Heidelberg Catechism Q103 history of translation. Any difference in meaning?

NaphtaliPress

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Does anyone know the history of the change in Dutch translation within a few years of the German 1563 text (assuming I have this right). It seems the 1563 text of the first Dutch edition is different than the text by at least 1566. And can anyone translate the first one? The key thing I'm looking for is what corresponds to the phrase in 1566 (and subsequently) op de sabbat, dat is op de rustdag ("on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest”) in the 1563 and any difference in meaning. Sorry for the quality; it's been hard running down early editions online. Note the questions were not numbered in the first edition of 1563.
1563:
1684938319900.png
1566
1684938504895.png
 
My German is pretty limited, and there seems to be quite a bit of archaic spelling/grammar going on here. If I'm reading the dread blackletter correctly, then where the German 1563 reads ...sonderlinge op den Fyerdach... - and now further assuming my transfer into more modern German is adequate - would read ...especially on the Holyday...
 
Phil D. said:
My German is pretty limited, and there seems to be quite a bit of archaic spelling/grammar going on here. If I'm reading the dread blackletter correctly, then where the German 1563 reads ...sonderlinge op den Fyerdach... - and now further assuming my transfer into more modern German is adequate - would read ...especially on the Holyday...
Click to expand...
So, is the top one German then? It was identified as the Dutch first edition (trans. from the German).
 
NaphtaliPress said:
So, is the top one German then? It was identified as the Dutch first edition (trans. from the German).
Click to expand...
On an initial glance I thought so... but then old Dutch and some old German dialects can be similar enough to fool my limited knowledge... But now that I've been prompted and look a little more closely, the broader reading does have a number of distinctly Dutch words...

Feiertag in modern German means holiday. It also looks like the 1563 "3rd edition" German has feiertag (first column here).

Interestingly the 1563 Latin reads festis diebus - festival days or holidays. I suppose either of these could also be rendered day(s) of rest
 
Last edited:
Is it possible the 1563 you have (show) is the so called Platt-Deutsch ("Saxon") translation talked about here? If so, that might explain some things. On page 4 it also talks about a 1563 Emden translation, made into Dutch but by a church in Germany, again possibly suggesting some lingual overlap...
 
Last edited:
So, according to this very helpful comparative source your edition is the 1563 Emden, and Dathenus' 1563 Dutch translation used the Sabbath verbiage. (And I've been made a fool by blackletter once again... it's Vyerdach not Fyerdach - for which I can't find any likely corollaries or etymological history) The author doesn't specifically address the differences in Q103, but since the article is in more modern Dutch you can get some useful information from the preceding and subsequent text by using the clip and translate feature.
 
Last edited:
Phil D. said:
So, according to this very helpful comparative source your edition is the 1563 Emden. (And I've been made a fool by blackletter once again... it's Vyerdach not Fyerdach - for which I can't find any likely corollaries or etymological history) The author doesn't specifically address the differences in Q103, but since the article is in more modern German you can get some useful information from the preceding and subsequent text by using the clip and translate feature.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much Phil; I'll take a look; maybe those details may lead me on to some resolution.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Thanks very much Phil; I'll take a look; maybe those details may lead me on to some resolution.
Click to expand...

One last observation, while the Emden translation is presumed to just slightly predate it, Petrus Dathenus' 1563 primary Dutch translation uses the Sabbath verbiage. I also came across some relatively recent research that poses the possibility of Dathenus (aka Datheen) having had a hand in the original composition of the HC... Also, in case you missed it in a previous post, there is some good information on the various editions here
 
Last edited:
Both are Dutch with a 16th/17th century spelling. It isn’t a distinction between Dutch and Lower Saxon.

In the 16th century Dutch and German were (sometimes) still considered variants of the same language. In one Dutch chronicle I read it said: Some speak “Duytsch” (German/Dutch) to high others to low. Dutch was therefore called Nederduytsch (Nether Dutch) as it is distinct from High German. In translating German texts into Dutch, translators would sometimes Dutchify German words. It is said that the Dutch word “barmharig” (merciful) came into Dutch in that manner.

That both text are Dutch can be easily seen:
Ende dat ick sonderlinge op den Vyerdach tot der Ghemeynten Gods vlijtich komen sal.
En(de) dat ick sonderlinge op den Sabbath, dat is, Rustdach, tot der Ghemeynten Gods vlijtich comen sal.

The only difference in this sentence is “op den Vyerdach” vs. “op den Sabbath, dat is, Rustdach”.

Vyerdach would be spelled vierdag nowadays, but isn’t proper Dutch. It would be literally tanslate into “day of celebration”. Dutch Christians will commonly "de dag des Heeren vieren" (celebrate the Lord's Day). It might be possible that in some dialects of Dutch this word vierdag existed, but I doubt it. So I assume this was a litteral translation, in order not to use the word "feestdag".
 
Last edited:
This is the Saxon:

https://objects.library.uu.nl/reade...84790876294170630732101509950903.jpg/mode/1up

Frage. Wat will Godt in de(n) verden Bade?
Antwert. Godt will erstlicken, dat dat predich ampt unde de scholen erholden werden, unde ick sunderlick am vyerdage t h o der gemene Gades vlytich kame, dat wort Gades tholeren, de hyllige Sacramente thobruken, den HEREN apenbar anthoropen, unde de Christlicke almisse t h o geven, Thom andern, dat ick alle dage mynes levendes van mynen bösen wercken vyere, den HEREN dörch synen Geist in my wercken late, unde also den ewigen Sabbath in dessem levende anvange.
Click to expand...

(it is almost Dutch, but slightly different and can be understood easily by any Dutchman as long as it isn't spoken.)
 
Last edited:
I have to correct myself a little bit. The word “vierdag” is found in Dutch, but it is just very rare and hardly used. In the States Bible it is used in the plural in Nahum 1:15: “Viert uw vierdagen, o Juda.” in modern editions or “Vyert uwe vyerdagen, o Juda” in the real SV. In the Dutch dictionary Van Dale the word can also be found but is also called outdated.

In connection with the Lords day and the usuage of “vierdag” in the Heidelberger this sentence in the larger catechism of M. Luther is quite telling: “The word holy day (Feiertag) is rendered from the Hebrew word sabbath which properly signifies to rest, that is, to abstain from labor.” https://bookofconcord.org/large-catechism/.
In Dutch the main meaning of vierdag would not denote a day of rest, but of celebration. In the same manner a holy day is a day that has been sanctified or set apart for religious use. People will usually abstain of work on such days, but it would be at best a secundary meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top