Gods Effectual Calling, Treatise · Chapter 20 – Chapter 21
CHAP. XX. Of the Tranſlations of the old Teſtament.
NOw it reſteth that we ſpeake of the Tranſlations of the old and new Teſtament. And firſt, of the tranſlations of the old Teſtament. The old Teſtament was firſt written in Hebrue, and afterwards tranſlated into diuers languages, ſpecially the Chaldee, and Greeke: Firſt concerning the Chaldiacke tranſlation; next, of the Greeke: and for the Chaldiack, we be to conſider firſt, what manner of tranſlation it is: Secondly, by whom this was done: Thirdly, what authoritie this hath. For the firſt, the Chaldiacke tranſlation is rather a Paraphraſe, then a tranſlation word for word. The Rabbins call this Authors of the Chaldee paraphraſe.paraphraſe the Targum. For the ſecond point, by whom this Paraphraſe was ſet forth: Rabbi Aquila tranſlated the *Fiue bookes of Moſes.Pentateuch, and this they call Onkelos: the reſt of the bookes of the old teſtament were tranſlated, partly by Rabbi Ionathan, partly by Rabbi Ioſeph *blind.Caecus: they liued not long before Chriſt, or about Chriſts time. For the third point: The Chaldee paraphraſe with the Ancients was euer of great note and authoritie, ſpecially that part of the Pentateuch: for as for the reſt of this Paraphraſe, one *Praefat. in Biblia complu. tenſia.Ximenius a Cardinall auoucheth it to be full of Iewiſh fables, and of the vaine conceits of the Thalmudiſts. And thus farre briefly of the Chaldee paraphraſe.
Now touching the Greeke tranſlation of the old teſtament: there were diuers tranſlations of it into the Greeke tongue. Some number nine tranſlations. Of theſe the firſt and principall is that of the Septuagint, which thoſe 72. Ancients did at the appointment of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus: for whereas *Lib. ſtromat.Clemens Alexandrinus writeth, that the Scripture was tranſlated long before into Greeke, and that Plato had read the ſame, it is not like to be true: for neither Plato, nor anie of Pythagoras ſect euer ſaw the ſacred Scriptures. To ſpeake then of the interpretation of the ſeuentie interpreters, and to bind our ſelues to certaine queſtions, ſixe in number: the firſt may be this, whether there was euer any Greeke tranſlation ſet forth by the 72. interpreters. Secondly, if there were anie, when it was done. Thirdly, of what bookes. Fourthly, how this was done. Fiftly, what authoritie this tranſlation is of. Sixtly, whether this be the true tranſlation of the 72. Interpreters which we hauehave at this day?
For the firſt queſtion, the anſwer is eaſie: for there is no doubt but that there was a Greeke tranſlation by the 72. interpreters, for that all antiquitie accords to this. This is teſtified by aLib. de menſuris & ponderib.Epiphanius, bDe praeparat. euangel.Euſebius, cIn dialog. cum Tryphone.Iuſtin Martyr, with many others. And as for the ſecond queſtion, the anſwer alſo to it is eaſie,: for all men doe agree that this tranſlation was done in the raigne, and at the appointment of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus: this write and auouch theſe men, Ioſeph, Philo, dIn Synopſi.Athanaſius, Epiphanius, Tertullian, eIn hiſtoria ſua de hacipſare.Ariſtaeus, and manie others. And for the third queſtion, what bookes were tranſlated by them, the anſwer is not ſo eaſie: for ſome thinke they tranſlated but the fiue bookes of Moſes only. Of this mind is fIn pro…io antiq.Ioſeph, and Ierome ſeemes to incline this way. Others ſay, they tranſlated all the Scripture: and this is likeſt to be true: For firſt it is not like that king Ptolomie could hauehave contented himſelfe with the Pentateuch only. Secondly, the Apoſtles of Chriſt vſed the Greeke tranſlation in citing teſtimonies out of the prophets: but in the Apoſtles time there was none other tranſlation, but that of the Septuagints. Thirdly, there had beene no matter of admiration, in that this worke was done with ſuch expedition (if the Pentateuch onelyonly had beene tranſlated) and finiſhed in the ſpace of 72. dayes: for they ſay his tranſlation was miraculous. Fourthly, Chryſoſtome and Theodoret, among the Fathers, are of this iudgement: Wherefore it is beſt we hold this as moſt probable, that all the old Teſtament was tranſlated by them.
And as for the fift queſtion, what authoritie this tranſlation had? Hereunto men anſwer diuerſly. For ſome aſcribe too much to it, as *In lib. de menſuris & ponderib.Epiphanius, who ſaith, they were not interpreters only, but in a manner Prophets. Auguſtine is too much in the commendation of it, he ſaith; It was done by a ſpeciall diſpenſation of God, and thinks it to be ſet forth by diuine inſpiration. Others aſcribe not ſo much to it: *In praefat. in Pentateuchon.Ierome ſaith againſt Epiphanius, they were no prophets. And often in his Commentaries, he taxeth it not onelyonly as corrupted, but as verie faultie in it ſelfe, which thing he would neuer hauehave don, if he had thought this worke had beene done by diuine inſpiration. What authoritie ſoeuer this tranſlation is of, aſſuredly it can hauehave no more, then what may, by good right, be giuen to an interpretation: for we may not auouch it to be giuē by the inſpiration of God, nor make it of equall authoritie with the Scripture.
