The Scholarship to the readers of in English a Dickinson College. These papers fol- of Erasmus small part of the fruit of those low in this issue, with the exception of meetings. Dr Metzger's lecture, which is not In May 1984, the Collected Works of While afternoons were spent in available for publication. Erasmus sponsored a Conference in working seminars on particular tex- While each paper shows a quite Toronto on the New Testament schol- tual and other problems, each of the distinct problematic and theme, there arship of Erasmus. Our purpose was two days began with an open Session is common orientation in what mustbe to bring together the scholars who of two papers. The first, on The Bible the central issue for any investigation were actively at work on that part of in an Age of Controversy,' was of Erasmus' biblical scholarship: What the CWE, some nearing completion of addressed by Bruce Metzger of the exactly was his purpose? What did he their assignments, some still only in Princeton Theological Seminary and hope to achieve? We trust that you the first stages. In every instance, by Henk Jan de Jonge of the Univer- will find the following pages äs they were engaged in closely-related sity of Amsterdam (now at Leiden absorbing to read äs they were to problems derived from the New Testa- University). The second day's open hear. ment scholarship of Erasmus, his session was devoted to the theme, Annotations, his Paraphrases, and of 'Rhetoric and Theology in Erasmus' James K. McConica, CSB course, his translation and Greek text. Biblical Scholarship,' and was ad- Chairman The result was a meeting of remark- dressed by John J. Bateman of the Editorial Board, CWE able interest for participants and University of Illinois (Champagne- auditors alike. We are pleased to bring Urbana), and Robert D. Sider of

The Relationship of Erasmus' on the Greek text, that is, using it äs argument Erasmus advanced5 in the Translation of the New Testament to the authoritative grammatical norm defence of his new translation - the that of the Pauline Epistles by for establishing the meaning of the Apologia which he prefixed to his Lefevre d'Etaples biblical text. However, a considerable Novum Instrumentum of 1516 and to all portion of the New Testament - the its later editions - was identical to the HENK J. DE JONGE epistles of Paul - had already ap- only argument Lefevre had adduced peared prior to Erasmus' edition in a in justification of his translation: it In 1516 Erasmus published the first new translation made by the could by no means be construed äs a edition of his Latin version of the New French humanist Jacques Lefevre threat to 's Bible translation Testament. Although this version was d'Etaples (c 1455-1536) and published since the was not his version, a thorough revision of the traditional at Paris in 1512.2 Lefevre's translation and the text of Jerome's translation Vulgate with the help of Greek manu- of the Pauline epistles was the direct had been lost.6 Moreover, Erasmus scripts rather than an entirely fresh predecessor of Erasmus' translation of concluded his Apologia with the translation, it was the first published the whole New Testament, and there words: 'If I am not mistaken, the very Latin version of the entire New can be no doubt that Lefevre's work result of my work will show that it was Testament rivalling that contained in was among the factors prompting neither without good reason, nor the Vulgate.1 For a thousand years the Erasmus to publish a new translation without benefit that I have engaged Latin Vulgate had been the Bible of the entire New Testament. In 1515, upon the study of the New Testament generally known and used in Western when the Louvain theologian Maar- after Lorenzo Valla, to whom this Europe. Now there was, at least for ten van Dorp, fearing that Erasmus' branch of literature