Did Erasmus and Luther translate the bible into Greek and Latin only, or did the

Question:into the vernacular too, if so, does anyone know the dates?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: into the vernacular too, if so, does anyone know the dates?

In considering the experiences of Linacre and Colet, the great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and ...
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-englis...

The richest fruit of Luther's leisure in the Wartburg, and the most important and useful work of his whole life, is the translation of the New Testament, by which he brought the teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles to the mind and heart of the Germans in life-like reproduction. It was a republication of the gospel. He made the Bible the people's book in church, school, and house. If he had done nothing else, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the German-speaking race. (1)

His version was followed by Protestant versions in other languages, especially the French, Dutch, and English. The Bible ceased to be a foreign book in a foreign tongue, and became naturalized, and hence far more clear and dear to the common people. Hereafter the Reformation depended no longer on the works of the Reformers, but on the book of God, which everybody could read for himself as his daily guide in spiritual life. This inestimable blessing of an open Bible for all, without the permission or intervention of pope and priest, marks an immense advance in church history, and can never be lost.

Earlier Versions
Luther was not the first, but by far the greatest translator of the German Bible, and is as inseparably connected with it as Jerome is with the Latin Vulgate. He threw the older translation into the shade and out of use, and has not been surpassed or even equaled by a successor. There are more accurate versions for scholars (as those of De Wette and Weizs?cker), but none that can rival Luther's for popular authority and use.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02...

THE WARTBURG WONDER
Following the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther's territorial ruler, Frederick the Wise, had Luther hidden away for safekeeping in the castle at Wartburg. Luther settled down and translated Erasmus's Greek New Testament in only eleven weeks. This is a phenomenal feat under any circumstances, but Luther contended with darkened days, poor lighting, and his own generally poor health.

"Das Nerve Testament Deutzsch" was published in September 1522. A typographical masterpiece, containing woodcuts from Lucas Cranach's workshop and selections from Albrecht Durer's famous Apocalypse series, the "September Bibel" sold an estimated five thousand copies in the first two months alone.

Luther then turned his attention to the Old Testament. Though well taught in both Greek and Hebrew, he would not attempt it alone. "Translators must never work by themselves," he wrote. "When one is alone, the best and most suitable words do not always occur to him." Luther thus formed a translation committee, which he dubbed his "Sanhedrin." If the notion of a translation committee seems obvious today, it is because such scholars as Philipp Melanchthon, Justus Jonas, John Bugenhagen, and Caspar Cruciger joined Luther in setting the precedent. Never before, and not for many years after, was the scholarship of this body equaled.

Forcing prophets to speak German Luther remained the principal
http://www.christianitytoday.com/holiday...

-Luther translated the greek-latin edition of the humanistic translation to german (but there were already many [14] better catholic translations to german)
-Erasmus edited the humanistic edition of the NT
(Erasmus dedicated this translation to pope Leo X.. But it is EXTREMELY full of errors, mistakes and extrapolations. He wanted to be the first with his printed edition. )
(My following protestant friends are right, I was wrong Erasmus didn't the AT)
But the AT was done by other humanists as Luther says "I can do neither Hebrew nor Greek…"
SO he was entirely dependend on others. As his knowledges grew, he could make some critics of the sources.
Luther works only on the hebrew canon, but he says that he uses "hebrew and greek sources". So there must have been a greek translation.
(Has he taken medieval jewish material in latin?)
- Jews translated (100 years AFTER Jesus) the hebrew edition from the GREEK septuaginta (mainly) and other documents. They elaborated heavily the text and removed all books that weren't originally written in hebrew
- Jews translated (200 years BEFORE Jesus) old hebrew texts to the septuaginta.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THE SEPTUAGINTA IS THE MOST USED TRANSLATION. IT CONTAINS THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROTESTANTS REFUSE.

So Luther's translation is a very BAD translation (mainly because he used the new Hebrew text)

Catholic translations are directly from the septuaginta. What is much better!!!

Qumran has confirmed that the jewish (hebrew) texts and the Luther Bible were not conform to the original text.

The catholic Vulgata SHOULD BE a translation from the septuaginta but Jeronimus used also the bad texts the humanists used (Jewish bible) to confirm the text (but this was not his only hebrew source). But he still was next to the septuaginta. The quality is very good. Sometimes better sometimes worse than the septuaginta.

The Lutherian humanists pretended that the Vulgata text was corrupt.
But today we know that the Vulgata is a very good text.
Protestant german scientifics used it as the base text in our days. (Tischendorff, Aland)
It was the best latin text until the catholic Neovulgata.
Today Tischendorff and Aland use the catholic text of the Neovulgata, what is today the best latin text.

All the lutherian criticisms of the Vulgata were lies.
Quumran confirmed it.

Luther's translation can be compared to the catholic ones like popmusic to classical music.
It was of lower quality but of higher popularity because of its ordinary language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

@Jim: "Noble language". Luther said himself "dem Volk aufs Maul schauen" (following to language of the ordinary people). If you want to have a look at the ordinary manner of him look at his "Tischreden": "Warum rülpset und furzet ihr nicht, hat es euch den nicht geschmacked"

Another thing: You say that the translations of Erasmus were problematic for the pope. Why? Don't you know that Erasmus dedicated his work to the pope and the pope gave his benediction and defended Erasmus till the end. Erasmus published the answers of the pope in his edition.

Agree w the second answer. Erasmus brought out an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek (1516). Luther translated the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) Bible into German - noble German, so far as I can make out. All very inconvenient for the Popes.