Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
Erasmus paraphrase of 1 John
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
RGA - (error on dates) - p. 121-122
Even after Erasmus had expressed his doubts about the comma in the
Annotationes to the third edition of his New Testament, he was still happy to
employ it when it suited his purposes. In 1523 he published his Paraphrases of all
the Apostolic Epistles, a Latin translation combined with running theological
commentary. In the paraphrase of 1 Jn, Erasmus included the comma without
hesitation, interpreting the heavenly witnesses as testifying to Christ’s divinity,
and the earthly witnesses as testifying to his humanity. Despite this apparent
concession to the devotional mode in which he was writing, he avoided making
any mention of the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, stating merely
that their witness is united.130
130 Erasmus, 1523, Ii5v-6r: “Tres sunt enim in coelo, qui testimonium præbent Christo: pater,
sermo, & spiritus: pater, qui semel atque iterum uoce coelitus emissa, palàm testatus est hunc
esse filium suum egregie charum, in quo nihil offenderet: sermo, qui tot miraculis æditis, qui
moriens ac resurgens declarauit se uerum esse Christum, deum pariter atque hominem, dei &
hominum conciliatorem: spiritus sanctus, qui in baptizati caput descendit, qui post
resurrectionem delapsus est in discipulos. Atque horum trium summus est consensus: pater est
autor, filius nuncius, spiritus sug [Ii6r] gestor. Tria sunt item in terris, quæ attestantur
Christum: spiritus humanus, quem posuit in cruce: aqua, & sanguis, qui fluxit è latere mortui.
Et hi tres testes consentiunt. Illi declarant deum, hi testantur hominem fuisse. Testimonium
perhibuit & Ioannes. Quod si testimonium hominum recipimus, æquum est ut plus apud nos
habeat ponderis testimonium dei. Manifestum est enim dei patris testimonium: Hic est filius
meus dilectus, in eo complacitum est mihi, ipsum audite. Quid dici potuit apertius aut
plenius?
p. 123
In the paraphrases of
Jn 10:30, Erasmus had placed the following words in the mouth of Jesus: “We are
two, but we two bear the same testimony and have the same judgment. And from
us two there is one who, if he were alone, would still have an irrefutable
judgment” (Duo sumus, sed duorum idem est testimonium, idem iudicium. Sed ex his
duobus unus est, qui si solus esset, tamen esset illius irrefutabile iudicium). This
suggested to Béda that Erasmus intended to undermine the essential unity of the
Father and the Son.
p. 126
The issue he had called into question was
not whether the Father, Son and Spirit are of the same essence, but merely which
reading—that in the Latin Vulgate or that in the Greek— faithfully reflected the
Apostle’s words. In his Paraphrases Erasmus had followed what was found in the
Latin manuscripts; in the Annotationes he warned the reader which reading he
found more convincing, basing his opinion on serious argumentation
p. 130
In 1531 there appeared yet another set of published criticisms of Erasmus’
orthodoxy, this time from the theological faculty of Paris. Amongst the details of
Erasmus’ paraphrase to which the faculty objected was his translation of λόγος in
Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 5:7 as sermo, as well as the way his paraphrase of 1 John implied
that the unity of the three heavenly witnesses was merely one of testimony rather
than one of essence; this, it was suggested, gave some handle for the defence of
the error of Arius.144
144 Determinatio, 1531, C4r-v: “Antequam hæc vniuersitas rerum coelestium ac terrestrium
conderetur, iam cum patre æterno sermo erat æternus, vtitur dictione sermo, cum vtamur
dictione verbum, explicando illud in principio erat verbum. Tres sunt in coelo, qui testimonium
legimus, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, verbum, & spiritus sanctus, & hi tres
vnum sunt. Perperam autem explicat partem illam paraphrastes, hi tres vnum sunt, detrahendo
maximo [C4v] testimonio fidei de vnitate substantiæ in tribus personis, ansam præbens
defensionis erroris Arrij.”
p. 274
Still more
decidedly was it felt in England, where Erasmus’ Annotations and his Paraphrases
upon the New Testament were officially introduced into every parish (1547).”44
44 Bonet-Maury, 1884, 40-41
=========================
BCEME - p. 41
7. Running with the hares, hunting with the hounds:
Erasmus’ contradictory attitude towards the comma
Even after Erasmus had expressed his doubts about the comma in the
Annotationes to his 1522 edition of the New Testament, he still employed it
when it suited his purposes. In 1523 he published his Paraphrases of all the
Apostolic Epistles, a Latin translation that runs seamlessly into theological
commentary. In the paraphrase of 1 Jn, Erasmus included the comma without
hesitation, interpreting the heavenly witnesses as testifying to Christ’s
divinity, and the earthly witnesses as testifying to his humanity. Erasmus
avoided mentioning the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, and
stated merely that they are united in witness.90
90 Erasmus 1523a, Ii5v–6r: ‘Tres sunt enim in coelo, qui testimonium praebent Christo: pater, sermo,
& spiritus: pater, qui semel atque iterum uoce coelitus emissa, palàm testatus est hunc esse filium
suum egregie charum, in quo nihil offenderet: sermo, qui tot miraculis aeditis, qui moriens ac
resurgens declarauit se uerum esse Christum, deum pariter atque hominem, dei & hominum conciliatorem:
spiritus sanctus, qui in baptizati caput descendit, qui post resurrectionem delapsus est
in discipulos. Atque horum trium summus est consensus: pater est autor, filius nuncius, spiritus
sug [Ii6r] gestor. Tria sunt item in terris, quae attestantur Christum: spiritus humanus, quem
posuit in cruce: aqua, & sanguis, qui fluxit è latere mortui. Et hi tres testes consentiunt. Illi declarant
deum, hi testantur hominem fuisse. Testimonium perhibuit & Ioannes. Quod si testimonium
hominum recipimus, aequum est ut plus apud nos habeat ponderis testimonium dei. Manifestum
est enim dei patris testimonium: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in eo complacitum est mihi, ipsum
audite. Quid dici potuit apertius aut plenius?’
p. 42
Edward Lee, sent to France by Henry VIII on a diplomatic mission,
continued to stir up trouble for Erasmus. Amongst those he won over was
Noël Béda, syndic of the faculty of theology at the Sorbonne and former
rector of the Collège de Montaigu, where Erasmus himself had studied
in 1496. In 1526, Béda published a critique of Erasmus’ Paraphrases, and
encouraged the Paris faculty to condemn the work. In the paraphrases
of Jn 10:30, Erasmus had placed the following words in the mouth of
Jesus: ‘We are two, but we two bear the same testimony and have the same
judgement. And from us two there is one who, if he were alone, would
still have an irrefutable judgement’ (Duo sumus, sed duorum idem est testimonium,
idem iudicium. Sed ex his duobus unus est, qui si solus esset, tamen
esset illius irrefutabile iudicium). Béda asserted that Erasmus’ interpolation
undermined the essential unity of the Father and the Son.91
In his published refutation of Béda’s work, Erasmus denied that he had
ever written or thought such an error. But if it was heresy to maintain
that the Father and the Son are two, then John’s statement that there are
three that bear witness in heaven should likewise be condemned. Erasmus
maintained that in all his writings, he had always confessed the Trinity
to be three persons and one essence. To suggest otherwise was impudent
misrepresentation.92 Erasmus knew that a condemnation from the Paris
faculty would be damaging, and he naturally used all possible resources in
his own defence, but to use the comma to defend his own orthodoxy was
a little unscrupulous.
