p. 20
After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded
to their own prejudices or the prejudices of their times; and the pious
fraud which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome and at Geneva, has
been indefinitely multiplied in every countiy and language of modem
Europe.
EDWARD GIBBON, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire1
p. 21
Over the years, a number of theses
have been put forth to explain Erasmus’s decision to insert a textually suspect,
but theologically important, part of ljohn—the so-called Johannine Comma.
In this essay, I wish to explore an unexamined aspect of Erasmus’s attempt to
protect himself from charges of heresy and offer a further contextualization for
his decision to restore the Johannine Comma after that attempt failed.
p. 22
For unknown reasons, Erasmus did not consult the only
uncial available in Basel at the time (Basilensis, Codex e).4
4 For more information on the texts available to Erasmus and the composition of the 1516
Novum Instrumentum, see H.J. dejonge, ‘Novum Testamentum a Nobis Versum: The Essence
of Erasmus' Edition of the New Testament’, Journal of Theological Studies, (n.s.) 35/2 (1984),
394-413, here, 403 f., Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament Its
Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York, 2005), p. 142!, P.Y. Brandt, ‘Manuscrlts
grecs utilises par Erasme pour son Edition Du Novum Instrumentum de 1516', Theologische
Zeitschrift 54 (1998), 120-124.
p. 23
Erasmus probably did believe and almost certainly hoped that people would
be pleased with the quality of his work. He later described its worth,
“With the help of Greek ... many passages in the Vulgate have been restored that before were misinterpreted by commentators of great renown; much light has been shed on passages that before were covered by a cloud of ambiguity.”8
p. 24
Some did challenge Erasmus’s reverse translations, but the greatest amount
of controversy erupted over his decision not to reverse translate a partial verse
in the First Epistle of Saint John (ljohn 5,7b). The half-verse has since come to
he called the Johannine Comma because the pericope falls between two com-
mas and is inserted into the middle of a sentence.
p. 25
The ambitious Edward Lee (1482-1544, later Archbishop ofYork) was the first
to complain vocally and publically about Erasmus’s Greek New Testament By
late 1517 or early 1518, his criticisms of the Novum Instrumentum were known to
Erasmus.14 By 1518, it seems that Erasmus had also heard that Zuniga (d. 1531)
was preparing a list of complaints surrounding his New Testament Others, such
as Johannes Meier von Eck (1486-1543) and the inquisitor Jacobus Hoogstraten
(c. 1460-1527), had leveled complaints against it as well.15
15 Erasmus and Hoogstraten had previously tangled over Reuchlin when Erasmus played a
role in thwarting the inquisitor’s opinion that Reuchlin’s writings ought to be suppressed.
Further inflaming Hoogstraten was Ulrich von Hutten's 1516 Letters of Obscure Men, which
had portrayed Erasmus in quite a positive light, while Hoogstraten appeared as a bum-
bling, crass, uneducated buffoon.
p. 35
Instead, he repeatedly stated that he believed the Comma had been inserted into the Latin Bible in an attempt to provide (unneeded to his
mind) scriptural support for the Trinity and that when it did appear, it was a late insertion meant to conform the Greek manuscript to the Vulgate. He was also suspicious of the text Lee provided.30
‘In the end, in the fourth edition, I wrote what is in the Latin version, from a sole Greek
manuscript that came from England, but a recent one, although the Greek manuscript
in the Vatican has what was in mine. It is known that some Greek manuscripts were
amended from the reading of the Latin manuscripts after an accord was reached between
the Eastern Churches and Rome.’ Ep. 1877. cwf., Correspondence v 13:333.
p. 39
wild speculation. Erasmus, too, often used psuedopigraphy when he sought
to condemn something without bringing too much attention to himself. For
example, he never claimed responsibility for Julius Excluded. Anonymity, how-
ever, was not possible regarding the Greek New Testament.
p. 40
rendering his honor. In the end, however, Gibbon has it nearly right. The costs
of fighting over a text he believed accurately described the nature of God, even
while he knew it was a late Latin insertion into the Bible, were simply too high.
To have people insinuate that one was a closet Arian or one somehow aided
Arianism was markedly different in 1521 than it was in 1519 and 1520. Thus, he
yielded to the pressures of his times. He inserted the text not out of nobility, in
honoring a pledge, nor to just preserve the marketability of the wrork, but for a
perhaps much more mundane reason, yet no less important reason,—to save
his own skin.
