Gods Effectual Calling, Treatise · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII. Of the Latin tranſlations of both Teſtaments.
WE be now to ſpeake of the Latin tranſlations of the New Teſtament, and of the Old. The Latine tranſlations of the Bible were very many. This ſay aDe doctrina Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 11.Auguſtine and bIn prooemio in lib. Ioſuae.Ierom, who complaineth much of the varietie and diuerſity of Latin tranſlations. Of all the Latin tranſlatiōs, the firſt was an Italian: cDe doctr. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 15.Auguſtine preferres this before all the reſt, as keeping moſt ſtrictly to the wordes of the originall, and beeing more perſpicuous then others in ſentences. This was not that tranſlation of Ierom: for it is euident, this was far more ancient then that tranſlation of Ierom. And who ſhould bee the Author of this, it is vncertaine.
After this Italian tranſlatiō, Ieroms followed next: who is ſaid to hauehave left a double tranſlation in Latin of the old Teſtament. In the firſt, he followed the 72. interpreters: in the latter, the Hebrue originall text. For as touching the New Teſtament, Ierom is ſaid not to hauehave tranſlated it into Latin, but to hauehave corrected the old Latin tranſlation: as himſelfe affirmeth it in many places. This edition of Ierom, when it came forth firſt, it began forthwith to be dAug. Epiſt. 10. ad Hicron.accepted, and read publiquely in the Churches; but with no contempt of that old Italian copy. For as Gregorie ſaith, theſe two tranſlations, that elder Italian, and the latter of Ierom, were of greateſt note in the Latine Churches, and moſt vſed. At length all thoſe old Latine tranſlations together with that Italian, were not reſpected; and Ieroms tranſlation only remained, if we may truly auouch this to be Ieroms tranſlation, which at this day is vſed, and is caried about in his name: for the learned greatly doubt of this matter. Here therefore we bee to conſider of this point: And two queſtions principally are to be anſwered: Firſt, who was the Author of this: The ſecond, what authority it may hauehave in the Church.
As touching the Author of this Latin tranſlation, diuers men ſpeake diuerſly. Some thinke it was Ieroms, and that it is pure without any mixture: So think al Papiſts for the moſt part, ſpeciallie the Ieſuits. Others thinke it not to be Hieroms, as Sanctes aIn praef. in Interp. Bibl. ad Clement. 7. Pontif.Pagninus, and bForoſemprouianus.Paulus a Biſhop; to paſſe by Eraſmus, Munſter, and other popiſh writers. Others deeme it to be Hieroms, but not to want corruption: of this iudgmēt are theſe men, Ioannes Driedo, Sixtus Senenſis; and Bellarmene ſeemes to incline this way, as may eaſily be gathered by his propoſitions and reaſons touching this matter. We ſay, it is neither Hieroms, nor yet *Not his in whole, nor yet in parte.pure, nor mixt: and this we proue on this manner. Hierom tranſlated the old Teſtament out of the Hebrue into Latine accurately, or exactly: But this vulgar edition is not exact: therefore it is not Hieroms. The propoſition is euident: for Hierom himſelfe teſtifieth in many places of his works, that he had labored and done this tranſlation very exactly: as in his preface before the 5. books of Moſes; in his Preface before the books of the Kings; in his Preface on the Pſalter: in all which places he ſaith, he changed nothing, but followed faithfully the Hebrue text, and he appealeth to the Iewes to teſtify of the faithfulnes of his tranſlation. And aDe ciuitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 43.Auguſtine affirmeth it, that the very Iewes did confeſſe his tranſlation was ſound and true. dHiſpalenſis▪ lib. 6. Etymolog. cap. 5.Iſidore preferres Hieroms tranſlation before all mens, for keeping himſelfe more ſtrictly to the words of the Hebrue text, and for his perſpicuity of phraſe: wherefore if we may beleeue theſe men, Hieroms tranſlation was exactly done. So farre the propoſition, the aſſumption followeth: But the vulgar Latine edition is not accurate; neither doth it agree with the originall the Hebrue text, yea it ſo far diſſenteth from it, that neceſſarily one of theſe two aſſertions muſt be true, either that this Latin edition is moſt corrupt, or that the Hebrue fountaine is moſt troubled and diſordred: And this laſt point Bellarmine himſelfe dare not auouch, but taxeth ſuch as do ſo affirme, and that worthily.
It reſteth therefore that we proue this great diſagreement, betweene the Latine edition and the Hebrue text. And this can no otherwiſe be done, but by conference of the one with the other. Let the compariſon begin at the book of Geneſis; & compare not al places which diſſent (for that were infinit) but ſome ſpeciall places, whereby ye may ſoone conceiue of the reſt, and iudge what they be. And by this conference of places, you ſhall diſcerne that the defaults are not of one kinde, but of diuers, as for changing of words and ſentences, for defect and ſuperfluitie. For ſo many waies the vulgar Latine edition is faulty. In my iudgement this compariſon cannot better be found by any man, or meanes, then by that vulgar Latine which was corrected by Iohn Benedict a diuine of Paris, whom (that I may paſſe ouer this point briefly) I recommend vntounto thee gentle reader. By this cōference that ſhall appeare, both that this is not Hieroms tranſlation, & that this vulgar Latine edition is not authenticall; ſo as we ſhal not need to ſpend▪ any time in handling the other queſtion.