Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 18
MART. 18. He biteth sore at the word foreign Luc. 1. v. 7…. and will not translate that, but the Hebrue word of the oldforeign Testament, but at foreign (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, and at foreign (Act. 7. v. 14.) exceedingly: but yet after he hath said all that he could against it, he concludeth, that heNo. Test. an. 1556. foreign. Beza reconcileth the Greeke … of the nevv Testamēt vvith the Hebrevve text of the old, by putting out of the Greeke text so much as pleaseth him. durst not, and that he had a conscience, vponupon coniecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. But in the 3. of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leaue out these wordes vers. 36. Qui fuit Cainan, not onelyonly in his owne translation, but in the vulgar Latine which is ioyned therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitauimus expungere, that is, We doubted not to put it out: and why? by the authoritie of Moyses Gen. 11. Whereby he signifieth, that it is not in the Hebrue Gen. 11. where this posteritie of S…m is …eckened: and so to maintaine the Hebrue veritie (as they call it) in the old Testament he careth not what become of the Greeke in the newe Testament, which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latine text, they call the Greeke veritie, and the pure fountaine, and that text whereby all translations must be tried.
FVLK. 18. His biting (as you call it) at the worde foreign, Luk. 1. and foreign, Ast. 2. and foreign, Act. 9. Seeing they concerne no controuersie, might hauehave bene contained in the section next before, especially seing you confesse he sayth he durst not, and that he had a conscience vponupon coniecture to chaunge any thing. But in the 3. of Luk. vers. 36. He maketh no conscience at all to leaue out the words, Qui fuit Cainan, saying in his annotations, that he doubted not to put it out by authoritie of Moyses, Gen. 11. A sore charge to diminish any part of the holy Scripture. But if he hauehave only corrected an errour of the scribe, which by all likelihoode tooke vpō him to adde vntounto S. Luke out of the Greeke text of the 70▪ that which is not in the Hebrue, verily, I see not what offense he hath committed. For first he can meane no fraude in cōcealing those words, wherof he doth admonish the reader, and of the cause of his leauing them out. Secondly▪ he winneth no aduantage against his aduersaries, or to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the sonne of Cainan, whom Moyses affirmeth to be the sonne of Arphaxad. And seeing Moyses Gen. 11. hath no such Cainan the sonne of Arphaxad, it is not like that S. Luke, who borrowed that parte of his genealogie out of Moises, woulde adde any thing which Moises had omitted. But you say that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue verity of the old Testament, eareth not what become of the Greke in the new Testament. You should hauehave made your antitheton more ful (wherein it seemeth you pleased your selfe not a litle) if you had sayed that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue veritie of the olde Testament, careth not what becommeth of the Greeke corruption in the newe Testament: and so you shoulde hauehave spoken both more eloquently, and more truly. But at other times (you say) against the vulgar Latine text, they call the Greeke, text the Greeke veritie, and the pure fountaine, and that whereby all translations must be tried. We say in deede that by the Greeke text of the newe Testament, all translations of the newe Testament must be tried, but we meane not by euerie corruption that is in any Greeke coppie of the newe Testament, and muche lesse that the Hebrue text of the olde Testament, should be reformed after the Greeke of the newe, where it is vncorrupted: and least of all where any copie is guiltie of a manifest errour as in this place nowe in question.