does not owe very the New Testament, a competitive translation would endanger the au- much, and Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, Latin translation. The importance of thority of the Vulgate, tried to dis- the champion of all virtue and letters, Erasmus' new version lies in the fact suade Erasmus from publishing it, had done their work.'7 In short, when that it made the New Testament Erasmus defended his plan by refer- Erasmus was working on his transla- accessible to many readers in a clearer, ring to the precedent set by Lefevre: tion of the New Testament in the years purer, more understandable, more Lefevre, Erasmus alleged, had al- 1512-1516, he was certainly familiär classical Latin than that of the Vul- ready 'altered a great many passages with the translation of the Pauline gate, which was written in the some- [in the Vulgate] which had been epistles made by Lefevre d'Etaples. what obscure idiom of fourth-century corrupted or wrongly translated.'3 In view of Erasmus' acquaintance ecclesiastical Latin. Moreover it was Indeed, Lefevre had 'translated the with Lefevre's translation, one may the first modern translation of the Pauline epistles in his own manner.'4 ask whether it influenced his own. I New Testament systematically based It cannot be coincidence that the first have already devoted some attention to this question in a recent article,8 but taking my departure from a date for Erasmus' translation that is now rec- ognized äs erroneous. I take this N opportunity to pose the question O anew and to arrive at a more satisfac- tory answer. There are indeed a striking number of agreements between Erasmus' and Lefevre's translations of the Pauline epistles. In a single chapter, chosen at random (Hebrews 9), I counted no Domim noitn IHESV \ mo cgo um no cgo: fewer than 48 deviations from the CHRj|,Tllcngan|n»-- S'iuit vcro i mc CHRI Vulgate which Erasmus and Lefevre tatcm. faltitc arbitramu/i. S T ^ S,q>aurcm nuc Λακ & dsledus frater vuo in carne: m fide iiet PaulusUccunduro da- have in common. Until recently it was viuofihtdeit impossible to attribute these coinci- dences to Lefevre's influence, since all the readings in which Erasmus agrees with Lefevre and differs from the Vulgate also occur in a manuscript 1.67. .. u.los. copy of Erasmus' translation and the ·. 14.156. Jl.lft, Latin Vulgate in parallel columns 16.1 dated 1506.9 On the basis of the 4ο, Tpiftola pria adThcl&lomc, 46, ι s 5 colophons of this and of other manu- Fpdiih Icita ad Thcralonic. 48,197 scripts containing both the Vulgate l-piilftiaprimaadTirnothcß. yo.tcr, EpiftoiaiccudaadTimüthcü, f j,&i.f, and Erasmus' Latin version of the i-piftola ad Ticuni. 5^.119, New Testament, it was generally £pil}ola adPhiiemoncm. y7.tif, £pirto!a ad Hcbrxos, 5S.tjo. assumed that Erasmus had completed : adtcfla in teil ι gen tu c his translation in the years 1505 /1506, when he was in England. In a ΓριΙΚΙ.ι ad Laoducnks. iS8, masterly article published in the sum- ϊ pifiols: adScnccamfcx. n<5, Comctanoru libri cjuatuordeci. 67. mer of 1985, however, Andrew Brown Lin? depaiiiöc Γ«π& t'Juh. ifij.iöi proved conclusively that the colo- phons in question do not pertain to ---. _;_ the whole content of the manuscripts in which they occur and which in- clude Erasmus' translation, but only to the text of the Vulgate.10 Erasmus' translation was not included in these manuscripts until the 15205, when it i Title-page ofjacobus Faber Stapulensis Contenta. Epistola ad Rhomanos etc. was copied from a printed edition of f the Epistles ofPaul in two Latin versions, the Vulgate and Lefevre's ownfresh translation, Erasmus' New Testament. Conse- with Lefevre's commentary on them] Paris: H. Estienne 1512 (first edition). Courtesy quently, there is no reason to suppose of the Athenaeumbibliotheek, Deventer. any longer that Erasmus completed his Latin translation äs early äs 15057 possible that Erasmus borrowed some passage which Erasmus translated in 1506. In fact he did not begin prepara- of Lefevre's ideas.'" such a way äs to show undeniably tions until 1512." This means that his The question remains, however, that he adopted a rendering already translation is not earlier, but later than whether this hypothesis can be dem- given by Lefevre? Is there any word that of Lefevre, for the first edition of onstrated. In other words: is there any in Erasmus' translation which can be the latter's translation was published reading in Erasmus' translation that demonstrated to have been chosen about Christmas 1512. Consequently, cannot be accounted for except in because he had found it in the it can no longer be ruled out that in terms of Lefevre's influence? From translation of Lefevre? working on his translation during the Erasmus' Annotationes in Novum Testa- A renewed evaluation of the 48 years 1512 to 1516, Erasmus occasion- mentum we know that he criticized deviations from the Vulgate which ally consulted Lefevre's version and and explicitly rejected Lefevre's Erasmus and Lefevre share in adopted some readings from it. As renderings of at least six passages in Hebrews 9 has not changed my view Andrew Brown put it: 'It is entirely the epistles.13 But is there any Pauline that the coincidences between the two deviations from the Vulgate, his trans- Col. VII Ή lation of 1516 turns out to agree with CWLCATA AEDTTIO. CEP1» Lefevre's version of 1512. Among STOLA BEATIS . PAVL.I ΛΡΟ» these agreements are instances such STOLt AD COLOSSENSES. A Aulusa« äs the following: pcftoius 1HESV Vulgate Erasmus l Lefevre CHRI» STI per v. 7 charissimo dilecto l ? ". ί'.."ί .«'· ,·' . · . r 16 condita creata Φ •vi."-^Ur:.,:. 17 ante omnes ante omnia ^ ^1;^;Λ?< ·, ·· , ; >: : ;: 1 1 22 coram ipso in conspectu suo uf;' /.•. ','--;.,·.r ..V". Λ.··.··- ·;: 28 corripientes admonentes ii^··^:;:.; The füll list of agreements between tn€HRlSTO' gratiavobisß: buiiCHRISTO IHESV/ gratia voljis Sc pa\ a dco patrc n?o, cifäs Erasmus 1516 and Lefevre 1512 is of • " · " '· ' a{;imus dco & patn dm nofln IHESV pro vobis orantcs cti audnnm? impressive length and grows longer in ΓΙ,"^ ,/!.".. (^'if1 1*5*1" Ο ΐΐ Ϊ1 CHRISTI/icpet pvobis orätcs'aiidie*

V ' l .. tes fidcvcftia m CHRISTO 1HLSV/ later editions of Erasmus' New Testa- K dilcftione quä habctis t fäcios occ, pi o« ment. But on closer investigation c- -. purer, more classical Latin ganunitatc.cum gaudio gratlas 15 agcnrespatn quitic» luHeotm Vg Erasmus and Lefevre partcm lotlis Ιαηβοπιιη m In« ininc. qut libcraurt nos ex po« 6 vniuerso toto Er, totum Lef tci.atc rcncbrarum. & tranrtutit C^ni enpuit nos de potciiatc tencbrai u'&Z g orantes orare m regnum fiIM ddalloms, fuv. " · * * " träftulit ircgriü filij dilcciionis fuar.In quo habem^redemptionc &; rcmiflionc pccca- 16 in coelis quae in coelis (+ torü.Qjjieftunagodciiuiübilisiprimogc» sunt Er] in terra quae in terra 20 ipsum se 22 eius suae exhibere vt + subjunctive 28 corripientes admonentes (in 2 ]acobus Faber Stapulensis Contenta ..., Paris: H. Estienne 1512, fol. 4.3 recto: accordance with the beginning ofPaul's Epistle to the Colossians (1:1-15). Courtesy of the Erasmus' rendering of nouthetein in Rom Athenaeumbibliotheek, Deventer. 15:14; i Cor 4:14 and 2 Thess 3:15). Cf category 2, at v 28. translators in this chapter do not other from Lefevre cannot be entirely 29 In quo Ad quod prove Lefevre's influence on excluded, but the agreements be- Erasmus. They all admit of another tween the two translators may all be 2 Dependence on the same exegetical sources satisfactory explanation and can be owing to their common basic objective or traditions16 accounted for in one of the following and methods of improving the Vg Erasmus and Lefevre terms: the two translators' adherence Vulgate. 7 charissimo dilecto 17 to the same Standards of correct In the hope of bringing the problem (Ambrosiaster) humanistic Latin or to the same at issue closer to a solution, I have 11 claritatis gloriae (Ambrosiaster) 16 condita creata (Ambrosiaster principles of translation; their follow- examined Erasmus' and Lefevre's 18 translations of another chapter and Valla). Cf ing a Greek reading different from the category 5, at v 16. one underlying the translation given chosenatrandom, Colossians i. In his 17 ante omnes ante omnia in the Vulgate; their being indebted to 1516 edition Erasmus altered the (Ambrosiaster's the same exegetical sources or tradi- Vulgate text of this chapter 103 times. commentary runs: 14 tions. True, the possibility that In 32 of these changes, that is, in 31 'antequam fierent Erasmus borrowed some rendering or per cent of the total of Erasmus' omnia natus est') 22 coram ipso in conspectu suo (Ambrosiaster) EPI. 27 notas notum (Valla) rutus omnis cieaturic.quoniam m ipfo co* iiiftisomni crcamra, ηϋαίιρΓο ditafimtvnmafa mccxiii» & m ton atufib!* creata lunt onuu j quie m cccin diuitias quae sint diuitiae β. qur m tcrra: vilibilia & mm« lia&iuifibili.i Suiethiom futednationcs/ Jibtlia, liuc rhrcmi iiuc donuna-· (Ambrosiaster, whom fiuc pnncipatus fiuc potcllarcs omniaper Er says he is following ipfum &* in ipfocieatafunt. L'tipfcdlan' „ tconmcs:& omma mipfocölUnt. hupfe ix. yiiaita in ψΐυ LunUiteriini, here; and Valla: quae eil uiput corpons ccclciia:qui cü pncipiu/ ft. iplc eil caput ecctcfis;? qui dl pimcipiüi pnmogcmtusGxmor diuitiae) pinnogcmtus c\ mortuism liti ommbus tuis/ \tipic fit in omnibus pm sacramenti mysterii ipfcpiimatü tcncns.quiainipfo complaf nur omnci« plcmtudinc mhabitare: & per (Ambrosiaster and £um rccuncilun oninia in tpfo paahcans Valla). Cf category 5, pc» fjngumcm ciuas aus, fiucqua m tcr- i · , " »'.l. l ' i ' - iss fjucqua inc fadialicm ßcinimiciimcliigsn 28 corripientes admonentes (Er iibus malisirtuncautc icconaliauitiiicoi* ti,tmopenbusmahs nunccer* ροιε aums aus permoucm eshibcre vos tc rccociiiautc in corporecarnts explicitly says he is fu£ per mortein % t coibtqqt vos following here lancioi K imauilatos St m cpfajicnfibiles ianctos & imacuiatos & itrcptz ,-..Γ.Γ.·... ;-,... .·,· :.,.!. f.,. hcnfibiks in cunfpcäu luo ti ta Ambrosiaster' s \ li. . · . \ :·. .· ι . ijvii ..·ι.·ι , nie pcrmanctis m fide fundani ߣ ürmt & tmoti a Ipc euangcli) 'monentes'). Cf quod audiftfs Ljuodpricdicaiijiii p im fa crcatura qua fub ccclo cft. Cuius fas eftiomii! crcatura£|UKfub cos* category i, at v 28. flus fum cgo paulus mmiilcr:qui nunc Ιο cft, Cuius cgo Paulus faäus 1 fum mtnincr.nuc gaudco m paf gaudco m palTiontbus pi o vobü, & adim* fionibus provobis & uceeius 3 Adoption of a Greek reading different from pko ca tjua. defunt pairionum CHRI* impieu q dciunt prdTura: CHR1 STI ι carncmea^) corpore ei? the one translated m the Vulgate ST1/ mcaine xuea piocoipoic cius quod quod eil ecclcfia.ctiius cgo mtnt Erasmus and Lefevre cft rtciefia. Cuius facius ium cgo inmjilcr ftcr faäus fmii fccundüm difpcn ieamduoi difpcnfationemdei/qua: data fationcm deuqiia; data ert michi 1 advos.vt unpicam fcnnoncm 2 lesu^ om eit michi in s obiüv t implcam v ci bum dal f da tn) ftcnümoccuiiumafstca* 4 quam habetis om (Byzantine text) mv Ou mm quod abfcondmim fiut a faxti- I \ ,'- -i'. ' ^ .. ί .,..'? in K' £,cnaationibus/nücaiitcmanifeflatu 7 didicistis et didicistis V' ' * ^ · · « 1 eftlacbs emi.quibui voluit dcu.s notas fa- 1 ! .' l !·( i;' l - ."'. °TI- h·.! Ϊ (Byzantine text) cere diuinai glonafaa amenn huius in gc •l l'.' :·.:'··.'., l 'l Π·, ί ΙΊΛ lesu om tibusiqdcft CHRISTVS/mvobis Ipcs i i.:·.