91 Béda 1526, 262v. Further, see Rummel 1986, 124–125, 209–210.
92 Erasmus 1527c, 7v (LB 9:446BC); Erasmus 1527d, 153v–154v (LB 9:632B–633A).
p. 47-48
Alcaraz, López de Béjar and Pedro de Lerma pointed
out that the presence of the comma in Erasmus’ Paraphrase was sufficient
evidence that he had come to accept its canonicity.
p. 51
the Paraphrases he had followed what
was found in the Latin manuscripts; in the Annotationes he had indicated
which reading he found more convincing on the basis of the Greek manuscripts,
p. 53
In 1531 there appeared yet another critique of Erasmus’ orthodoxy,
this time from the theological faculty of Paris. The faculty particularly
objected to Erasmus’ translation of λόγος in Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 5:7 as sermo, as
well as the way his paraphrase of 1 Jn 5:7–8 implied that the unity of the
three heavenly witnesses was merely one of testimony rather than one of
essence. This, they suggested, gave some handle for a defence of the error
of Arius.105
105 Determinatio facultatis 1531, C4r–v105
Erasmus’ sarcastic defence went through two editions in 1532. He
asserted that his paraphrase of the comma and the surrounding verses was
perfectly orthodox, for it clearly expressed that there is only one nature
in the three persons of the Trinity, and that they agree entirely amongst
themselves. His paraphrase was in no way favourable to an Arian interpretation,
for he clearly professed what Arius denies. Again he pointed
out that the comma was not used by the orthodox apologists in their
struggles against the Arians, either because their codices did not contain
the verse, or because they believed that the unity of the heavenly witnesses
was one of testimony rather than of nature, and thus inappropriate to
their argument.
106 Erasmus 1532, 182–183; cf. CW 82:147–148.
=================
In the summer of
1527, the Spanish Inquisition, acting on instructions from Clement VII,
called a conference of theologians at Valladolid to examine the orthodoxy
of Erasmus’ theological writings. A preliminary list of charges accused
Erasmus of attacking the Trinity; the divinity, dignity and glory of Christ;
the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the Inquisition; the seven sacraments; the
authority of the Scriptures; the power of the church, councils and orthodox
fathers; the honour of Mary; the authority of pope and council alike;
the ceremonies of the church; the custom of fasting and refraining from
certain foods; celibacy; scholastic theology; indulgences; veneration of the
saints, relics and images; pilgrimages; the right of the church in temporal
affairs; free will; and the torments of hell.94
Even after Erasmus had expressed his doubts about the comma in the
Annotationes to the third edition of his New Testament, he was still happy to
employ it when it suited his purposes. In 1523 he published his Paraphrases of all
the Apostolic Epistles, a Latin translation combined with running theological
commentary. In the paraphrase of 1 Jn, Erasmus included the comma without
hesitation, interpreting the heavenly witnesses as testifying to Christ’s divinity,
and the earthly witnesses as testifying to his humanity. Despite this apparent
concession to the devotional mode in which he was writing, he avoided making
any mention of the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, stating merely
that their witness is united.130
130 Erasmus, 1523, Ii5v-6r: “Tres sunt enim in coelo, qui testimonium præbent Christo: pater,
sermo, & spiritus: pater, qui semel atque iterum uoce coelitus emissa, palàm testatus est hunc
esse filium suum egregie charum, in quo nihil offenderet: sermo, qui tot miraculis æditis, qui
moriens ac resurgens declarauit se uerum esse Christum, deum pariter atque hominem, dei &
hominum conciliatorem: spiritus sanctus, qui in baptizati caput descendit, qui post
resurrectionem delapsus est in discipulos. Atque horum trium summus est consensus: pater est
autor, filius nuncius, spiritus sug [Ii6r] gestor. Tria sunt item in terris, quæ attestantur
Christum: spiritus humanus, quem posuit in cruce: aqua, & sanguis, qui fluxit è latere mortui.
