The image shows the relationship of Beza's translation with two other translations: the Vulgate (provided by BW) and Erasmus' translation. For the latter, I took the final edition of 1535, some chapters of which I entered myself in BW.
The text comparison settings are shown in the next screenshot.
Technical note: the order of the two settings is crucial. The first setting causes all differences between the three versions to be coloured in red, and the second setting makes blue all differences between Erasmus' and Beza' translation. The second setting overwrites the first, and thus all the instances in which Beza and Erasmus differ from the Vulgate but do not differ from each other remain red.
The result is a nicely coloured text, in which the colours, either red or blue, indicate that Beza diverges from the Vulgate. The difference between the two has to do with Erasmus' translation: red text indicates that Beza's "correction" of the Vulgate coincides with Erasmus', whereas blue text means that Beza changes the Vulgate independently. As can be seen, blue is somewhat more prominent than red, but the amount of red is still telling.
Needless to say, such a tool only provides raw material for further study. For instance (besides the obvious possibility that the data are skewed for reasons such as spelling differences), does agreement with Erasmus always mean that Beza depends on Erasmus? Or, can obvious textcritical differences be discerned, i.e., Erasmus and Beza using a Greek text different from the one reflected by the Vulgate? And does Beza in his annotations acknowledge Erasmus' part in his own translation?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten