Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

66

called Septuagint, as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew, where it is not only different in words, but also contrary in sense. Why should we not? But if it retain the sense and substance, although it express not the same words, we need not reject it. St Jerome', who was required by Paula and Eustochium to expound the prophets, not only according to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation of the Septuagint, whereof he divers times complaineth, upon the 1st of Nahum saith expressly, that it was against his conscience always to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixitati, &c. Pardon me that I am so long, for I cannot, following both the story and the tropology or doctrine of manners, comprehend both briefly; most of all, seeing that I am so greatly tormented or troubled with the variety of the translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am compelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition," which was the Septuagint. This was St Jerome's opinion of the Septuagint translation. But upon rejection of that translation (say you) it followeth, that wheresoever those places, so disagreeing from the Hebrew, are cited by Christ, or the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew; and so the Greek text of the New Testament is not true, and consequently the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles, speaking according to the Septuagint, must at least be reformed. It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being granted, many do follow; and so you may heap up an hundred after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our Saviour, nor his apostles, citing any place out of the Old Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense and substance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it considered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there is no need that the LXX. in those places should be rejected. Although our Saviour Christ, speaking in the Syrian tongue, is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the LXX., which is in Greek. And his apostles and evangelists, using

[Ignoscite prolixitati: non enim possum, et historiam et tropologiam sequens, breviter utrumque comprehendere: maxime quum et interpretationis varietate torquear, et adversus conscientiam meam cogar interdum vulgatæ editionis consequentiam texere.-Comment. Hieronymi in Nahum. cap. 1. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 1567.]

[FULKE.]

4

MARTIN,

21.

FULKE, 21.

that text, regard the substance of the sentence, and not the form of words. For many times they cite not the very words of the Greek LXX. neither; and St Jerome, in Catalogo script. Eccles., which is set as a preface to St Matthew's gospel, telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of St Matthew, which he had, wheresoever the evangelist St Matthew, either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and Saviour, useth the testimonies of the Old Testament, he followeth not the authority of the seventy translators, but the Hebrew, of which these are two places: "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "he shall be called a Nazarite." See you not what a perilous perplexity we are in by defending both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, when neither are contrary to the other?

Martin. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, "I find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out," as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify; and withal let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament because of the Septuagint, or credit the Septuagint because of the New Testament; or how they can credit one and discredit the other, where both agree and consent together; or whether they will discredit both for credit of the Hebrew; or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza's impudent presumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least.

Fulke. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qui fuit Cainan, because it is not found in Moses; and therefore we have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence, grounded upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell you, whether we will discredit the New Testament because of the Septuagint! No, not for a thousand millions of Septuagints, nor for all the world will we credit the Septuagint against the truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of the LXX. in the New, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the Old; and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, without discrediting both, or either of both, in those places. And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagint, or a Judaical addition, Genesis xi. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done; which generation.

neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin translation, either Genesis xi., or 1 Par. i. Beside that it maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no less than two hundred and thirty years between Arphaxad and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuagint added the same unto the genealogy in St Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of the Septuagint against the Hebrew verity, which like an atheist you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin translation of the Old Testament, and deliver yourself out of that perplexity in which you would place us between the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament; seeing no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the New, and the Latin of the Old, differing altogether alike as the Greek and the Hebrew do.

22. How the

concile the

and Greek.

Martin. Alas! how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient MARTIN, fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient catholics, who seek all other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the fathers resacred scripture; and when they find no way, they leave it to God. said Hebrew St Augustine, concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, lib. 18. de saith often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by 43. the one that which he would not utter by the other. And St Ambrose1 Doct. Chr. thus: "We have found many things not idly added of the seventy Hexam. lib. Greek interpreters." St Jerome, though an earnest patron of the He- 3. cap. 6.

[Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraicæ lectioni addita et adjuncta comperimus.-Hexaemeron. Lib. I. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 42.]

