» 12. Martin. Likewise in another place the Hebrew is so out of frame, MARTIN, that some of your bibles say, "He begat Azuba of his wife Azuba." And other some translate, "He begat Jerioth of his wife Azuba :" the Hebrew being thus, "He begat Azuba his wife and Jerioth," which neither you nor any man else can easily tell what to make of. Thus you see how easy it were (if a man would multiply such examples), to shew by your own testimonies the corruption of the Hebrew, and that yourselves do not nor dare not exactly follow it, as of the Greek In the preface text of the New Testament also is declared elsewhere. of the New Testament. 12. Fulke. The third fault you find is, 1 Chron. ii. 18., FULKE, where the interpreters are deceived while they take eth for a sign of the accusative case, which in that place, as in divers other, is taken for a preposition, "of" or "by ;" as, Gen. iv. N Eve saith, "I have obtained a son," eth Jehovah, "of the Lord," or "by the Lord's gift," &c. Gen. xliv. "They are gone out," eth hayir, "of or from the city." So here the true translation of this verse in question is this: "Caleb the son [of] Chetzron, begat of Azuba, his wife, and of Jerioth';" that is, he had children by these two women, Azuba his wife, and Jerioth, which was his concubine; so they called them that were lawful wives, in respect of matrimony, but yet had not the honour of wives, but being of base condition before they were married, so continued. By this Jerioth he had those three sons that in this verse are named; his children by Azuba are named afterward, verse 42. Wherefore here is no fault in the Hebrew, but in your vulgar translator, which maketh Jerioth the son of Azuba, and addeth to the text, because he understood it not. It is false, therefore, that you say, we dare not follow the Hebrew," because some translator, by oversight, hath not attained to the right understanding thereof; as also, that "we dare not exactly follow the Greek of the New Testament," which we desire to follow as exactly as we can. 13. Martin. But it is greater marvel, why you follow not the Hebrew MARTIN, in other places also, where is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the points or vowels that now it hath, and that you call the Hebrew verity. Tell me then, I beseech you, why do you in all your bibles translate thus? "O virgin daughter of Sion, he hath [' Καὶ Χαλέβ υἱὸς Ἐσρὼμ ἔλαβε τὴν Γαζουβὰ γυναῖκα, καὶ τὴν Ἰεριώθ· Kai OVTOι vioì auris. Caleb vero filius Hesron accepit uxorem nomine Azuba, de qua genuit Jerioth. Vulg. 1 Paralip. ii. 18.] 22. την κεφα לעגח Isai. xxxvii. despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn: O daughter of Jerusalem, Tapévos, he hath shaken his head at thee." In the Hebrew, Greek, St Jerome's Ouyar. translation and commentary, it is clean contrary: "The virgin daughA auris. ter of Sion hath despised thee," (O Assur:) "the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." All are the feminine gender, and spoken of Sion literally, and of the church spiritually triumphing over Assur and all her enemies: you translate all as of the masculine gender, and apply to it Assur, insulting against Jerusalem, &c. I cannot conceive what this translation meaneth, and I would gladly know the reason; and I would have thought it some gross oversight, but that I find it so in all your English bibles, and not only in this place of Isaiah, but also in the books of the kings, 4 Reg. xix. where the same words are repeated. And it is no less marvel unto us, that know not the reason of your doings, why you have left out Alleluia nine times in the six last psalms, being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation; specially when you know that it is the ancient and joyful song of the primitive church. See the New English Testament, Annot. Apoc. xix. Alleluia. Bib. 1577. הַלְלוּיָה FULKE, 13. MARTIN, 14. Fulke. It seemeth that our translators followed too much the judgment of the Tigurine translator, who, what reason moved him so to translate, I know not: it seemeth they weighed not well the Hebrew in that place; but such is man's frailty that he is apt and easy to be deceived, if he be not very vigilant and attentive in those cases: and the example of one man's error that is of credit, soon draweth other men into the same, by countenance of his authority. Nevertheless two of our translations, the Bishops' bible and Coverdale's bible, translate the very same words according to the Hebrew, 2 Reg. xix. referring the saying against Senacherib despised and laughed to scorn by Jerusalem; and therefore you say untruly, that it is in all our English bibles, 4 Reg. xix. Where you marvel why we have left out Alleluiah nine times in the six last psalms, I marvel as much why you should so say; for in the Bishops' bible which I have, and which you call bible 1577, it is ten times in the five last psalms, and ten times there is in the translation, "Praise ye the Lord." In the cxlv. it is not in the Hebrew; but in the other five psalms it is both in the beginning and in the end of every one of them. Martin. Again, you translate thus: "Many which had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept," &c. Look well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greek and the Latin, thus: "Many which had seen the first house in the foundation thereof," (that is, yet standing upon the foundation, not destroyed,) "and this temple before their eyes, wept." You imagined that it should be meant, they saw Salomon's temple, when it was first founded; which because it was unpossible, therefore you translated otherwise than is in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But yet in some of your bibles, you should have considered the matter better, and translated accordingly. 14. Fulke. The Hebrew is indifferent, Ezra iii. to either FULKE, of both translations, and the sense is all one, whether beiasedho be referred to the first house, named before, or 17027 to this house before their eyes, which followeth; and therefore your conjecture of our imagination, as in other places, is no more bold than vain. 15. Martin. And surely why you should translate (4 Reg. xxiii. 