Delitzsch en Erasmus

In het Delitzsch-archief (drie dozen) aan de VU vond ik een brief uit Londen van 31 oktober 1861, met ingesloten een knipseltje uit de Daily Telegraph van 28 oktober 1861, over Delitzsch’ vondst van het Reuchlin-manuscript. De naam van de briefschrijver heb ik (nog) niet kunnen ontcijferen, maar het artikeltje is aardig. De achtergrond is het volgende: Erasmus had voor de de Griekse tekst van Openbaring één enkel handschrift gebruikt, geleend van Reuchlin. Omdat dat handschrift niet meer te vinden was kon niet precies worden nagegaan hoe Erasmus te werk was gegaan, en dus hoe de tekst van de Textus Receptus tot stand was gekomen. Franz Delitzsch, hoogleraar in Erlangen vond het handschrift terug, en gebruikte zijn vondst voor een opmerkelijk staaltje debunking van de Textus Receptus. Dat leverde uiteindelijk zijn publicatie Handschriftliche Funde op, maar het kranteartikeltje ademt de sfeer van de tijd eigenlijk nog beter. Hieronder volgen wat langere citaten.

The friends of the Biblical canon in its present form may be warned to prepare themselves for a pitched battle against the latter-day school of philological purists. [...] Luther, as well as the English translators, were of necessity compelled to follow Erasmus and, in following the distinguished "humanist" of the sixteenth century, no doubt firmly believed and trusted they had before them the veritable Word of God. Three hundred and fifty years had to pass before their assumptions could be proved to have been erroneous. [...] As is proved by the evidence of the costly manuscript, whose ancient origin and authenticity are said to have been demonstrated beyond a doubt, the great scholar of Rotterdam has taken considerable liberties with the wording of the Greek original. Although belonging to the profoundest linguists of his age, Erasmus, it appears, from the inadequate condition of philology at that time, was no match for the difficulties obstructing his penetration of the meaning of the text. Whatever of the inspired word he did not understand he changed for a reading all the more intelligible to himself from the fact of its being his own creation. Besides copying a good many passages with all the carelessness for which the celebrated scholar and ingenious wit may be said to have had a profound reputation, he did not experience any hesitation in extending the process of correction to the remodelling of entire lines. Indeed, his extravagance in this respect carried him to such lengths as to justify, perhaps, a supposition that he indulged his anti-religious spirit by the artificial production of mysteries instead of the plain word of God as proceeding from the pen of the sacred writer. The greatest portion of the guilt, however, must, in justice to the man, be undeniably attributed to his imperfect acquaintance with a language the study of which had been hardly revived upon the Continent at that time. It may be true enough that, as Professor Delitsch [sic] says, the words and passages misinterpreted by his erring predecessor offer but little difficulties to the philologists of the nineteenth century; but then poor old Erasmus had no dictionaries to refer to, and the most miserable and meagre treatises to consult in the shape of grammars. The learned professor is now busily engaged in preparing his treasure trove for print, and the appearance of the remarkable work may be expected to increase the sensation already produced by the news of its discovery.