[Legimus in apostolo: In aliis linguis et in labiis aliis loquor populo huic, et nec sic exaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur juxta Hebraicum de præsenti sumptum capitulo: et hoc in veteri observavimus Testamento (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus abutitur, qui magis Græcæ linguæ habuit scientiam) ubiquumque de veteri instrumento quid dicitur, non eos juxta Septuaginta, sed juxta Hebraicum ponere, nullius sequentes interpretationem, sed sensum Hebraicum cum suo sermone vertentes. Symmachus, Theodotio, et LXX. de hoc loco (nempe Isaiæ xxviii. 9-13) diversa senserunt: et quia longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ecclesiis, breviter transcurramus.-Comment. Hieronymi in Isaiæ xxviii. Opera, Vol. I. pp. 237, 238.

Neque vero Septuaginta Interpretum, ut invidi latrant, errores ar

Civit. cap.

2 Lib. de

cap. 15.

In Procem. lib. Paralip.

brew (not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity indeed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuagint; Comment. in and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason

28. Isai.

and in Quæstion. He

brai.

guimus.
Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem
putamus, quum illi Ptolemæo, regi Alexandriæ, mystica quæque in
scripturis sanctis prodere noluerint; et maxime ea quæ Christi adven-
tum pollicebantur; ne viderentur Judæi et alterum Deum colere: quos
ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Deum colere
dicerentur. Sed et evangelista, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal-
vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento
proferunt, quæ in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in
suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspicuum est, illa magis vera
esse exemplaria, quæ cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant.-
Præfatio Hieronymi in Lib. Heb. Quæst. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. 1.
pp. 506, 507.

Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Græcum versa est, editio permaneret, superflue me, mi Chromati, episcoporum sanctissime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebræa volumina Latino sermone transferrem: quod enim semel aures hominum occupaverat, et nascentis ecclesiæ roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur exemplaria, et germana illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit, aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judæis cornicum, ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et Ægyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediæ inter has provinciæ Palæstinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. Et certe Origenes non solum exemplaria composuit quatuor editionum, e regione singula verba describens, ut unus dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod majoris audaciæ est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quæ minus ante fuerant, et virgulis quæ ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod semel susceperant; et post Septuaginta cellulas, quæ vulgo sine auctore jactantur, singulas cellulas aperuere, hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod Septuaginta nescierunt; cur me non suscipiant Latini mei, qui inviolata editione veteri ita novam condidi, ut laborem meum Hebræis et, quod his majus est, apostolis auctoribus probem? * ・・・ Christus Dominus noster, utriusque Testamenti conditor, in Evangelio secundum Johannem, Qui credit, inquit, in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquæ viva. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scriptum esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est? Septuaginta non habent; apocrypha nescit ecclesia. Ad Hebræos igitur revertendum est, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla præsumunt.-Præfat. Hieronymi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. 1. pp. 1022, 1023.]

thereof, both for the seventy, and for the evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them "by the authority of Moses" (as Beza speaketh), that is, by the Hebrew. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the genealogy of Shem by the instinct of the same Spirit, that St Matthew left Matt. i. out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man would control the evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament that is read in the books of the Kings, he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza. Lastly, venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient Præf. in Aet. in this very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.

Apost.

Fulke. Here of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- FULKE, ing, how the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek 22. without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave the matter to God.

Pentateuch.

3. cap. 6.

First, St Augustine, De Civitate, lib. 18, cap. 43. De Doct. Chr. lib. 2, cap. 15, of their agreement, notwithstanding they were separated into several cells, gathereth, that those Septuagints were inspired with the same prophetical spirit of interpreting, that the prophets were in foreshewing. But this doth St Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the ground of this Præfat. in imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable and a lie. That St Ambrose saith, "we have found that many things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters;" Hexam. lib. we confess as much, where their addition serveth for explication of that which is contained in the Hebrew and so meaneth Ambrose; not that they had authority to add any thing, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with St Jerome, that there may be many reasons given for the difference of the one from the other. But concerning this place of St Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason thereof, both for the LXX. and for the evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses. And for this you

quote Comment. in 28 Esa. and in Question. Hebrai. in neither of which places is any mention of this place, much less any reason given to reconcile it or the Septuagint with the Hebrew. It seemeth, you read not the books yourself, but trusted too much some man's collection, which you understood In the preface to the Hebrew Questions Jerome ex

not.

« PoprzedniaDalej »