As touching the ſixt queſtion, ſome thinke that the old tranſlation of the Septuagint is as yet extant; but to Old tranſlation of the 70.be ſo corrupt, that it is no wiſdome to correct either the Hebrue or Latine copies by it. Bellarmine is of this mind. Others affirme, that the ancient tranſlation of the 72. interpreters is loſt, and that this which wee hauehave is mixt, and verie corrupt. This alſo they proue by an induction of certaine places corrupted. Firſt, the Greeke Bible numbers from the creation of the world vntounto the floud, 2242. yeares, as we may ſee, which Auguſtine, Euſebius, and Nicephorus in his chronologie: but the Hebrue veritie ſaith, the number of yeares be 1656. therefore the Greeke number exceedes the Hebrue in yeares 586. Secondly, from the floud to Ahraham, the 72. interpreters reckon of yeares 1082. but according to the Hebrue text of Gods word, there be no more yeares but 292. ſo the Greeke exceedes the Hebrue veritie 790. yeares. Thirdly, in the Greeke copie, Adam is ſaid to hauehave liued 230. yeares, and in ſome bookes 330. when he begat Sheth: but the Hebrue Bible ſaith, Adam begat Sheth when he was 130. yeares old. Fourthly, according to the Greeke copie Methuſalem liued fourteene yeares after the floud, which is verie ridiculous: for where liued he? or how was he kept from the waters? In the arke? That cannot be, for but eight ſoules onelyonly entred into the Arke, among whom Methuſalem is not reckoned. The Hebrew bible ſpeakes farre otherwiſe of Methuſalems Methuſalems life and death.yeares and age: for by it we gather that he died that verie yeare, the deluge came on the whole earth, to wit, the yeare of the world 1656. Fiftly, in Ionas, the Greek copy denounceth deſtructiō to the Niniuits after the third day, As yet three dayes, & Niniuie ſhall be deſtroyed: but in the Hebrue text we reade, Yet fortie dayes, and Chap. 3. 4.Niniuie ſhall be deſtroyed. By theſe places wee ſee there is great difference betweene the Greekes and the Hebrues in their numbring: but all agree that they Hebrue numbers are true. De ciuitate Dei lib. 18.Auguſtine fames, I know not what myſterie in this diuerſitie of numbers, to defend the authoritie of the 72. Interpreters, which notwithſtanding hee could not maintaine in the place concerning Methuſalem. Ierome deales more plainely and faithfully, ſaying, that the Septuagint hauehave erred in their numbers. By theſe before cited places, and many ſuch like corrupted, wee conclude, that this Greeke tranſlation which is nowe extant, is not that which the 72. ancient Iewes wrote; or if it be the ſame, that it is ſo corrupted, as we may reckon it to be of very ſmall authoritie.
Thus farre of the Greeke edition of the 72. interpreters: now we are to conſider of other Greeke tranſlations, which were written after that the Goſpell was publiſhed farre and neere among the Gentiles. And there be eight ſeuerall tranſlations numbred. The firſt was Aquilas written in Adrian the Emperours time, as teſtifieth Epiphanius. This Aquila was firſt a Pagan, and after turned Chriſtian, and was baptized: after this being admoniſhed, Aquila Synopenſis, and his apoſtaſie.for his ſtudies in iudiciall aſtrologie; and at laſt caſt out of the Church for his obſtinacie; he fell away to the Iewiſh religion: and conuerſing with the Iewes, hee learned the Hebrue tongue, and then and there tranſlated the old Teſtament out of the Hebrue into Greeke, but with a peruerſe and froward mind (as ſaith Theodoret) purpoſely intending to obſcure the doctrine of Chriſt, and to colour his apoſtaſie.
After this tranſlation of Aquila, followed Theodotions, in the raigne of Commodus the Emperour, as Epiphanius alſo writeth. This man was of Pontus, and of the ſect of Marcion the heretike, after a time renouncing his ſect, and abiuring all Chriſtian religion, he fell to Iudaiſme; and hauing learned the Hebrue tongue, he tranſlated in like manner the old Teſtament into Greeke, but with a malicious heart, and vnfaithfully (as Theodoret ſpeaketh) intending the confutation of his owne ſect.
After this tranſlation of Theodotion, followed that of Symmachus, in the raigne of Seuerus Auguſtus. This man Symmachus trā ſlation.was a Samaritane by birth and countrie, and for that hee could not attaine ſome ſuperioritie hee deſired in his owne countrie, he fell in like manner into Iudaiſme, and was circumciſed the ſecond time: & how this was done, Epiphanius noteth it out of 1. Cor. 7. 18. to wit, by gathering his vncircumciſion, after his firſt circumciſion; that ſo there might be matter for a ſecond circumciſion. This man tranſlated the old Teſtament out of Hebrue into Greeke; but vnfaithfully (as Theodoret ſaith) intending moſt the confutation of the Samaritans, of whom he had his firſt beginning.
After this tranſlation of Symmachus, there were two others, whoſe names bee not knowne. The one was found in Iericho, laid vp in great veſſels for the preſeruation of it, in the raigne of Caracalla the Emperour. The other was found at the North-Nicopolis, in the time of Alexander the Emperour, the ſonne of Mammaeas. This Apud Nicopolia Aquilonarem, becauſe there were three of that name.is teſtified by Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others.
After all theſe followed Origen, who liued in the yeare of Chriſt 261. in the daies of Valerian & Galienus the Emperours. Origen laboured exceedingly in the conference of ſuch tranſlations as he found extant before his time: for he gathered into one volume foure tranſlations, to wit, firſt, Aquilas: ſecondly, Symmachus: thirdly, the Septuagint: fourthly, Theodotions: and ſet them down in foure diſtinct columnes, and this was Origens Tetrapla. This doue, hee added to theſe foure columnes, Origens foreigntwo more of the Hebrue text; the one ſet downe in Hebrue; the other in Greeke characters: and this was Origens Hexapla. Laſtly, to the ſix former columnes, he annexed foreign.the two editions before noted to bee of vnknowne Authors: and this was called Origens Octapla, a worke of foreign.great labour and excellencie, the loſſe whereof hath beene, no doubt, no ſmal domage to the Church of God. Origen in theſe his works had his marginal ſtarres, to obſerue what he liked: his long ſtrokes, to put out what he diſliked: his little labels for addition, and his ſecond labels for a ſecond addition, according to the varietie and diuerſitie of his copies. A certaine godly man complaining for the loſſe of theſe works, ſaid, Well we may deplore the loſſe of theſe works, but reſtore the ſame we cannot.
After Origen there was one Lucianus tranſlation about Lucianus.Diocletians time. This man was a miniſter of the Church of Antioch, and a martyr. A copie of this edition (as I hauehave read) was found written with this martyrs owne hand, and kept in a marble cheſt at Nicomedia. Hierome alſo writeth, that in his time there were Greeke copies, which were called by Lucians name.
Finally, after Lucians tranſlation, followed another edition, ſet forth by one Heſychius, which corrected the interpretation of the Septuagints, and gaue it to the Heſychius.Churches of Egypt. And thus farre of the eight Greeke tranſlations which were after Chriſt, all which be loſt: howbeit the Papiſts ſell for good Canonicall Scripture, certaine remnants (as they ſay) of Theodotions tranſlation, Dan. 13. and 14. chap. a fragment which that foule heretik & Apoſtata left in their ſafe keeping. For as concerning this Greeke edition of the old Teſtament which is now extant, howſoeuer it comes to vsus, we hauehave none pure, but mixt and corrupted, as we hauehave before obſerued. And thus farre of the tranſlations of the old Teſtament: firſt the Chaldee Paraphraſe; next the ſundrie Greeke copies of all ages.
CHAP. XXI. Of the Syriacke tranſlation of the new Teſtament.
NOw let vsus come vntounto the tranſlatiō of the new Teſtament. The new Teſtament being firſt written in Greeke, was tranſlated into the Syriacke tongue, which in the dayes of Chriſt and his Apoſtles was the proper and naturall language of the Iewes, by reaſon of their long captiuity in Babylon, and for that the Aſſyrians were ſo tranſported to the poſſeſſion of Iurie. It is vncertaine who was the Author of this tranſlation, as alſo at what time it was done: Tremelius thinks it moſt like to be true, that this was done: in the primitiue Church, in the very beginning; & that by the Apoſtles themſelues or their Diſciples. He prooues alſo the reuerend antiquity thereof, Firſt by the elegancy of the tongue. Secondly, by the defects & loſſe of certaine books and places of the N. Teſtament, which Syriack tranſlation anncient.are to be found in the Syriack tranſlation: as the 2. Epiſt. of S. Peter. The 2. and 3. of S. Iohn. The Epiſt. of Iames and of Iude, the Apocalypſe, and the ſtorie of the woman taken in adulterie, which is found in the beginning of the 8. Chap. of the Goſpell according to S. Iohn. By this defect he gathereth, that ſeeing the Syriack tranſlation was extant before the Church accepted theſe books as canonicall, the Syriack tranſlation muſt be very auncient. Againe, he ſaith he found a ſingular faithfulneſſe in the Syriack tranſlation, by conferring it with the Greeke and originall: which experience any ſhall finde, if they ſhall pleaſe to conferre both languages together. Of the premiſſes the concluſion is this, that the Syriack tranſlation both was in elder ages, and is now at this day of great authority in the Church. Thus farre of the Chaldiack and diuers Greeke tranſlations of the old Teſtament, and of the Syriack tranſlation of the New.