Heidelberg Catechism Dutch, English versions

[NaphtaliPress]

Is there a Dutch and English version of the Heidelberg in parallel online or one published? Is there a particular modern standard Dutch edition one can cite?
edit. I recall there may be more than one Dutch text. Voetius's text differs from what I'm finding.

 

[Brownie]

Is there a Dutch and English version of the Heidelberg in parallel online or one published? Is there a particular modern standard Dutch edition one can cite?
edit. I recall there may be more than one Dutch text. Voetius's text differs from what I'm finding.

You can find a Dutch version here. On the right you can click on original version or simple language. Dutch proof texts can be read in different translations.
I did a quick search in Dutch, but I couldn't find a parallel edition.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks Bart! Voetius quotes from question 103 as “Insonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren” (Especially on the Sabbath day of the Lord). The site and what print I find have "inzonderheid op den sabbat, dat is, op den rustdag" (especially on the Sabbath, that is, on the day of rest). Is this just Voetius's paraphrase or is there some version that reads what he has?

 

[Brownie]

Thanks Bart! Voetius quotes from question 103 as “Insonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren” (Especially on the Sabbath day of the Lord). The site and what print I find have "inzonderheid op den sabbat, dat is, op den rustdag" (especially on the Sabbath, that is, on the day of rest). Is this just Voetius's paraphrase or is there some version that reads what he has?

Strange. On this site Voetius's version doesn't have the addition of 'dach des Heeren'. I have no idea where that difference could come from.

 

[EvanF]

The Latin:

"... tum præcipue festis diebus" (then [on the] festal days especially)

The Old German:

"... sonderlich am feiertag" (particularly on [the] festal day)

So it isn't the result of a personal translation of the original languages.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Strange. On this site Voetius's version doesn't have the addition of 'dach des Heeren'. I have no idea where that difference could come from.

Thanks for this; I was needing to check his catechism.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Is there a Dutch and English version of the Heidelberg in parallel online or one published? Is there a particular modern standard Dutch edition one can cite?
edit. I recall there may be more than one Dutch text. Voetius's text differs from what I'm finding.

I believe the confessional standards and liturgical forms were revised at the synod of Dort. A version with the text “Insonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren” might have been a variant text in print at that time.

Just as the Dutch Statenvertaling got spelling revisions in the 19th century the same is true for the confessions. The “originele versie” on the website mentioned by Bart is one of these versions. It is the standard version of the more conservative churches and denominations.

More rigorous revisions have been made in the last century. The edition Zwanepol of 2009 is usually added to bibles of the HSV. Another edition still in use would be the edition of the GKV (which has become the NGK) of about 1985.

I would avoid any translation that that says “gewone taal” (plain language). In my opinion those kind of versions are a disgrace for the Dutch language and should fall under the nomen “jip-en-janneketaal”. Jip and Janneke are the protagonists of a Dutch book series of Annie M.G. Schmidt for children in kindergarden.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Martin Schoock, a student of Voetius, later a professor, seems to have made a career of opposing Voetius (both on V's view of the feast days and of the organ use in the church). Those who can pick out the Latin, Schoock seems to be addressing the variation of the text of Heidelberg Catechism 103 noted above. He writes:

Denique videtur pro D. Voetii moliminibus quadantenus militare Catechesis Editionis Belgicæ, quam refpiciens hic ipse I.d. fic loquitur: In primitivis Ecclefijs reformatis Belgij nulla vel minima species corum (Festorum scil.) comparuit. Abipso nomine Festi abstinebant, cum verba Catechefios Palatine, qu. 103. cum præcipue festis diebus, ita verterent: Infonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren. Vt omnes dies præter Dominicum excluderent. Sed versionem hanc fidei controverfæ, adversantemtextui Originali Latino, versioni Græcæ Sylburgij, & verfioni Ebræę Tremellii, ut convenit acceрtam referre primis illis in Belgio Theologis, quos notavimus fuifle ex difciplina Genevenfium; ita Synodus Dordracena 1619. hactenus quidem qualemcunque hanc verfionem toleravit, fictamen ut can. dicto præceperit horum dierum obfervatifervationem liberam, confiderandam ea ratione ne quo modo fcandalum infirmioribus exhibeatur. Præterea authores hujus versionis, abunde innuunt, fibi propofitum duntaxat fuiffe, diei Dominico, præ reliqui modum παρατραγωδεί.

Google translates:

Finally, it seems that for the efforts of D. Voeti, the forty-year military edition of the Belgian Catechesis, which he himself refers to here, the I.d. fic speaks: In the early reformed churches of Belgium, none or the smallest species of (Festivals, that is, Feasts) appeared. Even the name of Feasts abstained, when the words of the Palatine Catechists, which. 103. with particular feast days, were translated thus: Infonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren. To exclude all days except Dominic. But this version of the faith is controversial, opposing the Original Latin text, the Greek version of Sylburg, and the Hebrew version of Tremelli, as it is convenient to refer to the first Theologians in Belgium, whom we have noted were from the discipline of Geneva; thus the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619. has hitherto tolerated any version of this version, pretending that it is can. Having said that, he has commanded the free observance of these days, to be entrusted with such a reason that in no way a scandal may be presented to the weaker ones. Furthermore, the authors of this version abundantly hint that it was only prophesied on the Lord's day, rather than on the rest of the day.

Is Schhook saying there was a version of the Catechism championed by Voetius for 40 years that has this language? It's hard to make sense of moliminibus quadantenus militare. Or at least championed a change to the text? I've tried searching on Voetius phrase using for the title Catechismvs and Google finds nothing consequential.

 

[EvanF]

Martin Schoock, a student of Voetius, later a professor, seems to have made a career of opposing Voetius (both on V's view of the feast days and of the organ use in the church). Those who can pick out the Latin, Schoock seems to be addressing the variation of the text of Heidelberg Catechism 103 noted above. He writes:

Google translates:

Is Schhook saying there was a version of the Catechism championed by Voetius for 40 years that has this language? It's hard to make sense of moliminibus quadantenus militare. Or at least championed a change to the text? I've tried searching on Voetius phrase using for the title Catechismvs and Google finds nothing consequential.

Does "quadantenus" really mean 40-year? I find it in dictionaries as an adverb meaning "to a certain extent". So "quadantenus militare Catechesis Editionis Belgicæ" would seem to mean "to campaign to a certain extent for the Belgic edition of the catechism".

"Moliminibus" is clearly the dative object of "pro", so "for the efforts of D. Voeti" makes sense.

In that period of time, "Belgic" sometimes meant "Netherlandic". So "Belgic edition of the catechism" could mean Dutch language edition of the Heidelberg catechism.

Schhook is certainly commenting about how Heidelberg 103 refers in Latin to "festis diebus" plural rather than specifically to the singular Lord’s Day or Sabbath as the Dutch translation seems to.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

The translation of the fragment of Schoock by Chatgpt makes a lot more sense:

"Finally, it seems that the Catechism of the Belgian Edition to some extent served the efforts of D. Voetius, which this same man here refers to in the following way: 'In the early Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, there was no appearance—or only the slightest appearance—of those [Festivals, i.e., holy days]. They even refrained from using the word “festival,” since they translated the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 103, concerning especially feast days, as: Infonderheyt op den Sabbath dach des Heeren [‘devotion on the Lord’s Sabbath day’], so that they would exclude all days except the Lord’s Day (i.e., Sunday).'
But since this translation involved a controversial interpretation of the faith, opposing the original Latin text, the Greek version of Sylburgius, and the Hebrew version of Tremellius, it is fitting to attribute it to those early theologians in the Netherlands, whom we know followed the discipline of the Genevans (i.e., Calvinists). Thus, although the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619 tolerated this version to a certain degree, it nonetheless prescribed in the relevant canon that the observance of these days [holy days] be left free, with the intention that, in this way, no offense be given to the weaker brethren. Furthermore, the authors of this version clearly suggest that their sole purpose was to emphasize the Lord’s Day above the rest, in a manner paratragōdei (i.e., with rhetorical exaggeration or dramatic emphasis)."

The point is the difference between the Latin text which has feast days [pl.] and the Dutch text which has sabbath day [sg.]

The first Dutch edition of the HC of 1563 has "sonderlinge op den Vyerdach". This follows very literal the German text. According to the University of Utrecht this first edition was printed in Emden and translated from the 2nd German edition. In Heidelberg Petrus Datheen also translated the HC into Dutch the same year, but from the third edition. Although I couldn't check that particular edition, in Datheens psalter of 1566 we already find the text "in sonderheit op den Sabbath, dat is op den rustdach". So based on this it seems to me Voetius simply paraphrased this longer sentence for the sake of argument.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Martin Schoock, a student of Voetius, later a professor, seems to have made a career of opposing Voetius

I don't know about that. Wasn't Schoock the one that obliged Voetius by writing a treatise against Descartes, and subsequently got thrown in prison?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know about that. Wasn't Schoock the one that obliged Voetius by writing a treatise against Descartes, and subsequently got thrown in prison?

That may have been before. In his trial he showed letters from Voetius saying he put him up to it. I'll do more digging on that if it remains relevant. He does dispute with Voetius's views on the organ and feast days.