it for no purpose, they doe it very folishly, and forgetfully, & contrarie to themselues. In the Gospell of S. Marke, in the reckening of the Apostles, they addeMarc. 3. v. 16. these wordes, And the first was Simon, more than is in theirBibl. 1579. Greeke text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose contradictions in this point are worthie nothing. In S. MatthewMat. 10. v. 2. where these wordes are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peters primacie: here, where the word is not, he auoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospell, and that because Matthew readeth so. There he alleaged this reason, why it could not be said, the first, Simon, because there is no consequence nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speach, and namely in the said place of S. Matthew. There he saith it is not so, though al Greeke copies hauehave it so: here it must needes be so, though it be only found in certaine odde Greeke copies of Erasmus, which Erasmus him selfe (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these wordes were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions meane I know not, and I would learne the reason thereof, of his scholers our English trā slators, who by their Maisters authoritie hauehave made the selfe same addition in their English translation also.
FVLK. 7. It seemeth you like the addition well enough, because it importeth a shadow of Peters primacie, but yet your malice is so great against Beza, whose sinceritie in this case you shoulde rather commende, if there were any sparke of honest equitie in you, that you cannot passe it ouer without quarrelling, and cauilling. But your pretense is to know the reason why they do it. I hauehave some maruaile, that you should be ignorant of such things, as are compted so materiall for the maintenance of the Popes primacie. Especially sith Beza telleth you so plainly the reason of it. True it is, that the cōmon printed bookes hauehave not that addition. But Beza taketh Erasmus to witnesse, that in diuerse Greeke copies these words are expressed, & because they agree best with the context, Beza translateth them out of those copies. For except you so read (saith Beza) the next verse beginning of the particle foreign, shall hauehave no worde at all, with which it may be knit. But in S. Mathew (you say) he suspecteth that the worde (first) was added by some▪ Papist for Peters primacie. He onelyonly obiecteth, what if it were so, & answereth the obiection him self out of S. Marke: as vponupon S. Marke, for the coherence with that which followeth: wherfore it is not without great and malicious impudēce, that you charge him with cōtradiction, where there is none, and where he saith more towarde your cause, than any of you could say for your selues.
MART. 8. There is also an other addition of theirs, either proceeding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humor, whē they translate thus: If ye continue stablished in the faith,Col. 1. v. 23. and be not moued away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye hauehave heard how it was preached to eueryevery creature: or, whereof ye hauehave heard how that it is preached: or, whereof ye hauehave heard, and which hath bene preached to eueryevery creature, &c. For, all these varieties they hauehave, and none according to the Greeke text, which is word for word, as the vulgar Latine Interpretor hath most sincerely translated it, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, which youforeign. hauehave heard, which is, or hath bene preached among all creatures, &c. So that the Apostles exhortation is vntounto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faithRom. 16. Gal. c. 1. & 2▪ 2. Thess. 2. Heb. 13. 1. Tim. 6. 2. Tim. 1. & 2▪ and Gospell, which they had heard and receyued of their first Apostles: as in the epistle to the Romanes, and to the Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrewes, and to Timothee, and S. Iohn in his first Epistle, c. 2. v. 24. and S. Iude, v. 3. & 20. all vse the like exhortations.
FVLK. 8. Here is no addition of any worde, that may not be comprehended in the Greeke. For foreign being the genitiue case, signifieth not onelyonly, which, but also, whereof, or of which, and foreign, that hath bene, or which hath bene preached. Here is onelyonly the poore word (how) which is a superfluous word, euen in our English, for the sense is all one, if you leaue it out, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, of which you hauehave heard, that it hath bene preached among, or, to all creatures. Here is therefore no addition to the text, but a sense differing from that which pleaseth you best, and yet your vulgar Latine may well beare that sense, which our translators doe follow.
MART. 9. But this doth not so well like the Protestants, which* with Hymenaeus, and Alexander, and other olde Heretike…,1. Tim. 1. & 6. hauehave fallen from their first faith, and therefore they alter the Apostles plaine speech, with certaine wordes of their owne, and they will not hauehave him say, Be vnmoueable in the faith and Gospell which you hauehave heard and receiued: but, whereof you hauehave heard, howe that it is preached: as though he spake not of the Gospell preached to them, but of a Gospell which they had onelyonly heard of, that was preached in the world. Certaine it is, these wordes, whereof you hauehave heard, how it was preached, are not so in the Greeke: but, which you hauehave heard, which hath bene preached. Which is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospell, which them selues had receiued▪ and which was then preached, and receiued, in the whole word. So say we to our deere countriemen, Stande fast in the faith, and be vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, which you heard of your first Apostles, which was, and is preached in all the world. If the Protestants like not this exhortation, they do… according to their translation.
FVLK. 9. The Lorde is witnesse, there is nothing liketh the Protestants better, than that all nations should continue grounded, and stable in that faith and Gospell, which they had heard, & receaued of their first Apostles: but in this place, our translators vnderstande, not onelyonly that continuance in the Gospell, but also they comprehend the mysterie of the preaching of the Gospell, to the Gentiles, whereof the Apostle in this text, beginneth to speake, that the Collossians might know, that they hauehave bene enstructed in that Gospel, which at such time as the Apostle did write vntounto them, had bene spread by preaching, according to our Sauiour Christes commaundement, ouer all the world. As for your brutish collection, as though he spake not of the Gospell preached to them, but of a Gospel, which they had onelyonly heard of, that was preached in the world. What ground can it hauehave of our translation, according to the sense I shewe, that the translators followed? Is it possible they should continue in a Gospel that was not preached vntounto them, but whereof they had heard onelyonly a fame, that it was preached to others? The whole context before, inforceth as much as you say, is the sense of the place. And the vulgar translator seemeth to fauour this sense, that our translators follow, rather than that bare translation of yours, because he sayth not, à spe Euangelij, quod audistis praedicati in vniuersa creatura, &c. but, à spe Euangelij quod audistis, quod praedicatum est in vniuersa creatura. The words of the exhortation you make to your countrymen, are wel to be liked, if your meaning were as good. But when by the Gospell, you meane popish traditions, by your first Apostles, not the Apostles of Christ, but of the Bishop of Rome, by, which was preached in all the worlde, the doctrine of Antichristian apostasie, we are so to consider, that vnderunder so good and holy wordes, so diuilish and detestable a meaning is craftily couered, and cloked with hypocrisie.