13.) MARTIN, "On the right hand of mount Olivet," rather than as it is in the vulgar Latin; and why, "Ye abject of the gentiles," Isaiah xlv. 20. rather than " "ye that are saved of the gentiles;" you belike know some reason, we do not, neither by the Hebrew, nor the Greek. οἱ σωζόμε νοι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν. פליטי גויס Fulke. The Geneva bible hath according to the Hebrew, "the mount of corruption," which was indeed the mount Olivet, as it is proved by 1 Reg. xi. 7 and 2 Sam. xv. FULKE, 30, "and of the fruitfulness of oil was called mischethith;" 15. but in this place, in detestation of the idolatry, is called maschith, signifying "corruption," as Bethel was called Bethaven, Osee iv. 15. In Esai. xlv. two of our translations have, according to the usual signification of the Hebrew word, pelitei, "you that escaped of the people;" but that the word also signifieth “an abject," you might have learned by Pagnine, and so ceased to have marvelled why the Geneva bible translateth "you abjects of the gentiles;" as your own vulgar translation, Jer. xliv. translateth it, "of them that fled," or "fugitives." 16. Martin. Howbeit in these lesser things, (though nothing in the MARTIN, scripture is to be counted little,) you might perhaps more freely have taken your pleasure, in following neither Hebrew nor Greek; but when it concerneth a matter no less than usury, there by your false translation to give occasion unto the reader to be an usurer, is no small fault, either against true religon, or against good manners. This Bib. 1562. 19. you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus: "Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury of money, nor by usury of corn, nor by usury of anything that he may be hurt withal.” What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless it hurt the party that borroweth? which is so rooted in most men's hearts, that they think such usury very lawful, and daily offend mortally that way. Where Almighty God in this place of holy scripture hath not a word of hurting, or not hurting, (as may be seen by the Geneva bibles,) but saith simply thus: "Thou shalt not lend TOU TOKOU to thy brother to usury, usury of money, usury of meat, usury of apyupiou, anything that is put to usury." OUK EKTOκιεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ &c. Mark the Hebrew and the Greek, and see and be ashamed, that you strain and pervert it, to say for Non fœnerabis fratri tuo, which is word for word in the Greek and Hebrew, "Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury." If the Hebrew word in the use of holy scripture do signify, "to hurt by usury," why do you in the very next words following, in the selfsame bibles, translate it thus, "unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but not unto thy brother?" Why said you not, "A stranger thou mayest hurt with usury, but not thy brother?" Is it not all one word and phrase, here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the Jews would have thanked you; who by forcing the Hebrew word, as you do, think it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian, by any usury, be it never so great. Fulke. You say well, that in the scripture nothing is to be counted little; and therefore even in these little things we have endeavoured to follow the Hebrew, and have so well followed it, that though you say much, yet you can prove little against us. But concerning this text of usury, whereof you would make us great patrons, it is marvel that you cannot find in your dictionaries, that the verb nashach signifieth "to bite :" at least wise you should have regarded that your vulgar Latin interpreter, Num. xxi., translateth it "to strike," or "hurt," as they were that were hurt or bitten by the fiery serpents. The consent of all Hebricians also is, that neshech, the name of "usury," is derived of "biting" and "hurting :" wherefore the Bishops' bible, meaning to express that all usury is hurtful, according to the etymology of the word, rather than to defend that any usury is lawful other than such as God himself alloweth; and therefore it had been well to have translated also in the next verse, "a stranger mayest thou bite, or hurt with usury;" howsoever the Jews would take it, whose abominable usury, under pretence of that place, sure I am our translators' purpose was not to defend. 18. viii. 12. Martin. What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would MARTIN, gladly account oversights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon of? but all are not such, though some be. As, "two thousand" (written Cant. Cantic. at length), "to them that keep the fruit thereof." In the Hebrew, Bib. 1579. and Greek, “two hundred." Again, in the same book, chap. i. 4. “As the fruits of Cedar," in the Hebrew and Greek, "tabernacles." And, "ask a sign either in the depth or in the height above," for, “in Isai. vii. 11. the depth of hell.” And, "great works are wrought by him," for, Matt. xiv. 2. "do work in him," as St Paul useth the same word, 2 Cor. iv. 12. évepyouri ἐν αὐτῷ. And, "to make ready an horse," Acts xxiii. 24. in the Greek, "beasts." Bib. 1577. And, "if a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, without breaking of the law of Moses," John vii. 23, for, "to the end that iva μn von the law of Moses be not broken." And, "the Son of man must suffer vóμos. many things, and be reproved of the elders," Mark viii. 31, for, "be dπodokiμασθῆναι. rejected;" as in the psalm, "the stone which the builders rejected," we say not, "reproving" of the said stone, which is Christ. And VEÓ UTOS, "a young scholar," in all your translations falsely. And, "Simon 1 Tim. iii. of Chanaan," or "Simon the Cananite," who is called otherwise Zelotes, Mark iii. that is, "zealous," as an interpretation of the Hebrew word Cananææus ; which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the Hebrew word for "zealous," and the other for a Cananite," begin with.p diverse letters. And, "lest at any time we should let them slip," for, "lest we slip or run by," and so be lost. 18. Fulke. The first in Can. viii. is doubtless the printer's FULKE, fault, who did read in the written copy one cipher too much. That the second, Can. i. 5, was the printer's fault, which did read "fruits" for "tents," it is plain by the note upon the word Kedar, which is this: "Kedar was Ishmael's son, of whom came the Arabians, that dwelt in tents." In the third place, Esai. vii. there lacketh this word "beneath," or toward the pit, downward; for shealah is here opposite to lemayelah, “above," or "upward:" which omission I know not hyph whether it is to be imputed to the negligence of the printer, or of the translators; but notwithstanding the sense is all one. In the fourth text also, there is no difference for the meaning; and some are of opinion, that évepyeiv may be taken passively, as άokeiv, Beza in Marc. vi. 14; other translations turn it actively. In the fifth text, Acts xxiii. if for an "horse" they had said "horses," it had been no fault; for it is not like they rode upon asses or camels. The word |