·.:, ^i ' ' ;······<·". glona/quem noi annüaauiinustcoiripien nuncianms adinonentcs omne 12 om honwnem & ducentes omnan Deo tcs omnem hommrm K doccntes m omm hommcni/m omni iapjenria. VE coihtuarnus oninem hoinmcm 27 quod est qui est fapicnua, vt cxhibeamus amnc hommcra pcrfcäuram CHRIiTOIHI* perfeöum m CHRISTO IHKSV : m S V.ad quod & laboro ccrtäi fe* quoÄ laboro/ ccrtädofecüdum opcratio- cüdum operationetn etus quam The changes introduced in verses 2, 7 A wem cius/quam opciatur m me in virtutc» operatur in mc m poteftate. Vosautcmfcircvellem:qualecer* ^ (latter item), 12 and 27 can be regarded V olo cnim vos fcire quäle follicitudmem ha- tarnen habeamprovobis^ Äljs bcamprovobisS: proijs qui funtLaodi» 9 Laodiciaeftint/arqi ijs qtucucg äs text-critical improvements. In axili quioinq; nö viderunt faciem meam verses 4 and 7 (f ormer item), however, in carneivc confolentur cotda ipforü mflru Erasmus adopted inferior, Byzantine <äf ι chautatc/& m omnes diuitias plenitu« mbus dmmjs plcnarw ceratu» readings in preference to the superior traditional readings of the Vulgate. Here we are confronted with one of the serious drawbacks of Erasmus' Latin translation of the New Testa- ment, a drawback generally over- 3 Jacobus Faber Stapulensis Contenta ..., Paris: H. Estienne 1512, fol. 43 verso: looked by writers on the subject, the Colossians 1:15 - 2:2. Courtesy of the Athenaeumbibliotheek, Deventer. systematic introduction of Byzantine readings in the place of superior readings preserved (albeit in transla- 2:2 'mysterii,' 4:3 tion) in the Vulgate.19 On account of 24 Qui om (the Greek has 'mysterium') this sytematic confusion of different no equivalent to 'Qui') branches of the textual tradition, 6 A striving for a clearer, more expressive, Erasmus' translation must be regard- more adequate rendering of the Greek into Latin ed, from a point of textual criticism, äs 5 A striving for a more consistent Vg Erasmus and Lefevre (i.e. 'concordant') translation a monster. audientes a conjunction + Vg Erasmus and Lefevre audiuimus 4 A striving for doser agreement with the 16 condita creata (with in (sanctos erga (omnes Greek text Ambrosiaster and omnes) sanctos) Vg Erasmus and Lefevre Valla, cf category 2; see v 15 'creaturae' 4 sanctos omnes omnes sanctos Let us look somewhat closer at these (pantas tous and v 16 end 'creata') last two instances. In Col. 1:4, hagious) 27 sacramenti mysterii (with Lefevre has 'cum audiuimus,' Eras- quae reposita repositam Ambrosiaster and est (apokeimenen) Valla, cf category 2; mus 'quoniam audiuimus.' Both ex- 20 terris terra (tes ges) see v 26 'mysterium,' pressions mean 'since we have heard.' The Vulgate reads 'audientes/ that is, explamed äs a result of the translators' siae lumen Hierony mum, et quam nobiscum 'Hearing ' This present participle does pursumg a common objective based ipse suggillat, carpit et coarguit et quam veterem et vulgatam appellat aeditionem not render adequately the implica- on the same presuppositions, the ( Many people may be surpnsed that we tions of the Greek aorist participle same methods, and the same exegeti- have ventured to add a rendenng of the akousantes ('havmg heard'), at least cal tools None of these agreements is Greek to Jerome's translation They may not by the Standards of correct classi- demonstrably the result of Lefevre's regard this äs too gross an msolence and cal and humamstic Latin Both Lefev- mfluence on Erasmus So far, there- condemn me for, rather than accuse me of tementy and impudence But we do not re and Erasmus feit the need to fore, nothing warrants the conclusion blame them for this For their reaction express the relationship between the that Lefevre's translation has would be justified if the matter stood äs participle akousantes and the mam verb affected Erasmus' wordmg mey suppose it Stands and äs very many Euchanstoumen ('We thank') more pre- Contmued research may bring to people are already convinced it Stands cisely by translatmg the participle äs a light the evidence sought m vam in However they will gladly forgive us once they fully understand that we have under subordmate clause '(We thank God the present contnbution Such re- taken nothing agamst the translation of ) smce we have heard of the love search, however, will have to observe Samt Jerome, but agamst the widely used you have ' This type of correction of strictly the prmciple that no coinci- edihon daüng back to long before Jerome, the Vulgate, introduced for the sake dence between the translation of that blessed and glonous light of the of greater clanty and precision, is Lefevre and Erasmus can be accepted church He himself censures and cnticizes it and shows it to be wrong, just hke we do, quite common m Erasmus' translation, äs proof of a direct dependence, if calling it the old and widely known nothing betrays the mfluence of Le- such a comcidence can be explamed edihon ) fevre m this specific case, especially äs the result of their common objec- 7 Holborn p 174, lines 1-5 smce the two translators used differ- tives, their common approach, or their 8 H J de Jonge The Character of Erasmus ent conjunctions common tools Translahon of the N T ' Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14 (1984) pp 81-87 As to their common reading 'erga' in 9 See P S Allen Opus Epistolarum Des Erasmi heu of 'm' m v 4, the same alteration NOTES i Desidenus Erasmus Novurn Instrumentum Roterodarm vol 2 (Oxford Clarendon Press was mtroduced by Erasmus m v 20, (Basel Proben 1516) On the character of 1910) p 182, J B Trapp Pieter Meghen where he changed 'in ipsum' to 'erga Erasmus' version of the New Testament, see 1466/7-1540 Scnbe and Courier Erasmus se ' Both expressions mean '(to recon- Erika Rummel Erasmus äs a Translator of the m Enghsh 11 (1981/82) pp 28-35, see p 30 Classics (Toronto University of Toronto Press no 4, H Gibaud lln inedit d Erasme (Angers cile) to himself/ but the latter is more Moreana 1982) pp 14-19 and 531 expressive and less ambiguous than 1985) chapter 5 pp 89-102 2 Jacobus Faber Stapulensis Contenta Epistola 10 Andrew J Brown 'The Date of Erasmus the former, if we assume that the ad Rhomanos, etc (Paris H Estienne 1512, Lahn Translation of the New Testament corresponding Greek pronoun auton revised reprmt, Paris H Estienne 1515, Transactwns of the Cambridge Btbltographical is a reflexive here and refers to the 2nd edition, Paris F Regnault and J de la Society 8 (1984) pp 351-80 subject of 'reconciliare ' But in v 20 Porte 1517) 11 I take it that the words castigatio (Ep 264, Lefevre retamed 'in/ so that Erasmus 3 Erasmus Ep 326, lines 89-90 permulta Ime 13) and collatio (Ep 270, üne 58) refer to a mutauit vel deprauata vel male reddita revision of the Vulgate, that is, to the cannot have borrowed 'erga' m that 4 Erasmus Ep 337, lines 860-61 'Faber earhest stages of Erasmus preparation of verse from Lefevre Nor is there, Paulmas duntaxat epistulas suo more his Lahn version of the New Testament in consequently, any need to regard vertat' 1512 and 1513 For the grounds of this view, 'erga' m v 4 äs a change owmg to 5 Erasmus Apologta, m H and A Holborn see H J de Jonge, 'The Date and Purpose Lefevre edd Des Erasmus Roterodamus Ausgewählte of Erasmus's Castigatio Novi Testamenti' in Werke (München C H Beck 1933) p 165, A C Diomsoth, A Grafton, J Kray edd lines 26-31 ' reor hanc noui testamenti The Uses of Greek and Latin Histoncal Essays Condusion editionem (sc Vulgatam) Hieronymi non (London Warburg Inshtute 1988) esse ' (Ί believe that this edition of the NT 12 Brown 'The Date' p 380, n 59 When Erasmus was preparmg his [the Vulgate] is not the one made by 13 This applies to Lefevre's rendenng of Rom translation of the New Testament in Jerome ') This view had already been 8 33, i Cor 5468 and 12 28 2 Cor 8 9 and defended by Valla Hebr 2 7 Erasmus discussed Lefevre s the penod 1511/12 to 1516, he certamly 6 Lefevre d'Etaples, prefatory letter to his translation of all these passages in his knew and consulted the Latin transla- edition of Paul's epistles (1512) 'Nonnulli Annotationes of 1516 tion of the Pauline epistles published eham forte mirabuntur non parum quod ad 14 Cf de Jonge The Character of Erasmus' by Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples in 1512 tralahonem Hieronymi mtelligentiam Translahon of the N T ' p 83 Although the possibility cannot be graecam aducere ausi fuenmus, id nimis 15 The Vulgate will be quoted here from insolenter factum arbitrantes et me temeri- Lefevre's first edihon of the Pauline ruled out that Erasmus occasionally tatis et audaciae non tarn accusabunt quam epistles (1512) which contams the Vulgate borrowed a word or phrase from damnabunt Quibus nichil succensemus, and his own translation side by side in Lefevre's translation, it has not yet nam mste id quidem facerent, si ita res parallel columns Smce in some cases been demonstrated that he actually haberet, vt et ipsi coniectant et lam quam several Impulses may have been at work did so 2° The agreements between plunmis est persuasum Verum nos bona simultaneously, there is some overlap be- venia dignabuntur cum plane intelligent tween the categones The agreements Erasmus' and Lefevre's translations nos ad säen Hieronymi tralahonem nichil between Erasmus and Lefevre in Colos- are numerous, but those occurrmg in ausos, sed ad vulgatam aedihonem, quae sians i will be enumerated exhaushvely Hebrews 9 and Colossians i can all be longe fuit ante beatum et glonosum eccle- 16 I shall restnct myself to two authonhes which Lefevre and Erasmus certamly had he first had the idea of 'explaining by composed with rhetorical intentions ready at hand, Ambrosiaster and Valla means of a paraphrase the genuine by their author s. Enhancing this Several other sources could be mentioned epistles of Paul.'2 The idea struck him rhetorical Intention and adapting it to 17 The 4th-century pseudo-Ambrosian com- mentary on Paul's epistles which owes its äs 'a bold, naughty, and risky ven- the immediate needs of his own attnbuhon to 'Ambrosiaster' to Frasmus ture' (and the more delightful for that contemporary audience would simply See Ambrosiaster Commentanus m Eptstulas reason?). He recounts how after mak- be fulfilling the divine purpose of the Paulmas III, ed H I Vogels (CSEL 83, ing a trial paraphrase of one or two Epistles and carrying out his own Vienna Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky 1969) pp chapters he was ready to furl his saus responsibility äs an exegete. Erasmus' 167-78 18 Lorenzo Valla (c 1406-1457), the Itahan and quitbut the amazing agreement of conception of rhetoric, however, is humanist, whose Annotationes m Novum learned friends - he does not identify conditioned by his profound knowl- Testamentum, wntten in 1442/43 and re- them - pushed him into continuing edge and long experience in the use of vised m the penod 1453 to 1457, were the voyage. In response to their classical rhetoric. I shall, therefore, discovered by Erasmus m 1504 and pub- pressing demands he did not stop use the concepts of classical rhetoric lished in 1505 19 The same applies, of course, to Lefevre's until he had eventually completed äs well äs of later medieval and translahon paraphrases on all the apostolic epis- renaissance rhetoric for my own anal- 20 For accounts of the relationship between tles. Whether this account is an ysis of Erasmus' rhetoric.4 Classical Lefevre's and Erasmus' biblical scholar- accurate recollection or a reconstruc- rhetoric distinguishes clearly between ship in general, see J H Bentley Humamsts tion from half-remembered encoun- Speaker (writer), listener (reader), and Holy Writ (Pnnceton Umversity Press 1983) pp 176-178, and Erika Rummel ters is not my immediate concern. I and discourse, the concatenated Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament want rather to point to the psychology words (logos, sermo, or oratio) which (Toronto Umversity of Toronto Press 1986) of the event äs Erasmus narrates it for bind the two parties in the speech act. pp 14-15 I wish to thank Dr Rummel for his present reader. There is first a Although, äs we shall see, all three permitbng me to read the typescript of her mental impulse, a movement within coalesce in the persuasive event, we forthcoming book and for her comments on this article the soul (whether we are to think of shall for the sake of this analysis this impulse äs self-generated or discuss them one after the other, divinely inspired is left vague). This beginning with the message, the impulse releases itself in a speech act written text of the Paraphrases about which is for Erasmus an act of writing which we have the most knowledge; rather than of oral discourse. This then, the audience, Erasmus' reader- written communication produces in ship about which we at present know From Soul to Soul: Persuasion in its learned audience a simultaneously the least; and finally, the most com- Erasmus' Paraphrases on the cognitive and emotional response. plex and in some respects most per- New Testament The minds of his friends are stirred plexing of the three components, the and their admiration at what they author, or rather authors, since at JOHNJ. BATEMAN have read (or heard, if he read aloud least two are present in the written to them) induces them to persuade the text, the biblical author who purports In modern rhetorical theory persua- author to continue his discourse. to be writing the paraphrase on his sion is seen äs a dynamic series of Persuasion thus involves some inter- own original letter and the actual events in which a persuader in- action between two or more minds, or writer of the paraphrase, Erasmus fluences the behaviour of a persuadee souls (to use the older vocabulary of who is ostensibly not there at all; and by causing a change of attitude and Erasmus and his world), with the there may even be a possible third subsequent modif ication of behaviour object of changing the mind in some author, the Divine Word who is the through the appropriate use of speech way and consequently the outward true author of sermo evangelicus and and, depending on the occasion, behaviour which is the perceptible whose mind is being somehow myste- various visual techniques.1 Author evidence of the state of the otherwise riously transmitted through it. and audience are intimately related imperceptible soul. We shall begin then with the through the speech act and can and I shall beg the question somewhat simplest and most tangible topic, the do reciprocally influence each other. and assume that Erasmus' purpose in words through which the writer seeks This process of reciprocal persuasion making paraphrases on the Apostolic to influence and change the souls of with its concomitant attitudinal Epistles is not only to elucidate their his readers.5 Erasmus appears to have changes is illustrated by Erasmus' content for his readers, but also and, I taken quite literally the medieval own brief account of the genesis and shall argue, primarily to influence proverb: 'Speech is a mirror of the growth of the Paraphrases on the their response to that content.3 Leiters soul.'6 In his paraphrase on the New Testament. Writing the preface constitute for Erasmus a rhetorical opening words of John's Gospel he to the Paraphrase on the Gospel of genre and it is hardly surprising that writes, There is nothing which more Matthew he recalls in January 1522 he views the New Testament Epistles fully and more clearly expresses the the time some five years earlier when in their historical or literal meaning äs hidden image of the mind than speech