2539436.pdf

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2539436pdf 1/22

Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of theGospelsAuthor(s): Jerry H. BentleyReviewed work(s):

Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, Humanism in the Early SixteenthCentury (Jul., 1977), pp. 8-28Published by: The Sixteenth Century JournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539436 .

Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Sixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scj

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539436?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539436?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scj

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


. ~MI ROTERODA

MI PA

~~~~r~hi

in

uapSu

fem

1I f

dam

oA

N

NEM,2dluthoif&

3; 9

mum

ncpmFERD I NAND

i

~~DVM,

C C U

Ad r ~~BASILEAE IN OFFICII

stB~~aFrobcnw

Anwo

ffi

~~CVM

GRATIA

ET PRIG

8 8 ~~VILEGIO CAESAREO.

X

1oor

.

~~~~~-CLOATA

,"

wp

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


Sixteenth

Century Journal

VIII, Supplement

(1977)

Biblical

Philology

and

Christian Humanism:

Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus

as

Scholars

of the

Gospels

by Jerry

H.

Bentley*

Universityof Hawaii at Manoa

ONE OF THE MORE neglected

areas of

current Renaissance studies

is

the

investigation of

the literary scholarship

of

the

humanists. When we think of

Lorenzo Valla,

we think of

his

dialogue

On

the

True

and

False Good, the

Declamation on

the Donation of Constantine,

and

the dialogue

On Free

Will,

but

rarely

of his

translations

of the Greek

historians,

his

investigations

nto

the text

of

Livy, or

his

comparison

of the

Vulgate

with

the Greek text

of

the

New Testament. The name of Erasmus brings to mind the Enchiridion, the

Colloquies,

and

the

Praise

of Folly

much more

readily

than the

translations

of

Euripides,the

editions of the Church Fathers, or the Annotations to the New

Testament. This

state

of affairs is

particularlysurprising

n

view

of

the

fact

that

the

Renaissance humanists

owed

their reputations in large measure to

their work

in the field of classical

and

biblical

scholarship.Furthermore,

when

historians do turn their attention

to

Renaissance

scholarship, they tend

to

speak

of

it

in

general terms,

as

though there

were little

important qualitative

difference

between one Renaissance

scholar

and

another.

The humanists

in

general

are

said to

have

introduced

critical methods into

scholarship,

to

have

become

concerned with producing accurate

texts of

the classics and the

scriptures, and to have insisted

on

understanding

works of literature

and

scripture

in

their

proper

historical

context.1

All of this is

true

enough, and

I

should not want to

deny

it

in

general

terms.

But

just

as

there are

important

differences in

style

and

approach

between

one modern

scholar and

another,

so

also

did the Renaissance

humanists exhibit

strikingly

ndividual

characteristics

in

their

scholarly works.

*An earlier draft

of

this

paper

was read at the Sixteenth

Century

Studies Con-

ference

n Iowa

City, Iowa,

October

3.1, 1975.

1

See the

following

works:

Sesto

Prete,

"Leistungen

der Humanisten auf den

Gebiete der lateinischen Philologie,"

Philologus, CIX (1965), 259-69;

idem,

Observations

on the History of TextualCriticism n the Medievaland

RenaissancePeriods

(Collegeville,

Minnesota: St. John's University

Press, 1970),

esp,

pp. 18-27;

Rudolf Pfeiffer, "Von den

geschichtlichen Begegnungen

der kritischen Philologie

mit dem

Humanismus. Eine

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


10 The Sixteenth

CenturyJournal

Two of the most

interesting

of the humanist

scholars were Lorenzo

Valla and Erasmus

of

Rotterdam. Both

were steeped

in

humanist

culture,

both

were zealous for the study

of

classical languages

and

literature,

and both

turned their talents to a consideration of the text of the New Testament.

Valla produced two

redactions

of

a

work which

he

called

the Collatio

Novi

Testamenti. The first was

a

product of his sojourn

at

Naples (1435-1448);

he

began it probably in

1442 and was

circulating

a draft of it

in

1443.3

It

has

only recently come

to light

and

been published.4

The

second redaction stems

from the period

1453 to

1457

after Valla had returned

to

Rome and become

acquainted with

the Greek refugees there. Cardinal Bessarion in particular

aided Valla as he

revised

his first

redaction.5

It was

this

revision that Erasmus

found in 1504 at the Abbey of Parc near Louvainand published in 1505 as

the Adnotationes

of Lorenzo Valla to the New Testament.6 Erasmus'biblical

scholarship is most evident

in

his

own

Annotations

to

the

New

Testament,

which he published

as an integral part of his great editions of the Greek New

Skizze,"

Archiv

fur

Kulturgeschichte,

XXVIII

(1948), esp. pp.

197-202;

G.

Billanovich,

"Petrarch and

the

Textual Tradition of

Livy,"

Journal of the

Warburg and

Courtauld

Institute, XIV (1951),

137-208; R.

R. Bolgar, The

Classical

Heritage and Its

Beneficiaries

(Cambridge: Cambridge

University

Press, 1963),

pp.

373-79;

and

Harold

Grimm, The

Reformation Era, 2nd ed.

(New

York: Macmillan,

.1973), pp.

60-87. Remigio

Sabbadini

singles out Politian as the Renaissance scholar par excellence in his Il metodo degli

umanisti

(Florence:

Monnier,

1922), esp. pp. 56-60.

L.

D.

Reynolds and N.

G. Wilson

focus

their

discussion on Valla,

Politian,

Bessarion, and

Erasmus. See

their Scribes and

Scholars, 2nd ed. (Oxford:

Oxford

University Press,

1974),

pp. 125-46. The

best study

tending

to rectify this situation and to

recognize the

individual

characteristics which

appear

in the

scholarly works of

the

humanists is John

B.

Payne,

"Erasmus and Lefbvre

d'Staples as

Interpreters

of Romans,"

Archiv fear

Reformationsgeschichte, LXV

(1974),

54-83.

2On

the

tangled

history

of

these

two

compositions

see

Alessandro

Perosa's

intro-

duction to his

critical edition of

the first

redaction,

Collatio

Novi

Testamenti

(Florence:

Sansoni,

1970),

pp. XXIII-L. See also

Salvatore Camporeale's

account

of the two redac-

tions, viewed in the light of Valla's quarrel with Poggio Bracciolini (1451-1453), in his

fine

study,

Lorenzo Valla.

Umanesimo

e

teologia (Florence,

1972),

pp. 350-74. Perosa

supersedes Anna

Morisi,

"A proposito di

due

redazioni delta Collatio

Novi

Testamenti di

Lorenzo

Valla,"

Bollettino dell'Istituto

storico italiano per

il

Medio

Evo

e

Archivio

muratoriana, LXXXVIII

(1967),

345-81. On Valla's

biblical

scholarship see S.

Garofalo,

"Gli

umanisti italiani del

secolo

XV

e

la

Bibbia,"

Biblica,

XXVII

(1946),

338-75;

Anna

Morisi,

"La

filologia

neotestamentaria di

Lorenzo Valla,"

Nuova

rivista storica, XLVIII

(1964), 35-49;

and Marvin W.

Anderson,

"Laurentius

Valla

(1407-1457):

Renaissance

Critic and

Biblical

Theologian," Concordia

Theological

Monthly, XXXIX

(1968), 10-27.

3See his letter of December

31,

1443,

to

Aurispa

in

R.

Sabbadini, ed.,

Cronologia

documentata

delta

vita

di

Lorenzo

delta

Valle, detto

il

Valla,

in

Sabbadini and L.

Barozzi,

Studi

sul

Panorinita

e

sul

Valla (Florence,

1891),

no.

48, p.

100.

'By

Perosa, (hereafter

cited

as

Valla,

Collatio).

'Valla

acknowledges

Bessarion's aid

in his Antidotum

IV in

Pogium.

See his

Opera

omnia, 2 vols.,

ed.

E.

Garin

(Turin: Bottega

d'lErasmo, 1962), I, 340,

(hereafter

cited as

Valla,

Opera).

6Laurentii Vallensis viri

tam

graecae

quain

latinae

linguae peritissimi

in

Latinum

Novi

testamenti

interpretationem ex

collatione

Graecarum

exemplarium

Adnotationes

apprine utiles

(Paris,

1505).

This

redaction

is

available

in

Valla's

Opera, I,

801-95, (here-

after cited as

Valla,

Adnotationes).

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


BiblicalPhilology

11

Testament.7

The

Annotations

filled almost 300

pages

in

the

first

edition of

1516,

and

Erasmusrevised

and

enlargedthem for

each of

the

succeeding

four

editions.

By

the fifth edition

of

1535

they

had

grown

to

enormous size

and

required783 folio pages of this last edition of the Greek New Testament that

Erasmus

himself prepared.

It has

long been

recognized

that

the influence

of Valla

played

a

special

role in

EraSMUS' intellectual

development.8

As early as 1489

Erasmus

was

praising

Valla

as the

restorer

of

Latin

eloquence

to

all

unlconvinced

Cornelius

Gerard.9

Erasmus was so

mIIuch aken with

Valla's

magnuml

opus,

the

Elegances

of

the Latin

Language,

that he

prepared

two

abridgernents

of

it,

one

about 1488

at

Steyn,

the other

some

years

later,

probably

about

1499 at

Paris.'? In addition, traces of Valla'sinfluence can be found in ErasmLIus'wn

works,

especially in the Praise

of

Folly

and

the educational

works,

as

well as

in

his

New Testament

scholarship.' Yet

very little work

has

been

done which

seeks to

compare

closely the thought of Valla

and

Erasmus

or

to

analyze

the

influence

that

Valla's works exerted oln

Erasmus.1 This

paperseeks to

begin

7The fifth edition (of 1535) of Erasmnus'Greek text of the New Testament

with

Latin translation and Annotations occupies the sixth volume of J.

Leclerc,

ed., Opera

oninia Des. Erasmi Roterodamni, 10 vols. (Leiden: P. Vander Aa, 1703-06), (hereafter

cited as LB VI). On

Flrasmus'

New Testament scholarship see the following works:

A. Bludau, Die beiden ersten Erasmnus-Ausgabendes Neuen

Testaments und

ihre

Gegner

(Biblische Studien, VII, 5; Freiburg-im-Br.: Herder, 1902);

Bo

Reicke,

"Erasmus

und die

neutestamentliche Textgeschichte,"

T7eologische

Zeitschrift, XXII (1966), 254-64; John

B. Payne, "Erasmus and Lefivre;" idemn,"Erasmus: Interpreter of Romans," Sixteenth

Century Essays and Studies,

II

(1971), 1-35;

idemn,

"Toward the

Hermeneutics

of

Erasmus," in J. Coppens, ed.,

Scrinium

erasinianuin (Leiden: Brill, 1969), II, 1349;

C. A.

L. Jarrott,

"tErasmus'

Biblical Humanism," Studies

in

the Renaissance, XVII

(1970),

119-52; Marvin W. Anderson, "Erasmus the Exegete,"

Concordia

Theological Monthly,

XL (1969), 722-33; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation (Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; and my

own

"Erasmus' Annota-

tiones

in Novum

Testamentumn

and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels," Archiv

fur

Reformnationsgeschichte,

LXVII

(1976),

33-53

which

presents

a much more detailed

discus-

sion than is possible

here

of

some

aspects

of

Erasmus'

scholarship

on

the

New

Testament.

8See

for

example

P.

Mestwerdt,

Die

Anfdnge

des Erasmus

(Leipzig: Haupt,

1917),

pp. 234-36, 249;

and

E.

1I.

Harbison,

T7heChristian

Scholar

in the

Age of

the

Reforna-

tion (New

York:

Scribner, 1956), pp. 84-85,

93.

9P. S. Allen, et al., eds., Opus epistolarumn

Des.

Erasmi

Roterodaini,

12 vols.

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1906-58), I, 107-09, 113-15,

119-20.

See also Cornelius'

objection

that Valla was

an

immoral

pedant, ibid., 1, 110, (hereafter

cited as E

E).

1 0

The Steyn abridgement

was

published

in

many pirated

editions

beginning

in

1529. Erasmus himself prepared an authorized edition

that was

first published

in 1531.

See

now

the

critical

edition

prepared by

C. L. Heesaakers and J. H. Waszink in

thle

Opera

omnnia

Desiderii

Erasini

Roterodami (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973), 1:4,

187-351.

' '

See Mestwerdt, pp. 234-36, 249;

and James

D.

Tracy,

Erasmus.

The

Growth

of

a

Mind (Geneva: Droz, 1972), pp. 17, 36, 63, 75,

152-54.

1 2

Notable

beginnings

to

this end

have

been made

by

Marie

Delcourt and

Marcelle

Derwa, "Trois aspects humanistes

de

l'epicurisme chre'tien,"

in the

Colloquium

eras-

mianuin

(Mons,

1968), pp. 119-33;

and

B.

J.

H.

M.

Timmermans,

"Valla

et

frasmne,

defenseurs d'Flpicure," Neophilologus,

XXIII

(1938),

414-19. See

also

Don Cameron

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


12 The

Sixteenth

CenturyJournal

to

fill this lacuna by

examining the critical

scholarship

of each

man on the

New

Testament.

And since the

gospels

present

the most

interesting

and

challengingproblems

for New

Testament

scholarship,

t

will be

convenient to

limit this investigationto the annotations of our two subjects to the gospels.

* * *

Let us

begin by

taking

notice

of

the aims which each

scholar

established

for his work. Valla

pointed

out that

already

in

the

age

of

Jerome there

were

as

many

texts (exemplaria) as there were codices of

the

New

Testament.

"Now if after only

400 years

so

muddy

a

river

flowed from

the fount, what

marvel if after 1000 years - for there are that many from Jerome to the

present age

-

this

river,

which has not

been cleaned

out in

any part, has

attracted

scum

and

squalor?"As it

stands,

the temple

of

scripture eaks

when

it

rains;

it

must needs be

patched up. Valla sees himself as

one

of

the

few

craftsmen of

the

age

who has

the

necessary

tools

-

Latin,

Greek,

and a

thorough knowledge

of

the Bible

-

to

undertake

this

labor.1

In

practice this

work was for

the most

part

a

collatio,

as Valla called

it,

a

comparison

of

the

Latin

Vulgate with the original

Greek text

of

the New

Testament. In

this

comparisonValla

proposed

to

indicate

to

his

readers

he

value of the

Vulgate

as

a

translation

of

the

Greek. Many

passages, he

said,

have

been rendered

poorly

into

Latin;

others do not

accurately represent

the

sense of the

Greek.

Valla

intends to annotate

these

passages

so

as

to

offer

the reader the

best

possible

understanding

f the

Latin

scriptures.'

Erasmus

explained

at

some length the

purposes

of his notes in a

letter

"To

the

Reader"

prefaced to

the

Annotations.

He warns first

that

he

is

not

writing commentaries but rather

"little notes"

(annotationculas)

which

contribute

to the

understanding

of

the text. He

realizes

that

novelty

offends

many people, and he seeks in these notes to communicatehis good reasons

for

editing and

translating he

Greek text

as

he did. Erasmus

hen

discusses n

more

specific

terms the various

sorts

of problems

taken

up

in

the

Annotations.

If he has found

texts

corrupted by careless

copyists, he

has

Allen,

"The

Rehabilitation

of

Epicurus and

His

Theory

of

Pleasure in

the

Early

Renais-

sance,"

Studies

in

Philology, XLI

(1944), 1-15.

One

scholar

has

discussed

Erasmus'

reactions

to

Valla's

biblical and

religious

scholarship and

has

even

compared

a

few of

their

notes to

various

passages of

the

New

Testament. See

Goffredo

Coppola,

La

critica

neotestamentaria di Erasmo da Rotterdam (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1943), pp. 19-38. But

Coppola

is too

much

impressed

with

"Erasmo

continuatore del

Valla

nell'esegesi

del

Nuovo

Testarnento"

(p.

21),

and

is

insufficiently

attuned

to

the

differences

exhibited in

their

works.

'

3Preface

II

to the

Collatio,

pp.

6-9.

See also

Preface

I

to the

Collatio, p. 6;

Antidotum

I in

Pogium, in

Valla's

Opera, I,

270; and

Antidotum IV

ill

Pogium in

Opera,

I,

339. On

the

historical

context of

the two

prefaces to the

Collatio

see

the

illuminating

discussion

by S.

Camporeale,

pp.

350-74.

'4

See the

prefaces to

the

Collatio,

pp.

3-10.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


BiblicalPhilology

13

corrected them. He has illustrated

obscure

passages

and

explained ambiguous

ones.

He has pointed

out various

ways

that

some

passages

can

be

understood,

indicating his own preference,

but without

excluding

other

possibilities that

seem more reasonable to other interpreters.Wherever he Vulgate translation

is in error, Erasmushas not hesitated

to

correct it. He has in particular

ought

to remove its solecisms,

and

in the Annotations he shows

how his

own transla-

tion

better represents the

elegance of

the

original Greek.

He

has sought

to

explain the importance

of Greek idioms and

emphases

when

they pertain

to

divine

mysteries.

His editorial

assistant,

Johannes

Oecolampadius,

has

helped

him to

compare

New Testament

citations to

the

Old

Testament with the

Hebrew original. Erasmushas addressed

himself to

many questions of

appar-

ently small, even minute importance, which have been the source of large

problems for certain theologians

who did not

pay properattention to matters

of

language and grammar.Finally,

Erasmusseeks to

promote

a

proper

under-

standing

of the

literal

and historical sense

of

scripture

as the

only

sound

basis

for the

exegesis

of

the spiritual

senses.'

