257–260, the hypothesis that it was made by Waldenses (who had also a Romanic version); and he
tried to prove it in his Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, Leipzig, 1886 (189
pages). Dr. Hermann Haupt, of Würzburg, took the same ground in his Die deutsche
Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser in dem Codex Teplensis und der ersten gedruckten
Bibel nachgewiesen, Würzburg, 1885 (64 pages); and again, in self-defense against Jostes, in Der
waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis und der vor-lutherischen deutschen Bibeldrucke,
Würzburg, 1886. On the other hand, Dr. Franz Jostes, a Roman Catholic scholar, denied the
Waldensian and defended the Catholic origin of that translation, in two pamphlets: Die Waldenser
und die vorlutherische Bibelübersetzung, Münster, 1885 (44 pages), and Die Tepler
Bibelübersetzung. Eine zweite Kritik, Münster, 1886 (43 pages). The same author promises a
complete history of German Catholic Bible versions. The question has been discussed in periodicals
and reviews, e.g., by Kawerau in Luthardt’s "Theol. Literaturblatt," Leipzig, 1885 and 1886 (Nos.
32–34), by Schaff in the New York "Independent" for Oct. 8, 1885, and in the "Presbyterian Review"
for April, 1887, pp. 355 sqq.; by Kolde, in the "Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen," 1887, No. I.; by
Müller in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1887, No. III.; and Bornemann, in the "Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol.,"
1888, 67–101.
The arguments for the Waldensian origin are derived from certain additions to the Codex
Teplensis, and alleged departures from the text of the Vulgate. But the additions are not anti-Catholic,
and are not found in the cognate Freiberger MS.; and the textual variations can not be traced to
sectarian bias. The text of the Vulgate was in greater confusion in the middle ages than the text of
the Itala at the time of Jerome, nor was there any authorized text of it before the Clementine recension
of 1592. The only plausible argument which Dr. Keller brings out in his second publication (pp.
80 sqq.) is the fact that Emser, in his Annotations to the New Test. (1523), charges Luther with
having translated the N. T. from a "Wickleffisch oder hussisch exemplar." But this refers to copies
of the Latin Vulgate; and in the examples quoted by Keller, Luther does not agree with the Codex
Teplensis.
The hostility of several Popes and Councils to the circulation of vernacular translations of
the Bible implies the existence of such translations, and could not prevent their publication, as the
numerous German editions prove. Dutch, French, and Italian versions also appeared among the
earliest prints. See Stevens, Nos. 687 and 688 (p. 59 sq.). The Italian edition exhibited in 1877 at
London is entitled: La Biblia en lingua Volgare (per Nicolo di Mallermi). Venetia: per Joan. Rosso
Vercellese, 1487, fol. A Spanish Bible by Bonif. Ferrer was printed at Valencia, 1478 (see Reuss,
Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T., II. 207, 5th Ed.).
The Bible is the common property and most sacred treasure of all Christian churches. The
art of printing was invented in Catholic times, and its history goes hand in hand with the history of
the Bible. Henry Stevens says (The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, p. 25): "The secular history
of the Holy Scriptures is the sacred history of Printing. The Bible was the first book printed, and
the Bible is the last book printed. Between 1450 and 1877, an interval of four centuries and a quarter,
the Bible shows the progress and comparative development of the art of printing in a manner that
no other single book can; and Biblical bibliography proves that during the first forty years, at least,
the Bible exceeded in amount of printing all other books put together; nor were its quality, style,
and variety a whit behind its quantity."
tuis.
(Tuis.)
#1