tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post3400733824182516551..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Erasmus’ Letter to Maarten van Dorp (1515)P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89562536563285921822023-01-28T10:22:06.307+00:002023-01-28T10:22:06.307+00:00Thanks for your response, and your interesting art...Thanks for your response, and your interesting article.<br /><br />I think there's quite some grey areas in English style guides -- including capitalization rules on compound surnames --, but the issue I think stems from (American?) English culture where surnames are by default interpreted to be "last" names, to the point that immigrants changed their (sur)names out of convenience.<br /><br />Of course Latinized surnames appear in published Latin texts, but in English, use of a name translated into Latin often doesn't make much sense.<br /><br />In the case at hand, it's "Maarten van Dorp" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinus_Dorpius), much like "Hermann von Soden". Having looked at different English style guides, I've noticed the somewhat confusing attitudes on how to represent these names, but in my opinion out of courtesy it's best to follow the style guides that recommend to use the surname as people would have used it themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70234471970145328442023-01-27T16:43:11.089+00:002023-01-27T16:43:11.089+00:00Thanks for this. More than once, and both the intr...Thanks for this. More than once, and both the introduction to Ep. 337 and the preface to CWE vol. 3 refers to him as Dorp, not van Dorp. That is to say, I am not sure what to do with the conflicting info. Admittedly, there may be some issue stemming from a Latin rendering of his name and how that is translated into English, but I think it's more than I am competent of doing/have time to do to sort all that out at the moment to juggle the Latin/Dutch/English translational issues. If it makes any difference, Allen's edition of Ep. 337 refers to him as Martin Dorp (https://archive.org/details/2.CARTASDEERASMO.OPVSEPISTOLARVMERASMITOM.II15141517/page/n109/mode/2up).Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84172645271433658822023-01-27T16:11:41.571+00:002023-01-27T16:11:41.571+00:00The last name of Maarten van Dorp, is "van Do...The last name of Maarten van Dorp, is "van Dorp", not "Dorp".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68635866287724897162022-10-07T01:27:22.930+01:002022-10-07T01:27:22.930+01:00"Slowly he turns, step by step, inch by inch...."Slowly he turns, step by step, inch by inch..." Maurice A. Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6396693486378905252022-10-06T17:35:30.424+01:002022-10-06T17:35:30.424+01:00Thanks for this. There's definitely a part of ...Thanks for this. There's definitely a part of me that agrees with you, but I also think that presentation of the situation is something that needs to be improved. Too often we focus on how many differences there are (without getting into what they are beyond a few scary famous ones) and give the impression that it's two completely different texts, and a group of people want to get rid of a bad one for a good one instead of what it really is—taking a very good (and at minimum, sufficient) representation of a text and making it slightly better by removing copyist errors and changes that only affect a small percentage of the text. I think a better representation would be the approach Maurice Robinson took at the recent apologetics conference, when he started with the observation that the Byz and 'Alexandrian-priority' texts are 94% identical, and then he went through a passage and showed that even where they disagreed in translatable ways, no reasonable person would say that they say something meaningfully different (e.g. "the father" vs. "his father" or "was satisfied" vs. "was filled"). True that's not the case all the time, but it is the reality that stands in stark contrast with the baseless assertion that "any verse in the NT is completely in jeopardy and up for grabs unless you adopt a TR and/or KJV position." In my experience, when we frame the discussion with similarities rather than differences, we end up with less division and fewer doubts. I think I could admittedly do a better job of being more intentional about framing the discussion this way though. I don't think I have always had that approach, but it's also not something I really thought about until more recently, no doubt due to influence from Robinson and Pierpont.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60447674840319768422022-10-06T16:57:03.889+01:002022-10-06T16:57:03.889+01:00Thank you, Elijah! (Both interesting and timely.)
...Thank you, Elijah! (Both interesting and timely.)<br /><br />I suppose the question now becomes, how much is too much? In other words, how many individual variant readings are in need of correction in our common translations, versions and manuscripts on average? In our own day the heavy hand of the Lachmannian school has incited many to react in ways that can only be described as extreme and illogical, but what of the initial thrust to ultimately scrap the TR and present a text that differs in say 5-6 thousand places from what was commonly received?–Is such an outlook even within the bounds of Divine preservation? Whatever our attempts at answering such questions amount to, in the end it would seem that both sides must bend...<br /><br />Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33488664725767711772022-10-06T14:52:29.435+01:002022-10-06T14:52:29.435+01:00//For no one asserts that there is any falsehood i...//For no one asserts that there is any falsehood in Holy Scripture (which you also suggested), nor has the whole question on which Jerome came to grips with Augustine anything at all to do with the matter. But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator's clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep. Which man encourages falsehood more, he who corrects and restores these passages, or he who would rather see an error added than removed?//<br /><br />Warfield was so influential that four centuries before his time his view on inerrancy was universally accepted.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.com