Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Martins comments 38
MART. 38. This was lacke of iudgement in M. Fulke at the least, and no great signe of skill in Greeke phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders vnlearned for not vnderstanding Bezaes meaning, but him selfe, who in deed vnderstood him not. For, if Beza meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplifie of, why doth he say. that he seeth not why Luke should vse soloecophanes, but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margent? Tell vsus M. Fulke we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defense, to say, that it is an elegancie and fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margent, the Gospell is here corrupted. Thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would rather stande vponupon this later, if he might hauehave vsed the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea what needed any defense at all, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie, as you would proue it?
FVLK. 38. I had rather it should be compted want of iudgement in me, so it were by a man of iudgement, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lacke of truth. For my skill in Greeke phrases, although I neuer professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders vnlearned slaunder, in rayling against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greeke. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as golde doth from copper (as you seeme to say) when you write that I take a counter for golde, I might thinke my selfe very vnlearned in deede, if I did vnderstand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spake of Soloecismus. But you demaund why Beza sayeth, that he seeth not why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest authores. Still you thrust in your lie, in eueryevery corner: who sayeth he meant it was an elegancie? Beza sayeth he seeth no cause why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, that is, departe from the vsuall and ordinarie construction: and therefore passeth to an other coniecture. But you speake me fayre to tell you, whether is the better & honester defense, to say that it is an elegancie, and fine phrase, or to say it is a faulte in the texte, it came out of the margent, the Gospell is here corrupted. First I answere you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basill did re…d. Secondly, I say there is no dishonestie in either of both coniectures, for this Soloecophanes though it be no elegancie, yet may be defended from Soloecisme, or false Greeke. And certaine it is that some woordes hauehave crept out of the margent into the texte, as the name of Ieremye in all copies that are extant Math. 27. and, of Esay in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospell is corrupted, which fowle phrase it seemeth, you hauehave great pleasure in, not withstanding you your self out of Lindanus, charge all the Greeke copies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion the mischieuous mouse of Pōtus. You aske further, whether I thinke Beza such a foole to stande rather vponupon the later▪ if he might hauehave vsed the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would meane a plaine Soloecisme, and call it only an appearaunce of Soloecisme? what he rather stoode vponupon, his translation doth best shewe, which is both with S. Basilles reading, and with the appearaunce of incongruitie, which is none in deede. Yea what needed any defense at all, say you, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie. So well you louelove a lie when you hauehave made it, that you can neuer leaue it vntill you hauehave worne it all to naught. Now you hauehave it, not onelyonly an elegancie, but an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Verily I neuer saide it was an elegancie, as my wordes are plaine to be redde of eueryevery man, and much lesse that it was an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Only I say it is vsuall and common in the Greeke tongue, that the praepositiue article, is vsed for the relatiue, and so much in the next section you your selfe do graunt me: and as for defense you talke of, I see none needefull, except it be for that this phrase here vsed of S. Luke, is lawfull, though it be not so common, as the ordinarie construction.