כארו MARTIN, 20. cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you borrowed this example, where, if you had not been blind with malice, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without controversy fixerunt," they have pierced," as also that the most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have pertained to St Augustine of Canterbury, hath charu, “they have pierced;" though you had been ignorant what is written concerning this word in the Masoreth, and what Isaac also writeth of that word, as it is commonly read, that it cannot signify, as you fancy, sicut leo, "like a lion:" and therefore the Chaldee paraphrase turneth it, "As a lion, they pierced my hands and my feet." But of this matter more hereafter, as occasion shall be given. As for the apostle, Ephes. iv. saying that Christ gave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received gifts, speaketh nothing contrary to the Hebrew; but sheweth wherefore Christ hath received gifts, namely, to bestow upon his church-except you will say that Christ gave of his own and received none, and so the apostle doth shew the excellency of the truth above the figure, Christ above David. Likewise, where the psalmist saith in the Hebrew, "Thou hast opened mine ears," the apostle doth rightly collect, that Christ had a body, which in his obedience was to be offered unto the Father. Last of all, you would have five souls cut from seventy-five in St Stephen's sermon, because it is not in the Hebrew; but you are deceived. For St Stephen gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the 46th chapter of Genesis, namely, the two sons of Judah that were dead, and Jacob's four wives, to shew how great his family was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt, and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is there in any of these examples like to qui fuit Cainan, about which you make so much ado? Martin. Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scripture? See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them. To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the bible, and the Fathers' expositions according to the same, (for that is the original cause of this,) and besides that they may have always this evasion, "It is not so in the Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek," and so seem jolly fellows and great clerks unto the ignorant people. What do they? They admit only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be the true and authentical text of the scripture. Whereupon this followeth, plexity in both the Testament, that they reject, and must needs reject, the Greek of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Their perWhich being rejected, thereupon it followeth again, that wheresoever defending those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or Hebrew text the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because of the Old they disagree from the Hebrew; and so yet again it followeth that the and Greek Greek text of the New Testament is not true, because it is not according New. to the Hebrew verity, and consequently the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles must be reformed (to say the least), because they speak according to the Septuagint, and not according to the Hebrew. text of the 20. Fulke. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and FULKE, changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scriptures? As for the perplexities, whereunto you feign that wilful heresy and arrogance hath driven us, is of your weaving; for (God be praised!) we can well enough with good conscience and sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New: not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers' judgments. For who knoweth not, what fruitful pains St Jerome took in translating the scripture out of the original tongue? Neither would he be dissuaded by St Augustine', who although he [Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latinæ quidem linguæ homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebræa scilicet et Græca, ut ad exemplaria præcedentia recurratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas. Quamquam et Hebræa verba non interpretata sæpe inveniamus in libris, sicut Amen, et Halleluia, et Racha, et Hosanna, et si qua sunt alia; quorum partim propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, quamvis interpretari potuissent, servata est antiquitas, sicut est Amen, et Halleluia; partim vero in aliam linguam transferri non potuisse dicuntur, sicut alia duo quæ posuimus. Sunt enim quædam verba certarum linguarum, quæ in usum alterius linguæ per interpretationem transire non possint. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, quæ verba motum animi significant potius, quam sententiæ conceptæ ullam particulam; nam et hæc duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha indignantis esse vocem, Hosanna lætantis. Sed non propter hæc pauca, quæ notare atque interrogare facillimum est, sed propter diversitates, ut misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations; for thus he writeth, De Doct. Christ. lib. 2, cap. 11: Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latina, &c. "Against unknown proper signs the knowledge of tongues is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue, whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine scriptures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, that recourse may be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt; although we find oftentimes in the books Hebrew words not interpreted, as Amen, Alleluia, Racha, Osanna, &c.," and a little after, Sed non propter hæc pauca, &c. "But not for these few words. which to mark and inquire of it is a very easy thing, but for the diversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek tongue may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith, as a Greek book came into every man's hand, and he seemed to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to interpret it. Which thing truly hath more helped the understanding than hindered, if the readers be not negligent; for the looking upon many books hath oftentimes made manifest sundry obscure or dark sentences." This is St Augustine's sound judgment of the knowledge of tongues and diversity of interpretations, for the better understanding of the scriptures. But let us see what be the absurdities that you gather of our defending the original texts of both the tongues. First, we must needs reject the Greek of the Old Testament, ut dictum est, interpretum, illarum linguarum est cognitio necessaria. Qui enim scripturas ex Hebræa lingua in Græcam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Græcus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguæ habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. Quæ quidem res plus adjuvit intelligentiam, quam impedivit, si modo legentes non sint negligentes. Nam nonnullas obscuriores sententias plurium codicum sæpe manifestavit inspectio.-De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. I. cap. 11, 12. Opera, Vol. I. pp. 24, 25.] 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 |