Et hi tres testes consentiunt. Illi declarant deum, hi testantur hominem fuisse. Testimonium
perhibuit & Ioannes. Quod si testimonium hominum recipimus, æquum est ut plus apud nos
habeat ponderis testimonium dei. Manifestum est enim dei patris testimonium: Hic est filius
meus dilectus, in eo complacitum est mihi, ipsum audite. Quid dici potuit apertius aut
plenius?
p. 123
In the paraphrases of
Jn 10:30, Erasmus had placed the following words in the mouth of Jesus: “We are
two, but we two bear the same testimony and have the same judgment. And from
us two there is one who, if he were alone, would still have an irrefutable
judgment” (Duo sumus, sed duorum idem est testimonium, idem iudicium. Sed ex his
duobus unus est, qui si solus esset, tamen esset illius irrefutabile iudicium). This
suggested to Béda that Erasmus intended to undermine the essential unity of the
Father and the Son.
p. 126
The issue he had called into question was
not whether the Father, Son and Spirit are of the same essence, but merely which
reading—that in the Latin Vulgate or that in the Greek— faithfully reflected the
Apostle’s words. In his Paraphrases Erasmus had followed what was found in the
Latin manuscripts; in the Annotationes he warned the reader which reading he
found more convincing, basing his opinion on serious argumentation
p. 130
In 1531 there appeared yet another set of published criticisms of Erasmus’
orthodoxy, this time from the theological faculty of Paris. Amongst the details of
Erasmus’ paraphrase to which the faculty objected was his translation of λόγος in
Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 5:7 as sermo, as well as the way his paraphrase of 1 John implied
that the unity of the three heavenly witnesses was merely one of testimony rather
than one of essence; this, it was suggested, gave some handle for the defence of
the error of Arius.144
144 Determinatio, 1531, C4r-v: “Antequam hæc vniuersitas rerum coelestium ac terrestrium
conderetur, iam cum patre æterno sermo erat æternus, vtitur dictione sermo, cum vtamur
dictione verbum, explicando illud in principio erat verbum. Tres sunt in coelo, qui testimonium
legimus, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, verbum, & spiritus sanctus, & hi tres
vnum sunt. Perperam autem explicat partem illam paraphrastes, hi tres vnum sunt, detrahendo
maximo [C4v] testimonio fidei de vnitate substantiæ in tribus personis, ansam præbens
defensionis erroris Arrij.”
p. 274
Still more
decidedly was it felt in England, where Erasmus’ Annotations and his Paraphrases
upon the New Testament were officially introduced into every parish (1547).”44
44 Bonet-Maury, 1884, 40-41
=========================
BCEME - p. 41
7. Running with the hares, hunting with the hounds:
Erasmus’ contradictory attitude towards the comma
Even after Erasmus had expressed his doubts about the comma in the
Annotationes to his 1522 edition of the New Testament, he still employed it
when it suited his purposes. In 1523 he published his Paraphrases of all the
Apostolic Epistles, a Latin translation that runs seamlessly into theological
commentary. In the paraphrase of 1 Jn, Erasmus included the comma without
hesitation, interpreting the heavenly witnesses as testifying to Christ’s
divinity, and the earthly witnesses as testifying to his humanity. Erasmus
avoided mentioning the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, and
stated merely that they are united in witness.90
90 Erasmus 1523a, Ii5v–6r: ‘Tres sunt enim in coelo, qui testimonium praebent Christo: pater, sermo,
& spiritus: pater, qui semel atque iterum uoce coelitus emissa, palàm testatus est hunc esse filium
suum egregie charum, in quo nihil offenderet: sermo, qui tot miraculis aeditis, qui moriens ac
resurgens declarauit se uerum esse Christum, deum pariter atque hominem, dei & hominum conciliatorem:
spiritus sanctus, qui in baptizati caput descendit, qui post resurrectionem delapsus est
in discipulos. Atque horum trium summus est consensus: pater est autor, filius nuncius, spiritus
sug [Ii6r] gestor. Tria sunt item in terris, quae attestantur Christum: spiritus humanus, quem
posuit in cruce: aqua, & sanguis, qui fluxit è latere mortui. Et hi tres testes consentiunt. Illi declarant
deum, hi testantur hominem fuisse. Testimonium perhibuit & Ioannes. Quod si testimonium
hominum recipimus, aequum est ut plus apud nos habeat ponderis testimonium dei. Manifestum
est enim dei patris testimonium: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in eo complacitum est mihi, ipsum
audite. Quid dici potuit apertius aut plenius?’
p. 42
Edward Lee, sent to France by Henry VIII on a diplomatic mission,
continued to stir up trouble for Erasmus. Amongst those he won over was
Noël Béda, syndic of the faculty of theology at the Sorbonne and former
rector of the Collège de Montaigu, where Erasmus himself had studied
in 1496. In 1526, Béda published a critique of Erasmus’ Paraphrases, and
encouraged the Paris faculty to condemn the work. In the paraphrases
of Jn 10:30, Erasmus had placed the following words in the mouth of
Jesus: ‘We are two, but we two bear the same testimony and have the same
judgement. And from us two there is one who, if he were alone, would
still have an irrefutable judgement’ (Duo sumus, sed duorum idem est testimonium,
idem iudicium. Sed ex his duobus unus est, qui si solus esset, tamen
esset illius irrefutabile iudicium). Béda asserted that Erasmus’ interpolation
undermined the essential unity of the Father and the Son.91
In his published refutation of Béda’s work, Erasmus denied that he had
ever written or thought such an error. But if it was heresy to maintain
that the Father and the Son are two, then John’s statement that there are
three that bear witness in heaven should likewise be condemned. Erasmus
maintained that in all his writings, he had always confessed the Trinity
to be three persons and one essence. To suggest otherwise was impudent
misrepresentation.92 Erasmus knew that a condemnation from the Paris
faculty would be damaging, and he naturally used all possible resources in
his own defence, but to use the comma to defend his own orthodoxy was
a little unscrupulous.
91 Béda 1526, 262v. Further, see Rummel 1986, 124–125, 209–210.
92 Erasmus 1527c, 7v (LB 9:446BC); Erasmus 1527d, 153v–154v (LB 9:632B–633A).
p. 47-48
Alcaraz, López de Béjar and Pedro de Lerma pointed
out that the presence of the comma in Erasmus’ Paraphrase was sufficient
evidence that he had come to accept its canonicity.
p. 51
the Paraphrases he had followed what
was found in the Latin manuscripts; in the Annotationes he had indicated
which reading he found more convincing on the basis of the Greek manuscripts,
p. 53
In 1531 there appeared yet another critique of Erasmus’ orthodoxy,
this time from the theological faculty of Paris. The faculty particularly
objected to Erasmus’ translation of λόγος in Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 5:7 as sermo, as
well as the way his paraphrase of 1 Jn 5:7–8 implied that the unity of the
three heavenly witnesses was merely one of testimony rather than one of
essence. This, they suggested, gave some handle for a defence of the error
of Arius.105
105 Determinatio facultatis 1531, C4r–v105
Erasmus’ sarcastic defence went through two editions in 1532. He
asserted that his paraphrase of the comma and the surrounding verses was
perfectly orthodox, for it clearly expressed that there is only one nature
in the three persons of the Trinity, and that they agree entirely amongst
themselves. His paraphrase was in no way favourable to an Arian interpretation,
for he clearly professed what Arius denies. Again he pointed
out that the comma was not used by the orthodox apologists in their
struggles against the Arians, either because their codices did not contain
the verse, or because they believed that the unity of the heavenly witnesses
was one of testimony rather than of nature, and thus inappropriate to
their argument.
106 Erasmus 1532, 182–183; cf. CW 82:147–148.
=================
In the summer of
1527, the Spanish Inquisition, acting on instructions from Clement VII,
called a conference of theologians at Valladolid to examine the orthodoxy
of Erasmus’ theological writings. A preliminary list of charges accused
Erasmus of attacking the Trinity; the divinity, dignity and glory of Christ;
the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the Inquisition; the seven sacraments; the
authority of the Scriptures; the power of the church, councils and orthodox
fathers; the honour of Mary; the authority of pope and council alike;
the ceremonies of the church; the custom of fasting and refraining from
certain foods; celibacy; scholastic theology; indulgences; veneration of the
saints, relics and images; pilgrimages; the right of the church in temporal
affairs; free will; and the torments of hell.94
Last edited: