Steven Avery
Administrator
Hi Folks,
... it is clear from Erasmus' published Greek and Latin texts that he failed to observe the fundamental divergence between the Greek text underlying the Vulgate and the Byzantine text family. (Beyond What is Written p. 18).
The "emendations' mentioned here clearly presuppose the Vulgate as the text to be emended. (p. 14)
the roles were unevenly assigned from the start: the Vulgate was seen as part of the polluted stream, while the exclusively Greek manuscripts to which Erasmus had access represented the pristine source. (p. 16)
Note that on p. 89, Krans dances around his own "polluted stream" description of the Erasmus position.
p. 39-40 on orthodox corruptions
===========================================================================================
Allow me to give Jan Krans the benefit of one doubt. Krans clearly knows his own accusation against Erasmus is objectively without merit. Krans follows up the above with a denial of his own accusation against Erasmus of taking a presuppositional approach.
ERASMUS' OPINION ON THE GREEK TEXT
In many instances Erasmus' annotations show that he perceived text critical problems in individual texts. Whether or not he was subconsciously aware of the basic divergence that lies behind these problems, he approached them far more objectively than the above description of his motivation may suggest. He could also scold others for their naive trust in any Greek manuscript they may come across. (p. 18)
The underline part is basically Krans refuting the Krans presuppositional accusation.
Next, I want to look at the clearest case of Krans vs. Krans. (ie. Krans the accuser of Erasmus as following false presuppositions vs. the Krans who highlights the Erasmus methodological excellence. .. (emphasis added).
ANNOTATIONS
A good starting point for describing the annotations are Erasmus' own words in which he sets forth his task as an editor of the New Testament: The man who makes such advances does not follow any manuscripts which happen to come into his hands, nor does he stick to one only. He makes a selection. Not docs he rely only on ihc comparison of his manuscript authorities: he carries out careful research among the Greek and Latin commentators to lind how a passage has been read by the most reputable authorirics, how they have explained il, what measure of agreement there is between them. And even then he does not deny anyone's right to his own view unless the error is so obvious rhat it would be shameful to turn his back on it. Origcn never dared to 'correct' the New Testament, nor did I erase a single letter in the accepted copies. He suggested and shared his conjectures. I not only brought forward conjectures, bur strengthened the matter with the most trustworthy authorities. But this is a matter which I shall discuss at greater length and at a more appropriate moment. This passage illustrates the 'eclectic' method Erasmus adopted, in line with his opinion that the 'true reading' can be found only through a combination of various sources. Indeed, in the annotations, he refers time and again to both Greek and Latin manuscripts, as well as to patristic evidence..... (p. 23)
Krans specifically says that Erasmus approaches the Greek and Latin texts fairly.
Erasmus is convinced of the Graeca Veritas principle, a conviction which goes back to his discovery and publication of Valla's Annotationes, and for which he uses Jerome as an authority. This principle holds that the procedure by which the Vulgate is compared with the Greek is basically valid and useful. The results of this collatio, however, are manifold. They do not necessarily imply the vindication of the Greek text over the Latin, for all cases are special.
He also had a mind too versatile to be involved in the mechanical application of such a canon. He seems to have approached every problem anew, guided only by experience and common sense.(p. 51)
Let us review what can be seen as the Jan Krans attack on Erasmus, which revolves around a supposed lack of Hortian "observation" combined with "presupposition".
... it is clear from Erasmus' published Greek and Latin texts that he failed to observe the fundamental divergence between the Greek text underlying the Vulgate and the Byzantine text family. (Beyond What is Written p. 18).
The "emendations' mentioned here clearly presuppose the Vulgate as the text to be emended. (p. 14)
the roles were unevenly assigned from the start: the Vulgate was seen as part of the polluted stream, while the exclusively Greek manuscripts to which Erasmus had access represented the pristine source. (p. 16)
Note that on p. 89, Krans dances around his own "polluted stream" description of the Erasmus position.
p. 39-40 on orthodox corruptions
===========================================================================================
Allow me to give Jan Krans the benefit of one doubt. Krans clearly knows his own accusation against Erasmus is objectively without merit. Krans follows up the above with a denial of his own accusation against Erasmus of taking a presuppositional approach.
ERASMUS' OPINION ON THE GREEK TEXT
In many instances Erasmus' annotations show that he perceived text critical problems in individual texts. Whether or not he was subconsciously aware of the basic divergence that lies behind these problems, he approached them far more objectively than the above description of his motivation may suggest. He could also scold others for their naive trust in any Greek manuscript they may come across. (p. 18)
The underline part is basically Krans refuting the Krans presuppositional accusation.
Next, I want to look at the clearest case of Krans vs. Krans. (ie. Krans the accuser of Erasmus as following false presuppositions vs. the Krans who highlights the Erasmus methodological excellence. .. (emphasis added).
ANNOTATIONS
A good starting point for describing the annotations are Erasmus' own words in which he sets forth his task as an editor of the New Testament: The man who makes such advances does not follow any manuscripts which happen to come into his hands, nor does he stick to one only. He makes a selection. Not docs he rely only on ihc comparison of his manuscript authorities: he carries out careful research among the Greek and Latin commentators to lind how a passage has been read by the most reputable authorirics, how they have explained il, what measure of agreement there is between them. And even then he does not deny anyone's right to his own view unless the error is so obvious rhat it would be shameful to turn his back on it. Origcn never dared to 'correct' the New Testament, nor did I erase a single letter in the accepted copies. He suggested and shared his conjectures. I not only brought forward conjectures, bur strengthened the matter with the most trustworthy authorities. But this is a matter which I shall discuss at greater length and at a more appropriate moment. This passage illustrates the 'eclectic' method Erasmus adopted, in line with his opinion that the 'true reading' can be found only through a combination of various sources. Indeed, in the annotations, he refers time and again to both Greek and Latin manuscripts, as well as to patristic evidence..... (p. 23)
Krans specifically says that Erasmus approaches the Greek and Latin texts fairly.
Erasmus is convinced of the Graeca Veritas principle, a conviction which goes back to his discovery and publication of Valla's Annotationes, and for which he uses Jerome as an authority. This principle holds that the procedure by which the Vulgate is compared with the Greek is basically valid and useful. The results of this collatio, however, are manifold. They do not necessarily imply the vindication of the Greek text over the Latin, for all cases are special.
He also had a mind too versatile to be involved in the mechanical application of such a canon. He seems to have approached every problem anew, guided only by experience and common sense.(p. 51)
Last edited: