Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 20 – Martins comments 21
MART. 20. Must such difficulties & diuersities be resolued by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? Sec into what perplexities wilfull heresie and arrogancie hath driuen them. To discredit the vulgar Latine translation of the Bible, and the fathers expositions according to the same (for that is the originall cause of this) and besides, that they may hauehave alwaies this euasion, It is not so in the Hebrue, it is otherwise in the Greeke, and so seeme iolly fellowes and great clerkes vntounto the ignorant people, what do they? they admit onelyonly the Hebrue in the old Test. and the Greeke in the newe, to be the true and authenticall texte of the Scripture. Wherevpon this foloweth, that they reiect, and must needes reiect the Greeke of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta)Their perplexitie in defending both the hebrue text of the olde Testament, and Greeke texte of the nevv. as false, because it differeth from the Hebrue. Which being reiected, therevpon it foloweth againe, that wheresoeuer those places so disagreeing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ or the Euangelists and Apostles, there also they must be reiected, because they disagree from the Hebrue, and so yet againe it foloweth, that the Greeke text of the new Testament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrue veritie: & consequently the wordes of our Sauiour, and writings of his Apostles must be reformed (to say the least) because they speake according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrue.
FVLK. 20. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and changing, or hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scriptures? As for the perplexities wherevnto you faine that wilfull heresie and arrogancie hath driuen vsus, is of your weauing, for God be praised we can wel inough with good conscience & sound knowledge, that may abide the iudgement of all the learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the olde Testament, and the Greeke text of the new. Not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latine translation, and the expositions of the fathers: but to fetch the truth, vponupon which the hope of our saluation is grounded, out of the first fountaines and springs, rather than out of any streames that are deriued from them. And this we doe agreeable to the auncient fathers iudgements. For who knoweth not what fruitfull paines S. Hierom tooke in translating the Scripture out of the originall tongue, neither would he be disswaded by S. Augustine, who although he misliked that enterprise, at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessitie of the Greeke & Hebrue tongues for Latine men, to find out the certaine truth of the text in the infinite varietie of the Latine interpretations: for thus he writetth, De doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 11. Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. E… latinae &c. Against vnknowen proper signes, the knowledge of tongues is a great remedie. And truly men of the Latine tongue, whom we hauehave now taken in hand to instruct, hauehave neede also of two other tongues vntounto the knowledge of the diuine Scriptures, namely the Hebrue, & the Greeke, that recourse may be had vntounto the former copies, if the infinite varietie of the Latine interpreters shal bring any doubt, although we find oftētimes in the bookes, Hebrue words not interpreted, as Amen, Alleluia, Racha, Osanna, &c. and a litle after Sed nō propter haec pauca &c. But not for these few wordes which to marke and inquire of, it is a very easie thing, but for the diuersities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge of those tongues is necessarie. For they that hauehave interpreted the scriptures out of the Hebrue tōgue into the Greke tong, may be nūbred, but the Latine interpreters by no means can be numbred. For in the first times of the faith, as a Greeke booke came into eueryevery mans hand, & he seemed to hauehave some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to interpret it. Which thing truly hath more helped the vnderstanding, than hindred, if the readers be not negligēt: for the looking vponupon many bookes, hath often times made manifest sundry obscure or darke sentences. This is S. Augustines sound iudgement, of the knowledge of tongues, and diuersitie of interpretations, for the better vnderstanding of the Scriptures. But let vsus see what be the absurdities, that you gather of our defending the originall texts of both the tongues. First, we must needes reiect the Greeke of the olde Testament, called septuaginta, as false, because it differeth frō the Hebrew. Where it is not onelyonly different in wordes, but also contrary in sense, Why should we not? but if it reteine the sense and substance, although it expresse not the same wordes, we neede not reiect it. S. Hierom, who was required by Paula, and Eustochium, to expounde the Prophetes, not onelyonly according to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation of the Septuaginta, whereof he diuerse tymes complayneth: vppon the first of Nahum, sayth expresly, that it was against his conscience alwaies, to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixitati, &c. Pardon me that I am so long. For I can not, following both the storie, and the tropologie or doctrine of maners, comprehend both briefly: most of all, seeing that I am so greatlye tormented, or troubled with the varietie of the translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am compelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition: which was the Septuaginta. This was Sainct Hieroms opinion of the Septuagintaes translation. But vponupon reiection of that translation (say you) it followeth that wheresoeuer those places, so disagreeing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ, or the Euangelistes and Apostles, there also they must be reiected, because they disagree from the Hebrue, and so the Greeke text of the newe Testament is not true, and consequentlye the wordes of our Sauiour, and writinges of his Apostles speaking according to the Septuaginta, must at leaste bee reformed. It is an olde saying, and a true, that one inconuenience being graunted, manye doe followe, and so you may heape vp an hundred after this manner. But for aunswere I say, that neyther our Sauiour, nor his Apostles, citing any place out of the olde Testament, doe bring any thing disagreeing in sense, and substance of matter (the purpose for which they alleage it considered) from the truth of the Hebrue text. Therefore there is no neede that the 70. in those places should be reiected. Althogh our Sauiour Christ speaking in the Syrian tōgue, is not to be thoght euer to hauehave cited the text of the 70. which is in Greeke. And his Apostles and Euangelists vsing that text, regard the substance of the sentence, & not the forme of words. For many times they cite not the very wordes of the Greeke 70. neither: & S. Hierom in Catalogo script: Eccles. which is set as a Preface to S. Mathewes Gospell, telleth you expresly, that in the Hebrew example of S. Mathew which he had, wheresoeuer the Euangelist S. Mathew either in his owne person, or in the person of our Lorde and Sauiour, vseth the testimonies of the olde Testament, he followeth not the authoritie of the 70. translators, but the Hebrew: of which these are two places: Out of Egypt hauehave I called my sonne. And he shall be called a Nazarite. See you not what a perilous perplexitie we are are in by defending both the Hebrue text of the olde Testament, and the Geeke of the Newe, when neither are contrarie to the other?
MART. 21. All which must needes followe, if this be a good cōsequence, I find it not in Moises, nor in the Hebrue, therefore I strooke it out, as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words. Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let vsus see how they will iustifie: and withall let them tell vsus, whether they will discredit the newe Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credit the Septuaginta, because of the new Testament, or how they can credit one, and discredit the other, where both agree and consent togither: or, whether they will discredit both, for credit of the Hebrue: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrue & Greeke, better than Bezaes impudent presumption. Which if they will not maintaine, let them flatly cōfesse that he did wickedly, & not (as they doe) defend eueryevery word and deede of their maisters, be it neuer so hainous, or salue it at the least.
FVLK. 21. No whit of that doth followe by striking out qui fuit Cainan. Because it is not foūd in Moises, & therfore we hauehave nothing to do to iustifie your vaine consequence grounded vponupon an absurdity of your owne deuising. But we must tell you whether we will discredite the new Testament, because of the Septuaginta? no not for a thousand millions of Septuagintaes, nor for all the worlde will we credite the Septuaginta, against the truth of the old Testament. But what soeuer is cited out of the 70. in the new, is not contrarie to the Hebrew in the old, and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, without discrediting both, or either of both in those places. And in this place, which is a meere corruption, borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagintaes, or a Iudaical additiō Gen. 11. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it cleane out, as Beza hath done, whiche generation neither is in the Hebrew veritie, nor in your owne vulgar Latin translation, either Gen. 11. or 1. Par. 1. Beside that it maketh a foule errour in the computation of time, adding no lesse than 230. yeares betweene Arphaxad and Sala, more than the Hebrew veritie, or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuaginta, added the same vntounto the Genealogie in S. Luke, than Beza, which by the authoritie of Moses remoued the same. If you will still persist to defende the authoritie of the Septuaginta, against the Hebrew veritie, which like an Atheist you deride, at leastwise defende your owne vulgar Latine translation of the old Testament, and deliuer your selfe out of that perplexitie, in which you would place vsus, betweene the Hebrew of the old, and the Greeke of the new Testament. Seing no lesse doubts intangleth you betweene the Latine of the new, and the Latine of the olde, differing altogither a like, as the Greeke and the Hebrew do.