Erasmus on Greek and Bible Translation

In the previous post, I discussed the publication of the first Greek New Testament compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, and some notable aspects of its history. But what made the few Greek manuscripts in existence at the time any more legitimate than the Latin ones of the Vulgate? The idea that Greek manuscripts were more reliable than the Latin ones was a preposterous notion in the 15th and early 16th centuries, but the Dutch Humanist posed the question:

"How is it that Jerome [c.347-420 AD, translator and compiler of the original Vulgate], Augustine, and Ambrose all cite a text which differs from the [current] Vulgate? How is it that Jerome finds fault with and corrects many readings which we find in the Vulgate? What can you make of all this concurrent evidence - when the Greek versions differ from the Vulgate, when Jerome cites the text, according to the Greek versions, when the oldest Latin versions [Vetus Latina] do the same, when this reading suits the sense much better than that of the Vulgate - will you, treating all this with contempt, follow a version corrupted by some copyists?"

Erasmus also recognised that Latin was on the decline, and to hide the secrets of God's Holy Word away in a language known only to a few was a travesty. Many laymen heard short passages of the Vulgate during the mass - together with the usual orthodox interpretation - but there was no freedom to fully comprehend the intricacies of God's Word in the vernacular. While he did not personally engage in translating the Bible into any vernacular languages, Erasmus encouraged those brave individuals who did so, via his books and private letters. By the early years of the English Reformation, his Bible paraphrases and commentaries were translated into English and placed alongside the Bible in every church in England. In the preface to one of the editions of his Novum Testamentum, the scholar wrote:


"I wish that even the weakest woman should read the Gospel – should read the epistles of Paul. And I wish these were translated into all languages, so that they might be read and understood, not only by the Scots and Irishmen, but also by Turks and Saracens. To make them understood is surely the first step. It may be that they might be ridiculed by many, but some would take them to heart. I long that the husbandman should sing portions of them to himself as he follows the plough, that the weaver should hum them to the tune of his shuttle, that the traveller should beguile with their stories the tedium of his journey."

Those sentences in the middle regarding translating the Bible stand out to me the most: "To make them understood is surely the first step. It may be that they might be ridiculed by many, but some would take them to heart."  

Of course there will always be men and women that shun the Bible, and (as the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages feared,) poke fun at it in taverns, inns, meeting halls, marketplaces, and in their private chambers. However, that is between them and the Lord, and the fact is that some of those men and women will hear and read the truth, and the truth will set them free. It is a personal decision that cannot be forced, nor denied by any group on earth. For that reason the Lollards spread the Gospel and gave their handwritten Middle English manuscripts to the laity; and it is for that reason Erasmus's writings inspired William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and others to translate the Greek and Hebrew testaments into the languages of their people, so that all may be able to choose to make their own personal conscious decision for Christ.

Quote sources: How Our Bible Came To Us by H.G.G. Herklots