« PoprzedniaDalej »
Heretical Translation concerning Justification.
Martin. ABout the article of justification, as it hath many branches, and their errors therein be manifold, so are their English translations. accordingly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of “justification” in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the law of God, which is both in the Old and New Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the psalm coviii.", that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati, in the psalm crlvii. 19°, 1 Mach. i. 51°, and ii. 21*, Luke i. 6", Rom. ii. 26". In all which places, and the like, where the Greek signifieth “justices” and “justifications” most exactly, according as our vulgar Latin translateth
justitias et justificationes ; there the English translations say jointly and with one consent, “ordinances,” or, “statutes.” For example, Rom. ii., “If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall it not be dikatoua
counted for circumcision?” And Luke i. 6, “They were both righteous ..., before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the raidikata
Lord blameless.” Why translate you it “ordinances,” and avoid the “” term “justifications?” is it because you would follow the Greek 2 I beseech you, is not 6ixatos “just,” 8tratovo 6at “to be justified,” burauduara “justifications,” or “justices?” In the Old Testament you might perhaps pretend that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you ppm translate “statutes,” or “ordinances.” But even there also are not the • *. seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrew word; who always interpret it 8wkaucouara, in English “justifica
Fulke. These matters were driven so thin in the first FULRE, 1. chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood than any more probable matter. For the Old Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that we give the English of chukim, when we say, “ordinances” or or “statutes,” and not of the Greek word &ucatouata, which of the Septuaginta is used in the same sense for “precepts” and “commandments,” as you yourself confess, cap. i. sect. 50, that very often in the scripture it signifieth “commandments.” But the Septuaginta, you say, “are sufficient to teach us the interpretation of the Hebrew word, who always interpret it 3ikaidouata.” If they had always interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teach us; for then there needed none other translation: but according to theirs then must you depart from your vulgar translation, which in many things departeth from them. But where you say they always interpret the Hebrew word chukim by Šukaušuata, it is false. For Exod. xviii. 20", they translate it "poard)- Dor para, praecepta, which your vulgar translation calleth ceremonias, “ceremonies;” as it doeth also Gen. xxvi. 5, where the Septuaginta translate oucaudouata ; by which you see
uncircumcised keep the right things contained in the law,” Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557. “If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,” Authorised version, 1611. “If then the prepucekeep the justice of the law,” Rhemish version, 1582.]
[7 Kai bapaprépm atrols rā trpooráyuara row esot, Exod. xviii. 20. “Ostendasque populo ceremonias,” Vulg. Kai épôNaše rà TpooráyPará Hov, Gen. xxvi. 5. “Et custodierit preceptaet mandatamea,” Vulg.]
that “justification” is not always the English for the Greek word which the Septuaginta do use. Also Numb. ix. 3, for chukoth they translate vöuov, “the law,” which the vulgar Latin calleth ceremonias, “ceremonies;” and for the Hebrew
Dop word misphatim they give awrykpuriv, “comparation,” the
vulgar Latin “justification;” by which you may see how your translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much ado about. Likewise in the fourteenth verse of the same chapter, the Septuagint translate chukath, twice together, vöuov; and that which the vulgar Latin calleth “justification of the passover,” the Greek calleth avvráčov, “the order of the paschal.” Deut. iv., your vulgar Latin turneth chukim thrice ceremonias, “ceremonies;” and Deut. v. twice, and Deut. vi. twice, Deut. vii. once; and so commonly almost in every chapter. But in the chap. xi. 32, the Greek for chukim hath Tpográ)para, where as in the beginning of the chapter he had oucauðuara; the Latin in both ceremonias, “ceremonies.” By which it is evident, what the Greeks and Latins meant by those words, chap. xx. for this Hebrew word; and in another the Greek hath nothing but ev'roXds, “commandments.” So hath he, 1 Reg. ii. 3, for DPT, evroXds, “ commandments.” Also 1 Reg. viii. 58, for chukim he hath Tpoatãyuata, and for misphatim he hath &kaidoaara, as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold rashness of this quarreller; but these may suffice all indifferent readers, and answer sufficiently for us. Within the New Testament, we translate Sikatasuara “ordinances,” or “statutes,” seeing it is proved both by the Septuaginta, which calleth the same Hebrew word not only “justifications,” but often “commandments,” “statutes,” “precepts,” “judgments;” and the vulgar Latin interpreter, which commonly calleth it “ceremonies” or “precepts.”
Martin. But be it that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you: in the New Testament what pretence have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek? The Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you have why you do not? None other surely, than that which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word “justification,” (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, notwithstanding the seventy Greek interpreters used it to signify “the whole law,” and in Latin it be commonly translated justificationes,) to in notwithstanding all this, “for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word against justification by faith.” As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called, according to the Greek and Latin, “justifications,” because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by St Luke's words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words.
Fulke. None but fools, considering what I have brought Felke, 2.
of the usage of that word, 3rauðuara, will judge that it signifieth only “justifications;” and all wise men may see that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the Greek testament, where it must needs have another signification. The concurrence of works with faith to justification before God, which the apostle doth exclude, Rom. iii., we may not admit. But justification by works, as St James teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say that your Latin translator, against justification by works, translated the word so often “ceremonies,” or that ceremonies of the law do concur to justification by faith. The commandments indeed are called “justifications,” because the works of the law, if a man keep it wholly, are able to justify. Not that every ceremony or observation of any piece of the law is a justification, or maketh a man just ; which you may better say, upon the etymology of the word, than that every particular observation of the law, or good work, doth concur with faith unto justification.
Martin. And hereof also it riseth, that when he cannot possibly MARTIN, 3. avoid the word in his translation, (as Apoc. xix. 8", bissinum enim ord 6tratusjustificationes sunt sanctorum, “The silk is the justifications of saints,”) “"“”
there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, “That justifications o in Apoc. xix.
Cranmer's, Genevan, Bishops', Authorised version. “Justifications of saints,” Rhemish, 1582.]
are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith.” But our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, “the righteousness of saints;” because they could not say, “ordinances of saints;” and they would not say, “justifications of saints;” knowing very well by Beza's own commentary, that this word includeth the good works of saints; which works if they should in translating call their “justifications," it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate instead thereof “ordinances,” and “statutes,” where they can, which are terms furthest off from justification; and where they cannot, there they say, “righteousness,” making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is eiðūrms, Dan. vi. 22, which there some of them translate “unguiltiness,” because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them.
Fulke. When &xalasuara, Apoc. xix., are translated justificationes, they signify “just works,” as I have already proved the signification of the word to bear; beside that it is so used by Aristotle in his Ethics", who of justification before God, whereof we speak, understood never a whit. Therefore, if instead of “righteousness,” which is the singular number, it were translated “righteous or just works,” it were not amiss, in mine opinion. Although by “righteousness” in that place, is nothing meant but “good or righteous works,” as Beza's note doth tell you.
Matt. i. 19.
Martin. And therefore as for “justice,” and “justifications,” they say “righteousness,” so for “just” they translate “righteous;” and by this means, “Joseph was a righteous man”,” rather than a just man; and Zacharias and Elisabeth “were both righteous before God”,” rather than just; because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only; as a wise man is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say “righteous men,” rather than “just men;” and when
they do say “just men,” (as sometime they do, least they might seem wilful
[, KaNeira 8: To Koivov učA\ov čukatospáympia' 8tratopa 88, rö 'tav6p60pa dāikjuaros. Arist. Ethic. v.]
[*'Ioa;id-8ikatos ov, Matt. i. 19. “Joseph cum esset justus,” Vulg. “Joseph being a perfect man,” Tyndale, 1534. “Joseph was a righteous man,” Cranmer, 1539, Bishops', 1584. “Joseph was a just man,” Genevan, Rhemish, Authorised versions.]
[. jorav 8é 8tkaloi duopórepot voortov row esov, Luc. i. 6. “Erant autem justi ambo,” Vulg. “Both were perfect before God,” Tyndale, Geneva. “They were both righteous before God,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Cranmer, Authorised. “Both just before God,” Rheims.]