Erasmus flummoxed by the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome - wild accusation of forgery of the verse by Jerome - Valladolid

Steven Avery

Erasmus correspondence to Lee - p. 404-405 - however 405 needs to be found now
some pages seen in Amazon

Erasmus, Lee and the Correction of the Vulgate: The Shaking of the Foundations
Coogan (also p. 16)
p. 106-108 has a lot about the Lee correspondence


Grantley also in Ghost of Arius (2011)


Charles Vincent Dolman has a great summary .. but not the Erasmus-Lee-Stunica element

The Dublin Review, Volume 90 (1882)
Recent Evidence in Support of 1 John v. 7.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

BCEME -p. 43
Under the rubric that Erasmus had argued ‘against the sacrosanct Trinity of God’ was the more specific accusation that ‘Erasmus, in his Annotationes on i Jn 5, continually defends corrupt manuscripts, rages against St Jerome, and argues the case of the Arians, setting up defences for them.’ Erasmus had allegedly attacked the comma ‘with inexorable warfare’, had rejected all evidence in favour of its authenticity, and had dared to call Jerome ‘violent on many occasions, shameless, often change- able, and self-contradictory’.

p. 43-44
Alcaraz, bishop Santiago Cabrero, Sancho Carranza de Miranda, Miguel Gomez, Pedro de Lerma and Martin de Samunde stated that while Erasmus’ comments about Jerome may have displayed arrogance and irreverence, they did not constitute an attack on the Trinity, and should not have been included amongst Erasmus’ alleged denials of this doctrine. Samunde suggested facetiously that it was not the Inquisition’s job to censure Erasmus for attacking Jerome’s dignity - this task was best left to his confessor.

p. 44 - Valladolid
Miguel Carrasco pointed out that Erasmus’ great respect for Jerome, impugned by the inquisitors’ articles, was evident from the preface to his edition of the saint’s writings. To accuse him of despising Jerome because of a passing remark went against the grain of his work as a whole.
Last edited: