Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Martins comments 39 – Martins comments 40
MART. 39. For you say further, that foreign is taken for foreign, and foreign is vnderstood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greeke authors, but you must adde, that the said relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speach foreign may be resolued thus, foreign, or rather foreign. but that foreign, may be resolued, foreign, you shal neuer be able to bring one example, and you wilfully abuse whatsoeuer knowledge you hauehave of the Greeke tongue, to deceiue the ignorant, or else you hauehave no skill at all, that speake so barbarously & rustically of Greeke elegācies. For if you hauehave skil, you know in your conscience, that foreign, is as great a soloecisme in Greeke, and no more elegancie, than to say in Latine, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the schole deserueth whipping. And yet you aske very vehemently (concerning these wordes, Hic calix nouum Testamētum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur:) what meane Grammarian would referre, qui, to calix, and not to sanguis? I answere that a meere latinist, for ignoraunce of the Greeke tongue, would referre it rather as you say: but he that knoweth the Greeke; as you seeme to doe, though he be a very yong Grammarian, will easily see it can not be so referred: as in the like Act. 14 Sacerdos quo que Iouis qui erat ante ciuitatem eorum. Here, qui, is ambiguous, but in the Greeke we seeforeign. that, qui, must be referred to, Iouis, and can not be referred to, Sacerdos.
FVLK. 39. First I take that you graunt me, that it is a cōmon thing in the Greeke tongue, that the article praepositiue is taken for the subiunctiue, and the Verbe substātiue may be vnderstood, where it is not expressed: which if you would not hauehave graūted, might hauehave bene extorted from you by confession of all Grecians, and Greeke writers. Secondly where you teach me a generall rule, to adde to the former concession, that the sayd relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring foreign, you shall pardon mee to learne of you. I take you for no such▪ Aristarchus, that you hauehave power to make newe rules in the Greeke Grammar, and such as shall controll not only Homer, but all good authors that euer did write in that language, of Soloecisme and incongruitie. For if the relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greeke, I will abide by it, there is no Greeke auctor whose workes are extant, but he hath committed Soloecisme. The examples that hereof might be brought out of eueryevery seuerall writer, if they were heaped togither, would make a booke as bigge as Ilias. But in this so cleare a case, to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it shoulde be, vnlesse it were to make little children that learne foreign in the Grammar schooles, to be witnesses of your intollerable arrogancie, and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of S. Marke, not vnlike this of S. Luke, but that the Verbe foreign is expressed, foreign and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is being interpreted the place of sculles. This example is more than sufficient, for so plaine a matter. For although it be an elegancie for the relatiue to agree in case with the Antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetuall rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashnesse, wante of knowledge and consideration. But I shall neuer be able to bring one example like to this of S. Luke, where the relatiue not agreeing in case with the Antecedent, the Participle maye be resolued by the verbe Substantiue that is not expressed: and I wilfully abuse what so euer knowledge I hauehave of the Greeke tongue, to deceyue the ignoraunt, or else I hauehave no skill at all, to speake so barbarously, and rustically of Greeke elegancies, and I knowe in my conscience, it is as great a Soloecisme in Greeke, and no more elegancie than to say in Latin In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the schoole deserueth whipping: and I knowe not what beside. But touching the similitude of the Soloecismes, if you had made your example a like, that is put in the relatiue in the Latine, as it is in the Greeke, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more Soloecisme in the one, than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you vrge an example, yea so extremelye, that you say confidently, I shall neuer be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greeke? who hath no skil at all? who deserueth whipping? HaueHave you so redde all authors, and beare them, and all their phrases so well in minde, that you dare before all the worlde auouche, that I shall neuer be able to bring one example? But to lette all the world see your vanitie, I will beginne with Theognis, who in the 863. of his Elegiake sentences writeth thus:
foreign
See you heere the relatiue foreign being the nominatiue case not agreeing with his antecedent, foreign of the accusatiue case, but comming before the Verbe foreign that is included in the participle foreign that is included in the participle foreign; What can you here say? will you cauill at the subiunctiue article, then reade a fewe verses after, and see whether this Poet vseth not as indifferently the prepositiue article as the subiunctiue, for the relatiue.
foreign.
And within two verses,
foreign
speaking of the same Wine.
Also Theocritus in 25. Eidyll.
foreign.
And in the 24. Edyll.
foreign
From Theocritus let vsus passe to Hesiodus, out of whome it were ouer tedious to cite, how often he vseth the article prepositiue for the relatiue, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent: but an example or two shall serue, where the verbe substantiue is vnderstood, and not expressed, nor any other verbe to gouerne the relatiue, yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent.
foreign.
Againe in foreign.
foreign.
Here me thinkes, I heare you grudge against poetrie, and poeticall licence, as doubtlesse you would quarrell against profane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples out of Prosaicall writers.
We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase, out of the holy Scriptures. First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I wil referre you to the first cap. of his Gospell, v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Actes 27. v. 3. and act. 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will sende you first to S. Paule, Col. 1. v. 26. foreign. In this verse foreign, must needes be the accusatiue case, as foreign is, by apposition, then is foreign, for all the world, as foreign, the nominatiue case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the later part of the verse foreign, doth most plainly declare. For what else should be the nominatiue case to the verbe foreign; and euen so your vulgar Latine text hath it translated: vt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis & generationibus, nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius. But because this is not so euident, for that the nominatiue case & the accusatiue of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plaine examples out of the reuelation of S. Iohn, cap. 1. v. 4. foreign. Grace to you and peace from him, or from God, (as some copies hauehave) which is, and which was, & which is to come. Would not your grammer say it is a plaine Soloecisme, because he saith not, foreign, & foreign, what hauehave you here to quarrel? Is not foreign, and foreign the same phrase that is in Luke, foreign; Well, let vsus goe a litle further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we reade thus. foreign. And from Iesus Christ which is a faithfull witnesse, the first borne from the dead, and Prince ouer the kinges of the earth. The more vsuall construction would require, that he should hauehave sayd, foreign. But that hevseth the same Soloecophanes, which S. Luke doth. ca. 22. (If the reading be not altered) where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominatiue case, commeth before the verbe foreign, which is not expressed, but must needes be vnderstoode: as euen your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendring it in both verses thus: ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui ven…urus est, and à Iesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These examples I doubt not, but they are sufficient to satisfie any reasonable man, to shew, that I hauehave not inuented a newe construction that neuer was heard of, to saue Bezaes credit, and whereof I am able to giuegive not so much as one example. But that I may ouerthrow M. Martines vaine insultation, with a whole cloude of examples, I wil yet adde one or two more. In the same reuelation, ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read foreign, and there dyed the thirde of all creatures which are in the sea, which had liues. Your vulgar Latine text turneth it thus. Et mortua est …ertia pars creaturae, eorum quae habebant animas in mari. And there dyed the thirde parte of the creatures, of those thinges which had life in the sea. In which translation, although the order of the wordes which Saint Iohn vseth, is somewhat inuerted: yet the sense remayneth the same, and foreign is translated, quae habebant, which agreeth not with foreign in case, as euerye childe that can declyne a Greeke noune, doth knowe: where otherwise the moste common construction were to hauehave sayd, foreign. Therefore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke 22. foreign. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth at my skill, that speake so barbarously, and rustically of Greeke elegancies, what can Maister Gregorie Martin I saye, the great linguist of the Seminarie of Rhemes, alledge, why these phrases are not alike? or rather changinge the wordes, in figure the very same? And if he hauehave any thing to cauill against this example, as I see not what he can hauehave, yet hauehave I an other out of the same booke, cap. 3. v. 12. foreign. And I will write vppon him the name of my God, and the name of the cittye of my God, the newe Ierusalem, which descendeth out of heauen from my God. The vulgar Latine translation differeth not from this, which sayth: Et scribam super eum nomen dei mei, & nomen ciuitatis dei mei, nouae Ierusalem, quae descendit de coelo à deo meo. Here the antecedent is of the genitiue case, the relatiue of the nominatiue, which commeth before the verbe foreign, vnderstoode in the participle foreign, as in Luc. 22. it is in the participle, foreign. By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learne to be wiser hereafter, & not to condemne all men, beside your self, out of your readers chaire at Rhemes, of ignorance, vnskilfulnes, barbarusnes, rusticity, yea wilfulnes & madnes, where you your self deserue a much sharper censure, through your immoderat insultation, the matter thereof being both more false and forged, than we might iustly hauehave borne, if we had bene ouertaken with a litle grammatical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needes be blinde, all the young Grecians in England, may see, that as in the Latine translation, you confesse the relatiue standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine, than to the word Calix, so in the Greeke, there is no help to remoue it from the next manifest & necessary antecedent, to a worde further of, with which the signification of the participle can not agree. For who would say that a cup is shed for vsus? And though you make a metonymye of the cup, for that which is in the cup, what is that I pray you? Not wine you wil say, I am sure, but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it, then followeth that vaine nugation which I hauehave noted against Saunder This bloud in the cuppe, which bloud is shed for you, is the new Testament in my bloud. Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how often was …t shed? If it were shed in the cuppe, how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice? Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitans, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye, in the supper, howe can that which was in the cup, be his bloud that was shed for vsus? for the word of shedding signifieth separation. Wherefore it can not be referred to that in the cup, but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vsus, so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the temps. The present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other Euangelists, where the word of shedding, can be referred to nothing els, but to his bloud shedde vponupon the crosse. wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no ambiguity, as in the place you cite, act. 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vponupon this ambiguitie, but al with one consent referre the word of shedding to his bloud, and not to the cuppe, or the content thereof, so many as speake of it.
MART. 40. And this is one commoditie among others, that we reape of the Greeke text, to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latine: whereas you neyther admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither doth the Greeke satisfie you, be it neuer so plaine and infallible, but you will deuise that it is corrupted, that there is a soloecisine, that the same soloecisme is an elegancie, and there vponupon you translate your owne deuise, and not the worde of God. Which whence can it proceede, but of most wilfull corruption? See chap. 17. nu. 10 11. 12.
FVLK. 40. This is nothing but generall rayling, & impudent slaundering, as in the particular sections before is proued. For we neither deuise that the text is corrupted, to alter any thing of the text, no not where it is vndoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of Ieremie. Math. 27. Neyther deuise wee a Soloecisme, when wee admonish that there is a Soloecophanes, which of no Papist that euer I heard of was before obserued. Neither make we a Soloecisme to be an elegancie when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes, that Soloecophanes is a figure vsed sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it streight way a vertue or elegancie of speache what so euer eloquent writers sometimes hauehave vsed: wherefore we translate nothing of our owne deuise, but we translate the worde of God without any wilfull corruption.