Erasmus eft no doubts

as

to

his

intellectual orientation: in the Apologia

prefaced to the New Testament

he openly proclaimed himself

a

follower of

the earlier humanist biblical

scholars,

Lorenzo

Valla

and

Jacques

Lefevre

d'1taples."

6

But this did

not

mean

that

he merely repeated their work.

Eras-

mus had been almost ecstatic over Valla's new method of scripturalanalysisin

1505 when he

published

Valla'sAdnotationes. He

lauded

Valla as a

pioneer

in

the

promotion

of

an accurate

text of

the

Latin

scriptures,

and he insisted that

grammar and philology were

prerequisites for

successful

exegesis.' 7 In the

next eleven

years

Erasmus himself worked

prodigiously

on the

New

Testa-

ment,

and he found more

implications

to

the new

style

of

scholarship

than

Valla

had chosen

to

develop.

He came

therefore

to

understandhis

work

to

be

broader in

scope

than was Valla's. This

scholarly

difference is

clearly

ex-

pressed in the two men's statements of their aims: Valla was interested pri-

marily

in

evaluating

the

Vulgate

as

a

translation

of

the Greek; Erasmus

intended to address

many problems

of textual

criticism, translation,

and

exegesis.

Furthermore, a letter from Martin van Dorp gave Erasmus cause

to

emphasize

his

independence

from Valla and

Lefevre. Dorp

wrote

in

late

1514

that

the Louvain

theologians,

already annoyed

at

the Praise

of Folly,

had

caught

wind of Erasmus'

editorial

projects

and would not look

kindly

on the

suggestion

that

the Vulgate

could be

improved upon.

He

suggestedthat

in

the

light

of

Valla's and

Lefevre'sworks,

there was little

more

fruit that

humanist

scholarship

could

bring

forth from the

garden

of

the

scriptures.'

Erasmus

1 5

EE

11,

164-72.

1

6

Sec the edition in

Desiderius

Erasmus Roterodamus.

Ausgewahlte

Werke,

ed. II.

and

A.

Holborn

(Munich:

Beck

1933),

pp.

173-74. Cf. also

EL

II,

78.

1

7E

L'

I, 406-12.

1

8EE

II,

14-15.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


14 The Sixteenth

CenturyJournal

replied that he

thought highly

of both

Valla's

and

Lefevre's works,

but

that

he

also

disagreed

at

points

with both.1

9

Thus he was

already critically

evaluat-

ing their work,

but

Dorp's

letter

probably

fortified Erasmus

n

his

desire

to

present himself as a productive and independentscholar in his own right.We

should not be

surprised, hen,

to find that

almost all of Erasmus'criticisms

of

Valla's notes (some of which

we shall

shortly

review) appear already

in

the

first

edition

of 1516.

Both Valla

and Erasmus devoted

some

attention

to

the "lower crit-

icism," the

establishment

of the text of the New Testament. Both of

them

pointed

out

passages

where the

Vulgate

failed

to

include words or

phrases

found

in the

Greek,

as

at Mt. 27:2220 and Mt. 28:9.2

1

Both

pointed

out

other passageswhere the Vulgate added words or phrasesnot found in the

Greek, as at Mt. 8:282 and Lk. 24:36.2 3Valla

mentions at Mt. 12:41-42 the

testimony of the

Latin inscriptions

for

distinguishingbetween hic the pronoun

("he") and

hic

the adverb "here").24 Erasmus

reports

Valla's

observationon

this text;2 then at

Mt.

13:55

he cites another

inscription

not

mentioned by

Valla which he had noticed in his Italian travels

and which was important for

Latin vocabulary.2 At times Valla's discussions of

fine points of grammar

aggravatedErasmus.At

Mt.

1:16 Valla's first note deals

at

tedious

length

with

the

proper

Latin

declension of

the

Hebrew

name

Mariam.27

Erasmus

openly

states that the whole problem is too

minor

to

burden

his

readerswith it.2

8

Both Valla

and Erasmusaddressedthemselves also to other, more chal-

lenging problems

of textual criticism. Both were

quick,

for

example,

to

point

out

passages

where

over the

years

the confusion

of

two

Latin

homonyms

had

resulted in a

corrupt Latin text.

At Lk.

15:8 almost all manuscriptsof the

Vulgate

read: "Aut

quae

mulier

habens dragmas

decem,

si

perdideritdragmam

unam,

nonne accendit

lucernam,

et

evertit

domum,

et

quaeret diligenter,

donec

inveniat?"

-

"What

woman,

if

she has ten drachmas and

loses one,

does not light a lamp and overturn the house and seek diligently until she

finds

it?"

Both Valla and Erasmus

point

out that

the original translationmust

have

been

".

.

.

et everrit domum .

.

."

-

"What

woman,

if

she has

ten drach-

mas

and loses

one,

does not

light

a

lamp

and

sweep

out

the house and

seek

diligently

until she finds it?"

-

and that the evertit

must have arisen

from

a

copyist's

error. This

is

abundantly

clear from the

Greek,

where

there

is

no

'

9

EE

II, 1t1

.

2

?Valla, Adnotationes, pp. 821-22; E1rasmus,LB VI, 141 D.

21

Valla,

Adnotationes, p.

823;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

147 D.

2

2Valla,

Adnotationes, p.

826;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

183 E.

2

3Valla,

Adnotationes,

p.

839;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

330

F.

2

4Valla,

Collatio,

pp.

45-46;

Adnotationes, pp.

813-14.

2

5Erasmus, LB

VI, 69

E.

2 6

Erasmus,

LB

VI, 77

D.

27Valla, Adnotationes, pp. 803-04.

28

Erasmus,

LB

VI, 3

EF.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


Biblical

Philology 15

textual problem at this point:

`H

TtL

yvvi7

bxpXS eXovaa 6EKa,

Ldv

amroXEaur

bpaxjnurv

plav,

obxL

adrTEL

XVXXOv

KaL

Uapot

T?7

oLKLwav

KaL ?7TCL

'crtpcXJ6s

acosob

Vvpr1;

he word

in

question here

is

oapot;

apoco

can

mean

only everro, to sweep or clean out, never everto, to overturn,overthrow,or

destroy.2

9

Both

Valla

and Erasmus

expose

other,

similar

problems arising

from confused

homonyms

at Jn. 18:283

0

and

Jn.

21:22.3

1

Thus both Valla and Erasmushad their

eyes open

to

problems

in

the

Latin text of

the gospels that arose from

the difficulties of transmitting exts

in the pre-Gutenberg ra. In other words,

both were

familiar

enough

with the

problems of Latin palaeography

o

be

able to

understand,explain,

and

correct

textual snags

in the Latin

translation

of

scripture

when

they compared

the

Latin text with its Greek base. This was an important first step toward

modern textual criticism.

By

the

very

nature of

his

work,

his

collatio, or

comparison of

the

Latin

scriptures

with

the

Greek,

Valla was less

concerned

than Erasmuswith the criticism

of

the Greek text.

He

of

course often noticed

and reported variant

readings

in

the

Greek,

and

at

times

he

offered

an

ex-

planation for them.

He

correctly pointed

out at Mt.

27:39-40 and

Jn.

7:29-30

that there is a

problem

of assimilation in

the

gospels, i.e.,

that a

copyist

will

sometimes

add

to one

passage

a

phrase

or

word

that

actually

belongs

to a

different

though

similar

passage.32

Erasmus'analysis agreed with

Valla's in these two places,3

but he

moved far beyond

Valla

in

his criticism

of the

Greek

text at

other

points.

At

Mt. 24:36 Jesus tells his disciples: "No one

knows

the

day

and

hour

[of

the

parousia],

neither

the

angels

of

the

heavens,

nor the

Son,

but

only

the

Father." Most

exemplars

of

the

Vulgate

omit

the

phrase

"nor

the

Son"

though this is

the

correct reading.

Valla

argued

that the

phrase

was

a

corrup-

tion

that arose from the

fact that the

parallel

verse

at

Mk. 13:32

indisputably

includes the phrase.

In other

words,

he

suspected

another case of

assimila-

tion.34 Erasmusdisagreed.He pointed out that many of the Fathers, both

Greek

and

Latin, witnessed the presence

of

the

phrase

in

Matthew.

Further-

29Valla, Collatio,

p.

142;

Adnotationes, p.

836;

Erasmus,

LB VI, 294

E.

This was

an exceedingly

important

emendation,

for almost

all

manuscripts

of

the

Vulgate

incor-

rectly

read

evertit,

as is pointed

out in

the critical

edition.

For references

to

the

Vulgate

I

employ J.

Wordsworth

and

H.

J. White,

eds.,

Novum Testamentum

latine.

Editio

minor

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1911),

which

is based

on

the same

editors'

Novumn

Testainentum

Dornini

nostri Iesu

Christi

latine, 3

vols. (Oxford,

1889-1954).

For

readings

in the Greek

I employ K.

Aland

et

al., eds.,

The Greek

New Testament,

2nd ed.

(New

York:

American

Bible Society, 1968). All translations throughout into

English

are my own.

3Valla,

Adnotationes, p.

845;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

409 1F-410

F.

31Valla,

Adnotationes,

p. 846;

Erasmus, LB VI,

419

BC. Valla

credits

Cardinal

Bessarion

with

pointing

this

corruption

out

to him. See

the

Antidotuln

IV

in

Pogiumli,

n

Valla's Opera,

I,

340.

3"2or

Mt.

27:39-40 see

Valla,

Adnotationes,

p.

822; for

Jn.

7:29-30 see

the

Adnotationes,

p.

842.

3

3See

his

notes

in LB VI,

143

E, 370 F-371

D.

34Valla, Adnotationes,

p. 819.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


16 The

Sixteenth

Century

Journal

more,

Erasmus

had

a

better

grasp

than

did

Valla

of the

literary

relationship

of

the

synoptic

gospels,

and

he was

able to see the

problem

in a

clearer

ight.

It

seemed

to

Erasmus

that Mark had summarized the

important

points

of

Matthew'sgospel. (Most scholarstoday accept Markanpriority in the textual

history of the

synoptic

gospels

on

the basis

of an

extremely

technical

analysis

which was

obviously

unavailable

o

Renaissance

scholars.)

On the

strength

of

this

literary

relationship

between the

gospels

of Matthew and

Mark,

Erasmus

was

able to

argue

as follows: It is

unlikely

that

Mark,

who

thought well of

Matthew's

gospel,

would

add

this

potentially dangerous

phrase

"nor

the

Son"

on his own; it is much more

likely

that

some

pious

but

misguided

theologian

or

copyist

suppressed

he

phrase

n

Matthew

in

order to

deny

any opportunity

for the Arians to bolster their heresy; therefore the phrase is more likely

genuine

than not.3

The reasoning hat Erasmus

ollowed

here

resembleswhat

modern

textual

critics call

the

principle

of the

harder

reading.

Given

two

readings of

unequal

difficulty,

the

harder

one

is

assumed to be

the

original

because it is

more

likely

that a

later scribe would

change

a

harder

readingto

an easier

one than

vice

versa. This is not

to say

that Erasmus

was a

modern

textual critic.

He was

not.36

Nevertheless,

we

must

grant

that his

critical

acumen was

sharp

enough

to

graspthe good

common

sense

lying

behind

this

guideline

of

textual

analysis.

Erasmus argued

correctly for the

harder reading also at Mt.

2:6.37 He

argued

for

it

less

successfully

at Lk.

6:26,

where Valla had

more

reasonably

suspected a

case

of

assimilation.3 In

yet

other

places

Erasmus'

understanding

of

his

scholarly

mission

led

him

to

develop

more

sophisticated

insights than

those

Valla

employed.

At Mk.

14:19,

for

example,

Valla

simply

corrected the

Vulgate on the basis of

the Greek

text. Jesus has

just announced that

one of

the disciples

will

betray

him.

The

Vulgate

then reads:

"At

illi

coeperunt

contristari,

et dicere ei

singillatim:

Numquid

ego?"

-

"But

they [the

dis-

ciples] began to draw back and say to him one by one, 'Surelynot I?'" The

Vulgate

accurately

translatesthe

original Greek

text.

By Valla's

time, however,

"Erasmus,

LB

VI,

126

F-127

D. Erasmus

frequently

criticized the

traditional

christological

interpretation of

certain

texts,

and

in

particular he

denied

that many pas-

sages

could be used

against

the Arians.

See

the

discussion

of

Erasmus'

christological views

in

John

B.

Payne,

Erasmus:

His

Theology

of

the

Sacraments

(Richmond:

Knox,

1970),

pp.

54-70;

Erasmus' critical views on

christological

exegesis

naturally

help

to

explain

his

note to

Mt.

24:36. But

the

burden of his

argument is

philological: the reading "nor the

Son"

was

attested

in

Matthew

by the Greek and

Latin

Fathers;

it is

admitted on all

hands to be

genuine at

Mk.

13:32;

Mark would not

likely

have

added

it

on

his

own; the

enemies

of the

Arians

had

a motive for

erasing

it

in

Matthew; the

reading is in all

likelihood genuine.

3

6

For

more

on

the

question

of

Erasmus'

position

in

the

tradition of

scholarship see

the

works cited in note

7.

37Erasmus,

LB

VI, 12

E-14 E.

38

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

225

DE. Cf.

Valla,

Collatio, p.

111;

Adnotationes,

p.

832.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


BiblicalPhilology 17

a phrase had been added

to the

Greek,

which

he then

added

to

the Latin:

"...Numquid ego? et

alius, Numquid ego?"

- "But

they began

to

draw back

from him and say to him

one by one, 'Surely

not I?'

and

another, 'Surely not

I?'

" 3

Valla here correctly carriedout his aim of determining he accuracy of

the Vulgate as a translation

of the Greek. Erasmus'

nterests

extended beyond

the evaluation of the Vulgate, however, to include

also

the editing of the

Greek text. He too presents

the additional phrase

in his translation of this

passage because (apparently)

all of his Greek

manuscripts

ncluded it. But in

his note to this text he argued correctly

that the

last

phrase

was not

originally

present in the Greek

text. It is

not in the

Vulgate.

It is not

in

the

parallel

text

in Matthew (26:22), which Erasmus hought was

the

basis of

Mark'sgospel.

Most likely, he argued, it was added in Mark by a later interpreter who

wanted to fill out the meaning of Mark'stext.40

Valla

did not

simply accept

the

Greek text uncritically,

as we have seen.

But Erasmus

was

much

more

inclined than Valla to regard

the

Greek

text

critically

and

to

subject

it

to

searchingphilologicalanalysis.

We notice a similar

pattern

at

Mt.

5:22,

but

here Erasmus

troubles

to

provide an exegesis of

the passage. Again

the

Vulgateaccurately

translatesthe

Greek: "Ego autem dico vobis: quia omnis qui irascitur

fratri suo reus erit

judicio"

-

"But

I

[Jesus]

say

unto

you,

that

every person

who becomes

angry at his brother will stand as the accused before the court of justice."

Some Greek manuscripts

add

a

word, eiidi,

so

as to

soften the harshness

of

the

text and make

it

say:

"But

I

say

unto

you,

that

every person

who

becomes angry at his

brother without cause will

stand as

the

accused before

the

court of justice."

Valla

preferred

the texts

which included this

reasonable

qualification.41

Again Erasmuspresented the

addition

in his

translation be-

cause

most

of

his Greek

manuscripts

witnessed

it.

But

again

he also

presented

a

note

which doubted

its

genuineness.

He

cited

Jerome's

testimony

that

it

was

lacking in the earliestand best manuscripts. f the adverbewiarwere intended

here, he asked, why

not

also in the

other

clauses

of this

text,

where

Jesus

condemns those who

speak

abusively

of their brother

or

call him a

fool? On

the whole it seems that

this adverb was added by

some later copyist who

wanted to

mitigate

the harshness of this

text.

Therefore

the

harder

reading

seems the original. Nor

is there any need, Erasmuscontinues,

to

resort

to

complicated exegesis

to

explain away

the harsh

teaching

of this

text,

as

Chrysostom

and

Theophylactus

had

done.

There

is no

need

to

distinguish

between just and unjustanger, angerof the flesh and anger

of

the mind, anger

at

a man and anger at

a man's

weakness. Rather

we

should realize

that "the

Lord

is

speaking here

of

plain

old

rage (de

ira

vulgari),

which

is an

emotion

bent

for

the

revenge

of some

sorrow,

and

which

is in fact

the first

step

39 Valla, Adnotationes, p.

828.

40Erasmus,

LB VI, 205

D.

41

Valla,

Collatio, p.

27; Adnotationes, p. 809.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


18

The Sixteenth Century

Journal

toward murder."42 Erasmus

here resorts

to the technique that he advised in

his note to

Mt. 24:36: difficulties

in the text of the New

Testament are

not

to be removed by erasing

the offensive language

or in

the present case by

adding softening language

-

but ratherby proper explanationand exegesis.4

In other ways too Erasmuswent beyond Valla's

criticism of

the

Greek

text.

He addressed he

problem

of

the

original anguage

of Matthew's

gospel

at

Mt.

8:23.

There

was no

evidence, he thought,

that

anybody

had

ever

seen

a

manuscript

of Matthew which

was

written

in

Hebrew. (Actually Jerome had

reported seeing

a

manuscript

of

Matthew written

in

"Hebrew

letters

and

words;"

but

Erasmus

understood

him

to

say

that it was in

Hebrew

etters

and

the Aramaiclanguage. His

main

point, however,

is

correct:

there is no real

textual evidenceof a HebrewMatthew.)Furthermore,Matthew exhibits a very

close

literary

and

stylistic

relationship

with the other gospels. Thus Erasmus

argued

that

Matthew was first

composed

in

Greek,

not

in

Hebrew, as hoary

tradition maintained.44

Valla was

much

more

ambiguous

on this question.

