Subject: Re: Erasmus's Latin Translation

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:23:48 -0400 (EDT)

Helge Evensen wrote:

>Of course de Jonge had considered the statements by Erasmus to the effect
>that he had not planned any translation before 1514. But he found reasons
>to doubt the correctness of these statements. On the last page of his
>paper "Nov. Test. A Nobis Versum:......", he states in a footnote:
       > "To prevent new misunderstandings I point out that
>in his last years Erasmus was to deny that he had ever contemplated
>making a new Latin translation of the New Testament before 1514.......
>P.S.Allen already observed in his introduction to Ep.384
>that this was a distortion of the facts. Deeply dismayed and disturbed
>by the development of the Reformation, Erasmus tried to avoid the
>impression that he had ever wished to supersede the Vulgate with his new
>translation" (p.413).

I think the "reasons he found to doubt" were mss which were thought to prove
a Latin translation by Erasmus prior to 1514. P.S. Allen is simply
conjecturing a theory as to why Erasmus would deny what Allen thought was a
fact--Erasmus had indeed produced a Latin translation before 1514. But, now
with Browne's research, there is no reason not to take Erasmus at his word.

The reference from de Jonge's article in the Journal of Medieval and
Renaissance Studies is on p. 82. He says: "It is clear that, in the chapter
under consideration, Erasmus' translation is not an independent version, but
a revision of the Vg. with the aid of Greek manuscripts. Erasmus changed the
Vg. test wherever this seemed to him to be necessary or desirable, but
otherwise he left it as it stood."

Bill Combs
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 03:02:46 -0700

> with Browne's research, there is no reason not to take Erasmus at his word.

Of course, this may be the "scholarly consensus" *now* (until a new
investigation [maybe] will show something else). In the meantime, we may
at least take Brown´s results into serious consideration. I doubt it is
the final word on the subject, though.

> otherwise he left it as it stood."

Of course it had to be a *dependent* version, a revision of the
Vulgate, the latter being based on a very strong Latin tradition.
But nevertheless, it was a *revision* (which may vary from book to book,
or even from passage to passage) that aroused considerable reaction.
That speaks for itself. At the time, even the slightest change from the
Vulgate would, in some quarters, be regarded as sacrilege. This might
even have hindered Erasmus from going as far as he wished with the
revision.
It is interesting to note here that since the Vulgate is not as far from
the TR as (for instance) the modern Critical text is, the revision made
by Erasmus needed not be very extensive, in order to conform to his
*Greek* text.
As de Jonge noted, Erasmus presented his translation as a *revision* of
the current Latin text (the Vulgate).

It should be observed that in the quote by Jonge above, he refers to
his own investigation of Hebrews 9 from the *fifth and final* edition
of Erasmus (1535), not the 1516 edition. Referring to the 1535 edition,
de Jonge stated: "In this edition, *thirty years* of work found their
completion" (p.81), (emphasis added).
Note that Erasmus revision was not only *textual*, but also
*translational*. Consequently, in many of the places where "he left it as
it stood", it had to do with the Latin *rendering*.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen