8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

1/36

Erasmus: Interpreter of RomansAuthor(s): John B. PayneReviewed work(s):Source: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. 2 (Jan., 1971), pp. 1-35

Published by: The Sixteenth Century JournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003690 .

Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:11

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 support@jstor.org.

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

Century Essays and Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scjhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3003690?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3003690?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scj

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

2/36

Erasmus:

Interpreter

of

Romans*

John

B.

Payne

Lancaster

Theological

Seminary

The

exegetical

writings

of Erasmus

have

been

strangely neglected

by

students

of

the

humanist.

In

spite

of

the

large

and

important

place

they

hold

in

his

total

corpus

and

in

spite

of

their

widespread

popularity

and

influence

in

the sixteenth

century,

they

have

been

for

the

most

part passed

over

by

modern

scholars.

To

be

sure,

there

have

been

some

studies of a

general nature or of a limited scope, which, resting largely

on

the

Enchiridon1

and/or

the

introductory writings

to

the

Novum

Testamentum,2

have

dealt with Erasmus'

method of

interpretation

of

Scripture.

There

have

also

been

some

which have

taken

into

account

in

addition

to

these

his last

great

work on

the

interpretation

of

Scripture,

the Ecclesiastae

(1535),

and

his rules

of

interpretation

as

given

in

his

various

expositions

of

the

Psalms

(1515

et

seq.).3

But

there

have

been

no

detailed

investigations

of

his

exegetical

practice

as exhibited

in

his

annotations4 or

paraphrases

of the

New

Testament5

or

expositions

of the

*This

paper,

which

s

based

on

research

onducted

n

Europe

under National

Endowment

for

the Humanities

ellowship,

was

presented

n

abbreviated orm t

the Sixteenth

entury

Studies

Conference,

1

October

970.

ISee

Alfons

Auer,

Die vollkommene

rommigkeit

es Christen.

Nach

dem

Enchiridion

militis

hristiani

es

Erasmus

on Rotterdam

Dusseldorf:

atmos,

954), especially p.

139

ff.,

and most

ecently

rnst-Wilhelm

ohls,

Die

Theologie

es Erasmus

Basel:

F.

Reinhardt,966),

I,

139

??.

2The Paraclesis

1516), Apologia 1516

et

seq.),

Methodus

1516),

Ratio verae

theologiae

(1518

et

secj.).

See

C.

Goerung,

a

theologie

'apres

Erasme et Luther

Paris,

1913);

Augustin

Renaudet,

tudes

erasmiennes

Paris:

E.

Droz

1939), pp.

136

ff.;

L.

Bouyer,

rasmus nd His

Times,tr. F. X. Murphy Westminster,d.: NewmanPress, 1959, pp. 157 ff.;R. Pfeiffer,

review f Desiderius rasmus

Roterodamus.

Ausgeivahlte

Werke, ds.,

Anne Marie

and

Hajo

Holborn

Munich:

Beck, 1933),

in

Gnomon,

XII

(1936), p. 625-34;

Carl

S.

Meyer,

Erasmus

on the

Study

of

Scripture,"

oncordia

Theological

Monthly,

LII

(December

1969),

734-46.

3L.

Spitz,

The

Religious

enaissance

f

the

GermanHumanists

Cambridge,

ass:

Harvard

Univ.

Press, 1963), pp.

216

ff;

Henri

de

Lubac

Exegese

medievale.

Les

quatre

sense

de

VEcriture,

econd

part,

I

(Paris: Aubier,

1964),

pp.

449

ff.;

Charles

Bene,

Erasme et Saint

Augustin

Geneva: Droz,

1969),

who

has

a

detaileddiscussion

f the

influence

f

Augustine's

De doctrina

liristiana n

Erasmus'

method f

exegesis

n

the

prefaces

o

the

New

Testament

and the

Ecclesiastae, specially p.

215 ff. nd

400

ff.;J.

B.

Payne,

Toward

he Hermeneutics

of

Erasmus,"

n Scrinium

rasmianum,

d.

J. Coppens,

Leiden:

Brill,

1970), II,

13-49. The

recent

work f

J.

W.

Aldridge,

he

Hermeneutic

f

Erasmus

Richmond,

a.:

John

Knox

Press,

1966)

makes

ittle ontribution

o an

understanding

f the

Erasmian

xegesis.

See

my

review

n

the

Journal f

Ecumenical

tudies,V,

1

(1968),

176

ff.,

nd the

criticism

f

Kohls, I,

131,

n. 798; ibid., I, 133,n. 12; ibid, I, 136,n. 29.

4The best

tudy

n the Novum

Testmentum

s still hat

by August

ludau,

Die

beiden rsten

Erasmus-Ausgaben

es Netien

Testaments

nd

ihre

Gegner,

n

Biblische

tudien,

d.

7,

Heft

5

(Freiburg-im-Br.:

erder,

902).

See also

the

brief

tudy

of

Marvin

Anderson,

Erasmus he

Exegete,"

oncordia

heological

onthly,

LII

(December

969),

722-33.

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

3/36

Psalms. As a

contribution

in

this

direction

the

writer of

this

paper

intends to examine

Erasmus'

exegesis

of

Romans

in

his annotations

and

paraphrase.

Erasmus'

fresh

translation from

the

Greek

and

notes

on Romans

were

first

published

in

his

Novum

Instnimentum

by

Froben

at

Basel

in

March

1516.

They

were

revised and

expanded

in

the

successive

editions

of

1519, 1522,

1527,

and 1535.

The

Paraphrase

of

Romans,

the first

of his works

of

this

kind

on

the

New

Testament,

was

published

in

November

1517

by

Martens

at

Louvain.

Its success0

encouraged

him

to

write

and

publish

pararjhrases,

first on the remaining Pauline letters, and then on all the rest of the

New

Testament

except

for

Revelation.

With the

paraphrase

of

Acts

in

1524

that

work

was

completed.

His

Paraphrase

of

Romans

was

re-

issued

by

Froben in

separate

editions

in

January

and November

1518

and in

April

1519;

then it

was

published

together

with

the

Paraphrases

on Corinthians

and

Galatians in

January

1520.

After

that,

beginning

with the

editions of

1521,

it

was

published

with

paraphrases

on all

the

remaining

Pauline

letters.

From

1518

to

1534,

the

date

of

the

last

edition during Erasmus' lifetime, the Froben firm alone published the

work twelve

times either

in

individual

or

collected

editions.7 But

that

fact

only

partly

indicates its

broad

popularity.

The

Paraphrase

on

Romans

was

published

also

at

Strasbourg

by

Knoblouchios

in

October

50n

the

paraphrases

ee

J.

Coppens,

Les

idees

reformistes

'Erasme

dans

les

Prefaces

aux

Paraphrases

u

Nouveau

Testament,"

n Scrinium

ovaniense,

d.

E.

van

Cauwenbergh,

(Louvain:

J.

Duculot,

961), 344-71;

R.

H.

Bainton,

The

Paraphrases

f

Erasmus,"

Arcrtiv

iir

Reformationsgeschichte,

VIII, (1966),

67-75.

The

most

substantial

heological nvestigation

is

that

f

H.

Schlingensiepen

ased on the

annotationsnd

paraphrase

f Matthew

nly:

Erasmus

als Exegetauf Grund einer chriftenu Matthaus," eitschriftur Kirchengeschichte,LVIII,

(1929),

16-57. On

the

paraphrase

f

Romans here s

one short

published

tudy:

R.

Padberg,

"Glaubenstheologie

nd

Glaubensverkundigung

ei

Erasmus

von

Rotterdam

argestellt

uf der

Grundlage

er

Paraphrase

um

Romerbrief,"

n

Festgab.e iir

ranz

X.

Arnold,

ds.

Theodor

ilhaut

and

Joseph

A.

Jungmann,.J. Freiburg-im-Br.:erder, 958),

pp.

58-75.

This

essay

considers

only

he

topics

f

faith nd

justification

n the

paraphrase

f verses

n

chapters ne, three,

nd

four,

nd

is

severely

imited

y

the

failure f

the

author o realize

hat everal

mportantassages

he

quotes

werenot

added

until

1532. See

ibid.,

pp.

65,

n.

30; 67,

contd.

note

34; p. 69,

n.

44;

p. 70,

n. 48.

A

translation

f

the

Paraphrase

f Romans nd of

relevant

ections

f the Annota?

tionswith ntroduction

nd

notes

has been made

by

Albert

abil of

Chicago

Theological eminary,

who

hopes

o

have

t

published

oon.

I

have benefited

rom he

reading

f

his

manuscript

n

the

preparation

f this

ssay.

GErasmi

pistolae,

ds.

P.

S. Allenet

al

(Oxford:

larendon

ress,

906-1958),

II,

247,

ep.

794-80

ff. Hereafter

ited as Allen

withnumber f

volume, age,

letter,

nd

lines.

7Allen, II, 136,

ep.

710

Intro.,

nd Bibliotheca

rasmiana,

d. F. VanderHaeghen Ghent:

Bibliotheque

e

1'Universite,

893), pp.

143-47. Hereafter

ited

as BE.

The 1534 octavo

edition

y

H. Froben nd

N.

Episcopius

s

not isted

by

BE. Perfect

opies

are

located

at

the

Bodleian

n

Oxford,

he

Municipal

Library

t

Rotterdam,

nd

imperfect

opies

at the

British

Museum

nd at

All Souls

n,

Oxford.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

4/36

1519,8

and

with

the

rest of

the

Pauline letters

by

the same

printer

in

March

1523;9

by

Cervicornus at

Cologne

in

1522;

by

Schoeffer

at

Mainz

in

August

1522;

by

Vidovaeus

at Paris twice

in

1523;

and

by

Gregoriis

at

Venice

in

July

1523.10 After Erasmus' death besides the

great

editions

of

1539,

1540

(both

in folio as Vol.

VII of

the

Opera

Omnia

and

in a

separate

octavo

edition),

1541,

1548,

1556,

and

1557,

there

were

editions

by

a

Prato

at

Paris,

1540,

by

Regnault

at

Paris

in

1540,11

by

Gryphius

at Leiden

in

154212 and

1544,

and

by

Steelsius

at

Antwerp

in

1555

and

1568.

Translations of

the

paraphrases

of

the

Pauline letters

began

to

appear shortly after they were published in Latin: into German by

Leo

Jud

from 1521

to

1523;

into French

in

1543;

into

English

along

with

the

paraphrases

on

the

other New Testament

works

by

a

com?

mittee

of

scholars

headed

by

Nicholas Udall and

supported

by

Queen

Catherine Parr

from 1543

to 1548.

As is

well

known,

on

31

July

1547

Edward VI

ordered the

paraphrases

of

the

Gospels

to be

placed

alongside

the

Bible in

every parish

of the realm

and

every

clergyman

below the

degree

of B. D.

to

possess

a

copy

of

the

book.13

Erasmus' first edition of his Novum Testamentum was published

just

as Luther

was

completing

his

lectures

on

Romans

(1515-1516),

which

disclosed his

new

understanding

of

the

Gospel.

The

Paraphrase

of

Romans was

first

published

almost

at

the exact

moment

when he

nailed

his

ninety-five

theses to the

Castle

Church

door.

It is of

interest

and

importance

to

inquire

into Erasmus'

interpretation

of

this,

the

most

weighty

of the

Pauline

letters,

the

recovery

of

whose

thought

in

the

sixteenth

century

so

helped

to

shape

the

events

of

that

period.

Erasmus was said in that day to have laid the egg which Luther

hatched.

Recently

E.-W.

Kohls has

suggested

that

in

view

of Erasmus'

own

teaching

on

justification,

sacraments,

Christ,

and

Trinity,

it

is

understandable

that his

contemporaries

saw

no differences

between

HNot

isted

n BE.

A

copy

s

located n

the

universityibrary

t

Freiburg-im-Br.

9The month ate

is

not

given

n

BE.

The

colophon

f

the

copy

n

the

Municipal

ibrary

of

Rotterdam

ives

he

month

ate.

lOMonth ate not

given

n

BE.

Copies

with

month

date

are

present

n

the

Rotterdam

Municipal ibrary

nd the

Ghent

niversity

ibrary.

UNot Iisted n BE. A copy s extantn theCambridge niversityibrary.

12Not

isted

n

BE.

A

copy

s

present

n

the

Trinity

ollege

Library,

ambridge.

13Allen,II, 136, ep.

710. On the

English

araphrases

ee E.

J.

Devereaux,

The

Publica-

tion

of

the

English

Paraphrases

f

Erasmus,"

ulletin

f

the

John

Rijlands

ibrary,

I

(1969),

348-67.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

5/36

them.14

Some

measure

of

the

truth

of

this

judgment

should

be attained

by

a

comparison

of Erasmus'

interpretation

with

that of Luther on

what was

to both humanist and reformer

a

central

writing

of

the New

Testament. How do

their views

compare

concerning

such

subjects

as

sin and

salvation

on

the

very

eve

of

the Reformation

before

Erasmus

had

any

knowledge

of

Luther's

theology

and

before

he

was

drawn into

the

free will

controversy

with him?

However,

before

that

question

can be

safely

answered,

one

must examine

Erasmus'

teaching

in

and

for

itself,

and

not too

quickly compare

it

with Luther's

teaching

or

that of other sixteenth

century figures.

In

the

past

it

has

been

a

weak-

ness of

some

Erasmus

scholarship

to

point

out

influences of

Erasmus,

contrasts between him and the reformers, without first

clearly

estab-

lishing

the

views of

the

humanist

himself.

Erasmus

was

not

occupied

with

Romans

for

the first time in 1516

and

1517.

In a letter

to Colet

written

in

late

1504 Erasmus mentions

that three

years ago

he

had

completed

four volumes

of

commentary

on this

epistle

and

would

have

proceeded

further

except

for

his

lack

of Greek.15 It is this

work that

he

no doubt

has in mind when

at the

end of

the Enchiridion

(and

in

a

letter

composed

of

passages

from

the

beginning

and end of this

treatise),

Erasmus

states

that he is

ap-

plying

himself

with

great

exertion

to a

commentary

on

Paul.16

After

assiduously

studying

Greek

for

three

years

and

after

dis-

covering

and

publishing

Valla's

Annotations

on

the New Testament

in

April

1505,17

Erasmus

again applied

himself with

vigor

to

the

New

Testament and

especially

to

the Pauline letters.

He

completed

a

trans-

lation

of

all

the

epistles

in

England

in

1505-1506

and of

the

Gospels

probably also in the same period, although the dates on the manuscripts

of

the

Gospels

written

by

Peter

Meghen

are

May

and

September

1509,

whereas

the date on

the

manuscript

of

the

epistles

by

the

same

hand

is October

1506.18

14E.-W.

Kohls,

Die

theologische ebensaufgabe

es

Erasmus und

die

oberrheinischen

Reformatoren,

rbeiten

ur

Theologie,

d.

T.

Schlatter,

.

Reihe,

Heft

39,

(Stuttgart:

alwer

Verlag,1969), p.

27.

See also

by

the same

author,

Erasmusund die

werdende

vangelische

Bewegung,"

n Scrinium

rasmianum,

d.

J. Coppens,

Leiden: Brill,1969),

I

203-19.

15Allen,

,

404,

ep.

181/31

ff.

IGDesiderii

rasmi Roterodami

pera omnia,

ed.

J.

Clericus

Leiden, 1703-1706; photo-reprint, ildesheim:GeorgOlms, 1962), V. col. 66 A. Cited hereafters LB with volume

number,

olumn

number,

nd letter

designating osition

n column.

To

John,

Autumn

501,

Allen,

, 404,

ep.

164/36

ff.

17SeeErasmus'

reface

o

this

work,

llen,

,

407

ff, p.

182.

18Allen,I,

181

ff., p.

384,

Intro.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

6/36

Inspired

probably

by

Valla,

Erasmus

shortly

makes

philological

notes

on

various

passages

in

the

New

Testament.

In letters

to

Reuchlin

and

Wimpfeling

in

August

and

September 1514,

he

mentions

that

he

has

written

annotations

on the whole

of

the

New

Testament.19

In

the

famous letter

to

Servatius

Rogerus,

the

prior

of

the

monastery

at

Steyn,

8

July

1514,

in

which

he

defends

his refusal

to return

to

the

monastery,

Erasmus

states that

in

the last two

years

among

other

things

he

accom-

plished

a

collation

of the

whole

New Testament

on

the basis

of

ancient

Greek

manuscripts,

annotated

a thousand

passages,

and

began

com-

mentaries

on

the

letters of

Paul,

which he will

complete

when

he

can

publish

them.20At about

this

same

time Erasmus

writes

of

a

vow

he

made to Saint Paul that he would

complete

his commentaries on the

letter to

the

Romans

if

he

recovered

from

the severe

pain

in

his

back

caused

by

an

accident

on

his

horse.21

Is

this second

commentary

on

Romans to which

he

explicitly

refers

in late summer

1514,

and

upon

which

he

had

already

been

at

work for some

time,

identical with the

paraphrase

published

in 1517?

I think not and for

these reasons:

1)

as far as

I can

judge,

he

never

refers

to

that

later

paraphrase

as a

commentary; 2)

in

his

prefaee

to

the

Paraphrase

of Romans dedicated

to Cardinal

Grimani,

Erasmus seems

to

imply

a

distinction

between

a

commentary

and

a

paraphrase

when

he

says

that

"not

much

additional labor would

have

been

required

had we

wished to

publish

a

true

(iustum)

commentary."22

Likewise in

his

prefaee

to

the

Paraphrase

of

John

he

suggests

a

distinction

between

paraphrase

and

commentary

when

he

writes:

"However,

I do

not

wish

anyone

to

attribute

more

to

this

paraphrase

than

he would attribute

to

a

commentary,

as

if

I had written a

commentary,

although

a

para?

phrase

also is a kind of

commentary."23

As

late

as

1516

Erasmus

intended

to

publish

a full

commentary

on

Romans,

for

he

says

in

a note on

Romans

1:11 in the 1516

edition

of

the

Novum

Instrumentum that

he

would

argue

in

greater

detail

concerning

these

matters in

commentaries

on

Paul

which

he

shall

one

day

complete.

This

comment was

omitted

for the

first time

in

the

19Allen,I, 4, ep. 300/31,nd17,ep. 305/10.

20Allen,

,

570,

ep.

296/152

ff.

21To

William

lount,

ord

Mountjoy,

0

August

1514), Allen,

I,

6, ep.

301/18

ff.

22Allen,

II,

138,

ep.

710/35

f.

23Allen,

, 172,

ep.

1333/395

ff.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

7/36

1527

edition.24

Evidently,

Erasmus decided to

give up

the more elabo-

rate

commentary

for the

simpler

paraphrase.

He

may

have

also

decided

that

much

of

the material

which

he intended

for a

commentary

could

be

utilized not

only

in

the

paraphrase

but also

in

expansions

of

the

notes

in later

editions of

the

Novum

Testamentum.

In

any

case,

the

Paraphrase

on

Romans

which

was

finally

executed

between

May

and

July

1517,25

and

perhaps

the

annotations as

well,

are the

fulfillment

of

a

dream

and an effort

begun

already

in

1501,

renewed

perhaps

as

early

as

1512,

and

pledged

in

1514.

If

one

asks

why

this

early occupation

with the

letters

of

Paul

in

general and with Romans in particular, the answer is in

part

that it

was due

to

the

inspiration

of

John

Colet

and

Jean

Vitrier. Colet was

lecturing

on Paul at

Oxford

when

Erasmus

first

went there

in

1499.

In

a

letter of 1499

to

Colet,

Erasmus

expressed

warm

praise

for his

public

lectures at Oxford

on

the Pauline letters.20

As

Bene

emphasizes:

"Sans

nul

doute,

c'est

Colet

qui

avait eveille

chez

Erasme

ce

gout

de la

paraphrase,

specialement

le

desir

de commenter

saint

Paul."27

In the

famous letter

to

Jonas

on

Colet and

Vitrier,

Erasmus

describes

at length the latter's devotion to Paul.28 It is at least in part due to

Vitrier's influence that Erasmus

wrote

the Enchiridion29

in

which

quotations

from

Paul

abound,

in

which

he

names Paul

as

the

best

interpreter

of

the

allegorical

meaning

of

Scripture,30

and

in

which

he

gives

expression

to

a

piety

that rests

on

the Pauline

dichotomy

of

letter and

spirit

that

has

however

been

fused with

the

Platonic con?

trast

of

flesh

and

spirit.31

Erasmus found such a

synthesis

of Paul

and

Plato

in

Origen,

for

whom he shows his admiration in the Enchiridion

by

listing

him after

Paul

as the

best

explicator

of

the

allegorical

sense of

Scripture32

and

by making

use of his

tripartite

division

of man from

the

Greek

Father's

24P.

411,

qiioted

n

Allen,

II,

115,

n.

28.

25AUen,II,

136, ep.

710,

Intro.

26Allen, , 248,

ep.

108/65

ff.

Colet's

commentary

n Romans

has

been

published

y

J.

Lupton.

/.

Coleti

enarratio

n

epistolam

.

Pauli ad Romanos

London:

Bell &

Daldy,

1873;

reprint;

idgewood,

.

J.,

1965).

27Erasmc t Saint

Augustin, .

193.

28Allen, V, 508, ep. 1211/44fl.

29Bene, .

125.

30LB, V,

8D.

HILB,

V. 15

f.,

16 EF. On

this 'tision

f

Pauline and

Platonie

nthropology,

ee

Payne,

"Toward

he

Hermeneuticsf

Erasmus,"

p;

19 f.

32LB, V,

8D.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

8/36

Commentary

on

Romans.33 It is

probable

that Vitrier

also

helped

to

fire

Erasmus'

early

enthusiasm

for

Origen.

Erasmus mentions

in

his

letter

concerning

the

Franciscan

friar

that

"there

was no

writer on

theology

whose

genius

he more admired than

Origen's."34

Erasmus'

writing

on Romans was

thus

not

a

casual

piece

of

work

but

one which he

had

intended

for

some

time

and to

which

he

had

given

considerable

thought

and

labor. Not

only

in

the

preface

to

Cardinal Grimani but in other

letters,

Eramus

emphasizes

that in

spite

of

appearances

the

paraphrase

cost

him much sweat.35

The labor

over

his

paraphrase

was occasioned

in

part

by

the

diffi-

culty of the language and thought of the Apostle in this letter.36 As to

language,

Erasmus mentions

the

confused order

of

words,

the

gaping

transitions,

the

unfinished

similes,

in the

investigation

of

which

he

says

even the

great Origen

struggled

and

labored. Erasmus states

that

Jerome

remarked on the

difficulties

occasioned

by

the difference

between Attic

and

Cilician

Greek and

by

the

presence

of

Hebraisms.37

Augustine

noted

in

addition the

flowery

rhetoric

of

Paul's letters.38

As

to

content,

the

difficulties

arise from

the

fact that

Paul

deals

with

impenetrable

mysteries,

which

he

only

touches

upon

but

does

not

explain. Finally,

the

difficulty

of

interpretation

has

to

do with

the

Apostle's

frequent

sudden

shifting

of

audiences,

which

include

Jews

and

Greeks,

believers and

unbelievers,

weak

and

strong

of faith.

33LB, V,

19A;

Patwlogia

Graeca,

ed.

J.

P.

Migne (Paris,

1857-1912), XIV, 850,

856.

Hereafterited s PG.

34Allen,V,

508,

ep.

1211/24

f;

trans.

y J.

H.

Lupton,

n

J.

C. Olin

ed.,

Christian

umanism

and

the

Reformation

New

York:

Harper

&

Row,

1965)

p.

166. On this

ubject

ee A.

Godin,

"De

Vitrier

Origene.

Recherches

ur

la

patristique

rasmienne,"

n

Colloquim

Erasmianum

(Mons:Centre niversitairee l'Etat, 1968), pp. 47-57, and Bene, p. 124. On the revival f

interest

n

Origen

n

the

fifteenth

nd sixteenth

enturies

ee

E.

Wind,

"The

Revival

of

Origen,"

n Studies

n

Art

nd,

Literature

or

Belle

da

Costa

Greene,

d.

Dorothy

Miner

Prince-

ton:

Princ.

Univ.

Press,

954), pp.

412-24;

and

D.P.

Walker,

Origene

n

France,"

n

Courants

religieux

t humanisme

la

fin

du

XV

et

an

debut

VXI

siecle,

eds.

A. Renaudet

t al.

(Paris

1959),pp.

101-19. On

Erasmus' dmiration

or

Origen

ee

Walker,

p.

113 ff.

35Allen,II, 134,

ep.

707/14-16:

"Hic excuditur

araphrasis

ea

in

Epistolam

d

Romanos,

opus

maioris

udoris

uam

prae

se

ferat."

See also

Allen, II,

144, ep.

714/7-9,

and

III,

147,

ep.

717/3-4.

3GSee

the

Argumentum

n

Epistolam

auli

ad

Romanos, B,

VII,

777-78.

For the

sake

of convenience

eference

ill be

made

to the

LB

for the

text

of

Argumentum

nd

Paraphrasis.

I

have

accomplished

collation

f

the

editions

rom

517

to

1521,

1523,

and

1532.

Although

there

were

only

few

minor

extual

hanges

n editions

hrough

523,

in 1532

they

were

num-

erous nd

significant.

nless

otherwise

oted,

t

may

be assumed

hat the

passage

referred

o

orquotedwaspresentlreadyn the1517 edition.

3TEp.

121,

in

Patrologia

atina,

d.

J.

P.

Migne

XXII

(Paris,

1844-1890),

1029-30.

Here?

after

ited

s

PL.

38D

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

9/36

His

work

on

Romans,

as

on

the

other books of

the

New

Testament,

consisted

not

only

of

a critical

collation of Greek

and

Latin

manuscripts

available

to him39 and a

new

translation

based

on

this new

text,

but also

a consultation of the

opinions

of

commentators,

ancient and more

recent,

for the

text,

translation,

and

interpretation

of

individual

passages.

He

makes

explicit

reference

to them

frequently

in

his

annotations,

but it is

clear

that

they

were used

also

for the

paraphrase,

although

he

does not

specifically

refer

to

them

in

this

work.

The

ancient Church

Fathers

are the

ones

most

frequently

consulted

and

cited,

but

Erasmus

gives

evidence of

having

read

also,

among

the

medieval

commentators,

Thomas

and

Lyra,

and,

among

the

recent,

Valla and Faber

Stapulensis.

Among the Fathers, he names Origen as his favorite interpreter of

Paul.40

We

shall

note

especially

Erasmus'

deep

indebtedness

to

this

Greek

Father

in

his

exegesis

of Romans. In

his

annotations

he

frequently

cites

Jerome,

Ambrosiaster

(whom

Erasmus

calls

Ambrosius),41

and

Augus-

tine

among

the

Latin

Fathers,

and

Chrysostom

and

Theophylact42

besides

Origen43

among

the Greeks.

Thomas is

the

most

frequently

cited of

medieval

writers,

some seventeen times

in

all

editions. Erasmus'

favorite,

Valla,

is the

most

often

cited

of recent

writers,

fifteen

times,

mostly

already in the first edition. He refers to Faber ten times, often in

criticism.

Much

less

frequently

does

he refer

to

the

other

Latin and

Greek

Fathers,

Tertullian

(twice), Cyprian

(five times), Hilary

(five

times),

Athanasius

(twice),

Basil

(once),

and

the

medieval

writer

Lyra

(six

times).

39For

critical

stimates f Erasmus

textual

riticismee

Bludau; Allen,

I,

164 ff and

181

ff;

KennethW.

Clark,

Observations

n

the

Erasmian

Noteson

Codex

2,"

in

Studia

Evangelica,

ed.

KurtAland

et

al.,

in

Texte

und

Untersuchungen,

III

(1959),

749-56;

and

C.

C.

Tarelli,

"Erasmus

Manuscripts

f

the

Gospel,"

Journal

f Theological

tudies,XLIV,

(1943),

155-62.

40Argumentuni,B, VII, 777-78.

4lAlthough

n

his

annotationsrasmus

lways

refers

o

this

author

s

"Ambrosius,"

n

his

preface

o

the

fourth

olume

f

his edition f

Ambrose,

hich

contained

he

commentaries,

e

noted hatcertain

assages

n the commentariesn Paul's letters o the

Romans,Galatians,

nd

Corinthianseem

to have been

added,

others o have been mutilated: n

Ambrosiaster

ee

A.

Souter,

A

Study

f

Ambrosiaster

Cambridge:

amb.

Univ.

Press,1905),

and

The

EarliestLatin

Commentariesn

the

Epistles

f

St. Paul

(Oxford:

larendon

ress,

1927),

pp.

39

ff.;

and

W.

Mundle,

Die

Exegesc

der

paulinischen

riefe

m

Kommentar

es

Ambrosiaster

Marburg

.

Hessen,

919).

42Erasmus

mistakenly

alls

this

eleventh

entury

rchbishop

f

Bulgaria

"Vulgarius"

n

his 1516

and

1519 annotations

ntilhe

corrects

he

name to

"Theophylactus"

n

1522;

he

has

already

made

that orrection

n the

title

but

not

in

the

notesof the

1519

edition.

4SOrigen's

work

on

Romans

existedfor Erasmus

entirely

n the

translation

f Rufinus.

Erasmuswas at first ncertains to who the translatoras,whethererhapsJeromer Rufinus,

but

by

the

time f

his edition f

Origen

t the

end ofhis ifehe had settled

efinitely

n Rufinus

as

the translator.

f.

LB,

VI,

571F;

574F.

In

the former

eference

passage

added

in

1519

reveals

uncertainty

s to the

identity

f

this

translator.

n

the latter

reference

statement

added

n

1535 indicates

hat

while n the

past

he

had

wavered

etween

erome

r Rufinus

s

the

translator,

e was now

nclined o

thinkt was

the atter.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

10/36

In

1516,

the

largest

number of

references are

to

Jerome

and

Origen

(almost

equal),

Ambrosiaster,

Augustine,

Valla,

Theophylact,

and

Faber,

in that

order.

In

the

1519 edition

citations

from

Origen,

Ambrosiaster,

Augustine,

and

Theophylact

greatly

increase,

whereas there

are

few

additional

citations

from

Jerome

and

none

from

Valla and Faber.

The

frequent

citation of

Jerome

in

the 1516

edition,

in

spite

of

the fact

that he

wrote

no

commentary

on

Romans,

was

due

undoubtedly

to

the

fact

that

Erasmus was

then

about

to

complete

his

edition of

Jerome.44

In

1519

Origen

clearly

heads the

list

of

interpreters

with

better than

seventy

additional citations followed by Ambrosiaster with more than fifty and

Augustine

and

Theophylact

each

with around

thirty.45

The additional

citations

in

1522 are

inconsequential

since Erasmus

made few

changes

in

that edition.

The most remarkable

fact

about

the

1527

edition

is the

prominence

for the first time

of

Chrysostom,

who is now

cited,

often

at

length,

over

seventy

times.40

The

citations from

Theophylact

also

greatly

increase

because

Erasmus

has

discovered the

dependence

of

this

eleventh-century

Bulgarian archbishop upon Chrysostom. The abundant use of Chrysostom

for the

first

time

in this

edition is

explained

by

Erasmus'

preoccupation

with

his

edition

of this Greek

Father in the late

1520s.

In the

final

edition

of

1535,

we

find

numerous

additional citations

44Even

though

rasmus

ncluded

he

commentariesn

the thirteen

pistles

f

Paul

bearing

the name of

Jerome

s author

n

the ninth olume f

his

Jerome

dition

516,

he

was

already

aware

then

that

they

were

pseudonymous

s his

prefaee

o

that

portion

f his

work

ndicates.

See A.

Souter,

Pelagius's

Expositions

f

Thirteen

pistles

of

Paul:

Introduction,

exts

and

Studies d. J. A. Robinson,Cambridge: niversityress,1922), IX, 6, whereSouterquotesfrom his

prefaee.

Likewise n the annotationse revealsthatthis work s not

by Jerome.

LB,

VI, 584C,

586C.

Souter

p.

277,

prqyes

hat

the

MS.

then

housed

at

the Echternach

Abbey

near

Freiburg

now

Paris,

BN.

9525)

"is the

very

MS

fromwhich nd

from

which

lone,

Erasmus

derived he

text

of

Pseudo-Jerome."

owever,

rasmus

gives

no

indication hat

he

knew

hat

he

author

f thisworkwas

Pelagius.

45See

LB, VI,

557F:

". .

.

Chrysostomus,

t huius mitator

heophylactus."

He

frequently

citesthem

ogether

ith

he

name of

Chrysostom,

imply

dded

to a

previous

itation

f Theo?

phylact

s

in

LB, VI,

544E;

568B;

570D. 599E:

Theophylactus

er

omnia

equitur

hrysostum."

(1535).

4GA

manuscript

f the Homilies n Romans

was

in

Erasmus'

hands

n 1526.

See

Allen,

VI, 381,

ep.

1736/23-24.

He

had

hoped

to have it

translated t

Louvain

by

Goclenus

or

Cranevelt

r at Ghent

by

Levinus

Ammonius

n

time

to be

included

n his

1530

edition

f

Chrysostom,

ut his

hopes

werenot

realized

s the

manuscript

as returned

o

him

untranslated

after everalmonths' elay. He sent t off histime o Germanus rixiuswhoaccomplishedhe

translation

n

1532

and

Froben

rinted

t

in

1533.

This translation

eappeared

n the full

edition

of

Chevallon

t Paris

in

1536.

See

Allen,

VIII,

327-38,

n.

6. Erasmus'

desire

for

a

new

edition f

Chrysostom

n

spite

of

the recent

ne

by

Cratander

t

Basel

in

1522

and

1525

was

created

y

his dissatisfaction

ith

the

quality

f

the translation

nd the

incompleteness

f the

formerdition.

ee

Allen,VI, 381,

ep.

1736/21-22.

There

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

11/36

from

Chrysostom

and

Theophylact,

not

quite

as

many

from

Origen

and

Ambrosiaster,

and still

fewer

from

Jerome

and

Augustine.

I shall limit my discussion of Erasmus' interpretation to a few

important theological

themes

in

Romans.

I

shall not

give

much atten?

tion

to the

philological

side

of

his

interpretation.

The

chief

material

principle

for

Erasmus'

interpretation

of

Romans,

as

described

elsewhere,

is

applicable

to

his

hermeneutics as

a

whole,

die

Platonic

contrast of

flesh

and

spirit,

which

is

rooted

in the nature

of

man

and

the

world.47

Probably

wih

the

help

of

Origen48

and

John

Colet,49

Erasmus

had

already

fused

the

Platonic

understanding

with

Pauline anthropology when he wrote in the Enchiridion (1503):

Plato

puts

two souls

in one man.

Paul

makes two

men

so

glued

together

in

the same man that

the

one cannot exist

without

the

other,

neither

in

glory

nor in

hell,

but

may

be

so

disjoined

that the death of

one

is the

life

of the other.50

Shortly

before

this

statement

he had

commented:

What

the

Philosophers

call

reason,

that

Paul

calls

now

spirit,

now the

inner

man,

now the law of

the

mind. What

they

name

as

the

passions

he

names sometimes flesh, sometimes body, sometimes the outer man, some-

times

the

law

of

our

members.51

This

same

understanding

of the

Pauline

anthropology pervades

his

paraphrase

of

Romans. It is

especially

evident in

his

interpretation

of

the

inner

conflict

of

the self

described

in

Romans 7.

Like

Colet Erasmus

states

that

in order

to make sense

out of Paul's

language

here,

it is

necessary

to

imagine

that there are

two

men

in one man: the

one carnal

and

base,

the

other

purer

and

less

base;

the

one

external,

the

other

internal. For the higher part of man he uses also the terms "mind"

47Payne,

Toward heHermeneutics

f

Erasmus,"

p.

17-49.

4SSee

above,

n.

33,

for

Erasmus'

eferencen the

Enchiridiono

Origen's

ripartite

ivision

of man

in his

Commentary

n

the

Romans.

Like

Origen,however,

rasmus

varies n

the

Enchiridion

etween n

anthropologicalichotomysoul

and

body

or

spirit

nd

flesh).

See

Payne

Toward he Hermeneuticsf

Erasmus," p.

20-22. On

Origen's nthropology

ee

Maurice

F.

Wiles,

The

Divine

Apostle London:

Cambridge

niversity

ress,

1967),

p.

30

ff., sp. p.

32.

49Coletmore

han

any

other

personpassed

on to Erasmus he Florentine latonic

evival.

See

R.

H.

Bainton,

rasmus

f

Christendom

New

York:

Scribner, 969), pp.

59

ff.

nd on Colet

and

Florentine latonism

ee

Sears

Jayne,

ohn

Colet and

Marsilio icino

Oxford:

At the Uni?

versityress,1963). See below for referenceso passages n Colet'sCommentaryn Romans

which

re

to be

compared

ith

rasmus'

araphrase,

n. 52 and

56.

50LB,

V,

16

Ef.

Cf.

Laus

stult.,

B,

IV,

500B.

51LB,

V,

15

f.

10

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

12/36

(mens)

and

"reason"

(ratio);

for

the lower

part,

"passions" (affectus)

and

"evil desire"

(cupiditas)?1

I might point out here that later, during his conflict with Luther,

Erasmus became

more refined

in

his

designation

of

these

terms.

In

the

Hyperaspistae

II

(1527)

he remarks

that

the

concepts

of

the

Philosophers

and

Paul

cannot

be identified.

For the

philosophers

call the

highest

part

of soul not

"spirit"

but

"mind"

or

"reason."

Paul does

not

identify

reason

with

spirit,

but

thinks

of

spirit

as

reason

inspired by grace.53

In the

same

work he

explains

that

in

Scripture

caro

may

signify

merely

that part of the body which covers the bones, or by synecedoche may

refer

to

the

whole

body

or

even

to

humanity.54

Later

in the

Ecclesiastae

(1535),

Erasmus

points

out

that,

when

Paul

refers to

flesh,

he

does

not

always

have

in

mind the

base

passions

but rather

reason

itself or even

the

whole man

insofar as

he

lacks the

spirit

of

Christ.55

Through

a

renewed

study

of

Paul occasioned

by

the debate with

Luther,

Erasmus had

by

1527

apparently begun

to be more

discriminat-

ing

in

his

interpretation

of

the Pauline

anthropology

and

its relation

to

Platonic

categories,

but he did not resolve the conflict between his

Platonic

presuppositions

and

the

findings

of

his

critical,

philological

exegesis.

As in the Enchiridion

Erasmus

emphasizes

in

his

exegesis

of Romans

the

radical

distinction

between the

two

aspects

of

man. The

spiritual

self,

which

he

calls

the

more excellent

(melior) portion

of

the

soul,

recognizes

and

agrees

to

the

just

demands

of

the law and

is

inclined

toward the

good (honesta).

The

lower,

carnal

self,

in

which

the

power

of

sinning

is

inborn,

is inclined toward wickedness. In

this

warfare,

evil

desire,

which entices

to

wickedness,

is more

powerful

than

reason,

which

urges

52LB,

VII,

799F-800A:

"Verum

pportet

uos

in uno me homines

maginariquandoquidem

nunc

docendi

ratia

ersonamuscepi

hominis dhuc

vitiis

t affectibus

bnoxii)

ominemarnalem

et

crassum,

t

hominem

liuin

purioremminusque

rassum.

Illum extemum icere

icet,

nunc

internum."Cf.

/.

Coleti enarratio

n

epistolam

.

Pauli ad

Romanos,

.

146:

"In

qua

re,

ut

Apostoli

ermomelius

ntelligatur,

st

animadvertendum,

uum

honio

constet

x

anima,

quam

Paulus vocat

interiorem

ominem,

t

corpore

enciente, uod

hominis nimal

(uti

Plotinus

vocat)potest

ppellari

.."

53LB,V, 1464AB.

54LB,

X,

1459EF.

55LB, V,

1024BC. Cf. the

brief ddition

f 1527

to the

note on Rom. 8:3:

"Et

ne

legem

videretur

ncusare,

ddidit

per

carnem,

hoc

est,

per

carnalem

egis

intelligentiam,

ive

carnis

infirmitatem,

ui

deerat

vangelica ratia."

B,

VI,

600D.

11

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

13/36

the

good

upon

us.56

Erasmus

does not

assert

that sin

per

se is

present

in

our

flesh,

but

rather the

power,

or,

perhaps

better

translated,

the

potentiality,

of

sinning

and

the inclination

to

sins.

As

he

states

elsewhere,

that is his

understanding

of

original

sin,

or

that

which is derived from

the first

parents.

What

we

inherit from

our

original

parents

is

no

sin

properly

speaking

but

rather

only

an inclination

to

sins.57

Sin,

properly

speaking,

Erasmus wishes

to reserve for

personal,

actual

sins,

which involve the free will.

Therefore,

like

Origen

and

many

of

the

early

Church

Fathers,

Erasmus seeks

to

interpret

as not

negating

free

will

those

phrases

in

Romans

7

which

talk about Paul

in

particular

or man in

general

as

being

"sold

under

sin"

or of

being "captive

to

the

law of

sin."

Like the

Fathers

he

rnentions not

only

the

inclination to

sin

but the

long

habit of

sinning

as

making

us

captive

to sin.58

Similarly,

Erasmus

understands

Romans

5:12 as

referring

not

to

original

sin

in

the

sense

of

an inherited

guilt,

but rather

to

personal

sins

committed

in

free imitation of

the

sin of

Adam.

Upon

this

passage

Erasmus wrote a

long

note

(really

a

discourse)59

in which

his

philological

exegesis

and

patristic

knowledge

came

to

the

aid

of

his

moral

sense.

j

In^

1516 he limits himself to

changing

the

Vulgate

translation of

?

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

14/36

After some

relatively

minor

additions

to

the note

in 1519

and

1527,60

he

greatly

expands

it in

1535,

apparently

to answer

charges

that

in

his

translation

and

interpretation

of this

passage

he

was

providing

aid to

the

Pelagians

and

removing

from

the

Church

one

of its chief

weapons

for

fighting

that

heresy.61

At

great

length

Erasmus

points

out

that he

and

Pelagius

are

not

alone

in

thinking

that

this

passage

can

be

interpreted

to

mean

personal

sins committed

in

imitation

of

Adam

rather

than

original

sin. In

fact,

he

says, Augustine

is

the

only

one of

the

early

Fathers

who

takes

the

position

that

this

passage

must

be

understood

as

applying

to

original

sin

and that

position

he

adopted

only

"after

the

Pelagian

controversy

had heated

up."62

He

mentions

in the first

place

commentaries

of

pseudo-Jerome

(although

he

was

aware that

these

were not

by

Jerome,

he

of

course

did not know the true

identity

of

the

author,

namely

Pelagius)

as

a

clear witness

of

the

understanding

of

this

passage

as

applying

to

personal

sins

in

imitation

of

Adam and

spiritual

death

as

a

consequence

of

individual

sin,

and not

a

corporeal

death

inherited

as

a

consequence

of

Adam's sin.63

He

also cites

at

length

Origen's

interpretation

as

favoring

a

personal

sin

and

a

spiritual

death as its

consequence.64

He

correctly

notes the

ambiguity

of Ambrosiaster's

interpretation,

which is

the

first

clearly

to

link

Rom. 5:12

with

original

sin,

but

which

surrounds

the

statement on

this

verse with lines which seem to

imply

personal

sin

and a

spiritual

death

as

a

result of

one's

own individual

guilt.65

Erasmus

also

correctly

points

out

that

in

Chrysostom's

commentary

on Rom.

5:12

ff.

one

cannot

clearly

read an

original

sin,

though

one

can find

there

the

interpretation

of

an inherited death

of

the

body

without the

mediation

of

personal

sins.66

Thus

does

Erasmus

rightly emphasize

the

60In

1527

he

mentions or

the first

ime

the

interpretation

f

pseudo-Jerome

s

favoring

the

view

that

here

Paul talks bout in

n

imitation

f

the

example

f the

transgression

f Adam.

01LB,

VI,

588E.

See these

pologies

n

behalf

f

his

interpretation

f Romans :12

against

attacks

by

Lee, Beda,

and

Titelmans:

Responsio

d

Notationes

duardi Lei

(1520),

LB,

IX,

214C-F;

Responsio

d Notata

per

N.

Beddam

1526), LB,

IX,

469A-C

(Here

the

attack

s on

his

paraphrase);

Responsio

d

collationes

uiusdam

uvenis Gerontodidascali

1529),

LB,

IX,

984F-93B.

G2LB,

VI,

598B.

G3LB,

VI,

586B.

See

A.

Souter,

elagius's

Expositions

f

Thirteen

pistles

of

St.

Paul,

p.

45

11

ff.

(54LB,VI,

586D-87A.

See

Origen,

n

PG,

1009C-12B.

I

do not

understand

ow Kohls

can

say:

"Die

Anschauung

er Erbsiinde

unachst

at Erasmus

n

bemerkenswerter

bweichung

von Origenes estgehalten,"ie Theologiedes Erasmus, , 154. On Origen'srejection f an

inherited

riginal

in in

favor

f

a

personal

in,

see

Schelkle,

p.

163

f.,

and

Georg

Teichtweier,

Die Sundenlehre

es

Origenes

Regensburg:

.

Pustet,

958),

pp.

96

ff.

G5LB,VI,

587C-E. See

Ambrosiaster,

n

PL,

XVII,

93A-97A,

nd

Schelkle, p.

174

f.

G6LB,VI, 588A-C,

esp.

588C.

See

Chrysostom,

n

PG,

LX,

519

ff.,

nd

Schelkle,

.

170.

13

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

15/36

lack

of

unanimity

of

the

patristic

tradition

in

order to

support

his

translation

and

interpretation

of

this

passage.67

Erasmus follows the same interpretation in his paraphrase. There

he

expresses

already

in

1517

in

more

explicit

language

than

in

any

of

his

notes

before

1535 the

exegesis

that sin

spread

through

mankind

because

men

sinned

in

imitation

of

the

first

parent.68 Although

this

interpretation

is the dominant

one,

Erasmus

defends

himself

from

attack in

his

1535

note

by

emphasizing

that

he

had

provided

the

other

Augustinian

exegesis

as well.

And indeed

in

his

paraphrase

of Romans

5:16

we

do find

the notion

of

original

sin

vaguely

expressed.69

But

this

interpretation

is

outweighed by

the

other,

which he

gives

three

times.

For the

most

part

in

his

paraphrase

Erasmus is

unclear as to

whether Paul in

Romans

5

intends

by

the death

which

spreads

to all

men

from Adam

a

corporeal

death without

personal

mediation or

a

spiritual

death as

a result of

human

sin,

but when

he does

express

himself more

exactly

about

it,

it

is

the death

of

the

soul that he has in

mind. It seems clear that

he thinks in

terms of

a

spiritual

death when

he

says

that

"sin

brought

death

along

as its

companion,

since sin

is

the

poison of the soul."70 Likewise in 1532 he adds to a mention of "death"

in his

comment

on

vs.

21

the

phrase

"animarum,

quae

verissima

mors

est"

(of

souls,

which is

the

most

real

death).71

Erasmus is

also

a little

ambiguous concerning

the

universality

of

sin.

He seems on

the one

hand to stress

it when he

says

that

"no

one

does not

imitate the

example

of

the

first

parent"

and

"the

sin of

one

man was

propagated

to

all his

descendants."72

On

the

other

hand,

67Erasmus ad evenmore

ompany

hanhe realizedfor

according

o

Schelkle,

p.

162-63,

by

far the

majority

f the

GreekFathers

ejected

ither n

original

in or inherited

eath

or

both in their

nterpretations

f Romans 5:12 ff.

Even

among

the Latin

Fathers,Augustine

is

the

only

entirely

nambiguousnterpreter

f both an

original

uilt

nd an

inherited

orporeal

death.

Schelkle,

p.

173-80.

It was his

exegesis

whichwas

determinative

or he

future

n

the

Latin West.

68LB, VII,

793B:

"...

atque

ita

factum

st,

ut

malum

a

principe

eneris

rtum,

n

universam

osteritatem

imanaret,

um nemonon

imitatur

rimi

arentis

xemplum."

f.

Origen,

PG,

XIV,

1018BC.

LB,

VII,

794A:

"Quod

si

tantum aluituna

unius

hominis

ulpa,

ut omnes

mortis

yrannidi

reddert

bstrictos,

t

qui

ad

primi

arentis

xemplumeccabunt

.

."

LB, VII,

794BC:

"Quemadmodum

nim

unus

Adam,

dum

non

obtemperat

raecepto

ei,

plurimos

raxit

n

peccatum

vitae

ransgressionis

mitatores

. ."

69LB,VII, 793E-94A: "Etenim i tantum aluit lle peccandiprinceps,t tantus ominumnumerusb unius

commissa,

morti it obnoxius . .

Siquidem

pernicies

ic est orta,ut unius

peccatum

n

omnes

osteros

ropagaretur,tque

ita tandem

mnes

eddere bnoxios

. ."

70LB, VII,

793B.

71LB,

VII,

794D.

72See above

n.

68.

14

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

16/36

that

view

seems

to be

qualified

when

he

also

states

in

his

paraphrase

of

vs. 19

that ".

.

.

Adam,

at

the

moment

in

which

he

disobeyed

the

divine

commandment,

drew

along very many

(plurimos)

imitators

into

the

sin

of

the

ancestral

transgression."73

To

be

sure,

the

Greek

text here

literally

is

"'many" (o* -rroWoC),

but

Erasmus

surely

did not

think he

was

bound

strictly

to the

text

in a

paraphrase.

Besides

in

verses

15

and

16

when

the

same

word occurs

he had

paraphrased

it

as

"omnes" even

though

his

translation

has

'"multi." In his

note he

comments

that

Origen

thought

that

here

"many"

is

equivalent

to "all" because

the

latter would

better

correspond

to "one"

in

the clause

"For

if

many

died

through

one

man's

trespass,

etc."74

The

explanation

for

his

interpretation

of

aV

rrc>Kr\CK

in v. 19 as

"plurimos"

is that here he was

following

the

patristic

exegesis.

Even

Origen

who had

correctly

understood^/

^^AKtfcin

v.

15

as

equal

to

vv^Wej

here

interprets

it

as

"many,"

and

he

is

followed

by

the

majority

of the

Greek

exegetes

and

by

Ambrosiaster.75

Likewise

Erasmus

follows most

of

the Fathers

in

making

it

clear

that

God

is not the author

of

sin;

that

it is

man's own

responsibility.

Like the

majority

of the

Fathers,

he insists on

interpreting

the

verb

?7?o/

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

17/36

obstinacy

and

malice.79

He

follows

the

exegesis

of

Origen

and

other

later

Fathers which

places

in the

mouth

of

an

imaginary

opponent

verses

18

and 19: "So

then

he

has

mercy upon

whomever

he wills.

You

will

say

to

me

then,

'Why

does

he still

find fault? For

wrho can

resist

his will?'

"80

In the

Treatise on

Free

Will,

where

this verse

receives

an extended

discussion,

Erasmus

again

follows

Origen,

whom he

explicitly

mentions

when

he

interprets

the

passage

on

the

hardening

of Pharoah's

heart

as

necessitating

a

figurative

interpretation,

since it seems

to

contradict

the

goodness

of God

and

the

freedom

of

the will. The

interpretation

of

Origen

is

in the

words

of

Erasmus

that:

An

occasion of hardening was given by God, but

he would throw

back the

blame

on

Pharoah, who,

by

his evil

deeds,

was

made

more

obstinate

through

those

things

which

should

have

brought

him to

repen-

tance, just

as

by

the action of the

same

rain cultivated

land

brings

forth

excellent

fruit

and

uncultivated

land,

thorns and thistles and

just

as

by

the

action

of the

same

sun,

wax melts

and

mud

hardens,

so the

forbearance

of God that

tolerates

the

sinner

brings

some

to

repentance

and

makes

others

obstinate in

wrongdoing.81

On the

relation

of

the

law

to

sin Erasmus

emphasizes

like the

Fathers that the

"law is not the

author

but

the

revealer

of

sin."82

Follow?

ing Origen and perhaps Augustine, Erasmus mentions that the prohibi-

tion

awakens the

desire

to

sin.83

As to

the

law

as

such,

Erasmus

seems

to think

that with the

exception

of

chapters

one

and

two,

where

Paul

talks

about

the

natural

law,

the

law that

Paul has in

mind

throughout

is

the law

of

Moses.84

He

constantly

adds

to

the term

"law" the

modifier,

"of Moses"

or

"Mosaic."

In

fact,

in

one

place

in

chapter

one where it

was

absent

in

the

early

editions

he

adds

it

in

1523.85

79LB,

VII,

808A:

"necque

enim

deus

ndurat

nimos

ominum,

uo

minus

redant

vangelio

Christi,

ed eorum

pertinacia, ui

suapte

malitia

recusant

redere,

butitur

d

illustrandam

beneficii

ui

magnitudinem

c

declarandam

otentiae

uae

gloriam

.

.

Voluntati ei

nemo

resistit,

erum

llius

voluntas

on est

tibi

causa

exitii."

For

the

similar

iews of

Origen

nd

other

athers,

ee

Schelkle,

p.

341-42,

345-46.

80Cf.

Origen,

PG,

XIV,

1144 and De

principiis ,

1

7-14.

In

Hyperaspistate

I,

he

refers o

Origen, erome,

heophylact,

nd

Chrysostom

s

giving

his

exegesis. LB,

X,

1418-20.

See

Schelkle,

p.

341 ff. or

eferenceso these nd

other atherswho favored

his

nterpretation.

81LB, IX,

1230C.

Translated

y

E.

Gordon

Rupp

in

collaboration

ith A.

N.

Marlow,

Luther nd Erasmus: ree

Will

and

Salvation,

ibrary f

Christian

lassics, Philadelphia:

West-

minster

ress,

1969), XVII,

65.

Origen,

De

principiis,II, 1,

10. Cf.

Walker

"Origene

n

France,"

pp.

116 f.

In

the

De

servo

rbitrio

uther

xpresslyejects

his

tropological

nterpre?

tation fOrigen. W. A., XVIII, 702-9.

82LB,

VII, 798E;

Schelkle, p.

232 ff.

83LB,

VII,

798B. Cf.

LB, VI,

596F: "Hoc

loco

(Rom.

7:5)

qua

non

refert

eccata,

ed

passiones,

ut

inte}ligas

egem

excitasse

eccandi

ibidinem."

84LB,

VII,

799A.

Cf.

Origen,

G,

XIV

1081C;

and

Augustine,

xpositio uarundam roposi-

tionum

x

epistola

d

Romanos,

7-39,

cited

from

chelkle, .

236.

85LB,

VII,

780A.

16

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

18/36

What is

especially

striking

about

his

understanding

of the law

is

his

application

to

it

of

the familiar distinction

between

flesh

and

spirit.

In

one

passage

he

expressly

connects

his

flesh-spirit

anthropology

to his

interpretation

of

the

law:

Just

as

(as

we

have

said)

there is in

one

man,

as it

were,

two

men,

a

carnal one and a

spiritual

one,

so

in

the one law

of

Moses

there

are

two

laws,

the

one base

and

carnal,

the other

spiritual.

That first

part

of the

law has Moses

as

its

author,

and,

as it is not

perpetual,

it is

scarcely

effective

or

accomplishing

salvation.

The

other

part

is

spiritual,

effective,

and

powerful

and immortalwhich Christ as another Moses

fulfilledfor

us.86

By

the

carnal

part

of

the

law

Erasmus

has

in

mind

especially

the

part dealing with ceremonies.87 Even though in the passage just quoted

he describes

the

one law of Moses

as

having

both

carnal and

spiritual

aspects,

his

usual

practice

is

simply

to

identify

Mosaic law with

the

ceremonial law.88

The

special

mark

of

the

Jew

for Erasmus

is

that he

places

his

trust

in

the

ceremonies of

the

law,

especially

in

circumcision.89

These, however,

were

only temporary

shadows and

images

of the

light

and truth to come.

Since

the advent

of Christ

the

ceremonial

law has

been

entirely

abolished,

or,

as

Erasmus

put

it: "After

Christ,

who

is

the

truth,

appeared,

the whole

law of Moses

has

been

abrogated

as

far

as the letter

is

concerned."90

Therefore,

Erasmus

emphasizes

that,

according

to

Paul,

the

Christian

is

entirely

freed

from

the

law of

Moses,91

that

he

has

nothing

more

to

86LB,

VII,

800

F-1A.

Erasmus efends

his

tatement

gainst

Beda twice:Ad not.

per

N.

Beddam

n

paraphr.

n

Paulum

1526), LB,

IX, 470BC,

and

Supput.

rrorum

.

Beddae

(1527),

LB, IX,

668F-69B.

He

supports

is

view

that

there

are,

as

it

were,

two

laws

in

the one

law

by

pointing

ut

that all

the

Church

Fathers ikewise

made such

a

distinction.

rasmus

quotesas Jerome's hat are actuallywordsof Origen: Puto tamenquod legemMosi et hic,

sicut et

in

aliis

saepe

diximus,

n duas

partes

Apostolus

ividat,

t

aliud

in ea

carnem,

liud

spiritum

ominet,

t

illam

quidem

observantiam,uae

secundum

eritur

ensum

arnis

ppellet,

sicut dicit

de huiusmodi

udaeis,

frustra

nflatos ensu carnis

uae: illam

vero,

quae accipitur

spiritualiter,piritum

ominat,

icut

et

alibi

dicit:

Littera

ccidit, piritus

utem

vivificat,

tc."

PG,

XIV

1094.

Cf.

Paraphr

n Gal.

(1519) 4:29, LB,

VII,

959D:

"Nam

huiusmodi erme

st

lex

Mosaica,

ut

quemadmodum

n

homine,

ub crasso

corporis

perculo

atet animus

corporis

moderator,

t

sub historia

enitius

uiddam,

c

sublimius

egatur;"

nd

ibid.,5:16,

LB, VII,

964A.

See

Auer,pp.

171

and

247,

n.

329,

and

Kohls,

Die

Theologie

es

Erasmus, I, 116,

n.

501.

Kohls denies Auer's

nterpretation

f an

anthropological

ase

of Erasmus'

concept

f the law

in

spite

of the Galatians

passage

quoted

above.

He

things

hat t

is

".

. .

in

doch offen-

sichtlich ur

bildlicher

ede."

He does

not take into account

he Romans

paraphrase

nd the

answers

o Beda

which

further

upport

Auer's

position,

hough

Auer himself

oes

not

mention

thesereferences.

87LB, VII, 780A,790BC.

88LB,

VII,

780A.

89LB, VII, 788A,

D.

90LB, VII,

798BC.

91LB, VII,

780B.

17

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

19/36

8/20/2019 3003690.pdf

20/36

rejection

of all

"works"

righteousness,100

is

interpreted by

Erasmus

as

set

over

against

ceremonial

rightousness only101

The contrast

between

faith

or faith's

righteousness

and

ceremonies

or

ceremonial

rightousness

is a

recurring

theme

throughout

both his

summary

of PauFs

argument

which

prefaces

the

paraphrase

and

the

paraphrase

itself.102

In a

note

of

1516

on

Romans

9:32,

Erasmus

makes

a

revealing

comment

on his

acceptance

of the

reading

which adds

fo/iiit'to

?

f

??

b*-^

/

against

the

Vulgate

and

Origen

as

well

as the best

Greek

manuscripts.

Paul

had said

in

verses 30

and

21

(my

translation

of Erasmus'

translation):

Because

the

Gentiles,

who

did

not

pursue

the law

of

righteousness,

obtained righteousness, hatrighteousness,however,which is based on faith.

On the

contrary,

srael,

who

pursued

the law

of

righteousness,

did

not

attain

the

law of

righteousness.

Why?

Because

they

pursued

it as if it

were

based not

on

faith

but

on

works of

the

law.10,3

In

his

note

he

says

that "the

Greek

adds

v*c>M-Cu?

of

the

law,'

that

one

may

take it

to

mean

'ceremonies'."

In

1527,

however,

he

changes

the

note

to

read "that

one

may

take

it

to mean

works

lacking

in

faith

and

charity."

In

other

words,

he seems

to

broaden

the

range

of

works

that

are

to

be

branded

as

legalistic

beyond

those that are

merely

ceremonial.

It cannot be fully determined whether he has been somewhat influenced

by

Luther

here

or whether

through

renewed

study

of Paul he

has

come

to

think that

the

Apostle

must

have

meant

more

by

works

of

the

law

than

simply

ceremonial

works,

or

whether,

as is

likely

with

certain

changes

in

the

paraphrase,

he intends

to

be

conciliatory

toward

Protes-

tants

in

spite

of

his

break

with

Luther.

In

any

case

he

does not

change

those

passages

in

the

paraphrase

which state

clearly

that

the

legal

righteousness

repudiated

by

Paul

is

ceremonial

righteousness.

His view here was

influenced without

doubt

by Origen

and Am?

brosiaster. In

his

commentary,

as

translated

by

Rufinus,

Origen

had

stated:

lOOCommentary

n the

Psalms,

V.

A.,

111, 74;

Luther:

ectures

n

Romans,

d. and

trans.

W.

Pauck,Library

f

Christian

lassics,

Philadelphia:

Westminster

ress,1961),

XV,

18.

101

B,

VII,

781B:

"Cum

enim

ntehac

liis

in

rebusalii sitam

esse

iustitiam

xistimarent,

nunc

Evangelio

Christi

alam

fit

omnibus

ustitia,

on

Mosi sed

ipsius

Dei,

quae

non

sit

in

superstioso

ultu

imulacrorum,

ut

legalibus

udaeorum

eremoniis,

ed ex fide