Never

did he address the

problem directly,

and

never did he discuss the

reasons

or

evidence

for his views beyond mentioning Jerome's witness of the

Hebrew manuscript of Matthew.

At four points, however,

he aired his opinion

in the

course

of

discussing another problem.

He

says

twice that Matthew was

first

composed

in

Hebrew,4

twice that

it

was first composed in Greek.4

Erasmus' reatment of the problem is clearly superior from the scholar'spoint

of

view.

Finally, though both

Valla and

Erasmus ooked

to

the Fathers for sup-

port

for

their

Latin translations

or their

explanations

of a

certain

passage,

only

Erasmusused

them as witnesses for

the

reconstructionof

the

Greek

text.

His

annotations

teem

with

citations of

the

Fathers'

works.

We

saw

above,

for

example,

that

he

adduces

textual and

exegetical

evidence

from

the

Fathers

at

Mt.

24:36

and

at Mt. 5:22.

At

Lk.

22:43-44 he cites

Jerome's

and

Hilary's

witness that many manuscripts,both Greek and Latin, lacked the passagethat

speaks

of the

comforting

angel

and

of

Jesus

suffering

a

bloody

sweat on

the

Mount

of

Olives preceeding

his

arrest and trial.47

He

introduces

evidence

from

42Erasmus,

LB VI, 28 F-29

C.

Erasmus, LB VI,

127 D.

Erasmus,

LB

VI, 47

CD.

For Jerome's

report

of the Hebrew

manuscript

of

Matthew

and

his support

for

the

tradition that

Matthew was first

composed

in

Hebrew

see cap. 3 of the De viris illustribus in J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia

latina (Paris,

1844-1890),

XXIII,

643-46.

5Valla, Adnotationes,

p. 803; Collatio,

p.

49.

4

6Valla, Preface

I to the Collatio, p. 8; Collatio,

p.

188.

4 7

Erasmus,

LB

VI, 322 E. Erasmus

did not, however,

deny the authenticity of

this

passage.

In

fact

he

apparently

considered it genuine:

he thought that

it had been erased

by those

who thought it

attributed human weaknesses

to Jesus, i.e.,

by the enemies of

the Arians. He was wrong

in this, for the

passage is no doubt a later

addition. The

point

here is less

about Erasmus'

judgment than about his search

after the relevant

evidence.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


Biblical

Philology 19

Chrysostom,

Cyril, and Augustine

in

suggesting

an

emendation

of

the

Greek

text

at Jn. 7:1. The

original

reading

seems

to

Erasmus to

have been not

"Jesus did

not

wish

to

go

around in Judea

. . .

,"

but rather "Jesus was

not

able to go around in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."

8

In

neither of these

cases did

Erasmus

alter his

text

to

accept

the

reading

of the

Fathers,

presumably

because the bulk of his

Greek

manuscripts upported the

traditionalreadings. But

the fact that

he included non-genuine

material

n his

text

is less

important than

his scholarly method at

these

points.

He

advanced

beyond earlier

scholarshipby taking

the pains

to

search out

evidence from

any

relevant

source, in this case from

the

writings

of

the Greek

and Latin

Fathers.

The Annotations revealclearly that Erasmuswas keenly aware of textual

and

philologicalproblems

and that he

dealt

with

them

in

an

extremely

sophis-

ticated

way. He

originallytook no

little inspiration

from Lorenzo Valla in

his

approach to

New Testament

scholarship. But he set for

himself

a much larger

task:

the

criticism

of the entire Greek text as

well

as

the evaluation of

the

Vulgate

as a translation of the Greek. And in

carryingout this task he

was

able to

develop

more

and

better

principles

of

textual

analysis

than

had

occurred to

Valla.

Erasmus

took his

initial cue from Valla in matters other

than his

prin-

ciples

of

textual

criticism.

By

far the

greatest part

of both

Valla's

and

Eras-

mus' notes is

concerned with

the

assessment

of

the

Vulgate

as

a

translationof

the

Greek

scriptures.

Both

were

extremely

careful to see that

the Latin

accu-

rately reflected

the

meaning

of

the original

Greek,

and

both

were

led

into

discussions of

fine

points

of

grammar

and

lexicography

in

meeting

this

goal.

Both

note at

Mt. 4:4, at Jesus'

temptation

in the

wilderness,that

Jesus does

not

reply

to the

tempter:

"Man

does

not live

by

bread alone." In

Greek he

says:

"Man

shall not live

by

bread

alone."49

Similarly,

at Mt. 24:19

and

at

Mk. 13:17 both note that the Vulgate's "Woeto those who are pregnantand

nourishing

children in

those

days"

is less

specific

than

the Greek: "Woe

to

those

who are pregnant

and suckling children

in

those

days."50 Both

were

concerned

further

to

see

that

good

Latin

style

was

employed

in Latin

transla-

tions

of scripture.

Both note that

Latin usage

requires "non est tibi

curae?"

instead of

"non ad

te

pertinet?" for

the

passage

at Mk. 4:38:

"Master,

don't

48Erasinus,

LB VI, 367

F-368

F.

Modern editors

of the

Greek text do

not

agree

with

Erasmus at

this

point. See the

critical

apparatus

in

Aland

et al.,

where the best

manuscripts

almost

unanimously

present ob

-yap

'%OcXcv

("for

he did not wish .."). It

might be

said in Erasmus'

favor

that it is

extremely

difficult to see

how the

variant ob

-yap

ctXcv

etovotav

("for he was

not able

. . .") could

have arisen

if o'v

yap

'rOcXcv

was

the original

reading.

"The Greek

uc(jrat

should

be

translated vivet

(future

tense),

not vivit

(present

tense).

Valla,

Adnotationes, p. 807;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

23

C.

5Lactantibus is indeed

a

more

accurate

translation of

the Greek

rate

OrnXaaobaatL

than

is

nutrientibus. Valla,

Adnotationes, pp. 819,

828;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

124

E, 202 E.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


20

TheSixteenth

Century

Journal

you

care

that we

are

perishing?"5

At Mk. 4:41

both

disapprove

of

the word

alterutrumas not

being of

sufficiently

distinguished

antiquity.5

Both Valla and Erasmus

became

particularlyupset

when

the

style

of

the

Vulgate obscured the sense of the Greek or made possible an impiousunder-

standing

of

the text. Both

criticize the

Vulgate

at

Mt. 3:8:

"Facite

ergo

fructum dignurn

poenitentiae"

-

"Therefore

produce

fruit

worthy

of

peni-

tence."

The

translator

eft the

noun

poenitentia

("penitence")

in

the

genitive

case

because the Greek

word

which stands

behind

it

is in

the

genitive,

/JeTavoLaq.

alla

points

out that

Latin

usage requires

the

ablative

case, which

is

lacking

in

the

Greek

language,

for

comparisons

of

this sort:

"Facite

ergo

fructum

dignum poenitentia."5

3

Erasmusgoes even

further and in

an

effort to

forestall all possible misunderstandingsf both Greekand Latintexts presents

a

new translation:

"Facite

igitur fructus

qui deceant

poenitentiam"

"There-

fore

producefruits

which

are

indicative

of

penitence."5

Valla

points out

that

the

Vulgate text

makes possible an

impious

interpretation

at

Mk. 1:22:

"Et

stupebant

super

doctrina

eius:

erat enirn

docens eos

quasi

potestatern

habens,

et non

sicut scribae"

-

"And

they [those

in

the

synagogue]

were amazed at

his

[Jesus']

teaching,

for

he

taught them

as

though

possessing

authority, and

not

like

the scribes."

The use of

the

word quasi

implies

that

Jesus did

not

possess

authority, but

only seemed to

possess it. The

translator

should

have

used tanquam or

velut,

which

do not

bear

the

negative

connotation.5

Eras-

mus

does not

draw

out all the

implications

suggested

by

Valla in

his

note

on

this

text,

but he too

points

out that

tanquam

more

accurately

represents

he

sense

of

the

Greek,

and he

presents

tanquam

as his

own

translation.5

6

Valla

and Erasmus shared also

another complaint: both

became

aggra-

vated

whenever

the

Vulgate

translated the

same Greek

word

with

different

Latin

words for the sake

of a

rhetorical

variety

not found in

the

Greek

text.

Both

criticize the

Vulgate

at

Mt.

15:26-27, where the

Greek word

KvVapLOlo

("dog") is translatedwith both canis ("dog") and catellus

("puppy").57

At

Mt.

11:23 Valla

presented

a

long denunciation of

variety

and

inconstancy in

the

Vulgate; Erasmus

echoed

him

without

reciting

all

Valla's

evidence and

concluded

with

the

observationthat

biblical

translation

requires

certainty, not

the

ambiguity

that

arises

from

translating

the same word

variously.5' It

was

Valla, however,

who

championed

this

point of

view. He

commented

critically

Valla, Adnotationes, p. 825; Erasmus, LB VI, 167 F.

2Valla, Collatio,

p. 77;

Adnotationes, p.

825;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

168 D.

5

3Valla, Collatio,

p. 21;

Adnotationes, p.

807.

5

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

20 DE.

Valla,

Adnotationes, p.

824. Cf. his

note

along

similar

lines to

Jn.

1:14

(Col-

latio, p. 131;

Adnotationes, p. 840).

56

Erasmus, LB

VI,

155

E.

57Valla, Collatio,

p. 53;

Adnotationes, p.

815;

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

85 E.

58Valla,

Adnotationes, pp.

81 2-

1

3;

Erasmus, LB VI,

62 D.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


BiblicalPhilology

21

on a number of passages where

Erasmusmerely suggested

a

different transla-

tion without censuring

the Vulgate's rhetoricalvariety in explicit terms.59

Moreover, Erasmushimself

translatedvariously.Valla never undertook a

complete translation of the New Testament, and he was perhapsunaware of

how difficult

it

would

be to observe his

rule of constant translationwhile still

producing

a version sensitive

to the Greek.

He had insisted that the

Greek

noun avvaps be rendered consistently

as either

potentia, potestas,

or vis

-

"power,"

or

"strength."60

Erasmususually

followed the

Vulgate

in

translating

vlvaqptq

s virtus, taking

care to

point

out that

virtus should

be

understood

here not as "virtue," but as

"something powerfully done" (e.g.,

a miracle) or

as "divine power."6

He renders

a63vapuq

s

virtus

at least

thirty-onetimes

in

the synoptic gospels. But at Mt. 25:15 it appearsas facultas ("capacity," or

"ability").

At

both

Mk.

13:25-26

and Lk. 21:26-27 ad'vaput

ccurs twice. In

both cases Erasmus

ranslates it first as

virtus,

then as

potestas.

Erasmuswas

even

freer

with the verb

crapaKactXw,

n ambiguous

word that means both

"to

comfort" and "to exhort."

Valla

argued

that it

should be consistently trans-

lated as

consolor,

"to

comfort,"

or "to console."62 In the

synoptic

gospels

Erasmus found occasion to translate

rcapaKaXccw,

variously as

rogo ("to

ask"),63 deprecor ("to pray for"),64 obsecro ("to implore"),65

exhortor ("to

exhort"),6

consolatio

admittere

("to

be

comforted"),6

7

consolatio

accipere

("to

be

comforted"),6

and solatio

fruor ("to

dwell in

consolation").6

Valla

would have

been scandalized

Nor was this the only way

in which Valla and Erasmusdiffered in their

thought

on

translation. As he

sometimes criticized

Valla

for

raising small

points

of

textual criticism,

so also

Erasmus

aw little value in some of

the fine

distinctions

Valla suggested

regarding

he translation of the New

Testament.

Valla argued that

Mk.

1:4

should read

not "Fuit

loannes

in deserto bap-

tizans

.

.."

("John

was

in

the

desert

baptizing

. .

."),

but rather "Exstitit

loannes baptizans in deserto

.

.."

("John lived baptizing in the desert ...").

59See their

notes to Mt. 9:38 (Valla, Adnotationes, p.

811; Erasmus,

LB

VI, 52

F); Mk. 9:7 (Valla,

Adnotationes, p. 827; Erasmus, LB VI, 186 1F);

Lk.

2:9 (Valla,

Collatio, p. 103;

Adnotationes, p. 831; Erasmus,

LB

VI, 231 E);

and Jn. 1:39 (Valla,

Adnotationes, pp.

840-41; Erasmus, LB VI, 347 E1).

60See

his notes to Mt.

7:22

(Collatio,

p. 38; Adnotationes, p. 811); Mt.

24:30

(Collatio, p. 65; Adnotationes,

p. 819); and Lk.

1:48

(Collatio,

p. 98).

61

See his notes to Mt. 7:22 (LB VI,

42

E);

Mt.

11:20-23

(LB VI, 61 F);

and Lk.

1:17

(LB VI,

221 F).

62

See his note to 2 Cor. 1:3-7 (Collatio, p. 214; Adnotationes, p. 870).

63At Mt. 8:31, 8:34, 18:29,

26:53;

Mk.

5:17, 5:18;

Lk.

7:4, 8:31, 8:32, 8:41,

15:28.

64At Mk. 1:40, 5:10, 5:12, 5:23,

6:56,

7:32.

65At Mt.

8:5, 14:36, 18:32;

Mk.

8:22.

66At

Lk.

3:18.

67At Mt.

2:18.

68At Mt. 5:4.

69At

Lk.

16:25.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


22

The Sixteenth

Century

Journal

He thought the Greek verb

ytz'yvoMaL

was

better

representedby exsisto ("to

emerge," or "to exist") than by

sum

("to be").70

The criticism is

indeed

a

niggling one.

Erasmus

objects

that

it

"does

not at all

hold

much

importance

for matters of theology." The Greek

'C76 eTo 'Iwcoa

vq Oair1Tqwvev

T-1

eprwM

...

is

just

an

idiomatic

way

of

saying

"John

baptized

in the

desert."7

At Lk. 2:23 Valla

objected

to the use of the word vulva

("womb")

regarding the Virgin Mary;

it would be

more

reverent

to

use uterus

("womb").7

Erasmus abels Valla

a

"superstitiously

modest

man"

and

points

out that in Hebrew the term

adaperio

vulvam

("to

break out

of

the

womb")

is an idiom

meaning

"to be born."

3

Thus Erasmus

sometimes

thought

Valla

carried

the

analysis

of transla-

tion to tedious and unprofitable engths. Yet the most important difference in

the

thought

of the two men

on

translation lies in the

aims

they had

in

mind

for

their work. Both Valla

and Erasmus

sought

an

accurate and literate,

though not ornately eloquent, Latin version

of

scripture. To this end they

employed similar analytical and critical techniques, though they did not

always apply them

in

equal measure.

The work

of

each scholar, however,

retains

a character

quite

its

own.

Consider,

for

example,

their

notes

discussing

the translation

of the

Annunciation scene

at Lk.

1:28.

For

the Greek

XaTpe,

KEXapLtcwEMC

the

Vulgate presents

"Ave

gratia plena"

-

"Hail, ye full

of

grace." Valla discusses the passage

as a

lexicographer,

as

a discriminating

philologist seeking

to

represent

the Greek

KEXapLtrwIEl4?

with the one best

Latin word. The

Greek

word

does

not mean

"gratia plena"

-

"full of

grace"

-

so

much as

"gratificata"

"one

who has been admitted into

grace."

Thus

Paul speaks at Eph. 1:6 of God favoring

us

with grace in his beloved son.74

Erasmusfound nothing to disagree with here;

in

fact he follows Valla's

analysis closely

to this

point.

He

too

prefers "gratificata,"

or less

literally

"gratiosa,"

as his

translation

of

KEXapLt-wIEm4.

Then

he broadens his

discus-

sion. He notes a peculiarHomericuse of the word, where it means "beloved;"

he

summarizes

Origen'sexegesis

of this

text,

where

Origenemphasizes

he

rare

distinction of

the honor bestowed upon Mary

at

the Annunciation. How

fitting

it

is, Erasmus exclaims,

that such a

happy

word is

used to greet the

70Valla, Adnotationes, p.

823.

7

Erasmus,

LB

VI, 153

CD.

72Valla, Adnotationes, p. 831.

E

rasmus,

LB

VI,

234

1F-235

D.

Erasmus continues

in

this note to

criticize those

who

maintain that Jesus was

born

in

such

a way as not to burst the Virgin's hymen, or

otherwise cause the pain

and

troubles

normally attending

childbirth.

He does not dispute

the

plausibility

or devoutness of these

opinions

but

questions their usefulness

in

the

lack

of certain

evidence

from

scripture.

For

other notes that criticize fine points raised by

Valla about the Vulgate's translation

see LB VI, 181 E, 218 E, 237 F.

74Valla, Adnotationes, p.

830.

Cf.

the

much

longer

discussion

in

the

Collatio, pp.

94-95.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf



mother of the author of

human salvation. But

then Erasmusrecalls the

teach-

ings of certain theologians,

"men who are otherwise learned and

pious,

who

marvelously philosophize

about these words

gratia plena." They endlessly

exult about how proper it is for Maryto be called "full of grace." They are

quite unaware that Luke's word

KEXapLt-wIEM6

does

not

mean "full

of

grace."

They overlook the

fact that

Joluh

the

Baptist, Elizabeth, Zecheriah, Stephen,

and others were said

to be filled with

grace

or the

Holy Spirit.

This term

gratia plena has led them away from the true meaning

of

the gospel and into

useless little speculations.

Erasmus

does not

discourage pious investigations

into

the

minute

questions

raised

by

the

scriptures,

but

he

censures as "loath-

some" the practice of chattering nonsense without attending

to

the main

subject of the passage. In other words, Erasmus regardsit as legitimate to

present a detailed investigation

and discussion

of

the

grammatical, iterary,

and

historical features of the New Testament,

but he thinks

it

improper

to

intro-

duce questions of theology

and considerations

of

dogma

into

exegesis

where

there

is

no

warrant

for

them

in

the text.

Consequently,

in order to

forestall

vain speculations

at this

point,

Erasmus

replaces "gratia plena"

with

"gratiosa."7

Thus,

where Valla

sought

to

clarify

the connotations of

the

Greek, Erasmus attempted to put philology to practical use by making the

scriptures

less a

starting point

for

speculative theologians

and more

a docu-

ment with a powerful significance

for its readers.

This note illustrates well

the close connection between translation and

exegesis. Neither Valla nor

Erasmusset out to

provide

a

complete

or

system-

atic exegesis of the New Testament, but both found many points at which

they were able to improve upon the traditional understandingof a passage,

due to their knowledge of the Greek language and their consultation of the

Greek text. Thus at Mt. 22:16 Valla warns that the Latin word persona

cannot be

accepted

as substautia

in

philosophical discussions,

as

Boethius

thought, because it comes from the Greek

mrpOUwmTov,

hich can mean "face"

or

"appearance,"

but not "substance"

in

the

technical, Aristotelian sense of

the

word.76 Erasmus curtly denounces two medieval exegetes, Hugh of St.

Cher and Nicholas

of

Lyra, for their false and unlearnedetymological explana-

tions

of the

term "Lithostratos," the court

where Jesus was tried

before

Pilate.77 Both Valla and Erasmus avoid the complicated explanations that

Augustine was

forced into

at

Jn. 18:28 because he

thought

the

account at

that

point says

that

Jesus was conducted

to,

not

from, Caiaphas

at

the

Praetorium.7

E

5rasMUs,

LB VI,

223

DF.

76Valla,

Collatio,

p. 64.

Cf.

his famous

essay

"In Boethium

de persona"

in the

Elegantiae

linguae

latinae,

VI,

34, in

his Opera,

I,

215-16.

77Erasmus,

LB VI, 411

F-412

F.

78Valla,

Collatio,

p. 142;

Adnotationes,

p. 845; Erasmus,

LB

VI,

409

F-410

F.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


24

The

Sixteenth

Century

Journal

Neither Valla nor Erasmus

was infallible, however, and both occasionally

lapsed. Valla was

disturbed

at

Mt. 26:45-46, where

it is recorded

that

after

praying all night at Gethsemane, Jesus

for

the third time

returned

to

his

disciples and found them sleeping. He addressesthem twice. First he says:

"Dormite iam et requiescite"

-

"Sleep

now

and

rest."

In the

very

next

verse

he says: "Surgite,

eamus"

- "Get

up;

let's

go."

Valla was

puzzled

by

the

contradictory commands:

Jesus

first

castigated

the

disciples

for

sleeping

instead

of

keeping watch (v. 41);

then

he ordered them

to

sleep (v. 45); finally

he ordered them

to rise and

accompany

him

(v. 46).

He

suggested amely

that

perhaps

the command

to

sleep

and

rest

("Dormite

et

requiescite")

was not in

the

imperative,

but rather

the

indicative

mood.79

Erasmus

correctly pointed

out in criticizing Valla that the Greek will not allow an indicative construc-

tion: Kadc6Oc8cT To XOt7rolV, atc

'aa7racau0c

-

"Sleep

for

the

remaining time,

and take your

rest." He

was

not

able, however,

to

offer

a

much

better

alterna-

tive. He noted that Origen,Chrysostom,Hilary,

and

Jerome

had

explained

the

difficulty by resorting

to

allegorical

exegesis.

Erasmus'

own

solution

befits a

literary

man.

He

thought

it

possible

that

Jesus' words

were

spoken

in

irony,

and

he suggested

Jesus'

private

thoughts

at

this

moment:

"Up

to

now

I

have

been

unable to

get you

to

keep

watch with me

for a little

while.

But

now

the

coming

affair will

itself wake

you up,

when

you

see

my

suffering

and

the

danger

to

yourselves."80

It

apparently

did

not occur to

either

Valla

or

Eras-

mus

that

the

text

simply

does

not present

an

absolutely

full and

accurate

account

of

the

events

of that

night.

Despite similarities n the

style and even in the limitations of Valla's and

Erasmus'explanatory notes,

there were

also

important

differences of motiva-

tion and

approach

in their

exegesis.

Valla noted at Mt. 3:4 that

John the

Baptist

was

according

to

the

Greek

not

dressed in

"pilis camelorum"

"hair of

camels"),

but

in

"pilis

cameli"

("hair

of a

camel").

We

do not

say

"hair of

lions" or "feathers of eagles," but rather "lion's hair" and "eagle's feath-

ers."8

1

Erasmus

presented

the

same observation,

but

went on,

as Valla did

not,

to

comment

also on

another part

of the same

text:

"His

[John's]

food

was locusts and wild

honey."

Erasmus

offered

an

extended discussion

of

the

etymology

of the Greek

word for

locust, aKpi,

and an

account

of

locusts

themselves,

their natural

history, habits,

and

role

in the diets

of

various

peoples.

Sandwiched

in the

middle of this

ramblingessay

was

a

consideration

of

certain

men's

doubts

that

John

really

ate locusts. Some have

suggested

that

the locust referred to here was not an insect but some delectable fruit or

vegetable.

One

exegete

had wondered

stupidly why

if

John

ate locusts

he

did

not

go

on to

consume

flies

and

the

other horrible animals

with which

God

79Valla,

Adnotationes,

p.

821; cf. Collatio,

p.

69.

80Lrasmus,

LB

VI, 136

DE.

8

1Valla,

Collatio,

p.

2t; Adnotationes,

p.

807.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


BiblicalPhilologyr 25

plagued the Egyptians. Erasmus

does not want to counsel

excessive asceticism;

he does not dwell

on

the grubby, scaly

nature

of the

locust;

he notes

that

it

forms the diet even of some modern peoples.

He

does, however,

use the

low

and common nature of the locust as an argument to underline John the

Baptist's simplicity and piety. It would not be fitting for John, as the fore-

runner of Christ the pauper, to batten on cakes and imbibe rich mead. He did

not

eat

locusts as a

superstitious

ascetic

-

Erasmus doubts

that John re-

quested

locusts

while

in

a

city

or under Herod's arrest

-

but

rather n order

to

fulfill prophecy

and because

the

desert

readily supplied

this sort of

food.82

Thus Erasmus found an opportunity here to emphasize one of his favorite

themes: the simplicityand unaffected piety

of

the

early Christianheroes.

A similar pattern emerges in the notes of Valla and Erasmus to Mt.

11:30

-

"lugum enim meumnuave

est,

et

onus

meum leve est"

-

"My yoke

is

pleasant,

and

my

burden

is

light."

Valla

noted

that suavis

translates

Xp77urToq

("pleasant").The Greek

word is

sometimes

translated

as

bonumn

"good") but

means rather suavis or

iucundus

("agreeable").8 Erasmus opens with the

same observation

but

moves

on

quickly

to

review variant

readings

and

exegeses

from

the

Fathers.

Jerome had

suggested

the

question:

How is

the

yoke

of

the evangelical

law

lighter

than that

of

the Mosaic

law? This leads

Erasmusto the burden

of

his note.

The Mosaic law

was

unable

to

be borne.

But Christ's yoke

is not

imposed by "petty

human

rules;"

t demands

nothing

beyond mutual charity. Nothing

is more natural

to

man than this mutual

charity, this "philosophy

of

Christ"which seeks

to

restore

the

fallen world to

its

earlier

innocence.

But the

simplicity

of

the

evangelicalyoke

must be

care-

fully guarded, for

there

is

a

strong tendency

to

weigh

it

down with human

rules. Multiplication

of rules and

dogmas gives

rise to

dissensionsand heresies.

The schoolmen in

particular

are

culpable

on

this

score,

for

they rashly specu-

late

about

matters,

such

as the nature of the divine

essence and the distinction

between the persons of the Trinity, that are not meant for investigation in

human

terms. In

time all these

human rules and

silly syllogisms

are

accorded

as

much

respect

as

an article

of

faith.

Compare

the

thorny dogmas

of

today

with

the

simple teaching

of Christ There are

so

many rules, laws,

and

cere-

monies; there

is so much

oppression by

secular and

ecclesiastical

princes

-

is

this.a "pleasant yoke"

for

the

Christian

people

to

bear? Not

even the Jews

had so

many cults, clothing requirements, asts, dietary rules, feasts, vows,

and

legal procedures.

The

only remedy

for

this

situation,

short

of

Jesus'

return,

is

a serious search after true piety, especially on the part of the popes and the

princes. Theologians

and

preachers

must

teach and inculcate

doctrines

worthy

of

Christ.

All

must

reject

human

rules,

embrace

Christian

iberty,

and

put

on

the

yoke

of Christ. And the

best

means

to

this

end is the wholesale

adoption

of

simple, evangelicalcharity.84

82Erasmus,

LB

VI,

18

D-20

B.

8

3Valla,

Collatio,

p.

44.

84Erasmus,

LB

VI,

63

B-65

E.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


26

The

Sixteenth

Century

Journal

Let us examine

finally

the notes of Valla

and Erasmus to Lk.

2:14:

"Glory

to

God

in

the

highest;

and

on

earth, peace

to

men

of

good will." Valla

notes that the term

"good

will"

(bona voluntas)

comes from one Greek

word,

eVboKa, which is often translatedbeneplaciturnor placentia. As for the text,

he

prefers

a variant

reading

at this

point: "Glory

to God in

the

highest, peace

on

earth, and good will

to

men." It makes

little

sense

to Valla

that

the

angels

should

preach peace

to

good men,

as

though good

men

were

not

already

peaceful. The angels

must have been

calling

for

peace

on earth and

good

will

in

all

men

-

especially

in those

who were

then

possessed

of

a bad

will and

consequently

had the

greater

need of a

good

will.8

Thus Valla

attempts

to

establish the

text,

clarify

the

literal

sense

of

the

passage,

and

ascertain that

the readerproperly understands he details of the angels'bidding.Valla's aim

here is to

render the

passage

clear in the

understanding

of

his

readers.Once

again Erasmus follows Valla's

explanation

to a

point.

He

too

prefers the

reading:"Glory

to

God

in

the highest,

peace

on

earth,

and

good

will to men."

He

too

notes

that

evboK

a

is

often

translatedas

beneplacitum. But once

again

also

Erasmus

goes

beyond

Valla's

short

note. He

reviews

the opinions of

Chrysostom

and

Theophylactus,

who

taught

that

this

"good will" was

not

to

be

referred to

men,

but

only

to

God,

who in

his

mercy

saw

fit to

bestow it

upon

men.

And

what

does

this

"good

will" consist

of?

It

is

nothing less

than

the

reconciliation

of

man

to God. In

fact,

the

"peace

on

earth" which

the

angels sing about itself refers

to

our reconciliation:

"this

peace

is

the pious

love of

God for

men." Since

the

reading

that

Erasmus

prefers

is

widely repre-

sented

in

Greek

manuscripts

and

commentaries,

he wonders

why

Jerome,

Ambrose, and Augustine never

adopted it. Ultimately, he

suggests,

it

perhaps

makes

no difference

which reading

is

genuine,

for

both conduce to the

same

end: "The

angels

announce that the time is

at

hand when God

has

established

out of

his

gratuitousmercy

to

save the race

of

men."86

Thus once again Erasmushas taken Valla's rathertechnical analysisand

attempted

to

broaden

it so

that

it bears

relevance

for

practical

religious

life.

This

pattern may

be

traced

repeatedly

in

Erasmus'

Annotations to the

New

Testament,

most

importantly perhaps

in his

discussions of

repentance

at Mt.

3:2

and

2

Cor. 7:10,

where

he

stresses that New

Testament

repentancerefers

to an inner

change

and desire

to

become a better

person,

not

to the

fulfill-

ment of

public penalties.

Erasmus'observations

at

these

points

were

important

for

Luther's

development,

as

is

well

known;

it is

not

usually noticed, however,

that the originalphilological insight came from Valla, whose analysisErasmus

closely followed.87

But it

was

not

enough

for

Erasmus

simply

to

clarify

for

8

5

Valla, Collatio, pp.

103-04;

Adnotationes, p.

83

1.

8 6

Erasmus,

LB

VI,

23

1

F-233 F. On the development

of this

note

through

the

succeeding

editions of the Annotations see

C.

A. L.

Jarrott, pp. 132-35.

8

'See Valla's notes

in his Adnotationes, pp. 807, 872.

Cf. to Erasmus' discussions

at

LB

VI,

17

E-18

C,

773

[-774

D.

On

the

importance

of

Erasmus' observations

for

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf



his

readers

the

connotations

of the

words

or to

explain

for them the

accurate

sense of the original Greek.

He

sought

further to

impart

to

them

a sense of

scriptureas a living document effecting

a

moral

renewal in

all Christians.

* * *

What shall we say in brief about the scholarly relationshipbetween Valla

and Erasmus? From his own statements

from

1489

to

1505,

as

well as his

reliance on many

of

Valla's notes

to

the gospels,

it

is

abundantly clear that

Erasmus owed a great deal to Valla's scholarly initiative. By 1516, however,

and

the

first

edition

of the Greek New

Testament,

Erasmus

had

adopted

an

attitude remarkably ndependent of Valla. This independencewas manifested

in

two ways. First,

Erasmus

practiced

his

scholarship

much

more

broadly

than

did Valla. By

1535 Erasmus'Annotations

were more than

eight

times the size

of

Valla's. Consequently, Erasmusexamined many

more textual

problems than

Valla, discussed

the translation

at

many

more

points,

reviewed the

opinions

of

many

more

Fathers,

and did

all this in much more detail and much

more

thoroughly than did

Valla. From

this

point

of view Erasmus'

Annotations

represent

a

development beyond

Valla's

work,

a refinement

of

his

principles

carried

out

on

a broader scale

and at

greater

leisure

than

was

available

to

Valla.

Erasmus' ndependence

of

Valla

is

even

more

marked

n the

comparison

of

the attitudes

taken

by

each of them toward

his

scholarship.

Valla was

very

much the

dispassionatescholar,

concerned

to

expose errors, explain problems,

and

expound

on

ambiguities, while

almost

entirely suppressing

his

personal

religious views. Erasmus was apparently

unable to

understand this

attitude.

Undeniably,

he made

great

use

of

Valla's

scholarship

n

his own

Annotations.

Yet he found ample occasion also to criticize Valla for excessive pedantry,

and he often adapted his scholarly observations to the needs of religious

reform,

as

Valla

did not.

In his

letter of

1515

to

Martinvan

Dorp

Erasmus

praises Valla's achievement but qualifies hitm

as

a

man

more interested in

rhetoric

than

in

theology.88

To Valla's

starkly philological

observationsEras-

m11us

adds a measure

of

religious

concern:

he seeks

ways

to

apply

the

dis-

coveries

of

scholarship

to the world

at

large,

and

to

draw

out

the

religious

implications

of his

philological analysis.

The difference between Valla

and

Erasmus

from

this point

of

view

is

the difference between

biblical

philology

and Christianhumanism.

Luther's development

see

C.

A. L.

Jarrott, pp. 125-28;

and W.

Schwartz,

"Studies in

Luther's Attitude

towards

Humanism,"

Journal

of Theological Studies,

VI

(1955), 66-76.

88EE II,

112.

8/20/2019 2539436.pdf


28 The Sixteenth

CenturyJournal

This

terminology should

not be

construed

so

as

to

eliminate Valla from

the camp of the humanists: his humanist credentialsare far too

good

for

that.

Nor should these labels

seem to

imply

that

Valla was not a

Christian

human-

ist: the dialogue On the True and False Good is perhapsthe most striking

religious document produced by

any

of

the Renaissance

humanists. The

terms

"biblical

philology"

and "Christian

humanism"

do, however,

summarizethe

distinctive

approaches

taken

by

Valla

and

Erasmus to

their

New Testament

scholarship. One

final caveat:

nothing

in

this

paper

should be taken

as a

belittling

of

Valla's

achievement.

It

is true that he

described

his

Collatio

as

"a

work

of

no

great

genius."89

But it

is

also true that

Pope

Nicholas V

praised

the Collatio and

that CardinalNicholas of Cusa

requested a

personal copy.90

CertainlyValla's achievementwas more originalthan Erasmus'.Valla effected

a

sort

of

paradigmshift in the

world

of

scholarship,

without which

Erasmus'

labors could

scarcely

have

been conceived.

The

object

here, however,

is

not

to

assign degrees

of

greatness

but

to

explore

the individual

characteristicsex-

posed in the scholarship

of

two Renaissance

humanists. Let us sum things up

in

this

way.

It

is

often

said

-

and

truly

-

that

Valla insisted on the

submis-

sion of

philosophy

to

rhetoric and

philology.

Erasmus

readily accepted this

suggestion, as

far

as it

went;

but he did

in

his

turn

insist further on the

submission of

philological scholarship

to

his

goal

of

a

moral and

religious

renewal

of Christendom.

8

9

See

the

letter to

Aurispa

in

Sabbadini, ed.,

&onologia

documentata, no. 48,

P.

1

o0.

9

So

Valla related

in the Antidoturn IV in

in his

Opera

I,

340.

2539436.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2539436.pdf